1.1 The first verse links the book of Acts to the gospel of Luke, written by the same author. It is addressed to the same “Theophilus” mentioned in the gospel, but there is no way to know whether he was a real person, or whether the name is intended to represent any “lover of God,” which is the etymological meaning of the name.
1.2 Here the author tells us that the first book (i.e., the gospel of Luke) presented the life of Jesus “until the day when he was taken up.” This is a reference to Luke 24:51, where Jesus parted from the disciples “and was carried up into heaven.” Since the ascension in Luke takes place within 24 hours of the Sunday morning discovery of the empty tomb, it is puzzling that Luke goes on here in v.3 to say that Jesus continued to appear on the earth for a period of forty days after his crucifixion.
1:4 Jesus is reported to have commanded the disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father.” This contradicts Matthew 28:10, where Jesus tells the women at the tomb to instruct the disciples to meet him in Galilee. Obviously they could not have met Jesus in Galilee if they followed his instructions to remain in Jerusalem.
1:6 The disciples still think of Jesus as the traditional Jewish messiah, asking him “will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” They apparently do not think of him as the one who saves mankind from its sins.
1:7 Jesus does not directly answer the disciples’ question, but says it is not for them to know “times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority.” But earlier (e.g., Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27) Jesus gave the disciples very specific signs of the coming of the kingdom and fixed a time limit on when it would occur. See the comments to Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30 on the failure of Jesus’s predictions.
1:8 Jesus tells the disciples they will be his witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.” This is a much wider field of activity than the disciples received in Matthew 10:5-6, where Jesus advised them to “go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Jesus predicts that they “will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes.” (Matthew 10:23) Thus, in Matthew it is implied that there will not be time to go through even the towns of Israel before Jesus returns, but now in Acts, there seems to be time for all those and more.
The notion that the Gentiles should be included in their mission is suspect anyway, and as we shall see later in Acts, this was an idea from Paul which did not receive universal acceptance within the Jerusalem group of Jesus’s followers. If Jesus had actually instructed the disciples to include the Gentiles, it is unlikely that they would have resisted Paul’s idea to the extent they did.
1:9 This is now the second ascension of Jesus into heaven, the first being reported by Luke in Luke 24:51. Note that it occurs at least forty days after the first one. See the comment to Luke 24:50-51. The gospels of Matthew and John contain no mention of any ascension, and the only reference to it in Mark (16:19) occurs in the addendum which scholars generally agree was added later to the original Marcan text.
1:10 These “men in white robes” who suddenly appear are not called “angels,” even though that is the image conjured up in the reader’s mind. The Greek word used is andres, which literally means “men,” i.e., male human beings. Thus there is no evidence in the text that there is anything supernatural about these two individuals.
1:11 The two mysterious men predict that Jesus will return again, “in the same way as you saw him go into heaven,” i.e., on a cloud (v.9). The transportation method is consistent with Mark 13:26 and Matthew 24:30, but according to those gospels the return should have occurred before the death of those who were living at the time. See Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27; Mark 13:30; Matthew 24:34.
1:12 The location from which Jesus ascended is here identified as Mount Olivet, but the first ascension described by Luke 24:50 took place at Bethany. However, we should not insist on a contradiction here, because it is generally accepted that they are in the same general area, with Bethany being located possibly at the foot of Mount Olivet. It is possible that “Bethany” could be used to indicate the area surrounding the village as well as the village proper, much as we do today when we say “I’m from Chicago,” even though we might actually reside in Evanston, or even Gary, Indiana. Read a discussion of the geography relating to this question in The Holy City: Historical, Topographical, and Antiquitarian Notices, by George Williams and Robert Willis (Jerusalem: Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 1849), chapter V, pp. 442-445. Available online through Google digital books.
1:13 This list of the twelve disciples is the same as that given in Luke 6:14-16, except for the omission of Judas Iscariot. However, Matthew and Mark list Thaddaeus in place of the other Judas, son of James. (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:14-19)
1:14 “With the women” can also be translated as “with the wives.” We know that the disciples had wives because in Matthew 8:14 we are told that Peter had a mother-in-law, and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul reveals that the “other apostles” had wives as well.
1:15 Peter steps up to assume the leadership of the group, which as we are told, numbered about 120 followers.
1:16 Despite these words reportedly uttered by Peter, that the “scripture had to be fulfilled,” there is no record anywhere in the Bible of David saying anything at all about “Judas who was a guide to those who arrested Jesus.” The name “Judas” does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does the name “Jesus.” Possibly Peter is referring to the quotations from Psalms cited in verse 20, but there seems to be too much separation for that to be the case.
1:18 The death of Judas. Although here it is claimed that Judas died in his field when “all his bowels gushed out,” Matthew 27:5 reports that he hanged himself.
1:20 The quotations are from Psalm 69:25 and 109:8. However, the first quotation has been slightly altered. Psalm 69:25 has plural pronouns (“May their camp be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents.”) Luke has changed these to singular (“his”), which makes more plausible his claim that the passage fits the situation of Judas.
1:23-26 A new disciple, Matthias, is chosen to replace Judas Iscariot. However, he plays no role in the narrative, and is not mentioned again in the book of Acts. For that matter, neither are most of the other disciples. Peter is the most prominent in the first half of the book, and Paul (not one of the twelve) in the later chapters.
2:1 The day of Pentecost. Pentecost is a Jewish festival that commemorates the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai. It is so named because it occurs on the fiftieth day after Passover. The holiday is also called Shavu’ot by Jews. Pentecost is also a Christian holiday, commemorating the event described here in the second chapter of Acts, during which the holy spirit descends upon the apostles, and which marks the beginnings of the Christian church. For additional background see Jewish Pentecost and Christian Pentecost.
“They were all together” is not clear as to who is meant. It may mean only the twelve apostles, or it may include all the 120 mentioned in verse 1:15.
2:2-4 The power of the holy spirit descends upon the apostles in the form of wind and fire. The apostles thereupon begin to speak in “other tongues.” This does not necessarily mean that they began to babble incoherently. It may mean, and probably does given Luke’s choice of words, that they began to speak in foreign (i.e., “other”) languages. This interpretation is also supported by verses 8-11. The phrase “as the Spirit gave them utterance” may refer to the content of their speaking rather than to the ability to speak the language itself. It is not clear what value there would have been in speaking these other languages, as Greek was widely understood throughout the Mediterranean world at the time.
In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, “speaking in tongues” means babbling incoherently, for “no one understands” a person who speaks in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:2) Paul rates the gift as inferior to the gift of prophecy. “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4) See the discussion on “The Gift of the Spirit,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, pp.36-37. Paul also questions the usefulness of such a practice: “If you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.” (1 Corinthians 14:9)
2:6 The wind, fire, and chattering were apparently enough to attract the attention of passersby, and to draw a crowd.
2:7 We learn that Peter’s group consists of Galileans, indicating that the Jesus movement had only a narrow Galilean following, and had not yet become identified with Jerusalem and the rest of Israel, much less with non-Jewish areas.
2:13 Not impressed by the holy spirit’s utterances, some of the bystanders dismiss the Christian enthusiastists as drunk. The best counter-argument that Peter can propose is that they can’t be drunk, because “it is only the third hour of the day.” (v.15)
2:17-21 The quoted passage is from Joel 2:28-32, and describes “the great and terrible day of the LORD” (i.e., Yahweh).
2:18 Luke has added an extra “they shall prophesy,” which is not in the passage from Joel.
2:21 Peter tells the crowd that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” He says nothing about believing in Jesus or in his resurrection as the pathway to salvation. The “Lord” referred to in the passage from Joel is “the LORD,” i.e., the Hebrew God Yahweh, and not Jesus.
2:22 Peter’s speech is addressed to the “men of Israel” and not to the many other ethnic groups mentioned in verses 9-11 and in whose languages the apostles had been speaking.
Jesus is described here as “a man” through whom God worked mighty wonders. Thus, it was God, not Jesus himself, who worked the miracles. The word used here to refer to Jesus is andra, which means “man” as a physical male human being. There is nothing in Peter’s speech that suggests Jesus is anything but a human instrument for God’s purposes, and no hint that Jesus is in any way divine.
2:25-28 The quoted passage is from Psalm 16:8-11. The excerpt in Peter’s speech omits the ending of verse 11, which reads, “in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.” Perhaps the author Luke thought it would be awkward to imply that Jesus had been crucified so that he could enjoy “pleasures for evermore” at the right hand of God. Note that “the LORD” in the passage from Psalm refers once again to Yahweh, the Hebrew God.
2:29 Peter argues that the passage from Psalm 16 could not have applied to David, the traditional speaker of the Psalms, because David himself died and (presumably) saw “corruption” as his body decayed. Peter therefore asserts that it must apply to Jesus, who “was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” (v.31)
2:30 The implication here is that when God promised to “set one of his [David’s] descendants upon his throne” the reference is to Jesus, and that is how Christians typically understand such “prophecies.” However, it is obvious to all that Jesus never was seated upon David’s throne, and never became king of Israel, but instead was captured and crucified. So the prophecy, such as it is, could not possibly have referred to Jesus.
2:32 Peter claims that “we all are witnesses” to the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. But there is no supporting testimony from anywhere in the gospels that anyone witnessed God raising Jesus up. There are indeed passages where Jesus is reported to have appeared to his disciples after his crucifixion, but the disciples remained doubtful nevertheless. See for example, Luke 24:11, Matthew 28:17, Mark 16:13, John 20:25.
2:36 Again, Peter addresses his remarks to “the house of Israel,” and it is only they who therefore know that God made Jesus “both Lord and Christ.”
2:38 Peter exhorts the crowd of bystanders to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” As in verse 21, there is no suggestion that belief in Jesus’s resurrection is necessary in order to be forgiven. This contrasts with other salvation forumulas found in the New Testament, such as Acts 10:43, Romans 10:9, John 3:16, and Acts 16:31, which promise salvation and forgiveness to all those who believe in Jesus and in his resurrection, and which do not mention repentance or baptism as requirements.
2:41 Luke claims that three thousand individuals were won over to the new religion in response to Peter’s appeal.
2:43 Oddly, after being baptized, the feeling which comes upon the proselytes is not peace or contentment, but “fear.”
2:44-45 According to Luke, the early Christians lived a primitive form of communism, having all their property in common and distributing to those who had need.
2:46 The fact that the Jesus group attended the temple shows that they still thought of themselves as devout Jews, not as a separate new religion. See also 3:1, where Peter and John go to the temple at the traditional hour of prayer. And in 10:14, Peter expresses his complete obedience to the Jewish food laws. However, Paul writes that those who are in Christ no longer live under the Jewish law. (Romans 8:2. Also see Romans 7:6.)
3:1 It is possible, but not certain, that this John who accompanies Peter to the temple is intended to be John, the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples. But the name was a common one and we cannot be sure that this is who the author meant.
3:6 Peter answers the lame beggar by saying that he has “no silver and gold.” However, we know from Matthew 10:9 that the disciples had money belts, and from John 12:6 and 13:29 that the group had a money box, of which Judas was the custodian. In Luke 22:36, just before his arrest, Jesus commands his disciples, “Let him who has a purse take it.” So at least before the crucifixion, Jesus’s band of disciples were not unaccustomed to carrying sums of money, although it is never explained what their source of income was.
3:12 Peter directs his discourse to the “men of Israel.”
3:13 “His servant Jesus.” Jesus is described here as God’s servant, and not as his son. The word used here for “servant” is the Greek pais, which has the connotation of a “servant boy.” The relationship implied is a subordinate one, and contradicts the notion that Jesus and God are co-equal divinities. Peter goes on to accuse his listeners (the “men of Israel”) of delivering Jesus up for crucifixion.
3:14-15 Peter’s accusation against the men of Israel continues, as he charges that they “killed the author of life.”
3:16 Peter attributes the lame man’s healing to faith, but does not say whose faith. The faith of the lame beggar? But he did not demonstrate any faith – he only asked for alms. Possibly he means the faith of the disciples, but Jesus had already granted the disciples the power and authority to cure diseases in Luke 9:1. So it would seem that their ability to heal would be traced to this direct commission from Jesus rather than to any particular faith on the part of the disciples.
3:17 Having accused his listeners of killing Jesus, Peter now lets them off the hook, excusing them because they “acted in ignorance.” This recalls Jesus’s own words from the cross in Luke 23:34, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
3:18 Peter mentions no particular source for his claim that Jesus’s suffering was foretold “by the mouth of all the prophets.” There is, of course, no mention of Jesus anywhere in the writings of the Old Testament prophets, so all claims of such a prophecy are based on selective interpretation of verses taken out of their original context.
3:19 Peter again offers forgiveness of sins through repentance, and not through faith in Jesus Christ. See the comment to 2:38 for examples of passages that offer a different view.
3:22 The passage quoted by Peter, regarding the prophet who will be raised up, is from Deuteronomy 18, verses 15 and 19. He slightly alters the wording, and leaves out other words that change the tone of the selection. The full context in Deuteronomy makes it clear that this prophet is merely a mouthpiece for Yahweh (God), and has no independent authority. As God says, “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18-19) The prophet thus cannot in any way be considered as equal to God, but is clearly subordinate. If Peter’s implication is that this prophet is supposed to be Jesus, then Jesus’s status as a co-equal divinity with God is thus ruled out. In Deuteronomy, God goes on to warn against false prophets, and says that the people can identify them by the fact that their prophecies do not turn out as predicted. (Deuteronomy 18:22) Jesus, of course, made false predictions about his second coming, which was supposed to occur during the lifetime of those who were alive at the time he was preaching. See the comments to Matthew 24:34, as well as Mark 9:1 and 13:30.
3:26 Peter once again refers to Jesus as God’s “servant.” He continues to avoid any mention of the need to believe in Jesus’s resurrection, telling his Jewish audience that Jesus was sent by God “to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness.” Thus the theological emphasis in Peter’s speech is on repenting and turning away from sin, and not on faith in Jesus’s resurrection as a means for salvation.
4:1-3 Peter’s preaching attracts the attention of the Jewish religious authorities. While it is true that the Sadduccees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, it is unlikely that this theological difference alone would have been sufficient to arouse their opposition, as Luke claims. “The apostles almost certainly were arrested, not as teachers of false doctrine, but as potential disturbers of the public peace. . . . The Sadducees were tolerant to a fault, and never sought to silence those who merely differed from them theologically.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.62.)
4:4 If the numbers reported are accurate, they point to a rapid success in winning converts to the Jesus movement. Here, another five thousand are reported to have believed in what Peter was preaching.
4:7 The Jewish authorities ask, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” referring to the healing of the lame man in the temple. The pronoun “you” is plural, so we know the question was addressed to both Peter and John. The question recalls a similar one put to Jesus himself in Mark 11:28, Matthew 21:23, and Luke 20:2, except that the question there is by what “authority” (exousia) Jesus presumes to drive the moneychangers out of the temple, as distinct from by what “power” (dunamei) Peter and John have healed the lame man.
4:10 Unlike Jesus, who avoided the question put to him in Mark 11:28, Matthew 21:23, and Luke 20:2, Peter’s answer is straightforward, naming “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” as the one by whose name the crippled man has been healed. Peter once again blames the Jewish leaders for Jesus’s crucifixion, and affirms that Jesus was raised from the dead by God. However, Peter does not claim any divine status for Jesus, and does not refer to him as the son of God.
4:12 Peter asserts that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but gives no details as to how that is to be accomplished. He simply says that Jesus’s “name” is the only one by which we can be saved.
4:13 The religious officials recognize Peter and John as “uneducated, common men.” The Jesus movement had a special appeal to such segments of society. The Greek word idiotai, which is translated by the RSV as “common men,” is not necessarily pejorative, but simply refers to a layman in any area of knowledge, i.e., someone without specialized training in a particular field.
4:17 The authorities decide to ban any further preaching by the apostles, in order that the teaching about Jesus “may spread no further among the people.” We were told in the synoptic gospels (Mark 12:12; Matthew 21:46; Luke 20:19) that the authorities were reluctant to seize Jesus because “they feared the people.” But here in Acts, Jesus has already been seized and crucified, and yet the people do not seem to be stirred up. Possibly Jesus’s support among the Jerusalem population was exaggerated in the synoptics. He and his followers were repeatedly referred to as Galileans (Matthew 26:69; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59; 23:6), indicating that their movement may have been considered a localized phenomenon before his appearance in Jerusalem. This view may have taken a long time to dissipate. As late as the fourth century, the pagan emperor Julian entitled his anti-Christian polemic “Against the Galileans.”
4:18 The response of the Jewish authorities is exceedingly mild: a simple request for Peter and John to stop their preaching. It is only after the apostles refuse this request that further threats (v.21) are brought forward.
4:21 Again, “the people” are portrayed as ready to rise up in rebellion if the apostles are harmed. This directly contradicts the sentiment in 4:17, where the authorities propose to silence the apostles precisely to prevent them from stirring up the people. Luke apparently does not want to give the impression that the apostles’ release was due to the liberality of the authorities. He instead wants us to think that they were forced into releasing Peter and John because “they feared the people.” It is therefore ironic that in Luke’s gospel, it is “the people” who urge Jesus’s death, against Pilate who wants to release him. (Luke 23:20-21)
4:24 “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.” It is worth noting that this verse, if taken literally, declares that God is the maker of everything in the heaven and the earth and the sea – meaning that he is also the maker of Satan, sin, and human suffering.
The word “Lord” here is not the usual kurios, but rather despota, which carries more the connotation of “master” or even “slave owner.” See William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, p.135. Also see the dictionary appendix to The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 4th revised edition), p.41.
4:25-26 The quotation is from Psalm 2:1-2. By “the Lord and his anointed” Luke surely intends for us to think God and Jesus Christ. But in Isaiah 45:1, the Persian king Cyrus is identified by name as the “anointed” one (Greek christos) of the Lord.
4:27 We are told here that both Herod and Pontius Pilate were among those gathered against Jesus in Jerusalem. Recall, however, that neither Herod Antipas nor Pilate found any guilt in Jesus. (Luke 23:4,14-15; John 18:38; 19:4)
This verse contains two points that argue against Jesus being divine and co-equal with God himself. First, Jesus is referred to as God’s “servant,” which implies a subordinate relationship as in servant/master. Second, Jesus is the one “whom thou didst anoint,” indicating that this anointing occurred at some point in time, before which time Jesus was not yet the “anointed one.” What was his status before becoming the anointed one, and when did the anointing occur? Luke gives no answer to these questions.
4:29 The congregation refers to themselves as “servants” of the Lord (kurie), but the word translated as “servant” is actually doulos = slave.
4:30 Again, Jesus is referred to as God’s “servant,” implying a subordinate and inferior relationship to God himself.
4:31 After asking God to give them the strength and inspiration to counter the threats from the authorities, the assembled believers become filled with the Holy Spirit.
4:32-35 As we saw in 2:44-45, the early members of the Jesus movement possessed no individual property, but held everything in common. Those who owned property sold it and laid the proceeds “at the apostles’ feet.” Verse 35 apparently indicates that the apostles managed the income, but it is not clear whether this means the full group of eleven, or Peter himself, or some other grouping. It also is not stated whether all the proceeds went to those who were in need, or whether some of it was held back for other uses or to support the apostles themselves.
5:1-10 Ananias and Sapphira sell their property but donate only a part of it to the Jesus movement. For failing to turn over all the proceeds to the group, Ananias is scolded by Peter, who accuses him of lying to God and being under the influence of Satan. Ananias dies on the spot, as does Sapphira when she is similarly accused by Peter. The incident is typical of modern cults, where the members are expected to subordinate their entire existence to the group and its leader.
5:11 The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira strike fear into the hearts of the group’s members. Were they perhaps having second thoughts as to what they had gotten themselves into?
In this verse we encounter for the first time the word “church” (ekklesia) as a collective name for the followers of Jesus. They were not yet called “Christians.” (See Acts 11:26 where we learn that the sect was first referred to as “Christians” in Antioch.) “The Christians, as a sect within Judaism, were probably called ‘Nazarenes.’ . . . Among themselves they were known as ‘saints’ or ‘brothers,’ the name ‘Christian’ being regarded as a mere nickname (11:26) and not used till well on in the second century. As the rift with Judaism widened, ‘the church’ was accepted as a distinctive title.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.78.)
5:18-21 Having refused the Sadduccees' order to stop preaching, the apostles are arrested again, and this time they are thrown into prison. But they escape, assisted by “an angel of the Lord,” and return to the temple to continue preaching. Paul’s dictum that “he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Romans 13:2) had not yet been written, but his general principle that all authority derives from God would seem to apply, and thus by defying the priestly authorities, the apostles are rebelling against a power established by God himself. As Paul writes in Romans 13:1, “There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”
5:23 The officers’ testimony that they found the prison doors “securely locked,” but no one inside, suggests that somehow the prisoners passed through the prison walls with supernatural assistance from the angel. But in v.19 it was said that the angel “opened the doors and brought them out.” The angel must therefore have closed and re-locked the doors after helping the captives escape.
5:27-29 The apostles are again brought before the council (Sanhedrin) and scolded for continuing to preach their doctrine. Peter’s answer that “We must obey God rather than men” again goes against Paul’s later pronouncement in Romans 13:1-2, that all authorities among men are ultimately established by and representative of God himself.
5:30 Peter notes that Jesus was killed by “hanging him on a tree.” In Deuteronomy 21:22-23 we learn that one who is hanged on a tree is “accursed of God.” The word translated here as “tree” (xulon) is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint translation of the verse from Deuteronomy, as well as in Acts 10:39.
5:31 Peter declares that Jesus’s purpose was “to give repentance to Israel.” This is consistent with other verses that indicate Jesus’s message was only for the Jews. See, for example, Matthew 15:24, where Jesus says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Also Matthew 10:5-6; Mark 7:27.
5:34-39 Gamaliel, a rabbi identified here as one of the Pharisees, urges tolerance of the new sect. His argument is that if the Jesus movement is supported by God, then nothing can be done to stop it, but if it is merely backed by men, it will die out on its own. Gamaliel cites historical examples of uprisings that failed and amounted to nothing. He mentions a certain Theudas, who arose and attracted a band of followers, but eventually was defeated. However, the only such Theudas known to history is that mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, book XX, chapter 5.1. This Theudas commanded a following during the time when Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, i.e., during the years 44-46 AD. This is several years after the events recorded here in Acts, so Gamaliel’s reference to Theudas is anachronistic. The other rebel whom Gamaliel cites, Judas the Galilean, “arose in the days of the census,” which as we saw in Luke’s gospel, occurred after Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD. In verse 37, Luke states that the rebellion of Judas the Galilean occurred after that of Theudas, but this is historically incorrect. For the dates of Roman procurators of Judea, see the article “ Procurators” at jewishencyclopedia.com.
5:40 The council members take Gamaliel’s advice, in that they merely give the apostles a beating and warn them again to stop preaching in the name of Jesus, after which the apostles are released.
5:42 Again, the apostles disobey the established authorities, by continuing to preach “Jesus as the Christ.”
6:1 The initial harmony of the Christian community is now broken by a dispute between the “Hellenists” and the “Hebrews.” The Hellenists are usually considered to be Jews who had adopted the Greek language and/or Greco-Roman customs. The Hebrews would then be the more traditional Jewish followers of Jesus, still observing Jewish rituals and speaking Hebrew or Aramaic. It appears from this verse that the dispute centered on the distribution of the common treasury, and that the Hellenist faction felt that the benefits paid to the widows among them were inferior to what was given to the Hebrew widows.
6:2-5 “To serve tables” may mean to serve food at a dining table, or may also refer to financial administration. Either way, the twelve apostles have no time for it, so they ask “the body of the disciples” to pick seven men to perform administrative functions. However, the selection must have been made only by the Hellenist faction, because all the names of those chosen are Greek, indicating that these seven are intended to represent the Hellenists among the early church, as the original twelve continue to represent the Hebrew faction. Jesus, of course, left no instructions as to how the church was to be administered, because he thought the judgment day would be arriving soon, and so there would be no need for an extended church administration. (See Matthew 6:34 for Jesus's attitude toward planning for the future.) Some Christians consider these seven to have been the first deacons of the church, but their functions do not parallel those of deacons in later times.
6:11 “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” These charges are levelled against Stephen, a leader of the Hellenist faction of the early church. The persecution which followed seems to have been limited to the Hellenist leaders, and not to the faction headed by the original twelve apostles. (See 8:1b.)
6:13 Additional charges are brought against Stephen. He allegedly speaks against the temple and the law, saying that “Jesus of Nazareth” will destroy the temple and abrogate the teachings of Moses.
7:2-53 Stephen’s defense. Stephen’s speech is largely irrelevant to the charges made against him. He delivers an abbreviated history of the Hebrews from the Old Testament. It is only after some forty verses that he finally makes a remark that was likely to arouse the ire of his inquisitors. This comes in verse 48 where he challenges the rationale of the temple as the place of worship, declaring instead that “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands.” He continues to castigate the council members for their perpetual resistance to the holy spirit, and for killing God’s prophets, as well as Jesus himself. Finally, Stephen accuses his accusers of failing to keep the law. (v.53)
7:4 Stephen states that after Abraham’s father (Terah) had died, Abraham left Haram and moved to “this land in which you are now living.” However, this chronology contradicts the story told in Genesis. Genesis 11:26 tells us that Terah became the father of Abraham when he was seventy years old. Genesis 11:32 informs us that Terah lived for 205 years, and died in Haran. But Genesis 12:4 reveals that Abraham left Haran when he was seventy-five years old, at which time Terah would have been 145 and still living in Haran.
7:16 According to Stephen’s words, Jacob died and was “laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Schechem.” But it was actually Jacob himself who bought the land in Schechem where he was buried. (Genesis 33:18-19)
7:49-50 The quotation is from Isaiah 66:1-2.
7:54 “They” would be the council members, before whom Stephen has delivered his speech, in response to the question from the high priest in 7:1.
7:55 Luke describes a vision that Stephen had, where he looks into heaven and sees Jesus “standing at the right hand of God.” It is not clear why Jesus is standing rather than sitting. References in the gospels refer to “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power.” (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62)
7:57-59 The stoning of Stephen has the characteristics of a mob lynching, but the most recent antecedent for the pronoun “they” is still the council members mentioned in 6:15. Luke may intend for us to understand that it is the people – the crowds – who carry out the stoning, although it is possible that it was carried out in a more orderly fashion as the execution of a sentence passed by the council, with the witnesses against Stephen casting the first stones. (See Deuteronomy 17:7.) The episode makes Stephen the first Christian martyr.
7:60 In the non-gospel books of the New Testament, “fell asleep” is a common euphemism for “died.” See other examples in 1 Corinthians 15:6,8; 1 Thessalonians 14:4-5; 2 Peter 3:4; Acts 13:36.
8:1 This scattering of the Christians brings the new religion to regions outside the Jewish homeland, but not very far outside. Samaria stood between Judea to the south, and Galilee (Jesus’s homeland) to the north. Samaritans were quasi-Jewish. They worshipped the Hebrew God Yahweh, practiced circumcision and observed the sabbath, but did not accept the entire Jewish scripture as authoritative. They were not well thought of by their Jewish neighbors to the south. (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.9, p.108.) The Samaritans also did not accept the temple as the only place where God could be worshiped, a view that the Hellenist faction of Christians shared. (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.297.)
The phrase “except the apostles” seems to indicate that the persecution was limited to Stephen’s followers in the Hellenist branch of the movement, and not to the original twelve apostles and their band of Hebrew Christians. See the comments to 6:1-5.
8:3 Luke accuses Saul of vigorously persecuting the church and its members. Later, Paul himself admits as much in Galatians 1:13.
8:9 This Simon is Simon Magus, who was later branded as the source of all heresy in the church. He is portrayed here (v.13) as one who believed in Jesus and joined the Christian community through baptism. Although Luke dismisses him as a mere magician, Simon may have been preaching a competing view of Jesus to the people of Samaria when Philip arrived and introduced the Hellenist Christian viewpoint. Throughout our reading of Acts, we must keep in mind that there was not a single unified “church,” from whose teaching various “heretics” deviated. Rather, there were many different groups that revered Jesus and had different ideas as to who he was and what his relationship with God was. The book of Acts represents the viewpoint of one of these groups, which later became dominant and defined its views as the true faith. See Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, 2005) for a portrayal of the conflicting theological views of early Christian communities.
8:15-17 Even though the Samaritans have been baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” they have not yet received the Holy Spirit. Apparently this is achieved by Peter and John laying hands on them, as Philip was not able to accomplish this on his own. However, such laying on of hands is not always required in order to receive the Holy Spirit. See, for example, Acts 2:1-4; 10:44.
8:18 Simon reveals his true nature, as he attempts to buy the power of the Holy Spirit with money. Peter, now on the scene, rebukes Simon and demands that he repent. (vv.20-23)
8:32 The passage quoted is from Isaiah 53:7-8. In v.35 Philip explains to the eunuch that the prophet in this passage is speaking of Jesus. This has frequently been noted as the first time the “suffering servant” passages from Isaiah were interpreted as “prophecies” of Jesus. However, a close reading shows that the Isaiah passage cannot refer to Jesus. “He opens not his mouth” does not apply to Jesus who cried out on the cross. (Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46) Also, several other verses in Isaiah identify the suffering servant with the nation of Israel, not with Jesus, who of course is not named at all anywhere in the Old Testament. “You, Israel, are my servant.” (Isaiah 41:8-9) “You are my servant, O Israel.” (Isaiah 49:3)
8:38 Although Deuteronomy 23:1 teaches that no man whose genitals have been mutilated shall enter into the assembly (ekklesia) of the Lord, Philip agrees to baptize the eunuch into the new Christian community.
9:3 Saul’s vision. Jesus appears to Saul, who later became known as Paul, as he was on his way to Damascus to capture Christians who perhaps had fled there after the persecutions in Jerusalem. Saul had never met the living Jesus, so his legitimization as an apostle rests entirely on this reported vision. There are three versions of this story told in Acts. In addition to this version, the story is also recounted in Acts 22:6-16 and Acts 26:12-20. It seems strange that this conversion story is not told by Paul himself in any of his letters. His account of his early activities, as described in the first chapter of Galatians, gives no details about the revelation referred to in Galatians 1:16.
9:6 There is a discrepancy here with the third version of the story told in chapter 26. Here, the vision of Jesus tells Saul to enter the city (Damascus) where he “will be told what to do.” But in 26:16-18, while still on the road to Damascus, and during the vision, the voice of Jesus tells Saul exactly what he is to do – i.e., to be a missionary to the Gentiles so that they might turn from Satan to God, and receive forgiveness of their sins. In the version of chapter 22, Saul receives the instructions referred to in 9:6, but does not find out that he is to be a missionary to the Gentiles until a later vision in the temple at Jerusalem (22:21).
9:7 This verse gives rise to a well-known contradiction, as there is a conflict with the second version of the story told in Acts 22:6-16. Here in 9:7, we are told that the men traveling with Saul “stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.” But in Acts 22:9, in a version reported in the words of Saul himself, he reports that the people with him “saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” So the two verses conflict as to whether Saul’s traveling companions also heard the voice or not.
Some English translations cover up the contradiction by mistranslating the passages. The RSV and KJV stick to the literal meaning of the Greek, and show the contradiction. But the NASB and NIV alter the translation so that the contradiction disappears. In 9:7 the NASB has the traveling companions “hearing the voice but seeing no one,” but in 22:9 changes the wording to say that the men “did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.” So by replacing “hear” with “understand” the contradiction is avoided. Similarly, the NIV records in 9:7 that the men “heard the sound but did not see anyone,” while in 22:9 “they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.” This involves two changes: In 22:9, “hear” is replaced by “understand,” as in the NASB. Then in 9:7 “voice” is replaced with “sound.” The result is a translation in which the contradiction is obscured.
Christians attempt to justify these substitutions by appealing to some very dubious grammatical claims, which we can briefly summarize. First we must note that the Greek words are the same across both verses: a form of akouo for “hear” and a form of fonei for “voice.” While it is true that fonei can, in some contexts be translated as “sound,” we were already told in 9:4 that it was a voice that Saul heard and we are told what the very words were. Acts 26:14 even tells us the voice spoke in “the Hebrew language.” So it cannot have been simply an inarticulate “sound” that’s being referred to in Acts 9:7. Thus there is no contextual support for the NIV view that “sound” is the correct translation here.
As for “hear” versus “understand,” the claim is made that the verb akouo takes on different meanings depending on whether the direct object is in the genitive or accusative case. Genitive case objects are claimed to indicate hearing without understanding, while objects in the accusative case indicate hearing with understanding. This argument is most often associated with W.F. Arndt in his book Does the Bible Contradict Itself?, but it turns out that the pattern on which his argument relies is not borne out in other passages of the New Testament. The Greek verb “to hear” (akouo) can take its direct object in either the genitive or accusative case without any difference in meaning. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996), p.133, for examples showing that Arndt’s argument is inconsistent with actual usage in the New Testament.
There is a second contradiction arising from this verse. Here in 9:7 the traveling companions “stood speechless” as they heard the voice. But in 26:14, “we had all fallen to the ground” when the voice began to speak.
9:8-9 Saul is struck blind by the vision, and has to be led into the city, where his blindness continues another three days, during which he does not eat or drink.
9:17 Ananias, a Jesus follower living in Damascus, comes to the blind Saul to restore his sight and so that Saul may “be filled with the Holy Spirit.” In the version of chapter 22, Ananias also informs Saul that he (Saul) “will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard.” Given the important role of this Ananias as intermediary, it is difficult to reconcile these accounts with Paul’s own words in his letter to the Galatians, where he claims that he received his apostleship “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” (Galatians 1:1) Paul does not mention Ananias in any of his own letters.
9:19 This is one of several discrepancies between Paul’s story in Acts and his own account in Galatians. Here we find that he remained “with the disciples” in Damascus for several days. But in Galatians 1:16-17 he himself states that after Jesus was revealed to him, he had no contact with others: “I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.” Thus, Paul’s own account portrays a period of withdrawal, not the active involvement described in Acts. The Acts version of the story also does not provide for any trip to Arabia, as we are told in Acts 9:20 that Saul “immediately” began proclaiming Jesus in the synagogues of Damascus.
9:25 Paul escapes from Damascus by being lowered in a basket over the city wall. Here in Acts, the threat is said to come from “the Jews,” but in Paul’s own version, told in 2 Corinthians 11:32, it was “the governor under King Aretas” who sought to capture Paul. “Aretas was king of the Arabian kingdom of Nabatea, and since there are only a few years when he could have had any kind of judicial authority in Damascus, this dates the episode to 37-9 CE.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1040.)
9:26-29 After Paul escapes from the Jews of Damascus, he goes to Jerusalem and tries to join the disciples. Again, Paul himself tells a different story in Galatians, where he writes that three years passed before his trip to Jerusalem, and during that visit he only saw Peter and James (the brother of Jesus). (Galatians 1:18-19) Even after that visit, he was “still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea” (Galatians 1:22), although Acts reports that he “went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.” (vv.28-29) In order for the Acts account to be chronologically parallel to that of Galatians, we must assume that three years elapsed between v.25 and v.26, during which time Paul was in Arabia, with a return visit to Damascus, before going to Jerusalem, all of which Luke chose not to report in his Acts account. However, Paul’s assertion that he was at that time unrecognized by sight to the churches in Judea is still difficult to reconcile with the report that he was “preaching boldly” at Jerusalem. A discussion of the chronological differences between Acts and Galatians can be found in L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, pp.147-149.
In v.29 we are given a glimpse into a rift in the early church, as we are told that Paul “spoke and disputed against the Hellenists.” Recall that the Hellenists were a segment of the early community of Christians. (See the comments to 6:1-5, as well as 8:1 and 8:9.) Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was a leader of this Hellenist faction, and Paul (as Saul) was either involved in Stephen’s death, or stood by passively while it happened. (8:1) Paul’s continuing dispute with the Hellenists appears to have the characteristics of a grudge, perhaps on both sides, and Paul is shipped out of Jerusalem when the Hellenists seek revenge against him (v.30).
9:30 Caesarea was located on the Mediterranean coast and was the capital of the Roman province of Judea. The city was built by Herod the Great to honor the Emperor Augustus. It was home to a large port, and thus served as Paul’s embarkation point for his escape to Tarsus, which lies near the southeastern coast of what is now Turkey.
9:31 Despite the continuing dispute between Paul and the Hellenist Christians, we are told here that the church “had peace” throughout all the region of Palestine.
9:32 The narrative now shifts back to Peter, recognized as the leader of the Jerusalem Christians.
9:34 In this healing, Peter calls on Jesus’s power to heal the man Aeneas. But a few verses later, when he raises Tabitha from the dead, he neglects to give Jesus credit for the miracle.
10:1 This Cornelius is an officer in the Roman army, and is sometimes identified as the first Gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) convert to Christianity. However, see also 11:19-21, where a number of Greeks at Antioch became followers of Jesus at about the same time. “This mission to the Greeks may have occurred before Peter’s conversion of Cornelius.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., p.1335, note to Acts 11:20.)
10:2 “A devout man who feared God.” Cornelius was a “God fearer.” This designation was applied to non-Jewish individuals (i.e., Gentiles) who believed in the Jewish God and followed portions of the Jewish moral code, but did not submit to circumcision and so were not full-fledged Jews. There were many of these God fearers in Palestine during this time, as the polytheism of the Greco-Roman world was gradually giving way to a growing monotheistic orientation among the population in general. These God fearers would be a prime source of converts to the new Christian religion, as it allowed them to become full-fledged members of the Jesus movement, while avoiding the requirement of circumcision.
10:14 Peter here proclaims his adherence to the Jewish food laws, which distinguished between clean and unclean animals. (The requirements are listed in Leviticus chapter 11.) Jesus, however, had already “declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19) Jesus explained that a person is not defiled by what goes into the mouth, but can be defiled by what comes out of it. (Matthew 15:18; Mark 7:15) Had Peter forgotten this lesson that Jesus taught?
10:17 The meaning of the vision is lost on Peter, who has no idea what it meant. Even with this reminder (“What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”), he does not recall Jesus’s teachings on the subject of clean and unclean foods.
10:19-20 One of Luke’s objectives is to portray harmony between Paul and Peter and to stress the unity of the early church. Thus, he allows Peter to be the one to win the first Gentile convert, and even adds that this role is sanctioned by a heavenly messenger. However, Paul, whose letter to the Galatians was not only written earlier but was also a first-hand account, is not shy about highlighting the differences between himself and Peter. In Galatians 2:11, for example, Paul writes that when Peter (also called Cephas) came to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face.” The issue underlying the dispute between Paul and Peter was whether Gentile converts were required to undergo circumcision (in effect, to become Jews) in order to become members of the Christian community. Paul’s position was that they did not, while Peter and James, leaders of the Jerusalem Christians said yes, although the acceptance of Cornelius would seem to be an exception. In Galatians chapter 2, Paul portrays Peter as a weak, wishy-washy leader, while Luke portrays him in Acts as bold and decisive, the true “rock” whom Jesus chose as the foundation of the church. (See Matthew 16:18.)
10:26 Peter rejects Cornelius’s gesture of personal worship, saying that “I too am a man.” This comment is no doubt intended to contrast Peter’s mere humanity with the divine nature of Jesus. However, in Acts 2:22, Peter labelled Jesus himself as “a man.”
10:28 This verse brings up another issue which became a point of contention between the Jerusalem Christian leaders and Paul’s faction. Peter notes that it is “unlawful . . . for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation.” This issue, along with the question of whether new converts were required to be circumcised, were the main sources of conflict between the two groups. In Galatians 2:12, a verse that illustrates the divisiveness of both issues, Paul criticizes Peter for being hypocritical, in that he gladly ate with Gentiles in Antioch, until the representatives from James showed up, after which he “drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”
10:34 Although Jesus said that he was sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), Peter here preaches a more inclusive message, declaring that “in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable” to God.
10:36 Peter characterizes Jesus’s message as the “good news of peace.” But Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)
10:38 God “anointed” Jesus with the holy spirit and with power, which recalls the anointing of the ancient Hebrew kings. This choice of words indicates that Jesus did not have the spirit and the power from the beginning of time, but received them at a particular point in time.
10:39 Peter again accuses the Jews of putting Jesus to death “by hanging him on a tree.” See the note to 5:30, and Deuteronomy 21:22-23 where we read that a man who is hanged on a tree is accursed of God.
10:41 Peter reveals here one of the flaws in the tale of the resurrection. The resurrected Jesus did not appear to “all the people” or even to a large portion of them. Instead, he allegedly appeared only to those few who were “chosen by God as witnesses.” Thus, the resurrection itself, the centerpiece of the Christian religion, on which its entire theology is based, was witnessed by no one, even according to the gospels, and the risen Jesus by only a few of his followers, some of whom doubted that he had risen at all. (Matthew 28:17; Luke 24:11)
10:43 Peter here preaches that believing in Jesus brings forgiveness of of sins. But in one of Peter’s previous sermons, repentance, not belief, was the key to salvation: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts 3:19) Peter does not mention here any of the exceptions that would prevent a believer from being saved, but declares that “everyone” who believes in Jesus will receive forgiveness. However, in the gospels we read that whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:28-29), and that those who do not forgive others will never have their own sins forgiven (Matthew 6:15).
10:45 The implication is that all the converts up until this point have been circumcised Jews.
10:46 As if to show approval of Peter’s foray into the ranks of the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit comes upon the new believers, who begin speaking in tongues. See the comment to Acts 2:2-4 for Paul’s negative view of such babbling.
10:48 Apparently Peter did not do the baptizing himself, but “commanded” others to do it. The baptism is only in the name of Jesus Christ, but at the end of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus instructed the disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
11:1-3 Peter’s actions at the house of Cornelius arouse opposition from the “circumcision party.” These would be Jewish Christians who believed that converts to the faith should still observe all Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. They criticize Peter for associating and eating with the uncircumcised men of Cornelius’s household. Their criticism would seem to indicate that Peter was not in fact the undisputed leader of the early church, but that even in these early times, the Christian community was divided over essential nature of the new religion.
11:4-17 Peter repeats the story of his vision on the rooftop at Joppa, how “the spirit” (he does not say the “holy” spirit) ordered him to go with the men to the house of Cornelius, and how the holy spirit came upon his listeners while he was speaking to them. This seems to be persuasive to the circumcision party, as they all “glorified God” and agreed that God had granted repentance to the Gentiles as well, and not just to the Jews. However, this is not the end of the dispute, as it resurfaces in chapter 15.
11:19-20 The Hellenists who were scattered after the execution of Stephen have been busy talking up the new religion with the residents of far-flung regions such as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch (Syria). Although we are told that they preached the word to “none except Jews,” there were some exceptions who also spoke to Greeks, or perhaps to Hellenist Jews. The Greek manuscripts for v.20 are not in agreement, so we do not know for sure whether this stage of the movement was reaching out to Hellenists (see comment to 6:1) or to pagan Greeks.
11:22 The leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, perhaps alarmed at the rapid spread of the word and their inability to maintain control over the purity of the message, send Barnabas to Antioch to check on the situation.
11:25 Barnabas finds Saul at Tarsus, and brings him to Antioch. They were with the Antioch congregation for a year, which gives the impression that Barnabas was not entirely pleased with what he found there, and perhaps he and Saul stayed in order to maintain some kind of quality control over the beliefs held by the new converts.
11:29-30 Famine and Saul’s Jerusalem visit. “The best candidate for Luke’s famine is the one dated by Josephus to 46-48 (Antiquities,20.101).” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1042) However, this creates a historical error on Luke’s part, because he has Herod Agrippa still alive at the time of the famine (12:1), although Agrippa is known to have died in 44 AD, which would be two years before the famine. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1042)
12:1 This Herod is Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great. Agrippa was king of Judea from 41-44 AD, during a brief interlude between direct Roman governors.
12:2 James, the brother of John, is killed during Agrippa’s campaign of persecution. This is a major event, given that James was one of the original twelve disciples, so it is surprising that no further details are given. The lack of detail in the story of James’ death is especially striking when contrasted with the elaborate story of Peter’s escape, which soon follows.
12:5 The church members pray for Peter after he is taken captive. But in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preached against such prayers, because “your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Therefore, according to Jesus, Christians should only pray the Lord’s prayer, as given in Matthew 6:9-13.
12:7 An angel appears to help Peter escape from prison. Unfortunately, no angels saw fit to intervene in the murder of James (12:3). And this guardian angel must have been off duty when Peter himself was later arrested and executed in Rome. (See “St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles,” in Catholic Encyclopedia.)
12:12 The John mentioned here is not the same as John the son of Zebedee who was one of the original twelve disciples, and who is mentioned in 12:3 as the brother of the murdered James. This John, “whose other name was Mark,” was a traveling companion of Paul and Barnabas. He is the same Mark who was considered by tradition to have been the author of the Gospel according to Mark.
12:14 Peter, for whom the iron gate of the prison opened automatically in verse 10, is here unable to pass through the gate to Mary’s house, until the residents open the door for him in verse 16.
12:15-16 The very people who were ardently praying for Peter’s release must not have held much hope that their prayers would be answered. Here, they are skeptical and reply, “You are mad,” when the maid tells them that Peter is at the door. When they finally open the door and see Peter standing on the threshhold, they are “amazed.” Clearly, they did not expect that their prayers would have any positive effect.
12:17 The James mentioned here is commonly taken to be Jesus’s brother. He became the leader of the Jerusalem branch of the Jesus movement, despite the fact that during Jesus’s ministry, “even his brothers did not believe in him.” (John 7:5)
12:19 To say that Herod Agrippa “went down from Judea to Caesarea” is geographically puzzling, because Caesarea was in fact the capital of the province of Judea. It is like saying that someone went “from Illinois to Chicago.”
12:23 Luke here gives the impression that Agrippa was stricken and died on the spot, but the Jewish historian Josephus tells it differently. According to Josephus, Agrippa experienced a severe pain “in his belly,” during the ceremony in which the people hailed him as a god. He then lingered for five days, becoming “quite worn out by the pain in his belly,” before dying at the age of 53. The symptoms suggest an attack of acute appendicitis. Despite the Bible’s portrayal of all the Herods as evil tyrants, Josephus reports that “his generosity was boundless.” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XIX.8.2.) It was not so very unusual for leaders of the time to be deified as gods, but to accept such an accolade during one’s own lifetime could be considered immoderate. Of course, Agrippa’s Jewish subjects would have been most offended by such a blasphemous claim, although the pagan portion of the population would have taken it in stride.
12:25 The early Greek manuscripts are divided over whether Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, or to Jerusalem. The easiest reading is “from Jerusalem,” because in verse 11:30 Barnabas and Saul delivered famine relief to Jerusalem. Thus, it makes sense that they would now return “from Jerusalem” back to Antioch. For additional translation options, and the possibility that all of chapter 12 is out of chronological sequence, see The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, pp.163-164. For specific manuscript details, see The Greek New Testament, 4th revised ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 2001), p.454.
13:1 Among the Christian community at Antioch there were “prophets and teachers,” but no apostles, as the twelve were headquartered at Jerusalem.
13:3 It is not clear who “they” are in this verse – i.e., those who laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them off on their mission. However Paul himself says in Galatians 1:1 that he became an apostle “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” The passage here in Acts, however, seems to imply that Paul’s mission was formalized and approved by men of the Antioch church, although there is no information here about the governance of the church, if any, at that time.
13:4 Here begins what is known as Paul’s “first missionary journey,” which will take him and Barnabas from Antioch to Cyprus, through various cities of Asia Minor, and back again to Antioch at the end of chapter fourteen.
13:6 In a parallel to Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus (8:19-24), Paul encounters his own nemesis, a “false prophet” named Bar-Jesus, who tries to foil the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus to Christianity.
13:9 Luke now begins to refer to Saul by his Roman name, Paul. However, no explanation is given for making the change at this point in the narrative. Some commentators speculate that perhaps Luke begins using a different source document here, which refers only to “Paul.”
13:11 Whereas Jesus went about healing the blind, Paul instead inflicts blindness upon this magician Elymas who opposed the conversion of the proconsul. It will not be the last time that the actions of the church conflict with the words and deeds of Jesus. And if the early missionaries had such power against their enemies, why did so many of them suffer martyrdom for their belief? As we saw with the guardian angel in 12:7, supernatural assistance for the apostles was rather unreliable, and seemed to come and go at inconvenient times. There was no such intervention to prevent the stoning of Stephen (7:57-59), or the murder of James the son of Zebedee (12:2), nor the later persecutions by the emperor Nero, under whose reign both Peter and Paul were arrested and executed.
13:13 John Mark leaves the group and returns to Jerusalem. We are not told why, and there is nothing here to indicate that he “deserted,” as his departure is often described. However, some hard feelings obviously remained, as we learn in 15:38, where Paul advised against taking John Mark on a return visit because he had “withdrawn” from them in Pamphylia.
13:14 This Antioch of Pisidia is not the Antioch in Syria, which was the starting point of the journey. Pisidian Antioch was in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The congregations visited during this trip were in the Roman province of Galatia, and were very likely the ones addressed in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
13:17 When reading Paul’s speech, we must keep in mind that we are not reading Paul’s own words, but rather Luke’s account of what Paul said.
13:19 “When he had destroyed seven nations.” Paul recounts Israel’s legendary conquest of the land of Canaan, which was the land promised to them by Yahweh. The seven nations destroyed are identified in Deuteronomy 7:1. Paul’s words are slightly misleading. Yahweh himself did not destroy the unsuspecting inhabitants of Canaan. Rather, he ordered the Israelites themselves to do the deed: “You must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. . . . You shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.” (Deuteronomy 7:2, 5) The Asherim were sacred poles which symbolized Asherah, the mother goddess of the Canaanite religion. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973, p. 113, note to Exodus 34:13.) The carrying out of these murderous instructions is vividly described in the book of Joshua. To say, as Paul does, that God gave the land to the Israelites as “an inheritance,” is like saying that a mugger “inherits” your wallet after beating you senseless.
13:21 Paul recounts that Saul was king over the Hebrews for forty years. The length of Saul’s reign is a controversial issue, because the Old Testament verse which gives the figure is corrupt and gives only a partial number: “He reigned _____ and two years over Israel.” (1 Samuel 13:1) So the actual number might have been 12 (i.e., ten and two), 22, etc. Forty-two would be an option but not the round number of forty given in Paul’s speech, unless the information in 1 Samuel is wrong. Josephus reports that Saul ruled as king for 42 years in his Antiquities, VI.14.9, but in X.8.4 gives the reign as lasting 20 years. Of course, it is only a coincidence that Paul’s original name was also Saul.
13:22 The “quotation” that Paul gives is not found in any Old Testament passage, but combines elements from three different passages: Psalm 89:20; 1 Samuel 13:14; and Isaiah 44:28. Ironically, this Isaiah passage is the same one that introduces Cyrus, king of Persia, by name as the anointed one of God, i.e., the messiah, or Christos in Greek. Isaiah 44:28 is therefore not about David at all, as Paul would have us believe.
13:23 Paul claims that Jesus is one of David’s “posterity.” However, he cannot be such if he was indeed sired by the Holy Spirit, instead of his earthly father, Joseph. The contradictory genealogies of both Matthew and Luke trace Joseph’s ancestry back to David, but then add disclaimers to say that Jesus was only “supposed” to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23), or that Joseph was the husband of Mary, rather than the father of Jesus (Matthew 1:16).
“As he promised.” There is no such promise. Despite all the claims by both early and modern Christians, the arrival of a savior named Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Old Testament.
13:29 Here we are told that Jesus was taken down “from the tree,” recalling once again the words of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 that a man hanged on a tree is “accursed by God.” See also the comments to Acts 5:30 and 10:39.
Paul claims that “they” took Jesus down and laid him in a tomb, the antecedent of “they” being “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers” from v.27. However, according to the gospels, it was not the Jerusalem Jews and their rulers who laid Jesus in the tomb, but Joseph of Arimathea. (Matthew 27:59-60; Mark 15:45-46; Luke 23:50-53). Far from being one of Jesus’s enemies, this Joseph “was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews.” (John 19:38)
13:31 Paul only mentions post-resurrection appearances by Jesus to his followers from Galilee. One naturally wonders why such a momentous occurrence would only be witnessed by such a small group of Jesus’s own followers, instead of a more general audience.
13:33 “You are my son. Today I have begotten thee.” This is quoted from Psalm 2:7. This ancient Hebrew phrase was “a formula of adoption whereby the king became God’s son.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973, p.657.) Here in Acts, Paul applies it to Jesus, and appears to support the view of a group of early Christians, known as “adoptionists,” who believed that Jesus was not born the son of God, but became his son by being adopted at either his baptism or his resurrection. Such an interpretation is further supported by Paul in Romans 1:4, where we read that Jesus was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.”
13:38 We read here that forgiveness of sins was “proclaimed” (not granted) “through” (not by) Jesus. This formula portrays Jesus as an instrument or conduit of forgiveness from God, but not as the one who brings forgiveness himself.
13:39 Here we see an example of the contrast between Luke’s character “Paul” and the real Paul of the epistles. “The implication here is that the law can free from some things, but not from everything; the gospel is thus complementary to the law, whereas according to the authentic Paul, faith is the only way to salvation, the law being totally powerless to save (cf. especially Rom. 7).” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.182.)
13:41 This quotation is from Habakkuk 1:5. If you compare the quotation in Luke with the verse from Habakkuk in the Old Testament, you will notice a slight difference. Here in Acts 13:41 Paul is made to say “wonder and perish.” But the RSV translation of Habakkuk 1:5 has “wonder and be astounded.” This type of discrepancy is common and does not always mean that the New Testament writers are misquoting the Old Testament verse (although it sometimes means that). Rather, the authors of the New Testament, like many other Jews of the time, used the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, known as the Septuagint (or LXX) rather than quoting directly from the Hebrew. The LXX can vary somewhat from the modern translations of the Bible, which for the Old Testament are based on the earliest available Hebrew texts, and not on the still earlier Greek translation.
13:46 Paul and Barnabas cite the rejection of the Jews as their reason for turning to the Gentiles. But elsewhere in Acts, we are told that Paul was tasked from the very beginning by Jesus himself to take the message to the Gentiles. See Acts 9:15 and 26:17-18, as well as the comment to 18:6.
13:47 The passage is from Isaiah 49:6. Once again, the quoted words are closer to the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures than to the translations based on Hebrew texts. In Isaiah, though, the reference is to Israel as the servant of Yahweh, not to the Christian apostles. Recall that references to the “suffering servant” of Isaiah, are often claimed by Christians to refer to Jesus, but in fact they refer to the nation of Israel. See the comment to Acts 8:32.
13:48-49 The new religion begins to spread rapidly beyond its original Jewish boundaries, winning many non-Jewish converts.
13:50 Apparently the reception was not totally positive, even among the Gentiles. But whenever the preaching of Paul and Barnabas was rejected, “the Jews” are blamed for stirring up opposition.
14:1-7 Having arrived at Iconium, Paul and Barnabas follow their usual mode of operation, and begin their missionary work at the local Jewish synagogue. At first we are told that “a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.” But once again “the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds,” despite the “signs and wonders” performed by the apostles. The visit ends with Jews and Gentiles alike seeking to stone Paul and Barnabas, who then flee to neighboring towns.
In v.4, and later in v.14, Paul and Barnabas are referred to as “apostles.” These are the only times in the book of Acts where Luke bestows this title upon them. Otherwise, it is only the twelve who are so designated. However, there is a literal sense in which the term may be applied to Paul and Barnabas without elevating them to the status of the twelve. The noun “apostle” is related to the Greek verb apostello (“I send”), and literally means “one who is sent.” This is accurate as far as the mission of Paul and Barnabas goes, since they were sent out by the Antioch church, so were literally “apostles.”
14:8-10 This healing of the cripple recalls Peter’s healing of another lame man in Acts 3:2-8. It serves the purpose of showing that Paul’s missionary efforts derive from the same divine authority as Peter’s preaching among the Jews.
14:11-12 The healing of the cripple convinces the people of Lystra that they are in the presence of gods – specifically of Zeus (Barnabas) and Hermes (Paul).
14:15-17 Paul rejects the offered sacrifice, informing the priest and the crowds that he and Barnabas are mere men, and not gods. Although Paul claims to be bringing “good news” to the Lystrans, he is essentially telling them that their own religion is worthless and vain, and that they should give it up for the new religion preached by himself and Barnabas.
14:19 Once again, the fortunes of Paul and Barnabas take a rapid turn for the worse, as they begin their visit to Lystra as gods, but end it being stoned by the people. Paul is left for dead, but later recovers. The Jews, of course, are blamed for the unfortunate turn of events. In this case, there were apparently no local Jews in Lystra, so Luke has them arrive from Antioch and Iconium. Paul himself confirms in 2 Corinthians 11:25 that he was “once” stoned, and if there is any historical accuracy in the Acts account, this stoning at Lystra must be the one Paul refers to.
The natural conclusion one draws from these stories is that the early Christian missionaries did not manage to persuade entire cities or even large portions of the population in these cities. Rather, their appeal was only to small groups who became the nucleus of the early Christian congregations. Extravagant claims about the successful conversion of large numbers of proselytes (e.g., Acts 11:21, 14:1; 17:12) are, therefore, surely exaggerated.
14:21 Remarkably, Paul and Barnabas return to the very cities that rejected them (Iconium and Lystra), but this time their message is only addressed to “the disciples” and not to the population at large. The emphasis on the “many tribulations” that must be suffered, suggests that the newly-won converts in these cities were not having an easy time of it at the hands of the local Jewish and pagan populations. Possibly many of them were tempted to throw off the new faith, and this may account for the fact that Paul’s efforts on the second visit were devoted to “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith.” (v.22)
14:23 The appointment of “elders” to every “church” suggests that Paul is instituting a governance structure for the early church organization. However, keep in mind that the Greek ekklesia is literally “congregation” or “assembly,” and does not necessarily imply the formal organization, and certainly not the architecture, that we associate with the word “church.” Additionally, the reference to “elders” is probably anachronistic, since it is doubtful that such offices existed in the Christian community at this early date, although they apparently did exist at the time Luke composed the book of Acts. Significantly, the term “elder” does not occur in any of the genuine letters of Paul. (See Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.305. Also The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1046.)
14:26 The return to Antioch completes this first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas.
15:1 This chapter reveals a serious split in the early Christian community, showing that even in the earliest period there was no consensus as to what the nature of the new religion was or what it required of its members. The key questions, for which different factions had different answers, were 1) Did members of the Jesus movement have to become Jews and be circumcised? and 2) Was it permissible for Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians to associate with each other socially, and especially to take meals together? These men who “came down from Judea” to Antioch represented a Jerusalem faction of those who still considered Christianity to be a Jewish movement, so that anyone seeking to join must become a Jew and be circumcised. Thus, the popular idea of a unified church fighting various “heretics” who deviated from an agreed-upon true faith is mere fantasy. The church was not united, but splintered among competing factions, even from the earliest times.
15:2 Paul and Barnabas dispute vigorously with the representatives from Jerusalem, rejecting the notion that Gentile converts need to be circumcised in order to become Christians. To settle the matter, a Jerusalem conference with “the apostles and the elders” is proposed, and Paul and Barnabas set out to represent the views of the Antioch church. The issue at stake is the very nature of the Christian movement: Will Christianity continue to be a sect within Judaism, whose members are obligated to follow the law handed down by God to Moses? Or will it break out of its Jewish confines to become a religion for all nations with faith in Jesus replacing the commandments of the Jewish law?
15:4 Scholars are divided as to whether this Jerusalem conference is the one referred to by Paul himself in chapter 2 of his letter to the Galatians. There is insufficient detail to settle the matter with certainty. Several points argue in favor of the Galatians visit occurring earlier than the Jerusalem conference described here in chapter 15 of Acts. The Acts meeting is obviously very public, and the presentations took place before large groups of listeners. We see this in 15:4 where Paul and Barnabas were welcomed by “the church [Greek ekklesia, the congregation] and the apostles and the elders,” and in 15:12 where Barnabas and Paul speak before an “assembly” [Greek pleithos]. In Galatians 2:2, however, Paul reports that he appeared “privately before those who were of repute,” whom he later identifies as James, Cephas (Peter), and John. (Galatians 2:9) Also, Paul’s recap of the meeting in Galatians 2:9-10 bears little resemblance to the formal decree issued by James in Acts 15:13-21. However, it is entirely possible that Paul is indeed describing the same conference as the one portrayed here in Acts, in which case the two accounts conflict in these details.
15:5 The group favoring circumcision is identified here with the Pharisees, who were often portrayed as the opponents of Jesus in the gospels. (E.g., Matthew 12:14; 16:12; Mark 3:6; 12:13; Luke 6:7, and many others.) The effect is to paint them as the opponents of Paul, while Peter weighs in on Paul’s side in verses 7-11. Thus, the pillars of the early church, Peter and Paul, appear united against the Pharisees, who are again seen as stirring up trouble. But again, Paul himself has a different view of Peter, being unimpressed by those “who were of repute” (Galatians 2:6) in the Jerusalem church, and opposing Peter “to his face” (Galatians 2:11) because of Peter’s vacillation on the question of circumcision.
15:10 Peter here characterizes God’s law as a “yoke” which the Jews themselves have been unable to bear. How then, he argues, can Gentiles be held responsible for following all the requirements of the law? But the Old Testament Psalms portray adherence to the law not as a burden, but as a joy and a comfort: “I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.” (Psalm 40:8) “I long for thy salvation, O LORD, and thy law is my delight. Let me live, that I may praise thee, and let thy ordinances help me.” (Psalm 119:174-175)
15:13 This James is Jesus’s brother, not James the son of Zebedee, who had previously been murdered by Agrippa. (See the comment to 12:2.) James the brother of Jesus appears to have become the de facto leader of the Jerusalem church. Paul identifies him as Jesus’s brother in Galatians 1:19. Ironically, despite the leading role played by James here in Acts, we were told in John 7:5 that even Jesus’s “own brothers did not believe in him.”
15:14 In prefacing his decision, James mentions the speech of Peter, but ignores the report of Barnabas and Paul referenced in verse 12.
15:16-18 These verses are quoted from Amos 9:11-12, but the quotation is from the Greek Septuagint translation and not from the Hebrew. The phrase “that the rest of men may seek the Lord” is not found in the Hebrew, where the wording is “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” This substitution “changes a promise that Israel shall possess her inheritance into a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p. 203.) It seems odd in any case that a Jewish Christian like James would have been quoting a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, so we may well question the authenticity of James’ words as they are reported here.
15:19-20 James issues his decision, announcing that Gentiles may join the Christian community if they “abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.” What is striking about this whole controversy is that no one on either side cites the teachings of Jesus in support of their position. It is indeed remarkable that in a dispute over the nature of the religion founded in his name, Jesus and his teachings play no part. It is easy to understand why Paul’s pro-Gentile faction would not bring up Jesus’s words, because Jesus himself said that he was sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) This was not an isolated statement, either. Jesus told his disciples to “go nowhere among the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:5), and Jesus also confirmed the continuing validity of the Jewish law “till heaven and earth pass away.” (Matthew 5:18) Perhaps the circumcision party did bring up these sayings of Jesus in support of their opposition to admitting Gentiles, but Luke, being a supporter of the pro-Gentile faction, could hardly be expected to record such testimony in his account of the proceedings in Acts.
15:22 Judas and Silas are appointed to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, with a letter announcing the decision of James, the apostles, and the elders of Jerusalem as to the obligations required of the Gentile followers of Jesus. It is puzzling, therefore, that in Acts 21:25, on a later visit to Jerusalem, Paul is informed of this letter by James and the elders as though Paul had never heard of it. Paul himself never mentions the decree in any of his letters. If the meeting in Galatians chapter 2 is taken to be the same conference, then Paul’s description of the resolution is simply that “they would have us remember the poor.” (Galatians 2:10)
15:23-29 This letter which communicates the decree is not addressed to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, but only to “the brethren who are of the Gentiles” in those churches. The churches of Galatia, which figure prominently in Paul’s first missionary journey (described in chapters 13 and 14), are not mentioned at all. The letter thus appears to be an answer to the specific question raised in 15:2, and not a universal decree binding on all Christian congregations.
15:36 Paul proposes a new missionary journey. This one is his own initiative, unlike the first trip which was commissioned by the Antioch church. (See 13:2-3.) It is possible that Paul was now entirely on his own, and no longer closely tied to the Jewish branch of the Christian movement. The decision of the Jerusalem conference may have been less favorable to Paul than either he or Luke are willing to admit. “The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return. . . . [O]ne must suspect that the circumcision party prevailed. For Paul the immediate result was clear. He had to leave Antioch. He chose to embark on a new mission where there was not such a strong and traditional Jewish community.” (L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity (Harper, 2004), pp.170-171.) This new mission would be focused on the cities bordering the Aegean Sea. The new converts would be found in the Greco-Roman world, and not in the synagogues of the Jews.
15:39 A new dispute arises between Paul and Barnabas as to whether John Mark should accompany them on this journey. Paul is against it, because of Mark’s departure from the group on the first missionary journey. (See the comment to 13:13.) The dispute causes Paul and Barnabas to split, and Barnabas is not mentioned again in the book of Acts. Paul’s letters do not record any such dispute, but in Galatians 2:13, Paul alleges that Barnabas “was carried away by their insincerity” along with the rest of the Jews in the dispute with Peter over eating with the Gentiles. So perhaps the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas is historically true, but the reason may not be fully divulged in Acts, as Luke may have been reluctant to call attention to doctrinal disputes between important church figures. Explaining the split as a disagreement over John Mark’s inclusion portrays the the clash as doctrinally neutral.
16:1-3 Paul recruits a new traveling companion–Timothy, whose mother was Jewish and his father a Greek. Paul goes to have him circumcised “because of the Jews that were in those places.” There seems to be no good explanation for this circumcision, given Paul’s passionate argument to exempt Gentiles from the operation. It cannot be argued that Paul took this step because of Timothy’s Jewish heritage on his mother’s side, because this would still contradict Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians, where he says, “Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. . . . Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.” (I Corinthians 7:18,20) Timothy, as we are told, was already a “disciple” when Paul met him (v.1) so had been called to Christianity as an uncircumcised man. Thus, by Paul’s own standard in 1 Corinthians, Timothy should have remained uncircumcised. However, Paul does not hesitate to say that he will adopt whatever stance is necessary in order to win converts: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. . . . I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20,22)
16:4 Here Paul is said to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem council to the cities through which he passed. But again, Acts 21:25, which records events that must have taken place years later, appears to have James inform Paul for the first time of the letter announcing the decision. The Ephesus ministry alone took up at least two of the intervening years. (Acts 19:10)
16:6-7 Despite the rosy picture painted in verse 5, it is clear that the missionaries met with resistance in some of the places they visited. But the setbacks are attributed to the Holy Spirit, who forbids the apostles to preach in Asia, or to the “Spirit of Jesus,” which prevents them from going to Bithynia. At least in these instances, the lack of success is not blamed on “the Jews.”
16:10 Suddenly, the narration changes from “they” to “we.” We do not learn who the “we” includes. Some commentators see this as evidence that the author was one of Paul’s party, but it is equally possible that the author begins using a different source document at this point, and neglects to change the pronouns.
16:12 Following the vision of verse 9, Paul and company arrive in Phillipi, a city in the Roman colony of Macedonia, marking the first entry of the new religion into Europe.
16:18 Paul casts out a spirit from this slave girl who had the power of divination. But it was no very high purpose that induced him to perform this mighty deed. He cast out the spirit merely because he became “annoyed” at hearing the girl introduce them as “servants of the Most High God” as they made their way around the town.
16:19 The casting out of the spirit from the slave girl becomes the occasion of more legal trouble for Paul. The girl’s owners are themselves annoyed because her predictions had been a source of income for them. By casting out the spirit, Paul has taken away her power and thus deprived her owners of this income.
16:20-24 The formal charge against Paul and Silas, however, is not the casting out of the spirit, but engaging in an illegal disturbance of Roman customs with what the Romans consider to be Jewish proselytizing. (Note that to the Romans, Paul and his sect are still considered to be a Jewish faction, and not a new religion.) Although Jews were allowed to practice their religion in the empire, “active proselytizing was frowned upon as a menace to the national cult of the emperor.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.221.) As punishment, Paul and Silas are beaten, thrown into prison, and fastened by their feet into the stocks. In 1 Thessalonians 2:2 Paul reports that he had “suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi.”
16:26-30 Suddenly, there was an earthquake! All the doors swing open and the prisoners’ fetters come unfastened. But Paul declines to take advantage of this opportunity to escape, as he and Silas remain in the prison, and use the occasion to win over the jailer as a convert.
16:31 Paul tells the jailer to “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” This phrase represents Paul’s theology in a nutshell, but this salvation formula is different from the one given by Peter earlier in Acts. In Acts 2:38, it is repentance and baptism which, according to Peter, are the keys to salvation, not believing in Jesus. He delivers the same message in Acts 3:19.
16:35 At dawn, the magistrates send word to the jailer to let the prisoners go. No one mentions the earthquake.
16:37 Having been given permission to leave, Paul now makes the claim that he is a Roman citizen and thus entitled to a higher standard of legal treatment than the average prisoner. This appeal seems ill-timed. Wouldn’t it have served him better to announce his Roman citizenship before being beaten and thrown into prison in the first place? At this point, Paul’s ploy gains him nothing except an apology from the magistrates (who were going to release him anyway) due to their fear of the consequences that might result from their mistreatment of a citizen of the empire. “Whether Paul was actually a Roman citizen is a matter of some dispute; he never mentions the fact in his letters, and it has been thought to be incompatible with his upbringing as an observant Jew.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1049.) Again, see 1 Corinthians 9:20-22, where Paul reveals that he has “become all things to all men” in order to further his theological goals. It would thus not have been out of character for Paul to falsely claim Roman citizenship if he thought it would bring him some advantage.
17:1-4 In Thessalonica, Paul again meets with opposition from “the Jews.” Only “some” of the Jews were persuaded by Paul’s arguments, although “a great many” of the Greeks, and “not a few of the leading women” were won over. The mere existence of “leading women” shows that we are now in a different cultural milieu. Thessalonica was a thriving and cosmopolitan commercial port, a crossroads of travel and commerce with a diverse population. It was a free city within the empire, and had its own constitution and rulers. (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.225.)
17:5-6 A familiar paradox plays itself out in the events at Thessalonica. We are told that Paul and his companions achieved astounding success among the local population, only to find that the local population then rises up against them and threatens them with imprisonment. The villains, as usual, are “the Jews,” who repeatedly play the role of outside agitators. Paul’s own words indicate that the converts at Thessalonica were won over from the pagan population, and not from the Jews, as he later notes how they “turned to God from idols.” (1 Thessalonians 1:9) Whether Paul actually began his preaching in each city by visiting the local synagogue is open to question. Although this is the pattern described in Acts, it is not reflected in Paul’s own letters, where the word “synagogue” does not appear.
17:7 Of course the authorities would have no interest in purely theological disputes, as long as the participants did not deviate from their loyalty to the emperor. Therefore, the charges against the visitors are expressed in political terms: They are “acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
17:9 Even so, the authorities must not have considered the threat to be very serious, as they did not imprison anyone, but simply took a security from “Jason and the rest” and then let them go. We are not told who this Jason is, except that he is someone who has received the missionaries, perhaps by providing lodging for them. Jason is, of course, a Greek name, so it appears that Paul and company are primarily moving in Gentile circles at this point.
17:10 Paul and Silas are whisked away by night in order to avoid further trouble. This habit of fleeing in the face of opposition stands in marked contrast to the popular image of the steadfast Christian martyrs. If it was important to spread the word among the Gentiles, why would Paul and Silas run away instead of standing their ground and relying on the Holy Spirit to protect them from harm?
17:11-14 The missionaries fare no better in Beroea, where some initial successes are wiped out by the crowds who are stirred up by the Jews who followed them from Thessalonica. The local Jews of Beroea are portrayed as more open-minded than those of Thessalonica. Paul again runs away, leaving Silas and Timothy on the scene, although he sends for them upon his arrival in Athens.
17:17 Paul speaks in the Athenian market place to anyone who happens to be present. In Athens, unlike many of the other cities he visited, Paul finds a willingness to listen, but even so his efforts there meet with no real success. He is allowed to speak, he is not persecuted, but the converts are few. (See v.34.)
17:18 Apparently Paul’s Athenian listeners misunderstood, thinking that “Jesus and Resurrection” (Greek Anastasis) were two dieties – god and goddess.
17:22-31 Paul’s speech to the Athenians. Paul, the man who admits to being “all things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22) in order to win converts, expresses himself in terms likely to be understood by the philosophic mind of the Athenians. Thus, the purpose of the resurrection (v.31) is to demonstrate that Jesus is indeed the man whom God has appointed to judge the world, rather than to save sinners by giving them eternal life. The main call is for his listeners to repent (v.30) in order to be right with God on judgment day, rather than to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul does not refer to Jesus as the son of God, but as “a man whom he [God] has appointed.”
17:34 Only “some” men are persuaded to believe in Paul’s ideas, and not the “great many” who were won over in some of the other cities that Paul visited.
18:1 Paul’s next stop on his travels is the Greek city of Corinth. His letters to the Corinthians are addressed to the churches he founded there. Corinth was a highly cosmopolitan city, known for its loose morals and various kinds of debauchery, some of which were connected with various religious cults.
18:2 According to the Roman historian Suetonius, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius in 49 AD was because they had been creating disturbances “at the instigation of Chrestus.” There is no way to tell whether this “Chrestus” is meant to refer to Jesus or some other person. Since the Roman state at this time did not consider Christianity to be anything more than a sect within Judaism (see the comment to 18:15-17 below), it is possible that the comments of Suetonius could have referred to efforts by a group of Jesus worshippers to convert Roman Jews to the new sect and that “Chrestus” was indeed “Christus.”
18:3 Here we learn that Paul’s profession was as a tentmaker, or perhaps more generally, a leather worker. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973, p.1345n.)
18:6 We have seen repeatedly that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is justified in Acts by claiming that he went first to the Jews, but was rejected by them, so then turned to the Gentiles. Here again, the Jews of Corinth oppose Paul’s teaching, whereupon he retorts, “From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” But the accounts of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus elsewhere in Acts indicate that Paul was charged from the very beginning with taking the gospel to the Gentiles. In the third version of the conversion story, Paul quotes Jesus himself who declared that he would deliver Paul “from the people and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (Acts 26:17-18) So the notion that Paul turned to the Gentiles as plan B when the Jews rejected his teaching, contradicts the direct instructions given to him by Jesus, as told in the third conversion story. See also Acts 9:15, where Ananias reports that God chose Paul to “carry my [i.e., God’s] name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.”
18:9-10 It is not clear whether “the Lord” who speaks to Paul in this dream is meant to be God the Father or Jesus. In any case, he promises Paul that “I am with you, and no man shall attack you to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” This is another example of how divine protection comes and goes throughout the course of Paul’s adventures. Apparently God was not with Paul in Philippi, where he and Silas were beaten and imprisoned. (Acts 16:20-24) Or perhaps God simply did not “have many people” in Philippi, so was unable to offer much support. And why was God not with Stephen (Acts 7:57-59) when he was stoned to death, or James (Acts 12:2) who was murdered by Agrippa?
18:12 This Gallio was the proconsul of the Roman province of Asia, and from Roman historical records this allows us to date the incident at about 52 AD. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1051.)
18:15-17 Gallio sees this dispute as an internal squabble among Jews, and refuses to get involved.
18:18-23 We are given very few details about these stops in Cenchreae, Ephesus, Caesarea, Antioch, and the travels through Galatia. “He went up” in v.22 may indicate a trip to Jerusalem as well. Note that in 15:1 some men “came down from Judea” to Antioch.
18:25-28 This Apollos “knew only the baptism of John.” This comment suggests that among the many varieties of belief existing at the time, nearly 20 years after Jesus’s crucifixion, there were still some who followed John the Baptist’s teaching of a baptism for repentance and the washing away of sins, but were unaware or unpersuaded by the Christians’ teaching of a baptism in Jesus’s name. 1 Corinthians 1:12 suggests that Apollos may have headed a Corinthian faction that was opposed to that of Paul. According to Luke’s version here in Acts, after being instructed by Prisca and Aquila, Apollos stands corrected, and sets off for Achaia, i.e., the area of Greece which includes Corinth, in order to do rhetorical battle with “the Jews.”
19:1-3 In Ephesus, Paul “found some disciples.” Normally, the word “disciples” is used in reference to Christians, i.e., followers of Jesus. But these disciples had never heard of the Holy Spirit, and had only experienced the baptism of John the Baptist, instead of being baptized in Jesus’s name. Thus, we once again have testimony to the wide variety of belief and practice among early Christian groups. Paul’s interpretation of the faith is nowadays considered to be mainstream and orthodox, but at the time it is clear that he had to contend with many different challengers among competing Christian sects. See also the comment to 15:1.
19:6 After the Holy Spirit came upon the new found disciples, “they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” This is consistent with the pattern found earlier in Acts, but is at odds with Paul’s own disparaging view of speaking in tongues: “If you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.” (1 Corinthians 14:9) See also the comment to Acts 2:2-4.
19:9-10 Paul meets with little success in the synagogue at Ephesus, and so takes his followers to a different venue within the city, where he continued to preach for a period of two years.
19:11-12 The miracle of the flying handkerchiefs. Although Jesus was able to heal without the benefit of flying handkerchiefs, Paul keeps his distance while the handkerschiefs and aprons fly to the sick and expel the evil spirits from them. Note that God gets the credit (v.11) for performing the miracles through Paul his instrument, just as Jesus was earlier described by Peter as being “a man” through whom God did many mighty works. (Acts 2:22)
19:13-16 These Jewish exorcists who call on the name of Jesus suffer the consequences when the evil spirit turns upon them and chases them out of the house naked and wounded. Thus are they rewarded who try to exercise Jesus’s power without having the proper authority. However, Jesus’s own attitude toward such freelancing was quite different. When Jesus was told of a man casting out demons in his name, he replied, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40. Also Luke 9:49-50.)
19:20 This claim of missionary success among the people of Ephesus is belied by the strength of support demonstrated for the goddess Artemis in verse 34.
19:21 It is a very roundabout itinerary that Paul has in mind for getting to Jerusalem and Rome. Ephesus, at the western end of the Turkish peninsula, lies between Jerusalem to the east and Macedonia and Achaia (Greece) to the west. So Paul’s travel plans have him heading west to Macedonia and Achaia, back east to Jerusalem, and then west again to Rome.
19:23 Controversy again arises over Paul’s teaching of “the Way,” one of the common names for the early Christian movement. But this dispute over Paul’s challenge to the idols of Artemis seems relatively tame compared to Paul’s own description of his stay in Ephesus. It is worth noting that it is not the letter to the Ephesians that treats of Paul’s sojourn in the city. Instead, the letters to the Corinthians contain significant information on that period in Paul’s missionary career. In 1 Corinthians 15:32, Paul writes that “I fought with beasts at Ephesus.” It is not known whether this is to be taken literally or figuratively, but in any event it indicates very stiff opposition. Paul is very likely referring to his experience in Ephesus when he writes of “the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself.” (2 Corinthians 1:8) Also, “it must have been in Ephesus that Paul endured the imprisonment that he shared with Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7).” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.251.) None of these incidents is included in Luke’s narrative in Acts.
19:25 Paul’s threat to the existing order was not only theological. By preaching against graven images, the business of producing various shrines and statues of the Greco-Roman gods was endangered, along with the livelihood of the silversmiths who worked in this trade.
19:30 Why should the disciples have feared for Paul’s safety if the Holy Spirit was on his side?
19:34 In verses 18-20, we were told of the astounding success of the Christian missionaries in Ephesus as “the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.” But here now, the crowds of Ephesus gather in the public theater to proclaim, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” If Paul had indeed been as successful in his conversions as we were led to believe, the supporters of Artemis should not have been able to dominate the proceedings to the extent described here. Most likely, Paul’s converts comprised only a small portion of the Ephesian poulation, enough to concern the makers of divine images who feared loss of income, but not enough to sway the majority of the city, which remained dedicated to their goddess. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
19:38-40 The town clerk tries to quiet the disturbance by pointing out that if the silversmiths have a grievance against Paul and his companions, the courts are open to hear their case. The “danger” referred to in verse 40 is that the Romans may intervene if the Ephesians themselves cannot maintain order. “Greek cities in the Roman empire were left in relative autonomy to run their own internal affairs, but the one crime that could be guaranteed to incur imperial displeasure was civic disorder.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1053.)
20:1-6 In just six verses, Paul travels from Ephesus to Macedonia, then to Greece where he stayed three months, back to Phillippi in Macedonia, and then to Troas, located on the northeastern rim of the Aegean sea at the tip the Turkish peninsula. We are told no details of any of these stops. Either nothing of note happened in all these travels, or Luke had no detailed record of them, or perhaps he had reason to conceal what happened as Paul passed through these places. Note that in verses 5-6 the “we” narration resumes, which we have not heard since 16:17 at Philippi. There is no reason to think that the author himself is part of this “we,” but he may have used a source that was written by someone who accompanied Paul on this portion of his journeys. Since the first “we” narration ends in Philippi, and the second picks up again here on Paul’s departure from Philippi, it seems likely that whoever the source is remained behind in Philippi while Paul journeyed through Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus, and then rejoined the group as Paul passed through Philippi again.
20:7-12 Apparently, Paul’s speech was not engaging enough to keep Eutychus from falling asleep and crashing to the ground from a third story window. It has also been suggested that the fumes from the many lamps may have rendered him unconscious, but this is unlikely if he sat at an open window, and in that case it would have been more likely that others inside the room would have been affected before Eutychus, who at least was near fresh air from the open window. Be that as it may, the recovery of Eutychus from his fall is not necessarily a miracle, and it is not presented as such. There is no praising of God or Jesus for raising Eutychus from the dead, and Paul is not described as doing anything in particular to raise him, but simply observes that “his life is in him.” The witnesses were “comforted” (v.12) but not amazed or astounded, or stricken with fear, as is often the case when we read in the New Testament that someone is raised from the dead. (See Mark 5:42; Luke 8:56; Luke 7:16.)
20:16-17 If Paul was in such a hurry to reach Jerusalem in time for Passover that he bypassed Ephesus, it seems odd that he took the time in Miletus to send for the elders of the Ephesus church and meet with them in Miletus. “Even to send a message to Ephesus and bring the elders to Miletus would take some three days.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.269.) As we shall see in 21:4, Paul also chose to remain in Tyre for seven days, which is indeed strange if he was rushing to get to Jerusalem.
20:18 Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders. In recapping his missionary activity in Asia, Paul does not mention any of the successes which Luke has told us he achieved. (See, for example, 17:12; 18:8; 19:20.) Instead, Paul delivers a self-pitying farewell speech, focusing on all the sacrifices he had made for the sake of his ungrateful and inconstant followers. The tone of the speech is sombre and foreboding. He hints of trouble in his upcoming visit to Jerusalem, “not knowing what shall befall me there” (v.22), accounts his own life of no value (v.24), and declares that those among whom he has preached the gospel will never see his face again (v.25). He expresses no confidence that the church and the elders will manage to stay on the straight path he has taught them, but instead predicts that “men speaking perverse things” will arise from their very own congregation (v.29). After reminding them how he “admonish[ed] everyone with tears” for three years (v.31), he commends them to God’s grace (v.32). We must remember that these words are not Paul’s own, but were written by Luke. However, they are in character for Paul, and may represent a close approximation of what Paul may have actually said. For a discussion of the historical veracity of Paul’s speech as reported in Acts, see “Paul’s Defense to the Elders of Ephesus,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, pp.269-270.
20:34 “These hands ministered to my necessities.” Perhaps Paul refers here to his work as a tentmaker (see 18:3) by which he made his living, rather than relying on contributions from church members. By contrast, Jesus told his disciples to take no money along on their journeys, because “the laborer deserves his food.” (Matthew 10:10) Paul himself agreed in principle with this precept, telling the Corinthians that “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:14) However, Paul goes on in his letter to the Corinthians to say that he himself has not made use of this right.
20:35 Paul quotes Jesus as saying “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” However, this saying of Jesus does not appear anywhere in the four gospels. Since Paul did not meet Jesus during his lifetime, he could not have heard it from Jesus himself, but must have obtained it from some other source, if indeed he (or Luke as the author of Acts) did not invent it himself.
20:37 Having thoroughly depressed his visitors, Paul and the elders share a tearful goodbye, and he boards the ship to resume his journey to Jerusalem.
21:1-2 Cos, Rhodes, Patara: All these stops are along the southwestern coast of what is now modern Turkey. Some ancient texts also have the party stopping at Myra, somewhat further along the coast. From either Patara or Myra, Paul and his group would have changed to a larger ship for the crossing to Tyre over the open sea.
21:4 Apparently, Paul is no longer in a hurry to get to Jerusalem. (See the comment to 20:16-17.) Either they have made good time over the sea, or the author has forgotten his earlier statement that Paul wanted to reach Jerusalem before the Pentecost (20:16). Again there is a premonition of danger awaiting Paul in Jerusalem. “Through the Spirit,” Paul is warned not to go to the city. But Paul ignores the Spirit, and continues on to Jerusalem, as we learn in v.15.
21:8 “Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven.” The reference is to the seven Hellenistic members who were chosen in Acts 6:1-7 to assist the twelve disciples and to represent the interests of the Hellenistic faction. Recall that the Hellenists were “Greek-speaking Jews, or Jews who have adopted Greek customs.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973, p.1326n.) They would be contrasted with the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, who spoke Aramaic and continued to practice Jewish rituals.
21:11 The Holy Spirit, speaking through Agabus the prophet, warns that the Jews at Jerusalem will bind up Paul “and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” This is an odd warning, because many of the converts to Christianity at this time were Gentiles themselves. Agabus also performs an impressive trick in tying up his own hands and feet to symbolize Paul’s fate.
21:14 In spite of the warning and the entreaties of his hosts, Paul insists on continuing on to Jerusalem in order that “the will of the Lord be done.” In so doing, he likens himself to Jesus who before his capture said to God, “not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42) But if going to Jerusalem and accepting his fate is “the will of the Lord,” why then would the Holy Spirit, through the voice of Agabus (and in verse 4), have warned Paul not to go? Was the Holy Spirit working against “the will of the Lord”?
21:17 Paul arrives in Jerusalem. This is to be his last visit to the city. By Paul’s own account, the purpose of the visit was to bring a contribution to the poor of Jerusalem. (Romans 15:25-27) However, the Acts account does not mention the contribution in connection with this visit, although Acts 11:29-30 does say that Barnabas and “Saul” brought “relief to the brethren who lived in Judea” on an earlier visit, and Paul mentions it in his speech before Felix in 24:17 as though it were the purpose of his traveling to Jerusalem.
21:18 Very soon after his arrival, Paul goes to visit James. Again, this is James the brother of Jesus. He was not one of the original disciples. In fact during Jesus’s life, “even his brothers did not believe in him.” (John 7:5) But now, James is the de facto head of the Jerusalem branch of the Jesus movement. If indeed Jesus was the Messiah, i.e., the king of Israel, then after his death – having no children – the crown would naturally pass to his oldest brother, but it is not clear whether this was the basis for James’s influence in the early Christian community.
21:20-21 Paul faces opposition from the Jewish followers of Jesus for encouraging not only the Gentile converts, but Jews living outside Judea, to forsake the law of Moses and to stop observing Jewish customs. This charge indicates once again that the early Christian community was not united on matters of doctrine and practice, but from the very beginning was riven with strife and faction. The group around James were observant Jews who considered Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, and anyone wishing to join the movement was expected to be a Jew or to become one and to practice all the Jewish customs while observing the law of Moses. Paul’s conception of Christianity was quite different. The issue in question here is not whether Gentiles should follow Jewish law and practices, but whether the Jews themselves should, particularly the Jews living in the Greek areas where Paul’s missionary work took place. Paul considered the resurrection of Jesus to be a break with the past, which released all Christians from any obligation to follow the law of Moses. See for example, Romans 6:14; 8:2-3; 10:4; Galatians 3:11-13.
21:23-24 James orders Paul to prove his adherence to the Jewish faith by going through a purification ritual with four other men. This will prove to the Jewish Christians that the stories they have heard about Paul are false and that he himself lives in observance of the Law. It is strongly implied that if Paul had indeed been doing what he was accused of, i.e., encouraging Jews to forsake the law of Moses, the Jerusalem church would strongly disapprove.
21:25 James informs Paul of the letter which he sent to the Gentile churches releasing them from full observance of Jewish law. This is the same letter that resulted from the Jerusalem conference described earlier in chapter 15. Here, James informs Paul of the letter as though it were the first time he had heard of it. See the comment to 15:22.
21:26 Paul gives in and submits to the purification ritual. This should not surprise us, for Paul has already said that he would gladly change character in order to win converts: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. . . . I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:20,22)
21:27-28 The Jews from Asia are described as stirring up the crowd against Paul. Perhaps Luke intends us to think of these as the same Jews who followed Paul around on his travels inciting opposition to him. These are no doubt orthodox Jews, and not Jewish Christians such as James and those around him. They accuse Paul of bringing Greeks into the temple, thus defiling it and incurring the penalty of death. “It was a capital offense to bring Greeks into the temple; an inscription stating this has been discovered.” (The New Oxford Annoted Bible, 1973, p.1350n.)
21:30-32 As usual, Paul becomes the center of disorder and confusion. The rioting attracts the attention of the Roman cohort stationed in the city, and when the soldiers show up, the crowd stops beating Paul. The officer in charge of the cohort asks Paul “who he was and what he had done.” Obviously, the Romans had taken no interest in the dispute until it turned violent and threatened civic order.
21:34 Paul is arrested, or perhaps taken into protective custody, until the facts of the matter can be determined.
21:37-38 Here, it is the tribune asking Paul whether he speaks Greek, and not the other way around. He goes on to ask Paul whether he is not the Egyptian “who recently stirred up a revolt.”
21:39-40 Paul asks permission to address the crowd and is allowed to do so by the tribune. This seems implausible at best. Paul has just been the occasion of a riot which required Roman soldiers to be brought in to restore order. It is hard to believe that the tribune of the cohort would then allow Paul to make a speech, not knowing what he might say or what new violence he might incite. It is equally implausible that the crowd, which was on the verge of beating Paul to death, would suddenly become quiet and attentive when Paul begins to speak.
22:3-5 As he begins a speech in his defense, Paul establishes his Jewish credentials with the crowd. Gamaliel was a respected Pharisee, whom we encountered earlier when he encouraged toleration of the new Christian sect. See the comments to Acts 5:34-39.
22:6 This verse begins the second of three stories in Acts recounting the vision of Paul (then Saul) while traveling to Damascus to track down Christians. The first was related in 9:3-8. The third occurs in 26:12-18.
22:9 We have already noted the contradiction between this verse and the first telling of the story in chapter 9. Here Paul says that those who were with him “did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me,” but in 9:7 Paul’s traveling companions did hear the voice. For a discussion of the Christians’ attempts to refute this contradiction through specious grammatical arguments, see the comment to 9:7.
22:10 According to this version of the story, Jesus tells Paul to continue on to Damascus where he “will be told all that is appointed for you to do.” But in the version told in chapter 26, Jesus does not send Paul away to get further instructions, but instead tells him directly what his mission and purpose are to be. See 26:16, where Jesus tells Paul that his purpose is “to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you.” In 26:17 we find Jesus specifically appointing Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, but here in chapter 22, Paul does not find this out until he returns to Jerusalem and has another vision of Jesus while praying in the temple. (v.21)
22:14 Ananias delivers the commission to Paul that he will be a witness for Jesus “to all men,” which presumably includes Gentiles as well as Jews. As already noted, Jesus himself gives Paul his assignment in 26:17.
22:17 In this speech, Paul gives the impression that he returned to Jerusalem quite soon after his conversion on the road to Damascus. There is certainly no sense here that years had elapsed between verses 16 and 17. However, Paul’s own words in the letter to the Galatians tell a totally different story. There he says that when Jesus was revealed to him, he “did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:16-17)
22:21 In the midst of a vision in the temple at Jerusalem, Paul learns that his mission will be to the Gentiles, although the version in chapter 26 says that he finds this out during his vision on the Damascus road. See the comment to 22:10.
22:22 As soon as Paul mentions that God has sent him to the Gentiles because of the opposition in Jerusalem, the crowd turns on him. The wrath of the mob is explained in that “Paul is claiming a divine commission to preach in the name of Judaism what to them appears rank heresy.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.292.)
22:25 As he is about to be scourged by the soldiers, Paul again plays the Roman citizen card. By claiming to be a citizen, he would be entitled to a higher legal standard and would not be subject to scourging. Unlike the similar episode in Philippi (see chapter 16), this time Paul raises his citizenship claims before the physical punishment actually starts. As to whether Paul was really a Roman citizen, or was just making the claim for tactical reasons, see the comment to 16:37. The claim of Roman citizenship is of more than passing interest, because it is the basis for Paul’s demand that he be allowed to appeal to Caesar, expressed in 25:12. An ordinary Jew from Jerusalem would have had no standing to demand an appearance before Caesar.
22:30 As part of his investigation, the tribune summons the chief priests and the council (Sanhedrin) of the Jews to meet and give their reasons for accusing Paul. This seems to indicate that the session before the Sanhedrin is not a formal trial, but Paul’s understanding is different, according to 23:6.
23:1 Although the purpose of the gathering was for the tribune to understand the reasons for the accusations against Paul, the account of the meeting does not provide that information. No specific charges or accusations are brought against him. Instead, the occasion provides yet another opportunity for Paul to give a speech in his own defense. The story of this session before the Sanhedrin is fraught with improbabilities. Can we really believe that Lysias the tribune would turn Paul over to the Jewish authorities after having been told that Paul is a Roman citizen? Are we to believe that Paul was saved from scourging by his claim of citizenship, yet allowed to be struck in the mouth by the high priest’s underlings in verse 2?
23:6 It seems equally improbable that Paul was so out of touch with events in Jerusalem that he only now “perceived” that the Sanhedrin was composed of both Sadduccees and Pharisees. Paul adopts the tactic of divide and conquer, claiming to be a Pharisee himself, which immediately sets the two factions against each other. The real Paul did identify himself as a Pharisee in his letter to the Philippians (Philippians 3:5), but in the same letter he warned his readers to look out for the “dogs” and “evil-workers” who “mutilate the flesh” (Philippians 3:2), i.e., those whe practice circumcision. This would include all traditional Jews, including the Pharisees whose support he now seeks as he stands before the Sanhedrin. But apart from the hypocrisy of such a defense, Paul’s real failing, from the Christian point of view, is that he does not use this occasion to profess and confirm his Christian faith, but instead seeks to convince the Sanhedrin that he is a good Jew. Although he does not directly deny Jesus, by emphasizing his adherence to Jewish law and practice as a Pharisee the effect is the same. Paul’s remark that he is on trial “with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead” is not necessarily a reference to Jesus’s resurrection, since a belief in an afterlife which included resurrection of the dead was part of the Pharasaic theology, and was based on earlier Jewish writings. (L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p.79. Also see verse 8.) Thus, this remark too has the effect of coddling favor with the Pharisees and emphasizing Paul’s Jewish orthodoxy, and cannot be considered as a proclamation of his faith in the resurrected Jesus.
23:10 Whether it was an actual trial, or a mere attempt to obtain information, the session of the Sanhedrin degenerates into another riot, and Lysias the tribune has his soldiers rescue Paul from the mob again, and take him to the barracks. Despite the disorder, Lysias seems to have gotten the information he sought, because in his letter to the governor Felix (v.29) he states that Paul was “accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment.”
23:11 This apparently is another vision, but we read that “the Lord stood by him,” which does not rule out that Jesus himself was physically present, which would make this another post-resurrection appearance. The vision tells Paul that he must bear witness at Rome “as you have testified about me at Jerusalem.” But in his Sanhedrin appearance, Paul did not testify at all about Jesus, at least not in the words reported to us, and Paul’s strategy of emphasizing his Jewish orthodoxy suggests that any unreported testimony for Jesus did not occur either, as it would have undermined his defense.
23:12-15 Some of the Jews lay a plot to kill Paul, and persuade the council to lure him to another session where he can be ambushed.
23:16 Here we learn for the first time that Paul had relatives in Jerusalem. This reference to his nephew is the only mention of any of Paul’s family, and we are left to speculate on whether he had other family members in Jerusalem, and if so, what connection he had with them, if any, during the course of his career.
23:23 The tribune, having been warned about the plot to kill Paul, and still believing him to be a Roman citizen, decides to send Paul to appear before the procurator Felix in the coastal city of Caesarea. The number of soldiers and cavalry accompanying Paul seems rather excessive – “two hundred soldiers with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen.” The distance from Jerusalem to Caesarea would have been about 65 miles. (See map.) The “third hour of the night” would be about 9 to 10pm, the daylight hours being counted from dawn, and the night hours from sunset.
23:26 The letter of Lysias to Felix. Here we learn for the first time that the name of the tribune who commands the Roman cohort is Claudius Lysias. It is he who has been directing the proceedings up to this point. The letter is addressed to Felix, the procurator of Palestine. This is the same office that was held by Pontius Pilate during the crucifixion of Jesus. Felix held the office from 52 to 59 AD, so the time of our story is roughly 20 years after the presumed death of Jesus.
23:31-32 Antipatris, which lies between Jerusalem and Caesarea was about 40 miles from Jerusalem. Assuming that these were foot soldiers, as is implied by v.32 (see also v.23), it would indeed be an impressive feat for them to march 40 miles during the night and another 40 miles to return to the barracks “on the morrow.”
23:35 Felix takes Paul into custody, pending the arrival of his accusers from Jerusalem.
24:1 The formality of the upcoming hearing is indicated by the fact that the Jewish authorities have hired a spokesman, a professional orator by the name of Tertullus, to present their case. By his name, we conclude that this Tertullus was himself a Roman.
24:5-6 At last we learn of the formal charges against Paul. He is accused of being an agitator who stirs up trouble among Jews “throughout the world,” and he is the ringleader of a revolutionary sect, “the Nazarenes,” as the early Christians were sometimes called. He also tried to profane the temple, but notice that this charge, which is a purely religious violation of Jewish regulations, is mentioned last, as it would not have been a major concern to Felix. The charges of civil disorder and insurrection would, as usual, have been the charges most likely to attract the attention of a Roman official.
24:11 This statement by Paul, that he had arrived in Jerusalem only twelve days earlier, must be in error, or at least it contradicts the chronology already given in Acts. In 21:27 we saw that Paul had been in Jerusalem for almost seven days before the first disturbance with the Jews broke out. We know from 24:1 that Paul has been waiting in Caesarea for five days before the hearing began. So the twelve days are already taken up and there is no time remaining for the entire intervening story. Yet these intervening events must have required several days at a minimum, because we read such phrases as “on the morrow” (22:30), “the following night” (23:11), “when it was day” (23:12) “at the third hour of the night” (23:23) “on the morrow” (23:32) which serve to stretch out the chronology. Christians cannot escape this contradiction by relying on the “almost” in 21:27, because there are at least 3 intervening days that must be accommodated, and there is no way that “almost seven” can reasonably be interpreted to mean “four.” Also, Paul’s statement in 24:18 seems to confirm that the seven days of purification had been completed.
24:12-13 Paul denies the charges, and claims that his accusers cannot prove any wrongdoing on his part. Again, he does not take advantage of the situation to proclaim his faith in Jesus as the resurrected Lord and Savior. He does not mention Jesus at all, but goes to great lengths to associate himself with traditional Jewish belief. See also the comment to 23:6.
24:14 These words attributed to Paul contradict his own writings. Here he claims to believe “everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets.” But Paul writes elsewhere that as Christians, “we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6) See also Romans 6:14 and the comments to 21:20-21 above.
24:15 Paul implies that he agrees with Jewish teaching on the resurrection, as he claims to believe in “a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.” But he fails to mention the key point of contention, which is that he believes specifically in the resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s grace toward mankind, while the Jews denied that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
24:17 Paul finally mentions the offering that he has brought to the poor of Jerusalem. In Romans 15:25-27 this offering appears to be the reason for his final trip to Jerusalem, but there has been no mention of it until now. See also the comment to 21:17.
24:19 Paul points out that there are no witnesses to substantiate the charges of the prosecution.
24:22-23 Felix postpones judgment on the case until Lysias arrives. But the delay stretches out to two years (v.27) during which time Felix periodically summons Paul to discuss matters of religion and morality. The author Luke explains this extended incarceration by alleging that Felix was “desiring to do the Jews a favor.”
25:1-3 Festus has now succeeded Felix as governor of the province, and the Jews of Jerusalem urge him to return Paul to that city, intending to ambush him on the way.
25:5 Festus invites the Jewish leaders to accompany him back to Caesarea, where they may bring charges against Paul for whatever wrongdoing they think he may have committed.
25:6 For those who believe that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired, passages such as these are difficult to explain. Why would the author say that Festus had remained in Jerusalem for “eight or ten days”? Wouldn’t an author inspired by the Holy Spirit know how many days Festus spent in the city? But apparently Luke is not sure.
25:7 Although the Jews bring “many serious charges” against Paul, we are not told here what they are. Possibly they are the same as in 24:5-6, but there is no way to know for sure. The author adds that the charges could not be proven, which raises the question of why the Jews would even bother to make the trip if they had no evidence. Surely if they were so eager to get Paul into their custody they would have been building their case against him during the intervening two years.
25:8 Paul again denies all charges, saying that he has offended “neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar.” He makes no defense of his Christian faith, and does not mention Jesus at all. Nor does he make any counter-accusations against the Jews. Contrast Paul’s craven response with the forceful denunciations of Stephen when he was accused of blasphemy in chapter 7. Stephen turned the charges against his accusers, blaming them for resisting the Holy Spirit, killing the prophets, and betraying and murdering the savior himself. (Acts 7:51-52) He paid the price for his boldness, but Paul shows no such courage.
25:9-12 Festus offers Paul a Roman trial (“before me”) in Jerusalem. But Paul declines the offer, and instead appeals to Caesar, which sets the stage for his journey to Rome. But there is no appearance before Caesar described in the book of Acts, which ends with Paul preaching in Rome, but with no word as to his ultimate fate in that city.
25:13 This Agrippa is Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I who persecuted the early Christians as told in chapter 12. Agrippa II was allowed by the Romans to rule some parts of Palestine, but Jerusalem itself was not under his jurisdiction. He is another of the Herod family, and Herod the Great was his great-grandfather.
25:16 Festus explains his reluctance to turn Paul over to the Jews, as it would violate a fundamental principle of Roman law – the right of the accused to face his accusers and to defend himself against the charges brought against him.
25:19 There can be no more succinct statement of the difference beween Judaism and Christianity than this pithy summary by Festus: “They had certain points of dispute with him about their own superstition and about one Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive.”
25:26-27 Even though Paul has appealed to Caesar, Festus is still not sure what the case is about. He himself has found no wrongdoing on Paul’s part (v.18), and he still has “nothing definite” that he can convey to Caesar as to why Paul is being sent to him. Given that Festus became governor of Judea in the late 50’s AD, the Caesar to whom the appeal was made would have been Nero, who reigned from 54-68 AD.
26:1 Chapter 26 is comprised entirely of Paul’s speech before Agrippa and Festus. It is commonly called Paul’s “defense,” but the charges against which he defends himself still have not been clearly described. We may presume they consist of both political charges, such as creating a public disturbance or challenging Roman authority, and religious charges such as profaning the temple. The accusations described in 24:5-6 may still apply, but Felix has already indicated (25:18-19, 26) that at least in his mind, the only recognizable charge against Paul relates to the religious disagreement with the Jewish authorities, which in itself would not be an issue that warrants an appearance before Caesar. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (p.1355n.) calls Paul’s speech “a model defense of Christianity,” but in reality Paul defends only himself, not Christianity.
26:5 Here Paul testifies that he has lived as a Pharisee, which he describes as “the strictest party of our religion.” By “our religion,” he can only mean Judaism, not Christianity. He is either disowning Christianity in order to gain an advantage with his listeners, or he is still considering Christianity to be a sect of Judaism.
26:6 Paul is surely twisting the words of his opponents here. They would certainly not be putting him on trial “for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers.” The essence of the religious dispute is whether Jesus represents the fulfillment of that promise. Also, see 21:28, where the Jews complain that Paul has brought Gentiles into the temple, thus defiling it.
26:8 Paul disingenuously paints his opponents as not believing that God raises the dead. But this is not the dispute, either. The Pharisees did believe in the resurrection (although the Sadduccees did not), so this cannot possibly be the real point of dispute between Paul and his accusers. The issue is whether Jesus specifically was raised from the dead, as Felix pointed out in 25:19.
26:9 Paul refers to “Jesus of Nazareth.” Nowhere in this entire speech does he refer to “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus,” even though both those phrases occur frequently in Paul’s letters. Nowhere in the letters does Paul refer to “Jesus of Nazareth.” If this report of the speech is accurate, we can only surmise that Paul is going out of his way to avoid calling Jesus the Christ, in order to evade the issue that divides him from his accusers. Paul may be afraid that if he admits to the existence of a religious difference, Felix may refer the trial back to Jerusalem to be heard by the Jewish religious authorities – which would not bode well for Paul. Thus, Paul presents himself as a good Jew, who has no quarrels with the established religion.
26:13 Here begins the third version of Paul’s conversion which took place on the road to Damascus. It differs in several details from the other two, as we have already seen. In Paul’s own letters there is no corroboration of any of these details, as he alludes to the vision only vaguely in Galatians 1:15-16; 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8.
26:14 Here the voice speaks after “we had all fallen to the ground.” But in 9:7, the traveling companions “stood speechless” as they heard the voice.
26:16-17 According to this version of the story, Jesus tells Paul directly what his mission is to be, and specifically mentions that he is sending Paul to the Gentiles. However, in the version told in chapter 22, Jesus gives Paul no clue as to what is expected of him, but instead tells him to go on to Damascus and await further instructions (22:10). There he finds out from Ananias that he is to be a “witness for him to all men.” (22:15) It is not until Paul returns to Jerusalem and has a vision in the temple that he is specifically told he is being sent to the Gentiles (22:21).
26:20 Paul tells King Agrippa that he obeyed the heavenly vision and preached “throughout all the country of Judea” as well as to the Gentiles. But if Paul really preached so widely in Judea, how is it that three years after his conversion, he was “still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea”? (Galatians 1:22) Or are we to believe that Paul took a full three years after his heavenly revelation to finally get around to following his divine instructions?
26:21 Once again Paul is not entirely honest about the reasons behind the accusations against him. In this speech he claims that the Jews seized him because he declared even to the Gentiles that “they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.” Nowhere in the story has this been a complaint against Paul. In 21:28 we learned that he was seized because he “brought Greeks into the temple and he has defiled this holy place.” So it was the defilement of the temple that was the central religious charge against Paul, not his preaching of repentance to the Gentiles, as he claims before Agrippa.
26:22-23 Contrary to Paul’s words here, there is no place in the Old Testament where Moses or the prophets claimed that “the Christ must suffer.” “The idea of a ‘suffering Messiah’ was quite alien to the Jews, who had never related the suffering servant passages of Isa. 53, etc., to their Messiah.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.227). “Indeed there are passages containing just the opposite message, that Yahweh will protect his anointed: ‘Touch not my anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm.’ (1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15)” (Mike Davis, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament, Outskirts Press, 2008, p.158.)
Also contrary to this passage, Jesus Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. According to the gospels, Lazarus (John 11:43-44), the ruler’s little girl (Matthew 9:18, 23-25), and the widow’s son (Luke 7:12-15) already were raised from the dead before Jesus. There is also an Old Testament story about Elisha raising a child from the dead. (2 Kings 4:32-35)
26:31-32 Agrippa and Festus agree that Paul has done nothing deserving punishment, but the fact that he has already appealed to Caesar seems to have tied their hands and prevented them from releasing Paul forthwith. If that is the case, then one might ask why the hearing was held in the first place, but as Festus himself said in 25:26-27, his intent was simply to collect more information so that he would have “something to write” to Caesar as to why Paul was being sent to him.
27:1 “They delivered Paul.” The Greek word translated here as “delivered” is the same one translated as “betrayed” when used in reference to Judas Iscariot in the Gospels. It would be more in line with the basic meaning of the word to say that Judas “delivered” Jesus to his captors, rather than “betrayed” him. The word appears in Mark 14:41-44, Luke 22:4-6 and many others.
27:2 Theology takes a break, as the party puts to sea on the voyage to Rome, and the story switches to an exciting tale of sea travel, shipwreck, and narrow escape. Note that the narration changes again to the “we” source.
27:6 Having reached Myra on the southern coast of Asia Minor, the party is transferred to a larger ship, one carrying grain from Alexandria to Italy. (For the cargo, see v.38.)
27:10 It is not clear whether Paul volunteers this advice or was asked, but his opinion may have been valued because of his extensive travel experience, including previous shipwrecks. (See 2 Cor 11:25-26.) Here Paul predicts loss of life as well as cargo, if the crew presses on. Is this a prophecy based on divine revelation, or a simple prediction based on his seafaring experience? Either way, it turns out to be wrong, because in v.22 Paul reverses himself and declares that “there will be no loss of life” among the crew. This new prediction comes from an angel who appears to Paul in the night.
27:12 Apparently the decision was put to a vote, or at least to a general discussion, as the majority decide to continue sailing along the southern shore of Crete in order to reach Phoenix, where they will be able to spend the winter.
27:20 Without the sun and stars, there would have been no way for the crew to navigate, so they would have been totally at the mercy of the sea.
27:21 Paul chastises the captain and crew, scolding that they “should not have set sail from Crete.” However, the decision in v.12 was not to set sail from Crete, but to sail along the coast to reach a more suitable wintering spot at Phoenix.
27:24 That Paul would “stand before Caesar” recalls the promise given to Paul in 23:11, that he “must bear witness also at Rome.” From the standpoint of this prediction, Paul’s life must never have been in danger throughout the storm, and this new promise appears only to add that all those with Paul will also survive.
27:31 For a prisoner under the guard of Roman soldiers, Paul’s assertiveness is striking as he warns the men that they must remain in the ship in order to survive, and must not try to escape in the lifeboat.
27:37 Two hundred seventy-six may be an exaggerated estimate of the number of people on the ship. The RSV notes that some ancient manuscripts have “seventy-six.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973, p.1358 note d.)
27:44 The passengers, prisoners, and crew escape safely to land, as the ship is “broken up by the surf.” In a book published in 1848 - The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul - James Smith “proved conclusively that the scene of the wreck must have been St. Paul’s Bay, Malta . . . and argued that the whole account must have been written by an eyewitness who was not himself a seaman.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, p.331) Smith's work is available as a Google book.
28:3 The reader is obviously expected to understand that the snake in question is a poisonous one. It is not known whether poisonous snakes existed on Malta at the time of Paul’s voyage, but at present there are no poisonous snakes on the island, except for one species whose venom is only “strong enough to affect small animals.” (See "Snakes of the Maltese Islands.”)
28:6 This is not the first time that Paul was hailed as a god. Recall that the people of Lystra thought that Paul and Barnabas were the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes.
28:8 Unlike other healing episodes in Acts, this healing of Publius’ father is not attributed to God or to Jesus, but to Paul himself: “Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him.” Contrast this with Peter’s healing of the cripple in Acts 3:6, which is done in the name of “Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” and which Peter later affirms was done “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” (4:10) Also 9:34, where Peter tells Aeneas the paralytic, “Jesus Christ heals you.” Why does not Paul use the healing of Publius’ father as an opportunity to spread the gospel of Jesus to the natives of Malta?
28:14 Although Julius, the centurion in charge of the prisoners, had previously allowed Paul to visit with Christians in Sidon (27:3), it seems improbable that he would have allowed Paul to spend seven days visiting in Puteoli. Surely the soldiers guarding Paul had other duties to attend to than watching over a prisoner while he spent a week visiting friends, especially as they were so close to the end of their journey.
28:16-17 The security arrangements for Paul’s incarceration seem rather lax. He is apparently allowed his own quarters, with a single soldier guarding him. Yet his freedom of movement seems restricted. He summons the local Jewish leaders to him, apparently because he cannot move about to go to the synagogue.
28:21-22 The Jews of Rome profess to know nothing about Paul. It would seem also that they are unfamiliar with the Christian movement – the sect which is everywhere spoken against – and they ask to be told more. But unlike some of Paul’s earlier travels, where he was the first to bring word of the gospel, in Rome there was already an established Christian community, and Paul himself had written his most significant letter to the Romans. This meeting with the Jews of Rome may be intended as yet another instance of justifying Paul’s mission to the Gentiles by showing that the Jews had rejected his message, but because of the different environment, and the already existing Christian community, this customary justification seems out of place. Surely the Jews of Rome would already have been familiar with the Christian community in the imperial capital and would have had ample opportunity to satisfy their curiosity about the sect.
28:25-27 Paul, with his usual knack for provocation, scolds the departing Jews for their resistance to his message, quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10 to show that their intransigence was predicted by the prophet. The quotation in Acts follows the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, and differs in a slight, but significant point from the Hebrew, which is found in most English translations. The RSV, for example, translates the passage from the Hebrew, rendering it in such a way that implies the Jews’ lack of understanding has been ordered by God himself: “Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes.” But the Greek Septuagint version places greater blame for their intransigence on the Jewish people themselves: “For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed.” (The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, Hendrickson Publishers, 1986, p.841. Originally published in 1851.)
28:30 After telling us that Paul lived at Rome for two years, preaching “openly and unhindered,” the author of Acts breaks off the story of Paul without telling us what the outcome was. Did he ever appear before the emperor Nero to argue his case? Was the case dropped? Was Paul tried, condemned and executed as a menace to the Roman state? There are no firm answers to these questions. The early tradition in the church was that both Paul and Peter died in the persecutions ordered by Nero after the great fire of 64 AD. “Yet these stories themselves have little or no historical basis.” (L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p.145)
