# commentaries

text:
<p><em>So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting- </em>The Greek means literally to stretch the hand upon. It is only elsewhere used in <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em> of how the church chose Timothy to travel with Paul. Some argue that the hand stretching refers to voting, but this seems to me to be reading in modern principles of democracy; there is no evidence that democracy in the form of voting was what God ever used. Probably it means that they simply chose some elders, and there is no evidence that the Spirit guided them in this in any supernatural sense. But the point is that they didn't leave the new churches with no leadership structure- they created one. "Elders" literally means an older person; but all the believers were relatively young in the faith. Like many modern missionary situations, they did the best they could in terms of choosing wisely. But they didn't tell the new congregations that they were to just take everything in turns and muddle along; they appointed elders. Because like it or not, people need leadership. Given that they probably didn't know the candidates that well, and most were at the same stage of immaturity in faith, we can understand why they "prayed with fasting" about this. They took most seriously the future wellbeing of these groups; they didn't just baptize them and leave them.</p><p><em>They committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed</em>-</p><p> Given the difficulties in choosing elders, we can understand why they just gave them over to the Lord Jesus as their good shepherd. For as passing missionaries there was little else practically they could do. Paul uses the same word in committing the elders to the Lord in <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>. Paul saw the lord Jesus as a very real entity and personage to whom he could hand over [Gk:] these new converts. We might infer that Paul felt he had personal responsibility for them, but now he had to leave, he handed them over to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they passed through Pisidia and came to Pamphylia</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that they travelled through Pisidia, spreading the message. They had visited the area before (13:13), so perhaps they were following up with contacts there.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had spoken the word in Perga- </em>They had passed through Perga before, but without apparently preaching there. We get the sense that Paul was eager to cover ground missed out in his previous pass, so driven was he by the idea of geographically distributing the word to all.</p><p><em>They went down to Attalia</em>-</p><p> Perga was a port, but up the river from Attalia, from where longer distance vessels would be departing. These details all add credibility to the record. If Acts is a forgery from an uninspired person, it would've had to be created early on in the 2nd century at least. And the chances of not making a major geographical or historical bloomer would be almost zero. Such small incidental true-to-reality local details confirm us in confidently accepting the Bible as Divinely inspired and therefore true.</p>


text:
<p><em> And from there they sailed to Antioch, from where they had been committed to the grace of God</em>-</p><p> Paul "committed" the elders to the Lord in :23, but he himself had been committed by elders. All pastoral and preaching work is some reflection of our own experiences; it cannot therefore be solely prepared for by missionary training courses and the like. The Lord works to prepare people, and they are to reflect their own experiences in their work for Him. The same phrase "committed to the grace of God" is used about the sending of Paul and Silas on their later missionary journey (<em><a href='B:510 15:40'>Act 15:40</a></em>). Perhaps as noted on :23 about the idea of 'committing', the brethren felt (as we often do) that we can do nothing more materially for others in a given situation; we pray for them and commit them to God's grace. As the missionaries sailed away on a dangerous mission, this sense of commitment of brethren to God's grace would have been natural. It's hard to specifically, neatly define what was understood by "the grace of God". We can only be guided here by how Luke used the term in his volume 1, the gospel according to Luke. "The grace of God" was upon Mary (<em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>) and John (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>), although he did no miracles. The term is used as if it means 'the general operation of God' in <em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>, God's grace worked through Paul's working (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>), and it was <em>epi</em> the Corinthians, it worked around them (<em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>). We can frustrate God's grace by not going the way He leads us (<em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em>). God's grace appears to all men in that the sphere of His operation somehow affects all (<em><a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus died by God's grace, i:e. according to His plan (<em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em> in context). It is indeed true that 'grace' refers to undeserved favour / gift and often refers to forgiveness and salvation; and the word meaning essentially a gift it is at times used in the context of specific gifts of God's Spirit. But it would seem that the term has a wider sense of simply the realm of God's activity, which is of course motivated by His grace.</p><p><em>For the work which they had fulfilled</em>-</p><p> We read in <em><a href='B:510 12:25'>Act 12:25</a></em> likewise of Paul fulfilling a ministry; of John the Baptist fulfilling his race (<em><a href='B:510 13:25'>Act 13:25</a></em>). The sense is that God gives a specific task to be done, and we are to fulfil it. The Lord Jesus ascended so that He might fill all things of the church here on earth (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). The parable of the talents likewise teaches that each believer has been given specific things to do. We need to pray that we will perceive what these things are; because man is never better than when he has a distinctly defined aim and has the wind of the Spirit at his back helping him to fulfil them. Paul felt that his preaching work was a stewardship he had been given and by achieving it, he was fulfilling the word of God (<em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>). The "word of God" in view there would then refer to a specific word of command from God to Paul to preach the Gospel to the Colossians. Hence the specific command to Archippus to take seriously his ministry and fulfil it (<em><a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had come and had gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done through them</em>-</p><p> This is the consistent and commendable emphasis of Paul; that he was not working in his own strength but God was working through him. The language is identical to that in <em><a href='B:510 15:4'>Act 15:4</a></em>; the apostles reported back on their activities rather than being free radicals in the world.</p><p><em>And that he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> The language of God opening doors was familiar to Christians, as the Lord had taught that God opens doors to those who knock. But is there any reason to think that there were believers begging for the Gentiles to be included in the hope of the Gospel, and God responded to their prayers? There is hardly any. Peter and the other early brethren were shocked even at the idea of eating with Gentiles, let alone baptizing them. So we are to conclude that God by grace gave an answer to a prayer that had not been prayed. Or, as I prefer to think, the Father perceives our unspoken, unverbalized, not formalized desires, even our unconscious ones- as prayers. And responds to them. </p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of a door being opened in writing that a great door had been opened to him personally at Ephesus and Troas (<em><a href='B:530 16:9'>1Co 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>); and he prayed for doors to be opened so that he could preach to people (<em><a href='B:580 4:3'>Col 4:3</a></em>). So, to continue the metaphor, the door had been opened to the Gentiles, but Paul (the Jewish rabbi) felt so identified with his Gentile audience that he felt as if the door had been opened <em>to him</em> personally. This is what evangelism is all about- identity with our audience, and leading them in essence along the same path of faith which we have been led down by grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they stayed no little time with the disciples</em>-</p><p> According to some chronologies, there was a five-year period between this time and the council of Jerusalem of chapter 15. Truly we only get a few incidents from the life of all Bible characters.</p>


text:
<p><em>But some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers: Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses</em>-</p><p> “Custom” is Gk. <em>ethos</em>. This is a major problem in missionary work: the existing believers tend to expect that converts will not only accept the Gospel but also the ethos and culture of their existing community. And this is where this ancient argument about circumcision has so much to teach modern missions.</p><p><em>You cannot be saved</em>-</p><p> The very same Greek phrase is used by Paul when he calls out in urgency during the storm: “Except these abide in the ship, <em>you</em> cannot be saved” (<em><a href='B:510 27:31'>Act 27:31</a></em>). Surely Luke’s record is making a connection; the legalists taught that it was time to quit the rest of the community unless they got their way, for the sake of their eternal future; and Paul responds by teaching that our salvation depends upon us pulling together against the desperate situation we find ourselves in. It’s as if the salvation of Christ’s body depends upon it staying together. As time went on in the first century, the gap between the Jewish and Gentile elements, the right and the left wing, the legalists and the libertines, got ever wider. The tension got stronger. But nobody won. The Jewish element returned to the Law, and forgot all about the saving grace of Jesus. The Gentile element mixed even more with the world and its philosophies, and forgot the&nbsp;Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They ended up formulating blasphemous doctrines like the trinity, which nobody with any awareness of the Jewish foundation of the Father and Son could possibly have entertained. And so the faith was lost, until it was revived again in those groups who again interpreted Christianity in terms of “the hope of Israel”.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas argued and debated with them; consequently Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders to resolve this question</em>-</p><p> “Argued” is far too mild a translation. The word is always used elsewhere about major riot, specifically of rioting caused by the Jews. This is how deeply held is the belief that converts must conform to the pre-existing ethos and culture of the existing Christian community. From our perspective and distance, the argument seems so unnecessary, and the Biblical evidence clear as daylight that circumcision is not required for entry to the new covenant. Many of our fiercely debated divisive issues are looked at in the same way by converts living far removed from our place and culture; and believers of other ages would look at them likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the believers</em>-</p><p> Given our notes on :1, this is a true sign of spiritual maturity: to rejoice in the accession of others to our community of faith, when the newcomers are of a radically different ethos and culture to our own. "Great joy" is a phrase used four times by Luke; it was a characteristic of the early church.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all things that God had done through them</em>-</p><p> This is intentionally similar to the report about their arrival at the Antioch ecclesia in 14:27: "And when they had come and had gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done through them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles". The careful repetition of event and report in Acts 10, 11 gives the impression that Peter likewise carefully reported to the elders. They were all under the deep sense that God was working through them; no preacher is to be praised for themselves. We are all instruments and being used by the Father. We are absolutely nothing of ourselves.</p><p>In Acts 15 the representatives of the ecclesias reported to the whole church at Jerusalem, not just the elders. There seems to have been a series of meetings: initially, the group from Antioch who raised the problems being discussed met with the elders, who met together in a second meeting to consider it all, involving “the whole assembly… the whole church” (:6,12,22). Then there was perhaps a third meeting where “the whole assembly” was also present. And this is why “the apostles and elders <em>with the whole church</em>” (<em><a href='B:510 15:22'>Act 15:22</a></em>) agreed a solution. It wasn’t a top down decision imposed upon the congregation. They all participated. This parallel between elders and the assembly is even found in the Old Testament- e.g. “Let them exalt him also in the assembly of the people, And praise him in the assembly of the elders” (<em><a href='B:230 107:32'>Psa 107:32</a></em>):&nbsp; The “assembly of the people” and that of the elders is paralleled.</p><p>15:5</p><p><em>But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying: It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses</em>-</p><p> One of the major themes of Acts is how right from the beginning, there was a struggle within the body of believers. And Paul’s letters repeatedly address the problem. The Jewish believers polarised around the Jerusalem ecclesia, and tended towards a keeping of the Law of Moses. They couldn’t really accept that Gentiles could be saved, and saw themselves as a sect of Judaism (“the sect of the Nazarenes”). They were called “the circumcision party” (<em><a href='B:510 11:2'>Act 11:2</a></em>), and “the sect of the Pharisees-who-believe-in-Jesus” (15:5). The Lord had foretold that His true people would soon be thrown out of the synagogues and persecuted by the Jews, just as they had persecuted Him. But these brethren so accommodated themselves to Jewish thinking that this didn’t happen. However we cannot but be impressed that some amongst the Lord's sworn enemies, the Pharisees, came to believe in Him. His hopefulness for them therefore paid off [we recall his hope that the cured leper could make a witness to the priests, <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>]; whereas we would likely have given up with them as hopeless cases. There were very few Pharisees, relatively speaking; 5000 at the most and maybe as few as 1000. That a significant number became Christians therefore shows the power of the Lord's example, and reflects quite some humility amongst these men. So let's not think that their legalism about circumcision reflects total unspirituality amongst them.</p><p>Ironically, the Greek word for ‘heresy’ is the very word used to describe those divisions&nbsp; / ‘sects’ which should not be amongst us (see its usage in <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em>). To divide the Lord’s body is itself a heresy; and yet it is so often done in order to protect His body, supposedly, from heresy. Yet the difference between the heresy and the heretic is often fudged. The person gets attacked rather than their beliefs. So often we’ve seen this happened. A brother may, e.g., have views of the interpretation of prophecy which are found obnoxious by some. Yet the criticism of him will tend to get personal; his character is besmirched, because it’s felt that this is justified because he [supposedly] has ‘heretical’ views. </p><p>Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (John the Baptist’s followers) were all converted into Christianity (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). There is no specific statement that they dropped all their previous understandings; indeed <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em> shows that there were Christians who still called themselves “Pharisees”. The uniting and defining feature was their common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, baptism into Him and commitment to Him. The “one faith” referred to the believers’ faith in one and the same person- the one Lord, Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>), rather than only one set of doctrinal propositions about Jesus being “the faith” and all else being apostate. Given the breadth of doctrinal belief within the synagogue system, it’s highly significant that the Lord assumed His followers would remain within that system until they were cast out. He established no principle of leaving a community because one disagrees with some of their theological tenets. He in fact taught the opposite; that there is no guilt by association by such things, and His emphasis was on the heart and human behaviour being transformed. &nbsp;It seems to me a romanticizing of the New Testament evidence to suggest that the early church was totally doctrinally united, but was soon fractured by doctrinal declension from a specific set of doctrines and interpretations which were set in stone by the apostles. Rather the amazing unity of the church was and is remarkable in that it was achieved <em>despite and in the face of </em>those differences. What split the church was fleshly behaviour, which in turn utilized doctrinal differences to justify the various divisions. </p>


text:
<p><em>But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying: It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses</em>- One of the major themes of Acts is how right from the beginning, there was a struggle within the body of believers. And Paul’s letters repeatedly address the problem. The Jewish believers polarised around the Jerusalem ecclesia, and tended towards a keeping of the Law of Moses. They couldn’t really accept that Gentiles could be saved, and saw themselves as a sect of Judaism (“the sect of the Nazarenes”). They were called “the circumcision party” (<em><a href='B:510 11:2'>Act 11:2</a></em>), and “the sect of the Pharisees-who-believe-in-Jesus” (15:5). The Lord had foretold that His true people would soon be thrown out of the synagogues and persecuted by the Jews, just as they had persecuted Him. But these brethren so accommodated themselves to Jewish thinking that this didn’t happen. However we cannot but be impressed that some amongst the Lord's sworn enemies, the Pharisees, came to believe in Him. His hopefulness for them therefore paid off [we recall his hope that the cured leper could make a witness to the priests, <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>]; whereas we would likely have given up with them as hopeless cases. There were very few Pharisees, relatively speaking; 5000 at the most and maybe as few as 1000. That a significant number became Christians therefore shows the power of the Lord's example, and reflects quite some humility amongst these men. So let's not think that their legalism about circumcision reflects total unspirituality amongst them.</p><p>Ironically, the Greek word for ‘heresy’ is the very word used to describe those divisions&nbsp; / ‘sects’ which should not be amongst us (see its usage in <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em>). To divide the Lord’s body is itself a heresy; and yet it is so often done in order to protect His body, supposedly, from heresy. Yet the difference between the heresy and the heretic is often fudged. The person gets attacked rather than their beliefs. So often we’ve seen this happened. A brother may, e:g:, have views of the interpretation of prophecy which are found obnoxious by some. Yet the criticism of him will tend to get personal; his character is besmirched, because it’s felt that this is justified because he [supposedly] has ‘heretical’ views. </p><p>Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (John the Baptist’s followers) were all converted into Christianity (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). There is no specific statement that they dropped all their previous understandings; indeed <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em> shows that there were Christians who still called themselves “Pharisees”. The uniting and defining feature was their common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, baptism into Him and commitment to Him. The “one faith” referred to the believers’ faith in one and the same person- the one Lord, Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>), rather than only one set of doctrinal propositions about Jesus being “the faith” and all else being apostate. Given the breadth of doctrinal belief within the synagogue system, it’s highly significant that the Lord assumed His followers would remain within that system until they were cast out. He established no principle of leaving a community because one disagrees with some of their theological tenets. He in fact taught the opposite; that there is no guilt by association by such things, and His emphasis was on the heart and human behaviour being transformed. &nbsp;It seems to me a romanticizing of the New Testament evidence to suggest that the early church was totally doctrinally united, but was soon fractured by doctrinal declension from a specific set of doctrines and interpretations which were set in stone by the apostles. Rather the amazing unity of the church was and is remarkable in that it was achieved <em>despite and in the face of </em>those differences. What split the church was fleshly behaviour, which in turn utilized doctrinal differences to justify the various divisions. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the apostles and the elders gathered together to consider this matter-</em></p><p> There is a distinction made between &quot;the whole church&quot; and &quot;the apostles and the elders&quot; (<a href='B:510 15:22'>:22</a>). The issues were of such a nature that they required mature discussion and decision making, but the outcome of the deliberations was shared with and agreed by &quot;the whole church&quot;. There are some spiritual issues which it is not appropriate to as it were put to the decision of mass democracy. The resulting letter was signed by &quot;the apostles and elders and brethren&quot; (<a href='B:510 15:23'>:23</a>). The idea of a private meeting of the apostles and elders may fit Paul's account of the meeting in <a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal. 2:2</a>, where he says he put the matters &quot;privately to them that were of reputation&quot;, and not publicly.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when there had been much debate</em>-</p><p> Peter impetuously would have wanted to state his highly significant personal experience in this matter; but he wisely and humbly curbed himself. Although Peter had clearly been the leader of the very early church, he seems now to be eclipsed by James; and although he was "chosen" by God out of all the other apostles to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles, yet those same 'senior brethren' are described as 'choosing' [the same Greek word] brethren other than Peter to be involved in this work of incorporating the Gentiles (:22,25). A lesser man than Peter would not have taken well to losing the leadership; he spent the rest of his life as a humble pastor, perhaps of a very small group, and according to the Lord's own prediction, died a violent death.</p><p><em>Peter rose up and said to them: Brothers, you know that a good while ago</em>-</p><p> But it was not so long ago. Perhaps he was trying to give the impression that the Gentile circumcision question had been settled far back in time and there was no need to be raising it. But that is a typical political tactic- and it's not the only example here. This is why the Council of Jerusalem ultimately failed, with Paul later writing advice quite contrary to the agreements reached. There simply wasn't total honesty about the positions held, and whilst on one hand the factions were united by a common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, the issues added to that by the legalists were such that true unity was never going to be possible. And the same scenario has been worked out multiple times, even if the exact issues and contexts differ.</p><p><em>God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe</em>-</p><p> Again, the "by" reflects how Peter saw himself as merely an agent, an instrument in God's hands.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>And God, who knows the heart</em>-</p><p> The only other time these words occur is on the Lord's lips in <em><a href='B:490 16:15'>Luk 16:15</a></em>, warning the Pharisees that God knows their hearts. And Peter is saying these words to Pharisees who now had believed in Jesus (15:5). He's reminding them, perhaps, of who they had been, of what corrupt hearts they had once had. The Lord had known all about that, but worked to accept them and draw them in to His fellowship. And the same Lord knew the hearts of sincere Gentiles, and was seeking to save them too. </p><p><em>Did bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did to us</em>-</p><p> This is legal language. It's as if God is being called as a witness, and the exhibit provided is the fact that He gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentile converts as a sign of their acceptance- before they were even baptized, and without requiring their circumcision. But who, then, was the judge? The brethren there present at that meeting. And the whole question was therefore wisely presented by Peter as effectively judging God. And in fact that is what any of us are doing by questioning which believers in Christ are acceptable with God. We are relegating Him to a witness, and placing ourselves in His place as judges. This idea is continued in :10: "Why do you now put God to the test?", the Greek meaning to examine or scrutinize. This would then continue the legal metaphor- with the suggestion that it is quite inappropriate to examine the exhibit of God's acceptance of Gentiles in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he made no distinction between us and them</em>-</p><p> The same word was used when Peter was told to go with the Gentile visitors "without doubting" (10:20; 11:12), i:e. making no distinction between Jew and Gentile. </p><p><em>Cleansing their hearts by faith</em>-</p><p> This may be a comment upon their receipt of the Holy Spirit (:8). Whilst their speaking in languages was an outward sign of the Spirit's operation, the essence of the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to internal cleansing (see on 2:38). Their hearts were cleansed by the gift of the Spirit- on the basis of their <em>faith</em>, not their circumcision. Peter had been told that he was not to make any difference between clean and unclean as defined by Moses, because God had now cleansed the unclean (s:w. 10:15; 11:9). Clearly the unclean animals he had seen represented the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, why do you now put God to the test- </em>There is the possible suggestion in <em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em> that God was ‘tempted’ to re-enstate the law of Moses, or parts of it, in the first century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians desired to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great encouragement. Or the Greek can mean that they were testing or scrutinizing God inappropriately. See on :8 <em>Bare them witness</em>.</p><p><em>Putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus came to place a light yoke upon His followers. Not only were the Judaist brethren acting in the place of the Lord Jesus by putting a yoke on others, rather than bearing it themselves; but the yoke they were placing was heavy and unbearable. A yoke makes the burden lighter by sharing it with others who are under the yoke. The fellowship requirement [in this case, circumcision] was therefore a yoke. The Lord's yoke was light in that His fellowship is and was open, and not based upon meeting legalistic requirements.</p>


text:
<p><em>But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as them</em>-</p><p> Note that Peter cried out “<em>Lord</em>, save me!” when most men in that situation would have simply cried out “Save me!”. But his grasp of the Lordship of the One he followed inspired faith. If He was truly Lord, He was capable of all things. “Lord, save me!” was a call uttered in a moment of weakness. His “sinking” (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>) is described with the same word used about condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>), and yet Peter in his preaching persuades condemned men to do just the same: to&nbsp;<em>call</em>&nbsp;on the&nbsp;<em>Lord</em>&nbsp;in order to be&nbsp;<em>saved</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>). He invited all men to enter into the weakness and desperation which he had known on the water of Galilee, and receive a like unmerited salvation. And when he tells his sheep that the righteous are “scarcely saved” (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>) he surely writes with memories of that same gracious deliverance. And so now here in discussing ecclesial problems he points out that all of us have had a similar salvation, and should act with an appropriate inclusiveness of our brethren:&nbsp;</p><p>Grace, <em>charis</em>, basically means a gift. The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was the means of their salvation. The reference is not therefore to the visual manifestations of that gift in miraculous terms; for those died out. But the gift / grace of the Lord was the basis of salvation. It is therefore not only available today, but deeply necessary for salvation; for without the spirit of Christ "we are none of His". </p>


text:
<p><em>And all the crowd kept silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them</em>-</p><p> This could mean that the crowd were not so silent when listening to Peter. The miracles performed by the Lord through Barnabas and Paul were also "signs"- of His acceptance of the Gentiles. It is a common theme in Acts that the Spirit worked miracles in order to demonstrate the acceptance of the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after they finished speaking</em>-</p><p> God seems to have recognized with pleasure the degree to which Paul modelled his life on John, in that Paul's experiences of life were over-ruled to have connections with those of John. These connections simply could not have been engineered by Paul; e.g. the way in which they both died in prison at the behest of a crazy, woman-influenced despot. The Spirit also seems to make connections between John and Paul in the manner in which it describes them (e.g. <em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:15-19'>Act 13:15-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:7-8'>Joh 1:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:27'>Joh 3:27</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:8-16'>1Co 2:8-16</a></em>). And the Spirit in <em><a href='B:510 19:18'>Act 19:18</a></em> seems to portray Paul in the language of John: "they came (to Paul) and confessed, and shewed their deeds"- just as men had to John.</p><p><em>James replied, saying</em>-</p><p> A good case can be made that James was written as a follow up to the Council of Jerusalem- there are some marked similarities [<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:7'>Jas 2:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:27'>Jas 1:27</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:29'>Act 15:29</a></em>]. See on 15:23 <em>Greeting</em>.</p><p><em>Brothers, listen to me</em>-</p><p> The AV and some manuscripts add "Men and brethren". This could refer to the addressing of both the entire church ("men"), and the elders ("brethren"). Throughout Acts 15 we are reminded that the decisions reached were taken by the church congregation <em>and </em>the elders- rather than elders imposing a position upon the congregation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Simeon has related how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name</em>-</p><p> The conversion of Cornelius was certainly understood as the sign that the Gentiles were to be accepted. This would imply that Cornelius was the first public Gentile conversion by the apostles, which would mean that the Ethiopian eunuch was either a Jew or a proselyte effectively counted as a Jew. After all, he was reading Isaiah in Hebrew, having visited Jerusalem on pilgrimage, when Philip preached Christ to him. It is Luke who three times records that the ministry of the Lord Jesus had been God visiting His people Israel (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em> - God visited Israel to redeem them through Moses). No other evangelist records this. Now he is making the point that God was visiting the Gentiles. This did not remain with Paul as some mere theological nicety. The same word is used of how straight away, he decided to go and visit the Gentile converts (15:36). God's visitation of man in Christ quite simply means that we literally go visit others, in pastoral and preaching work. We have mentioned how the letter of James appears to be on one hand an extended commentary upon the Acts 15 decisions, which James had a major part in. His comment on 'visiting' is that we should "visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep unspotted from the world" (<em><a href='B:660 1:27'>Jas 1:27</a></em>). The "unspotted from the world" would then be his form of the agreement made that Gentiles could be accepted but they must keep "unspotted from the world" by avoiding the fornication and idolatry of the world. James would therefore specifically have in mind 'visiting' <em>Gentile </em>widows; and we recall that the issue of discriminating against Greek speaking widows was one of the issues his church had faced in <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>. Again, God's visitation of men, seeking to take out a people for His Name, must be reflected in our reaching out to others in practice, both materially and spiritually.</p>


text:
<p><em>And to this agree the words of the prophets</em>-</p><p> There was a 'symphony' [Gk:] between Biblical revelation and the position they were being led to adopt; and there is nothing more comforting and beautiful than to know that a position is solidly underpinned in Bible teaching and Biblical precedent.</p><p><em>As it is written- </em>In <em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em> LXX. </p>


text:
<p><em>After this things I will return</em>-</p><p> This is hard to interpret; the idea seems to be that after the crucifixion, God 'departed' for a time but now was returning to men in calling the Gentiles.</p><p><em>And I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen</em>-</p><p> Not the temple of Solomon, although the language of rebuilding is relevant to a temple rather than to a tent. "In that day (of the future Kingdom- v:14) will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen" (<em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em>)- a clear future Kingdom prophecy, but quoted about the building up of the first century church in <em><a href='B:510 15:14-16'>Act 15:14-16</a></em>. </p><p><em>And I will build again the ruins of it</em>-</p><p> He is surely saying that because the house of David has been rebuilt, therefore it is now O:K. to help the Gentiles “seek after the Lord”. James perceived that firstly the Gospel must go to the house of David, the Jews, and once they had responded, then it would go to the Gentiles. Perhaps the Lord had the same principle in mind when He bad His preachers to not [then] preach to Gentiles but instead [at that stage] concentrate on preaching to the house of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>). Yet the primary fulfilment of Amos 9 is clearly in the last days- then, after Israel have been sifted in the sieve of persecution amongst the Gentiles in the latter day holocaust, the tabernacle of David will again be ‘rebuilt’, the Gentiles will turn to the Lord, and then “the ploughman shall overtake the reaper… the mountains shall drop sweet wine… and I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel… and I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land” (<em><a href='B:370 9:13-15'>Amo 9:13-15</a></em>). Surely what we are being told is that there must be a repeat of what happened in the first century. What happened then, in the repentance of a minority in Israel, the spread of the Gospel to the world and then the Lord’s ‘coming’ in AD70… this must all be repeated on a far greater scale. Thus some in Israel must repent in the last days, after the pattern of the 1st century. This will bring about the great latter day gathering in of the Gentiles at the establishment of the Kingdom, when the whole Gentile world will seek to come up to Zion (<em><a href='B:290 2:3'>Isa 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:23'>Isa 19:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:4-5'>Isa 51:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:11'>Isa 60:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:21'>Zec 8:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>And I will raise it up</em>-</p><p> An apparent reference to the resurrection of Jesus. He had spoken of His resurrection as a rebuilding of the temple (<em><a href='B:500 2:19-20'>Joh 2:19-20</a></em>). </p><p>A note is perhaps necessary about <em>how</em> the NT writers quoted from the LXX. Because often it appears they don’t quote exactly from the LXX text. The classic example would be the way <em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a></em> is quoted in <em><a href='B:510 15:16-18'>Act 15:16-18</a></em>. The argument of James actually hinges on the LXX reading as opposed to the Hebrew [Masoretic] text reading. ‘All the nations’ were to have God’s Name called upon them, whereas <em><a href='B:290 63:19'>Isa 63:19</a></em> describes the Gentiles as people upon whom God’s Name had not [then] been called. Yet this ‘quotation’ is actually a merger of the Amos passage with several others (<em><a href='B:290 45:21'>Isa 45:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:15'>Jer 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 3:5'>Hos 3:5</a></em>). That’s why James introduces the quotation with the comment that he is quoting “the prophets” (plural). The quotation is more like an interpretation of the text- which was how the Jews were used to interpreting the OT texts. Their principle of exposition, called <em>gezera shawa</em>, linked together Bible texts which used the same language. One of the texts which James incorporates into his ‘quotation’ is <em><a href='B:300 12:16'>Jer 12:16</a></em> LXX, which speaks of how converted Gentiles will be “in the midst of my people”. Yet this very phrase occurs several times in Leviticus 17, 18, where we have the commands for how the Gentiles who lived amongst Israel should behave (<em><a href='B:30 17:8'>Lev 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:12-13'>Lev 17:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>). They were told that there were four areas where their lifestyle had to conform to Jewish practice. And these are the very four areas, in the same order, which James asks the Gentile Christians to obey! Clearly, then, the decree of Acts 15, commanding the Gentile Christians to e.g. not eat blood, had as its context how Gentile Christians should live ‘in the midst of’ a Jewish Christian ecclesia. This is the limitation of the context. From this little exercise in exposition we learn how carefully and intricately the early brethren expounded the OT. Yes, they used the LXX, but they used it in such a way as to bring out practical points, searching always for Bible precedents for the situations they found themselves in. They set us quite some example, especially considering that James, the Lord’s brother, would have been a manual worker and artisan as the Lord was; perhaps he was scarcely literate. And yet he reached such heights of exposition and wisdom purely from a simple love of God’s word and attention to its detail. See on <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>So that the residue of mankind may seek after the Lord</em>-</p><p> The remnant of men, a reference to the remnant of Israel who would accept Jesus. This group are distinguished from "And all the Gentiles".</p><p><em>And all the Gentiles who are called by My name</em>-</p><p> Those who called upon themselves His Name by baptism into it. The tense is chosen to maybe reflect how God already knows His people and had already called the Gentile converts by His Name. This was encouragement to the preachers to go out and fulfil His work with the Gentiles which He had already potentially enabled. This sense is confirmed by the comment in :18 that "[God] makes these things known from of old". He is now making them known ["makes"], but they had already been long planned. This encourages us to preach to the Gentiles “upon whom my name is [Amos says ‘has already been’] called”. The Name is called upon us by baptism; yet in prospect, in potential, the Name has already been called upon the whole world. But it is for us to go and convert them. This explains why Paul is spoken of as having been a convert before he actually was. Paul was as an ox bound to a yoke, kicking against the goads. But it was as if he was already bound into Christ’s light yoke. He wrote that he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. He seems to be alluding to the practice of branding runaway slaves who had been caught with the letter F in their forehead, for <em>fugitivus</em>. His whole thinking was dominated by this awareness that like Jonah he had sought to run, and yet had by grace been received into his Master’s service. But the figure implies that he already was a slave of Jesus at the time of his ‘capture’ in conversion.</p>


text:
<p><em>Said the Lord, who makes these things known from of old</em></p><p>- see on :17. "Of old" is literally "From the beginning of the age". The idea was that God's plan for the Gentiles was evident, reading between the lines, right from the beginning of His "age" of work with Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore my judgment is that</em>-</p><p> The legal language of a judge arising to give a verdict. This is in line with Peter's earlier warning not to have God as the provider of witness and to judge Him wrongly; see on :8.</p><p><em>We do not trouble</em>-</p><p> But the Judaizer brethren did 'trouble' the Gentile believers (:24). Later references in the NT to the converts being "troubled" may well refer to the activities of these Judaizers (<em><a href='B:510 17:8'>Act 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:8'>2Co 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:5'>2Co 7:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:7'>2Th 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:2'>2Th 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:14'>1Pe 3:14</a></em>). </p><p><em>Those from among the Gentiles that turn to God</em>-</p><p> Seeing there were few atheists in the first century, we wonder why he doesn't say 'turn to Christ'. He was speaking to Jews, and was using Judaism's language of a Gentile becoming a proselyte and 'turning to [Israel's] God'. But he is saying that becoming a proselyte now meant baptism into Christ, rather than attempting to keep Mosaic laws and visiting the temple in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p><em>But that we write to them, that they abstain</em>-</p><p> The word is elsewhere used, probably in allusion to this agreement, about abstaining from idolatry, fleshly lusts and immorality (<em><a href='B:590 4:3'>1Th 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:22'>1Th 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:11'>1Pe 2:11</a></em>). I suggest therefore that all the prohibitions were of a moral nature. To eat non-kosher food is not an issue of immorality; so my sense is that this must be understood as part of a prohibition here against involvement in idol worship. It's not right for a young unmarried couple to sleep with each other before marriage, but I don't think "fornication" as used here has that in view. Rather are all these things part of idol rituals- fornication would specifically referred to the use of temple prostitutes as part of the worship rituals. Fornication and the blood laws were therefore elaborations upon "the pollutions of idols". So we could read it as meaning: "Abstain from the pollutions of idols: [i:e:] from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood". </p><p><em>From the pollutions of idols</em>-</p><p> Only used in the LXX in <em><a href='B:340 1:8'>Dan 1:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em> about ritually unclean food.</p><p><em>From fornication, from what is strangled and from blood</em>-</p><p> The Mosaic law required that animals be killed by their blood being poured out.</p>


text:
<p><em>For Moses from generations of old has in every city those that preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath</em>-</p><p> At first blush this may seem rather a disconnected reason for the previous arrangements. The key is in the phrase "in every city". The Gentile converts were foreseen as coming from "every city". James foresaw that there would be Jews living in every place where Gentiles were baptized; and he sought not to give them any reason for stumbling. Note that the synagogue system is described as preaching Moses. They were creating a cult following around a man, rather than acting as a conduit to bring people to God and His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers</em>-</p><p> The Bible doesn't teach the total equality of role amongst all believers. There are leaders- but they are still among their brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and the elders, brothers, to the brothers</em>-</p><p> Although writing from a position of authority, they emphasized that they were brothers writing to brothers.</p><p><em>Who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia</em>-</p><p> The scope of the agreement was local to these areas. Judea is not mentioned, neither is there any general clause governing Gentile converts everywhere. This is maybe why Paul advised the Corinthians differently about issues relating to blood. It's also a reason why we should not seek to obey the letter of the legislation here about blood. This agreement was for a limited time and geographical scope. </p><p><em>Greeting</em></p><p>- see on :13 <em>James</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Forasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from us have disturbed you with words, subverting you, to whom we gave no commandment</em>-</p><p> The phrase "who went out from us" is exactly that used by John concerning the Judaists in his context, and he uses the term to imply that by going out from the body of Christ they had left Christ (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em>); and the allusion is to Judas going out from the disciples into the darkness and off to the Jewish leaders to betray the Lord. They "disturbed" the believers, and Paul uses the same word about "some that trouble you [s:w:] and would pervert the Gospel of Christ" (<em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em>). This is all strong language. This is the severe danger of legalism. It seems that these brethren had falsely claimed the authority of the Jerusalem church, and their aim was to 'subvert you', to carry them away- back to the Jerusalem temple cult.</p>


text:
<p><em>It seemed good to us, having come to one accord</em>-</p><p> The idea is that they were unanimous. It seems unlikely that they were, and subsequent NT history shows that the Judaizer group continued their work of 'troubling' the Gentiles with their demands. So this would seem another example of where the Council of Jerusalem is recorded very positively, differences were papered over, an impression of unanimity was given, and therefore the Council ultimately failed to solve the underlying issues.</p><p><em>To select men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul</em>-</p><p> Luke always mentions Paul first. But here Luke is recording the letter sent by the Jerusalem brethren, who would have known and respected Barnabas longer than Paul; and so I see here an incidental evidence that the Divinely inspired Luke is indeed accurately recording real events and written words.</p>


text:
<p><em>Men that have risked their lives</em>-</p><p> The Greek can equally mean that they had handed over their lives. </p><p><em>For the name of our Lord Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> Bearing the name of Christ is in itself an imperative to witness it. Thus “the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” is used as a metonymy for ‘the preaching of Christ’ (<em><a href='B:510 15:26'>Act 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em> cp. 14). We are baptized into that Name and thereby it is axiomatic that we become witnesses to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth</em>-</p><p> Appropriate because many were illiterate and there may have been concerns as to whether what was being read from a scroll was in fact accurate.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things</em>-</p><p> There is such a thing as compromise in spiritual life. The compromise of Acts 15 about the demands placed upon the Gentile believers was an example. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that the Mosaic food laws had no binding at all upon Christian converts; and yet "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit" to endorse the compromise reached in <em><a href='B:510 15:28'>Act 15:28</a></em>. The laws agreed there as binding upon the Gentile converts in <em><a href='B:510 15:29'>Act 15:29</a></em> are in fact the so-called Noachic or Primeval Laws, considered by some orthodox Jews to be binding upon all the sons of Noah. That interpretation of what God said to Noah is itself stretched and hardly on a solid Biblical foundation- but God was willing to go along with it in order to make concessions required so that there would at least be some human chance of unity in the early church. </p><p>“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit” suggests that their conclusions were somehow confirmed by the Spirit. How exactly this happened isn't stated. But we note that in :32, Judas and Silas used the Spirit gift of prophecy to tell the Gentile converts the same message. It could be of course that as with Nathan initially assuming that his message to David about the temple was inspired from God when it wasn't, so these brethren may have assumed their conclusions were supported by the Holy Spirit. The way that Paul later contradicts the ruling about food offered to idols might suggest that in fact, they were simply assuming [as too many folk do today] that their own process of reasoning was correct and was therefore confirmed by the Holy Spirit. At best we can observe that no mechanism for that confirmation is recorded here.</p>


text:
<p><em>That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols- </em>Out of the four forbidden things, this is the one which differs from what was originally agreed. In :20 they had agreed to write forbidding the Gentile converts "pollution of idols". But this changed to "thing sacrificed to idols" (although the word is only used in the LXX in <em><a href='B:340 1:8'>Dan 1:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em> about ritually unclean food). What they agreed to write was not written- an interpretation of it was written. And it is exactly at this point that Paul's advice to the Corinthians differs appears to differ from that of the Jerusalem Council as here recorded. For he writes that there is nothing wrong of itself with eating things sacrificed to idols. Perhaps he considered that the decree of Jerusalem only affected limited geographical areas and wasn't binding on his mission [see on :23]; or that he considered the whole agreement to have failed to such an extent that it was null and void; or he perhaps considered that it was all dirty church politics and he was giving inspired advice which contradicted it.</p><p><em>From blood, from things strangled and from fornication. From which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Farewell- </em>Note that the Western Text [<em>Codex Bezae</em>] of Acts omits "things strangled", leaving us with three basic laws about idolatry, fornication and bloodshed. In this case we would see an allusion to an uninspired passage in the Mishnah (<em>Aboth</em> 5) which taught that the captivity in Babylon came about "on account of idolatry, fornication and bloodshed". In this case we would see God willing to compromise and accept the terms which were familiar to the orthodox Jewish minds, rather than merely telling them that their Mishnah was uninspired and so often hopelessly incorrect. </p>


text:
<p><em>So they, when they were sent off- </em>This alludes to the custom of accompanying a person on the first stage of their journey as a sign of solidarity and acceptance of them. The delegation had the full support of the Jerusalem church.</p><p><em>Went to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter</em>-</p><p> There is a need for transparency in these things; and so the letter was delivered and read in front of everyone. Remember that many would have been illiterate. They did not "deliver the letter" until the congregation had been gathered together, in order to stop any chance of gossip after some had read the letter and others hadn't. These are the kinds of basic wisdom that are needed in pastoral and mission work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the encouragement</em>-</p><p> The Judaist visitors had obviously worried the believers with the possibility that their salvation could be in question and actually impossible. Hence their joy when they learned that they were acceptable with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets</em></p><p>- see on :28 <em>It seemed good to the Holy Spirit</em>. </p><p><em>Encouraged and strengthened the believers with many words</em>-</p><p> The idea is of confirmation. The context is confirming them that as Gentiles they really were OK with the Lord without circumcision. When we read of Paul and Silas going throughout Syria and Cilicia "strengthening the churches" (:41), the same word is used; and presumably the confirmation provided was again about this issue of Gentile acceptability. We note that Syria and Cilicia are the two specific regions to whom the letter from Jerusalem was addressed (:23).</p>


text:
<p><em>And after they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers back to those that had sent them</em>-</p><p> The 'sending off' was a custom demonstrating acceptance and blessing of the mission; see on :30. </p>


text:
<p><em>It seemed good to Silas to stay there</em>-</p><p> Again we see the human element in the preaching decisions of the early brethren. Despite Holy Spirit guidance, they made decisions which "seemed good" to them. The same word is used in :22,25 and :28. This is a fair emphasis all within the same chapter. There could be the hint that the decisions of the Council were simply what seemed right to them at the time, although they claimed some unspecified Holy Spirit confirmation of their thinking. This would again explain why Paul's inspired guidance to the Corinthians about meat offered to idols seems to contradict the position of the Jerusalem elders. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also</em>-</p><p> "Teaching" may refer to teaching the converts; and "preaching" to evangelism. "The Lord" in Luke-Acts usually refers to the Lord Jesus; the Gospel records would not have been widely distributed, and many people were illiterate. So the teaching and preaching of the Lord's word as recorded in the Gospels would have been vital.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after some days Paul said to Barnabas: Let us return now</em>-</p><p> The Greek word used here is that usually translated 'to convert'. It could be that Paul was suggesting that they go and 'convert' their converts, understanding that there are levels of conversion, as the Lord had taught and exemplified in Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>).</p><p><em>And visit the believers in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare</em></p><p>- see on :14.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Barnabas wanted to take with them John also, who was called Mark</em>-</p><p> The Greek really means 'to advise'. And Paul got mad and had a division about even the suggestion! This is not Paul at his best, but the incident is so typical of many divisions in the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>- see on</em> <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia</em>-</p><p> The Greek word and position in the clause suggests '<em>that </em>one', reflecting Paul's contemptuous attitude. The Greek idea is of apostasy. But Paul speaks of apostasy from <em>him</em>, rather than from the Lord. This is not Paul at his best. Like many of his brethren to this day, he considered a personal departure from him as being apostasy. Likewise he laments how all in Asia had turned away <em>from him</em>; whereas the Lord Jesus wrote letters to those in Asia, clearly acceptant of them as His beloved brethren. Personal differences don't thereby declare a divided-from brother to be therefore and thereby no longer a brother of the Lord. It could be, however, that John Mark had separated from them for spiritual reasons, perhaps falling under the influence of the Judaizers.</p><p><em>And had not gone with them to the work</em>-</p><p> Paul's dislike of Mark was for deeper reasons than just surface irritation. This is quoting the Septuagint of <em><a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a></em>, where "all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with David, said, Because they <em>went not with us</em>, we will not give them ought of the spoil". <em>Why</em> does the Spirit make this connection? Is it not suggesting that Paul, zealous soldier of David / Jesus as he was, was in those early days in some sense a man of Belial, bent on achieving his own glory in preaching, and unwilling to share it with anyone who wasn't spiritually or physically strong enough to do it as he was (cp. the weaker followers of David)? If this is the case, then this is a far, far cry from the Paul who wrote his letters some years later, begging Timothy to come to encourage him, and letters in which the care of all the churches weighs down his soul daily, coming upon him as he woke up each morning (<em><a href='B:540 11:28'>2Co 11:28</a></em>); the Paul who repeatedly encourages the weak, treating weak and strong as all the same in many ways, until he eventually attains a level of selfless devotion to his weak brethren that is only surpassed by the Lord Himself.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:12-13'>Act 13:12-13</a></em>.</p><p><em>They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus- </em>The "contention" between Paul and Barnabas is described in a word which occurs only thrice elsewhere. In <em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>, a more mature Paul speaks of how we should consider one another to "<em>provoke</em> unto love and good works". Surely he wrote this with a sideways glance back at his earlier example of provoking unto bitterness and division. Likewise he told the Corinthians that he personally had stopped using the miraculous Spirit gifts so much, but instead concentrated on developing a character dominated by love, which was <em>not</em> easily provoked (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>). The Spirit seems to have recognized Paul's change, when <em><a href='B:510 17:16'>Act 17:16</a></em>&nbsp; records how Paul's spirit was "stirred" at the spiritual need of the masses, and thereby he was provoked to preach to them; rather, by implication, than being provoked by the irritations of weaker brethren.</p><p>1</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord</em>-</p><p> The commendation of Paul's mission by the Antioch brethren could suggest that they took Paul's side in the dispute. But despite being seen as having done the right thing by conservative brethren, Paul's later allusions to the incident suggest he later realized that he had done wrong, and the approbation of his brethren didn't make it right before God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches</em></p><p>- see on :32 <em>strengthened the believers</em>. The Greek for "strengthening" is from the root for 'establishing'; the word is used both of the Lord establishing His people, and of the preachers and pastors establishing them. Any work we do to build up others has the Lord working through and with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went also to Derbe and to Lystra; and a certain disciple was there, named Timothy</em>-</p><p> Being half Jewish and having a Gentile name, this was a typical case which would have been hard to legislate over given the legalistic mindset of the Judaizers which has just been brought before us in chapter 15. And 'Timothy' means 'Dear to God'; the Gentiles were equally beloved. </p><p><em>The son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek-</em></p><p> Her name was Eunice, and his grandmother Lois also had believed before her (<em><a href='B:620 1:5'>2Ti 1:5</a></em>). Lois and Eunice are Gentile names, so we might conclude that they were not very observant Jews, indeed Eunice had married a Gentile which would have severed her from orthodox Judaism, neither had she circumcised her son; and yet from a child they had taught him the Old Testament Scriptures (<em><a href='B:620 3:15'>2Ti 3:15</a></em>). They loved the word of God but were not seen as having made the grade in terms of their religion. So many of the Lord's people are like that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Well reported of by the believers that were at Lystra and Iconium</em>-</p><p> This would imply Timothy was from Lystra (:1 is unclear whether he was from Derbe or Lystra).</p>


text:
<p><em>Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him</em>-</p><p> Literally 'to go forth', the word used about missionary endeavour in fulfilment of the great commission to 'go forth' (<em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>).</p><p><em>And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek</em>-</p><p> Remember that this follows hard on the decision made in chapter 15 not to demand circumcision. But an agreed position can still not be followed because of the higher principles of not causing others to stumble. There are several examples in the NT of where Paul could have taken a certain course of action, or insisted on acceptance of a certain doctrinal position, knowing that Truth was on his side. But he didn't. Thus the council of Jerusalem established that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised, but straight afterwards Paul circumcised Timothy in Lystra out of consideration to the feelings of the Jewish believers (<em><a href='B:510 16:1-3'>Act 16:1-3</a></em>). He could have stood on his rights, and on the clear spiritual principles involved. But he stepped down to the lower level of other believers (e.g. by keeping some of the redundant Jewish feasts), he made himself all things to all men that he might try to save some, and by so doing stepped up to the higher level in his own spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which had been determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> Presumably just the four forbidden things related to idol worship. Or were there more?</p>


text:
<p><em>So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily</em>-</p><p> Implying baptisms were being done daily, immediately a candidate was ready (not left to the weekend for convenience!). The same reference to daily increase is to be found earlier in Acts. The increase in number was related to the [temporary] resolution of the tensions within the community over the question of the Gentiles. Schism between believers is the greatest disadvertisment for the Gospel, and contrariwise, as the Lord laboured in His prayer of John 17, our unity should be enough to convert the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia- </em>Paul writes to the Corinthians of how he had been given areas in which it was potentially possible for him to preach in (<em><a href='B:540 10:13'>2Co 10:13</a></em>), and he didn’t enter into those areas which had either already been preached in, or which were another brother’s responsibility. This seems to suggest that God does indeed look down from Heaven and as it were divide up the world amongst those who could preach in it. This is why Paul perceived that he had been ‘forbidden’ from preaching in some areas [e.g. Macedonia] and yet a door was opened to him in Achaia. Likewise he felt he had been forbidden [s:w:] to preach to Rome until the time of <em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em>. This language is allusive to the way in which the Lord forbad Israel to conquer certain areas on their way to the promised land (<em><a href='B:50 2:37'>Deu 2:37</a></em>). The point is, between us, our preaching is a war of conquest for Jesus, pulling down strong holds and fortresses as Paul put it; or, as Jesus expressed it, taking the Kingdom by force, as stormtroopers. How the Spirit achieved this 'forbidding' isn't clear, although the same word is used in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> about how Jewish opposition 'forbad' Paul preaching to Gentiles. But even this, for which the Jews were culpable, was used by the Spirit in the bigger picture of God's purpose.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they came to the border of Mysia, they attempted</em> <em>to go into Bithynia- </em>The Greek really means to put to the test. Having been forbidden or hindered from preaching in Asia, they realized they were being led to some areas but not others. And so when they thought of preaching in Bithynia, they set up various tests to see if their way was to be made prosperous there or not. The spirit of Jesus, perhaps their own spiritual mindedness, didn't permit them to go there. Perhaps they learnt the lesson and therefore likewise purposefully didn't preach in Mysia (see on :8).</p><p><em>But the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them</em>-</p><p> Living according to the spirit / mind / example of Jesus will mean that we naturally find the answers to some of the practical dilemmas which may arise in our lives. Could it not be that the spirit of Jesus, a life lived after His pattern, compelled them to (let’s imagine) go to visit a sick child and this meant they missed the transport leaving for Bithynia? </p>


text:
<p><em>So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas</em>-</p><p> They could not have avoided it, seeing it was impossible to get to Troas without passing through Mysia. Presumably the idea is that they did not preach there. Perhaps the Spirit forbad them, as in Bithynia (see on <em><a href='B:510 16:7'>Act 16:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. There was a man of Macedonia standing</em>-</p><p> Having been led away from two areas and realizing they should learn the lesson and leave a third one alone (see on :8), they were now directed to where the Lord wished them to work. He could have sent them there immediately, but He wanted them to work out and reflect upon His will and processes (see on :7 <em>attempted</em>); and once they had got through that, He gave them clear direction. This would explain the immediacy of their response once they finally received clear direction (:10). The same sort of thing happens in our lives if we allow ourselves to be led by Him and be in relationship with Him.</p><p><em>Urging him</em> <em>and saying: Come into Macedonia and help us!</em>-</p><p> <em>Parakleo</em> is literally 'to call near', AV 'praying him'. The man was standing- the position of begging and pleading in intercession (as the Lord Jesus for Stephen). "Help" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:650 2:18'>Heb 2:18</a></em> for the help provided by the Lord Jesus in prayer as our intercessor. The language is of prayer- and it's as if Paul and Timothy are in God's place being prayed to and begged by the Lord Jesus. In a sense, we manifest God in our preaching; we are Him to this world. And the need is the call; we too encounter such calls, if we are sensitive to them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had seen the vision, immediately- </em>Paul and the apostles were urgent in their preaching. When Paul received the go ahead to preach in Macedonia, he “immediately endeavoured” to go there, even not waiting for Titus to join him, such was his urgency (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12-13'>2Co 2:12-13</a></em>). And the response of people to these urgent preachers was therefore quick too. Men who began doubting and cynical were pricked in their heart, they realized their need, and were baptized within hours (<em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>).</p><p><em>We sought to go into Macedonia</em>-</p><p> This could mean that Luke was now present with Paul; or it could be that he is including here the inspired diary of another companion of Paul.</p><p><em>Concluding that- </em>The idea is of proving, putting together (s:w. <em><a href='B:510 9:22'>Act 9:22</a></em>). By assessment of evidence and testing situations and hypotheses, Paul drew a conclusion. And we are likewise required to interpret God's actions in our lives, rather than expecting a bolt of revelation or specific calling. Although at times Paul did have this kind of thing, in his preaching work he was clearly left to join the dots himself in many ways. See on :7 <em>attempted</em> and :9 <em>A vision</em>. </p><p><em>God had called us to preach the gospel to them</em>-</p><p> Paul 'assuredly gathered' that "the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them" (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em> AV). The Lord calling is usually used concerning His calling of men to understand and obey the Gospel. Perhaps Paul is saying that the reason why we are called is to preach, and in this context he realised that the people <em>he</em> was to preach to, were the Macedonians. He later reminisced: "As we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak (i:e. preach)" (<em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>If we don't shine forth the light, both in the world and in the household, we are not fulfilling the purpose for which we were called. Perhaps this is the meaning of <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>, where Luke says that they preached in Macedonia because they perceived that "the Lord had called us <em>for</em> (in order that) to preach the gospel (in this case) unto (the Macedonians)". Whether such an interpretation appeals or not, there are many passages which teach that our salvation will be related to the extent to which we have held forth the word&nbsp;both to the world and to the household (<em><a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 24:11-12'>Pro 24:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>&nbsp; Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em>Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a straight course to Samothrace and the day following to Neapolis</em>-</p><p> A nautical term for sailing before the wind. But wind is the same Hebrew idea as 'spirit'. They were as it were led directly by the Spirit on their journey, confirming the process of 'concluding' we discussed on :10. Recall too how they had been forbidden to preach in two or three places before this; now, everything is going so directly and clearly under the Lord's direction by the Spirit. The allusion may be to the way the cherubim of Ezekiel's vision moved in a straight manner. And the account of Saul's conversion is replete with reference to the commissioning of Ezekiel. The Spirit, working through Angels, cherubim and all manner of means, confirmed Paul in the direction he had worked out as being necessary to take.</p>


text:
<p><em>And from there to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony; and we stayed in this city for some days</em>-</p><p> The teaching, conversion and baptism of the Philippians took only "some days"; the jailer would have at best only had a brief exposure to Paul's message before meeting him in prison. Likewise Paul was only in Thessalonica "two Sabbath days" and in that time he had to work night and day to support himself and his team. The impression is that the pre-baptismal teaching was brief. Colonies were "another Rome transferred to the soil of another country" (Vine). This explains some of the language in the letter to the Philippians, emphasizing that our citizenship is a heavenly one (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em>), when Philippi had been established as a "colony" for Roman citizens. </p>


text:
<p><em>And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate by a river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women that had gathered- </em>When Paul is described as going “forth without the gate” to preach in Philippi (RV), this is the very language of <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em> about the Lord going forth without the gate, carrying the cross, and bidding us follow Him. For Paul, to preach was to carry the cross of Christ, and so it must be for us. A river was an attractive place for Jews to worship because of their need to perform ritual washing. Paul's message of baptism was therefore particularly appropriate.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God</em>-</p><p> Or, a Lydian. Perhaps she was a Jewess from Lydia, or a Gentile from Lydia who had become attracted to Judaism. Archaeological remains indicate a guild of dyers and purple traders there. She would have been accustomed to the use of <em>baptizo</em> in her work.</p><p><em>Heard us</em>-</p><p> The imperfect, 'was hearing', could suggest she overheard the preaching rather than sat attentively purposefully listening to it. Otherwise we would expect the Greek word for 'listening' to be used here; but it isn't.</p><p><em>Whose heart the Lord opened to give heed to the things which were spoken by Paul</em>-</p><p> This is clear enough evidence that the Lord works directly on the human heart / perception, quite above the power of His written word itself. Her 'giving heed' to the Gospel was because the Lord had opened her heart. It's not as if the Lord faces off against man over an open Bible, leaving us the choice of responding to what we read / hear or not. He goes further than that, reaching across the table, and compelling some to have open hearts to His word. Luke has spoken earlier of how the Lord opened the hearts of the disciples / apostles to understand the word of God (<em><a href='B:490 24:31-32'>Luk 24:31-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:45'>Luk 24:45</a></em>). That again is evidence enough that God's word is not simply self-explanatory; the eunuch rightly observed that he couldn't understand it unless a man guided him, and the Spirit operated by sending Philip to do this; the disciples had their hearts opened by the Lord to understand the Scriptures, and Lydia's heart was opened to give heed to the Gospel. This 'extra' factor is reflective of God's grace; without it, salvation would simply be for those intellectually astute enough to correctly interpret the theology of the Bible. But the presence of that 'extra' factor (in the Lord opening hearts to the Gospel) is the mechanism by which He calls. And as Romans demonstrates, the fact He calls one but not another is a parade example of His grace, and how salvation is by grace and now by theological prowess.</p><p>The same word for “to give heed” is in 8:6 about how people gave heed to the Gospel which Philip preached. Presumably it would be fair enough to conclude that the Lord likewise assisted their hearts to this end.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when she was baptized- </em>The conversion of Lidia is spoken of in a sub clause: “And when she was baptized…”. There is no statement that she believed what Paul had spoken; merely that she listened with interest and was baptized. The implication is that belief and baptism are part and parcel of the same thing. There is certainly the impression that the period of Lidia’s teaching was quick. To argue that she may have been instructed for several days is an argument from silence. The impression given by all the accounts of baptism is that it was the initial response made by people once they believed a basic outline of the Gospel. </p><p><em>And her household- </em>The way of the world was that the whole household converted to the religion of the head of the house. And yet the call of Christ was to individuals. Therefore when we read of whole households converting (<em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:31-34'>Act 16:31-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em> <em><a href='B:520 16:10'>Rom 16:10</a></em>) we must assume that they had resisted the temptation to mass convert, and that Masters had the humility to <em>not</em> demand of their slaves and family members that they just blindly follow them. This request would have been axiomatic to their preaching of the Gospel; and yet it would have been a radical departure from how family heads around them behaved.</p><p><em>She urged us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay. So she persuaded us</em>-</p><p> Entering houses and eating together was seen as having a religious dimension to it, as Peter mentioned when accepting Cornelius' invitation. There were present at least Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke, as this is a 'we' passage. For a woman to invite a group of previously unknown men into her house was scandalous and would have begged all kinds of gossip. But the culture in Christ was and is at radical variance with that of the surrounding world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as we were going to the place of prayer, that a certain slave girl met us</em></p><p>- see on 16:15. We can imagine the gossip this provoked as Lydia, her family and the foreign men walked to the river. Note that after baptism, she continued to attend the religious meeting place she had attended previously. The Lord spoke of how the time would come when His followers would be cast out of the synagogues, but following Him did not immediately require ceasing attendance at synagogue, despite the terribly wrong theologies preached there.</p><p><em>Who had a spirit by which she predicted the future and who brought her masters much gain by fortune-telling- </em><em><a href='B:510 16:16-18'>Act 16:16-18</a></em> are the words of Luke, under inspiration: “a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of Python met us” (Gk:). As explained in the footnote in the Diaglott version, Python was the name of a false god believed in during the first century, possibly the same as the god Apollo. It was believed that the ‘spirit’ of Python took over the ‘immortal soul’ of the person being possessed. Seeing that the Bible strongly opposes the idea of an immortal soul, there is no way that a spirit of Python can possess anyone. So Python definitely did not exist, but Luke does not say the girl was ‘possessed with a spirit of Python, who by the way, is a false god who does not really exist…’. In the same way the Gospels do not say that Jesus ‘cast out demons which, by the way, do not really exist, it is just the language of the day for illnesses’. The demons cast out of Legion went “into the abyss” (<em><a href='B:490 8:31'>Luk 8:31</a></em> Gk:); the pagan concept of the abyss is a nonsense, yet if we believe that the record of Legion’s cure teaches the existence of demons, then we must logically believe in ‘the abyss’ too.</p>


text:
<p><em>The same following after Paul and us was crying out, saying: These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation!</em>-</p><p> There was clearly a literal element to this, because Paul turns and addresses the girl (:18). But the language of following Paul is elsewhere used to mean that people accepted his teaching (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>). It may be that we are intended to understand that the accepted the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And this she did for many days. But Paul, being greatly disturbed by it, turned and said to the spirit: I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out that very moment</em>-</p><p> Paul didn’t allow himself to be irritated. The tragedy of mental illness grieved him; the tragedy of the way in which some people have an all too <em>partial</em> knowledge of Gods truth. And his grieving for her didn’t merely result in him preaching the Gospel to her; he did something concrete to help cure her. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they laid hold of Paul and Silas</em>-</p><p> Circumstances repeat within our lives, as they did for Paul. Because exactly the same complaint was made at Ephesus, with the same persecution; and the same Greek words are used to describe it (19:24,25). Paul was intended to learn from the events at Philippi so he could cope with those at Ephesus.</p><p><em>And dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers</em>-</p><p> Paul was likewise 'dragged' in Jerusalem (21:30). Yet he had himself 'dragged' Christians out of their house churches, along the streets and into prison (8:3). He would have been enabled to feel for those he had thus treated. We too are brought to realize how others felt as a result of our actions, not so much as a punishment for us, but in order to lead us closer to the spirit of Christ and to His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said: These men, being Jews, are disturbing our city</em>-</p><p> This disrespect was rooted in the fact that these Jews had probably only recently arrived, as a result of Jews being cast out of Rome (<em><a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And advocate customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans</em>-</p><p> In both Thessalonica and Philippi, strong opposition arose to the preaching of the Gospel because it was held that it was preaching another King, Jesus, in opposition to Caesar, and that the obligations of this new religion were at variance with the Imperial Cult (<em><a href='B:510 16:21'>Act 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:7'>Act 17:7</a></em>). In a sense, these allegations were true:&nbsp; Christianity taught that the convert became a member of a new, spiritual Israel. It was irrelevant whether he or she was a Jew, Roman or Gentile. And the convert had to act inclusively rather than exclusively towards other converts. It must have been hard for a Roman citizen to willingly become as it were a ‘citizen’ of ‘spiritual Israel’, a ‘member’ of the despised and captive Jewish race. To not participate in the cult of emperor worship was serious indeed; Roman citizenship could be lost over this matter. Pliny wrote that Christians were therefore “unable by temperament or unwilling by conviction to participate in the common activities of a group or community”. They were seen as any true living Christian is: a bit weird, unsociable, aloof from worldly pleasure, and thereby a silent critic of those who indulge. “The Christian would not attend gladiatorial shows or games or plays. He would not read pagan literature. He would not enlist as a soldier, for then he would come under orders that might conflict with his standards and with his loyalty to Jesus Christ. He would not be a painter or sculptor, for that would be to acquiesce to idolatry. Nor would he be a schoolmaster, for then he would inevitably have to tell the immoral stories of the pagan gods. The Christian had better steer clear of business contracts, because they required the taking of oaths, which the Christian abjured. They had better keep out of administrative office because of the idolatry involved… and so on”. The Romans considered anyone outside the Roman world or who rejected Roman manners and laws as being a barbarian; and yet the Gospel appealed to Roman citizens to reject these very manners and laws. Thus Ramsay comments: “To the Romans <em>genus humanum</em> meant not the human race in general but the Roman world, men who lived according to Roman manners and laws; the rest were enemies and barbarians. The Christians, then, were enemies to civilised man, and to the customs and laws which regulated civilised society… they introduced divisions into families and set children against their parents”. &nbsp;</p><p>Jews were allowed to make proselytes of other nations, but not Roman citizens, who were not to be religiously preached to by any other group within the empire. Therefore the command to take the Gospel to literally all men, including Roman citizens, was hard to obey. This explains the double complaint that the Roman citizens were being asked to both receive <em>and</em> obey the message of Christ. Receiving them, being preached to, was also a matter of offence, as well as the content of the message.</p><p><em>For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me</em>-</p><p> The "cause" was that they had been called upon to repent, and their refusal to do so was leading them to try to kill Paul. This is how conscience works. We seek to eliminate the persons or issues causing our guilt, and which summon us to repentance. The opposition to Christian preaching is exactly because it is [or should be] a call to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the crowd rose up together against them; and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten</em>-</p><p> The obvious question is why Paul didn't reveal his Roman citizenship at this stage in order to avoid the flogging. He does reveal if afterwards, but seeing flogging could be fatal, there must have been a major reason why Paul went through with it when he didn't need to. One can only speculate: he wanted to show solidarity with Silas; he wanted to put the authorities in a position where they were in his debt and would allow the fledgling ecclesia to meet unhindered; he was simply stubborn and angry and wished to embarrass his enemies. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had laid many stripes upon them- </em>This doesn't mean that they personally flogged them. They 'laid' in the sense of laying a penalty upon them. The actual flogging was likely done by the jailor; hence his desire to wash their damaged bodies after his conversion, and his deep sense of fear before them afterwards. When we read that the jailor "having received this order" (:24) put them into the inner prison, the "order" was the sentence of flogging which he was ordered to inflict, and he may well have carried it out in the inner prison.</p><p><em>They threw them into prison- </em>Exactly what Paul had done to Christians, after flogging them (26:10). </p><p><em>Ordering the jailor to guard them carefully</em>-</p><p> Especially securely. There seemed to be a fear that Paul would seek to escape; hence having received such a charge, the jailor put them in the inner prison, the most secure zone, probably underground with no access to the outside. Or it could be that the magistrates wanted these men to die in custody, and 'guard them extra carefully' could have been a nod to abuse them. See on :24 <em>Shackles</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in shackles</em>-</p><p> The Greek is literally "the wood". This was an instrument of torture having five holes, four for the wrists and ankles and one for the neck. The same word is used for the cross (<em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). Again we see how the experiences of believers in Acts, and Paul especially, were a sharing in the sufferings of their Lord. Just as ours are.</p>


text:
<p><em>But about midnight</em>-</p><p> The stocks were an instrument of torture which would have made sleeping impossible. It could have been that they might have died that night in that dark cave... if the earthquake had not happened.</p><p><em>Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God</em>-</p><p> Literally, they were praying in singing hymns. Let's not forget that hymns are prayers being sung. The musical issues surrounding them can so easily distract from this realization.</p><p><em>And the prisoners were listening to them</em>-</p><p> The fact no prisoners ran away (:28) may mean that they were converted by that evening of witness. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p><em>And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all</em> <em>the doors were opened and everyone's bonds were unfastened</em>-</p><p> The work of the Lord Jesus is described in exactly these terms, of opening the prisons and releasing those who are bound (<em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:9'>Isa 49:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em>). The fact all the prisoners had their bonds unfastened would maybe suggest they were all converted, at least potentially they were given freedom in Christ; see on :25 <em>The prisoners</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing the prison doors open</em>-</p><p> More language appropriate to the saving work of Jesus in opening the prison doors.</p><p><em>Drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped</em>-</p><p> If prisoners escaped during an earthquake, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the jailor would therefore be executed for negligence of duty. He had a fair chance of survival. We are therefore left with the impression that this man was perhaps very proud, or committed to his job to the point that he was his career and his career was him, with his family meaning little to him; or perhaps just overly emotional; or maybe new to the job and reacting poorly in a crisis. We meet all these types of people in life, and tend to assume they would not be good candidates for the Gospel. But this man was.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying: Do not harm yourself! For we are all here!</em>-</p><p> Every other usage of the phrase 'to do harm' is always in a moral sense, of sinning (<em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:10'>2Co 5:10</a></em>). We can therefore in this case conclude that suicide would have been a sin; although God's forgiveness of that sin is another issue.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas</em>-</p><p> Fear of his fate before God for having tortured His servants, and having all the same been shown such grace in that his prisoners hadn't run away. </p>


text:
<p><em>And brought them out and said:</em> <em>Sirs, what must I do to be saved?</em>-</p><p> He doesn't ask for baptism, suggesting he was unaware of the need for it. This was a highly emotional situation; anyone at the very point of suicide is in a very unstable position. Many today would have told the man to calm down and consider the issue of baptism once things were a bit calmer in his life, urging him not to take such a decision on the cusp of emotion and perceived desperation. Let alone to baptize all his family when he himself was taking the decision under such psychological and circumstantial pressure. But the Biblical example here is quite the opposite to how many would judge today. "What must I do?" is a common phrase recorded by Luke. All encounter with the Lord Jesus and His message provokes this sense, that we can no longer be passive, but must <em>do</em> something in response. "Sirs" translates <em>kurios</em>, and maybe we are to perceive that Paul and Silas were manifesting the Lord Jesus to the jailor.</p><p>There is no record of his apology or desire for forgiveness from them for what he had done to them (see on :23). He rightly perceived that the essence of his sin was against God and he needed to be right before Him, knowing that what he had done required judgment, which he now realized he needed to be 'saved' from.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved- </em>In :34, he believed in God. A theme of Acts is that the work of the Father and Son are paralleled (e.g. 16:31 cp. 34; 15:12; 26:17 cp. 22). They are working <em>together</em> to achieve our final redemption. The concept is wondrous.</p><p><em>You and your household</em>-</p><p> This focus on his family may have been to psychologically assist him to get over his suicidal thoughts.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his household</em>-</p><p> The "household" would have included children, slaves and distant relatives. The man was wealthy. "The word of the Lord" was the message of the Lord Jesus; the kind of material eventually transcribed and published as the Gospels of the Lord Jesus. Paul clearly had in mind that his "household" could respond; for he commands the jailer that if <em>he</em> believed, then he <em>and</em> his household could be saved. This makes us wonder whether this man and his household had been known to Paul previously. Or it could be that Paul perceived that because of the faith of one individual, a whole family could be saved- although they too had to respond to the Gospel. Hence he preached it to them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And at that hour of the night he took them-</em></p><p> The earthquake occurred at “midnight” (<em><a href='B:510 16:25'>Act 16:25</a></em>); Paul and Silas spoke “the word of the Lord” to the jailer, and “that same hour” (<em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em> AV) he washed their stripes and he and his family were baptized. The exact referent of “that same hour” is difficult to determine, but the grammar would seem to imply that within one hour the jailer heard the word of the Lord from Paul and Silas, washed them, and he and his family were baptized. All in the midst of the aftermath of a major earthquake. The record seems to be using “that same hour” to highlight the urgency of baptism [it should be done even in the midst of an earthquake, at night]; and the speed at which it could occur [“that same hour”]. After this, the jailer took Paul and Silas into his home and prepared a celebratory meal; and then day broke, the magistrates sent an urgent message requiring Paul and Silas to be released (<em><a href='B:510 16:34-35'>Act 16:34-35</a></em>). </p><p><em>And washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized</em>-</p><p> The Greek <em>louo</em> specifically refers to complete washing of the body, rather than anointing just some parts of the body, for which the NT uses a different word. Literally, he washed them from their wounds, i:e. the blood and damage from the stripes was over their entire bodies. Their baptizing of him after this is another example in Acts of deep connection and mutuality between the convert and the converter.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he brought them into his house</em>-</p><p> Therefore the teaching of the Gospel to his family in :32,33 was done outside the house; presumably in the ruins of their house and yard. The house they entered would have been severely damaged. </p><p><em>Set food before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his family- </em>Whole households were converted (<em><a href='B:510 10:2'>Act 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>), and the earliest Christian meeting places unearthed were rooms in the homes of rich believers. And with us too, the success of our community depends upon God’s Truth first and foremost being the centre of family life, with the joy of faith permeating it. Household conversions were a major feature of the first century spread of the Gospel (e.g. Lydia- <em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; Crispus- <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; Priscilla and Aquila- <em><a href='B:520 16:3-5'>Rom 16:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; Nymphas- <em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>; Onesiphorus- <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:19'>2Ti 4:19</a></em>; Philemon- <em><a href='B:640 1:2'>Phm 1:2</a></em>; “the elect lady”, <em><a href='B:700 1:10'>2Jn 1:10</a></em>; the home at Troas- <em><a href='B:510 20:6-8'>Act 20:6-8</a></em>). Clearly ‘house’ was used in the first century as a kind of shorthand for ‘house church’. They knew no other pattern of gathering. There was almost an assumption that if a man converted to Christ, his ‘house’ also would. Hence we read that Cornelius would be told words “whereby thou and thy house shalt be saved” (<em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>). The same phrase was repeated to the jailor at Philippi (<em><a href='B:510 16:31'>Act 16:31</a></em>). It’s emphasized four times in three verses that the Gospel was preached to his house, and his whole house responded (<em><a href='B:510 16:31-34'>Act 16:31-34</a></em>). The Lord likewise rejoiced in Zacchaeus’ conversion, that salvation had come to that man’s house (<em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>). He assumed that Zacchaeus would quite naturally persuade his ‘house’.</p><p><em>Having believed in God</em>-</p><p> He was unlikely to have been an atheist [atheism wasn't very common in the 1st century]. But he grasped for the first time the real import of a real and relevant faith in the one true God as a personal being. See on <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>. We probably need to read in an ellipsis here: He believed in God's grace and salvation, which is in His Son Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when it was day, the magistrates sent their officers, saying: Let those men go</em>-</p><p> Word may have got to them from Lydia or other converts, that Paul was a Roman citizen. But note :38 " they feared when they heard that they were Romans". So perhaps news of the strange security of the prisoners and conversion of the jailor had already reached them and they didn't wish to as it were get in trouble with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the jailor reported the words to Paul, saying: The magistrates have sent word to let you go. Therefore come out and go in peace</em>-</p><p> After baptizing the jailor and eating at his home, Paul and Silas had returned to jail. The temptation to flee must have been very great, and in the aftermath of the earthquake they could well have got away. The fact they returned to the jail indicates Paul had another agenda here, and he doggedly stuck to it. His subsequent usage of the situation would confirm this- he allowed himself to suffer so much in order that the ecclesia there could get off to a good start in terms of being shielded from legal persecution. Our efforts for the newly converted are made in this same spirit.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:25'>Act 22:25</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Paul said to them: They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned men that are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison, and now they want to throw us out secretly? No!</em>-</p><p> Silas also was a Roman citizen, and so we must note too his willing submission to suffering he could otherwise have avoided. We note too the absence of Timothy and Luke, who were apparently also in the area at the time; perhaps Paul allowed them to slip away, fully intending to uses his citizenship to establish a situation in which the new converts would be left alone by the authorities. We may learn from that that needless suffering was avoided in such a case.</p><p><em>Let them come themselves and bring us out</em>-</p><p> This may have been said with a fleck of pride and annoyance; and yet the evidence provided above indicates that this was exactly according to Paul's game plan. He wanted to be flogged so that he could then pull out the card of his Roman citizenship. He almost did the same in <em><a href='B:510 22:29'>Act 22:29</a></em>. And God confirmed him in that plan by bringing about the earthquake that very night, something which Paul in no way could have contrived. Likewise the conversion of the jailor was all a strengthening of that plan- to get the authorities relatively onside with the Christian movement. Or perhaps the jailor had earlier expressed interest in the Gospel and Paul was by all means seeking to witness to him, and again his plans were confirmed by the sending of the earthquake. In these things we learn how God operates with men to this day- we make plans in His service, and He confirms and enables them by sending situations [like the earthquake] which are well beyond any human contrivance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the officers reported these words to the magistrates</em>-</p><p> As the jailor reported words in :36. All this sending of verbal messages by the hand of messengers would mean that in accordance with Paul's intention, the word about the situation was spreading around.</p><p><em>And they feared when they heard that they were Romans</em></p><p>- see on 16:35 <em>Let those men go.</em></p>


text:
<em><p>And they came and pleaded with them, and when they had brought them out, they asked them to go away from the city- </em></p><p>Paul doesn't obey immediately; he goes to Lydia's house. This could be read as his native argumentative, awkward temperament shining through; or additionally, as also part of his game plan to demonstrate that the house church at Lydia's home was to be openly connected with the Christian movement, and now to be left well alone by the authorities, in case they made a formal complaint about the treatment of the men whom they had lodged.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went out of the prison</em>-</p><p> Luke, or the inspired companion, was not in the prison with them and may have bravely remained in Philippi to provide support to the fledgling ecclesia.</p><p><em>And entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the believers- </em>The New Testament speaks of households run by women: Mary (<em><a href='B:510 12:12'>Act 12:12</a></em>), Lydia (<em><a href='B:510 16:14'>Act 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:40'>Act 16:40</a></em>); Nympha (<em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>) and Chloe (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>). These women were presumably wealthy widows or divorcees who hadn't remarried. We are left to speculate whether they were in some way the 'leaders' of the house churches which met in their homes. Women are described as ruling households in <em><a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:4-5'>Tit 2:4-5</a></em>. The woman of Proverbs 31 clearly had autonomy within the private sphere of the household, even though the husband was the public leader. Seeing Christianity was initially a house-church, household religion, we are left to wonder how much women actually led house churches, especially seeing that the majority of early Christian members appear to have been women. The wall paintings [frescoes] found in the Christian catacombs around Rome are highly significant for our present study. The significant ones for our purposes are the catacombs of Priscilla on the Salaria Nuova, Callixtus on the via Appia Antica, and that of Domitilla on the via Ardeatine. They feature in places scenes of female Christians raising cups, with the inscription&nbsp;agape&nbsp;over them. Some show a woman occupying the central place in the meal, with a large cup in her hand, with the other women looking at it intently. Some of the frescoes [there are many of them] show women dressed as slaves doing this in what appears to be a wealthy home. These frescoes seem to me indicative of how groups of slave women formed house churches, and faithfully kept the breaking of bread. Some frescoes show the women sharing the bread and wine with children around the table; one shows a woman holding a scroll, as if she is reading Scripture to the others. One fresco features a woman holding a cup of wine inscribed <em>nobis</em>-</p><p> 'for us':&nbsp;Some frescoes show men in the group, but the woman in the centre, as if she is leading the meeting, or as the host of the household.</p><p><em>They comforted them and departed- </em>We naturally think that it was Paul and Silas who were in need of comfort, with their lacerated backs and aching muscles after hours in the "stocks". But here we see Paul's spiritual greatness; <em>he</em> comforted <em>them</em>, probably not least over the material losses they had suffered as a result of the earthquake.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica</em>-</p><p> Having been seriously abused in Philippi, Paul continued. He recognizes this when later writing to the Thessalonians, commenting that despite the shame suffered there, he continued boldly preaching, and thus arose the ecclesia at Thessalonica (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>). Keeping on keeping on is a hallmark of not only the true preacher but of all spiritual endeavour.</p><p>Apollonia was in Illyricum, and Paul later comments that he preached there (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>), so we can assume he didn't merely pass through but witnessed to the Gospel there too. </p><p><em>Where there was a synagogue of the Jews</em>-</p><p> Gk. <em>the</em> synagogue. It has been claimed that there was no other synagogue in Macedonia, although there may have been smaller Jewish prayer houses or meeting places (as in <em><a href='B:510 16:13'>Act 16:13</a></em>). It has also been conjectured that there were no Jewish communities in Amphipolis and Apollonia. The impression is therefore given of Paul focusing upon preaching to the Jews, making a specific focus upon the largest concentration of Jews in Macedonia. Amphipolis was the capital of Macedonia, and Paul had been beckoned to preach in Macedonia; the city was the most strategic in Greece and would've been the logical place to concentrate upon in order to fulfil a mission to Gentile Macedonia. But he is presented as passing through this capital city, where the largest concentration of population was, and homing in on Thessalonica. See on <em><a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a></em> <em>As his custom was.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul, as his custom was</em>-</p><p> Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles, and yet he repeatedly focused upon the Jews. Many of his sufferings were as a result of this; if he had served as the Lord intended, many of these issues would likely have been avoided. But the Lord still worked with Paul; and that is a lesson for us. I have noted elsewhere that the travel details provided by Luke are not incidental; the wind / spirit was so often against Paul as he travelled to Jerusalem, and so often with him when he travelled towards the Gentiles. </p><p><em>Went in to them</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same word in telling the Thessalonians that the testimony of other converts showed "what manner of entering in we had unto you" (<em><a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:1'>1Th 2:1</a></em> AV). Clearly the 'going in' to the Thessalonian synagogue has more than some literal descriptive reference to Paul passing in through the doors of the building. The word is used several times in Acts of Paul's 'entering in' to various homes, towns and synagogues. The Lord Himself 'entered in' to synagogues and taught (emphasized by Luke in his first volume, e.g. <em><a href='B:490 6:6'>Luk 6:6</a></em>). Thus Paul was manifesting the person of the Lord Jesus in his preaching, just as we likewise are Him to this world; for the Lord Jesus 'enters in' to His people (<em><a href='B:500 10:1-2'>Joh 10:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em> s:w:). Our entering in to people and communities with the Gospel is a reflection of God's outgoing entering in to our lives in Christ. This is why there must be a sense of proactive, outgoing entering in to others in our witness, rather than a passive 'witness by example' alone. </p><p><em>For three Sabbath days and reasoned with them from the Scriptures- </em>The simplicity of what Paul preached can be seen from reflecting how he was only three weekends in Thessalonica (<em><a href='B:510 17:1-9'>Act 17:1-9</a></em>), but in that time he converted and baptized pagans and turned them into an ecclesia. Given the long hours worked by people, his number of contact hours with the people would've been quite small. He then had to write to them in 1 Thessalonians, addressing basic questions which they had subsequently asked, such as 'What will happen to dead believers when Christ returns?', 'When will Christ return?'. The level of their instruction before baptism must have been <em>very</em> basic. It is rare today to see such focus upon the urgency of baptism. Yet I submit that if we have the spirit of the early church, we will be pushing baptism up front to all we meet. And this was one of the first century keys to success.</p><p>So Paul stayed a few weeks or months in cities like Lystra and Thessalonica, returning, in the case of Lystra, after 18 months, and then again a few years later. Here in <em><a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a></em>, he spent three consecutive Sabbaths in Thessalonica, baptized the converts, and then didn’t come back to see them for about five and a half years (<em><a href='B:510 20:1-2'>Act 20:1-2</a></em>). How were they kept strong? By the good shepherd, by the grace of God, by the Father and Son working with Paul. He seems to have drilled them with the basics of the Gospel and the life they needed to live, ordained immature elders who were literate and able to teach the word, and then left them what he repeatedly calls “the tradition”, a document or set of teachings relating to practical life in Christ (<em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:5'>2Th 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:6'>2Th 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:2'>2Ti 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:14'>2Ti 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:9'>Tit 1:9</a></em>). It was perhaps the simplicity and brevity of the message that was its strength in the lives of the early converts. Their lives were based directly upon reflection upon the implications of the basic elements of the Gospel. It is today amazing how simple men and women remember and reflect upon the things taught them even verbally, and show an impressive appreciation of them when they are visited again after some months or years. Interestingly, Corinth had the most evident problems and immaturity, even though Paul spent 18 months there, whereas ecclesias like Philippi which he established far quicker seem to have been far sounder. It therefore follows that length of pastoral work is not necessarily related to spiritual strength</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em>.</p><p><em>Explaining and proving that it was necessary that the Christ suffer and rise from the dead</em>-</p><p> The idea of a suffering, murdered Messiah is hard for Jews to accept to this day. Paul sought to persuade them from the Old Testament that this was indeed a requirement for the true Messiah. Once that is established, it becomes easier to connect Jesus of Nazareth with the Biblical picture of Messiah. Jesus thus becomes the Christ.</p><p><em>Saying, This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ</em>-</p><p> Paul could describe his own preaching as “this Jesus, whom I proclaim to you…”, as if Jesus was right there before their eyes, witnessed through Paul. As the Lord was Paul’s representative, so Paul was Christ’s. The idea of representation works both ways: we see in the Gospel records how the Lord experienced some things which only we have; and we show aspects of His character to the world which nobody else can manifest. Likewise Paul could tell the Galatians that in him they had seen Jesus Christ placarded forth, crucified before their own eyes (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>). Paul knew that when people looked at his life, they saw something of the crucifixion of the Lord. The Galatians therefore accepted him "even as Christ Jesus" (<em><a href='B:550 4:14'>Gal 4:14</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas, as did many of the devout Greeks- </em>First of all there must be an intellectual understanding if there is to be conversion. Men were “persuaded”, not just emotionally bullied (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:4'>Act 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23-24'>Act 28:23-24</a></em>). The intellectual basis of appeal is made clear in the way we read of accepting ‘truth’ as well as accepting the person of Jesus. Thus converts believe the truth (<em><a href='B:600 2:10-13'>2Th 2:10-13</a></em>), acknowledge truth (<em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:1'>Tit 1:1</a></em>), obey truth (<em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:22'>1Pe 1:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 5:7'>Gal 5:7</a></em>), and ‘come to know the truth’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:3'>1Ti 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:21'>1Jn 2:21</a></em>). Preaching itself is ‘the open statement of the truth’ (<em><a href='B:540 4:2'>2Co 4:2</a></em>). And so it is perfectly in order to seek to intellectually persuade our contacts.</p><p><em>And not a few of the chief women- </em>Paul had to later remind the Thessalonians that he isn't preaching because he wants to take money and have relationships with women (<em><a href='B:590 2:3-12'>1Th 2:3-12</a></em>). There were some wealthy women in Thessalonica who accepted the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em> Western Text), and no doubt gossip spread from this. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, taking along some wicked men from the market place and having assembled a mob, set the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people</em>-</p><p> Jealousy was the leading reason for the Jewish crucifixion of the Lord, and also of their persecution of Paul. The surrounding of a house by an inflamed mob and wanting to "bring them out to the people" recalls the situation of the Angels in Lot's house in Sodom. Isaiah described the Jerusalem cult as Sodom, as does <em><a href='B:730 11:8'>Rev 11:8</a></em>. The Jews were acting in a similar way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brothers before the rulers of the city, crying: These that have turned the world upside down have come here also</em>-</p><p> This is a tacit recognition of the extent and power of Paul's ministry; he and his team had "turned the world upside down". They had hardly done so the Roman world, but they had indeed done so to the Jewish world. And in that observation we have a basic insight into human psychology; we tend to assume that 'our' world is the entire world. Time and again, the Roman authorities responded to the Jewish accusations that they could see no wrong in Paul. But for these bitter minded opponents, their immediate world was the whole world. The "rulers of the city" are called the <em>politarchs</em>; exactly the correct word, in comparison to the word used for the governors of Philippi which was a colony, whereas Thessalonica was a "free city". </p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 16:21'>Act 16:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>Jason has received them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus</em>-</p><p> Paul in the face of every discouragement could preach that “there <em>is</em> another king, Jesus". This was the core of his message; not so much that there <em>will be</em> a coming King in Jerusalem, but that there <em>is</em> right now a King at God’s right hand, who demands our total allegiance. The Acts record associates the height of Jesus with a call to repentance too. This is the message of <em><a href='B:290 55:6-9'>Isa 55:6-9</a></em> - <em>because</em> God's thoughts are so far higher than ours, <em>therefore</em> call upon the Lord whilst He is near, and let the wicked forsake his way. Because the Father and Son who are so high above us morally and physically are willing to deal with us, <em>therefore</em> we ought to seize upon their grace and repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they agitated the crowd and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things</em>-</p><p> The rulers were agitated when they heard that this was a question of the destabilization of the Roman empire; Pilate was likewise agitated by the crowd in handing the Lord over to death. Time and again, Luke is emphasizing that the sufferings of the Lord are replicated in spirit in all who are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go</em>-</p><p> Jason and the others had to pay a bond, guaranteeing their keeping of the peace. This is another indication that not all the early Christians were dirt poor. We recall how Felix often summoned Paull, hoping to get a bribe out of him (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>). Jason had presumably also bound himself in his bond to not accommodate Paul and to get him to leave the city- hence the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away (:10).</p>


text:
<p><em>And the brothers immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to Berea; who when they arrived there, went into the synagogue of the Jews</em>-</p><p> The immediate sending away may have been a condition of the bail paid in :9. There were several times when brethren sent Paul away from danger- as if he himself would have remained. The way situations repeat in our lives is all evidence that the Lord's hand is at work with us, and nothing is random event in our experiences. We note that Paul immediately enters the synagogue and preaches, when many would have been suffering post-traumatic stress and would have felt unable to face Jews in a synagogue let alone preach to them. But Paul's love was greater than that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so</em>-</p><p> The "examining" probably speaks of daily visits to the synagogue where the Old Testament scrolls were kept, asking to examine them. Paul would have been preaching from the Old Testament, quoting from memory. And they would have wanted to check out his quotations and their context in the actual scrolls. It was "therefore" that they believed (:12), for faith comes by hearing the word of God. It was their attitude to God's word which meant that they received the word with such <em>prothumia</em>, "predisposition", to believe. Paul's message of Jesus as Christ meshed perfectly with the scriptures which they so respected. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, many of them believed, including Greek women of high standing and many Greek men</em>-</p><p> Lydia in Philippi was a wealthy woman, trading in luxury garments (“purple”), and a female head of household. The attraction of the Gospel for wealthy women has been often commented upon in the historical literature. We are left to imagine wealthy sisters marrying poorer brethren, or remaining single, with all the scandal attached to it in the first century world, pining for children, comforted only by each other and the surpassing knowledge of Jesus their Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>It is worth noting that the NT does reflect the fact that a number of wealthy individuals came to the Truth too; and that these were bound together in fellowship with the poor. There were wealthy women amongst the earliest followers of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>); and James and John came from a family who owned their own fishing boat and could employ servants (<em><a href='B:480 1:19-20'>Mar 1:19-20</a></em>). Zacchaeus was wealthy- and note that he wasn't commanded to divest himself&nbsp;of all that wealth (<em><a href='B:490 19:1-10'>Luk 19:1-10</a></em>). Consider the Philippi ecclesia- the wealthy lady from Lydia, the homeless slave girl, the middle class, respectable jailer, and the slaves of his and Lydia’s household. There was nowhere else in the ancient world that all these classes could come together in such unity. Paul himself was not poor- “to be a citizen of Tarsus one had to pass the means test of owning property worth at least 500 drachmae”. He was thought wealthy enough to be able to give a bribe (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>). He assured Philemon that he personally would meet any debts arising from the situation with Onesimus. Consider the other wealthy converts: the Proconsul of Cyprus (<em><a href='B:510 13:12'>Act 13:12</a></em>), Lydia, Jason who was wealthy enough to put down security for Paul, assisted by prominent women (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:9'>Act 17:9</a></em>), Greek women of high standing at Berea (<em><a href='B:510 17:12'>Act 17:12</a></em>), Dionysius and Damaris in Athens (<em><a href='B:510 17:16-34'>Act 17:16-34</a></em>), Crispus the ruler of the Corinth synagogue (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>), Erastus the city treasurer (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). Marta Sordi quotes evidence for there being Christians amongst the Roman aristocracy even during the first half of the first century. These few wealthy converts would have bonded together with the mass of poor and slaves who had also come to Christ. It was a unique unity.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there, likewise stirring up and inciting the crowds</em>-</p><p> This is another indication of the organized Jewish opposition to Paul's mission. Paul's proclamation was of the Messiah according to the Old Testament scriptures- for the Bereans compared his message against the Old Testament scrolls (see on :11). If he had been teaching some Eastern philosophy, they wouldn't have bothered. But it was his supposed subversion of their sacred documents which was so infuriating to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there</em>-</p><p> This is exactly what happened in :10. This desire to send Paul away was not for his personal safety as much as for their own safety. And so there was only a very short period of contact time with Paul; and again, belief and the baptism which goes with New Testament belief all occurred after a very brief encounter with the message. Paul it seems would have stayed longer, so eager was he to proclaim the Gospel further and strengthen the converts. If he had done so, their faith may have become stronger; for we read nothing further of any ecclesia in Berea. Silas and Timothy therefore risked their lives by remaining, so important did they perceive the work of strengthening converts to be. And we also should give and risk all for the sake of strengthening such babes in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they that escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving instructions for Silas and Timothy (that they should came to him with all speed), they departed</em>-</p><p> The escort was not only for Paul's safety, but perhaps to ensure that he really did leave Berea. "Escorted" is literally 'to bring to the spot'. We sense here the fear of the new converts. It seems that Paul only gave instruction for Silas and Timothy to join him after he had arrived in Athens. We could read this :15 as a summary of events, and then :16 explains why this situation came about. Paul was immediately struck by the idolatry, made a witness, which had some response- and he needed help. He was a man alone in Athens. And so he asked for Silas and Timothy to immediately come to him:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw the city full of idols</em>-</p><p> God can work directly within the mind of men, psychologically provoking them. He stirred up the spirit of Cyrus and the Jewish leadership to enable the restoration, and there are many other Old Testament examples (<em><a href='B:130 5:26'>1Ch 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 51:11'>Jer 51:11</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a></em>). Some of these involve the&nbsp;provoking of the spirit of total unbelievers. How much more will God provoke the spirit of those who are open to His leading. Paul's own spirit was provoked by all the idol worship, for he had a heart that bled for human salvation. And God's Spirit works with our spirit, time and again.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he reasoned in the synagogue with Jews and the religious persons, and in the marketplace every day with those that met him</em>-</p><p> Paul says himself that he was not an eloquent speaker; and the Corinthians were acutely aware of this. And yet it was through his public speaking that many were converted in places like Athens. The lesson is clear- God uses us in our weaker points in order to witness powerfully for Him. Uneducated Peter was used as the vehicle with which to reach the intelligentsia of Jerusalem- and you and I likewise in and through our very points of weakness are likewise used to reach people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also encountered him. And some said: What will this babbler say? Others: He seems to be a preacher of strange gods! Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection</em>-</p><p> “A preacher” is Gk. 'a setter forth'. It is clear that we are to seek to relate to our audience in a way they can relate to. Using their terms, shewing our common binds with them. Paul did this when he was faced with the rather mocking comment that he was a “setter forth” of a strange God. He replied that he ‘set forth’ to them the One whom they ignorantly worshipped (<em><a href='B:510 17:18'>Act 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:23'>Act 17:23</a></em> RV). He seized upon something they all knew- the altar to the unknown God- and made his point to them from that. And he picked up the noun they used for him and turned it back to them as a verb.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they took hold of him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by you?</em>-</p><p> There were many passing preachers who turned up in Athens and tried to get a hearing. But the audience physically dragged Paul off to the Areopagus to ensure he had the widest audience for his message. There was therefore something in his message, probably reflected in him as a person too, which was unique and powerfully compelling. Our message too must be fearlessly presented as the unique thing it is, rather than ever seeking to soften the edges so that it appears more acceptable to secular hearers. It is the baldness of the message which attracts, rather than any sophisticated packaging. </p>


text:
<p><em>For you bring certain strange things to our ears. Therefore, we would like to know what these things mean</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, there was about every possible philosophy and religion being pedalled in Athens. But there was something startlingly new and "strange" in Paul's message about the crucified, resurrected Jesus who now demands our total commitment, far beyond the realms of religious curiosity or hobby level theology. There is no hint that Paul used miracles to grab attention here; it was the power and nature of the Gospel message which struck such a deep chord with the hearts of the hearers.</p>


text:
<p><em>(Now all the Athenians and the strangers living there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing)</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19 and :20, there was something radically gripping in the message of this Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and resurrected. The hearers were used to a diet of new things, they were not conservatives, they were wide open minded. Therefore the fact they were so gripped by this new message is all the more a testament to its power.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said: You men of Athens, I perceive you are very religious in all things</em>-</p><p> Although as mentioned on :19-21, Paul's message was a stark presentation of the Gospel in Christ, he still tried to bridge build with his audience. He appealed to their sense of being religious. He commends them for what they themselves were proud of- their religious interest. But his message then sought to take them on from that common starting point, in explaining that the dead and now living Lord Jesus required a following far beyond such religious curiosity. </p>


text:
<p><em>For as I walked along, I observed the objects of your worship; and I found an altar with this inscription: To the unknown god. Whom you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you</em>-</p><p> Paul’s positivism is a wonderful thing to study. When he met people believing in “the unknown [Gk. <em>agnosto</em>] God”, he didn’t mock their agnosticism. He rejoiced that they were as it were half way there, and sought to take them further. His position regarding the Sabbath and observance of the Law is a prime example of his patient seeking to bring men onward. </p>


text:
<p><em>The God that made the world and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands</em>-</p><p> Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither is He served by men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He gives to all life and breath and all things</em>-</p><p> That God needs nothing is something very hard for the standard religious mindset to grasp. The whole psychology of works, of legalism rather than acceptance of grace, is rooted in this assumption that God is in need. Instead, He is a giver, a gifter, the very core idea of <em>charis, </em>"grace"; and He dearly wishes us to receive that gift. The reasoning used here was absolutely relevant to the Judaist mentality too. Note that God gives life and breath to all things- every breath taken by every organism is consciously out given by Him, rather than the assumption that somehow God wound the world up on clockwork and leaves it running without any conscious input from Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And He has made from one, every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times set for them and the bounds of their habitation</em>-</p><p> "One blood", according to some manuscripts. This surely invites us to accept Adam as the first man, and Eve was the mother of all living human beings. </p>


text:
<p><em>That they should seek God; so that they might feel after Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us</em>-</p><p> How does geographical distribution etc. lead to men seeking the Lord? We must draw near to Him (<em><a href='B:230 73:28'>Psa 73:28</a></em>); and yet He is already near, not far from every one of us (<em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>). David often speaks of drawing near to God, and yet he invites God to draw near to him (<em><a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a></em>). Yet David also recognizes that God “is” near already (<em><a href='B:230 75:1'>Psa 75:1</a></em>). I take all this to mean that like us, David recognized that God “is” near, and yet wished God to make His presence real to him. Truly can we pray David’s prayers. So often, prayer is described as coming near to God (<em><a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a></em> etc:)- and yet God “is” near already. Prayer, therefore, is a way of making us realize the presence of the God who is always present. </p>


text:
<p><em>For in Him we live and move and have our being- as some even of your own poets have said: For we are also his offspring- </em>Many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament- many of those in the early chapters of Matthew, for example- are picking up words and phrases from one context and applying them to another, often slightly changing them in order to fit the new context. Paul himself did this when he quoted the words of the poet Aratus “We are all the offspring of Zeus” about our all being the offspring of the one true God. &nbsp;</p><p>Paul quoted from Greek poets, famous for the amount of unbiblical nonsense they churned out, in order to confound those who believed what the poets taught (<em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>). What we are suggesting is epitomized by Paul’s response to finding an altar dedicated to the worship of “The Unknown God”, i:e. any pagan deity which might exist, but which the people of Athens had overlooked. Instead of rebuking them for their folly in believing in this, Paul took them from where they were to understand the one true God, who they did not know (<em><a href='B:510 17:22-23'>Act 17:22-23</a></em>).</p><p>Paul sought by all means to close the gap which there inevitably is between the preacher and his audience. Thus in Athens and Lystra he mixes quotes from the Greek poets with clear allusions to God’s word. His speeches in those places quote from Epimenides and Aratus, allude to the Epicurean belief that God needs nothing from men, refer to the Stoic belief that God is the source of all life… and also allude to a whole catena of OT passages: <em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:22'>Gen 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 9:7'>Ecc 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:24'>Jer 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:23'>Jer 23:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 145:18'>Psa 145:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:8'>Psa 147:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>. This was all very skilfully done; surely Paul had sat down and planned what he was going to say. He tries to have as much common ground as possible with his audience whilst at the same time undermining their position. He wasn’t baldly telling them their errors and insisting on his own possession of truth; even though this was the case. He didn’t remove the essential scandal of the Gospel; instead Paul selected terms with which to present it which enabled his hearers to realize and face the challenges which the scandal of the Gospel presented. And Paul’s sensitive approach to the Jews is just the same. <em>If we are out to convert men and women, we will be ever making our message relevant. If we tell the world, both explicitly and implicitly, that we don’t want to convert them, then we won’t. If we want to convert them, if we earnestly seek to persuade them and vary our language and presentation accordingly, then we will.</em>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Being then the offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine is like gold, or silver, or stone, something crafted by art and the imagination of man</em>-</p><p> If we truly realize that we are made in God’s image, then we will not worship any idol. Thinking this through, there is the implication not that humanity alone is made in God’s image; <em>nothing</em> else is His image. Yet idolatry, in all its forms and guises throughout history, is based around the supposition that those idols are in fact an image of God and as such demand worship. God has revealed Himself through <em>people</em>, not through things which they have created. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands men that they should all everywhere repent</em>-</p><p> Paul seems to have seen in Christ's prophecy that the Gospel would be fully known world-wide in the last as being a specific, personal command to him (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>):&nbsp;He saw prophecy as command more than solely prediction; and this is why prophecy has a degree of variation in how and when it is fulfilled. The words of <em><a href='B:480 16:15-16'>Mar 16:15-16</a></em> are clear: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Commands to repent, all men, the Lord’s resurrection... these ideas all recur in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, proving they are not solely relevant to those who first heard them; God now commands all men to repent, through our words. These words clearly don't apply to the first century only, for they are intended to be linked with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>, which uses the same language about the preaching work of the very last days (even though the context may imply that as a community we will only be obedient to this command once egged on by major persecution). What all this means is that the great commission will be fulfilled in the last days. The connection with the great commission means that the Lord sent out the disciples in order to fulfil this aspect of the Olivet prophecy; but their failure to do the job fully meant that the prophecy had to be delayed and rescheduled in fulfilment. On account of the Lord’s resurrection, God has commanded all men everywhere to repent (<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em>)- again, a reference to the great commission. But God’s command of men to repent is only through our preaching of that message. Matthew and Mark record how the apostles were <em>sent </em>to preach the Gospel and baptize, for the <em>forgiveness</em> of sins (cp. <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>). Luke records the Lord stating that the apostles knew that <em>forgiveness of sins</em> was to be preached from Jerusalem, and therefore they should be witnesses to this.</p>


text:
<p><em>Inasmuch as He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained; of which He has given assurance</em> <em>to all men, in that He has raised him from the dead</em>-</p><p> Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>). Baptism saves us “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>). We who were dead in sins were “quickened together with Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 2:5'>Eph 2:5</a></em>). If we believe in Christ’s resurrection, we will therefore repent, confess our sins and know His forgiveness. Thus believing in His raising and making confession of sin are bracketed together in <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>, as both being essential in gaining salvation. Because He rose, <em>therefore </em>we stop committing sin (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em>). We can’t wilfully sin if we believe in the forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because judgment day is coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered / inspired faith in His forgiveness <em>by the resurrection of Christ </em>(<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em> AV mg:). The empty tomb and all the Lord’s glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as well as of itself being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing for them to repent and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them by the resurrection. Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own. We are therefore born again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identification with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:670 1:3'>1Pe 1:3</a></em>).</p><p>The very fact that judgment day will surely come is therefore in itself a <em>command</em> to all men to repent (<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em>)- and therefore it is a command to preach repentance. The resurrection of Jesus was to give assurance “to all men”. But how? They hadn’t seen Him. There was no Euclidean reason for them to believe in His resurrection. How is it an assurance to all men? Surely in that we are the risen Lord’s representatives “to all men”, and through us they see the evidence of Christ risen, and thereby have assurance of God’s plan for them. In the same way, the wicked and adulterous generation to whom the Lord witnessed were given the sign of the prophet Jonah- that after three days, the Lord would re-appear. But that sign was only given to them through the preaching of the apostles- that generation didn’t see the risen Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:470 16:4'>Mat 16:4</a></em>). But the witness of the disciples was as good as- for in their witness, they represented the Lord.</p></p><p><p><em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em> reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as judge of living and dead is a command to repent. At the Lord's resurrection, a day was appointed for human judgment, and therefore a knowledge of the Lord's resurrection means we are accountable to that day, and must therefore repent and prepare. It is by this logic that Paul argues that the Lord's resurrection is a guarantee that judgment day will come. "For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be Lord... [which involves that] we shall all [therefore] stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written... Every knee shall bow to me [as Lord and judge]..." (<em><a href='B:520 14:9-10'>Rom 14:9-10</a></em>).</p><p>We will be judged by or in the man Christ Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em> R:V. Mg:). This means that the very fact Jesus didn't pre-exist and was human makes Him our constant and insistent judge of all our human behaviour. And exactly because of this, Paul argues, we should right now repent. He is judge exactly because He is the Son of man.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said: We will hear you concerning this yet again</em>-</p><p> It was particularly the message of future resurrection and judgment which put an end to their religious fascination with Paul's message. The Lord's resurrection can be ours; He wishes to live in and through us, through His Spirit. And no man can have stood before the cross of the Lord and then walk away with a shrug, assuming he shall not have to stand judgment with eternal consequence for his response to the Man who hung there for him. When the audience started to get a whiff of the reality of these things, they pulled out of the dialogue, and didn't want to hear any more. Rather like Israel begging not to hear any more of God's words, as they were too demanding for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus Paul went out from among them</em>-</p><p> Paul's initial message had been so provocative that men had literally dragged him to the Areopagus in order to explain himself at more length and to a greater audience (:19). The comment that he "went out from among them" may mean that he was as it were released, once they were challenged with the personal implications of believing in and committing to a resurrected Jesus, whose Spirit living in His people demanded all of their living and thinking.</p>


text:
<p><em>But some people joined him and believed, among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them</em>-</p><p> Men heard Paul’s preaching and joined or ‘clave’ unto <em>him</em>, as they did to other preachers (<em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:13'>Act 5:13</a></em>); but conversion is a cleaving unto <em>the Lord Jesus </em>(<em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em> Gk:). Thus Paul “spoke boldly in the Lord [Jesus], which gave testimony unto the word of his grace” (<em><a href='B:510 14:3'>Act 14:3</a></em>). To this extent does the preacher manifest his Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>After these things he departed from Athens</em> <em>and went to Corinth-</em></p><p> He had become involved in Athens with intellectual and philosophical arguments, and now Paul turns away from that and goes to pagan, working class Corinth- the very opposite ground for the Gospel. Several times he asks the Corinthians to recall the way he first arrived in Corinth and determined to only preach Christ, the raw, crucified Christ, without philosophy and intellectual argumentation. He was led to that attitude by his experiences of long philosophical debates in Athens which produced relatively few converts. </p><p>The "these things" may refer to some unrecorded trauma Paul suffered. Because <em><a href='B:530 2:1-3'>1Co 2:1-3</a></em> is clear: "I brothers, when I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling". The "trembling" may refer to the shakes of malaria. But it more likely refers to his trembling with fear. His "weakness" uses a word which refers usually to physical illness; he uses it of how his co-workers were "weak" or sick, and he had to work to support not only himself but them too (<em><a href='B:510 20:34-35'>Act 20:34-35</a></em>). He did that perhaps recalling how he too had been weak when he came to Corinth. Perhaps he left Athens because of illness and the climate at Corinth was more conducive. See on :9 <em>Fear not.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla</em>-</p><p> “A Jewish guild always keeps together, whether in street or synagogue. In Alexandria the different trades sat in the synagogue arranged into guilds; and St. Paul could have no difficulty in meeting, in the bazaar of his trade, with the like-minded Aquila and Priscilla” (Edersheim, <em>Jewish Social Life</em>).</p><p><em>Because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome; and he went to them</em>-</p><p> The 'Babylon' of Revelation in its first century reference had relevance to Rome and also to Judaism, as I have argued elsewhere. If we accept an early date for Revelation, then the command to come out from Babylon would have meant leaving Rome (<em><a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>); and the emperor's decree would have encouraged obedience to this. The situation was analogous to the historical command for Jews to leave Babylon; the decree of Cyrus encouraged their obedience. God can manipulate geopolitics to help His people to conform to His wishes for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they worked together</em>-</p><p> The rabbis all had a trade. Hillel was a wood-cutter, and Shammai was a carpenter. That Paul had such a trade shows how he was indeed a rabbi before conversion. Paul reminded the Corinthians that as he had been amongst them, so he was at the time he wrote 1Corinthians: "Even to this present hour we [as before when present with you in Corinth] both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no certain dwelling-place; we toil, working with our own hands" (<em><a href='B:530 4:11-12'>1Co 4:11-12</a></em>). Accommodation for manual workers who are refugees has never been very stable; he continued then as when he was in Corinth to have no stable living place.</p><p><em>For by trade they were tentmakers-</em></p><p> Reputed as a low paying and not respected trade. The way Paul used it to pay for his own expenses plus those of his companions (20:34) means he would have worked very long hours. The trade was despised amongst Jews because the tents were often made of goats hair, involving work with unclean animals. This would have prepared Paul for understanding that the Jewish laws of unclean animals were condemning him as unclean. Peter was prepared the same way, when he stayed for a while with Simon the tanner, who also worked with blood and unclean animal skins. Further, when a tent pole was lifted up and the canvass spread upon it, it was spoken of as a 'crucifixion'. So the Lord's hand was preparing Paul for his Christian conversion and work amongst the Gentiles; this would have been one of the prods of the goads in his conscience before accepting Christ in Damascus. And the same would have been true for Aquila and Priscilla. All this is a great encouragement for those in low paying and despised employment- the Lord works even through that in preparing us for His service.</p><p>Paul at times seems to have had money, enough for Felix to try to get him to pay a bribe, and to rent a house in Rome large enough to receive a large number of Jews. But at other times it seems he was living on the limits, needing to work to pay his way, and here he was driven to flat sharing with manual workers who were refugees / asylum seekers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Gentiles- </em>According to the Western text of <em><a href='B:510 18:4'>Act 18:4</a></em>, Paul "inserted the name of the Lord Jesus" at the appropriate points in his public reading of the Old Testament prophecies. This was after the pattern of some of the Jewish targums (commentaries) on the prophets, which inserted the word "Messiah" at appropriate points in Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant (e.g. the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets). </p><p><em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em> implies that when Paul first came to Corinth, he concentrated on his tent making business, and confined his preaching to arguing with the Jews at synagogue on the Sabbath. But when Silas and Timothy came, their presence made him "pressed in the spirit" to launch an all-out campaign. No longer was he the self-motivated maverick. He needed the presence of others to stir up his mind and prod him onwards. He admitted to those he converted in Corinth as a result of this campaign that such preaching was against his will, he had had to consciously make himself do it (<em><a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a></em>). Indeed, the Lord Jesus Himself had had to appear to Paul in a vision and encourage him not to suppress his preaching on account of his fear of persecution (<em><a href='B:510 18:9'>Act 18:9</a></em>). Therefore he later told the Corinthians that he feared condemnation if he gave in to his temptation not to preach (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:510 27:21'>Act 27:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ</em>-</p><p> Other manuscripts read "pressed in the spirit". The ambiguity may be because it was Paul's meditation on the word which pressed his spirit to realize that Bible study cannot just continue as a passive activity; it leads to the conviction that we must witness that word to others. And the arrival of his fellow workers emboldened him in this conviction.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they opposed-</em></p><p> The same word used by Stephen, Paul's great exemplar and hero whom he so often alludes to, when he said that the Jews, including Paul at the time, were resisting the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a></em>) insofar as they were resisting the otherwise irresistible spirit of Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a></em>). Again, Paul was being made to enter into the feelings and situations of those he had earlier persecuted; not as punishment, but more in order to help his own spiritual growth, and to prepare him for eternal fellowship with them in the Kingdom. For now <em>he</em> knew what it felt like to have your audience resisting the Spirit through which one speaks.</p><p><em>And reviled him</em>-</p><p> This is the word otherwise translated 'to blaspheme'. Paul had made the Christians blaspheme the name of the Lord Jesus under torture; and now he was being taught what it feels like to be blasphemed / reviled, for it happened to him.</p><p><em>He shook out his garments</em>-</p><p> This is the language of Ezekiel doing the same to the apostate Jews of his day (<em><a href='B:330 5:3'>Eze 5:3</a></em>), and sets up the allusion to Ezekiel as a watchman in the next phrase. But it is also precisely the language of Nehemiah in <em><a href='B:160 5:13'>Neh 5:13</a></em>: "I shook out my lap and said, So may God shake out every man from His house and from His work". This action here symbolized God's breaking of covenant with Judah; to have them under the wings / skirts of His garments spoke of acceptance into covenant relationship, and to shake them out of His garments spoke of the ending of that relationship. But we ask whether Paul had the right to declare the breach of God's covenant relationship with Israel, or at least, with those Jews in Corinth. I veer towards the thought that Paul took too much upon himself in making this allusion; it seems very much a hot blooded response, and he did not take seriously his vow at this time to turn away from the Jews in favour of his Gentile mission. </p><p><em>And said to them: Your blood is on your own heads! I am innocent</em>-</p><p> Blood being on their own heads rather than Paul's is straight out of <em><a href='B:330 33:4'>Eze 33:4</a></em>, and his shaking of his garments was an allusion to what Ezekiel did in <em><a href='B:330 5:3'>Eze 5:3</a></em>. The idea of being a watchman seems to have fired his preaching zeal, <em><a href='B:330 3:18'>Eze 3:18</a></em>; Ezekiel 1 <em><a href='B:330 8:13'>Eze 8:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:26'>Act 20:26</a></em>. And yet this outburst seems to also be a flash of unspirituality. For later, Paul realizes that he may be condemned if he doesn't preach the Gospel; he realized that he perhaps <em>wasn't</em> free of his duty of preaching. Yet for all his "from henceforth I go unto the Gentiles" , Paul <em>still</em> preached to the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>); which would suggest these words were said in temper and perhaps unwisdom. He himself seems to recognize this when he wrote to Timothy at the very end of his life of how we must with meekness instruct those who oppose themselves (<em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>), whereas his own response to those who “opposed themselves” (<em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>) had been to say, without meekness, that he was never going to ‘instruct’ Jews ever again.</p><p><em>From now on I will go to the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> But this was precisely what Paul had been commanded at the time of his conversion (<em><a href='B:510 22:21'>Act 22:21</a></em> "I will send you... unto the Gentiles"; see too <em><a href='B:510 26:17'>Act 26:17</a></em>). Yet Paul doggedly insisted on going to the Jews, and I will argue in commentary throughout Acts 20 that Paul's refusal to fully accept his commission, and his dissatisfaction at leaving the Jewish ministry to Peter, resulted in much hardship for him. The Lord still worked through Paul's insistence on a different path to that the Lord intended, he remained within the Lord's game plan, but on as it were a plan B. Paul had earlier had another such moment, when he declared that now he turned to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 13:46-47'>Act 13:46-47</a></em>). And yet these were just temporary realizations of his intended mission and his mistake in focusing on the Jews; like us so often, in the moment of failure and having our plans exasperated, we realize our true calling; and yet like Paul, we slip back into our own preferred path rather than that ideally chosen for us by our Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he departed from there, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus, one that worshiped God, whose house was attached to the synagogue-</em></p><p> Paul's desire was clearly to still preach to the Jews, despite his outburst, and his temporary realization that indeed he had been sent not to Jews but to Gentiles. And yet the Lord worked through Paul's misplaced zeal; and He has much experience of doing that with His people to this day. Because straight after Paul's turning away from the Jews, he goes to stay in the house of Justus, presumably because he had fallen out with his previous place of accommodation because of his outburst; and previously he had been staying with Jewish Christians Aquilla and Priscilla. Maybe we can infer that they didn't agree with his outburst, and so he upped and left (although :18 notes they later were together again). But the lodging he found was with a man called Justus, who just happened to live in the house next door to the synagogue. And this meant him talking to the guy next door- who happened to be the ruler of the synagogue. And he was persuaded of Christ, which tied Paul in again to the work of ministering to the Jews. But this happened right after Paul's indignant declaration that he was quitting working with the Jews. He surely knew Crispus, the synagogue ruler, because Paul had been arguing in the synagogue every Sabbath for some time (:4). But the ruler of the synagogue turned the corner and came to faith in Jesus as Christ- right after Paul's outburst against working with the Jews. This was obviously intentional within the workings of the Spirit [or providence, as some prefer to say]. I have explained in commentary on chapter 20 that Paul was wrong to focus on the Jews, when he was intended to work with the Gentiles. But because he subconsciously wanted to continue this focus, despite his emotional outburst here to the contrary, therefore the Lord confirmed him in the ministry he himself chose, although that was very much the Lord's plan B for Paul. Each day, therefore, it's really a case of 'Where do you want to go today in My service?'; and we will be confirmed in the path chosen. The important thing is that quite simply we love God and want His glory and desire to serve Him with all we have all we are, with no self-seeking or jealousy issues. We will then come to the right paths of service and be propelled along them; but if in our weakness we choose less than ideal paths of service, we will all the same be confirmed in them. For man is not alone, neither are we ever rejected from the Lord's game plan with us for so long as we are alive in this world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Crispus</em></p><p>- see on :7 <em>He departed from there</em>...</p><p><em>The ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his family</em>-</p><p> It was common for the household to follow the religion of the head of the family. But the call of Christ was to individuals, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 speaks to situations where a marriage was divided between believer and unbeliever. So the records of whole household baptisms, all at the same time, every member of the household, with not even one remaining in the previous religion, are hard to square with the idea of individual calling and each responding at their own time. Especially when there was a culture of a household following the religion of the family head. My conclusion would be that there was no compulsion or conscious pressure placed on the household members to be baptized into Christ; but they all chose to be. That said, their motives would inevitably have been mixed, and they would have been under psychological pressure to follow the rest of the group. Despite this, there is no evidence that the early preachers sought to investigate the detailed knowledge or motivation of baptismal candidates; they simply baptized anyone who desired it in such missionary contexts. It is true that there is reason to think that one of the Gospel records was learnt by some of the candidates, but this would not have been universally the case.</p><p><em>And many of the Corinthians</em>,<em> hearing, believed and were baptized</em>-</p><p> An exemplification of how faith came by hearing the word of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). It seems strongly likely that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, so he would have had this example in mind when he wrote those words in Romans 10. But "the word of God" refers therefore not to the entire Bible but to the message of God in the Gospel of His Son.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em>.</p><p><em>And during the night in a vision, the Lord said to Paul: Do not be afraid</em>-</p><p> Quoting the very words of the Lord Jesus to the disciples: "Fear not... you shall catch men" (<em><a href='B:490 5:10'>Luk 5:10</a></em>). What the disciples feared was their inadequacy as preachers; and the same context is here with Paul. We see here a humility in Paul which his argumentative and emotional temperament may otherwise hide. His fear was also of physical harm, for the corresponding comfort was that nobody was going to hurt him (:10). Paul's fear of physical harm is again comforted by the Lord during the shipwreck (<em><a href='B:510 27:24'>Act 27:24</a></em>). This fearful side of Paul makes the more impressive his continuation to Jerusalem, knowing that prison, beating and maybe death awaited him; it means his willing enduring beating at Philippi when he could have avoided it was the more gracious. He was not some macho fanatic who was genuinely fearless of death. In fact, it seems, quite the opposite. Paul spoke of his arrival in Corinth at this time as being "In weakness and in fear and in much trembling" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>). The trembling may have been connected to the "fear". </p><p>Paul says that he preached to Corinth in the first place in (spiritual) "weakness" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>)-&nbsp; because it seems that when he first got to Corinth, he wasn't spiritually strong enough to grasp the nettle of witnessing to the city as he should have done (<em><a href='B:510 18:9-10'>Act 18:9-10</a></em>). Having admitted to Corinth that he himself was weak, he can say that whenever one of them is weak, he feels weak too; in other words he's saying that he can totally empathize (not just sympathize) with a weak brother's feelings (<em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>But speak out and do not keep silent</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'be dumb'. We have noted so many conscious connections between the gospel of Luke, and this 'Volume 2' in Acts. Here, the connection is clearly with Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, whom Luke records as being told not to be afraid; and is then told that he will be dumb [s:w. "keep silent"] and not be able to "speak" [s:w. "speak out"] (<em><a href='B:490 1:20'>Luk 1:20</a></em>). Paul's mind was soaked with the Gospel records; he alludes to them at least once in every three verses of his letters. So he would have grasped the point the Lord was making: If he would not preach, then he would be effectively faithless in the Lord's promise, as Zacharias had been. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I am with you</em>-</p><p> A word for word quotation from the assurance given in the great commission (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). The specific promise made in the commission that the preachers would take up snakes and remain unharmed was fulfilled in Paul on Malta beach. We see here that the Lord intended the great commission for Paul- and not merely, as some still claim, for the eleven apostles to whom He first addressed it. And we too are to see it as binding on us all. This is also one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures [here <em><a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a></em>] are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p><p><em>And no one shall attack or harm you</em>-</p><p> But we must square this with the fact that 18 months later, "the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat" (:12). Maybe the Lord meant that there would be no such behaviour until Paul had reached the Lord's "many people" in the city; perhaps that rising up against Paul was the sign for him to leave, and yet he stubbornly remained there after that "for many days" (:18). "No one shall attack" sounds like God's promise to Israel, that whilst they were busy in His service keeping the feasts, they would not be attacked (<em><a href='B:20 34:24'>Exo 34:24</a></em>); it was for as long as Paul was doing the Lord's work with His people that the protection would last. So the attack on Paul and beating of Sosthenes (:17), who had become a Christian (<em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>), clearly was "harm"- and a sign, therefore, to leave. Yet just as Paul refused to accept Spirit direction in warning him not to go to Jerusalem, so it seems that here too he would not follow the Spirit's leading.</p><p><em>For I have many people in this city</em>-</p><p> This was only potentially true. If Paul had run away because of the opposition, they would not have become the Lord's people. Exactly because of this, the Lord tells him to endure. Likewise if the harvest is not gathered, it spoils- because the labourers have not done their work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he lived there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them</em>-</p><p> The <em>logos</em> of God is the Lord Jesus. This information comes after the accounts in the previous two chapters of Paul being quickly hounded out of towns by the Jewish opposition. Perhaps Paul assumed this would happen, hence the Lord's special encouragement to him that that history was not quite going to repeat itself so quickly (:12):&nbsp;The Corinthian letters indicate that there was indeed Judaist undermining of Paul's work there, but they failed to close him down immediately as they had in the other towns.</p>


text:
<p>See on :10 <em>no one shall attack...</em></p><p><em>But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat</em></p><p>- see on :11. The "one accord" of Jewish opposition is presented by Luke as the opposite of the "one accord" which characterized the early Christian community. There is in fact no in between position; we are either united with the world, or with the Lord and His people. Gallio is mentioned in inscriptions as the brother of the famous philosopher Seneca, tutor of Nero. Luke's history is flawless, as we would expect from an inspired record:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Saying:</em> <em>This man persuades men to worship God- </em>Time and again we see that what irked the Jews most of all was that Paul was successful in persuading others of his beliefs. The Jews were missionaries, eager to make proselytes and to gain followers amongst the Jews. Jealousy at another's apparent success in evangelizing their positions remains to this day an envy unto death. I have argued at times, especially in commentary upon chapter 20, that Paul too was partly driven by a jealousy complex against Peter's conversion of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost. And as it were in response to that, the Jews are envious of Paul's successes and persecute and kill him because of it. This was not so much a punishment of Paul, but rather a method through which Paul was intended to come to understand himself, to be more purely motivated in his witness, and to not envy Peter.</p><p><em>Contrary to the law</em>-</p><p> The law they had in mind was the law of Moses; for Gallio throws their case out of court because there is no question of infringement of Roman law, and tells them that they are arguing about infringement of "your own law" (:15). Paul was being treated as he and the Jews had treated the Christians- by seeking to get the Romans to judge and punish others for breaking their perception of the law of Moses. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of criminal villainy, O you Jews, it would be logical that I should bear with you- </em>Gallio's judgment here that Paul had done nothing legally wrong was repeated by him later, especially when he first talks with the Jews in Rome. Paul spent some years in prison and was finally killed- when he had done nothing legally wrong. And that had been established in court cases such as these. Given Paul's logical mindset and tendency to legalism, this would have been so painful for him to come to terms with. The rules of justice and logic were not being followed- and he was being condemned wrongly. He uses many of these concepts in writing to the Romans, arguing that we are sinners who <em>have</em> done wrong and who therefore should rightly die, but the rules of justice, ethics and logic have all been turned upside down by God's grace in Christ- and we have been pardoned and blessed with the hope of eternity. Paul was therefore writing all this partly to himself. He likely developed those thoughts initially as a way to cope with his deep sense of injustice about how his case was treated. And the Holy Spirit developed his thinking further and led him to express those thoughts in written form under Spirit guidance.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if they are questions about words and names</em>-</p><p> The disagreement with Paul was about "names", and surely the Name in view was that of the Lord Jesus, whose Name the apostles preached, baptized into and emphasized. But 'name' effectively means 'authority', and in whose authority they were preaching was a big item for the Jews. And it is with legalistic minds to this day. For some, it's a monstrosity to think that an individual on his own initiative can preach in the name of the Lord Jesus. But that is the spirit of individual response to the great commission.</p><p><em>And your own law, look to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these matters</em>-</p><p> The Old Testament frequently speaks of the law as God's law, and the feasts as His feasts. But in the New Testament we read of the feasts and law of the Jews. They had hijacked God's way on this earth and made it effectively their own petty religion; and the church has largely done the same today.</p>


text:
<p><em>He drove them from the judgment seat</em>-</p><p> The account of Gallio driving the Jews away from his judgment seat is maybe to enable to us to imagine the scene at the last day. "Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark (cp. the rejected cast to outer darkness) and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute them" (<em><a href='B:230 35:5-6'>Psa 35:5-6</a></em>). "The ungodly are like the chaff which the wind (spirit- the Angels made spirits) driveth away" (<em><a href='B:230 1:4'>Psa 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 21:18'>Job 21:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they all laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things</em>-</p><p> Perhaps another name for Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue whom Paul had recently converted (:8). Or perhaps Crispus had been forced to resign, and had been replaced by Sosthenes; or maybe there was more than one ruler of the synagogue in office at the same time. To do this job whilst being a Christian would have been very difficult if not impossible. Cornelius, Daniel and his friends, the soldiers John baptized and others found themselves in positions of employment or authority which were hard to maintain in view of their spiritual beliefs. We do not read of them resigning, nor of resignation being demanded before accepting them as believers; but we simply notice that in due course, Daniel and his friends faded from the scene of authority, and Crispus likewise. This is surely a pattern for our pastoral response to folks who find themselves in these situations upon conversion. Sosthenes was a co-author of the later letter to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>), so he too converted; and even at this stage, was beaten for his identity with the Christian movement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul, having stayed after this for many days, took his leave of the believers</em></p><p>- see on 18:10 <em>No one shall attack...</em></p><p><em>And with Priscilla and Aquila</em>-</p><p> Mentioned because they appear to have had a temporary parting of the ways; see on 18:7 <em>He departed from there</em>. But see too on :19. Such things happened and still happen.</p><p><em>Sailed to Syria, having shorn his head in Cenchrea.</em> <em>For he had made a vow</em>-</p><p> Such vows were usually made in thankfulness for deliverance; or it could have been a Nazirite vow. These vows were typically ended in Jerusalem on a feast day. In commentary on chapter 20 I develop the idea that Paul was obsessed with going to Jerusalem because he dreamt of converting mass numbers of Jews there as Peter had done on Pentecost. I suggest that his obsession was misplaced, in that it was partly fuelled by jealousy of Peter, and was in disregard of the Lord's will that Paul focus on Gentiles and leave the Jews to Peter. So his voluntary vow, requiring a trip to Jerusalem at the end of it, may have been a device he developed to give him an excuse to be in Jerusalem at a feast. See on :21. </p><p>I suggest that the vow may well have been of Naziriteship. Paul was called to be a preacher of the Gospel, and yet he speaks of his work as a preacher as if it were a Nazarite vow- which was a totally voluntary commitment. Consider not only the reference to him shaving his head because of his vow (<em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:24'>Act 21:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 6:9-18'>Num 6:9-18</a></em>), but also the many descriptions of his preaching work in terms of Naziriteship: Separated unto the Gospel’s work (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>); “I am not yet consecrated / perfected” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>)- he’d not yet finished his ‘course’, i:e. his preaching commission. He speaks of it here as if it were a Nazarite vow not yet ended. Note the reference to his ‘consecration’ in <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>. &nbsp;His undertaking not to drink wine lest he offend others (<em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>) is framed in the very words of <em><a href='B:40 6:3'>Num 6:3</a></em> LXX about the Nazarite. &nbsp;Likewise his being ‘joined unto the Lord’ (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>) is the language of <em><a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a></em> about the Nazarite being separated unto the Lord. The reference to having power / authority on the head (<em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>) is definitely some reference back to the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> about the Nazarite. What are we to make of all this? The point is perhaps that commitment to active missionary work is indeed a voluntary matter, as was the Nazarite vow. And that even although Paul was called to this, yet he responded to it by voluntarily binding himself to ‘get the job done’. And the same is in essence true for us today in our various callings in the Lord’s service. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they came to Ephesus; and he left them there, but he entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews</em>-</p><p> I suggested on 18:7 and 18:18 that Aquilla and Priscilla had some tensions with Paul after his outburst against the Jews; he left living with them and went elsewhere to lodge. But they reconciled to the extent that they travelled together now towards Jerusalem. But now in Ephesus they again appear to differ. And the difference was over Paul's going into the synagogue and arguing with the Jews. Paul was slipping back from his vow to focus on the Gentile mission and once again giving way to his obsession with the Jews. Perhaps they felt that he was wrong in this, and so despite being Jews themselves, they didn't go to the synagogue with Paul. I have suggested elsewhere that the Holy Spirit kept prodding Paul to focus on the Gentiles, and leave the Jewish mission to Peter; and he was wrong to insist on making the Jews a priority. Perhaps Aquilla and Priscilla had had Spirit revelation about this and were therefore in disagreement with the way Paul insisted on going against it.</p><p>I say this based on the force of the "but" or "for" in the next clause; he left them because he went into the synagogue. It can hardly mean that he left them in Ephesus and moved on elsewhere, because he left them and then went into the synagogue in the same town and preached. This tension between Paul and Aquilla and Priscilla is sadly typical of him; someone of Paul's temperament would have been "a difficult bloke" to get along with when he encountered those of his own level of ability. His closest and most loyal friends are described by him as the "weak" whom he had to work to support (<em><a href='B:510 20:34-35'>Act 20:34-35</a></em>). This rather makes sense; those types would have found in him a tower of strength, and if he funded them then this would have reinforced their loyalty to him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they asked him to stay a longer time, he did not consent</em>-</p><p> "Asked" translates a Greek word meaning to beg. He turned them down because of his obsession with getting to Jerusalem for Pentecost. I have elsewhere suggested that this was rooted in a fantasy to repeat Peter's mass conversion of Jews at that feast. Yet the situation is analogous to the time when the Lord was begged to remain longer in an area, but would not agree because He had to preach the word to other cities (<em><a href='B:490 4:42-43'>Luk 4:42-43</a></em>). We note again that it is Luke who records this in volume 1 of his work. The experiences of Paul, like our own, were modelled around those of the historical Jesus. But we also see here the hint that Paul's desire to get to Jerusalem was in order to preach; and he had been specifically told that Jerusalem would not accept his preaching (<em><a href='B:510 22:18'>Act 22:18</a></em>). He had been sent to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews; but still he insisted on going his way.</p>


text:
<p><em>But took his leave of them, saying: I will return again to you if God wills</em>. <em>He then set sail from Ephesus</em>-</p><p> Some texts add: "Saying, I must by all means keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem". We sense here his obsession with getting to Jerusalem; see on :18. There is no evidence that Paul did in fact go up to Jerusalem as he planned at this stage. See on :22. His plans to go there were frustrated; it was the Lord's intention that Paul preach to the Gentiles and leave the Jews to Peter. And yet Paul still didn't get it; for he again pushes to go up to Jerusalem to keep a feast, Pentecost (19:21). The Holy Spirit warned him not to do this, but he still pushed ahead. The way his plans were frustrated at this earlier stage was surely a lesson he failed to heed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch- </em>We read of how Paul went on from Ephesus to Caesarea, and then "he went [up] and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch". It could be argued that going up and coming down is how visits to Jerusalem are spoken of; but why the ambiguity? Why is not his arrival in Jerusalem mentioned? The more comfortable reading would be that he travelled nearly 1000 km. from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coasts of Palestine, only 120 km. from Jerusalem; but then some unspecified situation arose which frustrated his plans, and he turned north and headed to Antioch up the coast road; or even sailed there. The silence about any visit to Jerusalem is significant, especially seeing that he refused to stay longer in Ephesus despite the need to- because he was so set on getting to Jerusalem for the feast. Some versions paraphrase as 'Went up to Jerusalem' but that is not in the original. It's hard for interpreters to understand that Paul could have come all the way to Caesarea and not 'gone up' to Jerusalem as he planned. But I have explained that it was not the Lord's will that he went to Jerusalem to preach, and so the plan was frustrated. <em>Anabaino</em>, 'went [up]', doesn't have to mean 'to Jerusalem', although it is sometimes used like that. It is used of Joseph 'going up' to Bethlehem (<em><a href='B:490 2:4'>Luk 2:4</a></em>), going up to a housetop, a tree or mountain (<em><a href='B:490 5:19'>Luk 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:4'>Luk 19:4</a></em>). Likewise <em>katabaino</em>, "went down", doesn't have to refer to a leaving Jerusalem. It is used about going down from other towns (<em><a href='B:500 2:12'>Joh 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:51'>Joh 4:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:15'>Act 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:15'>Act 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:25'>Act 14:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And having spent some time there, he departed and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, in that order, strengthening all the disciples</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the frustration of Paul's plans to visit Jerusalem at feast time (see on :22) led him to realize that indeed, the Lord had sent him to the Gentiles and not to the Jews. And so in repentance, Paul spent time strengthening the Gentile converts he had already made. There is no reference to him going into the synagogue in each town and arguing with the Jews, as was the pattern on his missionary trips. We just read that he did pastoral work with the converts. Paul twice 'turned to the Gentiles', which is what he was intended to have focused upon in his ministry; but each time we see him fall back into his obsession with Jerusalem and witnessing to the Jews. This weakness came to its full term in the way he refused repeated Spirit warnings against going up to Jerusalem, and suffers the consequences.</p><p>Paul is recorded as having passed through Galatia and Phrygia in <em><a href='B:510 16:6'>Act 16:6</a></em>; presumably he made converts and established churches there. The fact this isn't recorded indicates how very abbreviated are the records we have. The incidents which are recorded are clearly for our learning. According to the note in the AV at the end of 1 Timothy, Paul wrote that letter from Laodicea in Phrygia. The converts in Phrygia may have been originally a result of Peter's work, for there were Jews from Phrygia baptized by him at the time of <em><a href='B:510 2:10'>Act 2:10</a></em>. Given my comments elsewhere about Paul's feelings towards Peter's work, this would have been all intentionally arranged by the Spirit in an effort to re-direct Paul's focus towards the Gentiles. He was being made to understand that if he insisted on ministry to the Jews, then he was treading on Peter's ground and at best playing second fiddle to his ministry, rather than developing his own intended ministry with the Gentiles.</p><p>We read this word “strengthening” four times in the NT, all in Acts (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:32'>Act 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:41'>Act 15:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:23'>Act 18:23</a></em>). Conscious programs of pastoral strengthening of the converts were an essential part of the church's missionary strategy, and it must be so today too.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures</em>-</p><p> The Greek suggests 'an orator'. Perhaps this was why some in Corinth preferred him to Paul, whom they found relatively unrefined in his style (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>). The Acts of the Apostles focuses largely on Paul and Peter, and after chapter 15, exclusively on Paul. This brief mention of the work of Aquilla and Priscilla with Apollos is the only example of the focus moving away from Paul. I have argued that Paul's obsession with preaching to Jews, especially at Jerusalem, was not in line with the Lord's ideal intention for him- which was that he should preach to the Gentiles. He ought to have remained at Ephesus, given the level of interest there and the request for him to remain there. But he goes off towards Jerusalem; and then, Apollos comes on the scene. And it is Aquilla who converts him. We may imagine that Paul would have been on the same level as Apollos, fluent in the Scriptures and eloquent in dialogue. But Paul was being taught that although he maybe appeared on paper the ideal person to convert Apollos- that was not the Lord's way. He uses human weakness rather than our ability. I suggest that Paul considered that he was far better qualified to operate the ministry to the Jews than illiterate Peter. He, surely, was more suited to the Gentiles, being from half Gentile Galilee, and mocked by the Jerusalem Jews as being without grammar when he spoke. But the Lord knew what He was doing when He directed Peter to go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. And through the conversion of the eloquent Apollos by Aquilla rather than Paul, He was seeking to teach Paul this. This kind of thing happens in our lives many times, and we likely also fail to perceive the teaching process or accept the lessons. </p>


text:
<p><em>This man had been instructed</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'catechized'. Luke's community were instructed or learned by rote the Gospel of Luke (<em><a href='B:490 1:4'>Luk 1:4</a></em>). This was how the Gospel was spread in the 1st century especially amongst the illiterate. The Gospel records were memorized. Perhaps the form of the Gospel record which Apollos had was incomplete, an early version; for "he knew only the baptism of John". That could mean however that he only recognized John's baptism and did not consider baptism into the Lord Jesus and receipt of His spirit to be necessary (see a similar case in 19:1-5).</p><p><em>In the way of the Lord</em>-</p><p> A nice description of the Gospel. It is all about the way of the Lord Jesus, the way He took and the way we are to follow in. This is also reflected in how the early Christian community is called "the way". </p><p><em>And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John</em>-</p><p> Although his knowledge was lacking, he is commended for acting with integrity according to the knowledge he had. Cornelius would be another example. These cases show that God does indeed take notice of those who love but misunderstand His Son; but He rewards their diligence and integrity by revealing His fuller truth to them. The principle of <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em> is important: "Let us therefore, as many as are mature, be thus decided; and if in anything you are otherwise decided, this also shall God reveal to you". Spiritual maturity involves tolerance of others whilst they too are on the same journey we were earlier on, and continue upon.</p><p>“Being fervent in spirit” is Gk. <em>the </em>Spirit. The idea of being fervent in the Spirit suggests a degree of freewill control on his part, rather than the Holy Spirit just as it were zapping Apollos. So the reference to <em>the </em>Spirit suggests the Holy Spirit, but his 'fervency' suggests his own human spirit; but God's Spirit confirms the human spirit. He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>). The only other time this phrase "fervent in spirit" occurs is in <em><a href='B:520 12:11'>Rom 12:11</a></em>, where Paul exhorts us all to be like this. Paul may mean: 'Emulate Apollos!'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue</em>-</p><p> It is surely intentional that we read of Paul doing this in that same synagogue in Ephesus, soon afterwards- "he [Paul] entered into the synagogue and spoke boldly" (<em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em> s:w:). Was not Paul here consciously emulating Apollos, as he bid the Romans do (see on :25 <em>Being fervent</em>)? Apollos was an erudite Jew who knew the Scriptures well and could use them powerfully- just like Paul. But I wonder whether just as Paul sought to emulate Peter's mass conversion of Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost, so he seeks to copy Apollos. Apollos was a convert of John the Baptist, and soon afterwards, at the time of <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>, Paul meets others in Ephesus who likewise were Jews converted by John but needed teaching the complete Christian message; and he baptizes them. Those men were most likely associates of Apollos; Apollos had planted, and Paul just did the last stage in baptizing them. But always, when it comes to preaching to the Jews, Paul is left playing second fiddle and building on another man's foundation. And he would have resented that. The point was, he should have concentrated on the mission which the Lord had for him, which was to the Gentiles. We too can mis-focus our lives by seeking to emulate others in their ministries, rather than perceiving and focusing upon our own unique ministry. </p><p><em>But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately</em>-</p><p> Appropriate language to use, seeing the preparing of the Lord's way was a major part of John the Baptist's message.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he decided to go into Achaia-</em></p><p> Where Corinth was. Apollos is mentioned as being at Corinth in <em><a href='B:510 19:1'>Act 19:1</a></em>. </p><p><em>The brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he helped them who through grace had believed</em>-</p><p> He helped / inspired the other believers in that he publicly converted others; thus an upward spiral of converting was initiated. "Who through grace had believed" suggests that faith is a gift, for <em>charis</em>, grace, essentially means a gift, and is often associated with the work of the Holy Spirit. Likewise Lydia's heart was opened to believe the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 16:14'>Act 16:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For he powerfully refuted the Jews publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ</em>-</p><p> Part of the 'help' which he gave the believers was by publicly vindicating their faith before those who opposed them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found some disciples</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em> use the same words for how the Lord Jesus at the start of His ministry 'found disciples', who were likewise students of John the Baptist. We note that despite their misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, they are still referred to as 'disciples'; they were committed to learning, which is the essence of the word 'disciple'. We also observe that Paul, like us, was manifesting the style and actions of the Lord's ministry in his own. The connection with the Lord's calling of the first disciples on the shores / coasts of the lake is strengthened by considering how Paul is described as having passed along the <em>meros</em>, translated "coasts" in the AV ["upper country"] to find those disciples.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to them: Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said to him: No. We have not even heard</em>-</p><p> The aorist implies 'we did not hear', i:e. at the point of baptism.</p><p><em>That there is a Holy Spirit</em>-</p><p> As followers of Moses and John the Baptist, they were surely aware of the concept of Holy Spirit. We must fill in the ellipses surely required by the context- "there is [gift of] the Holy Spirit", remembering that the Spirit was not poured out until the Lord's glorification. <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> likewise says that "the Holy Spirit was not yet", i:e. the [outpouring of] Holy Spirit. Perhaps what they meant was that they were aware that John had spoken of an outpouring of the Spirit as a result of the Lord's work, but they had not heard whether this had yet happened. After all, they had encountered John some years ago in Palestine and were now in Ephesus, maybe cut off from news of the progress of Christianity.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Into what then were you baptized? And they said: Into John's baptism</em>?- The Acts record presupposes that baptism is part and parcel of belief. Paul has spoken of "When you believed" (:2) as if this was a one time specific event in the past, rather than a drift of interest towards Christianity. That one time point of "belief" was their baptism. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul said: John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people</em>-</p><p> How could Paul so confidently quote John's words? Admittedly it could have been the result of a flash of Spirit inspiration. Or it could also have been that he had heard John preaching, which would have been the source of the goads sticking into his conscience... and he constantly alludes to John's words and personality throughout his letters. </p><p><em>That they should believe in him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus</em>-</p><p> On hearing this, they were baptized (:5); again we see baptism as being part and parcel of belief. Faith was not and is not a position we drift into; God in His wisdom introduced the rite of baptism so that there is a conscious, specific moment of accepting that faith as our own. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus</em>-</p><p> </p><p>These men had not been baptized with Christian baptism, which is into the death and resurrection of Christ. The command for baptism into His death and resurrection was given after Christ had risen from the dead. It could be argued therefore that this is not an example of adults once baptized [by immersion] into the Lord’s death and resurrection being rebaptized. That approach would appear to be the correct line of interpretation once due weight is given to the fact that they had not received the Holy Spirit; surely there is an intended allusion to <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>: “He spoke of the Spirit, which they that believed in him were to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, as Jesus had not yet been glorified”. The Greek idea behind “not yet been given” is similar to the men’s words in the Greek of <em><a href='B:510 19:2'>Act 19:2</a></em>, where “We did not hear whether there <em>be </em>any Holy Spirit” carries the idea ‘We didn’t hear that the Holy Spirit is present / has been given’. The men had surely heard of “Holy Spirit”, but they were unaware it had been given. The connection with <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> could suggest they were actually ignorant of the death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus- hence their need for Christian baptism. Their ignorance of the coming of the Spirit is painted, according to the connection with <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>, as ignorance of the fact Christ had been glorified. If these men had been baptized by John but were now in Ephesus, it’s quite possible they had left Palestine soon after their baptisms and were ignorant of what had subsequently happened to Jesus until Apollos had now told them. “Into [Gk. <em>ek</em>] what were you baptized?” (<em><a href='B:510 19:3'>Act 19:3</a></em>) would therefore carry the implication that they had not been baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ; their answer comes across rather lamely: “Into John’s baptism”. The necessary answer was “Into Christ’s death and resurrection”, but they are forced to reply somewhat ungrammatically- that they had not been baptized <em>into </em>&nbsp;anything much at all, apart from into John. There could even be the implication that they had not been baptized by John himself, but “into John’s baptism” by some disciple of John. <em><a href='B:510 19:5-6'>Act 19:5-6</a></em> sounds as if they were unaware that John had taught the people that they must believe [and be baptized] “into Christ”; and when they understood that this had been his message, then they were baptized into Christ. They had had the idea in their minds that they must make a change, but it would seem they were ignorant of what John had actually taught about Jesus.</p><p>Again and again it must be remembered here that John’s baptism wasn’t Christian baptism; it was to prepare the way for Christ and baptism into Him. Paul explains that John’s teaching was intended to lead men to believe “in” or “into” Christ [Gk. <em>ek </em>again- he stresses this twice in <em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>]. When the men understood that, they were “baptized into [Gk. <em>ek</em>] the name of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 19:5'>Act 19:5</a></em>). Baptism <em>into</em> Christ is here presented as part and parcel of belief <em>in</em> Him. Baptism is assumed in the New Testament as being part of belief. This incident leaves us with the clear impression from the use of the term <em>ek</em>, into, that they had been baptized into John and had been ignorant of Christ’s death and glorification. Their immersion “into John’s baptism” had not therefore been Christian baptism at all. </p><p>The connection between baptism and receipt of the Spirit also cries out to be understood within the context of Acts to the great opening example of baptism in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. I have elsewhere suggested that the “gift” in view there was that of forgiveness and spiritual blessing in Christ. The baptism [or, rebaptism] of Acts 19 did not of itself give the Holy Spirit gifts; these came as a result of Paul laying his hands upon the newly baptized people. This would’ve been a situation analogous to that in Acts 10, where the Gentiles who were baptized exercised miraculous Spirit gifts straight afterwards in order to demonstrate that the decision to baptize them had in fact been correct.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied</em>-</p><p> What foreign language did they speak? I have mentioned previously the possibility that the gift of languages was in order to cement unity between Jews and Gentiles by enabling them to speak in each other’s languages. One therefore wonders if these men were in fact all full Jews, or whether the gift of languages in this case was the ability to converse in pure Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were in all about twelve men</em>-</p><p> Being twelve of them, and called disciples, they could be presented as a kind of parallel brotherhood to the community of Christian disciples.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>. </p><p><em>And he entered into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months-</em></p><p>“Boldly” is a common word in the New Testament. We are to be bold before the throne of grace, and our confident assurance of salvation means that we are bold in our witness to others about that good news.</p><p><em>Reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God</em>-</p><p> We wonder why there is no mention of the things concerning the Lord Jesus, as these two elements seem to go together in the Acts account. Perhaps this group were already persuaded that Jesus was Messiah, but were ignorant of the things of the Kingdom. Those "things" were surely the same "things concerning the Kingdom" which the Lord Himself had taught; and those things were found in His parables of the Kingdom, which were about life now under God's kingship, rather than information about the physicalities of the Messianic Kingdom to be established on earth at His return.</p>


text:
<p>The Western text here adds that Paul preached in Ephesus from 11a:m. to 4 p:m:- the siesta period. Whilst working with his own hands to support himself, he somehow persuaded men and women to break their usual sleep pattern to come and hear him. F:F. Bruce has commented that more Ephesians were awake at 1a:m. than 1 p:m. </p><p><em>But when some were hardened and disobedient</em>-</p><p> Paul maybe recalled this case when he wrote to the Romans of how some Jews were hardened when they rejected the message of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 9:18'>Rom 9:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 3:8'>Heb 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:15'>Heb 3:15</a></em>). </p><p><em>Speaking evil of the Way before the crowd, he departed from them</em>-</p><p> This is typical of how when men cannot answer the truth of Christ presented to them, they then attack the messengers on a personal level. Paul's way of dealing with this slander campaign was to just remove the converts as far as he could from exposure to it.</p><p><em>And separated the disciples</em>-</p><p> The same ones as in :1?</p><p><em>Reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus- </em>First century preaching wasn’t merely bald statement of facts nor a pouty presentation of propositional Truth. A very wide range of words is used to describe the preaching of the Gospel. It included able intellectual argument, skilful, thoughtful use and study of the Scriptures by the public speakers, careful, closely reasoned and patient argument. Their preaching is recorded through words like <em>diamarturesthai</em>, to testify strenuously, elegcho, to show to be wrong, <em>peitho</em>, to win by words,<em> ekithemi</em>, to set forth, <em>diamar</em>, to bear full witness, <em>dianoigo</em>, to open what was previously closed, <em>parrhesia</em>, to speak with fearless candour, <em>katagellein</em>, to proclaim forcefully, <em>dialegesthai, </em>to argue, <em>diakatelenchein</em>, to confute powerfully. The intellectual energy of Paul powers through the narrative in passages like Acts 19 : “Disputing and persuading… disputing daily… Paul purposed in the spirit… this Paul has persuaded and turned away much people”. </p>


text:
<p><em>And this continued for the space of two years, so that all those who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles</em>-</p><p> Because Ephesus was visited by many from the surrounding area and was a transport hub.</p>


text:
<p><em>And God did special miracles by the hands of Paul</em>-</p><p> The idea is 'uncommon miracles'. All true miracles are "special" and far from common; so the idea would be that his miracles far outclassed any done by the idol cults, rather like the miracles performed by Aaron outclassed those of Pharaoh's magicians.</p>


text:
<p><em>So that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick</em>-</p><p> Perhaps during the course of his work as a tentmaker, otherwise the choice of the word 'apron' is hard to understand. The point is perhaps that it was out of spirituality in his daily working life that blessing came to others.</p><p><em>And their diseases left them and their mental illnesses were cured</em>-</p><p> This reflects the language of the day, presumably shared even by doctor Luke, which held that disease was caused by some internal beings which could enter or leave the human body.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had manic illnesses, saying: I command you in the name of Jesus, whom Paul proclaims</em>-</p><p> It was common in the first century for there to be travelling preachers. Hence 2 John speaks of welcoming the itinerant Christian preachers if they shared the belief that the Lord “came in the flesh”. “Manic illnesses” suggests that it was mental illness in view; and it is these which were generally referred to as the work of demons in the first century, and therefore cure of mental illness came to be described in terms of spirits departing or being cast out. The incident demonstrates that simply the name “Jesus” is not powerful of itself (:15); it has come to be used as a kind of talisman in some Pentecostal circles. It is His power to heal hearts which is of the essence here. The form of pronunciation of a name is irrelevant.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, who did this</em>-</p><p> There is no historical record of any chief priest called Sceva, and it seems unlikely that his seven sons would all be itinerant exorcists, equivalent of modern day Roma in parts of Eastern Europe. Again, as with the language of evil spirits, things are being recorded from the perspective and understanding of people at the time, without correction.</p><p>1</p>


text:
<p>And the maniac answered and said to them: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?- The sick man on one level 'knew' Jesus and recognized Paul; on that level of personality, the man was a believer.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the man who had the mania jumped on them and subdued and overpowered all of them, so they fled out of that house naked and wounded</em>-</p><p> “Overpowered” is the same word used in :20 about how God's word, the Gospel, "grew in power". This confirms the impression that the man was representative of believers who had identified themselves with the word of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And this became known to all that dwelt at Ephesus, both Jews and Gentiles; and fear fell upon them all.</em> <em>And the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified</em>-</p><p> The name of the Lord Jesus had been used by the exorcists, but it was lacking in power unless pronounced in faith by Paul. So humanly, it was more the case that Paul was magnified over the exorcists; they both used the same formula and name of Jesus. But it only 'worked' when Paul used it. But it is a major theme of Acts that all glory was given not to the preachers but to the Lord Jesus whom they served and were identified with.</p>


text:
<p><em>Many also of those that had believed came</em>-</p><p> After seeing what happened to the sons of Sceva, it would appear that some who had ‘believed’ went up to a higher level of commitment. This would seem to imply that despite having ‘believed’, perhaps with the same level of shallow conviction as some ‘believed’ in the teaching of Jesus during His ministry, their faith wasn’t so deep. They were taken up to an altogether higher level of commitment, resulting in ‘confessing and declaring’, and quitting their involvement with magic. “Many that were now believers" there (RSV) "came and confessed and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men... so mightily grew the word of God, and prevailed" (<em><a href='B:510 19:18-19'>Act 19:18-19</a></em>). The language here seems to be intended to connect with the description of baptism in <em><a href='B:470 3:6'>Mat 3:6</a></em>, where converts confessed and shewed their deeds <em>at baptism</em>. The way the Ephesians made their statement "before all men" again recalls the concept of baptism as a public declaration. Yet the Ephesians did all this <em>after</em> they had believed. It would seem that we are being invited to consider this as a re-conversion, a step up the ladder. The context is significant. Some who had pretended to be believers and to have the Holy Spirit are revealed for who they are: "they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this was known to all... dwelling at Ephesus. And fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified". The fact that the Lord Jesus is so essentially demanding, the way in which ultimately He will judge insincere profession of His Name- this motivated the new Ephesian converts to take their relationship with Him seriously (compare how the Lord's slaying of Ananias and Sapphira also inspired a great desire to associate with Him, <em><a href='B:510 5:11-14'>Act 5:11-14</a></em>).</p><p><em>Confessing</em>-</p><p> There are many connections between Luke's Gospel and his second volume here in Acts. The reference here would be to the Lord's comment recorded only by Luke that whoever confesses [s:w:] Him before men will be confessed before the Father in Heaven (<em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>). Note that their confession was before all men (:19). Luke saw that confession as not simply at baptism; because these were believers who were now 'coming out' at a higher level of conversion. Here, they confess their sins; in <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em> they confess 'Jesus'. To confess Him therefore involves confessing sin. Perhaps Paul had this incident in view when he later wrote of how confession is made unto salvation (<em><a href='B:520 10:10'>Rom 10:10</a></em>). </p><p><em>And declaring their sinful deeds- </em>God seems to have recognized with pleasure the degree to which Paul modelled his life on John, in that Paul's experiences of life were over-ruled to have connections with those of John. These connections simply could not have been engineered by Paul; e.g. the way in which they both died in prison at the behest of a crazy, woman-influenced despot. The Spirit also seems to make connections between John and Paul in the manner in which it describes them (e.g. <em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:15-19'>Act 13:15-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:7-8'>Joh 1:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:27'>Joh 3:27</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:8-16'>1Co 2:8-16</a></em>). And the Spirit in <em><a href='B:510 19:18'>Act 19:18</a></em> seems to portray Paul in the language of John: "they came (to Paul) and confessed, and shewed their deeds" - just as men had to John.</p>


text:
<p><em>And not a few of those that practised magical arts- </em>Grammatically, the "those" would refer to those of :18 who were believers who now 'came out' in confession of sin after their conversion. It would therefore appear that some were baptized who still continued practicing magic, but now they were persuaded to break with it. We again see here the openness of the apostles towards baptizing people, even when their lifestyles were less than perfect.</p><p><em>Brought their books together and burned them</em>-</p><p> The Greek word here is elsewhere always translated 'to profit' (16 times). The loss was their profit, in spiritual terms.</p><p><em>In the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver</em></p><p>- see on :18 <em>Confessed</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>So the word of the Lord</em>-</p><p> In contrast to the word of all the books they had just burnt.</p><p><em>Spread widely and grew in power- </em>The same word used about the growth of the seed of the word on good ground (<em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>) and the growth of the tiny mustard seed of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). This is Luke's way of signalling that there was good ground in Ephesus, and the burning of the expensive books was a sign of the fruit and power of the tiny seed of the Gospel in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em>When these things were accomplished-</em></p><p> Gk. 'fulfilled'. Perhaps we are intended to understand that these things had fulfilled the parables of the seed of the Gospel growing.</p><p><em>Paul purposed in the Spirit</em>-</p><p> This could mean that he in his own spirit decided to go to Rome via Jerusalem (although "<em>the </em>Spirit" is hard to interpret like this); and the Beza codex confirms this approach: "He resolved, or determined in himself". But it could be that he conceived the idea [that is a valid translation of the Greek], and the Spirit of God confirmed him in it. The intentional ambiguity of the text is perhaps to lead us to the conclusion that Paul's spirit and God's Spirit were in agreement over the idea Paul had conceived. And yet the Spirit likewise warned him in every city of the consequences of this course of action. We see here how God is prepared to confirm us in whichever course of action we ourselves choose. In our early days in Christ, we agonize over which decision to take. But so often, it's not the decision but the motives behind the choice which are important; and God can equally confirm us in the choices made, whatever they are. It could be argued that all the drama he had in his life as a result of appealing to Caesar could have been avoided if he had chosen the freedom made possible for him. But he appears to have become almost obsessed with the idea of getting to Rome to witness there. His desire to go via Jerusalem first was in order to take the collection money there for the Jews- money raised from collections amongst the Gentile churches. It would likewise seem from 2Corinthians that this plan was obsessive with Paul, and it badly backfired in Corinth; and his plans for visiting Corinth had to be changed because they simply hadn't raised the funds (<em><a href='B:530 16:5-9'>1Co 16:5-9</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:540 1:16'>2Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:23'>2Co 1:23</a></em>). And yet God worked with all this, with the Lord Jesus assuring Paul that he would get to Rome (<em><a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a></em>); although Paul observes that his desire to "see Rome" had been frequently hindered (<em><a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a></em>). Maybe this was God working to try to stop Paul, as the Spirit so often warned him not to go there. And so we see how the Spirit can work on two poles, as it were, in the lives of His servants; on one hand confirming us in the way we choose, on another, seeking to preserve us in a better way.</p><p><em>To go up to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying: After I have been there, I must also see Rome</em>-</p><p> But actually he had written to the Romans that he would drop in to see them on his way to Spain (<em><a href='B:520 15:23'>Rom 15:23</a></em>). Spain was his real ambition, to preach the Gospel in "the regions beyond" (<em><a href='B:540 10:16'>2Co 10:16</a></em> and context)- not Rome. But <em><a href='B:510 19:21'>Act 19:21</a></em> gives the impression that Rome was the end of his vision.</p>


text:
<p><em>And having sent into Macedonia two of those that assisted him, Timothy and Erastus, he stayed in Asia for a while</em>-</p><p> Perhaps to prepare the way for his coming there (:21). Or perhaps Paul sensed the terrible persecution which was to break out in Ephesus, and sent timid Timothy away from a situation which could have been unbearable for him. Perhaps this was the visit to Corinth by Timothy which Paul wrote about in <em><a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:10'>1Co 16:10</a></em>. In which case Paul's love for the Corinthians was such that he allowed himself to be without personal assistants in order for a pastoral trip to be made to them. Maybe he needed personal assistants ("that ministered unto him", AV) because of failing health. </p>


text:
<p><em>And about that time there arose no small stir concerning the Way</em>-</p><p> "The way" was an accepted description for Christianity (<em><a href='B:510 9:2'>Act 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:14'>Act 24:14</a></em>). The allusion was perhaps to "the way to the tree of life", which had been guarded by the Cherubim since Adam's expulsion from Eden. In this case, unlike many religions both ancient and modern, Christianity is not an end in itself. There is in Christianity the most clearly articulated and emphasized end point, far more definitely stressed than in any other religion. The end of the Way is the tree of life, partaking of God's fullness for eternity, seeing good and evil with His eyes of love and grace. We already partake of these things, but the way stretches so much further ahead.</p>


text:
<p><em>For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no little business to the craftsmen</em>-</p><p> These icons were bought by visitors and worshippers and placed in homes as good luck charms. The usage of icons in the Catholic and Orthodox churches is clearly the result of such paganism getting mixed with Christianity. I have explained on 1 Timothy that the Artemis / Diana cult came to influence the Christian church in Ephesus, and much of the language used there and the issues addressed must be understood in the Diana cult context.</p>


text:
<p><em>He gathered them together, with the workmen of similar occupation, and said: Sirs, you know that by this business we have our wealth</em>-</p><p> He admitted that their religion was nothing less than a business. Those working in the shrine and icon business were a numerical minority within the city; but we see here how a disaffected minority can make huge trouble for the Lord's people. We see too how self-preservation and the basic love of wealth and stability of income can lead men to do deeply evil things. </p>


text:
<p><em>And you see and hear, that not only at Ephesus but throughout most of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and led astray many people, saying that they are no gods that are made with hands</em>-</p><p> Note the irony, that they 'turned away' (<em><a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a></em>) from the one who had 'turned them away' from idols (<em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>). There is a tacit recognition here of the extent of Paul's witness. He was seen as the ringleader of the Christians (<em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em>), a man who had turned the world upside down (<em><a href='B:510 17:6'>Act 17:6</a></em>); and here he is known as one who had persuaded people of the Lord Jesus "throughout most of Asia". The claim of the Roman Jews never to have heard of him was therefore untrue. Although Paul was empowered in his ministry by the Lord, he also on the human level still had to achieve it all by his own freewill. And he was in no way forced to do what he did. He chose to. "The power of one" in his case was remarkable. And we each have far greater potential than we like to admit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And not only is there a danger that this our trade will come into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana will be made of no account, and that she whom all Asia and the world worships should even be deposed from her magnificence</em>-</p><p> Evidence of Diana worship has been found in Egypt and Eastern Europe; so the idea is that [people from all] "the world" worshipped her. Again, they admit that their religion is no more than "our trade". Religion was and is big business. </p><p>1</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard this, they were filled with anger and cried out, saying: Great is Diana of Ephesus!-</em></p><p> Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so they were angry. It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom. 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom. 2:4</a>). We note how pagan gods were local in worship and supposed sphere of influence- Diana was &quot;of Ephesus&quot;, and the Jews considered Yahweh the God of Israel alone, and the likes of Jonah even thought that His presence was limited outside the land of Israel. The Christian message of a loving Father involved with &quot;all men&quot; as their saviour was therefore radical in its huge, global scope.</p><p>Their anger was related to shame that their god had been exposed as a fake. There's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: &quot;A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame&quot; (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Prov. 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Prov. 14:35</a>). Or consider <a href='B:90 20:34'>1 Sam. 20:34</a>: &quot;So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month... because his father had done him shame&quot;. Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will &quot;curse [in anger]... and be ashamed&quot; (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Ps. 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that &quot;they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten&quot; (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer. 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the city was filled with confusion; and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel</em>-</p><p> The archaeological remains suggest it would have held up to 56,000 people.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him</em>-</p><p> Such a huge audience [up to 56,000 - see on :29] was seen by Paul as a supreme opportunity for preaching. He did not count his life dear to himself, so that he might obey the ministry he had received, to preach to the Gentiles. The disciples blocking of his desire is to be read along with the various times the disciples bundled him away from a city where persecution had broken out, when he himself was clearly minded to remain. Their motivation was not simply because they wanted him to survive to fight again another day, but because they feared for their own safety if Paul continued to provoke things by his continued public witness.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent word to him, pleading that he not venture into the theatre</em>-</p><p> The Gospel had won friends in high places, even among the Asiarchs. The Lord Jesus is the representative of all men, and therefore appeals to all. This is why Christianity was and is unique in its appeal to people from all social strata and backgrounds. See commentary on the list of names in Romans 16. </p><p>In Paul’s inspired thought, on the cross the Lord “gave himself” for us (<em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:6'>1Ti 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:14'>Tit 2:14</a></em>). And yet he uses the same Greek words to describe how are to ‘give ourselves’ for our brethren (<em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>), to ‘give ourselves’ in financial generosity to their needs (<em><a href='B:540 8:5'>2Co 8:5</a></em>), and in <em><a href='B:510 19:31'>Act 19:31</a></em> we meet the same phrase describing how Paul ‘gave himself’ into the theatre at Ephesus, filled with people bent on killing him, taking the conscious choice to risk his life in order to share the Gospel with others. In this I see a cameo of how the choice of preaching the Gospel is in fact a conscious living out of the Lord’s example on the cross. Paul was discouraged from doing so by his friends and brethren; and yet surely he had his mind on the way the Lord ‘gave himself’ for us in His death, as a conscious choice, and so he brushed aside his reserve, that human desire to do what appears the sensible, safe option… in order to bring others to the cross of Christ. And day by day we have the same choice before us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, some cried one thing and some another. For the assembly was in confusion and most did not know why they had come together</em>-</p><p> "Most" or "the majority" were shouting in passion but were unaware of the real issues behind it. Majorities are often like this; which is why democracy is not something advocated in the Bible [but rather good leadership]:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And they brought Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews putting him forward; and Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made a defence to the people- </em>Perhaps the coppersmith of <em><a href='B:620 4:14'>2Ti 4:14</a></em> who later did Paul much evil by turning against him. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when they perceived that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out: Great is Diana of the Ephesians!</em>-</p><p> One side of the theatre was steep rock, and this would have added a distinct audio effect to their voices, making them as it were one voice.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: You men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great Diana and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?</em>-</p><p> Religion and locality were connected in the ancient world. The town clerk was arguing that all Ephesians were of course worshippers of Diana by reason of being Ephesians. The whole city kept Diana's temple. Hence he addresses them as [Gk:] "Ephesians!". Indeed, most people even today are born into a religious position. This is where the call of Christ is so radical, making all things new in the minds of those who break out of their natural, birth positioning on spiritual issues. </p>


text:
<p><em>Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash</em>-</p><p> The town clerk was arguing, very cleverly and diplomatically, that the commotion was an indication that they were in doubt about their religion. He wanted them to calm down by all means, and hence argues that the relationship of Diana with the Ephesians cannot be sensibly denied and so they should stop getting so agitated as if it could be denied.</p>


text:
<p><em>For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess</em>-</p><p> Perhaps the talk on the street was that this was what Paul had done; especially as Jews had a reputation as temple robbers, justifying themselves with the thought that the gods didn't actually exist (see on <em><a href='B:520 2:22'>Rom 2:22</a></em>). The town clerk wanted by all means to calm the situation and so he saw the need to make it clear that Paul had not robbed the Diana shrine. Paul had criticized "gods made with hands" (:26); but the clerk reminds them that their belief was that Diana had fallen down from Jupiter, and her image was therefore 'obviously' not made with hands. And so Paul was not blaspheming Diana.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>Therefore, if Demetrius and the craftsmen that are with him have a matter against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them accuse one another</em>-</p><p> The court days were right then in session. </p>


text:
<p><em>But if you seek anything about other matters, it shall be settled in the regular assembly</em>-</p><p> The clerk was eager to calm things by taking the sting out of the situation; so he suggests they raise the matters in the correct legal manner. The clerk acts with the sagacity we would expect of such a leading figure; and Luke's record reflects that. It really has the ring of truth to it; this is exactly how a smart town clerk might try to defuse such a situation.</p>


text:
<p><em>For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion</em>-</p><p> The local authority was in fear that there could be questioning of what had happened, and so they wanted there to be peace- which meant, the new church being left alone. Likewise, Demetrius was in danger for his life if the matter were investigated further- for raising a mob and making an illegal such gathering was a capital offence. So he too would drop the issues against the Christians. The same happened in Philippi- Paul manipulated the situation to mean that the local authorities would be worried about being charged with wrongly treating a Roman citizen, and therefore they just wanted the Christians to exist quietly and without persecution or fuss made about them. And that of course is what the Lord wants for us too. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly</em>-</p><p> The <em>ekklesia</em> could as well be translated "church". And <em>apoluo</em> ("dismissed") has a wide range of meaning; it is elsewhere translated to release or set at liberty. There may be the possibility of understanding this as meaning that as in Philippi, events worked out to mean that the ecclesia was at least initially not persecuted by the local authorities.</p><p>Wrestling Wild Beasts at Ephesus </p><p>In the context of talking about our hope of bodily resurrection at Christ’s return, Paul says that this hope was what had given perspective to his wrestling with wild beasts at Ephesus (<em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em>). The context surely requires that we understand this as referring to how he had been in danger of losing his physical life because of this wrestling, but he endured it with a mindset which looked ahead to the resurrection of the body. The wrestling with wild beasts, therefore, appears to be a literal experience which he had, rather than using ‘wrestling with wild beasts’ in a figurative sense. There was at Ephesus an amphitheatre, and we also know that there were cases where convicted criminals were forced to fight wild animals; if they killed the animal, then they went free. It seems this is what happened to Paul. He speaks in <em><a href='B:540 1:8-10'>2Co 1:8-10</a></em> of an acute crisis which he faced in Asia (and Ephesus was in Asia) which involved his having been given a death sentence, and yet being saved out of it by “the God who raises the dead”. This emphasis on bodily resurrection is the same context we have in <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em>. As he faced his death in <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>, Paul reminisced how the Lord had earlier saved him “out of the mouth of the lion”; and the context there is of literal language, and we are therefore inclined to consider that he was literally saved from a lion in the arena at Ephesus. This also helps us better understand his earlier reference in Corinthians to having been exhibited as a spectacle, as a gladiator at a show, “appointed unto death”, in the presence of God and men (<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>). Note that despite this traumatic experience, Paul chose to continue at Ephesus even after that, because he saw a door had been opened to him for the Gospel, despite “many adversaries” (<em><a href='B:530 16:8-9'>1Co 16:8-9</a></em>). We who are so shy to put a word in for the Lord in our encounters with people ought to take strength from Paul’s dogged example in Ephesus. </p><p>But when Paul speaks in <em><a href='B:540 1:8-10'>2Co 1:8-10</a></em> of his death sentence experience in Ephesus, he does so in the context of having reasoned in the previous verses of how whatever we experience, we experience so that we may comfort others: “[God] comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so in Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer”. These verses are profound in their implication. Whatever we experience is according to God’s plan, so that we might use that experience in order to strengthen others. We all share in Christ’s afflictions, but “in Christ” we experience comfort, insofar as others within the body of Christ mediate His comfort to us. However, the whole process only functions if we open ourselves up to others, understanding their experiences and sharing with them the strength which we received when we went through the same things in essence. No life is of course identical; few believers have experienced what Paul did in Ephesus. And yet he says that he wanted to use that experience in order to comfort those in Corinth who in essence were going through the same thing. We live in an age where mankind is in retreat, retreat back into himself. The online life tempts us to interact only as far as we wish and as often as we wish, and this has led many to retreat into themselves. Likewise interaction at meetings of the body of Christ can so often focus only around surface level issues. We don’t expose ourselves, and others don’t expose themselves to us. Within such a spirit of isolationism, we can never allow the body of Christ to function as God intends. We will fail to find ultimate meaning in our experiences; for Paul teaches clearly that they happen to us in order that we may share the fruits of them with others. This is why so many alcoholics and other addicts who do the 12 step courses tend to fail on the very last step- that they hereafter vow to spend the rest of their lives sharing what they have learnt with others. And so they retreat back into the mire of mediocrity and into the old patterns of existence and coping. </p><p>This line of thought explains why within Biblical history, it’s apparent that circumstances repeated in essence within the experience of God’s children. Ezekiel was asked to eat unclean food by God, and he found it so hard to get his legalistic head around it; Peter likewise. Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness and was tempted there for 40 days to reveal what was in His heart- just as Israel had been for 40 years. It also explains why once and if we can dig beneath the facade of normality which we all tend to cover our faces with, we find there are others who have experienced amazingly similar experiences to ourselves. And the extraordinary similarity of experience is in fact designed by God; because these are meetings and connections made in Heaven. We are here for each other, and all we experience is in a sense for others. This opens another window onto the meaning of personal suffering; another take on the eternal question “Why?”. There’s an element to it which isn’t for our benefit at all, but for others. Take Job. That man was “perfect” and solidly with the Lord at the start of the book, and he is the same at the end of the book. The purpose of his sufferings was perhaps not therefore simply for his own personal development; but for the conversion of the three friends. The palsied man was palsied and was healed so that others might learn that the Son of Man had power to forgive sins (<em><a href='B:470 10:6-9'>Mat 10:6-9</a></em>). </p><p>We too easily assume that nobody else could ever understand our life path, the way we have taken. We too quickly consider that others have a charmed life. Some seem to have great health and family relationships, money, security and spirituality. But in fact beneath all that veneer there simply has to be in every life lived in Christ an awful co-suffering with Him. People in Christ go through the most awful, unspeakable agonies. Every one of us does. Nobody gets off light. It just seems to our limited vision that some do. We all wrestle with wild beasts at Ephesus, and are saved out of the mouth of the lion. Whatever the Corinthians were enduring, it was in essence “the same suffering” as Paul endured in that arena. And there should therefore have been a meeting of minds; the basis of our fellowship is largely intended to be our common <em>experience</em> in Christ. Ideas and theories tend to divide; experience unites. And what people need far more than anything else, than any smart expositions or mental gymnastics with Scripture, more than money, is the simple comfort of Christ’s love. We have each received that comfort ourselves in our life experiences; and we are to make the functioning of Christ’s body effective by getting out there and sharing that comfort with others. For this is how, mechanically as it were, on the ground, in reality, “we [who] share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, in Christ share abundantly in comfort too”. </p>


text:
<p><em>And after the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them he said farewell and departed for Macedonia</em>-</p><p> The same happened at Philippi; at a time when Paul would be the one needing the encouragement from the local brethren, he instead encourages <em>them</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had gone through those regions</em>-</p><p> This implies a prepared pastoral itinerary, just as Peter did in <em><a href='B:510 9:32'>Act 9:32</a></em>.</p><p><em>And had given them much encouragement, he came into Greece</em>-</p><p> Gk. many words [<em>logos</em>]. The same phrase is used of how Judas and Silas gave 'many words' of prophetic encouragement, i:e. the gift of prophecy gave them words to say (15:32). And so here too, probably the Spirit gave Paul the words needed for each of the groups he visited. </p>


text:
<p><em>There he spent three months- </em>Paul had three periods of three months in his missionary work (<em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:3'>Act 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:11'>Act 28:11</a></em>). Our lives work according to a Divine program, even if at the time it's hard to always discern this. We think of the three periods of 40 years in the life of Moses.</p><p><em>But as he was about to set sail for Syria</em>-</p><p> Such last minute changes of plan indicate that Paul had great autonomy in his travel choices. The red lines on maps showing his journeys rather disguise the freedom of choice which he had, and exercised.</p><p><em>He was informed that the Jews planned to ambush him, so he decided to return through Macedonia</em>-</p><p> Perhaps also related to the fact he was carrying the collection for the poor believers at Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p><em>Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus from Berea, accompanied him</em>-</p><p> These seven men who accompanied Paul and Luke were presumably also in order to provide some level of security seeing they were carrying the collection for the poor at Jerusalem. At no other point do we read of so many travelling with Paul. Seeing that all Asia turned away from Paul, these may have been his only close friends. He was by no means universally accepted in the early church.</p><p><em>And of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus</em>-</p><p> Aristarchus was a solid friend and co-worker, who enters the record at 19:29; supported Paul on the journey to Rome (27:2), laboured with him (<em><a href='B:640 1:24'>Phm 1:24</a></em>), and ended up in prison with him in Rome (<em><a href='B:580 4:10-11'>Col 4:10-11</a></em>). Tychicus was sent by Paul to confirm the Ephesians (<em><a href='B:560 6:21-22'>Eph 6:21-22</a></em>), Colossians (<em><a href='B:580 4:7-8'>Col 4:7-8</a></em>) and those in Crete (<em><a href='B:630 3:12'>Tit 3:12</a></em>). Most people in the first century never travelled more than 50 km. from their birthplace, so this geographical mobility was unusual. Tychicus was perhaps one of Paul's most trusted and well used co-workers.</p><p>Paul had commanded Timohty to remain at Ephesus when he left for Macedonia (<em><a href='B:610 1:3'>1Ti 1:3</a></em>). Presumably he had very few trusted brethren he could take with him, and he was desperate for men to be with him at this time, so he recalled Timothy to his side. Again we see a change of plan, the kind of thing the Corinthians later mocked Paul for. Again we see the degree to which Paul's missionary plans were largely left to his own initiative, with God confirming him in them, rather than being told where and when to go. </p><p>Sopater was perhaps a relative of Paul (<em><a href='B:520 16:21'>Rom 16:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>These had gone ahead earlier, and were waiting for us at Troas</em>-</p><p> The use of “us” shows that Luke has now rejoined Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em>And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread; and in five days came to those at Troas, where we stayed seven days</em>-</p><p> It took them only two days previously (16:11,12), and I suggested there that this was because the wind of the Spirit was behind them. But the whole plan of going to Rome via Jerusalem was not ideally what God wanted; the Spirit witnessed against it in every town along the way, and the wind / spirit was against him right from the start. The wind was likewise against the journey to Malta; and the nautical details at 28:13 [see note there] show that even from there to Rome was against the wind. </p>


text:
<p><em>And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart the next day; and prolonged his speech until midnight</em>-</p><p> Paul is presented as a man in a rush- to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost. He was using every hour of the night to deliver his teaching. And this led to Eutychus falling from the window. Yet again we get the impression that everything went wrong on this journey to Jerusalem and thence to Rome. It was not God's ideal plan for Paul, and yet he insisted upon it. And God went along with him. God is open to man; He may know the trillions of possible futures we face, and agonize over our poor decision making; but we are not out of His game plan altogether by making them. He will still work with us. But we shall "have trouble in the flesh" as a result; life doesn't go well, the blessings for obedience, the peace possible in Christ, is not realized on a human level. Frequently young believers come to me to discuss a plan to marry an unbeliever, e.g. a Moslem. I cannot say that they are out of God's game plan if they go ahead. But life will not go well, and the path to the Kingdom will be so much harder for them- even though God works with them through the Spirit on that path they chose to take. For He passionately wishes their salvation. When Paul sailed the same route before, it took him two days, with the wind of the Spirit behind him; he had a straight course, alluding to the straight path of the feet of the cherubim in Ezekiel 1. But now, it took him five days, with the wind against him. Finally Paul achieved his aim, with God's help; he survived at least one shipwreck on the journey, and probably the time he spent a day and night in the sea was also sometime on this journey to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:540 11:25'>2Co 11:25</a></em>). And there he was in Rome. But in prison. And he died there. Festus and Agrippa had truly commented that if it were not for his dogged insistence on appealing to Caesar, he could have been set free (<em><a href='B:510 26:32'>Act 26:32</a></em>). His loss of freedom was terribly painful for him: "Apart from these chains..." (<em><a href='B:510 26:29'>Act 26:29</a></em>). God of course used Paul's time in prison, and his prison letters are proof enough of that. And he did spread the Gospel throughout the Roman soldiers there and even into Caesar's palace: "The things which happened to me have turned out for the progress of the gospel; so that my bonds made Christ manifest throughout the whole Praetorian guard, and to all the rest; and further, most of the believers in the Lord, being made confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear" (<em><a href='B:570 1:12-14'>Phi 1:12-14</a></em>). God will use our less than ideal choices; for without the saving action of God's Spirit, Paul's body would have been washed up on the shores of Malta, or he would have fallen down dead on the beach from the viper sting. </p><p>“Intending to depart the next day” is language reminiscent of Passover; awake all night, with lamps burning (:8), and ready to leave the next day, breaking bread together, re-living the first Passover. Seeing this was just after Passover time (:6), we wonder if Paul was re-enacting a Passover meal with these Gentile believers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there were many lamps- </em>We note the public, open nature of their meeting. They were in accord with the Lord's teaching that we are lamps lit and visible to the world.</p><p><em>In the upper room where we were gathered together</em>-</p><p> Luke is surely purposefully connecting with the disciples at the first breaking of bread in an upper room (<em><a href='B:490 22:12'>Luk 22:12</a></em>), and then being in the upper room gathered together after the Lord's resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 1:13'>Act 1:13</a></em>). The point is made that the gathering together in breaking of bread, at any distance in time or space from those early gatherings, is a continuation of them in essence. The same point is made by Luke's preference in Acts for describing the believers as "the disciples", as if their [and our] walk in Christ is a continuation of the way the early disciples followed Him in person around the streets and lanes of first century Palestine.</p>


text:
<p><em>And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus</em>-</p><p> Gk. 'well fated'. As with many Bible names, the name seems so appropriate to the person. It could be in his case that he was given this name in the community after his resurrection. And yet it could also be that God arranged the naming of such people in advance as a reflection of how He knows the destiny and future experiences of each of His people from birth.</p><p><em>Who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep, and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead- </em>A cameo of Paul’s attitude is presented when Eutychus falls down from the window; Paul likewise runs down afterwards and falls on him, on the blood and broken bones (:9,10). The language of Paul’s descent and falling upon Eutychus and Eutychus’ own fall from the window are so similar. Surely the point is, that Paul had a heart that bled for that man, that led him to identify with him.</p><p>Believe that you really will receive; avoid the temptation of asking for things as a child asks for Christmas presents, with the vague hope that something might turn up. Be like Paul, who fell upon the smashed body of Eutychus with the assurance: "Trouble not yourselves [alluding to his Lord's words' in another upper room]; for his life is in him" (<em><a href='B:510 20:10'>Act 20:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him</em>-</p><p> In conscious imitation of Elijah and Elisha (<em><a href='B:110 17:21'>1Ki 17:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 4:34'>2Ki 4:34</a></em>):&nbsp; "Bent over" is literally "fell on him" (AV) or 'stretched upon him'. Paul was clearly imitating Elisha's resurrection of the Shunammite's son (<em><a href='B:120 4:33-35'>2Ki 4:33-35</a></em>)</p><p><em>Said: Don't be alarmed</em>-</p><p> Using the same word, in the same context, as the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:480 5:39'>Mar 5:39</a></em>: "Why make you a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeps... immediately the girl got up and began walking... and they were immediately overcome with amazement". We see here how Paul had so absorbed the Gospel accounts into his very being, so that his actions were a reflection of the One recounted there, the One Paul so admired and sought to imitate. And in that we see a pattern for ourselves in our Christ-focused Christianity.</p><p><em>For his life is in him</em>-</p><p> The Greek in :9 means that he really was dead. So seeing there is no 'immortal soul', Paul presumably meant that the source of new life was within the dead man, i:e. because of his faith, Paul would raise him from the dead. Paul's confident statement that "his life is in him" was presumably uttered in faith. We can only speculate whether the miracle&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten</em>-</p><p> It’s a hard job for those who wish to separate the open ‘breakings of bread’ performed by Jesus and Paul from the “breaking of bread” as in our Christian ritual of remembrance of Christ’s death. They would have to argue that ‘breaking bread’ is used in different ways in the New Testament. Contrary to what their position requires, " Breaking of bread” was not a standard Jewish designation for a full meal, but only for the ritual act that initiated it” (John Koenig, <em>The Feast of the World’s Redemption</em> (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2000) p. 91. This is confirmed in Joachim Jeremias, <em>Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) p. 131). The Emmaus disciples were particularly struck by the way in which Jesus blessed and broke the bread (<em><a href='B:490 24:30-35'>Luk 24:30-35</a></em>), showing that ‘breaking bread’ isn’t used to simply refer to any kind of eating. Note how Luke comments on Paul’s “breaking bread” at Troas: “After he had broken bread <em>and </em>eaten” (<em><a href='B:510 20:11'>Act 20:11</a></em>). ‘Breaking bread’ isn’t equal to simply eating any old meal. Likewise the word <em>eucharistesas</em> is associated with the “giving thanks” for the bread and wine at the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:22'>Mar 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 22:17-20'>Luk 22:17-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23-25'>1Co 11:23-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>); but this isn’t the usual word which would’ve been used to describe giving thanks for a meal. That would’ve been <em>eulogia</em>, equivalent to the Hebrew <em>berakah</em>. The word <em>eucharistesas </em>seems to have a specific ritual, religious sense (as in <em><a href='B:520 14:5'>Rom 14:5</a></em>; Jubilees 22:5-9); some argue that it means to give thanks <em>over </em>something, in this case the bread, rather than to simply give thanks <em>for</em> e.g. a meal. It is therefore highly significant that this is the word also used for Christ’s breaking of bread to the 5000 strangers, Gentiles and semi-believers in the desert, and Paul’s breaking bread with the sailors on the doomed ship (<em><a href='B:500 6:11'>Joh 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:23'>Joh 6:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 27:34-36'>Act 27:34-36</a></em>). This strongly suggests that we are to see in those incidents a spiritual, ritual ‘breaking of bread’ rather than a mere sharing of food. </p><p><em>And talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed- </em>“Talked” is a more informal word than the word translated "talked" in :7, which implies a more formal discourse. This subtle difference is again true to observed experience and confirms we are reading a genuine eyewitness account; for after an incident like that of Eutychus, everyone would have felt the more relaxed with each other and with Paul. It is in this sense that experience unites, and doctrine left at mere ideas tends to divide.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they brought the lad alive and were greatly comforted</em>-</p><p> The chronology presented suggests that Paul preached, Eutychus fell, Paul ran down and resurrected him, Paul returned upstairs, continued preaching, and then they brought Eutychus up to him. This demonstrates how miracles and material assistance were utterly incidental to the essential focus of Paul and the apostles- which was the teaching of the Gospel. Sadly, so many branches of Christianity have maxed out on the material blessings and lost the focus there was and should be- on the teaching of the Lord's word and salvation in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But going ahead to the ship we set sail for Assos, there intending to pick up Paul. For so had he arranged, he intending to go</em>-</p><p> Intending... arranged... intending- The repetition of the Greek word underlines how these brethren were left to use their own initiative in arranging things, with all the uncertainties of travel, especially given the limited information there was available for travellers.</p><p><em>By land</em>-</p><p> A distance of around 20 miles compared to 45 miles by sea. Why did Paul again split his party? Perhaps there was real danger of ambush because of the money they were carrying for the poor believers in Jerusalem. The splitting of the group would have given a better chance of some of the funds getting through if the worst came to the worst.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and came to Mitylene</em>-</p><p> "We took him aboard" could suggest that Paul was weak and had to be helped aboard. </p>


text:
<p><em>And sailing from there, the following day we arrived off Kios, the next day we crossed over to Samos and the day after we came to Miletus</em>-</p><p> Kios was the nearest to a 'resort island' in the ancient world; and we note that they did not stop there.</p>


text:
<p><em>For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia. For he was in a hurry, hoping to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost</em>-</p><p> Paul clearly tried to keep the Jewish feasts, as part of his being as a Jew to the Jews. But the Jewish feasts were also a unique opportunity to witness the Gospel to diaspora Jews from all over the empire who came there. But Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews. If Paul had left such witness to Peter, as the Lord surely intended, he wouldn't have needed to rush to Jerusalem, nor suffered all he did. Again we get the impression that Paul ran into some of his difficulties because of an obsession with involvement with Israel which was not God's intended path for him. It was all the same reckoned to him as service to the Lord, and the Lord worked with him in it- just as He does with us in our less than ideal choices in His service. But see on :24 <em>Finish my race</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church</em>-</p><p> Instead of going there himself, he gathered together the local elders in one place. Paul was trying to save every day, in order to be at Jerusalem for Pentecost. Again we see his pressing obsession with getting there in order to witness to the Jews gathered there. “Elders” is a term effectively equivalent to "bishops" here (:28).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had come to him, he said to them: You know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia</em>-</p><p> But had all those elders been with Paul from his first day in Asia? Or is the idea that his reputation for sincerity was so solid that they therefore knew this? “Set foot in Asia” is alluding to <em><a href='B:60 14:9'>Jos 14:9</a></em> LXX: "Surely the land where you walked ['set foot'] shall be an inheritance to you and to your children forever, because you have wholly followed Yahweh my God". He saw the conquests he made for the Gospel as being part of his inheritance in the promised land; he would eternally enjoy it, and the more he took in this life, the more he would have eternally.</p><p><em>After what manner I was with you</em>-</p><p> The speech is clearly based upon Samuel's final address of <em><a href='B:90 12:3'>1Sa 12:3</a></em>. The similarities suggest that Paul felt that his audience were likewise going to turn away from the true God and wish to become like the nations around them, with visible leadership. And the corruption of Christianity shows that his fears were well founded, for this is indeed what happened. True Christianity comprised with paganism and imported pagan ideas such as the trinity and immortality of the soul.</p><p><em>All the time</em>-</p><p> Codex Bezae adds here "for three years". AV "At all seasons". Paul wrote to Timothy at Ephesus, and his language in 2 Timothy has many allusions to his own behaviour whilst at Ephesus. He spoke at Ephesus of how he had preached the word "at all seasons" (<em><a href='B:510 20:18'>Act 20:18</a></em> AV)- and he tells Timothy to do likewise (<em><a href='B:620 4:2'>2Ti 4:2</a></em>); Paul had taught what was profitable to others (<em><a href='B:510 20:20'>Act 20:20</a></em>); and this was to be Timothy's pattern (<em><a href='B:620 3:16'>2Ti 3:16</a></em> RV). As he spoke to the Ephesians of the time of his departure, hard times to come and the need to use God's word to build us up (<em><a href='B:510 20:29'>Act 20:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>), so he told Timothy (<em><a href='B:620 4:3'>2Ti 4:3</a></em>). Paul in writing to Timothy was consciously holding himself up as Timothy's example in the context of Ephesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind</em>-</p><p> The idea is of bondage in slavery. Yet Paul also used this word when telling the Romans that although he did indeed serve the Lord, this was <em>in his mind</em>, and he says here it was with "all lowliness of mind"; but in his flesh, he still served the law of sin (<em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). His service "with lowliness of mind" was therefore on the basis that he realized that in reality, he still at times served the principles of sin. Paul uses the same term for "lowliness of mind" when he wrote to the Ephesians exhorting them to have such a mind (<em><a href='B:560 4:2'>Eph 4:2</a></em>). So what he here told the Ephesian elders about himself, he later asked all the Ephesian believers to emulate.</p><p>Lowliness of mind is one of a number of allusions to Moses: "I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly" (<em><a href='B:510 20:20'>Act 20:20</a></em>)... Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things" (<em><a href='B:510 20:30'>Act 20:30</a></em>). "The man Moses was very meek" (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). The humility / lowliness of Moses really fired Paul. As Moses likewise warned in his farewell speech that false prophets would <em>arise</em> - and should be shunned (<em><a href='B:50 13:1'>Deu 13:1</a></em>).</p><p>John's mission was to prepare Israel for Christ, to figuratively '<em>bring low'&nbsp;</em>the hills and mountains, the proud Jews of first century Israel, and raise the valleys, i:e. inspire the humble with the real possibility of salvation in Christ (<em><a href='B:490 3:5'>Luk 3:5</a></em>). Paul uses the same Greek word for "bring low" no fewer than three times, concerning how the Gospel has humbled him (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em> "lowliness"; <em><a href='B:540 11:7'>2Co 11:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:12'>Phi 4:12</a></em>). It's as if he's saying: 'John's preaching did finally have its’ effect upon me; it did finally make me humble enough for the Lord Jesus'. And as John made straight paths for men's feet that they might come unto Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>), so did Paul (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>And with tears and with trials which befell me</em>-</p><p> The tears of Paul were part of his service to the Lord; that is the force of the word "with". Those caught up in grieving processes need not think that this is all selfish; it can also be part of active serving the Lord.</p><p><em>By the plots of the Jews</em>-</p><p> The same word used about this in :3.</p>


text:
<p><em>You know how I did not hesitate</em>-</p><p> The Greek word means to draw in, and is used about furling / taking in sails. Paul had arrived after a sea voyage, during which he would have observed this and heard the word multiple times. And so he uses it. This is exactly true to life in human language usage, and confirms we are reading words which were really said. The word is used in :27 about his lack of hesitation in revealing to them the whole advice of God; the implication is that he was tempted, as we are, to only tell people those aspects of God's revelation which we think they can cope with or which will be attractive to them.</p><p><em>To declare to you anything that was helpful</em>-</p><p> The Greek carries the idea of 'profitable' [as AV]. Paul is here addressing the elders from Ephesus, and the same word is used to describe how the converts in Ephesus had burnt their magic books of profit (<em><a href='B:510 19:19'>Act 19:19</a></em>). Paul had shown them how to really profit, spiritually; and that had involved a loss of secular profit.</p><p><em>And taught you in public, and from house to house</em>-</p><p> Luke used the same phrase “house to house” in <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em> to describe house churches. Surely Paul was recalling how he had taught the Ephesian church both “publicly”, when they were all gathered together, and also in their house churches. Aquila had a house church in Ephesus (<em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>), and so did Onesiphorus (<em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>; Tim. 4:19). Another indication of this structure within the Ephesian church is to be found in considering how Paul wrote to Timothy with advice, whilst Timothy was leading that church. Paul advises him not to permit sisters to wander about “from house [church] to house [church]” carrying ecclesial gossip (<em><a href='B:610 5:13'>1Ti 5:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em>.</p><p><em>Testifying- </em>A legal term, implying that whenever a person encounters the call of the Gospel, they stand as it were right now before God's judgment seat. Paul develops this metaphor very strongly in Romans.</p><p><em>Both to Jews and to Gentiles repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> Gk. <em>the</em> repentance [in some manuscripts]. Perhaps a technical term used amongst the Christians, showing the importance they attached to this step prior to baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em>And now I go bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem</em></p><p>- see on 9:14. Consider the following passages in the Spirit's biography of Paul: "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred within him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry" and therefore he preached to them (<em><a href='B:510 17:16'>Act 17:16</a></em>). In Corinth, "Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ" (<em><a href='B:510 18:5'>Act 18:5</a></em>). "Now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem" (<em><a href='B:510 20:22'>Act 20:22</a></em>) is difficult to divorce from the previous passages. It may be that the Holy Spirit confirmed the desire of Paul's own spirit; but I am tempted to read this as yet one more example of where he felt overwhelmingly compelled to witness. "Paul purposed in the spirit... to go to Jerusalem, saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome" (<em><a href='B:510 19:21'>Act 19:21</a></em>). It was as if his own conscience, developed within him by the word and his experience of the Lord Jesus, compelled him to take the Gospel right to the ends of his world. His ambition for Spain, at a time when most men scarcely travelled 100km. from their birthplace, is just superb (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>).</p><p>"Bound in the spirit" implies, grammatically at least, bound in his own spirit. There is therefore the intended contrast with the <em>Holy </em>Spirit, the spirit of <em>God</em>, in :22. The contrast could lead us to think that it was not God's intention that Paul go to suffering and death in Rome via Jerusalem. But Paul bound himself to do this, and his obsession with provoking the Jews resulted in this- when he was surely intended to leave the Jewish ministry to Peter, and focus on being the apostle to the Gentiles.</p><p><em>Not knowing the things that shall befall me there</em>-</p><p> But the Spirit clearly witnessed about the suffering awaiting him (:23). Maybe Paul meant that he was not recognizing them, and was going to go ahead anyway; or maybe he meant that he accepted the sufferings predicted would happen, but he was unsure what the final outcome would be beyond them. However, he speaks with confidence of taking the Gospel to Jerusalem and Rome, suffering notwithstanding; so I would tend to come down on the side of him reasoning that he doesn't know / recognize these predicted sufferings nor the implied message- that he should not attempt the journey.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 21:4'>Act 21:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city, saying that imprisonments and afflictions await me</em>-</p><p> Philip prophesied by the Holy Spirit about Paul: “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hand of the Gentiles”. They “shall” do this, he said. And many other prophets said the same (<em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>). “And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem” (<em><a href='B:510 21:11-12'>Act 21:11-12</a></em>). Those brethren evidently understood the word of prophecy as conditional- its’ fulfilment could be avoided by Paul not going to Jerusalem. Indeed, there were prophecies that said he should <em>not</em> go up to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 21:4'>Act 21:4</a></em>). Yet Paul went, knowing that if he died at Jerusalem then the will of God would be done (<em><a href='B:510 21:14'>Act 21:14</a></em>). All this surely shows that prophecies are open to human interpretation; they can be seen as commandment (e.g. not to go to Jerusalem), but it all depends upon our perception of the wider picture.</p><p>This was quite some witness to Paul, and he chose to go against it. Two of the testimonies are recorded (<em><a href='B:510 21:4'>Act 21:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:11'>Act 21:11</a></em>). God is open to us, He leads us one way, but in some cases He is willing for us to go another, and works with us on that path too. Yet the same word has just been used by Paul, in saying that <em>he </em>witnessed / testified the Gospel to all men (:21). He is apparently making a play on ideas here, reflecting the tension between Spirit guidance to go to Jerusalem, and Spirit guidance not to. He is saying that the Spirit [of Jesus] testifies of the dangers, and he testifies to Jesus. The courtroom language again suggests a balancing of testimonies here. And the resolution, as in so many apparently difficult decisions, is that there is no right or wrong in a moral sense; rather does it all depend on our motives, and the Lord through His Spirit is waiting to confirm us, leaving us to choose the path between the guidances received.</p><p>The same word used for “afflictions” is used about the persecution and suffering Paul had inflicted upon Christians earlier (<em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>). Again, we see Paul experiencing all he had done to his brethren; not to punish him, but to prepare him for eternal fellowship with them in the Kingdom, teaching him about himself and the result of his desires and actions. Paul uses the word often to describe his own "afflictions", and reasons that afflictions are inevitable, and should not be allowed to hinder our path towards salvation. So it may be that he reasoned that such afflictions were inevitable, whichever path he chose- to Jerusalem, or not.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:31'>Act 28:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>If only I may finish my race- </em>Paul has used this very phrase about the work of John the Baptist (13:25). Paul had likely heard John's preaching, as he had grown up in Jerusalem. He so often alludes to John, and sees his own ministry as parallel to John's, and he clearly too encouragement from this. Writing from Rome at the end of his life, Paul uses the same language: "I have finished my race" (<em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). I have suggested that going to Rome was not necessarily what God had in mind for Paul, but he set himself that aim. He clearly envisaged starting an ecclesia there- but by the time he wrote to the Romans, he had learnt that there actually was already one there. But so when he knew he was going to die there, he felt he had achieved the race set before him- even though he partly set it before himself. It could be that "my race" and "the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel" are not parallel expressions. "My race" was what Paul had personally set before himself- to witness to diaspora Jews at Pentecost, and thence to go to Rome. Yet the whole plan went rather wrong; the wind was contrary to him to start with (:5), and this was how the whole thing went. The taking of Gentile money to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem was deeply problematic. And he ended up not making a great witness in Jerusalem. There is no evidence he made a great witness that Pentecost; and we suspect he simply wanted to emulate Peter, who had converted thousands at Pentecost. He shouldn't have had this desire to equal Peter; he should have left the ministry to the Jews to Peter. And the Spirit warned him against the whole mission in every town on the way. The whole journey to Rome was traumatic, compared to the ease with which Paul had sailed earlier when he was on a mission clearly intended by God. God brought Moses through it, but surely he must have seen himself in the captain who refused Paul's Spirit guided advice not to make the journey because "I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage" (<em><a href='B:510 27:10'>Act 27:10</a></em>).</p><p>Paul spoke of his "departure" (<em><a href='B:570 1:23'>Phi 1:23</a></em>), how he must finish his course with joy (<em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>); and he knew his time had come; he could speak of having reached "the time of my&nbsp;<em>departure</em>" (<em><a href='B:620 4:6'>2Ti 4:6</a></em>). The level of self-knowledge he had as he faced the end is remarkable. Yet it really is possible for each of us; for his glorious race to the finish is our pattern. Despite his surface sadness and depression, Paul was finishing his course&nbsp;<em>with joy</em>.</p><p><em>And the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus- </em>The Greek <em>lambano</em> translated "received" is not the most comfortable word choice if Paul intended us to understand that he had been given a ministry by the Lord Jesus. <em>Lambano</em> far more carries the idea of taking or even grasping; Paul took the ministry from the Lord. Again, we sense the interplay of ideas between Paul being led by the Lord's Spirit, and on the other pole, Paul's own spirit prodding him to decide the path of his own ministry. Paul's ministry was to be the apostle to the Gentiles ("I am the apostle of the Gentiles; I magnify my ministry [AV "office"]", <em><a href='B:520 11:13'>Rom 11:13</a></em>). This did not therefore require him to go to Jerusalem and attempt to match Peter's preaching to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. But he forged ahead anyway... Perhaps by the time Paul wrote to the Romans, he had learnt something of his error; for he writes that if we have a ministry, then let us get on with that ministry (<em><a href='B:520 12:7'>Rom 12:7</a></em> "…or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry"). And from prison in Rome, when he finally got there, he writes to others and encourages them likewise to focus on <em>their </em>ministry (<em><a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:5'>2Ti 4:5</a></em>). He should have focused on his given ministry, to the Gentiles, rather than getting so obsessed with doing Peter's work of ministering to the Jews. He always went directly to the synagogue to preach in almost every town he entered; and suffered because of it, for it was the Jews who formed the main opposition to his work. If he had ignored them, some of these problems may not have arisen. The collection for the Jewish brethren at Jerusalem had so many problems; he ended up having to go against his own principles and take wages from other churches in order to fulfil that "ministry" (<em><a href='B:540 11:8'>2Co 11:8</a></em>). That could imply that in order to make up the funds which the Corinthians had promised but not donated, Paul had to take wages for his spiritual services from other churches. And there is no record of any enthusiastic acceptance of the gift in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em> implies the Jewish brethren may have flatly refused to accept it), nor of Paul even making it on time to Jerusalem for Pentecost, nor of him converting anyone much in Jerusalem when he did get there.</p><p><em>To testify to the gospel of the grace of God</em>-</p><p> Paul therefore considered that his journey to Rome via Jerusalem at Pentecost, when the city would be filled with diaspora Jews, was necessary for the spreading of the Gospel. But of course the question is, whether that journey to Rome via Jerusalem was the particular way, or path of the race, which the Lord Jesus had commanded Paul. He seems to have decided that it was. But his ministry was to testify to the Gospel; how and where he did it was surely over to him. And the Lord Jesus clearly wanted Paul to focus on the Gentiles, and Peter on the Jews. So the path to Rome was due West; but Paul was obsessed with going to Jerusalem first. And it was that which caused him so much grief.</p><p>Some years later at the end of his life he could write that “I have finished my course” (<em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>). He didn’t let anything distract him- and our age perhaps more than any other is so full of distractions:&nbsp; In his time of dying (at which he wrote 2 Timothy), John his hero was still in Paul's mind. Paul speaks of finishing his course (<em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:7'>2Ti 4:7</a></em>), using a word only used elsewhere concerning John finishing&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;course (<em><a href='B:510 13:25'>Act 13:25</a></em>). &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>It could be argued that at his conversion, the Lord Jesus predicted the sufferings Paul would endure for the Gospel, but did not give him a set of specific commandments which he was to fulfil in his ministry. And Paul's conversion is typical of that of each of us. Paul's letter to the Romans is a literary fulfilment of a requirement "to testify to the gospel of the grace of God". Paul was inspired to write that letter; and it could be argued that there was therefore no need for him to literally go to Rome. He insisted on it, and the Lord led him there- but he was never free to preach there, he was imprisoned. Note how this idea of testifying to the gospel of God's grace is maybe parallel to "proclaiming the kingdom of God" in :25. The good news of God's Kingdom, His Kingship, is the good news of His grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>And now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom of God will see my face again</em>-</p><p> Did he know through a direct Holy Spirit revelation to himself? It was as if the Holy Spirit was telling him the consequences, but he still chose to go that path, and so the Spirit told him that therefore the consequences would really happen. But we must give due weight to the fact that Paul later wrote to Timothy at Ephesus that he hoped to shortly visit him there (<em><a href='B:610 1:3'>1Ti 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:14'>1Ti 3:14</a></em>), and he planned on visiting Philemon at Colossae (<em><a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a></em>); and that he did visit Miletus again, which was only 40 km. from Ephesus (<em><a href='B:620 4:20'>2Ti 4:20</a></em>). Paul was inspired to write those words to Timothy and Philemon; there was at least the possibility that he could visit Ephesus, despite here in <em><a href='B:510 20:25'>Act 20:25</a></em> saying that it was certain that he would not see the Ephesian elders again. Presumably he had been directed to that thought by the Spirit [unless it was purely presentiment, which he had wrong]. My suggested reconciliation of this would be that this kind of thing is perfectly in line with the working of the Lord's Spirit which we have noted throughout this chapter; in that the Lord's plans with a person can change, in accordance with their own freewill decisions and desires. One path opened up to Paul was that he would not see them again; but perhaps he repented of his obsession with preaching to Jews in Jerusalem, his pretending to Peter's role, and his desire to "see Rome" almost for the sake of it. And because of that repentance, it became possible for him to return to Ephesus, or at least to that region. This is not to be scoffed at as the Lord being somehow not serious, just as Nineveh's lack of destruction after 40 days is not to be mocked. Rather is this a profound reflection of God's sensitivity to human freewill, and His amazing respect of it.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore I testify to you this day</em>-</p><p> The language of testimony, especially regarding innocence from blood, continues the legal metaphor we noted earlier. He rightly perceived that the essence of judgment is going on right now. He felt that he was on trial for murder- the murder of all men. And he protests his innocence by saying he has truly witnessed to all men. This is a powerful lesson in the extent of sins of omission. If we omit to share the Gospel of life with men, then we have effectively caused their death, even by murder. That of course is the message of <em><a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a></em>, which Paul is alluding to here. He felt as the Old Testament prophets; but his potential guilt was not just before Israel, but "all men", seeing the Gospel is intended for "all men" and the Lord's death is the potential salvation of every man.</p><p><em>That I am pure from the blood of all men</em>-</p><p> By preaching, they were freed from the blood of men; evidently alluding to how the watchman must die if he didn’t warn the people of their impending fate (<em><a href='B:330 3:18'>Eze 3:18</a></em>). In line with this, “<em>necessity</em> is laid upon me… woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel” (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>). It could be argued that Paul felt so truly and absolutely forgiven that he could say that he was “pure from the blood of all men” (<em><a href='B:510 20:26'>Act 20:26</a></em>). Yet as he said that, he must surely have had the blood of Stephen on his mind, trickling out along the Palestinian dust, as the clothes of the men who murdered Stephen lay at Paul’s feet as a testimony that <em>he</em> was responsible for it. But he knew his forgiveness. He could confidently state that he was pure from that blood. Righteousness had been imputed, the sin covered- because he was in Christ. We are covered with His righteousness, and therefore have a share in His victory; and yet it also means that we must act as He did and does. </p><p>Paul was guilty of the murder of Christians. But his conscience was cleansed in Christ (<em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>), and he felt cleansed or pure from that blood. He had already stated that he was pure from the blood of the Jews, and therefore he turned to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em> s:w:). His insistence that he is now pure from the blood "of all men" could mean that he felt pure also from the blood of the Gentiles. And yet he continued by all means trying to preach to the Jews and Gentiles; his angry comment in 18:6 about turning from the Jews to the Gentiles was surely said in hot blood or perhaps temporary realization that his focus on the Jews was uncalled for; seeing he continued his focus on the Jews and his rushing to Jerusalem to be there for Pentecost. However, Paul's faith in his conscience being cleansed in Christ was, it seems, not total. For he speaks here and in 18:6 as if his preaching work was the cleansing of his conscience; and at the end of his life he feels that he has a "pure conscience" because he has "served" God (<em><a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a></em>). So in psychological terms it could be argued that Paul's guilt over his past murders, the blood that was on his hands, led him to try to cleanse himself from it by a lifetime of works, in preaching the Gospel to others, both Jew and Gentile. Perhaps his dogged insistence on preaching to the Jews was because most if not all of the Christians he had murdered would have been Jews. It would also explain why immediately after his conversion, he begins manic preaching, willing to give his life for it; which explains why several times in his ministry, starting from Damascus, the brethren had to get hold of him and take him away from danger to his life. This happened enough times to give us the impression that he was as it were looking for a bullet. His insistence on making the Jerusalem-Rome journey, when the Spirit witnessed that he would suffer deeply if he did so, was perhaps something similar. See on 28:19 <em>I was compelled to appeal to Caesar</em>.</p><p>In the phrase “The blood of all”, "Men" is added by the translators. The reference may be to the Lord's words which Luke had earlier recorded: "The blood of all the prophets shall be required of this generation" (<em><a href='B:490 11:50'>Luk 11:50</a></em>). Again, Paul appears to be seeking to get out of condemnation for the blood of all the prophets by preaching to the Jews of that generation, rather than throwing himself upon the Lord's blood to cleanse his conscience.</p>


text:
<p><em>For I did not hesitate to declare to you the whole counsel of God</em>-</p><p> The same word as in :20; see note there. Exactly as Moses completely revealed all God's counsel to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:33'>Act 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em>). The reference is clearly again to Luke's first volume, where he records how the Jews "rejected the counsel of God against themselves" by refusing baptism from John (<em><a href='B:490 7:30'>Luk 7:30</a></em>). The same Greek words are used. Maybe his addition of the word "whole" reflects the fact that John did not then preach the complete counsel of God because the Lord had not then died or resurrected. Having grown up in Jerusalem, Paul would have heard the preaching of John, and presumably refused baptism from him. He had rejected the counsel of God- and now he was declaring it to others as a basis for his own 'cleansing'. It could be argued that this was simply an appropriate response from Paul given his failure earlier. But psychologically, it could be seen as a way of dealing with his own abiding guilt- through preaching. And <em>when</em> this was fulfilled, as he saw it, by preaching on Pentecost in Jerusalem, replicating Peter's success, and preaching in Rome, capital of the known world... <em>then</em> he could speak of his cleansed conscience as he faced death (<em><a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Take heed to yourselves</em>-</p><p> "Take heed unto yourselves" is repeated so many times in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>)- further evidence Paul is being presented as some kind of Moses of the New Covenant [without denying that the Lord Jesus fits this role pre-eminently]. "Take heed to yourselves; if thy brother trespass... forgive him" (<em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>) is being alluded to here, where Paul says we should <em>take heed</em> of the likelihood of false teachers. Surely what he's saying is 'Yes, take heed to forgive your brother personal offences, take heed because you'll be tempted <em>not </em>to forgive him; but have the same level of watchfulness for false teaching'.</p><p><em>And to all the flock</em>-</p><p> All pastoral work for others must begin with us personally first of all. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>: "Take heed of false prophets", especially Jewish ones: "Take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (<em><a href='B:470 16:6'>Mat 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:12'>Mat 16:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:1'>Luk 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:46'>Luk 20:46</a></em> s:w:). Paul uses the phrase again about wariness about Jewish teachers (<em><a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a></em>). Paul wrote to Timothy in Ephesus, from where these assembled elders were from, that some would give heed to false teachings (<em><a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a></em>). And this is the further context here (:29). "Take heed to yourselves" is word for word what Luke alone twice records the Lord saying to the disciples in <em><a href='B:490 17:3'>Luk 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em>. Again we see how the disciples in first century Palestine were not to be seen as historical icons, far away in space and time; but as living examples to be emulated. </p><p>Put two passages from Paul together in your minds. He tells the Ephesian elders to “take heed to yourselves” before adding “and to all the flock”. To Timothy likewise: “Take heed to yourself, and to your teaching [of others]” (<em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>). Clearly enough, Paul saw that who we are is related to the effectiveness of our preaching. The preacher is some sort of reproduction of the Truth in a personal form; the word made flesh. The Truth must exist in us as a living experience, a glorious enthusiasm, an intense reality. For it is primarily <em>people</em> who communicate, not words or ideas. Personal authenticity is undoubtedly the strongest credential in our work of communicating the message.</p><p><em>In which</em>-</p><p> The elders are themselves part of the flock and not separate from it.</p><p><em>The Holy Spirit has made you bishops</em>-</p><p> It was Paul who ordained these elders in Ephesus, straight after their conversion. His choice of the men must have been simply on the basis of what appeared to him; for it's hard to really know the hearts of men and their ultimate suitability for eldership. Yet the Spirit apparently confirmed Paul's spirit, his own judgment. The fact they were "made" or given [<em>tithemi</em>] to be bishops didn't mean they were to make no human effort. They had to "take heed" to themselves and the flock, and feed the flock. Again we see how God's Spirit works with the human spirit. They were not turned into mere puppets. In this case, what they fed the flock, and how they fed them, was their choice and down to their initiative and effort, which they needed to be encouraged in.</p><p><em>To feed the church of God</em>-</p><p> Feeding is also a metaphor for ruling; eldership in the church was not simply on account of having been given an office, but in practice it is demonstrated and actualized through teaching / feeding the flock.</p><p><em>Which he purchased with his own blood- </em>The motivation to care for others is because the Lord died for His flock. Our attitude to others is therefore to be an extension of His abiding and saving care for them. We aren't motivated simply by what He did for us, but by the fact He did so much for others and thereby seeks their salvation; and we are to play our part in achieving the work intended by His death. "Purchased" translates a word which means to literally go around doing; the idea is of a purchaser going around looking at items before buying one. Here we see the Lord in search of man, just as God in Jeremiah likens Himself to Jeremiah running around the streets of a city looking for men who would hear His word. God is in search of man, through His Son; and men, some men, are in search of God. This explains the sense of spark and mutuality when we meet, with all the Angels rejoicing over one found person. </p><p>Whose blood is in view in "His blood"? There are several NT passages which make an explicit link between God and Jesus in the context of the salvation of men. Phrases such as “God our Saviour, Jesus..." are relatively common in the pastorals (<em><a href='B:610 1:1'>1Ti 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:3'>1Ti 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:3-4'>Tit 1:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:10'>Tit 2:10</a></em> cp. 13 and see also <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 1:1'>2Pe 1:1</a></em>). <em><a href='B:510 20:28'>Act 20:28</a></em> even speaks in some versions as if God’s blood was shed on the cross; through ‘His’ blood the church was purchased; and yet Paul told the very same Ephesian audience that it was through the blood of Jesus that the church was purchased (<em><a href='B:560 1:6-7'>Eph 1:6-7</a></em>); such was the extent of God manifestation on the cross. These and many other passages quoted by Trinitarians evidently don’t mean that ‘Jesus = God’ in the way they take them to mean. But what they <em>are</em> saying is that there was an intense unity between the Father and Son in the work of salvation achieved on the cross. The High Priest on the day of Atonement sprinkled the blood eastwards, on the mercy seat. He would therefore have had to walk around to God's side of the mercy seat and sprinkle the blood back the way he had come. This would have given the picture of the blood coming out from the presence of God Himself; as if <em>He</em> was the sacrifice. </p><p>This passage records Paul predicting the apostasy that was to come upon Ephesus; but he pleads with the elders to take heed and watch, so that his inspired words needn’t come true. Here we again see the openness of God.</p>


text:
<p><em>I know</em>-</p><p> By direct Spirit revelation, the Spirit gift of knowledge; because in <em><a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a></em> Paul writes to Timothy in Ephesus, from where these elders were from, that there had been "express" Spirit revelation that some would 'take heed' to false teaching.</p><p><em>That after my departing- </em>Paul warned the new Israel that after his death ("after my departing") there would be serious apostasy:&nbsp; This is the spirit of his very last words, in 2 Timothy 4. This is exactly the spirit of Moses' farewell speech throughout the book of Deuteronomy, and throughout his final song (Deuteronomy 32). "After my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves" (<em><a href='B:50 31:29'>Deu 31:29</a></em>). "Take heed unto yourselves" is repeated so many times in Deuteronomy (e.g. <em><a href='B:50 2:4'>Deu 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:9'>Deu 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:15'>Deu 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:16'>Deu 11:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:13'>Deu 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:19'>Deu 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:30'>Deu 12:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>). Exactly as Moses completely revealed all God's counsel to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 7:33'>Act 7:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 33:3'>Deu 33:3</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><em>Fierce wolves</em>-</p><p> As noted on :28 <em>Take heed</em>, he likely had Jewish false teachers in view. It was consistently the Jews who are presented throughout Acts as coming and disrupting Paul's missionary work after he had made converts. It was Jewish wolves whom the Lord had in mind when He warned the first disciples to "take heed... of wolves" (<em><a href='B:470 7:15'>Mat 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:3'>Luk 10:3</a></em>).</p><p><em>Shall enter in among you and will not spare the flock</em>-</p><p> This sounds like a fifth column within the new churches, as if they actually became members and worked from within; those referred to in <em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em> as false brethren who had been smuggled in, or in <em><a href='B:720 1:4'>Jud 1:4</a></em> as the "certain people who have crept in secretly". </p>


text:
<p><em>And from among you, men shall arise speaking twisted things</em>-</p><p> The Greek can mean morally as well as simply doctrinally apostate. And this was the nature of the 1st century apostasy- teachings which appealed to the flesh, justifying immorality in the name of spirituality. The letters to the churches in Revelation 2, 3, especially to Ephesus, are clearly tackling this problem. </p><p><em>To draw away the disciples after themselves</em>-</p><p> Hardly any false teacher or divisive person would admit (not even to themselves) that this is the motive for their heresy. But Paul here puts his finger on the real reason for division- people wanting a following and therefore inventing some curious teaching which they present as vitally important. 'Drawing away' suggests the disciples were drawn away from one person to another; and the One whom disciples should be following is the Lord Jesus, the disciple's Lord. The early disciples walked "after" Him (<em><a href='B:470 4:19'>Mat 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em> and so often, s:w:). The danger of schism is that the flock are no longer Christ centred but following men and their teachings. Loss of personal focus on the Lord Jesus is the observable result of all division. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore be alert-</em></p><p> The apostasy which on one hand was predicted by the Spirit did not inevitably have to happen. The elders were being charged to stop it happening. It's rather like the statement that in 40 days, Nineveh would be destroyed. Although there were no conditions attached to the message, like much Old Testament prophecy, it was not a foregone conclusion. There were other possible futures which obedience could elicit and actualize. His prophecy, certain of fulfilment as it sounded, didn’t ‘have’ to come true. Likewise the Lord categorically foretold Peter’s denials; and yet tells him therefore to watch, and not fall into the temptation that was looming. Peter didn’t <em>have</em> to fulfil the prophecy, and the Lord encouraged him to leave it as an unfulfilled, conditional prophecy. He warns him to pray “lest ye enter into temptation” (<em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</a></em>)- even though He had prophesied that Peter <em>would</em> fail under temptation.</p><p><em>And remember that for three years</em>-</p><p> This means that right from the beginning of Paul's preaching in the area, he had warned them that the whole thing was very prone to fall apart because of the wolves he could foresee entering the new flock. To warn new converts of this kind of thing always seems an anti-climax, a possible discouragement to them after the joy of conversion. But Paul's aim was not merely baptism but for converts to get to the Kingdom of God, and so he saw the need to warn them right away of the difficulties ahead.</p><p><em>I did not cease to warn every one</em>-</p><p> The Greek definitely means 'each of you', rather than a more general 'everyone', which would have been expressed quite differently in Greek. He presumably was referring to the assembled elders.</p><p><em>Night and day with tears</em>-</p><p> For literally three years, to each and every one of the assembled brethren? This sounds to me like a Semitic exaggeration, and is probably not to be read literally. But Paul's tears at the prospect of anyone turning away... are a great challenge. It's all too easy to shrug off the apostasy of others from the way as being their fault. But Paul had a clear sense of the future they would miss and the judgment to come. He wept for even the possibility of it happening to his beloved converts. Truly Paul served his Lord with many tears (:19); and <em><a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a></em> pictures Paul weeping over his parchment and ink as he wrote to Corinth. The Biblical record contains a large number of references to the frequent tears of God’s people, both in bleeding hearts for other people, and in recognition of their own sin. And as we have seen, these things are related. Consider:-</p><p> &nbsp; “My eye pours out tears to God” [i:e. in repentance?] (<em><a href='B:220 16:20'>Job 16:20</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Isaiah drenches Moab with tears (<em><a href='B:290 16:9'>Isa 16:9</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Jeremiah is a fountain of tears for his people (<em><a href='B:300 9:1'>Jer 9:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:8'>Lam 2:8</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; David’s eyes shed streams of tears for his sins (<em><a href='B:230 119:136'>Psa 119:136</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 6:6'>Psa 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 42:3'>Psa 42:3</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Jesus wept over Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Blessed are those who weep (<em><a href='B:490 6:21'>Luk 6:21</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Mary washed the Lord’s feet with her tears (<em><a href='B:490 7:36-50'>Luk 7:36-50</a></em>)-</p><p> &nbsp; Paul wept for the Ephesians daily (<em><a href='B:510 20:19'>Act 20:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:31'>Act 20:31</a></em>).</p><p>We have to ask whether there are any tears, indeed any true emotion, in our walk with our Lord. Those who go through life with dry eyes are surely to be pitied. Surely, in the light of the above testimony, we are merely hiding behind a smokescreen if we excuse ourselves by thinking that we’re not the emotional type:&nbsp; Nobody can truly go through life humming to themselves “I am a rock, I am an island… and an island never cries”. The very emotional centre of our lives must be touched. The tragedy of our sin, the urgency of the world’s salvation, the amazing potential provided and secured in the cross of Christ… surely we cannot be passive to these things. We live in a world where emotion and passion are decreasing. Being politically correct, looking right to others… these things are becoming of paramount importance in all levels of society. The passionless, postmodernist life can’t be for us, who have been moved and touched at our very core by the work and call and love of Christ to us. For us there must still be what Walter Brueggemann called “the gift of amazement”, that ability to feel and say “Wow!” to God’s grace and plan of salvation for us. </p>


text:
<p><em>And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace</em>-</p><p> Paul had elsewhere commended new converts and elders to the Lord Jesus (14:23 s:w:). So "the word [<em>logos</em>] of His grace" may be a reference to the Lord Jesus, rather than meaning 'the Bible'. The only other reference to the word of grace is also in Luke, and we should therefore be guided by this in interpretation, seeing that Acts follows on from the Gospel of Luke. The reference is in <em><a href='B:490 4:22'>Luk 4:22</a></em> where the words of the Lord Jesus are described as words of grace. In an illiterate society, the converts would only have the memory of the gospel records as their source of understanding of Christianity, apart from inspired utterances given by 'prophets'. The tendency would have been to memorize a Gospel record before baptism (as early church tradition says was required of converts)- but then to forget it. Paul is urging these brethren to continually recite those Gospel records, the words of grace which came from the lips of the Lord Jesus, as Luke himself had taught his own converts in his Gospel record. It was this which would shield them from errant ideas being propounded by false prophets claiming they were speaking from the Lord directly.</p><p><em>Which is able to build you up</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same word in writing to these Ephesians later (<em><a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a></em>), saying that they had been built up upon the foundation of the Lord Jesus, and His apostles and prophets, i:e. the inspired speakers forth of His words, men like Luke and the other inspired Gospel writers. This is why a daily reading or reflection upon the Gospel records remains to this day necessary for those who would be disciples indeed.</p><p><em>And to give you the inheritance among all those that are sanctified</em>-</p><p> This is very much the Old Testament language of Israel's conquest of Canaan and receiving the inheritance amongst their brethren. The Kingdom Paul preached was the same- the re-establishment of God's Kingdom on earth based upon Israel. Paul is quoting here from the words of the Lord Jesus to him at his conversion: "To the end they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in me" (<em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>). Paul very often speaks of his Gentile converts as "sanctified", and in doing so he surely had in mind the vision given to Peter, showing him that the Gentile converts were indeed sanctified. It was clearly necessary to continue to remind the Gentile converts that they really were sanctified, for the Jewish 'wolves' would be telling them that they weren't. And Paul likely had to keep reminding himself of the wonder of Gentile acceptance.</p><p>The words of Jesus at the judgment, inviting the faithful into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>), rung in Paul's mind: <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:29'>Gal 3:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:7'>Gal 4:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:11'>Eph 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:12'>Col 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:24'>Col 3:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:7'>Tit 3:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>I coveted no one's silver, or gold, or apparel</em>-</p><p> This is the spirit of Moses in <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>: "I have not taken one ass from them". Paul maybe also had these words in mind again in <em><a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a></em>: "We have wronged no man... we have defrauded no man". Coveting these three things was precisely the sin of Achan (<em><a href='B:60 7:21'>Jos 7:21</a></em>). Perhaps the point of the allusion was to say that calamity was awaiting the new Israel; the great victory over Jericho would soon give way to defeat. This would be due to the 1st century equivalent of Achan- but Paul was not Achan. It would not be his fault. </p><p>Wealth in those days was reflected in clothing, hence the warnings about the power of moths to destroy such wealth (<em><a href='B:470 6:19'>Mat 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:2'>Jas 5:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>You yourselves know that these hands- </em>Paul told those Ephesian elders, beset as they already were with the evident beginnings of apostasy: "<em>These hands</em> (showing them) have ministered unto my necessities... I have shewed you all things, how that <em>so</em> <em>labouring</em> you (too) ought to support the weak (implying Paul worked at tent making not only for his own needs but in order to give support to the spiritually (?) weak), <em>and to (also)</em> remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (:34,35). Paul seems to be unashamedly saying that those words of Jesus had motivated his own life of service, and he had shown the Ephesians, in his own life, how they ought to be lived out; and he placed himself before them as their pattern. The Lord Jesus recognized, years later, that the Ephesians [whom Paul was addressing] had followed Paul's example of labouring motivated by Christ as he had requested them to; but they had done so without <em>agape</em> love (<em><a href='B:730 2:3-4'>Rev 2:3-4</a></em>).</p><p><em>Have provided for my necessities</em></p><p>- see on 28:10 <em>Such things as we needed</em>. This could well have been said with a fleck of pride, which the events of 28:10 sought to remove from him.</p><p><em>And for those who were with me</em>-</p><p> Paul had a profession, as all trainee rabbis did. But his co-workers apparently didn't, or couldn't use it over the three years he was in the area. We might be able to infer from this that they were untrained men, who were therefore likely illiterate. Paul could so easily have reasoned that his talents were better used in preaching and pastoral work, than in working in order to support others. His ability to earn enough money to support a group of people, as well as doing all his ministry work, is a testament to his wise use of time, and also his strong dislike of a salaried ministry. We note a possible contrast with the attitude of the twelve in <em><a href='B:510 6:2'>Act 6:2</a></em>: "It is not fitting that we should forsake the teaching of the word of God and instead serve tables".</p>


text:
<p><em>In all things I gave you an example, that so labouring you should help the weak</em>-</p><p> "The weak" may refer to "those who were with me" (:34). Perhaps they could not work like he did because of physical or mental or spiritual weakness. The Greek for "weak" is particularly used of the physically weak; Timothy appears to have been like this, being frequently sick and weak (<em><a href='B:610 5:23'>1Ti 5:23</a></em>). Paul's co-workers were therefore weak, unable to support themselves, and those whom man might despise. The way they travelled alone such great distances in dangerous circumstances is therefore even more to their credit, and to the credit of Paul's patient belief and hope in them.</p><p><em>And to remember the words that the Lord Jesus spoke- </em>Paul's attitude, working at manual work in order to support others, was motivated by continual reflection on the Lord's words. And he asks them to copy him in this. Note how he reminds the Ephesians to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said..."; not, 'how it is written' (for the Gospels were in circulation by this time). He jogged their memory of one of the texts they ought to have memorized. I suggested above on :34 that they were likely illiterate. See on <em><a href='B:510 6:4'>Act 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Saying: It is more blessed to give than to receive</em>-</p><p> These words are unrecorded in the Gospels. But the same Greek words for giving and receiving are found in the Lord's advice to missionaries in <em><a href='B:470 10:8-9'>Mat 10:8-9</a></em>: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Acquire no gold, nor silver, nor brass for your purses...". Paul has just spoken of not coveting gold or silver. It may well be that the Lord added at this point: "It is more blessed to give than to receive". Paul saw his working in order to 'give' to the weak mission workers as being a form of missionary service in itself. Paul implies he repeated these words of the Lord time and again as his source of motivation, and he asks the Ephesians to do likewise... and we can take the appeal to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had thus spoken</em>-</p><p> The "thus" leads us to think that the prayer was therefore not asking to receive personally anything but glorifying God's giving and seeking for blessing on continued efforts to give of the Gospel. "He knelt down" translates Greek words meaning literally to give the knee. His 'giving' was therefore of praise, in this context, rather than begging to receive.</p><p><em>He knelt down and prayed with them all- </em>They prayed as well as Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they all wept freely, embraced Paul and kissed him</em>-</p><p> Literally, 'fell on his neck and kissed him'. This is word for word the words Luke records as having come from the lips of Jesus in the parable of the father meeting the prodigal son (<em><a href='B:490 15:20'>Luk 15:20</a></em>). But it appears out of context. I have discussed elsewhere how there are at times allusions and quotations from earlier Scriptures which appear out of context. But that is no necessary requirement within the Semitic usage of literature; Jewish midrash so often lifts Scripture out of context and applies it to another context, and the Bible writers at times do the same. It is an incidental evidence of the same mind at work in the Scriptures, and of how soaked were the minds of the early believers with the words of Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>Being sorrowful most of all because of his statement, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship</em>-</p><p> It was a commonly reported practice for the brethren to go on the first stage of a journey with their fellow brethren; this Greek word is used only in this context, nine times (<em><a href='B:510 15:3'>Act 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:38'>Act 20:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:5'>Act 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:6'>1Co 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:11'>1Co 16:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:16'>2Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:13'>Tit 3:13</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when we had parted from them and set sail, we came by a straight course to Cos, and the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara</em>-</p><p> Luke so often mentions these details. Remember that the Hebrew words for 'spirit' and 'wind' were identical. I have argued that Paul's decision to go to Jerusalem and focus upon ministry to the Jews was not the Lord's ideal intention for him; that was Peter's task. But having decided to do it for the Lord, the Lord worked with him. Just as God did regarding a physical temple and system of human kingship.</p>


text:
<p><em>And having found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail</em>-</p><p> The idea is that they saw or noticed one. "We went aboard and set sail" could imply it was just about to leave; they arrived just at the last minute. As noted on :1, the Lord was confirming Paul in the path he had chosen, whilst warning him that such a course was not ideal and would be problematic. Whatever choices we make, they are confirmed by the hand of providence; which is what gives intensity of meaning to all our choices.</p>


text:
<p><em>When we had come in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left we sailed to Syria</em>-</p><p> The kind of eyewitness language and detail we would expect. The Bible is either inspired or a clever forgery, and if the latter, then these kinds of eyewitness details would have been hard to invent by a later hand. Especially bearing in mind that there was little experience of long distance travel.</p>&nbsp;<p><em>And landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload its cargo- </em>Nothing is chance in our lives. The seven days it took to unload and probably sell the cargo was used to visit the ecclesia there. This likewise [see on :1 and :2] was clearly meant to be, and reflects the higher hand that works in the lives of those who seek to serve the Lord.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>And having found the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and these said to Paul through the Spirit</em>-</p><p> It's not clear whether the Spirit directly said that Paul should not go to Jerusalem, or whether this was their interpretation of what was revealed to them. Reading the text as it stands, Paul's going to Jerusalem would have been rank disobedience. But it seems to me that he was being told of the consequences of his plan, and yet he continued in it, and the Lord worked with him in that choice. We encounter the same conundrum today when we are told 'The Bible says that…'. There's a need to make a differentiation between the specific text of the Bible, and human interpretation of it. It was 'they' who told Paul not to go to Jerusalem- not the Spirit directly. </p><p><em>That he should not set foot in Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> Paul was clearly told by the Spirit that he “should not go up to Jerusalem” (<em><a href='B:510 21:4'>Act 21:4</a></em> AV). Yet Paul chose to go up to Jerusalem, with the Holy Spirit warning him against it in every city he passed through (<em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:11'>Act 21:11</a></em>). What are we to make of this? Was a spiritual man like Paul simply out of step with the Spirit on this point? Maybe- in the light of all we've seen above. It’s possible to get fixated on a certain project and ignore God’s clear testimony. Or it could be that Paul knew the Lord well enough to realize that although God was telling him what would happen, he could still exercise his own love for his brethren to the maximum extent. For it was for love of his brethren and his dream of unity between Jew and Gentile that he personally took the offerings of the Gentiles to the poor saints in Jerusalem.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em> Paul asks the Romans to pray concerning his visit to Jerusalem "that I may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe". He was in struggle with God, wrestling God as Jacob did. On one hand, Spirit guidance was clear; but he believed that through prayer and human effort, a different outcome to that stated by the Spirit might be possible.</p>


text:
<p><em>When our time was up, we departed and went on our way, and they all accompanied us, with wives and children, until we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed</em>-</p><p> The very same scene as at Troas. And Paul had stayed there seven days too (:4 cp. 20:6). The period of seven days in Tyre was because of the itinerary of the ship they were on (hence "when our time was up"). Clearly the Lord's providential hand was at work helping Paul to see that He was working with Paul according to a pattern. We too can perceive similarities between events within our lives; the meaning attached to those events may not be immediately clear, but all the same we come away with the abiding impression that life is not random event but somehow, somewhere the Lord's hand is there with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And we went on board the ship, and they returned home</em>-</p><p> The pathos of the scene here has absolutely every mark of the eye witness account. We can almost imagine Luke as he was writing, remembering the last waves and hugs, the last sights of each other, as they walked away from the mooring, and Luke and Paul walked the entrance plank onto the ship. </p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 4:23'>Act 4:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais; and we greeted the believers and stayed with them one day</em>-</p><p> The entire journey emphasizes how Paul looked up the believers in every town he visited, even though they were likely unknown to him personally. The bonds of Christian fellowship were and are strong. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the next day we departed, and went to Caesarea</em>-</p><p> AV "We that were of Paul's company". This idea is found in <em><a href='B:510 13:13'>Act 13:13</a></em> "Paul and his company" (AV). We should not therefore assume that only Luke accompanied Paul; there were other unrecorded brethren as well.</p><p><em>And entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him</em>-</p><p> The seven deacons of <em><a href='B:510 6:5'>Act 6:5</a></em> were appointed to minister practically to the poor in the Jerusalem church. But because of his ground breaking work with the Ethiopian eunuch, he was respected as "the evangelist". He clearly had more than one calling. We note he was now living at Caesarea, not Jerusalem, perhaps as a result of persecution in Jerusalem, or tensions within the Jerusalem ecclesia regarding Gentiles. Perhaps he had quit the church politics of the Jerusalem ecclesia and retired to Caesarea and focused upon raising his four daughters in his house church, and they had responded well to their upbringing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied- </em>This is surely intended to recall the prophecy of Joel, that this kind of thing would happen in the last days. The prophecy has already been quoted in Acts 2. Yet it speaks clearly of the last days. Again we see that from God's side, He had enabled the last days and establishment of the Kingdom on earth in the first century. But it was a lack of response by natural and spiritual Israel which led to the major delay until our last days.</p><p>Understanding Corinth ecclesia as a series of house churches explains Paul’s comment to the Corinthians that he ordained his guidelines to be practiced in all the ecclesias (<em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em>)- i:e. the house churches that comprised the body of Christ in Corinth. He gives some guidelines for behaviour that appear to contradict each other until we perceive the difference between the commands to house groups, and commands about the ‘gathering together’ for special breaking of bread services. The role of women is a classic example. <em><a href='B:530 14:34'>1Co 14:34</a></em> says that women should keep silent ‘in ecclesia’ [AV “churches” is a mistranslation]- i:e. a sister shouldn’t teach at those special breaking of bread meetings when the house churches ‘came together’ (<em><a href='B:530 11:17-18'>1Co 11:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>). And yet within the house groups, it’s apparent from other New Testament accounts and from what Paul himself writes, that sisters did teach there (<em><a href='B:530 11:5'>1Co 11:5</a></em>). Thus in the house church of Philip, there were four women who ‘prophesied’, i:e. spoke forth the word of God to others (<em><a href='B:510 21:8-9'>Act 21:8-9</a></em>). This to me is the only way to make sense of Corinthians- otherwise Paul appears to be contradicting himself.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as we stayed there some days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus</em>-</p><p> Jews spoke of going up to Jerusalem, and coming down from it. So this is not meant in a geographical sense. "Agabus" meaning locust or grasshopper, he may have been a wandering prophet, going around giving Divine messages as required; the type in view in 2 John, who was to be welcomed and supported by the Lord's people as he travelled around. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:4'>Act 21:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>And coming to us and taking Paul's belt, he bound his own feet and hands, and said: Thus said the Holy Spirit: So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owns this belt, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> The kind of acted parable beloved of Old Testament prophets (<em><a href='B:110 22:11'>1Ki 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 20:1-3'>Isa 20:1-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 13:1-7'>Jer 13:1-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 4:1-6'>Eze 4:1-6</a></em>). The Lord had predicted that Peter would meet his end by having his hands and feet bound (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>), and we wonder whether Paul again was consciously trying to emulate Peter by seeking the same end.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> Yet Luke stayed loyal to Paul and accompanied him to Rome, although he felt Paul was not taking the right course. We too can rightly stick with our brethren even if we feel it is plain that their path is less than ideal. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then Paul answered: What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready, not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus</em>-</p><p> "Why make you this ado and weep?" (<em><a href='B:480 5:39'>Mar 5:39</a></em>) is unconsciously alluded to by Paul here. If this is a conscious allusion, it seems out of context. But as an unconscious allusion, it makes sense. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>.<em></p><p>And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying: The will of the Lord be done-</em></p><p> I don't take this as a mere passing comment of resignation. Rather did the brethren perceive that Paul was being shown the consequences of serving the Lord one way, but chose to do the Lord's will in another way- by going to Jerusalem and pursuing his mission to the Jews which the Lord preferred Peter to focus upon. They accepted Paul's choice and wished for the Lord's will to be further developed. Paul was not in that sense going against the Lord's will, but doing it. It would be "done" by the choice he made. We wonder whether Paul wrote to the Ephesians, using the same words, thinking of his own struggles to understand not only the Lord's will, but how he could best fulfil it: "understand what the will of the Lord is" (<em><a href='B:560 5:17'>Eph 5:17</a></em>). Luke and other early brethren seemed to have had the Gethsemane record in mind in their sufferings, as we can <em>also</em> do (<em><a href='B:510 21:14'>Act 21:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:480 14:36'>Mar 14:36</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And after these days we took up our baggage</em>-</p><p> Paul took up his baggage at Ephesus and went on to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 21:15'>Act 21:15</a></em> RV); the baggage would have been the bits and pieces raised by the donors to the Jerusalem Poor Fund. Those who couldn’t send money had sent what little they could spare in kind- presumably clothes and even animals, or goods for re-sale in Jerusalem. </p><p><em>And went up to Jerusalem- </em>This must be understood in the context of how the "we" had repeatedly urged Paul <em>not</em> to go up to Jerusalem. They went with him from loyalty to a friend and brother who had taken a path they did not consider wise; but still they travelled it with him. And we can take a lesson from that. The whole picture records the disciples loyally going up to Jerusalem with the Lord, despite their deep misgivings as to His wisdom in doing so.</p>


text:
<p><em>And there went with us also some of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing with them</em>-</p><p> Some texts read 'brought us to', which makes sense if Mnason had a house in Jerusalem where he lodged the group.</p><p><em>One Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge</em>-</p><p> Perhaps this was as it were his Christian additional name, given as a sign of respect for how long he had held the faith. Such terms, like "the evangelist", reflect a culture of respect and "honour to whom honour" amongst the early believers, which we would do well to copy. Likewise perhaps the mention of the fact he was "from Cyprus" might be in respect of the fact that like many Jerusalem Levites, he had had land there, in order to 'get around' the legislation about Levites not owning land in Israel, and had sacrificed it for the Lord's sake. Given the brevity of the records, there can be surely no incidental, pointless addition of background material. Such details surely have meaning, even if we cannot in our age and at our distance immediately discern it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when we arrived in Jerusalem</em>-</p><p> Luke was a Gentile (so <em><a href='B:580 4:11'>Col 4:11</a></em> implies). Note how the other Gospel writers speak of the <em>sea</em> of Galilee, whereas the more widely travelled Luke refers to it only as a lake. While Paul was in prison in Caesarea for two years, Luke was a free man (<em><a href='B:510 21:17'>Act 21:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:27'>Act 24:27</a></em>). It seems that during that period, Luke may have&nbsp;spent the time travelling around the areas associated with Jesus, interviewing eye witnesses- especially Mary, the aged mother of Jesus, from whom he must have obtained much of the information about His birth and Mary’s song. His preaching of the Gospel in Luke and Acts is made from his perspective- the fact that salvation is for all, not just Jews, is a major theme (<em><a href='B:490 2:30-32'>Luk 2:30-32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:6'>Luk 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:54-55'>Luk 9:54-55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:25-34'>Luk 10:25-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 1:8'>Act 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:17'>Act 2:17</a></em>). </p><p><em>The brothers received us gladly</em>-</p><p> This appears in contrast with the spirit of :18. So perhaps the "brothers" in view were those in Mnason's home; see on :16.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the following day Paul went with us to James; and all the elders were present</em>-</p><p> Presumably there were now no other apostles present in Jerusalem or they would have been mentioned. They had either fled persecution, been cast out of the church over the Gentile issue [note Philip, one-time deacon of the Jerusalem church, was now running a house church in Caesarea], or were away on missionary work. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had greeted them, he related one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry</em>-</p><p> Such an orderly presentation of missionary history was made with Luke present (:18 "us"). Surely here we have a hint as to the historical background to the book of Luke-Acts. Luke and Paul presented it as an explanation to the Jerusalem elders; hence Luke opens Volume 1 by saying that he is presenting an orderly chronological account of Gospel events. But as always, the emphasis is upon what God and His Son had done through them. This is a major theme of Luke in Acts [see on 1:1]- that the Lord was working through the ministries of His people. It would also explain why the focus of Acts is upon Paul when clearly there were other preachers also active. The book was initially an explanation and account to the Jerusalem elders of the work of Paul- for it was he whom they were so concerned about. Paul had no accountability to them- if at all, he would have been accountable to the Antioch ecclesia from whence he had initially departed to the mission field. But he graciously goes along with their concerns. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said to him: You saw, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law</em>-</p><p> Paul uses the same words in his defence, stating that he like them had been zealous for the law, but had been persuaded otherwise by the Lord Jesus (22:3; also in <em><a href='B:550 1:14'>Gal 1:14</a></em> about his former life in Judaism). The implication could be that the same crowds baying for his blood were in fact the crowds of the ecclesia of Jerusalem Jews who had accepted Christ. This was the degree to which the church slid back into Judaism; and is an essay in the power of legalism in the church. It can develop to fanatic extents, calling for the death of brethren of Paul's calibre. It may also be that by using this term about his former life, Paul was tacitly recognizing that his political compromise to those brethren had been wrong</p><p>- see on :21 and :22. He had given the impression of being "zealous for the law", and now he plainly states that zeal for the law was the characteristic of his pre-Christian life, and he had changed as a result of encountering the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they have been informed concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses</em>-</p><p> Paul's intended mission was to the Gentiles and Peter's to the Jews. But here we have a fair summary of what Paul actually did; and it wasn't the Lord's ideal wish. If only he had followed the Lord's intention, then this whole situation with the Jerusalem ecclesia and the subsequent events which led to his arrest and imprisonment... simply wouldn't have happened. We too can save ourselves much grief by going the Lord's intended way for us.</p><p><em>Telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to our customs- </em>Paul should have quietly pleaded guilty, because his letters show this was indeed his position. But in a desperate attempt to placate the legalists, he went along with them- resulting in a chain of events which led to his imprisonment. We too need to be honest with our brethren about our positions regarding fellowship issues and other hot topics of our times, even if we know they strongly disagree. Attempting to compromise and misrepresent our positions is not only dishonest but results in much grief all around. Brethren assume we have a position which we do not- and then get bitter with us when they realize we actually don't hold the position which we apparently espoused for the sake of political peace. Whilst a degree of pragmatism is required in all human relationships, we must learn the lesson from Paul at this point- for his pragmatism and resignation of principle led to a chain of events which was seriously damaging for him and the Lord's work. If he had not then gone into the temple to demonstrate his Jewish orthodoxy, the riot, arrest and subsequent imprisonment would never have occurred. See on :20 <em>Zealous for the law</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>What then? They will certainly hear you have come</em>-</p><p> The whole thing smacks of the kind of church politics which have blighted the body of Christ in our age. The elders feared the imagined reaction of others, and so they asked Paul to do something which was more a result of their fears than their genuine convictions; and Paul gave in, leading to serious damage to his ministry as he lay incarcerated for years as a result of the chain of events which then happened. And in the end, the Jerusalem church slid into the apostasy of legalism and returned to Judaism. Nothing good came out of all that fearful compromise. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow</em>-</p><p> The "therefore" reflects how urgently they felt the need to placate the Judaists. Paul did what he was told, even although it was wrong and based around pleasing men. I sense he made this misjudgement not because he was browbeaten by these brethren, although he was pretty much alone before them; but because he like them was desperate at all costs to ingratiate himself to the Jerusalem church and reconcile and convert the temple cult. Those desires became such an obsession that they clouded his better judgment. The "vow" was apparently a Nazirite vow. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>These take and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses</em>-</p><p> Paul was clearly not poor at this time; or probably it was known that he was bringing funds to Jerusalem on behalf of the Gentile churches. See the note on "baggage" on :15. It was considered a work of piety to relieve needy Jews from the expenses connected with short term Nazirite vows, as Paul does here. Adam Clarke notes: "It was also customary for the richer sort to bestow their charity on the poorer sort for this purpose; for Josephus, <em>Ant. lib. xix. cap. 6, sec. 1</em>, observes that Agrippa, on his being advanced from a prison to a throne, by the Emperor Claudius, came to Jerusalem; and there, among other instances of his religious thankfulness shown in the temple, he ordered very many Nazarites to be shaven, he furnishing them with money for the expenses of that, and of the sacrifices necessarily attending it". The idea of the Jerusalem poor fund was that Paul would relieve needy believers who had been affected by recent famines. But we get the impression that this noble intention got caught up in church politics; the funds were spent on temple sacrifices to prove that poor Jewish Christians had achieved legal obedience in ending their vows, and Paul was publicly demonstrating his support of such legalism.</p><p><em>That they may shave their heads; and all shall know that there is no truth in the things of which they have been informed concerning you, but you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the law</em>-</p><p> Note how hurtful this must have been, since Paul was bringing funds for their ecclesia which he had collected at the cost of damaging his relationship with the likes of Corinth. He meekly obeyed, perhaps it was playing a part in the politics in the church, although he had written to the Colossians and others that there was no need for any to be circumcised nor keep the Law, indeed these things were a denial of faith in Jesus. Paul later uses the same word to describe how we are to 'walk' not according to the Law but the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:16'>Gal 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:16'>Phi 3:16</a></em>); perhaps this was written from prison with a glance back at the fact that he was imprisoned exactly because he had attempted to impress others by how he walked according to the Law, which had led to the riot and his subsequent incarceration. He likewise uses the term 'keeping the law' in a negative sense in <em><a href='B:520 2:26'>Rom 2:26</a></em> and <em><a href='B:550 6:13'>Gal 6:13</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But concerning the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication</em>-</p><p> The "we" could suggest that this was the same group of elders as at the time of the Acts 15 agreements. But that was now some years ago, and surely some of those brethren had died. So the Jerusalem elders were arguing from a position of inherited authority, claiming that they had effectively done what their predecessors had done. This is a dangerous attitude as it resigns personal responsibility and principle. Paul had written to the Corinthians that food sacrificed to idols could be eaten; so he should have now said up front that he no longer accepted that point, or at best, considered it to apply only to a limited circle of Gentile converts. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them</em>-</p><p> He 'kept going into the temple' (Gk:). "The days" were seven days (:27). Whilst the law did not stipulate a minimum term for a Nazirite vow, there is evidence that usually the minimum term was 30 days. So this vow was not being done for very genuine reasons but rather just to demonstrate Paul's loyalty to the law and Jerusalem temple cult. And Paul along with the four men made this vow ("himself along with them"). The whole thing smacks of tokenism rather than sincerity, and Paul suffered for it, in that the sequence of events triggered by it affected the rest of his life.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the crowd</em>-</p><p> Paul had only recently arrived from Asia; it could be that a group of Jews followed him not only from city to city in his missionary work, but had even followed him to Jerusalem. This was the extent of Jewish opposition against his ministry to them.</p><p><em>And laid hands on him</em>-</p><p> God has recorded Paul's life in Acts in such a way as to show the similarities between him and Christ; thus the Spirit records that men "laid hands on" Paul, just as it does concerning the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:470 26:50'>Mat 26:50</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Crying out: Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people and the law, and this place, and moreover he brought Gentiles also into the temple and has defiled this holy place</em>-</p><p> We can read this as conscious slander. But see on :29 <em>They supposed</em>. I suggest they rehearsed their fears and [il]logical deductions in their minds to such a point that they became actually convinced this had happened. They saw him with one Gentile, and assume that Gentile had been brought into the temple; and that therefore the other three men seen with him in the temple were therefore also Gentiles. Josephus claims that Gentile entry into the temple was a capital offence. It would've been highly unlikely that Paul would even have got Gentiles beyond the Jewish temple guards. The whole conclusion was improbable in the extreme. But this is where legalistic quasi-logical deduction and supposition lead to. </p><p>The accusations they make against Paul are the very ones which were being made by the Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem ecclesia (:21). This is another reason for thinking that the crowds of Jerusalem Jews baying for Paul's blood included legalistic, Judaistic members of the Jerusalem church. If, as I currently believe, Paul wrote Hebrews from Italy (ponder <em><a href='B:650 13:24'>Heb 13:24</a></em>), then we see his utter grace in even bothering to reason with them and urge them not to return to Judaism.</p>


text:
<p><em>For they had previously seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian</em>-</p><p> Seeing the Jews who made the problem were from Asia (:27), they perhaps were from Ephesus and knew Trophimus.</p><p><em>Whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple</em>-</p><p> “Supposed” is the verb <em>nomizo,</em> a form of the noun <em>nomos</em>, 'law'. Their legalistic reasoning led them to over interpret facts and draw endless apparently logical conclusions- but they came to a false conclusion as a result of their legalistic devotion to logical deduction. The same mentality is seen in legalists today, who seem highly prone to all manner of conspiracy theories and irrational deductions.</p>


text:
<p><em>And all the city was moved</em>-</p><p> The same word used later in accusing Paul of creating dissension (<em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em>). A division caused by others about Paul was thus made Paul's fault. People likewise falsely accuse the Lord Jesus, and His followers, of causing division when they are merely at the centre of division made by unbelievers.</p><p><em>And the people ran together, laid hold on Paul and dragged him out of the temple</em>-</p><p> The very same words used about what happened to Paul in Philippi (16:19). Circumstances repeated in his life, as they do in ours, reflecting the same Divine hand at work with us in different places and situations down the years, but always with the same hallmarks.</p><p><em>And immediately the doors were shut</em>-</p><p> Both into the court of the Gentiles, and also from there into the court of the Israelites, thus cutting off Paul from any help. The door into the temple would therefore likely have had to be broken down by the Gentile Romans to get to Paul- all full of symbolism! The Roman guard was stationed in the tower of Antonia on the North West of the temple area, and they would have seen what was going on in the court of the Gentiles from above.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they were seeking to kill him</em>-</p><p> Paul's physical sufferings over the course of his ministry were significant. They would already have inflicted major damage on his body before the soldiers saved him from death itself. And there would have been the psychological damage inflicted after each trauma.</p><p><em>News came to the chief captain of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar</em>-</p><p> In the tower of Antonia. See on :30 <em>The doors were shut</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them; and they, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, stopped beating Paul</em>-</p><p> From the tower of Antonia overlooking the court of the Gentiles. The details given here are all so internally cohesive that it's hard to doubt that this is the true word of God and no clever fabrication of a later hand.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the chief captain came near, laid hold of him and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and inquired who he was and what he had done</em>-</p><p> Fulfilling the prophecy of Agabus in 21:11. There is no other record of those words being fulfilled. The chains were therefore presumably on his hands and feet as Agabus had predicted, rather than to two soldiers as many suppose. Hence he was "carried" into the Antonia castle (:34). Again the internal cohesion of the record is nothing short of Divinely inspired.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some among the mob shouted one thing, some another; and when he could not know the certainty because of the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the fortress of Antonia</em>-</p><p> “Shouted” is the word used by Luke for the shouting for the Lord's crucifixion (<em><a href='B:490 23:21'>Luk 23:21</a></em>). As with each of us, Paul was brought to know the essence of his Lord's sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em>When he reached the stairs, he had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob</em>-</p><p> This is religious legalism come to its full term. The mob was pushing forward the ones in front in a mad desire to kill Paul, regardless of his Roman protection.</p>


text:
<p><em>For the mob followed after, crying out:</em> <em>Away with him!</em>-</p><p> Again, Paul like us was being taught the Lord's crucifixion experiences (<em><a href='B:490 23:18'>Luk 23:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as Paul was about to be brought into the fortress, he said to the chief captain: May I say something to you? And he said: Do you know Greek?</em>-</p><p> The soldier was so persuaded that his assumption about Paul being an Egyptian was correct that he was shocked. A theme of the whole incident is the dogmatism arrived at from false inference and illogical deduction and presupposition, by both Jews and Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>Are you not that Egyptian, who some time ago stirred up sedition and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were terrorists?</em>-</p><p> Josephus mentions this incident and gives the figure of 30,000 (<em>Wars</em> 2:17, 6 and 13,5; <em>Antiquities</em> 20. 8,10). This is reason enough to accuse Josephus of gross exaggeration and to question his reliability.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul said: I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I beg you, please let me speak to the people</em>-</p><p> This seems rather proud, especially when we learn that Tarsus was famed for being a proud city. She inscribed upon her coins: “Tarsus, the Metropolis, First, Fairest and Best” (W. Barclay, <em>Ambassador For Christ</em> p. 25).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had given him leave, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand to the people; and when there was made a great silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying</em>-</p><p> The silence may have been from surprise that Paul had been given this privilege of addressing the crowd. We sense Paul’s great zeal to use every and any opportunity to get the gospel over to the largest possible audiences. We would likely not have risked more exposure and provocation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Brothers and fathers, hear the defence which I now make to you</em>-</p><p> This was the very phrase used by Stephen in <em><a href='B:510 7:2'>Act 7:2</a></em>, with Saul onlooking. As noted on <em><a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a></em> and throughout Acts 7, Stephen's speech converted Paul, and he alludes to it throughout his life. He saw that he was now fellowshipping Stephen's sufferings. But we note too his respect toward the Jews, who had done so much evil to him. He so wished to save them, and the desire to save others is rooted in a basic respect of them as persons. Another reading is possible, however. To address the Sanhedrin as “brethren” has been described as “almost recklessly defiant” (William Barclay, <em>Ambassador For Christ</em> p. 132). The usual address was: “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel”. But Paul instead treated them as his equals.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they were even more quiet; and he said</em>-</p><p> It might seem that it was impossible that Paul, having been beaten and in chains, guarded by soldiers, could make a hand gesture, say a few words in Hebrew, and quell a raging crowd (<em><a href='B:510 21:31-34'>Act 21:31-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:2'>Act 22:2</a></em>). Yet it was because he spoke to them in Hebrew, in their own language and in their own terms, that somehow the very power and realness of his personality had such an effect. It reminds us of how the Lord could send crowds away, make them sit down…because of His identity with them, His supreme bridge building. </p>


text:
<p><em>I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel- </em>It is quite possible that Paul heard most of the speeches recorded in the Gospels, and saw many of the miracles. The reason is as follows. Every faithful Jew would have been in Jerusalem to keep the feasts three times per year. Jesus and Paul were therefore together in Jerusalem three times / year, throughout Christ's ministry. It can be demonstrated that many of the miracles and speeches of Jesus occurred around the feast times, in Jerusalem. Therefore I estimate that at least 70% of the content of the Gospels (including John) Paul actually saw and heard 'live'. Another indirect reason for believing that Paul had met and heard Jesus preaching is from the fact that Paul describes himself as having been brought up as a Pharisee, because his father had been one (<em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>). Martin Hengel has shown extensive evidence to believe that the Pharisees only really operated in Palestine, centred in Jerusalem, where Paul was “brought up” at the feet of Gamaliel (<em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>). Hengel also shows that “brought up” refers to training from a young child. So whilst Paul was born in Tarsus, he was really a Jerusalem boy. Almost certainly he would have heard and known much about Jesus; his father may even have been amongst those who persecuted the Lord. See Martin Hengel, <em>The Pre-Christian Paul</em> (London: S:C:M:, 1991).</p><p><em>Instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as you all are this day- </em>Paul says he was "<em>taught</em> [NEV "instructed"] according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers" by Gamaliel, receiving the highest wisdom possible in the Jewish world; but he uses the same word as Stephen in <em><a href='B:510 7:22'>Act 7:22</a></em>, describing how Moses was <em>"learned</em>" in all the wisdom of Egypt. Remember he heard Stephen’s speech live. Paul felt that he too had been through Moses' experience- once mighty in words as the rising star of the Jewish world, but now like Moses he had left all that behind in order to try to save a new Israel from Judaism and paganism. As Moses <em>consciously</em> rejected the opportunity for leading the 'world' of Egypt, so Paul probably turned down the chance to be High Priest. God maybe confirmed both him and Moses in their desire for humility by giving them a speech impediment (the "thorn in the flesh" which Paul was "given", <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>?).</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 9:2'>Act 9:2</a></em> <em>Bring them bound to Jerusalem</em> and <em><a href='B:510 26:10-11'>Act 26:10-11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women</em>-</p><p> Paul is admitting here to murder, which would have been extrajudicial. He could surely have been prosecuted for this, but he makes the admission because he was so deeply convicted of his sins. And it was this which gave his witness such credibility, and made the audience know in their hearts that what he was saying was all true- hence their mad anger. He admits his actions were against women too... and the memories of the victims would have flooded his mind as he made the admission. </p>


text:
<p><em>As also the high priest does bear me witness, and all the council of the elders. From whom also I received letters to the brothers and journeyed to Damascus, to bring them also that were there to Jerusalem in bonds to be punished- </em>Paul was called “brother” even before his baptism, and even after his baptism, he refers to the Jews as his “brethren” (<em><a href='B:510 22:5'>Act 22:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:13'>Act 22:13</a></em>). Of course, he knew all about the higher status and meaning of brotherhood in Christ; but he wasn’t so pedantic as to not call the Jews his ‘brethren’. He clearly didn’t have any of the guilt-by-association paranoia, and the associated standoffishness it brings with it, which have so hamstrung our witness to the world:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that as I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me- </em>In the same way as Paul would've been trained to write and present an encomium (as he does in Galatians 1), so he would've been trained in the rhetoric of how to make a public defence speech. There was a set format for defending oneself, as there was for the encomium. And in his defence speeches recorded in Acts, Paul again follows the accepted order of defence speeches- but his <em>content</em> was absolutely radical for the first century mind. Quinitilian in his <em>Instructions To Orators</em> laid down five sections for such a speech- and Paul follows that pattern exactly. There was to be the exordium [opening statement], a statement of facts (<em>narratio</em>), the proof (<em>probatio</em>), the refutation (<em>refutatio</em>) and the concluding peroration. The speeches were intended to repeatedly remind the judges of what in fact was the core issue- and Paul does this when he stresses that he is on trial (<em>krinomai</em>) for "the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (<em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:21'>Act 24:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:6-8'>Act 26:6-8</a></em>). Yet as with his use of the encomium format, Paul makes some unusual twists in the whole presentation. It was crucial in the set piece defence speech to provide proof and authorized witness. Paul provides proof for the resurrection in himself; and insists that the invisible Jesus, a peasant from Galilee, had appeared to him and "appointed [him] to bear witness" (<em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:15'>Act 22:15</a></em>). That was laughable in a court of law. Yet the erudite, cultured, educated Paul in all soberness made that claim. Aristotle had defined two types of proof- "necessary proof" (<em>tekmerion</em>), from which irrefutable, conclusive conclusions could be drawn; and "probable proof", i:e. circumstantial evidence (<em>eikota / semeia</em>). Paul's claim to have seen Jesus on the Damascus road was of course circumstantial evidence, so far as the legal system was concerned- it could not be proven. Yet Paul presents this as his <em>tekmerion</em>, quoting it as the irrefutable proof in his defence (<em><a href='B:510 22:6-12'>Act 22:6-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:46'>Luk 20:46</a></em>). Luke elsewhere uses this word and its synonym <em>pistis</em> to describe the evidence for the Lord's resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 1:3'>Act 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em>). Paul's point of course was that the personal transformation of himself was indeed <em>tekmerion</em>, irrefutable proof, that Christ had indeed risen from the dead. And so it should be in the witness which <em>our</em> lives make to an unbelieving world. Significantly, Paul speaks of the great light which his companions saw at his conversion, and his subsequent blindness, as <em>eikota</em>, the circumstantial evidence, rather than the irrefutable proof (<em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:9'>Act 22:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:11'>Act 22:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 20:46'>Luk 20:46</a></em>). Now to the forensic mind, this was more likely his best, 'irrefutable' proof, rather than saying that the irrefutable proof was simply he himself. Yet he puts that all the other way around. Thus when it came to stating 'witnesses', Paul doesn't appeal to his travelling companions on the road to Damascus. These would've surely been the obvious primary witnesses. Instead, he claims that "all Judeans" and even his own accusers "if they are willing to testify", are in fact witnesses of his character transformation (<em><a href='B:510 22:5'>Act 22:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:4-5'>Act 26:4-5</a></em>). The point is of tremendous power to us who lamely follow after Paul... it is our personal witness which is <em>the</em> supreme testimony to the truth of Christ; not 'science proves the Bible', archaeology, the stones crying out, prophecy fulfilling etc. It is we ourselves who are ultimately the prime witnesses to God's truth on this earth. All this was foolishness in the judgmental eyes of first century society, just as it is today. Our preaching of the Gospel is likewise apparent foolishness to our hearers, like Paul it is not "in plausible words of wisdom" (<em><a href='B:530 2:1-7'>1Co 2:1-7</a></em>), even though, again like Paul, many of us could easily try to make it humanly plausible. Paul's credibility as a preacher was in his very lack of human credibility- he was hungry and thirsty, poorly dressed, homeless, having to do manual work (<em><a href='B:530 4:11'>1Co 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>); he was the powerless one, beaten, imprisoned and persecuted (<em><a href='B:530 4:8-12'>1Co 4:8-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:4-5'>2Co 6:4-5</a></em>). It's hard for us to imagine how unimpressive and repulsive this was in first century society. And yet it was exactly this which gave him power and credibility as a preacher of Christ's Gospel. And he sets before us a challenging pattern. </p>


text:
<p><em>And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?</em>-</p><p> Paul's description of himself on the Damascus road falling down and seeing a Heavenly vision, surrounded by men who did not understand, is framed in exactly the language of Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:510 22:7'>Act 22:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:39'>Mat 26:39</a></em>); as if right at his conversion, Paul was brought to realize the spirit of Gethsemane. His connection with the Gethsemane spirit continued. He describes himself as "sorrowful" (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>), just as Christ was then (<em><a href='B:470 26:37'>Mat 26:37</a></em>). His description of how he prayed the same words three times without receiving an answer (<em><a href='B:540 12:8'>2Co 12:8</a></em>) is clearly linked to Christ's experience in the garden (<em><a href='B:470 26:44'>Mat 26:44</a></em>); and note that in that context he speaks of being “buffeted” by Satan’s servants, using the very word used of the Lord being “buffeted” straight after Gethsemane (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And I answered: Who are you Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you persecute</em>-</p><p> The fact Paul addressed Jesus as "Lord" suggests he knew the answer already, and had subconsciously recognized Jesus of Nazareth as Lord. For the presentation of Him as "Lord" had been a major part of the early witness of Peter, which Paul would surely have heard. Paul was kicking against the pricks of conscience; he knew, therefore, that Jesus was Lord. And amongst the crowds of apparently disinterested sceptics we encounter in our witness, there are surely people who are in a similar position; hiding behind their blasphemy and inappropriate jokes about the Lord Jesus the fact that they have been convicted of Him as Lord in some deep part of their subconscious. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that were with me saw indeed the light, but they did not understand the voice of him that spoke to me</em>-</p><p> They heard a voice (9:7), but didn't understand the content of the words spoken. The idea may be that it was in a language which Paul was empowered to understand, but they were not. But these men were like Paul, haters of the Christians. The same Greek phrase for "not understand" is used of how the Jews did "not understand" the message of the Lord because they chose not to (<em><a href='B:470 13:13'>Mat 13:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:43'>Joh 8:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:47'>Joh 8:47</a></em>; they did not understand Moses so they would not understand the risen Lord, <em><a href='B:490 16:31'>Luk 16:31</a></em>; Nicodemus could not understand the voice of the Spirit, <em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em>). And Paul's audience did likewise; they refused to hear or understand further and screamed for him to stop speaking the word to them (:22 s:w:). Perhaps they too could have potentially been converted, but they refused to understand.</p>


text:
<p><em>And I said: What shall I do Lord? And the Lord said to me: Arise and go into Damascus, and there you shall be told all things which are appointed for you to do</em>-</p><p> The repetition of the word "Lord" suggests that Paul was convicted of Jesus as Lord already before His appearance to him; see on :8. And we note that Ananias also addressed Him as "Lord" (9:13). We wonder why the Lord did not immediately tell Paul what he was to do. The answer is as in many such questions- He prefers to work through some human mechanism wherever possible. The encounter with Ananias was all part of the required conversion process; for Ananias was a well-respected Jew who had also come to Jesus. And Paul needed to meet him and hear from such a person the need for baptism. In <em><a href='B:510 9:12'>Act 9:12</a></em> we learn that Paul had seen a vision of Ananias restoring his sight; perhaps that vision was whilst with the Lord on the Damascus road.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand by those that were with me, I came into Damascus</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :9 that the men with Paul could also have been converted. They saw the same light (:9), but were not blinded by it. The implication is that Paul was more sensitive to it than they were. And they would later have reflected how it was they who effectively led Paul to Jesus by leading him to Damascus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there</em>-</p><p> Ananias was a committed Christian, but was carefully obedient to the law. His faith and understanding was therefore immature, but this did not mean the Lord didn't accept him as a significant believer and tool in His purpose. There were clearly Jews within Damascus who were collaborating with Paul; but even they had to respect Ananias. He was therefore just the right person to be used for Paul's conversion; see on :10. Or perhaps it was the case that all the Jews in Damascus were respectful of Jewish Christians like Ananias, and Paul and his group were imposing upon them an aggression which was not what they themselves were persuaded of.</p>


text:
<p><em>Came to me; and standing by me, he said to me: Brother Saul, receive your sight. And in that very moment I looked upon him</em>-</p><p> Paul had received a vision of Ananias doing this (9:12). So when news came that Ananias had come to visit him, he knew this was all according to plan; hence he comments that "in that very moment" the healing occurred. Perhaps Ananias was one of those Paul planned to murder or imprison. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, and to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth</em>-</p><p> Paul wishes that the Colossians would be “filled with the knowledge of his will” (<em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>), just as at his conversion he had been chosen so “that you should know his will” (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>). He wanted them to share the radical nature of conversion which he had gone through; the sense of life turned around; of new direction…&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>For you shall be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard</em>-</p><p> There was some content therefore to what Paul had "seen and heard". Paul was jubilant that the prophecy was coming true right before their eyes and ears, as he now witnessed to so many of what he had seen and heard. "Witness" continues the reference to Stephen; for the word is used of him in :20. As noted on :1, Paul was fully aware that he was to follow in Stephen's footsteps. What a bond those two shall have in God's Kingdom!</p>


text:
<p><em>And now why do you delay?</em>-</p><p> The urgent appeal for repentance was quite a feature of their witness&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:31'>Act 5:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:18'>Act 11:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:21'>Act 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em>). There needs to be a greater stress on repentance in our preaching, 20 centuries later. This is why baptism was up front in their witness, for it is for the forgiveness of sins; thus in 22:16 they appealed for repentance and baptism in the same breath. </p><p><em>Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name</em>-</p><p> The language of washing away of sins refers to God’s forgiveness of us on account of our baptism into Christ. In some passages we are spoken of as washing away our sins by our faith and repentance (<em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 7:14'>Rev 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 1:16'>Isa 1:16</a></em>); in others God is seen as the one who washes away our sins (<em><a href='B:330 16:9'>Eze 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>). This nicely shows how that if we do our part in being baptised, God will then wash away our sins.</p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that when I had returned to Jerusalem and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance</em>-</p><p> The whole argument was that Paul had brought Gentiles into the temple. He now says that he had frequented the temple, and whilst praying there he had received a vision telling him to preach to Gentiles (:21), although "far hence" from the Jerusalem temple. Whilst answering the false allegation that he had brought Gentiles into the temple, Paul was associating Gentiles with the temple. This could be read as an unnecessary provocation on his part. But he wanted them to see that the God whom they believed abode in the Jerusalem temple had a program of including Gentiles amongst His people. Psychologically, we would have maybe thought it was better to just avoid the connection between Gentiles and the temple. But we sense Paul is fearless and utterly prepared to follow Stephen to death; he did not count his life dear unto himself, as witnessed by all the times the brethren had to bundle him out of a town before he was lynched, knowing that of himself, he would have remained and endured it:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>And saw him saying to me:</em> <em>Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not welcome your testimony concerning me-</em></p><p> And yet Paul always appealed first of all to the Jews, despite his emotional turning unto the Gentiles at one stage. Even by <em><a href='B:510 28:17'>Act 28:17</a></em>, he started preaching “to those that were of the Jews first” (RVmg:). The principle of “to the Jews first” was paramount and universal in the thinking of Paul. And despite the Holy Spirit repeatedly warning him not to go to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 20:22-23'>Act 20:22-23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:11'>Act 21:11</a></em>), he went there. He hoped against hope that even in the light of the foreknowledge that Israel would reject the Gospel, somehow they might change.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 26:10-11'>Act 26:10-11</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I said: Lord, they know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those that believed in you- </em>Paul recounts in <em><a href='B:510 22:19-21'>Act 22:19-21</a></em> how first of all he felt so ashamed of his past that he gently resisted this command to preach: "I said, Lord... I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed... and he said unto me, Depart... unto the Gentiles" . The stress on “every synagogue” (<em><a href='B:510 22:19'>Act 22:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:11'>Act 26:11</a></em>) must be connected with the fact that he chose to preach <em>in the synagogues</em>. He was sent to persecute every synagogue in Damascus, and yet he purposefully preached in every synagogue there (<em><a href='B:510 9:2'>Act 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:20'>Act 9:20</a></em>). His motivation was rooted in his deep recognition of sinfulness. Likewise Peter preached a hundred metres or so from the very place where he denied the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when the blood of Stephen your witness was shed, I also was standing by and approved, and guarded the robes of those that slew him</em>-</p><p> Consented. Paul warned the Romans that those who “have pleasure” in (Gk. ‘to feel gratified with’) sinful people will be punished just as much as those who commit the sins (<em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em>). But he uses the very word used for his own ‘consenting’ unto the death of Stephen; standing there in consent, although not throwing a stone (<em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:20'>Act 22:20</a></em>). He realized that only by grace had that major sin of his been forgiven; and in that spirit of humility and self-perception of himself, as a serious sinner saved by grace alone, did he appeal to his brethren to consider their ways. &nbsp;‘Feeling gratified with’ such sins as are in this list is what the entertainment industry is so full of. We can’t watch, read and listen to this kind of thing by choice without in some sense being vicariously involved in it- and this seems to be exactly what Paul has in mind when he warns that those who feel gratified in those sins shall share in their judgment. This is a sober warning, relevant, powerful and cutting to our generation far more than any other. For given the internet and media, we can so easily feel gratified in others’ sins:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said to me: Depart! For I will send you far from here to the Gentiles</em>-</p><p> As noted on :17, Paul is making the point that the God of the temple wanted Gentile inclusion; but he had been sent to achieve this "far from here"; he had not brought Gentiles into the literal temple, but into the symbolic, more essential one. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they listened until this word, and then they lifted up their voice and said: Away with such a fellow from the earth! For it is not fitting that he should live</em>-</p><p> As noted on :17 and :21, the association of Gentiles with the temple was too much for them. "They" had a singular "voice"; they were united in hatred. This is why Luke likes to draw a parallel between how both the Christians and their enemies were of "one accord". We are caught up in a spirit of unity either for or against the Lord. The Jews had the power to ask for the death penalty for someone who desecrated the temple, and they perceived that Paul's comment here as ground upon which to demand that penalty; they correctly understood him to mean that he had been sent to the Gentiles to include them in a more figurative temple.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as they cried out and threw off their cloaks and threw dust into the air</em>-</p><p> The throwing off of their cloaks was exactly what had happened when Stephen was stoned to death; and those cloaks were laid at Paul's feet (<em><a href='B:510 7:58'>Act 7:58</a></em>). As noted on :1 and elsewhere, the Lord was arranging for Paul to go through in essence the situation with Stephen. Those old enough to remember Stephen's stoning would have later reflected at how a higher hand was replicating Stephen's experience in Paul's; and this would have been an appeal to them for their repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the fortress, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him</em>-</p><p> This indicated a hunch that Paul was not really telling the complete story, and there was some other agenda that he had not explained, given the extent of Jewish anger with him. Luke emphasizes how the Roman authorities were constantly nonplussed at the extent of Jewish opposition to Paul (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 18:15'>Act 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 25:19'>Act 25:19</a></em>). But Paul had told the whole story; what the Romans were witnessing was the power of a bad conscience, and how the upsetting of traditionally held ideas unleashes irrational anger. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion that stood by:</em> <em>Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?</em>-</p><p> Paul seems to enjoy putting the wind up the soldiers by waiting until they had bound him for torture before asking, surely in a sarcastic way, whether it was lawful for them to beat a Roman citizen. The fact he asked the question when he knew full well the answer is surely indicative of his sarcasm. The chief captain commented, under his breath it would seem, that it had cost him a fortune in backhanders to get Roman citizenship. Paul picked up his words and commented, with head up, we can imagine: “But <em>I </em>was free born”- I was born a citizen, never needed to give a penny in backhanders to get it either. Surely there is an arrogance here which is unbecoming. And it was revealed at a time when he was in dire straits himself, and after already being in Christ some time. It may indicate that he was tempted to adopt a brazen, almost fatalistic aggression towards his captors and persecutors- what Steinbeck aptly described as “the terrible, protective dignity of the powerless”. One can well imagine how such a mindset would start to develop in Paul after suffering so much at the hands of men. Compare this incident with the way he demands the magistrates to come <em>personally</em> and release him from prison, because they have unfairly treated him (<em><a href='B:510 16:37'>Act 16:37</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the centurion heard it, he went to the chief captain and told him, saying: What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman</em>-</p><p> We read (almost in passing) that Paul five times was beaten with 39 stripes (<em><a href='B:540 11:22-27'>2Co 11:22-27</a></em>). Yet from <em><a href='B:510 22:26'>Act 22:26</a></em> it is evident that Paul as a Roman citizen didn't need not have endured this. On each of those five occasions he could have played the card of his Roman citizenship to get him out of it; but he didn't. It wouldn't have been wrong to; but five times out of six, he chose the highest level. It may be that he chose not to mention his Roman citizenship so as to enable him access to the synagogues for preaching purposes. The one time Paul didn't play that card, perhaps he was using&nbsp;the principle of Jephthah's vow- that you can vow to your own hurt but chose a lower level and break it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief captain came and said to him: Tell me, are you a Roman? And he said: Yes</em>-</p><p> There was no tangible proof that a person was a Roman citizen in moments like this. Paul was being asked to affirm that he was, and he does.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the chief captain answered: With a great sum of money I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said: But I am Roman born</em>-</p><p> The chief captain may be admitting that he paid a large bribe for citizenship, for it could not normally be bought for money. Paul's openness regarding his extrajudicial murdering of people (see on :4) elicited a similar openness from this captain. And our openness can likewise elicit the same from others, as we move towards authentic relationship with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then those that were about to torture him withdrew from him immediately; and the chief captain also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, because he had bound him</em>-</p><p> The captain only "knew that he was a Roman" on the basis of Paul's verbal statement. There was obviously something about Paul and the whole situation that had an uncanny ring of truth to it. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the next day, desiring to know with certainty why he was accused by the Jews, he released him and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set him before them</em>-</p><p> As noted on :24, there was a struggle to understand how exactly religious ideas could elicit such a rage against a person, if there was truly no other aspect to the case. What the Romans were dealing with was the power of bad conscience; and it was made the worse by Paul admitting he had had such a bad conscience, but had resolved it by surrender to Christ. The gathering together of the chief priests and council was all reminiscent of the scene at the Lord's trial and condemnation. All the way through Paul's life, and our lives, we are being brought to fellowship the Lord's sufferings. Being "set before them" recalls what had been done not only to the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>) but also to Peter and John (Acts 4) and Stephen (6:12). In our fellowshipping of the Lord's sufferings, we are led also to understand other believers and to pass through in essence what they did. And this in practice becomes the basis of our fellowship with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul looked straight at the council, and said:</em> <em>Brothers-</em></p><p> To address the Sanhedrin as “brothers” has been described as “almost recklessly defiant” (William Barclay, <em>Ambassador For Christ</em> p. 132). The usual address was: “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel”. But Paul instead treated them as his equals.</p><p><em>I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day</em>-</p><p> The Lord Jesus Himself informs us that Paul kicked against the pricks of his own conscience (<em><a href='B:510 9:5'>Act 9:5</a></em>). And in any case, Paul elsewhere says that his good conscience actually means very little, because it is God's justification, not self-justification through a clear conscience, which is ultimately important (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> RSV). It seems Paul was aware of his weak side when he comments how despite his own clear conscience, God may see him otherwise (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> RSV); and surely this was in his mind. So how true were Paul's words in <em><a href='B:510 23:1'>Act 23:1</a></em>? It seems that he said them in bitter self-righteousness. Soon afterwards he changes his life story to say that he had always <em>tried</em> to have a&nbsp;good conscience (<em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>).</p><p>The Greek word translated “conscience”,&nbsp;<em>sun-eidesis</em>, means literally a co-perception. It implies that there are two types of perception within the believer- human perception, and spiritual self-perception. The conscience that is cleansed in Christ, that is at peace, will be a conscience that keeps those two perceptions, of the real self and of the persona, in harmony. What we know and perceive humanly, is in harmony with we spiritually perceive. Our conscience, our co-perception, our real self, makes sense of the human perceptions and interprets them in a spiritual way. So, a young man sees an attractive girl. His human perception signals certain things to his brain- to lust, covet, etc. But his co-perception, his conscience, his real self, handles all that, and sees the girl’s beauty for just simply what it is- beauty. Job before his ‘conversion’ paralleled his eye and his ear: “Mine eye hath seen all this, mine ear hath heard and understood it” (<em><a href='B:220 13:1'>Job 13:1</a></em>). He was so sure that what he heard was what he saw; he was sure that his perceptions were operating correctly. But later, he comes to see a difference between his eye and his ear. He says that he had only heard of God by the ear; but only now, he says, “mine eye seeth thee” (<em><a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a></em>). He had heard words, but, he realized, he’d not properly ‘seen’ or perceived. Finally, he had a properly functioning ‘conscience’, a co-perception. What he saw, was what he really heard.</p><p>Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience. It’s therefore unreliable (<em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>). And yet there is Bible teaching concerning the need to live in accordance with our 'conscience', and the joy which is possible for the believer who has a clear conscience&nbsp;(e.g. <em><a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:18-22'>Rom 14:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:12'>2Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:21'>1Jn 3:21</a></em>). This must mean, in the context, the conscience which God's word has developed in us- it cannot refer to 'conscience' in the sense of our natural, inbuilt sense of right and wrong; because according to the Bible, this is hopelessly flawed. The fact the "conscience" is "cleansed" by Christ's sacrifice (<em><a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:22'>Heb 10:22</a></em>) proves that the Biblical 'conscience' is not the natural sense of right and wrong within our nature; for our nature can never be 'purged' or 'cleansed', the believer will always have those promptings within him to&nbsp;do wrong. The cleansed, purged conscience refers to the new man that is created within the believer at baptism. This new 'conscience' is not just a sense of guilt which is invoked on account of not living an obedient life; it is also a conscience which positively compels us&nbsp;<em>to do</em>&nbsp;something, not just threatens us with a pang of guilt if we commit a sin.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth</em>-</p><p> The claim to a good conscience before God was seen as blasphemy. This provides a window onto understanding how radical were Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem that their conscience was washed and cleansed in Christ, and they could with boldness enter the Holiest. The idea that we can really be totally right with God in Christ is repellent to those who seek justification by works and legalism. This striking was another fellowshipping of the Lord's sufferings before the same kind of crowd (<em><a href='B:500 18:22'>Joh 18:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Paul said to him: God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?</em>-</p><p> Paul's words here were surely said in the heat of the moment. Yet even in hot blood, not carefully thinking through his words (for this doesn't seem the most appropriate thing to come out with!), Paul was still unconsciously referring to the Gospels (<em><a href='B:470 23:27'>Mat 23:27</a></em> in this case). Having started on the wrong footing by this statement, it was perhaps this arrogant mood which lead him to curse the High Priest as a "whited wall" (<em><a href='B:510 23:3-6'>Act 23:3-6</a></em>). It seems to me that Paul realized his mistake, and wriggled out of it by saying that he hadn't seen that it was the High Priest because of his poor eyesight- even though Paul would have recognized his voice well enough. Another possibility is that "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest" is to be read as Paul claiming that he didn't recognize this high priest, as Christ was his high priest, therefore his cursing was justified. But he thinks on his feet, and suggests that he is being persecuted only because of his belief in a resurrection- with the desired result ensuing, that there was a division between his accusers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they that stood by said: Do you revile God's high priest?</em>-</p><p> Those who stood by were presumably the Jewish temple guards, and they would have been moving towards physically beating him as they said those words.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul said: I did not recognize, brothers, that he was high priest. For it is written, you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people</em>-</p><p> It was perhaps Paul's anger and arrogance which lead him to curse the High Priest as a "whited wall". It seems to me that Paul realized his mistake, and wriggled out of it by saying that he hadn't seen that it was the High Priest because of his poor eyesight- even though Paul would have recognized his voice well enough. Another possibility is that Paul is claiming that he didn't recognize this high priest, as Christ was his high priest, therefore his cursing was justified. But he thinks on his feet, and suggests that he is being persecuted only because of his belief in a resurrection- with the desired result ensuing, that there was a division between his accusers. The quotation of "You shall not speak evil of a ruler" from <em><a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a></em> is parallel with the statement that God was not to be blasphemed. The Mosaic judges were judging on behalf of God. Clearly, Paul's judges were not doing anything of the sort. And yet Paul goes along with the misapplication of the verse in order to demonstrate his familiarity with the law.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:6'>Act 22:6</a></em>:&nbsp;</p><p><em>But when Paul noticed that one part was Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council- </em>Paul had to cry out or "shriek" over the noise of anger at his having cursed the high priest. </p><p><em>I am a Pharisee, son of a Pharisee! Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question</em>-</p><p> He says things like “I am a Pharisee” (<em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>), not “I was a Pharisee and now repudiate their false doctrines”. Paul’s general attitude was akin to that of his Lord, in that he was not hyper careful to close off any opportunities to criticize him. This fear of and sensitivity to criticism is something which seems to have stymied parts of the body of Christ. Paul here was behaving very humanly; the Pharisees present did not believe the Lord had risen, but Paul expressed his faith in this fact in terms of his being a Pharisee. And of course Paul was now no longer a Pharisee. But in a few nanoseconds, his sharp mind thought up a way out of his problem by hinting that he was victim of a Sadducee plot because of his previous Pharisee connections. This was untrue, but Paul was desperate for a way out.</p><p>Paul saw himself as two people. Consider how this dualism is to be found in many places: </p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>The Natural Paul </td><td>The Spiritual Paul </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Paul could say: “I am a Pharisee…I am a man which am a Jew” (<em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:13'>Act 21:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:39'>Act 21:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:3'>Act 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:22'>2Co 11:22</a></em>)&nbsp;Circumcision and being Jewish has ‘much advantage’ (<em><a href='B:520 3:1-2'>Rom 3:1-2</a></em>). “Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel” (<em><a href='B:570 3:5'>Phi 3:5</a></em>). He argues that all Jews are “the seed of Abraham”, including himself, by birth (<em><a href='B:540 11:22'>2Co 11:22</a></em>). </td><td>But he also stresses that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” because only “the children of the promise”, those baptized into Christ, are counted as the seed (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:8'>Rom 9:8</a></em>). The spiritual Paul is neither Jew nor Gentile:&nbsp; The ‘gain’ of being personally Jewish Paul counted as loss (<em><a href='B:570 3:3-7'>Phi 3:3-7</a></em>). His circumcision meant nothing (<em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:19'>1Co 7:19</a></em>). “We are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit... and have no confidence in the flesh [i:e. the fact of literal circumcision, see context]” (<em><a href='B:570 3:7'>Phi 3:7</a></em>) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:550 2:15'>Gal 2:15</a></em>) </td><td>This contrasts sharply with Paul’s whole message that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and both groups are all equally sinners (<em><a href='B:520 3:9'>Rom 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a></em>). He speaks of “theirs is the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship… theirs are the patriarchs” (<em><a href='B:520 9:4-5'>Rom 9:4-5</a></em>). He clearly dissociates himself from Jewry. He had to <em>become like a Jew</em> in order to save them, although he was Jewish (<em><a href='B:530 9:20'>1Co 9:20</a></em>). He carefully kept parts of the law (<em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:26'>Act 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:13'>1Co 8:13</a></em>). To the Jew he became [again] as a Jew; and to the Gentiles he became as a Gentile (<em><a href='B:530 9:20'>1Co 9:20</a></em>):&nbsp; He acted “To them that are without law, as without law...". He was “dead to the law” (<em><a href='B:550 2:19'>Gal 2:19</a></em>)&nbsp;He was a Jew but considered he had renounced it, but he became as a Jew to them to help them. He saw no difference between Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>) but he consciously acted in a Jewish or Gentile way to help those who still perceived themselves after the flesh. “...(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ)” (<em><a href='B:530 9:21'>1Co 9:21</a></em>). </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I am carnal (<em><a href='B:520 7:14'>Rom 7:14</a></em>) </td><td>But in Christ he was not carnal (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em> s:w:) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No flesh may glory before God (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>) </td><td>Paul, in his spiritual man, as counted righteous before God, could glory (<em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>). </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect” </td><td>“Let us therefore, as many as be perfect…” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>, he considers he is ‘perfect’, and has put away the things of childhood. Thus he saw his spiritual maturity only on account of his being in Christ; for he himself was not “already perfect”, he admitted. </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“I laboured more abundantly than they all... </td><td>... <em>yet not I</em>, but the grace of God which was with me” (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>God set the apostles <em>first</em> in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>) </td><td>God set the apostles <em>last</em> in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“I live... </td><td>... <em>yet not I</em>, but Christ liveth in me [the new ‘me’]... I [the old ‘me’] am crucified with Christ” (<em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em>) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>“I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office” (<em><a href='B:520 11:13'>Rom 11:13</a></em>). He considered himself rightfully amongst the very chiefest apostles (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). </td><td>He “supposed”, the same word translated “impute” as in ‘imputed righteousness’, that he was amongst the chiefest apostles (<em><a href='B:540 11:5'>2Co 11:5</a></em>). He knew this was how his Lord counted him. But he felt himself as less than the least of all saints (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>). “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am” (<em><a href='B:530 15:9-10'>1Co 15:9-10</a></em>). </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And when he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided</em>-</p><p> This was exactly as Paul had intended, in order to get him out of the rod he had made for his own back by cursing the high priest (see on :5). </p>


text:
<p><em>For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees believe in both</em>-</p><p> Perhaps Paul had developed the idea of the Lord's resurrection by speaking of the appearance of Angels there, and of how the risen Lord is present through His Spirit in the lives of believers. Or perhaps he emphasized that he knew the Lord was risen because the Spirit had revealed this to him; and the Lord's appearance to him on the Damascus road had been perceived by some as the appearance of an Angel in glorious light (hence the words of the Pharisees in :9). All the speeches in Acts are abbreviated. Paul may have framed his words in ways which he knew would provoke the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees. </p>


text:
<p><em>And there arose a great clamour; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees stood up and argued, saying: We find no evil in this man. What if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?</em>-</p><p> As noted on :6 and :8, Paul expressed his faith in the Lord's resurrection in terms which made out that the whole problem was because he believed in resurrection, Angels and spirits. He had no belief in disembodied spirits, but he expressed his convictions in terms which suggested he did. This was Paul at his most human, desperate to get out of the problems caused by his anger and arrogance in cursing the high priest.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the fortress</em>-</p><p> The Pharisees were presumably physically protecting Paul from the Sadducees. Again we see the power of religious ideas, and the anger unleashed when traditional positions are questioned; see on 22:30. The trial may have been held in the hall within the temple precinct where Gentiles were not allowed to enter, but which was in full view of the Roman soldiers in the Antonia tower. Hence the watching soldiers rushed down into the holy space to rescue Paul. And thus Gentiles entered the temple as a result of Paul's witness. This very fact made the entire case against him (of having brought Gentiles into the temple) rather baseless.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the following night the Lord stood by him, and said: Take courage, for as you have testified concerning me in Jerusalem, so also you must testify in Rome</em>-</p><p> Whilst Paul comes over as angry and fearless in cursing the high priest, after the event he was weak and fearful of what would become of him. To such an extent that the Lord appeared directly to him. The comment that Paul would also testify in court in Rome as he had in Jerusalem would have been reflected on by Paul. His appeal to Caesar was therefore his way of as it were forcing the fulfilment of these words.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when it was day, the Jews banded together and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul</em>-</p><p> They had been up all night planning Paul's murder; and Paul had sensed that, for that same night the Lord had appeared to Paul to encourage him (:11). </p>


