 
Exploring the Word of God  
Acts of the Apostles  
Volume 6: Chapters 19–23

By Paul Kroll

Copyright 2012 Grace Communion International

Published by Grace Communion International

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com   
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Artwork by Ken Tunell. Copyright Grace Communion International.

**Table of Contents**

Paul's Third Missionary Journey (Acts 18:23-21:16)

Apollos in Ephesus (18:24-28)

Paul's Ministry in Ephesus (19:1-22)

The Riot in Ephesus (19:23-41)

Macedonia, Greece, and Troas (20:1-12)

Paul's Farewell Speech to the Ephesian Elders (20:13-38)

The Journey to Jerusalem (21:1-16)

Paul the Prisoner of Rome (Acts 21:17-28:31)

Paul Arrested in the Temple Area (21:17-40)

Paul's Speech to the Temple Crowd (22:1-22)

Paul Asserts His Rights as a Citizen (22:23-30)

Paul's Speech at the Sanhedrin (23:1-10)

Paul Taken to Caesarea (23:11-35)

About the author

About the publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## Paul's Third Missionary Journey  
Acts 18:23-21:17

Editor's note: Although this volume covers Acts chapters 19-23, we are including the commentary on the last part of chapter 18 as well, since it provides the context for Paul's work in chapter 19.

### The third journey begins (18:23)

Paul embarked on another extensive pastoral journey. He "traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples" (18:23). Here the expression probably referred to the Phyrgian region of Galatia, that is, the area of southern Galatia. Most commentators do not think Paul went into northern Galatia around Ancyra, Pessinus, or Tavium. Rather, Paul systematically moved through all the towns in which he had earlier preached the gospel (14:6). He also had revisited the churches during an earlier trip (14:21-23). Paul then took the road through the interior, heading west toward Ephesus (19:1). By doing so, he may have passed through the cities of Colossae and Laodicea, but he did not stop to preach (Colossians 2:1).

### Apollos arrives in Ephesus (18:24)

During Paul's excursion through the Phrygian-Galatian region (and his trip to Ephesus), a Jew name Apollos came to Ephesus from Alexandria, the great Egyptian metropolis (18:24). Apollos "was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" (18:24). The word "learned" (Greek, _logios_ ) can mean either educated or eloquent. It appears that Apollos was both. He knew the Scriptures, and he refuted the Jews handily in debate (18:28).

In future years, Paul would come to regard Apollos as a friend and valued co-worker (1 Corinthians 3:5-9; 16:12; Titus 3:13). No doubt Luke had a purpose for including this incident about Apollos in his account. Perhaps some schismatic converts were claiming Apollos as their special leader (1 Corinthians 1:12). Luke wanted to show that Apollos was not a renegade preacher, but was loyal from the start to the tradition that Paul had taught.

Apollos "spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately" (18:25). However, he only knew the baptism of John. Apparently, Apollos had not heard about being baptized "in the name of Jesus," and its meaning. Such a baptism had been proclaimed since Peter's first public sermon on the day of Pentecost some two decades earlier, so it was odd that Apollos had not yet heard about this Christian baptism. But once again Luke didn't explain the background of the situation. Neither did he say whether Apollos had received the Holy Spirit earlier or had now been baptized into Jesus' name.

In another situation, Paul did rebaptize converts who only knew the baptism of John. They did not have the Holy Spirit before this, and received it only upon being rebaptized (19:2-7). But Luke gave no indication that Apollos was rebaptized, and presumably he already had God's Spirit, for he "taught about Jesus accurately." We should be reminded that while Acts describes a general pattern individuals must follow to receive the Holy Spirit, it also tells of a number of exceptions to the rule. Apparently, Apollos was one of the exceptions.

### "Way of the Lord" (18:25-26)

Apollos did need some basic instruction about the Christian faith. Priscilla and Aquila noticed his deficiencies in understanding and "they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately" (18:26). We once again meet the expression "way of God," which describes the faith that Christians practice (9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).

We don't know exactly what it was that Apollos needed to be instructed about. But Luke took pains to make this point, when he told his readers little else about him. The significance of this must have been important to Theophilus, but for us it serves only as an interesting detail. Apollos remains an intriguing character about whom we would like to know more.

"Luke's brief and rather vague account does not enable us to say with certainty very much about Apollos. Had he learned about Christianity from someone of the type of the twelve 'disciples' referred to in 19:1-7 — who would almost certainly seem to have been members of a John the Baptist sect" (Neil, 201).

### Apollos goes to Corinth (18:27)

After spending some time in Ephesus, Apollos wanted to go to the province of Achaia, probably Corinth in particular (19:1). The disciples were in favor of this move and wrote a letter of recommendation, encouraging the churches in Achaia to receive him. When Apollos arrived in Achaia, he met with non-converted Jews and refuted them in public debate, "proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (18:28).

Apollos became highly regarded by the churches in Achaia for his dedication and zeal, as well as his knowledge and public speaking skills. This is seen in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. In it, he takes to task some of the members who were creating division in the church by latching onto Apollos as their own party leader (1 Corinthians 1:10-12). There is no evidence that Apollos encouraged this party spirit or that he was Paul's rival. Paul accepts Apollos as a trusted colleague and helpful teacher (1 Corinthians 3:5-6). In effect, Apollos had become another important member of Paul's discipling team.

We should also note that Paul had not abandoned the Jews in doing his missionary work. Apollos continued Paul's labor in Achaia by preaching to _Jews,_ trying to convince them that Jesus is the Messiah. Perhaps that is a point Luke wanted to make by including Apollos in the story.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

######

## Paul's Ministry in Ephesus  
Acts 19

### Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:1)

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul came to the important port of Ephesus, a city with a rich history. Ephesus was conquered by the legendary Croesus, King of Lydia, around 560 B.C. Later it came under Persian rule. Alexander the Great captured it in 334 B.C. From Alexander's death, Ephesus was ruled by the Pergamum kings. But when the Romans were ready to take over the city, the last king of Pergamum, Attalus III, bequeathed the city to Rome. This happened in 133 B.C. The Romans soon made Ephesus the capital of a newly formed province of Asia.

Ephesus had a fine harbor to the west and was at the end of an important trading highway to the east. Ephesus therefore served as a center for east-west trade, and it became the greatest commercial city of the province. Its population may have peaked at around a third of a million.

Ephesus had passed its pinnacle as a commercial power by Paul's day, though it was still a vital communications hub. Since the city was at the mouth of a river, its harbor continually silted up and had to be dredged. Perhaps that is why Paul had to land at Miletus, a port south of Ephesus, and travel overland to the city (20:15-16).

Paul's third missionary journey was, in large part, devoted to preaching in Ephesus and the surrounding cities. He had stopped briefly at Ephesus earlier, and found a positive response to the gospel (18:19-21). However, as Paul had been intent on going to Jerusalem and Antioch, he couldn't stay very long, but promised to return. Luke says little about what happened during Paul's two-year ministry at Ephesus and Asia. He focused on a few incidents that happened, especially a riot, and devoted most of his report to the circumstances surrounding it.

### Found disciples (Acts 19:2)

Luke began his narrative of events at Ephesus by relating a curious story. Paul met some "disciples" (that is what Luke calls them) who had been followers of John the Baptist. The group included 12 men (19:7). It isn't clear under what circumstances Paul encountered these people. Nor did Luke state if or how they were associated with the Christian community in Ephesus.

These disciples were defective in their knowledge of the Way, and didn't even know about one defining characteristic of Christians (Ephesians 1:13). When Paul asked whether they had received the Holy Spirit, they replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit" (19:2). The group was ignorant of the Pentecost event and everything that followed.

The fact that these people—who were almost certainly Jews—were disciples of John the Baptist and his teachings, and had not heard of the Holy Spirit, is puzzling. John had clearly spoken of the Messiah as one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16).

### John's baptism (Acts 19:3-4)

Paul then went on to ask which baptism they had received. They replied they had received "John's baptism" (19:3), which was a baptism of repentance. Paul told the group that they needed to be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (19:5). Then they would receive the Holy Spirit.

Whether these "disciples" were resident of Ephesus or had come from somewhere else (perhaps with Apollos from Alexandria) is not known. How they could be regarded as disciples—apparently knowing about Jesus—but not understand baptism nor even hear about the Holy Spirit is all rather odd.

Some commentators feel that when Luke called them "disciples," he must have meant they were disciples of John. This might help explain their ignorance of New Testament baptism, and even the Holy Spirit. But Luke called them "disciples" with no qualification whatsoever. One would think that if he meant they were disciples of John, he would have said so explicitly. Possibly what Luke meant by "disciples" was that they were followers of Christ in the same way that people followed Jesus during his ministry. They were not disciples in the fullest sense of the word, since the sign of the disciple is one who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5; Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 6:4; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 3:24; 4:13).

Some suggest that these disciples may have once been part of an extensive and influential sect of followers of John the Baptist. They point to evidence that such a sect may have existed in the second century. Josephus mentioned John as being influential ( _Antiquities of the Jews_ 18:116-119). The New Testament verifies that he was highly regarded by the Jewish people (Matthew 14:5; 21:46; Mark 11:32; Luke 20:6). This may be the reason Luke included this account in his narrative. It could have had something to do with the John-the- Baptist sect competing with the Christian movement for people's allegiance.

We may see something of this struggle for influence in the Gospel of John, perhaps written in the A.D. 90s. John was careful to portray the Baptist's ministry as being inferior to Jesus and his ministry (John 1:19-23; 29-43; 3:22-36). The Gospels also go out of their way to make it plain that John the Baptist was only the forerunner of Jesus. They have the Baptist admit that his position is so inferior to Jesus' that he isn't even worthy to carry his sandals (Matthew 3:11). Such attempts to define John's subordinate status "suggest that a John-the-Baptist sect existed within Jewish Christian circles in Asia in the first century" (Richard N. Longenecker, _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ "Acts," page 493).

Perhaps this sect grew to some degree on a parallel track to the Christian mission, and may in some cases have been its rival. Luke, writing perhaps between the mid-A.D. 60s to the 80s, would have included this vignette to make a point: the true body of Christ is the church, not the sect of John the Baptist's followers. Luke would have been trying to show that such disciples of John needed to become Christians. They could do this by being rebaptized into Jesus by a duly authorized missionary of Christ's body, the church universal—and receiving the Holy Spirit.

### Baptized into Jesus' name (Acts 19:5-7)

When Paul explained to these former disciples of John the Baptist that they should be baptized into Jesus' name, they readily agreed. By doing so they were putting their faith in Jesus and repenting. The reason these individuals were baptized, and apparently Apollos was not, is unclear from Luke's account. Perhaps they still thought of John's baptism as being fully sufficient.

Now, this group of John's disciples was seeing the light. By accepting another baptism, these people were saying that they understood the superiority of Jesus to John. They were willing to come under the authority of a representative (Paul) of the one body that was correctly defined. (At least some of the apostles had been followers of John and must have been baptized by him [John 1:35-37]. There is no evidence they were rebaptized into Jesus' name. But they had readily become the followers of Jesus.)

After the former disciples of John were baptized, "Paul placed his hands on them" and they received the Holy Spirit (19:6). There is an association, but not a consistent one, between baptism and the laying on of hands in the book of Acts. Peter and John did lay hands on the Samaritan converts (8:17). This was done in Samaria to make it clear that the despised Samaritans had been accepted into the fellowship by the leaders of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.

In Ephesus, too, the laying on of hands denoted acceptance. Paul, as a representative of the church, accepted these former members of a John-the-Baptist sect. Upon this demonstration of faith, the disciples received the Holy Spirit (19:6). As an outward evidence of this, "They spoke in tongues and prophesied" (19:6). As the Jews on Pentecost, and as the household of Cornelius, these people received the same gift. There was no question about it, because the coming of the Spirit had been verified by the same outward signs (11:17).

### Spoke boldly in synagogue (Acts 19:8-9)

After Luke finished the story of the Baptist disciples, he dramatically switched the scene. Paul was now preaching in the synagogue. For three months Paul debated with the Jews "arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God" (19:8). Luke here emphasized the "kingdom of God" aspect of Paul's message. However, we shouldn't think Paul preached a substantially different message in Ephesus from his usual one. His gospel message was concerned with _both_ Jesus and the kingdom (28:31), because one cannot separate the king from the kingdom. The message of Jesus is the message of salvation. But personal salvation is not obtained apart from God's kingdom.

The fact that Paul continued in the synagogue for three months shows that the Ephesian synagogue elders were more tolerant than those in Thessalonica (or perhaps that Paul was becoming more careful in the way that he presented the gospel). But even here, Paul eventually outlasted his welcome. Some of the Jews began to publicly deride "the Way" (19:9). Paul then left the synagogue, took the disciples with him and began daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (19:9). This is thought by some to be the auditorium of a local philosopher with the name Tyrannus. Others see Tyrannus as the owner of the building, who rented space to speakers such as Paul. (Tyrannus means "Tyrant," and it was probably a nickname reflecting the man's personality.) We know nothing else of Tyrannus. But he was introduced so casually that it's possible Luke's readers (especially Theophilus) would have known who he was.

### All in Asia heard (Acts 19:10)

Paul's work in Ephesus continued for two years, "so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (19:10). Most likely we are to add Paul's three months of speaking in the synagogue to the total time (19:8), along with other events. The full time that he was in Ephesus might have been nearly three years (20:31). This may correspond to the years between A.D. 52-53 and 55.

Paul did not confine his ministry to the city of Ephesus. Luke says that Jews and Greeks throughout the entire province of Asia heard the word (19:10). People in a number of important cities in Asia would have heard the gospel during these years. We are familiar with some of these cities from other New Testament writings: Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Colossae, Miletus, Hierapolis, and Magnesia. It's possible the seven churches mentioned in the book of Revelation, chapter 2 and 3, were begun during Paul's stay in Ephesus.

Paul did not necessarily go to every city himself, though he almost certainly evangelized in some of them. Paul's associates, traveling converts, and word-of-mouth tales about such things as the miracles of healing would have spread the gospel message from city to city in the province of Asia. While Paul taught at the lecture hall of Tyrannus, his colleagues carried out missionary work in other cities. Epaphras appears to have been one of Paul's associates who worked in Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis (Colossians 1:7-8; 2:1; 4:12-13). These were cities of the Lycus valley, which Paul apparently did not personally visit.

### Striking miracles (Acts 19:11-12)

During Paul's stay in Ephesus, the power of God was demonstrated mightily, giving the gospel an attentive hearing. Luke wrote: "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them" (19:12). Luke's emphasis was on _God_ doing the miracles through Paul. Luke was highlighting the divine power at work.

Paul was able to "heal at a distance," as it were. Cloth that Paul had touched could heal the sick. We are reminded of similar "at a distance" healings in the woman whose bleeding disease was healed when she touched Jesus' cloak (Mark 5:27-34). Paul's healing work was also equated with Peter's, whose passing shadow could cause people to be healed (5:15). As was the Master, and Peter, the "chief of the apostles," Paul also was given an extraordinary power of God. Paul himself referred to the signs that had accompanied his preaching of the gospel. These proved that God was using him as he was the other apostles—as such signs marked an apostle (Romans 15:18-19; 2 Corinthians 12:12).

The Greek word for "handkerchiefs" referred to a face cloth used for wiping perspiration from the brow or a sweat-band that a workman tied around his head to absorb perspiration. The Greek word for "aprons" referred to a garment that a working man would place around the body to keep dirt off clothes. The "handkerchiefs" and "cloths" may have been articles Paul wore when making tents. That is, he could have tied the sweat-rags around his head and he would have tied the aprons around his waist.

It does seem odd that God would bring healings through such mundane and personal pieces of cloth. Some commentators find this so difficult to accept that they explain it away as a legend with no basis in fact. Yet Luke is not gullible; he knows that these are extraordinary healings. The unusual nature of these healings is meant to tell us an important thing: It is _God_ who did the cures and exorcisms. He used such everyday items to make the point that it is he, and not the instrument through which he works, that brings about the cure.

### Seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13-16)

The story above explained that God did extraordinary miracles through Paul in healing people and casting out demons, even at a distance. In his next scene, Luke gives a sharp and humorous contrast: the powerlessness of Jews who tried to usurp Paul's name and the authority of Jesus to effect exorcisms. Apparently, Paul's name and power had become so widespread in Asia that others were hoping to cash in on the exorcism bandwagon. This was becoming a major problem, as a number of Jews were trying to mimic the mighty demonstrations of God's power that were being accomplished through Paul.

Luke cited the example of the seven sons of Sceva, who tried to perform exorcisms. According to Luke, "They would say, 'In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out'" (19:13). We don't know who Sceva was. Luke called him a "Jewish chief priest" (19:14). It's possible he did belong to a Jewish chief-priestly family. Perhaps either Sceva or his seven sons (or both) may have been renegade priests from a high priestly family. Some commentators speculate Sceva may have been an apostate Jew and the high or chief priest of some pagan cult. However, it is known that no individual named Sceva was ever _the_ high priest in Jerusalem since the names of all the Jewish high priests in Jerusalem have been identified.

Another possibility is that the title "Jewish chief priest" was Sceva's own self-designation, and Luke simply reported what he said about himself. If Luke would have been writing today he may have placed the title between quotation marks. On the other hand, Luke does not say Sceva was the one who was a professional exorcist. It was his seven sons whom Luke singled out as trying to use Paul's name. It's possible they even "believed" Paul's message in the same way that Simon of Samaria had (8:9-24).

But in a somewhat comic sequel to this serious story, Sceva's sons were unable to use God's healing and exorcism power as a commodity to dupe innocent people. The finale occurred one day when they were attempting to exorcise an evil spirit. It said to them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?" (19:15). Then the man possessed by the spirit jumped on the seven and "gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding" (19:16).

### All became fearful (Acts 19:17-20)

Sceva's seven sons were apparently so well-known for their magic and sorcery that the news of their drubbing quickly spread. It was now clear that Paul has a greater power than any of the sorcerers. One is reminded of the story of Moses and the magicians of Egypt during the Exodus. For a time, the magicians of Pharaoh seemed to match some of the plagues Moses was bringing on Egypt. But soon it was clear that a greater power was with Moses. Even the magicians finally told Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19).

The same thing happened in Ephesus when Sceva's sons failed in their exorcism attempt. Both Jews and Greeks "were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor" (19:17). Many even renounced their magic arts and burned their books or scrolls of magic incantations. Paul must have convinced them that these books were not just worthless—they were worse than worthless and ought to be destroyed rather than sold. Numerous people burned their magic books.

Luke tells us that the value of these scrolls was 50,000 thousand drachmas (19:20). It's hard to determine the modern value of the drachma, anchored as it was in an ancient agrarian economy. The drachma was a silver coin worth about a day's wages. Enough money to pay 50,000 workers for a day went up in smoke. Since a minimum-wage worker now makes about $40 per day, a modern equivalent would be about two million dollars.

This was the third confrontation between a preacher of the gospel and a practitioner of magic in Luke's narrative. God's servants encountered Simon Magus (8:4-25) in Samaria, Bar Jesus/Elymas in Cyprus (13:4-12) and now the seven sons of Sceva. In each case, the message of God and its messenger triumphed over the forces of darkness and evil. This is how Luke ended this section of his narrative, on a positive and upbeat mode. He summarized the growth of the church and gospel by saying: "In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power" (19:20).

### After all this (Acts 19:21)

This summary of the progress of the gospel introduced what is probably the last panel or major division of Acts. (The six panels are: a) 1:1-6:7, b) 6:8-9:31, c) 9:32-12:24, d) 12:25-16:5, e) 16:6-19:20, f) 19:21-28:31.) The last panel begins with the statement: "After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also'" (19:21). This marks the final part of Luke's story of the movement of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. It encompassed the years between A.D. 55-6 and 61-2.

The last section of Acts recounts Paul's roundabout journey to Jerusalem, along with its consequences. In Jerusalem, Paul will be arrested and imprisoned for two years in Caesarea. Luke will devote a large amount of space to Paul's defense before the Jews in Jerusalem and to his speeches before rulers and a king in Caesarea. Then will come the dangerous trip to Rome, and Paul's ministry in the city. At that point, Luke abruptly ends his story.

When Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, he told them that he wanted to visit Rome, and he hoped to use Rome as a base for spreading the gospel even further west, to Spain (Romans 15:23-24). He thought that the eastern part of the Roman empire was sufficiently evangelized—he said the gospel had been fully preached "from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum" (Romans 15:19). Illyricum was a region along the Adriatic Sea reaching from northeast Italy south to Macedonia (the modern nations of Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and Albania). Luke does not tell us when or how Illyricum was evangelized.

Getting to Rome was an important matter for Paul, but it was not the ultimate goal—Spain was. However, Luke was more interested in Paul's visit to Rome than to Spain. Luke had him saying, "I _must visit_ Rome also" (19:21). Luke ended his account with Paul in Rome, and omitted any reference to the Spanish project. We do not know whether Paul ever got to Spain or other parts of the western Roman Empire.

### A trip to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21)

But Paul also wanted to visit Jerusalem, and he probably planned his trip near the end of his stay in Ephesus. It became such a driving desire that nothing could dissuade him. He probably thought that once he was in the far western part of the Empire, he might not be able to visit Jerusalem ever again. Perhaps he also thought about taking the gospel message into Gaul, or western North Africa.

But before going to Jerusalem, Rome or parts west, he wanted to revisit the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. The purpose of would be to make a final pastoral visit to these churches. More specifically, he wanted to gather from the churches a collection for the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. This collection—and resultant trip to Jerusalem—seemed to become the central preoccupation of Paul's mind.

There is some controversy about Paul's decision to go to Jerusalem. Was it something that the Holy Spirit wanted Paul to do, or was the Spirit warning him _against_ going there? The New International Version says Paul "decided to go to Jerusalem" (19:21); this reflects the translation of the Greek _en to pneumati,_ which could mean "by his human spirit." It could mean that Paul on his own decided to go to Jerusalem, without any specific guidance from the Spirit.

Luke, who frequently makes the direction of the Holy Spirit explicit, did not do so here. But later, Luke may have been implying the Spirit's guidance when he had Paul saying he was "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem (20:22). This is still a less-than-explicit statement about the Spirit's role, however. Prophets of the church—who were speaking through the Holy Spirit—told Paul he would face grave problems if he went to Jerusalem (20:22-23; 21:10-11). Were they implying he should not go?

### Paul's motivation (Acts 19:21)

Whatever the case, Paul seemed to think it was God's will that he go to Jerusalem—or for some reason, it was absolutely necessary that he go. Luke didn't explain what strong motivation Paul had for wanting to go to Jerusalem. However, Paul did do so in his letters. He wanted to deliver a collection of money he had taken up to help the poor church members of Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15; Romans 15:25-32).

The desperate plight of the church must have been on Paul's mind, and he hoped to do something about it. However, there was something else behind Paul's interest in the relief fund, other than simply wanting to help the church. It was a strong desire to show Jerusalem that the Gentile churches stood solidly with their Jewish counterparts, even though they did not observe the same customs. He hoped that the gift of love would increase the solidarity and unity of the Jewish and Gentile elements in the church. Richard Longenecker writes, "Paul viewed it [the collection] as a symbol of unity that would help his Gentile converts realize their debt to the mother church in Jerusalem and give Jewish Christians an appreciation of the vitality of faith in the Gentile churches" ( _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ "Acts," 506).

Luke knew about the collection, since he vaguely referred to it later on (24:17). He even mentioned the representatives of the various church areas by name who were coming with Paul to Jerusalem to deliver the relief fund (20:4). Although this collection was important to Paul, it was apparently not important to Luke's story of the expansion of the gospel starting from Jerusalem and going to the ends of the earth. The collection probably failed to live up to Paul's expectations. Going to Jerusalem resulted in nothing but problems for Paul and accomplished very little within the church, so far as we can tell from Acts. For Luke, writing from the perspective of a later time, the collection was insignificant. Luke was interested in Paul's Jerusalem experience only for its role in the expansion of the gospel—because it gave Paul an opportunity to preach before rulers and kings, and as the springboard for getting to Rome.

Paul apparently began preparing for the Macedonia-Jerusalem-Rome-Spain trip by sending Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia ahead of him (19:22). He wanted them to organize the offering so it would be ready when he came. Timothy was last mentioned when he was at Corinth (18:5). This is the first time that Erastus is in Luke's story. A man named Erastus sent his greetings to the church at Rome (Romans 16:23), and was Corinth's director of public works. (This assumes Romans was written from Corinth.) However, Erastus was a common name, and the Erastus of Acts may not be the same man. A few years later Paul referred to an Erastus as one of his associates (2 Timothy 4:20), and he was probably the individual mentioned in Acts.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## The Riot in Ephesus  
Acts 19:23-41

### The cult of Artemis (Acts 19:23-27)

About the time that Paul was preparing for his trip, "there arose a great disturbance about the Way" (19:23). A man named Demetrius, probably the leader of a regional guild of silversmiths, called together not only his guild but also those in related trades (19:25-26). The silversmiths made a tremendous profit from selling silver shrines of the goddess Artemis. Tradesmen made their living supplying visitors with such religious trinkets, along with offerings and lodging. Ephesus was known for its profitable trade in such religious crafts (Dio Cassius, _History of Rome,_ Ammianus Marcellinus, _History_ 22.1339.20). Many terra-cotta and marble shrines have been unearthed, but no silver shrines have yet been discovered, perhaps because they were melted down for the precious metal.

#### The silversmiths of Ephesus regarded their guild as being under the special patronage of Artemis, in whose honor so many of their wares were manufactured. Among these wares were miniature silver niches, containing an image of the goddess, which her votaries bought to dedicate in the temple. The sale of these was a source of considerable profit to the silversmiths. (F.F. Bruce, _The Book of Acts,_ revised edition, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, page 374)

Artemis of Ephesus (Latin, Diana) was the mother-goddess of fertility. She was depicted as a grotesque, multibreasted woman. Her image at Ephesus was believed to have been constructed in heaven and to have fallen from the sky—from the gods (19:35). The temple of Artemis was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world, and it supposedly could hold up to 50,000 people. It covered an area four times as large as the Parthenon in Athens, or 400 feet by 200 feet in size. (A field for American football is 300 feet long.) The temple and its cult is well documented in ancient literature. Some examples are: Strabo, _Geography_ 14, 1, 22-23; Herodotus, _Persian Wars_ 1:26, 92, Pliny, _Natural History_ 16.213; 36.95-97, 179; and Xenophon, _The Ephesians_ 1, 2, 2-7; 1, 11, 5.

Ephesus had declined since its heyday as a center of shipping, due in large part to the continual silting up of its harbor. The economy of the city had become increasingly dependent on the tourist trade associated with the cult of Artemis. Now, because of Paul's preaching, people were turning away from the Artemis cult. The business of these miniature silver shrines must have fallen off, and the silversmiths were worried about their source of income. Paul was threatening the economy of Ephesus.

In his speech, Demetrius got to the nub of his complaint about Paul's preaching, noting that Paul was preaching "that gods made by human hands are no gods at all" (19:26). In a skillful piece of oratory, Demetrius united the workmen's economic concerns with their superstitious fears. "There is danger," insisted Demetrius, "not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited" (19:27).

### City in an uproar (Acts 19:28-34)

Demetrius enlisted the silversmiths and craftsmen from some other trades to begin a riot. They hoped to turn the Ephesians against Paul, and at the same time, create an even greater devotion to Artemis. Naturally, this would translate into greater profits for the tradesmen. Paul had disturbed vested business interests, and now the "better business bureau" of Ephesus swung into action against him. On the pretext of religious devotion, they began a tactic sure to stir up the superstitious devotion of the populace.

The tradesmen apparently were assembled in an open-air theater, the usual place for public meetings (19:29). Perhaps they were in the theater on the eastern side of the city whose ruins are known. This theater could hold about 25,000 people, and it was in full view of the temple of Artemis. The tradesmen in the theater began shouting, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" (19:28). This attracted other people, and before long the entire city was in an uproar. A crowd joined the melee, many without even understanding what it was about. Luke wrote: "The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there" (19:32).

While rushing to the theater, some of the crowd grabbed Gaius and Aristarchus, two men working with Paul (19:29). They were then dragged into the theater with the crowd. It's not certain who Gaius was. He was a Macedonian (19:29); perhaps he was the Gaius Paul baptized in Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:14) and who was a host to him and the church (Romans 16:23). Luke mentioned Gaius as being from Derbe in Galatia (20:4). The individuals mentioned need not be the same person, as Gaius was a rather common name (3 John 1). Aristarchus was mentioned in 20:4 and in 27:2. He was referred to in Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24 as being a native of Thessalonica.

Paul was concerned about the fate of these two men at the hands of a frenzied mob. He wanted to go before the crowd, but was forcibly restrained by some of the converts (19:30). Luke said, "Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater" (19:31). Luke took this opportunity to again point out that Rome and its officials were not antagonistic to Paul and the gospel message.

Meanwhile, the Jews sent their own representative, Alexander, to the theater in order "to make a defense before the people" (19:33). Since Luke didn't tell us, we don't know exactly what point Alexander wanted to make or who he was. Presumably he wanted to disassociate the Jews from the Christians as the cause of this uproar. The Jews had something to worry about. Jews, like Christians, were monotheistic and posed a threat to the paganism of the times. It's no surprise, then, that when the idolatrous mob realized Alexander was a Jew, they shouted him down. For the next two hours the crowd shouted, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" (19:34).

During the commotion, Paul had been restrained from heading for the theater to confront the crowd, presumably to try to reason with it. But there was no need for his presence, as city officials cooled down the mob and ended the riot. Once again, Paul had to sit on the sidelines to see events worked out in his and the gospel's favor, and experience the salvation of the Lord.

### Officials stop the riot (Acts 19:35-41)

The city clerk quieted the crowd by reassuring it that the worship of Artemis wasn't being threatened (19:35). He chastised the mob for unjustly condemning Gaius and Aristarchus. "You have brought these men here," he said, "though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess" (19:37). The officials of the province of Asia, the Asiarchs, had already expressed their friendliness toward Paul (19:31). Now the city clerk intervened on behalf of Paul's associates. Vested business interests may not have liked Paul's preaching, but the government was still a friend of the gospel.

What is especially interesting is that the Asiarchs came from the noblest and wealthiest families of Asia, and promoted the cult of the emperor and Rome. The league of Asiarchs was more of a religious than political organization, since they had little authority in governing the province of Asia. While, in a sense, the cult of Artemis was a rival cult to that of Caesar and Roma, the Asiarchs were themselves polytheists and interested in the economic welfare of Ephesus. That some of them should be Paul's friends suggests that the intelligentsia was not hostile to Christianity, at least not in Asia. It also implies that the educated classes did not fully share in the superstitions of the common people.

The "city clerk" (an unfortunate translation) was the main executive officer of the town assembly, and the city's chief magistrate. He was the most important local official of Ephesus, and would be held responsible for any riots within the city. The city clerk served as the liaison between the town council and the provincial Roman administration with its headquarters in Ephesus.

Realizing the potential penalties the city might receive from Rome, the city clerk implored the mob to take their grievances to the proper authority. He said Demetrius and the guilds could press charges in the courts and with the proconsuls (19:38). "It must be settled in a legal assembly," he insisted. "As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today" (19:39-40). If the city was cited for rioting, the clerk pointed out, it was in trouble with Rome. There was no way the local officials could account for the disturbance. The chief magistrate urged the crowd to disband and go home, which apparently it did.

### Unmentioned troubles

From Luke's story of Paul's two-year stay in Ephesus, one might assume that this was the only major problem he encountered. But that is not the case. Even here Paul did not directly suffer in the riot, as he remained on the sidelines waiting for events to work out favorably. Luke did refer in passing to some difficulty Paul had with the Jews at the beginning of his stay, but this was glossed over rather quickly in a phrase, with no details given (19:9). Otherwise, Luke made it appear as though Paul had an easy time of it in Ephesus, with success piled on success.

But when we turn to Paul's letters, we realize that the successes at Ephesus came at the cost of great suffering. Paul wrote in one letter that he had "fought wild beasts in Ephesus" (1 Corinthians 15:32). Even if this is a metaphor for violent persecutors, it reveals something of the trials Paul endured during the two years at Ephesus. In the same letter, Paul spoke "about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself" (2 Corinthians 1:8). Priscilla and Aquila, who were resident in Ephesus at this time (18:19), "risked their lives" for Paul (Romans 16:3-4).

Later Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had been "severe testing by the plots of Jewish opponents" during his work in the city (20:19). Paul later met with the elders of Ephesus in Miletus rather than in the city (20:17). Perhaps he did this because he felt it too dangerous for him to return to Ephesus.

During his time at Ephesus, Paul also had great concern about the troubled state of the Corinthian church. His first letter makes this worry abundantly clear. Some visitors from Corinth told him about the deep and bitter divisions within the church (1 Corinthians 1:11-12) and about blatant sexual immorality being tolerated in the congregation (1 Corinthians 5:1). However, if Paul faced such dangers and problems in Ephesus as his epistles indicate, then Luke chose to ignore them. He had already given us examples of the kind of persecution that Paul experienced. Perhaps he did not feel it necessary to belabor the point.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## From Macedonia and Greece to Jerusalem  
Acts 20:1-21:16

### To Macedonia (Acts 20:1-2)

A short time after the tumult caused by Demetrius was over, Paul met with the disciples to encourage them. He then set out for Macedonia. This was part of the travel that Paul had planned earlier (19:21-22). His intention was to go through Macedonia and Greece, then to Jerusalem, and from there travel to Rome. A few months early, Paul told the Corinthians that he planned to stay at Ephesus until Pentecost, in late spring. He would then leave for Macedonia (1 Corinthians 16:8). Apparently, a great opportunity to preach the gospel had arisen in Ephesus, but Paul didn't say exactly what that was (verse 9).

After Paul left Ephesus, he probably either took the Roman coastal road north to the port city of Troas, or travelled there by boat from, perhaps Miletus (2 Corinthians 2:12-13). He hoped to find Titus at Troas. Earlier, Paul had sent him to Corinth to deal with the problems in the church. Titus was not at Troas, so Paul crossed the Aegean to Macedonia. Paul must have caught up with Titus there, and received an encouraging report on the Corinthian church from him (2 Corinthians 7:5-7).

We don't know how long Paul stayed in Macedonia, though it may have been as long as a year. Various years are assigned to this part of Paul's ministry. Some scholars think that Paul may have preached the gospel in the province of Illyricum during this time. Luke does not mention any missionary work in Illyricum, so the idea must remain a conjecture.

Luke said only that Paul "traveled through that area," apparently referring to Macedonia (20:2). He then came to Greece, where he stayed three months (20:3). Paul must have spent some of this time in Corinth. It is from there that Paul probably wrote the letter to the church at Rome (Romans 15:23-26). Luke collapsed Paul's rather extensive visit to Macedonia and Achaia into a single brief mention, making it one of the briefest accounts of Paul's activities in the book. Some of Paul's letters written during this period (such as 2 Corinthians and Romans) fill in some of the details. Luke never mentions any of Paul's letters. We know almost nothing of what transpired on this lengthy trip; it did not fit into the theme of Luke's book.

### Jews made a plot (Acts 20:3-4)

As Paul was about to sail for Syria from Corinth, presumably to visit Antioch (and then Jerusalem), he learned of a Jewish plot against him (20:3). To avoid the plotters, Paul decided not to leave by sea from Corinth but to backtrack through Macedonia. (Paul apparently changed his other travel plans as well. He went directly to Caesarea and Jerusalem, without stopping in Antioch.) Luke didn't give any details about the conspiracy. Commentators suggest that Paul may have intended to reach Jerusalem by Passover, and travel on a Jewish pilgrim ship. Fanatical Jews would have found a vessel at sea a convenient place to dispose of Paul, perhaps throwing him overboard during the night.

No doubt the collection money Paul was carrying would have been an added inducement to murder him. Of course, Paul was not going to Jerusalem alone. He was in the company of representatives from the various Gentile church areas that had donated to the Jerusalem relief fund. These men must have been the official delegates appointed by their respective churches to present the collection to the Jerusalem elders. However, Luke was silent concerning the function of the delegation. Luke wanted to show the progress of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Any inter-church affairs mentioned were almost always in the form of summaries or generalities, unless they were relevant to the movement of the gospel message.

Luke did, however, give us the names of the seven men and their origin. Sopater was from Berea, perhaps the Sosipater of Romans 16:21. Aristarchus came from Thessalonica (19:29). He was identified as a Macedonian in 19:29. Secundus was from Thessalonica. This was his first appearance in Luke's account, and he is otherwise unknown. Gaius was from Derbe, in Galatia. Timothy, who was from Lystra, in Galatia, we know well. He is a familiar character from Acts and Paul's epistles (16:1-3). Tychicus was from Asia (Colossians 4:7). This is the only time he is mentioned in Acts but he is well known from Paul's letters (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12). Trophimus came from Asia, and is elsewhere described as an Ephesian (Acts 21:29; 2 Timothy 4:20). He will become the unwitting cause of Paul's arrest in Jerusalem.

Missing are any delegates from Corinth or Philippi. Perhaps Paul took charge of the Corinth offering. Luke may have represented Philippi, as he joined the delegation at this point. Luke's presence is made known by the start of another "we" section (20:5 uses the word "us").

### Some went to Troas (Acts 20:5-6)

Paul sent his Gentile travelling companions east across the Aegean Sea to Troas (20:5). But he stayed on at Philippi. Luke's words show his presence with Paul: "These men went on ahead and waited for _us_ at Troas" (20:5). This is the first use of the personal pronoun "us" since Paul's trouble with the demon-possessed girl in Philippi (16:17), during the second missionary tour (16:17). Perhaps Luke had remained at Philippi to strengthen the church, and now had rejoined Paul. He seems to be with Paul until they reach Jerusalem, and will accompany him on the final journey to Rome.

Paul and Luke sailed from Neapolis (the port city of Philippi) for Troas, where they rejoined the delegation (20:6). There is a marked contrast between the scanty allusions of verses 1 through 5 and the detailed description of Paul's subsequent journeyings. This is credited to the fact that Luke was now with Paul. Richard Longenecker writes, "From 20:5 through the end of Acts (28:3), Luke's narrative gives considerable attention to ports of call, stopovers, and time spent on Paul's travels and includes various anecdotes. It contains the kind of details found in a travel journal, and the use of 'we' in 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 28:16 shows its eyewitness character" ( _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ "Acts," page 508).

### First day of the week (Acts 20:7)

Luke described only a single event at Troas, what was perhaps a special "worship service." He said of himself and the church congregation: "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread" (20:7). It was an evening service, perhaps with a communal meal. If Luke was using a Jewish reckoning of time, with days beginning at sunset (or twilight), then Saturday evening would have marked the beginning of the first day of the week.

#### The first day of the week, for Jews and in Jewish reckoning began at, to put it simply, sunset of what we call Saturday evening. Thus, this was neither strictly a Sabbath or a Sunday meeting. It probably began, especially in summer, before the sun went down and continued into darkness. Thus, it occurred "in the cracks" between the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of Sunday, based on Jewish reckoning. (David J. Williams, _Acts,_ New International Biblical Commentary, page 357)

This meeting at Troas is often taken as the earliest evidence of the day and time when Christians gathered for their worship service. But this meeting was clearly an unusual one, and may not reflect everyday practice. Further, scholars are not in agreement as to whether the time of the Troas meeting was the _beginning_ of the "first day of the week" on Saturday evening or its _ending_ on late Sunday afternoon. Both would have occurred, by Jewish reckoning, on the "first day of the week." This is even further complicated by the fact that scholars are not sure which method of time reckoning Luke used, the Jewish or Roman.

#### According to the Jewish method of calculating the new day from sunset, Paul would have met with the Christians on what was Saturday evening by our reckoning, and would thus have resumed his journey on Sunday morning. According to the Roman method of reckoning the new day as beginning at dawn, the Christians would have met in the evening of either Sunday (the first day of the Jewish week) or Saturday (the first day of the Roman week). Since elsewhere Luke reckons the hours of the day from dawn (3:1), he appears to follow the Roman method of time-reckoning and the Jewish calendar (cf. Luke 24:1). (I. Howard Marshall, _Acts,_ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, page 326)

Literally, the Greek expression translated "on the first day of the week" means "on one of the Sabbaths." Could Luke have been simply be saying that Paul and the church came together "on one of the Sabbaths" or weeks?

One thing is not in doubt. This meeting was an evening meeting, and it became a very late one (20:7, 13). It was also a very special meeting, because Paul thought it would be the last time he would ever see the church. That being the case, it is very dangerous to make any assumptions from this event about the form and time of the apostolic church's regular worship services.

### Lord's Supper? (Acts 20:7)

Luke said the people "came together to break bread" on this occasion (20:7). This is often taken to mean that the group was celebrating the Lord's supper that night as well as being together to receive Christian instruction (1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:17-34, with Luke 22:19; 24:30).

#### Luke allows us a glimpse of what was probably a typical meeting of Christians in these early days of the church. First, their purpose was to break bread. We should probably interpret this in the light of verse 11, where the best manuscripts read the definite article in the phrase, "having broken the bread." The reference, then, is almost certainly to the bread of the Lord's supper (see discussion on 2:42) and the full sense of what they were doing [is] expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:16. (Williams, 347)

However, Luke could just as well have been speaking of a simple evening meal. Much later in the night, Paul "broke bread and ate" (20:11). This is also, in the best manuscripts, "the bread." But it most likely referred to a regular meal Paul (and perhaps the group) partook of late in the night.

### Eutychus miracle (Acts 20:8-12)

Luke's purpose in narrating this meeting at Troas was not to describe the form, or to point out the time of the early church's worship services. Perhaps that's why the account was so fuzzy on these matters. Rather, Luke was interested in telling his readers about what happened to a young man named Eutychus—and its meaning. Paul had been speaking a very long time—until midnight—and then he continued to "talk on and on" (20:9). (Perhaps Luke was also beginning to find Paul's talk a bit tedious.)

Besides the length of Paul's talk, the fumes of the lamps and the crush of the crowd made breathing a bit difficult. The flickering lamps may have added to the problem of staying awake by inducing a hypnotic effect on the listeners. It was quite late, and young Eutychus began to nod. (The term rendered "young man" refers to someone between eight and fourteen years of age.) His name means "good fortune," and as we shall see, that's exactly what he was to receive that night.

Finally, the drowsy Eutychus fell sound asleep and tumbled to the ground from the third-story window. (Presumably he fell to the _outside_ of the building rather than to the inside.) The disciples rushed outside and Eutychus "was picked up dead" (20:9). Paul then "threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him" (20:10). He told the disciples not to be alarmed, and that, "He's alive!" (20:10).

Luke told the story of the raising of this young man from the dead in such a casual manner as to make one wonder if he was really dead, or only seemed dead. However, it's doubtful Luke would have singled out this story to tell if the boy had merely been knocked unconscious. Perhaps Luke was trying to show his readers that the power of God was so completely with Paul that such miracles were the natural order of the day. (The same feeling was engendered when we read that pieces of cloth Paul had touched could transmit healing to the sick.)

Paul's gesture of leaning over Eutychus and embracing him reminds us of Old Testament stories of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha. Elijah restored the life of the son of the widow of Zarephath, who died from some unspecified illness (1 Kings 17:17-24). Elisha resuscitated the Shunammite's son who died as a result of a farming accident (2 Kings 4:33-36). Luke already told his readers the story of Jesus raising to life the only son of a widow from Nain (Luke 7:11-15) and Peter's raising of Dorcas (9:36-41). Even as the prophets of Israel, his peer the apostle Peter—and, of course, his Master, Jesus—Paul can be used by God to do good to the point of reversing a tragic death.

Almost casually, after such a dramatic event, Paul, who became hungry during what must have been the middle of the night, ate a meal (20:11). He continued talking until daylight, and then left. Luke concluded the scene by edging closer to telling his readers outright that Eutychus had been raised from death: "The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted" (20:12).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Paul's Farewell Speech to the Ephesian Elders  
Acts 20:13-38

### Trip to Miletus (Acts 20:13-15)

Paul left Troas, after a night without any sleep, and walked south along the Roman road to Assos (20:11, 13). The distance between the two cities was about 20 miles (32 kilometers), so it was quite a hike. (Luke didn't explain why Paul insisted on walking; it is possible that some of the Ephesian elders walked with him for further conversation.) Meanwhile, Luke and the rest of the delegation boarded a ship at Troas and sailed for Assos. Paul was taken on board at Assos and the delegation sailed to Mitylene, a port on the southeast coast of the island of Lesbos. From there the ship sailed the next day to Chios, the major city of the island of Chios. The stop on the following day was the island of Samos, west of Ephesus. The next day the ship arrived at Miletus, a major port at the mouth of the Meander River, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Ephesus. (The boat made short one-day hops from port to port. This was customary for much of sea travel at the time.)

Luke (as he did when he had the information) gave his readers a day-by-day log of the journey to Jerusalem. Since he was on this trip with Paul, he may have kept a journal to which he could later refer. This and several other sections in Acts appear to be in the form of a travel journal.

### Hurrying to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16)

Paul had booked passage on a ship that bypassed Ephesus because he didn't want to spend time in the province of Asia. Luke said "he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost" (20:16). Paul had missed Passover at Jerusalem, but if he could get there by Pentecost, he could still demonstrate to the mother church his loyalty to the Jewish traditions. A visit to Ephesus would have probably kept him in the area too long, as all his friends and the churches would have wanted to see him.

Paul stopped at Miletus instead, and sent a message to Ephesus, asking the elders of the church to come to him. This would have taken several days. A messenger had to be dispatched to Ephesus, and the elders had to be notified of the meeting. It may have taken them some time to get ready, and the trip to Miletus would have required more time as well.

### Paul's speech (Acts 20:18-35)

Luke gave his readers only a brief synopsis of what must have been a lengthy meeting at Miletus between Paul and the elders. Still, in comparison with some of the other speeches in Acts, Luke devoted a fair amount of space to what Paul said. This is the only example in Acts of a speech given to a Christian audience. Even at that, it was not necessarily typical in all respects, because Paul was speaking to elders and not lay members of the church. Yet, the speech does have the flavor of his letters to the churches.

There is no mistaking the speech as being Paul's, rather than Peter's or James'. The content is unmistakably the thought, the concerns, even the expression of Paul. In the words of Howard Marshall, "The total impression gained from the speech is that here we are in touch with Paul himself" _Acts,_ 330). The speech at Miletus was close in style and content to Paul's own letters. The likeness between the two has been noted by a number of commentators.

#### Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian elders is the nearest approximation to the Pauline letters in Acts. Its general content recalls how in his letters Paul encouraged, warned, and exhorted his converts. Moreover, its theological themes and vocabulary are distinctly Pauline....It is significant that, in a situation similar to those he faced in many of his letters, this farewell to the Ephesian elders reads like a miniature letter of his. Richard N. Longenecker, "Acts," 511-512)

The speech was also a farewell address. Paul seemed to have understood that this would be his last meeting with the Ephesians. There was a sense of foreboding in Paul's words, as he told the Ephesian elders he would never see them again. The speech has been described as Paul's last will and testament to the churches he had planted and loved very much. Luke had already given us samples of Paul's speeches to Jews (13:16-41) as well as to pagan audiences (14:15-17) and the educated of Athens (17:22-31). Later, he will give us further examples of speeches to Jews as well as to secular political leaders. This speech at Miletus is a sample of how Paul spoke to Christian audiences.

### Served with humility (Acts 20:18-21)

Paul's address to the Ephesian elders began with what's called an apology or defense of his ministry and work. He reminded his listeners that from the first day to the last he "served the Lord with great humility and tears" at Ephesus (20:19). Paul referred to the fact that he had to endure "severe testing by the plots of Jewish opponents" at Ephesus. Luke had barely mentioned such opposition (19:19), concentrating rather on a single attack by the non-Jewish silversmith Demetrius. But as we saw earlier, there is a strong indication in Paul's letters that he suffered greatly from Jewish persecution at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15:32; 2 Corinthians 1:8). This verse corroborates that. This should remind us that Luke omitted many important events, even when they directly concerned the apostle Paul's work. We should not be surprised, then, that Luke's work was not a full history of the apostolic church—nor a full history of Paul—and was not written to be that.

Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that he had not hesitated to teach anything that was helpful to them, and he had taught "publicly and house to house" (20:20). That is, Paul explained the gospel in synagogues and meeting halls but he also ministered privately to people in their homes. Paul had both a public and private ministry. He preached publicly, in the synagogue and the hall of Tyrannus (19:8-9) and privately, to the church that met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:19). When he taught, Paul "declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus" (20:21). This was a way of describing the essence of the gospel message. Peter, for example, had urged Jews to repent and turn to God and have faith in Jesus as the Messiah (3:13, 16, 19).

### Compelled by the Spirit (Acts 20:22)

In the second part of his speech, Paul drastically changed the subject and tone. He turned from his past work to the future, centering on his forthcoming trip to Jerusalem. Paul said he was "compelled by the Spirit" to go to Jerusalem (20:22). It's not clear here who was doing the "compelling." The Greek construction allows us to take this as Paul's own spirit compelling him to go to Jerusalem, in the sense of his being determined to go—or feeling some great need to do so. Or we can take the phrase as telling us Paul was being moved by the Holy Spirit, who was impelling him to make the trip.

The New International Version has taken this phrase to be a reference to the Holy Spirit. But others understand this as indicating Paul's own human spirit. Perhaps it is best to understand the phrase as representing a combination of the two ideas. That is, Paul may have _felt himself_ to be divinely compelled to go to Jerusalem. In this, his concern to take an offering to the poor saints in Jerusalem loomed large. In the words of Richard Longenecker, Paul

#### considered it necessary to complete his ministry of testifying to the grace of God throughout the eastern part of the empire by taking to the Jerusalem believers the money sent by Gentile believers in Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia—a contribution he looked on as a tangible symbol of the faith of these Gentiles and the unity of the Jews and Gentiles in Christ. (page 512)

### Holy Spirit warns me (Acts 20:23-24)

If Paul felt himself compelled to go to Jerusalem—or if the Holy Spirit was somehow "compelling" him—he nonetheless faced a journey of great uncertainty. If the Spirit had compelled him, God had not revealed the purpose of his journey. But the Spirit told Paul that great trials awaited him there. "I am going to Jerusalem," Paul told the elders, "not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me" (20:22-23). Luke hadn't given his readers any examples of these messages, but he soon will (21:10-11).

We don't know when Paul began to receive these warnings, but they must have started some time earlier. His concern about the trip was already expressed in Romans, which was probably written in Corinth, during his third missionary journey. There he asked the church, "Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord's people there" (Romans 15:31).

In spite of the warnings and his own fears, he refused to back away from the trip. He said he considered his life of no value, except as it could be used to "finish the race and complete the task" that the risen Christ had given him (20:24). This familiar metaphor of the athlete competing in the games and finishing the race is paralleled in his own epistles (2 Timothy 4:7, with 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; Galatians 2:2; Philippians 3:12-14).

Paul saw his task as one of "testifying to the good news of God's grace" (20:24). This same attitude of self-less service to Christ despite persecution and the possibility of martyrdom is expressed in Paul's letters (2 Corinthians 4:8-12; 6:4-10; Philippians 1:19-21; 3:8). But we shouldn't see Paul as a passive martyr. Paul used the protection of the Roman government and any other means possible to escape persecution and death. His goal was always to preach the gospel on another day.

### As Jesus' final trip (Acts 20:23)

Luke described Paul's trip to Jerusalem in similar terms as Jesus' final journey. Luke knew that Paul didn't die at Jerusalem. Yet, he seems to have emphasized common elements of the two trips. As Jesus' final trip to Jerusalem was accompanied by predictions of suffering (Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31-33), so was Paul's (21:10-11). As Jesus endured a plot by Jews at Jerusalem (Luke 20:20; 22:3-6), so would Paul (23:12-15). As Jesus was handed over to the Gentiles (Luke 23:1), so would Paul be (21:30-33). As Jesus' journey to Jerusalem ended in his arrest, a defense before the Jewish people and elders, as well as a Roman procurator and king (Luke 22:66; 23:1, 6), so would Paul's trip end (22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:23). In each case, the Jews cried "Get rid of him," (Luke 23:18; Acts 21:36). But the accused—again in both cases—was declared innocent by the Romans (Luke 23:4; 14, 22; Acts 23:29; 25:25-26; 26:31-32).

In short, Luke painted Paul's journey to Jerusalem in terms of the Suffering Servant. As David Williams writes, "Luke was struck by this similarity, and by introducing his account of Paul's journey in much the same way as he had the other [of Jesus], he tried to ensure that his readers saw the similarity also" ( _Acts,_ 335). Luke, writing several years after the event, could see that there was a more important reason for going to Jerusalem than just delivering a gift of money. What comes out of the Jerusalem trip was the city's final rejection of the prophet-apostle Paul. The city continued to be the one that killed all the prophets, as it did Jesus. Now, only the final consequences were to be worked out—the war with Rome, and the destruction of the city and temple. The beginning of those shattering events were but a decade away.

### None to see Paul again (Acts 20:25-28)

In the third part of his speech, Paul began discussing his dire future expectations. He told the elders, "I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again" (20:25). Paul was bidding farewell to the Aegean world of Asia and Achaia. If he escaped Jerusalem with his life—which was not certain—he was off to Rome and the western Mediterranean. And he seemed certain he wouldn't ever come back this way again.

Once again Paul defended his record. He had not hesitated to proclaim "the whole will of God" to them and he was "innocent of the blood of any of you" (20:26-27). As the watchman, he had warned the church and elders to follow the Way of faith and love.

Paul insisted that the elders must keep watch over their own spiritual condition. But they were also elders, so Paul told them to properly shepherd the flock "of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (20:28). The Greek word for "overseers" is _episkopoi,_ or bishops. It is more or less equivalent to "elders" (14:23). But here Paul was not speaking of a particular office, but rather of the elders' function as "shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" (20:28).

The last part of the phrase—"bought with his own blood"—is awkwardly translated by the NIV. The New Testament doesn't speak of God shedding his own blood. An alternative reading would have the phrase read "the blood of his Own One," with "Own" referring to Jesus. We find a similar phrase in Romans 8:32. Paul's central message about the redemptive value of the death of Jesus comes through in the phrase. Although there are few places in Acts in which the significance of the cross is discussed, this verse is a clear assertion of the doctrine of the atonement.

In any case, the overseers are guardians of the flock that was purchased with Jesus' blood. They must nurture it with good spiritual food, providing guidance and pastoral care. David Williams writes, "The nature of their [the elders'] task is drawn out by a pastoral metaphor. The church is the _flock_ (verse 28), a familiar figure for the people of God in both the Old Testament and the New; the elders are the _shepherds_ (verse 28); and the danger threatening the flock is _savage wolves_ , which will not spare them" ( _Acts,_ 355).

The "flock" is a familiar Old Testament metaphor for God's people (Psalm 100:3; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah 13:17; Ezekiel 34). Jesus capitalized on it, applying it to his disciples (Luke 12:32; 15:3-7; 19:10; John 10:1-30). The "shepherds" are the _watchmen_ who keep a vigil over the flock. This expression also has Old Testament roots in the watchman of Ezekiel 33:1-6. However, the shepherds or overseers, unlike the prophets, were to watch over the spiritual house of Israel, the church of God. Luke had Paul call the church the "church of God," and this rings true of him. It is a phrase found exclusively in Paul's letters, as in 1 Corinthians 1:2.

### Wolves will come in (Acts 20:29-30)

The "wolves" were the other element of Paul's pastoral analogy. The wolves were the ones who threatened the herd, the church. In the fourth part of his speech, Paul spoke of wolves in terms of what Paul foresaw would occur in the church after his passing. As Paul looked toward the future, he painted a somewhat dismal prospect for the Ephesian church. He told the elders: "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them" (20:29-30).

These tragic circumstances began to take shape, even in Paul's lifetime. They are described in the letters to Timothy, who apparently ministered to the church in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3-4; 19-20; 4:1-3; 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:14-18; 3:1-9). A generation later, the Ephesian church, while rooting out some heresy, had become so loveless that the risen Christ threatened it with a loss (Revelation 2:4-5).

In fact, 2 Timothy 1:5 referred to a wholesale revolt of the churches throughout the entire province of Asia. The apostasy in the Asian churches must have begun when Luke wrote Acts. No doubt his reference to Paul's prophecy about a future insurrection was meant to comfort his readers who knew about it. The message was: the problems in the church should not surprise us, for these are the things that happen among human beings, and Paul even warned us about "wolves" before they tore apart the flock.

"Wolves" is a much-used metaphor for false teachers and apostates in the Bible. Jesus described false prophets as wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15). He told his disciples they would be like sheep among wolves (Luke 10:3). Now, Paul was telling the elders that he had warned them for three years—the entire time he was with them—about the danger of apostasy (20:31). But he would no longer be able to guide them, and they were on their own to deal with any future problems as best as they could.

### Supplied my needs (Acts 20:32-34)

Paul closed his final message to the Ephesian elders with a blessing. He committed the elders to God (20:32). Though Paul would be absent, the word of grace could build them up spiritually. Paul insisted he had not desired anyone's possessions, but had worked to support himself and his associates. "These hands of mine have supplied my own needs," he averred (20:34). Paul probably said this with a flourish of his arms, which reminded his hearers of seeing him toiling at his tentmaking trade (18:2). Luke's reference to Paul's protestations of self-support also revealed the voice of the apostle as seen in his letters. Some examples are 1 Corinthians 4:12; 9:12-18; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 4:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10.

As he often did, Paul based his moral instruction on Jesus' teaching. His own hard work and ministry had served as an example that the strong should help the weak. This, Paul said, reflected the words Jesus had spoken: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (20:35). These words do not appear in any of the Gospels, though their spirit is certainly reflected in other sayings of Jesus (Matthew 10:8; Luke 6:38; John 13:34). The saying may have circulated in some collection or had been preserved in oral tradition. Obviously, not everything Jesus said and did found its way into the four canonical Gospels (John 20:30; 21:25).

Paul's urgent speech was now over, and he was ready to depart. The elders knelt down with Paul, and he said a final prayer. Luke didn't give us the substance of Paul's prayer. But we can know its general tenor from his letters. Commentators have suggested the following prayers found in Paul's letters may echo his prayer at Miletus: Ephesians 1:15-23; Philippians 1:3-11; Colossians 1:3-14; and 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3; 3:11-13; 5:23-24. The elders hugged Paul and wept, for this was the last time they would see or hear from the man who was their human father in the faith. It was a time of great emotion, and Luke caught its pathos with his references to tears, embraces, kisses and grieving.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## The Journey to Jerusalem  
Acts 21:1-16

### Put out to sea (Acts 21:1-3)

Luke continued to reflect the emotional scene surrounding Paul's departure by saying the travelers had to "tear themselves away" from the elders (21:1). Luke reminded us he was traveling with Paul by inserting another "we" into the narration. He also continued to provide a port-by-port travel guide of Paul's trip. After leaving Miletus, the ship sailed south to the island of Cos, where it anchored for the night. The next day the ship sailed southwest to the island of Rhodes. From there the party docked at the coastal city of Patara.

Patara was a commercial city and possessed a fine harbor. It was a popular port-of-call for large vessels plying such eastern Mediterranean areas as Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. At Patara, Paul's party changed ships and boarded a large merchant vessel that would travel non-stop to Tyre, a distance of about 400 miles (644 kilometers).

Luke again demonstrated his accuracy in details. He correctly described the stages of a coast-hugging ship's journey, as well as sea travel in general of those times. For example, individuals journeying by sea would have to find available ships and accept delays caused by loading and unloading cargo. In this case, when Paul's ship reached Tyre it had to unload its cargo, which apparently took several days. Paul and his delegation disembarked and located some disciples in the city with whom they stayed a week (21:4). A church in Tyre had probably been established by the Christian Hellenists who had been forced to flee Jerusalem after Stephen was martyred (11:19). Paul and a delegation from Antioch had earlier met with Christians in Phoenicia (and presumably in Tyre) on their way to the Jerusalem council (15:3).

### Through the Spirit (Acts 21:4)

The disciples in Tyre urged Paul "through the Spirit" not to go to Jerusalem (21:4). This reference to warnings of the Spirit picked up the thought that in every city the Holy Spirit had been warning Paul of the hardships awaiting him in Jerusalem (20:23). This again brings up the question of whether Paul was disregarding the voice of the Spirit in going to Jerusalem. Perhaps that is framing the question in the wrong terms. Rather, the Holy Spirit seemed only to be giving Paul some advance warning about what to expect when he got to Jerusalem, so that he would not be taken off his guard.

The believers would be expressing natural concern about Paul's safety and would be trying to dissuade him from going. The Holy Spirit seemed to be expressing a neutral position regarding whether he should or should not go to Jerusalem. Paul appeared to have a choice about the matter. He could go to Jerusalem or not. Paul chose to go to Jerusalem, and was willing to suffer the consequences of his action—which he did.

### Continued on their way (Acts 21:5-7)

After a week at Tyre, the ship was ready to sail, and Paul prepared to continue his trip to Jerusalem. The entire church—men, women and children—accompanied Paul from the city to the coastal port area. In a scene reminiscent of Paul's departure from Ephesus (20:36-37), the group knelt together on the beach and said a final prayer (21:5-6). Emotional goodbyes were exchanged and Paul's party boarded the ship.

The ship made its way south to Ptolemais, about 25 or so miles (40 kilometers) south of Tyre, where it stopped overnight (21:7). Ptolemais, called Acco in the Old Testament (Judges 1:31), had been an important Phoenician seaport. It was renamed Acre in Crusader days. Today, Haifa is the important port in the area. The ship continued south, and the next day Paul's party reached Caesarea, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of Ptolemais. The city had a magnificent harbor built by Herod, and it served as the port for Jerusalem. It was also the Roman provincial capital of Judea. (See additional comments on 10:1.)

### Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8-9)

In Caesarea, Paul and the delegation stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist for "a number of days" (21:8, 10). Luke had left Philip at Caesarea at the end of a missionary tour some two decades earlier (8:40), and this is his only reappearance in the book. Philip was apparently living in Caesarea, possibly throughout those two decades. By now he had "four unmarried daughters who prophesied" (21:9). According to traditions the church historian Eusebius preserved, Philip and his daughters later moved to Hierapolis in the province of Asia. The daughters supposedly provided information on the early days of the church to a bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, for his now lost books on Jesus' teachings ( _Ecclesiastical History_ 3.39.9).

During his years in Caesarea, Philip probably continued to evangelize the maritime plain. No doubt, he was also an elder in any church that might have existed in the Caesarea area. Luke here identified Philip as "one of the Seven" (21:8). This refers back to his appointment along with six others to take care of the Hellenistic Jewish widows in the Jerusalem church (6:1-6). The title "the Seven" was complementary to "the Twelve," and perhaps they had a special ministry to Hellenistic Christian Jews.

Philip was called an "evangelist" (21:8). The Greek word for "evangelist" occurs only twice more in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5). Paul had admonished Timothy to do the work of an evangelist in supervising the affairs of the growing church at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). David Williams writes, "Philip was called 'the evangelist' when he had settled in one place. Perhaps, then, this was the distinction (or one of them) between evangelists and apostles. One was itinerant, the other local" ( _Acts,_ 363).

### Agabus the prophet (Acts 21:10-11)

While Paul was at the home of Philip, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea (21:10). Caesarea was in the province of Judea, but the city was not considered part of the Jews' land because of its Gentile population and outlook. Agabus had appeared in Luke's account when he prophesied of a severe famine that would eventually touch much of the Roman world (11:27-28). Agabus apparently lived in Jerusalem, and earlier he was said to be from that city.

Agabus now took Paul's belt and tied his own hands and feet with it. Then he told Paul: "The Holy Spirit says, 'In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles'" (21:11). The prophecy was fulfilled in principle, but not in detail, when a mob of Jews grabbed Paul and the Roman garrison commander "ordered him to be bound with two chains" (21:33). Technically speaking, the Jews leaders did not "bind the owner of this belt," and they did not "hand him over"—rather, the Romans _rescued_ Paul from a Jewish mob. But Luke is not troubled by such discrepancies; he does not see prophecy as being an exact picture, but as a general prediction of the outcome: Paul ends up being imprisoned by the Gentiles.

Luke chose his wording to bring out, in a literary manner, the similarity between the fate of Jesus and Paul in their final trip to Jerusalem.

Many of the Old Testament prophets had begun their oracles with the words, "Thus says the Lord..." (Isaiah 3:16; Jeremiah 2:31; Ezekiel 4:13; Amos 3:11; Nahum 1:2; Haggai 1:6; Zechariah 1:16). In Luke, the Holy Spirit substitutes for the Lord, but Agabus is shown to be in the tradition of Israel's prophets of old. Agabus' prophecy also reminds us of Old Testament oracles in that the message was conveyed through action as well as word. Ahijah the Shilonite tore his cloak to demonstrate how Solomon's kingdom would be broken up (1 Kings 11:29-39). Isaiah walked about naked and barefoot to demonstrate how the Assyrians would humiliate the Egyptians and take them captive (20:2-4). Jeremiah shattered a clay jar to show how God would cause Jerusalem to be destroyed (19:1-13). Ezekiel built a model to portray the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (4:1-3).

Paul had earlier stated that the Holy Spirit had warned him that he faced prisons and hardships in Jerusalem (20:23; 21:4). Luke now gave his readers an example of how the Spirit warned him. In this case, it was through an inspired prophet from the Jerusalem church. We should note that Agabus' prophecy contained no command that Paul should break off his journey and not go to Jerusalem. On the other hand, neither did Agabus tell Paul to continue his journey to fulfill some purpose of God. Paul's decision was apparently in his own hands.

### Pleaded with Paul (Acts 21:12-16)

Luke, the Gentile delegation and the Caesarean disciples "pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem" (21:12). Earlier, the disciples at Tyre had also strongly urged Paul not to go (21:4). But Paul's inner conviction to go to Jerusalem was stronger. "Why are you weeping and breaking my heart?" said Paul, "I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus" (21:13).

Seeing Paul's determination, Luke said everyone "gave up and said, 'The Lord's will be done'" (21:14). The group then made preparations for the final leg of the trip to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea decided to go with Paul and the delegation.

When the group arrived in the Jerusalem area, it stayed at the home of Mnason, a long-time disciple from Cyprus (21:16). Perhaps he was one of the missionaries from Cyprus who had preached the gospel in Phoenicia during the early days of the church (11:20). Mnason must have been a well-to-do member of the church. He had a large enough home, as well as the resources, to host not only Paul but also his delegation (and perhaps the disciples from Caesarea).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

######

## Paul the Prisoner of Rome  
Acts 21:17-28:31

###### **Paul comes to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-23:22)  
Paul arrested in the Temple area (21:17-40)**

### Paul arrives (Acts 21:17)

Luke now began a fateful chapter in Paul's life with the casual words, "When we arrived in Jerusalem..." (21:17). The remaining chapters of Acts will be devoted to about four years of Paul's life, all of it spent as a prisoner of the Roman government. Luke devoted a disproportionate amount of space to these four years. He especially emphasized a few speeches Paul delivered as well as his harrowing sea voyage to Rome.

Luke's main concern with the Jerusalem trip was to show his readers that Paul continued to receive the blessing of the mother church in Jerusalem. Luke wrote that when the delegation arrived in Jerusalem the believers there "received us warmly" (21:17). The "us" referred to Luke and the delegates from the Gentile churches who had brought the relief fund to the mother church.

The third "we" section ends here (21:17-18). However, we shouldn't assume Luke left Palestine. He may have used this time to gather information for the writing of his Gospel and the early chapters of Acts. He remained close to Paul. (He will be with Paul on his sea voyage to Rome.) But because Paul's activities became such a focus of Luke's narrative, he may have chosen to speak of him as though he were alone.

### Went to see James (Acts 21:18-19)

The day after arriving in Jerusalem, Paul and the delegation had a meeting with James and the elders. James was the leader and spokesperson of the Jerusalem church, just as he was during the landmark conference of A.D. 49 (15:13). Paul reported in great detail on his missionary journeys and the impact of the gospel among the Gentile populations. Luke summarized Paul's report as being positively received, saying, "When they heard this, they praised God" (21:20).

James and the elders recognized that God's direction had been present in Paul's work, and Luke wanted to point this up. We remember that the Jerusalem leaders had also given Peter a positive review when he explained how the first Gentiles had been converted (11:18). Luke wanted his readers to know that Paul's work, no less than Peter's, had been accepted by the mother church as divinely inspired.

Paul had feared that he might be rejected by the Jerusalem church (Romans 15:31). But quite the opposite had happened; he had been accepted. The church, both its Jewish and Gentile portions, had remained united. Paul was at one with the rest of the Jewish Christian element of the church.

### What happened to the offering? (Acts 21:19)

Almost certainly, Paul and the delegates presented the collection for the poor saints when they reported the progress of the Gentile mission. What happened to the offering? How was it received? From Paul's epistles, it seems that presenting the offering personally was the chief reason for his going to Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; Romans 15:25-27, with 2 Corinthians 8-9). Perhaps Paul saw the collection as a way of completing his mission to the eastern part of the Empire, before embarking on an evangelizing tour of the West.

But Luke referred to the offering only once, in an aside in Paul's speech before Felix (24:17). This showed that Luke knew about the offering (how could he not know about it, since he was part of the delegation?). He must have also been aware that the relief fund was a major reason for Paul coming to Jerusalem. Given Luke's tendency for trying to show that Paul's Gentile mission and the Jerusalem church marched together, it seems odd that he would not discuss the offering. Some speculate that Luke's silence means that the offering was rejected, and the attempt to demonstrate unity failed. But due to Luke's silence, we do not know for sure.

### Zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20-21)

While the church leaders received Paul and his delegation warmly (21:17), many Jerusalem disciples apparently still had some doubts about him. James had recognized that Paul's work had been guided by God. But now he also had to address a public-relations problem in his own congregation.

There is a good reason why Paul was mistrusted. Some within the Jerusalem church were giving credence to rumors that Paul had been teaching against the ancient Jewish customs. That is, that he was teaching _Jews_ not to practice their ancestral religion. The elders explained the problem to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs" (21:20-21).

The phrase "many thousands" translates the Greek wording that is often used for a very large number, or myriads. Luke had already told us that many thousands had responded to the gospel message in the Jerusalem area during the earliest days of the church. It began with 3,000 on Pentecost (2:41), increased to 5,000 (4:4), to which were added more converts (6:7). These believers were all zealous for the law and the Jewish religious customs, as Paul had been (Galatians 1:14). They would distrust to anyone who insulted the Torah. And Paul had been accused of that by Diaspora Jews.

For Paul, circumcision made no difference regarding one's status before God (Galatians 5:6; 6:15). However, so far as we know, Paul never told _Jewish_ converts not to circumcise their children, nor was he opposed to its practice by Jewish believers. We have already been told in Acts that Paul does not teach against the Jewish Torah in and of itself. He circumcised Timothy for the sake of expediency (16:3); he observed some of the Jewish pilgrim festivals (20:5, 17); he even took part in a Nazirite vow (18:18). The rumors the Jerusalem church heard were not true.

But the zealous Christian Jews of Jerusalem were concerned lest the rumors were true, that Paul was telling Jews to stop observing their ancestral customs. (Teaching the Gentiles to do so was not the issue here.) As long as Paul was out of sight travelling through the empire, he was out of mind. But with his arrival in the city, the Jerusalem church leaders found themselves with a great problem. Its leaders had received a person who was possibly tainted as being a renegade—and worse still, teaching others to be renegades. By welcoming Paul, the leaders seemed to be aiding and abetting the "apostate" Paul. Something had to be done to put the evil rumors to rest.

### Join in purification (Acts 21:22-24)

The church leaders thought they had a solution to their public-relations problem. As it happened, four Jewish church members were in the middle of observing a Nazirite vow. The elders approached Paul with a request regarding these four individuals. They said: "Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law" (21:24).

Richard Longenecker writes, "They were saying to Paul, 'We can accept this gift from the churches and so identify ourselves with your Gentile mission, if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with the nation.' Thus they were protecting themselves against Jewish recriminations while at the same time affirming their connection with Paul and his mission" ("Acts," _The Expositor's Bible Commentary,_ page 520).

The Nazirite vow, unless it had a specified time, normally lasted 30 days. During the period of the vow, the confessor would abstain from wine and strong drink, from any defiling contacts such as with a dead body, and would not cut his hair. When the period of the vow was over, the vow-taker would present an offering in the temple. His hair would be cut and sacrificially burned, also at the temple. Another Jew might associate himself with a Nazirite by paying for his offering, something that was regarded as a devout deed. However, if he had just returned from residence among Gentiles (as Paul had), he would be considered as defiled. He himself would have to undergo a separate purification rite.

Luke's account is hazy on exactly what Paul did. It is not altogether clear as to how and why Paul was to be purified. However, his being ritually unclean after a long residence in Gentile lands seems to explain this adequately. The fact that the four men were to have their heads shaved at the end of their vow period indicates they were undertaking a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:1-21). (For additional comments on the Nazirite vow, see the commentary on 18:18.)

By joining in the rites of the four men and paying for their required offerings, Paul would be making a public demonstration of his respect for Jewish tradition. He would be participating in a hallowed ancestral custom, and no one could claim he was teaching Jews to abandon the laws of Moses.

### Decree restated (Acts 21:25)

The elders had asked Paul to show everyone that he still lived as a Jew. They felt constrained to explain again that no such demands would be made of Gentile believers. They had no intention of going back on their previous ruling. The Gentiles' freedom in not having to live their lives as Jews did had been established during the Jerusalem conference of A.D. 49 (15:19-22). The charter still stood, with the exceptions set down at the conference.

The elders reaffirmed the Gentiles' freedom by pointing out the same four regulations that had been part of the earlier decree (21:25). It seems odd that the elders repeated the decrees word-for-word back to Paul. He knew them thoroughly, having been a major player at the conference. He himself read the decrees to a number of churches. Perhaps it was Luke who was repeating the four regulations as a literary device for the benefit of his readers. Today, we would put such information in a footnote.

It's possible Paul initially objected to the elders' suggestion of participating in the purification ritual. Paul may have thought that Judaizers in the church would now claim that he and James had gone back on their agreement. He wanted reassurances that if he participated in the purification rites and vow this would not be interpreted as the church's rejecting the prior agreement. This could be done by publicly reiterating the Jerusalem church's commitment to the decree of Acts 15. The elders would have also needed to reaffirm the exceptions, which they did (21:25). That might be the reason they were repeated word for word here in Luke's account.

There may be a third reason why the elders repeated the four prohibitions stated in Acts 15. Paul apparently had ceased teaching the importance of at least one of the four regulations. He wrote in his letter to the church in Corinth that there was nothing wrong in eating food sold in the meat market, although most such meat had previously been sacrificed to an idol (1 Corinthians 8:4). One merely needed to be careful not to offend a church member who thought it was wrong. Perhaps the elders had heard about what amounted to Paul's departure from the agreement. They repeated the four stipulations to emphasize that, as far as they were concerned, the stipulations were still valid.

In any case, the request of James and the elders had nothing to do with the way Paul was carrying out the Gentile mission. They were not trying to renegotiate the terms under which Gentiles could be allowed into the church. The problem to be solved was Paul's negative image, that he had supposedly taught Jews (not Gentiles) to "turn away from Moses" (21:21), and its impact on the church. We as readers of Acts already know the accusation is false.

### No gentile may enter (Acts 21:26-30)

For the sake of unity and to help the Jerusalem church, Paul agreed to follow its urging and join the purification rites of the four believers. On the next day Paul took the four men and purified himself along with them (21:26). Then he went to the temple, where he gave the priest notice as to when the purification period would end. He would have also taken care of the offering to be made by each of the four men.

Apparently, the purification time still had a week to go. When the seven days were about over, some unconverted Jews from the province of Asia spotted Paul in the temple (21:27). (They were in Jerusalem for Pentecost, as in 2:5.) That's when the riot began. The Jews seized Paul and began shouting, "Help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place" (21:28).

Earlier, the Jews had seen Paul in Jerusalem with Trophimus. Apparently, they knew Trophimus to be a Gentile, and assumed Paul had brought him into the temple. (The mob said Paul had brought "Greeks" into the temple, that is, more than one. Perhaps they thought Paul had brought the entire delegation into its inner courts.) No Gentile was allowed into the temple's inner courts. The Romans even allowed the Sanhedrin to execute the death penalty for anyone who violated this regulation, something that Josephus ( _Antiquities_ 15:417; _Wars_ 6:124-126) and Philo ( _Embassy to Gaius_ 212) both mention.

Josephus wrote that there was a stone wall separating the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts reserved for Jews alone (Josephus, _Wars_ 5:193-194). At regular intervals, pillars warned in Greek and Latin that no foreigner was permitted to go into the inner courts or Holy Place. "One of these Greek notices was found by C.S. Clermont-Gannau in 1871 and two Greek fragments of another were found in 1935. The complete notice reads: 'No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows,'" (Longenecker, page 522).

Paul was a Jew and was entitled to pass beyond the dividing wall into the inner courts. The death penalty was applicable only to a Gentile who had violated the ban. But since Paul had been accused of defiling the holy temple, the mob was not interested in discussing the finer points of the law. According to Luke, they were trying to kill him on the spot, without even a trial (21:31).

It was the Diaspora Jews from Asia who started the riot. No doubt these were some of the same Jews who had been so hostile to Paul in Ephesus (19:9; 20:19). Paul's trouble was caused by a mob of unconverted Jews, instigated by Diaspora Jews from Asia. It was not caused by the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. Most likely the church would have liked to help Paul, but it was powerless to intervene. (The church in Jerusalem, along with James, now disappears from Luke's account.)

The suggested strategy by the church elders to have Paul take part in the purification rites had backfired. Paul's appearance in the temple provoked the very situation among unconverted Jews that the elders hoped to avoid within the church.

### Commander of troops (Acts 21:31-32)

When the Jerusalemites heard the commotion in the temple area, they came running from every part of the city (21:30). Paul was dragged from the inner courts of the temple, and its gates were shut by the temple police. The mob apparently began beating Paul, probably in the outer court of the temple. Luke repeated the thought that "the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar" (21:31, 30).

The commander of the Roman troops quickly heard about the rioting. He took some soldiers, and they ran into the crowd to disperse it (21:32). The Roman garrison in Jerusalem was positioned to intervene at a moment's notice if any disturbance occurred in the temple. The festivals were a particularly dangerous time, according to Josephus ( _Antiquities_ 20:105-112; _Wars_ 5:238-247). To be able to quell any temple disturbance, the garrison was quartered in the fortress of Antonia, in the northwest corner of the temple area. The Antonia tower overlooked the temple, and two flights of steps gave troops stationed there direct access to the court of the Gentiles. The troops could rush down and quickly quell any disturbance, and this is what probably saved Paul's life.

The commander of the fortress was a Roman military officer, the chief Roman authority in Jerusalem. We will soon learn that his name was Claudius Lysias (23:26). He would have been directly responsible to the procurator at Caesarea. Lysias had a Greek name, and he had probably advanced through the ranks of the Roman army. He had earlier paid some official to place him on a list of consideration to receive Roman citizenship. The fact that he had the name Claudius probably means that he received his citizenship under the reign of this emperor, and took his name as a token of honor.

As a commander (Greek, _chiliarchos_ ), Lysias was the "leader of a thousand" or the head of a "cohort." At full strength, the cohort would have consisted of a thousand troops, including foot soldiers and horsemen. The Jerusalem garrison is thought to have consisted of some equivalent number of troops. We will learn later that the Roman military contingent in the city could afford to send some 470 soldiers to escort Paul to Caesarea, so it must have been at full strength (23:23).

### Paul arrested (Acts 21:33)

When the rioters saw the troops coming, they stopped beating Paul. Since Paul seemed to be the focus of the disturbance, the commander arrested him, and ordered that he should "be bound with two chains" (21:33). This probably meant that Paul was handcuffed to a soldier on either side of him, much in the manner of Peter (12:6). At this point, in a roundabout way, the prophecy of Agabus had come true (21:11).

The commander tried to ascertain what Paul had done to cause such a riot. But people were shouting different things, and with the din of the crowd, confusion reigned. The commander then decided to take Paul into the Antonia barracks (21:34). Meanwhile, some in the mob were still trying to get at Paul, so he had to be carried by the soldiers into the fortress (21:35). A crowd followed the soldiers, shouting, "Get rid of him!" (21:36). The shout was similar to that which greeted Jesus in about the same spot over a quarter of a century earlier (Luke 23:18; John 19:15). Luke was pressing the similarity and wanted readers to note it.

### "Aren't you the Egyptian?" (Acts 21:37-39)

As Paul was about to be carried into the fortress, he spoke to the commander in Greek, asking if he might say something to him (21:37). The commander was surprised to be addressed in Greek. Why he should have been startled to hear Paul speak Greek is not clear, since it was the lingua franca of the Roman world at the time. Perhaps the commander thought Paul was an uneducated foreigner, but Paul spoke Greek like a native, without the accent common in Judea.

Also unclear is why the commander should surmise that Paul was a well-known Egyptian insurrectionist "who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?" (21:38). Josephus spoke of such an Egyptian who perhaps three years earlier had appeared in Jerusalem during the procuratorship of Felix, claiming to be a prophet. According to Josephus, he led some 30,000 followers to the Mount of Olives in order to overthrow Jerusalem ( _Wars_ 2:261-262; _Antiquities_ 20:169-172. (The commander estimated the Egyptian's followers at 4,000, which was probably nearer the correct size, given Josephus' tendency to exaggerate.)

The Romans killed and captured many of the Egyptian's followers, though he escaped. The commander's conclusion that Paul was that Egyptian is perhaps not too unreasonable, given the circumstances. Perhaps he thought the Jews, after discovering the Egyptian in the temple, had set upon him as an imposter.

Paul responded by saying to the commander, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city" (21:39). The Tarsus of Paul's day was an important center of Hellenistic culture. Paul was telling the commander he was no uneducated anarchist from Egypt, but came from elsewhere, a cultured city of the empire. Paul quickly identified himself as a Jew. He wanted to be sure the commander didn't summarily hand him over to Jewish authorities as a Gentile who had violated sacred temple areas (22:25).

However, when Paul said he was a "citizen" of Tarsus, he wasn't appealing to his Roman citizenship. That he had such citizenship will come out only later (22:25). Paul here was underscoring his loyalty to the Roman Empire. He came from an important city in the empire—and was proud of being one of its citizens.

Paul also asked the commander for permission to speak to the people, which he received. This defense is the first of a series of speeches that dominate the rest of the narrative until Paul leaves Caesarea for Rome. Why the commander allowed Paul to speak is not clear. Perhaps by doing so he hoped to get at the reason why Paul had been attacked by the Jews. Neither is it clear why the crowd, which was in a hysterical frame of mind, would have even listened to a word of what Paul had to say.

There are probably logical explanations for both situations, but Luke chose not to discuss these things in order to keep his account brief and moving along. It's also been argued that Paul would have been in no condition to speak after receiving a thorough beating. However, it's not certain just how much he had been pummelled before being rescued. In any case, in another situation at Lystra Paul apparently had been stoned into insensibility, but was still able to get up and go into the city (14:14). Then, on the next day he left on a rugged trip into the next town, Derbe.

When the commander gave Paul permission to speak, he motioned to the crowd from the steps of the Antonia fortress. Surprisingly, everyone quieted down. Paul began his defense in Aramaic, which caused the crowd to be even more attentive (21:40). "They became very quiet," Luke said (22:2). Aramaic was the language of Palestine, and of those in the eastern Roman Empire who did not speak Greek. This is the first of three speeches that Paul would make in his defense, and which take up a considerable part of this section (22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:2-23). (His attempted defense before the Sanhedrin in 23:1-9, a fourth speech, never really got under way.)

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

######

## Paul's Speech to the Temple Crowd  
Acts 22:1-22

### "Brothers and fathers, listen..." (Acts 22:1)

Luke was concerned with Paul as a credible witness for the gospel both before Jews and Gentile political figures. The speeches afford us an opportunity to learn something of Paul's background and how he spoke to different audiences. The present speech from the steps of the Antonia fortress dealt with the personal charge against him, that he had acted like a Jewish apostate (21:28). As he spoke, Paul would locate his missionary work in a Jewish context, and would stress that his teaching is based on a revelation from God.

Paul opened his defense by saying in Aramaic, "Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense" (22:1). By speaking Aramaic, Paul was putting himself on the side of the crowd. When he referred to his listeners in a personal way, Paul was trying to make himself one with the group. Stephen had done the same thing in his speech before the Sanhedrin (7:2).

### Born, brought up, trained (Acts 22:3)

Paul began his speech by recalling his birth, upbringing and training. He would do the same thing in his speech before King Agrippa (26:4-11). Paul also gave similar autobiographical material in some of his epistles (2 Corinthians 11:22-29; Galatians 1:13-16, Philippians 3:4-6, and 1 Timothy 1:12-16). As a result, we know a good deal about the apostle Paul's background. This helps us understand the New Testament writings more completely. (The passages in Paul's letters should be read in conjunction with this section of Acts for a fuller picture of Paul's education in Judaism.)

Paul said he was a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, but was "brought up in this city" (22:3). Then, he said, "I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors." We do not know how old Paul was when he came to Jerusalem. His excellent Greek, his use of the Greek Old Testament, and other marks of a Hellenist culture point to an education outside of Palestine. Tarsus, as a university city and international port of call, would have been a good city in which to receive a Hellenistic education.

However, Paul was not specific enough about where he spent his early years for us to do more than conjecture about his youth. What we do know is that Paul's sister and her family (or at least his nephew) lived in Jerusalem (23:16). It's possible Paul could have travelled back and forth between Tarsus and Jerusalem in his early years. He may have lived with his sister's family in the Jerusalem area, perhaps even in his pre-teen years.

### "I am a Jew" (Acts 22:3-5)

Not only was Paul "brought up" in Jerusalem, he studied under Gamaliel, a leader of the Pharisees and a highly respected teacher of the law. (Luke introduced us to Gamaliel in 5:34.) Paul could have begun studying Torah under Gamaliel during his teen-age years. Paul was such a good student that he advanced beyond many of those studying with him (Galatians 1:14). In his willingness to use violence against heretics, he was more zealous than his mentor.

As a Pharisee, Paul was "thoroughly trained in the law" (22:3), which consisted of both the written and oral traditions. Later, he would tell Agrippa, "I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee" (26:5). Of course, what Paul was trying to do was to emphasize that he was a Jew of Jews, not a renegade.

Paul also told his listeners: "I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today" (22:3). In a similar vein, he told the Galatians he had been extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers (1:14). He acknowledged that the Jews were zealous for God as well (Romans 10:2). Paul was telling his listeners that he appreciated their enthusiasm for God, but that he could match and surpass their fervor. Again, Paul was saying he was no outsider, no renegade, no apostate—he was one of them.

But after his conversion, Paul did not put any value on this righteousness of the self, which was not based on true knowledge or faith. Paul counted his former religious accomplishments as rubbish (Philippians 3:8). Knowing Christ, having the righteousness that comes from God by faith—this was what was important to him. He no longer put confidence in his observance of the traditional rites of his community. (However, Paul did practice many of the traditions, since they were part of his cultural heritage—but he was able to put them aside, as needed, if that would serve the needs of the gospel.)

Here in Jerusalem, before this angry Jewish crowd, Paul wanted to emphasize that his former life demonstrated his zeal for God. His Jewishness could not be disputed by any of his hearers, and so they continued to listen to him. Paul continued setting out his "credentials" by saying, "I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison" (22:4). Paul could cite his earlier persecution as overwhelming evidence for his zeal toward God and Judaism. He made the same claim in several of his epistles (1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Philippians 3:6).

If anyone didn't remember Paul the persecutor from something of a quarter of a century ago, they could ask the high priest and the Sanhedrin! He told the crowd: "I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished" (22:5). Paul was taking every opportunity—through race, language, training, religion and zeal for God—to establish a link with his audience. But now he needed to explain why he had experienced such a complete change of mind.

### The heavenly vision (Acts 22:6-11)

Paul used the example of his getting letters of recommendation from the Council as a transition point into the second part of the speech. This is where he began to describe the details of his conversion. Paul spoke of being on the road near Damascus with some traveling companions about noontime on that fateful day. A bright light flashed around him, and he fell to the ground. Then a voice spoke to Paul, saying, "Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?" (22:6).

Paul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The voice answered, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting" (22:8). Paul then asked further, "What shall I do, Lord?" (22:10). Thereupon, Paul was told to go into Damascus, where he would be told of his future work. Paul's companions then led him by the hand into Damascus because he had been blinded by the light.

This is the second account of Paul's conversion. The first was in 9:1-19, where further details can be found in the commentary. A third account will be found in Paul's speech to Agrippa (26:12-18). Each telling of the story was adapted to the particular audience being addressed. Each of the accounts also differ somewhat in the details they present or omit. These differences are minor and reflect the fact Paul didn't tell the story in the exact same way each time. (Of course, none of us use the same wording and detail in retelling our experiences.)

For example, when Luke told the story of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, he said his companions heard a sound but didn't see anyone (9:7). A "light from heaven flashed around" Paul but it was not stated whether his companions saw that light (9:3). Paul heard a voice speaking to him (9:4), which was identified as Jesus appearing to him (9:17). In Paul's retelling of the story before Agrippa, he said he saw about noontime "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions" (26:13). He also heard the voice speaking to him in Aramaic (26:14), again identified as Jesus (26:15). Paul didn't say whether his companions heard or saw anything. However, since they "all fell to the ground," they must have experienced one or both in some way (26:14).

In the present account, Paul wrote of a bright light from heaven flashing around him at noon (22:6). He heard a voice speaking to him, also identified as Jesus (22:7). Paul said "my companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me" (22:9).

The three accounts of Paul's conversion are not contradictory. If Luke had seen them as contradictions, he would have "fixed" the problem. The differences in detail are easily explained by the fact that we tell the same story in different ways. The three stories are actually complementary. Each adds details to create a more complete picture of what happened on the Damascus road, and Luke intends for readers to be able to compare and combine the accounts.

The fact that Paul's conversion experience is told three times shows the importance Luke attached to it. That each was different from the other two tells us that the story was being told at three times, under varying circumstances. It was not a canned story that Luke "plugged" in for verbal color. The important thing that comes out in each account is that God worked a reversal in Paul's life on the Damascus road. Paul's conversion was the result of a dramatic confrontation with Jesus. He hadn't casually adopted a new religion, he hadn't sought out a new spiritual experience, and his new beliefs had not been imposed on him by any peer group.

### Devout Ananias (Acts 22:12-15)

We learned earlier that Paul was visited in Damascus by a disciple named Ananias. Here he was called "a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there" (22:12). Ananias stood next to Paul and said, "Brother Saul, receive your sight!" (22:13. At that moment, Paul could see again. Then, Ananias gave Paul his divine commission: "The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous one and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard" (26:14-15).

The Jewish orientation of the story is seen in the expression "God of our ancestors," which was the way Jews referred to the God of Israel (Genesis 43:23; Exodus 3:13; Deuteronomy 1:11). "The Righteous One" was a typically Jewish messianic title, one that Stephen also had used (7:52). Paul, speaking to a Jewish audience, stressed that his divine commission had been recognized by a devout Jew—a person like one of those standing before him. The audience should respect Ananias, and that means they should respect Paul's commission.

F.F. Bruce writes, "As Paul has emphasized his orthodox upbringing and his devotion to the law and the ancestral traditions, so now he emphasizes the part played in his conversion experience by Ananias of Damascus, portrayed as a devout and law-abiding Jew, enjoying the respect of all his fellow-Jews in the city" ( _The Book of Acts,_ revised edition, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, page 417). This illustrates another difference between the accounts of Paul's conversion. Here, Paul wanted to stress that his commission was given through the lips of a pious and highly respected Jew, Ananias. (Note that Paul cleverly did not mention that Ananias was also a Christian at the time he went to Paul.) When Paul later told the story before King Agrippa, there was no need to emphasize the role of Ananias. He simply recounted his commission as coming directly from the Lord.

Another difference between the accounts is that here we don't read of Ananias' personal struggle in going to Paul, who was then feared as the persecutor of Christians. Because the story was told from a third-person point of view in Acts 9, that aspect of Paul's conversion experience was included there.

### Praying in the temple (Acts 22:16-18)

Paul explained how Ananias urged him to: "Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (22:16). Like any other convert, Paul had to be counseled to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ, which he did. Paul then recounted how, after being baptized, he returned to Jerusalem, and was praying in the temple. This fact was not mentioned in the earlier account of Paul's conversion. Paul included it here to show that the temple remained a holy place of prayer and worship for him, even after his conversion.

He was asking the Jewish audience to consider the idea that a man who prays in the temple is not likely to desecrate it. Paul was also pointing out that his traditional values had not changed in a quarter of a century. After all, he had been worshipping in the temple just a while ago when the Jews grabbed him. While praying in the temple after his conversion, Paul said he fell into a trance and saw a vision of the Lord speaking to him (22:17). Now Paul was equating himself with the great prophets of Israel who had a vision of the Lord and received a commission (Isaiah 6:1-10; Jeremiah 14-19).

### "Leave Jerusalem" (Acts 22:18)

But the commission Paul received was not to Israel or the Jews. Paul recounted that the Lord told him, "Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me" (22:21). In Acts 9, Luke didn't tell us anything about any vision instructing him to flee the city. However, Luke did say that when Paul began to preach in Jerusalem, the Hellenistic Jews tried to kill him (9:29). It was then that the converts took him to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. Now we learn that Paul left the area, not simply because the disciples insisted on taking him to safety, but that he had a divine warning to leave Jerusalem. Probably, Paul's departure was due to a combination of the vision and the advice of the Jerusalem Christians. Here divine direction and human action worked together.

Some commentators see a contradiction between the two accounts of his departure from Jerusalem. But they are not irreconcilable at all, and merely reflect different aspects of a complex situation. David Williams writes:

#### In the earlier account, Luke was describing the circumstance as they would have appeared to an objective observer—a Jewish plot against Paul (which he was hardly likely to have mentioned now) that had led the disciples to take the action they did. Paul, on the other hand, speaks here of his own inner experience as he wrestled in prayer with the knowledge of that plot, wondering what he should do. In the end it had seemed that the Lord was endorsing the action proposed by the disciples, bidding him to leave Jerusalem immediately. ( _Acts,_ New International Biblical Commentary, page 377)

### "Lord...these people know" (Acts 22:19-22)

Paul protested to the Lord about leaving Jerusalem. He repeated what he said on that occasion: "These people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you" (22:19). Paul explained that everyone knew that he was part of the mob who killed Stephen, and that he had endorsed his murder. Surely, Paul was saying, the Jews should accept his new faith because they knew how sincere he was in his old beliefs. Paul was inviting his hearers to accept his former zealous persecution of Christians as evidence that his new faith was real. William Neil writes:

#### In view of Paul's past record of persecuting the Christians and assisting in Stephen's execution, the Jews should have recognized that only some divine intervention could have brought about so dramatic a change in his behavior. They might therefore have been expected to listen to his "testimony." ( _The Acts of the Apostles,_ The New Century Bible Commentary, page 225)

However, the Jews' reaction was the opposite. Paul's former record of zealous belief in Judaism made his new Christian faith more puzzling and unbelievable. Paul must have suspected that his audience at the Antonia fortress wouldn't believe it, either. His speech was more of a witness against them.

Then, Paul spoke the line that set off the crowd once more. He told his Jewish audience that the Lord had said to him, "Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles" (22:21). Paul was emphasizing his calling as a "light for the Gentiles" (13:47). He was a human instrument—extending the work that had been prophesied of his Savior, Jesus (Luke 2:35).

As long as Paul spoke of his work in a Jewish context, the crowd listened, even if impatiently. But when Paul uttered the statement about going to the Gentiles, the crowd went into a fit of rage. "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!' they shouted (22:22). Richard Longenecker writes, "In effect, Paul was saying that Gentiles can be approached directly with God's message of salvation without first being related to the nation and its institutions. This was tantamount to placing Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing before God and for Judaism was the height of apostasy indeed!" (page 526).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

######

## Paul Asserts His Rights as a Citizen (22:23-30)

### Paul faces torture (Acts 22:23-24)

Confusion again reigned at the temple. The crowd was screaming, throwing clothes in the air and flinging dirt about. The commander still hadn't been able to find out what crime, if any, Paul might have been guilty of. He probably had not understood Paul's speech, as it was given in Aramaic, so he didn't know what his defense had been. The commander was no closer to the truth of the situation, and was losing patience. He directed that Paul be taken into the fortress, and tortured in order to discover the facts of the matter. The torture was flogging, and it was a far worse experience than undergoing a Jewish beating, or feeling the rod of the municipal authority.

The Roman practice of scourging is said to have varied with the victim's status. A slave or non-Roman might be whipped with a knotted leather cord fastened to a wooden handle. The cord could be studded with pieces of metal or bone. A flogging with such a whip could cripple one for life, or even kill. Somehow the Romans thought that people always told the truth when under severe pain like that. Paul was about to receive the same punishment Jesus endured under Pilate. He had Jesus flogged even after declaring him innocent of any crime (John 18:38-19:1).

### "Flog a Roman?" (Acts 22:25)

Paul was destined to escape the flogger's whip by appealing to his civil rights. As the guards stretched Paul out to torture him, he said to the centurion standing next to him, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?" (22:25). Citizenship was a highly prized commodity in Paul's day. Few had citizenship, as it was limited to those of high standing and those who had performed some exceptional service for the government. (Of course, many paid bribes in order to have their names entered on lists of candidates for citizenship.) Longenecker writes,

#### New citizens received a _diploma civitatis Romanae_ or _instrumentum,_ and their names were recorded on one of the thirty-five tribal lists at Rome and also on their local municipal register. Succeeding generations of a citizen's family possessed a _professio_ or registration of birth recording their Roman status and were registered as citizens on the taxation tables of their respective cities....Papers validating citizenship were kept in family archives and not usually carried on one's person. The verbal claim to Roman citizenship was accepted at face value; penalties for falsifying documents and making false claims of citizenship were exceedingly stiff—Epictetus speaks of death for such acts. (page 528)

Roman citizens were exempt from flogging before trial, often used as torture to ascertain the facts of a case. The Valerian and Porcian laws, enacted over long periods of time, prohibited the beating of Roman citizens. The _Lex Julia_ had further given citizens the right of appeal to Rome. In Paul's day, a proper trial and sentence had to be given citizens before flogging could be administered to them.

### "Pay a big price" (Acts 22:26-29)

It's no wonder when Paul claimed Roman citizenship, the centurion stopped preparing Paul for flogging. He rushed to the commander and told him Paul was a citizen (22:26). The commander raced back to Paul to verify his claim, which he did. When the interrogation team learned Paul was a citizen, they "withdrew immediately" (22:29). The commander even became alarmed that he had put Paul in chains, there being no charge against him. He knew he had almost done something that would have resulted in some severe action against him, such as dismissal, or even execution.

When Paul told the commander he was a citizen, he said, "I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship" (22:28). Paul replied that he was born a citizen. The commander apparently had been one of those who had bribed his way into getting on a list of people to be considered for citizenship. Since his name was Claudius Lysias (23:26), he probably bought himself a slot on a candidates-of-citizenship list during the reign of the emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54). The historian Dio Cassius spoke of citizenship rights being purchased for great amounts of money during the reign of Claudius ( _Roman History_ 60, 17, 4-9).

"The 'great sum' which Lysias paid was not the price of freedom. It was the bribe given to the intermediaries in the imperial secretariat or the provincial administration who put his name on the list of candidates for enfranchisement" (A.N. Sherwin-White, _Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament,_ pages 154-155).

Some commentators feel that Lysias was being sarcastic to Paul when he said he obtained his citizenship at a great price. He was saying something like, "If a trouble-maker like you can buy citizenship rights, it must be rather cheap to buy these days." That is, the privilege was losing or had lost its value. Paul had turned the tables on the commander. Paul was born a citizen and didn't need to "buy" his way onto the list. This so-called "Egyptian troublemaker" came from a respected family, a family who had earned citizenship much earlier, when it was _harder_ to get. Bruce writes,

#### Paul, the man whom the tribune was interrogating rather contemptuously, was _born_ a Roman citizen. This means that his father was a Roman citizen before him. How the citizenship was acquired by Paul's father or grandfather we have no means of knowing, but analogy would suggest that it was for valuable services rendered to a Roman general or administrator in the southeastern area of Asia Minor, such as Pompey in 66-64 B.C. or Antony a generation later. (page 422)

It may seem surprising that the commander accepted Paul's claim of citizenship at face value. The severe punishment for a false claim in this regard made it unlikely that one would lie about it. Perhaps there was some way the commander could verify Paul's claim, or he simply couldn't take the chance of not accepting it. As mentioned earlier, there were official citizenship roles in the Empire. Eventually, it would be discovered whether someone was falsely claiming citizenship.

We see that Paul had no compunction about using his status as a citizen to protect himself. He had already done so (16:19-39), and would do so again (25:10-11). However, once Paul appealed to his legal rights, he became a captive to the Roman judicial process. He would be under constant military supervision from now on, and his case would ultimately require over four years to be completed. There is a lesson in Paul's use of citizenship that is important to all Christians. We should feel free to make use of all legal and civil means to protect ourselves from those who would persecute us for our Christian beliefs. William Willimon writes, "Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship as a protection against examination by torture, thus suggesting that Christians may be free to use their legal rights, even those bestowed upon them by pagan governments, as protection against injustice and as a means of enabling them to witness to the truth of Christ" ( _Acts,_ Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, page 168).

### Sanhedrin to assemble (Acts 22:30)

The commander Claudius Lysias realized he had a "celebrity" in his hands. Paul was no uneducated guerrilla terrorist out of some Egyptian backwash. He was cultured, educated religious teacher from a distinguished family who claimed to be a Roman citizen. Lysias couldn't simply manhandle the suspect, torturing him to find out why he was the focus of a riot. Still, he had to get to the bottom of the situation.

The commander decided to have the Jewish court investigate the cause of the riot. The reason was because Paul's offense seemed to entail some infraction of Jewish religious custom. The Jewish council seemed the appropriate body to look into the matter. Perhaps sufficient facts would emerge from such a hearing to enable him to either release Paul or hold him for a proper trial.

Lysias ordered the chief priests and the Sanhedrin to assemble for a hearing (22:30). As the ranking Roman official in Jerusalem, Lysias apparently could order the Sanhedrin to meet for such a reason. However, he would have no right to participate in its deliberations—he was just an observer. Meanwhile, Paul was unchained, but held over for the investigation. The next day, the Sanhedrin assembled and Paul was brought in to stand before his accusers (22:30).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

######

## Paul's Speech at the Sanhedrin  
Acts 23:1-10

### "In all good conscience" (Acts 23:1-2)

Luke dispensed with any introductory material in his narration of Paul's attempted defense before the Sanhedrin. He presented no charges or evidence, and what we have is but a brief summary of the occasion. The readers already know what sparked the riot and the Jews' original accusations (21:28). General charges will later be presented against Paul before Felix (24:5-7).

When Luke opened the scene, Paul was standing before the Sanhedrin, ready to make his defense. "My brothers," he said, "I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day..." (23:1). Paul was again maintaining he was still a good Jew, even though he had become a Christian. The idea of a "conscience" (Greek, _syneidesis_ ) is something that Paul alone of New Testament writers spoke about (Romans 2:15; 9:1; 13:5; 1 Corinthians 8:7, 10, 12; 10:25, 27-29; 2 Corinthians 1:12; 4:2; 5:11). For Paul, the "conscience" was the moral aspect of one's awareness and thinking. The aim of a Christian life was to live with a pure, good or clean conscience before God (1 Timothy 1:5, 19; 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3).

Apparently the high priest didn't agree that Paul had fulfilled his duty before God. (Perhaps he didn't appreciate Paul's pronouncing the divine name, especially in support of himself.) Whatever the reason, the high priest was so bothered by Paul's claim that he ordered those standing nearby to slap him on the mouth (23:2). The high priest in this case was Ananias. He had received his office from one of the Herods in about A.D. 47, and held his position for about 12 years. He was known for his greed. Josephus accused him of embezzling the tithes of the ordinary priests and for handing out lavish bribes ( _Antiquities_ 20:205-207, 213).

Ananias was hated by Jewish nationalists because of his pro-Roman policies. They burned his home in A.D. at the beginning of the Jewish-Roman war. Then, the nationalists hunted him down and he was killed along with his brother (Josephus, _Wars_ 2:426, 441-442, 448).

### "Whitewashed wall" (Acts 23:3)

Caught off guard, and stung by the command, Paul lashed back at the high priest, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!" he said. "You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" (23:3). Paul had not been tried and found guilty of any infraction of Jewish law. He hadn't even been officially charged with any infraction. For him to be struck as though he was guilty of a crime violated the very law the high priest claimed to uphold.

The phrase "whitewashed wall" referred to a person who was a hypocrite, as the high priest had shown himself to be. Ananias claimed to uphold the law but he was trampling all over Paul's rights according to that law. Compare this with Jesus' evaluation of the teachers of the law and Pharisees, whom he called "whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23:27-28).

Some commentators seem surprised by Paul's sharp reply. They note that it contradicts the spirit of Jesus' call to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) as well as Paul's own advice to bless when cursed (1 Corinthians 4:12). But the problem exists only if we think of Paul as some quasi-divine person who had achieved sinless perfection. That is not the way Paul spoke of himself (Romans 8:9-25). The simple answer is that Paul was a human being who sinned, as we all do. Paul was an emotional individual, a reactive person. This is not the only time Paul was guilty of saying something cutting and passionate (1 Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 2:11; 5:12; Philippians 3:2). Here he momentarily lost his composure. Though he spoke the truth about Ananias, it was probably not something he would have said under more ideal circumstances.

We should not forget that Jesus in a similar situation also protested the action of the high priest Annas, who had slapped him (John 18:21-23). (Luke was drawing a parallel between the two events.) Jesus also spoke out in biting terms against the corruption and hypocrisy of the Jewish teachers (Matthew 23:13-33).

### "Insult God's high priest?" (Acts 23:4-5)

Those standing next to Paul said, "How dare you insult God's high priest!" Paul said: "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written [in Exodus 22:28]: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people'" (23:5). It seems unusual that Paul should have failed to recognize the high priest. He presided at regular meetings of the Sanhedrin, and he should have been identifiable. The answer may be that this was not a regular meeting, and that someone else other than the high priest was presiding. Paul may not have known the high priest at the time by sight. He had been in Jerusalem only a few times in the past two decades or so. Meanwhile, the office had passed to another individual with whom he may not have been familiar (or whose appearance had changed over the years.

Another answer sometimes given is that Paul's eye condition caused him to have poor vision. A less convincing answer is that Paul was speaking ironically. That is, he would be saying, "I didn't think that the kind of person who would order me struck contrary to the law could be the high priest."

In any case, Paul quickly apologized. Even his apology showed that he continued to live by the principles of Torah and according to the law. Since the Scripture condemned speaking evil of the high priest, no matter what his character, Paul admitted that he had erred.

### Paul divides the Council (Acts 23:6)

Paul's speech had been cut short by the action of the high priest. He must have realized that it was pointless to make any further defense before a council headed by someone of the likes of Ananias. Instead of going on, Paul suddenly thought of a different strategy. He realized how he could pit the council against itself. Luke described Paul's tactic: "Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead'" (23:6).

Luke had already defined the Sadducees, one of the major Jewish sects of the time, as a group "who say there is no resurrection" (Luke 20:27). Josephus, who briefly described the three major groupings of the Judaism of the time—Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees—said the latter believed that the soul died with the body ( _Antiquities_ 18:16). Hence, there would be no resurrection. The Pharisees, however, believed in a resurrection (23:8). Josephus also attested to this. Those who "have lived virtuously" the Pharisees believed "shall have power to revive and live again" ( _Antiquities_ 18:14; _Wars_ 2:164-165). Many references in rabbinic writings also attest to their belief in the resurrection.

This is the first time Paul was identified in the book of Acts as being a member of the Pharisaic sect. He will again be so identified in 26:5. Paul also spoke of himself as a Pharisee in his epistle to the Philippians (3:5). We might think it strange that Paul, a Christian, would still speak of being a Pharisee. But like many other Christian Jews, he saw no contradiction in doing so. He even "boasted" of his background to the church because false apostles were comparing themselves to him (2 Corinthians 11:22). When it came to salvation, however, Paul saw no particular value in his Pharisaic background (Philippians 3:4-9).

A Christian Pharisee would have a different view of the role of Jewish institutions such as the law and temple. The most important thing that divided Christian and non-Christian Pharisee was whether to accept or reject Jesus as Messiah and Savior.

### Hope of resurrection (Acts 23:6)

Paul's appeal to the resurrection was more than just a hope in the raising of the dead as a general belief. There is no resurrection without Jesus, so the true hope is really one that is centered in him. The question for Paul, then, was whether Jesus had been raised. We see this interest in Jesus' resurrection at various places in Acts. It began with Peter's speech at Pentecost (2:24, 31-33) and was found in Paul's earliest preaching in Pisidian Antioch (13:30-35). For Paul, the resurrection of Christ was the basis of hope—and the good news—that Christians also would be raised to immortal life (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 12-20).

In a sense, Paul was the true Pharisee in terms of believing in a resurrection of the just. The ultimate ancestral hope of Israel was bound up with the resurrection of the dead, when rightly understood. But for Paul, the belief in the general resurrection was dependent on understanding and accepting that Jesus had been raised from the dead and glorified.

### A dispute broke out (Acts 23:7-10)

Paul kept this all in the background when he yelled out that he was on trial because of his hope in the resurrection. His immediate interest was not to preach about Christ (now obviously hopeless) but to divide the council, something he succeeded in doing. His tactic, apparently based on a sudden impulse, caused a dispute to break out between the Pharisees and Sadducees (23:7). The assembly was divided and there was "a great uproar" (23:9). Some of the Pharisees even began to defend Paul. They said, "We find nothing wrong with this man.... What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?" (23:9).

The Pharisees and Sadducees were not on the best of terms to begin with. The Sadducees had little public support, so they had to acquiesce to the Pharisees on many occasions. This gave some power to the Pharisees, although they were a minority on the Council. The Pharisees had more in common with the messianic Christians and might, on occasion, feel a degree of kinship with them. It was the Sadducean group, including the high priestly families, that seemed to form the most virulent opposition to the Christians.

On this occasion, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. The Pharisees may have suspected that the Sadducees were trying to discredit their position by trying Paul on beliefs they held. The Pharisees may also have surmised that Paul was not that bad a character, given his background in Torah. One might conclude that Luke was painting the Pharisees in a good light. But this is not necessarily so, as we saw in our discussion of Gamaliel. True enough, the Pharisees may have had some beliefs right, and might counsel a more moderate course. However, their response to Jesus as Savior was non-committal at best, as it had been earlier (5:34-39). They may have defended Paul, but they did not accept Jesus.

Paul was able to use the disagreements and differences in viewpoint between Sadducees and Pharisees to good advantage. The dispute between the two groups became so violent that Lysias, the commander, was fearful that his prisoner would be hurt. Lysias ordered a detachment of troops to take Paul from the council by force and bring him into the barracks (23:10). Paul was now taken into protective custody by the Roman authority. For the rest of Acts, for a period in excess of four years, Paul would remain a prisoner of the Romans.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

## Paul Taken to Caesarea (23:11-35)

###  "Testify in Rome" (Acts 23:11)

The situation must have seemed bleak to Paul. He had been warned over and over again that he would face dire troubles in Jerusalem. He had barely survived three attempts on his life in just a couple of days or so (21:31; 22:22; 23:10). That his life would end in Jerusalem must have seemed like a likely possibility. Jesus had spoken about a Jerusalem that killed the prophets and stoned those whom God had sent to its people (Matthew 23:37). Paul himself had seen and applauded the death of Stephen in this city. Now, it must have seemed that his turn to be killed had come.

But in one of the darkest nights of his life, Jesus appeared to Paul and said, "Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome" (23:11). As during other critical moments of Paul's ministry and life, God gave him special reassurance through a vision (9:4; 16:9; 18:9-10; 22:17; 27:23). Earlier, Paul had voiced his desire to visit Rome (19:21). The vision shows that Paul had Christ's approval in his desire to move the center of his preaching westward to Rome.

Now, Paul was certain that he would get to Rome after all. We as readers can breathe a sigh of relief. We know Paul will somehow escape this perilous situation, no matter how many twists and turns it may take.

### Plot on Paul's life (Acts 23:12-22)

A comforting vision in Corinth had been given to Paul just before the Jews made a united attack on him. The attempted persecution proved totally unsuccessful. Now, another vision that told Paul he would escape Jerusalem with his life came _just hours before_ conspirators hatched another plot to kill him.

In the morning following the vision, more than 40 fanatical Jews bound themselves with a solemn oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul (23:12). They went to the Sanhedrin asking it to petition the commander to bring Paul before the council on a pretext that it needed to gather more information about his case (23:15). The conspirators would lay in ambush and kill Paul as he was being transferred from the Antonia barracks to the place where the Sanhedrin was meeting. Jerusalem's narrow and winding streets would make the assassination easier.

Presumably, the chief priest was willing to go along with the plot, which shows something of his violent and evil character. He represented the epitome of the Jewish opposition, which was shown to be irrevocably antagonistic to Paul, and willing to use any means possible to "rid the earth of him" (22:22). Since Paul preached Christ, the chief priest had shown himself to be against the very Savior that his religion's holy writings had spoken of.

Luke skillfully juxtaposed God's promise with the conspirator's desperate plot. There is an element of humor in Luke's telling of what was a very serious story. The conspirators had such high hopes for finally doing away with Paul and had devised what they thought was a brilliant plot. But God had already worked out events so that Paul would escape. The plotters still had no idea that their scheme would fail, but we the readers do.

As it happened, Paul's nephew heard about the plot. He went to the Antonia barracks and told Paul about it (23:16). We don't know how Paul's nephew learned about the conspiracy, especially since we know nothing about him personally. Perhaps he or a member of his family was connected to the Sanhedrin or others who may have known about the plot. The fact that Paul's nephew was allowed access to the fortress, and to speak with Paul, argues that the family had some influence in Jerusalem. In any case, Paul's nephew was risking his own safety in going to see him.

After Paul heard about the plot, he called a centurion, asking him to take his nephew to the commander with the story. Paul's nephew then told the commander of the plot to kill Paul (23:20-21). The commander dismissed the young man, cautioning him not to tell anyone what he had reported (23:22). The commander immediately began preparations to transfer Paul under guard to Caesarea. Thus, the Jewish plot failed.

We may wonder what happened to the 40 men who had vowed not to eat or drink until they killed Paul. Rabbinic custom would allow such vow-takers an escape clause. The rabbis provided relief from vows that were "broken under constraint." The example given in the Mishnah is that of a person who imposed a vow on a friend to eat with him. However, the friend became sick or he couldn't cross an overflowed river. Such unforeseen "constraints" freed him of the vow ( _Nedarim_ 3.1, 3). In short, if circumstances prevented one from fulfilling a vow, then he or she was absolved from it. In this case, the plotters couldn't get at Paul because he was protected by the military and sent away. Thus, they were excused from their vow not to eat or drink.

## Paul at Caesarea  
Acts 23:23-26:32

### Transfer to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-24)

The commander could not risk having a prominent Roman citizen assassinated while in his custody. He at once took steps to transfer Paul to Caesarea, the capital of the province of Judea. He called two centurions and commanded them to organize a detachment of 200 foot soldiers, 70 cavalry troops and another 200 heavily armed soldiers (spearmen) to escort Paul to Caesarea Maritima, about 60 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Paul and the contingent were to leave under the cover of darkness, at 9 p.m. that very night. "Horses" (in the plural) were to be provided for Paul (23:24). This probably referred to a horse for Paul to ride and another one for his baggage. Some make the intriguing suggestion that the plural meant that some of his friends, like Luke, were going to Caesarea with Paul.

If the commander had 1,000 troops under his authority, he was committing almost half the Jerusalem garrison to escort Paul. This may seem "a ridiculously large escort for a single prisoner" (I. Howard Marshall, _Acts,_ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, page 369). Perhaps the soldiers needed to go to Caesarea anyway. However, since the Greek word for "spearman" translates an otherwise unknown Greek word, some scholars suggest that they were in reality horses. But this is merely a conjecture.

Whether there were 270 or 470 soldiers in the detachment, Lysias was not taking any chances of having his prisoner murdered by a group of fanatics. Meanwhile, the plotters were still waiting for word that Lysias had granted the Sanhedrin's wish to question Paul again.

### "He wrote a letter" (Acts 23:25-30)

Lysias wrote a letter about the prisoner to Felix, governor of the province of Judea. The centurions were to take the letter to Caesarea with Paul. We may not have a word-for-word copy of the letter. It would have been difficult, at least under ordinary circumstances, for Luke to have seen a copy of what was a "top secret" piece of official correspondence. The letter almost certainly was written in Latin. David Williams writes, "Its realistic style makes it possible that Luke had seen it [the letter about Paul] or at least heard it read, perhaps in open court before Felix. Or a copy may have been given to Paul as part of the documentation for his appeal to Caesar. It bears the impress of what a Roman officer might have said" ( _Acts,_ New International Biblical Commentary, page 391).

### His Excellency, Felix (Acts 23:26)

This is an opportune time to introduce the procurator who will be hearing Paul's case. Lysias addressed Felix as "Excellency" (Greek, _kratistos_ ). It was a polite address, used as a title of honor for important officials in the Roman government. The same title was applied to the recipient of Acts, Theophilus (Luke 1:3). The orator Tertullus also addressed Felix with a similar title (24:2), and so did Paul of Festus (26:25).

Antonius Felix was born a slave and freed by Antonia, the mother of the emperor Claudius. He was the first ex-slave in Roman history to become governor of a province. According to Josephus, Felix was appointed governor by the emperor Claudius, succeeding Ventidius Cumanus ( _Antiquities_ 20:137; _Wars_ 2:247-249). This occurred about A.D. 52. However, another writer, Tacitus, had Felix as the governor of Samaria and Judea during the time of Cumanus, who he said was procurator of Galilee ( _Annals_ 12.54). Most commentators follow Josephus. It is thought that Felix may have been appointed to a post in Samaria under the governor Cumanus, around A.D. 48. The fact that Paul said he was "for a number of years" in Judea lends support to this idea.

The office of governor was usually reserved for individuals of the Roman equestrian order (ranked below that of the senatorial order). It is thought that Felix must have obtained his post through intrigue. His brother Pallas had great influence at Rome, and he may have had something to do with his brother's rise to power (Josephus, _Antiquities_ 20:182). Felix was not well spoken of by the ancient writers. Tacitus said he "played the tyrant with the spirit of a slave" ( _Histories_ 5.9). F.F. Bruce gives us a spirited translation: "He exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave" ( _The Book of Acts,_ page 437). In his _Annals_ (12.54), Tacitus said Felix "believed himself free to commit any crime." Josephus concurred with this view. He portrayed Felix as an incompetent administrator who used excessive violence and allowed citizens to be plundered. Under his governorship Jewish violence reached new heights (Josephus, _Wars_ 2:253-270; _Antiquities_ 20:177, 182).

Felix was the governor of Judea from A.D. 52 to A.D. 58 or 59. He was then recalled to Rome by Nero and replaced by Porcius Festus (24:27). We can fix the date of Paul's imprisonment for two years in Caesarea with some degree of certainty because it occurred during the governor's last two years of rule (24:27). It is under the governorship of Felix that a fateful turning point was reached in the affairs of Judea. Violence in the province escalated and got so out of control that it ultimately led to the Jewish-Roman War of A.D. 66-70.

Of conditions in Judea during Felix's governorship, Josephus wrote: "All Judea was filled with the effects of their madness [the insurrectionists]. And thus the flame was every day more and more blown up, till it came to a direct war" ( _Wars_ 2:265). These facts serve as a useful background for Paul's visit to Jerusalem and his two-year imprisonment in Caesarea. The political situation in Judea was so unstable that the Roman governors had to be careful not to alienate their constituencies.

Paul became a hot political potato. If either governors Felix or his successor were to simply free Paul, the Jews may have caused a massive disturbance. What to do with Paul (who was obviously guilty of no crime) must have been a political headache for the governors. As we shall see, Paul provided the governor Festus with a way out by appealing to Rome. The solution was to send him out of the province.

### Contents of letter (Acts 23:27-30)

Lysias' letter to Felix summarized the events, from the riot at the temple to the discovery of a plot against Paul's life. He began his letter by putting a favorable spin on the situation. Lysias wrote as though he had learned Paul was a Roman citizen at the time the Jews first assaulted him. He described his intervention as a "rescuing" of Paul (23:27). Lysias then explained how he brought Paul before the Sanhedrin to discover what the ruckus was about only to find that "the accusation had to do with questions about their law" (23:29). Lysias carefully forgot to mention that he originally assumed Paul to be an insurrectionist. Neither did he mention that he was about to illegally flog a Roman citizen, and that he was saved from the dire consequences of doing so only by Paul's last-minute protest.

Of most interest is that Lysias admitted in the letter that "there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment" (23:29). In essence, Lysias was saying that Paul was innocent so far as Roman law was concerned. The Jewish charges against Paul—that he had brought Greeks into the temple—had disappeared (21:28). There was no proof that Paul had brought any Gentiles into the forbidden area of the temple. The charge that he teaches "against our people and our law and this place" was one of those "questions about their law." It held no interest to the Romans, as it wasn't a criminal matter. The entire vignette—including the riot, the attempts to kill Paul, and the Roman rescue—dramatically contrasts the attitude of the Jewish leaders toward Paul with the Roman military's view of him.

Luke was telling his readers that Paul could defend himself and do his work only if he is protected by the Roman military and political authorities. Luke again made it clear that the real enemies and problem-makers were the Jews. Christians had no difficulty with the established authority during these years.

### To Caesarea (Acts 23:31-33)

Paul and his military escort left Jerusalem by night and traveled as far as Antipatris, reaching it the next morning. Antipatris was about 35 miles (56 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem, and 10 miles northeast of Joppa. The town, on the border of Judea and Samaria, served as a military way station. Herod the Great had built the city in honor of his father Antipater, hence its name. The second leg of the journey to Caesarea took place the next day. Paul and his escorts traveled from Antipatris to Caesarea, a distance of about 25 miles (40 kilometers) or so along the road that connected the two cities to Jerusalem.

Caesarea, or more precisely Caesarea Maritima, was a major seaport about 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of present Tel Aviv and almost 30 miles south of Haifa, both of which are also on the Mediterranean coast. Herod the Great built Caesarea over a 12-year period on the site of Strato's Tower, beginning in 22 B.C. He made the new city into a major international port, in the style of a Roman provincial capital. He named Caesarea for his imperial patron Augustus Caesar. Josephus gave a detailed description of Herod's work ( _Antiquities_ 15:331-341).

After Herod the Great died, Judea became a province of the Roman Empire, ruled by Roman prefects who lived in the new capital city, Caesarea. The seat of Roman government for the province of Judaea was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. Caesarea's great harbor complex would rival Alexandria's port as the great emporium of the eastern Mediterranean. It became a major transhipment point on the busy maritime trade routes leading to Rome from the east.

Caesarea became a great Greco-Roman urban center as well, with pagan temples, a theater, hippodrome or circus, and amphitheater. The city had elaborate sewer and water systems as well as paved streets. Today, the ruins of the Roman theater built by Herod greets the person reaching Caesarea from the present-day Route 2. The revitalized ancient theater can hold 2,500 people, but probably had twice that capacity in ancient times. Caesarea's theater has become the most famous in Israel. Performances ranging from rock to opera are given in the spring and summer.

A mounted plaque greets the tourist just inside the gate of the theater complex. This is a replica of an inscription found here during the excavations of 1959-63 (the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem). Although the plaque is partly destroyed, tourists can clearly read the words "TIBERIVM," a reference to Emperor Tiberius) and "...TIVS PILATUS," referring to Pontius Pilate. This is the only archeological evidence of Pilate, the Roman governor during the time of Jesus.

The city figured prominently in the early church. Philip first brought Christianity to this city from Jerusalem (8:4-10). Peter baptized the Cornelius the centurion here as well (10:3-48). Paul was spirited away by the church to Tarsus from Caesarea's harbor (9:29-30). He later passed through the city on several of his journeys (18:22; 21:8-16). He also returned to Jerusalem via Caesarea on his ill-fated trip, staying at the home of Philip the evangelist (21:8). Agabus the prophet came here to warn Paul of impending troubles in Jerusalem (21:10).

### "From what province?" (Acts 23:34-35)

When Paul arrived in Caesarea, the leader of the military detachment delivered the letter to Felix and handed Paul over to him. Felix read the letter and interrogated Paul. He asked what province he was from (23:34). Felix asked this question because it was diplomatically polite to consult with the client king or ruler, if any were involved, on such matters. Since Paul had come from a Roman province, Felix apparently felt comfortable to try the case without any further consultation. As the "crime" was committed in Judea, he had proper jurisdiction in the matter.

A similar situation had come up during Jesus' trial. When Pontius Pilate, then governor of Judea, heard that Jesus was from Galilee, he referred his case to Herod Antipas, the local ruler of the territory. But Antipas declined to get involved in the heated issue (Luke 23:6-12).

In this case, Felix told Paul he would hear his case when his accusers came down from Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Paul was retained under guard in Herod's palace.

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

##   
About the Author

**Paul Kroll** worked for Grace Communion International for many years, writing hundreds of articles for our magazines. He is now retired. He wrote this material in the mid 1990s. We have updated it with the latest version of the NIV for this e-book in 2012.

The book was edited by Michael Morrison, who received a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary in 2006. He is Dean of Faculty and instructor in New Testament for Grace Communion Seminary.

### Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments in a video blog each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

### You're Included...

Dr. J. Michael Feazell talks to leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

C. Baxter Kruger, Perichoresis

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## About the Publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most—Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches,  
addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

www.gci.org

Grace Communion International

3120 Whitehall Park Drive

Charlotte, NC 28273

800-423-4444

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

##

### Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

##### • Worship: to love God with all your mind.

##### • Service: to help others apply truth to life.

##### • Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

##### • Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

##### • Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

##### • Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

##### • Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

