Acts and Judaism

Acts gives us some interesting windows into the Judaism of the day. Take Gamaliel, for example. He was one of the most famous Pharisees at the time, and Acts says that Paul studied at his feet (Acts 22:3). There were two general schools of Pharisees: the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. According to one tradition, Gamaliel was the grandson of the famous Hillel.

Hillel had a more fatalistic philosophy, similar to what we hear Gamaliel saying in Acts 5. If it is God’s will, God will do it. If it is not God’s will, we cannot fight against it. Shammai was more interested in helping God out. If it is to be, it is up to me. Ironically, Paul behaved more like someone from the School of Shammai than the School of Hillel.

Whatever teachers Paul had, he had actively tried to force God’s will by arresting Christians. He probably targeted Greek-speaking believers. He had several arrested and brought back to Jerusalem (22:4). Paul was present at Stephen’s stoning, but we should be careful about thinking Paul had a lot of Christians killed. The Romans put people to death, and Paul never tells us in his own writings that he brought about the deaths of early Christians. Paul was a “go-fer” for the Sanhedrin. He was not empowered to put people to death.

Because Paul says he cast his vote for the death of Christians (25:10), some have suggested that Paul himself might have been on the Sanhedrin. If he was, he would presumably have been married. As you might expect, this line of thought has led to further speculation. Did his wife die? Did she leave him when he became a Christian? Are there any hints in 1 Corinthians 7? Was he actually more Jesus’ age than a younger man?

Since Paul was sent out to arrest people, it is probably safer to think of him as someone who worked for the Sanhedrin rather than someone who was on the Sanhedrin. The vote he cast was thus a metaphorical one. When the Sanhedrin voted against early Christians, Paul was right there with them, on their side, “casting his vote” too. Again, we do not actually have a lot of evidence that the Sanhedrin put many Christians to death. For example, when the high priest Ananus had James stoned, he waited until there was no Roman governor in town.

Acts 23 also gives us an interesting window on the Sadducees, with whom Jesus also had a brief encounter in Luke 20:27-38. They tended to be aristocratic, priestly families. Many, although perhaps not all high priests came from this class (cf. Acts 5:17)... [for the rest, see this post]

P.S. Here's how a line from that post filled out: "It might be worthwhile to stop here and notice how easy it is to read our own situation into the Bible. So many think of the Sadducees as liberals because the liberals of our day do not believe in the supernatural.

"But this is completely wrong. The Sadducees strongly believed in the supernatural. In fact, their position on the afterlife was more “conservative” in relation to the Old Testament than the Pharisees’ position, which drew heavily on developments in Jewish belief in the time between the two testaments. The Sadducees were also more conservative in that they may have focused more on the Law and less on the other writings of the Old Testament."

The Times of the Gentiles (Acts)

I'm now over 50,000 words and ready to seal up my Acts book. This is from the last chapter.
__________________
It makes a significant difference to the way we understand Luke’s indictment of the Jews if he wrote Acts after Jerusalem and its temple was destroyed. It is no secret that many individuals in history, calling themselves Christians, have justified persecuting the Jews in the name of God and the Bible. Even today, many Christians think that the ending of Acts signaled the end of Israel as God’s people.

On the other hand, if Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it takes on a quite different connotation. Now, Luke’s readers can see clearly in hindsight why God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed. They had turned away from his plan. He brought the Messiah into the world and they rejected the good news. So God turned to the Gentiles for a season.

Luke 21:24 gives us a peak into what Luke was thinking. Luke 21 gives us Jesus’ prediction that the Jerusalem temple was going to be destroyed, something that happened in AD70. In Matthew and Mark, we have the prediction in its raw form—Jesus warns his followers to flee to the mountains when they see the “abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong” (Mark 13:14).

Arguably, Luke paraphrases this prediction with all the benefit of hindsight: “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20). Luke makes it clear to his audience what Jesus’ more ambiguously worded prediction meant. [1]

One element of Luke’s clarification is striking. The Jews of Jerusalem will be taken as prisoners to all the nations (21:24). Then “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Here we have the key to Luke’s thinking. We live in the times of the Gentiles. God was going to turn away from the Jews for a season.

But there is an “until” in Luke’s inspired understanding. It is not a permanent turning away. Luke’s thinking here is presumably similar to Paul’s in Romans 11. For a season, God has cut out the natural branches of his tree, unbelieving Israel. “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25).

Many translations then botch the next verse, in my opinion, because Paul is contrasting the “part” that is now hardened with what will take place around the time of Jesus’ return. “So all Israel will be saved” (11:26, NASB). Paul says that God’s “call is irrevocable” (11:29), so God will not abandon the Jews forever. Those he has currently surrendered to disobedience will eventually receive mercy (11:31-32).

It is very important to keep this overall perspective in mind when we read about the Jews in Acts. Otherwise, we will get the sense that Acts is telling us how to behave toward Jews today, when in fact Acts is explaining why certain events happened to Jews in the past.

[1] We should not be troubled at all that Luke would paraphrase Mark’s words. This sort of editing was completely acceptable in Luke’s day. God originally inspired Luke-Acts to speak to them in their categories, not to conform to our expectations today.

Paul's Legal Defence (Acts)

... So Paul faces perhaps the worst mob yet, not least because they actually get their hands on him this time. The Romans swoop in and have to carry Paul off to save him. Notice how this casts the Romans on Paul’s side, with unbelieving Jews being the aggressor as always.

In all Paul’s interactions with the Romans, he is treated as an equal. Luke skillfully gives us the sense that the Romans all respect Paul and recognize his virtue and innocence. He has normal conversations with the Roman commander in which it is clear that Paul is not the revolutionary he thought he was (21:37-39). Paul is in fact a Roman citizen by birth, of greater status than the centurion in charge, who had to pay for his citizenship (22:26-28).

Again, the unbelieving Jews are irrationally out to get Paul. Some zealous Jews take a vow that they will not eat or drink until Paul is dead. They are going to ambush him in transit. Paul’s nephew in Jerusalem finds out and at Paul’s request informs the Roman authorities. The Romans prove to be models of virtue and order as they take Paul out of Jerusalem under the cover of night and bring him up the coast to Roman headquarters at Caesarea. Presumably, the zealots end up dying.

Paul’s legal position is clear and consistent: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar” (25:8). The Romans agree. Throughout these chapters in Acts, the Romans vouch for Paul’s innocence. The Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to the Roman governor in which he makes it clear that Paul is innocent (23:29). The conflict, he implies, was a theological debate between Jews--nothing of interest to Rome. The implicit message here is that it is unfortunate Paul ended up going before Nero, because everyone in the lead up to his appearance knew he was innocent.

Paul does not give the Roman governor Felix a bribe (24:26). This fact both points to Paul’s virtue and also explains in part why Felix never releases him over the course of two years. Paul cleverly appeals to Caesar rather than risk ambush on the way to Jerusalem. Luke skillfully helps us see that Paul’s trial before Nero was the result of a series of unfortunate events and that his martyrdom there was a mistake (if Paul died at the end of Acts).

Throughout, Paul shows his Roman questioners the utmost of respect. He does insult the high priest for being a hypocrite, but when he realizes it is the high priest, he apologizes (23:5). Acts compliments Felix for his knowledge of the Way (24:22). Paul is so convincing that Felix actually gets nervous about what Paul is saying to him and his wife (24:25). Similarly, Paul will almost convince Herod Agrippa II to become a Christian just a little while later (26:28).

The next Roman governor Festus tells Agrippa exactly what Paul himself and the rest of Acts has shown. Paul’s troubles come from a debate among Jews about the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is what divides the Sanhedrin in Acts 23. Festus tells Agrippa that the complaint of the Jews has to do with matters of their religion, not anything substantive as far as Rome was concerned (25:18-19).

But Festus forces Paul’s hand and Paul appeals to Caesar. In the end, Agrippa gives us the main point to take away: “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment… This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (26:31-32).

What lessons can we learn for our world today? 1 Peter 2:12 puts it well, “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” The Christian message is subversive, especially for those who live in a context where rulers demand absolute submission. Rulers of that sort do not treat well those who do not conform.

1 Peter 2 goes on to say that it is one thing to get in trouble if you actually are a wrongdoer. You deserve punishment then. Christians had better not be that sort of people. It may sound strange to us, but Peter says that if you are going to get in trouble, get into trouble for things you didn't do. Don't give anyone a legitimate reason to persecute you (in which case it's not really persecution). If you suffer well when you suffer wrongly, you will be a powerful witness to your oppressors and those who are watching.

In my opinion, Acts also gives us a model of appeasing our oppressors to some extent. Luke knew that, in reality, Roman governors were no models of virtue. A different version of Acts no doubt could have been written that lambasted the Romans for their persecution of believers. Luke chooses instead to create good will with any Roman who might read Acts. He chooses not to create persecution where there doesn't need to be any.

In many respects, it seems doubtful that any Roman official would have taken the time to read Luke-Acts. But if so, Luke gave them a model of how to be a good ruler. There is of course a point where we have to take a stand and oppose those in power over us. But most of the time, we should submit to those in authority, even when we think they are on the wrong path.

The Importance of Reputation (Acts)

... Then we get to Jerusalem. It is a sign of Paul’s bad reputation that he gets in trouble for doing something he didn’t do, but for something that to the zealous of Jerusalem thought sounded like something he would do. He is accused of bringing a non-Jew into the temple (21:29). To be honest, it is actually something we can imagine Paul doing, given his theology. But the incident shows how you can get in trouble as much or more because of your reputation than for who you actually are or what you actually do.

On one level, having a good reputation does seem a somewhat superficial matter. What does it matter what other people think of you? Isn’t the most important thing that you actually are a person of virtue, whether other people think well of you or not?

So why is it that Proverbs 22:1 says that, “A good name is more desirable than great riches”? First, Proverbs presumes that the good name is deserved. Proverbs is not talking about an inaccurate reputation but a good reputation that flows from actually being a virtuous person.

Yet there are consequences to having a bad reputation even when it is undeserved. As we see with Paul, people will fill in the blanks by assuming the worst of us if we have a bad reputation to them. By the same token, people will fill in the blanks with good thoughts if we have a good reputation with them. There is unfortunately a lot of truth in the saying that, “Perception is reality,” because people will act toward us according to what they think about us, not necessarily because of who we really are or what our true motives are.

We cannot control what others think of us, and our priority should be on actually being people of virtue—rather than being hypocrites who only look virtuous. Nevertheless, the Bible also shows some concern for how we look to others, not least because we are witnesses to Christ. How we look is not the most important thing, but it is not insignificant either.

There is also a warning to us as those who do the looking too. It is human nature to jump to conclusions. It is human nature to assume all the worst of our enemies and assume the best of our friends. We tend to believe every tawdry email or sound bite about the president or politician we don’t like. Yet we are just as quick to cry foul at the negative injustices the other channel promotes about our candidates and favorites.

Those with the heart of Christ will love their enemy and not be so quick to believe every negative word about an opponent. It will make itself be fair-minded. It will get the story straight from the horse’s mouth rather than believing every rumor. It will be more interested in the truth than the scintillating...

Paul's Bad Reputation (Acts)

Christians aren’t troublemakers. I believe that is one of the points that Luke wanted to get across to Theophilus and anyone else who might read his two volume history of Jesus and the earliest Christians. Why did it matter? It mattered because Christians had the reputation of being troublemakers in the Roman Empire.

When Rome burned, around the year AD64, the people of Rome blamed Nero for it. Believe it or not, Roman historians today do not actually think Nero had anything to do with the fire. He was not in town when it happened, and he certainly did not play the fiddle during the burning. But because Nero benefited from the fire—he was able to build all sorts of fun, selfish things where the houses had been—the rumor began to circulate that he had ordered the fire.

So Nero decided to find a scapegoat, to find some other group on which to blame the fire. Perhaps he remembered that Paul guy, the one who had appeared before him a couple years previous. What group did he belong to again? Christians?

So Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome, the Roman historian Tacitus tells us.1 He was very creative in the ways he killed them. Tacitus tells us that Nero was so obviously indulging his own cruelty that the Romans felt sorry for the Christians, even though people thought they deserved punishment for their abominations. So Acts in part was presumably written to redress the bad reputation that Christians had.

The apostle Paul himself almost certainly had the reputation of being a troublemaker, not just among Romans but among Jews and many Christians too. We see this fact clearly in Acts 21 when Paul gets to Jerusalem. "You see, brother," James tells Paul, the multitudes of Jewish believers in Jerusalem, "have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs" (21:21).

At the time, this was a bad reputation indeed. Jerusalem had become a place of zeal for the law, not only in general, but even among Christian Jews (21:20). The year is perhaps AD58. A decade later, Jerusalem would be at war with Rome. Judea was becoming a tinderbox of revolutionary activity, and Paul was on the wrong side of zeal. A group called the Zealots would soon rise, if they had not risen already.

James, Jesus’ brother, seems to be in charge of the church in Jerusalem. He himself would die at the instigation of the high priest around the year 62 in between Roman procurators (after Festus). The high priest seems to have had him stoned. Did the high priest see James as stirring up revolution? After all, one of the disciples was even remembered as Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15).

Christian Jews in Jerusalem apparently were quite insistent that Jewish Christians needed to keep the Jewish Law in all its respects, despite concessions to Gentiles. The rumor is that Paul is teaching Jews to ignore the Law.  If we look at Galatians 2, that’s true--at least as far as table fellowship and purity rules. Paul is teaching Jews not to follow Jerusalem’s understanding of purity laws if it interferes with Christian fellowship and unity between Jew and Gentile believer.

Either James knows this and is nudging Paul toward keeping the Law or he is trying to smooth things over between Jerusalem and Paul.  "We want Jerusalem to know you keep the Law, Paul.  Right, Paul? You do keep the Law, right?"  Again, one of Luke's goals in writing Acts is probably to help Paul's reputation. Acts consistently shows the law-keeping and authority-submitting side of Paul.

Part of keeping the Law was participating in temple sacrifices.  Perhaps Paul takes the money from the offering for Jerusalem and uses it to pay for the sacrifices of some devout Jews in Jerusalem who have taken a vow. This might seem a little puzzling to us today. Really?  Christians were still offering sacrifices? Didn’t Jesus’ death take care of that?

We have to remember how much more we know than many Christians did at this time. In my opinion, the book of Hebrews had not been written yet. Many Christian Jews at the time probably believed that Jesus’ death had atoned for the sins of Israel at that time. It probably hadn’t dawned on many of them that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world for all time.

The Jews in Jerusalem probably made a connection between keeping the Law and the messiah coming--or for Christian Jews at the time, Jesus returning. Like Paul before his conversion, they believed God would reward Israel and give them back their land if they were devout enough in their law-keeping. Paul, meanwhile, was moving in the opposite direction. He had come to the conclusion that keeping the Law wasn't what God was looking for at all. God was looking for faith in Jesus.

"Almost-Followers" of Jesus at Ephesus

Still filling in gaps in my Acts book... less than 4000 words from the target!
_________________
Acts tells us about several very interesting events during Paul’s stay at Ephesus. The first is an encounter he has with some more followers of John the Baptist, like Apollos had been. They have been baptized in the manner of John the Baptist. They are expecting the Messiah to come.

But they have not believed specifically on Jesus. Most importantly, they have not received the Holy Spirit. So Paul has them baptized in the name of Jesus. They receive the Holy Spirit. They even speak in tongues, as on the Day of Pentecost and like the first Gentiles who become believers.

Luke probably was making a point to his audience and to a group that must have continued to exist at least till the end of the first century. The Gospel of John traditionally comes from Ephesus as well, perhaps in the 90s. When we look at the way it talks about John the Baptist, it seems to distance him from Jesus.

The Gospel of John does not tell about Jesus getting baptized by the Baptist. It tells of Jesus’ disciples baptizing concurrently with him, and John immediately sends his followers to Jesus once he arrives on the scene. John the Baptist even denies being Elijah in John 1:21, something Jesus says he is in Matthew 11:14.

Why would the Gospel of John downplay John the Baptist in this way? Could it be that it was trying to make it clear to the followers of the Baptist at Ephesus that Jesus was the only way? Was the Gospel of John implying that it was not enough to follow the Baptist’s message or have the baptism of John the Baptist? You needed to follow Jesus and be baptized in Jesus’ name. “He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30).

These followers of John the Baptist were thus "almost-followers" of Jesus. They understood a good deal about the good news, but they had not sealed the deal. Some of them even had a fervor about what they knew. But they did not quite know enough.

There may be some in the church today who are also “almost-followers.” They may know a lot about Christianity. They may even have a zeal about what they know. But they are lacking the crucial element, the power of Jesus within them. Do they have the love of God poured out in their hearts? Do they have a form of godliness but not the power of a Spirit-led life?

We also hear about another group of “not-quite followers” at Ephesus. This is a group of Jewish exorcists. They go around casting out demons...

Paul, Athens, Evidence, Presuppositions

... Paul doesn’t seem to make much headway at Athens. Some have used this fact to try to argue against education. The gospel, so the scenario goes, doesn’t play very well around the “educated.” Some pit education against a deep faith. “Don’t go to seminary or you’ll lose your faith.” “Don’t go to a secular university or a Christian liberal arts college—you’ll lose your faith.”

There is something deeply troubling about this kind of argument. Is true Christian faith really this vulnerable to thinking? Wouldn’t the most natural implication of that line of argument be that Christianity isn’t true, and that you have to be ignorant to have faith? Surely Christianity is in trouble if learning inevitably makes you lose faith!

There are probably educational institutions that are only interested in listening to new ideas, as Luke describes Athens (Acts 17:21). Perhaps they are more interested in unraveling your ideas than in building up an understanding of the world that works and is helpful. We can hope most Christian universities are places where the exploration of truth is done in the context of faith—faith seeking understanding. Hopefully, ideas are built up and not only subjected to scrutiny.

At the same time, the law of averages suggests that all of us inevitably grow up believing in a mixture of true and false things. At least some of what we start out centering our faith on must surely be in need of correction, just given the law of averages. Education, when it is done well, allows us to look at what we believe with a critical eye. It should allow us better to distinguish between what is solid and what is flimsy.

True faith is not afraid of questioning, because it has a confidence that what it believes will hold up against the evidence. And if we believe that God is a God of truth, then we must believe that God generally stands on the side of the most likely conclusion. There are potential pitfalls here. Sometimes the evidence is misleading. Sometimes we do not have enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion. It is completely appropriate to suspend judgment in some circumstances, especially on the issues of most importance or when we do not feel equipped to make a judgment.

There are those who would say that truth is not a matter of evidence at all, but that we must simply stand on certain assumptions—“presuppositions”—that we will not change no matter what amount of evidence may come against them. Again, this approach makes sense to a point, but what if our assumptions are wrong? Even our assumptions about the Bible are filled with traditions we have inherited from other people. I’ve never heard of any recent theologian to whom God appeared in person to tell them which presuppositions were unassailable. Rather, these theologians have inherited these presuppositions from other theologians, including presuppositions about the Bible.

There must surely be a point, then, when the evidence seems to mount to such an extent that we must re-examine even our presuppositions. Otherwise, we run the risk of mistaking human traditions for God’s truth. We should never examine our presuppositions carelessly or rebelliously, but cautiously and collectively alongside God’s people. We work out our understanding with faith, fear, and trembling (Phil. 2:12). We start with faith and seek additional understanding. God is a God of truth, so the truth cannot unravel our faith if our faith is legitimate...

Ideal Conflict Resolution (Acts 15)

More ligaments in the Acts book...
__________________
Acts 15 gives us an inspired picture of how conflict would ideally take place. Because we are fallen creatures subject to sin, God lets us make things much more complicated than it would need to be. But Acts gives us a picture of how conflict might be resolved.

First, conflict is not bad in itself. There are no doubt some Christians who think that all conflict points to a spiritual problem of some sort. This is not the case. Sometimes good causes compete for the same resources. Sometimes two individuals both are asserting appropriate values that need to be prioritized. Sometimes in our limited understanding, we have to struggle together to find the truth.

People, values, and trajectories inevitably come into conflict and, at that point, Christians have to wrestle together to find the best way forward. There are at least three phases to the resolution of conflict in Acts 15. First, after the conflict comes to a head, everyone comes together, and everyone is heard.

It is of course possible to head conflict off at the pass—that would perhaps be ideal in many instances. And as hard as it is to say it, there probably is a time not to bring everyone to the table, especially if some of those involved are completely inflexible. But in a perfect world, everyone would come together and get a chance to share their perspective on the facts of the conflict and what they think is the best way forward.

The second phase is when the proper authority makes a decision. Of course, people do not always agree on who the appropriate authority or decision-making body is. One of the benefits of organized churches and denominations is that they often have laid out clear lines of authority so people can know when a matter is officially settled. These channels of authority are best laid out in “peace time,” so that they are already agreed in the moment of conflict itself.

Finally, there was a phase of submission. Historically, of course, we have reason to think that the disagreements of Acts 15 continued. Sometimes conflict merely goes underground, and the war becomes guerrilla warfare, with back-stabbing and all. But Acts 15 gives us the inspired, ideal picture, where all the parties involved submit to the decision made by James and the elders, the proper authorities.

Some Acts 14 Nuggets

There are several nuggets in the last part of Acts 14. For example, 14:17 mentions God’s kindness to all humanity, something John Calvin called God’s “common grace.” God “has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.”

Many Christians will no doubt identify with Acts 14:22: “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.” Thankfully, we will not all face the level of persecution that Paul did. Nevertheless, it is not always easy to make it through this world making the choices God wants us to make. The wrong decisions are often easy decisions in the moment, although not in the long run. Paul’s words here in Acts are a reminder to keep going every time we face another obstacle.

Finally, a side comment in Acts 14:23 gives us confirmation of how much of the earliest church might have been structured. Paul and Barnabas appoint “elders” in every city. Acts seems to be telling us that the church or churches in a city were led by a group of older and wiser individuals. Acts gives us no mention of a single, head leader in each city or even in each house church. From Titus 1:5-7, we see that the word elder and overseer (episkopos, later translated as “bishop”) referred to the same role in the churches of a city.

This leading of the churches in a city by a council of elders follows the Sanhedrin model in Jerusalem. Perhaps also like the Sanhedrin, there were leaders of these groups of elders, although they are not mentioned here. Perhaps as a tip to Paul’s theology, Acts mentions that these elders had placed their faith in the Lord.

The Churches at Rome

If you only read Acts 28, you might get the impression that Christian faith was fairly new to Rome at the time Paul arrived there. But in reality, Christians had been in Rome for a long time before Paul finally set foot in the city around AD62. The emperor Claudius had already kicked all the Christian Jews out of the city in AD49. Apparently, the controversy within the synagogues of the city had become so divisive that it even drew the emperor's attention.[1] Priscilla and Aquila left Rome at that time (Acts 18:2).

We do not know exactly when Jewish believers in Jesus first came to Rome. Perhaps it was some of those present in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. Still, it is hard to imagine the issue not coming to a head sooner if many Christian Jews had been in Rome for that long. By AD49, Christianity had apparently grown strong enough for all-out war to break out in the synagogues.

Christian tradition has long held that the church at Rome was founded by Peter, especially Roman Catholic and Orthodox tradition. But this suggestion seems unlikely. Peter probably did not come to Rome until after Paul had visited there. Acts gives us no reason to think that Peter had ever been to Rome before Paul, nor does the book of Romans give us any hints along these lines.[2]

On the other hand, it is possible that the churches at Rome had the flavor of Peter’s Christianity.[3] Is Rome the city to which the sermon called Hebrews was written? Is this the audience that was tempted to rely on the sacrificial system rather than on the death of Christ?

If so, Hebrews mentions a previous time of persecution. They had earlier endured a time of great conflict and suffering (Heb. 10:32). Some had been arrested (10:34). Some had lost their property. Perhaps some of their leaders had been martyred (13:7).

Some think that crisis might have taken place during Claudius’ persecution of Christian Jews.[4] But this crisis sounds more like what happened around AD64 when Nero blamed Christians for the fire that burned much of Rome. That event was a couple years after the time Paul first reached Rome. Indeed, perhaps Nero’s encounter with Paul gave him the idea of blaming Christians for the fire of Rome.

After Claudius kicked the Christian Jews out of Rome in AD49, the Christian community left would have been overwhelmingly Gentile for a time. By the time Paul wrote Romans, not quite 10 years later in the late 50s, some Christian Jews presumably had returned to Rome. Romans gives us hints that the church at Rome at that time was still primarily Gentile (cf. Rom. 1:6; 11:13; 15:13). [5]

It is quite likely that we should think about the churches, plural, at Rome. They met in house churches that could scarcely hold more than 40 or 50 people in a very large one, and Rome probably did not have as many churches even this large because of tenement housing. It is thus quite possible that the church of Rome was more segmented than in some other places...

[1] The Roman historian Suetonius, writing in the early second century, mentions this expulsion in Claudius 25.4.

[2] Peter likely wrote 1 Peter from Rome. 1 Peter says it was written from Babylon (5:13), which probably means Rome (cf. Rev. 18:2). It is only natural that Jews would refer to Rome as Babylon after Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD70 the way Babylon had. It is possible that they referred to Rome even before then, especially in the late 60s after the Jewish War had started. This would be necessary for Peter to be its author, since tradition has it he died at the hands of Nero. See my forthcoming volume, The Church Moving Forward for discussions of 1 Peter and Revelation.

[3] This is the hypothesis of Raymond Brown and John Meier in Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1983).

[4] E.g., William Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (Waco: Word, 1991).

[5] Although it is common to hear that Hebrews was written to Jews, this is usually based upon certain stereotypes that don't hold up under closer examination. Hebrews 5:11-6:4 fits a group of Gentile converts to Christianity much better than it fits Jewish converts. The date of Hebrews is disputed, but if it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could indicate that Christianity at Rome remained primarily Gentile later in the century as well.

Simon the Sorceror (devotional thought)

I'm tidying up my Acts notes to try to finish the Acts book this weekend.  Here are my transformed notes on Simon the sorcerer:

"... The incident with Simon the sorcerer is interesting. Although he is not an opponent to Christianity in Acts, history would remember him as the beginning of all false Christian teaching, what is called, “heresy.”

"Simon must surely have been someone well known. Luke seems to want his audience to know that Simon had been out-miracled and outclassed by Philip. Simon was not quite a believer, the archetype of the stereotypical televangelist who is more interested in putting on a show and making money than truly following Christ.

"It is a sobering thought, to think of how close he came to believing and then apparently how bad an influence on faith he later seems to have had. We cannot absolutely control the spiritual destinies of others, because God in the end gives us all the choice. But it is staggering to think of the influence we can have on people’s destinies and how careful we should be.

"Think of all the children who have passed through our churches or that pass through schools where Christians teach. How sobering it is later in life to look back and realize how those little guys and gals we had under our teaching for a short moment went on into life. Some go on to be great. Some go on to live lives of ruin. Many go on to live faithful, Christian lives.

"But how sobering it is to think of the responsibility! Our words, our actions can sow seeds that blossom into faith. They can also sow seeds of discontent and discord. God gives them the ultimate choice, and God can work around us when we mess up. But it is important to take seriously the task of discipleship that we all play in the lives of others..."

Paul, Romans, Political Chess (Acts 25)

1. So the Roman governor Felix has been looking for a bribe from Paul for a couple years. I do suspect that Paul brought a sizable amount of money to Jerusalem as a gift/peace offering to the church of Jerusalem. Paul seems to play dumb.

There are many places in the world where bribes are business as usual. Is it appropriate to pay a bribe to a government official to get medical supplies through customs and into a country, for example? It's a sign of a deficient system, yes, dare I say an inferior society. But can it simply be a cultural element that is considered appropriate for doing business in certain places, like a fee?  I suspect great wisdom is necessary here, not because of abstract rules (that answer, I think, is culturally unaware of how extensively our sense of ethics is affected by our own culture) but because of long term consequences.

2.  Festus forces Paul's hand. He suggests Paul go to Jerusalem to stand trial. If the earlier assassins kept their vow, they're all dead, but presumably there were others willing to take their place. The year is around AD60, six years before the Jewish War would break out and eventually spell Jerusalem's demise.

Paul's statement that he had not broken the Jewish Law or done anything against the temple or Caesar is significant. Now Luke has that on the record for posterity.

Paul appeals to Caesar, the right of a Roman citizen. He reminds me of Socrates here. Might be interesting to thumb through Plato's Apology and see if he says anything about being willing do die if he deserves it.  He willingly drank the hemlock after being convicted. Acts 4 also echoed the Apology, when Peter says it is better to obey God over mortals.

3. The rest of the chapter introduces Herod Agrippa II to us. This is the son of the Agrippa who killed the apostle James, son of Zebedee. Of all the Herods, he is the only one portrayed favorably in the New Testament. Herod the Great killed the babies in Bethlehem. Herod Antipas beheaded John the Baptist.

Again, a recurring theme Luke wanted to get across to his audience, is Paul's innocent (similar to Jesus). Festus tells Agrippa that the complaints about Paul had to do with Jewish matters and his claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Agrippa wants to hear him.

4. Typical monologuing by Festus. What should I charge him with? Help me out here, Agrippa. He has done nothing deserving of death. This again is a nudge to the audience, I think. Paul should not have been put to death by Caesar. Christians are not troublemakers although others give them plenty of trouble...

First Century Lawyers (Acts 24)

1. The high priest Ananias (is this the Ananus who put James the brother of Jesus to death in 62?) goes up with a lawyer named Tertullus to see the procurator, Felix about Paul. Both Tertullus and Paul completely flatter the guy.

Tertullus: What tremendous reforms you've brought!
Paul: You are so knowledgeable I am very happy to make my defense.

2. Tertullus calls Paul a ringleader of the Nazarenes (a great put down indeed ;-) and a troublemaker who went around stirring up riots.  He says he tried to defile the temple. By the way, verse 7 appears to be an addition to the KJV text. In the verse, Tertullus faults Claudius Lysias for stealing Paul away from them.

Paul denies it. I didn't argue with anyone at the temple. I haven't stirred up things in the synagogue or anywhere else in Jerusalem. He does admit to being a follower of the Way. He believes in the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked.

3. Finally, evidence of the offering!  He came to Jerusalem with gifts for the poor.  Paul indicates that the ones accusing him are from Asia (i.e., Ephesus).

4. Felix wants a bribe. He keeps calling for Paul.  Paul keeps on talking. Felix gets no money.  Paul expounds on righteousness, self-control, and judgment instead.

5. Two years.  Paul runs out the clock until the next governor arrives in maybe AD60, Festus.

Why do they keep trying to kill me? (Acts 23b)

1. Romans are always rescuing Paul from the fray. The Roman commander rescues Paul from the Sanhedrin, the division between Pharisees and Sadducees is so great.  Some zealous Jews take a vow that they will not eat or drink until Paul is dead.

And they died, that is, if they kept their vow.  We find out that Paul had a sister and nephew in the city. The nephew catches wind of the plot, tells Paul, tells the commander. Instead of sending Paul to the Sanhedrin, Paul is shipped up at night to the coast, to Caesarea.

Fun to think that Paul had a sister in Jerusalem.  Was she older?  Did Paul go to live with her when he was young?  Or did he make it possible for some of his family to move south from Tarsus when he was rising the ranks of the Pharisees?

2. Paul did nothing worthy of death or imprisonment.  So says Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander. On the hypothesis that Acts is an amicus brief for his appearance before Nero, this would be a not so subtle hint to Nero.  I don't think that's likely because of the dating of Acts. The comment corroborates the sense that even though Nero put Paul to death, he was innocent. He was not the troublemaker.

By the way, the letter of Claudius Lysias is an example of an ancient letter--X to Y, Greetings, Body of Letter. The KJV adds a "farewell," a good example of how tradition smoothed things out.

Paul's Conversion Account 2 (Acts 22)

1. We get some background information on Paul. Paul was born in Tarsus but grew up in Jerusalem. He studied at the feet of Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a famous Hillelite Pharisee. According to some traditions, he was the grandson of Hillel. We met Gamaliel back in Acts 5.

By stereotype, Hillelite Pharisees were more fatalistic than the other school of Shammai. The Shammaites arguably had a more revolutionary character, "let's help God get stuff done" philosophy. The Hillelites were more "God will do it in his own time," more Quakerish--you can see this in Acts 5. In this respect, Paul sounds a lot more like a Shammaite Pharisee than a Hillelite. Much we just don't know...

2. When Paul says he persecuted followers of the Way to their death, we think of Stephen. We have no record of him causing any other early Christian's death. He seems to have been a "go-fer" for the Sanhedrin.

3. Paul gives three accounts of his conversion in Acts. We had one in Acts 9 by Luke. This one is on Paul's lips. There's another by Paul in Acts 26.  The NIV has smoothed out one minor tension between the first two accounts. In Acts 9 the people with Paul hear the voice but do not see anyone (9:7). In this account, they see the light but do not hear the voice (22:9). The NIV translation removes the question.

4. I wish Jesus would tap me/us on the shoulder this obviously when I was headed in the wrong direction! Paul is blinded. He is later healed, but we can wonder whether he continued to struggle with his eyes to some extent for the rest of his life. Galatians 4:15 suggests that Paul's initial time in Galatia had something to do with his eyes...

(It is hard to know how this might fit with Acts' account. For a long time, I went for a north Galatia audience for Galatians rather than the south Galatian churches of Acts because I didn't see how Paul's first stay in south Galatia could have been related to eye trouble. I finally conceded that it just makes more sense that it would be the churches Acts mentions rather than churches for which we have no record.)

... I personally think this is the only lead we have to go on as far as what Paul's thorn in the flesh might have been (2 Cor. 12:7-9).

5. You have to look up to Ananias.  Good grief, talk about obedience to God!  Your head is saying, "Danger, danger, Will Robinstein." But you go ahead and do what God tells you anyway.

6. Calling Jesus "the Righteous One" is interesting and we find it elsewhere in Acts. Richard Hays thinks Paul reads Habakkuk to say, "My Righeous One will live by faithfulness."  He thinks most of the passages we take as "faith in Christ" are actually about the "faithfulness of Christ."

7. 22:16 makes a connection between baptism and washing sins away. Acts 15:9 made the same connection with the Spirit.  They go together in Acts . You are baptized; you receive the Spirit.

8. Notice again how Acts accentuates the law-keeping of Paul and Ananias, fitting the context in Jerusalem.  Ananias is a devout observer of the Law (22:12).  Paul was praying in the temple when God tells him to leave Jerusalem and that he is sending him to the Gentiles. In Galatians we find out that Paul went to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion.

It's when Paul mentions the Gentiles that the mob goes wild again...

Mobs never change (Acts 21b)

1. It never fails. When they finally get you, they don't actually get you for the right thing. Paul's near the temple with a Gentile.  Someone sees him. Jumps to the wrong conclusion.

Time for another confused mob, like at Ephesus. Someone defiled the temple. This guy brought Gentiles into the temple. The mob tries to kill him. The Romans swoop in. They have to carry him to keep the mob from killing him.

I wonder if most of us have this in us.  Think of the political situation in Washington.  How much are we willing to hear both sides?  How many of us just assumed, with prejudice, that our side was automatically right and quickly fed ourselves with the talking points of our side?  Remember when Dan Rather lost his job because he just assumed forgeries about Bush were authentic. Last week a woman on FOX and Friends was just sure Obama was funding a Muslim memorial through the shutdown.

So many of us are more than happy to buy information that feeds our hates without double checking.  It is the mob in all of us.

2. I don't know if Luke meant for the audience to laugh at Paul's interchanges with Roman soldiers. Paul speaks Greek to the commander who rescues him and asks to speak to the crowd. The Roman commander is confused.  "I thought you were an Egyptian revolutionary."  "No, I'm from Tarsus" (21:37-39).

Then after Paul speaks to the crowd in Aramaic and they get all riled up again, a centurion has another exchange.  "You want to beat me, I'm a Roman citizen." "Really? I am too, paid for it." "Really? I was born one..."  Paul wins. (22:26-28). Paul used to suppress his Roman citizenship. Now he uses it.

Still Sacrificing in the Temple (Acts 21a)

1. More foreshadowing. "Don't go, Don't go, Paul."  Don't open the door!

• 21:4  "Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem"
• 21:10-11 Agabas (who I always found slightly comical here) grabs Paul's belt, ties his hands and feet with it (did he lay down on the ground?), and no doubt in a Vincent Price voice says, "the leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and turn him over to the Gentiles."
• 21:12 Luke and others plead with Paul, "Don't go, don't go!"  Paul says he's willing even to die there.  They give up.  OK, God's will be done.
• This is clearly foreshadowing and it surely goes beyond mere imprisonment. There's more to come (e.g., 26:32).

2. Philip the evangelist was one of the seven appointed in Acts 6. He lives in Caesarea now, has four virgin prophetess daughters. Clearly women could be prophets in the early church, in fulfillment of Acts 2:17.

3. So wish we knew the stories of people like Mnason (21:16).

4. Jerusalem has become full of Christian Jews who are zealous for the Law (21:20).  James, Jesus' brother, seems to be in charge. He would die at the instigation of the high priest around the year 62 in between Roman procurators (after Festus). He seems to have been stoned.

The year is perhaps AD58.  A decade later, Jerusalem will be at war with Rome. It fits that Jerusalem would be getting more and more a hotbed of zeal. A group called the Zealots would rise (Simon the Zealot???). These groups probably made a correlation between keeping the Law and the messiah coming (or for zealous Christians, returning).

The Christian Jews in Jerusalem apparently were quite insistent that Jewish Christians needed to keep the Jewish Law in all its respects (despite concessions to Gentiles). The rumor is that Paul isn't teaching that Jews need to keep the Law.  If we look at Galatians 2, that's true--at least as far as table fellowship and purity rules. Paul is teaching Jews not to follow Jerusalem's understanding of purity laws if it interferes with Christian fellowship and unity between Jew and Gentile believer.

Either James knows this and is nudging Paul toward keeping the Law or he is trying to smooth things over between Jerusalem and Paul or maybe Acts is trying to smooth over Paul's image. We want Jerusalem to know you keep the Law, Paul... right, Paul, you keep the Law, right???

Part of keeping the Law is participating in temple sacrifices.  Perhaps Paul takes the money from the gift and uses it to pay for the sacrifices at the end of a vow certain people have taken. What?  The church is still offering sacrifices? Didn't Jesus' death take care of that?

I personally don't think Hebrews has been written yet. They believe Jesus' death atoned for the sins of Israel before God at that time.  But it hasn't completely dawned on them that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world for all time...

Foreshadowing of Paul's Death (Acts 20)

1. Paul wrote at least two letters during the first three verses of Acts 20.  Paul writes 2 Corinthians on his way through Macedonia after he left Ephesus.  He goes as far south as Corinth and writes Romans before he heads back north again through Macedonia.

2. Paul picks "Luke" back up at Philippi.

3. The group accompanying him look like those bringing gifts to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3-4).  But quite puzzlingly, Acts never mentions the gift.  Did it fail to get delivered?  Did Paul use the money to pay for the vow of the men mentioned in Acts 21? Some of the men delivering the gift are mentioned in various of Paul's letters (e.g., Tychicus in Ephesians).

4. They came together for worship on the first day of the week, probably as a weekly reminder of the resurrection.  Paul preaches long enough for Eutychus to fall out the window and die, so we can imagine that the sermons of Acts at the very least are abridgments of what were originally much longer sermons. Paul raises someone from the dead, just as Peter did, just as Jesus did.

5. Paul avoids Ephesus. I know Acts doesn't say so, but could it at least be in part because he left there in big trouble, maybe even was kicked out of the city?  It's fun that Paul wants to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, since this is where Acts began. Verse 21 gives us a great glimpse of the early message preached--repent and have faith.

6. The rest of the chapter is filled with foreshadowing. "You will see my face no longer" (20:25, 38). What does that mean???

• The "fourth missionary journey" hypothesis of F. F. Bruce, the one that has 1-2 Timothy-Titus written after Paul is released after his first appearance before Nero, requires Paul to see their face again.
• By the way, Ephesians 3:2 is quite bizarre if Ephesians was written primarily to Ephesus just a couple years later. Of course they had heard of Paul's ministry. He had been there for some 3 years. In this regard, it's worth noting that the words "at Ephesus" are not in the earliest manuscripts of Ephesians 1:1.
• So 1) Does Luke not know what happened to Paul at the end of Acts when he finally appeared before Nero?  I don't consider this option likely at all, even though it is often suggested. Luke's paraphrase of Mark 13 seems to assume the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and the most likely source reconstruction puts Luke in that same period.
• 2) Does Luke syncopate two appearances before Nero into one, for space reasons or artistic purposes?  I think it's relevant to mention that this two appearance theory is a fairly recent trend. Wesley, for example, assumed that Paul died at the end of Acts.
• 3) Paul died at the end of Acts, Luke knew it, Luke foreshadowed it.  This hypothesis creates other problems, but seems by far the most likely conclusion.

We will see this foreshadowing of impending doom throughout the rest of Acts. 20:23--I know hardships and prison is a comin'.

7. I wonder if there are allusions to 2 Timothy in these comments. Paul wants to finish the race (20:24). He warns them about false teachers who will come in. Verse 30 may allude to some of the people that John would later have trouble with.

Paul has not taken their money, like the lovers of money in 1 Timothy 6. He has worked with his own hands. He gives us a Jesus quote that isn't in the gospels, which is really cool.

Demons and a Riot (Acts 19b)

I bet this is the passage from which some televangelists got the idea of mailing out handkerchiefs and such that they had blessed.  Fascinating...

VERY interesting that there were traveling Jewish exorcists going around too. Seven sons of a Jewish high priest?  What high priest is that?  Of the Jerusalem temple?  We don't know of any high priest by that name.  Did the Essenes have people who called themselves high priests?

All sorts of novels you could write.  Did some Essenes somewhere continue what they considered the proper high priestly line?  Did this connect with followers of John the Baptist at Ephesus?  Or were there Jews in the Diaspora who called themselves priests?

We have a whole bunch of magical papyri from this time period.  They include long lists of the names of deities.  It's like an exorcist would go through the lists until they came on a name that seemed to work on the demon in question. So it is no surprise that this traveling band of exorcists would try on the name of Jesus to see if it worked.

Of course it doesn't work very well. The man with the evil spirit drives them out of the house, naked and beaten. Believers who had those sorts of magical books burned them. I wonder how many book burnings in history this incident has inspired!

Then there is the riot.  The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the world (although here's all that's left)...

Remaining pillar of temple of Artemis

Looks like a typical mob.  Everyone shouting.  Not even quite sure what they're upset about.  They're in the theater:

Theater at Ephesus

I wonder if Paul was imprisoned for a while after this incident.  Acts doesn't mention it, but check out 2 Corinthians 1:8 and compare it to Philippians 1:20. It might also give another reason why Paul doesn't go back into Ephesus when he travels back through in 20:17. If he was imprisoned, this would be a time when he could have written Philippians.

I love Ephesus.  Just think of this place where Priscilla and Aquila started planting.  What a significant ministry Paul watered here.  Then he was followed by John in the latter part of the first century.

P.S. This passage uses the word "ekklesia" of the mob. People just used the word. They didn't think of "called out ones."

Application?

• The handkerchief incident reminds me of the woman touching the hem of Jesus' garment. Surely has something to do with the faith of the people?
• Be careful about trying to exorcise demons. Don't mess with demons unless you are really, really right with God.
• It at least seems like it took Paul longer to get in trouble here. If he wrote Philippians from here, he sure seems a lot more at peace than the earlier letters.  It reminds me of the tone of 2 Corinthians 1-9, which is just after Paul left Ephesus.  Is it a certain kind of maturity that comes when you reach the end of doing everything you can do and you just have to leave the outcome to God?

Followers of John the Baptist at Ephesus (Acts 19a)

Yesterday I mentioned that Apollos probably knew only about John the Baptist and not about Jesus. We catch a glimpse of more such people at Ephesus in Acts 19.

In fact, there may have been followers of JB at Ephesus in the late first century who actually rejected Jesus as the one to whom JB pointed. If the Gospel of John was written at Ephesus, could this be why John's Gospel seems to downplay JB (it never tells about Jesus being baptized by JB, JB does not admit to being Elijah, Jesus' disciples baptize at the same time as JB)?

In the incident between Paul and a dozen followers of JB at Ephesus, they have not heard about the Holy Spirit.  As Priscilla and Aquila did with Apollos, Paul presents Jesus to them and gives them the rest of the story. They are baptized again in the name of Jesus.  They receive the Spirit.  They even speak in tongues and prophecy.

I think the point of telling this story might be to make it clear that the baptism of John the Baptist is not enough.  It is baptism in the name of Jesus that is the baptism that relates to salvation. It is a baptism that leads to receiving the Spirit, and the tongues speaking authenticated it. (no indication is given that everyone will speak in tongues or whether these tongues were other languages, as in Acts 2).

This is thus not an argument for re-baptism of adults who were baptized as children. From a Christian perspective, this is the first baptism of this group. Again, calling the Jesus movement "the Way," we remember that JB preached, "the way of the Lord" and that John, perhaps written to the Ephesus community, calls Jesus "the way, the truth, and the life."