When we come to the Book of Acts we are looking at the second volume of an original work that was made up of Luke and Acts. Somewhere in the early Second Century, the four canonical gospels were gathered together into a single collection and were circulated independently as the fourfold gospel. The second book was then given the name “The Acts of the Apostles” and was circulated separately. [1] By long-standing tradition and abundant historical witness, the author of Acts, and what came to be the Gospel of Luke, is none other than Luke himself. [2] We know that Luke was a Gentile (cf. Col. 4:10, compared to 12-14). [3] We also know he was a physician (Col. 4:14) and an educated person, as his superb writing clearly illustrates. He was in fact the only Gentile writer in the New Testament. Luke, who was probably from Antioch, began to work closely with the apostle Paul. This close connection is illustrated by the so-called “We Sections” of Acts (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5 – 21:18; 27:1 – 28:16). In these sections the narrative is in first person plural form indicating that Luke was present and was an eyewitness. [4] Luke addresses both of his works to one Theophilus, who seemed to be either a Gentile convert to Christianity or one who was greatly interested in the faith. The title “most excellent” (Lk. 1:3) seems to indicate that he was a person of distinction. Later in Acts, this title is accorded to the Roman governors of Judea (Acts 23:26; 26:25). [5] The clear purpose of both books was to present an accurate account of the things that had transpired concerning the life and ministry of Jesus before he was taken up to heaven (Luke) and his work afterward (Acts). It is evident that Luke had conducted a careful examination of these events (Lk. 1:3) so that he could write an orderly account for Theophilus. [6] In Acts, Luke’s purpose is not just to write an account detailing the expansion of the Christian church. “In other words, Luke is telling a story, not writing a ‘history.’ His story is that of the main outlines of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome via Samaria, Antioch, Asia, and Europe.” [7] We notice that he does not tell of the church’s expansion in Galilee, Egypt, in North Africa, Mesopotamia and other places. His purpose is to show how Christianity reached Rome, the capital of the known world. The Bible specialists Kenneth Barker and John Kohlenberger III say, “The gospel had reached its culmination when it reached Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. And with that victory accomplished, Luke felt free to lay down his pen.” [8] We do not know where Theophilus lived, so we do not know to which city Acts was originally directed. There has been a great deal of discussion as to when Luke/Acts was written, and from what place it was written. Some feel that Luke had access to Mark’s gospel. It is interesting that both Mark and Luke were closely connected to Paul in Rome, during his imprisonment and his last days (Col. 4:10, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phile. 1:24). It is certainly not unthinkable that it was written from Rome, and likely before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. We see nothing about this terrible event in either book. While a number of commentators choose this date and dates afterward, it seems more likely that both Luke and Acts were written before the persecution of Nero began in the summer of AD 64. [9] Mark also seems to have been written around this turbulent time. Some have called this book the Acts of the Holy Spirit. While this is not a complete title, we can know from it that the history of Acts did not end with the 28th chapter, but rather, it continues on today in the present work of the church. In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach. Acts 1:1 Here Luke is referring back to his gospel account which we call “The Gospel of Luke.” We remember that he addressed that account also to Theophilus. This man may have been a Christian already, or he may have been studying about Christianity (cf. Lk. 1:4). The name Theophilus can be translated in several ways. It can mean “God lover,” “friend of God,” or “loved by God.” [1] In his ministry on earth Jesus began something: He “began to do and to teach.” That was only the beginning as it was recorded in the first volume of Luke’s work. His disciples, through the power of the Holy Spirit, will now continue to do and teach just as their Master had done. Jesus did what so many teachers today fail to do. He did things and then he taught about them. The Venerable Bede (c. 672-735) says of this: “First ‘do’ and then ‘teach,’ because Jesus, establishing the pattern of a good teacher, taught nothing except those things which he did.” [2] Jesus began something, but his followers must continue what he began. Charles H. Roberson liked to tell the story about how the great Handel bowed his head after finishing the Messiah, and said, “It is finished.” Roberson says, “Only the score was finished. All would have gone for naught unless other hands and voices should take it up and sing it!” [3] So Luke tells what Jesus began, while Acts tells of what he continued to do through his disciples. The Scottish great William Barclay says, “Acts is the second volume of a story which has no end.” [4] Jesus continued to do and teach “until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen” (1:2). His ascension to heaven was a very important event and will be covered fully in verse 9. In the meantime he spent much effort in giving additional instructions to his disciples. It is clear in Luke 24:45, and in John 20:22, that Jesus ministered the Holy Spirit to his disciples prior to his ascension into heaven. He breathed on them that they might receive the Spirit and he opened the eyes of their understanding. [5] “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (1:3). Jesus gave many proofs over a forty day period in order to give certain assurance of his resurrection and to give further important teaching about the kingdom of God. [6] The forty day period took place immediately after the resurrection and during the period known as the “Counting of the Omer” in Israel’s tradition (Lev. 23:9-16). This was always a period of anticipation as Israel awaited the grain harvest. Thus, Jesus continued appearing to his disciples for all but about ten days of the fifty days between Passover and Pentecost. There were obviously numerous appearances and they were to believers only. These appearances were to Mary Magdalene and the other women who were at the grave (Matt. 28:9-10; Jn. 20:14-18). Then he appeared to the Emmaus disciples, (Lk. 24:15ff.); to Simon Peter, (Lk. 24:34); to ten apostles and others (Lk. 24:36; Jn. 20:19); to the eleven disciples (Jn. 20:26); to the seven apostles in Galilee (Jn. 21:4); to James and then to 500 followers at one time (1 Cor. 15:6-7); and to the assembly of disciples on the Day of Ascension (Lk. 24:50). [7] Jesus’ resurrection was certainly no private matter. Years later, Paul could speak of the 500 people at one time who saw Jesus resurrected, and how most of those people were still living. So obviously, hundreds of people saw the resurrected Christ. During the forty days Jesus continued to teach his disciples about the kingdom of God. This was the core of his teaching during his three or so years of ministry and it was a subject of vital importance. Today we are handicapped when we think on the subject of the kingdom. There are no kings in our western democracies, although some try to act like kings. Biblical people were quite used to the idea because kings had always ruled over them. When we think of kings and kingdoms today we also think of land areas and boundaries. However, in God’s kingdom there is no territory and there are no fixed boundaries. One writer has termed kingdom (Gk. basileia) as the “kingly rule” that God has over his people. [8] This kingly rule encompasses earth and heaven. This rule is invisible and one must be born again to perceive this kingdom and to enter it (Jn. 3:5-6). It is truly amazing today that in the Christian world very little is said about the kingdom of God. This is strange when we consider it was the core of Jesus’ message during his ministry and during the forty days after his resurrection. It was often mentioned in Paul’s preaching as well (cf. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Gal. 5:21; 2 Thess. 1:5). In the end it appears in Revelation 12:10. “On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ‘Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about” (1:4). This at first seems so casual, but when we reflect a little it becomes an astounding statement. Jesus apparently ate with the disciples on several occasions after his resurrection (Lk. 24:42-43; Acts 10:41). Now, most surely, Jesus in his resurrected body did not need to eat food. Yet, the resurrected body apparently still has the capacity to eat and enjoy food. After all, the resurrected and glorified members of the Lord’s great church will all dine together with Christ at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). The sixth century Christian poet Arator said: “What proof [of his real humanity] could the Risen One give so surely as the fact of eating: Human bodies show that they live by this means.” [9] The disciples were sternly instructed not to leave Jerusalem. That is where the Spirit would be poured out shortly and they were not to miss it. Also, we must remember that Jerusalem is the redemptive hub of the whole world. The Holy Spirit would be given in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:49) and the gospel would flow from Jerusalem to the rest of the world. It is said in Psalm 50:2, “From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth.” Also Isaiah 2:3 says, “…The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” In Modern and Postmodern Christianity we are often in a fizz to get things done for the Lord. In his business we need to learn how to wait— how to be still. It is those who wait upon the Lord who renew their strength (Isa. 40:31). [10] “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (1:5). John the Baptist bore witness to this very truth. He said, “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11). The baptism of the Holy Spirit has become a very controversial subject for the churches of our day. Some accept it while others fear it as they would a plague. Much of this confusion has probably come about by certain false teachings that arose in the Charismatic world. In opposition to the clear teaching of scripture, some prided themselves in having “the baptism” and looked down upon others who had not experienced it. This was tragic. It is rather surprising when we search the New Testament for the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” that we find only seven clear references to the event. These verses are Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16; and 1 Corinthians 12:13. The interesting thing about these references is that all but one speak of the same thing, of a coming, one-time, historical event. The one that does not speak of this, 1 Corinthians 12:13, seems to be looking back and commenting on this one-time event. It should be pointed out that the historical event appears to have been extended in three distinct and separate stages, to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. [11] This information should help us see that the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” may not be the best expression to describe the Holy Spirit’s coming and work today. It leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion between the one-time historical event and the subsequent work of the Spirit. Much better terminology would probably be the “filling of the Holy Spirit” as we see in Ephesians 5:18, or the common expression “Spirit filled.” While being filled with the Spirit can describe our initial Holy Spirit experience, as in the case of Paul (Acts 9:17), it can also describe a common and continuing experience that happens to the Lord’s followers (Acts 4:8; 4:31; 13:9; &13:52). We know from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is an absolute necessity in the Christian life. In Romans 8:9 we read: “…And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” Also, as we look carefully at Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus in John 3:5-7, we see that the Holy Spirit must accompany the new birth. The Christian life cannot be lived without the Holy Spirit’s presence within. God’s Spirit is necessary for our worship (Jn. 4:24), for our walk (Gal. 5:16), for the exercise of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:27-31), and for the production of spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:22-26). Clearly, the Holy Spirit is given to us at our conversion and from that point we can and should choose to be filled with the Spirit. There is no scriptural justification for some sort of “second blessing” after salvation. Other commentators have remarked about this. Texas professor Bob Utley says, “I believe there is only one initial spiritual baptism into Christ in which believers identify with Jesus’ death and resurrection…” [12] Pastor and evangelist Ray Stedman says, “The Holy Spirit is given now, immediately when anyone believes in Jesus. There is no sign, no feeling, no emotional indication of it. It occurs, as Jesus said it would, when any believe on him…is this not ritual but reality; it is also not a program, but power.” [13] Web commentator David Guzik says, “It may be more useful to describe the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a condition than as an experience…” [14] The baptism of the Holy Spirit was to come quickly, actually it was less than ten days away from those early disciples. The word for baptize is the future passive of the Greek baptizo and it means to dip, immerse or sink into water. [15] It is used in the Bible as a symbol of cleansing. The Christian father Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century) compares natural with spiritual baptism saying: “The water, however, flows round the outside only, but the Spirit baptizes also the soul within, and that completely.” [16] In early Christian times the coming of the Spirit was often associated with one’s baptism, which happened immediately. Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6 We notice here that Jesus does not rebuke them for having the idea that the kingdom would be restored. He just tells them that their timing is off. At that moment they needed to concentrate on receiving the Holy Spirit and on becoming witnesses to the whole world. The Bible is clear that the kingdom certainly will be restored to Israel in God’s time. Every good promise made to Israel in the Old Testament will come to pass during the Millennial Age. God would not let the disciples fully know the program but he would let them fully have the power. “… Christ’s mission was not to bring the kingdom in earthly splendor but to bring it in spiritual power.” [17] “He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority” (1:7). Throughout their three years or so with the Master, the disciples had continually misunderstood the kingdom and its coming. They had always pictured it as a natural thing wherein Jesus would overcome the Romans and hand the natural kingdom back to Israel. On one occasion, we even see James and John secretly asking for positions of authority with Jesus in this natural kingdom (cf. Mk. 10:35-45; Lk. 22:24-27). It is possible that after the resurrection of Jesus their minds were somewhat clearer, but it is obvious that they were still befuddled to a degree. “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). This is a power verse that many Christians are prone to memorize and keep handy and that is good. Originally, Israel was to be God’s witness (Isa. 43:10). The nation was to be a light for the Gentiles (Isa. 42:6). However, Israel became a dismal failure in this respect. Now, the Servant Messiah will help Israel to at last become a light to the nations (Isa. 49:6). That witness will come through the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit. Barker and Kohlenberger state: “The mandate to witness stands as the theme for the whole of Acts…it is his final and conclusive word to his disciples before his ascension…the mission; and a program that begins at Jerusalem (cf. 2:42 – 8:3), moves out to ‘all Judea and Samaria’ (cf. 8:4 – 12:24), and progresses until it finally reaches the imperial capital city of Rome (12:25 – 28:31).” [18] Indeed, several commentators see this as a short and concise outline of the Book of Acts. In this book we observe how Peter and the others did a thorough work in Jerusalem until the time that James was put to death. During that time Philip introduced the gospel to Samaria with a great revival. After about eight years, first Peter and then Paul began to take the gospel to the Gentiles. [19] That story continues to this day. God’s great plan was always to include the nations as Psalm 72:8 declares: “May he rule from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. Acts 1:9 In Luke’s first volume he tells us how Jesus led the disciples out to the vicinity of Bethany. There he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While in the act of blessing them he was taken up to heaven. They worshipped him and then returned with joy to Jerusalem (Lk. 24:50-52). The place of Jesus’ ascension was on the Mount of Olives just east of the Old City of Jerusalem (v. 12). “Five times in this extremely brief account it stresses that the ascension took place visibly.” [20] We can understand how Jesus could now bestow great power on his disciples. Psalm 68:18 says, “When you ascended on high, you took many captives; you received gifts from people, even from the rebellious—that you, LORD God, might dwell there” (cf. Eph. 4:8). The ascension of Christ was a glorious event but it speaks of an even more glorious event, his coming again. The ascension let the disciples know that Jesus was physically gone from this earth. He had returned to his pre-incarnation glory in heaven. Barclay says, “…There would have been something quite wrong if the resurrection appearances had just simply petered out…” [21] The grand and glorious Incarnation of Jesus the Son of God on earth had come to an end. We are told here that a cloud hid the Master from their eyes. Having lived in Israel many years I can attest that at the Pentecost season the weather is almost perfect and there is hardly a cloud in the sky. Yet, this cloud appeared and received the Lord Jesus. Several commentators feel that this cloud represents the shekinah glory of God. [22] The disciples were not to think that Jesus was gone for good. By the fact that he had left the earth he was now able to send the Holy Spirit to be with them forever (Jn. 16:7). “They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them” (1:10). The disciples were obviously straining hard trying to see Jesus as long as possible when suddenly two angels stood beside them. These men were clothed in dazzling garments as is often seen with angel appearances in the Bible (e.g. Matt. 28:3; Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:12). “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’” (1:11). The angels called the disciples “men of Galilee.” Several times in Acts we are told of the Galilee origins of the disciples (2:7; 13:31). From what we know, all the disciples were actually from Galilee with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, who had now passed from the scene. [23] The angels asked why the disciples were staring into the sky. There was now a lot of work to be done. English pastor, lecturer and Bible commentator, John Stott, says: “the apostles committed two opposite errors…First, they were hoping for political power (the restoration of the kingdom to Israel). Secondly, they were gazing up into the sky (preoccupied with the heavenly Jesus). Both were false fantasies.” [24] Stott says further: “There was something fundamentally anomalous about their gazing up into the sky when they had been commissioned to go to the ends of the earth. It was the earth not the sky which was to be their preoccupation…Curiosity about heaven and its occupants, speculation about prophecy and its fulfilment, an obsession with ‘times and seasons’ – these are aberrations which distract us from our God-given mission.” [25] The shining angels made a great promise to the bewildered disciples. They said that just as Jesus has gone he would likewise return. The ascension has many lessons for us. Guzik says, “He left physically and will so come in like manner… He left visibly and will so come in like manner… He left from the Mount of Olives and will so come in like manner… He left in the presence of his disciples and will so come in like manner… He left blessing his church and will so come in like manner.” [26] Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. Acts 1:12 The disciples returned from the Mount of Olives to the city of Jerusalem. This was about a Sabbath day’s walk or the distance of approximately one kilometer or three-fourths of a mile (2000 cubits). This was the distance the rabbis had determined that a person could walk on the Sabbath day without breaking the law (cf. Exod. 16:29; Num. 35: 5). [27] It was quite a climb because the Mount of Olives towered over the Old City and Temple Mount by some 300 feet (90 meters). “When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James” (1:13). There is a long-standing tradition that the Christians were located in the upper city of Jerusalem near the newly discovered Essene Gate, or generally in the area of what is called Mount Zion today. They assembled there in the upper room (Gk. huperōion). Such upper rooms were built on the flat roofs of large oriental houses. The room could also be a large third story where gatherings could take place or where prayer meetings could be held. This could have been the same upper room mentioned in Mark 14:15 and Luke 22:13. [28] The traditional Upper Room (Cenacle) today can be seen in this same area of the city, although the structure itself is probably not original. The noted Scottish commentator F. F. Bruce says, “It is an attractive speculation that the house which contained this upper room was the house of Mary, mother of John Mark…but this is even less demonstrable.” [29] Luke gives us a listing of the disciples of the Lord. The commentator James Burton Coffman says of them: “These men, in one sense, are the most important men who ever lived…they are fully worthy of the honor God has reserved for them in the inscription of their names upon the foundations of the Eternal City (Rev. 21:14).” [30] Listings of the disciples are found in all four gospels, with the list clearly detailed in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:13-19; Lk. 6:14-16). We note that in every listing Simon, who was renamed Peter, is always in first place and Judas is always listed last. Of course, this is not the case here in Acts since Judas was already dead. Simon also had the name of Cephas (Aram. kepha) meaning a rock (Jn. 1:42). [31] This name when translated into Greek became petros, also meaning a small rock. We know from many scriptures that Peter, James and John made up the important inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. The disciples seem to be listed in groups of four, with Peter heading the first group, Philip heading the second group and James the Son of Alphaeus heading the third group. The first two groups of four remain stable in all the listings. It is only in the last grouping that there are some seeming differences. Thaddeus who appears in Mark’s listing does not appear in Luke’s listing or here in Acts. Instead we have Judas son of James mentioned. It is thought that the two were one and the same. [32] Simon the Cananean (his name meaning “zealous”) mentioned in Mark and in Matthew shows up as Simon the Zealot here and in Luke 6:15. There are a number of interesting things about the disciples or apostles. Simon the Cananean or Simon the Zealot was probably a former member of the Zealot group. The center for this movement, which advocated violent opposition to Rome, was at Gamla, a city just up the Golan Heights not too far from Bethsaida. Later this city was totally destroyed in the Roman war. Judas Iscariot (man of Kerioth) may have been from a city of this name in southern Judea. If so, he would have been the only one of the disciples who was not a Galilean. [33] Thomas apparently had the Hebrew name of Didymus or “twin” (cf. John 11:16). In Mark’s gospel we see Matthew called by that name and also by Levi. Bartholomew here is called Nathanael in John 21:2. Judas here is called “Thaddaeus” or “Lebbeus” in other places (cf. Matt. 10:3 KJV; Lk. 6:16; Jn. 14:22). [34] The listings of the apostles can be a little tricky. There were two Simons, two Jamses and two Judases, along with several variations of names. We might wonder why they were listed in groups of fours. Utley thinks this might have been the case so that the men could alternate from time to time as they checked in on their families. [35] “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (1:14). Donald Guthrie of London Bible College feels that in the first five chapters of Acts “we have a series of pictures of the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem.” [36] This is undoubtedly one of those pictures. It is unfortunate that the NIV leaves out the idea of “one mind,” “one heart,” or “one accord” as seen in other translations of this verse. The Greek word is homothumadon and it means being of the same mind or spirit. Eleven of the twelve appearances of this word in the New Testament are found in the Book of Acts. [37] The word is obviously a favorite of Luke. This word presents a picture of the beautiful and precious unity that existed in early Christianity. Another Greek word translated “constantly” here is proskarterountes. The idea behind this word is to be strong, steadfast, or to stick to the matter of prayer. [38] Others speak of it as being intently engaged in prayer. In our modern and postmodern churches we could take some lessons from this example. We notice that this special group included the women who were followers of Jesus, along with Mary his mother. Also included at last were the brothers of Jesus. Many of these women had probably followed Jesus from Galilee (Matt. 27:55; Lk. 8:2-3; 23:49; 24:10). They no doubt included Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Susanna and others. The Lutheran commentator Paul Kretzmann says of the mother of Jesus: “… Mary was undoubtedly regarded with great respect by the apostles, but there is no indication of the idolatrous homage which was later paid to her in various churches.” [39] Bruce notes that this is the last occasion that Jesus’ mother Mary appears in New Testament history. [40] Here for the first time, the brothers of Jesus are included. Of course, these were really the half-brothers of Jesus, since he was born of the Holy Spirit. As we might remember, the brothers of Jesus did not join or support his ministry while on earth. From Mark 6:3, we know their names as James, Joseph, Judas and Simon. It may be that the Lord’s special post-resurrection appearance to James (1 Cor. 15:7) caused the other brothers to join in. James went on to become the leader of the Jerusalem church. Bruce remarks, “‘The brothers of the Lord’ continued to form a distinct group in the church well into the apostolic age (1 Cor. 9:5).” [41] Stott comments upon these intense prayer meetings: “It was a healthy combination: continuous praise in the temple, and continuous prayer in the home…” [42] In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” Acts 1:15-17 After his terrible fall and later reinstatement by Jesus, we see Peter taking his rightful place of leadership. He was now a man full of the Spirit as we shall note shortly from his preaching in chapter 2. The risen Christ had breathed upon him (Jn. 20:22) and now he was filled with the wisdom and power of God. We see here that there were about 120 believers in the group. This obviously did not count the hundreds of believers in other places, such as in Galilee. Peter addresses them regarding Judas Iscariot who betrayed the Lord and fell from his position of discipleship. The English Baptist commentator Peter Pett says of this meeting: “Luke devotes eleven verses of valuable space to describing the details of the incident, and providing the information that supported it. He would surely not have done so if he had not seen it as an important and valid decision…Nowhere is this decision ever later criticized.” [43] Barker and Kohlenberger comment on the significance of this meeting saying: “A twelvefold apostolic witness was required if early Jewish Christianity was to represent itself to the Jewish nation as the culmination of Israel’s hope and the true people of Israel’s Messiah…” [44] Without a replacement for Judas, the Twelve-fold apostleship of Jesus would have been weakened. The symbolism of the Twelve sitting on thrones and ruling with God would have been hindered (Lk. 22:29-30). Also, the picture of the Twelve becoming foundation stones for the New Jerusalem would have become marred (Rev. 21:14). We realize here that Peter greatly valued and honored the scripture. In the following verses he will quote from the ancient word of God to substantiate his actions. Peter continues to describe the fate of Judas saying: “(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)” (1:18-19). At first sight this passage is very difficult to reconcile with Matthew 27:3-10. It is often considered one of the most difficult contradictions in the New Testament. [45] Here we are told that Judas bought a plot, but in Matthew 27:7, it appears that the Jewish chief priests and elders bought the plot. This difficulty can be resolved when we consider the matter of agency. Here Stott quotes Eddersheim who wrote, “by a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’ and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” [46] Judas was so smitten with remorse that he returned the money he had received for betraying Jesus. The priests and elders could not put this money into the treasury because it was “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). Therefore in the name of Judas they bought the field. The next problem with this passage is the manner in which Judas died. In Matthew 27:5, we are told that Judas went and hanged himself. Here in Acts we see that he fell headlong and his body burst open with his intestines spilling out. New Testament research professor, Howard Marshall suggests that Judas did indeed hang himself but after his body had begun to decompose the rope likely broke and he fell causing his body to burst open. [47] In any case, it must have been a gruesome sight. The story of the Potter’s Field as a place for burying strangers still rings true in the 21st Century. It is still difficult for strangers (non-Jewish), or particularly evangelical Christians, to find a burial place in the City of Jerusalem. There is a small historic burial ground on Mt. Zion where several famous Christians who loved Israel are buried. There is another plot on Emek Refaim Street administered by the Alliance Church, and another tiny plot in the southern outskirts of the Gilo suburbs. The two larger cemeteries are mostly full and closed to any new burials. So, the story of the Potter’s Field goes on and on. “‘For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the Book of Psalms: May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, ‘May another take his place of leadership’” (1:20). Here Peter quotes freely from Psalms 69:25 and 109:8. He is using a common manner of Bible interpretation that was practiced among the ancient Jewish people. Two separate passages could be linked and expounded together if they shared a common word. [48] We may wonder how the earliest Christians could be so proficient in remembering and applying key Bible verses. It was quite impossible for them to carry the ancient scrolls around or even have quick access to them. Pett has suggested that they may have been using an anthology of their favorite verses. [49] We sometimes do a similar thing today with our key verses on witnessing to the lost and in other matters. “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (1:21-22). There is a fanciful teaching around today that Peter moved too quickly and that he should have waited for the apostle Paul to come along and take the place of Judas. It is obvious from this verse that Paul would have never met the requirements for the twelfth disciple. [50] Paul had not been with Jesus throughout his ministry and thus he would have not qualified. The disciples of Jesus had to be eyewitnesses to all that Jesus did and all he taught throughout his ministry. “So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias” (1:23). The First Century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that both these men were members of the Seventy who were previously chosen and sent out by the Lord. [51] The name Barsabbas was from the Aramaic language and has the meaning “son of the Sabbath.” It could possibly indicate that he was born on the Sabbath. [52] At that time, many Jewish people had acquired Latin names in addition to their Jewish ones. Here we see that Joseph was also known as Justus, meaning “Just.” Matthias was an abbreviated form of Mattithiah. This was a fairly common name in those days. [53] The Hebrew roots of this name would mean “a gift of the Lord.” “Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs’” (1:24-25). We know from the Bible that the Lord does not judge from outward appearances but from the heart (1 Sam. 16:7; Psa. 139:1ff.). The disciples were depending upon the Lord to make this choice and they did the right thing by praying. After all, Jesus had prayed before he chose his disciples in the first place (Lk. 6:12-13). [54] Judas had the grand and glorious opportunity to be listed with the Twelve but because of his own greed and foolishness he forsook this opportunity. When Luke speaks of “where he belongs” or “his own place” as in other translations, he is using a euphemistic expression that softens the awful implications of the future that Judas had chosen for himself. [55] “Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles” (1:26). Today the casting of lots sounds like a strange way for such a weighty decision to be made. However, we must remember that such a practice had much Old Testament precedent (cf. Lev. 16:8; Num. 26:55; Josh. 18:6; 1 Chron. 25:8; Prov. 16:33). Guthrie says, “The lot was a sacred institution in ancient Israel and was a well-established means for ascertaining the divine will…being in fact the principle of decision by Urim and Thummim...” [56] It was in this quaint fashion that the group of Twelve was completed and the name of Matthias added. The practice of casting lots was not continued in the New Testament record. Pett comments: “Along with the eleven he was beaten, and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus and let go, and subsequently rejoiced that he was counted worthy to suffer for the Name, and continued preaching and teaching (Acts 5:40-42)…It is apparent then that Matthias was kept very busy and played his full part in the Apostolic ministry, even though we lose touch with him after chapter 15, as we do with most of the apostles.” [57] Introduction 1. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 3. 2. Bob Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts. Introduction. http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/new_testament_studies/VOL03B/VOL03B.html “The unanimous witness of the early church was that the author was Luke. a. the Muratorian Fragment (AD 180-200 from Rome says, ‘complied by Luke the physician’) b. the writings of Irenaeus (AD 130-200) c. the writings of Clement of Alexandria (AD 156-215) d. the writings of Tertullian (AD 160-200) e. the writings of Origen (AD 185-254).” 3. D. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 969. 4. I. Howard Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1980), p. 38. 5. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 968. 6. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), p. 24. “Luke arrived in Jerusalem with Paul (21:17) and left with him on their voyage to Rome (27:1). In between was a period of more than two years, during which Paul was held a prisoner in Caesarea (24:27), while Luke was a free man. How did he use this time: It would be reasonable to guess that he travelled the length and breadth of Palestine [sic], gathering material for his Gospel and for the early Jerusalem-based chapters of the Acts…[He] will surely also have interviewed many eyewitnesses. Some of them will have known Jesus, including perhaps the now elderly Virgin Mary herself, since Luke’s birth and infancy narrative, including the intimacies of the Annunciation, is told from her viewpoint…So it is not surprising that the first half of the Acts has a ‘very noticeable Semitic coloring.’” NOTE: Almost all Bible writers commonly refer to the Holy Land in the First Century as “Palestine.” It should be noted that the land was never called “Palestine” until after AD 135. It was at that point that the Romans in derision renamed the land after the ancient Philistines. They did so to remove all biblical references. We know in the New Testament that the land was called “Israel” in the First Century (Matt. 2:21). 7. Charles F. Pfeiffer &Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 1123. 8. Kenneth L. Barker &John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 378. 9. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts. Introduction. Chapter 1 1. Ibid, v. 1:1. 2. Francis Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2006), p. 2. 3. James Burton Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament (Abilene, TX: Christian University Press, 1983-1999), vs. 1:1-5. 4. William Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, 1956-1959, v. 1:1. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dsb/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=1. 5. Adam Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, 1832, v. 1:2. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=1. 6. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1125. 7. Paul E. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, 1921-23, vs. 1:1-5. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kpc/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=13. 8. Peter Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, 2013, vs. 1:1-2. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=1. 2013. 9. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 3. 10. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, v. 1:1. 11. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1127. 12. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 1:5. Pfeiffer and Harrison add: “This baptism of the Holy Spirit was never repeated. It was later extended to believers in Samaria (Acts 8), to the Gentiles (chs. 10; 11)…” (Pfeiffer &Harrison, p. 1127). 13. Ray Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 1:1-14. http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/acts. 14. David Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, 1997-2003, vs. 1: 4-5. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/acts-1/ 15. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Reprinted 1960), p. 74. 16. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 6. 17. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1125. 18. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 382. “The concept of ‘witness’…is so prominent in Acts (the word in its various forms appears some thirty-nine times)…So as Luke begins his second book, he highlights this witness theme and insists it comes from the mandate of Jesus himself” (p. 381). 19. Albert Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1870, v. 1:8. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=1. 20. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 48. 21. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 1:9-11. 22. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 382. 23. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 1:11. 24. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 51. 25. Ibid. 26. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 1:9-11. 27. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 1:12. 28. A. T. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932-33, Renewal, 1960), v. 1:13. 29. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 40. 30. James Burton Coffman, Commentary on Mark, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament (Abilene, TX: Christian University Press, 1983-99), vs. 3:16-19. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/view.cgi?bk=40&ch=1. 31. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 1:15. “The term ‘Peter’ is a Greek term (petros) for a ‘detached rock.’ It is ‘Cephas’ or ‘bedrock’ in Aramaic (cf. Matt. 16:18).” 32. Coffman, Commentary on Mark, vs. 3:16-19. 33. J. Newton Davies, Mark, Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York: Doubleday &Co., 1929), p. 1004. 34. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 1:13. 35. Ibid. 36. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 973. 37. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 1:14. 38. Ibid. 39. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 1:12-14. 40. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 41. 41. Ibid., p. 42. 42. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 52. 43. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 1:12-26. 44. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 384. 45. Ibid. 46. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 56. 47. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 65. 48. Darrell L. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2006), p. 52. 49. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 1:20. 50. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 58. 51. Ibid. 52. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), p. 326. 53. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 66. 54. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 1:24. 55. Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, &David Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871-78. vs. 1:24-25. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=1. 56. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 974. 57. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 1:26. When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Acts 2:1 As this chapter opens, we see a large group of obedient believers. They were doing exactly what the Master had commanded them to do (1:4-5). They were all together in Jerusalem and they were waiting for the promised Holy Spirit. We are told that this was on the day of Pentecost. This was the season to begin the great wheat harvest in Israel and this harvest was long anticipated. On the first day (Sunday or Resurrection Day) after the Sabbath of Passover, a sheaf of first-ripe barley was waved before the Lord and the Counting of the Omer was begun (Lev. 23:15-16). The omer was an ancient grain measure. Devout Israelites would count each day for fifty days until they arrived at Pentecost (Exo. 23:16-19; 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:9-12). This word in the Greek language means “fifty.” This was literally a countdown to harvest. Since fifty days would mark the end of seven weeks, this festival was known to the Hebrews as Shavuot or “weeks.” We know as Christians, that Jesus (Yeshua) was the first-fruit offering (1 Cor. 15:20-23). After this first-fruit offering was presented to God, there was a period of waiting and anticipation for the great spiritual harvest to begin. Bible professors Charles Pfeiffer and Everett Harrison say, “There is a real sense in which the church had its birthday on the day of Pentecost…” [1] Long ago Chrysostom (fourth century) asked: “Do you see the type? What is this Pentecost? The time when the sickle was to be put into the harvest and the fruits to be gathered…The Spirit, keen-edged, came down in place of the sickle.” [2] The great harvest of Christianity was about to begin. Perhaps we should mention that the festival of Shavuot today is primarily observed among the Jewish people as a celebration for the giving of the Torah (law). This observance began toward the end of the inter-testamental times. [3] So today Shavuot is also known as Hag Matan Torateinu, or the holiday of giving the law. This may sound strange to Christian ears, however, it is not as strange as it seems and we will have more to say about it. “Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting” (2:2). Luke is doing his best to describe this supernatural event, but we must remember that he was not an eyewitness. He had no doubt spoken to many who had experienced the event, probably while he was visiting in Israel during those two years of Paul’s imprisonment. [4] We see here that the sound was like a violent wind, but the wind itself was probably not blowing. As I have mentioned before, the weather at Pentecost is near perfect. The rains and storms stop around April each year and they do not resume until around October. For there to be storms and rain in late May and early June (Pentecost season) was considered almost miraculous, as we can attest from reading 1 Samuel 12:17-18. As a sign, Samuel prayed for a rain during wheat harvest. It came miraculously and the people stood in great fear. This sound that was like a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were meeting. It was obviously a very large house if 120 people could be crammed into it. A number of commentators have felt that it was none other than the house of Mary, mother of Mark. Others have felt it was the “upper room” that has already been mentioned (1:13). Some have thought that the house was a room in the temple. When we consider the hostility that many in the Jewish leadership had toward the Christians, this possibility seems remote. The nineteenth century theologian, Albert Barnes, says that since the temple complex is not expressly mentioned, the idea of them meeting there is improbable. [5] Pett notes that the word for wind is not the normal Greek “anemos” nor is it “pneuma” which we might have expected as symbolizing the Holy Spirit. The Greek word is “pnoe” and it means “breath.” It is very much akin to the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament where it most often translates “neshamah,” referring to “the breath of life” (e.g. Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2 Sam. 22:16; Psa. 150:6). [6] We note that the Holy Spirit had worked in the creation of the world (Gen. 1:1-2). At various times in Old Testament history the Spirit had worked through various individuals (cf. Judg. 6:34; 1 Sam. 16:13). Now the Holy Spirit was being poured out from heaven upon all people. This act was not to be temporary as before but permanent (Jn. 14:16-17). [7] God was at last pouring out his Spirit on the dry bones of Israel (Ezek. 37:5-10). “They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them” (2:3). Again, the tongues appeared to be of fire. These tongues divided and rested upon each person assembled. Many commentators see this event as a fulfillment of John’s prophecy concerning the baptism of fire that would come (Lk. 3:16). Of course, the picture of fire has a long history reaching back to the earliest days of Israel. God had appeared to Abraham by fire (Gen. 15:17). He appeared to all Israel in fire (Exo. 13:22; 19:18; 24:17; 40:38). We see similar pictures in Ezekiel 1:27; 8:2 and Isaiah 4:5. [8] Today many Christians are anxious to have the fire of the Holy Spirit come upon them but they do not realize that this fire comes not just to give light or to cause wonder. It comes to do the work of burning out the dross in our lives. Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century) once said, “This is a fire that consumes the thorns of sins but gives luster to the soul.” [9] “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them” (2:4). Quite a number of commentators feel that this event is the beginning of reversal to the story of Babel, where human languages were divided and confused because of sin (Gen. 11). The event of this verse was not to be repeated, except to the Samaritans (Acts 8) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11). [10] It is clear that the miraculous speaking here was not just some babel, but that it was real languages that could be readily understood by the various people present. We must remember something about the Jewish people. They began to be dispersed among the nations in 722 and again in 586 BC. Because of this, they already knew many languages. It is really unusual today to find people in Israel who cannot speak at least two or three languages fluently. In the first century most Jews spoke Aramaic. Also, most people in the empire spoke Greek. [11] This was no doubt because of Alexander the Great spreading the Greek culture and language through much of the known world in the fourth century BC. Later we will see Peter addressing the whole assembly in the Greek language and all no doubt fully understood him. What is clear about this miracle is that people probably heard their native tongues spoken. Pett says, “Nothing stirs a man like hearing the language of the country of his birth.” [12] These people had assembled from all parts of the known world, as we will see in verse 9 and following. They were shocked and amazed to hear the disciples speaking their native tongues, which were probably unknown in other parts of the empire (v. 7). Surely the Bible presents this event as the fulfillment of verse 1:5. This was the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus spoke of. We should note however that the Bible does not command us to be baptized with the Spirit. God now does this at our salvation. However, we are commanded to be filled with the Spirit as we see later in Ephesians 5:18. [13] Perhaps we should note here that most Jewish people at this time were not familiar with the workings of the Holy Spirit. Most believed that prophecy and other works of the Spirit had ceased with the last writing of the prophets. God’s revelation now came through the Torah as it was interpreted by the teachers. Judaism expected an outpouring of the Spirit only when the Messianic Age began. At that time prophecy would again flourish. [14] Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Acts 2:5-6 The Spirit began to be poured out on the disciples in a large house but in their excitement they probably began to move outside and at last probably ended up in the temple courts. [15] We note that Jews from every nation were assembled in Jerusalem for the festival of Pentecost. Josephus, the Jewish historian of that time, estimates that the population of Jerusalem was normally around 150,000, but that the crowds coming for the festival would swell the number to over a million people. The city, as well as the suburbs and the hillsides, were all packed with pilgrims. [16] We note that this crowd was not made up of Gentiles but of God-fearing Jews. We should remember that Pentecost was one of the three major pilgrimage festivals of Israel. For those Israelites living within a radius of twenty miles, they were legally bound to come up to Jerusalem for the celebration. [17] Jewish people living in other parts or in other countries were also greatly encouraged to come and make pilgrimage to the festival (Lev. 23; Deut. 16:16). The large crowd became bewildered when they heard the miraculous things going on among the disciples. The sound like that of a mighty wind was no doubt still echoing in their ears. Most of all, however, was the fact that these Galileans were speaking in the quaint languages of their own mother tongues. The Greek for language here and also in verse 8 is the word dialektōi, from which we get dialect. [18] This is no doubt speaking of some language or dialect of a district or country. We should note that this miracle involved spoken languages while the miraculous gift of tongues to individuals (glossolalia) mentioned in 1 Corinthians chs.12 &14, involved languages that could not be understood without the miraculous gift of interpretation. The two are not exactly the same. [19] There are those who feel that the spoken languages can no longer be a part of this gift. However, over our many years we have heard a few accounts of missionaries being able to miraculously converse with natives in their own tongues. This is probably unusual since tongues seem to be more concerned with unknown languages. There was a strange account that happened during the Azusa Street Revival of the early 20th century. A teenage girl was in the “Upper Room” where many had gathered to pray. She saw a man coming up the stairs and was moved to speak with him. She talked to him several minutes in a strange language. This account is recorded in the book They Speak With Other Tongues, by John Sherrill. The man reportedly said: I am a Jew and I came to this city to investigate this speaking in tongues. No person in this city knows my first or my last name, as I am here under an assumed name. No one in this city knows my occupation or anything about me. I go to hear preachers for the purpose of taking their sermons apart, and using them in lecturing against the Christian religion. This girl, as I entered the room, started speaking to me in the Hebrew language. She told me my first name and my last name, and she told me why I was in the city and what my occupation was in life, and then she called upon me to repent. She told me things which it would be impossible for any person in this city to know. [The author adds that the man then dropped to his knees and cried and prayed as though his heart would break]. [20] Clearly at Pentecost the people gathered were astounded at the events. They were amazed and bewildered. Stedman says, “The word in Greek is a word that means literally, ‘to push out of their senses.’ It is exactly what we say when we use the modern phrase, ‘they blew their minds.’” [21] “Utterly amazed, they asked: ‘Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?’ (2:7). The great evangelist John Wesley was of the opinion that the disciples had now dispersed themselves and were mingling with the crowds. Thus, all the people could hear their own native languages distinctly spoken. [22] What made the miracle more astounding was that the speakers were Galileans. The Anglican cleric and commentator, John Stott says of them that they, “…had a reputation for being uncultured. They also ‘had difficulty pronouncing gutturals and had the habit of swallowing syllables when speaking; so they were looked down upon by the people of Jerusalem as being provincial.’” [23] “Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?” (2:8). Languages are very difficult to learn for most people, as I found out when I tried to master modern Hebrew. Some seem to have a special gift at learning them. It was said of Cleopatra that she could greet ambassadors from Ethiopia, Israel, Arabia, Syria, Media and Parthia in their own languages. [24] Such a thing is not the norm. We can understand how the people, upon hearing Galileans speaking their native tongues on Pentecost, were astounded. Now the hearers give us a rundown of all the languages represented at the festival: “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs— we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (2:9-11). Commentators have noted that this grouping is much akin to the Table of Nations in the Old Testament. Stott says: It symbolized a new unity in the Spirit transcending racial, national and linguistic barriers…Luke includes in his list descendants of Shem, Ham and Japeth, and gives us in Acts 2 a ‘Table of Nations’ comparable to the one in Genesis 10…but Luke is careful also to add Egypt and Libya which come under the heading of the Hamites, and Cretans (kittim) and dwellers of Rome who belong to the section under Japeth…on that Day of Pentecost the whole world was there in the representatives of the various nations.” [25] Luke is very careful to point out the group from Rome since this was in line with the purposes of his writing. The good news of the gospel would reach Rome and a great church would be founded there. Some commentators think that this group here at Pentecost would return and found the first church in the capital. [26] Bruce says, “By the beginning of the Christian era, it is estimated, there were between 40,000 and 60,000 Jews resident in Rome…” [27] We should mention that there was a considerable Jewish population in each of the countries mentioned here. This would have been particularly true of the areas making up Mesopotamia and the nation of Egypt. The reference to Judea has puzzled some commentators. However, this should be no problem. Ezekiel says, “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her” (Ezek. 5:5). Jerusalem is the redemptive hub of God’s salvation, which will eventually reach out to all the nations of the world. Now at Jerusalem all these nationalities were hearing the wonders of God proclaimed clearly in their languages. It was an unbelievable miracle! “Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’” (2:12). Peter will soon answer their questions by saying “This is what” or “This is that” which was spoken of by Israel’s prophets (cf. Isa. 32:15 and Joel 2:28-32). On this Pentecost everything was different. They were seeing before their eyes the prophecies being fulfilled and they were stepping into the final days of history. “Some, however, made fun of them and said, ‘They have had too much wine” (2:13). It seems that the devil always manages to have his naysayers present. They immediately disputed the miraculous event taking place by charging that the participants were drunk. Drunkenness is not a common thing among the Jewish people. For several years, after moving to Israel in the early 1980s, we saw only one person drunk, and that person was ridiculed by the crowds. Jewish people do drink wine for all their ceremonies and the Sabbath would indeed be bleak without the brimming and cheerful cup of Shabbat wine. However, the Jews seldom abuse the wine. Seminary professor, Craig Keener, says “Although drunkenness was common among Greeks, it would have been a grievous accusation in Jewish Palestine [sic], where it was regarded as obnoxious and sinful.” [28] Here the charge is that the disciples were full of new wine or sweet wine (Gk. gleukous). This seems to be a particular kind of wine and not just new wine. Apparently ancient people knew the secret of preserving wine and keeping it sweet throughout the year. They were often fond of taking draughts of it in the morning. [29] Pfeiffer and Harrison state: “The accusation of drunkenness suggests that an ecstatic element as well as foreign languages was present in this first gift of tongues.” [30] Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! Acts 2:14-15. Peter, who was once afraid of his own shadow and allowed a little maid to terrify him with her accusations, now stands boldly and proclaims the way of salvation to Israel. That is what the Holy Spirit can do in a person’s life. We notice that he did not stand alone but he stood with the other eleven witnesses of the gospel. First of all, Peter disputed the naysayers and cleared the air for his coming sermon. He reminded the people of the elementary fact that folks normally do not get drunk in the mornings. In the ancient world, it was customary to have banquets and get drunk at night. [31] Since it was only nine in the morning it was not feasible for people to be drunk already. “No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:” (2:16). Peter was a great believer in scripture and he knew that Israel, the “People of the Book,” would relate to scripture also. He first quotes the whole of Joel 2:28-32. He says, “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams” (2:17). In this verse he makes it clear that Israel is now living in the last days. [32] As Bruce says: “The ‘last days’ began with Christ’s appearance on earth and will be consummated by his reappearance; they are the days during which the age to come overlaps the present age.” [33] As Joel makes clear, the Holy Spirit will be poured out on all people, sons, daughters, young men, old men, and even servants. Prophecy will be restored, along with miraculous signs. Israel would soon begin to see the miraculous signs of healing, even in her own temple courts. We note here and also later in verse 39 the universal appeal that is involved in Peter’s words. Sons, daughters, slaves and everyone else who desires will receive the precious gift of the Holy Spirit. Even daughters will prophesy. We no doubt remember that all four daughters of Philip were able to prophesy (Acts 21:9). American evangelical scholar Darrell Bock says, “‘all flesh’…that people of every gender, age, and class are meant.” [34] Obviously, all the old barriers are now down in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 3:6; Col. 3:11). Here we not only see miraculous gifts of prophecy but also miraculous visions and dreams, even among the young. “Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (2:18). Both men and women, will prophesy. The barrier between men and women was an ancient one, going back to the Garden of Eden. The barrier was particularly evident among the Jews, since Jewish women had few rights. Now that ancient barrier was down also (cf. Gal. 3:28). The common people could now prophesy just as Eldad and Medad did when the Spirit came down upon them in the camp. At that time Moses spoke prophetically saying, “…I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (Num. 11:29). Now the Lord had allowed the wish of Moses to come true at last. We have all kinds of miraculous gifts of the Spirit mentioned here but it is interesting that the gift of tongues is not mentioned. [35] Perhaps the Lord didn’t want us to get completely carried away with this one gift so that we could keep a healthy balance with the other miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. “I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord” (2:19-20). Commentators have noticed that this verse has not been completely fulfilled. There were some awesome signs in the heavens and on earth as Jesus was crucified. The skies turned to darkness and the earth shook (Mk. 15:33; Matt. 27:54; cf. Matt. 28:2). These events were but types of the cosmic disasters that would befall the world in the last days. Before the Lord’s return this sinful world and universe will go into convulsions. There will be wars, terrors, natural disasters, all speaking of the coming end of this age. The sun and moon will be darkened and the stars will fall from the skies (Matt. 24:29). I cannot forget listening to a Hebrew believer describe the “billows of smoke” that Joel mentions (Joel 2:28-32). He said the billows of smoke are described with the Hebrew word timarot. This is taken from the word for palm tree. When we lived around the Sea of Galilee there were numerous palm trees. We noticed that when palm trees were left untended, they took on the shape of small atomic bombs. The Bible says that this era will end with fire (2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12). Perhaps nuclear fire is involved in the end of this present evil age. “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (2:21). This is a beautiful verse that gives all of us much assurance. No matter how difficult the times become, we can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved (rescued, delivered). This includes individual salvation from our sins and it also includes deliverance from disasters, just as Noah and the Hebrew Children experienced. Only a few years after the writing of Acts, Jerusalem met with an awful destruction under Titus and the Romans. It is interesting that the Christians, being forewarned by Jesus (Matt. 24:15-21), fled to safety in the city of Pella, just across the Jordan River. They were kept safe there while all those in Jerusalem either starved to death in the siege, were murdered, or were sold into slavery. The Jewish historian, Josephus, tells how almost 100 thousand were taken captive and just over a million died (Wars, Book VI, Chapter IX). Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. Acts 2:22 Peter now moves from the prophets to introduce Jesus of Nazareth. This is a common title for Jesus that is used by Luke. [36] Utley feels that this phrase possibly reflects the “Branch” which is a Messianic title. [37] In Israel recently an inscription with the word “Nazareth” was uncovered. It was the first mention of the city in Jewish epigraphy. This third or fourth century inscription may shed some light on an old controversy. From the Greek language of the New Testament it is impossible to determine whether or not Nazareth was spelled with a “z” or with a “tz.” The Hebrew inscription solves the problem in favor of the “tz.” This revelation may clear up an even greater controversy, because it clearly links Nazareth with the Hebrew word “netzer,” meaning “branch.” [38] In Matthew 2:23, it is said, “and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’” Scholars have been baffled by this statement for centuries, since there is no prophecy in the Bible stating this. Now through archeology we can understand how the prophecy is fulfilled, since Jesus was called “the Branch” (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 33:15; Zech. 3:8). There are many scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of the Messiah or the Servant who would come and deliver Israel. Peter and the other disciples were thoroughly convinced that Jesus was and is that Messiah. After all, Jesus came presenting the signs and miracles that were required. The Jewish leaders witnessed these miracles (Gk. dynamesi). It was unfortunate that the Jewish leaders did not recognize him but rather decreed his death. “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (2:23). The Jewish people had waited patiently over the centuries for their Messiah. Now the most horrible thought is presented to them by Peter. They had crucified their own Messiah! The religious leaders of Israel had turned him over to the Romans for crucifixion. “The key point of this portion of Peter’s speech is that Israel’s leaders had rejected Jesus even though he had been attested to as God’s chosen one.” [39] Peter makes plain that the crucifixion of Jesus was no accident. It was God’s deliberate foreknowledge and plan that Jesus would be offered up for the sins of humanity. Jesus fulfilled perfectly the words spoken of him in Psalm 40:6-8: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire— but my ears you have opened— burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Then I said, ‘Here I am, I have come— it is written about me in the scroll. I desire to do your will, my God; your law is within my heart.’” Also, the Bible does say that Jesus’ crucifixion was determined before the world began (Rev. 13:8). Although the idea of a crucified Savior was repugnant to the Jewish people (Deut. 21:23), it became the heart of the Christian gospel. Barker and Kohlenberger say, “Nowhere in the New Testament is the paradox of a Christian understanding of history put more sharply than in this earliest proclamation of the death of Jesus the Messiah…” [40] “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him” (2:24). What an eternal paradox, in that the author of life (3:15) had to undergo the agony of death. Because Jesus was and is the author of life, death could not hold him in its clutches. We see that God raised Jesus from the dead. Death was “swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:54). It was this sure knowledge that caused the followers of Jesus to offer up their own lives for the sake of Christ. “He is risen!” became the rallying cry of the newly-born church. “David said about him: ‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence’” (2:25-28). This quote is from Psalm 16:8-11 in the Septuagint Greek version of the Bible. Peter will testify in verse 30 that David was a prophet of God. Some of the clearest Messianic prophecies in the Bible are from the mouth of David. Here it is brilliantly stated that the Messiah will not be left in death but will be resurrected by God’s great power. Now, the whole idea of an immediate resurrection was new to the people of Israel. They believed in a general resurrection on the last day, as we see in Jesus’ conversation of Martha (Jn. 11:24). [41] David exults because he has God at his right hand. Thus, he will not be moved or overcome. His heart and tongue can rejoice at the assurance of the resurrection. He knew that his Messiah would not see the decay of death. Instead of death, the paths of life were opened up for the author of life. David could rejoice in a similar hope through the Messiah. He would not be left in the place of the dead. In Hebrew thought, this place was called Sheol or the abode of the dead (cf. Luke 16:23). It was the place where the dead were to be gathered for judgment. [42] It is clear in scripture that when Jesus was raised from the dead he led these righteous captives in his train overcoming death entirely (Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8). Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. Acts 2:29 Unlike the Messiah, David died, was buried and rested in Sheol. If the crowd on Pentecost was indeed gathered on the Temple Mount, David’s tomb could be seen from there. [43] Today the so-called Tomb of David has been relocated to the area called Mount Zion, but this surely was not the original tomb. It was originally located in the City of David, south of the Temple Mount (1 Ki. 2:10; Neh. 3:16). This area of ancient Jerusalem has been recently excavated and it is thought that the tombs of the kings have been located. In fact, with my son, who is an Israeli tour-guide, I have stood at the entrance of these tombs. The Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Solomon buried his father David in Jerusalem, with much pomp and magnificence. He notes that immense wealth was buried with David. Many centuries later, as Hyrcanus the high priest was being besieged by Antiochus, he dug into the tomb and took out three thousand talents to have the siege lifted. Later King Herod took out more of David’s riches (Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. VII, Ch. XV, 3). Peter is saying plainly that the Psalm does not speak of David. He died and was buried. His body certainly rotted and he saw corruption. [44] The Psalm in its essence was speaking of the Messiah who would not see corruption. Instead, he would be raised to life by the power of God. “But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay” (2:30-31). David was a prophet as we can see from his many Psalms and other references. We should note particularly these scriptures, 2 Samuel 7:11-16; 23:2; Psalms 22:1f., 18; 69:21, 25; 89:3-4, 35-36; 132:11. It was implicit in Jewish understanding of that time that some of the Psalms had a future reference. [45] Also it was a settled doctrine of that time that the kingdom of David was to be perpetual. [46] “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” (2:32). Peter is saying that David foresaw the coming of the Messiah and that the Messiah would spring from his own descendants. This Coming One would not be abandoned in death and would not see decay. God would not permit such a thing. True to David’s understanding, Jesus was raised from the dead and there were hundreds of witnesses to this fact. Coffman remarks how the resurrection of the Lord Jesus has become the bedrock and the cornerstone of our Christian faith. [47] “Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (2:33). Jesus was not only raised from the dead but he is now exalted at the right hand of God. This is a place of awesome authority and power. Utley says of this heavenly position, “This is an anthropomorphic metaphor for the place of power, authority, and intercession… which is taken from Psalm 110:1.” [48] Jesus’ ascension made the giving of the Holy Spirit possible (Jn.16:7). What they were seeing and hearing was the evidence of that fact. Kretzmann says, “…the Jews were now witnessing to their great astonishment, both with their eyes in seeing the tongues of fire and with their ears in hearing the unlearned fishermen declare the great wonders of God in more than a dozen languages and dialects. It was testimony of a kind which no sane man among the hearers would dream of calling into question.” [49] “For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” (2:34-35). Peter is bringing out the simple fact that David was still dead and in the tomb. His body had decomposed and it witnessed corruption. David was not raised up to sit at the right hand of God. The prophet David was speaking about the Messiah who did not see corruption but who was raised from the dead and took his seat beside God in the heavenly places, just as Psalm 110 had predicted. This psalm was dear to the early Christians and it was quoted more than any other scripture from the Old Testament. [50] “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (2:36). F. F. Bruce remarks here how “The first apostolic sermon concludes with the first apostolic creed; ‘Jesus is Lord. (cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11).’” [51] What an absolutely terrible thought it was that the Jewish people had crucified their very own Messiah, for whom they had waited the many hundreds of years. He was now acclaimed by God in heaven to be both Lord and Messiah. Barker and Kohlenberger note how six themes are seen in early Christian preaching: “1. The age of fulfillment has dawned. 2. This has come about through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus…3. Jesus was raised from the dead and is now exalted at God’s right hand. 4. The presence of the Holy Spirit is the sign of Christ’s power and glory. 5. The Messianic Age will soon end in the return of Christ, 6. The preaching always ends by an appeal for repentance…” [52] When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Acts 2:37 We see a remarkable change come upon the Jewish people here. They had allowed their own Messiah to be crucified through the hardness of their hearts and their own lack of sensitivity. Suddenly, they are cut to the heart with grief and sorrow. They cry out in utter despair and ask what they can now do. How do we account for this drastic change? We must understand that the Holy Spirit, who was working mightily, had convicted their hearts. We understand in scripture that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin. (Jn. 16:8; 1 Thess. 1:5). All the preaching in the world cannot convict a person of sin. We must understand this and trust the Holy Spirit to do this delicate job. It is only by the Holy Spirit that we see into the spiritual world. It is only by the Holy Spirit that we are born again (Jn. 3:5-7). In this verse we see something else. We see the amazing effect of the cross of Christ. When these people realized that they had crucified Jesus, their hearts broke. We remember that Jesus had said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (Jn. 12:32). Peter was preaching the cross and it drew the people to Jesus. Barclay relates this account: “Once a missionary told the story of Jesus in an Indian village. Afterwards he showed the life of Christ in lantern slides thrown against the white-washed wall of a house. When the Cross appeared on the wall, one man rose from the audience and ran forward. ‘Come down from that Cross, Son of God,’ he cried. ‘I, not you, should be hanging there.’ The Cross, when we understand what happened there, must pierce the heart.” [53] Utley points out how the Greek here for cut or pierced is the union of kata plus nussō, and how this Greek root appears at the crucifixion in John 19:34. He remarks, “Peter’s sermon nailed these hearers to the truth of the gospel…” [54] Peter had used the natural sword in the garden and had made a big mess that Jesus had to clean up (Jn. 18:10). At Pentecost Peter had used the sword of the Spirit. [55] With this sword there was no mess but a mighty message that changed thousands of hearts. “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (2:38). This is very simple instruction for being saved and born again. My, how we have complicated it over the centuries! We notice here that those who receive Christ also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow this has gotten confused in modern times and Christians have come to think that the Holy Spirit is given sometime later, as some sort of “second blessing.” Let us look at the Greek word repent (metanoēsate). This means to change one’s mind and one’s life, and to do it now. [56] Perhaps this idea may be clearer in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the idea of turning away from one’s sins or changing direction. [57] The second thing Peter mentions is baptism. This was not a new picture for the Jewish people. John the Baptist had already come preaching a baptism of repentance (Mk. 1:4) and great crowds went out to him. Jesus had also stressed baptism for those who followed him (Jn. 4:1-2). For ages, the Jews had used the mikvah pools for ritual purification. In fact, there were many such pools in the temple area. The big change was this, that now people were to be baptized in the name of Jesus. We might well say that to be baptized is the Lord’s first command to the new Christian. We have gotten this whole thing of baptism all confused in the past two thousand years. New Testament baptism came immediately after repentance and faith in Jesus. It was not a ritual for babies but for the newborn of Christ. It was not to be delayed for teaching or to the end of life, but to be done immediately. Baptism was an immersion in water as a sign of repentance and the new life. Bruce says, “The idea of an unbaptized Christian is simply not entertained in the New Testament.” [58] Barclay adds about the early church, “…it was the universal practice of the church that the new convert was baptized immediately.” [59] Some have taken this verse as proof that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Barnes says: “There is nothing in baptism itself that can wash away sin. That can be done only by the pardoning mercy of God through the atonement of Christ. But baptism is expressive of a willingness to be pardoned in that way, and is a solemn declaration of our conviction that there is no other way of remission.” [60] Barker &Kohlenberger say, “… it runs contrary to all biblical religion to assume that outward rites have any value apart from true repentance and an inward change.” [61] Bruce, adds: “…it is against the whole genius of biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite could have any value except insofar as it was accompanied by the work of grace within.” [62] “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off— for all whom the Lord our God will call” (2:39). Peter makes clear that the promise of the Holy Spirit is for every believer in Christ, without exception (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). I still remember an event that happened many years ago while I was alone in my hotel room. At that time I was a bewildered preacher, knowing that there was much more in the gospel than I had experienced. Finally, in desperation, I laid hold on this verse, realizing my qualification as being one of those who was “far off.” At that moment, I took this verse as my own, opened my mouth in faith, and to my utter amazement began to speak in a language that I did not understand. That gift of tongues has never left me in all these years and is a constant affirmation that the Holy Spirit of God resides in my life. How sad it is that in our theology we have separated the Holy Spirit’s filling and his blessings from salvation itself. Pentecost and the baptism of the Spirit was a one-time historical event. It will not be repeated. [63] Neither are we requested to pray for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What I experienced was a long-neglected filling of the Spirit which I had done without through my previous ministry. It was an opening up of great spiritual resources and spiritual gifts. There is a similar promise of the Spirit in Isaiah 44:3: “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.” There is another in Isaiah 59:21: “‘My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants— from this time on and forever,’ says the LORD.” Now as Peter winds up his great sermon it is said: “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation’” (2:40). We remember that Luke was not a witness of the Pentecost event. During his two years with Paul in Israel he must have interviewed many who did experience it. Through those records he has put together the essence of what was said by Peter. He notes that the sermon went on with many more exhortations. Peter boldly calls their generation a corrupt one. Actually, Jesus had already called them an unbelieving, adulterous and perverted generation (Matt. 16:4; 17:17). Guzik says, “Any generation that is responsible for putting Jesus to death is a perverse generation.” [64] “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day” (2:41). Just imagine! Three thousand souls added to the church in one day! What a bountiful Pentecost harvest it was! The real first-fruits were coming in. Bruce remarks: “Through the apostolic witness Jesus thus acquired more followers in one day than in the whole of his public ministry…they would perform greater works than they had ever seen him do (Jn. 14:12).” [65] If there were only six thousand Pharisees in the whole land as Josephus estimates, half their number had come into the church in one day. [66] Stott remarks, “The body of Christ in Jerusalem multiplied twenty-six times, from 120 to 3,120.” [67] We might wonder how so many people could be baptized at one time. There were no church baptisteries yet built and the Jordan River was some distance from Jerusalem. Recent archaeological activity on the temple mount has answered this question. Dozens of mikvaot (ritual immersion pools) have been uncovered near the great southern entryway of the temple. These would have been sufficient for all the people to have been baptized in short order. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2:42 Stott sees this as “…a beautiful little cameo of the Spirit-filled church.” [68] It would be well for us to look at some of the Greek words in this section so that we can learn more about how a church is supposed to function. These people had devoted themselves to apostolic teaching. The Greek here is proskarterountes and it means to attend constantly, continue steadfastly and to adhere to. [69] All of us at times have probably wished that our church could have a visit from Paul, Peter or other of the apostles. Our wish has been granted. In the New Testament, God has given us a compilation of apostolic teaching that will direct us and help us through this evil age. Unfortunately, many churches do not pay much attention to this apostolic teaching. This was not the case with the early church. The early church also devoted itself to fellowship with one another. The Greek for fellowship is the beautiful word koinōniāi. It has a broad range of meaning, encompassing association, community, generous sharing, giving, friendship. [70] We might say that the early church operated like one big family, loving one another, helping one another and sharing all things together. We even see them all breaking bread and eating together. Bible scholars have pretty well determined that this was not just a common meal but that somehow it included what we call the Lord’s Supper. [71] Barker and Kohlenberger say, “Undoubtedly ‘the breaking of bread’ was an occasion for joy, love, and praise because it was connected with Jesus.” [72] We cannot get over the impression that these people really liked each other and loved being together. From our common experience, we realize that fellowship and friendship often result from dining together. Today many business transactions are sealed over a meal together. Luke adds that prayer was a part of this common experience. The Greek actually reads “the prayers.” Obviously, this was something very special to the people. “Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles” (2:43). Some churches may be doing quite well with common meals and that is good. However, most of us fall down when it comes to the wonders and signs performed. Perhaps one reason for this is that we are no longer filled with fear, awe and expectancy (Gk. phobos). Utley comments, “We get the English ‘phobia’ from this term ‘awe’ or ‘fear.’ God’s presence and power caused a holy atmosphere, even unsaved sinners were aware of the sacredness of the time and place!” [73] It seems that our big problem is that we like to keep things under our control. When God’s presence comes, strange and uncontrollable things can happen. There are healings and miracles of all types. Someone may even speak in tongues or prophesy. It can be unsettling for some. “All the believers were together and had everything in common” (2:44). There are those who have tried to say that the early church practiced Communism. That was certainly not the case. The Bible teaches throughout that people can own property. We even see that made plain in the early church. They still owned houses for they broke bread in their homes (v. 46). Acts 5:4 makes clear that private property was in complete control of its owners. Communism has been a colossal failure worldwide, although quite a number of today’s college and university professors still hold it in high regard. Coffman has a succinct explanation for the differences in Christianity and Communism. He says, “Christians, through love, parted their goods unto all men. Communists part all men from their goods.” [74] It is shocking when we consider this: “…the American colonies, on the eve of the revolution in 1770, had a higher per-capita real income than did Gorbachev’s Soviet Union 220 years later!” [75] There were some groups in early times that practiced something similar to the Christian model. The Essenes at Qumran held all their possessions in community. [76] However, the Essenes forced this requirement on their new adherents while the Christian sharing was strictly voluntary. We also know that Jesus and his disciples shared a common purse between them. [77] Again, this seemed to be a voluntary thing so far as we can tell. In this verse we once more run into the beautiful word koinōniāi which speaks of sharing all things. This sense of community is an absolute necessity for church life today. Barclay sums it up saying, “…God knows nothing of solitary religion.” [78] “They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need” (2:45). As we have noted, they did not sell all their possessions. They were certainly not penniless and homeless because they gave to the needy and shared each other’s houses. It is likely that they understood a principle long forgotten today. The principle is seen in Luke 6:38: “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” It seems that these early Christians were carrying on the Jewish tradition of gifts and offerings. When we add up all the offerings of Israel we will be amazed to find that they were always giving more than 50 percent of all their incomes to the Lord. Interestingly, we do not see this sharing commanded. We do not see it later as apostolic instructions. We do not even see it continuing in the early church. It was simply an explosion of love that happened with the pouring out of the Spirit upon humanity. “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (2:46-47). It is interesting that the early church did not forsake the temple with its offerings and its times of prayers at 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM. They still considered themselves as part of Israel, although they now had a radical new understanding of sacrifice, prayer and worship. They no doubt met together for worship at Solomon’s portico (Acts 3:11; 5:12), the covered colonnade on the east side of the outer court where Jesus had earlier taught them (Jn. 10:23). [79] Of course they also met in homes as we have mentioned. They just could not get enough of each other. I can remember in some of our home groups over the years how we were so excited to get to the meetings. We just almost wanted to live together as one great family. The people abounded with gladness (Gk. agalliasei) and sincerity or simplicity of heart (Gk. aphelotēti). The idea conveyed here is that the people had “an unworldly simplicity” [80] This reminds us that we often get things much too complicated in our churches. When all these elements came together the Lord added to the church. Guzik says, “This is Gods prescription for church growth. If we take care to follow the example of Acts 2:42-47a, God will take care of growing the church himself.” [81] Luke will not let us forget the overall theme of Acts. Jesus had expressed it in his own words (Acts 1:8), “…and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 1. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1126. 2. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 20. 3. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 62. 4. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 970. “Luke probably employed a good part of the two years of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea setting in order the material which he had gathered thus far…it has been held that Luke was also indebted to Mark for some of the Jerusalem information appearing in the first twelve chapters of Acts.” 5. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 2:2. 6. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:2. 7. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2007), p. 326. “Like our Lord’s death at Calvary, Pentecost was a once-for-all event that will not be repeated.” 8. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:3. 9. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, pp. 22-23. 10. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 2:2. 11. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 2:1-13, 12. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 2:4. 13. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 326. 14. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 387. 15. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1127. 16. Cited in Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 2:4-21. 17. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 2:1-13. 18. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 2:6. 19. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 127. 20. John Sherrill, They Speak With Other Tongues (New York: Pyramid Books, 1964), pp. 42-43. 21. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 2:4-21. 22. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 2:2. 23. Cited in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 65, citing Longnecker. 24. John Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, 1865-1868, v. 2:8. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=2. 25. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 68. 26. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 2:7-11. 27. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 57-58. 28. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 328. 29. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 2:13. 30. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1127. 31. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 328. 32. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 73. 33. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 61. 34. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 45. 35. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 2:4-21. 36. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 391. 37. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 2:22. 38. Bargil Pixner, With Jesus through Galilee according to the Fifth Gospel (Rosh Pina, Israel: Corazin Publishing, 1992), p. 15. 39. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 46. 40. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 391. 41. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 47. 42. Ibid. 43. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1128. Barnes adds: “Sepulchers were commonly situated without the walls of cities and the limits of villages. The custom of burying in towns was not commonly practiced. …Asa was buried in the city of David; 2 Kings 14:20. David was buried in the city of David 1 Kings 2:10, with his fathers… he built a city called after his name, 2 Samuel 5:7…The tombs were commonly excavations from rocks, or natural caves; and sepulchers cut out of the solid rock, of vast extent, are known to have existed.” (Barnes, v. 2:29). 44. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 329. 45. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, pp. 76-77. 46. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 2:30. 47. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 2:32. 48. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 2:33. 49. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 2:33-36. 50. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 2:34-36. 51. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 68. 52. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 391. 53. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 2:37-41. 54. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 2:37-38. 55. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 2:37. 56. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 2:38. 57. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 50 58. Quoted in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 2:38. 59. William Barclay, Turning to God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), p.50. 60. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 2:38. Marshall adds concerning baptism: “… it conveys the thought that the person being baptized enters into allegiance to Jesus, and this would tie in with the evidence that at baptism it was customary to make a confession of Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3).” (Marshall, p. 81). 61. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 62. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 70. 63. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 326. 64. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 2:38-40. 65. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 73. 66. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 330. 67. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 79. 68. Ibid., p. 81. 69. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 385. 70. William Barclay, A New Testament Wordbook (London: SCM Press, 1955, 1959), p. 71. 71. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 73. 72. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 398. 73. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 2:43. 74. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 2:44. 75. Larry Schweikart and Dave Dougherty, A Patriot’s History of the Modern World, V. 2 (NY: The Penguin Group, 2013), p. 361. 76. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 398. 77. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 74. 78. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 2:42-47. 79. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 2:46. 80. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 52. 81. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 2:46-47. One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer— at three in the afternoon. Acts 3:1 Here we see Peter and John ministering together. They were no doubt good friends from the time they were in the fishing business on the Sea of Galilee (Lk. 5:10). Peter, John and his brother James made up the close inner-circle of Jesus’ disciples. Peter and John were involved together in the work of the Master both before (Lk. 22:8) and after the death and resurrection of Jesus (Jn. 20:3-4; Acts 8:14). It is interesting that Peter and John were apparently keeping the set Jewish hours of prayer. These hours are reflected in several scriptures (Psa. 55:17; Dan. 6:10; Acts 10:3, 30). Barclay describes for us how the Jewish day would begin at 6 AM, and end at 6 PM. The scheduled hours of prayer were at 9 AM, 12 midday and 3 PM. [1] The hours at 9 and 3 corresponded with the offering of the morning and evening sacrifices. The hour of 3 PM must have had special relevance to the disciples. It was the hour that Jesus hung on the cross and finally said “It is finished!” [2] To some, it is a puzzling thing that the Galilean disciples ended up living in Jerusalem rather than making the base of early Christianity in the Galilee. Even the earliest Pauline letters seem to focus the church in Jerusalem rather than the Galilee. [3] Jesus had told them to wait in Jerusalem and no doubt they were aware of scriptures like Psalm 50:2 and Isaiah 2:3, which picture Jerusalem and Zion as the source of God’s blessings. In 1:8, he had also told them that the gospel was go out from Jerusalem to the world. “Now a man who was lame from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money” (3:2-3). The early evangelist William Godbey says, “He is the best-known man in the kingdom. All of the people come to the temple and at the same time pass through this gate. Hence they all get acquainted with him.” [4] We are told that this man was lame from his birth and that he was over forty years old (4:22). He had to be carried by relatives or friends each day to the temple gate. No doubt, this was a choice place to do his begging since most worshippers were likely in a benevolent frame of mind. Israelites were actually commanded to give liberally to the needy in such cases (Deut. 15:7-8). The lame man was placed near the Beautiful Gate of the temple. Scholars are pretty much of the opinion that this was the Nicanor Gate. It was located in the Court of the Women on the east side and it faced the gate leading into the sanctuary. The First Century Jewish historian Josephus describes this gate, “which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those that were only covered over with silver and gold. Each gate had two doors, whose height was severally thirty cubits…” (Josephus, Wars, Book V, Chap. V, Sec 3). This would mean that the gate was about seventy-five feet (23 m.) high. Let us consider this poor man. The Venerable Bede compares him to the nation of Israel saying: “The beautiful gate of the temple is the Lord. Whoever enters through him will be saved. Enfeebled Israel, being unable to walk to this gate, was brought there by the words of the law and the prophets, so that they might request help from those who were entering into the interior places of the wisdom of the faith which they were to hear.” [5] “Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, ‘Look at us!’ So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them” (3:4-5). Clearly the Holy Spirit had focused the attention of Peter and John on this man, therefore they had faith that this man would be healed. No doubt, the man had prayed to be healed many times and others probably had hoped and prayed, but nothing happened. Arator once said that when hope withholds one thing it has better things in store. [6] The poor man was looking for temporal treasure but he was about to receive eternal treasure. Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. Acts 3:6-7 There is an old story that Thomas Aquinas, the great theologian, once visited Pope Innocent II as he was in the act of counting church money. The Pope said to him, “You see, Thomas, the church can no longer say, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’” Thomas is said to have replied to him, “True, holy father, neither can she now say, ‘Rise and walk.’” [7] Some commentators have wondered why Jesus had not healed this poor man before. Undoubtedly, he was there begging when Jesus ministered in the temple on those several occasions. There are perhaps a number of reasons why Jesus did not heal him. In Ecclesiastes 3:1 we read: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…” Jesus no doubt knew that there was a time for this man to be healed, a time when his miraculous healing would sweep thousands into the kingdom. Peter speaks here with great authority given by the Holy Spirit. He knew what he had through the Lord and he knew he had the authority to give it away to the one in need. He was careful to say that this healing power was in the name of Jesus and not in his own name. We note how the apostles were always cautions not to take the glory to themselves but to give it all to the Lord. It is interesting that Peter did not just give a command to walk but he reached down and lifted the poor man up. No doubt, he had seen Jesus do similar things. In fact, Jesus had done this to Peter’s own mother-in-law (Mk. 1:31) and to the little daughter of Jairus (Mk. 5:41). As Peter lifted the man, his ankle bones were strengthened. It took Doctor Luke to catch the importance of his ankle-bones being strengthened. This is a medical observation regarding the ankle and the word is found in no other place. [8] Also, the expression “became strong” is the Greek estereoo, from which we derive our word for “steroids.” [9] “He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God” (3:8). This passage is literally saturated with Old Testament prophetic pictures. First of all we are reminded of Isaiah 35:6, “Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy…” We are reminded also of Isaiah 52:2, “Shake off your dust; rise up, sit enthroned, Jerusalem…” Barnes reminds us of some things about people who are lame from birth. He says that the art of walking is something people acquire with long practice. They begin as a child and gradually perfect the art. [10] This man, being born lame, had mastered no such art and yet we see him walking and even leaping. This is simply another great miracle in itself. “When all the people saw him walking and praising God, they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him” (3:9-10). We cannot even imagine the excitement which ran like electricity through the Temple Mount. Virtually everyone knew about this man. They had observed this cripple for years but now he was walking and jumping up and down. He was creating quite a scene. It was Incredible! The people were amazed and they wondered about this strange event. Wonder and amazement seem to be characteristic features when New Testament miracles are done (e.g. Lk. 4:36; 5:9, 26; 7:16). [11] It was likely that few people would ever forget this hour of prayer at the temple. While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. Acts 3:11 The healed man held on to his benefactors, but probably not because he was weak or could not continue standing. His clutching may have been much akin to that of Mary Magdalene as she held to the risen Christ (Jn. 20:16-17). [12] It was a certain exhilaration, fascination, gratitude and wonder that would not allow him to be separated from them. The crowds came running from everywhere to see this miraculous occurrence. They were astonished and continued to stare in amazement at Peter and John. All this part of the miracle took place just outside the temple area on the eastern side of the temple court. It was a place called Solomon’s Colonnade. This covered portico ran the length of the eastern side of the outer court. It was erected with marble columns and covered at the top with cedar. [13] It provided shade for the people as the mid-morning sun beamed down upon them. We know today through archaeological discoveries that there was a similar portico running all along the southern end of the outer court. Jesus seems to have made use of these areas in his teaching (Jn. 10:23). “When Peter saw this, he said to them: ‘Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?’” (3:12). Marshall, says, “Peter was too keen an evangelist to let a valuable opportunity slip.” [14] His first act is to direct the attention of the crowds away from himself and John and towards Jesus. Such a thing is not always the case with modern-day faith healers. They often direct the attention to themselves. Trapp pinpoints the thinking of too many moderns as he says, “We are ready to pay our rent to a wrong landlord.” [15] “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go” (3:13). Peter cleverly connects this miracle to the patriarchs and to Israel. [16] He certainly connects this miracle to Jesus whom he calls the servant. It would be good for us to understand a few things about the servant as he is mentioned in the so-called “Servant Songs” of Isaiah. The Servant Songs are first introduced in Isaiah 41:8, after an opening burst of Messianic glory in Isaiah 40. This unique section of scripture continues on at least through Isaiah, chapter 61. These passages are puzzling and it is at first difficult to identify the servant. First, Israel is clearly named as the servant (Isa. 41:8), whose task it is to be a light to the nations. It is immediately evident that this servant has failed God (Isa. 42:19). This pattern of failure of the servant is seen throughout chapters 41-44. It is finally in 49:1-13, that the prophet switches from failing Israel to the servant who will not fail or be discouraged. It is really too small a thing for him to rescue failing Israel (v.6). He will be a light to the Gentiles as well and bring God’s salvation to the ends of the earth (v. 6b). We see these themes emphasized by Mary in her song (Lk. 1:54) and in the statements of Simeon (Lk. 2:30-32). [17] Clearly the servant was to redeem Israel. However, quite unknown to Israel then and now, the servant was to suffer greatly in the process. The servant would suffer and die for the sins of the people (Isa. 53:5). He would be led like a lamb to the slaughter (v.7). Surprisingly we see that all this was in the Lord’s will (v.10). With this picture in mind, Peter comes down hard on his listeners. Barclay says, “The early preachers always stressed the basic fact that the crucifixion was the greatest crime in human history.” [18] In fact, Peter conducts himself almost as a prosecuting attorney. He pulls no punches and names the people listening as the guilty parties. They were aware of Jesus’ holy life and his miracles, yet they stood by while their leaders put him to death. Even the Roman governor, Pilate, knew there was no guilt in him and was determined to let him go. “You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you” (3:14). Many in the crowd listening to Peter had probably participated in the mob scene that cried out before Pilate, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pett comments: “The contrast is almost unbelievable. The One who was the Source, Author, Originator, Provider, Sustainer and Revealer of Life, who came offering it to all men, ready to be their Guide…leading them through to eternal life, was taken by them and killed. They were seeking to destroy the core of life itself.” [19] Not only did they murder the Holy and Innocent One but they demanded a murderer to be released in his place. Utley gasps, “It is so ironic that Barabbas was guilty of the exact crime they accused Jesus of—sedition (cf. Lk. 23:18-19, 23-25).” [20] “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this” (3:15). Peter was showing them the bloodstains on their own hands. They were murderers, guilty of the greatest crime on earth— deicide. They had killed the author of life. The word describing him is the Greek archēgon (cf. Acts 5:31; Heb. 2:10; 12:2). This word is variously translated as Prince (NAS), Author (NRS) Pioneer (Moffatt). He was the Pioneer who would lead the human race through death and into eternal life. Yet, he was murdered by their own hands. Peter has presented an airtight case against them. Very likely he and John had even heard their cries, “Crucify him!” They were also witnesses of his resurrection. Peter never departed from preaching Christ crucified and raised from the dead. The disciples were witnesses to both. Stott says of his preaching: “…The most remarkable feature of Peter’s second sermon, as of his first, is its Christ-centeredness.” [21] “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see” (3:16). Now Peter is letting up on the pressure. He is now beginning to take the place of a defense attorney and is beginning to point to a solution to their awful problem. The man standing before them had been healed by faith in Jesus. It was certainly the faith of Peter and John but it might have been faith in some degree of the man being healed. In the last analysis, it was faith supplied by the Lord (Eph. 2:8). They could not deny that the man was gloriously healed. He had “perfect soundness (Gk. holoklērian). He was perfect, complete, and whole.” [22] The same kind of faith that had delivered him could now deliver them. They had only to repent and believe in Jesus. Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. Acts 3:17 Barnes says, “This verse is a remarkable instance of tenderness in appealing to sinners… Luke 23:34; ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’” [23] In Israel, willful sins were a far more difficult problem than sins of ignorance (Num. 15:22-29; 30-31). [24] The Old Testament does not speak of forgiveness for haughty and willful sins. The people were ignorant of who Jesus really was and so were their leaders. “But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer” (3:18). As we have mentioned, Israel was then, and still is oblivious to a suffering Messiah. Yet, it was the plan of God through the Bible (Isa. 53). We might clarify this in saying that the scripture did not speak of a suffering Messiah but it certainly did speak of a suffering servant. [25] “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you— even Jesus” (3:19-20). Peter commands them to repent, just has he had done previously in 2:38. The Greek word for repent is metanoēsate, and it means to turn around or to turn to God. [26] This word reflects a total change of course in life. It is a turn from sin and a turn to God. As a result of such a drastic turn, their sins will be wiped out. Barclay gives us some insight as to how sins could be wiped out. He says, “Ancient writing was upon papyrus and the ink had no acid in it. It therefore did not bite into the papyrus like modern ink, but simply lay on top of it. To erase the writing a man simply wiped it away with a wet sponge; so God wipes out the sin of the forgiven man.” [27] Bruce says, “There is the proclamation of a divine amnesty, offering a free pardon to all who took part in Jesus’ death, if only they acknowledge their error, confess their sin, and turn to God in repentance.” [28] When sins are wiped away then and only then will times of refreshing come. This refreshing will come as Jesus is sent into each heart as he was promised in ages past. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. Acts 3:21 Peter is saying simply that Christ must remain in heaven until the time when everything is restored. This verse stands against some modern theological ideas that Jesus will make a secret appearance to earth, prior to the tribulation and the end of the age. This verse gives us proof against another view, that all things will be reconciled. Origen (185-254), one of the most brilliant of the church fathers, believed that all things, including all souls and even including the devil himself, will be reconciled in the end. [29] We should carefully note what this verse says, that God will restore everything promised by the prophets. The prophets never spoke of judged and condemned sinners being restored and they certainly never spoke of the devil being restored in the last days. The Greek word for this restoration is apokatastaseōs and it speaks of the eschatological restoration or regeneration. All nature will be regenerated and liberated from decay (Rom. 8:19ff.) and all that the prophets spoke of will be restored and perfected. [30] It seems clear that Israel also will be completely restored in this blessed day (cf. Isa. 40:9-11; Jer. 16:15; 24:6; Ezek.16:55; 37:21; Hos. 11:9-11; Amos 9:11-15). Marshall says, “This is a unique phrase which commentators generally take to refer to the final era of salvation.” [31] Marshall also adds, “the coming of the ‘messianic age’ or the future kingdom of God, for which the Jews longed, was dependent upon their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.” [32] “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you’” (3:22). Moses was a very popular figure for the Jewish people in the First Century. In fact, “The expectation of a Moses-like figure in the end time was common in Judaism…” [33] Unfortunately, the people of Israel had stood against Moses throughout their wilderness journey and they were still standing against what he taught about the Messiah (cf. Deut. 18:15, 18-19). “‘Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people’” (3:23). This idea seems to come from Leviticus 23:29. Barnes says, “…The usual mode of punishing such offences was by cutting the offender off from among the people, Exodus 30:33; Exodus 12:15; Exodus 9:15; Numbers 15:31; Numbers 19:13; Leviticus 7:20-21, Leviticus 7:25, Leviticus 7:27, etc.” [34] This could involve excommunication (a horrible thought for ancients) or even death. Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. Acts 3:24. Marshall says, “The whole of the Old Testament could thus be seen to bear witness to Jesus and the setting up of the church. For all the prophets were concerned with eschatological events and not simply with what was to happen in their own time. This was the accepted understanding of the prophets in the New Testament times…” [35] “And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed’” (3:25). Long ago God had promised to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4) and that through him all nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:16). The true blessing to all nations would be the raising up of the servant, Jesus. [36] Bede says, “Christ indeed is the offspring of Abraham, and through faith in his name a blessing is promised to all the families of the earth, namely Jews and Gentiles.” [37] “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” (3:26). Once again Peter emphasizes the key importance of the servant of the Lord, whom we know as Jesus. At his coming he was to bless Israel first of all and then he was to later bless the Gentiles. We clearly see this pattern in the ministry of Jesus. He instructed his disciples in these words: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). When he was rejected by Israel he then began a rather lengthy visit to the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, and after that to the region of Decapolis. (Mk. 7:24 – 8:10) These were Gentile areas. We see Paul throughout his mission going first to the Jews and afterward to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10). In truth, it was not Israel who became a light to the nations but the Messiah himself. 1. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 3:1-10. 2. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 3:1-10. 3. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 399. 4. William Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, vs. 3:1-10. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ges/view.cgi?bk=43&ch=3. 5. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 39. 6. Ibid., p. 10. 7. Cited in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 78. 8. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 3:7-10. 9. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 53. 10. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 3:8. 11. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 89. 12. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 3:11. 13. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 91. Bruce adds: “The tradition tracing this colonnade or portico back to Solomon himself was certainly unfounded; the temple platform did not extend so far to the east in Solomon’s day.” (Bruce, p. 80). 14. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 89. 15. Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, v. 3:12. 16. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 3:16. Barnes says, “…the promise had been made to Abraham that in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed, Genesis 12:3. Compare Galatians 3:16.” 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 81. “The figure of this Servant has exercised a profound influence on NT thought and language.” 18. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 3:11-16. 19. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 3:14-15. 20. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 3:14. 21. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 92. 22. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 3:16. 23. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 3:17. 24. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 332. 25. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 130. 26. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 3:19-21. 27. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 3:17-26. 28. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 83. 29. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/ 30. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 94. 31. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 93. 32. Ibid., p. 94. 33. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 55. 34. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 3:23. “To be destroyed from among the people means, however, to be excommunicated, or to be deprived of the privileges of a people. Among the Jews this was probably the most severe punishment that could be inflicted. It involved the idea of being cut off from the privileges of sacrifice and worship in the temple and in the synagogue, etc., and of being regarded as a pagan and an outcast.” 35. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 95. 36. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 3:25-26. 37. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 46. The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. Acts 4:1 While Peter and John were in the midst of their great ministry, they were rudely interrupted by an official group of priests and Sadducees (Gk. Saddoukaioi). This group was led by the temple guard. This official, called in Greek the strategos, was captain of the temple police, and was also of the Sadducee party. He was like the right hand man of the high priest and charged with keeping order in the temple precincts (cf. Lk. 22:4, 52; Acts 5:24, 26). The priestly families were Sadducees, including the high priest. They were the wealthy aristocrats of Israel who were eager collaborators with the Romans. They had no interest in the Messiah, for they felt the Messianic age had already begun with the Maccabean rulers. [1] They were secular materialists who did not believe in the spiritual world of angels or demons. They certainly did not believe in the resurrection that Peter was preaching (cf. Mk. 12:18). Unlike the Pharisees, they did not believe in the Oral Law. [2] Their great fear was that someone or some group would upset the status quo. The apostles had done just that. “They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead” (4:2). As we have mentioned, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, so they were particularly disturbed by the preaching of Peter and John. Other translations note that they were “much annoyed” (NRSV) or even “extremely annoyed” (NJB). We remember how Jesus once dumbfounded the Sadducees on this very question of the resurrection (Mk. 12:18-27). “They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day” (4:3). This event took place sometime after the evening hour of prayer and sacrifice. According to Jewish law it was not permitted to hold a trial after twilight. [3] We cannot help but remember that this same group broke the law and held the trial of Jesus at night. Luke had recorded in his gospel the predictions of Jesus that his disciples would be insulted, hated and rejected (Lk. 6:22, 26), tried before rulers and authorities (Lk. 12:11), persecuted and imprisoned because of Jesus’ name (Lk. 21:12ff.). [4] “But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand” (4:4). We cannot but be amazed at the power of Peter and John’s preaching. Although they did not get to finish their message, a very large group eagerly accepted their word and became believers. Barnes comments: “This was one of the instances, which has since been so often repeated, in which persecution is seen to have a tendency to extend and establish the faith which it was designed to destroy. It finally came to be a proverb that ‘the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’” [5] From what we can tell, an additional 2,000 souls were added to the church that day. With the 120 original followers, plus the 3,000 at Pentecost the number was now around 5,000. The total may have been much more, for it seems that only the men were counted. Bruce says that the number of the men alone would have totaled 5,000. [6] Wiersbe notes, “When God cannot rule, he overrules…” [7] The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. Acts 4:5-6 What an imposing group met together that day. Barclay speaks of Peter’s message to them: “It was spoken to an audience of the wealthiest, the most intellectual and the most powerful in the land, and yet Peter, the Galilean fisherman, stands before them rather as their judge than as their victim. Further, this was the very court which had condemned Jesus to death. Peter knew that he was taking his life in his hands.” [8] Annas and Caiaphas were there just as they were in the trial of Jesus. The priesthood had fallen a long way from the days of Aaron, when the position was for life. Barclay continues to describe the group: “…in the Roman times the office was the subject of intrigue, bribery and corruption and high priests rose and fell so that between 37 BC and AD 67 there were no fewer than 28. But even after a high priest had been deposed, he often remained the power behind the throne…” [9] Just as was the case in Jesus’ trial, Annas was the power behind the throne here. He was selected as the high priest by the Romans from AD 6-15, and then deposed by them. However the high priestly power remained in his family for many years. Five of his sons and one son-in-law held the office. [10] We remember that his son-in-law, Caiaphas held the position at the trial of Christ, with much input from Annas of course. We need to remember that this was a meeting of the great Sanhedrin, the 71 member supreme court of the land, with Israel’s high priest presiding over it. They sat in their customary semi-circle with the two disciples before them. It appears that the once lame man was also there. Perhaps he had been summoned to appear, although he was like “Exhibit A” for the two disciples. Scholars have guessed at the identities of John and Alexander and have come up with no positive proof as to who they were. However, it was an impressive crowd with several from the priestly family. Bruce comments, “… the presence of so many senior members indicates the seriousness with which they viewed the situation.” [11] “They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: ‘By what power or what name did you do this?’” (4:7). It is of note that the Sanhedrin seemed to have no interest in the fact that a great miracle had been performed, nor did they deny the miracle. They were only interested in the authority behind the miracle. That was the real challenge to their vested interests (cf. Matt. 21:23). “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ‘Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed” (4:8-10). We notice that Peter, for this occasion, is filled with the Spirit once more. This refilling of the Spirit is greatly needed when we all face difficult tests. It seems to come at the sovereign direction of God, through prayer, particularly corporate prayer, from unity of purpose and from standing squarely on God’s word. While Peter showed the proper respect, he asked a question with piercing logic, “why are we on trial for a good deed?” [12] Peter nevertheless continued to declare before this group and the whole nation of Israel that the authority was in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Just as he had done before the people, he now does before the priests and rulers. He tells them plainly that they were guilty of crucifying Christ. He shows them the blood on their own hands. What a scene this was! Utley says: “These leaders could not keep Christ in the tomb and they could not deny the healed man standing in front of them!…’ this man ‘stands here.’ This is a word play on ‘stands.’ The lame man stands up and stands before them.” [13] Peter continues, saying: “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone’” (4:11). There was a great deal of teaching regarding Jesus as the stone, as well as the cornerstone in early Christianity. This picture was formed from scriptures like Psalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16; Daniel 2:34-35. Isaiah even says that the choice cornerstone would become a stone of stumbling for the whole house of Israel (Isa. 8:14-15). When Jesus told the leaders the Parable of the Vineyard, he spoke of himself as the stone that the builders rejected (Matt. 21:42; Lk. 20:17). Apparently there was an old tradition circulating about the cornerstone that was not recognized by the builders. Stedman relates it: … during the building of the temple, a great rock was quarried out and shaped by the stone mason, and sent up, but the builders could find no place to put it. It did not seem to fit in any of the blueprints they were working from, and so they left it on the side. It sat there for some time. Then, as it seemed to be in the way, someone pushed it over the edge and it rolled down into the valley of the Kidron and was lost in the bushes. When the time came to put in the cornerstone, the great square rock that held everything else in place, they sent word for the cornerstone to be sent up. The quarrymen sent back word that it had already been sent up some time before. They looked around for it, and no one could find it. Then somebody remembered the great rock which had been pushed over the edge. Down they went to the valley of the Kidron and found it in the bushes. With great effort they raised it again and brought it to the top and fitted it into place. It fit perfectly— the cornerstone of the temple. [14] The concepts of the “stone” and “cornerstone” would continue in the teaching of the church as we see in Romans 9:33; Ephesians 2:20; and 1 Peter 2:4-6. From Ephesians we learn of a wonderful new house that becomes a holy temple. It is made up of redeemed Jews and redeemed Gentiles, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. The Venerable Bede says, “God by himself placed this [stone] at the chief position in the corner, so that from two Testaments and two peoples there might rise up a building of one and the same faith.” [15] “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (4:12). This finale of Peter’s sermon shocked the Sanhedrin and would certainly shock the politically correct establishment of our day. Utley says: “This is a strong double negative…This has often been called the exclusivistic scandal of Christianity. There is no middle ground here. This statement is true or Christianity is false!..” [16] Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). We might ask how Israel must relate to this exclusiveness. Were they not the chosen people of God before Jesus came on the scene? In Romans 3:25, Paul says an amazing thing. He declares, “…because of his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” In a real sense God had looked over the sins of the Old Testament period until the proper redemption could come in Jesus the Messiah. The Bible does say in Hebrews 10:4, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” In Hebrews 9:15 we read: “…Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance— now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” Also in Hebrews 11:40 it is said: “…God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.” Simply put, the Old Testament people were waiting on the Messiah to come. Their offerings were only types and patterns of the real offering that would be made by Jesus. Bede said: “If the salvation of the world is in no other but in Christ alone, then the fathers of the Old Testament were saved by the incarnation and passion of the same Redeemer, by which we also believe and hope to be saved.” [17] When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. Acts 4:13 Obviously, both Peter and John were speaking with courage and the elders could not help but be impressed. Both these disciples, as well as all the others, were Galileans. They suffered the disadvantage of being looked down upon by others in Israel, as being crude and uncultivated (Matt. 26:73). [18] In addition, they were plainly unschooled (Gr. agrammatoi) and ordinary men (Gk. idiotai). In other words, they had no training in Rabbinic theology and they were non-professionals. [19] “The wonder was that they showed such mastery of biblical argument.” [20] They were forced to conclude that these men possessed knowledge and skill from having been with Jesus. After all, Jesus had promised them: “For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Lk. 21:15). Bede remarks: “Unlettered men were sent to preach, so that the faith of those who believed would not be thought to have come about by eloquence and teaching instead of by God’s power.” [21] Pierson says, “Men are too anxious to be ranked with scholars; and so when error, however deadly, wears the glittering serpent-skin of scholarship, it insinuates itself into the very chair of the teacher, and the pulpit of the preacher, and no one seems to dare to smite it with a bold blow!” [22] “But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say” (4:14). Today, we live in a time when true miracles are often denied. Instead of the Lord being praised, often people are found praising the doctors, the advances in medical science or some wonder drug. This was not the case in those days. This man stood before the Sanhedrin miraculously restored and the only explanation was the power of Jesus Christ. Their mouths were shut. As the great English minister and scholar F. B. Meyer says, “It was as impossible to stay the effect of that miracle as to bid the sun cease shining.” [23] “So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. ‘What are we going to do with these men?’ they asked. ‘Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name’” (4:15-17). It is clear that a sense of panic and hopelessness was settling in upon the leaders of Israel. At least theoretically, these men were committed to the word of God and to truth. But practically speaking, “The council did not seek for truth, but rather sought for some way to avoid the truth!” [24] Some have wondered how Luke knew all the conversation that went on in this secret council. We already know from the trial of Jesus that there were people in the council who were sympathetic to the gospel, people like Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1ff.) and Joseph of Arimathea (Mk. 15:43). Perhaps there were many others, especially as the gospel net drew in thousands of Israelites, including many priests and others who were zealous for the law (Acts 6:7; 21:20). Saul may well have been a member of the council and may later have passed the information on to Luke, [25] for they often worked together. It has even been suggested that Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, may have transmitted this information to Paul. It seems that the leaders were at wits end to think of some solution to deal with this growing and nagging problem. They decided upon the plan of strictly threatening the disciples, though in the back of their minds they probably realized how Peter and John would answer to them. Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:18-20 The leaders of Israel were in an impossible situation. We might call it today a conundrum or a “catch 22.” Given their self-imposed parameters, there was no way the problem could be solved. Peter and John would not stop spreading the gospel, and the elders for fear of the people were powerless to stop them. Pett comments: “Regularly would witnesses in the court be admonished to ‘speak only those things which they had seen and heard.’ And yet here was the court forbidding them to do so. They were forbidding them to declare the facts, to reveal the truth of what really happened. Could they really believe their ears? Was the court really then telling them not to be honest witnesses?” [26] Today this passage confronts us with the problem of how and when it is permissible to disobey those who are given legal authority over us. In the last century Brother Andrew defied the Soviet laws and smuggled thousands of Bibles into many Communist countries. Was that the right thing to do? Others have stood against laws in many countries, laws that they have deemed against the statutes of God. How far can we go in this delicate area? We know that a number of the prophets stood against the evil kings of Israel and many paid with their lives for their stand. Were they disobedient? Can a Christian disobey a law that violates his or her conscience? It is true that governments and authorities are established by God (Rom. 13:1-7), and we are charged to be obedient to them. We have to take this much more seriously when we realize that evil Nero was in power as Paul gave this advice. It is clear that the authorities established by God can sometimes work against God. There are times when the establishment can be wrong and when we in good conscience, and standing on the word of God, must resist, just as Peter and John did. [27] It is not an easy decision but it sometimes must be made. Strangely, it was the philosopher Voltaire who said, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” “After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old” (4:21-22). The people no doubt knew that this was a true miracle because the man was past the age when problems in the body could easily correct themselves. Pfeiffer and Harrison say, “the Sanhedrin dared not risk stirring up the anger of the people by punishing them. Furthermore, the Sadducees did not have the support of the people as did the Pharisees, and they had to be careful of public opinion.” [28] On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. Acts 4:23 There is a great deal of excitement expressed here both from Peter and John as well as from the church. This was nothing less than a great victory report. The two disciples had declared the gospel to Israel on the very temple grounds and had witnessed astounding results. They had also fearlessly declared the same gospel to the rulers of Israel and had escaped by the grace of God. They had paid no attention to the Sanhedrin’s command to speak no more. Barclay says, “Once the papal envoy threatened Martin Luther with what would follow if he persisted in his course and warned him that in the end he would be deserted by all his supporters. ‘Where will you be then?’ demanded the envoy. ‘Then as now,’ Luther answered, ‘in the hands of God.’” [29] Pett describes this group saying: “They have left the company that represented old Israel, and joined up with the company that represents new Israel. This was where the future lay… There is surprisingly no reference to the Scribes and Pharisees. It would seem that they had remained in the background in the Council. In Acts, they tend to be more favorable towards the infant church (Acts 5:33-40; Acts 23:9).” [30] “When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them’” (4:24). Barker and Kohlenberger comment, “Luke has evidently taken pains to give us this prayer so that it might serve as something of a pattern to be followed in our own praying.” [31] What an awesome and powerful corporate prayer this is! They address God as “Sovereign Lord.” This unusual Greek word is despota and it speaks of one who is “Master,” “Sovereign,” and one who rules with unchallengeable power. [32] When we as a church body can come before the Lord with such unity, accord, deep respect and fear, we too can see great advances in the kingdom of God. “You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed one’” (4:25-26). Here the church is quoting from Psalm 2:1-2. This must have been a very popular psalm for the early Christians because it spoke of their very situation. It seems that sometime before the Christian period this passage was seen in Jewish circles as a Messianic psalm. [33] How true are the words of this psalm today as nations, rulers, kings, governments are uniting with one voice to speak against the Lord Jesus. In similar fashion, all these are quick to speak against the little nation of Israel, that people whom God has formed for himself; the people whom he sees as “his treasured possession” (Psa. 135:4). “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (4:27-28). In all the raving of these kings against Jesus they, “…were simply carrying out ‘God’s appointed counsel and foreknowledge…’” [34] It is always interesting how God uses the plans of his enemies in order to bring about his own plan. We see his teaching on predestination in several places like Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:3-14. We must remember that God always sees the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” Acts 4:29-30 This is probably a prayer that few of us pray, although we need boldness today as never before, especially as we are face to face with an anti-Christian society. We wonder what would happen in our lethargic churches if we started to pray this way. How often do we ask God to stretch out his hand and heal, or perform signs and wonders through Jesus? Guzik says, “Their boldness was a gift from God, received through prayer. It was not something that they tried to work up in themselves.” [35] There are a lot of Christians who do not believe in miracles but I do, since I have personally witnessed a good number of them. I would like to see many more. Some folks think that miracles should be every-day occurrences. However, it seems that if that would happen, they would almost cease to be miracles. Stott says that miracles by their very definition are “abnorms” and not “norms.” He notes how in the Bible miracles seem to be clustered around great times of revelation, like in the days of Moses, Elijah and Elisha or Jesus. [36] He concludes, “We will neither describe miracles as ‘never happening’, nor as ‘everyday occurrences,’ neither as ‘impossible’ nor as ‘normal’. Instead we will be entirely open to the God who works both through nature and through miracle.” [37] “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (4:31). We cannot get over the impression that God really liked that kind of praying, and he let it be known. As Chrysostom said, “… the place…was shaken, and that made them the more unshaken…” [38] God spoke of such through Haggai: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory, ‘ says the LORD Almighty’” (Hag. 2:6-7). In Psalm 104:32, it describes God as, “he who looks at the earth, and it trembles, who touches the mountains, and they smoke.” All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. Acts 4:32 This beautiful passage is very similar to the one in 2:41-47. By comparing both passages we get quite a clear picture of life in the earliest church. First of all, there was great unity and the people had one heart and one mind. Then, they shared their possessions with one another. Once again, here we see a derivative of the beautiful Greek word koinōniāi as we saw in 2:42-43. This sharing together of property was, as we have mentioned, a voluntary thing. Calvin said of this, “…love made each man’s own possessions common property for those in need…” [39] There were no doubt reasons why these early Christians felt it necessary to share with one another. Jerusalem, at least the center of town, was and still today is quite poor. Devout people, who were often impoverished, seemed to be drawn to Jerusalem. Some came to the city to die and be buried in the holy precincts. We know from the sixth chapter that there were many widows in the city who were in need of help. The new Hebrew believers often found themselves cut off from the normal synagogue help. [40] Also, new believers in Christ then and today often find themselves discriminated against in the workplace. No doubt, many early believers had to take lesser jobs or settle for no jobs at all. In short, the church at Jerusalem was a loving, sharing fellowship. Augustine (354-430), said of it: “If love made one soul of so many souls and one heart of so many hearts, how great must be the love between the Father and the Son!” [41] Pett calls it “a spontaneous ‘togetherness’… ‘a growing together in love.’” [42] Apparently this love and sharing had affected the whole group of Christians and not just the original few. It probably affected a lot of others as well, even unbelievers. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (Jn. 13:35). “With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all” (4:33). Sometimes we wonder why our churches are so bereft of power today. Here we see that power seems to spring out of an environment of love and sharing together. They had an abundance of God’s grace poured out upon them. Stedman gives us a little acrostic that illustrates this grace: “G – God’s R— Riches A— At C— Christ’s E— Expense” [43] Luke goes on saying, “that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need” (4:34-35). This was not something that was done all the time, but from “time to time” as needs arose. Barker and Kohlenberger add: “…Luke suggests that they were exceptional and were not meant to be normative for the church…” [44] In other words, we are not seeing here some early form of Christian Communism as some have thought. Private property still remained in private hands, as we will see illustrated clearly in the next chapter. Concerning this giving up of property, Jerome (c. 347-420) makes an interesting remark. He says, “believers sold their possessions and brought the prices of them and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: a symbolic act designed to show that people must trample on covetousness.” [45] We will see in chapter 6 that eventually the church established a group of deacons who were chosen to care for the many needs and make fair distribution to the needy in the congregation. “Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet” (4:36-37). Barnabas played an important role in the early church. Acts 11:24, pictures him as a good man who was full of the Holy Spirit. This good man had fully introduced Paul to the church at Jerusalem (9:26-27). Later he searched for Paul and brought him into the growing evangelistic work at Antioch (11:22-26). The two then brought alms to the people of Jerusalem, who were suffering from famine (11:27-30), and later they joined together in the First Missionary Journey to the Gentiles (13:2-3). [46] Barnabas was a Jew and a Levite from the island of Cyprus. We are told that this good man sold a field, but we are not told where the field was located. It even could have been located in Cyprus. Commentators have wondered why the Levite Barnabas owned a field in the first place. We learn from Numbers 18:20 and Deuteronomy 10:9 that Levites were not permitted to own land. However, we are told in Jeremiah 32:7-12 that Jeremiah, who was of a priestly family, was instructed of the Lord to purchase a field. We have even pointed out how the Sadduceean priests were quite wealthy. So it seems that this restriction was eventually relaxed. Barnabas sold his field and brought the proceeds of his sale, laying the money at the apostle’s feet. This great act of benevolence sets the stage for one of the most disastrous and disappointing stories in the New Testament. Satan was intent on attacking the newly emerging church. Stott sees that there were three points to his attack— “physical (persecution), moral (subversion) and professional (distraction).” [47] The church had already experienced the first attack of persecution. Satan had not done so well at that. Now the church was about to experience an attack against its morals. This was, of course, an attack from the inside. In chapter 6, there would be an attack designed to weaken and frustrate the ministry itself. 1. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 95. 2. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, Marshall adds: “It is interesting that, although the Pharisees were the group most opposed to Jesus during his ministry, in acts they are almost friendly to the church, while the Sadducees (who do not figure in the Gospels until the last days of Jesus) have become the leaders of the opposition).” (Marshall, p. 98). 3. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 4:2. 4. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 89. 5. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 4:4. 6. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 90. 7. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 331. 8. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 4:5-12. 9. Ibid. 10. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 91. 11. Ibid., p. 92. 12. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 4:8-12. 13. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 4:10. 14. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 4:1-12. 15. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 49. 16. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 4:12. 17. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 49. 18. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 4:13. 19. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 98. Guzik adds here: “The greater importance of these two things – more important than formal education – has been proven in the lives of Gods servants again and again. It has been proven true through such servants of God as Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, William Carey, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Hudson Taylor…” (Guzik, v. 4:13). 20. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 95. 21. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, pp. 50-51. 22. Quoted in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 4:13. 23. Frederick Brotherton Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 1914, vs. 4:13-22. 24. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 333. 25. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 405. 26. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 4:19-20. 27. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 4:13-31. 28. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1131. 29. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 4:23-31. 30. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:23. 31. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 406. 32. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 99. Wiersbe adds: “The Greek word gives us our English word despot, a ruler who exercises absolute power, either benevolently or abusively…Psalm 2 describes the revolt of the nations against the Lord and his Christ.” (Wiersbe, p. 335). 33. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 406. 34. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 99. 35. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 4:30. 36. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 102-03. 37. Ibid., p. 104. 38. Ibid., p. 100. 39. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 107. 40. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 4:32-35. 41. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 56. 42. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 4:32. 43. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, v. 4:33. 44. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 407. 45. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 58. 46. J. D. Douglas &Merill C. Tenney, The New International Dictionary of the Bible (Basingstoke, Hants, UK: Marshall-Pickering, 1963, 1987), pp. 125-26. 47. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 105. Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 5:1-2 Marshall says of this story that it, “…must be ranked among the most difficult for modern readers of Acts…” [1] One thing we can certainly say is that Luke tells it like it is. He does not try to cover up the ugly and disagreeable things in the early church. There is the story of Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England, who was disfigured in his face by several warts. A court painter once did his portrait and thought, as a favor to him, he would leave off the warts. Cromwell, upon seeing the painting, told him to take it away and in the future to paint him “warts and all.” [2] Luke here tells the early Christian story “warts and all.” It seems that the sacrificial gift made by Barnabas had inspired others, but in the case of one Ananias, it inspired him in the wrong way. He wanted to bask in the praise for giving a large gift, like Barnabas had, but he wanted to save a good part of the gift for his own enjoyment. It was sort of like “having your cake and eating it too.” Such a thought did not originate in the otherwise Christian brain of Ananias but clearly it was inspired by Satan, in his frantic attempt to destroy the church (5:3). In short, Ananias was lured into being a hypocrite. George MacDonald once wrote, “Half of the misery in the world comes from trying to look, instead of trying to be what one is not.” [3] Unfortunately, in his hypocrisy Ananias had deeply involved his dear wife Sapphira. Her name means “beautiful,” [4] but her heart soon became ugly. While most of the church members were living in the awe, respect and fear of God, these two had allowed Satan to deprive them of that holy fear. As someone has said, “If you can’t be good, then look good.” They had forgotten that the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is all about being and not just about looking. As we will see, their ruse did not work for long. “Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?’” (5:3). Stott says, “It is a good general rule that secret sins should be dealt with secretly, private sins privately, and only public sins publicly…” [5] Peter immediately brings this sin before the whole church in a dramatic fashion. If Ananias even thought that he could “pull the wool” over Peter’s eyes, he was sadly mistaken. He should have remembered that Peter was chief among Jesus’ disciples. Peter was the rock on which the church was to be built and the Lord had given him special authority to bind and loose things in the spiritual realm (Matt. 16:18-19). In addition, the Lord had breathed on Peter as well as the other disciples and had given them a special anointing of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22). Through these great spiritual gifts Peter was able to look right into the heart of Ananias (cf. Heb. 4:13; 1 Cor. 2:10). Although in reality, it was not Peter that Ananias was trying to deceive, it was the Holy Spirit of God. He had lied to the Holy Spirit. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, “Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all.” [6] We might ask why Peter was so hard on this lie. We all slip and lie at times and certainly there is some hypocrisy to be found in all of us. In answer to this, Barker and Kohlenberger say that what Ananias and Sapphira did, “…was so diametrically opposed to the whole thrust of the gospel that to allow it to go unchallenged would have set the entire mission of the church off course.” [7] In speaking of this problem, Morgan pictures the early church as a new tree. It would have been disastrous for this sin to be left unattended. The new tree would have been deformed by it and the root would have become corrupted. Today the Christian tree is large with numerous branches and it is much better equipped to withstand a lie in one of its branches. [8] Quite a number of commentators have compared the sin of Ananias to that of Achan in Joshua’s time. Achan kept for himself some items dedicated to the Lord and brought defeat upon the armies of Israel. Bruce says, “In both narratives an act of deceit interrupts the victorious progress of the people of God…Ananias ‘kept back’ part of the price…he uses the same Greek word as is used in the Greek version of Joshua 7:1…” [9] Meyer adds, “…we must not allow one corner for Satan or selfishness to possess, because instantly we shall have to concede the right of way, and a thoroughfare will be opened, along which all manner of contraband may be smuggled in.” [10] “Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God” (5:4). Here Peter clearly supports the validity of having personal property. The early church was not some sort of Communistic or socialistic organization as we have said before. Also, we realize here that the large gifts to the church were purely voluntary and not compulsory. [11] “When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened” (5:5). Peter did not cause this death. God caused it. We can imagine that Peter was more surprised and shocked than anyone else when Ananias fell dead at his feet. [12] There is the story on record that King Edward the First of England once blazed in anger at one of his courtiers. The man was so frightened that he dropped dead with fear. [13] Ananias could have died of fear, shock or a heart attack. However he died, it was no doubt a great surprise to all present. Orr suggests that if such a thing happened in churches today they would probably appoint a cover-up committee and try to keep the news form the public. He points out how when God does the exposing, the Lord is vindicated and the work of God gains strength. [14] How true the words of 1 Peter 4:17, “For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” “Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him” (5:6). This verse on the surface sounds really cruel and un-Christian. There was no funeral, no eulogy for the good deeds he must have done in the past, no notifying next of kin, just burial. Even the wife was not notified. [15] To really understand this we need to go back to the sin of Achan. Because he had committed a sin against the whole nation of Israel, he was unceremoniously stoned, along with his whole family, and his animals. All his goods were burned and a heap of stones was raised over them all (Josh. 7:24-26). To better understand the burial of Ananias, we need to remember that burial practices were much different in the First Century than they are today. When we think of burial we think of digging a grave, burying the person six feet in the ground and then closing the grave. In New Testament times people often had family tombs. These were usually hewn into the soft limestone around Jerusalem or else an existing cave could be modified and used. When someone died, that person was placed on a slab in the family tomb and left there about a year. Then some family member would take the bones and place them in a small ossuary or stone case with a lid on top. That small box would often be inscribed with the person’s name. The bone box would then be slid into one of the niches in the walls and the tomb was then ready for the next deceased family member. [16] The dead person was usually wrapped in a shroud of some sort or bound with linen strips. Various spices were used in this process to cut down on the odors of decomposition. As we see in scripture, loved ones could visit the tomb and complete this process (Mk. 16:1). So, in the case of Ananias, his body was not cut off from the care of other family members. When all was finished a stone could be rolled or placed over the tomb’s entrance. We should also note that in ancient Israel, burial followed as soon as possible after death [17] Bodies were not embalmed nor were there other modern funeral practices. The body was buried and then the family went into mourning for a period of seven days. I well remember how Israeli soldiers died in the morning in the Lebanon war and were buried the same afternoon in Jerusalem. In the case with Ananias, the young men of the church were called upon to take care of the burial. “About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, ‘Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?’ ‘Yes,’ she said, ‘that is the price’” (5:7-8). Bruce suggests that this three hour period gave Peter time to assess the tragedy and to realize that it was a matter of divine judgment. [18] After quizzing Sapphira, Peter realized that the two had formed a conspiracy to lie to the church and to God and his Holy Spirit. We cannot imagine the shock that Sapphira must have felt. Her husband was dead and she now found herself suddenly before the judgment of God. It was apparently more than she could take. “Peter said to her, ‘How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.’” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband” (5:9-10). Just like her husband did before her, Sapphira fell dead at Peter’s feet. The young men who had just returned from burying her husband took her out also. We can be certain that according to Jewish sensibilities they must have had some help from the women. Pett points out that the men did not wrap her as they did her husband. He says, “Under Jewish practice they could, as men, do that for a man but not for a woman. It would not have been seemly for men to beshroud a woman. However, it is probable that women were called in to perform the duty before she was buried.” [19] This is still a puzzling section of scripture. Guzik remarks about it: “But we can see that it is possible for a Christian to sin unto death (1 Jn. 5:16-17), and we have New Testament examples of saved Christians being judged by being brought home in death (1 Cor. 11:27-32).” [20] Perhaps we are dealing here with what the Bible calls a sin unto death. “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events” (5:11). We can understand how a holy fear fell on people after this dreadful event took place in the church. We can see how the later words of 2 Timothy 2:19 could have surely applied to this situation: “Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and, ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.’” It is interesting that in this difficult situation Luke uses the Greek word ekklesia in describing the church. This is his first usage of this term in Acts. Guthrie says, “ekklesia…has its background in the LXX [Septuagint] where it is sometimes used of the ‘congregation’ (Heb. Qahal) of Israel…” [21] Stott adds that this usage is an affirmation of the continuity the Christian church has with the gathered and redeemed community in the Old Testament. [22] Pfeiffer and Harrison note that this word is never used as a designation of a building, but rather is used to designate the people of God. [23] The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. Acts 5:12 This will now be the second account of the apostles being arraigned before the Sanhedrin. It is interesting how these accounts resemble each other. The apostles preach and perform miracles in the name of Jesus; they are arrested and brought to trial; then they are miraculously released. Stedman comments: “Whenever truth is uttered, it enrages men like this. They oppose it with the only weapon they can think of— physical violence.” [24] Jesus had said: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12). There is a real sense in which Solomon’s Colonnade became the gathering place for the newly-born but quite large Christian assembly. It was not only a place of preaching and teaching but a place of miracles. All this was an offense for the Sanhedrin crowd, but so far they were powerless to stop it. The believers were all together in worship. For the fifth time in Acts, the NIV misses the very important Greek word, homothumadon (cf. 1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24). It was surely one of Luke’s favorite words. It means that they were not just “together” but they were of one accord. This is a great part in their secret of success. As they were together many signs and miracles were wrought. It seems that the signs and miracles were mostly from the hands of the apostles. [25] Chrysostom in reflecting on this scene comments: “Earth was becoming like heaven, for their way of life, boldness of speech, wonders, for all besides. Like angels were they looked upon with wonder.” [26] “No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people” (5:13). Barnes comments: “The rich and the great then, as now, stood aloof from them, and were deterred by fear or shame from professing attachment to the Lord Jesus.” [27] We should note that, as it was in the case of Jesus, “…the common people heard Him gladly” (Mk. 12:37 NKJ). So, we see that the Christians were highly esteemed by the crowds and that the Ananias and Sapphira episode had done them no harm. It is possible that some feared to join them precisely because of this event. They realized that being a Christian was a deadly serious matter and hypocrites would be found out. “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” (5:14). This is the first time that Luke mentions women being added to the church. In his gospel and also in acts, Luke has a lot to say about women. [28] Although women had a universally low position in the ancient world, the teaching of Jesus had lifted them to great heights. In fact, women played key roles in the gospel story. We see a picture here of a rapidly growing church. “As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by” (5:15). This verse speaks of really supernatural healing. People were brought on beds and mats in order to be healed. The Greek words here are klinariōn and krabattōn. The first word simply means a bed but the last word means a mattress or pallet or what would be the poor man’s bed. [29] So, the wealthy and poor alike were coming to be healed. We are told an astounding thing here. They were gathering so that perhaps Peter’s shadow would fall upon them and they would be healed. [30] We see things similar to this other places in the Bible. People once touched the edge of Jesus’ cloak and received healing (cf. Mk. 5:25-34; 6:56). It was a sort of contact point for their faith. Later in the ministry of Paul we are told that people were healed by coming in contact with handkerchiefs and aprons that were brought from the body of Paul (Acts 19:12). These stories may sound strange, but as LaSor says, “… we cannot assume that Luke would gullibly accept stories of miraculous healing without investigating them.” [31] After all, Luke was a very careful and thorough historian. This was surely a period of intense supernatural signs as the gospel was spread. We note in the next verse that, for the first time, the gospel is said to be extending beyond the city of Jerusalem, and it was extending with mighty works. [32] Jesus had once promised, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father” (Jn. 14:12). “Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed” (5:16). On the Temple Mount, right under the noses of the Sadducees, there was much commotion with great crowds gathering and numerous miracles taking place. The pressure was surely building upon Israel’s spiritual elite do something about all this. Even droves of people were coming in from the countryside to participate in this great revival. The Sanhedrin elite thought they had a problem with one crippled man jumping up and down and shouting, and now they have that multiplied many times with numerous happy folks doing similar things. Not only were the sick being healed but powerful demonic spirits were being cast out. It must have been quite a scene! Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. Acts 5:17-18 Luke tells us that the high priest and his Sadducee associates were all filled with jealousy. After all, thousands of people were joining the Christians and no doubt their own crowds and coffers were suffering from this success. They simply could not stand it any longer. Once more they reached out their hands to persecute the believers by putting all the apostles in jail. How interesting, the apostles were laying their hands on the sick and healing them and the leaders were laying their hands on the apostles and arresting them. It was the English martyr Hugh Latimer who said, “Whenever you see persecution, there is more than a probability that truth is on the persecuted side.” [33] Once more, the leaders were not filled with joy that their sick were being made well, but they were rather being filled with jealousy. The Greek word is zēlou and it means jealousy or envy. This Greek word actually conveys the meaning “to boil.” [34] We wonder how many times in history pure envy and jealousy have been hidden under “zeal” for supposedly defending the faith. [35] “But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. ‘Go, stand in the temple courts,’ he said, ‘and tell the people all about this new life’” (5:19-20). On this occasion it appears that all the apostles were locked up. No doubt Satan had a grand plan to have all the apostles killed, but that too did not work out like he planned. During the night there was a miraculous angelic appearance and the apostles were released from jail. A few commentators, who do not believe in such things, have tried to say that some sympathizer opened the jail doors and let them out. Such a thing would have been almost as impossible as an angelic appearance. In those days, people guarded jails with their very lives. In fact, when people escaped from Roman jails the jail keepers were executed. Also, we cannot imagine a sympathizer instructing them to go preach the gospel. We are told in Hebrews 1:14, that the angels are ministering spirits for the benefit of the saints. Hughes sees some divine humor in this account. The Sadducees did not believe in angels, yet it was an angel who released the apostles from their own prison. [36] The apostles were obedient and early that morning they were back in the temple courts preaching once more. This was the place where God wanted to make himself known to his people. [37] At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin— the full assembly of the elders of Israel— and sent to the jail for the apostles. Acts 5:21 There is a great deal of humor in this picture also. The high priest and all his associates arrive and get themselves ready for trying the apostles. When they have themselves prepared and arranged in their neat semi-circle, they send out for the apostles. This scenario leaves us dangling in hilarity. “But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, ‘We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.’” (5:22-23). Kretzmann comments, “The angel of the Lord had therefore not only smitten the keepers of the prison with temporary blindness, but he had also relocked the doors to remove all evidence of the miraculous deliverance of the apostles.” [38] We should think at this point that the Sadducees would have started to believe in angels, but it was not to be. At this point Coffman says, “…they could not have failed to know that God was with the apostles of Christ, but they were determined to carry forward their opposition…” [39] This reminds us of the reaction of this very group to Jesus. They absolutely must have realized that he was the Messiah, but they were still determined to get rid of him. We can imagine the frustration and even apprehension of the poor guards at this disappearance. Keener says of them: “These guards are fortunate that they are Levites policing for the Jewish temple aristocracy rather than recruits under the Romans or Herod Agrippa I, who might have executed them (see 12:18-19).” [40] “On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were at a loss, wondering what this might lead to” (5:24). We can imagine that a number of people were now suspecting that supernatural forces were at work. Probably others of the Pharisees were beginning to get suspicious. [41] Also, we have to think that the common people were getting wise to some of the miraculous things that were happening. Such stories make their rounds rapidly.” The guard and the chief priests were plainly perplexed. The Greek word here is diaporeō, which has the meaning of doubt, uncertainty and perplexity. Luke uses this term on a number of occasions (cf. Lk. 9:7; 24:4; Acts 2:12; 10:17; 25:20). [42] Chrysostom says, “Here are men whom neither prison nor bonds nor closed doors had been able to keep in…” [43] SURPRISE, SURPRISE! “Then someone came and said, ‘Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.’ At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.” Acts 5:25-26 This time the captain of the guard goes rather meekly and persuades the disciples to come before the Sanhedrin. He probably realized that the crowd could easily become agitated and start pelting him with rocks. Barker and Kohlenberger comment: “This says something about the early Christians’ response to Jesus’ example of nonviolence and non-retaliation during his own arrest (cf. Mk. 14:43-50)…” [44] The apostles may have realized that God was about to give them another wonderful opportunity to share their testimony about Jesus with the leaders of Israel. [45] “The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood’” (5:27-28). We might suspect that the high priest and leaders were beginning to remember their own words at the crucifixion: “All the people answered, ‘His blood is on us and on our children!’” (Matt. 27:25). Coffman comments: “It is nearly incredible, the hatred which the Jewish religious hierarchy had for the blessed name of Jesus, which name they simply would not pronounce under any circumstances, saying ‘this name,’ as here, instead, and always referring to him as ‘this man’ or ‘that man…’” [46] In some quarters, the hatred continues to this day. Some Jewish people substitute Yeshu for the Hebrew Yeshua or Jesus. This acronym means “May his memory and name be stricken out” (Heb. yimach sh’mo v’zichro). Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead— whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” Acts 5:29-32 Once again, Peter reaffirms the position of the apostles, that they must obey God and not men. Once more, he declares that Jesus was raised from the dead and that all the apostles were witnesses of this fact. Peter boldly declares to the Sanhedrin members their awful guilt. They had murdered their own Messiah by hanging him on a cross or tree (Gk. xulou). Guzik says, “Peter referred to the cross as a tree because he drew an association from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, where it says that a person hanged from a tree is cursed by God. Peter brought attention to the magnitude of their rejection of Jesus, pointing out that they killed him in the worst way possible, both from a Roman perspective (the cross) and a Jewish perspective (the tree association).” [47] His death was not the end of the story. God raised him up and exalted him at his right hand. He now has the title of Prince and Savior. The Greek words are archēgon and sōtēra. We have dealt with this first word before in 3:15, and noted that its meaning could be Prince, Author or Pioneer. Jesus was the great Pioneer who made a way into the spiritual world for all who believe. The second word, sōtēra means a deliverer or preserver. It refers to someone who brings us into security and safety. [48] Peter did not mince words but strongly indicted the whole Sanhedrin with the murder of their own Messiah. His message could not be missed by them. Interestingly, he presents them with the idea of repentance. Marshall exclaims, “Here is the offer of salvation to the very people who had crucified Jesus…” [49] We just have to pause here and marvel at the great grace of God that is offered to them and to us. Actually, in a sense, we have all crucified Jesus with our sin and rebellion. We have surely driven nails into his hands. In this section we cannot miss the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all mentioned together. [50] We see this many places in the New Testament and it was for this reason that the early church fathers finally proclaimed the concept of the “Trinity.” When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. Acts 5:33 Upon hearing Peter, the members of the Sanhedrin were literally “cut to the quick” (Gk. dieprionto), like they were cut with a saw. [51] Coffman remarks: “The sermon the apostles had just given was identical in all essentials to the one delivered on Pentecost; but the results produced by the declaration of the gospel were opposite in kind. On Pentecost, the people were pricked in the heart, which means they believed; and here the priests were cut to the heart, which means they were infuriated and filled with murderous thoughts.” [52] Their immediate thought was to put all the disciples to death. Pett says, “There is nothing like a bad conscience to make a man judge severely.” [53] The American circuit riding preacher, William Godbey, tells this story: “… A vile reprobate once pointed a gun at me, which fired all right a few minutes previously. When he pulled the trigger it only snapped. Why? My work was not done.” [54] The work of the apostles was certainly not over. It was really only beginning, so God was about to make a plan of escape for them. “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while” (5:34). The Sadducees were in an awkward position. They sat in the place of power, influence and authority, but the Pharisees, who were in the minority, commanded much more respect from the people than did the Sadducees. Their hands were tied and they could take no action without support of the Pharisees. [55] Gamaliel (Gamaliel the Elder) was a Pharisee and a greatly honored teacher in Israel at that time. He had previously been the teacher of Paul (22:3), and Paul probably had gone to the head of his class (Gal.1:14). Gamaliel was certainly one of the most popular and influential rabbis of his time. He was also grandson of the famous Rabbi Hillel. Gamaliel requested that the apostles be put outside the room while he addressed the problem. The Pharisees in general were not like the Sadducees. They believed in a personal Messiah and a Messianic Age. They believed in the resurrection, in angels and in demons. They tried to live lives of simple piety spurning the wealth and luxury of the Sadducees. [56] It was entirely possible that the Pharisees in the meeting were already smiling smugly at the preaching of the resurrection and at the account of angelic ministry. Utley says, “It is just possible that the Pharisees (i.e., Gamaliel) saw the early church as a useful thorn to poke at the Sadducean rejection of resurrection in general.” [57] “Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing’” (5:35-36). The commentators have written much concerning this Theudas, but still today little is known about him. It is true that the historian Josephus speaks of a Theudas who led a group of followers to the Jordan River, but this event happened when Fadus was procurator of Judea (AD 44-46). [58] Obviously, this event would have been several years after the Sanhedrin meeting and the speech of Gamaliel. Theudas was a rather common name and there were many rebels in those days. Josephus says, “Now, at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, because a great number put themselves into a warlike posture” (Antiq. Bk. xvii, ch. 10, 4; cf. Bk. xx, ch. 5, 1). Undoubtedly, Gamaliel was speaking of another rebel with the same name who came sometime earlier, or else Josephus had some wrong information. The point being made by Gamaliel was that the works of men often fizzle out and come to nothing. “After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered” (5:37). Bruce says of this: “Judas, a man from Gamala in Gaulanitis (Golan), inaugurated a religious and nationalist revolt, contending that it was high treason against God, Israel’s one true king, for his people in his land to pay tribute to a pagan ruler.” [59] This Judas became the founder of the Zealot movement and his revolt can be dated to AD 6 or 7. [60] Of course, this revolt was also put down and finally the Zealot stronghold at Gamla was destroyed by the Roman armies in AD 67. Again, Gamaliel’s point is that movements begun by men have a high mortality rate and a tendency to fail. It is very interesting that Gamaliel mentions the census here. Some have tried to match this census up with the one that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Lk. 2:1-5). However, that census would have taken place several years earlier than his revolt. [61] “Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” (5:38-39). Gamaliel’s advice was a godsend for the apostles. The Sadducees were persuaded by it and the apostles were spared. However, when we analyze the advice it does not contain much logic. Wiersbe says of it: “Gamaliel’s ‘counsel’ was unwise and dangerous, but God used it to save the apostles form death…To begin with, he automatically classified Jesus with two rebels…Gamaliel assumed that ‘history repeats itself’…Gamaliel also had the mistaken idea that, if something is not of God, it must fail. But this idea does not take into consideration the sinful nature of man and the presence of Satan in the world…” [62] “His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go” (5:40). The Sadducees had lost the case but they still demanded their pound of flesh. The apostles were all flogged. This was the usual Jewish lashing (cf. Deut. 25:3) and was limited to 39 strokes (40 less one). We should be aware that this was not the Roman flogging that Jesus endured, for that flogging could be life-threatening. [63] Still the Jewish flogging was painful and humiliating. “The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name” (5:41). Jesus had taught concerning such occasions, “Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:12). Stott speaks of “the honor to be dishonored, the grace to be disgraced.” [64] “Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (5:42). Clearly, Gamaliel had bought them a little time. They continued right on to conduct their ministry in the temple area. Luke tells us that they continued to meet in various homes as well. They were absorbed with fellowship, worship, teaching and seeking the lost. [65] 1. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 110. Barker &Kohlenberger add: “Probably no account in Acts has provoked more wrath from critics than this one has.” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 408). 2. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 5:1-11. 3. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 337. 4. Ibid. 5. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 112. 6. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 337. 7. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 408. 8. Cited in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 5:5-6. 9. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 102. 10. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 11. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 978. Bruce adds: “… in the Qumran regulations a postulant for membership in the community handed over his property provisionally to the treasurer, but it was not merged with the assets of the community until he had completed his period of probation and was admitted to full membership (1QS6.18-23).” (Bruce, p. 105). 12. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 5:5-6, citing Morgan. 13. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 5:1-11. 14. Cited in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 5:6. 15. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 104. 16. Bible Archaeology. http://www.bible-archaeology.info/tombs.htm 17. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1132. 18. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 107. 19. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 5:9-10. 20. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 5:10-11. 21. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 978. 22. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 111. 23. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1132-33. 24. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 5:12-42. 25. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 5:12, citing Hervey. 26. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 62. 27. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 5:13. 28. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 338. Utley adds here: “Luke especially highlights ‘women,’ both in the Gospel and Acts (i.e., Acts 1:14; 8:12; 16:1,13; 17:4,12, 34; 18:2; 21:5). Jesus brings a new sense of dignity and worth to women and children…” (Utley, v. 5:14). 29. William F. Arndt &F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 448. 30. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 335. “Ancient people thought that one’s shadow was attached to oneself; in Jewish law, if one’s shadow touched a corpse one was as unclean as one who physically touched the corpse.” 31. Quoted in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, 32. Ibid. 33. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 339. 34. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5:17. 35. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 339. 36. Cited in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 5:19. 37. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 118. 38. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 5:21-25. 39. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 5:22. 40. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 336. 41. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 118. 42. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5:24. 43. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 65. 44. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 410. 45. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 5:26. 46. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 5:28. 47. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 5:29-32. 48. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 5:31. 49. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 120. 50. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 62. 51. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5:31. 52. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 5:33. 53. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 5:33. 54. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, v. 5:33-42. 55. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 114. 56. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 411. 57. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5: 31. 58. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 112. Barclay adds: “Who this Theudas was we do not know…Theudas was a common name and no doubt this was just such another fire-brand.” (Barclay, vs. 5:33-42). 59. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 116-17. 60. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5:37. 61. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 5:37. 62. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 341. 63. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 5:40. 64. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 119. 65. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 342. In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. Acts 6:1 In the Fourth Century BC, the world conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), subdued most of the known world and brought along with his conquests the Greek culture and language. By the First Century, Greek was the lingua franca (common language) in most of the Mediterranean world. By this time many Jewish people were dispersed through the whole area and thus they too became Greek speakers. There was always a desire of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and often in their old age they did so. Since women often outlived the men, there began to be a large number of Greek-speaking widows in Jerusalem and in the church as well. What seems to be reflected here are the normal growing pains of a rapidly expanding church. Many Greek-speaking Jews (Gk. Hellēnistōn) were swept into the church. The rest of the church was Semitic-speaking, with the languages of Aramaic and Hebrew. We can imagine the confusion of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all mixed together in the church. The Greek speakers may have spoken little or no Aramaic or Hebrew. The natural thing was for them to form their own Greek-speaking synagogues and assemblies, which we see reflected in verse 9 and following. The Greek speakers began to be neglected in the daily distribution of food to widows and the needy. This was probably not on purpose but was likely just do to inefficiency and the barriers of language. There was not only a language barrier but a cultural barrier. Stott says that the Hellenists were not just Greek speakers but they behaved and even thought like Greeks, while other Jerusalem Jews were immersed in the Hebrew culture. [1] To make matters worse, the normal Jewish synagogue distribution to these needy new Christians would no longer be available. Growing problems obviously had to be dealt with. “Henry Ward Beecher called success ‘a last-year’s nest from which the birds have flown.’ Any ministry or organization that thinks its success will go on automatically is heading for failure.” [2] There began to be complaints from the Hellenists that their widows were being neglected and these complaints had to be dealt with immediately. “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, ‘It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables’” (6:2). Stott comments here: “There is no hint whatever that the apostles regarded social work as inferior to pastoral work, or beneath their dignity. It was entirely a question of calling…” [3] There has been much discussion here regarding the origin of the deaconate. It is interesting that while the language of Greek diakonia is used both in verses 1 and 2, the Seven who are chosen are not called deacons (diakonioi). [4] It would be good for us to understand something about the Jewish custom of caring for the poor and needy. Barclay gives us a good summary of this system: No nation has ever had a greater sense of responsibility for the less fortunate brethren than the Jews. In the synagogue there was a routine custom. Two collectors went round the market and the private houses every Friday morning and made a collection for the needy partly in money and partly in goods. Later in the day this was distributed. Those who were temporarily in need received enough to enable them to carry on; and those who were permanently unable to support themselves received enough for fourteen meals, that is, enough for two meals a day for the ensuing week. The fund from which this distribution was made was called the Kuppah or Basket. In addition to this a house-to-house collection was made daily for those in pressing need. This was called the Tamhui, or Tray. It is clear that the Christian church had taken over this custom. [5] By this time the church was quite large. About the only place where the whole church could come together was on the temple mount. They probably continued to worship in local Jewish synagogues on Saturday and in house churches on Sunday and other days. At this point Christians were not yet thrown out of the synagogues (Matt. 10:17; 23:34). We do know from Acts 2:46, that the believers moved from house to house. [6] From what we have read so far in scripture we can assume that home groups also may have divided themselves according to the various language groups. “Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word” (6:3-4). Keener remarks here: “Those with political power generally repressed complaining minorities; here the apostles hand the whole system over to the offended minority. This may thus be the first recorded instance of what we might today call ‘affirmative action.’” [7] They were instructed to choose seven men for the task. With the Hebrews, seven was a sort of perfect number or number of completion. It is interesting that the main requirements of these men was that they be filled with the Spirit of God and with wisdom. With such men in place the disciples could now be relieved to do their normal work of preaching. D. L. Moody once said “that it was better to put ten men to work than to try to do the work of ten men.” [8] The men chosen were likely leaders in the Hellenistic community. We know that some of them were truly filled with the Spirit to an amazing degree. Utley asks, “Isn’t it paradoxical that it was these ‘seven’ who were the first to catch the vision of the world mission of the gospel, not the apostles.” [9] Pett sums up their task by this comparison: “The new appointees would be administrative ‘ministers’ (deacons) and the apostles would be ‘deacons’ of the word.” [10] “This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism” (6:5). Let us review what we know about these men. Stephen, whose name means “victor’s crown,” [11] would soon gain his crown by offering himself as the church’s first recorded martyr. Philip has often been confused with the disciple Philip but they are not the same. This Philip is known as “Philip the Evangelist.” After the church was scattered, Philip brought the gospel to the Samaritans with signs and wonders (8:6, 39), and may have had a lot of influence in bringing the gospel to the Ethiopians and to Africa (8:26-40). It was this Philip who had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses. [12] We do not have much information on Procorus, Nicanor, Timon and Parmenas. We know they all had Greek names. In church tradition it is said that Parmenas was martyred at Philippi. [13] There is some discussion on Nicolas in early church writings. We see here that he was a Gentile who converted to Judaism and that he was from Antioch. The church father Irenaeus (c. 180) charged this Nicolas with being the founder of the sect known as the Nicolaitans. This group ate things sacrificed to idols and practiced adultery. [14] The father Hippolytus (170-235) agreed with this assessment. [15] However, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) totally disputed this idea. [16] Pett says, “There are no genuine grounds for associating him with the Nicolaitans of Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15.” [17] We know how heretical groups often wrote in the name of some famous biblical figure in order to gain respectability for themselves. No doubt this is what happened with Nicolas. Again, in this passage these men are not specifically called “deacons.” Yet, most feel that they were the first people to fulfill the office as we see it described in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. [18] This section tells us that sometimes traditional structures need to be adapted to meet the existing situations. It seems that the welfare of the church depends on this type of flexibility. [19] “They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them” (6:6). There are scriptural precedents for the laying on of hands (Gen. 48:13-20; Num. 27:18, 23; cf. 11:25). Barnes says, “Though the seven deacons had been chosen by the church to this work, yet they derived their immediate commission and authority from the apostles.” [20] With the approaching martyrdom of Stephen the church would be scattered from Jerusalem by persecution. They would go in all directions with some of these Hellenists in the forefront of introducing the gospel to the Gentiles. [21] “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7). When we consider how difficult it is in this age to gain a convert and make of that convert a true disciple, we must stand amazed at the skill the early church had in doing this. The increase of the church was rapid and they were reaching into the core of Judaism in the process. Keener says of this outreach to the priesthood, “Although most upper-class priests were Sadducees, the poorer priests, many of whom came to Jerusalem only several weeks of the year, were not; some priests were even Pharisees.” [22] Likely many of these were humble people just seeking to serve the Lord. Their hearts were obviously open to the gospel. Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. Acts 6:8 It is interesting that Stephen in his powerful ministry performed wonders and signs just like the Twelve had done. We will later see a similar thing also with Philip and his ministry in Samaria (8:6-8). Wiersbe says, “Stephen’s powerful testimony would be the climax of the church’s witness to the Jews.” [23] We see here that Stephen was full of God’s grace. This indicates that he had a Christ-like character. The Greek word for grace is charis, and it can include things like gracefulness, loveliness, graciousness, goodwill, favor and the like. [24] It appears that these are some qualities that are often missed by modern and postmodern Christians. “Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)— Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia— who began to argue with Stephen. But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke” (6:9-10). Obviously, Stephen was visiting some of the Greek-speaking synagogues and declaring the gospel to them. Perhaps we should say a word about synagogues in general. They seem to have arisen even as early as the exile in Babylon. [25] Synagogues were especially needful once the temple was destroyed, but they continued on even in the days of the Second Temple. They were convenient places for Jews to meet, discuss the scripture, pray and tend to local affairs. Commentators have had a good discussion as to whether Luke is speaking of one synagogue or a number of synagogues. [26] There would certainly be no problem if several synagogues were involved. Having lived in Jerusalem for many years, I can attest that there are numerous synagogues in the city. In several places it is impossible to go for two or three blocks without running into a small synagogue. Many of these are located in apartments. In fact, one of the first apartments my family and I rented in the city had a small synagogue in one of the front units. Once, while visiting the Great Synagogue in downtown Jerusalem, I realized that there were even small synagogues located within it. Many small synagogues in the First Century may have catered to different nationalities of Jews or to differing languages. Today the small synagogues are especially handy since devout Jews refuse to drive their cars on the Sabbath. The real problem for Stephen and his preaching was the Synagogue of the Freedmen. These were likely Jewish people who had been carried off as captives by Rome or else the children of such captives. Later, these were freed or manumitted and thus allowed to return to their native land. [27] The mention of Cilicia here presents us with the possibility that Saul, who later became known as Paul, might have attended this synagogue. [28] Cilicia was of course his native land (Acts 21:39). We know that young Paul was caught up in this conflict for he makes his appearance at the stoning of Stephen. We note here that the Jewish people, who usually seem do well at debating, could not withstand the spirit and wisdom of Stephen. Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. Acts 6:11-12 There was much anger among the Jewish people against Stephen. It seems that their philosophy was this, “…if you cannot beat him have him beaten.” [29] In their anger they seized Stephen and somehow got him before the Sanhedrin. Just as the Sanhedrin had done with Jesus, they rounded up some no-good people who would testify against Steven. Calm religious temperament was usually in short supply in Jerusalem. Bruce says, “Any threat, real or imagined, to the temple was not only an offense to their religious feelings; it was also a threat to their livelihood. The economic life of the city and its residents depended on the temple…” [30] “They produced false witnesses, who testified, ‘This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us’” (6:13-14). There were two basic charges from the false witnesses— that Stephen was preaching against the temple and against the law and customs of Moses. Either charge if proven true could get one killed in that day. It is clear that this charge was practically the same as the one lodged against Jesus (Mk. 14:58), and the one that much later would be lodged against Paul (Acts 21:28). [31] Essentially, the charge would be blasphemy and this subject was interpreted more liberally in the First Century than in earlier years. [32] When we look at Stephen’s following sermon, we realize that there were certain things he said that could be twisted around in order to support the charges against him. Still, Luke describes the charges against him as false (v. 13). [33] We will observe in his sermon that Stephen was speaking of a higher and greater temple, a spiritual one in Christ (cf. Jn. 4:23). He was speaking of a greater law than that of Moses, one written on hearts and minds of God’s true followers (Jer. 31:33). The people on hearing the sermon became angry and assaulted Stephen with half-truths. Someone once said that a half-truth is like a half-brick and it can be thrown a lot further than a whole one. Coffman says, “it was time, in the will of God, for the church to be scattered; and, therefore, God here permitted what he had not permitted before.” [34] God would now make the supreme Christian witness to Israel and to her leaders. Then, very quickly, the gospel would move out to the Gentiles. “All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel” (6:15). We simply cannot miss the comparison of Stephen’s face with that of Moses. When Moses gave the law to Israel it is recorded that his face shone (Exo. 34:29-35; cf. 2 Cor. 3:7). Now God’s messenger is bringing a new law, one that will be written on the heart, and his face is also shining. [35] Saul of Tarsus was most likely in that council. It is a reasonable thought that many years later, as they worked together, he conveyed much of this information to Luke. [36] No doubt Paul would never forget that look on Stephen’s face. 1. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 120. 2. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 343. 3. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 121. 4. Ibid. 5. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 6:1-7. 6. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 6:2. 7. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 338. 8. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 343. 9. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 6:4. 10. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 6:4. 11. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 6:5. 12. Douglas &Tenney, The New International Dictionary of the Bible, p. 781. 13. Ibid., p. 752. 14. Alexander Roberts &James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 1 (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), p. 352. 15. Roberts &Donaldson, eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 5, p. 115. 16. Roberts &Donaldson, eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 2, p. 373. 17. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 6:5-6. 18. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 6:5-7. 19. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 414-15. 20. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 6:6. 21. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 120. “This advance involved the large-scale evangelization of Gentiles. It was the Hellenists in the church who took the lead in this enterprise…” 22. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, pp. 338-339. Marshall adds: “The priests were presumably those attached to the temple in Jerusalem, of whom there was a great number (estimated at 18,000 priests and Levites).” (Marshall, pp. 127-28). Bruce also comments here: “The ordinary priests were socially and in other ways far removed from the wealthy chief-priestly families from which the main opposition to the gospel came. Many of the ordinary priests were no doubt men holy and humble of heart, like Zechariah, father of John the Baptist…” (Bruce, p. 123). 23. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 344. 24. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 479. 25. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 124. 26. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 129. “… the Greek construction favors two synagogues, one for the first three groups (Freedmen, Cyrenians, Alexandrians), and one for the remaining two (Clicians, Asians).” 27. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 6:9-10. 28. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 125. 29. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 6:11. 30. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 126. 31. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 979. 32. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 417. 33. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 128. 34. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 6:12. 35. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 6:15. 36. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 6:36. Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?” Acts 7:1 This is really a strange question for the high priest to ask. The priest probably knew full well that false witnesses had been hired to testify against Stephen. Several commentators feel that the high priest was still Caiaphas. We can see by this how utterly polluted our theology and our thinking can become when we get in the habit of rejecting the truth. Coffman says of this address: “Stephen’s address was not so much a defense of himself as it was an epic survey of Jewish history as related to their rejection of the promised Messiah; and, while it is true a complete refutation of the charges against himself is apparent in this master oration, it is the glorious figure of the risen Lord which dominates every word of it.” [1] Bruce remarks about the significance of Stephen and other Hellenists saying: “The Christians who embarked on this world mission were Hellenists like Stephen, and in his speech we may recognize the first manifesto of Hellenistic Christianity. Stephen and his fellow-Hellenists…were more farsighted than their ‘Hebrew’ brethren in appreciating the breach with the temple order implied in the teaching and work of Jesus.” [2] They were also more foresighted in their desire to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. “To this he replied: ‘Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran” (7:2). We note that Stephen is very respectful as he begins his sermon to this elite group. It will help us understand this important sermon if we realize that Stephen is making two main points as he speaks. First of all, he is saying that God is not restricted in his appearances and his work solely to the land of Israel. Second, God is not restricted solely to the law and to the temple. He begins by showing how God first appeared to Abraham in the far-away land of Mesopotamia. Barker &Kohlenberger add: “…that wherever God meets his people can be called ‘holy ground’…” [3] These authors continue to say that Stephen is, “…delivering a polemic against a veneration of the land that misses God’s further redemptive work.” [4] He will show how men worshipped God long before there was a land of Israel or a temple. Stephen begins his sermon by speaking of the Lord of Glory (cf. Deut. 5:24). Wiersbe notes that he begins with “the God of Glory and ends with the glory of God (7:55). Throughout his sermon his face continues to reflect that same glory.” [5] “‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you’” (7:3). Clearly, God’s call first came to Abraham (Abram) in Ur of Mesopotamia. From the scripture it seems that Abraham’s father Terah also heard something of this call and it affected him to some degree (Gen. 11:31). Terah, as the family patriarch, actually moved the family in the direction of Canaan but he stopped and settled at the city of Harran. It was there he died (Gen. 11:32). We understand by this section of scripture that God is a pilgrim God who is on the move, and his people must be a pilgrim people. [6] When we settle down to one place we may begin to miss the glory of his kingdom, much like Terah did. When the people of Israel finally settled down in the land they began to venerate the land and the temple. When they did so, they lost the big picture of their redemption. After all, it is said of Abraham, “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). He was not interested in Ur, Harran, or even in the natural Jerusalem (Salem). In fact, we have no scriptural record that Abraham ever visited the ancient city, although he once sacrificed on the mountain above it (Gen. 22:1-14). It does seem that Abraham failed to carefully heed God’s command. God told him not only to leave his country but also to leave his people. Instead, Abraham took with him Lot, his deceased brother’s son. It was Lot who later created many problems for the patriarch. Today the multiplied millions of Lot’s Arab descendants (the nation of Jordan and in various other places) have caused immense trouble for modern Israel and have been implicated in several wars against the nation. Coffman comments on the command to get out of the land saying: “… The young church was about to be scattered; and it was timely for the speaker to focus upon the fact that the father of all the faithful had also been called to get out of his native land and follow the call of the God of glory. On that very day when Stephen spoke, countless numbers of the Christians would say goodbye to Jerusalem…” [7] When God calls we must follow and not cling to the comfortable earthly things around us. So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living.” Acts 7:4 A number of interpreters see problems with the chronology here but it seems best for us not to get deeply involved in this since it may be a problem originating from the differing ancient translations. [8] In short, Barnes sums up the problem: “From Genesis 12:4, it seems that Abraham was 75 years of age when he departed from Haran to Canaan. The age of Terah was therefore but 145 years. Yet in Genesis 11:32, it is said that Terah was 205 years old when he died, thus leaving 60 years of Terah‘s life beyond the time when Abraham left Haran…” [9] Note that most translations have the word spelled Haran, instead of the NIV Harran. Here we need to point out that there are a number of textual problems in Stephen’s speech that have perplexed Bible interpreters for centuries. As we encounter these problems we need to remember that Stephen, like many early Christians, was not using a translation of the Bible based on our current Masoretic Hebrew text (MT). He was using the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation. This translation was made in Egypt during the third and second centuries BC. It was the popular version of the Bible for the multitudes of Greek speakers in the First Century. We see that Paul even used it a lot. It is possible that Stephen also made some use of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Second Century BC). Keener says, “Where his points differ from the standard Hebrew text, they generally agree with the Samaritan text or the Septuagint.” [10] Let us note about these differing translations that none of them perfectly transmits the original word of God. It is this original word of God that was delivered flawlessly to his people, but the thousands of years of translating have sometimes taken a toll on its original meaning. In addition to the MT, LXX and the Samaritan versions we today have a new tool in translating, and that is the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Most of these scrolls were discovered between 1946 and1956 in the caves around the site of Qumran, near the Dead Sea. Many of these scrolls had crumbled into tiny pieces. As these bits and pieces of scripture have been put back together, they have revolutionized Bible scholarship. Now we have a Hebrew text that is a thousand years older than the Masoretic text we had before. [11] Often, these ancient scrolls can shed new light on how a text was originally translated and interpreted. “He gave him no inheritance here, not even enough ground to set his foot on. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child” (7:5). It is an amazing thing that Abraham never received an inheritance in the physical Holy Land. He only owned the tiny plot where he buried his wife (Gen. 23:3-20). Not only did he not have any land, but he did not even have an heir. What an impossible situation! However, Abraham knew that with God all things were possible and he walked on in faith. Still, God assured Abraham that his descendants would eventually possess the land. “God spoke to him in this way: ‘For four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place’” (7:6-7). This was a little like the “good news, bad news” scenarios we often hear today. The good news was that they would possess the land, but the bad news was that they would be slaves in a country they did not own, and that for 400 years. It is interesting that God talked to Abraham in specifics. Yet, the number of 400 years has caused a lot of difficulty with Bible interpreters. In Exodus 12:40, we read that the captivity in Egypt lasted 430 years. So, how can we deal with this apparent contradiction? There are two things we should remember. First, the Bible often speaks in rounded numbers (cf. Gen. 15:13, 16; Gal. 3:17). [12] Second, we must refer back to what we said about the various ancient translations of scripture. In time, they did not all wholly agree with God’s original, pure and perfect revelation. The original word is God-made, but translations are man-made, with hopeful guidance from the Holy Spirit. “Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs” (7:8). The covenant of circumcision was given to Abraham many years after he had become justified by faith (Rom. 4:9-12). It was a sign of the imputed righteousness he possessed by faith. So, again, it was not the law, or circumcision but it was faith in the coming Messiah that was critically important. We remember that Abraham rejoiced to see the Messiah’s day (Jn. 8:56). Circumcision was not just a practice of the Hebrews. While they practiced infant circumcision most of Israel’s neighbors, with the exception of the Philistines, practiced circumcision at puberty as a rite of passage into manhood. Moslems still practice this kind of circumcision today. With Israel, the practice was a rite into the covenant with God. [13] Because the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles. He gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king of Egypt. So Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt and all his palace. Acts 7:9-10 In a mere three sentences, Stephen tells of Joseph’s spellbinding story of captivity and rise to power in Egypt. In this whole account, we see clearly that much of the redemption story happened outside the land of Israel. This whole account ran over 400 years. It is also apparent that Stephen is using the story of Joseph to illustrate how Israel had rejected her own deliverance. Joseph is clearly a type of Christ in the Old Testament. He was rejected by his brothers, the heads of Israel’s future tribes. Then he was sold into slavery by them. Some years later, through miraculous means, he was lifted to become the second in command to the mighty Pharaoh of Egypt. In that position he was able to become the deliverer for the whole family of Israel. Again, all this wonderful story of deliverance happened in Egypt, far from the land of Israel. Stott points out how in these seven verses Stephen repeats the word “Egypt” seven times. It seems he wants to make certain that his hearers have fully grasped its significance. [14] Barclay says of the Jewish people: “The Jews were lost in the contemplation of their own past and imprisoned in the mazes of their own law. But Joseph welcomed each new task, even if it was a rebuff, and adopted God’s view of life.” [15] Thus, in a faraway land he was not only able to be a deliverer for others but to save his own nation from starvation. He was able to help write the redemption story, but much of this story was not written in Jerusalem or even in Israel. Then a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our forefathers on their first visit. Acts 7:11-12 The story of Joseph and the salvation of his family is one of the classic dramas of all time. Just about every Sunday School child knows this story. They know how young Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers; how he ended up in prison in Egypt; and how through miraculous means he was lifted to become second in command to mighty Pharaoh (Gen. 41). Then they know how the famine predicted by Joseph wasted the land but how Joseph had stored up abundant grain during the seven good years he had predicted. They also know how Joseph’s brothers finally came down to Egypt and to Joseph to buy grain, since Joseph was in charge of all the bountiful grain storage in that land. Godbey says, “The people all come to Joseph for bread. He has plenty. What a glorious emblem of Christ, dispensing the bread of life!” [16] “On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about Joseph’s family” (7:13). So, Joseph at last revealed himself to his brothers with many tears. (Gen. 45:1-4). Then, the whole family of Jacob was brought down and settled in Egypt. What a redemption story! Stephen no doubt wished the court to understand how redemption can come in a seemingly “foreign” manner. [17] He no doubt wanted them to catch the vision of Christ the Redeemer, long before pictured so clearly in Joseph. “After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. (7:14). Once again we have a conflict here in scripture. Stephen tells us that 75 people went down into Egypt. However, this figure seems to be based on the text of the Greek Septuagint (cf. Gen. 46:27; Exo. 1:5), while the Hebrew text mentions 70 people. As we can see, trying to determine the exact meaning of some ancient texts can become a tricky thing. Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement with the Septuagint. [18] Then again, the Hebrew author may have been rounding off the number so far as we know. “Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our ancestors died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money” (7:15-16). It seems that there are textual problems popping up all over Stephen’s speech. It is true that all the ancestors died down in Egypt. However, scripture tells us that Joseph requested that his bones be brought back and buried in Israel, and Moses complied with this request when he and Israel left the country (Gen. 50:25; Exo. 13:19). Joseph was later buried in Shechem (Josh. 24:32). Today, Joseph’s Tomb still stands at ancient Shechem (present day Nablus). However, the Moslems have made many attempts to destroy it over the years. One of the problems that arises here is Stephen’s mentioning that all the bodies of the fathers were brought back to the land of Israel and buried at Shechem. The scriptures do not give us this information. Pett comments: “We may assume from this that there was a Jewish tradition that most of the patriarchs were finally buried there (there were certainly Jewish traditions of the patriarchs being buried in Canaan)…But if Joseph had made arrangements for his bones to be carried back to Canaan it is quite possible, even probable, that the others had as well, with the bones of Joseph getting special prominence because of his importance…” [19] Barnes adds, “As the scriptures do not anywhere deny that the patriarchs were buried in Sychem [sic], it cannot be proved that Stephen was in error.” [20] Since Shechem was in Samaria, and was the leading city of that people, Stephen may have been drawing information from certain Samaritan sources.” [21] We know that Jacob was buried at Hebron (Gen. 49:29-32; 50:13). And he was buried in the family tomb of Abraham. That tomb (the field of Macphelah) was the burial place of Abraham, Sarah, and others of the patriarchal family. Abraham bought this tomb from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 50:13). The tomb of the patriarchs still stands today in the ancient city of Hebron. I have visited this tomb but it remains a place of political contention. Stephen also tells us that Abraham also bought the tomb at Shechem from the sons of Hamor. We see in scripture that it was Jacob who bought the tomb (Josh. 24:32). There are several possible explanations for this. It is entirely possible that Abraham did purchase a plot in Shechem. Wiersbe says, “The simplest explanation is that Abraham actually purchased both pieces of property and that Jacob later had to purchase the Shechem property again. Abraham moved around quite a bit, and it would be very easy for the residents of the land to forget or ignore the transactions he had made.” [22] Even in our day, if an owner is not vigilant, a “squatter” can take possession of unused property and eventually gain legal title. Pett comments: “We in our more pedantic way would say ‘the Abrahamic tribe, to whom the promises were made, bought’. It was important that it was connected with Abraham here, because it was to Abraham that the promises had been made (Acts 7:5).” [23] Regarding all the apparent textual problems we have encountered, we should note that Stephen’s hearers do not seem to have had any problems with his use of scripture. Since they were quite hostile toward him and his approach, we would expect that they would have objected strenuously to his use of scripture if they deemed it in any way out of order. “As the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in Egypt had greatly increased.” Acts 7:17 Joseph, with Pharaoh’s blessing, had planted Israel in Goshen, the choice part of ancient Egypt. There, the small nation bountifully increased. Exodus 1:7 says, “but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.” While the rabbis maintain that Israel only went to Egypt for a visit, it was becoming like “home-sweet-home.” That was about to change. “Then ‘a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt’” (7:18). This account can be seen in Exodus 1:8-10. Today there is a rather strong debate among scholars as to dating the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Some identify him as being from the XVIII dynasty (c. 1445 BC) while others think he was from the XIX dynasty (1290 BC). [24] A number of writers, as well as popular culture, identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Ramesses II (reigned 1279–1213 BC). This transition could have had something to do with the shift away from Semitic rulers (Hyksos) to native Egyptian rulers. [25] These new rulers would have wanted nothing to do with Joseph or the Semitic Jewish people. “He dealt treacherously with our people and oppressed our ancestors by forcing them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die” (7:19). We find this account related in Exodus 1:10ff. Quite simply, this new Pharaoh was intent upon forcing genocide upon the Jewish people. We learn in the Exodus account that this Pharaoh placed slave masters over the people and began to oppress them, but this was not satisfactory to him. Then the order went out that the midwives should kill all the male Hebrew children. The Hebrew families began to live in great oppression and fear because of this decree. “At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for by his family. Acts 7:20 When Moses was born his parents realized that he was a special baby. Because they were not afraid (Heb. 11:23), the family hid him away from the king’s wrath. Some have described the baby Moses as being “exceeding fair” or “divinely fair” in his appearance. [26] “When he was placed outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son” (7:21). We know from the account in Exodus 2:5ff., that the parents were finally under such pressure that they placed the baby Moses in a basket to reeds and committed him to the grace of God and to the Nile River. Later he was spied by Pharaoh’s daughter and taken as her own child. Some have tried to identify this daughter but others have called it a vain task. [27] If we cannot be sure about the Pharaoh’s identity, we certainly cannot identify his daughter. Of course, as an adopted son of Pharaoh, young Moses would be blessed with all the advantages of the royal family in Egypt. “Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” (7:22). The First Century Jewish writer, Philo of Alexandria, felt that Moses was proficient in many studies, such as geometry, arithmetic, poetry, music, philosophy and other fields. He described Moses as having unique wisdom, stature and beauty. [28] It is truly interesting that while in Egypt Moses was powerful in speech. Yet, after God’s dealing with him for 40 years in the wilderness he had lost all his eloquence (Exo. 4:10). God had humbled him and brought him down to the dust. When he went before Pharaoh after that 40 years, he had to have his brother Aaron speak for him (Exo. 4:10-16). “When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit his own people, the Israelites. He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian. Acts 7:23-24 Moses was now at the end of the first of three 40-year periods in his life. It was a tradition among the Jewish people that Moses spent 40 years in Pharaoh’s court, another 40 years in Midian, and a final 40 years delivering and serving Israel. [29] It is said of him in Hebrews 11:24-26: “By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.” In order to protect his fellow Israelite Moses killed the Egyptian. “Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not” (7:25). So far in Stephen’s sermon, his Jewish listeners of the Sanhedrin were no doubt bored. They had heard all of these stories since childhood and no doubt even had them memorized. Suddenly Stephen gives them a pin prick that no doubt caused them to sit up straight in their seats and open their eyes wide. Moses was their great hero who had given them the law. Now Stephen is saying that when Moses first appeared to Israel the people rejected him. They could not help but make a similar comparison of how they had recently rejected Jesus. [30] “The next day Moses came upon two Israelites who were fighting. He tried to reconcile them by saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why do you want to hurt each other?’ But the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside and said, ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’” (7:26-28). It seems that Moses in this early part of his life already felt a calling to help and even deliver his people. The problem he now had was that he was trying to deliver them by fleshly means alone and that attempt failed miserably. Clearly, he was rejected by Israel. He was rejected, “Just as his hearers in court had failed to recognize their God-sent Savior in Jesus, even though he too had come preaching peace.” [31] They had rejected Jesus who himself was one greater than Moses (cf. Heb. 3:3). “Here he ties together both his preceding themes: God reveals himself outside the Holy Land, and Israel rejects its deliverers.” [32] “When Moses heard this, he fled to Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons” (7:29). When Moses realized he was found out he fled for his life (Exo. 2:11-22). Utley points out how this shows that there were some tensions already in the royal family of Egypt due to his being adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh. [33] “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. Acts 7:30 With this verse, we now see that Moses has been in the wilderness for 40 years. In that awful and forsaken place, God appeared to him in a burning bush (cf. Exo. 3:2). Once again Stephen makes his point that some of the great events in Israel’s history took place outside the Holy Land. Bruce reminds us of that old hymn by William Cowper: Jesus, wher’er thy people meet, There they behold thy mercy-seat; Where’er they seek thee, thou are found, And every place is hallowed ground. [34] So Stephen has well made his points: He, “emphasizes that God is not tied to one city or land; He appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, was with Joseph in Egypt and revealed himself to Moses in the wilderness…” [35] Stephen continues: “When he saw this, he was amazed at the sight. As he went over to get a closer look, he heard the Lord say: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look” (7:31-32). Moses not only saw the miraculous sight of a burning bush that was not consumed, but he heard the Lord speak. Here the Lord, the eternal “I am” spoke to Moses. He clearly identified himself with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the God of the patriarchs. Moses was afraid before him. This amazing account is found in Exodus 3:5-6. “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have indeed seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt’”’ (7:33-34). The place where Moses was standing, down deep in the wilderness, was holy ground (Exo. 3:5). Stott says, “This statement was central to Stephen’s thesis. There was holy ground outside the Holy Land. Wherever God is, is holy…” [36] “This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out of Egypt and performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the wilderness” (7:35-36). “The very man whom his people had refused was the man chosen by God to be their ruler and redeemer.” [37] How true it was that in Stephen’s day they had made the same tragic mistake once more as they had rejected their deliverer, Jesus. Utley adds: “Again God came to an Israelite outside the Promised Land… Much of Israel’s history occurred outside Canaan and before the temple in Jerusalem. All through the Israelites’ history God’s leaders were rejected by their peers (cf. Acts 7:9, 27-28, 35, 39). This is a recurrent theme.” [38] “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’ He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us” (7:37-38). Moses was a very popular figure with the First Century Jewish people. “All parties within Judaism of the first century AD – whether Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Apocalypticists, Hellenists, Samaritans, or the so-called People of the Land – were united in this veneration and idealization…” [39] But what did this Moses say? He said something very important that all Israel soon forgot. He said that God would raise up a prophet like him. He said, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deut. 18:15). What a charge that was given to Israel. They must listen to this prophet who will be like Moses. We can imagine that the Sanhedrin members were now squirming in their seats because, as scholars, they certainly knew about this prophecy. It was Moses who received all these living words to give them. “This is quoted to remind his Moses-worshipping audience of the grand testimony of their faithful lawgiver, that he himself was not the last and proper object of the church‘s faith, but only a humble precursor and small model of him to whom their absolute submission was due.” [40] Pett mentions how the Prophet like Moses was known in the Dead Sea Scrolls and how the Samaritans looked for one like Moses to come. [41] “But our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. Acts 7:39 In spite of all God had done to deliver them from Egypt and to sustain them in the wilderness; In spite of God’s giving Moses and the law, the people refused to obey and instead turned back to Egypt in their hearts. They disobeyed and repudiated the leadership of Moses. [42] It was none other than the ancestors of those in the Sanhedrin who rejected Moses’ leadership. The message was clear. Just as their ancestors rejected Moses the Sanhedrin leaders had already rejected the one like Moses who was sent for their salvation and deliverance. By this, Stephen was subtly proving that the sins of the Sanhedrin were much greater than the sins for which they were condemning him. [43] “They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don’t know what has happened to him!’” (7:40). Let us remember that Moses had already received the tablets of the law and was ready to come down from the mountain and give these tablets to Israel. What a time of rejoicing it should have been! Unfortunately, the people had prevailed upon Aaron to make them an idol (Exo. 32). Keener says, “The episode of the golden calf was the incident in Israel’s history of which the rabbis were most ashamed; they felt it was the most sinful of Israel’s acts.” [44] “That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made” (7:41). It is no wonder where the people got the idea of a calf. The Apis Bull was one of the favorite gods of Egypt. It is simply amazing that Aaron the high priest of Israel was cajoled into making this idol. Wiersbe says, “…No sooner had the people received the law than they disobeyed it by asking Aaron to make them an idol (Ex. 32), and thereby broke the first two of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-6).” [45] “But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: ‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?’” (7:42). There are times when God gives humanity over to idolatrous worship. That worship was really horrible in ancient times. The pagan temples were populated with great numbers of prostitutes and homosexuals. This was the perfectly normal worship in those times. Sometimes young children were offered in sacrifice. For God to give people over to this was dreadful. We see a similar thing described in Romans 1:18-32. Pagan worship was not worship at all but an institutionalized form of spiritual and fleshly dissipation. Marshall says of Amos 5:25-27, “…the question ‘Did you offer me sacrifices?’ has been taken to expect a negative answer and to imply that Amos thought no sacrifices were offered in the wilderness period…” [46] Rather, Utley says, “Amos asserts that Israel was always offering sacrifices to foreign gods. It was a regular, and early, pattern of their history (cf. Josh. 24:20).” [47] According to Jewish thinking in the First Century, the wilderness time was idealized as a time of Israel’s purity. [48] Stephen corrects that false assumption. It was not a time of purity but a time of false worship. Some people had apparently brought their favorite gods along on the trip. “You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile’ beyond Babylon” (7:43). Molek (Gk. Moloch) was the despicable Canaanite god who required the sacrifice of little children. In addition to Molek the Israelites were apparently involved in astral worship of the star-god Rephan (Gk. Rompha). Stephen is here taking his information from the Septuagint. [49] The Old Testament passage he is dealing with is found in Amos 5:25-27. Many of the popular gods and goddesses had their origin in ancient Babylon. Pett notes that Stephen is bringing home the lesson that Israel was returning back to the very thing from which Father Abraham had escaped. [50] “Our ancestors had the tabernacle of the covenant law with them in the wilderness. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. Acts 7:44 The tabernacle in the wilderness was an incredible structure. It likely was the most important structure ever seen by human eyes. The tabernacle was designed by God and the instructions for building it were handed down from Heaven to Moses. He was charged to build it according to the heavenly pattern (Exo. 25:9). Yet, the Jewish people rejected the tabernacle and sought to build God a house. This was unfortunate, because the tabernacle in symbolic manner lays out a very clear picture of redemption. It is clear that the building of a house for God, or a temple, opened Israel up to many abuses. Wiersbe says: “The witnesses accused Stephen of seeking to destroy the temple, but that was exactly what the Jewish nation did!…the worship at the temple degenerated into mere religious formality, and eventually there were idols placed in the temple (2 Ki. 21:1-9; Ezek. 8:7-12)…they had turned God’s house into a den of thieves (Jer. 7:1-16).” [51] John Wesley once said, “Whenever the Methodists get to building fine houses they are a ruined people.” [52] Barker and Kohlenberger state: “Stephen’s assessment of Israel’s worship experience lays all the emphasis on the tabernacle…Stephen seems to have viewed the epitome of Jewish worship in terms of the tabernacle, not the temple…he felt the mobility of the tabernacle was a restraint on the status quo mentality that had grown up around the temple.” [53] “After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob” (7:45-46). It was with the tabernacle that Joshua conquered the land and drove out the pagan nations who had lived in it. It was the tabernacle that had remained the place of worship for Israel up to the time of David. David desired to build God a house. However, the prophet, after first giving approval, came back with God’s answer. God informed David that he had not desired a house, nor had he asked anyone to build him a house. Rather, God promised that he would build a house for David and it would be an eternal house (2 Sam. 7:5-13). Clearly, Stephen was seeing into the spiritual world and thinking of that heavenly tabernacle (cf. Heb. 8:2; 9:11). [54] No doubt he was thinking of that time when God would dwell with those who were contrite in heart and who trembled at his word (Isa. 66:2). [55] “But it was Solomon who built a house for him” (7:47). God knew that Israel would finally build him a house. He did not permit David to do it, but he knew that Solomon, his son, would build it (2 Sam. 7:12-13). Toward the end of his life, David busied himself preparing the materials for the temple (1 Chr. 22). Later, Solomon did construct the house for God but even he realized that God did not dwell in houses (1 Ki. 8:27). The house eventually led Israel to make it a thing of worship. Bruce says, “It was rather the state of mind to which the temple gave rise – a state of mind which could not have been engendered by the mobile tabernacle – that Stephen reprobated, as Jeremiah had done in his day.” [56] On the positive side, God would acknowledge the temple as his house of prayer (Mk. 11:17). Jesus would even attempt to cleanse it (Mk. 11:15-16). He would use the stones of the temple to teach valuable lessons about how the church is to be built with those who are like living stones (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus would even be called the living stone (1 Pet. 2:4). “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things?’” (7:48-50). With these verses Stephen reaches the climax of his sermon. He is quoting here from Isaiah 66:1-2, in the Septuagint version. Guthrie says, “Stephen regards the building of the temple as a retrograde step, and counters the idea that God could dwell in a house…This unmistakable attack on the most cherished center of the national religion probably caused an explosion of anger, which drew forth the denunciation of v. 51.” [57] You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Acts 7:51 At this point we have to appreciate the boldness of Stephen. He no doubt knew that in shifting to second person and making this charge directly against the members of the Sanhedrin he would be killed. He was a very brave and courageous Christian. The charge of being stiff-necked was one often made by God himself, by Moses and the prophets of Israel (Exo. 32:9; 34:9; Neh. 9:16-17; Jer. 17:23). This metaphor was taken from oxen that were not broken to the yoke and whose necks could not be bent to the right or to the left. [58] Stephen charges Israel also with being uncircumcised in heart and ears. We see in scripture that circumcision not only has to do with the male sexual organs but it has to do with hearts (Deut. 10:16), and with ears (Jer. 6:10). Thus, we realize that circumcision is not just an outward thing but that the Lord means it to go deep into a person’s being. Israel’s leaders unfortunately had majored on outward things. They had neglected to pursue the spiritual truths that are evident all through the Bible. “Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” (7:52-53). Marshall says “There was a well-established tradition in Judaism that the Jewish people had been responsible for the deaths of the prophets (cf. 1 Ki. 19:10; 14; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 26:20-24; Lk. 6:23; 11:49; 13:34; 1 Thess. 2:15; Heb.11:36-38)…” [59] There were well-known Jewish traditions that the prophet Jeremiah was stoned to death, and another tradition that the prophet Isaiah was sawn in two. [60] Stephen goes on to push his attack to the maximum and charges that they did not obey the law that was given through angels, and that they had at last murdered the Righteous One. Israel felt that the law was delivered by angels (cf. Deut. 33:2 LXX; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). Also, already in Acts 3:14 and later in 22:14, Jesus is called the Righteous One (cf. Isa. 53:11; Jer. 23:6; 1 Jn. 2:1). “By rejecting the Messiah, they had filled up the measure of their fathers.” [61] When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. Acts 7:54 The Psalmist in speaking of the wicked once said, “Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they gnashed their teeth at me” (Psa. 35:16). Jesus even speaks of the final destruction as a place of gnashing of teeth (Mt. 8:12). The deep hatred of the Sanhedrin had turned its members into snarling animals. Keener quips, “Luke leaves no doubt as to who is really on trial before God…” [62] “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (7:55). So far in Acts, we have seen that being filled with the Spirit was a pretty normal thing for the early Christians (cf. 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5). We must stop and wonder why it is not normal for Christians today. We actually have a command to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). In the Bible, the normal picture of the risen Christ is a picture of him sitting at the right hand of God (Matt. 26:64; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3). This is based on the very popular Psalm 110:1. However, Stephen here sees Jesus standing at God’s right hand. Most commentators see this as an indication that Jesus has stood to welcome his first martyr. [63] “‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’” (7:56). While the title “Son of Man” seems to be Jesus’ most favorite self-designation in the Gospels, it is used scarcely in other places, such as Daniel chapters 7 and 8 and in Revelation chapters 13 and 14. On many occasions Ezekiel is called “son of man” by God. The expression seems to speak not only of Christ’s divinity but of his humanity. Stephen’s listeners had heard enough, they could not bear it any further. “At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul” (7:57-58). In their great anger they had obviously lost control of themselves. They were determined to put an end to Stephen and to his message. This dignified body had become a lynch mob. They were obviously trying to drown out his words. They were so distraught that they apparently did not remember that their organization did not have the legal authority to put someone to death (Jn. 18:31). The Romans had taken that authority away many years before. [64] We are told that they dragged Stephen outside the city according to the instructions of Leviticus 24:14 and began to stone him. We remember that a short time before, Jesus was also taken outside the city and crucified (cf. Heb. 13:12). Barker and Kohlenberger note a progression in the punishment that the Sanhedrin was handing out to Christians. There were first threatened…then flogged…and finally stoned. [65] When we think of stones we are likely to think of gravel or other small stones. The stones used in stoning were huge stones. There seems to be some effort to dress this up as a legal action. There were witnesses, although they were false ones. According to Old Testament law, the witnesses were to cast the first stones (Lev. 24:14; Deut. 13:9-10; 17:7). The witnesses were present and they laid their clothes down at the feet of a young man named Saul. This probably suggests that Saul had an official part in the execution. [66] Because Saul or Paul later speaks in Acts 26:10 of casting his vote against the Christians, it is thought by some that he was an actual member of the Sanhedrin. [67] “While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep” (7:59-60). Augustine said that if Stephen had not prayed, we may not have had Paul. [68] Stephen asked Jesus to receive his spirit, a very similar request that Jesus himself had made on the cross (Lk. 23:46). Then Stephen did another thing that Jesus also did at his crucifixion. He prayed that the sin would not be held against them (cf. Lk. 23:34). Then it is said that Stephen simply fell asleep. This was a common euphemism for death at that time. Wiersbe closes this traumatic section of scripture saying: “For the church in Jerusalem, the death of Stephen meant liberation. They had been witnessing “to the Jew first” ever since Pentecost, but now they would be directed to take the message out of Jerusalem to the Samaritans (Acts 8) and even to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-26).” [69] 1. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 7:1. 2. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 131. 3. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, pp. 417-18. 4. Ibid., p. 418. 5. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 344. Barker &Kohlenber add: “Stephen’s speech was not a scholarly historical survey; it was a powerful portrayal of God’s dealing with Israel…Church history knows of few, if any, greater displays of moral courage than Stephen showed in this speech.” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 419). 6. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 139. 7. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament v. 7:3. 8. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 7:4. “We may also note the possibility that Abraham was mentioned first of the three sons in Genesis 11:26 only because of his prominence in the ensuing narrative, rather than because he was the eldest son. Thus the son born when Terah was ‘seventy’ may have been Nahor or Haran…Abraham may have been born much later and have been the youngster.” 9. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 7:4. 10. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 340. 11. Biblical Archaeology Society. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-masoretic-text-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/ Accessed 3/2/16. 12. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 7:6-7. Barnes adds: “Stephen and Moses use, in accordance with a very common custom, ‘round numbers’ in speaking of it, and thus speak of 400 years when the literal time was 430.” (Barnes, v. 7:6). 13. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 7:8. 14. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 133. 15. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 7:8-16. 16. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, vs. 7:9-16. 17. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 7:13. 18. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 340. 19. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:15-16. 20. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, vs. 7:15-16. 21. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 340. 22. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 345. 23. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:15-16. 24. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 7:18. 25. Ibid. 26. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 7:20-22. 27. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 139. 28. Cited in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 139. 29. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 7:23. 30. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 981. 31. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:26-28. 32. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 340. 33. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 7:29. 34. Cited in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 141. 35. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 981. 36. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 136-137. 37. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 142. 38. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 7:35. 39. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 419. 40. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 7:37. 41. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:37. 42. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 143. 43. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 344. 44. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 341. 45. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 345. 46. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, pp. 144-45. 47. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 7:42. 48. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:42-43. 49. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 145. “…the star of your god Raiphan: Raiphan being a designation of the planet Saturn….Stephen means that the worship of the planetary powers, for which the nation lost its liberty and suffered deportation, was the climax of that idolatrous process which began in the wilderness.” Utley adds: “The worship of astral deities began in Mesopotamia, but spread into Syria and Canaan (cf. Job 31:26, 27).” (Utley, v. 7:42). 50. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 7:42-43. 51. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 346. 52. Quoted in Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, vs. 7:44-50. 53. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 421. 54. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 7:45. 55. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 7:45. 56. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 149. 57. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 981. Marshall adds: “There seems in fact to be a contrast between the tent, of which God approved, and the permanent house built by Solomon…temple-worship imposes a false limit on the nature of God.” (Marshall, p. 146). 58. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 7:51. 59. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 147. 60. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 69. 61. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 152. 62. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 343. 63. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 64. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 142. “Since the Romans had taken away the Jews’ right to capital punishment, it seems that Stephen’s stoning was more a mob lynching than an official execution…” 65. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 424. 66. Ibid. 67. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 7:57-58. 68. Ibid., vs. 7:59-60, Citing Augustine. 69. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 346. And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Acts 8:1 We cannot miss the figure of Saul, who gave his hearty approval to the killing of Stephen. Later, as Saul became Paul, he had much sorrow and suffered a great deal over his actions. Saul did not just approve of Stephen’s murder but obviously he pursued other Christians to their deaths (cf. 9:1; 22:4; 26:10). He was a man with blood on his hands. [1] He was probably a man with a troubled conscience, since he had broken up many Christian families and no doubt forced some saints to blaspheme Christ. Surely, Saul or Paul could never forget these evil acts (cf. Acts 22:20; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13). Luke speaks here of a great persecution that broke out against Christians. This was the first serious persecution in church history, but it mostly concerned Jerusalem. Although it fell upon all the Christians, it seems to have focused on the Hellenistic Christians. They did exactly what the Master had instructed them to do in time of persecution. He had said, “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another…” (Matt. 10:23). Thus, the early church scattered itself abroad. It is interesting that the disciples remained in Jerusalem. This may reflect the fact that the persecution was basically against the Hellenists. [2] Also, it may have reflected the disciples’ strong faith in God’s providential care. No doubt, they felt an urgent need to abide with the old and young who continued to need their pastoral care and supervision. It is noted here that the Christians fled initially to the areas of Judea and Samaria. We want to take a moment or two to understand these geographic areas. Judea and Samaria made up the mountainous heartlands of ancient Israel. Judea stretched from Jerusalem to areas south and west. Samaria stretched to the areas north. These areas contained many of the early important cities such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Bethel, Shiloh and Shechem. The division between Judea and Samaria came early in Israel’s history. This early tension was displayed when the land was first settled, but the tensions were especially evident after the kingdom of Solomon ended (1 Ki. 12:16). The ten northern tribes pulled away, calling themselves “Israel,” and the two southern tribes (essentially Judah and Benjamin) came to be called simply “Judah” or “Judea.” The problem was exacerbated in 722 BC when the ten northern tribes were carried away into captivity by the Assyrians. It was their policy to remove whole populations and replant the land with people from other countries. The few remaining Jewish people in the land then intermarried with these foreign transplants, creating what we know from history as the Samaritans. The Jews of Judea considered these people as religiously polluted half-breeds and had nothing to do with them. The feelings were mutual, creating immense tensions between the two peoples. By the time of Jesus and the disciples, it was approaching a thousand-year-old problem which no one could solve. We remember how Jesus in his initial ministry focused solely upon the Jews, instructing his disciples not to work in Samaria (Matt. 10:5). However, as the Jewish people began to reject his message, we see Jesus going to Gentile peoples (Matt. 15:21ff.). Later, he and his disciples did some ministry among the Samaritans (Jn. 4:7ff.). The woman of Samaria in John 4 was astounded that Jesus would ask her for a drink of water because Jews had no dealings with Samaritans (Jn. 4:9). Yet, Jesus in his Great Commission of Acts 1:8 instructed his infant church to go and take the gospel to the Samaritans. They apparently had to be forced into this mission. It is almost unbelievable that twenty centuries later, the problems of Judea and Samaria still exist in our world. Because of the cauldron of Middle Eastern politics, both Judea and Samaria have become some of the most politically incorrect and toxic terms on earth. In the prophets, God promised, that after thousands of years of dispersion, the Jewish people would return home and settle exactly in the mountainous areas of Judea and Samaria (Ezek. 34:14). In the meantime, both areas had begun to be claimed by the so-called Palestinians, who flocked into the area from Syria and other Arab countries. This migration in the early Twentieth Century took place because of Israeli industrial development and the jobs it provided. After the 1960s, and much political maneuvering, this “Palestinian problem” became one of the most dangerous and explosive problems on earth. Even today the problem of Judea and Samaria (so-called West Bank) defies solution, although many of the finest political minds in the world have tried in vain to solve it. It is obvious that the Hellenists were perfectly equipped to take the gospel out to the world. Their nimble Greek minds had allowed them to see the deep spiritual truths of the gospel and how these truths were applicable to all people. In addition, their native Greek tongues made it possible for them to preach throughout the Mediterranean world. In a sense, they were perfect missionaries, thoroughly steeped in the Greek culture. No further missionary training was necessary. The wonderful salt of the gospel was about to leave the Jerusalem saltshaker. [3] The gospel was great news for Samaritans and all people. Victor Hugo once wrote, “There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.” [4] “Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him” (8:2). Burial for the Jewish people was a very important thing and not to be overlooked. The seldom-used Greek word eulabeis (godly) has caused several commentators, and particularly the Greek scholar Robertson, to think that some of these who buried Stephen were Jews and not Christians. [5] Guzik remarks, “Perhaps this was Luke’s way of reminding us that not all Jewish people of that time were enemies of Christianity.” [6] We should note that among the Jews it was a mitzvah (good deed) to be involved in burying the dead. However, in later codification of Jewish law, it was forbidden to mourn those who were executed as criminals. It is possible that some of this feeling existed in these early times and if so, it would have made this good deed all the more commendable. Burial of the dead in Jewish custom involved much open mourning. It was even customary in these times to hire professional mourners for a funeral. On the eastern side of Old Jerusalem today there stands Stephen’s Gate (also known as the Lion’s Gate). This gate is a monument to slain Stephen. It is the only eastern access to the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives. It could have well been the place of Stephen’s stoning. “But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison” (8:3). It is made plain in this verse that the persecution of the church was no small matter. The church in Jerusalem was apparently devastated by Saul’s actions. The word for destroy here is the Greek elumaineto, and it is commonly applied to the devastations brought about by wild beasts like lions and wolves. [7] Saul was devastating the church, like Stephen may well have devastated his arguments in the Jerusalem Cilician synagogue where they may have worshipped. He dragged off (surōn) men and women. This Greek word is the one later used in Revelation 12:4 where Satan swept a third of the stars out of heaven. [8] Paul placed the captured Christians in prison. To be placed in prison in those days was unlike today. People were not given long terms in prison but it was merely a holding place where people were kept until their trials. [9] Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went. Acts 8:4 This serious persecution scattered the believers in all directions. “The scattering of the Christians led to the most significant step forward in the mission of the church…” [10] This scattering (Gk. diasparentes) was nothing new for the Jewish people. Even today those Jews who live in various nations are referred to as the Diaspora. We note that these scattered early believers went everywhere telling the good news. The Greek here is euaggelizomenoi, from which root we get evangelism and evangelize. How interesting that it took serious persecution for the early church to reach out to the lost world. It was Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240) who said: “We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed.” [11] It may take persecution for today’s western Christian world to preach the good news once more. Persecution is certainly coming our way. John Allen, in his book The Global War on Christians, says that already three-quarters of the world population (5.25 billion people) live in countries where there are significant restrictions on religious freedom. [12] There is an interesting account of persecution in Ethiopia that is told in the book The Privilege of Persecution: In 1982, the communists overthrew the government of Ethiopia and persecution of the church began. Along with other groups, the Mennonite churches had all their buildings and property confiscated. Many of the leaders were imprisoned and the members were forbidden to meet. The church went underground without any leaders, without buildings, without the opportunity to meet together publicly or use any of their public programs. While underground, they could not even sing out loud for fear someone would report them to the authorities. Ten years later, the communist government was overthrown, allowing this church to come out of hiding. The church leaders were amazed to find that their 5,000 members had grown to 50,000 in that ten-year period. [13] “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there” (8:5). We see here that Philip went down to Samaria. Samaria was mostly on a mountain ridge much like Jerusalem. However, every direction was “down” from Jerusalem in Bible times. We do not know for sure to what city Philip went. The ancient capital city of Samaria had been rebuilt by Herod and renamed Sebastos. It was a Greek city. The city of Shechem was by this time called Neapolis and is today called Nablus. [14] It was at this city that the Samaritans had built for themselves a rival temple to that in Jerusalem. Shechem had much Bible history to its credit. At Shechem the covenant was periodically renewed (Deut. 11:29ff.). Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal were there. Jacob’s Well was on the outskirts of the city. It was there that Jesus ministered to the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4). This seems to be a very likely and fruitful place for Philip’s preaching. It was there that Jesus said to his disciples, “…open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest” (Jn. 4:35). We remember that Jesus was invited to stay there and minister to the people for two days and many believed on him (Jn. 4:39-41). So Philip went to Samaria and preached. The Greek word for preach this time is ekērussen, meaning “to herald.” [15] We can understand how these former enemies were open to the preaching of Philip. Both had now been dispossessed by the Jews in Jerusalem. [16] Thus, they had much in common. “When the crowds heard Philip and saw the signs he performed, they all paid close attention to what he said. For with shrieks, impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed” (8:6-7). The response to Philip and his preaching bears witness that the Samaritan fields were truly ready for harvest. We note here that Philip was doing the same kind of miracles that the apostles did in Jerusalem. We remember that the apostles did lay their hands on those chosen as deacons. Perhaps they had received this powerful anointing from the apostles. “So there was great joy in that city” (8:8). Stedman speaks of their rapt attention and their joy in these words: “…When a great crowd of people listens intently it is because they think they are hearing the truth…I remember one woman who was converted a number of years ago by believing the truth. She had never had anything to do with a church before. She was just filled with joy, and she wanted to say so, but she didn’t know the right words. She had not learned ‘Hallelujah!’ yet, and so she just said, ‘Whoopee! Whoopee!’ That is the kind of joy the gospel gives.” [17] Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” Acts 8:9-10 Here we are introduced to Simon the sorcerer. Sorcery is a term loosely encompassing a number of activities that are forbidden in the Bible. It could be defined as the use of evil supernatural power over people and things. It is closely connected to magic, witchcraft and the casting of spells. Today the whole subject of sorcery has gained wide popularity as reflected particularly by the Harry Potter books and movies. We have also been gently initiated into sorcery by the TV, starting long ago with such innocent and funny programs like I Dream of Jeannie, then moving deeper into programs such as Bewitched, and finally on to the really heavy stuff like The Exorcist. In no uncertain terms sorcery is forbidden by the Bible (e.g. Exo. 22:18; Lev. 19:26-31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:10-12; Isa. 2:6; 8:19; 47:13). However, the Samaritans were a biblically deficient people with mixed ideas of God’s truth. It was the kind of environment that people like Simon could flourish. Simon practiced magic (Gk. mageuōn) and is known in history as Simon Magus. Sorcery, witchcraft and magic were popular things in the First Century and magicians always drew large crowds. [18] This man seemed to have special power and authority. In Greek, he was called the great power of God (dunamis Megalē). Robertson thinks that here we have a beginning of the second century idea of emanations or aeons that come down from God to man. [19] Marshall feels that Simon was making a claim to be someone divine. [20] “They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery” (8:11). Apparently Simon had gathered for himself quite a large following. It is interesting that he claimed greatness for himself while Philip claimed greatness for God. [21] “But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (8:12). Obviously, Simon was losing some of his admirers. The despised and abused Samaritans had finally heard some good news. They could join now with the Jews and become first-class citizens in the kingdom of God. They had waited hundreds of years for such news. It is obvious here that baptism was something that was done immediately. Both men and women were baptized. There were no long drawn-out new member classes or other ecclesiastical rigmarole. “Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw” (8:13). Although Simon believed and was baptized, we see here that he was more interested in signs and miracles than in the saving faith that Philip preached. Barnes says, “That Simon was not a real Christian is apparent from the whole narrative, Acts 8:18, Acts 8:21-23…he was willing to make use of Christianity to advance his own power, influence, and popularity – a thing which multitudes of men of the same mind with Simon Magus have been willing since to do.” [22] When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. Acts 8:14 It seems clear in Acts that the Jerusalem church exercised some supervisory relationship over all the other churches. [23] Marshall notes, “It does look as though new advances were examined with care in the church at Jerusalem…” [24] Peter and John were thus sent down to Samaria to observe these new events and to report back to the other apostles. No doubt, they found Philip a little perplexed. These people had sincerely believed with all their hearts, they had been baptized immediately, but the supernatural signs of the Holy Spirit were still lacking in their lives. [25] The apostolic teaching was simple. One should repent of sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be immediately baptized and then receive the Holy Spirit (2:38). This strange situation has provoked a lot of commentary and has actually brought forth some false assumptions and even some false doctrine. Here were people who had turned to Christ but they apparently did not yet have the Holy Spirit. Some Charismatic doctrine has been based on this episode. It may be that the idea of the Second Blessing sprang from this and a few other scattered passages. Charismatic and Pentecostal doctrine today often teaches that Christians still need to be baptized with the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, although this seems to contradict the simple teaching of scripture. It is rather surprising when we search the New Testament for the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” that we find only seven clear references to the event. These verses are Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16; and 1 Corinthians 12:13. The interesting thing about these references is that all but one speak of the same thing, of a coming, one-time, historical event. The one that does not speak of this, 1 Corinthians 12:13, seems to be looking back and commenting on this one-time event. It should be pointed out that the historical event appears to have been extended in three distinct and separate stages, to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. This information should help us see that the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” may not be the best expression to describe the Holy Spirit’s coming and work today. It leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion between the one-time historical event and the subsequent work of the Spirit. Much better terminology would probably be the “filling of the Holy Spirit” as we see in Ephesians 5:18, or the common expression “Spirit filled.” While being filled with the Spirit can describe our initial Holy Spirit experience, as in the case of Paul (Acts 9:17), it can also describe a common and continuing experience that happens to the Lord’s followers (Acts 4:8; 4:31; 13:9; &13:52). The scripture plainly says that if we do not have the Spirit we do not belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9). It also says that with our new birth, God has given us everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). He has already given us every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3). If we are believers we are already complete in him (Col. 2:9-10). His Spirit is presently welling-up within us (Jn. 4:14). We already have living water within (Jn. 7:37-38). It is clear in scripture that we should not look down on others or consider them incomplete if they do not appear to have our level of experience (Phil. 2:3). Obviously, the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was extended to the Jews at Pentecost was about to be extended to the Samaritans, who themselves were partly Jewish. “When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:15-16). With the Samaritans, the saving and redeeming process was not yet complete. We must remember that this event is part of the initial and general, historical pouring out of the Spirit or baptism of the Spirit. Utley says, “This could be called the Samaritan Pentecost.” [26] “Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (8:17). There has been much puzzlement among commentators regarding this section. The question is “Why didn’t the Holy Spirit come upon these who had obviously met the other requirements of salvation?” “Why couldn’t Philip pray down the Holy Spirit upon them?” It seems that only two commentators have given the correct answers to these questions. Stott says, “in all three developments [Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles] Peter played a decisive role, using the keys of the kingdom (though Luke does not refer to this) to open it successively to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles…” [27] Wiersbe adds, “Jesus had given Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:13-20), which meant that Peter had the privilege of “opening the door of faith” to others. He opened the door to the Jews at Pentecost, and now he opened the door to the Samaritans. Later, he would open the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 10).” [28] Neither can we conclude from this verse that the laying on of hands was necessary for the Holy Spirit to be given. In other places we see the Holy Spirit coming without the laying on of hands (e.g. at Pentecost in Acts 2; with the Gentiles in Acts 10:44). Obviously, we need to be very careful in forming church doctrine when we do not understand the particulars of the verses we are using. The laying on of hands here no doubt had some other purposes. Pett comments: “This laying on of hands was uniquely important here for it established the oneness between the new Samaritan church and the church in Jerusalem.” [29] The awful religious barriers that had lasted for centuries were now removed. It is ironic that John on a former occasion in Samaria desired to have fire fall from heaven and burn up a certain unfriendly Samaritan village (Lk. 9:54). Now, John is able to bring a totally different kind of fire to Samaria. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Acts 8:18-19 Obviously, some very exciting things were happening as the Holy Spirit fell on the Samaritans. It was probably very similar to the original Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem when people spoke in other tongues and additional strange events happened. Upon seeing this display Simon was astounded. He knew that if his work was to continue, he simply must have this apostolic ability. Simon did the only thing that people with his art normally did, he offered money to Peter in order to purchase this ability. If sorcerers could buy magical formulas, he could certainly buy this spiritual gift. [30] Simon’s offer was the beginning of a dreadful practice in the church – the practice of purchasing church offices, otherwise known as simony. [31] “Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!” (8:20). We might brace ourselves for the J. B. Phillips translation here which exclaims: “To hell with you and your money!” Marshall says this “may sound like profanity, but is precisely what the Greek says. It is the utterance of a curse against Simon, consigning him and his money with him to destruction.” [32] God’s wonderful and abundant gifts are free and without charge (Isa. 55:1). Bruce says, “On an earlier occasion Peter and John were unable to give silver or gold (3:6); now they refused to accept any, and were shocked that it should have been offered to them…” [33] “You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God” (8:21). The Greek word for “share” is the word klēros. Over the centuries this word for sharing in ministry or portion has given us the word “clergy.” [34] It has spawned other words like clerk, clerical, etc. “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin” (8:22-23). We saw in the case of Ananias and Sapphira how the apostle Peter had a unique gift of discernment and was able to look right into the hearts of those offenders. Here he is doing the very same thing with Simon. He perceived that Simon was full of the gall of bitterness (Gk. cholēn pikrias). Robertson sees this as speaking of the bitter yellowish green bile or gall. [35] I remember on one occasion in my childhood how we were invited to dine with a great aunt. That day she was serving fried chicken. I tried to be very proper so I took a small piece of chicken that looked like a heart or piece of liver. To my amazement it was the gall that had somehow gotten fried. In those days children were taught to not make a fuss and certainly not to disagree with the food served. I sat quietly and chewed on that horribly bitter piece of chicken for what seemed an eternity, until I was finally able to swallow the awful thing. Fortunately, I somehow managed not to vomit. God’s mercy is a wonderful blessing. In spite of Simon’s sin Peter still calls upon him to repent. Although he was still “a prisoner of sin” (TEV) it was still possible that his terrible sin could be forgiven. “Then Simon answered, ‘Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me’” (8:24). Commentators have wondered if this request of Simon was sincere. Rather than repenting before Peter with godly sorrow and tears, he asks rather that Peter pray for him. Bock wonders if this is some kind of sarcastic dismissal that would allow Peter to pray while Simon himself did nothing to change. [36] We might wonder what really happened to Simon Magus. Did he truly repent? Did he get his life straightened out and finally serve the Lord? We know today how difficult it is for one involved in sorcery to get free. In the high days of the Charismatic Movement we noted that it was not difficult for the average Christians to be filled with the Spirit and to exercise spiritual gifts, like tongues. However, for those Christians who had dabbled in sorcery it was not so simple. These powerful spirits of the underworld have a way of hanging on in a life. Many times they were driven out only by some type of exorcism. From what we know in church history Simon was not sincere and he did not repent or change. Church history tells us that Simon traveled to Rome where he became quite famous as a sorcerer. In the time of Emperor Claudius a statue was even erected to him. A number of commentators discount this information, but it should be noted that no less than five early church writers confirm various parts of this story. They are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen. Justin, who was also from Samaria, links him with Rome and with the fact that he was worshipped because of his magic acts. [37] Likewise Irenaeus links him with Luke’s account. [38] Bruce says, “This Simon is depicted in postapostolic writings as the father of all Gnostic heresies. Justin Martyr tells how he secured a following of devotees not only in Samaria but in Rome…” [39] Godbey closes this story with this stern word: “God help all the preachers to take warning over the sad fate of Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot, and myriads of others, ruined world without end by the love of money.” [40] “After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages” (8:25). We now see the apostles carrying on the work that Philip had begun in Samaria. No doubt, they may have visited some of the very same villages where their Master Jesus once ministered. With these events the disciple John will personally disappear from the Acts narrative. [41] Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road— the desert road— that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza” Acts 8:26 Luke abruptly moves to another exciting episode. Philip is given his next assignment. He is to leave off the great Samaritan revival and go to the desert road, making his way to the Gaza area. We might suspect that, according to the instructions, he went by way of Jerusalem, perhaps stopping briefly in order to make a quick report about the activities in Samaria. If he had done this, he might have taken the Gaza Road. This road Derek Aza is still a main thoroughfare leading southwest out of Jerusalem. As one proceeds to the southwest, the trees eventually begin to disappear and the countryside takes on a desert look. Gaza was about the last outpost on the desert road to Egypt. The ancient city of Gaza had been destroyed in 93 BC, but a new Gaza had been built to the south of it in 57 BC. [42] The distance from Jerusalem to Gaza today is approximately 47 miles (76 km.). We might remember that in ancient Israelite times Gaza was one of the five Philistine cities. As Philip moves to his goal near Gaza we cannot help but compare this story with some of the great accounts of Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament. [43] “So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means ‘queen of the Ethiopians’). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,” (8:27). It is obvious that this was a very important man. It is said that he was an Ethiopian eunuch. Stott says, “The ‘Ethiopia’ of those days corresponded to what we call ‘the Upper Nile’, reaching approximately from Aswan to Khartoum…” [44] This area was also known as Nubia. Pett notes how Nubian women rulers bearing the title of Kandake are well attested during the Hellenistic period. [45] This important man was probably treasurer or finance minister for the Ethiopian queen. He had no doubt gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage during one of the great festivals. We can assume that he was a Jewish Proselyte or a Proselyte at the Gate (near Proselyte). We note from Deuteronomy 23:1, that eunuchs were forbidden to be included within the Jewish religious community. However, Isaiah 56:3-4 seems to finally relax this rule. At this time in history “eunuch” could also represent high military or political figures, and does not always suggest emasculation. [46] This eunuch had a scroll of the prophet Isaiah along with him and was attempting to read it. It is interesting that Philip had preached the gospel to hundreds in Samaria and now he had come a long distance in ministry to a single soul. I remember once, on a speaking trip to the East Coast of the US, how I spoke to a fairly large group. While speaking, my attention was focused on one particular lady. When the meeting broke up I asked my wife to detain that lady, and later I was able to minister just to her. I felt that I had come all that distance just for that one person. Some years later she contacted me and shared how she was now in a ministry for the Lord. We can never know how or where our ministry to a single person might end up. Ancient church tradition says that this one man eventually introduced the gospel to many in Ethiopia. [47] Luke continues saying, “and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet” (8:28). In ancient times reading was done almost invariably aloud. [48] The section he was reading was from the scroll of Isaiah, and seemingly from the Septuagint, a translation as we will remember that originated in Egypt. “The Spirit told Philip, ‘Go to that chariot and stay near it.’” (8:29). In Bible times most people walked wherever they went. Some of the well-to-do rode animals and the really wealthy folks rode in chariots. [49] This chariot was probably more like an ox-drawn wagon. Philip was told to stay near the chariot. Actually, the Greek word used here is kollēthēti, and it has the meaning of being glued to something. [50] Other translations (NAS, ESV, NET, NJB) speak of him “being joined” to the chariot. Pett says, “It was quite normal for solitary travelers to join themselves up with a travelling caravan for safety reasons, and so Philip’s approach would neither be resented nor suspected.” [51] “Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ Philip asked” (8:30). The eunuch was reading from a very interesting but extremely complicated section of scripture known today as the Servant Songs of Isaiah. This section still is difficult even for Bible students to completely sort out. The servant sections are first introduced in Isaiah 41:8, after an opening burst of Messianic glory in Isaiah forty. This unique section of scripture continues on at least through the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah. The question disturbing Bible interpreters throughout the centuries is this: “Who is the servant?” The very surprising answer is revealed to us in Isaiah 41:8, where God exclaims: “…O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen…” With no shadow of doubt, Israel is named as the servant of the Lord. We see this truth revealed here and in several other places in the book (cf. Isa. 44:1; 44:21; 45:4). What has also troubled and baffled interpreters over the centuries is the manner in which Isaiah presents the servant. At times this servant seems fainthearted, despondent and even a failure. At other times he is victorious. It is not until Isaiah 49:1-13, that the matter is cleared up and the servant is presented as someone who saves and delivers Israel (v. 5). He also has the job of saving the Gentiles (6b). The servant of Isaiah has thus become the Messiah of Israel. Unfortunately, as Stott says, “…there is no evidence that anyone in first-century Judaism was expecting a suffering rather than a triumphant Messiah.” [52] “The eunuch replied to Philip, “‘How can I,’ he said, ‘unless someone explains it to me?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (8:31). Obviously, despite his high office, the eunuch was a meek person who was ready to learn. He reminds us of Psalm 25:9 which says, “He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.” “This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading: ‘He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth” (8:32-33). At this point the eunuch was reading from Isaiah 53:7-8, in what is known today as the Fourth Servant Song. He was reading from the Greek Septuagint version. Keener says, “Earlier servant passages in Isaiah refer explicitly to Israel, but 49:5 distinguishes the servant from the rest of Israel, and in 53:1-3, he is rejected by Israel. In 53:4-12 he bears the sins of Israel…” [53] It is really interesting how the Lord sets things up for witness. A more appropriate passage of scripture could not be found in order to share with someone about the sacrifice of Jesus. “The eunuch asked Philip, ‘Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?’ Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus” (8:34-35). It was tragic in those days and still today that the Jewish people do not understand about the Suffering Servant. Even today many in Israel feel the passage is speaking of the prophet himself or of the nation of Israel. [54] The Jewish people today are prone not to read or pay attention to Isaiah 53. O that Jewish people could have the open heart that the eunuch had! With him, a new grouping of people was added to the kingdom, people who were God-fearers and proselytes, who were standing meekly at the doors of the Jewish synagogues awaiting God’s salvation. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” Acts 8:36 We can believe that Philip delivered a similar message to the eunuch that Peter delivered on the day of Pentecost. That message was to repent, believe in the Lord Jesus and be baptized. Then one would receive the Holy Spirit. Baptism was no strange thing to the Jews or to the proselytes. If a Gentile came into the Jewish faith, that person had to immerse himself in the miqvah for ritual cleansing. Stott says of Christian baptism, “The water was a visible sign of the washing away of his sins and of his baptism with the Spirit.” [55] In the near desert area of Gaza, water was not so plentiful. However, some ancient writers tell us of certain wadis that held water at different times of the year, especially in the rainy season. [56] The eunuch must have spotted one of these and requested that he be baptized. The next verse (37) appears only in the margin of the NIV. It reads, “Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’” It seems that some later, over-zealous copier decided that there could not be baptism without a profession of faith, and so he inserted one. This verse may be found in some English versions but it was not found in the earliest Greek texts. [57] Again, this illustrates how translations can have some textual problems and sometimes vary slightly from the original word of God. For this reason it is usually good to compare the various translations. “And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him” (8:38). In the Christian teaching, a person is baptized by another person, so we see both Philip and the eunuch going down into the water. While this is not a fool-proof argument for baptism by immersion, it certainly has the appearance of such. It is clear that he was baptized by Philip and they were both in the water. “When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing” (8:39). There is something really strange about this section. The eunuch is baptized, but Philip is suddenly whisked away and seen no more by the eunuch. Philip certainly did not just walk away. The Greek word here is hērpasen, and it means to be suddenly and miraculously carried off. [58] It seems that the eunuch had much to rejoice about. He had just gotten truly converted, was baptized and had just seen his first miracle. [59] Stott quips of the eunuch that he was “without the evangelist but with the evangel…” [60] “Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea” (8:40). Philip popped up at Azotus, which was the ancient Ashdod, about 25 miles north along the Mediterranean coast. He continued on to the seaport of Caesarea where he seems to have settled down. Later in 21:8-9, we see Paul and company visiting him there and noting that he had four daughters who were all prophetesses. Few of us today have the kind of experiences Philip had. We are not even close. I do remember on two occasions when I was returning home from work and was rejoicing in the Spirit. On both these occasions I was followed home by a policeman. Mercifully, I did not get a ticket either time. It was either God’s protection or the policemen just wanted to get a closer look at the strange-acting fellow in the car. 1. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 145. 2. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 162. Pett adds (vs. 8:1-25): “While the persecution may have majored on the Hellenistic Christians, the Hebrew Christians would be drawn in by association.” 3. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 347. 4. Ibid., Quoting Hugo. 5. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 8:2. 6. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 8:2. 7. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 8:3. 8. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 8:3. 9. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 343. 10. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 152. 11. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tertullian 12. John L. Allen Jr., The Global War on Christians (New York: Image, 2013), p. 35. 13. Carl Moeller and David W. Hegg, The Privilege of Persecution (And Other Things the Global Church Knows That We don’t), (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), p. 58. 14. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 148. 15. Ibid., p. 144. 16. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 425. 17. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 8:1-24. 18. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 344. 19. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 8:10. 20. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 155. 21. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 71. 22. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 8:13. 23. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1139. 24. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 156. 25. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 8:14-17. 26. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 8:16. 27. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 150. 28. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 348. 29. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 8:14-17. 30. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 345. 31. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, pp. 158-59. 32. Ibid., p. 159. 33. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 171. 34. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 8:21. 35. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 8:23. 36. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 73. 37. Roberts &Donaldson, eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 1, p. 171. 38. Ibid., pp. 347-348. 39. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 166. 40. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, v. 8:22. 41. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 168. 42. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 8:26-40. 43. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 983. 44. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 160. 45. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 8:27-30. Bruce adds: “The king of Ethiopia was venerated as the child of the sun and regarded as too sacred a personage to discharge the secular functions of royalty; these were performed on his behalf by the queen-mother, who bore the dynastic title Kandake…” (Bruce, p. 175). 46. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 47. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 8:39. 48. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 175. 49. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 346. 50. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 8:29. 51. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 8:29. 52. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 161. 53. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 346. 54. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1139. Barker and Kohlenberger add: “….there is no evidence that anyone in pre-Christian Judaism ever thought of the Messiah in terms of a Suffering Servant… a doctrine of a suffering Messiah was generally considered unthinkable.” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 429). 55. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 162. 56. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 346. 57. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1140. Utley adds: “This verse, which records the eunuch’s confession, is not included in the ancient Greek papyri manuscripts P45 (Chester Beatty Papyri), P74 (Bodmer Papyri), or the ancient uncial Greek manuscripts א, A, B, or C. Neither is it present in some of the ancient Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, or Ethiopian translations. Verse 37 is not original to Acts…” (Utley, v. 8:37). 58. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 8:39. 59. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 347. 60. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 162. Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. Acts 9:1-2 As we come to this chapter, Luke is setting the stage for the conversion of Saul (later to be Paul), who was at this point the leading persecutor of Christians. Wiersbe notes that this “was perhaps the greatest event in church history after the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.” [1] Stott calls it “the most famous conversion in church history.” [2] Stedman comments: “He was preparing the instrument by which the gospel would move into the third stage, the stage in which we today are still involved, that of going to the uttermost parts of the earth…” [3] Rabbi Dr. Burton Visotzky says: “The Pharisee Saul of Tarsus is arguably one of the most influential religious figures in the history of Western culture.” [4] We note that Saul was still “breathing out murderous threats” against the church. Robertson says that Saul was like a warhorse sniffing the smell of battle. He was breathing out threats of slaughter (Gk. phonou). [5] In order to bring about his plans for slaughter, Saul went to the high priest of Israel that he might obtain special permission for his wicked enterprise. At this time Caiaphas was likely still the high priest. [6] It seems that in these days the high priest of Israel still maintained religious authority over Jewish people throughout the whole area. Since Judaism was a legal religion in the empire, it is felt that he had the right of extradition over subjects in the strictly religious arena. [7] At this time many Jewish people lived in Damascus and there were numerous synagogues. The historian Josephus tells us that on one occasion in the days of Nero 10,000 Jews of Damascus were slaughtered in a single hour (Wars, Bk. 2, ch. 20, sec. 2). On a later occasion, as a result of the Roman/Jewish war, an additional 18,000 were slaughtered. So, with murder in his heart Saul made his way to Damascus. It was a journey of 136 miles (218 km.), and on foot would have taken the better part of a week. Damascus was a very old city, even from the days of Abraham (Gen.15:2). It was an important city sitting astride an important trade route. We notice that Saul was intent on persecuting those who belonged to the Way. This seemed to be the early name for the Christian movement (Acts 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). [8] Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, was indeed living up to his tribal characteristic. It is said in Genesis 49:27, “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the plunder.” That was soon to change for Saul. As Calvin once said, the wolf was about to be turned into a sheep. He was about to even assume the gentle character of a shepherd. [9] “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him” (9:3). In 26:13, Saul relates that it was about noon when this happened, and that the light flashing around him from heaven was brighter than the sun. Utley says, “It is just possible that this light is theologically/physically related to the Shekinah glory of YHWH’s presence.” [10] “He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’” (9:4). In 26:14, Saul makes plain that everyone in the party fell to the ground. This is a natural defensive posture when human beings are confronted by a power or force much stronger than themselves. As Saul fell to the ground he heard a voice speaking with him. The voice called out “Saul, Saul!” Apparently this voice was in the Aramaic language, since Luke preserves the Aramaic name “Saoul” in the Greek. [11] The name is repeated twice for emphasis. One woman quipped about the divine repetition of men’s names in the Bible. She said, “Every time God calls a man he has to call him twice!” Apparently, women are much more attentive to the divine voice. There was a good deal of teaching in Judaism at this time claiming that the divine voice had become muted since the time of the last prophets. Among the Pharisees the divine voice was said to be the “bath qol” (daughter of a voice). [12] However, in this instance the voice of God seems to be quite forceful. Lyttelton says, “…the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation.” [13] The Lord asked Saul, “Why do you persecute me?” Saul must have been greatly confused at this point. He had thought in his troubled mind that he was doing the Lord’s own work. Suddenly he discovers that he is fighting against God. It is interesting here to realize that an attack upon the Lord’s church is an attack upon Jesus himself. On that last day the King will reply to the wicked: “…Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, [his followers] you did not do for me” (Matt. 25:45). Coffman sums it up saying: “What is done to the church is done to Christ…Hatred of the church is hatred of Christ…Persecution of the church is persecution of Christ…Neglect of the church is the neglect of Christ.” [14] “‘Who are you, Lord?’ Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied” (9:5). At this moment Saul’s spiritual world was literally turned upside down. He was in a conversation with the Jesus whom he had despised and persecuted. Some commentators, based upon 9:17 &27 feel that Saul actually saw the Lord on this occasion. [15] Stedman adds here, “All those long, built-up prejudices of a Pharisee against Gentiles; all the bigotry, the pride and the prejudice that twisted and distorted his view of the Gentile world; all of it disappeared in one moment…” [16] In the King James Version this statement is added here: “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” This thought is also carried over into the New King James translation. While these words are found in 26:14, they are not found here in the original Greek manuscripts. Apparently, a copyist was attempting to make the accounts of this incident uniform. [17] “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do” (9:6). God knows how to bring all our pride and vainglory down and make us wallow in the dust with it. He also knows how to lift us up from the dust and give us a hope and a future. The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Acts 9:7 Obviously, the men traveling with Saul were stunned. One would think that these men would immediately make up the first fruits of Saul (or Paul’s) new ministry, but we have no information to this end. We read that they heard the sound but that they did not see anyone. This implies that Saul actually did see the Lord on this occasion. Saul’s statement here seems to disagree with his statement in 22:9. In this passage he says that his companions either did not hear, or else they did not understand the voice (cf. Jn. 12:28-30). [18] “Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus” (9:8). When Saul got up and opened his eyes he discovered that he was blind. He was in total darkness. Stedman notes that when film is exposed to light it is always developed in darkness. [19] It is amazing how far some commentators will go in trying to deny the miraculous. Some have suggested that Saul was suffering from an epileptic seizure of some sort and thus fell to the ground. He only imagined he heard voices. To this, the great English preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, remarked, “O blessed epilepsy! Would that every man in London could have epilepsy like that!” [20] It is thought by some that Saul or Paul from this point on in his life suffered from eye problems (cf. Gal. 4:13-15; 6:11), and this was precisely what his “thorn in the flesh” was all about (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7-10). [21] Perhaps it is so, but we will not be able to determine this for sure from the scripture. Stott comments on this whole amazing situation saying: “He who had expected to enter Damascus in the fullness of his pride and prowess, as a self-confident opponent of Christ, was actually led into it, humbled and blinded, a captive of the very Christ he had opposed.” [22] “For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything” (9:9). Guzik remarks, “Saul was dying to himself. It would only be after the three days of dying that he would receive resurrection life from Jesus.” [23] It was Howson who remarked “Only one other space of three days’ duration can be mentioned of equal importance in the history of the world.” [24] In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered. The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.” Acts 9:10-12 It is no doubt for good reason that Barclay calls Ananias “one of the forgotten heroes of the Christian church.” [25] We simply cannot imagine the fear and dread Ananias must have had to fight off in order to go to Saul. This man had murdered Christians. How did Ananias know that this was not some sort of trap to capture Christians in Damascus. Ananias summoned his courage and answered “Yes, Lord.” Someone has remarked that “Yes” and “Lord” always have to go together. It is quite impossible to say “No” and “Lord” together in any meaningful way. To Ananias, this must have been like an order to go pay a visit to Al Capone. It might have been some comfort to Ananias to hear that Saul was “praying” and not still “preying” upon believers. [26] After all, there is not much to fear from a praying man. There has been an idea that has prevailed for centuries in the Greek Church that Ananias was actually one of the seventy-two disciples of the Lord (Lk. 10:1) and that he was eventually martyred for the faith. [27] Damascus is a very ancient city and it is said that Straight Street still forms a major thoroughfare going east and west through the city. The general location was likely well-known to Ananias. We do not know how Ananias came to live in Damascus. Commentators generally feel that he was not a Jewish refugee from the persecution in Jerusalem but that he was a true resident of the city. [28] We do not know how Saul ended up at the house of Judas. Judas obviously had a Jewish name. Perhaps through the local synagogue he was placed there. Neither do we know what happened to the men who were traveling with Saul. “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” Acts 9:13-14 We would have to say that the “grapevine” (message system) from Jerusalem to Damascus was working quite well. Ananias knew all about the ravages Saul had worked in the Jerusalem church. He even knew that Saul had authority from the high priest to arrest Christians and take them back to Jerusalem for punishment. The expression “holy people” (Gk. hagios) in a number of other translations is rendered “saints.” We might note that this is the first time “saints” is used in Acts. [29] This is the common designation for the Lord’s people in the New Testament. It means a people set apart for God. [30] It should be noted that “saints” is always plural in the New Testament. There is only one exception to this rule, Philippians 4:21, where even there it appears in a plural context. [31] There is no such thing as a Christian alone, or as some have said, a “Lone Ranger Christian.” Even the Lone Ranger had his Indian sidekick Tonto. In our current “Me Generation” people have come to be proud and self-sufficient. This is only an illusion, because we all really need each other. “But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name’” (9:15-16). There are many ways that Saul was a chosen instrument of God. He received the best Bible training that could be had in his day; he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, understanding well the rich Jewish heritage; he had come from Tarsus and was thoroughly acquainted with the Greek culture and language. He was the ideal person to be apostle to the Gentiles (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; Gal. 2:7-8; Eph. 3:8). We note here that Saul was not just chosen to work with the Gentiles, but he would also work with the people of Israel. Wherever he ministered he tried always to go to the Jews first of all (Rom. 1:16). Usually, he spoke first in the Jewish synagogue. When he was rejected there, he then went to the Gentiles. The synagogue with its “God fearing” Gentiles was always a rich source of converts for Saul. [32] Wiersbe remarks that this is the first reference we have in the Book of Acts of the gospel going to the Gentiles. [33] The early Christians suffered for Christ a great deal. Even Ananias was quite concerned about the suffering Saul might inflict. However, here we learn that Saul himself would suffer greatly for Christ. That suffering was to be almost unspeakable. In 2 Corinthians 11:23ff., he details many of his sufferings. He was flogged and beaten with rods; shipwrecked 3 times; he faced all kinds of dangers on the road; he had suffered loss of sleep, hunger, thirst; in addition he had the grave concern for all the churches. These actually were only a few of the things he suffered for the Lord. In this passage it is made plain that Saul would minister before kings and rulers of the people. In Israel, he would proclaim the gospel before the Sanhedrin, the Roman governors Felix, and Festus as well as King Agrippa. He would then be sent to testify before Rome. Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord— Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here— has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 9:17 We have to really admire Ananias. Bruce says of him, “Ananias had an honored place in sacred history.” [34] He was about to place his hands on Saul and minister to the man who would take the gospel to the whole Western world. It was Saul who just might well be known as the most important and famous Christian in all of history. Despite his fear, Ananias placed his hands on Saul and addressed him as “brother.” What a loving and precious thing to do! Ananias immediately confirmed that it was the Lord who appeared to Saul on the road. He got right down to business and told Saul why he had come— that Saul might both see again and be filled with God’s Holy Spirit. There was no hesitancy in his voice and no unbelief. Actually we have a rare thing here. It is a double vision. Saul had certainly seen a vision on the road, but Ananias had experienced one too, and the visions were complimentary. Keener says, “Such twin visions occur rarely in ancient literature…when they occur they allow no misunderstanding that the event was divinely coordinated (cf. Gen. 41:32).” [35] Saul would be filled with the Spirit through the laying on of the hands of Ananias. The Greek word is plēstheis and it speaks of the special power he would need as an apostle of the Lord. [36] We note here that the Baptism of the Spirit is no longer mentioned but rather the filling of the Spirit. “Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus” (9:18-19). Dr. Luke comes to the forefront here by using a Greek medical term (lepides) for the flaking of skin. In the Septuagint version, the word is used for the scales of a fish (cf. Lev. 11:9, 10, 12; Deut. 14:9). [37] We really do not know what God had to do to restore Saul’s eyes. For all we know, he could have been permanently blinded by the vision. Once again we see the new convert baptized immediately (cf. Acts 2:41; 8:12, 8:36-39). There was to be no delay in this first step of discipleship. We can but wonder how much zeal for the Lord and spiritual power we lose today in the church by our dilly dallying concerning the act of baptism. Saul, who had been on a complete fast since having his vision, began to take some food and was thereby strengthened. He then spent some time in Damascus bonding with the local Christians. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. Acts 9:20 The Jews, like the Moslems, to this day do not believe that God has a Son. This is blasphemy to them. Incidentally, this is the first time the phrase “Son of God” appears in the Book of Acts. [38] From the very start, Saul was fearless with his preaching. It appears that he had already been crucified with Christ in his heart (Gal. 2:20); that he had already counted everything loss for the sake of the Lord Jesus (Phil. 3:7-8). Unlike so many today, he did not just “take Jesus as his Savior” but he took Jesus as his Lord and Master. We have a twisted Christianity around today and now millions of people have supposedly accepted the Saviorhood of Jesus without the Lordship of Jesus. [39] “All those who heard him were astonished and asked, ‘Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” (9:21). It seems that Saul took immediate advantage of his great skill in theological studies. He took advantage of the fact that it was a synagogue custom to invite any able Jewish man to come up and expound on the scriptures. [40] This whole thing may have been rather comical. Pett says: “We have to smile when we consider his first entry into the synagogue. Here was the high priest’s official representative, bearing the high priest’s authority, and as he walked in he would be led to the special seats at the front. All would know why he was there. And then during the course of the gathering he would be asked to speak by the ruler of the synagogue, possibly even to read the scriptures. And then he looked around at the gathered and expectant people – and began to proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God.” [41] “Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah” (9:22). Other translations bring out Saul’s increasing prowess. The NJB says, “Saul’s power increased steadily.” The TEV says, “Saul’s preaching became even more powerful.” Saul began to overwhelm the Damascus Jews with his superior skill and biblical argument. No doubt, serious opposition was beginning to build. Fortunately for Saul, his initial time in Damascus was to be limited. After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, Acts 9:23 At this point we only want to look at this first phrase, “after many days,” and later we will return to the rest of this verse. In order to do justice to this account we simply must turn to Galatians 1:17-18, where Saul fills us in on the time frame. He says, “…I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.” Most Bible interpreters feel that Saul went immediately into the Arabian desert for a period of approximately three years. According to Jewish reckoning this could have been parts of three years or somewhat over two years. [42] No doubt Saul needed some alone time. It has been suggested that just as the other apostles were with the Lord for a period of three years, Saul is being given the same period of training. [43] Stedman says jokingly that Saul got his D. D. degree there—Doctor of the Desert. [44] It is very possible that some of the deeply spiritual experiences that Saul later mentions were desert experiences. After all, many of the good things that happened in the Old and New Testaments sprang from the desert, including the ministry of Jesus. This trip to Arabia was not nearly as difficult for Saul as we might imagine. In those days King Aretas IV (9 BC – AD 40) ruled an Arabian kingdom that stretched all the way to Damascus. If Saul went to Arabia for a religious retreat he would not have had far to go. A few have suggested that Saul did some preaching in Arabia which may have raised the ire of King Aretas. It does seem that Saul returned from the wilderness with much more spiritual strength in his ministry. This did not bode well for his continued stay in Damascus. Now let us take up where we left off with verse 23: “After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him…” Thus, after his return to Damascus we see that the Jews immediately conspired to kill him. Undoubtedly they had gained the help of King Aretas or his ethnarch who was ruling the city. Later Paul fills us in from 2 Corinthians 11:32-33: “In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.” In those days major cities were surrounded by high walls. Some walls were wide enough that a chariot could be driven on top of them. [45] The gates were always guarded and at night they were usually closed. The Jewish people had their spies at all the gates watching for Saul. Apparently some believer must have had a house attached to the wall, as was sometimes the custom in those days. [46] It was probably through a window in that house that Saul made his escape. Luke says, “but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall” (9:24-25). We note here that Saul already had a loyal following in Damascus, and that was fortunate for him in this instance. Saul was let down in a basket. The word for this basket is spuris. We see a similar basket mentioned in the feeding of the 4,000 (Mk. 8:8). Such a large basket had many uses and was suitable for the transport of hay, straw, bales of wool, etc. [47] No doubt, we remember similar stories from the days of Rahab and the Israelite spies (Josh. 2;15) and their escape from Jericho, or from David’s escape from the enraged king (1 Sam. 19:12). [48] When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. Acts 9:26 Finally, three years from his conversion, Saul made his journey back to Jerusalem. There seems at first to be a disconnect here, in that the believers in Jerusalem were suspicious of Saul and would not trust him. We noticed earlier how the information “grapevine” seemed to be functioning well enough between Jerusalem and Damascus. How could the Christians not know that Saul was now on their side? It is possible that, since Saul dropped out of sight for three years while in the desert, the people of Jerusalem heard nothing about him. If they had heard about the desert stay they may have wondered why Saul was a loner and went off by himself. “History, however, has shown that minority movements under persecution frequently become defensive and suspicious of news that sounds too good.” [49] “But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus” (9:27). We can guess that Saul initially stayed with his sister when he arrived at Jerusalem (cf. 23:16). [50] However, just as Ananias took him in when he arrived at Damascus, Barnabas took him in at Jerusalem. Beloved Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus. His name meant “son of encouragement” and he was destined to play a key role in the early church (4:36-37; 11:27-30). He would team up with Saul or Paul in the great outreach at Antioch (11:19-26). He would eventually join with Paul in the First Missionary Journey (13:1 – 14:28). Barnabas took Saul and introduced him to the Jerusalem saints. There seems to be a small problem between this verse and the account in Galatians 1:18-19. The question is how Saul could meet the apostles (plural) if only Peter was in town? The Galatian passage calls James the brother of the Lord an apostle also. [51] So, there were at least two apostles in town and the rest were undoubtedly busy taking the gospel out to the world. We are told that on this visit Saul stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal. 1:18). “So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him” (9:28-29). It was not Saul’s nature to remain quiet about the Lord. He spoke boldly in Jerusalem and even debated with the same Hellenistic Jews who had murdered Stephen. “Saul was worse than Stephen; he was in their eyes a traitor to the true cause…” [52] Saul was literally too hot to handle. “When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus” (9:30). Of course, Tarsus was Saul’s hometown, being the chief city of Cilicia. He would drop out of sight for some seven years, until 11:25. However, knowing Saul we can believe that he was not out of work. He was no doubt preaching the gospel throughout his home territory. More than likely, some of the trials which he lists in 2 Corinthians 11:23-26, happened during this period. For instance, we see only one Roman beating in Acts 16:22 but in 2 Corinthians 11:25, he mentions a total of three. [53] “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers” (9:31). It seems that once the main antagonist was out of the way Jerusalem settled down for a time of peace. The work grew and stabilized in Judea, Galilee and Samaria. This is the first mention in Acts of the churches in Galilee. [54] Some have thought that the quiet time with the Jews may have resulted from the Emperor Caligula’s attempt to set up his own image in the temple at Jerusalem. [55] Thus, the Jews may have been fully occupied with this event and had no time to persecute Christians. As Peter traveled about the country, he went to visit the Lord’s people who lived in Lydda. Acts 9:32 Just as Peter had ministered in Samaria, we now see him moving out to minister to the dispersed Christians in Judea. No doubt, other disciples were doing similar things. In his travels, Peter arrived at Lydda. Today, when tourists get comfortably seated on their tour buses at Ben Gurion Airport, about the first thing their guide tells them is that they are at Lod, or ancient Lydda. This village sits in the middle of the Plain of Sharon, a very fertile strip of land that runs up the Mediterranean coastline toward Mount Carmel and Haifa. When Peter arrived at Lydda he met the scattered people of the Lord or the saints (Gk. hagios). We have previously mentioned that this word “saints” is always plural in the Bible. Together, God’s people make up his sacred, holy ones, or his people set apart for himself. Peter no doubt wished to strengthen the church. In fact, this is what the Lord once said to him: “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:32). “There he found a man named Aeneas, who was paralyzed and had been bedridden for eight years” (9:33). In his ministry at Lydda, Peter ran onto this paralyzed man, and he had been in that condition for a long time. The name Aeneas is Greek, so likely this man was a Hellenist. [56] Aeneas was probably a Christian and no doubt, folks had prayed for him many times without results. This time it would be different. “‘Aeneas,’ Peter said to him, ‘Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and roll up your mat.’ Immediately Aeneas got up” (9:34). At that command Aeneas simply got up and rolled up his mat. He was healed instantly and completely. “All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord” (9:35). His instantaneous healing created quite a stir in Lydda. It appears as if everyone in the area saw the man and immediately turned to the Lord. We must realize that “all” many times in scripture is a manner of speaking. We do the same thing today when we say things like, “All Americans like apple pie and baseball.” Calvin comments here saying, “…when scripture mentions all, it is not embracing, to a man, the whole of whatever it is describing, but uses ‘all’ for many, for the majority, or for a crowd of people.” [57] “In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor” (9:36). Ancient Joppa was a natural seaport for much of Israel and Jerusalem in those times. It was about 14 miles (23 km.) from Lydda. Today Joppa makes up a southern portion of the metropolitan area known as Tel Aviv-Joppa or Tel Aviv-Yafo. At Joppa there was a beloved disciple named Tabitha. In Greek her name was known as Dorcas. Both names meant “gazelle,” a lovely and graceful animal of the deer family. This blessed woman was known all over for her many good works. She was especially known for providing the poor and needy with garments of all sorts which she herself made. “About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room” (9:37). Unfortunately, Dorcas died. As was the custom in those days, her body was washed and prepared for burial. In this case, as in some Old Testament instances (1 Ki. 17:19; 2 Ki. 4:10, 21), her body was placed in an upper room. There was much lamentation, especially by all those who had benefited from her work. “Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, ‘Please come at once!’” (9:38). There was quite an urgency with the disciples at Joppa because it was customary to bury the body before sundown. [58] They therefore sent two men for Peter and asked him to come quickly. “Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them” (9:39). We can only imagine what was going through Peter’s mind at this point. Wiersbe says, “There is no record in Acts that any of the apostles had raised the dead…” [59] Peter only had the experiences of seeing Jesus raise the dead in his ministry (Mk. 5:38-43; Lu. 8:50-56). So really, he was launching in to this experience by blind faith. “Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up” (9:40). It is interesting that Peter did exactly what Jesus did when he raised the daughter of Jairus. Jesus cleared the room of everyone except the mother, father and his three disciples. Even the Aramaic utterance here is almost identical to that of Jesus at Capernaum. In fact, it differs only in one letter. [60] We can imagine that Peter was about as surprised as the dead woman must have been. Raising from the dead was a very big deal just as it would be today. We need to point out that Tabitha was not resurrected with a new body as Jesus had been. She was raised from the dead, but at some point like all others raised in Jesus’ ministry, she would die once more. “He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive” (9:41). Once again, Peter did exactly what he had seen his Master do. In fact, Jesus had done this very thing when he healed Peter’s mother-in-law. He reached down, took her by the hand and helped her up (Mk. 1:31). We can only imagine the joy and rejoicing that took place when the dead woman was presented alive to all her friends. “This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord” (9:42). Such an event must have sent shock waves all over the city and surrounding area. Crowds of people must have gathered around to see this miracle with their own eyes. As they did so, many also believed on the Lord Jesus. The church was gratified and the Lord was glorified. [61] “Peter stayed in Joppa for some time with a tanner named Simon” (9:43). Today, what is supposedly Simon’s house can be seen in Joppa, nestled along the seacoast. We do not know if it has any connection to Simon’s real house but it makes a good story for tourists. My wife and I always enjoyed visiting in Joppa (Yafo). Very close to Simon’s house there are some fine restaurants where we could have a nice lunch as we looked out over the harbor and felt the refreshing breezes of the Mediterranean. Obviously, some significant changes were taking place in Peter’s heart. Being a tanner was a prohibited vocation for any Jewish person wishing to keep the laws of Moses (Lev. 11:35-40). Since tanners dealt with dead animals, it was considered an unclean profession and avoided whenever possible. [62] Morgan says, “According to the laws of that time, a tanner had to live at least 75 feet (25 meters) outside a village because of his constant ritual uncleanness…The trade of a tanner was held in such supreme contempt that if a girl was betrothed to a tanner without knowing that he followed that calling, the betrothal was void.” [63] It seems that Peter spent some time with Simon the tanner. Wiersbe says of the Lord, “He deliberately detained his servant in Joppa to prepare him for his third use of “the keys.” [64] That event was about to begin. 1. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 350. 2. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 165. 3. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 9:1-19. 4. Quoted in Brad H. Young, Paul The Jewish Theologian (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1997), p. xvii. 5. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 9:1. Barnes adds: “The word breathing out is expressive often of any deep, agitating emotion, as we then breathe rapidly and violently. It is thus expressive of violent anger…Euripides has the same expression: ‘Breathing out fire and slaughter.’” (Barnes, v. 9:1). 6. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 9:1-2. “The high priest mentioned here was Caiaphas. In December 1990 an ossuary (something like a burial urn; essentially a bone box) was discovered in Jerusalem. The ossuary was inscribed with the name of this Caiaphas and positively dated to this period. Inside were discovered some of the remains of a 60 year-old man, whom many researchers believe was this same Caiaphas. If true, these are the first physical remains (such as bones or ashes) of a specific person mentioned in the New Testament.” 7. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 431. 8. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 74. 9. Cited in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 169. 10. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 9:3. 11. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 170. 12. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 9:3-4. 13. Quoted in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 184. 14. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament v. 9:4. 15. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 183. 16. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 9:1-19. 17. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 9:5-6. 18. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.1140. 19. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 9:1-19. 20. Ibid. 21. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 9:8. 22. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 170. 23. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 9:7-9. 24. Quoted in Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 9:9. 25. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 9:10-18. 26. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 352. 27. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 9:10. 28. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 29. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 9:13-14. 30. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 9:13. 31. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 9:13. 32. Ibid. 33. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 352. 34. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 189. 35. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 348. 36. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 9: 17. 37. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 9:18. 38. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1141. Guzik adds: “In fact, on two occasions when Jesus called himself the Son of God, he was accused of blasphemy, of calling himself God (John 5:17-18, Matthew 26:63-65). Everybody knew what Jesus meant in calling himself Son of God, and everyone knew what Saul meant when he preached that Jesus is the Son of God.” (Guzik, vs. 9:20-22). 39. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 9:19-31. 40. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 9:20-22. 41. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 9:20. 42. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1141. 43. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 176-77. 44. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 9:19-31. 45. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 9:23-25. “The walls were often wide enough for a chariot to be driven round the top of them. On these walls there were houses whose windows often projected over the walls. In the dead of night Paul was taken into one of these houses, let down with ropes in a basket and so smuggled out of Damascus.” 46. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 435. 47. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 192. 48. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 9:25. 49. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 50. Ibid. 51. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 353. 52. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 195. 53. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 353. 54. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1141. 55. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 9:31. Clarke adds: “The account given by Josephus will set this in a clear point of view. ‘Caligula sent Petronius to go with an army to Jerusalem, to set up his statues in the temple, enjoining him if the Jews opposed it, to put to death all that made resistance, and to make all the rest of the nation slaves. Petronius therefore marched from Antioch into Judea, with three legions, and a large body of auxiliaries raised in Syria. All were hereupon filled with consternation, the army being come as far as Ptolemais. The Jews, then, gathering together, went to the plain near Ptolemais, and entreated Petronius in the first place for their laws, in the next place for themselves. Petronius was moved with their solicitations, and, leaving his army and the statues, went into Galilee.” (Clarke, v. 9:31). 56. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 9:33. 57. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 183. 58. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 349. 59. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, pp. 354-55. 60. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 199. 61. Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, v. 9:41. 62. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 349. 63. Quoted in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 9:43. 64. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 355. At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. Acts 10:1 Today, Caesarea is one of the most beautiful spots along the Israeli Mediterranean coastline. In ancient times there was a town, a bay and a small port in this area. It was known then as Straton’s Tower. In 22 BC, Herod the Great began a reconstruction of the city and made the tiny harbor into a deep-water port. The new city was named Caesarea, in honor of Caesar Augustus. The ruins of this magnificent city can still be seen, along with its grand amphitheater and long aqueduct, which brought fresh water into the city. After its construction, Caesarea became the Roman administrative capital of the province of Judea. In Caesarea, the Roman prefects and procurators took their seats of government. Actually today one can see on the site an inscription speaking of the infamous Ponitus Pilate who officiated in Jesus’ trial. These officials were protected by numerous Roman troops. Cornelius was a centurion in one of these bands. A centurion in the Roman army was a non-commissioned officer who was in charge of 100 men. The Roman army consisted of thirty regular legions plus auxiliary legions. These were commanded by Generals (Senators). A Legion was made up of 6000 men. These were divided into ten Cohorts, each of 600 men, and were commanded by military Tribunes of Equestrian rank. At the bottom of this organization was the Century of 100 men, commanded by the centurion. [1] What is translated “Regiment” here could be translated “cohort” (ESV, NET, NRS). While the centurion was at the bottom of the command chain, so to speak, he was considered the backbone of the Roman army, with responsibilities similar to our captain today. [2] The centurions seem to have been well paid and had money to spend on alms and religious projects. Bruce remarks how centurions were presented in a very favorable light in the New Testament. [3] It is obvious in this account that Cornelius was what is called a God-fearer. There were many such people loosely attached to the Jewish synagogues. These probably had become disgusted with paganism and had become associated with Judaism, no doubt because of its teaching of one true God and its high moral standards. Some actually became proselytes, that is, they became circumcised and joined with Judaism. Others did not take this bold step but continued on as God-fearers, taking on many of the practices of Judaism, such as giving alms and observing Jewish times of prayer. These were also called “proselytes at the gate.” [4] It is from this group that Paul and others later made many converts. This chapter, with its inclusion of Cornelius and his Gentile friends, is a pivotal one in the New Testament. It is so important that Luke includes it twice (cf. 11:1-18). [5] So far, we have seen the gospel going to the Jews, to the Samaritans, who were part Jewish, to proselytes or God-fearers and now at last to the Gentiles in general. In this section Peter will use his keys to the kingdom for the third and last time. [6] Barker &Kohlenberger state, “…the time had come for the gospel to cross the barrier that separated Jews from Gentiles and to be presented directly to Gentiles.” [7] “He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly” (10:2). It is clear that Cornelius had a household. No doubt it was made up of a number of servants. There is some question that Cornelius was married, since Roman soldiers were required to remain single. [8] However, some could apparently acquire concubines and raise families without official censure. Obviously, Cornelius was surrounded by his household, his soldiers and many Gentile friends. He was a man of faith and he did not keep his faith to himself. Augustine said of him: “…his alms were accepted and his prayers heard before he had believed on Christ; and yet without some faith he neither gave alms nor prayed. For how did he call on him on whom he had not believed?” [9] “One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, ‘Cornelius!’ Cornelius stared at him in fear. ‘What is it, Lord?’ he asked. The angel answered, ‘Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God” (10:3-4). We cannot miss the fact that Cornelius was offering his prayer at the normal Jewish time of prayer. There was no question about this vision. It came in broad daylight when Cornelius was wide-awake. The Greek word for distinctly or clearly is phanerōs and it means “to openly or publicly make an appearance.” [10] It greatly startled him, as angelic visions are always prone to do. This was not just a vision but an audible encounter as well. The angel distinctly spoke his name and he was able to converse with this heavenly being. It is interesting that God had taken note of the devotion of this centurion. God heard his prayers and witnessed his offerings. This disputes some theology today that claims God does not hear the prayer of an unsaved person. God always hears the prayer of a sincere heart. Some may wonder why this heavenly messenger did not personally proclaim the message to Cornelius. Lenski says, “Angels may help to connect men with God’s appointed preachers, they are never allowed to do more.” [11] “Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea” (10:5-6). God had heard this man’s prayers and taken note of his offerings but something more was needed. Cornelius needed a full salvation in Jesus the Messiah of Israel. For this, he was instructed to send men to Joppa, which was directly south along the seacoast a distance of 30 miles (48 km). God knows who we are. He has our address and he knows all about us. We should never think we can hide from him. God knew Peter was living with a tanner also named Simon who lived by the sea in Joppa. It is rather amazing that Peter was living with a tanner. Tanners worked with dead animals to process their skins and convert them into leather. Since they worked with dead animals the profession was regarded as ceremonially unclean as we have said in the previous chapter. Obviously, God was already making some adjustments to Peter’s thinking and getting him ready for the big task ahead. [12] Stedman mentions that a tanner’s house would not be hard to find because there was usually a stench going up from it. [13] Some may have wondered why God went to all the trouble to send for Peter down in Joppa when Philip the evangelist lived right there in Caesarea (Acts 8:40; 21:8). Once again, it was Peter, not Philip who had the “keys” that would open the gospel door to the Gentiles worldwide. [14] “When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa” (10:7-8). Cornelius, being a military man, was prompt and obedient in carrying out his orders. He immediately got together a party that would make the journey to Joppa. We note that his soldier was also devout like Cornelius. This man had shared his faith with his soldiers as well as his servants. He did not keep anything from them but shared his whole vision. About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. Acts 10:9 God’s timing is really amazing! Miracles are complicated to pull off, but God is a Master at doing this, and he works simultaneously from all angles. Peter at this moment was going up to the rooftop to pray. The normal times of Jewish prayer were at the hours of sacrifice, at 9 o’clock AM and 3 o’clock PM. Devout people would often pray three times a day, adding the noontime prayer (Psa. 55:17; Dan. 6:10). [15] The rooftop of an ancient Middle Eastern house was usually flat and could be accessed by an outside stairway. The roof was a multi-purpose place, for drying fruits, for sleeping in warmer months, and even for praying. On our last visit to Israel my wife and I enjoyed a large family dinner on the roof of our daughter-in-law’s family house. It was a delightful Jerusalem evening. God had commanded that walls be built around the perimeter of the roof for the protection of everyone concerned. However, noontime on an Israeli roof can be a scorching hot place. No doubt, there was an awning to make the rooftop habitable for Peter. “He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance” (10:10). We note here that the meal was being prepared as Peter prayed. In these ancient times the customs may have been very similar to Israeli meal practices today. Since Middle Eastern people are prone to take a couple of hours off work in the heat of the day, it is a great opportunity for many to enjoy the main meal of the day. That used to be the custom in the rural southern area where I grew up. The main meal was at noon and workers came in from the fields for the banquet. It was called “dinner.” It has taken me much of my 80-plus years to get used to calling “dinner” “lunch” like the rest of the world does. While Peter was fighting off hunger pains he fell into a trance. Commentators have suggested that it was the sight of sails in the nearby harbor or perhaps the awning flapping overhead that helped bring about this trance. The Greek word for trance is ekstasis, meaning to stand outside oneself. It is from this that we get our word “ecstasy.” [16] “He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds” (10:11-12). We can just imagine the variety of animals, birds and other creatures that Peter saw contained in the great sheet. No doubt, all kinds of creatures, as earlier described in Genesis 6:20, were presented to Peter. [17] One thing that may have immediately wrinkled his brow was that these animals all seemed to be mixed together, the clean and the unclean, the kosher and the non-kosher. “Then a voice told him, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ ‘Surely not, Lord!’ Peter replied. ‘I have never eaten anything impure or unclean’” (10:13-14). This passage tells us something about Peter. He had kept kosher all his life. It also implies that Jesus also kept kosher with his disciples, while at the same time, he was laying the groundwork to do away with all these types and shadows forever. Years ago, it was fashionable to look at the disciples as sort of half-Gentiles, who probably did not know much about the law. After all, they hailed from “Galilee of the nations” (Isa. 9:1). That idea now has been generally disproved. To a Jew trying to keep kosher, this whole picture would have been disgusting. To arise, kill and eat would have been quite impossible for the Orthodox Jew. It was not just a matter of having clean and unclean animals together but it was the whole process of making meat kosher. [18] The clean animal needed to be slaughtered properly with all the blood drained out. Today Jewish people not only drain the blood out but they induce a salt solution to insure that all blood is out. It is really difficult to fry a hamburger in Israel. The meat is so free of blood and fat that it will scarcely even sizzle or smoke on the grill. All these ritual food laws were based on Leviticus 11:2-43 and Deuteronomy 14:3-20. God had established these and many other laws to insure that the Jewish people did not mix and dine with the pagans. God knew that the lure of the wonderful pagan idol banquets would be a strong temptation for his people. Bruce notes, “…there is a connection between the abrogation of the Levitical food restrictions and the removal of the barrier between believing Jews and Gentiles…” [19] We remember in Mark 7:17-23, how Jesus gave teaching that would finally spell the end of the food laws and restrictions. Godbey remarks: “The vision has nothing to do with the problem of edibles and potables. The signification is purely spiritual and evangelical, forever smashing the impregnable walls which had separated the Jews and Gentiles from the days of Abraham.” [20] Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) says that Peter, “saw the gospel linen sent down from above by four corners…” [21] Bede adds, “The four corners by which the linen sheet hangs down designate the four regions of the world to which the church extends…” [22] The church was getting ready to think and sing in terms of that old hymn: Jesus shall reign where’er the sun does its successive journeys run, his kingdom stretch from shore to shore, till moons shall wax and wane no more. Long ago the prophet Jonah refused to go from Joppa and minister to the Gentiles at Nineveh. Now, from that same place, Peter will soon be sent to preach the gospel, first to the Gentiles at Caesarea and then to the Gentiles the world over. [23] “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven” (10:15-16). Peter heard the voice of God instructing him not to call things impure that God has cleansed. What a shocking message? It really turned Peter’s life upside down. The Lord was introducing a brand new era and it would take time for Peter to really get used to it. [24] We mentioned in 9:17 how twin visions are rare. Here we have another case of it. Cornelius had seen a vision and now Peter was seeing a corresponding vision. In Peter’s vision, the sheet had been let down three times and raised back to heaven each time. God really wanted Peter to learn this lesson. Utley says, “It is not uncommon in the Bible for important prayers, praises, or actions to be repeated three times.” [25] According to God’s meticulous plan, Peter barely had time to digest this strange vision and contemplate upon it until its very fulfillment began with a caller at the door. While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there. Acts 10:17-18 The Gentile party was standing at the outer gate of the home and no doubt they were wondering if Peter the Jew would accept them into the house. Fortunately for them, God had just done a work in Peter’s heart. Barclay relates this story which illustrates the change that Jesus makes: A missionary tells how once he officiated at a communion service in Africa. Beside him as an elder sat an old chief of the Ngoni called Manly-heart. The old chief could remember the days when the young warriors of the Ngoni had left behind them a trail of burned and devastated towns and come home with their spears red with blood and with the women of their enemies as booty. And what were the tribes which in those days they had ravaged? They were the Senga and the Tumbuka. And who were sitting at that communion service now? Ngoni, Senga and Tumbuka were sitting side by side, their enmities forgotten in the love of Jesus Christ. In the first days it was characteristic of Christianity that it broke the barriers down; and it can still do that when given the chance. [26] In Israel, it is customary for families and friends to get together for a meal at the beginning of the Sabbath on Friday evenings. Since this is a lovely custom with the Jews, Christians living in the country often participate in sharing meals as well. My wife and I remember one occasion when we had a couple of Christian women dining with us in Jerusalem. One was from Holland and the other from Germany. My wife asked the lady from Germany what it was like to live through the war period as a little girl of five. She related her difficult story. At that, the lady from Holland told how she was also a little girl of five during the war. Then smiling she looked at the lady from Germany and said, “Then we were enemies and now we are friends.” “While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, ‘Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them” (10:19-20). Remarkably, Peter had gotten more direct instruction from the Lord in this one early afternoon than the average Christian today gets in a lifetime. We must remember that this was a critically important engagement and God wanted Peter fully prepared for it. Really, the salvation of the whole Gentile world depended upon it. We might remember here the words of Isaiah 65:24: “Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.” The word “hesitate” is the Greek expression mēden diakrinomenos. It means to not doubt or waver. [27] Peter had experienced some bouts of wavering already and would experience some more later. Peter was being instructed to do the unthinkable, to go with these Gentiles, who just an hour before he would have considered unclean. “Peter went down and said to the men, ‘I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?’” (10:21). Peter was confronted with what would have normally been an impossible situation. Not only were these men uncircumcised Gentiles, but one was a detested Roman soldier. No Orthodox Jewish person would allow such riffraff into his house. [28] Keener says, “…strict Jews would not enter a Gentile’s house or allow a Gentile in theirs.” [29] In answer to Peter’s inquiry, “The men replied, ‘We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say’” (10:22). Here it is plainly stated that Cornelius was a God-fearer. We will see references to this status several other places in Acts (cf. 10:35; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 17:4, 17; 18:7). As a God-fearer attached to the synagogue he obviously was respected. “Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along” (10:23). It was already too late for a trip back to Caesarea that day so Peter received these guests, giving them food and lodging for the night. [30] The next day Peter consented to travel with them back to Caesarea. To travel by foot those 30 miles would have easily taken ten to twelve hours. Peter wisely took some Jewish believers with him from Joppa. In 11:12, we will learn that there were six in all. With Peter that would make the perfect number of seven. [31] This was an important and weighty occasion and Peter knew he would need witnesses. In fact, he would soon be questioned about his actions by the elders in Jerusalem (11:1-18). The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. Acts 10:24 Obviously, the trip to Caesarea had taken much longer than the trip by the messengers of Cornelius. In the journey they had to spend the night on the road. We can imagine that there was a great spirit of anticipation at the house of Cornelius. He had called together a group of relatives and friends. Chrysostom remarked about it: “This is the part of a friend, this the part of a devout person, that where such blessings are concerned, he takes care that his near friends shall be made partakers of all.” [32] Hervey would say of this meeting, “This was a memorable event, being the first invasion of the Roman Empire by the soldiers of the cross.” [33] “As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence” (10:25). Cornelius immediately fell and prostrated himself before Peter. Barnes says, “In Oriental countries it was usual for persons to prostrate themselves at length on the ground before men of rank and honor.” [34] Yet, Meyer notes, “That a high-born Roman should prostrate himself before a Jewish evangelist was unprecedented.” [35] Unfortunately, religion in general and Christianity in particular has been filled with occasions where believers have prostrated themselves before religious figures. Stott tells of the great St. Peters Cathedral in Rome where people still come and kiss the toe of the statue of St. Peter. [36] “But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up,’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself’” (10:26). Peter in real life would have none of this. He commanded Cornelius to stand up (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:9). The Bible commands us to reserve our worship only for God (Exo. 20:3-5; Deut. 5:7-9; Lk. 4:8). “While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people” (10:27). By walking into a Gentile home Peter was breaking a long-standing Jewish practice. Harvey says, “It was one thing to give a Gentile Jewish hospitality, and another for a Jew to accept Gentile hospitality.” [37] Stott says here, “….The principle subject of this chapter is not so much the conversion of Cornelius as the conversion of Peter.” [38] “He said to them: ‘You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?” (10:28-29). Peter had obeyed the Lord and had made the journey without reservations or objections. Cornelius, being quite closely associated with the synagogue undoubtedly understood how difficult it was for Peter as a Jew to enter a Gentile home. Of course, many of the Jewish requirements went far beyond the law and were based primarily on Pharisaic interpretations. [39] Peter’s question is rather amazing. God had already prepared Peter with vision and revelation, in order that he could go to the Gentiles with the gospel. Yet, somehow he still did not connect with this purpose. Coffman remarks: “‘All things …’ could hardly have failed to ring a bell in Peter’s heart; for he had heard the Lord command that ‘all nations’ should be taught ‘all things’ whatsoever Jesus had commanded (Matt. 28:18-20). His duty, therefore, was crystal clear; for here was a Gentile household belonging to the ‘all nations,’ declaring that they were assembled to hear ‘all things’ the Lord commanded.” [40] Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’” Acts 10:30-32 It is interesting that the NIV and NJB translations have it “Three days ago” while most other translations have it as “Four days ago.” If we look carefully at the journeys we will realize that the “four days” is correct. On the second day, the messengers arrived at Joppa (10:9). On the third, Peter returned with them, but on the fourth day they arrived at Caesarea (10:24). [41] As Cornelius speaks, we get the new information that the angel wore shining clothes. Of course, this was the normal dress and appearance of angels in the New Testament (cf. Acts 1:10; Matt.28:3; Mk.16:5; Lk. 24:4). “So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us” (10:33). “Few preachers have ever had a more receptive audience than Peter had on this occasion.” [42] Pett says, “…he had probably never before walked into a room like this packed with so many people who were just waiting, every one, to be converted… He would never forget this moment.” [43] Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” Acts 10:34-35 Peter had learned a great lesson, that God does not play favorites or show favoritism (cf. Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Jas.2:1; 1 Pet. 1:17). The favor he had shown Israel over the centuries was a favor for his own salvation purposes. This would also be true for the favor now showered upon Christians. As Peter spoke, centuries of darkness and misunderstanding were passing away. The Jewish people had greatly confused their relation with Gentiles. Jewish men had come to begin their days by thanking God that they were not slaves, Gentiles or women…If a Jew married a Gentile, the Jewish community would conduct a funeral for that Jew and consider that person dead.” [44] Some Jews had come to the place where they would not even assist a Gentile woman in childbirth, lest they help bring another Gentile into the world. With Peter’s words, all the types, patterns and shadows of the Old Testament were passing away and the Sun of Righteousness was arising (Mal. 4:2). “You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all” (10:36). The events of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus were undoubtedly well-known throughout Israel. They were certainly not done in secret. Undoubtedly, the people listening to Peter had some sketchy knowledge of these things, so Peter is being brief. However, this sermon is unique since it pays more attention to the earthly life of Jesus than other sermons. [45] The great biblical scholar, C. H. Dodd felt that this sermon of Peter represented the heart of gospel preaching known as kerygma that was used in the primitive church. [46] Other scholars have pointed out that the Greek of this sermon is rough, probably implying that Peter was primarily an Aramaic speaker. Some have even thought that he spoke Aramaic through an interpreter. [47] We can be certain that Peter’s whole message is not recorded, but more or less the gist or summary of his message is presented here. [48] “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (10:37-38). No doubt, because these were Gentiles, Peter was filling them in on some basic details of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. [49] It is clear in this verse that religion is not just about talking or about theology alone. Jesus “went around doing good.” Christianity is to be a religion of good deeds. “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen” (10:39-40). The sermon continues with its rather clumsy Greek. This in itself is a great witness for the truthfulness of Luke. He was himself a good Koine Greek writer but here he faithfully records his sources without making corrections in the poor grammar. [50] It is plain here that there was a need for apostolic witnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. Peter was not presenting hearsay evidence but he was talking about what he had actually seen and heard. This apostolic witness in the New Testament is absolutely critical. [51] “He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen— by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead” (10:41-42). Pfeiffer and Harrison state: “Peter’s sermon is our first example of preaching to the Gentiles. It contains very little reflection upon the meaning of the person of Christ, no emphasis upon his pre-existence, incarnation, and deity, nor on the atoning character of his death. It is indeed a ‘primitive Christology,’ and consists primarily of the proclamation of the facts of Jesus’ death, life, and resurrection, and the appeal to believe on him for the forgiveness of sins.” [52] “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43). It seems that the statement “everyone who believes” was the key that broke through the traditional barriers that had long separated Jews and Gentiles. [53] We can suddenly feel the excitement rising in the group and that excitement will shortly break forth into a spiritual explosion. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. Acts 10:44 Peter did not even get through with his sermon when suddenly the Holy Spirit fell upon all those assembled. O that we could have such spiritual interruptions of our sermons today! Barclay says, “They were lifted out of themselves in an ecstasy and began to speak with tongues.” [54] Barker and Kohlenberger add: “Luke suggests that it was this phrase [v. 43 “everyone who believes”] that struck like a thunderbolt into the consciousness of the assembled Gentiles…emboldening them to think that they could believe and so receive the blessing promised to Israel…just as he had come upon the disciples at Pentecost. [55] Of course, it had always been God’s plan to include the Gentiles in his kingdom. We remember that Abraham was promised that he would be the father of many Gentiles (Gen. 17:4). Joseph had even married a Gentile wife and so his two children Ephraim, and Manasseh, were half Gentile from the start. Then there were important Gentile women like Rahab and Ruth who married into the Messianic line. Many of David’s great warriors were Gentiles. The prophets had spoken of the Gentiles coming in. Isaiah 60:1-3 states it well: “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you…Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn” (Isa. 60:1, 3). The Bible exclaims, “Rejoice, you nations, with his people…” (Deut. 32:43) and “Praise the LORD, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples” (Psa. 117:1). Right before Peter’s eyes these scriptures were coming true and surely he was amazed as well as all those with him. Pfeiffer and Harrison say, “This was not a new Pentecost but an extension of Pentecost to include the Gentiles.” [56] In much the same way Peter had seen it extended to include the Samaritans. “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. (10:45-46a). This gift was identical to the one the Jews received at Pentecost and the circumcised believers were astounded. These Gentile people were speaking in tongues just as the Jews did at Pentecost. “The gift of tongues was given on this occasion that there might be no doubt whatsoever that God had given to the Gentiles the same gift he had bestowed upon Jewish believers.” [57] “Then Peter said, surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (10:46b-47). Fredrick Bruner says, “It was impossible for the apostles to associate the gift of the Holy Spirit with anything but baptism; the new converts were immediately baptized.” [58] “Baptism had become the outward sign of reception into the people of God.” [59] No longer would circumcision mark a division between Jews and Gentiles. “…Peter was quick to draw the inevitable deduction. Since God had accepted these Gentile believers, which indeed he had (15:8), the church must accept them too…” [60] “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days” (10:48). The new believers were promptly baptized as was the custom in the early church. Then Peter was asked to linger on a few days, no doubt so that he could share his rich teaching and experience. “….With this event, the period of transition in the early history of the church comes to an end. Believers among the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles have all received the Spirit of God and are united in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27).” [61] 1. James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 173. Keener adds: “…only roughly half those who enlisted survived the twenty years of service…Noncitizens could not join legions but could become auxiliary troops who received citizenship upon their discharge.” (Keener, p. 350). 2. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 985. 3. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 202. 4. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 10:1. 5. Stott, The Message of Acts, p.186. 6. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 355. 7. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 8. Brian Campbell, The Journal of Roman Studies, The Marriage of Soldiers, Vol. 68, 1978, pp. 153-166. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/299633.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Keener adds: “Luke would certainly know that military personnel were not permitted to marry. Soldiers commonly had illegal concubines whom superiors ignored…while Cornelius may have unofficially married a concubine, the weight of probability does not favor it…But the term translated “household” could include servants or freedpersons… “Household” here may just mean “servants.” (Keener, p. 350). 9. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 119. 10. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 10:3. 11. Quoted in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, 12. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 184. 13. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, v. 10:1. 14. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 356. 15. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 185. 16. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 985. 17. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 10:12. 18. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1142. 19. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 206. 20. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, v. 10:12. 21. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 125. 22. Ibid., p. 126. 23. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 10:8. 24. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 10:15. 25. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 10:16. 26. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 10:17-33. 27. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, Stott adds: “The key expression meden diakrinomenos in 10:20 and meden diakrinanta in 11:12 is usually translated ‘without hesitation; (RSV) or ‘without misgiving’ (JBP, NEB), but it could mean ‘making no distinction’ (11:12 (RSV)…This seems to mean that he ‘gave them a night’s lodging’ (NEB), even though they were uncircumcised Gentiles.” (Stott, p. 187). 28. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 10:21-23. 29. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 351. 30. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 187. 31. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 10:23. 32. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 131. 33. Quoted in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 10:24. 34. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 10:25. 35. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 36. Cited in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, 37. Quoted in Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 187. 38. Quoted in Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, 39. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 10:28-29. 40. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 10:32. 41. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 10:23. 42. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 43. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 10:33. 44. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 10: 34-43. 45. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 190. Coffman adds: “Peter’s entire speech, as recorded here, requires only fifty-eight seconds to be read aloud…” (Coffman, v. 10:36). 46. Cited in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 212. 47. Ibid., p. 213. 48. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 441. 49. Ibid. 50. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 10:39. 51. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 10:40. 52. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1143. 53. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 442. 54. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 10: 44-48. 55. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 56. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1143. 57. Ibid. 58. Quoted in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 10:46. 59. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 194. 60. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 192. 61. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 357. The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. Acts 11:1 This was surely some of the biggest news in the history of the Jewish religion. Gentile believers had now joined the faith apart from subjection to the law and apart from circumcision. This was unheard of – unthinkable! We can imagine that this news traveled like wildfire over the hills of Judea and up to the doors of Jerusalem. Actually, the news got to Jerusalem long before Peter did. It is obvious that Luke was attaching great significance to this development. In a day when space was limited on a scroll, and thirty-five feet (10 m.) was the maximum workable length of a scroll, Luke still tells this lengthy story twice. [1] To the Orthodox Jew, it was bad enough that the uncircumcised had come in, but it was especially bad that this was brought about by Peter, the esteemed leader of the Twelve. [2] Caesarea, after all, was a Greek city and it was full of pagans. How could these pagans come freely into the Jewish faith? It is evident that some of the leaders in Jerusalem still did not comprehend the Great Commission of Jesus (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, ‘You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them’” (11:2-3). In those days table fellowship was almost a sacred thing. When people ate a meal together it was as if they were entering into covenant together. [3] Wiersbe says here, “It was not only a matter of religion, but also of culture, and cultural habits are very hard to break.” [4] We need to remind ourselves that there had been a great influx of Jewish converts into the faith in Jerusalem, with a number of these coming from the priesthood and even from the Pharisees (6:7; 15:5). Such people no doubt had very strong ideas about compliance with the law and especially about circumcision. We cannot say at this point that there was “a circumcision party” in Christianity, [5] but one was certainly in the process of forming. No doubt, some of the disciples themselves did not clearly understand that Jesus had fulfilled these ritual requirements. The mere fact that Peter was severely criticized here should make plain “…that the apostles and early Christians did not regard Peter as having any particular supremacy over the church, or as being in any special sense the vicar of Christ upon earth.” [6] It may be this incident particularly that caused James, the brother of Jesus, to suddenly assume leadership of the Jerusalem church. Barclay makes an alarming statement here: “We usually do not realize how near Christianity was to becoming only another kind of Judaism.” [7] Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: Acts 11:4 It seems that Peter had determined that his best defense would be to relate the narrative in a straightforward fashion, showing how he himself had become convinced by all the circumstances. [8] “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat’” (11:5-7). Peter is essentially repeating the same account of his heavenly vision as is told in 10:9-16. For remarks on this section we refer our readers back to the commentary on chapter 10. “I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again” (11:8-10). Peter seems to be taking a lesson from his Master as he tells this story. All of us are more engaged by a story than just by plain doctrinal teaching. Also, in a story or parable, the deeper truths of scripture can be conveyed with less offense. “Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house” (11:11-12). This is a critical juncture in Peter’s account, since he here accepts the Gentiles, allows them into his house and then agrees to go along with them, at last entering into a Gentile house. Such an admission would certainly arouse the customary wail of “oi va voi!” among the hearers. It is at this point that Peter reminds them of his six witnesses. With himself that would total seven, which was always looked upon as a complete number. Peter’s foresight in taking along Jewish witnesses for this important, water-shed event can here be appreciated. Not only was seven a number of completion for the Hebrews (cf. Rev. 5:1), but with the Romans, seven seals were required to authenticate an important document. No doubt, all his listeners were familiar with this common aspect of Roman law. [9] “He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved’” (11:13-14). An obvious point seems to stick out in Peter’s story. If it was OK for a holy angel of the Lord to enter the home of Cornelius, then it would surely be acceptable for a human being to enter. [10] There is a great promise here in verse 14 and that is the promise of household salvation. The gospel is meant to penetrate every member of the household, as we see on other occasions in the Bible (cf. Acts 16:31). “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” (11:15-17). Once again, we are reminded that Peter was not very far along in his sermon when the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles assembled. It was the very gift that John the Baptist had spoken of previously (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5). Bruce comments, “…God evidently made no distinction between believing Gentiles and believing Jews; how could Peter maintain a barrier which God plainly ignored?” [11] To refresh our memory here, the Holy Spirit has now been given to Jews at Pentecost, to the Samaritans and finally to the Gentiles. Peter has had a key role in these three events because it was Peter who held the “keys of the kingdom.” We observe by this that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, that one-time historical event, was given in three different streams, to Jews, Samaritans and finally to Gentiles in general. Luke has laid the foundation for the rest of Acts. He will soon move to Antioch where the gospel to the Gentiles created a gigantic spiritual explosion that was literally heard around the world. Barker and Kohlenberger state: “The conversion of Cornelius was a landmark in the history of the gospel’s advance…the sovereign God was not confined to the traditional forms of Judaism and that he could bring a Gentile directly into relationship with himself through Jesus Christ, apart from any prior commitment or distinctive Jewish beliefs or lifestyle.” [12] Peter was saying essentially, “… if God had baptized someone in his Spirit, he had certainly accepted their conversion – with or without circumcision.” [13] Peter was not willing to oppose God or stand in his way. The Greek words here are dunatos kōlūsai ton theon, and they mean to withstand or hinder God. [14] “When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (11:18). Other translations say, “And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God…” (NAS); or “This account satisfied them, and they gave glory to God…” (NJB). Barker and Kohlenberger add: “This was a response of momentous importance by the church at Jerusalem…it said nothing about the many related questions that soon were bound to arise.” [15] Indeed soon in Antioch, Peter would back away from his decision (Gal. 2:11ff.) and later in Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council would be called to issue a final ruling on it. Guzik comments on this important section saying, “…This is a powerful passage, demonstrating that the hearts of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were soft enough to be guided and corrected by God…” [16] It seems at this point the whole Jerusalem meeting broke into praise to God for his grace shown to Gentiles. Pfeiffer and Harrison add: “This section marks a new stage in the extension of the church from a Jewish fellowship in Jerusalem to a universal community….Now he describes the beginning of the first independent Gentile congregation in Antioch, which was to become the “mother church” of the Gentile mission in Asia and Europe.” [17] Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Acts 11:19 Here Luke backtracks and connects us up with 8:1, 4, and the scattering of the Hellenistic believers after the death of Stephen. These scattered saints went in many directions, all through Judea and Samaria. However, they also scattered to foreign countries like Phoenicia, Cyprus and especially to Antioch of Syria. At this early stage they were spreading the word only to Jews as had been the custom to that point. “Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus” (11:20). Stedman says, “In many ways this is one of the greatest events in all history.” [18] It seems that Luke is quite excited to relate this segment. He has really been leading up to this moment all through Acts. Luke may have been especially excited in telling about the Antioch event because ancient tradition connects Luke himself with Antioch. [19] Up to this point the gospel had gone out to Jews, to Samaritans, who were part Jewish, to God-fearers and had at last broken into the Gentile world with Cornelius and his friends. That event was surely known to the scattered believers. Now we see some bold but unknown missionaries who begin to share the gospel with Gentiles who have absolutely no connection with Israel. Jesus is presented to these as “Lord” and not as “Messiah,” since Gentiles would not have an understanding of this term. The concept of lordship however was well-known in the Greco-Roman world. What an amazing transition! “The Jesus movement shifts from a predominantly rural movement in Galilee to an urban movement in Jerusalem to a cosmopolitan movement in Antioch. Such a rapid transition is virtually unparalleled in antiquity and indicates considerable social flexibility.” [20] Perhaps we should say a little about the city of Antioch. First of all, Antioch, the capital of Syria, is not to be confused with Antioch of Pisidia, where Paul later worked (13:14). Historians inform us that there were some sixteen cities with the name of Antioch in the ancient world. [21] This Antioch was about 300 miles (480 kilometers) north of Jerusalem. Antioch of Syria was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, after Rome itself and Alexandria in Egypt. It had a population of more than half a million people. It also had a large Jewish population. The city was situated on the Orontes River, not far from the coast, and was known as “Antioch the Beautiful,” and “the Queen of the East.” [22] It was very cosmopolitan and became a melting-pot where east and west met together. Unfortunately, beautiful Antioch was also a den of iniquity. Antioch was the center for the worship of the nymph Daphne, who was pursued by the god Apollo. Barclay says of this: “The priestesses of the Temple of Daphne were sacred prostitutes and nightly in the laurel groves the pursuit was re-enacted by the worshippers and the priestesses. ‘The morals of Daphne’ was a phrase that all the world knew for loose living.” [23] Antioch thus was a city sorely in need of the gospel. It is said: “…no other city of the Roman Empire played as large a part in the early life and fortunes of the church as Antioch of Syria. It was the birthplace of foreign missions (13:2) and the home base for Paul’s outreach to the eastern half of the empire. It was the place where those of ‘the Way’ (9:2) were first called ‘Christians…’” [24] “The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord” (11:21). No doubt, there were many Jews and God-fearers who responded to this preaching. However, it seems that the bulk of the people were Gentiles. Guzik says about it: “…In Antioch, we have the first example of Christians deliberately targeting Gentiles for evangelism, and this effort had great results (a great number believed and turned to the Lord).” [25] News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. Acts 11:22 We have seen already that Jerusalem was the original Mother Church and the mother was carefully watching over all her newborn. The Jerusalem church elected to send Barnabas to Antioch to report on and to assist the work there. They could not have chosen a better person for this job. Barclay says, “…they sent the man with the biggest heart in the church.” [26] Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus and was a man with an impeccable reputation for godliness and generosity (cf. 4:36-37; 9:27). What better person to send than a Levite to this new Gentile church. This tribe was charged with the religious service and spiritual welfare of Israel. Even the priesthood sprang from this tribe. Today there are still many Levites in our society with thinly disguised names like Levy, Levin, Levine, Levinson, Levitt and Lewin. Marshall says of Barnabas that “…he was regarded with complete confidence in Jerusalem and acted as a pivot or link between the Hebrew and Hellenistic elements in the church.” [27] “When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord” (11:23-24). The name Barnabas means “son of encouragement” as we have seen (4:36). Not only was Barnabas encouraged with what he saw in Antioch, but he no doubt encouraged others. He was just the tonic the new Gentile church needed. It is not often that we see the Lord openly bragging on a person as he does here concerning Barnabas. The Lord, through Luke, noted he was a good man, full of the Spirit and full of faith. The result was that many more people were added to the church. Once Barnabas arrived and went to work, the ministry quickly became too big for one person to handle. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Acts 11:25-26 We remember that Saul was earlier sent back home to Tarsus by the brothers in Jerusalem (9:30). He had been there ever since, although he had apparently worked for the Lord in the surrounding areas. Barnabas knew exactly the man he wanted to help him in Antioch. It was the man he had introduced to the church in Jerusalem (9:27). Barnabas well knew that Saul had been called specifically to minister to the Gentiles (9:15; 22:21; 26:17). He was just the person needed. Apparently, finding Saul was no easy task for Barnabas. The Greek word for “seek” or “look for” is anazētēsai, and it means “to seek up and down…back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search.” [28] Barnabas knew the man he wanted and he did not give up the search until he found him. One big plus for Saul was that he had a mastery of the Greek tongue, and thus was highly qualified to explain the gospel to the Greek people and their philosophers. He also was skilled at defending the faith in debate. [29] But more than anything else, he had a direct call from God to minister to Gentile people. These two highly skilled and gifted servants of God worked for a whole year gathering and forming the great church at Antioch. Not only was Antioch the first Gentile church, but it lived to become one of the five great churches in the early Christian world. As we will soon see, Antioch became the new mother church for the missionary movement that would spread throughout the known Gentile world. It was at Antioch that the church got a new name. The people of Antioch were apparently quite talented at giving nicknames. On one occasion they were visited by Julian the bearded Emperor, and they christened him “The Goat.” [30] As they observed the new Christians they came up with a nickname for them and it stuck. No doubt they were suddenly hearing the name Christ a lot. Therefore, “… they began to speak of the believers as Christiani (‘Christ-men’ – ‘Christians’). …The giving of a name to the Christians in Antioch was clearly seen as significant by Luke.” [31] After all, God had said that he would give his people a new name (Isa. 56:5; 62:2). This name was slow to catch on for the believers themselves, but we see it in 26:28 and in 1 Peter 4:16. Guzik remarks that Christians had previously been called by many names— disciples (1:15); believers (5:14); witnesses (5:32); brothers (6:3); followers of the Way (9:2); saints (9:13) and finally Nazarenes (24:5). But here they are given the name of Christians. [32] It is this name that has most generally described them through the centuries to come, a name under which the martyrs gave their lives. Eusebius, the early church historian tells of one early martyr by the name of Sanctus: But Sanctus himself, also nobly sustaining beyond all measure and human power, the various torments devised by men, whilst the wicked tormentors hoped that by the continuance and the greatness of the tortures, they would get to hear something from him that he ought not to say, withstood them with so much firmness, that he did not even declare his name, nor that of his nation, nor the city whence he was, nor whether he was a slave or a freedman, but to all the questions that were proposed, he answered in the Roman tongue, “I am a Christian.” For this he confessed instead of his name, his city, his race, and instead of every thing. No other expression did the heathen hear from him…when they had nothing further that they could inflict on him they at last fastened red hot plates of brass to the most tender parts of his body. But he continued unsubdued and unshaken, firm in his confession… [33] During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius). Acts 11:27-28 In our day the idea of roving prophets may sound a little strange, but for the early church this was a common ministry, rated next to the apostles themselves (1 Cor. 12:28). However, prophets were not common among the Jewish people of the First Century. The Jews felt that prophetic ministry ceased with the last writing prophets, some 400 years before, and would not resume until the Messianic Age. [34] We can see in these verses how important the prophetic ministry is. A great famine was coming, and like Joseph of old, the visiting prophet Agabus predicted it exactly. It is really helpful to have that kind of insight when the church is making plans for the future. The prophetic ministry was fairly common in the early church (Acts 13:1; 15:32; 21:9-10). The prophet had both the ministry of foretelling and forth-telling. [35] Today we are apt to look askance upon ministers who do either. We want to take a moment to consider the accuracy of Agabus’ prediction. Emperor Claudius reigned from AD 41-54. While we do not have record of one great worldwide famine in his reign, we do have abundant evidence of famines in different places. There was a succession of bad harvests, with resulting scarcity in Rome, Greece, Egypt and in Judea. [36] It seems that Judea was especially hit around the year 46. The historian, Josephus, gives us an account of Queen Helena of the kingdom of Adiabene. She and her son were converts to Judaism. It seems that at about this time the queen heard of the severe famine in Judea and decided to help. She spent a great deal of money to bring grain from Egypt and dried figs from Cyprus. Her son Izotes also gave a great deal of money to relieve the famine in Jerusalem. [37] “The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul” (11:29-30). It seems that the new church at Antioch sprang into action based on the prophecy of Agabus. As each one was able, they all gathered together an offering, apparently in money. What a noble thing for these new Christians to do! They had received the gift of life in Jesus from Jerusalem and now they were able to give back a compensation to the Mother Church (cf. Rom. 15:27). It was Sir Winston Churchill who said, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” [38] They chose their leaders, Barnabas and Saul, to carry this precious gift to Jerusalem. Scholars are prone to date this benevolence journey at around AD 46. [39] Many scholars feel that this was the “second visit” of Saul to Jerusalem after his conversion. In Galatians 2:1-10, Saul (Paul) discusses this journey, saying that it was 14 years after his first visit. He claims that on this visit he went up by revelation (apparently that of Agabus). This visit presents us with one of the most difficult problems of chronology in the whole New Testament. [40] In many ways, the details of Galatians 2 seem to be speaking of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which took place in AD 49. However, by Saul’s own statement, that would not have been his second visit, but his third, since he was obviously in Jerusalem for the earlier benevolence trip. Barker and Kohlenberger state: “…the simplest solution, one that provides the most satisfactory and convincing reconstruction and leaves the fewest loose ends, is that Gal. 2:1-10 corresponds to the famine visit of Ac 11:27-30…” [41] Of course, this early date of AD 46 would seem to place Saul’s conversion even before AD 33 and that would hardly fit. Perhaps Martin has it right when he says concerning this vexing problem of chronology, “There is no clear answer.” [42] We note here the first mention of elders in Jerusalem. [43] This term elder (Gk. presbuteros) is synonymous with “overseers,” “bishops,” and “pastors.” [44] The elders originally referred to the aged men in the Jewish synagogues but it seems that this title was taken over and used often by the early church. 1. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:1-10. “The importance that Luke attached to this incident is shown by the amount of space he devoted to it. In ancient times a writer had by no means unlimited space. The book form had not come into use. Writers used rolls of a material called papyrus, which was the forerunner of paper and was made of the pith of the papyrus plant, a kind of bulrush. Now a roll is an unwieldy thing and the longest roll that was used was about thirty-five feet long which would be almost precisely the length required to hold the book of Acts. Into that space Luke had almost endless material to fit. He must have selected with the greatest care what he was going to set down; and yet he finds the story of Peter and Cornelius of such importance that he twice relates it in full.” 2. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 11:1-3. 3. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 11:2. “… Eating in the Ancient Near East was a kind of covenant of fellowship.” Guzik adds: “… Sharing a meal together was a special sign of fellowship in that time and culture. This was considered to be a significant compromise by these Jewish Christians.” (Guzik, vs. 11:1-3). 4. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 358. 5. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 195. 6. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 11:2. 7. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:1-10. 8. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 11:4. 9. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:11-18. 10. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 11:13-14. 11. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 222. 12. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 442. 13. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 354. 14. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 11:17. 15. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 16. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 11:16-18. 17. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1144. 18. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 11:19-30. Stott adds: “The inclusion of the Gentiles is to be Luke’s main theme in the rest of Acts…” (Stott, p. 200). 19. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 230. “…the tradition preserved in the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to the third Gospel, and elsewhere, that Luke was a native of Syrian Antioch….we can readily appreciate both his interests in Antioch and his enthusiasm for the Gentile mission.” 20. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 354. Jeffers adds: “Antioch, the center of political, military and commercial communication between Rome and the Persian frontier and between Palestine [sic] and Asia Minor, was one of the three or four most important cities of the Empire and the home of a large Jewish community…Thus, within a decade of the crucifixion of Jesus, the village culture of Palestine was left behind, and the Greco-Roman city had become the dominant environment of the movement.” (Jeffres, The Greco Roman World, p. 70). 21. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 358. 22. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 203. 23. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:19-21. 24. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 25. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 11:19-21. 26. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:22-26. 27. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 202. 28. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, 29. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 11:26. 30. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:22-26. 31. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 11:25-26. 32. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 11:26. 33. Eusebius Pamphilus, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (Bk. 5, Ch. 1), Popular Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1955), p. 172. 34. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 35. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 11:27-30. 36. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 230. 37. Josephus, Book 20, Chapter 2, Section 5. Guthrie adds: “Seutonius confirms that his reign was marked by constant seasons of unfruitfulness. Josephus tells us that about the year 46 Palestine was hard hit by famine…” (Guthrie, p. 987). Keener also adds: “…papyri show high grain prices around AD 46…Queen Helena of Adiabene bought Egyptian grain “for large sums” (due to famine there) to help Judea (about 45-46).” (Keener, p. 355). 38. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 361. 39. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 446. 40. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1145. 41. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 447. 42. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V, Acts, p. 150. 43. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 204. 44. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 11:30. It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. Acts 12:1 Since this King Herod makes his first appearance here, it would be good for us to understand exactly who the king is. He is known in history as Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great. Of course, he is also related to all the other Herods. Agrippa’s father was Aristobulus and his mother was Mariamme, a Maccabean princess. Unfortunately, his father was murdered by Herod the Great. This resulted in Agrippa being sent to Rome, where he was brought up with future emperors. When he became of age, his lifelong friend and now Emperor Gaius (Caligula) granted him the former territories of Herod Philip. These territories were (Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis), and later the tetrarchy of Lysanias. Along with these territories he was given the title of “king.” His kingdom continued to grow. Eventually Emperor Claudius, also his youthful friend, awarded him the areas of Judea and Samaria. [1] Through Agrippa’s influence with Rome, he helped bring about the banishment of his uncle Herod Antipas and was awarded his uncle’s territory of Galilee and Peraea. At this point, he was ruler over all the territory once held by his grandfather, Herod the Great. [2] We have to note however that the Herod family was rotten to the core. Herod the Great had tried his best to kill the baby Jesus. Herod Antipas had murdered John the Baptist and was involved in the trial of Jesus. The Herod family was undoubtedly one of history’s most wicked and depraved families. Herod Agrippa would be no exception. We see him here arresting some of the Christians. This act undoubtedly thrilled the Jewish leaders. “He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword” (12:2). Up to this time the Twelve had enjoyed a mantle of protection from persecution. Herod quickly changed that and reached out his hand to put the disciple James to death. This was James the son of Zebedee and brother of John. It is important to note that he was a member of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, which included himself, Peter, and John. James and John were likely the youngest members of the apostolic band and apparently they were firebrands. They once wanted to burn down an unfriendly Samaritan village (Lk. 9:51-56). They also came to Jesus on one occasion and asked for the choice seats in the kingdom. Jesus asked if they could drink from his cup of suffering (Matt. 20:20-23; Mk. 10:35-40). By that, he meant sharing in his violent death. [3] They assured him that they could. Here we see that James got to share in that death. He was the first of the disciples to die and his brother John was the last. John died a natural death at a very old age. However, John suffered exile on the isle of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). The church father Tertullian relates how on one occasion in Rome, John was plunged into boiling oil and yet he survived miraculously. [4] It seems that most of Jesus’ other disciples died as martyrs. James died by the usual mode of execution for the Romans – by beheading. We have previously noted that the Romans denied the Jews the right of capital punishment. However, since Herod was a king he had that right. [5] Beheading though was considered a punishment too violent and controversial for the Jews. [6] It is interesting that after the death of James there was no move to appoint another person to take his place, as in the case of Judas (1:15-26). As long as the gospel was going primarily to the Jews it may have seemed necessary for the Twelve to be complete in number. After the stoning of Stephen, and as the gospel began to go out to Gentiles, this may have seemed less important. [7] Also, while Judas had died as an apostate, James died as a faithful martyr. This account at first seems out of place, since Luke is so intent on chronicling the rapid expansion of the church. Suddenly there is the death of one apostle and the imprisonment of another, which on the surface seems to put a damper on the expansion. However, Luke is a realist, knowing full well that there would be cycles of expansion, opposition, growth, shrinkage, advance and retreat in church history. [8] Trapp adds, “Afflictions seldom come single…Job’s messengers tread one upon the heels of another.” [9] “When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread” (12:3). Herod Agrippa was from an Idumean (Edomite) background but his mother Mariamme was of the Maccabean or Hasmonean line as we have said. The Jewish people had despised Herod the Great because he was an Idumean. Agrippa was determined to be accepted by the Jews and he would do whatever he could to make that happen. He often attended the temple worship and was a friend with the Pharisees. When he perceived that the killing of James made the Jews happy, he wasted no time in arresting Peter, with the idea of killing him also. It was the Festival of Unleavened Bread which lasted a full week. For that festival the Jews got rid of the leaven in their houses. No doubt they considered James, as well as the other disciples, as an evil leaven in their midst. Still, Agrippa would have to wait until the festival ended for his next murder. Trapp says, “It is an old trick of tyrants to curry favor with the wicked, by shedding the blood of the godly.” [10] “After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover” (12:4). The disciples had probably gained some fame for escaping prison (5:17-20), so Agrippa was taking no chances with Peter. The four squads of soldiers would total 16. While it was not unusual for a prisoner to be handcuffed to one soldier, Peter was handcuffed to one on either side. Romans divided the night into four watches of three hours each, so the soldiers would be relieved every three hours. [11] Two soldiers were chained to Peter and another two manned the gates. All this precaution made escape physically impossible. To make matters worse, Peter was probably being held in the massive Fortress of Antonia adjoining the temple. Marshall says of this, “…though the word of God is not fettered, its servants may well have to suffer and be bound (2 Tim. 2:9).” [12] So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him. Acts 12:5 The church was not just praying for Peter, but they were praying fervently and intently for him. The Greek word used here is ektenēs and it conveys the idea of “strained” prayer. [13] Wiersbe says, “Never underestimate the power of a praying church!” [14] In James 5:16 we read: “…The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” That power is greatly multiplied when Christians pray fervently together. “The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance” (12:6). Tomorrow was execution day but we see Peter sleeping soundly, although he is chained by both hands. It reminds us of Psalm 127:2, “…for he grants sleep to those he loves.” If there ever was a hopeless case, this was it. There was absolutely no chance for Peter to escape and he was facing certain death by beheading in the morning. What his persecutors did not know was that Peter’s work on earth was not finished. He would still help the church navigate the difficult circumcision problem in the Acts 15 conference. He would still minister at Antioch and various places in the northern areas of Asia Minor. He would write two epistles of the New Testament and finally he would assist Mark in writing that gospel. Then and only then, would he become a martyr under the hand of Nero. Tradition says he finally asked to be crucified upside down, since he felt unworthy to be crucified like his Master. Over the centuries preachers have used this dismal setting to picture the plight of the unsaved. Before we knew Christ we were chained by sin and held deep in the devil’s prison. There was absolutely no hope of escape and we were doomed to an eternal death. Then Jesus came to us and his light shone round about us. We were delivered from our chains, the prison doors were opened wide, and we were set free. “Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. ‘Quick, get up!’ he said, and the chains fell off Peter’s wrists” (12:7). Instantly, the dark dungeon was filled with heavenly light. The angel of the Lord appeared and struck Peter on the side, wakening him. There is something we notice about angels in the Bible. They are all business and they seem to be in quite a hurry. No doubt the reason for this is that they are working in what is for now enemy territory. They are in a hurry to get their task done before Satan has time to mobilize his forces. Often today we hear supposed angel stories where the heavenly visitors are very casual and full of fun. We must not believe such tales. With this angel’s appearance, all Peter’s chains fell off beginning one of the great miracles in the New Testament. No doubt, even the soldier’s chains also fell off too but they were far too groggy to know it. Wiersbe remarks, “Imagine waking up to a miracle and having an angel for your alarm clock…” [15] If we only had eyes to see, the angel of the Lord is always camping about us in order to deliver us (Psa. 34:7). God has assigned angels to minister to us and to help us in our Christian walk (Heb. 1:14). Unfortunately, these angels are unseen. If we only had eyes to see at the times of our difficulty, we might realize that the mountains are filled with heavenly chariots of fire (2 Ki. 6:17). “Then the angel said to him, ‘Put on your clothes and sandals.’ And Peter did so. ‘Wrap your cloak around you and follow me,’ the angel told him” (12:8). No doubt Peter had shed his outer garment or cloak in order to try and gain some comfort. He now had to put it on, gird himself and put on his sandals. He had to be ready to travel. “Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision” (12:9). Peter may have been thinking “My, what a wonderful dream!” However, it was not a dream but reality. “They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him” (12:10). Peter had experienced something wonderful. His chains had fallen off and he had walked right past the guards. Yet, he was still in prison and there was before him that huge iron gate. Sometimes, even in our victories, we focus too much on the big iron gate, or that huge problem that seems insurmountable. [16] No doubt, much to Peter’s amazement, the iron gate swung open of its own accord and he was free. The Greek word for opening by itself is automatē, from which root we get “automatic” today. The angel continued to guard him until he was safe and then the heavenly visitor left. This account is very similar to one experienced by the Indian saint Sundar Singh. By order of the chief lama of a Tibetan community he was thrown into a dry well, the cover of which was securely locked. Here he was left to die, like many others before him, whose bones and rotting flesh lay at the bottom of the well. On the third night, when he had been calling to God in prayer, he heard someone unlocking the cover of the well and removing it. Then a voice spoke, telling him to take hold of the rope that was being lowered. He did so, and was glad to find a loop at the bottom of the rope in which he could place his foot, for his arm had been injured before he was thrown down. He was then drawn up, the cover was replaced and locked, but when he looked around to thank his rescuer, he could find no trace of him…the lama declared that someone must have got hold of the key and let him out, but when search was made for the key, it was found attached to the lama’s own girdle. [17] “Then Peter came to himself and said, ‘Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were hoping would happen’” (12:11). Perhaps it was the cool night air on his face that finally brought him to full consciousness. He suddenly realized that it was not all a dream but it was reality. He was free from Herod’s wicked plan! When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Acts 12:12 Peter knew just where to go and that was to the house of Mary and her son Mark. This house had played a central role in the early redemption story. No doubt Mary was wealthy and her home was large and comfortable. It was big enough that the earliest church could assemble there. The scholars Jamieson, Fausset &Brown state: “She must also have been distinguished for faith and courage to allow such a meeting in the face of persecution.” [18] Her son, young Mark, who would later write the gospel under his name, probably had many experiences with the early church that he would remember quite well. Near the end of Peter’s life a much older Mark would use Peter’s notes and perhaps his help to write his gospel. On this occasion the house was filled with saints who were praying urgently for Peter’s release. This little snapshot may help us see that early Christians often prayed at night. [19] We need to be aware that by now the church in Jerusalem was at this time made up of thousands of people who met in many different homes. More than likely there were numerous prayer meetings going on simultaneously that night. “Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, ‘Peter is at the door!’” (12:13-14). Barker and Kohlenberger remark “…The unfolding scene is one of confusion and joyful humor, which must have led to hilarity every time it was repeated among the early believers…” [20] This large house may have been entered through a vestibule or porch. When there was a knock at the door the servant Rhoda went to answer. Upon seeing Peter she was filled with such joy that she failed to open the door but ran and excitedly told the other believers. Meyer says of Rhoda (whose name means “rose”): “Her portrait has charmed every generation. It is so lifelike and natural…How often our deliverances seem too good to be true!” [21] “‘You’re out of your mind,’ they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, ‘It must be his angel.’ But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished” (12:15-16). We simply have to pause a minute to get this incredible picture. Here is a group of Christians in an hour of urgent need praying long into the night for the release of Peter. Suddenly the servant girl interrupts their prayers with the joyful news that Peter is at the door. We would expect an excited chorus of “Praise Jesus!” However, these faithful prayer warriors tell the girl that she has lost her mind. Sometimes it is almost more difficult to believe a miracle after it has happened than before it happens. What does this say about that glorious First Century faith? Maybe it was shaky at times just like our faith sometimes is today. They gave Rhoda the lame excuse that perhaps the person at the door was Peter’s angel. The Jews believed that a guardian angel was assigned to each individual at birth (Mt. 18:10; Heb. 1:14). [22] All this seemed to be ridiculous as Peter kept pounding at the door. No doubt he was quite concerned that he may awake a neighbor and give away his presence. “Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. ‘Tell James and the other brothers and sisters about this,’ he said, and then he left for another place” (12:17). Once inside, Peter related all the information of his miraculous escape to this dumbfounded crowd of saints. Then he requested that they tell James the Lord’s half-brother, who had now taken the lead in the church. James was probably in attendance at another of the prayer meetings, but being the leader, he now may well have been in hiding. [23] With this, we are told that Peter left for another place. We are not given any indication as to where he went. Wiersbe says, “Peter walks off the pages of the book of Acts to make room for Paul and the story of his ministry among the Gentiles…” [24] We know that he visited Antioch, as is recorded in Galatians 2:11-21. We also see him briefly in the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15. In the morning, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. After Herod had a thorough search made for him and did not find him, he cross-examined the guards and ordered that they be executed. Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. Acts 12:18-19 We can only imagine the pandemonium that must have taken place at the prison. The soldiers were on guard and the doors were solidly locked but Peter was not inside. Herod Agrippa was furious at being deceived and mocked. Chrysostom notes how Agrippa despised being mocked and deceived Just as his grandfather did when the wise men deceived him. [25] It seems that Agrippa took his anger out on the soldiers. According to Roman law if a soldier allowed a prisoner to escape that soldier must suffer the penalty that the prisoner would have suffered. In this case the prisoner was to suffer death. [26] The soldiers were thus rounded up and quickly executed. For certain, the last four guards were executed and it is entirely possible that with Herod’s rage all 16 were executed. Sometimes it seems strange that the righteous are delivered while others perish. God once said of Israel, “Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life” (Isa. 43:4). Stott comments here, “Although Herod’s victim had escaped his clutches, Herod himself was still at large…” [27] Like a dog with tail between his legs Herod quickly vacated Jerusalem and headed for Caesarea. He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply. Acts 12:20 Now that Agrippa had retreated to Caesarea, he settled down to the mundane affairs of his kingdom. The formerly Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon were in some kind of conflict with Herod. It seems they were anxious to settle the conflict because they were heavily dependent upon Herod’s territory of Galilee for their food supply. This was a situation very similar to former times as reflected in 1 Kings 5:11, Ezekiel 27:17 and Ezra 3:7. [28] It appears that they might have bribed the king’s chamberlain to intervene for them with Herod. With his help they managed to get an audience with the king. “On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people.” They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man.’” (12:21-22). The historian Josephus sheds considerable light on this event. He says that on the second day of a particular celebration to honor Caesar, Herod came to the theatre dressed in a silver garment. As the sun arose on the assembled multitude, its rays began to reflect off his robes in a wonderfully resplendent manner. The people cried out to him, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Josephus notes that the king did not rebuke them for such impious flattery. Very quickly the king had a severe pain in his belly upon which he remarked to his friends, “I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life.” With this his pain became extremely violent and he was carried into the palace. Herod endured this great pain for five days after which he died at the age of 54 (Josephus, Bk. 19, Ch. 8, Sec. 2). This is one occasion when the wrath of God came swiftly on the one who killed his apostle and claimed God’s own glory. God says, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8). “Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died” (12:23). With Josephus we have the event told from the historian’s point of view. However, with this verse it is told from heaven’s point of view. God sent an angel to strike this evil man down. God afflicted him with worms that destroyed him. Some modern commentators have remarked concerning the affliction with worms. Stott says that intestinal worms are a common problem in Asia and that these worms can form a ball obstructing the intestines. [29] Barker and Kohlenberger relate that roundworms can grow from ten to sixteen inches in length as they feed on intestinal nutrients. Such an infection ends in severe pain with copious vomiting and ultimate death. [30] Tourists to Israel can today sit in that same large amphitheater that faces the Mediterranean. It is in excellent condition and is still used for some performances. It is not at all difficult to imagine the sun coming up and its rays striking the silver garment of Herod, who would probably have been seated on his throne at its center stage. They say today that Israel is the “Fifth Gospel.” Four gospels one can read anywhere in the world but this gospel can only be read while one is in Israel. “But the word of God continued to spread and flourish” (12:24). Wiersbe says here: “Luke is accomplishing the purpose of his book and showing us how the church spread throughout the Roman world from its small beginnings in Jerusalem…At the beginning of Acts 12, Herod seemed to be in control, and the church was losing the battle. But at the end of the chapter, Herod is dead and the church – very much alive – is growing rapidly!” [31] “When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark” (12:25). There is a slight problem in chronology as Luke here picks up the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch. It is generally thought by commentators that the relief mission from Antioch occurred around AD 46, at the height of the Judean famine, but we have historical proof that Herod died in AD 44 (see 12:1). The events seem to be chronologically reversed. “We must remember that ancient historians frequently grouped their materials without always being concerned about chronology…” [32] Luke is weaving together an important account of the gospel’s spread rather than writing history in a chronological fashion. 1. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 987. 2. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 3. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 12:1-25. 4. Roberts &Donaldson, eds, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 3, p. 260. 5. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 355. 6. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 82. 7. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 361. 8. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 207. 9. Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, v. 12:1. 10. Ibid., v.12:3. 11. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 12:4. 12. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 207. 13. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 12:5. 14. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 362. 15. Ibid., p. 361. 16. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 12:11. 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 236-37. 18. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 12:12-17. 19. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 210. 20. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 21. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 22. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 12:15. 23. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 211. 24. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 363. 25. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 156. 26. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 240. 27. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 212. 28. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 12:20. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 213. 30. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 31. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 364. 32. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. Acts 13:1 It is difficult to believe that Antioch was a brand new church and mostly a Gentile assembly. Yet, it seems that the church was led by deeply spiritual people and filled with spiritual power. Antioch was about to do what Jerusalem was seemingly unable to do, and that was to take the gospel out to the Gentile world. Stedman says, “The thirteenth chapter is a turning point in the book of Acts. It is what Winston Churchill would have called one of ‘the hinges of history.’ It marks the beginning of the third phase of our Lord’s great commission…” [1] Let us take note of the varied array of spiritual leaders in this church. First of all there was Barnabas, the good man filled with the Spirit of God and faith (11:24). As we have seen, he was an encourager and teacher (4:36; 11:23-26). At this point he was the leader and in a real sense, the founder of the church. Then there was Simeon called Niger. This leader may have been from Africa since he was nicknamed “Black.” A number of commentators have felt that this Simeon should be identified with Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus (Lk. 23:26). [2] This makes a great story, but there is really no evidence that it was true. There was also Lucius who was actually from Cyrene. Some commentators had tried connect Lucius to Luke himself, but this is also fruitless speculation. Luke was likely from Antioch and there is no evidence he was from Cyrene, or Africa. Then there was Manaen, who had a close connection with Herod the tetrarch. He was likely raised as an adopted brother or possibly a close companion to Herod Antipas. [3] He was a Hebrew whose name meant “comforter.” [4] We should note however that by this time Herod Antipas had been deposed (AD 39) and sent into exile. Some commentators feel that much of Luke’s information on Antipas was derived from Manean. [5] Guzik makes the sad remark, “One killed John the Baptist and presided over one of the trials of Jesus before his crucifixion. The other became a Christian, and a leader in the dynamic congregation at Antioch.” [6] We should remember that it was some of these gifted men who first began the bold move of preaching to the Gentiles in the first place (11:20). Barnabas was then sent to Antioch to help and guide in the important work. A little later, Barnabas recruited Saul to assist him as the work gained momentum. We remember that Saul was already called by God and wonderfully gifted to work with the Gentiles (9:15-16, 22). Here these men were said to be prophets and teachers. Utley remarks, “The grammatical construction is such that it is uncertain whether the five men listed were both prophets and teachers or if the first three are prophets and the last two are teachers.” [7] It must be said that although Saul (Paul) was a wonderful teacher of the word, he was certainly one of the greatest prophets of the New Testament. He revealed many mysteries to the church (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:6-7; 15:51-52; Eph. 3:2-6; Col. 1:27). These men certainly pictured for us the cultural diversity of the city of Antioch. It is important to note also that the church was rapidly becoming an urban movement. The historian, Wayne Meeks has written that within a single decade of Jesus’ crucifixion the village culture had been left behind while the Greco-Roman city had become the dominant environment of Christianity. Wiersbe adds to this, “…At least forty different cities are named in Acts…” [8] Later we will see that Saul or Paul was quite adept at selecting key cities along important Roman roads and centers of communication. “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (13:2). We should note that both Barnabas and Saul were already called and chosen by God to do the critical work of being the first official missionaries to the Gentile world. The leaders of Antioch were merely acknowledging what God had already decided. This important decision was taken while the leaders of the church were worshiping and fasting. There was only one fast in ancient Judaism and that was the Day of Atonement. However, First Century rabbinic Judaism had developed two fast days each week. While fasting, or doing without food, was not a requirement of Christianity, it was nevertheless helpful in determining the Lord’s will. We note here that this group was also worshiping or ministering to the Lord (leitourgountōn). This is a compound Greek word made up of “public” and “work” or “service.” It is from this word that we get our English term “liturgy.” [9] This action not only involved fasting, but worship of the Lord and sincere prayers. It was in this serious, sincere and holy setting that the Lord spoke to the group that they should set aside Barnabas and Saul for the Lord’s work. We forget sometimes that there is a holy service that is to go on for our holy God. “So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off” (13:3). Apparently, they fasted and prayed some more, making certain that they had the mind of the Lord, then they laid their hands on the two. We must point out that the Antioch church did not commission Barnabas and Saul. Later Saul (Paul) will make plain that he was not called by men but by God (Gal. 1:1). The laying on of hands was a sort of identification process whereby the church became involved in their future work. [10] Guzik remarks, “…many regard this as the first real known missionary effort of the church…They seem to have done this without a committee report, without a demographic analysis, without a marketing survey, without what is sometimes called spiritual mapping. Barnabas and Saul went out without any of these things, only with the call and power of the Holy Spirit.” [11] The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. Acts 13:4 Obviously, there was no delay on the part of Barnabas and Saul. They immediately headed for the sea. The city of Antioch was located about 15 miles (24 km.) up the Orontes River from the port of Seleucia. It is said that on a clear day one can faintly see the island of Cyprus from the mainland, since it is only some 60 miles away (96 km.). We no doubt remember that this was the homeland of Barnabas (4:36). Also, some members of the church had apparently come from there and had done some limited evangelism on the island (11:19). Cyprus was a Roman province that had been settled from ancient times. It was famous for shipbuilding and for its timber and copper exports. It was fortunate to be directly in the shipping lanes between Syria, Asia Minor and Greece. [12] The island had a near-perfect climate. It was sometimes even called Makaria, or Happy Isle. [13] “When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper” (13:5). Salamis, on the east coast of Cyprus, was the principal city and seaport of the island and there they immediately found a Jewish population and some synagogues. We need to take note of the fact that the apostles made great use of the synagogues. The gospel had to be preached first of all to the Jewish people (3:26; 13:46; 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8; Rom. 1:16). While their response was not always positive, there were scores of God-fearers and even Gentile proselytes around the synagogues who were quite open to the gospel. It was generally from these that the earliest Gentile churches were formed. The synagogues were really the bridgehead for the apostolic work. [14] Luke notes almost as an afterthought that young John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), was also on this mission tour. Barnabas and Saul were specifically sent out by the Holy Spirit. However, there seems to be a hint here that Mark was not specifically sent, but merely came along as a helper. [15] The Greek word describing him is hupēretēn, which literally means an attendant or “under-rower.” [16] Perhaps he did the cooking, setting up camp along the way or perhaps he carried some of the baggage. John Mark did undoubtedly have some special qualifications. He was a young eyewitness to some of the gospel events while certainly Saul and perhaps even Barnabas were not. [17] “They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God” (13:6-7). We note they traveled the length of the island (about 140 miles or 225 kilometers), no doubt appearing at several synagogues. They ended their journey at Paphos, the provincial capital. The city had a bad reputation since it was a center for the worship of Venus (also known as Aphrodite), who was the goddess of love. [18] We might note that travel in this period was made fairly easy because of the extensive Roman road system. Keener says, “Roman roads were good and generally safe during the day, and travel was easier than it ever had been or would be again until close to the modern period.” [19] At Paphos they came upon a Jewish sorcerer named Bar-Jesus. Once again, as with Simon Magus in Samaria, we run into a magician (Gk. magon). Sorcery and other dark arts were forbidden to the Jewish people but we see instances where Jews were involved in such things (19:14). It is very interesting that as the gospel spreads there are powerful spiritual enemies who try to counter it. Jesus speaks about such things in his parable of the tares (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43). Where Jesus sows good seed of the kingdom the devil comes and sows the counterfeit. [20] It is noted that Bar-Jesus was somehow attached to the governor of the island, Sergius Paulus. Since Cyprus was a peaceful senatorial province it was ruled by a proconsul, as Luke correctly states. It was apparently a common practice for astrologers and magicians to be attached to the offices of ruling officials. [21] “But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith” (13:8). Here Luke brings out a second name for Bar-Jesus and that is the name Elymas. Bruce thinks it is a Semitic name with a similarity to the title magos. [22] “Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, ‘You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?’” (13:9-10). This is the first occasion in Acts where Luke mentions Saul by his Greek name, Paul (Paulos). Also, this is the last time Paul is addressed as Saul in Acts. Since Paul was moving into almost totally Greek country he would need his Greek name. [23] We note that Paul was once more filled with the Holy Spirit as he addresses Elymas. It seems that about every powerful thing done by people in scripture necessitates their being filled with the Spirit. We should therefore not take the command lightly in Ephesians 5:18-20, that we must be filled with the Spirit if we are to adequately serve God. Here we see the same prophetic gifts in Paul as we earlier saw in Peter. He was able to look directly into the heart of Elymas and see that he was not a child of Jesus but a child of the devil. [24] Like his father the devil, he was full of deceit and trickery, for the devil is the father of lies (Jn. 8:44). “‘Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.’ Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand” (13:11). Now, just as Peter did to Simon Magus (cf. 8:20), Paul utters a curse over Elymas. It should be noted that this is not a permanent curse but a curse of blindness for a season. God always leaves room for repentance and forgiveness. No sooner is this curse uttered than Elymas began to be blind. A mist and darkness came over him. Bock says that in the New Testament, “This is one of a few ‘miracles of judgment.’” [25] This is another instance where Dr. Luke uses some of his medical vocabulary. Hippocrates, the Greek Father of Medicine, uses this same word here to speak of a dimming of the eyes due to cataracts and other diseases. [26] No doubt Paul had to think of his own helpless blindness on the Damascus road as he pronounced this curse. Elymas, the powerful minister of the proconsul was suddenly helpless as a babe and needed someone to lead him by the hand. “When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed at the teaching about the Lord” (13:12). Many have wondered if he really was converted and if his faith survived. Stott remarks that this statement concerning him is totally in keeping with Luke’s general usage of the word “believed” (e.g. 14:1; 17:34; 19:18). [27] From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem. Acts 13:13 We note immediately that the team, which was earlier Barnabas and Saul, is now Paul and his companions. From this point on, with the exceptions of 14:14; 15:12; and 15:25, Paul’s leadership is emphasized by listing him first. [28] Some commentators have suggested that this did not set too well with Mark, for we see him leaving the team and returning to Jerusalem. Several commentators feel that there were other reasons. Stott suggests that he was just homesick and missing his mother in Jerusalem. [29] Paul considered this act of Mark as a desertion and was no longer willing to travel with him (15:38). Obviously, Mark was no mere teenager but was mature enough to travel back across the ancient world to Jerusalem alone. It was not an entirely lost cause with Mark. The young man fully redeemed himself. Some 20 years later, Mark was with Paul as the later writes to the Colossians from prison. Paul advises them to receive Mark should he come to them (Col. 4:10). Then as he writes to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:11) he says, “…Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” Of course, it was Mark the deserter who finally wrote the gospel under his name. [30] “From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down” (13:14). It is interesting that Paul and Barnabas did not spend much time in Perga or Pamphylia. Many reasons have been suggested for this. It is entirely possible that Paul was already getting sick. When he finally arrived in Galatia he was in a condition that was outwardly contemptable and he was amazed that the Galatians did not despise him for his situation (Gal. 4:13-15). We know that Paul had a physical thorn in the flesh which always bothered him (2 Cor. 12:7-8). However, we do not know that this was the problem. From Galatians it seems to have been something to do with his eyes. Early tradition suggests that Paul may have had blinding headaches that may have resulted from contacting malaria fever in the coastal strip. Thus, despite the dangers of travel on that particular road, Paul may have headed for the highlands. [31] Paul and Barnabas crossed the Taurus range and arrived in the highlands of Pisidian Antioch, about 3600 ft. in elevation (1097 m.). It was an uphill journey of more than 100 miles (160 km.). This was a Roman colony in the province of Galatia and we see that they stayed there for a time. Antioch of Pisidia was astride the Roman Road Via Sebaste that ran from Ephesus to the Euphrates. It seemed that Paul had a knack for selecting key locations like this as we have said previously. The city was the governing and military center for the southern part of the very large province of Galatia. [32] “After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, ‘Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak’” (13:15). Barker and Kohlenberger state: “A typical first-century synagogue service would have included the shema…the liturgy of ‘The Eighteen Benedictions,’ a reading from the Law, a reading from one of the prophets, a free address given by any competent Jew in attendance, and a closing blessing…” [33] We must remember that this was a day before newspapers, televisions, e-mails and the like. People depended on travelers for information and it was no doubt of great interest to have travelers originally from the Holy Land. In most cases there was one ruler in charge of each synagogue, but here we see that there were two. Multiple leaders in some cases also seem to be attested in Jewish inscriptions. [34] The ruler of the synagogue was the highest official. He had the general charge over the synagogue and its services. It was his task to keep everything in order and to direct public worship. He chose those who were to do the readings and it was his prerogative to select the one who would deliver the message for the day. [35] Marshall notes that this scene, as well as Luke 4:16-21, give us “the earliest known description of the essential features in a synagogue service…” [36] Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: “Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! Acts 13:16 It was a practice in Jesus’ day for rabbis in Israel to teach while seated, but it was apparently a custom in Hellenistic synagogues to stand while teaching. [37] Paul’s introduction is very benevolent, addressing fellow Israelites and also the God-fearers who were present. Barclay says of the address: “This is an extremely important passage because it is the only full-length report of a sermon by Paul that we possess. When carefully compared with the sermon of Peter in Acts 2:14-41 the main elements in it are seen to be precisely the same.” [38] We can quickly understand the great advantage Paul had in preaching first to the Jewish people and preaching in their synagogue. The Jewish people had hundreds of years of Bible instruction, so it was quite easy to establish points of contact with them through the scriptures. A similar thing was true with the God-fearing Gentiles or proselytes at the gate as they were called. Paul’s message would also have a great deal of common ground with Gentile proselytes who had fully taken on Judaism as their faith. In other words, Paul was ministering on very fertile ground. While the Jews were often skeptical of the gospel, the God-fearers were delighted to hear that they could come into the faith without subservience to the law and especially without circumcision. It is no wonder that many of the early churches had a high percentage of God-fearing members. This would also help us understand why the early churches were able to grow with such speed and to maintain a reasonably good degree of sound doctrine. “The God of the people of Israel chose our ancestors; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt; with mighty power he led them out of that country; for about forty years he endured their conduct in the wilderness; and he overthrew seven nations in Canaan, giving their land to his people as their inheritance” (13:17-20a). Paul is carefully building a textual bridge for the gospel. He is connecting the people up with their biblical heritage before he presents the good news of Jesus. Paul had no doubt listened to all of Stephen’s sermon and we see his own sermon seems to be patterned after it to some degree. [39] Just as Stephen had done, Paul notes that God had to put up with a stiff-necked people in the wilderness. Nevertheless, God overlooked their stubbornness as he led them on with outstretched arm (cf. Deut. 4:34). In spite of Israel’s rebellion, God overthrew the nations of Canaan for their sake. These seven nations are enumerated in Deuteronomy 7:1, Joshua 3:10 and Nehemiah 9:8. They are the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. In spite of Israel’s stubbornness, God freely gave them the land and through Joshua he led them into it. All this took about 450 years. “After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. Then the people asked for a king, and he gave them Saul son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do’” (13:20b-22). In the previous part of this verse the period of 450 years is mentioned. Marshall says of this period: “It seems best to take it of the sojourn in Egypt (400 years), the wilderness wanderings (40 years, verse 18) and the occupation of the land (10 years).” [40] However, Keener does warn us that the 450 years may be a round number. [41] This was a customary thing to do with Jewish numbering. Afterward, God gave judges, then Samuel the prophet and finally, at their insistence, God gave them Saul as their king. Paul tells us that Saul ruled for a period of 40 years. This could also be a round number, however, Keener says, “The forty years of Saul’s reign is taken from early Jewish tradition, also preserved in Josephus.” [42] Unfortunately, Saul did not obey the Lord and his kingdom ended in disaster. Paul has related all this biblical history in order to get to the reign of David, that one who really was after God’s own heart. The Jewish people well knew that the Messiah would come from David. [43] It was this knowledge upon which Paul would build. Of course, David made some mistakes, including adultery and murder, but the redeeming thing about David was that his heart was right in that he always turned back to God. “From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. As John was completing his work, he said: ‘Who do you suppose I am? I am not the one you are looking for. But there is one coming after me whose sandals I am not worthy to untie’” (13:23-25). From 2 Samuel 7:12-13, the Jewish people knew that God would establish his eternal kingdom on the house of David (cf. Isa. 11:1-2; Jer. 23:5-6). Paul now declares that this very thing has happened and that Jesus is that promised Messiah. Jesus at his coming was introduced by the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:1-11; Mk. 1:1-8; Lk. 3:15-18; Jn. 1:6-8). Yet, the one coming was much greater than John. No doubt, some people in the congregation had heard of John or perhaps had witnessed his ministry. In Acts 19:1-7, Paul encountered a whole group of people near Ephesus who were still living by John’s teachings. [44] We cannot help but note the similarity of Paul’s sermon with that of Stephen’s as well as the Pentecost sermon of Peter. All these sermons had common elements and proceeded along common themes. It may be that many active believers in the First Century had an outline of pertinent scriptures that they could use for evangelism. “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.” (13:26-31). Again, Paul cordially addresses both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. He personalizes the message and makes it applicable to his hearers. He then shares the sad and distressing news that the people of Israel and their rulers failed to recognize Jesus. Their leaders arrested him on trumped-up charges and then handed him over to the Romans to be executed. He fulfilled all the prophets had written about him by dying on the cross. Then he was laid in the tomb. But this was not the end of the story. God raised him from the dead and afterward he was seen by many witnesses. Bruce feels that we can see in this section an outline of the primitive kerygma or proclamation, and that this outline can be traced throughout the New Testament. [45] We see examples of this several places in scripture (cf. Lk. 11:32; Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:4; 15:14; 2 Tim. 4:17). This is the simple message of the gospel. Barker and Kohlenberger sum up the essence of this message, calling it: “a four-point Christian confession like that in 1 Co. 15:3-5; (1) Jesus was crucified; (2) they ‘laid him in a tomb;’ (3) ‘God raised him from the dead;’ and (4) ‘for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem,’…who are ‘now his witnesses to our people.’” [46] Later in 1 Corinthians 15:6 Paul will relate how the risen Christ appeared to more than 500 people at the same time. Meyer points out how the Resurrection is always the keystone of the Christian faith (Psa. 2:7; Isa. 55:3; Psa. 16:10). [47] Paul would later say in Corinthians: “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:16-19). Paul brings the message home, mentioning that the essence of the gospel is read every week in the Sabbath services (v. 27). No doubt, that very day someone in the synagogue had read once more some of these very scriptures. Utley says, “This is such a tragic verse. It succinctly summarizes the blindness of the Jews in Jerusalem about the scriptures even though they read them continuously…He came to his own, but his own received him not (cf. Jn, 1:11-12).” [48] Early preachers did not fail to emphasize the offense of the cross and how everyone hanged on a cross became cursed of God (Deut. 21:23). [49] It is strange that in recent years many preachers no longer speak of this cross or of its disgrace and shame. We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” So it is also stated elsewhere: “You will not let your holy one see decay.” Acts 13:32-35. Paul is proclaiming the gospel or the good news to Israel and to the God-fearing Gentiles present. In spite of what Israel had long thought and taught, God really has a Son as Psalm 2:7 clearly states. If Israel had only believed this scripture, long centuries of failure and frustration would have been avoided. God sent his beloved Son here to earth in order that he could die as the salvation for all who would believe. He lived, he died on the cross and he was buried. But according to the good promises in Psalm 16:10, his Holy One would not see decay. He was raised from the dead by the power of God. He now has made an everlasting covenant with David and with all who will believe (Isa. 55:3). What incredibly good news was the message of Paul! Barnes says, “To a Jew, nothing could be more grateful intelligence than that the Messiah had come; to a sinner convinced of his sins nothing can be more cheering than to hear of a Savior.” [50] We can understand why hundreds, then thousands and finally millions of people gladly accepted the good news of the gospel. “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay” (13:36-37). It is interesting that Paul here is making the very same argument that Peter made in his Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:29f. [51] Both Peter and Paul point out that David could not be speaking of himself not seeing decay, because he did see it. However, the one of whom David spoke did not see decay since he was raised from the dead and now lives forever. Clarke sums it up saying, “David – fell to sleep – and saw corruption – David died, was buried, and never rose again; therefore, David cannot be the person spoken of here: the words are true of some other person; and they can be applied to Jesus Christ only; and in him they are most exactly fulfilled.” [52] Stedman remarks: “They did not understand the scriptures. Here were people who had heard the utterances of the prophets every Saturday, read to them in the synagogue. They knew many of them by heart, but they did not understand them…Psalm 16 clearly predicted that there would come a man who would not ever see corruption, i.e., whose body would not decay, would not disintegrate in the grave.” [53] “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you: ‘Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you’” (13:38-41). What good news, that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is now proclaimed. People for ages have sought forgiveness for their sins and now it is available. If we can but believe we will be set free from every sin. We can be justified and sanctified through the sacrifice of Jesus. Meyer says, “The doctrine of justification by faith, so closely associated with the work of Paul, is here stated for the first time.” [54] Of course, justification is a legal term meaning that we are acquitted and declared not guilty in the heavenly courts. Jesus made the sacrifice and paid the price for us that we could go free. Paul points out in verse 39 that the law of Moses could not give us this justification. There were things with which the law could not deal. For instance, Bruce mentions that the law did not grant forgiveness for sins committed with a high hand. [55] Also, there was always a real sense in which the saints of old were looking forward to the Messiah for their forgiveness and justification. Quite simply, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:4). All of Israel’s offerings were mere types and shadows pointing to the Messiah. Bruce concludes, “…In other words, Moses’ law does not justify.” [56] Here Paul gives not only an invitation but a warning taken from Habakkuk 1:5. God is doing something today that people would not believe even if they were told. Paul warns his hearers not to scoff and doubt but to receive the good news. He warns them not to wait and perish in unbelief. For the Jews in the audience, it would be scarcely 25 years until the temple in which they trusted would be totally destroyed and Jewish people would be in grave peril throughout the Roman Empire. As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God. Acts 13:42-43 It is clear that many of the people who heard Paul preach were touched by his word and wanted to hear more. Involved in this group were many Jews and proselytes as we can see. The Greek terms sebomenōn prosēlutōn (devout proselytes) simply must be taken to mean “full converts to Judaism.” [57] It seems obvious that many of these had now actually become converts to Christianity, since Paul and Barnabas are seen urging them to continue in God’s grace. The good news of the gospel must have scattered widely in the city. “On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him” (13:44-45). It sounds like the number of villagers that turned out the next Sabbath could have filled a small stadium. There was great excitement in the air and the people were expectant. Unfortunately, all the Jewish people were not touched by Paul’s sermon but many were quite angry. Barclay says “…The one thing that infuriated the Jews was that any of God’s privileges could be for the uncircumcised Gentiles.” [58] Thus, there was a great deal of jealousy among the Jews. This is difficult to understand when we consider the scriptures. The Jewish people were clearly called to be a light to the nations (Isa. 60:3). They generally failed at that task and God sent his Servant to be that light (Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 51:4). Now we see the Jews even opposing the light sent from God. Bruce remarks, “…we can readily appreciate the annoyance of the Jewish community at finding their synagogue practically taken over by a gentile audience on this occasion.” [59] And after all, Paul and Barnabas had drawn a much larger crowd than they could ever muster by their own efforts. [60] “Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: ‘We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles’” (13:46). As we have seen previously, it was God’s instruction that the gospel be preached first of all to the Jewish people and then to the Gentiles. All though Acts we will now see the apostles turning to Gentiles after the message is rejected by the Jews (cf. Acts 18:6; 22:21; 26:20; 28:28). “For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’” (13:47). Here, we see that the Servant, who now is the light, commissioning the apostles to take his light to the ends of the earth. Pfeiffer and Harrison remark, “Here is one of the recurring themes of Acts: At every new and strategic step the gospel is rejected by the Jews but received by Gentiles.” [61] Of course, as we see in these verses, not all of Israel rejected the good news. It was this vision of Gentiles coming into the kingdom that Simeon saw through prophecy when he held the baby Jesus: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” (Lk. 2:29-32). “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. The word of the Lord spread through the whole region” (13:48-49). We just cannot imagine the joy and happiness felt by Gentiles who otherwise had no hope and were deeply mired in the paganism of their day. The gospel was like a fresh breath from heaven to them. They honored the word by receiving it and by beginning to live it. All who were appointed to life received it. Utley says, “This is a clear statement of predestination (so common in the rabbis’ and Intertestamental Jewish literature), but it is in the same ambiguous relationship as all New Testament passages that relate to the paradox of God’s choice and human’s free will (cf. Phil. 2:12, 13).” [62] This wonderful good news quickly spread throughout the whole area. “But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region” (13:50). Robertson says, “The prominence of women in public life here at Antioch is quite in accord with what we know of conditions in the cities of Asia Minor.” [63] Such prominence was not seen in areas under Greek influence. These were proselytes who had a high standing in the community and who could handily influence their husbands, who were community leaders. Keener says, “Ancient sources report that many prominent women were interested in Judaism…partly because they, unlike men, did not have to face circumcision…But their authority was only local, and by going to Iconium Paul and Barnabas move out of their jurisdiction.” [64] It is quite possible that the so-called Judaizers developed from just such instances as this one. They would soon arise to give Paul much grief with the Galatian churches. [65] In time, Judaizing movements of differing sorts arose to plague many of the young churches. The charges against Christianity came from the Jewish and not the Roman world. Often the charge that was brought against the Christians was that they were promoting an illegal religion (cf. 16:20-21; 17:7; 18:13). [66] “So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium” (13:51). Shaking off the dust from one’s feet was an old custom in Israel. When Jewish people would return to the land from a foreign country they would often stop at the border and shake the dust of pagan lands off their feet. [67] The custom became a religious practice as we see in other scriptures (e.g. Matt. 10:14; Mar. 6:11; Lk. 9:5). Bede remarks, “…the dust was shaken off so that they would take nothing, not even a thing so basic to life, from those who had rejected the gospel.” [68] “And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” (13:52). Undoubtedly, Paul and Barnabas had received some rough treatment as they were run out of town. In spite of all that, we see them rejoicing. In one sense, they had good reason to rejoice because many new souls had been added to the kingdom. It was their policy to stick around an area and establish the new believers on a firm foundation. [69] However, they would have to do that on their return trip. With this, Paul and Barnabas headed for Iconium, about 45 miles (72 km.) to the southeast. They went on their way rejoicing and being filled with God’s Spirit. 1. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 13:1-13. 2. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 13:1-3. 3. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 4. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 215. 5. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 358. 6. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 13:1. 7. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 13:1. 8. Cited in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 364. 9. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 13:2. 10. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 13:3. Pfeiffer &Harrison add: “The laying on of hands does not constitute ordination but separation to a special task and approval of the mission.” (Pfeiffer &Harrison, p. 1146). 11. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 13:3. 12. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 13. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 13:4-12. 14. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 247. 15. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 218. 16. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 247. 18. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 13:4-12. 19. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 358. 20. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 365. 21. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1147. 22. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 249. 23. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 13:9-10. 24. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 219. 25. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 84. 26. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 13:9. 27. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 220. 28. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 454. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 221. 30. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, v. 13:13. 31. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 13:13-52. 32. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 222. 33. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 34. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, pp. 222-23. 35. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 13:15. 36. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 222. 37. Ibid., p. 223. 38. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 13:16-41. 39. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 253. 40. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 223. Jamieson, Faussest &Brown add: “As this appears to contradict 1 Kings 6:1, various solutions have been proposed. Taking the words as they stand in the Greek, thus, ‘after that, by the space of four hundred fifty years, He gave judges,’ the meaning may be, that about four hundred fifty years elapsed from the time of the covenant with Abraham until the period of the judges; which is historically correct, the word “about” showing that chronological exactness was not aimed at. But taking the sense to be as in our version, that it was the period of the judges itself which lasted about four hundred fifty years, this statement also will appear historically correct, if we include in it the interval of subjection to foreign powers which occurred during the period of the judges, and understand it to describe the whole period from the settlement of the tribes in Canaan to the establishment of royalty. Thus, from the Exodus to the building of the temple were five hundred ninety-two years [Josephus, Antiquities, 8.3.1]; deduct forty years in the wilderness; twenty-five years of Joshua‘s rule [Josephus, Antiquities, 5.1.29]; forty years of Saul‘s reign (Acts 13:2); forty of David‘s and the first four years of Solomon‘s reign (1 Kings 6:1), and there remain, just four hundred forty-three years; or, in round numbers, “about four hundred fifty years.” (Jamieson, Fausset &Brown, v. 13:20). 41. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 359. 42. Ibid. 43. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 366. 44. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 13:23-25. 45. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 261. 46. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 47. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 48. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 13:27. 49. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 13:26. 50. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 13:32. 51. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 13:34. 52. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 13:36. 53. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs.13:13-52. 54. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 55. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 262. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid., p. 264. 58. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 13:42-52. 59. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 265. 60. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 227. 61. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1149. 62. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 13:48. Barnes adds: “…this implies the doctrine of election.” (Barnes, v. 13:48). Marshall also adds: “God had predestined certain of them to believe (cf. 16:14; 18:10)…there is no suggestion that they received eternal life independently of their own act of conscious faith.” (Marshall, p. 231). 63. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 13:50. 64. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 361. 65. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 458. 66. Ibid. 67. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 361. 68. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 172. 69. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 214. At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. Acts 14:1 The city of Iconium was situated on the western edge of the Anatolian Plateau at an elevation of 3,600 ft. (1097 m.). It was a southeastern journey of some 90 miles (144 km.) from Antioch of Pisidia. In his reorganization of provinces in 25 BC, Augustus made Iconium a part of Galatia. However, it was still considered as also being in the old region of Phrygia. Iconium was a very ancient city and the name is taken from the Greek eikon, the word for “image.” [1] Today ancient Iconium is known as the modern Turkish city of Konya and has a population of slightly over a million people. Can we imagine ourselves in the situation of Paul and Barnabas? They were just expelled from Antioch of Pisidia, and no doubt roughed up a bit in the process. Had such disgrace happened to most of us we would probably have been a little depressed and low in spirits. Yet, these two were full of joy and of the Holy Spirit (13:52). They headed straight for the synagogue at Iconium and preached very effectively there. We note that a great number of both Jews and Gentiles believed, in spite of opposition from the Jewish establishment. Also, in the face of that opposition, they were able to spend a good deal of time in the city (v. 3). Luke does not give us precise chronological information, but it is likely that Paul and Barnabas spent much of the winter in Antioch of Pisidia and hopefully they had traveled to Iconium as the weather was breaking. The severe weather in the high country would have made travel nearly impossible during the heart of the winter. [2] When we think of most gospel preaching today it is rather amazing that the gospel delivered by Paul and Barnabas was so effective. Stedman says, “This was no bland, meaningless gospel; it was a gospel that hit like a ton of bricks. It hit with power and impact. It shook people and jolted them and made them sit up and take notice. Immediately a great crowd believed when they heard Paul and Barnabas…” [3] Keener points out how Iconium later became a major center of Christianity in Asia Minor. [4] “But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders” (14:2-3). It is amazing how consistently the Jewish leadership opposed the gospel! We get the sense that the opposition was building, involving the synagogues in cities where Paul and Barnabas visited, and we will soon see that opposition explode into violence at Lystra. Bruce says, “It took a long time, however, for the opposition to become serious, and the missionaries continued to preach the gospel freely and boldly.” [5] We note that the missionaries were able to perform signs and wonders in the city. In order for miracles to happen, we gather from the rest of scripture that a certain favorable climate of faith must exist (cf. Matt. 13:58). Obviously, good things were happening at Iconium. While most signs and wonders in the New Testament are done by the apostles, God intends these to continue in the church. They are possible now for any believer and God has also specially gifted certain people to do them (1 Cor. 12:7-11). “The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles” (14:4). While the gospel brings great unity in Jesus, it can also bring great division in the hearts of those opposed to him (cf. Matt. 10:34-36; Lk. 12:52-53). It is interesting that, for the first and only time in Acts, Paul is named as an apostle. We see in his later epistles that he freely applies this title to himself. [6] We need to remember that the twelve apostles of Jesus were unique. There would never be others like them because they had been with Jesus for his whole ministry and were witnesses of his death, resurrection and ascension. Paul was called as an apostle in a special sense, in that he was Apostle to the Gentiles. Barnabas seems here to be included as an apostle (v. 14; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5-6). Later we will see others in this sort of lesser apostolic office. In Galatians 1:19, James the half-brother of Jesus is included; In Romans 16:7, Andronicus and Junia are mentioned. There is an ongoing gift or office of apostleship mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and in Ephesians 4:11. Sometimes, in a lesser sense, even messengers to the churches are referred to as apostles or “sent ones.” “There was a plot afoot among both Gentiles and Jews, together with their leaders, to mistreat them and stone them” (14:5). Pett points out how Iconium was a very democratic city with its broad assembly that determined all civic matters. The Jews, who were no doubt influential, needed to attain a majority of the assembly in order to act against the evangelists. [7] Obviously, it took some time for the Jews to get the necessary support and the missionaries made good use of this time. The idea was to first mistreat them. The Greek for mistreat is (hubrizō), which has the meaning of insult. [8] Afterward, their plan was to have them stoned. Fortunately the apostles got wind of the plot and quickly made their plans to move out of town. But they found out about it and fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and to the surrounding country, where they continued to preach the gospel. Acts 14:6-7 We remember how the Lord had instructed his apostles that when they were persecuted in one city they should flee to another one (Mt. 10:23). They thus fled first to the Lycaonian city of Lystra. It was a nearby city, about only about 18 miles (28 km.) distant to the south-southwest. There they continued to preach for a time as the imperfect tense shows. [9] It seems that they may have even preached in the surrounding areas according to these verses. From what we can discern, Lystra was a fairly primitive town, but still a Roman colony. The name Lycaonia had the meaning of wolf-land and may have faithfully described the character of some of the inhabitants. [10] Stott describes the residents of the whole area as mostly uneducated and even illiterate. [11] We might note that although Lystra and the next city of Derbe were located in the region of Lyaconia, they were still part of the large Roman province of Galatia. The Scottish archaeologist and New Testament Scholar, William Ramsay, became convinced from this verse that the New Testament was accurate. Lystra and Derbe were together in the region of Lycaonia for only a brief time between AD 37 and 72, precisely during the time Luke reports them together. [12] “In Lystra there sat a man who was lame. He had been that way from birth and had never walked” (14:8). There seems to have been no synagogue in Lystra. Perhaps there were too few Jews in the city to have one. So we see Paul and Barnabas out ministering in the open. The man they encountered has a striking resemblance to the lame man at the temple who was healed by Peter and John. This man in Lystra also was lame from his birth. His legs had no strength and it was impossible for him to walk. “He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, ‘Stand up on your feet!’ At that, the man jumped up and began to walk” (14:9-10). There was one important difference between this man and the one at the temple. This man had some faith and the one at the temple was mostly interested in getting a handout. When Paul commanded him to stand up, he not only jumped up but began to walk. This was an incredible miracle for a man who had never walked (v. 8) and whose feet and ankles were impossibly weak (Gk. adunatos) according to Dr. Luke. [13] HAVE THE GODS COME DOWN? When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. Acts 14:11-12 No doubt these folks could speak some Greek because it was at this time a universal language. However, people still retained their local dialects. [14] In their excitement they apparently reverted to their native tongue which was Lycaonian. From that point on, Paul and Barnabas were not able to understand their excited chatter. The cause of their excitement was not just in the lame man walking but it was based upon an old legend from the past, a legend preserved by the Latin poet Ovid. According to this story, on one occasion the gods Zeus and Hermes paid a visit to the area. The legend tells that no one in the area would give them hospitality except two old peasants, Philemon and his wife Baucis. As a result, the whole population was wiped out except these two. When Paul healed the cripple, the people of Lystra were certain that the gods had returned. They were determined not to make the same mistake again. [15] The Latin names for Zeus and Hermes were Jupiter and Mercury. It was thought by the heathen that these gods were the ones who most frequently assumed human form. Zeus or Jupiter was thought to be the supreme God and Hermes or Mercury was thought to be the god of eloquence. [16] “The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them” (14:13). As the excitement and momentum picked up the pagan religious establishment joined in the act, complicating things considerably. It is possible that much of this activity happened around the city gate and that the temple of Zeus was located immediately outside and facing it. [17] We know from ancient writings that the bulls for sacrifice had gilded horns with garlands on their heads. They were trimmed with white ribbons. [18] But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: Acts 14:14 It finally dawned upon the evangelists what was going on. This probably happened as they saw the sacrificial animals being brought out. Their response was immediate. They rushed into the crowd tearing their clothing as a sign that blasphemy was being committed. As Bock says regarding the miracle, “Paul wanted to be sure the right God got the credit.” [19] Chrysostom describes their situation:” For truly it was grief, a grief inconsolable – they were about to be called gods and so introduce idolatry, the very thing they came to destroy!” [20] In the First Century it was not uncommon for rulers of the Roman Empire to claim deity for themselves. A number of these rulers met disaster. It is dangerous business for humans to play God. Stedman reminds us of the illustrious explorer Captain James Cook of the British Navy. When he and his men landed in Hawaii he was received as the god Lono and he and his group were given royal treatment, including absolutely everything they wanted. Captain Cook and his group happily accepted this worship. As the party was about to leave the island there was a scuffle with one of the natives. Captain Cook knocked the native down but the native responded by hitting Cook with a club. The captain groaned and when the natives heard this they responded, “He groans. He is not a god!” With that, they fell upon him and killed him. [21] Paul and Barnabas would have no such worship from these pagans. They were absolutely aghast at the thought. But, my how rapidly people’s fancies can change! One moment the evangelists were gods and the next moment they were criminals to be slain. Emerson called such a mob, “a society of bodies voluntarily bereaving themselves of reason.” [22] Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. Acts 14:15 This is Paul’s only recorded address to illiterate pagan people. [23] His sermon on Mars Hill in Athens was similar, but on that occasion he was speaking to highly educated pagans (17:22-33). So far as we know, these were the only two sermons to pagans that Paul ever preached. We note a great difference between this sermon and the ones delivered in synagogues. Instead of preaching from the Old Testament, Paul here preaches from the natural world and speaks of the God who made heaven and earth. He takes great care to distinguish himself and Barnabas from this holy God. We can appreciate how difficult evangelism would have been had Paul only preached to pagans. The churches would no doubt have been slower in starting up. Paul and Barnabas were intent on extolling the Creator God who made everything. Barclay says, “…the world is the garment of the living God.” [24] Their words remind us of Psalm 146:6, “He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them— he remains faithful forever.” Although it was a difficult ministry, we know that some in Lystra did turn to the Living God. We also see similar evidence in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, where Paul says: “For they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead— Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath” (1 Thess. 1:9-10). “In the past, he let all nations go their own way” (14:16). We were all like sheep who were going astray (Isa. 53:6). Indeed, that is the only way unredeemed human nature can go. In the past God winked at such ignorance (17:30). This was not true for Israel, who possessed the law and now the full revelation of God in Christ. The Jewish people believed that God even allowed Gentiles to live by a lower moral standard. [25] “Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (14:17). Here Paul is getting heavily into the subject of general revelation. God has revealed himself in nature. As scripture says, “…The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge” (Psa. 19:1-2). Everyone, even the pagan, can look at the vast universe and know that there is a God. God gives rain from heaven and gives fruitful seasons (Lev. 26:4; Isa. 55:10; Matt. 5:45). He fills our hearts with many blessings and with gladness (Psa. 145:15-16 LXX). [26] The people had been blessed by God because Phrygia was a fertile land and abundant crops were produced in the area. [27] All this bore witness to the true and faithful God. “Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them” (14:18). Paul and Barnabas had delivered the word in order to prevent these pagans from offering a foolish sacrifice. However, we can imagine that their actions in preventing sacrifice were somewhat of an insult to the people. [28] No doubt it was an insult to the pagan priest who had made lavish preparations. It helped set the stage for trouble. Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. Acts 14:19 We see the clear evidence of a conspiracy here. The Jews had gotten themselves together in Antioch and Iconium. Some had no doubt traveled over 100 miles (160 km.) to bring their diabolical plan against Paul into action. All these Jewish conspirators needed was an unruly crowd gathered together and waiting restlessly. Now they had that. We have no idea what they told the crowd. Perhaps they told them that Paul and Barnabas were mere troublemakers who had been run out of every town. Since Paul was the ringleader he deserved stoning. Keener tells us that stoning in the ancient world was the most common type of urban mob violence. [29] Stoning was no small matter. In Jewish stoning, the witness tried to kill the person with the first stone. [30] Thus, stones were large and each stone caused great damage to the body. When we think of stoning in the western world we probably think of smaller pieces of gravel and not huge stones. No doubt, as the stones began to fly, Paul must have thought about the stoning of Stephen, which he witnessed and may have helped instigate. We do not know if he prayed a prayer like Stephen prayed on that occasion. Those who stoned Paul apparently were certain he was dead and thus they dragged him outside the city, probably to the rubbish heap. Chrysostom said of this stoning: “Those enemies pelted him with stones…For what wrong had Paul done to be stoned? He was announcing a kingdom, he was leading them away from error and bringing them to God. Such things are worthy of crowns, worthy of proclamations by heralds, worthy of ten thousand good things, not worthy of stones.” [31] “But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city. The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe” (14:20). We cannot help note here that there were already disciples present. Perhaps they were new believers from Lystra. Also, they could have followed Paul and Barnabas from the other cities. Kretzmann says “they came out to investigate, and when they stood around Paul, probably considering the best way of burying him, he arose and went into the city.” [32] This undoubtedly speaks of a miracle because a person was not known to walk away from a stoning. We need to think a little more about this stoning. God obviously spared Paul’s life, but we have no evidence that God gave him a beauty treatment. He must have looked awful, covered with blood and deep bruises. Likely he even had some broken bones. Perhaps his face was quite disfigured. Later on in a letter he will say to these very people, “From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal. 6:17). In our comments on 13:14, we discussed the theories about why Paul looked outwardly contemptable to the Galatians, and still they did not despise his appearance (Gal. 4:13-15). Paul may have been a physical mess after this stoning and yet he traveled on to Derbe. Then he retraced his steps to each Galatian church where he had ministered. We might wonder if the ugly marks on his face and body may have been that to which he made reference. The Galatian passage could be speaking of weakness or frailty that could have easily been despised or loathed by the believers. Paul paid a dear price to minister to the people at Lystra. However, there were now some new disciples there. We almost have to believe that Timothy’s mother and grandmother were a part of that group (2 Tim. 1:5). Paul’s stoning may have made a deep impression on them and it is even possible that it made a lasting impression on young Timothy. [33] It is truly amazing that Paul was able to get back into the city. It was also a very bold and brave thing to do. It is even more amazing that on the coming day he made a sixty-mile (96 km.) walk to the next city of Derbe. Coffman says, “… one is amazed at the physical stamina and endurance exhibited by a man who, having been stoned ‘to death’ one day, was able to travel such a distance on the next. Surely the Lord must have strengthened him.” [34] Bruce says that even Paul’s standing up and going back into the city “…has a flavor of miracle about it.” [35] Meyer adds, “…Everywhere, these intrepid missionaries found the blood-stained track of the Cross, but they filled up to the brim the measure of their opportunity.” [36] It might have been here, with every painful step, that Paul heard for the first time, the words of the Lord which said, “…My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness…” (2 Cor. 12:9). They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. ‘We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,’ they said.” Acts 14:21-22 Once again, despite all their troubles, they preached the gospel and a large number of people became disciples in the city of Derbe. Paul was honest with them and told them that they would have to go through many tribulations to enter God’s kingdom. His fresh wounds undoubtedly made these people believers of this word. Paul’s advice to new saints was quite different than we often hear today— “become a believer in Christ and all will be rosy.” Wiersbe says, “Paul did not preach a popular ‘success gospel’ that painted a picture of an easy Christian life…” [37] Derbe like Lystra had been incorporated into the vast area of Roman Galatia, and lay near the eastern border. We read of no opposition in Derbe, but we do read of much success. It may be that Gaius, Paul’s later helper, became a believer at this time (20:4). With this stoning Paul could have ended this mission tour on a positive note, avoiding the possibility of more persecution. He could have departed from Derbe, passed through the Cicilian Gates and arrived safely at his Tarsus home. It would have been only a short journey of 150 miles (241 km.). After all, he had been stoned and surely needed some time to recover. Such a thought probably never entered Paul’s mind. Instead, he returned to the dangerous cities of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, all places where he had been persecuted, just to further help the new believers. Stott says of this mission, “…It was a ministry of strengthening (Gk. episterizontes) and encouraging (Gk. parakalountes). Both verbs were almost technical terms for establishing and fortifying new converts and churches.” [38] Marshall comments: “Paul’s regular practice was to revisit the churches which he had founded, or at least to keep in touch with them by means of his colleagues or correspondence.” [39] Paul mentions the kingdom of God here. Utley feels that in this verse it is taking on an eschatological implication. He says, “It is this ‘already’ (cf. Matt. 12:28; Lk. 16:16) vs. ‘not yet’ (cf. Matt. 24:14, 30, 36-37; 25:30, 31; 2 Pet. 1:11) tension which characterizes this age.” [40] In other words, there are many things of the coming kingdom that we can presently enjoy, but some things will be available only at the Resurrection. “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust” (14:23). Once more, we must stand amazed that the evangelists established a cohesive body of believers in each one of these pagan cities. Allen comments, “Nothing can alter or disguise the fact that St. Paul did leave behind him at his first visit complete churches…in little more than ten years St. Paul established the church in four provinces of the Empire, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Before AD 47 there were no churches in these provinces; in AD 57 St. Paul could speak as if his work there was done…” [41] We see Paul and Barnabas setting aside elders in each church. We should note that these elders were chosen from the congregations and not brought in from other places. [42] Marshall points out that this is the first reference to elders, since they were spoken of in the church at Jerusalem. [43] Obviously, the practice of choosing them was based upon the practices at Jerusalem. In the New Testament, elders are usually spoken of in the plural. Some have felt that each individual body of believers had a plurality of elders, but we see no such pattern in nature. A flock of ducks has but one leader and the same is true for a school of fish. Simply stated, each city had a plurality of elders, one for each home group. There was undoubtedly a close cooperation between them. It would be good if we would consider the title of elders. The Greek for the word is (presbuteros). It is noteworthy that this term is synonymous with the other terms that are often used. There are bishops or overseers (Gk. episkopos) and pastors (Gk. poimenos) all used interchangeably. [44] We must remember that most churches were small enough to fit into a house, say at most, 30 to 35 people per group. [45] There were no designated church buildings. New Testament scholar Graydon Snyder says, “The first churches consistently met in homes. Until the year 300 we know of no buildings first built as churches.” [46] Researchers Viola and Barna say, “The first recorded use of the word ekklesia [church] to refer to a Christian meeting place was penned around AD 190 by Clement of Alexandria.” [47] Quite frankly, the whole pastor/church system was vastly different than it is today. Also, there was no evidence of a clergy-laity distinction in the New Testament. [48] It is shocking to think that most of these elders had little or no experience at the job or even in the Christian life. Paul and Barnabas simply laid their hands upon them and prayed, committing them to the grace and mercy of God. As Paul and Barnabas traveled back strengthening the churches, there was a pattern for their work. Stott says, “…there was a recognizable body of doctrine, a cluster of central beliefs, which the apostles taught. Here it is called ‘the faith;’ elsewhere ‘the tradition; ‘the deposit, ‘the teaching’ or ‘the truth.” [49] “After going through Pisidia, they came into Pamphylia, and when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia” (14:24-25). The missionaries were obviously retracing their steps, but this time they would preach at Perga, which they failed to do earlier. Pamphylia was a small province nestled between Galatia and the Mediterranean. Perga was its capital and its main seaport was Attalia (modern Antalya). “From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed” (14:26). So from the port they sailed back to Antioch of Syria, the city from which they were sent out. The apostles were loyal to the church that sent them out. “On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they stayed there a long time with the disciples” (14:27-28). No doubt there were some victory shouts and plenty of “hallelujahs” when their reports were made. Probably no church member went to sleep while this missionary sermon was in progress. After all, it was one of the greatest events in the history of the church. The door was now wide-open for Gentiles. There were now thriving Gentile churches scattered over Asia Minor. This epic journey had taken the two some 1,200 miles (1931 km.). Some 500 of these miles (804 km.) were by sea. Some 800 (1287 km) were over some very inhospitable regions of the ancient world. [50] Their journey had probably taken most of a year, and they would likely spend most of another year at Antioch. [51] 1. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 2. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 14:1. 3. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 14:1-28. 4. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 361. 5. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 271. 6. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 233. 7. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 14:5-7. 8. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, 9. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, vs. 14:8-10. 10. Citing Plumptre, Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 14:5. 11. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 230. 12. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 14:2-6. Pfeiffer and Harrison add: “While Luke is often indefinite as to chronological references, he is often very definite in his geographical notes.” (Pfeiffer &Harrison, p. 1149). 13. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 14:8. 14. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1149. “Much of the Mediterranean world was bilingual, the people speaking the general language, Greek, and also their native dialect…” 15. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 14:8-18. 16. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 14:12. 17. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 14:13. 18. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 14:13. 19. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 88. 20. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 176. 21. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 14:1-28. 22. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 367. 23. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 231. 24. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 14:8-18. 25. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 362. 26. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 14:15-17. 27. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 362. 28. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 278-79. 29. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 363. 30. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 6:4. “The place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down on his loins; if he turned over on his heart the witness turned him over again on his loins. If he straightway died that sufficed; but if not, the second [witness] took the stone and dropped it on his heart. If he straightway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel…[Deut:17:1].” NOTE: Stoning was probably somewhat different in the pagan world than in Judaism, but this passage gives us a general idea of how it was done. Stoning in the Jewish world was likely more merciful than in the pagan world. It is obvious that large stones were used. 31. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 177. 32. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 14:19-23. 33. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 367. 34. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 14:20. 35. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 279. 36. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” vs. 14:14-28. 37. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 368. 38. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 234. 39. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 241. 40. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 14:22. 41. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 235. 42. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 236. Pfeiffer &Harrison add: “The language suggests that there were several elders in each local church; but the church in a given city may have consisted of a number of house congregations with an elder ruling over each group.” (Pfeiffer &Harrison, p. 1150). 43. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 241. 44. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 14:23. 45. Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 2002, 2008), p. 43. 46. Quoted in Viola and Barna, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, p. 12. 47. Vioila and Barna, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, pp. 11-12. 48. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 14:23. 49. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 235. 50. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 14:28. 51. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1 We have previously noted that many priests had joined the Christian faith in Jerusalem (6:7). In this chapter we will see how some Pharisees had also joined (15:5). Most of these were likely steeped in the Law of Moses. This created a crisis between law and grace and it presented a problem for the church. Pfeiffer and Harrison state: “The success of the Gentile mission now brought to a head the most important problem in the early church – that of the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers and the terms of admission of Gentiles into the church.” [1] This problem was particularly apparent in the matters pertaining to foods, what foods could be eaten and what could not. The practical issue was the matter of table fellowship for those believers who kept kosher and those who did not. Paul gives us a background of this struggle in Galatians 2:11-21. It seems that Peter had visited the Antioch church sometime before the Jerusalem Council. He ate freely with the many Gentiles there until a delegation from Jerusalem arrived. At that point, he withdrew from the Gentiles and dined only with the Jerusalem group. Others began to follow his example, even including Paul’s mission companion, Barnabas. Paul immediately realized that the truth of the gospel was at stake. He then publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocritical stand. It could have been this very group from Jerusalem that began to teach that circumcision of Gentiles was necessary for one to be saved. All this presented the large Antioch church with a serious crisis. Perhaps we should note here that the early Christians, who were mostly Jewish, did not give up many of their Jewish practices when they became Christians. [2] The same is true today with Messianic believers. They do not convert and become Gentile Christians but continue to be Jews in many respects, most often being circumcised as their fathers were and often continuing to eat only kosher foods. We must be understanding and respectful concerning this as Paul clearly teaches us later in Romans 14:1-8. However, it is one thing for Jewish people to keep their traditional customs and another thing entirely for them to require others to do so, or to trust in these outward things for their own salvation. This very rigid and legalistic group from Jerusalem seems to have produced what we call the Judaizers. They generally felt that what Jesus had begun must be completed by Moses. [3] It is clear that this group not only troubled the Gentile believers at Antioch but at almost the same time they were troubling the new churches Paul and Barnabas had just founded in Asia Minor. In Galatians 2:4, Paul simply calls them “false brethren” who had infiltrated the church. Had this group won the day, Christianity would have surely become just a sect of Judaism. “This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question” (15:2). Paul and Barnabas could not tolerate such views. Since they were the recognized heads of the church at Antioch, it was decided by the church that these two should go up to Jerusalem in order to settle this dispute. We see here that some other believers went up with them. This group probably included Titus (Gal. 2:3). For centuries, Bible interpreters have tried to decide if this was Paul’s second or third visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal. 2:1). With the scanty information we have today there is simply no way to settle this question for certain. [4] The meeting in Jerusalem would be one of the most important gatherings in the history of the church. The meeting became a turning point, a centerpiece or watershed of the book of Acts. [5] The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. Acts 15:3 Paul was not a person to waste time. He made the most of every occasion, even the trip up to Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas and the group from Antioch visited newly founded churches in Phoenicia and Samaria on the way. They declared the good news that Gentiles were being converted. Some of these churches may have been founded by those who fled Jerusalem after Stephen was martyred (cf. 8:4-25; 11:19). [6] Those in Samaria may have been founded by Philip, or Peter and John (cf. 8:1-25). The report that Gentile churches had been formed in Asia Minor was no doubt very good news to these churches that contained many Gentiles. “When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them” (15:4). In verse 2 we notice how Christians spoke of Jerusalem as being “up.” It was true in the ancient world and is still true today that Jerusalem is considered “up” from any direction. Not only does it sit perched atop a mountain ridge but it is God’s holy city. Likewise, all directions are “down” from Jerusalem. Today those citizens who forsake Jerusalem and Israel for other countries are called “yoredim” in Hebrew, or those who go down. When the Antioch group arrived in Jerusalem it appears that they were welcomed warmly by the church and by the apostles there. It is not clear just how many apostles were present at this time. Many were no doubt out on mission trips to other parts of the world. From the Galatians account it appears that only Peter and John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus were present (Gal. 2:9). “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses’” (15:5). Here the Pharisee believers are identified as among the Judaizing group. It appears that there was an immediate explosion of disagreement with this group. Marshall says, “We probably underestimate what a colossal step it was for dyed-in-the-wool Jewish legalists to adopt a new way of thinking. Moreover, it is possible that nationalist pressure was increasing in Judea, and that Christians were having to tread carefully to avoid being thought of as disloyal to their Jewish heritage.” [7] No doubt many Jewish people thought that, since the Jews were the chosen of God, the Gentiles would have to become a part of Israel in order to be saved. [8] After all, had not the prophets said that all nations would flow to Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3)? Obviously, this matter would have to be settled quickly. The apostles and elders met to consider this question. Acts 15:6 A number of scholars have remarked that this meeting should not be considered as a formal church council, as in the case of the Council of Nicea for instance. This was a meeting or council called in order to settle an urgent question plaguing the church. There was no sense in which bishops were called together from all the churches. The problem was simply referred to the mother church in Jerusalem and to the apostles of the Lord. There is no question that the whole of the Gentile mission was at stake. From Galatians 2:2, it seems that the meeting was private but Acts 15:22 indicates that it was public. It is possible that it was first a private meeting with the apostles and later a public one with others in the church. “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe’” (15:7). Apparently there was much questioning (Gk. zētēseōs). Robertson says of this, “Evidently the Judaizers were given full opportunity to air all their grievances and objections. They were allowed plenty of time and there was no effort to shut off debate or to rush anything through the meeting.” [9] Now Peter makes his final appearance in Acts. Afterward, the leading role will be played by Paul. [10] Peter begins to relate again his experience with Cornelius, which may have happened as much as ten years earlier (Acts 10). His testimony is critical to the meeting. Stott remarks of Peter, that his earlier confrontation with Paul must have had the desired result: “For by the time Peter reached Jerusalem for the Council, he had regained his theological equilibrium and went on to bear faithful witness during the assembly to the gospel of grace…” [11] “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us” (15:8). Peter continues with his witness to the assembly. Wiersbe comments on his remarks: “Only God can see the human heart; so, if these people had not been saved, God would never have given them the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). But they did not receive the Spirit by keeping the law, but by believing God’s word (Acts 10:43-46; see Gal. 3:2).” [12] “He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith” (15:9). Jamieson, Fausset and Brown remark: “How rich is this brief description of the inward revolution wrought upon the genuine disciples of the Lord Jesus!” [13] Clearly, both Jew and Gentile are purified by faith and not by works of the law. Stott adds: “…he purified their hearts by faith…demonstrating that it is the inward purity of the heart which makes fellowship possible, not the external purity of diet and ritual…Grace and faith level us; they make fraternal fellowship possible.” [14] “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (15:10). Guthrie remarks: “The obligations of the Jewish religion are frequently referred to as a ‘yoke’ by the Rabbis…” [15] Jesus however, came with a different kind of yoke. It is described in Matthew 11:29-30 as being “easy.” It is easy because Christ works within us to help us bear his yoke (Phil. 2:13). In some mysterious way, Jesus writes the law upon the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:33-34) and fulfills that law within them. Peter confesses plainly that he and the rest of the Jewish people (even including the Pharisees) could not live by the law. Actually, Israel had broken the law already within hours of Moses’ receiving it on the mountain (Exo. 32). The law was given to point out sin, not to solve the sin problem. Augustine once said, “Through the law there came not healing but the knowledge of sin…But now the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law.” [16] “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (15:11). “The question raised by the Jerusalem council was immense: Are Christians made right with God by faith alone, or by a combination of faith and obedience of the Law of Moses?” [17] Here Peter really stands like a rock, declaring without apology that both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way, by grace and through faith. Thus Peter bows out of the Acts narrative with flying colors. “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12). It is rather amazing here that the previously argumentative crowd sat in stunned silence as they listened to the account of Barnabas and Paul. It was simply amazing that the gospel had now included many in the Gentile world and that there were signs, wonders and functioning churches to bear out this fact. It appears that even the Pharisees were stunned. “Barnabas and Paul confirmed Peter’s previous point. Essentially they said, God has accepted the Gentiles, should not we as well?” [18] The earlier conversion of Cornelius and a few Gentiles scattered in other places could no longer be discounted or dismissed by the legalists. Now the gospel was going out everywhere in the Gentile world and bringing forth much fruit. Marshall adds, “His [Peter’s] speech was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who also reported how God had manifestly shown his approval of the Gentile mission by miraculous signs. Nevertheless, some kind of compromise was necessary in order not to offend the consciences of the strict Jewish Christians…” [19] There was one in the early church who was the actual half-brother of Jesus (Mk. 6:3); who was deeply respected by the legalists and the general public as well; who was a master at peaceful negotiation. His name was James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. He would now bring the Jerusalem Council to a successful conclusion. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.” Acts 15:13 Obviously, when James asked people to listen, they listened. [20] He was also a brother of Jude (Jude 1), author of the Book of James (Jam. 1:1), and known as James the Just, a pillar of the church (Gal. 2:6). Church tradition says that James was so often at prayer that his knees were as hard as those of camels. [21] When he spoke it carried much weight. James spoke with great wisdom and he understood that the wisdom from above had to be a peaceable thing as he said in his epistle: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” (Jas. 3:17). “Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles” (15:14). We note here that James speaks of Peter in a Semitic manner as Simon or Symeon. [22] This would no doubt give his testimony more acceptance by the staunch Hebrew listeners. It was probably the name James had used in his prior limited associations with Jesus’ disciples. James makes plain that God has intervened to take a people to himself from among the Gentiles. This was the crux of the matter facing the council. This great truth may have just begun to dawn upon James himself. Marshall states, “…His present comments, therefore, may have represented something of a change of outlook on his part.” [23] Until this time James had been seen as a champion of the more conservative Hebrews. “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago” (15:15-18). James, in his wisdom, immediately turns to the words of the prophets to support his view. David’s fallen tent will be rebuilt. This clearly has a reference to the restoration of Israel but it particularly applies to the spiritual blessings of David being made available to all people. After all, salvation for all people has come from Jesus, through the house and lineage of David (cf. Lk. 1:32-33, 69; 2:11; Acts 2:34-35). James is citing Amos 9:11-12, possibly from the Septuagint, LXX. While James deals primarily with this one text, there were no doubt many more passages in his mind (e.g. Isa. 2:2-4;11:10; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 60:3, 5, 11; Zech. 2:11; Mal. 1:11). This quotation does not precisely follow the Masoretic Text (MT) or the LXX, however, it is closer to the LXX. In the Qumran scrolls this quotation is paralleled. All this may suggest that James is here using a different ancient Hebrew text. [24] Barker and Kohlenberger make some interesting remarks concerning the quotation from this Old Testament text: “James’s major contribution to the decision of the council was to shift the discussion of the conversion of Gentiles from a proselyte model to an eschatological one…But Isaiah also spoke of the Gentiles’ persistence as nations whose salvation did not destroy their national identities (cf. Isa. 2:4; 25:6-7).” [25] Marshall adds, “Probably the rebuilding of the tabernacle is to be understood as a reference to the raising up of the church as the new place of divine worship which replaced the temple…” [26] “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19). A number of translations speak of not making it difficult for Gentiles, while others read “stop troubling the Gentiles.” Bruce says, “James’s “stop troubling” means in effect “stop demanding circumcision.” [27] Stott remarks: “Thus, James, whom the circumcision party had claimed as their champion, declared himself in full agreement with Peter, Paul and Barnabas…There was an ‘agreement’ between what God had done through his apostles and what he had said through his prophets. This correspondence between scripture and experience, between the witness of prophets and apostles, was for James conclusive.” [28] Here we see clearly how the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus as its chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). “Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (15:20). When we first read this verse we might think that James is now reversing his decision and is placing Gentiles back under the law in some respect. This is clearly not the case. Had it been, Paul might have gone into a screaming rage. Marshall states, “Once the basic issue had been settled…it seems wholly likely that Paul could assent to some measures for the sake of peace with Jewish Christians which involved no real sacrifice to principle.” [29] We need to take a close look at these proposed restrictions. Most of them are directly concerned with idolatry, which was prevalent among the Gentiles. Jewish people could have nothing to do with this and it would be a great stumbling block if Gentile believers were involved. James desired that Gentile Christians avoid idolatry in every way possible. We should remember that in most cities the Gentile believers lived in close proximity to Jewish believers, who often observed the Levitical food restrictions. For there to be free association with these two groups within the church some guidelines must be established, especially regarding table fellowship. [30] I remember many years ago how a sweet Christian couple unthinkingly brought a baked ham to a Messianic Jewish meeting. There were immediately some red faces and the ham was quickly taken away and hidden somewhere in the kitchen. Gentile Christians needed to avoid pagan temples and their sacrifices. This traditionally involved meat that was slaughtered improperly and that was polluted by being offered to pagan gods (cf. Rev. 2:20). Gentiles also were used to eating and drinking blood. The eating of strangled animals was considered a delicacy because the blood remained in the animal. All this was forbidden by Leviticus 17:8-16. [31] The Bible tells us that blood contains the life and to be treated in a special manner. The blood was given by God to make atonement for sins. We see in this Leviticus passage that in biblical times the prohibitions extended to Gentiles living in the land of Israel. This must be something really important to God. Christians today think little about the significance of blood. It is interesting however that Christians in early centuries continued to have a deep respect for blood. Around the year AD 200 the Christian writer Mark Minucius Felix said, “We do not use blood, even of edible animals in our food.” [32] In the Apostolic Constitutions of around 390 we read of this restriction: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon (or indeed anyone of the priestly category) eats flesh with the blood of its life, or that which is torn by beasts, or which died of itself – let him be deprived. For the law itself has forbidden this. But if he is one of the laity, let him be suspended.” [33] Gentiles were also to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. Fornication, adultery and homosexuality were very much a part of pagan worship. For instance, at Corinth there were one thousand “sacred” prostitutes that serviced the pagan temple there. The Greek word for sexual immorality is porneiais, and it includes not only adultery but all illicit sex, including incest, or any form of licentiousness. [34] It seems that modern and postmodern Christians have paid little attention to this particular prohibition of the Jerusalem Council. Of course, Jewish believers living in close fellowship with Gentile believers would become quite offended by the rather loose marriage relationships found among the Gentiles, things such as marriages between close family relations (Lev. 18) and other abuses. [35] “For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (15:21). There were Jewish synagogues throughout the Roman world. At this time many Jewish believers still attended the synagogues as well as their own assemblies. No doubt, many Gentile believers frequented the synagogues at times. It was imperative that no offense be given to the Jewish people by the church. While Christians do not live by the law, they certainly do not live without it. That law is now written on their hearts and is contained in the law of love through Jesus Christ. Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. Acts 15:22 Once the decision was made the Jerusalem church acted swiftly and with great consideration and courtesy. We realize here that not just the apostles but the whole church had a part in this decision. They did not merely send a letter but they chose two esteemed members of the assembly to accompany the letter so that there could be no misunderstanding. Judas Barsabbas and Silas were chosen for this task. Judas is unknown to us, unless perhaps he was a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (1:23). Silas, who had the Latin name of Silvanus (1 Thess. 1:1), was a Roman citizen like Paul. He was a Hellenist believer. [36] This decision from the Jerusalem church must be considered as “one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history.” [37] The letter sent out to the churches was not a legal document that would mandate compliance. Rather it was a letter sent to promote unity among the believers. [38] There is a general agreement among scholars that both the conference and its letter are dated at AD 49. We can only imagine the collective sigh of relief that must have gone up as church after church read this letter. At last, the troubling matters of circumcision for Gentiles and the eating of special foods had been laid to rest. The new church could now get on with the primary work of winning the lost world. “With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings” (15:23). This letter begins with a sense of brotherhood among all believers. It would have been well if the decisions of all church councils through the ages had maintained such a spirit. While the letter is directed only to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, it seems apparent that it was a circular letter to be copied and distributed to many others. [39] The letter makes plain that there were churches already established in Cilicia. It is very possible and even likely that some of these churches were due to Paul’s efforts during the years he lived at Tarsus (Acts 9:30). [40] Some have wondered why the letter was not addressed to the new churches in Galatia. These churches were no doubt included with Antioch, since that church had established them. [41] “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing” (15:24-27). “The letter has justly been described as ‘a masterpiece of tact and delicacy.’” [42] One of the most important points of the letter is that Jerusalem immediately disassociated itself with the circumcision party. [43] Good and faithful men were chosen from the Jerusalem church to accompany this letter. In addition, it was borne by Barnabas and Paul. It is interesting that the council lauds these last two as people who have risked their lives for the gospel. As Chrysostom once said, as they have risked their lives, “they have a right to be believed.” [44] With the council’s statement, all troubling questions about Paul’s authority and his relationship to Jerusalem were swept aside. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:” (15:28). Meyer sees here convincing proof that the Holy Spirit is a person. [45] Obviously, he is directing the church. Later we will see the Holy Spirit guiding Paul and Silas on their upcoming mission trip. He will tell them where they cannot go and where they can go. We should remind ourselves again that these requirements or essentials regard fellowship between believing Jews and Gentiles. They have nothing to do with individual salvation and its requirements. [46] “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell” (15:29). When we consider the complexity of the problem dealt with at Jerusalem, it is almost amazing when we note the brevity of this response. It is covered in only a single verse. Again, most of these recommendations deal with the Christian’s relationship with idolatry and its practices. The Christian cannot dine at the pagan temples or participate in the vileness practiced there. Christians must be very careful with blood since it is a symbol of redemption. In other words, Christians should have no blood pudding. All sexual immorality must be forsaken. These modest rules would make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Christians to happily fellowship together. The letter ends with a simple “Farewell.” Keener points out how in the Greco-Roman world most letters ended this way. [47] So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. Acts 15:30 What a happy occasion this was for the church at Antioch! Not only did Jerusalem send a letter clarifying the circumcision matter once and for all, but they sent dear brothers to verify the contents and intention of the letter. The table fellowship at Antioch could now be resumed. [48] “The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers” (15:31-32). We see here that both Judas and Silas were prophets and they greatly encouraged the church with their messages. Keener says, “…no group boasted prophetic activity to the extent that Christians did; most Jews felt that there were no genuine prophets in their own time.” [49] Marshall comments on this letter saying: “The principle was of basic significance for the future of the early church, and it remains basic for all time; no national, racial or social requirements can ever be made conditions for salvation and membership of the church alongside the single and sole requirement of faith in Jesus Christ…” [50] “After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them” (15:33). The clear meaning of this verse is that both Judas and Silas (they) returned to Jerusalem. However, over the centuries some scribe felt the need to clarify why Silas was later found in Antioch. This he did in verse 34, which is not found here in the NIV or in several other modern translations (NJB, RSV). Other translations such as NKJ read, “However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.” The Greek scholar Robertson says of it: “This verse is not in the Revised Version or in the text of Westcott and Hort, being absent from Aleph, A, B, Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an addition to help explain the fact that Silas is back in Antioch in Acts 15:40. But the ‘some days’ of Acts 15:36 afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.” [51] But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord. Acts 15:35 As we have said, Paul and Barnabas were the leaders at the Antioch church. Like they had done before, they continued to teach and preach there. No doubt, they could now teach and preach with new fervency since the Gentile circumcision problem at last had been resolved. Yet, as time passed a problem developed between them as we shall see. “Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing’” (15:36). We have noted how Paul did not just establish churches but he nurtured them with visits, letters, and with the sending of his associates. As Bengel says, “Paul felt that he was not called to spend a peaceful, though laborious life at Antioch, but that his true work was far off among the Gentiles.” [52] Wiersbe likens the church at Antioch not as a parking lot but as a launching pad for the Lord’s work. [53] It is likely that Paul and Barnabas worked at Antioch over the winter months, but with the coming of spring and the resumption of travel by sea and land routes, their spirits were stirred to resume their mission work. [54] “Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work” (15:37-38). We noted earlier in Acts that Barnabas was an encourager. He no doubt felt strongly about restoring his wilted cousin and getting him back into mission work. Paul was a strong person with strong opinions and he did not feel that taking young Mark along was a good idea. All this in itself does not seem to be grounds enough for the great missionary team to part ways. Perhaps there were other hidden reasons. Some have suggested that the real reason was the vacillation of Barnabas over the question of eating with Gentiles (Gal. 2;11-14). We remember that Barnabas had caved in and deserted the Gentiles in order to eat kosher with the Jerusalem group. [55] That fact may have irritated Paul like a burr under his collar. Of course, Paul was a loving and forgiving soul. He would later speak in cordial terms about both Barnabas (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6) and Mark (cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phm. 24). [56] “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord” (15:39-40). This whole episode reveals the Bible’s honesty in reporting the good as well as the bad. We also have to agree that this split was providential in that it effectively doubled the mission force working out of Antioch. [57] Paul may have realized that Silas would make a good missionary companion for him. Likely he sent to Jerusalem for him to return to Antioch. Silas was a Roman citizen like Paul (16:37-38) and that would come in handy. He was also a leader in the Jerusalem congregation (15:22) and he was the one who actually delivered the letter from the Jerusalem church. His presence would surely assist Paul in his coming struggles with the Judaizers. In addition to being a prophet (15:32), he apparently was fluent in Greek and would later serve as an amanuensis or scribe for the apostles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12). [58] “He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (15:41). As we have mentioned, Paul was not content just to make a trip somewhere. He worked all along the way teaching and preaching in the new churches. No doubt he delivered the letter from Jerusalem at each stop. 1. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1150. 2. Ibid. 3. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 242-43. 4. See our comments on Acts 11:29-30. 5. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 241. 6. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1151. 7. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 249. 8. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, v. 15:5. 9. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 15:7. Bruce adds: “The vast majority, including such a Hellenized Jew as Philo of Alexandria, insisted on circumcision as indispensable for all males in the commonwealth of Israel, whether they entered it by birth or by proselytization. This was probably the attitude of the rank and file in the Jerusalem church – ‘zealots for the law,’ as they are called on a later occasion (21:20).” (Bruce, p. 287). Pett adds: “So the most fervent Judaizers among the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea still saw Christianity as a reformed Judaism, and looked eventually for all Christians eventually to be circumcised and to conform to the ritual Law…” (Pett, v. 15:1). 10. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 241. 11. Ibid., pp. 243-44. 12. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 369. 13. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 15:9. 14. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 245-46. 15. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 992. Pett adds: “‘Taking on the yoke’ was in fact precisely what Jewish proselytes were described as doing when they ritually bathed themselves and were circumcised.” (Pett, v. 15:10). 16. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 184. 17. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 15:6-11. 18. Ibid., v. 15:12. 19. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 243. 20. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 292. 21. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 15:13-21. 22. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 293. 23. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 251. 24. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 15:15. 25. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 464. 26. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 252. 27. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 295. 28. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 248. 29. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 247. 30. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 295. 31. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 253. Barclay adds: “One of the great problems of the early Church was that of meat offered to idols. Paul deals with it at length in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27…. It has been said that chastity was the only completely new virtue that Christianity brought into the world…To the Jew the blood was the life and the life belonged to God alone…Had these simple regulations not been observed there could have been no intercourse between Jew and Gentile….” (Barclay, vs. 15:13-21). 32. Roberts &Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 4, p. 192. 33. Ibid., V. 7, p. 504. 34. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 15:20. 35. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 15:13-21. 36. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 250. 37. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 465. 38. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 15:22. 39. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 366. 40. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 15:23. 41. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, vs. 15:23. 42. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 251. 43. Ibid. 44. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 190. 45. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 46. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 15:28. 47. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 366. 48. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 300. 49. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 366. 50. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 247. 51. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 15:34. 52. Cited in Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 15:36. 53. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 372. 54. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 257. 55. Ibid. 56. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 467. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. Acts 16:1 We realize that on this Second Missionary Journey Paul is visiting the churches he and Barnabas had founded on the First Missionary Journey, but he is visiting them in reverse order. It had no doubt been two or three years since Paul had founded these churches. [1] We might wonder what we would find after a two to three year absence in the US, if we had founded four small churches and promptly left them on their own. No doubt we would be greatly disappointed, and might well not even find a trace of our work remaining. Sometimes today it takes a decade or so of struggle for a new church to really make it, and of course, many do not. Paul not only found his churches still in existence, but he found them in good health. It is further amazing that not only had the churches continued, but people had continued to grow in the Lord. A fine example was young Timothy. No doubt, his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice were converted on that First Missionary Journey. It seems likely from the evidence, that Paul had even won young Timothy to the Lord on that first trip. Later he will call Timothy his own son (1 Cor. 4:17). His mother and grandmother had apparently nurtured Timothy in the faith so that the young man had become a sterling example of Christianity (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14-15). We will see in the next verse how people in both Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Timothy’s mother and grandmother had apparently become women of distinguished Christian piety. We are told that his mother was Jewish and that his father was Greek. Thus it was a mixed marriage. Such a marriage would have been almost impossible in Judea, since it was forbidden in Jewish law (Exo. 34:16; Deut.7:3; Ezr.10:2). However, it seems that Jews in the diaspora were more lax about this matter. [2] Timothy’s father was apparently not a believer or a proselyte. Several commentators have felt that according to the Greek description of him, he was now deceased. [3] In that Greek culture, where the father exercised tight control over the family, it may have been impossible for Timothy to have been circumcised. Often, the father’s religion was imposed upon the family. [4] Paul would choose young Timothy to be his assistant. He would in time become almost indispensable to the apostle, acting as Paul’s messenger (1 Cor. 4:17). He would have the same mind as Paul toward the churches (Phil. 2:19-20). He would be with Paul in his imprisonment (Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1; Phm. 1:1). In a very real sense he would become the apostle’s successor. [5] Coffman says, “Paul’s being stoned at Lystra on the first tour was not an indication of failure, because out of that tragic experience glorious fruit of the gospel appeared.” [6] “The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him” (16:2). The Greek here is in the imperfect passive indicative, and it means that people “spoke well of Timothy again and again.” [7] While Lystra was the hometown of Timothy (v. 1), we realize here that his fame had extended to Iconium, some 18 miles (28 km.) away. In a day when people mostly walked from place to place, this was no small distance and no small accomplishment for young Timothy. “Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (16:3). This verse has elicited a good deal of comment over the centuries. Some commentators have been quick to condemn Paul for circumcising Timothy, while he absolutely refused Titus’ circumcision (Gal. 2:3). Also, they have shamed Paul for instigating a supposed breach in the very Jerusalem Council decision that he had helped promote. Such criticism is totally unwarranted. Because Timothy had a Jewish mother he was considered a Jew by other Jewish people. Even today, if a person has a bona fide Jewish mother that person can easily become a citizen of Israel. Without a Jewish mother such citizenship could be impossible. Bruce says of him, “…because he was uncircumcised he was technically an apostate Jew. If Paul wished to maintain his links with the synagogue, he could not be seen to countenance apostasy.” [8] In other words, if Paul traveled with an uncircumcised Timothy, the fruitful Jewish synagogue doors would be closed to him in the future. Had Paul taken young Timothy to the Jerusalem Conference, the apostles would have probably demanded that Timothy be circumcised. We must understand that this is not now a matter of faith but of custom. Jewish believers then and now are usually circumcised. We need to understand some things about circumcision. It is not just a part of the Law of Moses, but it preceded the law by four hundred and thirty years. Circumcision was and is the mark of a physical descendant of Abraham. It is the mark of the covenant and that covenant is to continue on and on (Gen. 17:10). Pett says, “The covenant of circumcision must therefore be everlasting, because it was to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham was perpetuated, and that would be till the end of time, and thus circumcision will not cease, and cannot cease, until that time comes…” [9] Paul says, “Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18). Today, as many in the Gentile church are working with Israel and even living in Israel, it is often tempting for some Gentiles to become circumcised. Paul plainly tells us not to do such a thing. If this is done as a matter of faith it could cause a person to fall from grace (Gal. 5:2-4). Clearly, Paul is speaking to Gentile believers in this Galatian passage. For a Gentile believer to become circumcised as a matter of faith, becomes a thing of deception. That Gentile believer is making a claim to be Jewish by fleshly descent and that claim is fraudulent. If circumcision is just a matter of custom it is not serious. Fifty or sixty years ago in the US it was in some places common for newborn males, whatever their religion, to be circumcised in the hospitals. So far as true faith is concerned circumcision is religiously neutral or indifferent. [10] Paul says, “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19). We realize that Abraham was declared righteous by faith long before he was ever circumcised (Rom. 4:10). No doubt the ordination of Timothy took place at this time. Paul was much involved in this and we read about it in1Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6. Apparently it took place with much solemnity and before many witnesses (1 Tim. 6:12). Timothy, who was half Jewish, was the last link in the chain as the gospel was passed on from the Jewish people to the Gentiles. “As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey” (16:4). The Greek word used here for decisions is dogmata from which root we get dogma. From what we have observed so far, this decision was not seen as some sort of decree that had to be slavishly obeyed. Pett says, “It is actually nowhere said to be binding on all Christians…It may well be because Paul did not want the advice to become a ‘decree’ that he never mentions it in his letters, even when the issues arise.” [11] “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers” (16:5). Again, we must marvel about the stability in these early churches. Much of it came from the fact that these Gentile churches were largely built upon God-fearers and proselytes as well as some Jewish people from the synagogues. There was thus a strong background in the Old Testament, which made for quick understanding, stability and growth. It is very sad today that we have essentially cut ourselves off from our rich Jewish heritage. Quite a number of churches have almost cut themselves off from the Old Testament. Many of our failing Gentiles churches are clear evidence of this fact. The Greek words used here are estereounto and eperisseuon. The first means “to make firm and solid like the muscles (Acts 3:7, Acts 3:16)” and the second means to be increased. [12] We noted in 14:22, that the first term is almost a technical one for establishing Christians and their churches. [13] As we saw in verse 4, Paul traveled from town to town. Barker and Kohlenberger say, “…the missionary outreach was confined to the major cities of the Aegean coastline connected by the main Roman roads…” [14] Paul seemed to have a spiritual knack of picking important ports and cities on his journeys. No doubt he continued to be guided by the Holy Spirit in this all-important project. Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. Acts 16:6 As we remember, the churches of Psidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe were a part of the large Roman province of Galatia. Much of this area in earlier times was called Phrygia, so both names are used. For instance, I grew up in the US state of Arkansas, but the southern states, including Arkansas, also had the historical nickname of “Dixie.” We observe here that Paul and his team were encountering an unusual problem. They were being restrained from going to the places they were hoping to go. No doubt they wished to travel into the Roman province of Asia and visit the important capital city of Ephesus, but the Holy Spirit said “No!” or “Not Now.” Paul would later spend a great deal of time in the Asian province, but the timing was not yet right. “The missionary journeys of Paul reveal an extraordinary combination of strategic planning and sensitivity to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in working out the details of the main goals.” [15] People have wondered just how Paul was being directed by the Spirit. It seems that most commentators have overlooked the fact that Silas may have been involved with this Holy Spirit direction. After all, he was a prophet of God (15:32). [16] He may have had special insight into the course they were to take. The northern areas of the vast Galatian province were inhabited by Celtic people who had immigrated into that area. Despite what earlier Bible commentators thought, there is no evidence that the team traveled into that area. [17] “When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to” (16:7). The missionary team was obviously testing the areas to see to which one they would be guided. They apparently stopped on the border of Mysia. This was a loosely defined area situated in the northwestern area of modern Turkey. The area included the site of the ancient city of Troy. At times it included the harbor city of Troas. At this point the team tried to go into Bithynia. This northern area had fallen to Rome in 74 BC and was united for administration with the area of Pontus. It extended to the Black Sea and bordered the area that came to be known as the Bosporus. The team was also prohibited from going there, likely because Peter would soon minister in that area (1 Pet. 1:1). Later it would become a stronghold of Christianity and the famous Nicene Creed would originate in one of its cities of that name. Even by the end of the First Century, Pliny the governor of Bithynia reported that the area was filled with Christians. [18] It is of note that Peter had later ministered a great deal in the area of Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1). No doubt the team was becoming quite frustrated as they were seemingly unable to enter any of the areas. The Spirit of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, seemed to be hindering their missionary advance in the whole area. Barker and Kohlenberger remark concerning the interesting expression, “the Spirit of Jesus.” They say, “…is not just stylistic but an unconscious expression of the church’s embryonic Trinitarian faith.” [19] Stott reminds us that missionaries are sometimes redirected by the Lord. “Livingstone tried to go to China, but God sent him to Africa instead. Before him, Carey planned to go to Polynesia in the South Seas, but God guided him to India. Judson went to India first, but was driven on to Burma.” [20] “So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas” (16:8). Troas was a pivotal port on the Aegean Sea. It was bounded on the north by the famous Dardanelles waterway leading into the Black Sea. It was also a gateway port city leading into Europe. “During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us’” (16:9). Barker and Kohlenberger remark, “…Authentic turning points in history are few. But surely among them that of the Macedonian vision ranks high…” [21] There are a few places in the Bible where the people of God had special visions and dreams (Gen. 15:1; 46:2; 1 Sam. 3:1-21; 1 Ki. 3:5). Already in Acts there have been special visions (cf. 9:10; 10:3) and there will be more to follow (cf. 18:9; 22:17). Dreams and visions in the Bible were a recognized means of divine communication. [22] We cannot tell if this vision was seen in a dream or if it happened while Paul was awake. Sometimes it is difficult to know if one is awake or asleep when a vision happens. Stedman tries to simplify the dream and vision saying, “The difference between a dream and a vision is that a dream always has us in it – which may make it a nightmare!” [23] “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” (16:10). There is something really interesting here. The narrative suddenly changes from “they” to “we” and “us.” Scholars are pretty much of the opinion that Dr. Luke joined the missionary tour at this point. If so, he is not only originator of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, but he is a real trooper, willing to put his boots on the ground and join in the often dangerous missionary endeavor. This verse begins with what is called the “we sections” of Acts, as seen in 16:10-17, 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28: 28:1-16. We do not know the whole story of why Luke joined the tour. Perhaps he joined as Paul’s personal doctor. [24] He may have had some connection with Philippi, since he apparently stopped off there. We do know from history that Philippi had a famous medical school. [25] It has even been suggested that Luke was a Macedonian and was interested in the evangelization of his country. [26] Of course, earlier we suggested that Luke may have come from the Syrian Antioch area. We really have no firm information on his origin. From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day we went on to Neapolis. Acts 16:11 The Book of Acts relates to us many ancient sea journeys and numerous nautical terms. In New Testament times sea travel was much quicker and less expensive than travel by land. It was possible to go perhaps a hundred miles (160 km.) a day by sea. [27] Here we see that the party stopped off for the night at the island of Samothrace. This small island was unique, with a mountain rising to some 5,000 feet (8046 km.). It was the home of the mystery cult of Cabiri. [28] By the next day the group arrived at the port city of Neapolis. Apparently the winds had been favorable for the 150 mile (241 km.) journey since it only took two days. We note that the same trip took them five days on their return (20:6). [29] For the first time, a gospel team had entered what would later be called Europe. Stedman says of this, “…the gospel came into Europe and thus changed all of Western civilization, vastly affecting our lives today.” [30] “From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days” (16:12). The trip from Neapolis to Philippi was ten miles (16 km.). The trip must have seemed like easy walking for them for they were now on the great Via Egnatia (Egnatian Way), an ancient super highway constructed by Rome around 148 BC, connecting the Aegean Sea with the Adriatic and thus with Rome. When they arrived at Philippi they entered a city that was rich in history. The city was founded by Philip II of Macedon in 360 BC. This Philip was the father of the world conqueror, Alexander the Great. No doubt Philip chose the site because of its rich farmland and nearby gold mines. Of course, even in ancient times it was a main route between Europe and Asia Minor. The Romans took control of the area in 168 BC. It was there in 42 BC, at the Battle of Philippi, that the assassins of Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius, were defeated by Anthony and Octavian. After this great battle, many of the army veterans were settled at Philippi. After the defeat of Antony at the Battle of Actium (31 BC), Octavian settled more army veterans at Philippi. [31] Philippi was granted the status of Roman Colony by Octavian (Augustus) and Roman law held sway in the city. Citizens of Philippi became Roman citizens and no taxes were levied upon them. It was a little of Rome away from home. Scholars have long debated the statement that Philippi was the “leading city” of that district. We know form history that when the Romans conquered Macedonia they divided the area into four parts. [32] Philippi was considered the “first part” or first district. However, Thessalonica and not Philippi was eventually the capital. [33] “On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there” (16:13). Stedman quips at this scene saying, “So the gospel entered Europe through a woman’s club.” [34] The location of this group meeting was certainly interesting. Apparently, this group of women, many of whom were probably Jewish proselytes, had to meet in the open air by a river. Scholars are pretty sure that there was no Jewish synagogue in the city. Likely the Jewish community was so small that there was not a quorum of ten men, the amount required to begin a synagogue. Thus, these seekers of God met by a nearby river, probably the Gangites. Jewish people and proselytes would prefer a place of worship near bodies of water so that ritual washings could take place. There must be a special reward in heaven for the many groups of women who have carried on the work of God through the ages. Paul did not hesitate to minister to this group, although such a thing was not too acceptable among the Jewish people. A woman had a low status in ancient society and that was true even among the Jews. The Pharisees of Paul’s time prayed daily, “I thank God that you have not made me a Gentile, or a slave, or a woman.” [35] It was true in those days that women could not in any number compensate for the absence of even a single man in making up the quorum. [36] “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message” (16:14). Lydia was a woman of some means since she had a business in very expensive materials, as well as a large house and probably several servants. She was from Thyatira and probably worked in conjunction with the dyeing industry located there. Thyatira was a city in western Asia Minor. In ancient times is was part of the kingdom of Lydia and it is very likely that her name sprang from that fact. She might have been called “the Lydian lady.” [37] Purple dye and purple cloth were very expensive in ancient times. The purple dye was extracted from the Mediterranean murex shell. This was a slow and expensive process. Barnes says, “The art of dyeing was early cultivated in the neighborhood of Thyatira, as we learn from Homer (Iliad, iv. 141), and as is confirmed by inscriptions found in that city.” [38] It may be understandable why Lydia ended up in Philippi. Macedonian women had a great deal more freedom than women in other parts, and were noted for being independent. [39] Obviously, Lydia was very important for the spread of the gospel in Macedonia. Meyer says: “This was an epoch-making moment, but how quietly it is recorded. There was no heralding of the gospel which was to transform Europe. The need for it was unspoken and unfelt. It stole in like the dawn…Let none despise the day of small things…” [40] Such people as Lydia are very important in evangelism. My wife and I have some friends who spend much of each year in far eastern countries as evangelists and church planters. The practice there among evangelists is to look for a “person of peace” in whatever city or area they may visit. This is a person God has prepared to welcome the evangelists (Lk. 9:3-4). It seems that Lydia was such a person. “When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us” (16:15). We see again that baptism in the New Testament was done immediately (cf. 2:41; 8:38). Lydia was probably baptized by Paul in the nearby river. Her household servants and slaves were baptized with her. With that, her Christian life began to bear beautiful fruit. She immediately invited Paul and his company to stay in her home. In those days inns were scarce, overpriced, dirty and often filled with immorality. Christians could not stay in such places, but often lodged with other believers on their trips. Here Lydia displays a beautiful Christian virtue of hospitality (1 Pet. 4:9). The question often arises concerning the household baptisms of the New Testament, as to whether or not small children were baptized. It should be asked whether or not this is a precedent for infant baptism. We know in the Old Testament that infants were often included. For instance, circumcision of infant boys took place on the eighth day. Often whole families were included (cf. Deut. 5:9; 7:9) in religious events. Yet, is this to be a universal truth in all cultures? Today we live in an individualistic society whereas people in the Near East lived in a society that focused on the tribe, clan and family. [41] We cannot make a certain judgment on this, but the weight of scripture seems to indicate that each person must make a decision for Christ before baptism. There is a sense in which small children are drawn into the faith and spiritually sheltered by the decisions of the adults in each family (1 Cor. 7:14). Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. Acts 16:16 Obviously, the trips to the place of prayer were repeated many times, perhaps even daily for some period. Because a great revival and awakening of religion was taking place there, we can imagine that Satan was taking note of that fact. We probably remember that when the great revival of Samaria with Philip was going on, Satan presented his agent, Simon Magus, in order to try to interrupt or cheapen the movement. When God acts, Satan reacts. All through the Book of Acts we see God acting and Satan reacting. Unfortunately, today Satan acts and the church reacts. On this occasion Satan presented a young girl who was controlled by an evil spirit. In the Greek it is said that she had a python (puthōna) spirit. This was something that was quite familiar to the people of that age. According to their mythology the god Apollo had once slain the great serpent (Pytho) that had an oracle at Mount Parnassus. Because of that, he was called Pythius. [42] It was this spirit that stood behind the most famous of Greek shrines, like the Delphic oracle, whose priestesses were called pythonesses. [43] Utley further describes this famous shrine saying, “…This site was known for its temple snakes (i.e., pythons) who would crawl over people who lay down in the temple and allowed the snake to crawl over them for the purpose of knowing and affecting the future.” [44] The young girl in this story was so filled with this python spirit that she was able to tell fortunes and thus make her owners a lot of money. “She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved’” (16:17). We see much evidence in scripture that demons recognized Jesus as well as his workers. We might say, “Well, what is so bad about all the free advertising?” Then we remember that Jesus would not let the demons bear witness to him (cf. Mk. 1:24-25; 3:11-12). If the devil and his crew spoke something, there was a very good chance that it would be false, since he was and is the Father of Lies (Jn. 8:44). At least, people might become confused because of the source. The devil can speak something that is totally true one minute and tell a big lie the next minute. The expression “Most High God” is rare in the New Testament, although Luke uses it some (Lk. 1:32, 35, 76). [45] It was an expression used among the pagans and even among the Greek-speaking Jews. Concern with the way of salvation (Gk. soterias) was also something with which pagan people were familiar. Many vows and prayers went up to the Most High God regarding this subject. [46] “She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!’ At that moment the spirit left her” (16:18). Here we are amazed at the patience and long-suffering of Paul. He put up with this demonic harassment for many days. In the recent Charismatic era some people had little patience with demons. In the first five minutes of her action some eager exorcists would have cast the demon out, or at least tried to do so. Can we even imagine Charismatics getting on a ship that sailed under the sign of the pagan gods Castor and Pollux (28:11)? Yet, Paul did, and apparently thought nothing about it. In our dealing with evil spirits we need wisdom and some patience as well. Also, when Paul commanded the demon to leave it left immediately. There was no tiring and frustrating all night exorcism. In the New Testament it was mostly Jesus and his disciples who did exorcisms. However, the Lord has given all believers power and authority to do these works. Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father” (Jn. 14:12). We may wonder if this girl became a convert and began to meet with the church down by the riverside. Such a thing is entirely possible, but we cannot know for sure. The young girl was a slave of her cruel masters, however, many slaves became members of the new churches. When her owners realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. Acts 16:19 Bruce remarks about this, saying, “When Paul exorcized the spirit that possessed her, he exorcized their source of income as well.” [47] It seems that these cruel owners were not the first or the last of folks who would place their own material gains above the gospel of the Lord Jesus. It is forever amazing that evil men are not able to acknowledge the clear miracles of God. They are more interested in their vested self-interests (cf. Lk. 6:6-11). Thus, they dragged Paul and Silas to the marketplace and before the authorities. “They brought them before the magistrates and said, ‘These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice’” (16:20-21). We immediately see that the girl’s owners began by playing on the latent anti-Semitism of the mob, for “anti-Jewish sentiment lay very near the surface in pagan antiquity.” [48] Likely it is for this reason that Luke, who was a Gentile and Timothy, who was half-Gentile were not arrested. No doubt anti-Semitic feeling was running high at this time in the empire. In AD 49, Claudius had forced all the Jewish people out of the city of Rome. Paul and Silas were dragged before the magistrates and charged. In a Roman colony there were two chief magistrates called in Greek strategoi and in Latin praetors. [49] Perhaps the thing feared most in the Roman world was an uproar or a riot among the subjects. It was a primary duty for magistrates to avoid civil disruption at all costs. The other charge brought against Paul and Silas was that they were advocating unlawful customs. They were introducing a charge that Paul and Silas were “advocating a religio illicita and thus disturbing the Pax Romana.” [50] With an illegal religion they were disturbing the Roman peace. “The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten with rods” (16:22). This seemed to be quite a hasty decision. In those days the attendants of the magistrates were called lictors. As a symbol of Roman authority they carried in their hands a bundle of rods or canes bound in a circle around an axe. This symbolized the authority not only to chastise but to execute. [51] Paul and Silas were stripped and publicly punished with these canes. This was painful and humiliating, however, it was not as serious as the Roman scourging that Jesus endured. [52] In 2 Corinthians 11:25, Paul would later tell us that he had been beaten with rods three times. “After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully” (16:23). With such punishment in the Jewish world there was a strict limit of 40 lashes that could be given. In order not to exceed this limit, only 39 lashes were usually administered (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24). There were no such restrictions with a Roman beating. Later, Paul would say that he was beaten “beyond measure” (2 Cor. 11:23 NKJ). Bruce says that although the Roman army developed many fine qualities, these did not include the milk of human kindness. [53] When the beating was finished Paul and Silas were thrown into jail and the jailer was charged to watch them carefully. The jailer was no doubt an army veteran, like so many others in the colony of Philippi. “When he received these orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks” (16:24). These ancient cells were cold, damp and extremely uncomfortable. Very little light reached into their dark and drab interiors. [54] To make matters worse Paul and Silas were placed into stocks. These could make the prison stay extremely uncomfortable as the legs could be stretched out in a painful manner. All this was in addition to the extreme agony from the severe beating. About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Acts 16:25 Can we just imagine Paul and Silas, in the darkness of their cell, with their painful stripes, with their feet in stocks, singing praises to God? Psalm 139:12 says, “even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.” Surely, here is a picture of singing songs in the night (Job 35:10); of joy in the midst of suffering (Rom. 5:3; Jas. 1:2; 1 Pet. 5:6). [55] Tertullian (160-220) said of it, “The legs feel nothing in the stocks when the heart is in heaven…” [56] Apparently the other prisoners were not cursing at them but were listening to them. The Greek word used here is epēkroōnto. It is a rare verb and it has the meaning of pleasurably listening to music. [57] Obviously, the prisoners were touched and it may explain why they never attempted to escape the prison. “Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose” (16:26). Stedman cannot resist a lighter note here exclaiming: “Somebody has said that the gospel entered Europe through a sacred concert which was so successful that it brought the house down!” [58] The earthquake was a mighty miracle of God and it came with perfect timing to bring deliverance to the missionaries and salvation to the jailer. Utley says, “This was a natural event, but with supernatural purpose, timing, and effect.” [59] “The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped” (16:27). No doubt, even in the darkness, Paul could see the dim outline of the jailer and realize that he was about to take his own life. It was in this area centuries before that Brutus and Cassius had taken their own lives when they sensed that their armies were defeated. In the Roman world, if a guard allowed a prisoner to escape he must take the penalty that the prisoner would have received. [60] When one was facing such shame the only honorable course left was suicide. “But Paul shouted, ‘Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!’” (16:28). It is always amazing how faith in God puts the believer in control of uncontrollable situations. Suddenly, Paul who is in jail is now in charge. We will see a similar thing much later as Paul is being transported by ship to prison in Rome. When the storm virtually destroyed the ship, Paul became the person in charge and began to give orders to the captain, crew and passengers (27:13-44). The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Acts 16:29-30 This is the picture of a man under deep conviction. He had no doubt heard the singing and praising. Perhaps he had earlier heard the possessed girl speak of the way to be saved. Probably he was wrestling with his own evil conscience concerning his mistreatment of the innocent. However, the earthquake, coming at this precise time, caused him to shake and tremble. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Pett says, “it seemingly came home to him that the earthquake must have been the result of these two men and their prayers.” [61] Barnes says of the question, “‘What must I do to be saved?’ – “Never was a more important question asked than this.” [62] Unfortunately, we are in an age today when this question is seldom asked. People do not even seem to ask or care what salvation means. Few seem to feel the need of it. “They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved— you and your household” (16:31). Guzik tells the story of a British army chaplain named Bishop John Taylor Smith. He devised a unique test for candidates to the chaplaincy. “He asked them to say how they would speak to a man injured in battle, who had three minutes to live, how to be saved and come to peace with God. If they couldn’t do it within three minutes, they weren’t fit for the chaplains service.” [63] Certainly, Paul would have qualified. The good news of the gospel is that all those who believe in the Savior will be saved (cf. Acts 11:14; 16:15; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15). Paul makes the invitation even broader in Romans 10:13: “for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Can it be said any simpler than Paul has said it? Everyone means you and everyone means me. “Faith alone in Jesus will save both the jailer and his household.” [64] Of course, when a person is truly saved there will be fruit in that person’s life. There will also be discipleship. “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house” (16:32). One thing we see repeatedly in Acts is the importance of sound Bible teaching. The earliest disciples continued steadfastly in this apostolic teaching. Unfortunately, today’s church puts the emphasis in many other places and neglects Bible teaching. Christians cannot grow and mature without the pure milk of the word of God. Peter adds: “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good” (1 Pet. 2:2-3). “At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized” (16:33). Now we begin to see the fruits of a converted life. The jailer did something. He washed the wounds of Paul and Silas. Kretzmann says, “…Paul and Silas, in turn, gave to both the jailer and all the members of his household a washing to remove all the stains on their souls.” [65] Immediately afterward, the Jailer and his household were baptized. We notice once more how biblical baptism happens immediately after one is saved. The church has made a dreadful mistake in prolonging baptism. Of course, after baptism, new saints are immediately given the gift of the Holy Spirit and are filled with joy. The church has also delayed and confused this issue. Bruce adds here, “If nothing is said explicitly of their receiving the Holy Spirit, this is implied in the emphasis on the rejoicing which filled the house.” [66] There is more fruit still of this converted life. “The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God— he and his whole household” (16:34). Quite simply, conversion brings a changed life. It brings obedience and it brings good works. It brings a completely changed attitude toward one’s self, toward others and toward God. The jailer was a brand new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Someone has said: “I care not a jot for that man’s religion whose very dog and cat are not the better for it.” [67] Surely, this jailer would never again treat people as he had treated them in the past. When it was daylight, the magistrates sent their officers to the jailer with the order: “Release those men.” Acts 16:35 The magistrates sent their lictors the next morning to have Paul and Silas released. “They had probably only wanted to teach them a lesson about the peril of disturbing the peace in a Roman colony and felt that a public flogging and a night in the city’s jail would be sufficient to do that.” [68] Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown think that rumors of some of the supernatural happenings may have reached the magistrates and they were in a big hurry to get rid of them. [69] “The jailer told Paul, ‘The magistrates have ordered that you and Silas be released. Now you can leave. Go in peace’” (16:36). Undoubtedly, the jailer now had a great sense of relief. His life has been spared; he has been saved, baptized and filled with God’s Holy Spirit. And now he has safely guarded his prisoners that are about to be released. O Happy day! “But Paul said to the officers: ‘They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out” (16:37). By the early second century BC Rome had passed the Valerian and Porcian laws that exempted Roman citizens from degrading forms of punishment. The laws gave citizens other rights as well. These early laws had just been reaffirmed by the Julian law that dealt with public disorder. [70] Paul and Silas came under the protection of these laws for they were both Roman citizens. These magistrates in their haste had made a very serious legal blunder. In fact, it was entirely possible that they could lose their positions if the issue came to light. Paul was no doubt happy to play cat and mouse with these officials. A. N. Tilton refers to this situation as the first recorded “sit in.” [71] “The officers reported this to the magistrates, and when they heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, they were alarmed. They came to appease them and escorted them from the prison, requesting them to leave the city” (16:38-39). The magistrates were likely aware of the Roman law that citizens who had not committed a crime could not be expelled from a Roman city. [72] Obviously, the magistrates were walking gingerly. They aimed to appease the missionaries. They could only request or beg them to leave the city. Paul was intent on leaving Philippi with his honor intact. Such a thing would not leave a blot on the church. Thus the strong church at Philippi began with this tremendous miracle. They would not be able to forget it but would likely pass it down to their children and children’s children. “After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and sisters and encouraged them. Then they left” (16:40). There must have been a great deal of joy and rejoicing at Lydia’s house that day. “Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: ‘The LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!’” (Ps. 118:15). Likely the jailer and his family and perhaps even the once possessed young girl were able to join in this great celebration. Then Paul and Silas went on their way. It seems that Luke stayed behind at Philippi to teach and encourage the church, for the “we sections” end for a season. He is possibly the “true yokefellow” Paul salutes in Philippians 4:3. [73] It seems that Timothy also stayed behind for a time. Paul had suffered greatly to birth this church and, perhaps for this reason, he was always closer to the Philippians than other of the churches. The church at Philippi was also close to Paul and often supported his work while other churches did not. 1. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 303. 2. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 16:1-3. Barclay adds: “In fact by accepting Timothy as a Jew, Paul showed just how emancipated he was from Jewish thought. Timothy was the son of a mixed marriage. The strict Jew would refuse to accept that as a marriage at all; in fact, if a Jewish girl married a Gentile boy or a Jewish boy married a Gentile girl, he would regard that Jewish boy or girl as dead. So much so, that sometimes a funeral was actually carried out. By accepting the child of such a marriage as a brother Jew, Paul showed how definitely he had broken down all national barriers.” (Barclay, vs. 16:1-5). 3. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 254. 4. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 366. 5. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 16:1-5. 6. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament v. 16:1. 7. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 16:2. 8. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 304. 9. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 16:3. 10. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 993. 11. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 16:4. 12. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 16:5. 13. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 255. 14. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., p. 469. 17. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 262. 18. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 16:7. 19. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, pp. 468-69. 20. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 261. 21. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, NewTestament, p. 470. 22. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 263. 23. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, v. 16:6. 24. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 16:9-10. 25. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 16:11-12. 26. Ibid., vs. 16:6-20. 27. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 367. Jeffers, (p. 37 adds): “Travel by sea was faster and cheaper than travel by land. A ship could travel about a hundred miles a day, while the imperial messenger service, using fresh horses at regular intervals, could manage only twenty-five to thirty miles a day. Ordinary travelers by land, like Paul and his associates, probably covered at best fifteen to twenty miles a day…” 28. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 309. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 262. 30. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, v. 16:11. 31. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 309. 32. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 16:12. 33. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 367. 34. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 16:11-40. 35. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 16:12-13. 36. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 310. 37. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 471. 38. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 16:14. Kretzmann adds: “Madder root, with which they dyed a Turkey-red, grows abundantly in the neighborhood. As the ancients employed the names of colors with great laxity, this was often termed purple.” (Kretzmann, vs. 16:14-15). 39. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 311. 40. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 41. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 16:15. 42. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 16:16. 43. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 369. 44. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 16:16-18. 45. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 94. 46. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 995. 47. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 265. 48. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 314. 49. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 16:20-21. 50. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 471. 51. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament v. 16:22. 52. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 16:22. 53. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 315. 54. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 16:23-24. 55. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 271. 56. Quoted in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 317. 57. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 16:25. 58. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 16:11-40. 59. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 16:26. 60. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 472. 61. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 16:29-30. 62. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 16:30. 63. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 16:30-32. 64. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 95. 65. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 16:29-34. 66. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 318. 67. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 16:34. 68. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 472. 69. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 16:35-36. 70. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 319. “A Roman citizen claimed his legal rights by the affirmation ciuis Romanus sum, “I am a Roman citizen.” It is uncertain if there was any documentary evidence which could be produced on the spot in confirmation of the claim. Paul was probably registered as a Roman citizen in the public record office at Tarsus, and a certified copy of the registration might be obtained…” (Bruce, p. 320). 71. Cited in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 268. 72. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 320. 73. Ibid., p. 321. When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. Acts 17:1 Paul and his companions made a rather lengthy journey of 100 miles (160 km.) from Philippi to Thessalonica. Even on the famous Via Egnatia highway this journey by foot would have taken them about three days. Roman roads were built to last. Although they were no more than 20 feet (6 m.) wide, still they were better and safer than European roads until the 1850s. [1] En route the travelers bypassed the cities of Amphipolis and Apollonia and arrived at Thessalonica. As we have mentioned, Paul seemed to have a knack of picking out key cities in his journeys. No doubt the Holy Spirit was directing him to these key cities (cf. 16:6-10). The city of Thessalonica was founded in 315 BC by Cassander of Macedon. Thessalonica (Thessaloniki today) has a population nearing 400,000, is the second largest city in Greece, and capital of Greek Macedonia as it was in the First Century. The city was not only on the Via Egnatia but at the head of the Thermaic Gulf of the Aegean Sea. It was thus a major center of business, rivaled only by Corinth. The Romans made Thessalonica a free city with its own elected assembly. “As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,’ he said” (17:2-3). We have noted Paul’s pattern of taking the gospel first of all to the Jewish people and then to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16; Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14). We are told here that his ministry to the Jews lasted only three weeks but we are not told how long Paul remained in the city. He no doubt continued to minister in the house of Jason and he was in the city long enough to receive two separate offerings from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4:15-16). [2] We know that he stayed long enough to establish his own tent-making business and support himself by it (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9). The essence of Paul’s preaching to the Jewish people was Jesus as the Messiah. Paul proved from scripture that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. Somehow these important facts had been missed by the ancient rabbis as they are still being missed by Israel today. The Servant Songs of Isaiah 42:1 through 53:12 vividly describe the Messiah’s suffering for Israel as well as his horrible death. Other passages such as Psalms 16, 22 and Zechariah 12 are also very descriptive of his suffering, death and resurrection. We might wonder today how Jewish people could miss the 333 Old Testament prophecies that were clearly fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. [3] “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women” (17:4). In the synagogues Paul was usually allowed to speak, and a number of Jewish people normally chose to cast their lot with him. However, it seems that the bulk of Paul’s converts came from the traditionally large group of Gentile God-fearers and proselytes. It appears that vast numbers of Gentiles were fed up with idolatry and its excesses. Many of these turned to the synagogues because of their higher moral standards. No doubt, this affected the women even more than the men. Also, it was much easier for women to join the synagogue than men, who would have to undergo circumcision. We have mentioned before that in Macedonia women enjoyed a great deal more freedom of choice than women elsewhere in the empire. [4] It is interesting that several prominent women joined with Paul as was the case in other cities. It is possible that Jason, Paul’s later host, was one of the Jewish converts. It is also likely that Aristarchus and Secundus, later identified as Thessalonians (20:4) were converted at this time. [5] These became fellow-travelers with Paul and in the case of Aristarchus, a fellow-prisoner (27:2; Col. 4:10). But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. Acts 17:5 It is a very sad testimony that the Jewish people not only resisted the ministry of Jesus to his death but they hounded the Lord’s apostles in many places where they preached across the empire. They also often resorted to underhanded means, as in recruiting no-good rabble-rousers and loafers from the marketplace to do their bidding. [6] The success of the gospel initially made the Jews jealous in a bad way. Fortunately, we are assured in scripture that the gospel will eventually make Jews jealous or envious in a good way (Rom. 10:19; 11:11). The mob looked for Paul and Silas but could not find them in Jason’s house. This Jason was probably a Hellenistic Jew and may have been kin to Paul (Rom. 16:21 NJB, ESV). He was obviously extending hospitality to Paul and the group and his house was also likely the meeting place of the new Christians. [7] Pett says: “Thessalonica was in fact infamous for being a city in which uproars easily occurred. Cicero tells how when he was sent to see the rulers of Thessalonica on official business the rulers were so unpopular with the masses that he had to sneak into the city at night in order to see them, and then, after some time, he had later to sneak out again and take refuge ‘in the out of the way town of Berea’ until the uproars had died down.” [8] “But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: ‘These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus’” (17:6-7). Bruce comments: “Jason and his friends were charged with harboring Jewish agitators, political messianists such as had stirred up unrest in other cities of the Roman Empire. Rome and Alexandria had recently experienced such trouble…” [9] The city officials represented here are called politarchs in the Greek text. Stott comments about this saying: “…Luke’s accuracy in calling the city magistrates ‘politarchs’ has been confirmed from a number of contemporary Macedonian inscriptions…a body of five politarchs ruled the city during the first century AD.” [10] It is highly possible that these magistrates already had a dim view of the Jews since Emperor Claudius had banished all the Jews from Rome in AD 49. It is interesting how the mob paid a back-handed compliment to the evangelists. They were accused of turning the world “upside-down” (ESV, NJB, NKJ). Guzik notes, “But when you yourself are upside-down, the other direction appears to be upside-down!” [11] The charge that was quickly brought against the evangelists and others was that they were defying Caesar in proclaiming Jesus as king. A similar charge of sedition also had been lodged against Jesus himself at his trial in Jerusalem. As the Roman rulers had begun to consider themselves as divine, such a charge carried more and more weight. This might help us explain why Paul in his preaching to Gentiles had often used “Lord Jesus” rather than “King Jesus.” [12] Also, in Acts as well as in Paul’s epistles, the subject of the “kingdom of God” is not often mentioned. [13] “When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil” (17:8). Satan loves a fuss, and as Trapp says, “The devil loves to fish in troubled waters.” [14] The magistrates were under extreme pressure to do something to calm the mob. At all costs the Pax Romana (Roman peace) had to be upheld. “In general, Roman officials did not care what the people believed. Yet when the public order was disrupted by riots, they came down with an iron hand.” [15] Jeffers adds: “The Romans at first considered Christianity a sect of Judaism, and so ignored it. But by the 60s AD, Rome began to recognize the difference.” [16] “Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go” (17:9). This was an ingenious plan that would cause Paul and the others much grief. Coffman remarks of this situation: “They were probably compelled to put up large sums of money, perhaps their homes and businesses, as a guarantee of no further disturbances, which, of necessity, would have meant that Paul could not remain in the city…” [17] No doubt it was this situation that the apostle referred to in writing to the Thessalonians later: “For we wanted to come to you— certainly I, Paul, did, again and again— but Satan blocked our way” (1 Thess. 2:18). Paul and his team would have to leave the city quietly and quickly because of this ruling. Indeed, if Jason was really a relative of Paul it would have made the situation doubly grievous. [18] Should Paul return to the city during the life of this ruling, Jason and the church could suffer great financial damage. As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Acts 17:10 Because of the turmoil and danger, the believers whisked Paul and Silas away from Thessalonica at night and they made their way to Berea (modern Verria). This was a distance of some 44 miles (71 km.), requiring a departure from the Via Egnatia toward the southwest. They were heeding the Master’s advice in Matthew 10:34, that when they were persecuted in one city they were to flee to another. Despite their troubles, it is interesting that they went directly to the Jewish synagogue in the city. “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (17:11). We are told here that the Bereans were more noble in character than the Thessalonians. The word noble is the Greek eugenesteroi, and it means to be more noble by birth, or that these were descended from ancestors who were more illustrious than those in Thessalonica. [19] These people did not just come to hear Paul on the Sabbath but they discussed his doctrine every day and diligently compared his teaching with scripture. How different history would have been had the Jews in Jerusalem done such a thing. Today many Christian churches and denominations call themselves “Bereans.” Unfortunately, this does not always insure that they possess the noble character of the original Bereans. A great characteristic of true religion is that it can bear examination. [20] To raise any question about some religions today, especially Islam, can often bring forth the death sentence. “As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men” (17:12). Once again here we realize that much of Paul’s success was with the Gentile God-fearers who had attached themselves to the synagogues. One man who became a believer was Sopater, son of Pyrrhus. We hear of him again in 20:4 and in Romans 16:21. Once more, prominent Greek women were attracted to Christianity. “But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up” (17:13). It seems that the Jews must have sent delegations to nearby cities searching for Paul and Silas and trying to negate their influence. Jewish people from the synagogues were immediately dispatched in order to make trouble for the apostles. We remember how such things happened at Pisidian Antioch (13:45-50; Iconium (14:2, 5) and Lystra (14:19). “The believers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea” (17:14). The Berean brothers apparently felt Paul’s life was in immediate danger. Before the persecution could become full-blown it was decided that Paul should leave the area and get some distance between himself and his persecutors. For his protection, several believers accompanied Paul to the coast while Silas and Timothy remained in Berea. “Those who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible” (17:15). A number of commentators feel that escorting Paul to the coast was a ruse to throw the persecutors off-track. [21] We cannot know for sure about this but we can be sure that Paul’s protectors traveled with him all the way to Athens. The journey by land was 314 miles (506 km.). Paul did not desire to minister alone so he requested that Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible. It is very difficult to trace where Silas and Timothy journeyed after Berea. Apparently, they did join Paul in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1-2) only to be immediately dispatched to other ministry posts. Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:2) and Silas to elsewhere in Macedonia (18:5; 1 Thess. 3:6). [22] While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. Acts 17:16 Athens is one of the world’s oldest cities and is known today as the birthplace of democracy and the cradle of western civilization. The city was famous in very early times for its philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It was also famous for its buildings such as the Parthenon. Athens was well situated with access to the Saronic Gulf, through its seaport of Piraeus. Although the city by Paul’s day had declined a great deal it was still considered as a city of learning and arts. By this time Athens was no longer large but had a population only of some 10,000. [23] It seems that Paul was not at all taken in by the glories of Athens, but he was rather shocked, amazed and distressed to see that this important city was filled with idols. A contemporary writer in Nero’s court by the name of Petronius, once remarked satirically that it was easier to find a god in Athens than to find a man. [24] “So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there” (17:17). Paul no doubt reasoned in the synagogue first of all as was his custom. However, he did not confine himself to the synagogue but ministered in the marketplace as well. Paul was willing to become all things to all people that he may win some to the gospel (1 Cor. 9:22). A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:18 Paul attracted the attention of two groups of philosophers, the Epicureans and the Stoics. The Epicureans were followers of Epicurus, who founded the group in 307 BC. The Epicureans tried to avoid all extremes and keep things in balance. It seems they were focused on pleasure as their goal as well as the avoidance of pain. They felt the world was due to chance, that there was no survival after death and no judgment. They acknowledged god, but only in a pantheistic manner as some kind of world soul. [25] The Stoics were founded as early as the 3rd century BC by Zeno. The Stoics were determinists but were intent on improving a person’s moral and ethical wellbeing. They believed that each person had a divine spark within and at death that would return to God. They believed that all that happened was the will of God and must be accepted without resentment. They too were pantheists, believing that all was god. They felt that the world often disintegrated in a conflagration and afterward started anew. [26] They did reject idolatry since they felt that there was one “world God.” They felt that they did not need the help of God. It is of interest that the first two leaders of this school committed suicide. The motto of the Epicureans was “enjoy life” while the motto of the Stoics was “endure life.” [27] Some of the Stoics and Epicureans chided Paul asking, “What is this babbler trying to say?” The word “babbler” translates spermologos, which has been explained as “word picker.” This is a picture of little scavenging birds picking up scraps or seeds of knowledge here and there. Perhaps even plagiarism is implied here. [28] The philosophers accused Paul of introducing foreign gods, but it was the philosophers and Athens itself that were already filled with foreign deities. We might note that Paul was not trying to remove the idols of Athens. “Paul was not concerned with removing the idolatrous art from the city, but with removing the worship of idols from men’s hearts…” [29] Through all their wisdom they did not know God (1 Cor. 1:21). “Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, ‘May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?’” (17:19). Areopagus was an ancient term describing the Hill of Ares (god of war and thunder). In Roman times it was not a place but the city’s chief judicial body, exercising control of religion and education. [30] Instead of meeting on the Hill of Ares it met in the agora or the marketplace. “‘You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.’ (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)” (17:20-21). Clarke describes the city of Athens saying, “It became a place of public resort for philosophers and students from different parts of the then civilized world.” [31] The Athenian historian Thucydides (460 – c. 400 BC) chided the city saying, “You excel in suffering yourselves to be deceived with novelty of speech.” [32] Of course, Paul knew the truth about this so-called “wisdom.” He says in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness;’ and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’” Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.” Acts 17:22 The apostle had previously preached to pagans at Lystra (14:8-20). At Athens he was about to preach to highly cultured pagans. It is interesting how Paul quickly finds a common ground by bringing up the subject of idolatry, which was obviously dear to their hearts. Godbey says of the city, that Athens was, “…the world’s grand emporium of science, literature, philosophy, and idolatry.” [33] We should be aware that Luke is not giving us the whole speech, but rather a short synopsis or extract from the speech. [34] It would help us in looking at his sermon outline to realize that he is dealing with various subjects. He deals with the greatness of God as Creator (v. 24); the goodness of God as Provider (v. 25); the government of God as Ruler (vv. 26-29) and the grace of God as Savior (vv. 30-34). [35] He concludes by dealing with the justice of God, as Judge of the universe (v. 31). “For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship— and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (17:23). Paul found an inscription to “an unknown God” in Athens. In later centuries several other explorers have commented on finding other such inscriptions. The Athenians were taking no chances on missing some important God. It seems that there is a word play in the Greek between the words “unknown” (agnōetō) and “ignorance” (agnoountes). Today we get our word “agnostic” from this last Greek word. [36] How interesting it is that the Greek philosophers acknowledge here that they are ignorant of the true God, so Paul is simply giving evidence of their ignorance. [37] In a very strange occurrence, some six hundred years before Paul, the city had experienced a terrible plague. It so happened that a man named Epimenides had found a solution. In the early morning he turned loose a flock of hungry sheep in the town. When certain of the sheep began to lie down, rather than eat, the people sacrificed those sheep to the Unknown God. Stone masons were on hand to build an altar to this God. As this was done the terrible plague was stayed. [38] So, in centuries past it was this Unknown God who had delivered Athens. Now, it is Paul who makes a full revelation of this God. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands” (17:24). Indeed, it was difficult even for Israel to understand this spiritual principle. King Solomon had spoken of it when he dedicated the temple (2 Chron. 6:18). Also, Stephen (Acts 7:48) had charged Israel with this truth. Even the Stoic philosopher Zeno stressed that God could not live in man-made temples, and Plutarch had upbraided the people over the same matter. [39] Paul was probably amazed that such a collection of wise men would think of the Eternal God as one who could fit into a mere building. He was no doubt further amazed that they could compare the Creator God with images of stone, gold and silver. [40] “And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else” (17:25). Really, what can we give to God since he is the owner of all things (Psa. 24:1-2; 50:9-10)? How can we minister to God, since even our very breath is a gift from him? Since God is the giver of all things, how could he be dependent on the gifts of created human beings (1 Chron. 29:14)? “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands” (17:26). Here we learn some great and important biblical truths. God made all nations throughout the whole earth. He has set the times of their history and has established the boundaries of their lands. National boundaries are a sacred thing and should not be abused or compromised. God made individual nations and not a conglomeration of nations. We now see how efforts at this, such as the European Union are unravelling. There is a certain protection in having individual nations. Political diseases spread much more slowly. All nations and peoples of the earth are derived from one person. Clarke says, “The Athenians had a foolish notion that they were self-produced, and were the aboriginals of mankind…” [41] Whether the text here reads one race or one blood, Coffman says, “…and the proof of this is evidenced by many things, one of these being the ability of a man of any race to provide a blood transfusion for a man of any other race.” [42] “God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us” (17:27). The idea of seeking God was so much a part of the vocabulary of the Old Testament. The Bible says, “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near” (Isa. 55:6). “…If you seek him, he will be found by you…” (1 Chr. 28:9; cf. Prov. 8:17; Jer. 29:13). God is a God nearby and now one far away, as some philosophers have thought (Jer. 23:23). The idea of heathen reaching out for God or groping for him is seen in the Greek word, psēlaphēseian. It pictures blind groping of darkened heathen minds. [43] Seeking God was a possibility, but much more difficult than seeking God after Christ came to earth to clearly reveal him. Through Christ, God is now fully known to those who seek (Jn. 1:18). “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’” (17:28). Paul was no ignoramus regarding the culture of his day. He had grown up in Tarsus, which had an outstanding philosophical academy that rivaled Athens and Alexandria. No doubt he took time to listen to some of these discussions. Also, his instructor in Israel was the noted rabbi Gamaliel. He tried to prepare his students to return to their Greek-speaking constituents well-prepared to lead. To accomplish this he taught them some philosophy. [44] Thus it should not surprise us that Paul quotes from certain of the philosophers. The first quote in this verse is from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 BC). The second quote, “We are his offspring,” comes from the Cilician poet Aratus (c. 315-240 BC). Although Paul quotes from pagan philosophers and poets, his address continues to be thoroughly biblical. [45] Origen says of this: “He came to Athens, he found philosophers, and he did not use the words of the prophets or from the law…In this place, he was as one outside the law to those outside the law, in order to gain the lawless.” [46] Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone— an image made by human design and skill” (17:29). Paul devastates their idolatry by pointing out that humans have more intelligence than dumb idols. The idols cannot represent humans, much less an all-knowing Creator God. Barnes notes: “The argument of the apostle is this: ‘Since we are formed by God; since we are like him, living and intelligent beings; since we are more excellent in our nature than the most precious and ingenious works of art, it is absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence can be like gold, and silver, and stone.’” [47] Utley sighs, “The tragedy of fallen humanity is that they seek spiritual truth and fellowship from manmade things that cannot hear, answer, or help!” [48] “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (17:30). He has said previously, “In the past, he let all nations go their own way” (14:16). He says a similar thing regarding Israel in Romans 3:25. Pett says, “…But that this does not mean that men of the past will not be judged comes out in Romans 2, for there he tells us that all will be judged according to how they responded to their conscience (Rom. 2:12-16).” [49] God now commands all people to repent (cf. Matt. 3:1; 4:17; Mk. 6:12). The Greek is the common metanoeō as we see in Acts 2:38 and in many other places. This was the message of John the Baptist, of Jesus and his apostles. It speaks of a radical change in one’s attitude and life. [50] It speaks of a drastic turn-around in a person’s life, a turning from sin and a turning to God. It is the power of God that helps bring about such a turn-around in the one who trusts in him. Clearly, repentance is the prelude to faith and salvation. No doubt the Greek philosophers picked up on the statement that they were living in a time of ignorance. Bock says, “…This expression argues that Greek ideas on theology were not formed according to knowledge…” [51] The Greeks felt that they were the wise people of the whole world and that all others were barbarians. They were no doubt shocked at this statement. “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (17:31). There are many scriptures that deal with judgment (cf. Psa. 9:8; 50:6; 96:13; Isa. 11:4; 51:5; Luke 17:24-30; 21:34-36; 1 Thess. 1:9-10). Clearly, it is Jesus who will judge the nations (Jn. 5:25-26; Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1). The resurrection of Jesus was the cornerstone of apostolic preaching. The resurrection authenticated the life and death of Jesus. It was proof positive concerning the gospel and was a sure and certain sign that Jesus would return and judge the world. When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” Acts 17:32 The Greek people were quite fond of the idea of immortality of the soul. That idea has crept over into Christianity. However, the Bible says that God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). All the immortality we will ever possess will be granted to us by the Lord himself. The Greeks felt that they would continue to live in the purely spiritual form and that did not include the body or the flesh. “To a Greek, the body was only a prison, and the sooner a person left his body, the happier he would be…They believed in immortality, but not in resurrection.” [52] Some of that idea has also filtered into Christianity as we have said. We often tend to think of a purely spiritual and static heaven in the hereafter. Some of the learned gentlemen actually sneered at Paul. We see this word only here in the New Testament. However, its root is used in the Septuagint and has the meaning of “derision” or “mockery.” [53] At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others” (17:33-34). Barclay says, “It would seem on the whole that Paul had less success in Athens than anywhere else. It was typical of the Athenians that all they wanted was to talk. They did not want action; they did not even particularly want conclusions. They wanted simply mental acrobatics and the stimulus of a mental hike…” [54] This passage does not speak of baptisms. We do not hear about a First Century church in Athens, and Paul writes no letter to the Athenians. Interestingly, although Athens was in the province of Achaia, Paul later describes the firstfruits of Achaia as being a family from Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15). [55] Barnes says, “Seeing there was little hope of saving them. It was not his custom to labor long in a barren field, or to preach where there was no prospect of success.” [56] The scripture does say, “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor. 1:26-27). When Paul wrote this he was no doubt thinking about his experience in Athens. However, Athens was not entirely fruitless. There were Dionysius the Areopagite, a member of the esteemed council and a woman named Damaris. Since women were socially restricted in Athens it is possible that Damaris was not a respectable woman, since she appeared by herself in the market square. [57] There were a few others who were unknowns, but their names are now written down in glory. 1. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 371. 2. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 375. 3. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 17:3. Stedman adds: “…Some of the Jewish rabbis had actually come up with the idea that there were two Messiahs. One they called Messhiach ben David, i.e., Messiah the son of David. This was the glorious, triumphant king. Another they called Messhiach ben Joseph, from one Old Testament passage which some rabbis interpreted as teaching that a Messiah would be the son of Joseph, and that he would be the suffering One.” (Stedman, v. 17:3). 4. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 17:1-4. “The prominence assigned to women in Macedonia is altogether in accord with the best historical accounts.” 5. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 474. 6. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 17:5. “The forum, or market-place, was the place where the idle assembled, and where those were gathered together that wished to be employed, Matthew 20:3. Many of these would be of abandoned character, the idle, the dissipated, and the worthless, and, therefore, just the materials for a mob.” 7. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 17:5-8. 8. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 17:5. 9. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 324. 10. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 272. 11. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 17:5-8. 12. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 17:7. 13. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1156. 14. Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, v. 17:5. 15. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 17:9-10. 16. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, p. 107. 17. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 17:8. 18. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 376. 19. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 17:11. 20. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 275. 21. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 328. “There is, however another reading of the text…which implies that they made as though they were taking him to the coast, but actually, having thus thrown possible pursuers off the track, escorted him southward by road as far as Athens. One way or the other, he arrived at Athens…” 22. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 23. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 17:16. 24. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 17:26-27. 25. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 280. 26. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 17:16-21. 27. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 377. Barker and Kohlenberger add: “Epicureanism and Stoicism represented the popular Gentile alternatives for dealing with the plight of humanity and for coming to terms with life apart from the biblical revelation…” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 476). 28. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 282. 29. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 17:16. 30. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 31. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, vs. 17:20-21. 32. Quoted in Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 17:21. 33. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, v. 17:2. 34. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 289. 35. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 378. 36. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 17:23. 37. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 287. 38. Don Richardson, Eternity in their Hearts, Revised edition (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1981,1984), pp. 12-18. 39. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 17:24-25. 40. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 17:24-29. 41. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 17:26. 42. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 17:26. Wikipedia adds: “In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original “Mitochondrial Eve. “Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living person in the present day.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve 43. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 17:27. 44. Alice C. Linsley, Saint Paul’s Application of Greek Philosophy, December 23, 2014, 45. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 46. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 220. 47. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 17:29. 48. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 17:29. 49. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 17:30. 50. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New 51. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 99. 52. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 378. 53. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 17:32. 54. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 17:32-34. 55. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 344. 56. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 17:33. 57. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 17:32-34. After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. Acts 18:1 Stedman points out how these two cities, Athens and Corinth, represent two great evils in the world, which were present in Paul’s day and also present today. They represent intellectual pride and sensual lust. [1] There was probably no city in the ancient world that had a reputation quite as bad as Corinth. At one point in her history, the Temple of Aphrodite (Venus), the goddess of love, had a thousand “holy” prostitutes attached to it. Corinth was so bad that Corinthians were usually represented as drunks in the community plays. The common verb form “to corinthianize” meant to be sexually immoral. [2] It is not difficult to understand why Paul had so much trouble keeping the Corinthian church pure, sexually speaking (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Despite her poor reputation morally, Corinth was a very significant city. It was the capital of the Roman province of Achaia. It was probably one of the two most important Gentile cities that Paul ever visited, Corinth and Ephesus. The city was located on a narrow isthmus between the Saronic Gulf, with its nearby eastern port of Cenchrea, and the Corinthian Gulf with its nearby western port of Lechaeum. The city controlled east and west traffic on the sea as well as north and south traffic on the land. Ancient mariners were fearful to sail around Cape Malea. There was a proverb which said, “Let him who thinks of sailing round Malea make his will.” [3] Therefore small ships and cargoes were drug across the three mile isthmus at Corinth. Today the modern city boasts of a canal across the isthmus. The city of Corinth, which was a little less than 50 miles (80 km.) west of Athens, was founded in very ancient times but was totally destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC. Later, in 44 BC it was rebuilt by Julius Caesar as a Roman colony, and soon made the provincial capital. The city became famous for its Isthmian Games, an event held every two years. It was a prosperous city, one of the wealthiest in Greece, and as a result many Jewish people were attracted to it. “There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them” (18:2-3). Paul came to Corinth alone and in much discouragement (1 Cor. 2:1-3). No doubt he was greatly cheered to meet the Jew Aquila and his wife, Priscilla. Aquila was originally from Pontus in the Black Sea area, but more recently from Rome. In AD 49, Emperor Claudius had ordered the Jews out of Rome. According to history, the Jews of Rome had become greatly disturbed over one Chrestus. This seems to have been a corruption of the word for Christ. [4] We can thus believe that the gospel was already causing some division among Jews in the capital. Paul was no doubt delighted to find out that Aquila and his wife were also tentmakers. In the Jewish world it was required of parents to teach their children a trade. Even the rabbis had a secular trade along with their religious work. It was the rabbi Gamaliel who said, “Excellent is study of the Law together with worldly occupation, for toil in them both puts sin out of mind” (Mishnah, Abot 2:2). The famous Hillel said, “He that makes worldly use of the crown [of the Torah] shall perish. Thus thou mayest learn that he that makes profit out of the words of the Law removes his life from the world” (Abot 4:5). In the Middle Ages many Jewish rabbis were physicians on the side. The great Mamonides became court physician to the Sultan Saladin. We might point out that while manual labor was held in high regard by the Jewish people it was looked down upon by the Greeks, so Paul’s tent making may not have overly impressed them. [5] The Greek word for tent makers is skenopoios. Other commentators feel that the word can also apply to leather workers. Some think that Paul was working with a coarse fabric made from Cilician goats, called cilicium. Cilicia of course was Paul’s native area. [6] We do not know whether Paul was working with or working for Aquila and Priscilla. In those days the trade guilds were often supporters of some pagan idol so it would have been difficult for Paul to join with them. [7] Several commentators have noted how Priscilla or Prisca is often named before her husband (18:18-19, 26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19). Some are certain that this indicates she was more important or from a higher social class than Aquila. [8] Certain commentators have felt that Paul won the two to the Lord but there is really no proof of this. We can say without question that Priscilla and Aquila were some of the most outstanding Christians in the New Testament. It seems that everywhere they lived, in Corinth, Ephesus or Rome, they hosted a church in their home. They certainly became dear friends of Paul and on one occasion they may have risked their lives for him (Rom. 16:3-4). It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote, “God evidently does not intend us all to be rich or powerful or great, but he does intend us all to be friends.” [9] “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (18:4). It was always Paul’s modus operandi to present the gospel first to the Jews and then later to the Gentiles. His presentation in the synagogue was usually quite limited before trouble and opposition broke out. Fortunately, he was now far enough from Macedonia that his persistent persecutors there could not follow him. Interestingly, an inscription from Corinth now has been found that reads “Synagogue of the Hebrews.” It is a First Century inscription and may well have been from this very synagogue. [10] When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Acts 18:5 While in Athens, Paul had welcomed their arrival, and then quickly dispatched Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 3:1-2). Both were apparently sent on missions back to Macedonia to strengthen the new churches there. When they finally caught up with Paul at Corinth, they brought good news. Much of Paul’s discouragement and difficulty was apparently over his concern for the new churches that he was forced to abruptly leave on their own. When Silas and Timothy arrived they brought good news about these churches (cf. 1 Thess. 3:6) and they also brought what must have been a generous offering from the church at Philippi (cf. 2 Cor. 11:9; Phil. 4:14-15). Apparently the offering from Philippi was large enough that Paul could suspend his tent making business and devote himself totally to the work of the Lord. It was probably at this point that he wrote the book of First Thessalonians, one of his earliest epistles. [11] It is interesting that this is the last time his helper Silas is mentioned by name in Acts. “But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles’” (18:6). Here we see the same predictable pattern with the Jews (cf. 13:46; 26:20; 28:28). For a week or two they are interested in Paul’s message and then they begin to resist the message and even become abusive and disrespectful about it. In most cases, it is then the God-fearing Gentiles around the synagogue who accept the message and form the basis of the new church. The shaking out of one’s clothes or the shaking of dust from one’s feet were ancient biblical symbols. Once the prophet Nehemiah shook out the folds of his robe as a sign that God would shake out the disobedient (Neh. 5:13). Jesus told his own disciples to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against any city that did not receive them (Matt. 10:14). Paul shook out his clothes and proclaimed himself innocent of their blood. We might wonder why Paul had so much trouble with his own people not receiving his message from God. The American poet James Russell Lowell perhaps sums this problem up best with his poem: Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown Standeth God amid the shadows, keeping watch above his own. [12] “Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God” (18:7). When Paul was persecuted he set up shop next door and continued to teach. The Bible promises in 2 Timothy 3:12 that, “…everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” His new location was the house of Titius Justus, a Gentile God-fearer. Several commentators have noted that the names Titius and Justus appear to be the Roman nomen and cognomen suggesting that he was a Roman citizen. Bruce feels that his Roman praenomen was Gaius. He was the host of the church there. [13] We see Gaius mentioned in Romans 16:23 and in 1 Corinthians 1:14. The meeting in homes would not be unusual since the church for its first three centuries met this way. [14] “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized” (18:8). Clarke in describing the synagogue leader says: “It belonged to the chief or ruler of the synagogue to preside in all the assemblies, interpret the law, decide concerning things lawful and unlawful, punish the refractory, excommunicate the rebellious, solemnize marriages, and issue divorces.” [15] It must have been a severe blow to the Jews for the ruler of the synagogue to become a Christian. We note once again that his whole household was involved (cf. 10:24, 44; 16:15, 34). This always sounds strange to our western societies where there is such a great emphasis placed on the individual and not necessarily the family or group. In the ancient Middle East the emphasis was upon the family and the clan. Again, we see a great influx of Gentile God-fearers into the church. Once more we notice the importance of baptism in the early church. Believers were baptized immediately. It was almost a first step of discipleship. We observe elsewhere that Paul baptized Crispus himself (1 Cor. 1:14). Paul did not usually do the baptism as he mentions in 1 Corinthians 1:17. His primary focus was on preaching the word. “One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: ‘Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city’” (18:9-10). God had told many of his saints in the past not to fear: Abraham (Gen. 15:1); Isaac (Gen. 26:24); Jacob (Gen. 46:3); Daniel (Dan. 10:12); Mary (Lk. 1:30) and Peter (Lk. 5:10). Paul was involved in one of the greatest works in all Christian history— in bringing the gospel to the whole western world. By his own admission in 1 Corinthians 2:3, he was weak and trembling with fear. As we have mentioned, some of this uneasiness concerned the new churches he had started but had to flee before they were properly founded. He may have also felt some intimidation from being with the philosophers in Athens or even by the intellectual arrogance of some of the Corinthians themselves. God had many people in Corinth. We note how this statement implies divine election (cf. 2 Tim. 2:19). It is a truth seen throughout the New Testament but it is a truth not so easy to understand. Stott says, “Scripture nowhere dispels the mystery of election…It is not likely that we shall discover a simple solution to a problem which has baffled the best brains of Christendom for centuries…” [16] “So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God” (18:11). The apostle’s next five years would not be so much in travel but in consolidating the work at the important cities of Corinth and Ephesus. [17] Barnes says of the initial work at Corinth that it “was caused by his success, and by the necessity of placing a church collected out of such corrupt and dissolute materials, on a firm foundation.” [18] While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. Acts 18:12 The mention of Gallio here has been a great help in dating Paul’s journeys. In the early 20th Century an inscription was discovered at Delphi written by Emperor Claudius (c. 52 AD). The inscription mentions Gallio as proconsul at this time. It is thought by a number of commentators that Gallio began his term of service in the summer of AD 51. Paul would have been at Corinth eight or nine months before the coming of Gallio. [19] This man, who was an adopted son of the Roman rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, was popular, amiable, and noted for his integrity. [20] Unfortunately, his term as proconsul was cut short due to illness. Here we can marvel at the accuracy of Luke as a historian. Utley says of this: “The names of Roman officials in this area had changed since AD 44; ‘proconsul’ (cf. Acts 13:7; 19:38) was correct because Emperor Claudius gave this province to the Senate.” [21] It seems that with the advent of a new proconsul the Jews decided to try him out by bringing charges against Paul. This would prove to be a serious mistake. We are told that they brought Paul to the place of judgment. The Greek word for this place of judgment is bema, and it means a raised platform that stood in the agora or market place. [22] “This man, ‘they charged,’ is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law” (18:13). Up to this point, Christianity had enjoyed a measure of political protection by being seen as a sect of Judaism, which was a religio lecita or legal religion in the empire. Had Gallio ruled as the Jews wished, then Christianity would have become a religio illicitia or an illegal religion in the empire. [23] It was a very serious and anxious moment for the young church. Paul prepared to answer this important charge. “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law— settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.’ So he drove them off” (18:14-16). Barker and Kohlenberger say of this: “…Gallio’s refusal to act in the matter was tantamount to the recognition of Christianity as a religio licita; and the decision of so eminent a Roman proconsul would carry weight wherever the issue arose again. Later, in the sixties, Rome’s policy toward both Judaism and Christianity changed. But for the coming decade, the Christian message could be proclaimed in the provinces of the empire without fear of coming into conflict with Roman law.” [24] Gallio promptly drove them from his presence. Keener says, “That Gallio ‘drove them away’ (NASB), perhaps with the force of his lictors’ (attendants’) rods, betrays more than a tinge of Roman impatience for Jewish religious disputes. Many upper-class Romans viewed Jews as uncultured troublemakers…” [25] “Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever” (18:17). “Law courts (especially if held at the forum, or agora) were typically loud and crowded, and tempers flared.” [26] Several of the popular translations, along with the NIV, today speak of the crowd or the Greeks beating Sosthenes (ESV, NET, NKJ, NLT). That is probably what happened, since there was always a layer of anti-Semitism just under the surface in the Greco-Roman world. [27] However, a few have felt that it was the Jews who turned on Sosthenes their leader and beat him. If this was the case they may have beaten him for his poor performance in presenting their case. It is even possible that Sosthenes like Crispus before him was leaning towards Christianity and if so this may have infuriated the Jews. [28] It is interesting that Paul later speaks of Sosthenes as his co-author in 1 Corinthians 1:1. Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. Acts 18:18 Paul may have stayed longer after the decision of Gallio. However, Luke says plainly that he stayed a total of a year and a half (v. 11). There seems to be an urgency in this journey and it may have been related to a vow he had taken. The ultimate goal of his journey was Syria, to report in at the sponsoring church at Antioch. No doubt a part of his goal was to reach Jerusalem and properly terminate his vow there. We note that Paul brought along his dear friends Priscilla and Aquila. They would accompany him as far as Ephesus. We see here that Paul departed through Corinth’s eastern port of Cenchrea. His departure probably came in the spring of the year AD 52 and he was no doubt intent upon reaching Jerusalem for the Passover season. [29] Over the centuries scholars have gone into a writing frenzy concerning the vow that was taken by Paul at this point. From what we can tell, it was a Nazarite Vow (cf. Nu. 6:1-21). Such a vow involved abstinence from wine and from cutting one’s hair. When the vow ended, the hair was cut and later burned along with certain sacrifices. In cases where the vow was completed away from Jerusalem, the hair could be brought and burned there. [30] We cannot determine why Paul took such a vow. Barclay tells us that sometimes it was an expression of thanksgiving for some blessing. [31] Paul certainly had received some great blessings, in hearing good news about the newly established churches and in having a favorable ruling from Gallio. We know from his teaching that Paul did not depend upon such practices of the law for his salvation (Gal. 4:1-11). However, he was a Jew and he desired to do all he could to relate to the Jews so that some might believe (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Stedman quips about the ancient vow and the current situation in the Christian world saying, “…Many people have taken a vow not to cut their hair these days.” [32] “They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews” (18:19). There is evidence to believe that Ephesus had long been the goal of Paul. It was Asia’s largest city. No doubt, he and his team were trying to go to Ephesus when this Second Missionary Journey began. For some reason the Spirit prohibited his going at that time (16:6). We note that Priscilla and Aquila remained in Ephesus. There they would also eventually begin a home church (2 Tim. 4:19). They would also be a great help to Paul in his later persecution (Rom. 16:3-4). Sometime after the death of Emperor Claudius they returned to their original home at Rome. Of course, even there they had a church meeting in their house (Rom. 16:3-5). “When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. But as he left, he promised, ‘I will come back if it is God’s will.’ Then he set sail from Ephesus” (18:20-21). We can see how a spiritual door was opened for Paul at Ephesus. Rather than running him off, the Jews of Ephesus desired that he stay with them. Unfortunately, Paul was under some internal pressure to move on to Jerusalem and Antioch of Syria. “When he landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch” (18:22). Obviously, Dr. Luke has compressed this extended trip so that he could move on to other important things. Paul landed at the new Herodian port of Caesarea, likely because he was determined to go up to Jerusalem to make the sacrifice required for his vow. We might mention that in the warmer months a north-easterly wind often blew making it easier to reach Caesarea than Seleucia, the port of Syrian Antioch. [33] Paul probably gave a full report of his missionary journey to the elders at Jerusalem and then he went down to Antioch, no doubt to make another report to his sponsoring church. With that, the Second Missionary Journey was drawn to an end and Paul no doubt spent some refreshing rest time with the dear church at Antioch. After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples. Acts 18:23 The apostle soon left Antioch, passed through the Cilician Gates and made his way by land once again to visit the churches of Galatia, which he established on the First Missionary Journey. We cannot miss the fact that Paul used every opportunity to visit his churches and further establish them in the faith. When he could not visit them, he at least sent messengers and/or epistles to them, encouraging them in the Lord. We have observed how Paul did not travel alone. It is likely on this journey that the apostle had with him Timothy, Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus and possibly Titus (19:22, 29; 2 Cor. 1:1). [34] Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. Acts 18:24-25 Apollos is surely one of the outstanding ministers presented in the New Testament. He was from Alexandria in Egypt. He possessed much learning and was an expert in the Old Testament. However, he was deficient, in that he was essentially a follower of John the Baptist. We must say that John had a widespread and lasting impact on many people in the First Century. In the next chapter we will meet a dozen men in one group who were also followers of John. Apparently, Apollos had a good understanding of who Jesus was despite the fact that he only had John’s baptism. We note that Apollos had hailed from Alexandria. This was a very important city in ancient times. It had a large Jewish population and quickly became a center for the Christian church. Partly because of the Jewish scholar Philo, Alexandria became a center for the allegorical interpretation of scripture. Also, some two hundred years before Christ the Old Testament was translated into Greek there and became known as the Septuagint. [35] We see that Apollos spoke with great fervor. The Greek word fervor (zeōn) is the word for boil or seethe. [36] Apollos was obviously a powerful speaker. Since he had been educated in the great philosophical center of Alexandria, he no doubt was skilled in the practical Greek art of rhetoric. [37] Apollos was to become a great blessing for the churches, once he came to a full understanding of Christianity. He “watered” what Paul had planted at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:6). We see that he became successful in many ways (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:5-6; 4:6; Tit. 3:13). He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. It is clear that the early church was originally known as “The Way.” We note this designation in 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; and in 24:14, 22. “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” (18:26). Obviously, Apollos was boldly and powerfully disputing with the Jews in the synagogue at Ephesus. Paul’s wonderful friends and associates, Priscilla and Aquila quickly discerned that there was something missing in the message of Apollos. He knew about Jesus but he was missing the baptism of Jesus, as well as the wonderful fact of Jesus’ resurrection, the filling and power of the Holy Spirit. This is a very touching story. This mighty teacher of scriptures was invited to the home of Priscilla and Aquila. Although they knew his message was deficient they did not try to correct him in public and thus embarrass him. Rather, they invited him to their home and meekly explained to him the Christian faith more fully. It is amazing that this powerful and superbly gifted teacher of the word could sit at the feet of a Christian woman and receive instruction from her and her husband. Clarke says of it: “This eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, who was even a public teacher, was not ashamed to be indebted to the instructions of a Christian woman, in matters that not only concerned his own salvation, but also the work of the ministry, in which he was engaged.” [38] No doubt, on this very occasion Aquila had the privilege of baptizing Apollos with the baptism of Jesus and seeing him receive the Holy Spirit of God. “When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed” (18:27). No doubt Priscilla and Aquila were a part of the group that sent the letter to Corinth. They had lived there not only as tent makers but as leaders, and their recommendation would carry a lot of weight. Apollos journeyed there and apparently had quite a successful ministry. He might have been especially liked because of his education and skills at rhetoric. Some even began to idolize him as we see in 1 Corinthians 1:12. It seems that Apollos would have no part in such things. “For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah” (18:28). He did at Corinth what he had probably done at Ephesus. He had highly confounded the Jews, proving beyond a doubt that Jesus was indeed their Messiah. 1. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 18:1-22. 2. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 479. 3. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 18:1-11. 4. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 296. Francis Martin adds: “Modern commentators locate the probable date of Claudius’s edict at AD 49; it would thus have lapsed some five years later at his death.” (Martin, p. 223). Barker and Kohlenberger also add: “…the Edict of Claudius, an expulsion order proclaimed during the ninth year of Emperor Claudius’s reign (i.e. January 25, AD 49 to January 24, 50)…to put down the riots arising within the Jewish community there ‘at the instigation of Chrestus’ (according to Roman historian Seutonius). Many take this to be a reference to Christ (Gk. Christos)…” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 479). 5. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 375. 6. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 296-97. 7. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 375. “In the ancient economy, people of the same trade did not compete with one another as they do today. They usually lived together in the same part of town and formed trade guilds…This cultic orientation of trade guilds would exclude practicing Jews from the fellowship, making Jews delighted to find other Jews of their own trade.” 8. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 479. 9. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 379. 10. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1158. 11. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 480. 12. http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/james-russell-lowell/173055 13. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 350. 14. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 375. 15. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 18:8. 16. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 381. 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 351. 18. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 18:11. 19. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 20. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 18:12-17. Bruce adds: “His name was originally Marcus Annaeus Novatius; but after his father brought him to Rome from his native Cordova in the principate of Tiberias, he was adopted by the rhetorican Lucius Junius Gallio…it can be inferred rather precisely that he entered on his proconsulship in the summer of AD 51. He left Achaia because of a fever (perhaps before his year of office had expired)…” (Bruce, p. 352). 21. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 18:12. 22. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 299. 23. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 18:13. 24. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 25. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 376. 26. Ibid. 27. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 481-82. 28. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 299. “The Corinthian crowd who were present to witness the Jews’ discomfiture before the governor, saw that they could take advantage of the latter’s unwillingness to interfere, and proceeded to indulge their anti-Jewish feelings by beating up Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue. But another explanation appears in 1 Cor. 1:1 as co-author of Paul’s letter to Corinth, and the possibility that Crispus’s successor as ruler of the synagogue was also converted to Christianity cannot be ruled out.” 29. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 998. 30. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 301. 31. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 18:18-23. 32. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 18:1-22. 33. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 377. 34. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 18:23. 35. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 302. 36. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 101. 37. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 377. 38. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 18:26. While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” Acts 19:1-2 Paul had been in Ephesus briefly on the Second Missionary Journey (18:19-20). It was no doubt his goal to return to the city and spend a lot of time there. Paul probably thought that from this large city he could influence the whole of the Asian province. [1] Ephesus was an ancient city, dating back to the tenth century BC. In Roman times Augustus included the city in the Roman Empire and made it the capital of proconsular Asia (27 BC), or what we know as western Asia Minor or western Turkey today. Ephesus then entered into a time of great prosperity. We see in this passage that Paul did not take the main river valley road but instead traveled through the interior on the high plateau road, which was shorter. The city of Ephesus was famous for the worship of the pagan goddess Artemis (Latin – Diana). The temple of Artemis, made of pure white marble, was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The structure was said to be four times the size of the Greek Parthenon, with some 80,000 square feet (7432 sq. m.) in size. [2] Once in Ephesus, Paul ran into a group of disciples. Something about their experience probably caused the apostle to question them. He asked if they had received the Holy Spirit and they answered that they had never heard of such a thing. It seems that there are many in Christendom today who are in much the same condition of ignorance as these disciples. We must be aware that the New Testament does not acknowledge that a person is a Christian unless that person possesses the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:5; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Gal. 3:2; Tit. 3:5; 1 Jn. 3:24; 4:13). [3] Paul was not speaking here of some staid doctrine of the church to which people could lamely nod their heads in approval. He was speaking of “…the extraordinary effusions and miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit? Often this powerful gift included speaking with unknown tongues, or working miracles” (10:45-46; 19:4-5). [4] By not having the Holy Spirit, we can say with confidence that these “disciples” had not received the new birth. They were simply not Christians. Thus, when Pentecostals and Charismatics use this passage to prove that the coming of the Holy Spirit is some sort of “second blessing” in the Christian life, they are far off base in their biblical interpretation. “So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism,’ they replied.” (19:3). John the Baptist had a critically important ministry, in that he introduced the Messiah to Israel. However, his ministry and his baptism were focused upon repentance and expectation of the Messiah (cf. Matt. 3:11). [5] He introduced Israel to the one who would come and baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33). Somehow these disciples had missed this all-important fact. In just a few verses we have run into Apollos, who knew only John’s baptism and this group of twelve disciples whose experience was similar. We can only assume that John’s influence was still widespread. Barker and Kohlenberger say, “…Presumably a John-the-Baptist sect existed within Jewish Christian circles in Asia in the first century…” [6] “Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:4-5). The Latin church father, Tertullian, once said that John, “…was offering nothing heavenly but was making way for the heavenly.” [7] John preached about repentance (Gk. metanoias), which describes a change of mind, a turning about or turning away from sin or dead works. [8] John’s baptism was a preparation to meet the Messiah. It seems that Paul’s teaching helped these disciples to “connect the dots” and realize that they had not really followed John’s instructions after all. They were thus immediately baptized in the name of Jesus. Marshall says, “This is the only case recorded in the New Testament of people receiving a second baptism, and it took place only because the previous baptism was not Christian baptism in the name of Jesus.” [9] Utley makes a good and important note here saying, “…The baptism formula is not the key to salvation, but the heart of the person being baptized…Salvation is not the sacramental correctness of a rite, but an entering into a repentant/faith relationship with Jesus…” [10] “When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all” (19:6-7). We cannot make a doctrine that apostolic hands have to be laid on a person before the Holy Spirit can be administered. Sometimes hands are involved (8:16-17) but at other times they are not (10:44). In other places hands are laid on for ordination into ministry (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). It seems that in this case hands are laid to illustrate the oneness of the Christian church. [11] We see a similar thing with the baptism of the Samaritans. They had long been estranged from Israel, but Peter and John laid their hands on them partly to make plain that they were now part of Israel and the church (8:17). There is not enough evidence for us to treat this event as an additional Pentecost. We remember that Peter used his “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19) to open the door to Jews in Acts 2, to the Samaritans in Acts 8 and at last to the Gentiles in Acts 10. [12] However, Peter is no longer present in the Acts narrative. These people were undoubtedly Jewish and the door was opened to them and all other varied Jewish groups at the original Pentecost. Certainly there are some lessons for the church in this event. F. D. Bruner says, “… It is one of the major purposes of Acts to show that baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit belong indissolubly together. This is the special lesson of Acts 8 and Acts 19.” [13] The general rule in the New Testament (not an ironclad rule) is that baptism comes immediately after conversion and the Holy Spirit is given at baptism, often with supernatural signs (2:4, 17; 10:46). We can understand how churches grew so rapidly with such a program. Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. Acts 19:8 We can see here that the synagogue at Ephesus was much more tolerant of Paul than other synagogues. For instance, at Thessalonica he was only tolerated for three Sabbaths (17:2). Nevertheless, after three months in the synagogue of Ephesus the inevitable happened and Paul was thrust out. It is interesting that Paul’s subject was the kingdom of God. As we have said previously, the subject of the kingdom, while preached often by Jesus, was a rather troublesome subject for the ruling Roman authorities. Acts mentions the subject only a half-dozen times or so. The kingdom of God is a comprehensive heading that includes the rule of God in the individual life, in the church and ultimately in all of creation. Since Ephesus was the most prominent city in promotion of emperor worship, [14] we can understand how the kingdom subject would have to be touched on lightly. “But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (19:9-10). The first Greek word used here is esklērunonto for obstinate or hardened. Next is epeithoun, a growing disbelief or disobedience. Finally the Jews of the synagogue maligned or spoke evil (kakologountes) of the Christian way. [15] There has been much discussion concerning his new location in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. Some have thought Tyrannus to be a popular philosopher, who may have held lectures in the mornings. Others have felt that he was the likely owner of the hall. If he was a lecturer, it is interesting that his name means tyrant or despot. Stott wonders, “…if this was the name his parents gave him or the name his pupils gave him!” [16] Perhaps one significant western text shares some important information on this situation. According to this textual tradition Paul lectured from 11 AM to 4 PM each day. In the Mediterranean world, this would be the normal time when everyone else would be enjoying a siesta and avoiding the noonday heat. According to this tradition we can assume that Paul made tents in the mornings and taught in the afternoons when the hall was not in use. [17] This was obviously an extended period of time when Paul not only instructed disciples but when he sent them out to evangelize the whole province. Guzik comments, “By himself, there was no way that Paul could reach this region. But he could equip Christians to do the work of the ministry, just as he described in Ephesians 4:11-12.” [18] Bruce remarks, “Ephesus was to be a new center for the Gentile mission – the next in importance after Antioch on the Orontes…” [19] Obviously, a great door of opportunity had opened to the apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9). It is likely that during this fruitful two-year period (v. 10) churches were founded in places like Colossae and Laodicea (Col. 1:7; 2:1; 4:13, 16). Other churches like Hierapolis as well as the seven churches of Revelation (Rev. 2-3) were possibly established at this time. During this special season other events may have been happening. We know that things got out of control at Corinth and that Paul made a quick but painful visit to the church (2 Cor. 2:1; 12:14; 13:1). He also wrote what we call his First Epistle to the Corinthians sometime during this period. [20] Possibly these two years and some months, plus the three months he mentions in v. 8, total an approximate time of three years in Ephesus (20:31). [21] At this time the apostle also entertained some visitors form Corinth. He identifies them as Chloe’s household (1 Cor. 1:11). “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” (19:11-12). The Bible tells us that miracles were a sign of apostolic authority (Mk. 16:20; Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 12:12). We can see that Paul did not come behind the other apostles in this area (2 Cor.11:5). These miracles were quite unusual. Handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul were passed around to the sick and they recovered. A couple of Latin words have here crept into the text. Handkerchiefs (soudaria) is a word taken from the Latin for sweat. Aprons (simikinthia) is a word also taken from Latin and has reference to the linen aprons of servants. [22] We know from these words that Paul was laboring at his tent making business while there. These power displays were extraordinary, but we must remember that Ephesus was a depraved city and as we shall see, a center for the occult (cf. 19:18-19). Missionaries from the field tell that it is sometimes necessary to have a “power encounter” with witch doctors and others with evil spirits. Paul obviously had a power encounter with evil spirits while he labored at Ephesus. We note that there were also such extraordinary miracles in the ministry of Jesus (Matt. 9:20-22; 14:36) and of Peter (Acts 5:15). Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” Acts 19:13 “In those days everyone believed that illness and disease, and especially mental illness, were due to evil spirits who settled in a man. Exorcism was a regular trade.” [23] To add to the problem, the city of Ephesus was well known for its interest in magic, resulting in the special need for exorcism from evil spirits. [24] We have seen earlier how the mighty works of God strangely attracted evil spirits and evil people, as in the cases of Simon Magus (8:9-24) and Bar Jesus (13:6-11). It seems that in the First Century many Jewish people were involved in the business of sorcery, although it was forbidden by the law and by most Jewish leadership. Barker and Kohlenberger say: “Jewish practitioners of magic were highly esteemed in antiquity, for they were believed to have command of particularly effective spells…Moreover, those connected with the Jewish priesthood would have enjoyed great prestige in magical circles since they were the most likely ones to know the true pronunciation of the Ineffable Name.” [25] No doubt, the successes of Paul had caught the attention of many of these. Apparently a number of the practitioners were using the name of Jesus in their exorcisms or else were referring to the Jesus preached by Paul. “Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this” (19:14). The name Sceva as a chief priest is unknown. However, he could have well been the head of one of the 24 courses of priests and found himself in the Jewish Diaspora. [26] Of course, Sceva could have simply made up the priestly connection in order to enhance his position. “One day the evil spirit answered them, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?’ Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding” (19:15-16). Stedman sees this whole encounter as representing a crack in the stronghold of darkness. Jesus once said in Matthew 12:26, “If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?” These exorcists were Satan’s dupes. The demons should have worked together with them but the demons attacked them. [27] Perhaps it was due to their deep hatred of Paul and Jesus. Here it is clear that demons know a great deal about Jesus. In the ministry of Jesus, demons often cried out seeking to identify him, but the Lord would have none of it. James says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that— and shudder” (Jas. 2:19). The demons made clear that they knew about Jesus and Paul but they did not recognize the Sons of Sceva. With that, the possessed person attacked them and gave them such a beating that they were left naked and bleeding. It seems that the exorcists were themselves exercised as they hurriedly ran away from this embarrassing encounter. The Bible gives us some stories similar to this (Mk. 5:3; 9:29; Lk. 9:42). Also, a couple of popular modern-day Christian exorcists, Derek Prince and Francis MacNutt, have several stories in their books about the unbelievable physical power of certain demon-infested individuals. [28] Exorcism, although biblical, is a serious matter that should not be gone into unadvisedly. Barker and Kohlenberger remark: “Sceva’s sons found they were dealing with realities far beyond their ability to cope…The name of Jesus, like an unfamiliar weapon misused, exploded in their hands…” [29] When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor. Acts 19:17 It seems that this event sparked a great revival or awakening in the city of Ephesus. It affected both Jews and Greeks. They were all seized with godly fear and greatly honored the powerful and holy name of Jesus. Bruce says of that name that it was, “plainly no name to be trifled with.” [30] This Ephesus awakening was not unlike some of the great revivals in Christian history. Pett says, “In periods of true ‘revival’, when the presence of God is experienced in a new way in the community, open confessions of sin become a regular feature as people seek to bring all out into the open for cleansing.” [31] Some years back in the US there were several scattered college revivals. It was amazing to read about young people standing in long lines late into the evenings, anxious to publicly confess their sins. Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. (19:18). True revivals have a deep spiritual impact upon people and they are not only led to confess their sins but to forsake them. One result of the great American revivals was that the saloons, houses of prostitution, gambling joints and jails were often emptied out as a result. In true revivals, people get rid of the garbage in their lives. Guzik advises us: “Christians must do this also today, removing books, images, computer files, statues, charms, games, or whatever else might have connection with demonic spirits. They should also destroy them so they are of no use to others.” [32] As true religion has declined in the US we have been assaulted with the occult. Just before the turn of the century a Consumer Reports survey of 17,000 young people ages 10-14 was published. The youth were queried concerning the games they enjoyed the most. Out of 83 games, Monopoly was number 1 and the Ouija Board was number 2. [33] Psychic and spiritist Harold Sherman, who at the time was president of ESP Research Association in Arkansas, said: “The majority who have become involved with possessive and other entities come by this experience through the Ouija Board.” [34] Another spiritually dangerous game today is Dungeons and Dragons. John Ankerberg and John Weldon describe it in their Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs: “In Dungeons and Dragons, magic is prevalent and can be used in a variety of ways. Also demons, necromancy, astral projection, spells, etc., are also used.” [35] And we wonder why so many of our Christian young people get messed up and troubled by the occult! On National Public Radio (2004) it was announced that Wicca is now believed to be one of the fastest-growing religions among high school and college students. It has also become sort of a spiritual home for many feminists, including lesbians. [36] In the US church we have a host of Eastern Religions and practices that we need to confess and forsake if we are to really be followers of the Lord Jesus. “A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas” (19:19). Ephesus was a great center of magic and the occult as we can plainly see with this verse. [37] Magic scrolls and amulets were highly prized in Ephesus and in the ancient world. Some rolls of these grammata were actually called Ephesian Writings. Many of these writings were secret and it was felt that if they were revealed their power would be lost. It is amazing that probably Christians, Jews and pagans together brought these works and cast them on the bonfire. Such works were expensive and an attempt is made here to calculate the cost of this bonfire. The amount mentioned here is fifty thousand drachmas. Many attempts have been made to translate this amount into modern currency but the figures vary wildly. Probably the best estimate is that a drachma was generally the days’ wage of a working man. So, we have here a very large amount of money, fifty thousand days’ wages, translated into the reader’s currency. [38] “In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power” (19:20). Clearly, the word of God became respected in the whole area. It no doubt spread with power to nearby areas as well. Jesus had triumphed in Ephesus! 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.” Acts 19:21 Verse 20 is a kind of closing summary and with it Paul jumps to his immediate plans. Here we have the first mention of his plans to go to Rome. [39] From the Book of Romans we understand why he wished to go there. He desired to make a mission outreach to far-away Spain and wanted the Christians in Rome to assist in that mission (Rom. 15:24, 28). As we know from Romans 15:20, Paul was not willing to build a mission work on another person’s foundation, so he desired to work in new and uncharted territories. We see here that Paul desired to first visit Macedonia and Achaia before going to Jerusalem. Paul first planned to visit Corinth after passing through Macedonia (1 Cor. 16:5). Later, he apparently promised the Corinthians that he would visit them before and after his Macedonia trip, so that they could have double pleasure. However, the hostile reports from Corinth and the “painful visit” (2 Cor. 2:1) caused him to change his mind and he decided to go directly to Macedonia. At some point Paul had sent Titus to Corinth with “a severe letter” (2 Cor. 2:4-9; 7:8-12) while he himself planned to go to Macedonia by way of Troas. That “severe letter” has now been lost to us, as well as his very earliest correspondence mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11. A door of opportunity later would open in Troas but Paul would not find Titus there as agreed, so he refused to linger. He would journey on and eventually meet Titus in Macedonia. Because of a good report from Titus, Paul would then write 2 Corinthians. In it he would explain his change of plans, which had apparently ruffled some at Corinth (2 Cor. 1:15ff. “He sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer” (19:22). Paul no doubt hoped that Timothy and Erastus could eventually quell some of the problems at Corinth, but he had also assigned them as an advance team to help collect the offering for Jerusalem that had been promised by the Corinthians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-5; 2 Cor. 8-9). We have no information on Erastus. Several scholars are quite sure that he is not the same Erastus mentioned as the city treasurer of Corinth (Rom. 16:23). [40] We cannot tell whether or not Timothy’s trip was successful, but we know that the later trip of Titus was quite successful. Although Titus was a very important and long-term emissary of Paul, Luke strangely does not mention him by name in Acts. About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. Acts 19:23 The Apostle Paul did not go around bashing idols or pagan temples. He merely presented the gospel truth and all these things began to tremble, for they were totally based on lies. The opposition and disturbance at Ephesus was really a testimony to the great effectiveness of Paul’s work in the whole region. [41] Actually, Paul was planning to leave the area, since his gospel had already dealt a fatal blow to idolatry there. “…It was inevitable that sooner or later the kingly authority of Jesus would challenge Diana’s evil sway.” [42] We do not know how Luke got his information on this event. Paul’s work in Ephesus did not fall in the “we sections” that have been mentioned, so Luke was not present. Stott suggests that he may have gotten his information from Aristarchus or Gaius, for they were deeply involved in the uproar. They later became travelling companions with Paul and Luke (20:4-6). [43] We have noticed that Luke was a careful note-taker and historian. He would not have missed such an opportunity for two eye-witness accounts. “A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there” (19:24). Demetrius was probably the guild master of the silversmiths in Ephesus. [44] It appears that he had helped make them quite successful. No doubt, with the preaching of Paul, traffic to the shrines had slackened and the silver trade had fallen off. There are reasons to believe that the whole economy of Ephesus was beginning to undergo a recession. Ephesus was situated at the mouth of the Cayster River, but, due to overgrazing and other abuses of the land, the topsoil had washed away and choked the river’s mouth. Ephesus had entered a state of gradual economic decline so the pilgrim trade to the shrines became more and more important to the silversmiths. [45] We need to take a look at the goddess Artemis, who was known in the Roman world as Diana. There seems to be a certain amount of confusion concerning this goddess. Originally, the Greek goddess Artemis was the virgin goddess of the hunt and of nature. From antiquity there are many pictures of this young beautiful girl with a bow. It seems that this original picture was merged with the fertility goddess of the Middle East. Pfeiffer and Harrison say, “Artemis was not the traditional Greek goddess of this name but the ancient mother-goddess of Asia Minor, commonly known as Cybele.” [46] Pett says, “…Her fertility rites would undoubtedly have encouraged very loose sexual behavior (compare Revelation 2:14; Revelation 2:20) as fertility rites regularly did.” [47] Her image came to appear as a gross many-breasted figure, that was supposed to have fallen from heaven, perhaps as a meteor. This Artemis was widely worshipped in over thirty places throughout the ancient world. [48] It appears that the silversmiths were making many small figurines of Artemis and even small images of her in the temple for marketing to pilgrims. These small images could be placed along with other household gods in their homes. The silversmiths may have had some concern for Artemis but it is clear that they had a lot more concern for their own pocketbooks. They knew if they were to be heard and followed they must put their focus on Artemis and her wellbeing. [49] “He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: ‘You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all” (19:25-26). Here the real motive of the silver workers comes out. They receive a good income from idolatry and they do not want to lose it. Stedman tells of a man who met his very gloomy-looking friend. “He asked his friend, ‘What’s the matter?’ The friend said, ‘My wife has just made me a millionaire.’ He said, ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ The friend answered, ‘I used to be a multi-millionaire.’” [50] The silversmiths were not concerned solely with their own area, but with the whole of the Asian province. Utley remarks, “This gives us an insight into the success and permeation of Paul’s ministry in Asia.” [51] We can see in this passage that although Paul had not attacked idolatry directly, the idol-makers had certainly gotten the message that gods could not be made with hands. “There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (19:27). The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world as we have said. It was originally built in 550 BC of pure white marble, but was burned by a fanatic in 356 BC. It was rebuilt in glory but finally completely destroyed in AD 401. Its remains were finally discovered in 1869. The structure was 425 feet (129 m.) in length; 220 feet (67 m.) in width and 60 feet (18 m.) in height. The temple had 127 marble columns, each 60 feet in height, and many with ornaments and color. [52] The Temple of Artemis also served as a treasury and bank for the ancient world. Large deposits by kings, and cities were made and committed to the care and protection of the goddess Artemis. [53] “When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’” (19:28). It usually does not take much effort to create a mob. Benjamin Franklin described a mob as “a monster with hands enough, but no brains.” Max Lerner described a mob as “…a league of frightened men that seeks reassurance in collective action.” [54] The thing that the Roman overlords feared the most was beginning to happen. “Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and all of them rushed into the theater together” (19:29). For some reason the mob could not locate Paul, so they grabbed his companions Gaius and Aristarchus and rushed with them into the theater. Gaius was Paul’s host at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14; Rom. 16:23), while Aristarchus from Macedonia traveled with Paul on his third journey and at last joined him in his Roman imprisonment (27:2). This outdoor theater has now been located and it is very large. It has been determined that it could have held almost 25,000 people. [55] “Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him” (19:30). From what we see in this verse, Paul was not directly involved in the riot. However, later Paul says that he fought wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Cor. 15:32). Also, he speaks of having a truly life-threatening experience in Asia, where he even despaired of life (2 Cor. 1:8-11). He will later claim that Priscilla and Aquila had actually risked their lives for him (Rom. 16:4). [56] So obviously, there are some things we do not understand about this account, or else there was another narrow escape for Paul before he left Asia. “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). The term “officials” in the Greek language is rendered Asiarchōn. This passage sheds considerable light on Paul’s person and ministry. The Asiarchs were very prominent citizens in each province. They had the job of supervising money collected in emperor worship, presiding at games, festivals and even temple services. The Asiarchs were rich and powerful men, and we see that they had a very high opinion of Paul. [57] They were risking their high status to save him from the mob. We normally do not think of Paul as being friends with the rich and famous, but he was. The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people.” Acts 19:32-33 The assembly mentioned here (Gk. ekklāsia) means those called out, and it is from this word that we get our word “church.” [58] We can certainly hope that our assemblies will never take on the character of this confused and violent meeting. We see here that the Jews put forth Alexander, one of their own, perhaps with the idea that he could insure the crowd that the Jewish people had nothing to do with causing the mob scene. [59] The Jews always had much to lose in any disturbance because there was the ever-present layer of antisemitism in ancient societies. The blame for any problem could quickly be shifted to the Jews. This Alexander could have been the same person that Paul later mentions in 2 Timothy 4:14. If so, this man might be identified with the metalworker or coppersmith who had already done some harm to Paul. Sometimes this person gets confused with Demetrius the silversmith. Stedman tells of once hearing a preacher comment on this text. “He said that he, too, had been damaged by Alexander the coppersmith, as he looked at the collection plate and saw all the pennies there!” [60] “But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’” (19:34). Clarke says here, “…the Greeks, knowing that he was a Jew, and consequently as much opposed to the worship of Diana as Paul was, would not hear him…” [61] The crowd was now in a truly hysterical mood. The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven?” Acts 19:35 The city clerk (Gr. grammateus) was likely the top civic official. It was part of his duty to make available rulings of the city to the Romans who were headquartered there. [62] He was the man who would be held responsible for trouble such as the mob scene in progress. We have to credit this clerk with a good deal of wisdom. He apparently waited until people were hoarse from screaming and physically exhausted before he spoke. In a common-sense manner he reassured the people that Artemis and her temple were in no real danger and that all the world acknowledged her greatness. After all, “If Artemis was really a goddess, then they should not need to worry about her demise.” [63] “Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to calm down and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess” (19:36-37). As we have seen, temples often served as banks in the ancient world, and temple robbery was considered a most impious crime. It is from this act that we get our concept of “sacrilege.” [64] Later in Romans 2:22, Paul will accuse some of the Jews of this crime. “If, then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly” (19:38-39). The clerk referred the mob to the courts and to the assembly. We know from later sources that the regular assembly or ekklesia met three times each month. [65] Scholars have noted here and also with the Gallio incident of Acts 18, that Luke apparently had somewhat of an apologetic motive in his writing. [66] He took every opportunity to make clear that the Christians were not a threat to Rome. “‘As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.’ After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly” (19:40-41). Ephesus enjoyed the great privilege of being a “free city,” having its own senate. That great privilege depended wholly on Rome’s continued favor. [67] What Rome feared and detested most was mob scenes like this one and riots among the people. For such things the privilege of being a “free city” could be forfeited. With this sobering thought the people went home. 1. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 377. 2. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, vs. 19:2-3. 3. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 305. 4. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 19:2. Clarke adds: “…For it was the common privilege of the disciples of Christ to receive, not only the ordinary graces, but also the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit…” (Clarke, v. 19:2). 5. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 19:3-4. 6. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 7. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 233. 8. Arndt &Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 513. 9. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 307. 10. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 19:4-5. 11. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1160. 12. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p.383. 13. Quoted in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament v. 19:4. 14. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1160. 15. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New 16. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 306. 17. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 998. Stott adds: “Thus he spent two years in Corinth and three years in Ephesus, and in both cases his teaching was comprehensive and thorough…Dr. Bruce Metzger thinks that this addition ‘may represent an accurate piece of information, preserved in oral tradition before being incorporated into the text of certain manuscripts’…According to Ramsay, ‘public life in the Ionian cities ended regularly at the fifth hour, that is, at 11 am…an elongated siesta!’ According to Lake and Cadbury, ‘at 1 PM there were probably more people sound asleep than at 1 AM.’” (Stott, p. 313). 18. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 19:8-10. 19. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 365. 20. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 19:10. 21. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 999. 22. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New 23. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 19:13-20. 24. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 378. 25. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Bruce adds: “The closest parallel to the Ephesian exorcist’s misuse of the name of Jesus appears in a magical papyrus belonging to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, which contains the adjuration: ‘I adjure you by Jesus, the God of the Hebrews.’” (Bruce, p. 368). 26. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 19:13-17. 27. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 19:8-20. 28. Francis MacNutt, Deliverance From Evil Spirits, A Practical Manual (Grand Rapids, Chosen Books, 1995), pp. 153-154. Derek Prince also spent many years in the deliverance ministry. He has a number of books dealing with the spiritual world. His book They Shall Expel Demons is very helpful. 29. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, 30. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 369. 31. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 19:18. 32. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 19:17-20. 33. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), p. 151. 34. Ibid., p. 152. 35. Ibid., p. 158. 36. David Kupelian, How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America (New York: Threshold Editions, 2010), pp. 115, 128. 37. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 369. 38. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 379. “Magical papyri were rolled up in small cylinders or lockets used as amulets around the neck…These magical incantations were so common in Ephesus that rolls of these formulas are called Ephesian grammata, or Ephesian writings, in other Greco-Roman literature…about fifty thousand days’ wages for an average worker.” 39. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 385. 40. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 372. 41. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 19:23-28. 42. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 308. 43. Ibid. 44. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 45. Ibid., p. 483. 46. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1161. 47. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 19:24-25. 48. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1161. 49. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 19:23-41. 50. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 19: 21f. 51. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 19:26-27. 52. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 19:27. 53. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 54. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 385. 55. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 376. 56. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 57. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Marshall adds: “Asiarchs…This term could refer to the annual presidents, and perhaps the ex-presidents, of the provincial council of Asia, or it also covers the administrators of the various temples of the imperial cult…It is noteworthy that Paul had friends in this circle and that they were concerned for his safety in face of the mob.” (Marshall, p. 319). 58. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 19:32. 59. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 381. 60. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 19: 21f. 61. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 19:33. 62. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 381. 63. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 104. 64. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 381. 65. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1000. 66. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 379. 67. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 381. When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and, after encouraging them, said goodbye and set out for Macedonia. Acts 20:1 Luke seems to indicate that Paul left Ephesus shortly after the uproar, and after encouraging the believers there. Since he called the disciples to him, Stott wonders if he is still in hiding. [1] Luke then begins to relate what must be the most concise report of missionary travel found anywhere in Acts. [2] In a mere three verses he covers many months of ministry in Troas, Macedonia, Achaia, and probably some ministry at the far western limit of the Via Egnatia at Illyricum (Rom. 15:19). This would be in today’s Albania and Yugoslavia. During this highly compressed account Paul likely spends the three winter months at Corinth (v. 3). We remind ourselves that Luke is primarily concerned with how the gospel would reach Rome, and thus he is willing to pass over many details of the journey. [3] We need to go to 2 Corinthians to fill in the gaps of Paul’s journeys at this particular time frame. In 2:12, we see that Paul first went to Troas, where a great door of opportunity opened to him. It appears that he even planted a thriving church there (Acts 20:7-12). However, the apostle could not rest, since the planned rendezvous with Titus did not take place (2 Cor. 2:12-13). He moved on to Macedonia where he at last found Titus and received his good report. Paul had written a very painful and difficult letter to Corinth and was extremely anxious about how it was received (cf. 2 Cor. 2:1-4; 7:8-9). After meeting Titus it appears that he wrote what we know as 2 Corinthians. Utley, citing Ramsay, tries to explain why Luke never mentions Titus, although he was Paul’s valuable helper. It could be a form of editorial humility, in that he might have been Luke’s brother. [4] It appears that Paul was very anxious that the churches would prepare their offerings for the poor saints in Jerusalem. However, Luke, in his haste, does not mention this offering. Paul was particularly concerned that Corinth would participate in the offering as they had promised. Timothy, Titus and others were sent to Corinth partly for this purpose (2 Cor. 8:16-24). Paul apparently saw this offering as a “symbol of unity” between Gentile and Jewish believers, and a way that Gentiles could try to repay their debt to the mother church in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:27). [5] “He traveled through that area, speaking many words of encouragement to the people, and finally arrived in Greece, where he stayed three months. Because some Jews had plotted against him just as he was about to sail for Syria, he decided to go back through Macedonia.” (20:2-3). As we mentioned, this is a very abbreviated account covering many months of ministry. For the winter months Paul no doubt lodged with the Corinthians as he had promised (1 Cor. 16:5-6). Many scholars feel it was at this time that Paul wrote the Book of Romans, that great manifesto of the Christian faith. [6] After the winter, Paul was apparently planning to sail to Jerusalem directly from the eastern port at Corinth, as he had done on his Second Missionary Journey (18:18), but his plan was interrupted by another plot from the Jews. Since it was nearing festival time in Israel, there were probably many Jewish people traveling back to the Holy Land. This was a splendid opportunity for the Jews to do what they had tried to do on many other occasions, to murder Paul. However, the apostle got wind of their plot and quickly changed his plans. It seems that the shadow of death never completely left Paul. Karl Marx once wrote that Communists were but dead men on furlough, and that they should treat themselves as though they were as good as dead. That concept certainly characterized the life of Paul and a good number of other early Christians. They were like dead people on furlough. [7] Stott, citing Ramsay, notes how easy it would have been for the Jews to murder Paul and toss his body overboard. [8] It was perhaps the best opportunity they would ever have to do away with the one they perceived as their greatest enemy. Paul quickly decided on a land route back across Macedonia. That detour would cause him to miss celebrating Passover in Jerusalem. However, with some good fortune he still might celebrate Pentecost there. “He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia” (20:4). Paul hardly ever traveled alone but was accompanied by faithful brothers. This was especially true on this trip to Jerusalem. In this case the brothers represented the churches that were sending offerings to Jerusalem. Obviously, the offering was very large and was causing Paul a great deal of concern that it be delivered properly. Paul had wisely decided that a representative from each church should accompany him (2 Cor. 8:18-24). We remember that there were no banks and no wire transfers in this early day. The large offering had to be carried on their persons and there were many dangers to face along the way. Luke lists Sopater of Berea in Macedonia. It is often thought that he was the same as Sosipater of Romans 16:21. Then there was Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, also in Macedonia. Aristarchus later accompanied Paul in prison (Col. 4:10; Phm. 1:24). Guzik feels that Secundus was a common slave name, since slaves often were not named but called by their ratings of Primus or Secundus. [9] Gaius was from Derbe in Galatia. Gaius was a common name and there are several others with this name in the New Testament. We see that Timothy also accompanied Paul to Jerusalem. At last there were Tychicus and Trophimus from Asia (western Turkey today). Tychicus was a faithful messenger of Paul (Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-8). Trophimus, from Ephesus, traveled to Jerusalem and his presence triggered a riot that ultimately caused Paul to be arrested (21:28-29). We cannot miss the fact that no delegate is listed from the Corinthian church. Thus, we can assume that, despite Paul’s great effort in this regard, the church finally elected not to participate in the offering. This was no doubt due to the strained relations between the church and the apostle. [10] “These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas” (20:5). The reasons why the men went ahead of Paul are unknown to us today. It is entirely possible that the group went ahead to help collect funds for the Jerusalem offering. [11] We should note that this verse begins another “we” section of Acts that continues to 20:15 and then resumes at 21:1. By this we know that Luke, who was earlier left at Philippi (Ch. 16), has now rejoined the tour with Paul. “But we sailed from Philippi after the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days” (20:6). Paul had originally planned to be in Jerusalem by Passover but the murder plot had delayed him. He would now celebrate Passover at Philippi. The Passover celebration was coupled with the seven days of Unleavened Bread (Exo. 12:1-51; Lev. 23:4-8), so travel was delayed until the festival was over. In that year (possibly AD 57) the festival ended on April 14. [12] Perhaps his Gentile companions did not wish to celebrate the Jewish festival, but Paul certainly did. Pett remarks: “Taken as it stands this can only signify that Paul was observing the feast, otherwise why wait until the end of it when he was in a predominantly Gentile city where there was no synagogue? …But he was himself very much a Jew, even though an emancipated one.” [13] This and many other signs in the New Testament indicate that the early Jewish Christians kept many or perhaps all of the Jewish holidays. Today, most Messianic Jews or Christian Jews in Israel and abroad still do the same. It is not that they are trying to live under the law, but that they are Jews and are enjoying their rich Jewish heritage. Interestingly, most evangelical Christians living in Israel also participate in these same festivals. Even in the Gentile world many churches today acknowledge some of the main biblical festivals. When we lived in Israel, we like many other evangelical Christians, had the best of both worlds. We celebrated the major Jewish festivals as well as the Christian ones. After all, the festivals are said to be “statutes forever” (Lev. 23:14, 21, 31, 41). We cannot help but note that the voyage from Philippi’s port city of Neapolis must have taken five days. That might have included the short journey to the port. However, in Acts 16:11, we see that it took only two day’s sail. Undoubtedly, they encountered unfavorable winds. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. Acts 20:7 We no doubt remember that Paul ministered in Troas before his trip into Macedonia and Achaia. Obviously, his efforts bore much fruit and he was now able to meet with the new church and give them much teaching. A number of commentators have pointed out that this meeting marks the first record of the church meeting on the Lord’s Day or Sunday. This was of course the day of the Lord’s resurrection (cf. Jn. 20:19, 26; 1 Co. 16:2; Lk. 24:1-3). Bruce says this is, “…the earliest text we have from which it may be inferred with reasonable certainty that Christians regularly came together for worship on that day….” [14] Obviously, the Jewish nation did not observe Sunday. It was a normal workday as it is today in Israel. The Christians therefore had to meet in the early morning or in the evening. We have one historical record of Christians meeting in the mornings. There is an early second century letter written by Pliny of Bithynia to the emperor Trajan. He says of the Christians, “They meet regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verse alternately among themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god…After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind…” [15] It is noted in this verse that the people came together to break bread. It was customary with the earliest Christians to gather for a common meal which also included the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist. The breaking of bread may have happened late, even after midnight on this particular occasion (v. 11). Paul was speaking for a lengthy period this night. We should not imagine that he was simply preaching while the others were merely listening. The Greek word used here is the verb dialegomai. This word does not indicate a monologue but it rather implies discussion. It could even include questions and answers. [16] The lively discussion went on until midnight. In our day, when sermons are often of the 20 minute variety, most of us would have a difficult time listening to any preacher till midnight. We need to understand that the apostolic message was quite different than our messages today. Paul was sharing important life truths that would make Christian existence possible in that polluted pagan world. He was “connecting the dots” on many important theological questions and causing new Christians to “get the picture” of what Christianity was all about. No one could dare miss such a session. Since Paul was departing, this would be their last opportunity to soak up some rich and wonderful apostolic teaching. “There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead” (20:8-9). This meeting was obviously being held at night. It seems apparent here that Luke is using the Roman way of reckoning time, from midnight to midnight in marking a new day, rather than from evening to evening as was customary among the Jewish people. [17] We realize that most of the people present had done a hard day’s work before coming to the meeting. No doubt, the young lad Eutychus had also labored hard during the day and was likely very tired. Also, in the ancient world most people went to bed soon after sunset. The midnight hour was well into their sleep time. [18] To complicate matters, the room was full of lights (torches) and the hot, oily smoke must have caused Eutychus to become drowsy. The lad had seated himself in a window, no doubt to get a little fresh air. In those days the windows were mere openings in the stone walls, since glass was not in common use. As Eutychus, a lad of 8 – 14 years, sat there, he was gradually overcome with sleep and fell out of the window. Pett says, “What had been a wonderful fellowship evening had suddenly turned into a nightmare.” [19] The lad was then picked up dead, “…implying apparently that, as a physician, he [Luke] had satisfied himself on the point.” [20] “Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. ‘Don’t be alarmed,’ he said. ‘He’s alive!” (20:10). We can think that Luke, being a conscientious physician, would have been the first person at this tragic scene and that Paul would have made his way down with the rest of the crowd. Luke obviously declared the boy dead. Still, Paul came down and threw himself on the boy’s body in much the same way in which Elijah did in the case of the dead son of the Zarephath widow (1 Ki. 17:21). Like Elijah, Paul could also declare that the boy was alive. “Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted” (20:11-12). A tragic event like that of Eutychus would break up any church meeting. The fact that Paul could go back up, and that the church could enjoy a meal together is proof that Eutychus was perfectly alive, and not still hovering near death as some commentators have supposed. What a testimony that the Christian faith is a faith of victory over death. Chrysostom remarks: “See how at Paul’s table all partook…the miracle that took place made them remember that evening forever.” [21] The fact that Paul continued preaching and the people continued listening is also evidence that the miracle was real and the lad was very much alive. Paul continued with his ministry until daylight. It is remarkable and beyond understanding for our day of short sound bites, that a person could speak the whole night and still have an audience. We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot. Acts 20:13 Paul may have wanted some alone time, or perhaps he had experienced a touch of seasickness, and he opted to walk for a while. The distance by sea from Troas to Assos was approximately 40 miles (64 km.), and it involved rounding Cape Lectum with its strong north-easterly winds. The land route over a Roman road was about half that distance. [22] “When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene” (20:14). It is amazing that so many connections between individuals could take place in the ancient world without the benefit of cell phones. With Paul on board, the ship proceeded some 44 miles (71 km.) further south to Mitylene, the port city of the island of Lesbos. Obviously, Paul and company were aboard a trading ship which stopped at the various ports along the way. [23] “The next day we set sail from there and arrived off Chios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the following day arrived at Miletus” (20:15). It does not appear that the ship docked at Chios but merely sailed close to it. The island was famous in ancient times for its extraordinary wines. [24] The next stop on the journey was Samos, home of the earlier Greek philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras. The ship went on to Miletus, where it would dock for several days. Miletus, at the mouth of the Meander River was thirty land miles (48 km) south of Ephesus. Miletus was also the home of another Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, Thales. “Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost” (20:16). Ephesus was possibly still a dangerous place for Paul and he knew that a visit to the church could be time consuming. He thus opted for a visit with the elders. There were only 50 days between Passover and Pentecost and many of those days had already been spent. There were still about six hundred miles (965 km.) to travel before reaching Jerusalem. [25] From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia” Acts 20:17-18 Thus, Paul sent for the Ephesian elders. Counting the time for the messenger to travel, plus the time for the elders to arrive should have consumed about three days. [26] When they arrived, the apostle began to defend his ministry among the Ephesians. It is interesting that this speech of Paul is the only record in Acts of the apostle addressing a wholly Christian audience. [27] At other times he was either speaking to Jews, pagans or both. This section of scripture is also the nearest approximation to the Pauline letters that we find in the Book of Acts. [28] We should note that these elders (Gk. presbuterous) are called bishops (Gk. episkopous) in verse 28. Also in verse 28 we see them called to shepherd God’s church (Gk. poimaino). It is interesting that in the early church these three terms were used to describe the same people. [29] The monarchial episcopate, where one bishop ruled over other pastors, did not develop until the Second Century. Stott says, “In our day, in which there is much confusion about the nature and purpose of the pastoral ministry, and much questioning whether clergy are primarily social workers, psyschotherapists, educators, facilitators or administrators, it is important to rehabilitate the noble word ‘pastors’, who are shepherds of Christ’s sheep…” [30] Bruce adds concerning these early designations, “There is little or nothing of institutionalism in the part which they are seen to play here.” [31] There was clearly a great simplicity in early church organization. These elders were likely in charge of the various house churches in Ephesus. It is amazing that pastors in the New Testament seem to keep a rather low profile. The apostle did not just preach sermons but he lived sermons. Therefore, he did not have to apologize for his lifestyle for the three years he lived in Ephesus. His speech that flows here is very much in the character of the ancient literary form called a “testament.” [32] Stedman says of this section: “It is a beautiful passage from which we get perhaps the most intimate glimpse anywhere in the scriptures of the heart of this great apostle, of the character of his labors, and of his concern for those with whom he ministers…” [33] “I served the Lord with great humility and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house” (20:19-20). In our society we think that a grown man should not cry, yet, we see Paul shedding many tears over God’s people. We see here that Paul was a very humble man. This trait was looked down upon by the Greek moralists but it became a very important virtue for the Christian faith. [34] We can confirm again here that it was the Jewish people who dealt Paul so much misery. They literally never ceased to persecute him and tried incessantly to undo his apostolic work, even to the point of trying to murder him. Paul’s rich apostolic teaching was delivered to the church at Ephesus as he went from house church to house church patiently teaching the Christian doctrine. In addition he taught and spoke publicly in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (19:9). Utley says, “Paul taught them everything related to the gospel: how to receive it, how to live it, how to defend it, and how to promote it.” [35] “I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (20:21). Although the Jewish people have a wonderful and blessed biblical heritage, in regard to salvation, Jews and Greeks alike must repent of their sins and express faith in Jesus. It is clear in scripture that faithful Jews through the ages were looking forward to the Messiah as their righteousness. Father Abraham rejoiced to see the Messiah’s day. He saw it and was glad (Jn. 8:56). All the sacrifices and offerings of Israel were but types, patterns and shadows of the Lord Jesus. The Bible assures us that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin (Heb. 10:4). Really, the terms “Jews” and “Greeks” used here encompass the whole human race. [36] And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, 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. Acts 20:22-23 Stott comments, “Luke surely intends his readers to envisage Paul as following in his Master’s footsteps when he ‘steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.’” [37] He speaks of himself as being “compelled” to go to Jerusalem. He uses a very strong Greek word, “deō” which means to bind with fetters, cords or bands. [38] Paul sees himself as bound in the Spirit as he continues on to the Holy City. Already from place to place God’s prophets have warned him that trouble lay ahead. It would be good today if we still had operating gifts of prophecy in our assemblies. Such gifts would save us from much difficulty and they would probably help us to better understand the will of the Lord. I well remember, that after our family had ministered in Israel for two years, we thought we were returning for good to the US. I was busy planning how I could reinter the business world and make some sort of a living for our growing family. One night at church a dear lady, trembling with fear, gave us the prophecy of Isaiah 48:17-22. It assured us that God really knew our way and that if we would pay attention our peace would flow like a river and our children would be blessed. This little trembling woman challenged us to flee from Babylon and to announce with joy that God had redeemed his people Israel. With that word we immediately dropped worldly plans and re-focused our lives on Israel. Later God allowed us to return to Israel and minister there another fourteen wonderful years. On several occasions afterward we thanked that little woman for her sure word of prophecy. The prophecy given to Paul was more of the negative sort. However, he was not held back by this prophecy. He was determined to go to Jerusalem and to speak the message no matter what the cost was. “However, I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me— the task of testifying to the good news of God’s grace” (20:24). Bruce notes that “self-preservation was not a motive which he esteemed highly.” [39] His one goal was to run the race God had assigned to him and to finish his course (2 Tim. 4:7). We would have to say that Paul did just that and ultimately gave his life as a martyr in the days of Nero. Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Acts 20:25 Paul had strong prophetic gifts, so we naturally assume that this is a prophetic utterance about the future. He promises these elders, and probably by extension the whole church, that this is the last time they would see him. This statement presents us with a problem. We have considerable evidence that Paul was later released from his Roman house arrest. After that, he even planned to visit Colosse which he had hitherto not visited (Phm. 1:22). He certainly planned to minister in Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28), and there is historical evidence that he did. The Pastoral Epistles make clear that Paul probably visited Crete (Tit. 1:5), Troas (2 Tim. 4:13) and Macedonia, particularly Philippi (1 Tim. 1:3; Phil. 1:25-26; 2:24) once again. He had also assigned Timothy to Ephesus and he made new plans to visit him there (1 Tim. 3:14-15; 4:9-13). [40] We do not know whether or not he visited the city but we can suspect that he again got as close as Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). We have to assume that in spite of his plans to revisit Ephesus he likely did not arrive in the city. “Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God” (20:26-27). It is a hard saying of scripture when it declares that we can become convicted of blood-guiltiness when we fail to warn the wicked. This should send a shiver up the spine of every true believer. How often have we allowed relatives, friends and associates to slip into an eternal hell because we never warned them. Wiersbe tells this story: A group of servicemen asked their new chaplain if he believed in a real hell for lost sinners, and he smiled and told them he did not. “Then you are wasting your time,” the men replied. “If there is no hell, we don’t need you; and if there is a hell, you are leading us astray. Either way, we’re better off without you!” [41] The Bible says a great deal about warning the lost. In Ezekiel we read: “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood” (Ezek. 3:18; cf. 33:8-9). We should not let ourselves be discouraged regarding the hardness of people in our present evil age. In Genesis 7:11 and 2 Peter 2:5, we see that Noah was a preacher of righteousness who may have preached nearly 600 years, apparently without winning a single convert that he could take with him in the ark, beside his own family. Paul did not hesitate to tell the people the whole truth. He did not shrink back in fear. The Greek word used of “shrink” is hupesteilamēnis, and it means, “to disguise any important truth; to withdraw it from public view; to decline publishing it from fear, or an apprehension of the consequences.” [42] The apostle was not afraid to declare the whole will of God. Several versions (ESV, NKJ, RSV) speak here of the whole counsel of God, while others (NAS, NET, NJB, NRS) speak of the whole purpose of God. It simply means that we should not leave anything out in our preaching and teaching. We should declare it all, even if we are not politically correct and even if the truth upsets some people. Godbey says: Hence we see there is only one way for us to be pure from the blood of souls and ready to meet all the people at the Judgment bar; and that is to tell them the whole truth as we find it revealed in the Bible. If we fail to do this their blood will be found upon our hands when God Almighty shall make inquisition in the Judgment Day. [43] Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28. The shepherds of Ephesus, like all shepherds, are commanded to both watch over themselves and to watch over the Lord’s flock (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2-7; 4:16; 6:11). This reminds us of “watchman” as it was previously used in Ezekiel 3:17-21; 33:1-9. The New Testament is clear that it is the Holy Spirit who chooses the shepherds or overseers of the church. From my church tradition we knew that a pastor had to be “called” of God before he could enter the pastorate. The pastorate is unlike all other callings, since the pastor must watch over the church which is blood-bought by the Lord (cf.1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 2 Pet. 2:1). Being a shepherd and working with sheep is not so nice a job. One day I was taking my prayer walk in the Galilee hills and suddenly I found myself surrounded by a large flock of sheep. The first thing I noticed about them was that sheep stink. Stott says of them: For sheep are not all the clean and cuddly creatures they may appear. In fact, they are dirty, subject to unpleasant pests, and regularly need to be dipped in strong chemicals to rid them of lice, ticks and worms. They are also unintelligent, wayward and obstinate…And their pastors will persevere in caring for them only if they remember how valuable they are in God’s sight. [44] “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). We know that the very thing Paul predicted soon happened in Ephesus. Just a few years after this meeting, Paul placed Timothy as an overseer to help the Ephesians and put down a revolt against his teaching (1 Tim. 1:3-7, 19-20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 3:1-8; 4:1-5). We see that a later problem developed in Revelation 2:1-7. We know from the teaching of Jesus that wolves often come into the flock wearing sheep’s clothing (cf. Matt. 7:15-23). From the church itself some of the fiercest wolves have come (cf. Rom. 16:17-18; Col. 2:8). “So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears” (20:31). Paul cried, prayed and warned this church. He cried, prayed and warned night and day. This is the ancient’s way of saying “all the time.” [45] Today it is difficult for us to imagine how it is to warn our church people all the time. That would surely not make for a “user friendly church.” We should be aware that the injunction to watch is not spoken just to preachers. All God’s people are commanded to be watchful. (1 Cor. 16:13; 1 Thess. 5:6). Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Acts 20:32 Since Paul will see them no longer he must commit them to God’s grace. Grace is a wonderful thing and apparently something most desired by us humans. On my website, my old article on grace is usually a very popular one. Through his grace, or unmerited favor, God can build us up to the point that we can truly enter in and enjoy his great heritage. He notes that this heritage is for the sanctified. This word means that they are “set apart as holy, as totally his and available for his use (2 Tim. 2:21).” [46] “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions” (20:33-34). In those early days wealth was often measured in silver, gold and fine clothing. [47] Paul would have none of it (cf. 1 Sam. 12:3). He would accept offerings from willing churches in a similar way that the priests of old accepted their portion from the offerings. He insists that other ministers of the gospel should also receive their portion (cf. 1 Cor. 9:3-18; 1 Tim. 5:17-18). [48] In order to set an example for the churches Paul often worked with his hands as a tentmaker. We see here that he not only supplied his own needs but the needs of his fellow-workers. He was undoubtedly good at his trade. “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (20:35). Outside the gospels we have very few authentic sayings of Jesus, but this is one of them. It seems that there were some collections of Jesus’ sayings circulating around in the First Century. [49] We see here that Paul not only helped his assistants but he blessed the needy with his labors. Clearly, he gives this as a pattern for the pastors at Ephesus and likely for all pastors. “When Paul had finished speaking, he knelt down with all of them and prayed” (20:36). Paul was a praying man. He prayed for the churches in their presence and in their absence. He prayed expecting the Lord to hear and answer. The Baptist evangelist, John R. Rice, once said: “Too many people only ‘window shop’ when they ‘pray.’ They do not go after anything, and they do not bring anything home. Prayer is not a lovely sedan for a sight-seeing trip around the city. Prayer is a truck that goes straight to the warehouse, backs up, loads, and comes home with the goods.” [50] “They all wept as they embraced him and kissed him. What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. Then they accompanied him to the ship” (20:37-38). The Greek and Roman philosophers felt it was not proper for a man to weep. [51] Nevertheless these Christians wept and we see Jesus and others weeping in the New Testament. “Repeated kissing and embraces were signs of great affection, such as one would bestow on a family member, a dear teacher or a close friend.” [52] What grieved them most was his statement that they would never see his face again. We know from the biblical record that Paul was probably released from prison and made some other mission trips in their general area. However, we do not know that he ever visited Ephesus again. Here we have the loving picture of the pastors following Paul on his journey to the ship. Coffman says, “This custom of going with a departing guest as far as possible or convenient was repeatedly observed by Paul’s converts; and we shall meet with it again and again.” [53] 1. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 315. 2. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 3. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 20:1-6. 4. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 20:3. 5. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 6. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 317. 7. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 20:2-38. 8. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 317. Keener adds: “Although some sailors and shipowners were Jewish, most were Gentiles. On a ship to Syria, however, many travelers may have been Jewish – especially if the ship planned to reach Syria-Palestine* by Passover.” (Keener, p. 382). *“Palestine” is seen in the above quote, and the term is almost universally used by commentators for Judea or Israel, in speaking of the First Century. This is incorrect, since the name “Palestine” was unknown in early New Testament times and did not originate until the Second Century, when Hadrian gave this name in derision to conquered Israel. The New Testament designates the land “Israel” as we see in Matthew 2:21. 9. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 20:2-5. 10. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 382. 11. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 20:5. 12. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1000. Bruce adds: “As for Paul, he waited at Philippi until the week of the unleavened bread was completed (in AD 57 it lasted from April 7 to 14). Then he set sail with Luke, presumably from Neapolis (cf. 16:11)…At Troas they rejoined their companions…” (Bruce, p. 383). 13. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 20:6. 14. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 384. Wiersbe adds: “The first day came to be called “the Lord’s Day” because on it the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead (Rev. 1;10)…During the early years of the church, the believers did maintain some of the Jewish traditions, such as the hours of prayer (Acts 3:1)…Love feasts: (agape), after which they would observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:17-34)…It is likely that the church observed the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day when they met for fellowship and worship.” (Wiersbe, p. 387). Pfeiffer &Harrison also add: “The first Christians, as Jews, probably continued to observe the Sabbath as well as the first day of the week.” (Pfeiffer &Harrison, p. 1162). 15. Quoted in Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, 16. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 321. 17. Ibid., p. 319. 18. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 382. 19. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 20:8-9. 20. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 385. 21. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 245. 22. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 20:12-14. 23. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 20:14. 24. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 20:15. 25. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 104. 26. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 383. 27. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1001. 28. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 323. 30. Ibid. 31. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 389. 32. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 383. 33. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 20:2-38. Barnes adds: “The discourse which follows is one of the most tender, affectionate, and eloquent which is anywhere to be found…It is strong evidence of the holiness of the character of the apostles, and proof that they were not impostors, that they could thus appeal with the utmost assurance to those who had every opportunity of knowing them.” (Barnes, v. 20:18). 34. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 20:19. 35. Ibid., v. 20:20. 36. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 20:21. 37. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 315. 38. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 20:22. 39. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 390. 40. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 41. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 389. 42. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 20:27. 43. Godbey, Commentary on Acts, William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament, vs. 20:26-27. 44. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 329. 45. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 384. 46. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 20:32. 47. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 336. 48. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 20:33-34. Pett adds: “Paul made a point of never receiving gifts from churches unless he was absolutely certain that they came from hearts that overflowed with genuine love and fellowship, and never while he was working among them…Thus this was very much a Pauline attitude. And it was to be seen by the elders as an example to follow as he now makes clear.” (Pett, v. 20:33). 49. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1001. 50. John R. Rice, How To Get Things From God (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1942), p. 29. 51. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 385. 52. Ibid. 53. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 20:37. After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Kos. The next day we went to Rhodes and from there to Patara. Acts 21:1 Kretzmann describes this parting: “The leave-taking from the elders was attended with such difficulties that Paul and his companions literally had to tear themselves from their embraces, so bitterly did they feel the parting from the beloved apostle…” [1] Guthrie says of this meeting that it “…shows how firm a bond primitive Christianity was.” [2] The trip to Jerusalem by sea resumed as the party sailed next to Kos. This island was about 40 miles (64 km.) south of Miletus. The island was home to the famous Greek physician Hippocrates, who lived in the fifth century BC. It was also the site of a large medical school. [3] The next day the party sailed to the island of Rhodes, another 50 miles (80 km.) to the south-east. Rhodes was famous for its roses, from which it got its name. The island and city of the same name had a university that specialized in rhetoric. In ancient times Rhodes was world famous for its Colossus, a statue of Apollo (and lighthouse) that stood over 100 feet (30 m.) in height. It was said that ships could pass between the legs of this giant statue and it was noted as one of the wonders of the ancient world. [4] From Rhodes they sailed due east to Patara, which was near to the southernmost promontory of Asia’s mainland. It was about 59 miles (80 km.) further east. This natural harbor was a chief port for ships headed to Syria. The city was famous for its oracle of Apollo and later also for the home of St. Nicholas, who would eventually gain worldwide fame, especially around Christmas time. “We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail” (21:2). At this point Paul and his company were only 400 miles (643 km.) from Syria. We sense some of the tension relaxing as the group was now making much better time. On the open sea they would not have to contend with the frequent delays that had plagued them with the small merchant ships. “After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo” (21:3). Paul must have had pleasant thoughts as he sailed passed the large island of Cyprus. Just a few years before, he had launched his First Missionary Journey there, along with Barnabas and John Mark. Surely, through the ministry of Paul, the words of Isaiah spoken long before were coming to pass and the islands of the sea were now exalting and praising the true God (Isa. 24:15; 42:10; 60:9). [5] After a few days journey the large ship landed at Tyre. In earlier Phoenician days this port was one of the most famous commercial centers in the world. But the Apostle Paul was a trader in a far different sense. He was a trader for Christ both by land and by sea, [6] distributing the precious wares of the gospel wherever he went. We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. Acts 21:4 We have mentioned that Paul was not a tourist, merely enjoying his travel from place to place. Wherever he went he also went to work. At Tyre, Paul and his group searched out the body of Christ and found it. This congregation was small and unknown but it was amazingly loving, and in addition seemed to have some good spiritual gifts in its midst. Ironically, this small congregation may have been established due to Paul’s earlier persecution of the church in Jerusalem. We remember that due to that persecution, the Hellenist believers scattered in all directions taking the gospel with them (8:1, 4). Once again with the establishment of this small church the ancient scriptures were fulfilled (Psa. 87:4). Because the ship had to unload its merchandise, the group spent a week with these believers. As was the case in other places, these believers through their prophetic utterances warned Paul that danger awaited him in Jerusalem (cf. 20:22-23). We must understand that the Holy Spirit was not forbidding Paul to travel to Jerusalem, but only warning him about what would happen when he got there. We have seen earlier that Paul was compelled by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem (20:22). Barker &Kohlenberger say here: “This section is theologically significant because Luke seems to describe Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in terms of Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem to die…a similar plot by the Jews…a handing over to the Gentiles…a triple prediction on the way of coming suffering…a steadfast resolution…so he describes Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in terms reminiscent of the Suffering Servant.” [7] Paul, like his Master, had set his face toward Jerusalem. “When it was time to leave, we left and continued on our way. All of them, including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. After saying goodbye to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home” (21:5-6). The visit with the Christians at Tyre surely encouraged Paul and verified the authenticity of the Christian faith he had suffered so much to preach. This is a precious and endearing picture as this small body of believers, including children, clung to Paul and his group, knelt together with them to pray and accompanied them to their ship. We might note that it was a common practice in that day to accompany a departing guest some distance down the road (15:3; Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:6, 11). While this was a traditional custom, the practice of kneeling for prayer was uniquely Christian. [8] “We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and sisters and stayed with them for a day” (21:7). Barclay says at this point, “The narrative is speeding up and there is an atmosphere of approaching storm as Paul comes nearer Jerusalem…” [9] Once more, Paul and his company are comforted by the church of God. Barclay remarks again: “…One of the great privileges of belonging to the church is the fact that no matter where a man goes, he is sure to find a community of like-minded people into which he may enter. The man who is in the family of the church has friends all over the world.” [10] Ptolmais was another ancient Phoenician seaport. It is known today by its biblical name of Acco (Judg. 1:31). The port rests at the northern end of beautiful Haifa Bay. In Paul’s day Ptolmais was a Roman colony. The stay at Ptolmais was brief, lasting only one day and then the group was on its way down the coastline to Caesarea. Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.” Acts 21:8-9 The journey on to Caesarea was about a distance of 40 miles (63 km.). The city of Caesarea was rebuilt by Herod the Great and he had added a marvelous deep sea harbor. In Paul’s time Caesarea served as the Roman administrative center for the province of Judea. Meyer says, “The days Paul spent at Caesarea were the last happy days of freedom that he was to enjoy for two or three years…An unseen hand was beckoning; a voice which only he could hear was calling.” [11] Paul and his group lodged with Philip the Evangelist for several days. Philip was one of the seven deacons mentioned in 6:5, but he had branched out into evangelistic work in Samaria and also with the Ethiopian Eunuch. His four daughters were prophetesses. No doubt Luke relished the time with Philip and his daughters as he gathered stories of early church activities from these original sources. Luke may have also gotten first-hand information about Stephen and his death at this time. [12] We remember that in 8:40 we left Philip at Caesarea and apparently he had made it his home. We have no indication that the four daughters warned Paul about going to Jerusalem. Being prophetesses they no doubt sensed that the visit to Jerusalem would cause Paul much difficulty. Later, as the Jewish revolt against the Romans began to heat up in Israel, Philip and his daughters apparently migrated to Hierapolis in Phrygia. Also John the Beloved moved to Ephesus. [13] Philip’s four prophetically inclined daughters may have foreseen that when the revolt started more than twenty thousand Jewish people would be slaughtered in a single hour at Caesarea. [14] “After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea” (21:10). As we remember, Paul had met Agabus before. When Paul and Barnabas were working together at Antioch of Syria, Agabus had arrived and correctly predicted the great famine under Emperor Claudius (11:27-28). Based on his prophecy, Paul and the others got together a relief offering for the city of Jerusalem. Now Agabus came to Caesarea, indicating that the word about Paul’s arrival was beginning to spread. “Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, 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). Based on the prophetic track record of Agabus it was likely that no one, including Paul, doubted the accuracy of this prophecy. It is interesting that in this event Agabus reflected an Old Testament style of prophesying, that of acting out the prophecy. We see this type of prophecy in several places in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 20:3-4; Jer.13:1-11; 27:2-3; Ezek. 4:1-17; 5:1-4; 12:1-28; 1 Ki. 11:29-31). He bound himself hand and foot, indicating what was about to happen to Paul in Jerusalem. The belt in those days was a long, narrow piece of cloth which was wrapped several times around the waist. It was also used as a pocket or purse. [15] Again, we emphasize that this prophecy was a warning to Paul. Agabus did not forbid him from going up to Jerusalem, but only told what would happen if he did go. None of this changed the apostle’s mind about his journey. “When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, ‘Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus’” (21:12-13). Again, like his Master almost thirty years before, Paul had set his face like a flint. He would go up to Jerusalem regardless of the cost (Isa. 50:7). Like his Master, he was willing to die in Jerusalem if necessary. Paul was an amazing man! “When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, ‘The Lord’s will be done.’ After this, we started on our way up to Jerusalem” (21:14-15). The King James Version here reads, “we took up our carriages.” This translation caused some commentators to think that they rode to Jerusalem on horses or carriages. What verse 15 says is likely clearer in the New King James Version: “And after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem.” The trip up to Jerusalem from Caesarea was no small matter. Travelers climbed from sea level up some very steep hills to Jerusalem, an elevation of 2474 ft. (754 m), and this in a distance of 75 miles (121 km.). It was a hard three-day journey. It seemed at this point that all the team members as well as others had decided that it was the Lord’s will for Paul to go. “Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples” (21:16). We note that the Caesarea disciples did not just accompany Paul for a reasonable distance from town but they went all the way to Jerusalem with him. They had apparently been busy making other arrangements for the comfort of Paul and his party. Likely they had arranged for an early disciple by the name of Mnason to be the Jerusalem host. Obviously, Mnason was a person of some means and apparently had a large house in Jerusalem. [16] He was also probably a Hellenistic believer who was comfortable with Gentiles. [17] That would not have been the case with many of Jerusalem’s Jewish believers. Bruce says, “Not every member of the church of Jerusalem would be prepared to have a party of Gentile Christians in his home …” [18] Since Mnason was a very early disciple there is no doubt that he also supplied Luke with much critical information for his gospel. [19] When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. Acts 21:17 The Jerusalem reception for Paul and his group of Gentiles was outwardly warm. This was not just because of the large offering the group brought, because Luke does not even mention this offering. There were still deep tensions underneath and they would promptly emerge. Paul was not going back to the Jerusalem he once knew. The date was around AD 57 and Israel was less than ten years away from the start of the great revolt against Rome that would begin in the Galilee in AD 66 and spread to Jerusalem. Already there were tensions related to the Gentiles, and nationalistic tendencies were being inflamed. For Jewish people to be too warm towards Gentiles would have surely raised suspicions. Stott focuses on this problem, saying: “One of the major themes which he has been developing concerns the relations between Jews and Gentiles in the Messianic community.” [20] “The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present” (21:18). For some time James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the recognized head of the church in Jerusalem. His influence even extended out to the world-wide church. Also, other leaders such as Peter and John had apparently left the city by this time. [21] “Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (21:19). It is obvious that Paul was not just bringing a report of his activities among the Gentiles, but he was presenting several examples of his work by having a group of believing Gentiles present with him as “exhibit A.” Paul’s report was quite spectacular due to the great number of Gentiles converted and to the many signs and wonders God had produced in various situations. “When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law’” (21:20). Certainly the leaders were full of praise when they heard the report of how God was working in the Gentile world. But immediately they brought up the Jewish problem that was vexing them sorely. Barker and Kohlenberger say, “…the Jerusalem church was increasingly being caught between its allegiance to the nation and its fraternal relation to Paul’s Gentile mission… But with the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and a growing body of scrupulous believers in the Jerusalem church, Jewish Christian solidarity with the Gentile mission was becoming more and more difficult to affirm…Undoubtedly Paul recognized the increased tensions at Jerusalem.” [22] We have scriptural evidence that many Jewish priests were now in the church, as well as many from the ranks of the Pharisees (6:7; 15:5). Probably most of these had strong leanings toward legalism. James was in the delicate position of trying to keep the legalists happy and still encouraging the evangelistic outreach to Gentiles. Some of these legalists were actually false brethren as Paul tells us (Gal. 2:4). Some of these no doubt found themselves in the ranks of the Judaizers, who caused the apostle so much trouble in the new churches. Many in these groups demanded the circumcision of Gentiles. However, Paul knew that “…circumcision was a matter of indifference; it made no difference to one’s status in God’s sight (Gal. 5:6; 6:15).” [23] Guzik says: “Based on Romans 14:4-6, it seems that Paul didn’t have a problem with Jewish Christians who wanted to continue to observe old customs and laws. It seems that he himself did so sometimes, such as when he took and fulfilled a vow of consecration in Acts 18:18 (probably a Nazirite vow). Paul seemed fine with this, as long as they didn’t think it made them more right before God.” [24] “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” (21:21). What is reflected here is false information. Wiersbe remarks, “It has well been said that, though a rumor doesn’t have a leg to stand on, it travels mighty fast!” [25] The genius of Paul’s churches was that they were mostly founded with Jewish converts, Jewish proselytes and God-fearers from the synagogues. All these groups were thoroughly instructed in the Old Testament. Paul never taught that the Old Testament should be rejected but he used it as a basis of all his teaching. [26] “What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow” (21:22-23). We can almost sense the pressure in the voice of James. He was facing a dilemma and had to have a quick solution to it. It seems at that moment a solution must have popped into James’ head. He must have remembered four men who had taken a vow and who were scheduled to complete it. Possibly, Paul could join with them and at least pay their fees. 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. Acts 21:24 If Paul could somehow join in with these men it might calm the fears of the legalists. Bruce says, “If he were seen to take part publicly in one of the ancestral customs, it would be realized that he was, after all, an observant and practicing Jew…” [27] It seems that some rituals were not exactly foreign to Paul. He had once shaved his head in a Nazarite vow (18:18-21) as we have mentioned. It appears that this was the vow that the four men had taken. It was an acceptable act of Jewish piety for someone to pay all the expenses of concluding the Nazarite vow for another person or persons. [28] However, it does not seem possible that Paul could have joined these four men in the Nazarite vow itself. The period of the vow was a minimum of thirty days, [29] so Paul could not possibly join them for this period. It is far more likely that Paul was involved in a different type of ceremony. Stott says, “…it may mean that Paul had a seven-day purification ceremony of his own to undergo because during his long absence from Jerusalem the Jews regarded him as having become Levitically unclean…” [30] Bruce says of Paul, “He himself was happy to conform to Jewish customs when he found himself in Jewish society.” [31] Paul had earlier stated this principle in 1 Corinthians 9:20. Bruce adds, “A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul’s is not in bondage to its own emancipation.” [32] For Paul to join in and pay the expenses of these four men would have involved quite a large amount of money. Clarke list the total items offered as “Eight lambs, four rams, besides oil, flour, etc… (cf. Num. 6:1-21).” [33] “As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality” (21:25). This whole scenario involved mostly the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. However, James makes reference here to the decision of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, and that decision mostly regarded Gentile believers. Marshall feels that this statement is addressed mostly to Paul’s Gentile companions. [34] Barnes speaks of this section concisely: “The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be enjoined on the Gentiles, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.” [35] “The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them” (21:26). Apparently, the next day Paul went to the temple to begin his own cleansing, while at the same time giving notice that the vow of the four men, as well as his own, would be concluded on the seventh day. [36] When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, Acts 21:27 As Paul walked about in the temple area he was soon recognized. Those recognizing him were from the province of Asia. In all likelihood they were Jews from Ephesus, where Paul had spent a great deal of time. We cannot rule out Alexander the Coppersmith as being part of this hostile crowd. Tempers flared, especially on those hot summer days. It was never difficult to ferment a riot in Jerusalem due to the abnormally high religious feelings that most Jews had regarding the temple and the city. The agitated crowd immediately seized Paul. The mob ran together, “shouting, ‘Fellow Israelites, 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). The mob was shouting untruths. Paul had not taught against the law or the temple. He had certainly not brought a Gentile into the temple complex. Unfortunately, mobs generally have little tolerance for truth. It would have been quite impossible for Paul to have brought Trophimus, his Gentile helper, into the Court of Israel. Gentiles were confined to the Court of the Gentiles. They could go no further. In those days four-and-a-half-foot (1.37 m.) barriers were erected to prevent this very thing and no doubt they were manned under the watchful eyes of the Levites. In recent years two of these barriers have been discovered by archaeologists. The signs on these barriers read, “No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the temple and enclosure. Any one who is caught trespassing will bear personal responsibility for his ensuing death.” [37] In the case of Gentiles transgressing the temple compound, the Romans had given the Sanhedrin permission for the Jews to put such a one to death, even if the person was a Roman citizen. [38] So, not only could the mob have murdered Paul on this trumped-up charge, but the Sanhedrin could have also murdered him. “(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.)” (21:29). We remember how Trophimus from Ephesus had accompanied Paul on this journey. As we have said, it was virtually impossible for Trophimus to have gone into the temple area. Also, Paul would have been wise enough to forbid any Gentile helper following him into the Court of Israel. The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut (21:30). News of the riot must have spread like wildfire through the city and people came from everywhere. They seized Paul and probably dragged him out into the Court of the Gentiles. [39] At this moment Paul’s life was in great danger as they were no doubt hitting and kicking him with all their might. Obviously, they did not want to murder Paul in the temple complex itself. We are told here that the temple doors were immediately shut. How symbolic this act was! They were at last officially shutting the doors on the gospel. Of course, God was also shutting the doors on them. [40] Their temple would be left to them desolate (Lk. 13:34-35). In a little over a decade the temple would be totally destroyed by the Romans. “While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul” (21:31-32). Obviously, Paul was in grave danger. Barclay says, “There was never a time when Paul was nearer death than this and it was the impartial justice of Rome which saved his life.” [41] How true the words of Jesus that his servants would fall into the hands of men (Lk. 9:44; 24:7). The temple mount was the traditional hot spot for trouble and uprisings. The Romans knowing this had made thorough preparation for such outbreaks. In those days the massive Fortress of Antonia stood at the northwest corner of the temple mount. One could observe the whole temple complex from the towers of this fortress. [42] The structure had been built by King Herod the Great and named in honor of his friend Mark Antony. In normal times the garrison was manned by a tribunus militum (our rank of major or colonel) along with a cohort of troops. This would have included 760 infantry and 240 cavalry. [43] During festival times when nationalistic fervor was high the Romans would be certain to have a thousand men present. [44] From the fortress the Romans had immediate access to the temple area by two flights of stairs, so they were quick to respond to the outbreak of violence. By the fact that officers are mentioned, it is felt that at least two centurions and perhaps 160 soldiers were sent down to rescue Paul. [45] We can realize that with the presence of such a force the people stopped beating the apostle. The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Acts 21:33 In the Roman world such outbreaks of violence were taken very seriously. “Rome insisted on civil order and a riot was unforgivable sin both for the populace who staged it and the commander who allowed it.” [46] We can thus understand why the commander appeared in person in this instance. He was taking no chances and had Paul bound with two chains. From this point on Luke will assign a good deal of space to Paul’s imprisonments and examinations. We can feel that these things marked an important part of the book of Acts in Luke’s estimation. [47] The commander’s immediate concern was to get information out of Paul, but as we will see, this was impossible in the midst of such mayhem. “Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers” (21:34-35). There was such confusion all around that the commander could not determine what the charge should be regarding Paul. He thus ordered that he be taken up the stairs and into the fortress. There was such bedlam that Paul’s life was still in danger despite the soldiers present. It became necessary for the soldiers to actually carry Paul to prevent his injury. “The crowd that followed kept shouting, Get rid of him!’” (21:36). We can remember that a very similar thing was shouted almost thirty years before regarding Jesus (Lk. 23;18; Jn. 19:15). So, despite his troubles, Paul was certainly in good company. As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” “Do you speak Greek?” he replied. Acts 21:37 Most of us would have been happy to get inside the fortress at such a time, but Paul was a very courageous person and wished to address the angry crowd. He asked to speak a word to the commander and the commander was shocked to hear him speaking cultured Greek without an accent. [48] “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?” Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people” (21:38-39). It appears that the commander was laboring under the misconception that Paul was the Egyptian rebel who had caused much trouble in the past. The historian Josephus tells that this rebel claimed he was a prophet. He drew a great multitude after him to the Mount of Olives, where he declared that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down. The governor Felix ordered an attack on these fanatics slaying four hundred of them and taking two hundred alive. However, the Egyptian somehow escaped. [49] The word for terrorists is the Greek sikariōn. As the revolt against Rome drew closer, this word described a group of assassins (Gk. sicarri) who carried curved daggers under their clothing and stabbed to death aristocrats who were mingling in the crowds. These murderers often slipped away unseen. [50] The assassins are often called “zealots” in the New Testament (cf. Lk. 6:15; Acts 1:13). It is amazing that one of these assassins did not get close enough in the crowd and plunge a dagger into Paul’s heart. It is further amazing that at least one and perhaps two of these radicals were reformed and called to be disciples of the Lord (cf. Matt. 10:4). Some commentators have felt that Judas had such a connection. Paul assured the commander that he was a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia. Tarsus was no small city but had become a cultural center of Hellenism. The city had actually become a rival to both Rome and Athens. [51] “After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:” (21:40). It seems that a great hush fell over the crowd as Paul began to speak. They were no doubt shocked that he spoke to them in their Hebrew language, as the Greek text says. Some scholars have insisted that he spoke in the Aramaic language, which was the vernacular at the time. The languages are very similar. 1. Kretzmann, Commentary on Acts, Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary, vs. 21:1-4. 2. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1001. 3. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 21:1. 4. Ibid. 5. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 21:3. 6. Trapp, Commentary on Acts, John Trapp Complete Commentary, v. 21:3. 7. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 8. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 21:5-6. 9. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 21:1-16. 10. Ibid. 11. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 12. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 331. 13. Eusebius Pamphilus, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 3, Ch. 31, Popular Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1955), p. 116. Bruce adds regarding Philip: “It is from this missionary activity that he is called ‘Philip the evangelist,’ perhaps to distinguish him from Philip the apostle. Even so, they are confused by later writers.” (Bruce, p. 399). 14. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 387. 15. Ibid., p. 386. 16. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 21:15. 17. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1002. 18. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 402. Utley adds: “…‘and all the elders were present.’ Notice that there is no mention of the Apostles. Apparently they were on mission trips out of the country, or maybe they were dead.” (Utley, v. 21:18). 19. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 21:16. 20. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 335. 21. Ibid., p. 339. 22. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Keener adds: “Justin Martyr notes this controversy in his own day but clearly maintains the earlier Christian view that Jewish people could both practice the law and follow Jesus – Dialogue with Trypho 47.” (Keener, p. 386). 23. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 405. 24. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 21:20-22. 25. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 391. 26. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 344. 27. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 406. 28. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 345. 29. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 387. 30. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 342. 31. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 406. 32. Quoted in Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 346. 33. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 21:24. 34. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 346. 35. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 21:25. 36. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 347. Barker &Kohlenberger add: “Coming from abroad, Paul would have had to regain ceremonial purity by a seven-day ritual of purification before he could be present at the absolution ceremony of the four Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem temple…he undoubtedly returned to the temple at regular prescribed intervals during the week (the third and seventh days) for the appropriate rites. (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 495). 37. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 409. 38. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1002. 39. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 387. 40. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 21:30. 41. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 21:27-36. 42. Josephus, Wars, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 8. 43. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 348. 44. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 21:27-36. 45. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 388. 46. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 21:27-36. 47. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 338. 48. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 388. 49. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 8, Section 6. 50. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 388. 51. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 21:39. “Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense.” (Acts 22:1) Paul begins by not only identifying himself with his people, but he speaks to them in a kind and respectful manner. He speaks in terms of his defense. This is the Greek word apologias, from which we get “apology.” The word includes the concept of witness. [1] It is interesting that both Stephen and Paul give witness to Israel as they present the gospel. What a picture we have here of Paul on the temple steps, boldly witnessing and speaking to his would-be murderers and fearlessly staring them in the face. “When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said:” (22:2). Paul opened his mouth and began to speak to them in the Hebrew language (Gk. Hebrais), which surely was a demonstration that he was a Jew in every sense. [2] Most scholars feel that he spoke in Aramaic, which was the cognate of the Hebrew and the vernacular of Israel as well as much of western Asia. [3] The Jewish people had learned this language when they were captives in Persia. Paul’s listeners were no doubt surprised to hear him speaking their native tongue. In those days many Jews in the Diaspora spoke only Greek. Even the famous Jewish scholar of the First Century, Philo of Alexandria, could not read Hebrew, although he wrote extensive commentaries on the Old Testament. [4] Aramaic was very similar to Hebrew, using Hebrew lettering but with somewhat different pronunciations and meanings. “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today” (22:3). Paul was always proud of his Jewish heritage (cf. 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:4-5). He was born of Jewish parents in Tarsus but he was brought to Jerusalem starting at a young age and continued his studies in the city. In Jerusalem, his instructor was the famed Gamaliel, a disciple of the Great Hillel. Gamaliel had died only five years before this event and was still held in loving memory by the Jews. Paul had not only sat at his feet but had advanced above his contemporaries. He had gone to the head of his class as we see in Galatians 1:14. He had become quite zealous for the traditions of his people. “I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, (22:4). As evidence of his fiery zeal he had persecuted Christians. Here they are called “followers of this Way.” We see this designation for Christians found in 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:22. Paul had placed many believers in prison but he had apparently put some to death (cf. 26:10). Paul continues, “…as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. 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). Obviously, the high priest who was in office at the time of this earlier event was no longer in the position. Ananias was now in that office (AD 47-60). However, many members of the Council could probably remember the events of which Paul spoke. Perhaps Ananias could also remember, since he was no doubt a member of the Council at the time. In his great zeal Paul had requested and received letters of authority from the Council that he might go as far away as Damascus, arresting Christians and bringing them back to Jerusalem for trial. “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ Acts 22:6-7 When Paul relates that this event happened around noontime, he gives us new information that was not found in the account of 9:3f. [5] The apostle tries to describe the indescribable event of a divine visitation. This was no visitation in the dim light of evening but in the bright light of noonday. This light was so bright that it made the sun look dim. Paul was a rebel but God brought him down to the ground. This reminds us of the words of Deuteronomy: “The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark…” (Deut. 28:28-29). Paul makes plain that he was on official business from the Sanhedrin when this strange event happened. He also affirms clearly that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by many of his listeners, was still alive in power and glory. [6] He had spoken to the apostle in an unforgettable manner. The apostle was speaking to many doubters. Likely, the most effective witness is that of personal testimony and experience. Barclay says that it “is the most unanswerable argument on earth.” [7] We would all do well to resort to this method rather than to our limp theological explanations that interest few people. God knows our names as well as our addresses. He knew who Paul was and what he was up to. Jesus called out “Saul, Saul” (his previous Hebrew name). Some woman quipped at this, saying that every time God calls a man he has to call him twice. Perhaps that is true since we men are a little hard-headed and often hard of hearing in the spiritual sense. Clearly, Jesus is not only alive but he can communicate with us today. The Lord gets right to the point and charges Paul with persecuting him outright. This must have been a stunning statement to the apostle. He had thought all along that he was serving God with all his might and suddenly he is told that he is persecuting the Master. “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied” (22:8). We can imagine that Paul’s world was suddenly turned upside down. What he thought was good was evil and what he thought evil was suddenly good. He was persecuting his own long-awaited Messiah! In recent years archaeologists have given new significance to the word Nazareth. They now know that the word comes from the Hebrew “branch” (netzer). This gives new meaning to the opaque verse in Matthew 2:23: “and he [Jesus] went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. Scholars have wrestled with this verse for centuries because they could find no prophecy to this effect in the Bible. Now through recent archaeological excavations we know that Nazareth has the root of netzer, branch or shoot. [8] Jesus the Nazarene means essentially Jesus the Branch. All Israel’s hopes were bound up in him. He was the Branch or Shoot of David they were expecting (Isa. 11:1; 53:2; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). Now they had rejected and crucified him. Not only had they rejected him but they were rejecting his messenger and would gladly have had him crucified if possible. “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me” (22:9). I think we can reverently say that God does not waste revelation on those who will not believe. Although his companions saw the light, the message was beyond their understanding (cf. Judg. 13:18). These companions, who were no doubt members of the religious cadre in Jerusalem, obviously knew that a true miracle was taking place and it was God who was speaking. Somehow, they did not get back home with this important message. It is even possible that some of these folks were standing in the crowd on this very day, perhaps even nodding their heads in approval of the account. My, how the vision splendid fades into the light of common day! [9] “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do’” (22:10). Paul is now calling this Jesus “Lord.” Marshall says, “…the choice of word indicates the new estimate of Jesus.” [10] People naturally want to do something for God. Much religion is based upon this need. However, we cannot do anything for God or with God until God does something for us, until our inner nature is renewed by his revelation. Then, it will not be our work at all but his work through us. We should remember that there is always work to do in the kingdom of God. Too many people “get saved” and just sit around. “My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me” (22:11). These witnesses of one of the greatest miracles in history led blinded Paul into Damascus, but they still apparently forgot to convey this astounding information to the high priest and religious council in Jerusalem. “A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. Acts 22:12 It is amazing how “in tune” with the Holy Spirit some of the early Christians were. Ananias is such a good example of listening to the Spirit, even when the message was hard and seemingly impossible. Paul presents Ananias as a devout, law observing Jewish believer. He was obviously a person greatly respected by the Jewish community in Damascus. In the original account of 9:10-17, we realize that Ananias had many reservations about going to meet Saul. Clearly, Ananias did not want to go. He had heard too many bad reports about him, how Saul had come to take many believers back to Jerusalem as prisoners. God insisted that he go and he obeyed. “He stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him” (22:13). We note in the original account of chapter 9 that something like scales immediately fell from Saul’s eyes. In 9:16, we learn something that is not mentioned here. Ananias had heard the Lord say, “I will show him how much he must suffer for my name” (9:16). Now the word of the Lord was coming true as Saul stood accused and severely persecuted in Jerusalem. “Then he said: ‘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” (22:14-15). Guthrie says, “Here, as in 26:16, we have evidence in Acts parallel to the more emphatic assertions in the Epistles that Paul actually saw the risen Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1)…” [11] Paul was a witness of the resurrection. The information that Paul would share with people all over the known world was not something he had conjured up in his own mind or something others had told him. Rather, he had received it by direct revelation from the Lord (Gal. 1:11-12). Paul is being very careful here, but he will not be able to hold this explosive fact long. He was to be a witness to all people. Utley comments: “Paul purposefully does not use the word ‘Gentile’ that Ananias passed on to him from Jesus (cf. Acts 9:15). Paul knew how explosive this derogatory term go’im (the nations or Gentiles) was to these ultra-conservative Jews. Their biases and racial arrogance had even robbed the Old Testament prophets of their inclusive prophecies!” [12] “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name’” (22:16). This verse can be quite misleading, in that it appears to indicate that baptism itself washes away sin. From this verse some denominations have insisted that baptism is a part of the saving process and thus they speak of baptismal regeneration. We obviously have to be careful here. 1 Peter 3:21 clearly disputes such an idea. Pett comments about this subject saying: “This is significant here for nowhere in the New Testament is baptism ever spoken of as washing… If there is a ‘washing’ it is a ‘washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5-6)…’” [13] In regard to the washing and cleansing of baptism, Pett also points out how the Old Testament ritual washings never brought about cleansing. He notes that the only water in the Old Testament that cleansed was the water of purification. However, that water had been purified by the ashes of the red heifer. He notes that the red heifer offering was based on that heifer’s blood sacrifice. [14] Today only the blood of Jesus can wash away sins. A number of scholars have commented on this verse. Bruce says of baptism that it is “the outward and visible sign of his inward and spiritual cleansing from sin…” [15] Utley says, “Baptism was the early Church’s public profession of faith.” [16] Barnes adds, “…The external rite will avail nothing without the pardoning mercy of God.” [17] Baptism in the New Testament was almost like a first step of discipleship. It was something that was done immediately. It was a burial of the old man, and in Israel burial was always something done immediately. In 2:38 we see that New Testament baptism was a passive thing. It was done by another person and quite unlike the Jewish baptism in which one dipped himself or herself. Baptism speaks of burial of the old person (Rom. 6:3-4), and we realize how difficult and impossible it would be for a person to do a self-burial. When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking to me. “Quick!” he said. “Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.” Acts 22:17-18 This is no doubt speaking of Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem after becoming a Christian. It probably took place around the year AD 36 (cf. 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-19), about three years after his conversion. In Acts 9:30, we are told that the brothers learned of the threats to his life and sent him off to his hometown of Tarsus. Here we get some added information, that Paul had been warned by the Lord himself to leave Jerusalem quickly because his life was in danger. We see how neatly Paul used this revelation to rebuke the threatening crowd around him, for they also were not accepting his testimony. We see also how Paul was faithful to worship in the temple, a fact that should have well pleased the devout Jews. The word for testimony in verse 18 is the Greek marturia. It had the meaning of “witness” but gradually it took on the meaning of martyr, a witness who had sealed his or her testimony with blood. [18] “‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him’” (22:19-20). As a persecutor of the church Paul was very diligent. He had rounded up Christians and had them beaten at the synagogue. Usually, the chazzan, or the synagogue attendant was responsible for such beatings. [19] This was a humiliating and painful form of public discipline. This beating was normally the forty lashes less one (2 Cor. 11:24). Now the apostle mentions something that must have weighed heavily upon his conscience over the last several years. He had been a participant in the death of the first recorded Christian martyr, Stephen. While he was not involved in the actual stoning, still he guarded the clothing of the ones who were doing the stoning. The Bible says that he consented to Stephen’s death (8:1). “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (22:21). Because of Israel’s rejection of the gospel, Paul would be sent to the Gentiles or nations (Gk. ethnos). The Gentiles had over the centuries become quite repulsive to the people of Israel. Gentiles had come to be generally despised. This was far off base to God’s original plan. Israel was to be a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Many scriptures speak of God’s plan of using Israel to reach the Gentiles (cf. Psa. 98:3; Isa. 45:22; 52:10; 60:1-3). Israel in her spiritual pride had dismally failed at this task. It was now left to Paul and to many other Christians following after him to reach the nations. The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” Acts 22:22 It is amazing how the crowd erupted into violence at Paul’s mention of one word – “Gentiles.” Perhaps some of their rage sprang from a bad conscience at not having reached the nations with God’s truth. They took all of their rage out on Paul, apparently because he was actually taking the gospel to the Gentiles. They would have gladly done to Paul what the leaders had done to Stephen. They would have stoned him, except they were lacking any stones. The tribune was no doubt mystified at all this commotion. He probably had understood very little of Paul’s speech, since it was not in his language. “As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and interrogated in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this” (22:23-24). The matter of throwing off their cloaks was an expression of outrage over what they considered to be blasphemy. Some commentators have felt that the removing of outer garments indicated that they were preparing to stone Paul. [20] The throwing of dust into the air expressed their abhorrence, indignation and outrage toward Paul and his work (cf. 2 Sam. 16:13). Obviously, the commander was overwhelmed and mystified by all the goings-on of the day. He was determined to get Paul inside the fortress and then get the truth out of him. The universal Roman method of doing this was by the flagellum or flogging. Paul was no stranger to punishment. He already had received thirty-nine lashes from the Jews on five occasions, as well as three beatings with the Roman lictor’s rods (2 Cor. 11:24-25). However, the Roman flogging was more serious than all these. While other punishments often had limits to the strokes given, the flogging had none. It was an inhumane punishment given by whips embedded with pieces of bone, metal or stone. The flogging often left the victim severely injured or even dead. [21] This was the punishment that Jesus endured for us prior to his crucifixion. There were three levels of flogging and it appears here that the lighter level was intended for Paul. “As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, ‘Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?’” (22:25). Roman citizens were greatly protected throughout the empire. Ancient laws like the Lex Valeria, the Lex Porcia, and later the Lex Julia, protected citizens from beating and even from fettering. The Roman citizen could always appeal to Rome. [22] “When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. ‘What are you going to do?’ he asked. ‘This man is a Roman citizen.’ The commander went to Paul and asked, ‘Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?’ ‘Yes, I am,’ he answered” (22:26-27). It is easy to detect a sense of panic that arose when it is discovered that Paul is a Roman citizen. Upon hearing this news the commander came immediately and in person to Paul. Actually, the commander had already violated the Roman statutes by placing chains on Paul. Such violations could easily cause a commander to be dismissed from his post. It would have been a dreadful violation for Paul to have been flogged. In the Roman world there were three ways for a person to acquire Roman citizenship. It could be gained by birth if parents were Roman citizens; it could be gained by purchase; or it could be obtained as a gift from the government. [23] At times the purchase turned out to be a bribe to some government official. We do not know how it was possible to verify that a person had citizenship. Apparently just the claim itself was taken at face value, since the penalties for falsification were stiff indeed. There were appropriate lists of citizenship in various places but these would not be immediately accessible. [24] “Then the commander said, ‘I had to pay a lot of money for my citizenship.’ ‘But I was born a citizen,’ Paul replied” (22:28). The name of the commander, “Claudius,” might imply that he had purchased his citizenship under the emperor Claudius. Apparently under his rule such purchased citizenships were easy to obtain. Even the wife of Claudius sold them for large sums. [25] Paul was born a citizen. Apparently, his father or grandfather had rendered some outstanding service to the emperor. [26] “Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains” (22:29). As we have said, the commander was near panic at the thought that he had bound a Roman citizen without a trial. He no doubt shuddered at the thought that he almost had him flogged. Such a report could place his command in jeopardy as we have said. The commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews. So the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and all the members of the Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and had him stand before them. Acts 22:30 It may seem a little strange that this commander could summon a meeting of the great Sanhedrin. Bruce comments: “… in the absence of the procurator the officer commanding the Antonia garrison was the chief representative of Roman authority in Jerusalem. If he ordered the Sanhedrin to meet, the Sanhedrin met.” [27] The fact that Paul was released to appear before the Sanhedrin is indication that he was still in custody. Marshall says, “…we must assume that while in custody even a Roman citizen could be bound.” [28] The tribune was so confused by the Jewish hatred of Paul that he thought it best to call a meeting of the Sanhedrin. They could surely determine what charges might apply to Paul. Pett comments: “We note that this was at least the sixth time that the Sanhedrin had been called on to evaluate the claims of Christ…They had had plenty of time to come to a firm and reasonable decision about him. But they had not. They were still divided.” [29] 1. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 353. 2. Ibid. 3. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 22:1-2. Pett adds: “In the New Testament ‘Hebrew’ regularly means Aramaic… Hebrew lettering and Aramaic lettering are the same…Hebrew was reserved for religious usage.” (Pett, v. 22:2). 4. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 353. 5. Ibid. 6. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 393. 7. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 22:1-10. 8. Pixner, With Jesus Through the Galilee According to the Fifth Gospel, p. 15. 9. William Wordsworth. 1770–1850, 536. Ode Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood. 10. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 355. 11. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1003. Meyer adds: “Here was a fact, which to the Apostle was the greatest of all facts, namely, that he had seen Jesus Christ, and had been transformed by what he had seen and heard.” (Meyer, vs. 22:1-16). 12. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 22:15. 13. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 22:16. 14. Ibid. 15. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 418. 16. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 22:16. 17. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 22:16. 18. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1167. 19. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 390. 20. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 22:23. 21. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 390. 22. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, pp. 358-59. Barclay adds: “Cicero had said, ‘It is a misdeed for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a crime for him to be beaten; it is almost as bad as to murder a father to kill him.’” (Barclay, vs. 22:22-30). 23. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1167. 24. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 499. 25. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 22:28. 26. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 22:28. 27. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 422-23. 28. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 361. Pett adds: “It should be noted that for someone to claim to be a Roman citizen when they were not was a capital crime, and made them subject to summary execution, and as his citizenship could be proved or otherwise from citizenship records it would be foolish for a non-Roman citizen to make such a claim (each citizen was certificated on birth, a certificate which would be kept in the family records, but it may even be that they carried with them a certificate of citizenship. We actually know little about the details).” (Pett, vs. 22:27-28). 29. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 22:30. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” Acts 23:1 Paul looked at the council steadfastly and with a fixed gaze as the Greek word atensias makes clear. [1] Robertson wonders if he was looking to see if he recognized any of those faces from the days that he was a member. [2] By the opening address he may have been placing himself on equal footing with the council. The normal address to the Sanhedrin should have been something like this: “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel.” [3] The apostle immediately declared that he had fulfilled his duty to God. This statement seemed to have irritated the high priest. Stott may have the best explanation of why this happened. He says, “The most likely explanation is that Ananias understood Paul’s words as a claim that, though now a Christian, he was still a good Jew…” [4] He claimed here that he was a man of good conscience. He had made similar claims on other occasions (cf. cf. 20:18-21, 26-27; Rom. 15:19; Phil. 3:6; 2 Tim. 4:7). The Greek word for conscience is suneidēsis and it has the meaning of “joint knowledge.” [5] Conscience is that inner guide that God has given us. It is not infallible and the conscience can be hardened and defiled. To put it in computer terms: “garbage in – garbage out.” The conscience is much like a compass. The compass points to north unless it is interfered with by other magnetic forces. There are a few places on earth where a compass is virtually useless because of such forces. Through repeated sin a person can dull the voice of conscience. Through false doctrine a person can come to believe that wrong is right and right is wrong. So obviously, a person can end up with an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22; 1 Tim. 4:2). Wiersbe says, “Conscience may be compared to a window that lets in the light. God’s law is the light, and the cleaner the window is, the more the light shines in.” [6] Paul had not abused the voice of conscience within him. “At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth” (23:2). This priest was Ananias the son of Nebedinus, who became high priest in the year AD 47 and held the office until AD 59. This priest had a horrible reputation. Josephus the historian described him as an insolent and quick-tempered person. [7] Also, Josephus added that he was a hoarder of money, who sent his servants to the threshing-floors to take away the tithes by violence. [8] This slap on the face reminds us of how this same group of people previously treated Jesus (Jn. 18:22). “Then Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!’” (23:3). We forget sometimes that Paul was a human being and not some sort of super saint. Like many of us, Paul had a temper, and at this point it seemed to have gotten a bit out of control. Paul called the man a “whitewashed wall.” In those days there was great concern about becoming ritually unclean. One could do this by coming in contact with a tomb. For this reason, the tombs were often whitewashed so they could be easily noticed and avoided. Paul was calling the man a hypocrite, since the tombs looked nice and clean on the outside but inside they were filled with dead men’s bones (cf. Matt. 23:27-28). What was apparently unknown to Paul was that he was addressing Israel’s high priest. We might add that Paul was speaking an accurate word of prophecy by his hot retort. Just a few years later (AD 66), during the Jewish war with Rome, this priest was dragged from his hiding place and murdered by insurgents. [9] Paul was correct in his assessment that the blow on his face was unlawful. According to the law of God only a person found guilty could be beaten (Deut. 25:1-2). The apostle probably had a better understanding of the law than most of the legal scholars assembled in the Sanhedrin that day. “Those who were standing near Paul said, ‘How dare you insult God’s high priest!’ Paul replied, ‘Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people’” (23:4-5). Obviously, Paul did not know that he was addressing Israel’s high priest. Many attempts have been made to explain Paul’s apparent inability to recognize him. Some scholars have felt that Paul had poor eyesight. [10] Barker and Kohlenberger state that, “…this was not a regular meeting, and the high priest may not have occupied his usual place or wore his robes of office…Paul presumably did not know who the high priest was in AD 58.” [11] The apostle did know that disrespect to the high priest was forbidden in the law. In Exodus 22:28 it is written, “Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.” Knowing this, Paul immediately apologized. Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others 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.’” Acts 23:6 Bruce says, “…he took stock of the fact that the Sanhedrin consisted in the main of the Sadducean majority and the strong Pharisaic minority…so now he addresses the Sanhedrin as a Pharisee.” [12] We may wonder exactly how Paul considered the resurrection doctrine to be the basis of the conflict with the Sanhedrin. Indeed, the resurrection was the core of Christianity and the core of much conflict. Without the resurrection, the Christian faith was said to be in vain (1 Cor. 15:17). “When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things)” (23:7-8). The Sadducees were much different than the Pharisees. They were the ruling priestly and temple class. They were also strict materialists. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, or in spirits or angels. Chrysostom said of them: “The Sadducees know of nothing incorporeal, perhaps not even God, so thick-headed are they.” [13] They accepted only the five books of Moses, so they gave no relevance to the other writings or the prophets. Since they were closely tied to the temple, the Sadducee party perished in AD 70 with the temple’s destruction. The Pharisee party accepted the whole of the Bible plus the traditions of the elders. They did believe in the resurrection, as well as angelology and demonology. The Pharisees did survive the destruction of the temple and went on to make up normative Judaism in following centuries. Barker and Kohlenberger state, “…Phariseeism in Paul’s day was not as stereotyped as it later became under rabbinic development.” [14] We can understand how some Pharisees as well as some priests became Christians. The Sadducees could not readily convert to Christianity. For a Sadducee to become a Christian meant to abandon all the distinctive theological tenets of the party, while a Pharisee could become a Christian and still remain a Pharisee. [15] For the most part, Sadducees and Pharisees were bitter enemies. It seems that the one thing that could unite them was their opposition to Jesus (Matt. 16:1; Jn. 11:47-53) and the apostle Paul. [16] Keener says, “Pharisees and Sadducees were notorious for their disagreements, especially over the doctrine of the resurrection…” [17] There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” Acts 23:9 All the members argued vigorously or strove together (Gk. diemachonto). This verb speaks of a “lively scrap” going on between the groups, with the Pharisees taking Paul’s side. [18] The Pharisees, while not terribly fond of Paul, were less fond of the Sadducees. For them, it was quite reasonable that a spirit had appeared and spoken to him. “The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks” (23:10). In the violence of the dispute it looked like Paul might be torn in pieces (Gk. diaspaō). This description of violence is only seen in one other place in the New Testament (Mk. 5:4), where the demon possessed man tore apart his chains. [19] Correctly assessing the violent situation the commander ordered his troops to rescue Paul and remove him to the barracks. This was now the second time that the commander had rescued him. Utley says, “…Twice now the Roman government had saved Paul’s life in Jerusalem. No wonder Paul saw the government as a minister of God (cf. Rom. 13).” [20] “The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, ‘Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome’” (23:11). Paul had barely escaped with his life now on two recent occasions. He must have felt quite discouraged and perhaps even somewhat afraid for his life. It was at this very low time in Paul’s ministry that the Lord Jesus chose to appear to him once more. Most of us Christians go through our whole Christian lives without a single appearance of the Lord Jesus. Why would it be necessary for the Lord to appear to Paul on so many occasions? We must remember that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He was laying the foundations in the Gentile church for centuries to come. It was necessary for the Lord to stand by him and guide him in this great endeavor. This divine appearance probably did several important things for Paul. It assured him that he had taken the right approach with the Sanhedrin, since there was not a whisper of reproach from the Lord. [21] The appearance and words of Jesus no doubt gave Paul great confidence that he would eventually reach Rome as he had long desired (19:21). It is amazing how the vision of God can keep us through the storm. Later on the high seas, and in the midst of the storm, Paul never lost the certainty that he and his crew would be spared (27:21-25). He knew he would reach Rome. The next morning some Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. More than forty men were involved in this plot. Acts 23:12-13 This was a sizeable plot involving more than forty people. These people were dead serious and had sworn not to eat or drink until Paul was murdered. The seriousness of the plotters is evident, because many of them would have surely died at the hands of the Roman guard protecting Paul. [22] Their plot, of course, violated the letter and spirit of Jewish law but it certainly reflected the character of the high priest Ananias. [23] They had somehow forgotten the words of Isaiah their prophet spoken many centuries before: “‘…no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,’ declares the LORD” (Isa. 54:17). “They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, ‘We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul’” (23:14). How incredible it is that the high priest and elders became involved in this murderous plot. Coffman asks how there were many more than forty of these plotters: “… How many more? Well, to the forty, one must add the chief priests and the elders of the people, the entire dominant factor which controlled the temple itself. How evil this once glorious institution had become!” [24] We can begin to understand why in just a few years the Lord would destroy the temple and most of the people connected with it. Not one stone would be left on another (Matt. 24:2). “Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here” (23:15). Just imagine! The great Sanhedrin would gladly give permission for Paul, a righteous person, to be waylaid in the narrow alleyways of old Jerusalem. In those days as we have mentioned, there were numerous people who were called sicarri (cf. 21:38-39). They carried short curved knives under their clothing for the purpose of secretly striking down others. Perhaps some of these plotters belonged to this group. But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” Acts 23:16-17 Here, for the first time in Acts, we realize that Paul had some family living in Jerusalem. There has been much speculation among commentators as to how many family members were there. We know for sure that the apostle had a sister in Jerusalem and that she had a son. Although this is also speculation, it is very likely that this young man was in Jerusalem to study the Torah just as Paul once did. [25] Although, many Jewish converts lost their families in the process of accepting the Lord, it appears that Paul and his sister’s family had remained on a friendly basis. Perhaps they too were believers in the Lord. We simply do not know. Wiersbe speculates that Paul’s sister still had some connections with the Pharisees (23:6) and that she may have gained the news of the plot from some of the women in the group. [26] Again, this is but speculation. It appears from the story that the son involved here was quite young. This seems evident as the commander took him by the hand (v. 19). [27] He was old enough to understand an evil plot and to keep it a secret. Some have probably wondered how the child could get access to the prison area of the fortress. Marshall remarks on this saying: “But other references to prison conditions at the time suggest that prisoners were easily accessible to their friends who would bring them food and other small comfort…” [28] “Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, ‘Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.’ So he took him to the commander. The centurion said, ‘Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you’” (23:17-18). It is certainly interesting that in the rough and cruel Roman army such a place is made for a child. We no doubt remember that in the ancient world a child had no status. It seems to be a pure act of God that this young child could gain access to the tribune in charge of the whole Fortress of Antonia. “The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, ‘What is it you want to tell me?’ He said: ‘Some Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him’” (23:19-20). In this account our readers have no doubt observed that the commander, Claudius Lysias comes off as a very caring and considerate person. In fact, he has several admirable qualities. His action with the young lad demonstrates that he was a sympathetic man. [29] “Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request” (23:21). While the lad seemed to be quite young, he also seemed to be fairly intelligent. He appeared to have no trouble comprehending the seriousness of the plot against Paul and was insistent that the commander realize the grave danger involved. Such an attack would certainly have involved the killing of members of the Roman force. [30] There could even have been a danger to the commander himself. “The commander dismissed the young man with this warning: ‘Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me’” (23:22). The tribune in warning the lad was protecting himself from eavesdropping. [31] There is little doubt that within hours the lad’s story would have been verified by a request from the Sanhedrin to bring Paul to the planned meeting. Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.” Acts 23:23-24 Stott comments on these verses saying: “The detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen certainly sounds like an extraordinary over-provision…[it] has made scholars wonder whether ‘spearmen’ is the correct translation of the Greek dexiolaboi, which occurs nowhere else in biblical or contemporary Greek literature.” [32] There have been several explanations of this Greek word. Barker and Kohlenberger feel that it was a reference to pack animals sent along. [33] In any event, a very large force of perhaps 470 was sent with Paul. The tribune was taking no chances of a night ambush along the way. The commander clearly realized that Paul was not safe in Jerusalem. He could not risk the chance that Paul, who was a Roman citizen under his care, could be murdered. [34] Such a report would not gain favor with his commanders. It should be noted that this force would have taken about half of the men in the Antonia Fortress. [35] We are told that the force was to leave at 9:00 PM. In the original text this was known as the third hour of the night. This was to be a forced march and therefore a mount would be provided for the apostle. Paul was to be delivered to Felix. He is known in history as Antonius Felix, who was procurator of Judea during the years of AD 52 – 59. History does not treat this man well. The Roman historian Tacitus called him a vulgar ruffian. [36] He seemed to have lived up to such a description. Tacitus also said of him that “…he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” [37] Actually, he had been a slave, but by the influence of his brother, who was a friend of Emperor Claudius, he became a freedman and was later was appointed procurator. He was married three times, each time to a princess. At this time his wife was Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I. [38] He wrote a letter as follows: Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings. Acts 23:25-26 To His Excellency or “Most Excellent” was a usual form of addressing a person in such authority. Luke actually addressed Theophilus, the recipient of his gospel, in such a manner (Lk. 1:3). [39] Marshall says of this, “It is the only secular letter in the New Testament…The letter conforms to the accepted style of composition of such documents…” [40] We have already had considerable experience with Claudius but this is the first time we have heard his name. Claudius Lysias had purchased his Roman citizenship. Lysias was no doubt his original Greek name, but when he became a citizen it became his cognomen. With his citizenship he took on the nomen of Claudius, honoring the Roman emperor. [41] We might wonder how Luke was privy to the contents of this letter. It is likely that this information came from Paul. [42] Obviously, Luke and Paul spent much time together on the voyage to Rome, and perhaps even at the prison in Caesarea. “This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment” (23:27-29). Claudius Lysias seemed to be an exemplary person. However, commentators have noted that in his letter he presents himself in a most favorable light. He speaks of knowing of Paul’s Roman citizenship prior to his rescue. He also is discreetly silent about binding Paul, and he certainly does not mention his attempt to flog him. His letter, while being honorable, was “decidedly self-centered.” [43] “When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him” (23:30). Claudius Lysias seems to have been an efficient commander, taking care to deal with all the details of Paul’s case. The expression,“I sent him,” is what is called an epistolary aorist in the Greek language. While it appears to be past tense, it really has the meaning of “I am sending.” [44] So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. Acts 23:31 When we notice the details of how the Roman army operated, it is easy to see how they conquered the world and held control of it for centuries. When orders were given they were speedily carried out, and with great efficiency. On this particular night they made a forced march all the way to Antipatris. Commentators have stated this distance anywhere from 35 miles (56 km.) to 45 miles (72 km.). Today by current Israeli mileage charts the distance is shown to be 41 miles (66 km.). This was a very long march but fortunately a good part of it was steeply downhill. The town of Antipatris was built by Herod the Great to honor his father, Antipater. The new city was located at the source of the Yarkon River and near ancient Afek. The location was at the foot of the mountains and in a primarily Gentile area so it was considered as a safe location. [45] Another 25-30 miles (40-48 km.) would be required to reach Caesarea. We have to be amazed at the magnitude of this operation. Marshall says, “…It depicts the lengths to which the Romans were prepared to go in ensuring justice and safety for Paul…” [46] “The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks” (23:32). The remainder of the journey was on horseback and was probably concluded rather swiftly. Our minds go back to the forty plotters in Jerusalem. They woke up to find that the Romans had cleverly outwitted them and they were left to try and wiggle out of their vows. Keener remarks: “If Paul’s enemies eventually broke their oaths to kill him, Jewish law would simply require them to bring atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve.” [47] “When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him” (23:33). We can imagine the surprise the Christians may have had as the Roman cavalry rode into Caesarea escorting Paul. Meyer says: “…Philip and the other Christians must have been startled to see how soon their forebodings were fulfilled as the great missionary, from whom they had parted with so many tears, rode through the streets surrounded by soldiers.” [48] Upon their arrival Paul was promptly handed over to the governor Felix, along with the letter from Claudius Lysias. “The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, he said, ‘I will hear your case when your accusers get here.’ Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace” (23:34-35). Keener remarks: “It was good protocol to check the jurisdiction to which a person belonged before deciding a case…But during Paul’s period (not however, Luke’s period), Cilicia [Paul’s home territory] was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction…” [49] Paul was to be held in the palace of Herod the Great, which had now become Roman headquarters. Guzik says of this time: “…This began a two-year period of confinement for Paul in Caesarea. After that he spent at least two years in Rome. Taken together with travel time, the next five years of Paul’s life were lived in Roman custody. This was a striking contrast to his previous years of wide and spontaneous travel.” [50] 1. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 23:1. 2. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 23:1. 3. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 23:1-10. 4. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 351. 5. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 23:1. 6. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 394. 7. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 363. 8. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Ch. 9, Sec. 2. 9. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 425. 10. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 352. “But to me the most likely explanation lies in the poor eyesight which Paul is known to have had…as an uncouth allusion to a white-robe figure across the court whom Paul could only dimly perceive.” Bruce adds: “Paul’s visits to Jerusalem since his conversion had been infrequent and short, and he would not probably have known Ananias by sight.” (Bruce, p. 427). 11. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 12. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 427. 13. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 279. 14. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 15. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 428. 16. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 23:7-9. 17. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 392. 18. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 23:9. 19. Ibid. 20. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 23:10. 21. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 23:11. 22. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1168. 23. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 501. 24. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 23:12. 25. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 392. 26. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 396. 27. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 23:16. 28. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 368. 29. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 23:19. 30. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 23:21. 31. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 23:19. 32. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 355. 33. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Pett adds: “‘dexialabous’ or (in A) ‘dexiabolous’ (we do not know the meaning of the first word. Possibly it signifies light-armed soldiers, or right handed bowmen or spearmen or slingers, or even pack horses so as to give the impression that the expedition had another purpose. Dexiabolous probably indicates right-handed slingers).” (Pett, v. 23:23). 34. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 433. 35. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 396. 36. Ibid., p. 397. 37. Quoted in Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 355. 38. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 370. 39. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1168. 40. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 370. 41. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 42. Ibid., p. 502. 43. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 356. 44. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1004. 45. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 23:31. 46. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 366. 47. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 392. 48. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” v. 23:25-35. 49. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 394. 50. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 23:34-35. Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. Acts 24:1 The five days mentioned here have brought about some discussion by commentators. They have wondered if this is a reference to five days from the Jerusalem departure or from the arrival at Caesarea. The scholar Sir William Ramsay deduced that it was speaking of five days from leaving Jerusalem. [1] Several other commentators have agreed on this. It was no small thing for the high priest of Israel to make a journey down to Caesarea, which was noted as a Gentile city. Utley remarks, “Wow! The high priest himself came from Jerusalem to Caesarea. Paul was really a thorn in their flesh!” [2] We have previously mentioned that when one traveled in any direction from Jerusalem the holy city, it was always considered “down.” The high priest came with several elders from Jerusalem. In earlier times the elders would have referred to tribal leaders but by this time in history elders were usually wealthy and influential people of Jerusalem. They were likely also members of the Sanhedrin. [3] Again, for such influential people to make such a journey speaks of the great significance they assigned to Paul. With this impressive group came Tertullus the lawyer. His name was a common Roman one and he was likely a Hellenistic Jew. The Greek term describing him, rhētoros, is used only here in the New Testament and describes this man as a rhetorician. [4] No doubt the party brought him along because he was familiar with the Roman courts and the Latin language that was common in the courts. [5] They no doubt thought themselves well prepared to press charges against Paul. This event gives us a unique picture of the Roman system of government. The Roman citizen was very important. The historian Will Durant once wrote “The first person in Roman law was the citizen.” Also, the genius of Roman government was based on the principle of indirect rule, and this placed the burden of administration pretty much on the shoulders of local authorities. [6] “When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: ‘We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude’” (24:2-3). Stott says of this scene: “Tertullus began with what was called a captatio benevolentiae, that is, an endeavor to capture the judge’s good will…but on this occasion it descended to ‘almost nauseating flattery.’” [7] Of course, flattery was condemned by Jewish scriptures (Psa. 78:36; Prov. 26:28). Very little of what Tertullus said was really true. Felix had put an end to the activities of a few rebels and troublemakers. However, he did so with barbarous brutality that left the Jewish population stricken with horror. He even plotted against the high priest Jonathan and had him murdered. [8] The land had never been more dangerous except in times of actual war. [9] For his outright cruelty to the Jews and others, the Jewish people eventually requested that Felix be removed from power. “But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly” (24:4). So Tertullus was simply a wind bag. Felix probably sensed that much and was likely already weary of him. Clarke says, “The orator had certainly a very bad cause, of which he endeavored to make the best…His oration has been blamed as weak, lame, and imperfect; and yet, perhaps, few, with so bad a cause, could have made better of it.” [10] We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. Acts 24:5-6 Tertullus refers to Paul as a real troublemaker. The Greek word is loimon or pest. The NASB reads “a real pest” and the NJB has it, “a perfect pest.” This Greek word appears again only in Luke 21:11 and it has reference there to pestilence. [11] Since Roman rulers were not concerned with the intricacies of Jewish religion, Tertullus knew that he had to speak in terms of civil disorder to get attention. This was the thing most feared by the Roman government. Paul was thus presented as one who stirred up riots and political sedition. Of course this first charge was patently untrue. However, his blundering efforts were a back-handed compliment to the vast work of the apostle. He had reached Jews with the gospel in much of the known world. [12] The second charge against Paul was that he was a ringleader of the Nazarene sect. Several commentators have pointed out that this is the only place in the New Testament where “Nazarene” is used of the followers of Jesus. In other places it is used of Jesus himself. [13] We remind ourselves again that this word is based on the Hebrew word netzer which refers to Jesus as the “Branch” (cf. 2:22; 22:8). Today in Israel the modern Hebrew word natzrut refers to “Christianity,” and Christians are commonly called notzrim. This charge against Paul was obviously true. He was indeed the ringleader of Christians worldwide. He certainly was not connected with what we might call political messianism, which was fermenting throughout the land of Israel and even in parts of the dispersion. [14] That movement would swiftly develop into a fatal war against Rome. Tertullus mentions the “Nazarene sect” here. The Greek word for sect is hairesis. In later times this word would come to mean “heresy.” However, at this early time it simply meant party or school. Both the Pharisees and Sadducees were referred to as sects. [15] It is amazing that Christians still divide into groups and point to the other groups as heretics, when the original Greek word actually meant divisions or groups. The third charge against Paul was that he had tried to desecrate the temple. Utley notes that the charge of desecrating the temple has now been downgraded. He was now charged with trying to desecrate the temple. This reflects the basic weakness of the case. [16] We should note that verse seven appears only in the footnotes of the NIV. The text of verse seven does appear in the NKJ version. Utley notes how this text was a late addition from the eighth and ninth centuries. [17] It thus seems better that it remain in the footnotes. “By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him. The other Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true” (24:8-9). Tertullus and the Jews of Jerusalem really had no evidence to present. Their case was pitifully weak. No doubt, the group hoped that Paul would somehow incriminate himself in his defense but that was not about to happen. Bruce comments: “Tertullus’s speech seems to tail away in a lame and impotent conclusion that forms a striking contrast to the rhetorical flourish with which it starts…The deputation from the Sanhedrin appears at any rate to have been satisfied with his presentation of the case, for they affirmed their agreement with his statement of affairs.” [18] When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense.” Acts 24:10 Paul also begins with a captatio benevolentiae, but it is much more modest than the one of Tertullus. [19] He points out the long experience of Felix. He had been in his position for five or six years prior to Paul’s appearance before him. Coffman notes that he was also a joint procurator with Cumanus before the latter’s term ended in AD 52. [20] Thus, Felix did have a great deal of experience in government. Obviously, Paul was not a lawyer like Tertullus. However, he did have this promise from the Lord: “For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict” (Lk. 21:15). Paul continues his defense: “You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship” (24:11). Paul had come to Jerusalem a mere twelve days before this event. Obviously, for five of those days he had been in Roman custody. This was hardly enough time for him to stir up a riot or an insurrection. This information could be easily verified with temple records and the account of Lysias. After an absence of some five years Paul had come to Jerusalem to worship. Wiersbe asks, “…How could Paul possibly be worshipping God and profaning God’s house at the same time?” [21] He had not been involved in Jewish evangelism or any other attempt to stir up the Jews. “My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city” (24:12). Paul had quietly gone about his sacrifice and worship in the temple. He had not preached there nor had he tried to stir up trouble. Marshall says: “He had not come to Jerusalem to evangelize; by the terms of the agreement in Galatians 2:7-9 he would not have engaged in evangelism in Jerusalem unless invited to do so by the Jerusalem church.” [22] “And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,” (24:13-14). We cannot help but note that the charges against Paul were very weak. No evidence whatsoever was presented to Felix. No eye-witness was on hand to bring a case against the apostle. Simply, the charges could not be proven. Paul admits that he came to the temple to worship and that he was a member of the Way, an early name for the Christian movement. At this time it was merely a sect of Judaism, just as were the Pharisees and Sadducees. Felix was well acquainted with the Way (v. 22). Paul continues saying, “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man” (24:15-16). Marshall says: “This passage… remains the only one in which Paul unequivocally asserts a belief in the resurrection of all kinds of men…Elsewhere, however the New Testament speaks of all men being raised up to face God’s judgment (Mt. 25:31ff; Jn. 5:28f; Rev. 20:12; cf. Lk. 10:12; Rom. 2:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1).” [23] Utley says, “Paul is trying to defend himself by showing that the conflict is over theological issues within Judaism, which Rome did not want to become involved with.” [24] Once again Paul claims that his conscience is clear in this matter (cf. 23:1-2). After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. Acts 24:17 Paul had been absent from Jerusalem for perhaps five years. That in itself did not speak of one who was intent upon instigating a riot. Paul came to worship and he also came to present offerings and gifts to the Jerusalem saints. This offering is mentioned often in his later epistles. However, for some strange reason, Luke does not give it much attention. In fact, this is the only place in Acts where the offering is mentioned. Marshall writes, “…Luke’s motive in saying so little about the collection is unknown; he evidently did not see the same importance in it as Paul did.” [25] The apostle’s worship, meticulous efforts in seeking to keep the law, and his presentation of offerings for the poor were certainly not things by which he could be charged in court. “I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance” (24:18). How amazing that Paul was arrested for defiling the temple when he himself had just gone through the process of ritual cleansing! His ritual cleansing could be ascertained from the nearby temple records. [26] Of course bigotry has little use for truth. All of Paul’s actions were done in private, without a crowd. “But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me” (24:19). The people who raised the initial cry against Paul were not to be found. No doubt they had quietly returned home to Asia (Asia Minor) after the feast. Pett says: “The whole case was trumped up…Roman law in fact imposed heavy penalties on accusers who abandoned their charges (destitutio), thus their absence suggested that they recognized that they had nothing against him that would stand up in a Roman court of law.” [27] Coffman adds: “…The mention of the Asian Jews imposed upon the plaintiffs the necessity of either producing the witnesses or withdrawing the charges. The whole trumped-up affair was, by this time, beginning to appear to the governor as fraudulent and irresponsible.” [28] “Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin—unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today’” (24:20-21). Paul calls for a simple statement of his crime, with of course witnesses to that supposed crime. He thus puts the whole court on the spot. They needed to produce or shut up. Since the crowd from Jerusalem was now probably made up of Sadducees, Paul charges them again that the real problem with them was his preaching of the resurrection. Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” Acts 24:22 Felix was quite familiar with the Way to which Paul belonged. At this time he no doubt realized that the trial was a farce. He could have easily declared Paul acquitted and closed out the trial. However, he wanted somehow to keep the leaders of Jerusalem happy. Thus, he postponed the decision until he could supposedly talk with Lysias. We do not know that he ever did. He just left Paul in a legal limbo and kept him confined. Stott says of this situation that “Felix… found himself on the horns of a dilemma…Felix was unwilling to release Paul, partly because he hoped for a bribe (26) and partly because he wanted to curry favor with the Jews (27).” [29] “He could see that the Jewish charges against Paul were entirely religious in nature – even though presented in the guise of political sedition.” [30] Keener remarks about this trial saying: “The technical details of the trials here accord so well with other evidence on Roman legal procedure that noted Roman historians use them as major source material for understanding Roman provincial judicial proceedings.” [31] “He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs” (24:23). Paul was kept confined but with certain liberties. This situation was known to the Romans as custodia libera. There were a good number of Christians living in Caesarea. We think again of Philip and his daughters who may have come to visit Paul. [32] Also, we remember the Roman Centurion who was dramatically converted by Peter (Ch. 10). He may have still served in the army there. “Meanwhile, Paul was treated in the manner appropriate to a Roman citizen against whom no crime had as yet been proved.” [33] “Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus” (24:24). Since Paul was held in the Caesarean headquarters, Felix had close access to him. Bruce remarks, “Having this eminent Christian in custody in Caesarea, Felix availed himself of the opportunity to improve his already ‘rather accurate’ knowledge of the Way.” [34] As he visited Paul he brought along his wife Drusilla. She was a young, beautiful but infamous woman. She was the third daughter of the deceased Herod Agrippa I, and sister of Agrippa II and Bernice, mentioned in the next chapter. She was first given in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesa, but that marriage was soon dissolved. While Felix was procurator he became enamored by the spectacular beauty of Drusilla and sent a Cypriot friend, who pretended to be a magician, to lure her away from her husband and to marry him. This was accomplished and she became his third wife. [35] It seems that both Felix and Drusilla had good knowledge of Christianity. Certainly Drusilla had personal experience through her family. Wiersbe says: “Her great-grandfather tried to kill Jesus in Bethlehem (Matt. 2); her great-uncle killed John the Baptist and mocked Jesus (Lk. 23:6-12); and Acts 12:1-2 tells of her father killing the apostle James.” [36] We shudder to think of that large and influential Herod family at last coming before the great judgment seat of God. “As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, ‘That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you’” (24:25). It seems that Paul was talking about the very things that were desperately needed by both Felix and Drusilla. She had forsaken her husband and he through unbridled lust had taken her as his wife. It did not take much of Paul’s preaching for the alarm bells to go off in the conscience of Felix. He soon had all he could take as he became terrified. He begged leave of Paul for some other convenient time. Barnes remarks: “How different is this answer from that of the jailor of Philippi when alarmed in a similar manner! He asked, “What must I do to be saved?” [37] Many are the sermons that have been preached on the subject of waiting for a convenient time to be saved. The convenient time or the “tomorrow” seems to never come. It is for this reason that Paul earlier says, “… I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). It appears from the next verse that Felix talked with Paul on other occasions, but perhaps Drusilla, like her relative Herodias, the wife of Herod Antipas, nurtured her own grudge at Paul’s preaching. Herodias had done so concerning John the Baptist, and ultimately she caused his murder (Mk. 6:14ff.). “At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him” (24:26). Like Herod Antipas before him, Felix seemed to have a strange interest and attraction to the gospel. However, his heart was stuck in the mud of worldly greed. He apparently liked the gospel but he liked the lust for money more. His real hope was that Paul would offer him a large bribe. Pett says, “It is not surprising that Felix thought that Paul’s family was wealthy. After all he had been born a free Roman citizen, so his family must have been distinguished…Or Felix may have been impressed by the numbers of visitors who came to see Paul, and have thought that they would be able to raise a sufficient bribe…” [38] Also, Felix may have heard about the large offering Paul had brought to the Jerusalem church. “When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison” (24:27). Felix by his indecision had thus sentenced Paul to two years in prison at Caesarea. Felix by his bungling had so infuriated the Jews that they demanded his recall. This resulted from an outbreak of strife that happened between the Jews and Gentiles at Caesarea. Felix had intervened with troops and caused the slaughter of numerous Jews. He would have suffered grave punishment for this act had it not been for the intervention of his influential brother Pallas. However, he was still removed from his office. [39] In some vain hope to mollify the Jews he left Paul in prison when he vacated his office. Wiersbe remarks, “When Felix was replaced, he left Paul a prisoner, but it was Felix who was really the prisoner.” [40] The new governor Porcius Festus was much more capable as a leader, but unfortunately, he governed only two years before his death in office. The beginning of his term of service probably happened around AD 59-60. Little is actually known of this governor. Commentators seem certain that Luke, who was left in Israel these two years, made effective use of his time in gathering materials for his gospel and the Book of Acts. It is suspected that he probably had first-hand interviews with people like Philip the Evangelist, James, the Lord’s brother and Mary, the mother of Jesus. He probably interviewed many Pharisees, priests and others as he gathered the stories of Jesus and the earliest church. [41] 1. Citied in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 24:1. 2. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 24:1. 3. Ibid. 4. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 113. 5. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 24:1. 6. Cited in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 397. 7. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 359. 8. Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. 20, Ch. 8, Sec. 4-6. 9. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 24:2-3. 10. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 24:4. 11. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p.114. 12. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 24:5. 13. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 440. 14. Ibid. 15. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 360. 16. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 24:6. 17. Ibid, v. 24:7 The New King James Version has this verse and reads: “But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands…” 18. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 442. 19. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 361. 20. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 24:10. 21. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 399. 22. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 377. 23. Ibid., p. 378. 24. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 24:15. 25. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 379. 26. Ibid. 27. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 24:18-19. Barker &Kohlenberger add: “Roman law imposed heavy penalties upon accusers who abandoned their charges, and the disappearance of accusers often meant the withdrawal of a charge.” (Barker &Kohlenberger, p. 504). 28. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 24:18. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 362. 30. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 31. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 394. 32. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 363. 33. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 380. 34. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 447. 35. Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. 20, Ch. 7, Sec.1-2. 36. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 400. 37. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 24:25. 38. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 24:26. 39. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 24:27. 40. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 401. 41. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 24:27. Three days after arriving in the province, Festus went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem, where the chief priests and the Jewish leaders appeared before him and presented the charges against Paul. Acts 25:1-2 Utley remarks about Festus the successor of Felix saying, “He was a nobler personality, but obviously under the same political pressure and mind set.” [1] The new governor wasted no time in going up from his headquarters in Caesarea to Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the religious center of Israel and it was there that he would meet the men in power, particularly the high priest, the Sanhedrin and other leaders. Now there was a new high priest in power, Ishmael ben Fabus. From the use of the plural “priests” it seems likely that the old priest Ananias also was still hanging out in the corridors of power. It seems here that the priests and Sanhedrin picked up right where they left off with Felix and began to pressure the new governor concerning Paul. Their pressure tactics had to be reckoned with since they had just instigated the removal of Felix. [2] “They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way” (25:3). The Jewish leaders were intent on trying out their new and inexperienced leader. Their plan remained the same, and that plan was to get Paul to Jerusalem. They had no concern of getting him there for trial but strangely enough, they planned to murder him along the way. We must marvel at the Roman dedication for a fair trial and the depraved Jewish plans for murder. Guzik comments: “If your religion makes you a liar and a murderer, there is something wrong with your religion…” [3] Obviously, there was no problem with the Romans in having the trial at Jerusalem, since the Roman court could sit in either place. [4] However, Festus was wise enough to suspect that there might be foul play in Jerusalem. Guzik remarks: “We can see that Paul’s generous imprisonment in Caesarea was actually a providential provision of protective custody against the murderous intentions of the religious leaders. It was also a season of rest and replenishment after his years of hard missionary service, preparing him for the challenges in the years ahead…” [5] “Festus answered, ‘Paul is being held at Caesarea, and I myself am going there soon. Let some of your leaders come with me, and if the man has done anything wrong, they can press charges against him there’” (25:4-5). We have to appreciate Festus here for showing some backbone and initially standing up against the religious establishment. The Jews would not give up but would continue to make the same request later. Festus was determined to have Roman justice in this case. The procedure would go like this: “First, charges had to be formulated and sustained by the prosecutor, Secondly, there would be ‘a proper formal act of accusation by the interested party.’ Thirdly, the case was heard by ‘the holder of the imperium in person’ in this case the procurator.” [6] “After spending eight or ten days with them, Festus went down to Caesarea. The next day he convened the court and ordered that Paul be brought before him. When Paul came in, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him. They brought many serious charges against him, but they could not prove them” (25:6-7). The Jewish leaders did appear in Caesarea for the court case, this time without their lawyer. However, it seems that they had the same worn-out charges against Paul – charges which they could not prove. As Bruce says, “unsubstantiated charges did not constitute a prima facie case.” [7] As we have seen before, the Jews were trying vainly to accuse Paul of some act of sedition (seditio) against the Roman Empire. Such a charge if substantiated would be fatal. [8] They were likely aware that the Roman court would not convict Paul on purely religious grounds. There had to be some political twist to their charges if they were to be successful. [9] Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” Acts 25:8 Since Paul’s trials are so thoroughly reported we can probably suspect that Dr. Luke was sitting somewhere in the balcony taking notes. [10] With his defense Paul clears the air, that he has done nothing against the Jews or the Romans. He was fully aware that as in previous trials no evidence whatsoever was being offered concerning his guilt. “Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, ‘Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?’” (25:9). It seems that this trial had reached an impasse almost at its beginning. The pressure was now on the new procurator to do something and we see him beginning to bend in favor of the Jews. He was now thinking of sending Paul into the lion’s den awaiting him at Jerusalem. After all, the supposed crimes were committed at Jerusalem and it would seem reasonable for Paul to be tried there. [11] “Paul answered: ‘I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well” (25:10). Since there was no testimony or proof offered it should now have been self-evident to the proconsul that Paul was innocent. Paul was a Roman citizen and he had every right to be tried in a Roman court. [12] He knew full well that there would be no justice for him in Jerusalem and he was determined not to go there. “If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!” (25:11). From ancient times Roman citizens had the right to appeal to Caesar for justice. “Only if the man was a murderer, a pirate, or a bandit caught in the act, was the appeal invalid…When Paul uttered the fateful words, ‘I appeal to Caesar,’ Festus had no choice.” [13] “…By appealing to Caesar, Paul forced the Romans to guard him and take him to Rome…It must have infuriated the Jewish leaders when Paul, by one statement, took the case completely out of their hands.” [14] Today, knowing about the madness of Nero, we might wonder why Paul would appeal to him. Scholars tell us that the early years of Nero’s reign were almost like a golden age. At that time he was under the influence of the Stoic philosopher Seneca and the prefect of the praetorian guard, Afranius Burrus. [15] In the later years of his reign he became a madman and was particularly intent upon persecuting Christians. “After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: ‘You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!’” (25:12). Normally a Roman judge had a council or a consilium with which to confer. [16] There was not so much need to confer in this matter because Festus really had no choice. He had to send Paul to Rome. A few days later King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Acts 25:13 The king mentioned here is Herod Agrippa II, the son of the Herod Agrippa I mentioned in Acts 12:1. When his father suddenly died in AD 44, he was only seventeen and was judged too young to immediately inherit his father’s kingdom. Later in AD 50, Claudius gave him a small kingdom that had belonged to Chalcis in Lebanon. He also received the right to appoint the Jewish high priest. In 53, he was given the former territories of Herod Philip in the upper Galilee. Later on, Nero added territories around the Sea of Galilee, Tarichaea and Tiberias. Soon Agrippa changed the name of his capital Caesarea Philippi to Neronias, to honor the emperor. [17] Herod Agrippa II was always loyal to Rome and no doubt for this reason he hurried to welcome the new Roman procurator. At Agrippa’s side was his sister Bernice (also spelled Berenice). Bernice was the oldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I. We have already met her youngest sister Drusilla, the wife of Felix. Bernice was first married to her uncle, Herod of Chalcis. After his death she lived with her brother, Agrippa II. She appeared often at her brother’s side, as in this verse. There was much talk that incest was involved in their relationship. To shield herself from scandal she persuaded Polemo, King of Cilicia, to embrace Judaism and then married him. This marriage did not last and she returned to Agrippa. [18] Later, at the time of the war with Rome, Bernice would have a love affair with the Roman general Titus. She eventually went to Rome and lived as his consort. When he became emperor she was compelled to leave the city. This account is disclosed in the writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, and Cassius Dio. [19] It is especially ironic that such a couple would shortly sit in judgment of the great Apostle Paul. “Since they were spending many days there, Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: ‘There is a man here whom Felix left as a prisoner” (25:14). Herod Agrippa was part Jewish and was reputed to be an expert in the matter of Jewish religion. Festus greatly desired some insight from him as he attempted to word the report about Paul that he would later send to Caesar. [20] “When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned” (25:15). The Jerusalem crowd was bloodthirsty. Those depraved leaders would settle for nothing less than the blood of Paul. “I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. When they came here with me, I did not delay the case, but convened the court the next day and ordered the man to be brought in” (25:16-17). The Romans felt strongly that someone who was accused had a right to meet his or her accuser in a court of law. Accused persons had a right to defend themselves. [21] “When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected” (25:18). Clearly, Festus had expected the Jewish leaders to come before him with hard evidence of a crime and with testimonies of such. They had neither, but seemed to present him with certain religious disputes which would not be considered in a Roman court. “Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive” (25:19). We can perceive in this whole section that the resurrection of the dead was a basis of the dispute between Paul and the Jews. We need to remember that this very group was responsible for the previous murder of Jesus, although they could find no fault in him. We can understand how the idea of his resurrection would be so offensive to them. The doctrine of the resurrection is not presented very clearly in the Old Testament. However, there are quite a number of scriptures that speak of it. Undoubtedly, the Pharisees were convinced of the resurrection by some of these passages. Perhaps the earliest one is found in Job 19:25-27. Job says: “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes— I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!” Other pertinent passages are Psalms 16:9-11; 49:15; Isaiah 25:8; 26:19; Ezekiel 37:1-14; and Daniel 12:2. Of course, the resurrection was made plain through the rising again of Jesus the Messiah, who appeared to hundreds of his followers and to Paul himself. “I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges” (25:20). Bock sums it up saying: “Festus understands that the core of the dispute is the claim that Jesus was resurrected and is alive.” [2] “But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar” (25:21). The Greek word for Emperor here is Sebastos. In Latin, the word is Augustus. It was a word of honor applied to the ruler of the Roman Empire. Another similar title was “Caesar.” Sebastos was a title that had been applied since the days of Caesar Octavianus in 27 BC. [23] The word Sebastos in itself refers to being venerable or worthy of honor and reverence. [24] Before such an exalted one Paul was destined to appear. “Then Agrippa said to Festus, ‘I would like to hear this man myself.’ He replied, ‘Tomorrow you will hear him’” (25:22). Some commentators have noted how closely the upcoming meeting with Agrippa II parallels the meeting of Jesus with Herod Antipas recorded in Luke 23;6-12. [25] In speaking of the preparation for this meeting Barclay says: “Doubtless Festus had donned the scarlet robe which a governor wore on state occasions…near Festus would stand the captains in command of the five cohorts which were stationed at Caesarea; and in the background there would be a solid phalanx of the tall Roman legionaries on ceremonial guard…Into such a scene came Paul, the little Jewish tent-maker, with his hands in chains…” [26] The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience room with the high-ranking military officers and the prominent men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. Acts 25:23 What a show must have been put on that day! With this royal appearance, the scripture was at last fulfilled. Jesus had promised his followers, “…on account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them” (Mk. 13:9). But specifically, the Lord had said of Paul: “…This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15). The word for “pomp” is the Greek phantasies, meaning to make a parade with splendor and much show. [27] Agrippa’s father had displayed a lot of pomp but was at last eaten by worms (12:23). All this reminds us of the poem of Thomas Gray written back in 1751: The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power, And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave, Awaits alike the inevitable hour. The paths of glory lead but to the grave. [28] In all this the Apostle Paul knew a great secret. He had previously expressed it in 1 Corinthians 1:25: “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.” There would someday be a parade for Paul, a parade drenched in the light of heavenly splendor with the heraldry of divine trumpets. That parade would be far beyond the imagination of the fading dignitaries assembled that day. Paul’s glory would be celebrated for thousands of years to come and would last forever and ever. We should note that this occasion was not a trial as such. It was in fact a hearing. [29] Even if it could be considered a trial, Wiersbe says “…before the session ended, Paul became the judge, and Festus, King Agrippa, and Bernice became the defendants!” [30] “Festus said: ‘King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome’” (25:24-25). Festus was caught on the horns of a dilemma. He was facing a difficult crisis of his own making. All he had needed to do was declare Paul innocent and end the whole matter. He did not have the courage to do that and now that Paul had had appealed to Caesar it was too late to do it. Marshall notes: “The effect of the scene as a whole is to emphasize the uprightness of Roman legal proceedings over against the partiality and injustice of the Jews…There is tremendous emphasis on the climax: ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.’” [31] “But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write” (25:26). The matter of what to write to Caesar was really bothering Festus. He was probably having nightmares about it. How could he send a perfectly innocent man to Caesar and have no charges to send along. This would surely be seen as malfeasance in office. He was hoping that Agrippa, with all his background and knowledge could rescue him. Alas, it was probably not to be! It might be noted here that the expression “His Majesty” or “Lord” as in most other versions, is the Greek word kurios. The historian James Jeffers says: During the first century AD, the cult of the living emperor became an accepted feature of public life…The Greek term kyrios (“lord”) was used to refer to the emperor Nero…Domitian, expanded the concept of the divinity of the emperor and scandalized his fellow Romans by demanding that they address him as “lord and god” (dominus et deus). He was assassinated not long thereafter.” [32] At that time and later, many Christians suffered by not accepting the emperor as “Lord” and for not making sacrifice to him. “For I think it is unreasonable to send a prisoner on to Rome without specifying the charges against him” (25:27). Again, we see how Festus is haunted by the fact that he has no letter to write to Caesar. He could no doubt almost hear Caesar’s reply, “Why, then, did you not set the prisoner free?” [33] Without a charge against Paul he would surely be censured for incompetence. 1. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 25:1. 2. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 25:2. 3. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 25:1-3. 4. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 383. 5. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 25:1-3. 6. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 365. 7. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 452. 8. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 397. 9. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 366. 10. Ibid., p. 368. 11. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1006. 12. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 367. 13. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 25:1-12. 14. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 402. 15. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 16. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 397. 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 456. 18. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 25:13. 19. Jewish Women’s Archive Encyclopedia, http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/berenice 20. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 456. Utley adds: “This again reveals one of Luke’s literary and theological purposes, which was to show that Christianity was not a political threat to Rome (cf. Acts 25:25). In the early decades of the first century Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, which was acknowledged by Rome as a legal religion.” (Utley, vs. 25:13-19). 21. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 116. 22. Ibid. 23. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 25:21. 24. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 25:21. 25. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 26. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 25:22-27. 27. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 25:23. 28. Thomas Gray Archive, http://www.thomasgray.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?text=elcc 29. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 25:13-14. 30. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 402. 31. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 386. 32. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, p. 101. 33. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 390. Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” So Paul motioned with his hand and began his defense:” Acts 26:1 Stott remarks about this verse: “It was a dramatic moment when the holy and humble apostle of Jesus Christ stood before this representative of the worldly, ambitious, morally corrupt family of the Herods, who for generation after generation had set themselves in opposition to truth and righteousness.” [1] Meyer adds: “… What a contrast between their splendid robes and sparkling jewels, and the poor, worn, shackled prisoner! But they are remembered only because of this chance connection with Paul, while Paul has led the mightiest minds of subsequent ages.” [2] In ancient times it was customary for speakers to gesture with an extended hand. Many ancient statues have been found in this way, with right hands still extended. [3] Paul then began what would be the longest of his five defenses. He would claim before Agrippa, who was part Jewish, and all those present that he had lived his life as a good and faithful Jew. Pett says of this audience: “We should pause and consider here the position in which Paul now found himself. Every notable person in Caesarea, both Jew and Gentile, was gathered there, together with King Agrippa II and the Roman procurator. We may ask how else could Paul have ever been able to face such a remarkable audience? Men whom the church would never ordinarily be able to reach were all gathered with instructions to listen carefully to the words of Paul. And it was not a trial. Everything was relaxed. What an opportunity it presented.” [4] “King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate to stand before you today as I make my defense against all the accusations of the Jews, and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently” (26:2-3). Herod Agrippa’s great grandfather was Herod the Great. He was an Idumean (Edomite) whose ancestors had converted to Judaism. Among his wives was Mariamne, who was one of the last heirs of the famed Hasmonean dynasty. Because Herod feared the Hasmonean line, he executed several of its prominent members, even including his wife Mariamme, great grandmother of Agrippa. Thus we can see that King Agrippa had Jewish blood. Perhaps because of this, Caesar had granted him the right of selecting the Jewish high priest. Agrippa was noted to be quite proficient in his knowledge of Judaism. Festus had politely turned the stage over to Agrippa for the remainder of this meeting. We have a couple of Greek words used here in verse 3. The first is ethōn and the second is zētēmatōn. Ethōn corresponds to “customs” and zētēmatōn corresponds to controversies. It is from the first that we get our word for “ethnic.” It has to do with cultural aspects of any particular group of people. The latter word is more to do with arguments and debates that went on in rabbinical Judaism. [5] Agrippa was thoroughly familiar with all these. Paul was probably relieved to appear before someone who had such understanding and not just before Roman judges. “The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that I conformed to the strictest sect of our religion, living as a Pharisee” (26:4-5). As we have mentioned previously, Paul was probably brought from his hometown of Tarsus to Jerusalem at a very young age. As quickly as possible, he had been schooled in Judaism and eventually sat under the famed Gamaliel. He was obviously a very good student, even going to the head of his class (Gal. 1:13-14). Paul was well-known by the Jerusalem Jews regarding his zeal for Judaism. He had gone so far as to even persecute the newly founded church (8:3). He breathed out threats and slaughter toward them (9:1). Regarding his religion, Paul became a member of Judaism’s strictest sect, the Pharisees (23:6; Phil. 3:5). It was quite possible that some of his bitterest enemies at the time had known him during these earlier days. [6] And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today. Acts 26:6 This is an astounding section of scripture. Paul is standing in judgment before Jews and Gentiles alike because of God’s benevolent promises to both groups. He is standing before the official representatives of these groups. It was Oscar Wilde who once said, “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Paul was looking at the stars. We cannot tell for certain whether Paul was referring here to the promise of the Messiah, to the promise of the resurrection or both. Regarding the Jews present there Stott says: “It was surely anomalous, therefore, that he should now be on trial for the hope in God’s promise to the fathers, which he and they shared, namely that God would send his Messiah (foretold and foreshadowed in the Old Testament) to rescue and redeem his people.” [7] The Jewish people had waited with bated breath for such a day to come. Now, they had crucified their own Messiah and persecuted the bearers of their own good news, putting them on trial. There were numerous scriptures concerning the coming of Messiah and concerning his resurrection. Here we could mention some prominent ones such as Psalms 16:8-11; Isaiah 26:19; and Daniel 12:2. “This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. King Agrippa, it is because of this hope that these Jews are accusing me” (26:7). God had made a grand and glorious promise to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as to all Israel. That promise and hope was that they should become a blessing to all nations and all peoples on earth (Gen. 12:2-3). The heart of that blessing was to be the coming of the Savior, who would appear through the Jewish line. With his coming he would make possible the resurrection of the dead. What a promise! Since mankind lost the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden people have desired such a blessing. The Jews especially had longed for these very things. Now they had rejected the Messiah and the hope of resurrection as well. The term “twelve tribes” continued to be used by many in Israel as we see from James 1:1. [8] The Twelve Tribes, who descended from Jacob, made up the ancient nation of Israel. In 722 BC, ten of those tribes were carried off into captivity by the Assyrians. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin were left to make up what the Bible refers to as Judah. These tribes settled in the ancient area of Judea, with Jerusalem as their center. Remnants of several other tribes settled with them, as was the case with Anna, from the tribe of Asher (Lk. 2:36). The Jewish people live with the hope that the “lost” ten tribes will be regathered to the land in the last days (cf. Isa. 11:11; 27:13; Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12). Significant effort has been expended by Israel to bring these scattered people home. Thousands of new immigrants have been returned from Ethiopia and from India in this endeavor. In 1991, on one weekend alone, and in a massive airlift, nearly 15,000 Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) were returned to the land of Israel. At the end of 2013, the total number of Ethiopian Jews who had returned to Israel stood at 135,500. [9] What some commentators had referred to as “legend” is certainly dealt with as reality in Israel today. “Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?” (26:8). Of course, as we have previously mentioned the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They held only the Torah, or the first five books of Moses, as sacred scripture. Unfortunately, much of the resurrection teaching is found in the Psalms and prophets. The Greeks, generally did not believe in the body being resurrected. They felt that only the spirit mattered. The body was considered as a sort of prison house for the spirit. The Romans had inherited this concept and no doubt it was the outlook of Festus and most other Gentiles. Paul has already touched on the doctrine of the resurrection. It was in a very real sense the center of his message. [10] As we have mentioned, the resurrection doctrine was based on several passages of scripture (cf. Job. 14:14-15; 19:25-27; Isa. 25:8; 26:19; Dan. 12:2-3). As Barnes mentions, “The resurrection is no more incredible than the original creation of the body, and it is attended with no greater difficulties.” [11] I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Acts 26:9-10 In his great zeal as a Pharisee Paul did many things of which he was later ashamed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:15). He persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and went so far as to get special authority from the high priest to persecute the dispersed Christians in other places. Obviously, he had put some Christians to death in the process. He speaks here of casting his vote. Several have felt that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. Such a thing would have been possible. However, had he been a member he would have had to be married. [12]. Religious young men, whether in the Sanhedrin or not, were required to marry so it is likely this was true of Paul. Paul’s wife could have died or else deserted him when he became a Christian. Nevertheless, Paul somehow voted against the believers. “This phrase literally means ‘to set down a stone or pebble,’ which is how votes often were cast in the ancient world.” [13] “Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was so obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities” (26:11). We do not know all the places Paul went in search of Christians. We only know that he visited Damascus. Paul tried to make Christians blaspheme, by causing them to deny Jesus and admit that he was an imposter. [14] “On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions” (26:12-13). So here Paul gives an account of his Damascus Road Experience. This account appears on three occasions in the book (9:1-19; 22:5-16; 26:12-18). With each telling, different aspects of the encounter emerge. They are related, but they do not conflict with each other. Different aspects are mentioned because the story is told to different groups of people with differing interests. [15] The brilliant light is mentioned in all the accounts. It is clear that Paul was utterly astounded by this light. His traveling companions were likewise astounded. “We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied” (26:14-15). With this bright vision the whole party fell to the ground. Such actions were common with those perceiving heavenly visions. The voice addressed Paul in the Hebrew language. This is generally taken to mean the Aramaic language, as is evident from his name pronounced as Saoul. [16] What a shocker this announcement must have been to Paul. His whole world was suddenly turned upside down. The one he thought he was serving, he was persecuting. The Jesus whom he utterly despised was now the Lord of all. Jesus informed him that he was kicking against the goads (or pricks). Some have seen this statement as referring to Paul’s evil conscience and how that conscience must have pricked him. However, this was a well-known Greek expression regarding those opposing deity. [17] Several Greek writers, and especially Euripides, used the expression relating to one kicking against a god. [18] This was a rather homely agricultural expression in its origin. It could have come from two sources, from a pointed stick that was used to goad oxen or from sharp projections that were sometimes attached to the front of carts and wagons to keep animals from kicking. [19] An animal kicking backwards would obviously hurt itself in the process. “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied” (26:15). By the use of the word “Lord” (kurios – Lord and Master) in his question Paul already manifests evidence of a changed heart. His theological apple cart was turned upside down. Marshall says, “…if Jesus addresses him in this way from heaven, it was proof that he had been exalted to a position of authority alongside God (cf. 22:10).” [20] “‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me’” (26:16). Stott says, “the command to stand was a necessary preliminary to the command to go; it prefaced his commissioning…” [21] Paul was called to be a servant. The Greek word for servant is huperetes and it literally means an “under-rower” on a ship. The word witness is the Greek martus, from which we get or word “martyr.” [22] “‘I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’” (26:17-18). As he recounted this vision it must have brought great comfort to him. The Lord had promised him beforehand that he would be rescued from the Jewish people. That rescue was currently in progress. He was, at the same time, being rescued from Gentile procurators who were willing to hand him over to the Jews. Paul was being sent specifically to the Gentiles. The Greek for sending is apostellō. It speaks of sending one on a mission. [23] Barclay remarks about this mission: “Paul began this journey as the apostle of the Sanhedrin and ended it as the apostle of Christ…” [24] He was particularly the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13). Pfeiffer and Harrison say, “Paul had laid before Agrippa the crucial issue: his message was not only for Israel but also for the Gentiles…Paul’s message, is very similar to Colossians. 1:12-14.” [25] Paul was being sent to open eyes and turn people from darkness (cf. Isa. 42:7). Light is a wonderful thing. I fully remember as a small child the first time I ever saw an electric light. It was brilliant and astounding. The light of God is in some ways like that. In our western society we are no longer taking advantage of that brilliant light of the gospel. Max Lucado tells a story about this. I believe we make the mistake the Welsh woman made. She lived many years ago in a remote valley but determined that it would be worth the cost and trouble to have electricity in her home. Several weeks after the installation, the power company noticed that she had barely used any. So they sent a meter reader to see what was wrong. “Is there a problem?” he asked. “No,” she answered, “we’re quite satisfied. Every night we turn on the electric lights to see how to light our lamps.” [26] We Gentiles have now received the gospel of the glorious light of God but we no longer appreciate that light. John says, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed” (Jn. 3:19-20). Also we are told in scripture, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Paul was sent to offer the forgiveness of sins to the human race. Warren Wiersbe says, “Forgiveness is the greatest miracle that Jesus ever performs. It meets the greatest need; it costs the greatest price; and it brings the greatest blessing and the most lasting results.” [27] It is amazing how God could offer such a priceless gift to the whole of humanity! It involves the complete removal of sin and full cleansing by Christ’s blood (1 Jn. 1:7). It involves a blotting out of sin (Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Psa. 51:9; Acts 3:19). [28] Stott says: “What was specially significant in Christ’s commissioning of Paul was that the Gentiles were to be granted a full and equal share with the Jews in the privileges of those sanctified by faith in Christ, that is, the holy people of God.” [29] The salvation of Gentiles is one of the deepest mysteries of the Bible. This mystery is fully revealed in chapters 9-11 of Romans. The mystery in a nutshell is this: Israel would reject her own Messiah (Rom. 11:7-10) and be hardened to him; the Gentiles would gladly accept him and be “grafted” into Israel (11:17-18); in time the Jews would become jealous and return to him (11:11-12); then Jews and Gentiles would be formed into “the new man” or into a glorious spiritual temple of God (Eph. 2:19-22; 3:6). With these developments death would be overcome (Rom. 11:15) and a glorious new and final era of earth would be ushered in. So, it was not just the Jews but the Gentiles as well who would be included in God’s great plan of redemption. They would be turned from the power of Satan in order that they could join the inheritance of light and of God, along with the Jews. The Greek word used for “place” here is the word klēron, meaning lot, inheritance, privilege. [30] It was this great plan that Paul was desperately trying to explain with representatives of both groups that day in Caesarea. A great change of direction (Gk. epistrepsai) would be necessary for both groups if they were to be released from Satan’s grip and return to God. [31] So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. Acts 26:19 God had found a faithful man in Paul. He would be faithful to the vision from heaven if it meant imprisonment, disgrace, beatings, shipwreck or whatever else the devil might try to do to him. We sense here that Paul was particularly trying to reach Agrippa with the gospel (26:26-29). [32] “First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (26:20). Paul had done a considerable amount of preaching in Damascus and that area. His preaching there almost cost him his life (9:22-25; 2 Cor. 11:32-33). He then fled to the Jerusalem area and continued his preaching. Commentators have had trouble with the expression “in all Judea,” since we have no record of Paul’s preaching in the territory of Judea. This statement seems to conflict with Galatians 1:22, which says that he was unknown to the churches of Judea. Marshall thinks that there is a textual corruption here. [33] That could be, but there are many blank spaces in Paul’s ministry and we cannot be certain about where all he ministered. After his dangerous encounter in Jerusalem the disciples sent him back home to Tarsus, where he likely ministered for the next several years (9:30). He really became a “world apostle.” [34] Wherever he was, Paul’s message was one of repentance and turning back to God. The Greek word for repentance is metanoeo, and it means to change one’s mind, and to feel remorse. [35] Paul taught that real repentance must be reflected in one’s deeds and could not just be in one’s mind. Repentance was to be a very deep thing that affected the heart and the whole person. Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav put it, “There is none more whole than one with a broken heart.” [36] “That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me” (26:21). It seems that one of the major problems the Jews had with Paul was that he preached the gospel to the Gentiles. It was the mention of the Gentiles in 22:21 that caused the Jews to explode with rage in verse 22. Although the Jews were called to be a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), they had not only failed at the task but they had become bitter against the Gentiles. “But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles” (26:22-23). Paul was very careful in his preaching to not go beyond what was written in scripture (1 Cor. 4:6). What he was saying was what Moses and the prophets had already said. One of the greatest and deepest mysteries of redemption was that the Messiah would have to suffer and die for his people. The Jewish people did not understand this in Paul’s day and they still do not understand it today after two thousand years. The great mystery of the Messiah’s calling and suffering is revealed in the Servant Songs of Isaiah. This section runs from chapter 41:8 at least through chapter 61. In chapter 41:8; 44:1; 44:21; and 45:4, Israel is clearly identified as the Servant of God. Yet in chapters 41-44 it becomes clear that Israel had failed God. In 42:19, God laments: “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send…” In the second song of Isaiah 49:1-13, Israel is named again as the servant (v.3) but the writer switches immediately to one greater than Israel. Clearly this one has the task of rescuing Israel. This is an astounding passage of scripture. It is surely one of the most important passages in the whole Bible. Here, it is revealed that the Messiah has a two-fold task. Part “A” of his task is to bring Israel back and gather the nation to himself (v.5). Concerning this task, God says an amazing thing to his Messiah: “…It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept…” (v.6). Imagine that! It is too small a job for this Servant to take care of Israel for thousands of years; to save them in persecution; to bring them from the terrible Holocaust and to resettle them in their own land against the outright rage and opposition of most of the nations on earth. We see in this passage that there is a second job for the Servant. This is part “B” of his assignment. God says: “…I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (v. 6b). These two themes are picked up in the gospels and emphasized in the song of Mary (Lk. 1:54) and in the statements of Simeon concerning the baby Jesus (Lk. 2:30-32). The job of redeeming Israel would require the Servant to suffer for the sins of his people (cf. Gen. 3:15; Psa. 22; Isa. 53). He would die a sacrificial death as a slain lamb (Isa. 53:5-6). But death could not hold him in the tomb (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:15-20, 25-26). The glory of the gospel is that Jesus arose from the tomb and conquered death, that he might grant light and eternal life to both believing Israel and to believing Gentiles. “Paul notes three things taught by scripture: that the Christ would suffer (Gk. pathetos), that he would be the first raised of the dead, and that he would proclaim light to both Jews and Gentiles…Isaiah. 53, Psalm 2, and Psalm 118…” [37] This was the precious gospel that Paul contained in his breast and that he wished the world to know. Unfortunately Isaiah cried out in 53:1, “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” Paul could cry out in almost these exact words. In that time Israel had looked only for a conquering Messiah and not a suffering one. They missed the glorious mystery of redemption that would come through suffering. At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” Acts 26:24 It was just as Isaiah had spoken. Jews and Gentiles alike would not understand the gospel. Festus was in a real sense the chief representative of Gentile people on that day and he did not have a clue as to what Paul was saying. Agrippa, who was in a real sense the chief representative of the Jews on that day would not dare to lose face with Festus and the other dignitaries by accepting Paul’s message. [38] Barnes says, “Festus regarded, probably, the whole story of the vision that Paul said had appeared to him as the effect of an inflamed and excited imagination, and as a proof of delirium…but there is no madness so great, no delirium so awful, as to neglect the eternal interest of the soul for the sake of the pleasures and honors which this life can give.” [39] It is interesting that Paul often never gets to finish one of his sermons. [40] He seems always to be interrupted in some fashion. Festus was certain that Paul was crazy and he shouted out as much. It is amazing that through history so many of God’s chosen messengers were regarded as crazy. Wiersbe relates: “Nobody called D. L. Moody crazy when he was energetically selling shoes and making money but when he started winning souls, people gave him the nickname ‘Crazy Moody.’” [41] “‘I am not insane, most excellent Festus,’ Paul replied. ‘What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner’” (26:25-26). Bruce says of the governor’s outburst: “But what was sheer madness to the governor’s way of thinking was the merest truth and sober good sense for Paul.” [42] What Paul was saying was sober truth. The Greek word used for true is sōphrosunē, and it comes from two other Greek words, “sound” and “mind.” [43] Paul makes plain that the gospel events were not done in a corner but they were open and public for all to see. No doubt both Festus and Agrippa were quite familiar with these events. “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” Acts 26:27 Stott says of this remark: “The court gasps. Has any prisoner ever before presumed to address His Royal Highness with such impertinence? Agrippa is unhorsed.” [44] No doubt Paul’s question was a bit embarrassing. Perhaps there was an awkward lull, but Paul quickly answers the question for him. This question was a loaded one for sure. For one to believe the prophets should naturally cause that person to believe in Jesus. [45] “Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’” (26:28). Barker and Kohlenberger comment: “The KJV’s translation of this reply, ‘Almost thou persuades me to be a Christian,’ has become one of the famous quotations in history. It has inspired countless sermons and even a gospel hymn. Nevertheless, ‘almost’ is not what Agrippa said.” [46] Pfeiffer and Harrison comment: “The Greek phrase is very difficult and literally translated says, In a little you are persuading me to make a Christian…To make a Christian may mean either to become a Christian or to play the role of a Christian…Agrippa was not on the point of becoming a Christian.” [47] Several translations make a try at verse. The NRSV says, “Are you so quickly persuading me to become a Christian.” The TEV has it, “In this short time do you think you will make me a Christian.” Stedman adds: “… It is much more likely that he said what we have recorded here in the Revised Standard Version. With almost sneering sarcasm he says, ‘Do you really think, Paul, that in this short a time you’re going to make me a Christian?’” [48] “Paul replied, ‘Short time or long— I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains’” (26:29). Commentators have thought that Paul may have lifted up his chains as he replied to Agrippa. Whether it would take a short time or a long time Paul was willing to preach until Agrippa and all those assembled could accept the gospel and be saved. “The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them” (26:30). The king had probably had about all he could take. When he arose it was a signal that the meeting was ending and others arose with him. “After they left the room, they began saying to one another, ‘This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment’” (26:31). Stott says, “Their private verdict of ‘not guilty’ was unanimous.” [49] Paul could have been set free but none of these actors had the guts to make that decision. Now it was probably too late. Paul was going to Caesar. Presumably, Agrippa helped Festus form the report that should be sent along. This decision once more emphasizes one of Luke’s major themes of Acts, that Christianity was not a threat to the Roman Empire. [50] “Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar’” (26:32). Both Agrippa and Festus knew what was right but neither had the courage to do it. There was a real question at this point as to whether or not Paul could be set free. Stott says, “…to acquit Paul now would be to short-circuit his appeal, and so to invade the Emperor’s territory. No provincial judge would dare to do that.” [51] 1. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 370. 2. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 3. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:1. 4. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 26:1. 5. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 26:2-3. 6. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 26:4. 7. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 371. 8. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:7. 9. Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/CBS-report-135000-Ethiopians-living-in-Israel-at-end-of-2013-382266 10. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 26:1-11. Keener adds: “Two of the most basic future hopes of most Jews were the resurrection of the bodies of the righteous and the restoration of the twelve tribes at the same time.” 11. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:8. 12. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 26:9-11. Keener supplements: “Paul himself was probably too young to belong to the Sanhedrin, but he could still have exerted influence on others’ opinions.” (Keener, p. 399). 13. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 117. 14. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:11. 15. Stott, The Message of Acts, pp. 379-80. 16. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 395. 17. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 18. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 395. Stott adds: “Dr. Longnecker gives the references in the works of Euripides, Aeschylus, Pindar and Terence, where this saying occurs as a metaphor for useless ‘opposition to deity’…” (Stott, p. 372). 19. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 26:14. 20. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 395. 21. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 373. 22. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 26:16. 23. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 55. 24. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 26:1-18. 25. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1172. 26. Cited in Max Lucado, God’s Story Your Story (USA: Zondervan, 2011), p. 110. 27. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 94. 28. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 26:17-18. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 374. 30. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:18. 31. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 118. 32. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 26:19. 33. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 397. “The phraseology is reminiscent of 20:21 and especially 3:19…The text phrase and throughout all the country of Judea is difficult. It does not fit grammatically into the sentence…nor does its content correspond with the earlier description of Paul’s activity in Acts (Acts 9:26-30; cf. the strong statement of Paul in Gal. 1:22). It seems probably that the text is corrupt.” (Marshall, p. 397). 34. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 468. 35. Arndt &Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 513. 36. Jerusalem Post, Hanukkah Section, December 6, 1996, p. 6. 37. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 119. 38. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1007. 39. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 26:24. 40. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 26:1f. 41. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 404. 42. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 471. 43. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 26:25. 44. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 376. 45. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 26:27-29. 46. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 47. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1173. 48. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 26:1f. 49. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 377. 50. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, vs. 26:31-32. 51. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 377. The Book of Acts here begins another “we” section, indicating that once more Dr. Luke is on board. The last “we” reference was 21:18. Commentators have wondered just how Luke, as well as Aristarchus, were able to get on this voyage. Some have assumed that Luke signed on as Paul’s physician and Aristarchus as his personal attendant. [1] It is normally thought that this voyage began at Caesarea, since it was a modern and popular port and was nearby. We are told that Paul and some other prisoners were handed over to the centurion in charge. That centurion was named Julius and we are told that he was a part of the Imperial Regiment. Bruce feels that he might have been a member of the frumentarius. This was the group charged with supervising Rome’s important grain transport. [2] Others have felt that he was part of a special group that acted as liaison between the emperor and the provinces. [3] It was a fairly common thing in those days for soldiers to accompany criminals in their transport. Convicted criminals arriving in Rome would very likely provide entertainment for the Roman public as they were killed in the games. [4] “We boarded a ship from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us” (27:2). The ship boarded was from Adramyttium, (modern Edremit), a seaport of Mysia in the far northwest coast of Asia Minor. This ship was of the smaller variety that would hug the coast and stop at various ports along the way. The first leg of the journey was to the ancient Phoenician port of Sidon, an approximate 70 mile trip (112 km.). We note that the voyage was being made north along the coastline rather than directly across the Mediterranean to Rome. The reason for this was that in the summer and early fall there was usually a prevailing wind blowing from the west. [5] As we mentioned, Aristarchus was accompanying Paul on this trip (cf. 19:29; 20:4; Col. 4:10; Phm. 1:24). Thus, Paul’s epic journey is underway. J. R. Dummelow says of it that it is, “The most detailed account of an ancient voyage which we possess, and is our principal source of knowledge of the ancient art of navigation.” [6] Marshall says, “The story of Paul’s journey gives a fascinating glimpse into ancient sea travel.” [7] The next day we landed at Sidon; and Julius, in kindness to Paul, allowed him to go to his friends so they might provide for his needs. Acts 27:3 The small boat arrived at Sidon and apparently spent some time there. Marshall says, “Anybody familiar with the ways of coastal shipping knows how these boats can spend a remarkable amount of time loading and unloading cargo whenever they put in to harbor.” [8] We see that the centurion Julius expressed great kindness toward Paul. He was thus able to go visit the Christian community and receive their assistance. Guthrie says, “…it is remarkable how the centurions in the New Testament are uniformly presented in a favorable light.” [9] No doubt, a soldier was sent along to accompany Paul. “From there we put out to sea again and passed to the lee of Cyprus because the winds were against us” (27:4). When we read “lee” we are likely to think that the ship is sailing along the southern coast of Cyprus. However, “lee” in seafaring language means the side that is protected from the wind. Because of the prevailing wind, they were hugging the mainland and traveling around the north side of Cyprus. Some two and a half years before this, Paul and company had made good time as they passed by the southern side of the island with the full wind in their sails. [10] God does not always give us favorable winds in the events of our lives. Chrysostom says, “See how God does not alter or change the order of nature but allows him to sail into unfavorable winds. But even so the miracle happens.” [11] As the poets have said, “It is not the gale but the set of the sail…” “When we had sailed across the open sea off the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we landed at Myra in Lycia” (27:5). Myra was located in the western portion of Asia Minor’s (modern Turkey’s southern coastline). In Roman times it was one of the most important harbors for Rome’s grain trade with Egypt. This famous harbor of Andriake later became silted up. Paul and his ship had managed to make it this far, likely because of the steady westward current that runs along the coast. [12] Again, Paul had probably smiled as he passed by his home area of Tarsus of Cilicia and the area of Pamphylia as well, where he had long before conducted his First Missionary Journey. “There the centurion found an Alexandrian ship sailing for Italy and put us on board” (27:6). Since Myra was a great center for the shipment of grain, it was probably no trouble for the centurion to find a grain ship going to Rome. In this era, Egypt had become the main granary of Rome. [13] Keener says of the grain trade and its shipping: Rome’s grain fleet dominated Mediterranean trade…This journey took from as little as fifty days to over two months, although the reverse voyage from Rome to Alexandria could take as little as nine to twelve days. The Egyptian grain ships were about 180 feet long [55 m.], 45 feet wide [14 m.] and (at their deepest) over 40 feet deep; the fleet may have transported some 150,000 tons of Egyptian grain to Italy each year. This was the largest mercantile fleet known to Europe before the 1700s. [14] The grain ships were very large and bulky. They were difficult to maneuver, especially in foul weather. Some of these large ships were found pictured in the ruins of Pompeii and they are also described in Lucian’s writings around AD 150. [15] These great ships were absolutely necessary to bring food for the spiraling population of Rome. It is thought that the private ship owners received special consideration from the Roman government due to the critical importance of the grain supply. [16] “We made slow headway for many days and had difficulty arriving off Cnidus. When the wind did not allow us to hold our course, we sailed to the lee of Crete, opposite Salmone” (27:7). Obviously, the large ship was having great difficulty trying to move along the coast. Eventually it arrived off Cnidus (Knidos). From the Greek wording here it appears that the ship could not get into port at Cnidus. [17] Normally this was the last port of call for ships going on to Rome. Apparently the winds were too much and the large ship was forced to make a 150 mile (241 km.) run southwest to the island of Crete. The ship sailed around the eastern promontory of Salmone and sought protection from the wind on the lee (south side) of Crete. This large island was once the home of the ancient Minoan civilization. “We moved along the coast with difficulty and came to a place called Fair Havens, near the town of Lasea” (27:8). Fair Havens (Kaloi Limenes today) was a poor harbor in New Testament times. It appears that the host city was small and not too comfortable or inviting, while the port itself was open to the winter storms that might come along. One commentator suggested in fun that the local chamber of commerce must have given the place a name like Fair Havens. Much time had been lost, and sailing had already become dangerous because by now it was after the Day of Atonement. So Paul warned them, “Men, I can see that our voyage is going to be disastrous and bring great loss to ship and cargo, and to our own lives also.” Acts 27:9-10 The whole trip, mostly against a steady wind, had taken a lot of extra time. The days had gone by, even the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and it was getting past the time of safe sailing on the Mediterranean. Each year the dangerous time for sailing started around September 14 and ran until November 11. After that date all sailing came to an end for the winter. In AD 59, likely the year of this voyage, Yom Kippur fell on October 5. In surrounding years it fell much earlier. [18] So, we can see that the sea was already dangerous for ships. Sailing would not normally resume until March 10. The other crewmembers were not inclined to spend the winter in a place like Fair Havens. However, Paul perceived that to go further would be courting disaster. Paul was a mere prisoner but he was a Roman citizen and a man with great experience and sound judgment. In 2 Corinthians 11:25, we are told that he had been shipwrecked three times. In this same verse he noted that he had spent a night and a day in the open sea. He probably had more practical experience than any other person on board. Apparently Paul’s warning did not just come from his experience. Wiersbe notes how this warning sounds much like prophecy and that God may have given him a premonition concerning the voyage and danger ahead. [19] Pagan people were used to such premonitions. Keener says of them: “Pagans undertaking sea voyages always sacrificed to the gods and sought their protection. Bad omens, astrological interpretations or dreams sometimes prevented a ship from sailing if they were taken seriously.” [20] “But the centurion, instead of listening to what Paul said, followed the advice of the pilot and of the owner of the ship. Since the harbor was unsuitable to winter in, the majority decided that we should sail on, hoping to reach Phoenix and winter there. This was a harbor in Crete, facing both southwest and northwest” (27:11-12). We basically see the centurion making the final decision about trying to sail on. Keener says, “…because his vessel is part of the imperial grain fleet, the centurion functions as a Roman official with greater authority than the ship owner, just as he would on land in Egypt.” [21] The decision was to push on to the port of Phoenix, some 40 miles (64 km.) west on the Cretan coast. Phoenix was a much more desirable place to winter. It seems that so often we human beings are lured by that which seems more desirable but in the end becomes disastrous. The ship would sail away from Fair Havens. When a gentle south wind began to blow, they saw their opportunity; so they weighed anchor and sailed along the shore of Crete. Before very long, a wind of hurricane force, called the Northeaster, swept down from the island. Acts 27:13-14 A nice south wind began to blow and it was just the temptation needed. The ship sailed away, up the coast of Crete. Just a short distance beyond Fair Havens the coast of Crete veers sharply northward. At that, the ship was exposed to a harsh northeasterly wind from the island. [22] The wind seemed to be sweeping down from Mt. Ida, an 8,000 ft. (2456 m.) peak. The seafaring men called this wind Euroquilo. This was a hybrid compound of Euros, meaning the east wind, and the Latin Aquilo, meaning the north wind. Others simply called it the north-easter. [23] As we have said, the grain ships were bulky and difficult to manage. They were not built for storms. The sailing boats of the ancient Mediterranean were not as large but they too were not sturdy enough to plow through winter waves. [24] In the Greek, this storm is called tuphōnikos, a wind like a typhoon or tornado causing the clouds and currents to swirl. [25] It is a word from which we get typhoon today. A number of modern commentators have referred to the classic book written in 1856 by James Smith. The book was entitled Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. The book has gone through several editions and is still available today. Smith was a Scottish merchant, man of letters and accomplished yachtsman. He carefully studied Paul’s shipwreck and traveled to thoroughly experience and examine that area of the Mediterranean. Today commentators lean heavily upon the information he presented concerning the voyage and shipwreck. “The ship was caught by the storm and could not head into the wind; so we gave way to it and were driven along” (27:15). This wind was driving the ship southward and as they left Crete they knew that there were no more ports available. They were being swept out into the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. What an empty and hopeless feeling that must have been for everyone on board. “As we passed to the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were hardly able to make the lifeboat secure, so the men hoisted it aboard. Then they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Because they were afraid they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along” (27:16-17). The men began to do their best to prepare for the siege of an awful storm. It seems they were temporarily in the shelter of a small island and they used that opportunity to haul the lifeboat aboard. It was undoubtedly filling with water and could have crashed into the ship. It must have taken many of the hands on board (including Luke) to get the boat aboard. Next the men worked to place ropes under the ship. This was to insure that the ship would not begin to come apart in the storm. The men were expressing a great fear of running upon the sandbars of Syrtis. This was a reference to Syrtis Major in the modern Gulf of Siddra. This was a vast shoal off Cyrenaica along the coast of Africa. [26] These sandbanks and quicksands were a graveyard for ancient ships. Although these sands were at this point about 380 miles (611 km.) to the south, they were still greatly dreaded. They then let down the sail or else put out a sea anchor (floating anchor) to slow their progress. [27] We cannot possibly feel the helplessness of these ancient seamen. In those early days ships were navigated by the sun and stars. Unfortunately, they could not see either for days upon days. Ancient ships were not blessed with a compass or sextant. [28] They were literally helpless before the howling wind. We have mentioned how these large ships were difficult to handle. They had no rudder but were equipped with two great paddles, one on each side. They had a single mast with one large square sail. This made it impossible to sail into the wind. The large single mast placed great strain on the timbers, so when a gale began they often foundered. [29] “We took such a violent battering from the storm that the next day they began to throw the cargo overboard” (27:18). The crew was losing all hope and throwing everything they could spare away. They began to rid the ship of precious cargo because all hope of making a profit had now vanished. [30] “On the third day, they threw the ship’s tackle overboard with their own hands. When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and the storm continued raging, we finally gave up all hope of being saved” (27:19-20). Barnes assumes that the tackle had to do with extra anchors, cables, baggage, and perhaps even some of the sails. [31] Obviously all spare gear went over the side. Ancient seafarers lived in great fear of drowning. Keener says, “Pagans felt that those who died at sea never entered the realm of the dead; instead their souls wandered aimlessly forever above the waters in which they perished.” [32] These poor seamen were beginning to abandon all hope of ever being saved. After they had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: “Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss.” Acts 27:21 It was the preacher Joseph Parker who said, “…A crisis does not make a person; a crisis shows what a person is made of…” [33] In this crisis Paul stood tall. He almost became the captain of the ship while others trembled with fear around him. What a picture of faith in God. It reminds us of that great hymn written by Isaac Watts in 1719: Our God, our help in ages past, Our hope for years to come, Our shelter from the stormy blast, And our eternal home. Under the shadow of thy throne thy saints have dwelt secure; Sufficient is thine arm alone, And our defense is sure. [34] Once the crew of the captain Sir Humphrey Gilbert became terrified on one of their long voyages. They asked Gilbert to turn back but he would not. He said, “I am as near to God by sea, as ever I was by land.” [35] We remember Jesus who was once soundly asleep in the boat during a vicious and life-threatening Galilee storm. (Lk. 8:23-24). Paul had learned well from the Master. The men with Paul were fearful, weak, and emaciated from doing without nourishment, but Paul’s great comfort lifted them up. However, the apostle was human enough to slip in an “I told you so” in his speech. [36] They should have listened to Paul and now they were more than happy to do so. “But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed” (27:22). At this point Paul gives some really good news to the fearful and discouraged passengers. Not one person would be lost in this storm. What was good news for the passengers was not all good news for the captain and owner. The ship would be lost. Bruce says something that is really true and I have noticed this in life: “…Human society has no idea how much it owes, in the mercy of God, to the presence in it of righteous men and women.” [37] In a very real sense it is righteous men and women who keep our old world afloat. “Last night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood beside me and said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you’” (27:23-24). Paul had experienced a heavenly visitor during the night. The wonderful Psalm 34 says, “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them” (Ps. 34:7). In Hebrews 1:14 we read, “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14). God is so gracious. Not only would he spare Paul but he would spare everyone traveling with Paul. “So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island” (27:25-26). “Paul presents a noble picture, standing there in the gray dawn while the heavy seas are breaking over the ship. He seems to have become by force of character the commander of the entire company” [38] He challenged the weak and fearful to have faith in the True God. Things would happen just as he said. No doubt, some of these men later believed God when they saw their ship being beached upon the island of Malta. On the fourteenth night we were still being driven across the Adriatic Sea, when about midnight the sailors sensed they were approaching land. Acts 27:27 The ship had been adrift for two weeks. During that time the wind must have changed somewhat to blow them in more of a westerly direction. It was on that fourteenth night that the sailors sensed they were nearing land. The sea around Malta today is not called the Adriatic Sea but in ancient times it was called this as well as the “Sea of Adria.” [39] We might wonder how the sailors sensed that they were near land. It is possible that they heard the breakers, recognized certain fish or birds, or even smelled the land. Earlier we mentioned James Smith and his study of this area. Smith had calculated that it would take exactly fourteen days of drifting to reach Malta from the island of Cauda. [40] During the stormy period they were blown almost five hundred miles (804 km.) off course. “They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet deep. Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight” (27:28-29). The sailors made their soundings by dropping a weighted cord and measuring the depth. [41] They realized that the water was quickly becoming shallow. It had gone from 120 feet (36 m.) to 90 feet (27 m.). There was a growing fear that the ship would crash upon the rocks and they immediately dropped anchors from the stern or rear of the ship. Normally anchors would have been dropped from the bow of the ship, but in this case they were dropped from the stern or rear. There was a danger that the ship could be blown around. [42] Coffman says: “This paraphrase of the last clause suggests many a time in life when there is hardly anything to do except to cast anchor and wait for day, filling the hours with prayer, even as Paul did.” [43] “In an attempt to escape from the ship, the sailors let the lifeboat down into the sea, pretending they were going to lower some anchors from the bow” (27:30). The sailors were obviously not men of faith and they were intent on doing anything to save their own necks. Their plan was to take the lifeboat and make a dash for the shore. Their ruse was quickly discovered by Paul. Guzik says: “First, the ships passengers desperately needed the crew’s expertise, and it would be fatal if the crew abandoned the passengers. Second, Paul probably sensed that Gods promise to give him the lives of the whole ships company assumed that they would stay together.” [44] “Then Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, ‘Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.’ So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it drift away” (27:31-32). The lifeboat was quickly cut away and the selfish plan was defeated. Bruce comments: “By this time the centurion had learned that it was unwise to disregard Paul’s advice…” [45] Barclay says, “As we read the narrative, into the tempest there seems to come a strange calm. The man of God has somehow made others sure that God is in charge of things.” [46] Just before dawn Paul urged them all to eat. “For the last fourteen days,” he said, “you have been in constant suspense and have gone without food— you haven’t eaten anything. Now I urge you to take some food. You need it to survive. Not one of you will lose a single hair from his head.” Acts 27:33-34 The storm had raged so furiously for two weeks that the men had not eaten. No doubt the ship was taking on water from the storm and it is likely that food items were wet and perhaps much of it was spoiled. The men may have been too frightened or too seasick to eat. [47] Of course, there would have been little time or opportunity to cook. Paul makes the crew a wonderful promise that they would not lose a single hair from their heads. This was no doubt a well-known proverb but now it had become a sure promise of God. “After he said this, he took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat. They were all encouraged and ate some food themselves” (27:35-36). Paul first gave thanks for the bread as was the Jewish custom. Then he and the crew began to eat. Some have tried to make this meal into a sort of Christian sacrament but there is really no evidence of that. Bock does say, “There is almost a feel of worship to this description…There is something sacred going on as Paul takes all two hundred seventy-six people (v. 37) under God’s care and direction.” [48] “Altogether there were 276 of us on board. When they had eaten as much as they wanted, they lightened the ship by throwing the grain into the sea” (27:37-38). It seems that Paul had fed almost a small multitude. We may wonder how so many people could be on a grain ship. Some years later the historian Josephus also went to Rome on a ship that supposedly had 600 people on board. This ship was also wrecked in the Sea of Adria. [49] With renewed vigor the crew went back to work throwing out what was left of the cargo in order to lessen the ship’s draught, so that it might move closer to the shore. When daylight came, they did not recognize the land, but they saw a bay with a sandy beach, where they decided to run the ship aground if they could. Acts 27:39 James Smith did considerable work on the island of Malta. Through his work he determined that the site of the shipwreck was the traditional site known as St. Paul’s Bay. This site is located on the island’s northeast coast. [50] Today the bay is there but the sandy beach is not. Smith determined that the wasting action of the sea had worn the beach away over the centuries. [51] He determined that it was this very location where the ship was run aground. “Cutting loose the anchors, they left them in the sea and at the same time untied the ropes that held the rudders. Then they hoisted the foresail to the wind and made for the beach” (27:40). The anchors were cut loose and left in the sea. The rudders, or giant paddles we mentioned earlier were also loosened. Then the sail was unfurled to the wind. Commentators are quite sure that this was not the very large main sail but the small foresail. Smith too was certain it was the foresail or jib that was unfurled. [52] “But the ship struck a sandbar and ran aground. The bow stuck fast and would not move, and the stern was broken to pieces by the pounding of the surf” (27:41). Smith in his explorations discovered that beneath the sand there was tenacious clay and it was this into which the ship stuck and was held fast. [53] Once the ship was immobilized the violent surf quickly did its job in breaking the ship apart. “The soldiers planned to kill the prisoners to prevent any of them from swimming away and escaping” (27:42). It was Roman military law that any soldier who let a prisoner escape must receive the penalty that the prisoner would have suffered. [54] For this reason the leaders were intent upon killing the prisoners immediately. That would have included the Apostle Paul. “But the centurion wanted to spare Paul’s life and kept them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and get to land” (27:43). We have previously noted the good qualities of this centurion. Clearly, he had become quite impressed with Paul and was determined to save him. Thus the centurion would not allow the prisoners to be killed. Instead, he gave orders that everyone should make an effort to get to shore, either by swimming, floating on wreckage or even being carried by others. [55] “The rest were to get there on planks or on other pieces of the ship. In this way everyone reached land safely” (27:44). By one means or another all 276 of the passengers made it safely to shore. To this miracle the scholar Ramsay said: “…the foreship was held together until every passenger got safe to dry land. Only the rarest conjunction of favorable circumstances could have brought about such a fortunate ending to their apparently hopeless situation…” [56] 1. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 405. 2. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 477. 3. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 27:1-8. Pett (vs. 27:1-8) adds: “…an officer of the imperial guard, or cohort, a body of soldiers that bore the emperor’s name and was probably used for confidential business between Rome and the provinces…” 4. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 400. 5. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 27:1-8. 6. J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 851. 7. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 403. 8. Ibid., p. 404. 9. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1008. 10. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New 11. Martin, ed., Ancient Commentary On Scripture, New Testament, Vol. V Acts, p. 300. 12. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 478. 13. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 387. 14. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 401. 15. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 27:6. 16. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 405. 17. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 480. 18. Ibid., p. 481. 19. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 406. 20. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 401. 21. Ibid., p. 402. 22. Ibid., p. 401. 23. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 389. Bruce adds: “..From Homer’s Odyssey onward, ancient accounts of a Mediterranean voyage frequently included a storm or shipwreck.” (Bruce, p. 474). 24. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1174. 25. Jamieson, Fausset, &Brown, Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 27:13-14. 26. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 402. 27. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1175. Keener expands: “…these ships could cover about fifty nautical miles in daylight, or ninety miles in twenty-four hours; but they had little resistance to a powerful wind going in a direction they wished to avoid.” (Keener. p. 402). 28. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 27:9-20. 29. Ibid., vs. 27:21-26. 30. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 27:18. 31. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 27:19. 32. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 402. 33. Quoted in Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 406. 34. Hymnary Organization. https://hymnary.org/text/our_god_our_help_in_ages_past_watts 35. Quoted in Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 27:21-26. 36. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 512. 37. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 488. 38. Meyer. Commentary on Acts, F. B. Meyer’s “‘Through the Bible’ Commentary,” 39. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 403. “The sea around Malta (28:1) is far south of what is called the ‘Adriatic Sea’ today but was included in the ‘Sea of Adria’ in antiquity…” 40. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 391. 41. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 27:28. 42. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 403. 43. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 27:29. 44. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 27:30-32. 45. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 491. 46. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 27:27-28. 47. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 410. 48. Bock, ed., The Bible Knowledge Word Study, Acts – Ephesians, p. 121. 49. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1010. 50. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 393. 51. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1010. 52. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 27:40. 53. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 494. 54. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 513. 55. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1175. 56. Quoted in Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 494-95. Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta. Acts 28:1 In those days, the island of Malta was called Melita, which had the meaning of “refuge” in the original Phoenician language. Certainly the island lived up to its name. In the Greek language the word Melita means honey, for which the isle was also famous. [1] Malta was small, being approximately 8 miles wide (13 km.) and some 18 miles long (30 km.). It had become a part of the Roman Empire in 218 BC. [2] “The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold” (28:2). The islanders, or natives, who were of Phoenician extraction are referred to in the Greek here as barbaroi or barbarians. The Greeks and Romans looked upon anyone who did not speak their beautiful languages as barbarians. Possibly these foreign tongues sounded to them something like “bar, bar.” [3] Certainly, the natives did not act like barbarians as they built a fire and welcomed the refugees. No doubt the travelers were wet, shivering with cold and likely suffering from hypothermia. The storm must have been a massive one to have lasted two weeks and it was still cold and rainy. “Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand” (28:3). Paul was ever the servant and even in his weary condition he was quick to help with the wood gathering. Apparently, in his gathering he managed to include a serpent that was no doubt stiff and torpid with cold. The snake probably just looked like another branch. However, when the creature felt the warmth of the fire it came alive and bit the apostle, holding fast to his hand. Colonel T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) once had an experience similar to this. As his party gathered sticks for a fire, a long black snake that had been torpid with cold arose out of the fire before his group. [4] I remember a snake story of my own. As a child we were once duck hunting in the floodwaters of the south. It was wintertime and quite cold. Our boat ran up against a tree at about the point where I was sitting. I then noticed in the tree a snake all coiled and ready to strike. Although I was but a short distance from the snake it did not strike me. I then realized that the snake was too cold to spring into action. It is ironic that Satan had apparently tried his best to drown the apostle at sea and now as a final resort had sought to kill him with snakebite. Paul could have complained, “Just my rotten luck. I get on a ship and it is wrecked in a storm. I get rescued and a snake bites me!” [5] Paul didn’t think that way but merely shook the creature off in the fire. Paul may have been thinking instead of Psalm 34:19: “The righteous person may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all…” We need to be aware that Paul was not performing some religious snake handling exercise. God does not want us to test him by holding poisonous snakes. The Bible says, “…do not be a fool— why die before your time?” (Eccl. 7:17). We do have this promise in scripture: “You will tread on the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent” (Psa. 91:13). This promise is brought down to us in Luke 10:19: “I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you” (cf. Mk. 16:18). We can assume by this that there are times in the kingdom’s work when we can tread on snakes and not be harmed. This can be in a spiritual sense, but if God wills it can also be in a natural sense. Apparently it was such a time for Paul. Some commentators have been quick to point out that there are no poisonous snakes on the island of Malta today. That is understandable since Malta is now one of the most thickly populated places on the earth. “When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, ‘This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live’” (28:4). When the islanders saw the poisonous snake hanging from Paul’s hand they immediately decided that he was some terrible criminal. Although he had escaped the sea, justice would not let him live on. The islanders had reference to the goddess Dikē, the daughter of Jupiter, whose task was to take vengeance and inflict punishment for crimes. [6] “But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects” (28:5). It was fortunate for Paul that there were no animal rights activists around in his day. Certainly the islanders knew for a fact that Paul had been bitten by a poisonous snake. They waited around for the inevitable to happen. “The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god” (28:6). They expected Paul to swell up and then drop dead. Interestingly, the term for “swell up” is one of many medical terms used by Dr. Luke. [7] Clarke says that they likely thought Paul was Hercules. Supposedly, this pagan god became famous for destroying two serpents that attacked him when he was in his cradle. [8] There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and showed us generous hospitality for three days. Acts 28:7 Publius was likely the Roman governor of the island. Here he is called the chief official. In the Greek, the word is prōtōi, which means “the first man” of the island. [9] Luke is an accurate historian and today we know that there are two inscriptions in existence, both Greek and Latin, that confirm this title. [10] This official welcomed the party to his home and entertained them all for three days. We can presume that all 276 were not invited. It is likely that Luke is speaking of the centurion, the ship’s company along with Paul and those with him. [11] “His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him” (28:8). It is thought among commentators that the father had a case of Malta Fever. Scientists tell us today that this fever is caused by a microbe transmitted by the goat milk of Malta. The fever was said to last about four months, but in some cases could extend two to three years. Luke uses the plural of “fever” perhaps indicating that it was prone to intermittent attacks. [12] Along with the fever was dysentery (Gk. dusenteriōi). This often involved diarrhea and bleeding from the bowels. Paul placed his hands upon the father and promptly healed him (cf. Mk. 16:18). It is amazing how similar this story is to that of Peter’s mother-in-law whom Jesus once healed of a fever (Lk. 4:38-41). It is interesting that the Greek word used is iasato, which speaks of instantaneous healing. [13] While biblical miracles were never used selfishly for one’s own good, we can see how Publius received rich rewards for his generosity. “When this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured” (28:9). This is something we see over and over again in the gospel. As God’s word is proclaimed the sick are healed. We have no evidence here that Paul was proclaiming the gospel, but he usually was doing that very thing. Often today in foreign countries as the gospel is proclaimed people are also healed miraculously. The second word for healing used here has caused a great deal of comment. It is the Greek word therapeuō. It has been argued that Paul worked miraculously while Dr. Luke may have just exercised his medical skills. While this is possible, Robertson points out that both Greek words are employed in the healing done by Jesus in Luke 6:18. [14] “They honored us in many ways; and when we were ready to sail, they furnished us with the supplies we needed” (28:10). Paul and Luke did not receive remuneration for their kind acts of healing. This would have been opposed to the law of Christ (Lk. 9:3; 16:13). However, we see the party showered with love gifts as they prepared to depart. We can think that the group was well equipped with foods aplenty for the remainder of their trip. It was undoubtedly a pleasant stay and long tradition holds that the church of Malta eventually sprang out of this apostolic visit. [15] After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island— it was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux. Acts 28:11 Paul and the others wintered for three months on Malta. There they awaited the opening of the sea lanes in the early spring. At least by February 8-10 the weather would have cleared so that they could make the remainder of the voyage. [16] The year was probably early in AD 60. It was their good fortune that another grain ship that had escaped the storm was anchored in the port at Malta. They boarded it and prepared to make the rest of the journey. It is interesting that this ship had as its figurehead the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux). These twin heroes were deified sons of Zeus who were supposedly protectors of ships. [17] Their cult was widespread in Egypt. Here we see the apostle and his group getting on this ship without a thought about the gods. This tells us that some in the Charismatic movement may have become too skittish and fearful of pagan influences. Sometimes we can carry things too far. Pett says, “Luke no doubt saw it as ironic that the sons of Zeus should carry to Rome the greatest opponent of Zeus in the Roman Empire. (How blind Zeus must have been).” [18] We do not know how many of the 276 people boarded this ship. It is likely that the group dispersed in many directions as the sea lanes opened. We do see that Paul, his team, along with Julius and the prisoners continued on to Rome. “We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days” (28:12). The first leg of the journey was to the large island of Sicily and to its eastern port city of Syracuse. This was a trip of about 80 miles (128 km.). Syracuse was a beautiful and famous city of history, and capital of the island. The city was also the home of the famous mathematician, Archimedes. “From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium. The next day the south wind came up, and on the following day we reached Puteoli” (28:13). Other versions bring out the fact that the party sailed in a circuit. The NAS version reads, “And from there we sailed around and arrived at Rhegium…” Because of the wind direction they likely had to do “tacking” with a zigzag course to Rhegium. [19] It was a distance of 70 miles (112 km.). Rhegium, known today as Reggio di Calabria, is located on the “toe” of Italy, across the Strait of Messina form Sicily. The next day the party was blessed with a strong southerly wind and the voyage continued the approximate 200 miles (321 km.) on to Puteoli (today’s Pozzuoli). This was quite a good distance, taking the ship not just up the “foot” but far up the “leg” of the Italian boot. Puteoli was located in the north side of the Gulf of Naples. This city was a hub for the Alexandrian grain ships as well as for other vessels. [20] “There we found some brothers and sisters who invited us to spend a week with them. And so we came to Rome” (28:14). No doubt, the centurion had official business that needed his care and the group was allowed to spend a week at this port. Once again we note the kindness of Julius in allowing Paul and his team to visit the Christian church in the city. Pett says that because Paul was the hero of the shipwreck he may have been given some special license as well. [21] Wiersbe comments: “The centurion knew that Paul had saved their lives, and perhaps he was even getting interested in what these Christians had to offer.” [22] It must have been greatly refreshing for Paul and the others to relax in the warm fellowship of the Christian assembly. The account of the journey was now speeding up and becoming more and more concise. The sea voyages were now over and the rest of the trip to Rome would be done on foot. That remaining distance would be about 115 miles (185 km.). “The brothers and sisters there had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these people Paul thanked God and was encouraged” (28:15). The Christian grapevine or information conduit was apparently working quite well in Italy, since the churches in Rome had already heard of Paul’s arrival. We cannot forget that Paul had many friends in Rome. In his Book of Romans, Wiersbe notes that there were at least twenty-six friends named in the last chapter. [23] Perhaps it was some of these dear friends who journeyed all the way to Appius Forum, a trip of about 43 miles (69 km.). The journey was along the famous Appian Way, one of the oldest and best of the Roman roads. Stott says, “It must have been an emotional experience for Paul to meet personally the first residents in the city of his dreams…” [24] Others had walked to the Three Taverns, a journey of about ten miles less. The Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns were halting stations that were built every ten to fifteen miles along the Roman road system. [25] It is interesting to note the Greek word used for “meet” here is apantesis, and it is the same word rendered as “rapture” of believers in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It was a term generally used for a delegation going out from a city to meet a visiting official and then accompanying that official back into the city. [26] We should note that the delegation always accompanies the visitor back into their city. Thus we can see how this concept has been misused in the propagation of the recent rapture doctrine, that the church will go away from the earth with the Lord. The truth is that the Lord is coming to the earth with thousands and thousands of his holy ones. He is coming to reign forever on earth. ROME AT LAST! When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him. Acts 28:16 For the lasts several years Paul had longed and planned to visit Rome (Rom. 15:23-24). After all, he was the apostle to the Gentiles and Rome was the chief of all Gentile cities. Commentators feel that he was first of all delivered to the chief of the Praetorian Guard. This information is actually found in a few ancient texts of the scripture. [27] From history we happen to know that his name was Afranius Burrus. This was one of Nero’s famous and distinguished generals. He was instrumental in bringing Nero to the throne and continued to have considerable influence on him in his early reign. He has received much praise from historians for his moderation and love of justice. Apparently he repressed many of Nero’s vicious inclinations as long as he was in power. [28] The Praetorian Guard was the emperor’s elite personal guard in Rome. While Paul was given the liberty to live in his own rented dwelling, he was nevertheless lightly chained to a Roman soldier from this guard unit. The guards were probably changed about every four hours, so we can see that Paul had the splendid opportunity to gain gospel access to this very important military unit. When Paul later wrote the prison epistle of Philippians he said: Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear” (Phil. 1:12-14). “Three days later he called together the local Jewish leaders. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: ‘My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans’” (28:17). Paul wasted no time in contacting the Jewish people of Rome. Stott says, “…even in the Gentile capital of the world, Paul addressed himself to Jews first.” [29] He was more than eager to preach the gospel to them (Rom. 1:15). Paul probably sensed that time was running out for the Jews. In a mere ten years the great national calamity would befall them and their nation and temple would be destroyed. [30] Now Paul’s strategy has shifted somewhat. Instead of his going to the Jews he is inviting the Jews to come to him. [31] We cannot be sure how the Christian Jewish movement (Messianic Judaism) got its start in Rome. We do know that in Acts 2:10 there were Roman Jews gathered at the Pentecost celebration. It is thought by many commentators that these new believers brought the Christian faith back to Rome. [32] Barclay comments on Paul’s desire to still minister to the Jews. He says: “There is something infinitely wonderful in the fact that to the end of the day, wherever he went, Paul began with the Jews. For rather more than thirty years now they had been doing everything they could to hinder him, to undo his work, and even to kill him: and even yet it is to them first he offers his message…this rejection of Jesus by the Jews is the very thing which has opened the door to the Gentiles.” [33] “They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. The Jews objected, so I was compelled to make an appeal to Caesar. I certainly did not intend to bring any charge against my own people.” (28:18-19). Paul does not make it clear here that it was the Romans who wished to release him while the Jews wanted him dead. Coffman says, “Paul’s forbearance here is notable, in that he made no mention of the repeated attempts against his life, aided and abetted by the high priest himself. His message to his countrymen in Rome was designed to be as conciliatory as possible.” [34] “For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain” (28:20). There are likely two elements involved in the hope Paul speaks of. There is the hope of the coming Messiah and the hope in the resurrection of the dead. The Jewish people believed in both, but not in the same sense Paul did. They believed that a triumphant Messiah would come and free them from Rome and they believed in a general resurrection on the last day (Jn. 11:24). Paul believed that the Messiah would come first as a suffering Servant and that the Christ would be the foundation of the general resurrection. [35] Thus, the Christian faith was the hope of the Jewish people. “They replied, ‘We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you’” (28:21). It is quite possible that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had not pursued their charges against Paul. Those charges had been essentially proven bogus on two or three occasions already. They probably thought it unwise to stir up Roman sentiment against them at this delicate time. No doubt they were very busy with events that were rapidly leading up to a war with Rome. Also, just a few years before (AD 49) the whole Jewish community in Rome had been expelled due to Jewish/Christian tensions. They had only returned to Rome in 54 with the death of Emperor Claudius. [36] Keener comments: “It is by no means clear that the Roman Jewish community was uniformly hostile to the Christian movement (28:24), but they naturally had questions, especially if their previous expulsion in 18:2 was due to Christian teachings.” [37] “But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect” (28:22). Pett comments, “There are grounds for believing that there had been such trouble in the time of Claudius so it is possible that they had agreed to an uneasy peace and avoided each other.” [38] Guthrey also comments: “They had probably had more experience of Christianity in Rome itself than they were prepared to admit…” [39] They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. Acts 28:23 It seems that Paul first met with the main leaders of the Jewish community, where a meeting was set for a larger gathering. We see here that quite a large crowd of Jews gathered to hear Paul. We can only wonder about how his home was sufficient for such a group. Perhaps they all met outside since the springtime was coming on. This was an all-day affair with the apostle teaching about the kingdom of God. We have noted how the kingdom does not get a lot of mention in Acts when compared to the gospels. No doubt, this was a touchy subject for Roman ears, since it seemed to speak of another king. However, it was the very heart of the gospel and he could speak freely with a Jewish group. We can be for certain that Paul taught the Jews of the coming of Messiah. Some say that there are 127 predictions involving more than 3,000 verses. There are 574 of these verses that refer directly to a personal Messiah. Other commentators feel that the number could exceed 127 and should be over 300 verses total. [40] Paul probably dealt with many of these at that special meeting. We are told that he dealt specifically with Jesus and the many Messianic claims related to him from the law and the prophets. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). He knew it was God’s power of salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike. However, the gospel was an explosive matter for the Jewish people. Having lived among the Jews in Israel I can almost guarantee that this meeting was not a monologue. As it is said, “Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions.” Jewish people tend to ask questions and to hotly discuss matters of their religion. We can be sure that Paul had an interesting day. “Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe” (28:24). With the single exception of Berea (17:11), this had been the reception of Jews all across the Roman world. [41] After this meeting there seems to be a shift in the apostolic work. They would still go to the Jews but, from now on the Gentiles would have priority. Unlike the Jews they would accept the gospel. [42] They would in fact accept it on a massive scale. “They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet: “Go to this people and say, ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them’” (28:25-27). This long passage of course was taken from Isaiah 6:9-10. The Jews disagreed and argued. In the end they rejected the message. Unfortunately, when people reject the message of Christ they eventually reach a point where they lose the capacity to receive that very message. [43] “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” (28:28). While the church at Rome is not mentioned, the church universal is here given its marching orders. [44] This is a pivotal verse in the book of Acts. For the next two thousand years the Gentile church would have preeminence, while Israel would fade into the background (cf. Rom. 15:9-12). Only in the end of days would Israel become envious (Rom. 11:11). Only then would all Israel be saved (Rom. 11:26) and would Jew and Gentile come together to form a new humanity (Eph. 3:6). Today Israel still remains hardened, but we must understand that that hardness is only in part (Rom. 11:25). We note that verse 29 is missing in the NIV and many other modern translations. The NKJ version has it, and it reads, “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves.” Unfortunately, this verse does not appear in the best New Testament manuscripts and may be but a scribal paraphrase. [45] “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him” (28:30). It is amazing that Paul was able to rent his own house. Paul may have still received gifts from certain of the churches. The scholar Ramsay felt that either Paul or Luke might have inherited some wealth. [46] Some have suggested that Paul was supporting himself as a tentmaker, but that would be difficult with one hand chained to a Roman soldier. It appears that the years of Paul’s first confinement would have coincided approximately with AD 60-61. [47] The confinement may have possibly included some of the year 62. During this time Paul was not just sitting around twiddling his thumbs. It was a very busy and productive period. Paul was receiving many guests and teaching numerous people. Also, Luke was there with him in his confinement. It is very likely that Paul gave Luke some assistance in his composition of Acts during this time. [48] In Philemon 1:24, we note that Mark was present with Paul at times in his confinement. Paul may very well have helped Mark as the latter worked to finish his gospel. It was also in this busy period that Paul wrote what is known as the Prison Epistles. These include Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians. As we have mentioned, Paul had continuous access to some of the best troops in the Roman army. They were with him day and night as their shifts constantly changed. Barclay says: “These headquarters soldiers were members of the picked troops of the Emperor, the Praetorian Guard. In two years many of them must have spent long days and nights with Paul; and many a man must have gone from his guard duty with Christ in his heart.” [49] There was much more activity in that house of confinement. Timothy was with Paul (Phil. 1:1; 2:19). Aristarchus and Justus were there (Co. 4:10-11). The runaway slave Onesimus also visited Paul and got wonderfully saved (Phm. 1:10-21). Epaphroditus visited him and almost died there while ministering to Paul (Phil. 2:25-30). Tychicus was Paul’s mailman and was in and out delivering letters to the Ephesians, Colossians and to Philemon (Col. 4:7-9). [50] That prison house was almost the world headquarters for the budding Christian evangelical movement. Now we must consider whether or not Paul was released from this confinement, whether he traveled once more and whether he had a final and more serious imprisonment. Quite a number of scholars feel that the setting for the Pastoral Epistles (1 &2 Timothy and Titus) was much different than for that of the Prison Epistles. Pfeiffer and Harrison say, “The three Pastoral Epistles which claim to have been written by Paul reflect a ministry of traveling and preaching that cannot be fitted into the narrative of the book of Acts.” [51] Also, it seems obvious that Paul expected to be released from his first confinement (cf. Phil. 1;19-26; Phm. 1:22). Keener states: “At the end of two years, if no accusers had arrived and no charges had been sent against him (28:21), Paul would normally be automatically released.” [52] We have a number of reasons to believe that Paul was released, perhaps in the year 63. That being the case, he would have been free to travel once more. No doubt, he would have traveled to Spain for this was his long-term plan (Rom. 15:28). We have no geographical evidence that Paul went to Spain. However, the first century non-canonical epistle of First Clement, written by Clement the Bishop of Rome, says that Paul “taught righteousness to all the world and gave his testimony when he had reached the limits of the west.” [53] After travels to Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20), Crete (Tit. 1:5) and Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12-13) and other places, Paul was apparently arrested once more. This time, there was no house arrest but he was placed in the dismal Mamertine Prison. [54] This time, there was no optimism about being released. Christians did not flock to his aid as before but rather they deserted him (2 Tim. 4:16-17). The situation had changed drastically in 64 as Nero began to actively persecute Christians. No doubt many were afraid to visit the apostle. Paul spoke of his second trial with resignation (2 Tim. 4:6-18). Tradition says that he was found guilty and beheaded sometime in the latter period of Nero’s reign, perhaps in AD 66-67. [55] “He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ— with all boldness and without hindrance!” (28:31). Despite it being distasteful to the Romans, Paul continued to proclaim the kingdom of God. He continued to teach anyone and everyone who dropped by his house. Paul spoke with boldness (Gk. parresias) and without hindrance (Gk. akolutos). [56] The fact that Paul had such freedom was obviously very important to Luke. Now in the center of the Roman Empire the gospel is at last freely proclaimed. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown state: “Thus closes this most precious monument of the beginnings of the Christian church in its march from east to west, among the Jews first, whose center was Jerusalem; next among the Gentiles, with Antioch for its headquarters; finally, its banner is seen waving over imperial Rome, foretokening its universal triumphs.” [57] 1. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 28:1. 2. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 512. 3. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 28:1-6. Keener adds: “The Maltese were Phoenician descent, and commoners there spoke and read only Punic (the late Phoenician dialect of the Carthaginians). But Roman citizens and retired soldiers also lived there, and the island was certainly not considered culturally primitive…But Luke’s use of the term translated “barbarous”…in this context…is not derisive.” (Keener, p. 404). 4. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1010. 5. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 28:4. 6. Barnes, Commentary on Acts, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, v. 28:4. 7. Utley, Luke The Historian: Acts, v. 28:6. 8. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, vs. 28:5-6. 9. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 499. 10. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1010. 11. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 28:7. 12. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 514. Stott augments: “The micro-organism, which causes it, was apparently identified in 1887 and traced to the milk of Maltese goats…” (Stott, p. 395). 13. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, vs. 28:1f. 14. Robertson, Commentary on Acts, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, v. 28:9. 15. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vs. 28:15. 16. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 501. “The elder Pliny says that navigation begins to be resumed when the west winds start to blow on February 8; it was probably about this date that the party set sail form Malta…” 17. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 405. 18. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, vs. 28:11-13. 19. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 396. 20. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1010. 21. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 28:14. 22. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 407. 23. Ibid., p. 408. 24. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 396. 25. Barker &Kohlenberger, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, p. 515. 26. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1176. 27. Ibid. 28. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 28:16. 29. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 397. 30. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 28:17-20. 31. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 505. 32. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 28:15. 33. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 28:16-29. 34. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 28:18. 35. Clarke, Commentary on Acts, The Adam Clarke Commentary, v. 28:20. 36. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 28:21. 37. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 406. 38. Pett, Commentary on Acts, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible, v. 28:22. 39. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1011. 40. Billy Graham, Decision Magazine. https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/november-2006/the-promise-of-the-messiah/ Guzik adds: “There are at least 332 distinct Old Testament predictions regarding the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled perfectly… Professor Peter Stoner has calculated that the probability of any one man fulfilling eight of these prophesies is one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 17th power). That number of silver dollars would cover the state of Texas two feet deep. Stoner says that if you consider 48 of the prophecies, the odds become one in 10 to the 157th power.” David (Guzik Commentaries on the Bible. 2 Peter. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/2-peter-1/, 1997-2003). 41. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Revised Edition, p. 508. 42. Ibid., p. 509. 43. Marshall, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Acts, p. 425. 44. Ibid., p. 421. 45. Ibid., p. 425. 46. Cited in Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 28:29. 47. Guthrie, et. al, The New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1011. 48. Coffman, Commentary on Acts, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, v. 28:28, citing Hervey. 49. Barclay, Commentary on Acts, William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible, vs. 28:30-31. 50. Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 408. 51. Pfeiffer &Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1178. 52. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, p. 406. 53. Quoted in James R. Edwards, Romans, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992), p. 350. 54. Stedman, Authentic Christianity, Acts, The Ray Stedman Organization, v. 28:31. 55. Guzik, Commentary on Acts, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, vs. 28:30-31. 56. Stott, The Message of Acts, p. 400. “The final words of the book (which the NIV misplaces) are the adverbial expression meta pases parresias, ‘with all boldness’, and the adverb akolutos, ‘without hinderance’. Parresia has been a characteristic word of Acts ever since the Twelve exhibited boldness and prayed for more (4:13, 31)…Parresia denotes speech which is candid (with no concealment of truth), clear (with no obscurity of expression) and confident (with no fear of consequences).” Stedman adds: “…the last page of the first chapter of church history – the last chapter of the book of Acts.” (Stedman, v. 28:1f.). Barclay enhances: “Now the tale is finished; the story that began in Jerusalem rather more than thirty years ago has finished in Rome.” (Barclay, v. 28:30). 57. Jamieson, et. al., Commentary on Acts, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, v. 28:31.