|
N O T E S
[1.1] (1:1) If we had to guess. we would say that Theophilus
was a lawyer and that perhaps he was based in Caesarea. Acts is interested
in legal issues, and especially the question of whether the Jewish ‘Religio
licita’ extended its protection to Gentiles who were not circumcised. The
position of a Jewish Christian was more secure. But surely the Jewish
authorities in Jerusalem could say who was and who was not a Jew; and the
Romans would listen to them. Paul’s theology was right enough. The Gospel
church was the fulfilment of Israel. But we may feel that in legal terms he
was trying to have his cake and eat it too. So was Acts a brief for a lawyer
who acted on behalf of Paul?
[1.2] (1:4) We really do not know too much about the church in Jerusalem
which, of course, left the city when the Jewish war broke out in AD.67. I
think it is useful to see what the Book of Acts does say.
Down to Chapter 5, we read only about the Apostles. In Chapter 6, the Seven
are appointed. Traditionally, they are seven deacons for the Jerusalem
church. It is hard to see how choosing seven men, all with Greek names,
would have cured the problems. They would quickly be accused of bias the
other way. There is the suspicion that they were seven elders for a separate
Greek-speaking church in Jerusalem. They were presented to the Apostles. So
far we have no mention of elders at Jerusalem.
If this is correct, then the Greek-speaking church was scattered. See 8:1.
At this point, we have to ask whether ‘apostles’ means the eleven or is
there one group in Jerusalem who focus on the Eleven, and a more Jewish
group?
In Acts 9:27 Paul is introduced to the apostles. So in 11:1 we have the
apostles - ? in Jerusalem - and ‘brothers’ in Judea. In 11:22 there is still
only ‘the church’. Galatians 1:17 and 19 speak only of apostles and now,
James the Lord’s brother. There are other churches in Judea beyond
Jerusalem. See also 1 Thessalonians 2:14, perhaps. Not until Acts 11:30 is
there mention of elders in Jerusalem. But if the seven were deacons, surely
financial relief would have gone to them? In Acts 12 we have individual
apostles, rather than the group.
Chapter 15 has a great deal to say. Oddly in verse 1, the Jewish teachers
come from Judea, not Jerusalem, and do not come from the elders or apostles.
Compare Galatians 2:12.
Throughout Chapter 15 the apostles and elders act together. The elders had
no authority outside Jerusalem: only the apostles did. Elders are appointed
‘in a church’. See Acts 14:23 and 20:17. Titus 1:5 also speaks of elders in
each town. See also Acts 16:4. In Acts 18:22 Paul goes up to Jerusalem and
greets the church. Paul was moved either by the poverty of the Christians or
by a sense of the relationships between Jewish and Gentile churches to make
his collection.
In Acts 21:17 Paul arrives with the collection. The brothers receive him. Is
James the Lord’s brother one of the elders in verse 18? Are the apostles
away on their travels? Is 21:24 a subtle way to accept the collection,
neither as ‘charity’ nor ‘tribute’ - like the Temple Tax?
At times giving elders authority beyond their local church has been a
disaster. The early Mennonites suffered many divisions. The Presbyterians
who came out of the Church of England in 1662 were Unitarian by 1720.
Chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation are a handbook on church relationships
[1.3] (1:5) See Mealand in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (JSNT)
Issue 42 at page 69 for this awkward little phrase.
[1.4] (1:8) See E.E.Ellis in Bulletin for Biblical Research No. 1 at page
123. Gades was the second city of the Empire in wealth and prestige,
according to Strabo. It was the western end of the shipping route through
the Mediterranean. Ships went north and south along the Atlantic coast. The
resources of metal in that part of Spain were very important.
In BBR 17/3 (2007) there is an excellent article by Elmer A. Martens at page
215. This develops from Isaiah 2:2 where the nations flow up to Zion to
receive God’s Law. There are other verses like this in the Old Testament.
This must have made it much more difficult for the Apostles to grasp that
they had to go out into the world with the Gospel: the nations would not
come to them.
[1.5] (1:13) The oldest list of the followers of Jesus in Jewish sources can
be found in one or two sources, for instance, ‘Gospel Perspectives’, Volume
5, page 322. It reads:-
‘Our Rabbis taught: Jesus had five disciples, Mattha, Naqui, Nezer, Buni and
Todah‘.
Todah may be Thaddaeus; Naqui may be Nicodemus; Nezer may be ‘Nazarite’ or
perhaps ‘Andrew’ and Buni may be ‘John’.
[1.6] (1:14) A passage quoted by Morison in ‘Who moved the stone’ from the
Gospel of the Hebrews is muddled, and this serves to highlight the care that
our four Gospels take to achieve clarity. Yet it confirms the tradition that
the Lord appeared to His brother James.
[1.7] (1:14) We should have said something about dating before this point. I
am content to follow the dates arrived at by C.J.Hemer in ‘The Book of Acts
in the setting of Hellenistic History’, published by Eisenbrauns in 1990.
Luke takes pains in Luke 2:1 and 2 and in 3:1 and 2 to provide us with data.
Yet even this is not conclusive and we have to remember how difficult it was
for people to fix dates in those days when there was no widely agreed era or
system.
[1.8] (1:26) One famous case was when John Wesley came back from his unhappy
visit to Georgia. George Whitfield was about to sail to Georgia, and John
Wesley cast lots and as a result told Whitfield he should not go. Whitfield
was wise enough to ignore this.
J H Thompson in the ‘Bible and Archaeology’, Paternoster Press, Exeter,
March 1969, pages 320-322 discusses the contents of a tomb at Talpioth just
south of Jerusalem. This contained inter alia ossuaries of Simeon Barsaba,
Mat(tathias) and Miriam daughter of Simeon. Other inscriptions may read
‘Jesus help’ and Jesus, let (so and so) arise’. The name Barsabbas seems to
be otherwise unknown apart from the reference to Judas Barsabbas in Acts
15:22. The tomb was not used after the mid-First Century. These may be the
earliest Christian inscriptions: there are crosses marked on some of the
ossuaries. It could be the Barsabbas family tomb.
[2.1] (2:4) In Volume 7 of the Banner of Truth ‘Works of Richard Sibbes’
page 194, para.94. See also page 228, para. 336:’Gifts are for grace, and
grace is for glory’.
[2.2] (2:4) Perhaps we should have given a brief outline of the history of
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Church up to the present
day! It is probably my weakness which consigns the question to a note.
1. The New Testament provides evidence that the Elders in the churches did
not welcome flying visits from charismatic prophets. Probably the Jerusalem
church experienced repeated outpourings of the Spitit, and the Jewish
teachers we encounter in Galatians and Corinth, for example, were the
result. John is sympathetic to the prophets in 3 John 5-8 and in Revelation,
although he gives warnings too.
2. The Montanist outbreak in Roman Asia in the second century - say 140AD -
may not have been as bad as is made out. Our knowledge comes from its
enemies. A little later, about 200AD, the great Latin church father
Tertullian became a Montanist.
However, the Greek Church responded by putting together the package of
teaching we know as Cessationism. Roughly speaking, this teaches that the
gifts of the Spirit were given to the Apostles so that they could produce
the inspired books of the New Testament. When this work was complete, the
gifts ceased.
Now only eight of the thirty nine books of the New Testament were written by
Peter, Matthew and John. We have nothing by the other eight of the eleven.
Two books are by brothers of the Lord Jesus. Thirteen, it is true, are by
the Apostle Paul. Mark and Luke wrote three more and no one knows who wrote
Hebrews. Further, few, I think, would claim that the words of a prophet have
the same authority as Scripture. So far as I am aware the only Scripture
which can be pressed into service to support Cessationism is 1 Corinthians
13:8, and there are better interpretations of this to hand!
Nevertheless, Cessationism prevailed in the church generally until modern
times. The major controversy in the Middle Ages between Orthodox and
Catholic was regarding the Double Procession.
It is not true to say that the gifts of the Spirit entirely ceased after the
Apostolic age. Rather, because the Church did not welcome them, their
benefit was withdrawn. Calvin among the Reformers found Cessationism a
useful part of his theology in his rejection of the Anabaptists and defence
of infant baptism. If Calvin and later theologians appear to give little
space to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, it is because their emphasis is on
regeneration as the Spirit’s work.
As regards the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements we may have
considerable reservations. They have resulted in a switch from preaching the
Gospel for conversions. The Catholic doctrine of the Fall and Sin fits in
nicely with Charismatic teaching. And because Charismatic teachers regard
their experience as a final outpouring, prayer for the Spirit is no longer
appropriate.
Perhaps people today do not pray for the Holy Spirit because they have no
appetite for nights spent in prayer. They do not desire the solemn sense of
God’s presence. They think ‘Sunday Observance’ is stuffy and do not want a
Sunday so full of praise and worship that everything else is pushed out!
We must at least insist that in Acts 2:4 they all were filled with the
Spirit and spoke in tongues. It was not only the Twelve; this agrees with
Hebrews 2:4 Again in Mark 16:17, it is those who have faith, not just the
Apostles, who exercise gifts.
One objection to the Cessationist view seems to me to be valid. It is not
for the glory of God to suggest that He gave the gifts and then took them
away. See Romans 11:29. But are they necessarily the promised gifts which
appear in Charismatic circles today?
There is plenty of teaching about the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel. An
examination of the balance between His work in regeneration and other topics
is worth while.
[2.3] (2:4) Richard Sibbes in ‘A fountain sealed’.
[2.4] (2:7) I found an article by John H Walton in BBR 5 at page 155
unusually interesting. Note that God does not destroy the Tower which men
were building. That was not the main issue.
[2.5] (2:7) See note in BBR 10.2 at page 116, note 16.
[2.6] (2:9) See Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2003, page 36
for an article by K Lawson Younger, Jnr, on the beginnings of the dispersal
of the Jews in this part of the world. Of course, Ezra and Nehemiah but
especially the Book of Esther relate to the Jews in the Persian Empire.
[2.7] (2:9) Mesopotamia at this period meant mostly the northern part: the
south was known rather as Babylonia. We know that by 116AD the Roman legions
had reached the Persian Gulf but that shortly after the area was abandoned
because it was too costly, in manpower perhaps. Strange that the Romans
should abandon an area which was so productive; but its produce would not
help to feed distant Rome. Ctesiphon on the Tigris was one of the capitals
of the Parthian Empire, so presumably the Parthians were weak at this
period. There is a lot I do not know! Mesopotamia included the west bank of
the Euphrates and the bank of the Tigris.
[2.8] (2:9) I gather that there is little or no evidence to support any
other reading. R.C.H. Lenski followed Zahn’s emendation to read ‘Jews’
rather than ‘Judea’. There is an articly by Hengel in BBR. 10.2 at page 161
which sets out the case for ‘Judea’ in this period meaning not just the part
of Palestine around Jerusalem, but also the rest of Palestine and also Syria
where there were large Jewish populations. I am not quite convinced!
[2.9] (2:10) It seems more likely to me that synagogue services were
conducted in Greek, and scripture was translated in these services. These
verbal translations were the basis of the Septuagint.
[2.10] (2:10) There is a good deal of information about Yeb in an article by
Bezalel Porten in B.A.R.. May/June 1995 at page 54 - ‘Did the Ark stop at
Elephantine?
Is it possible that an Ark of the Covenant - not the real one from the
Jerusalem temple! - was housed at Yeb, and that this is what the Amharic
Church treasures at Axum? The Hebrew community in Ethiopia may have arrived
via Yemen, but they could derive from the Yeb group.
[2.12] (2:11) No doubt there were Jews settled in Yemen at the southern tip
of the Arabian peninsula. However, it seems that ‘Arabia’ had a much
narrower meaning in those days. An article by Martin Hengel, ‘Paul in
Arabia’ appeared in the Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1. The facts in it
are useful, but I do not feel that the conclusions can safely be drawn from
them.
The Nabataean kingdom east of the Jordan is what is meant by Arabia in the
New Testament period. An article in ‘Current World Archaeology ’ No.10
(April 2005) includes a plan of the capital city, Petra. It is mainly about
‘The Soldier’s Tomb’ but it will serve to prove that we do not really know
much about life in Nabataea.
[2.13] (2:11) One may suggest that to a great extent the areas in the list
were the areas where Gnosticism flourished at a later date. One may feel
that the Apostles were not able to do as much as was needed. Moreover, in
the later part of his ministry, Paul imposed church order in areas like Asia
and Crete where probably there had only been informal fellowships. A good
deal of study could be undertaken along these lines.
[2.14] (2:12) Calvin says rightly that foolish, ill-considered speech would
not have impressed the pilgrim. Yet the principal fruit of the miracle was
that they asked questions. They wished to learn more. Again in verse 13;
‘Who benefits by the miracles by which God displays His power?’
[2.15] (2:17) When God called Abram, God’s call of one man might have seemed
to shut others out. So from the outset, God declared that through Abraham
all nations would receive His blessing. This did not happen in Abraham’s
lifetime. See Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 and 28:14.
Other notable verses are Psalm 66:4; Psalm 67:1-7; Psalm 72:17; Psalm 86:9;
Psalm 102:15; Isaiah 2:1-4 and Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 19:21; 4:5, 49:6; 52:10;
55:5; 62:1and 2; Jeremiah 16:19 and Zechariah 8:20-22. Of these, Isaiah 49:6
is of great importance because it shows that Messiah’s work will not be
limited to Israel. This list of course is not complete. Psalm 134:4 and
72:11 are verses which also have a universal application.
The word ‘proorizo’ which is sometimes translated ‘predestinate’ is found in
Acts 4:28; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Romans 8:29 and 30 and Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11.
The simple word ‘horizo’ is variously translated - determine, limit or
ordain and as well as here in Acts 2:23 it is found in Luke 22:22; Acts
10:42; 11:29; 17:26 and 17:31; Romans 1:4 and Hebrews 4:7. It means to set a
limit without the ‘pro’ which means ‘ in advance’. It is, of course, the
source of the English word ‘horizon’.
[2.16] (2:23) Calvin struggles with this!”........foreknowledge is first in
order because God sees what He will determine before He determines it. Luke
makes it (foreknowledge) secondary to the counsel and decree of God....what
befell Christ was not only foreseen by God but was decreed by Him......”
[2.17] (2:24) It is interesting to note that the Revised English Bible
translates :-
‘All my delight is in the noble ones,
the Godly in the land’.
R.S.V. and New King James, unlike N.I.V. do not hesitate about the
translation. Nor does the note in the English Standard Version really deal
with the issue.
[2.18] (2:25) Based on Thomas Watson.
[2.19] (2:23) The ancient controversy between Catholic and Orthodox
regarding the ‘Double Procession’ is rather brushed aside by D.A.Carson in
his commentary on John’s Gospel (John 14:16, page 499). Calvin on John 15:26
is a little more helpful. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the
Son, considered as the Son of God. The incarnate Son of Man sends the
Spirit.The Orthodox maintain that the Spirit proceeds from the Father but is
sent by the Son. (There may be some helpful comment in Ryle’s work on John’s
Gospel).
[2.20] (2:39) Non-Baptists, especially Presbyterians, like to gloss over
these words in my experience!
Motyer on Philippians 1:1 and 2 says that God’s call is not an invitation
awaiting our response but an authoritative summons - His royal edict of
conscription. Denney on 1 Thessalonians 4 - probably verse 7 - says that the
idea is one which had been much impoverished and degraded in his times.
J.N.D.Kelly on 1 Peter 2:9 says that ‘Kalein’ is the technical term in both
the LXX (Greek Old Testament) and in the Greek New Testament for God’s
saving initiative.
Winger in JSNT 53 at page 82 has a summary of Paul’s use of the word.
[3.1] (3:1) There is an article by David Jacobson entitled ‘Sacred Geometry’
in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 1999 at page 42 and September 1999 at
page 54. However, this mainly discusses the exact location of Herod’s Temple
in relation to the present Moslem structures on the Temple Mount. There is
further discussion in the March 2000 issue, page 53 by Ritmeyer and Kaufman.
A further article by Jacobson in the March 2002 issue at page 18 is more
general but is largely concerned with comparisons with Greek and Roman
buildings.
[3.2] (3:10) There is an article by A.B.Spencer in Bulletin for Biblical
Research 2 at page 59 on the various words for ‘fear’ and similar feelings
in Luke’s Gospel.
[3.3] (3:19) The NIV just omits ‘face’ or ‘presence’. Presumably it adds
nothing to the sense of the English, but it does nothing to spoil it. RSV
and NKJV are honorable exceptions which translate here, and no doubt there
are others. What is lost first is the clear contrast with ‘the face of
Pilate’ in verse 13. Second, for a Jew there would be an echo of what the
Old Testament says about the ‘face’ of God. See, for example, Psalm 27:8 and
9 and Psalm 119:58. For a quick check on the faithfulness of a translation
look at Luke 19:2. Hardly any of the versions now retain the ‘Look!’ at the
beginning of the verse, which is essential to the structure of the story.
[3.4] (3:26) In verse 16 it has been said ‘the Greek construction is
obscure’. There are some unusual words. Does this indicate that the speech
is a translation from an Aramaic document?
[4.1] (4:6) There were 28 High Priests between 37BC and 67AD. It was no
longer a sacred office, held for life but a political office in the gift of
the Romans. Annas was high priest from AD6 to 15, but remained influential.
Caiaphas held office from AD18 to36; he was son-in-law of Annas. John may be
Jonathan, high priest from AD 37 to 41. He was also known, it seems, as
Theophilus. But this is not likely to be the Theophilus for whom Luke wrote
his two books.
[4.2] (4:11) Psalm 118:22 is also quoted in Matthew 24:42 (and Mark 12:10,11
and Luke 20:17) and in 1 Peter 2:7. There are other verses like Isaiah 8:14,
Zechariah 4:7 and 10:4 and Daniel 2:34. There is a need to distinguish
between a foundation stone, a cornerstone and the seven-sided capstone of a
pediment. There is more to be said on this subject without introducing ideas
alien to Scripture!
[4.3] (4:24) I feel that I H Marshal in his commentary makes heavy weather
at this point. We have to admit that spontaneous choral speaking in worship
is known in time of revival, for instance in Wales. But it is to miss the
point to suggest that just one person spoke on behalf of the body, or that
the congregation repeated prayers after a leader.
Luke uses ’homothumadon’ in this verse and in Acts 1:14; 2:46; 5:12; 7:57;
8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12 and 19:29. Elsewhere it is only in Romans 15:6.
Most English versions here lose the force of the word. The Amplified Version
is an exception.
[4.4] (4:24) We must be thankful for godly and scholarly men and women who
argue the case for creation and against evolution. The work is necessary.
However, I feel that we should not expect it to achieve too much. It is
still the Gospel of God’s grace, of a crucified Christ, which will win
souls.
We live in a world where species are being lost at an alarming rate. Yet
every fossil species that is discovered is another species that has become
extinct. Darwin’s dictum about ‘the survival of the fittest’ has another
side - ‘the extinction of the less fit’. All points to an initial large
stock of species which has dwindled, and hence to creation, not evolution.
[4.5] (4:32) This passage raises questions about the Jerusalem church and
money. We have to be honest and admit that we do not know the answers.
a) If the Jerusalem church was poor, was this because Christians did not get
their share of the ‘tourist’ - pilgrim - business? At this time, work on the
Temple still provided plenty of manual work. It could be argued that it was
when the Temple was finished that unemployment became a problem. This may
have been the economic cause of the Jewish War. Most of the Apostles were
from Galilee. They had no work in Jerusalem. If they travelled, visiting
Christians - from Elam to Rome! - this would be costly.
b) It is just possible that there was an inner group within the Jerusalem
church which practised ‘community of goods’, while the remainder of the
Christians were just very generous to each other. ‘The Apostles’ might then
sometimes mean this inner group.
The Essenes were such a group among the Jews, and they are usually thought
to have been the Qumran Covenanters’. See for example the article ‘The
Missing Link’ by F M Cross and Esther Eshel in Biblical Archaeology Review,
March 1998 at page 48. Not everyone agrees!
An article by Capper in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 19
at page 117 was my first introduction to the topic. In a community new
members would ‘bank’ all they had with the community. For a trial period
their money would be kept intact while they sampled the lifestyle. They then
had the option of withdrawing from the community and also recovering their
cash. Acts 5:1-10 sounds rather like this.
c) Community of goods was not compulsory. It did not spread and experiments
on these lines have faded out fairly quickly in later years.
[5.1] (5:5) I H Marshall in his commentary on this passage provides
information from ‘Qumran’ and Spain about punishments inflicted by other
groups in such circumstances.
[5.2] (5:11) The word ‘church’ in 2:47 is a poorly attested various reading.
Quite a number of various readings in Acts look to be factually correct;
they may have been pruned out at a very early stage because they have no
value as theology or for the narrative.
[5.3] (5:11) C H Spurgeon, Sermon on Genesis 24:5.
[5.4] (5:11) These are sometimes lost in translation, as in 1 Corinthians
1:2. In Romans 15:23, Paul may speak of a ’room’. See 1 Timothy 2:8 and
Revelation 2.5 perhaps. Many Christian groups were ’house churches’, of
course.
[5.5] (5:13) It has been pointed out that ‘the rest’ (RSV - NIV has ‘No one
else’) became almost a technical term for people who were not believers. See
Luke 8:10 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13 and 5:6. See also Ephesians 2:3.
[5.6] (5:19) I like Calvin’s comment, that it is no ordinary pledge of God’s
love that the angels the noblest creatures of all, are appointed to look
after our safety.
[5.7] (5:22) Literally, ‘under-rowers’, of course. One of those nice New
Testament words. It must have been far from pleasant rowing the great
galleys of the Mediterranean at any time. Athenian ships were manned by free
men, but until about three hundred years ago, slaves and prisoners did the
work. If a ship had two or three banks of oars, it must have been hideous to
spend your life on the bottom bank, with benches of sweating straining men
above your head.
[5.8] (5:30) The RSV is accurate here. The NIV is loose, an interpretation
not a translation. Good News is another version like the NIV. Comparison
with 3:22 and 26 supports the other understanding. There is nothing in the
Greek text to say ‘from the dead’.
[5.9] (5:34) This Gamaliel is Gamaliel the Elder. He had a son, Simon, and a
grandson, another Gamaliel. They were all noted Jewish teachers. There were
two groups among the Pharisees, and this Gamaliel was the leader of the more
moderate group, the School of Hillel.
There is an article, ‘Paul and Gamaliel’ by Bruce D.Chilton and Jacob
Neusner at page 1 of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, Volume 14 No. 1.
This seeks to assemble the sayings of the elder Gamaliel, and seems to show
that Akiba (see note on 11.28) is more rigorous.
We might expect that if Paul was trained by Gamaliel (see Acts 22:3), then
there would be echoes in Paul’s writings of the teaching of Gamaliel. (See
also Philippians 3:5.) 1 Corinthians 8:5 can be compared with a saying of
Gamaliel regarding a statue of Aphrodite, which did not stop him taking a
bath!
Of course, the sayings of Gamaliel which have come down to us are likely to
be rather unusual. The day-to-day teaching of Gamaliel may have been rather
different. In any case, Gamaliel’s religion was one of law. Paul’s concern
was not so much law as the grace of God.
Dr Colin Hemer very cautiously suggested that Paul may have been present as
a spectator at the meeting of the Sanhedrin described in Acts 4:21-40.
Otherwise, Paul might have had an account from Gamaliel which he passed on
to Luke. Either way, Paul did not follow the ‘counsel of Gamaliel’ when he
persecuted the church. This point is not discussed by Neusner and Chilton.
[5.10] (5:35) Based on Calvin, whose Commentary on Acts is particularly
valuable.
[5.11] (5:37) The Romans had ended the kingdom of the Herod family in Judea
and took a census to see how much they could squeeze out of the province in
taxes. In Luke 2:1-2, Quirinius was governing Syria. In AD.6 he held the
office of governor. For a few years, Herod Agrippa I was king of Judea from
AD.41 until his death in AD.44. See Acts 12.
Josephus could hardly be so badly wrong in his dating of Theudas as to place
it before AD.6.
[5.12] (5:41) See also Luke 6:22-23; Romans 5:3 and 8:17; 2 Corinthians
1:5-7, 6:10 and 7:4; Philippians 2:17 and 3:10; Colossians 1:24; 1
Thessalonians 1:6; Hebrews 10:32-34 and James 1:2. As Lenski says somewhere,
when a man suffers joyfully for the sake of Christ, he has the final proof
of the reality of his faith and salvation.
[5.13] (5:42) This verse was the text of the first sermon preached by C H
Spurgeon in the new Metropolitan Tabernacle on 25 March 1861.
[6.1] (6:3) F.F. Bruce (p. 131) at least says that the seven may in fact
have been regarded as leaders of the Greek-speaking group within the church.
Similarly, I.H.Marshall, page 125 in the Tyndale commentary.
[6.2] (6:5) So, if tradition is to be believed, was Procorus who is said to
have been amanuensis to the Apostle John. Procorus is also said to have been
Bishop of Nicomedia and to have died as a martyr at Antioch.
The tradition that Nicolaus was the founder of the Nicolaitans who crop up
in Revelation 2:6 and 15 deserves less attention.
[6.3] (6:7) The NIV is not alone in translating ‘spread’. See Moffat and REB
for example. Calvin denies that the idea is here, and it does not really
seem to be the meaning.
[6.4] (6:8) Once again the NIV uses a little imagination, but we cannot
complain. All grace is God’s so if the Greek says Stephen was full of grace,
he must be ‘full of God’s grace’.
[6.5] (6:9) There is a good account of this in Biblical Archaeology Review,
July 2003, pages 24 and 25. We need not concern ourselves with the rest of
the article.
[6.6] (6:9) There is no lack of material on Jewish ritual baths and the
concept of ‘purity’. I find reading about ‘purity’ tedious and quite
unprofitable.
Ritual Baths are quite another matter. There is an article in Current
Archaeology 190 (February 20040 at page 456 on mikva’ot in London from the
Middle Ages. The July 2000 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review devoted much
space to Sepphoris and the debate over ritual baths there.
[6.7] (6:9) For Tarsus amd Cilicia, see Acts 9:11; 9:30; 11:25; 15:23 and
41; 21:39; 22:3; 23:34 and 27:50 and Galatians 1:21. These few references do
little to stress the importance of Tarsus and the city of Soli on the
Mediterranean coast, or of Cilicia as part of the Roman Empire. The Cilician
Gates through the mountains to the north were the route, probably used by
Paul to the interior of Asia Minor. The route was at times vital to the
Roman Army. Some of the experiences Paul describes in the epistles, for
example, Philippians 3:8 and 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 will have taken place in
Cilicia.
Tarsus was about 20Km from the sea, and stood on the River Cnydus. It was
said to be a thousand years old and was like Alexandria and Athens, a centre
of learning.
[7.1] (7:42) I realise that my treatment of this speech has been rather
slight. Far more could have been written!
The Saducees vanished in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and the end
of its worship and priesthood. This is why we know less about them than we
do about the Pharisees who continued with their study of the Law in the new
era after 70AD.
So may one venture to ask the unthinkable question: does Stephen mean that
in his day, the taint of heathenism was still present in some Jewish
circles? Was there a price to pay for political compromise with Rome?
[7.2] (7:51) Hence Cassirer (p.226) translates”............the onslaughts
which you make upon the Holy Spirit are never ending”. He detects an echo of
Isaiah 63:10. (God’s New Covenant, Heinz W. Cassirer, published by Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989.)
Cassirer’s translation of Chapter 7 is good throughout. It calls for a Jew
to translate the speech of Stephen, a Jew, to the Jewish Council. Yet I do
not feel able to do justice to the argument of the speech, so I have not
written much on it. Calvin said that in this long speech there is nothing
superfluous. J.J. Scott wrote that Stephen provides insights into the
particular emphases and concerns of the Hellenistic group and introduces
their theology. Even RCH Lenski seems to fail to bring it to life. Perhaps
it was necessary to see Stephen speak. Luke could not have invented the
speech, but could have derived it from Paul.
We only have to move beyond the speech to find ourselves in another world.
[7.3] (7:56) Alexander Maclaren has a fine exposition of this verse amongst
the thirty volume record of his ministry. “........it is a blessed vision
for His children, as being the sure pledge of their glory. It is a glorious
revelation of the capabilities of sinless human nature. It makes heaven
habitable for us’.
[7.4] (7:58) Some scholars doubt whether this happened in the New Testament
period. My own feeling is that it probably did.
John 18:31 shows that it was the Roman governor who had authority to carry
out capital punishment. It need not cause us any doubt as to the rightness
of the account. The times were violent. Stephen did not have a proper trial.
See John 8:59.
[8.1] (8:1) See Biblical Archaeology Review May 2007 page 26 for an article
by Ben Witherington III. In this he argues that the apostle John was a
victim of Saul’s persecution: see verses 2 & 3. He may be right that some of
the twelve became Saul’s victims. This may help to explain why we know so
little about him. It may be true that the Lord predicts in Mark 10:38 that
John will die a martyr’s death but this cannot have been so early. See John
21:23. A fragment of Papias has to be set against the tradition of John’s
residence in Asia. It involves denial of John’s authorship of Revelation.
Fatal to the idea is Galatians 2:9 where Paul tells us that he met John in
Jerusalem several years later. Witherington’s note makes no reference to
this.
See also the Biblical Archaeology Review May 1988 at page 24. Samaritan
synagogues are distinguished from Jewish ones by the floor mosaics. The
designs used in mosaics by the Jews included a bird cage with a bird in it.
In a Samaritan synagogue, there is no bird in the cage. They thought that
the bird picture contravened the commandment against idolatry. So despite
the Jewish hatred and scorn, the Samaritans obeyed the Law with great care.
They had synagogues as far away as Rome. See also R.G.Maccini in Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 53 at pages 35-46 for material on relations
between Jews and Samaritans. The ‘red heifer’ sacrifice was kept up by the
Samaritans well into the Middle Ages.
[8.2] (8:5) ‘A city of Samaria’ is a better reading than ‘the city of
Samaria’. Suggestions include Shechem and Gitta.
[8.3] (8:23} The meaning may rather be that this is the state that Simon is
getting himself into. See, for example, the R.E.B.
John Owen (on Psalm 130 page 569) says:- ‘Let men take care how they commit
their souls and consciences unto such who have good words in readiness for
all comers’. Wise words indeed!
[8.4] (8:24) The various reading ‘who never stopped weeping copiously’ does
not bring any conclusion with it. Peter went out and wept, but the Lord’s
grace restored him.
[8.5] (8:27) The word ‘eunuch’ here may not mean ‘a castrated male’. The
word had come to have a wider meaning as ‘an official’. On the other hand,
if he was in the service of a queen, it does seem likely that he was a
eunuch. The suggestion that he had been circumcised while in Jerusalem and
that this had started rumours is a little improbable. The conversion of a
eunuch with no family but with influence at court could have consequences.
See Isaiah 56:4 and 5.
The word for chariot here seems to mean a light two wheeled vehicle which
would be drawn by horses. F.F.Bruce prefers to think of a heavier covered
waggon. In verse 38 the eunuch gives - the driver? - orders to stop, and a
‘racing chariot’ would hardly have room for three men and luggage. Reading
would be difficult in a slow heavy waggon but impossible in a fast light
chariot.
For what we now know as Ethiopia, see Current World Archaeology No. 7. This
gives the approximate date of the adoption of Christianity as 330AD under
King Ezana. This article shows how the culture around Axum changed with the
adoption of Christianity.
For information about ancient Nubia, the northern part of present day Sudan,
see Current World Archaeology No. 6, page 46. This covers pre-history, the
interaction with Egypt in ancient times, and the Christian period.
[8.6] (8:36) We assume that the Gospel of Christ was new to the eunuch. We
ought to ask whether in his stay in Jerusalem he had heard something of
Christ. The church was in disorder because of persecution.
Verse 37 is a various reading which is probably a late addition. Many of the
various readings in Acts seem to represent the original words which have
been deleted because - although correct - what they say is of little value.
This one is different!
Dr John Gill in his ‘Body of Divinity’, Book III Chapter 1 - page 653 in my
1815 copy! - is wise. Baptism is not a church ordinance. It is not in the
church but out of it. It does not make a person a member of a local church.
We must first be baptised and then added to the church. A church has nothing
to do with the baptism of anyone.‘Admission to baptism lies solely in the
breast of the administrator......if not satisfied, he may reject a person
thought fit by a church...’.
The Lord’s Table or Communion service - by whatever name we know it, is of
course a church ordinance and not part of public worship. The church has the
right and the duty to exclude from the Lord’s Table people whose life is
scandalous or shameful.
It is true that the situations in the Book of Acts are ones where there is
no local church to which to refer candidates for baptism, but the principle
remains true. Practice is often the exact opposite, with baptism treated a a
matter regulated by the local church, and the Lord’s Table treated as part
of public worship.
[8.7] (8:40) For Caesarea Maritima - the port on the coast of Palestine, not
to be confused with Caesarea Philippi, inland and further north - see
Biblical Archaeology Review, January 1999, page 51 and January 2000 page 32
and Current World Archaeology No.7, page 9. There are many other sources of
information about this site.
[9.1] (9:13) In the Baptist Quarterly for July 2005 (Volume 41 No.3 page
175) there is an article by Frank D Rees of Melbourne, Australia entitled
‘The Worship of all Believers’. One may have one’s reservations about his
’Theology of Divine Conversation’ and even more about the rest of the
article. However, this passage in Acts is an example of personal
conversation with God. Rees is actually advocating conversation with God in
the worship of the church, which is rather different.
[9.2] (9.13) We may guess that we are not eager to be holy because we do not
understand the holiness of God. If we could have a quiet talk to an angel,
we would probably find that to them, God’s holiness is not oppressive or
stultifying. To them it is liberating, stimulating and exhilarating even
though the holiness of God is far beyond theirs.
[9.3] (9:18) Some people believe that God’s healing is always perfect and
complete. They would object to any thought that Paul’s eyesight was not
perfect after this. Of course, he may had had some problems with his eyes
before this. Yet there are a number of hints that Paul did have weak eyes.
[9.4] (9:25) Calvin is rather interesting on this point.
[9.5] (9:26) Because of the way in which Jews spoke of the passage of time
‘three years’ means (roughly) ‘more than two whole years but not more than
three’. This includes his stay in Arabia and two periods in Damascus.
[9.6] (9:26) Perhaps the removal of Caiaphas took the pressure off
Christians. There are uncertainties about these events. The suggestion that
this Theophilus was the man Luke dedicated his writings to has not won
favour. Of course, new evidence may emerge! Luke’s Gospel might have been
written 10 or 12 years after this and Theophilus was probably not a
Christian then.
[9.7] (9:26) See N H Taylor in Journal for the Study of the New Testament,
61 at page 101 (1996). We would not accept the main thrust of the argument
but it is a useful discussion of the crisis. Perhaps Christian influence in
Galilee prevented any outbreak of violence. Christian Jews could never
follow any false “Messiah” and they may have seemed unwilling at times to
support the Jewish national cause.
[9.8] (9:29) Calvin is wise here. He says that Paul’s presence was a serious
provocation to the enemies of the Gospel. The trouble was not a reproach
against Paul. Those who inflame the ungodly more than others are not to be
condemned out of hand. We too often persuade ourselves that the Lord does
not mind our worldliness and love of praise from men. There are people
today, like Paul, who are faithful and godly, yet their ministry causes
trouble. Spurgeon pointed out that a storm was better for a sailing ship
than a dead calm. Maybe the church today needs a storm!
[9.9] (9:31) It is remarkable that this verse is the only mention of Galilee
in the New Testament outside the four Gospels, apart from 10:37 and 13:31.
The Twelve, of course, were well known to be Galileans; see 1:11 and 2:7.
There must have been a great deal of support in Galilee for the early church
from people who had been healed by Jesus or who had listened to His
ministry.
It is also curious that Galilee, which was so significant in the New
Testament period, had so little significance in the Old Testament. There is
no agreement between scholars as to whether or not Galilee had a largely
Jewish population in the New Testament period. See a book review in Bulletin
for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005) at page 121. This discusses ‘The Myth of a
Gentile Galilee’ by Mark A Chancey. There may have been differences between
various parts of Galilee. See also ‘How Jewish was Jesus’ Galilee in B.A.R.
July 2007. M.A. Chancey argues for a strongly Jewish Galilee.
The sequence ‘Judea, Galilee, Samaria’ is also a little strange. We would
expect ‘Judea, Samaria, Galilee’.
[9.10] (9:36) See Joshua 19:46. It was the seaport nearest to Jerusalem. See
2 Chronicles 2:16 and Ezra 3:7. It was the port where Jonah unexpectedly
found a ship bound for Carthage.
Biblical Archaeology Review has published notes on current excavations at
Joppa, which mostly produce material from the Egyptian and Persian periods.
[9.11] (9:39) A mere man may perhaps be forgiven for finding this a little
strange. Was it that Dorcas had the money to provide the cloth? Was it that
she was an expert needlewoman? Or were the widows subject to pressures to
survive, so that they did not have time to make themselves clothes?
[9.12] (9:43) See F.F.Bruce on 13:1 for some of the speculation about Simon
and others. Was Simon the (dirty) Tanner the same man as Simeon nicknamed
Niger - black -in the church at Antioch?
[10.1] (10:1) A cohort in a Legion was 600 strong, and ten cohorts made up a
Legion. This cohort may have been made up of Italian citizen volunteers, who
would be more loyal to Rome than men recruited locally. We know from
Vindolanda that units were dispersed in small groups in peacetime.
Dr Colin Hemer includes the ‘Italian Cohort’ under the heading of
‘uncheckable details’ (p.218). In 41AD, Herod Agrippa I became king and
probably the Roman military presence in Caesarea would have been scaled
down, but not necessarily removed entirely. So Cornelius and ‘the Italian
Cohort’ might have moved, perhaps north into Syria, at that time.
[10.2] (10:11) Some delightful suggestions have been made. The smell of
cooking made Peter think like this. The sheet may have been suggested by an
awning on the roof or on a ship, or by the billowing sail of a ship. Come to
that, might the sheet have been the hide of an animal?
[10.3] (10:33) Calvin - ‘We have true faith not when we embrace the Word of
God by half but when we yield ourselves totally to it. For as though they
have a bargaining arrangement with God the majority do not submit
themselves.........except insofar as it pleases them...........’.
[10.4] {10:36} Our English Versions tend to add ‘you know’ at the beginning
of this verse. Perhaps ‘This is’ would be better. We need something here.
Verses 36 to 38 are not awkward only in English. They are awkward in Greek,
but back-translate into good Aramaic. It is suggested that Peter spoke in
Aramaic and someone translated into Greek.
[10.5] (10:42) See note [2.26] for the use of the word ‘horizo’ which is the
Greek word behind ‘ordained’ (RSV) or ‘appointed’ (NIV). God’s limit to
Christ’s judgment is wide like the horizon.
[10.6] {10:48} The critical point is that there was no suggestion that these
men should be circumcised. Had they fully adopted the Jewish faith, this
would have been necessary. On the other hand, there is no hint of the
formation of a Gentile church in Caesarea. This would have made the debate
in Jerusalem in the next chapter more acute and would have precipitated the
‘Council’ of Jerusalem in Chapter 15.
There is little in later tradition about Cornelius. Even a suggestion that
his house had become a church is late enough to be dubious.
[11.1] (11:15) The opening words of the verse should not be stressed. In
Chapter 10, it seems that verses 34-43 represent the first part of Peter’s
speech before the Spirit fell. F.F. Bruce describe ‘as I began to speak’ as
a semitizing redundant auxiliary. We should not try to invent a
contradiction here.
[11.2] (11:20) It is just possible that the Jews of verse 19 are Jews who do
not speak Greek, while the word for ‘Greeks’ in verse 20 would usually mean
Greek-speaking Jews. This seems rather forced. Note ‘about the Lord Jesus’.
‘Christ’ would mean nothing to non-Jews, who did not know the promise of the
Messiah. ‘Lord’ and ‘Jesus’ would be meaningful.
[11.3] (11:26) So R.C.H.Lenski. We can only guess. Dr Hemer does not attempt
any dating at this point. I do not feel it necessary to place these events
before the opening of Chapter 12 about 41 AD. Some people may. But of course
nothing in Chapter 12 need be before 44 AD. The prophecy of Agabus could be
as early as 44 AD, but the famine relief visit could not. In 12:17 Peter
leaves Jerusalem to escape from Herod Agrippa but in 46 AD he is back. The
leadership of the Jerusalem church has passed to James, the Lord’s brother.
The Jerusalem church has accepted Peter’s dealings with Gentiles, but other
strict Jews would not.
[11.4] (11:28) This is nothing to do with my use of Agabus as a pen name!
The suggestion has been made that some Jewish writers think that Agabus may
in fact be Rabbi Akiva, an eminent Jewish scholar. However, he was probably
not born until AD50. Those who are familiar with what is known about him
must judge whether he would have travelled as far as Antioch-on-the-Orontes.
This seems unlikely. Would he have spoken the prophecies found in Acts 11:28
and 21:10? It is worth reading these verses afresh. We can say:-
1. The prophecies have no distinctively Christian content.
2. In Acts 11:27 a group of prophets comes down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
They do not come from the Jerusalem church or the elders or from the
Apostles. They are not called ‘brothers’. This is before Paul’s first
missionary journey. Galatians 2:12 is later.
3. Similarly, in Acts 21:10, Agabus comes simply ‘from Judea’. He is simply
‘a prophet’ with no Christian credentials. ‘Coming over to us’ in the NIV
may overtranslate the Greek: perhaps ‘He walked towards us’ (H.W.Cassirer)
is safer.
4. In Acts 11:28 it is clear that Agabus was sitting down, presumably as one
who was prepared to speak and that he stood up. But this might have been in
a synagogue or a Christian meeting place.
5. In Acts 11:28, the prophecy is given ‘through the Spirit’. In 21:11 we
read: “The Holy Spirit says:”. This may be seen as Christian content. On the
other hand, it may mean in each case that although the Christians present
took a rather neutral view of the speaker, they were satisfied that what he
said was God-given.
Anyone who wants to pursue this point could consult M.Emmrich,
‘Amtscharismata’ in the bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 at page 17.
Menzies in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 at page 11 argues
that in Luke and Acts, wisdom and speech are associated with the Spirit.
Miracles are associated with the power of God. This is in line with Jewish
style. The unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem may have been very interested in
what was happening in Antioch
One thing is certain. Agabus is respected, unlike Simon of Samaria in
8:9-24, Bar Jesus in 13:6-11 and Sceva in 19:13-16. These serve as
illustrations of the fringe of Judaism in a credulous age! Beyond this, I
would say that it is almost impossible that Agabus was Rabbi Akiva. But also
if Agabus was not Akiva, he still may not be a Christian.
[11.5] (11:28) There is a various reading which adds: “....when we were
gathered together.........”. This is a hint that Luke was present as an
eyewitness of this prophecy.
[11.6] (11:28) Dr Colin Hemer gives a list of ‘unfinished tasks’ on page 217
and one of these is the question of famine in the reign of Claudius. There
are various references to famine in these years in ancient writers. We
should perhaps remember that there may have been three factors at work:
rising population numbers; inefficiency in transport and distribution; and
crop failures. And come what may, the Legions had to have their grain. The
famine in Palestine, Egypt and Syria in 45-46 AD is securely dated by the
financial help sent by the Jewish Queen Mother, Helena of Adiabene. Possibly
one of the reasons for the occupation by the Romans of the south-east of
England in 43 AD - along with lead mining and Claudius’ need of a ‘triumph’
- was the need for more grain.
[11.7] (11:30) Not everyone would agree! Only if we adopt the early date for
Galatians written at Acts14:28, does this work. But the later date depends
on Paul planting North Galatian churches in Acts 19:1. The effect of it is
to create ongoing antagonism between Paul and Peter and James, long after
Acts 15 settled the issues. One good reason for accepting the early date of
Galatians is that there is no mention of Timothy!
[12.1] (12:2) Clement of Alexandria. A great deal of early tradition is of
little value. I feel this is worthwhile.
[12.2] (12:19) Roman Catholics would like to think that ‘another place’ was
Rome. We may guess that Peter went somewhere out of Herod’s jurisdiction.
Maybe he still had to be in hiding, because Herod was on good terms with
Rome. Peter is back in Jerusalem in 46 AD; see Galatians 2:9. This was after
the death of Herod by which time we may assume it was safe.
[12.3] (12:23) Attempts are made by medical people to find the cause of
death. A hydated cyst may have ruptured. The problem is that poor medical
skill in those days and neglect meant that people got into an awful state
which would never be seen today.
[12.4] (12:25) Galatians 2:9 does not say that ‘those reputed to be pillars’
gave Titus ‘the right hand of fellowship’: but it would not be wise to
stress this. Nor should we stress Paul’s use of ‘reputed’ or ‘seemed’ as if
he is being critical of the ‘pillars‘.
[12.5] (12:25) The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2 published in 1977
(Scholars Press, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana) is a little dated
but it does have a useful article by B.M.Metzger (p.313) on Antioch. This
includes a paragraph on the ‘Chalice of Antioch’ which some guess may be the
cup Christ drank from at the Last Supper. There do not seem to be references
to this treasure being at Antioch in ancient tradition. So even if the Last
Supper was at the home of Mary, Mark’s mother, it is fanciful to think of
Mary saying to Mark: ‘Take this with you and present it to the church at
Antioch’.
(13.1] (13:1) The church at Alexandria was the other great centre of
Christian teaching and sadly was noted for its allegorical use of Scripture.
This style comes out later in the last part of Augustine’s ‘Confessions’. At
first there is some self-discipline in his comments on Genesis 1, but later
he is content to say: ‘ This idea is in my mind. Lord, you must have put it
there.’
[13.2] (13:6) In Biblical Archaeology Review for January 2000 at page 14
there is an article about a broken marble slab which was found in the
remains of an early Christian church. It is claimed that the slab dates back
to the First Century, and that it may have read ‘Paul, Apostle’. There is a
very sensible letter regarding this at page 13 of the May 2000 issue. There
are great doubts about the claims which were made for the fragment.
[13.3] (13:13) The old guess that Paul’s problem was malaria and that he
caught it at this time is not correct. Malaria did not reach the
Mediterranean from Central Africa until several centuries later, it seems.
[13.4] (13:14) If Paul’s health - and eyes in particular - were a problem.
Laodicea was a notable medical centre, especially for opthalmology. If Paul
wanted to go anywhere further west, they would surely have gone further than
Perga by sea. Or did Paul already want to go to Rome.
There is a DVD entitled Apostle Paul and the Earliest Churches which
includes other material besides good pictures of the ruins of Perga. Visit
www.visionvideo.com
Paul’s years in Tarsus would have given him knowledge of Asia Minor and of
the Jewish communities there. Jews from Galatia and Pontus would use the
road through the Cilician Gates to Tarsus on their way to Syria and
Jerusalem.
See the Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52, December 1993 for an
article by Goddard and Cummins, ‘Ill or Illtreated?’ This argues for a very
different reading of Galatians 4:14-20. They argue that Paul is not ill but
has suffered in persecution. I am not convinced. The persecution was the
result of Paul’s preaching, not the cause of it.
[13.5] (13:15) This has been suggested because two unusual Greek words are
used by Paul in his speech and these are found in these chapters. See also
Luke 4:16-28. These passages are the earliest known descriptions of
synagogue services. The chapters read here suggest that it was now well into
the summer.
[13.6] (13:24) John’s ministry was mostly in Judea, whilst much of the
ministry of Jesus was in Galilee which was perhaps something of a backwater.
This might account for John being known in a place like Antioch - near-
Pisidia and later in Ephesus.
[13.7] (13:41) See R.W.Wall in Bulletin for Biblical Research 10:2, 2000 at
page 247. This would repay much more careful study! The name Habakkuk is not
Hebrew, which raises the possibility that the prophet was not a Jew at all
but came from Mesopotamia. His book is followed by Zephaniah - the son of
Cush; which ought to mean a black African from Nubia - the Sudan. There is
another one in Jeremiah 36:14.
[13.8] (13:41) Our English versions mostly fail here to show what the Greek
text is saying. The New King James does at least have this:-
‘For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe..........’
‘Deed’ in this context is archaic!
[13.9] (13:43) See J.C.Paget in Journal for the Study of the New Testament
62 at page 65. We may wonder whether different categories - like ‘proselyte
of the gate’ - were really clear cut. There is also a question as to whether
the Jews had any ‘missionary’ activity. Probably non-Jews were simply
attracted by the purity and simplicity of Jewish worship. Matthew 23:15 may
mean that the Pharisees make vast effort to win to fellow Jew to their own
faction. What does Matthew 10:5 and 6 indicate in this connection?
[14.1] (14:2) There is a ‘Western’ various reading which suggests this. In
this case, however, unlike some others, the ‘Western’ text may not be of
value. It may try to explain a slight difficulty rather than to give more
information. It seems more likely that verses 1 and 2 are a summary, with a
little more detail set out in verses 3-5. See the Moffatt translation.
[14.2] (14:8) The Romans re-drew the boundaries of their provinces from time
to time, and Galatia was one example which extended and shrank again.
Phrygia and Pisidia were to the west of this area, and Lycaonia and
Cappadocia to the east. Galatia proper was to the north. I willingly forgive
anyone who finds these names confusing and the maps in a Bible are not that
much help. Areas had ancient names. Roman provinces were different.
It is worth consulting E.H.Broadbent’s ‘Pilgrim Church’ regarding the later
history of the churches in this part of the world. Superstition and
ignorance took over in the established churches. Faithful believers were
destroyed. Islam triumphed and the great churches of Asia Minor were
destroyed. We see in this God’s judgment on His unfaithful people. ‘The Lord
is known by the judgment He executes’. There is a warning here for the
Western world today.
[14.3] (14:28} It is very likely that the Jewish teachers backed up their
teaching with charismatic practices. Probably they indulged in wild
allegorical explanation of Scripture, which Paul mocks in Galatians 4:24-31.
Certainly they would belittle Paul.
It is all too easy to criticise the motives of these Jewish teachers. On the
one hand any Gentile Christians who became, in effect, a Jew, would be a
member of a religion recognised by Roman law and would be secure. On the
other hand, the Jewish authorities must have been grieved to see many
proselytes leaving the synagogues. This reduced their prospects. But if all
those new Christians became Jews, the influence of Judaism would increase
greatly. So would income from pilgrims! The Jerusalem church would no longer
be out of favour with the Jewish authorities.
This may throw light on Paul’s action (16:3) in circumcising Timothy. There
were not so many Jews around Derbe and Lystra. But the legacy of the Jewish
teachers would be sensitivity on the question of circumcision.
[15.1] (15:1) Book reviews have their uses. In the Bulletin for Biblical
Research 15.1 (2005) there is a review (page 120) of a work by Bockmuehl on
‘Jewish Law in Gentile Churches’. Differences between Paul and James could
be due to the need for purity for Jews living within the Promised Land.
Perhaps James regared Antioch as being within ‘the Promised Land’ and Paul
did not. Book reviews introduce us to such topics, but they also warn us of
the vast volume of Bibilical studies going on. It is a warning that there is
a great deal we do not know!
There is a various reading which indicates that the group were Christian
Pharisees. This is a reading which could well convey correct information and
could have been excised for more than one reason.
[15.2] (15:3) It has been said that what has been done with God’s blessing
must have been done in His will. There is a good deal of truth in this, but
the argument needs to be used with some caution. Similarly, we must be
careful about the opposite. It is by no means always true that when we do
not see God’s blessing, we are out of God’s will.
We note that the apostles went through Phoenicia and Samaria. There is no
mention of Galilee, which might have been a more direct route, and was an
area where there must have been many Christians. Of course, not many years
before, Jews would have avoided Samaria, but now there were churches in
Samaria to welcome the apostles.
[15.3] (15:6) There are quite wrong but very effective ways to manage
meetings! Whoever writes the minutes decides what the committee decided.
Give the meeting something to argue about early on; something which does not
matter - what colour to paint their new truck. Let them argue with each
other about that until it is time to finish, and then rush all the other
business through.
The note in the margin of my Bible must be Calvin. “.........the first
church was in an uproar, and all the best ministers of Christ were busily
engaged in quarrels..............let us not be alarmed as if we were
involved in something new........”
[15.4] (15:16) It does seem likely that here and elsewhere the translators
of the Greek Sepuagint (LXX) used a Hebrew test which was different from the
Hebrew text we know: or they used different vowel points to interpret the
consonantal Hebrew text. Indeed, it is just possible that this alternative
text and vowel pointing was used in the Early Church and that it is not the
LXX which is being used.
[15.5] (15:20) It was from observation of elderly cannibals in Papua New
Guinea that it was realised how ‘mad cow disease’ and Variant CJD were
caused. A good deal of the food laws of Moses are concerned with not eating
carnivorous creatures.
[15.6] (15:20) 16:4 will tell us that copies of this letter were made for
use in the churches. This helps to explain the variations in the text which
occur in the ancient copies.
[15.7] (15:22) It is not clear whether Silas was just taking the letter -
from Rome to the East - or whether Peter means that Silas had helped him to
write the letter. If the latter, the influence of Paul might have helped to
shape 1 Peter, although we may feel the - Jewish - influence of Silas in the
Thessalonian epistles, years before.
I can find no reference to any traditions in the early church about Silas,
either as regards the gap before 1 Peter was written or thereafter. There
are traditions about Barnabas but they seem sketchy and of little value.
[16.1] (16:6) Some Bibles have maps which show Paul’s journey going far to
the north at this time. Some of the scholars who believe Galatians was
written later than this also take the view that the letter was not sent to
the south Galatian churches, but to some churches in the northern part of
the province of Galatia; this was the area or district where the Gauls had
settled and given their name to Galatia. So these people then have to find
somewhere in Paul’s travels when he could have founded these churches. This
all makes for complications in the simple account in Scripture; the motive
is sometimes at least to invent disagreements between Paul and Peter and
James after the Jerusalem Council.
[16.2] (16:8) It is said that the ruins of Troas cover an area a mile
square. Troas flourished partly because the Greek city of Byzantium on the
Bosphorus was still a rather poor place. When Constantine the Great decided
to build his new ‘Rome’ in the east he considered Troas, but instead chose
Byzantium. That was the end of the prosperity of Troas.
[16.3] (16:9) The meaning of ‘Macedonia’ has changed over the centuries. The
Roman Province extended west to the Adriatic and included Thessaly to the
south. Probably the modern republic of Macedonia would have been north of
the Roman province. The ancient Kingdom of Macedonia from which Alexander
came was rather on the edge of the Greek world, although its capital, Pella,
was just west of Thessalonica.
[16.4] (16:10) Some people think that Luke joined the party because of
Paul’s health problems. Luke is always interested in eyes - the way people
look at each other. Laodicea in Phrygia was a great centre for this kind of
medicine. See the last words of Revelation 3:18. Some people think that Luke
himself was the ‘man of Macedonia’. This does not seem at all likely to me.
[16.5] (16:14) She may even have been one of the two women in Philippians
4:2 who just could not get on together.
[16.6] (16:16) Trebilco’s article on this passage in the Journal for the
Study of the New Testament No.36 at page 51 is good.
[16.7] (16:16) Snakes (or serpents) seem in the heathen world to represent
magical goodness. This throws a little light on the serpent in Genesis but
the whole subject is much too big to deal with here.
[17.1] (17:7) The Jason in Romans 16:21 may be the same man as this Jason.
He may well not be. If it is the same man, then he is related in some way to
Paul, which helps to explain why he gave him lodgings and why he put money
down as security for Paul. He is in Corinth in early 57AD with Paul, about
seven years later.
[17.2] (17:14) My curiosity is still not satisfied about the island of
Euboea. I recollect reading that the channel separating it from the mainland
- the Euripus - narrows at Chalcis to only about 5 metres and that ships
cannot get through. Also Chalcis had not been occupied before the Venetian
period. This does not tie up with what Herodotus says. There is not much
point in clearing this up, when Paul may not have gone by sea anyway.
[17.3] (17:22) H.W.Cassirer in ‘God’s New Covenant’ translates ‘ how very
scrupulous you are in all matters which concern religion’. ‘Superstitious’
as in the AV would be insulting when really Paul needed to be gently
flattering.
An article in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 at page 49 gives
an interesting perspective on heathen religion at this period. It was
‘joyful observance of ancestral rites and customs’. ‘Superstition’ would
mean religion that could be costly - like Jewish Sabbath keeping. Seneca
said: one who thinks the gods are unwilling to do harm is wrong. They cannot
do harm’. It was ‘superstition’ to believe in a god who required obedience.
Perhaps the article does not present the whole truth! But even a man who was
a convinced atheist would be fully committed to heathen worship.
[17.4] (17:28) Epimenides of Crete was the man who advised the Athenians to
let loose and sacrifice the flock of sheep, as a way to stop an epidemic. He
crops up again in Titus 1:12. Aratus was a Stoic. He was from Soli, a place
in Cilicia not far west from Paul’s birthplace at Tarsus.
[18.1] (18:1) A lintel of a synagogue doorway, inscribed ‘Synagogue of the
Jews’ has been found: but this may be later than the first century. The
‘bema’ or judgment seat which Gallio would have used has been found: see
verse 12. The inscription at Corinth which speaks of ‘Erastus, commissioner
for public works’ might be the Erastus mentioned in Romans 16:23 and 2
Timothy 4:20, but the name was a common one.
[18.2] (18:1) For an interesting description of the Isthmian Games, see
Oscar Broneer in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 2. (Scholars Press,
Missoula, Montana, 1977) at page 393. This is a reprint of an article
published in 1962.
[18.3] (18:8) The RSV probably rightly makes it clear that the preacher that
many of the Corinthians heard was Paul. But should the antecedent not
strictly be Crispus?
[18.4] (18:10) ‘For I am with you’ at the beginning of this verse is a
significant emphatic use of ‘ego eimi’ to denote the person of God. ‘It is I
Myself who am with you’.
[18.5] (18:17) A Sosthenes shares with Paul in writing 1 Corinthians: see 1
Corinthians 1:1. It is usual to assume that this is not the same man. It is
just possible of course that the Sosthenes in Acts became a Christian. It
could even be the Jews - rather than Greeks - who beat him up in front of
Gallio because he had made a poor show of accusing Paul. This does seem
unlikely.
[18.6] (18:18) Strictly, the verse should mean that it was Aquila who was
shaved but this is not likely.
[18.7] (18:22) Paul may have wanted to talk to the Jerusalem leaders about
his forthcoming visit to Ephesus. Was the collection part of a deal? And can
we assume from the references in the Corinthian letters to Peter that Peter
did preach in Corinth? Or were the Peter - Cephas - party admirers of the
Jewish teachers? Party spirit was a problem in Greek cities, and at Corinth
this spilled over into the church. But we should not assume that the
factions were divided on doctrinal lines. Was it that if Paul wanted to work
in Ephesus, he had to agree to Peter preaching in Corinth?
[18.8] (18:22) Romans 15:31 contains at least a hint that Paul was anxious
about the way that the offering would be received in Jerusalem. The Jews who
were not Christians might have wished the money to go into the Temple funds
rather than to the poor Christians. There is also a hint in Acts 21:22-24
that James felt there was a problem. Christians who were ‘zealous for the
Law’ (Acts 21:20) might have reservations about accepting help from Gentile
churches. [18.9] (18:24) A letter from Caesar to the Jews at
Alexandria may - or may not! - refer to Christians. [18.10]
(18:27) Apollos may not have wanted to speak again in the Ephesus synagogue
after he had been instructed by Aquila and Priscilla. But this seems a
little unworthy. He wanted to preach to bigger congregations and to an
established Christian church rather than the mixed group at Ephesus.
[19.1] (19:7) Of course, the people who spoke in tongues at Pentecost in
Jerusalem did not speak in unknown tongues. They spoke in tongues which some
of the hearers knew. This may even have provided a beginning for the
translation of Scripture in Syriac and Coptic dialects.
At Caesarea, (10:46) the speech was tongues and praising God. We should not
press the distinction between ‘praising God’ there and ‘prophesying’ here.
The tongues were most likely ‘unknown’ tongues in both cases, although there
might be Greek and Latin. The tongues-speaking at Corinth may have been in
‘unknown’ tongues but I have long thought that there might be slaves from
tribal groups in Asia at Corinth who would find great comfort in hearing
their mother tongues used in worship in the church.
[19.2] (19:21) The accession of Nero may have had an effect in cities like
Ephesus. See F.F.Bruce’s note 70, p.404 on 19:38 and note 29 on page 393.
Also an article by Kreiber in J.S.N.T. 30 at p. 59 suggested that at this
time, there would be heightened enthusiasm for the Artemis cult.
[19.3] (19:31) The fact that the Asiarchs were in Ephesus is a slight hint
that this riot was at the time of the Artemesia, and perhpas connected with
it. It was the time when excitement would be high, and when Demetrius would
notice the drop in takings in his shop!
Colin Hemer is I think a little insecure when he suggests that the Asiarchs
were friendly with Paul because the Gospel promoted racial harmony in a very
divided city.
It comes as something of a surprise in any case that Paul should be on
friendly terms with some of the Asiarchs.
[19.4[ (19:37) About three hundred years later, Constantine was able to
close many wealthy temples and use the proceeds to secure the economic
stability of the Byzantine Empire.
[19.5] (19:38) Perhaps one proconsul had finished his tour of duty and the
new man had not yet arrived. Other Roman officials would cover the time
between.
But it seems that when Nero became Caesar, two of his friends, Helius and
Celer, murdered the Proconsul, Silanus and took over. If Paul had a good
relationship with Silanus, this might explain why the riot broke out when it
did. If we had a little more information it might provide us with the
answers. But then it might only leave more questions unanswered!
[20.1] (20:1) Current World Archaeology 17 at page 10 gives a picture of
what went on at Ephesus, probably in the Second Century. The graves of 67
gladiators have been excavated. The study suggests that the crowd in Ephesus
still watched gladiators in the second century but that there were strict
rules.
[20.2] (20:1) See a book review in Bulletin for Biblical Research 16/1, 2006
at page 167.
[20.3] (20:1) I know that this early date is not usually given for 1
Timothy. The whole letter seems more in keeping with this early time in the
life of the Ephesus church. Timothy was still feeling very sore at the way
he had been treated in Corinth, and he needed the letter to strengthen his
authority in Ephesus. And if Paul was right in 20:25, there was no later
occasion when he could have left Timothy in Ephesus. Of course, Paul could
have been wrong; and we may feel that a later visit took place after the end
of Acts and the Roman imprisonment. But there is no reason to suppose that
Timothy would still be in Ephesus years later, and the contents of the
letter would not suit his situation in a mature church.
[20.4] (20:3) Phoebe might have been in some danger in Cenchrea if it became
known that she had warned Paul. But of course she was soon on her way to
Rome with the Letter from Paul to the Romans, and she would not have sailed
from Cenchrea.
[20.5] (20:17) Calvin’s Commentary is, I think, particularly useful on the
whole of this passage. Paul uses his own example to encourage the elders but
not to gain applause.
[20.6] (20:20) ‘General teaching will often have a cold reception unless it
is helped by advice given in private’. Advice from Calvin’s experience?
[20.7] (20:21) Calvin, of course, put repentance after faith. This was part
of his defence of infant baptism and opposition to the Anabaptists. If we
put faith first, we shall put repentance nowhere. This is the problem with
most evangelism today,. Of course, we must believe in God’s being before we
repent.
[20.8] (20:24) Richard Sibbes, ‘Works’ Volume 7 page 294; and see page 221,
section 303. ‘God’s grace is a fruitful grace. His favour is fruitful. It is
not a barren favour: it is not a winter sun’.
[20.9] (20:25) R.C.H. Lenski says: ‘Correlate these expressions. Each casts
light on others’.
[20.10] (20:28) ‘The value of the church is to be measured by the price of
its redemption’.
This is an important verse for the doctrine of the two natures in Christ.
The Greek doctrine of redemption by the incarnation of Christ rather than by
His death is at the bottom of liberal and Catholic theology. It was this
issue which brought about the endless controversies in the Early Church
about the two natures. Wayne Grudem’s ‘Bible Doctrine’, (IVP Leicester,1999)
has a useful section (pages 241-246) on the two natures and the orthodox
Chalcedon statement agreed in 451AD. The issue of the communcation of
properties or ‘communication idiomatum’ was a live one in the Reformation
period. See R.S.Franks ‘The Work of Christ’, Nelson, London 1962 at page
358. Berkhof’s ‘Systematic Theology’ (Banner of Truth, London 1969) has a
discussion on page 324-327. See also his ‘The History of Christian
Doctrines‘, Banner of Truth, London 1969.
The various reading in this verse brings with it a temptation to rather wild
statements about ‘the blood of God’, which should be avoided like ‘Mother of
God’! We may feel that the whole question of the two natures in Christ is
too sacred and too deep for us to debate.
[20.11] (20:32) Behind this is my growing suspicion that what Timothy did
was to re-order Paul’s material - doctrine first, then ethics. If I am right
that a cyclic style of teaching was common in the early church it was
probably of great value before teaching was written down. And topics would
come up in different combinations; This may be most apparent in James. This
would facilitate various applications.
[20.12] (20:35) John Bunyan wrote:-
‘A man there was, though some did count him mad,
The more he cast away, the more he had.
He who bestows his good upon the poor,
Shall have as much again, and ten times more‘!
But it is surely possible - and very unwise! - to tempt or test God in this
matter.
[20.13] (20:36) R.C.H. Lenski here advises us to reserve kneeling for
confession of sin, calamity, stress and humiliation. It should not be too
common. He may be right. In some forms of worship it is far too common, and
because of this, some Christians never do kneel in prayer in worship.
[21.1] (21:3) Some ancient sources speak about ships taking 5 days. But this
ship did not call at a port in Cyrpus. It was probably a larger vessel than
Paul had used to reach Patara.
Nineteenth century sailors knew that given a good following wind a square
rigged Chinese junk could make better progress than a Western vessel with
its complicated sails and rigging. In other conditions, of course, the
Western vessel had the advantage. Small ships kept close to the shore in
ancient times. This larger vessel ventured into the open sea and sailed at
night in the moonlight.
[21.2] (21:7) There is a note in Biblical Archaeology Review, January 2000
at page 28 about excavations at Acco. The city has a long and at times
tragic history.
[21.3] (21.20) It will be better to provide a note at this point rather than
a long and not very helpful discussion. The fact is that Luke does not tell
us what happened. Our guesses at the reason for his silence will not help!
Only one of the works on Acts which I have consulted even mentions the
question, and it blandly assumes that the gift was welcomed.
We should make the following points:-
1. Romans 15:26 makes it clear that the offering was for the poor, and for
Christians. So was the gift from Antioch in 11:30 about 10 years earlier.
2. Paul may have been financially a little better off at this time. The
indications are slight, but there are several. 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 shows
that Paul knew some people at Corinth suspected that he was helping himself.
George Whitfield had the same problem over money for his orphanage in
Georgia.
3. News of the collection must have got back to the Jerusalem church from
Corinth and other places.
4. Romans 15:31 shows that Paul was not certain that the collection would be
accepted.
5. 1 Corinthians 16:4 shows that at one stage Paul was uncertain whether he
himself would go to Jerusalem. Later he realised that it would not be fair
to send the collection with seven or so Greek speakers (Acts 20:4). If there
was a problem in Jerusalem, the language barrier would make it worse for
them. It was Paul’s initiative: he had to go.
6. Although Acts says nothing about Paul’s work in collecting the money,
there is one verse later in Acts which mentions it. This is 24:17. It has
been interpreted as meaning: ‘I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts
for the poor: and I came into the Temple to present offerings’.
7. It seems to me that there were three wrong ways for the elders to accept
the collection.
a) They could say: ‘It must not just be for poor Christians. Other poor Jews
must get a share. We do not want to stress the division between Christians
and other people in Jerusalem.’
b) Or they might say: ‘Thankyou very much. We will accept the gift but we
will use it for church purposes, not just for the poor.’ Or - worse still -
c) They might say: ‘Other Jews pay the Temple Tax to support the Temple. We
will accept this as that kind of giving’. Then they would feel that it was
like a tribute and that they had authority over other Christians.
These verses give us a final glimpse of the Jerusalem church. We have the
account elsewhere of the martydom of James, and we know that about ten or
twelve years after Paul’s visit, the church fled Jerusalem before the Jewish
war with Rome. The Jerusalem church has no part in the next events in Paul’s
life and little influence on the Gentile churches.
Denney on 11 Corinthians 3:4 (in the Expositor’s Bible) says that the
Jerusalem elders had very little sense of the newness of the Gospel. They
could admire their situation in Jerusalem, yet the church was not renewing
or transforming the Temple worship. Of course, the Temple had been built
with the wealth of Herod, a cruel and violent tyrant, and it is not
surprising that God’s blessing did not rest on it!
It is not always easy to give in a gracious spirit. Much of 2 Corinthians
discusses that. It can also be difficult to receive graciously. ‘True
gratitude deos not try to repay the debt it owes’ - Karl Barth, I think.
[21.4] (21:32) Some of the older writers suggest that there were at least
two centurions. A centurion had 100 soldiers. Therefore there were at least
200 soldiers. However, the tablets found at Vindolanda give a different
picture half a century later on Hadrian’s Wall. Many soldiers were away on
detachment for various reasons. Some were sick. Some were only fit for
‘lighter duties’ like fire piquets. Of course, 23:23 gives a rather
different picture of the military resources available in Jerusalem. Some of
the movement there may be a reduction in the garrison at Jerusalem after
Pentecost. But the Governor would not have left himself without a
substantial force in the city. We should assume that for Paul’s rescue there
would be extra centurions.
[21.5] (21:37) Misunderstandings caused by language problems may explain
some of the difficult passages in Scripture, at least as far back as Hagar
the Egyptian girl’s bad Hebrew in Genesis . An interesting topic to study!
[21.6] (21:39) Many writers think that Paul meant only that he was a citizen
of Tarsus. But that would not do him any good at such a time. Some soldiers
were given proof that they were Roman citizens. No doubt Paul’s status would
be recorded at Tarsus, but that was far away. We do not know how a man could
prove he had inherited citizenship. Death was the penalty for anyone who
falsely claimed citizenship!
[22.1] (22:2) Paul begins - in the Greek translation of his speech! - by
saying ‘I am’ - ‘Ego eimi’. See note [1.9] in the Commentary on the Book of
Revelation. This is one of the seven cases in the New Testament where the
phrase is an emphatic ‘I’ and has no reference to Christ. But in verse 8
Jesus speaks, as in 9:5 and the phrase has its full meaning: ‘I AM’.
[22.2] (22:22) This moment in the Book of Acts marks a stage in the break
between the old Jewish faith and the Christians. Still, we have to remember
two things. The first is this. The Jewish religion changed a great deal from
AD70 onwards: the Sadducees and the Essenes were among the groups which
vanished. And the teaching of Christ probably had some effect on Judaism.
The other thing is that the parting between Judaism and Christianity took
place over a wide area, at different times in different places. An article
by Philip L. Mayo published in Bulletin for Biblical Research 16.2 (2006) at
page 325 discusses the issue and shows how slight the evidence we have to
work on is. The view that the break was sudden and fairly early is less
widely held now. The tendency is to see the rupture as more gradual. Yet the
opinion of scholars may well change again in the future.
[23.1] (23:6) The R.S.V. ‘when he perceived’ (and also the Amplified NT and
some other versions) is surely misleading. ‘Well aware’ in the R.E.B. goes
well beyond the Greek. The N.I.V. is right here. Paul had known Jewish
affairs down the years, and he knew very well that the Sanhedrin included
both Jewish parties.
[23.2] (23:16) There were more forms than one of imprisonment. See, for
example. Acts 28:16-17 and 30-31. 24:23 shows a similar situation.
[23.3] (23:23) There is some evidence that they were slingers - men who
threw stones with their right hands. This seems less likely in this
situation. The spearmen would be less heavily armed than the legion
soldiers, and in case of trouble the spearmen might be used to protect the
legionaries. ‘Spears’ could rather be ‘lances’. Or perhaps they ‘grasped’
javelins.
[23.4] (23:23) I have not worked out the state of the moon at the end of
Pentecost. I am sure someone else could!
[23.5] (23:24) Antipatris was Aphek in Sharon: see Joshua 12:18 and also 1
Samuel 4:1 and 29:1. There are two other Apheks in the Old Testament. See
Biblical Archaeology Review September 2002 page 52. The site has been
occupied from about 3250 BC until the Turkish period.
[23.6] (23:34) There is some doubt about the structure of the Roman province
at this period.
Pontius Pilate could easily have snubbed Herod by not sending Jesus to him.
It was a mild compliment to Herod’s status which improved their relationship
[24.1] (24.1) In 25:12, Festus confers on a point of law with his council,
not with prosecution or defence. Tertullus was strictly an advocate although
for the prosecution, not for the defence.
The witnesses were the prosecution. There would be no separate prosecution.
It was essential in a Roman court for the witnesses to confront the
defendant. Paul makes this point in 24:19. The witnesses are not present, so
the judge cannot question them.
[24.2] (24.6) The end of verse 6 and the whole of verse 7 with the start of
verse 8 are one of the ‘Western’ various readings which may go right back to
the original copies of the Book of Acts.
Roman army officers are always respected in the New Testament. Claudius
Lysias is the weakest of them. It may have been felt wise to take these
words out of the text because they reflected badly on a Roman officer;
however, they are spoken by a Jewish advocate, not by a Christian!
One effect of leaving these words out is that the meaning of verse 8 is
changed. With verse 7 it is Claudius Lysias who would be examined by Felix.
Without verse 7, it is Paul just as ‘him’ at the end of the verse is Paul.
[24.3] (24.7) It seems that soldiers who were recruited locally were
friendly with most of the local people. They did not like the Jews, who were
rich. This may be why the soldiers turned on the Jews.
[24.4] (24.21} From Paul’s point of view it may have been important to show
that the Jews were divided. Jewish religion was the religion of a subject
people within the Empire, and so it was ‘religio licita’. But the Sadducees
were at odds on doctrine with the rest. The Jewish authorities must have had
some authority to say what the limits of Jewish religion were. Paul may
argue that Christianity is another group within the Jewish religion. But
this argument is not valid for Gentile Christians. Paul is very clear that
they do not have to become Jews.
[24.5] (24.24) Or the meaning may rather be that Felix came from the palace
elsewhere in Caesarea, where he lived, to the Praetorium, where Paul was
kept and justice was dispensed.
[24.6] (24.25) Richard Sibbes’ sermon ‘The Saints Privilege’ on John 16:8-10
(page 357 in the Banner of Truth Edition - Volume 7 - Edinburgh 1982) is
full of good things.
[25.1] (25:11) This appeal was a ‘provocatio’. The person on trial was not
satisfied that his trial would be fair. By this appeal, the proceedings were
brought to a stop and were moved to Rome.There was another kind of appeal
against the verdict or sentence. These were then called ‘appellatio’. The
right of appeal was only open to Roman citizens, not to ‘provincials‘.
The words ‘To Caesar you will go’ would have sounded evil a few years later!
[25.2] (25:13) Her husband was her uncle, King Herod of Chalcis, but he was
dead by this time. Bernice had a famous affair with the Roman general and
Caesar, Titus, in AD75.
May one guess that the reason for the tangle of marriages in the Herod
family was to keep the family fortune together? Herod Agrippa as a ‘Jewish’
king had the right of appointing the Jewish High Priest and the custody of
the vestments worn on the Day of Atonement, so he was a key figure in Roman
- Jewish relations. His record in later years was not bad.
See note 27 in Hemer on Acts, page 173 on Bernice’s character.
[26.1] (26:1) See Witherup in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48
at page 62. He says that the construction of the speech is more careful than
usual. The style is more literary. Paul employs more rhetorical features of
the classical defence speech than he does in his speech in Chapter 22. The
speech establishes Paul as an orator of considerable standing. Paul’s use of
questions is an obvious feature.
Paul leaves out some features of his experience which would be out of place
in speaking to Agrippa. There is no mention of Ananias in Damascus or of
Paul’s baptism. And for Agrippa - a Jew, heavily influenced by Hellenistic
culture, -Paul’s breach with the conservative Jews in Jerusalem must have
appeared to be in his favour!
[26.2] (26:5) Could it be said that the Pharisees were stricter than the
Essenes? Or should we conclude that the Essenes were not as significant as
we think. No doubt they were there: but were they cut off from mainstream
Judaism?
[26.3] (26:14) It is just possible that Paul switched from Greek to Aramaic
at this point, and then went back to Greek, but it seems unlikely. The
proverb about the ox and goad was familiar in Greek, but has not been traced
in Hebrew or Aramaic. See Calvin on 9:5. The ‘sting’ in Revelation 9:10 and
1 Corinthians 15:55,56 is the same Greek word.
[26.4] (26:15) It should be noted that in all three accounts of Paul’s
conversion the Lord says ‘I AM - ego eimi - Jesus’. Paul must have heard
this as Christ’s declaration of His Godhead.
[26.5] (26:18) “........this description........splendidly sets that
incomparable treasure before our eyes........this verse is like a key for
opening the gate of heaven”. Calvin, I think!
[26.6] (26:22) See Psalm 115:13; Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:11; Revelation
11:18 and 19:5. At Revelation 20:12, great first - then small - appear at
judgment.
[26.7] (26:23) Calvin says that ‘light’ here means death and misery of every
kind.
[26.8] (26:29) This is one of the few uses of ‘ego eimi’ - ‘becomes what I
am’ - which is only an emphatic ‘me’.
[27.1] (27:2) A note in Biblical Archaeology Review for November 2006 at
page 26 by Shelley Wachsmann - ‘Archaeology under the Sea’ - is useful.
Ships from Italy or Greece could use the north west winds to reach Egypt.
The return trip from Egypt was not so easy. Ships sailed or (were rowed)
north, helped a little by land or sea breezes. One day the wreck of a grain
carrier will be discovered and we shall learn a great deal!
He refers to work done by Willard Bascom. He studied the records of Lloyds
of London for ship losses in the mid-19th Century. 80% of ships sank near
coastal obstructions. Only 10% were wrecked in open water. The other 10%
were lost without trace, but often they were last seen heading into bad
weather.
The ship on which Paul was wrecked came through the storm, but broke up when
it reached the coast. This agrees with the statistical analysis. We should,
however, remember that it was not unusual in the ancient world for ships to
come safely through a storm. Then when the hot sun shone on a calm sea, they
sank. Their strained timbers shrank and gaped open: the sea rushed in. There
is nothing in this account to suggest that the ship leaked.
[27.2] (27:1) Hemer has a detailed note (page 132, note 96) about the
fragments of information we have regarding the ‘Augustan Cohort’. Hemer’s
notes throughout this chapter and on into Chapter 28 are of great value. Of
course, the Victorian writers knew more then we do today about sailing
wooden ships in the Mediterranean. But the development of sailing ships from
the single large sail of the New Testament period to the many smaller sails
of Victorian ships has to be borne in mind. The Victorians could sail ‘close
to the wind’ but they needed many crew members to work on the rigging.
[27.3] (27:6) The reading 276 is preferred to the various reading 76. Hemer
(page 149) in his note on verse 37 gives useful indications of the size of
the Alexandrian grain carriers, which could probably carry 1200 tons of
grain and could be 60 metres in length. Josephus was wrecked on a ship which
he says had 600 on board but this may be exaggerated. A cargo of upwards of
340 tons was probably quite usual.
However, ‘The Bankers of Puteoli’ by David Jones (Tempus Publishing Ltd,
Stroud, 2006) throws a tremendous amount of light on this voyage. The
archive of bankers’ documents which is its central subject is strictly
contemporary with Paul’s voyage.
If we ask: who were the 276 men on the ship, we know that there were crew
and a party of soldiers with some prisoners and a few friends like Luke. We
might guess there were passengers, perhaps returning from Egypt to Italy on
official business.
There was almost certainly another group. There was sea-borne trade between
Italy and Egypt. Someone might have to travel with the goods to supervise
unloading and sale - termed a ‘super cargo’ by Jones. Some traders, however,
had an agent or a slave in the distant port to oversee their affairs. This
reduced the need for traders to travel to and fro with their goods.
The prisoners on the ship could be on their way to be eaten by wild beasts
in the arena in Rome. Puteoli had a great slave market and there could be
slaves on their way from Egypt to Rome.
There might be high value goods like pearls and spices; bulkier goods like
textiles. Traders who had taken goods out from Italy for sale in Egypt would
have to travel back. Their journey to Egypt might only have taken eight and
a half days. ‘The Alexandrian sea-captains.........drove their ships like
charioteers’. The journey from Egypt to Italy would take two months: in
Paul’s case, much longer!
So, the ship’s council would have listened not only to the centurion, the
owner and ‘pilot’ but also to the ‘supercargoes’, who also had a financial
interest in getting to Italy to sell their goods. So Paul speaks here (verse
10) of great loss to the cargo, and again in verse 21.
Claudius had encouraged winter sailings by promising full compensation for
losses in winter storms. This probably would have continued under Nero, so
the ship owner had a sort of insurance. The merchants on board did not!
The ship seems to be on its own whereas grain carriers often sailed in
convoy. This vessel may already have completed one round trip to Italy, and
set out rather late to attempt a second trip.
[27.4] (27:7) Luke says very little about the voyage from Myra to Cnidus and
Crete. The first part was slow and uneventful. The decision not to go west
over the Sea of Crete proved wise. The north-east wind might have wrecked
the ship on the north coast of Crete. If the wind was a steady north-west
the journey from Cnidus to Crete may not have been difficult, perhaps going
east of Carpathos.
Salmone is clearly the eastern tip of Crete.
[27.5] (27.11) In Britain, the Navy is the Senior Service and has a status
rather above that of the Army or Air Force. The Roman fleet had nothing of
that status. The Army was very much the Senior Service. The Centurion was
only the rough equivalent of a Sergeant Major. But as a centurion in an
elite unit we should perhaps think of him as an R.S.M. The debate goes on
about pilot and ship owner.
[27.6] (27:12) Lutro, it seems, is the best harbour on the south coast of
Crete. The entrance is from the east, but is well protected and there was a
large population. It would have been ideal for the winter. Phineka is, it
seems, just to the west, where in New Testament times there were two beaches
which faced north west and south west.
With no reliable maps, the sailors who knew the area would have a lot to
say, and Luke did not get to Lutro; he has to rely on what he hears.
[27.7] (27:14) The change from a gentle south wind to a violent north easter
is quite usual. The sailors may, indeed, have half expected it.
[27.8] (27:16) The only anchorage at Cauda was on the north side of the
island and this would be exposed to the full force of the storm.
[27.9] (27:17) Frapping of wooden ships was still practised in the mid-19th
Century. The ropes would have been worked from the bow and perhaps the stern
with levers. They did not go from bow to stern - front to back - and they
were outside the hull, not inside.
[27.10] (27:18) The development of wooden ships from antiquity to the
Nineteenth Century was generally for more and smaller sails. Clearly these
made ships less top-heavy. They enabled ships to sail much closer to the
wind. On the other hand, vessels like the clippers had to have large numbers
of crew to man the sails.
[27.11] ((27:20) There are parts of the Atlantic where ships have been
becalmed for long periods. Mendelsohn’s overture ‘A calm sea and a
prosperous voyage’ makes the point. On the calm sea nothing moves. The
prosperous voyage is when a brisk wind gets up. C.H.Spurgeon made the point
long ago. A dead calm does the church no good. A storm is what we need!
[27.12] (27:20) John Newton describes his experience in an Atlantic storm:
‘...all the casks of provision (awash in the hold) had been beaten in
pieces.....pigs, sheep and poultry had been washed overboard.’ George
Whitfield’s first crossing of the Atlantic had been good. The return in late
1738 was awful. See A.Dollimore’s ‘George Whitfield’, Banner of Truth Volume
1 pages 208-211. The voyage took nearly nine weeks; they were cold and wet,
hungry and thirsty, and lost on the Atlantic. It must have required
tremendous courage to venture across the Atlantic again!
Samples of wheat were sent from Upper Egypt to Alexandria in sealed amphorae
but whilst some other items of cargo might have been carried in these large
jars, secured in racks, it is reasonably clear that grain was carried in
sacks. These would tend to shift and might be spoilt by sea water.
[27.13] (27:39) There is hardly any tide in the Mediterranean, so there was
no point in delay in hopes that high tide would give them an advantage.
[27.14] (27:44) Any idea that people who could swim took those who could not
on their backs seems fanciful to me! This could just be the meaning of the
Greek.
[28.1] (28:1) Malta consists of two main islands; the smaller one is called
Gozo. The oldest standing stone buildings in the world are temples in Malta
which are said to date back to 3,600 BC. The Phoenician/Punic period in
Malta started about 700 BC. Phoenician ships sailing to Carthage would have
called here. The Punic language remained in use although the Romans took
over in 218BC. There is a good deal more information about the early period
in an article in Current World Archaeology No. 7, September 2004.
There is a tradition that Publius became the first bishop of Malta but there
is no other information about the early church there.
[28.2] (28:2) We may guess that the presence of the centurion Julius and his
squad of Roman soldiers played a part in securing a good welcome in Malta!
[28.3] ( 28:13) Puteoli was about 320 km south of Rome. However, the port of
Rome, Ostia, was on the river Tiber. Large grain carriers could not enter
the Tiber, so the grain on this ship would have been off-loaded at Puteoli,
and probably transferred to much smaller vessels to be taken to Ostia.
A new port 3 km north of Ostia had been commenced in AD46, but it did not
come into use until AD64. It was further developed in the reign of Trajan.
It was simply called Portus, and a canal linked it to the Tiber and Rome.
These were also part of a flood relief scheme for Rome.There is an article
in Current World Archaeology No. 20 at page 11 on the site of Portus.
From ‘Bankers of Puteoli’ by David Jones, published by Tempus, it seems that
most of the goods exported from Puteoli were produced in the area just to
the north of the port. So the construction of Portus may have been a
misguided scheme. Would ships go north to Portus to discharge grain and then
south to Puteoli to load goods for Egypt or North Africa? It probably did
work fairly well. Nero started work on a great canal from Puteoli to Rome,
but this was abandoned. Not all the Roman engineering which we admire worked
out right!
There was a great deal of trade between Puteoli and the south of Spain, and
Paul must have been reminded of his desire to go to Spain.
[28.4] (28:16) There were some later traditions, it seems, about Paul’s
arrival in Rome, and these may be genuine, despite the grave disruption of
the church four years later in Nero’s persecution. Burrus, a notable ‘good’
Roman, is said to have been involved when Paul reached Rome.
[28.5] (28:30) Hemer takes the view that Philippians was written late in the
imprisonment. The other three epistles were earlier because Colosse was
destroyed by earthquake in AD60. Paul night not yet have news of this, of
course. There are many difficulties here, not least Philemon 22. See Hemer
pages 270-276.
Philippians 4:15 is a little strange. Paul implies: ‘There were other
churches which ought to have helped me’. I suppose he could mean that Berea
and Thessalonica might have sent help to Paul in Athens or Corinth. But we
do not know of any other church which might have sent help to Thessalonica.
Did Paul reach Rome with some money in hand - perhaps gifts - ‘honours’ from
Malta? Had this run out so that he needed the help from Philippi?
[28.6] (28:30) We will look at these names along with those in Colossians.
It is of interest that Timothy is named as co-author of Philippians,
Colossians and Philemon. Why is he not named in Ephesians?
We referred to David Jones’ ‘The Bankers of Puteoli’ earlier. At page 57 he
begins the discussion of the ‘peculium’. A master might allow an able slave
a sum of money as working capital. This is what is happening in Matthew
25:14-30. The ‘peculium’ might grow but all the money was the master’s. It
was usual if a slave was given freedom to give him his ‘peculium’ as well.
So it is possible that Onesimus did not rob Philemon’s household. He may
have been Philemon’s agent, perhaps in Ephesus. He had used his ‘peculium’
to get to Rome. Perhaps he had bumped into an Asian Christian in the city.
Of course, any runaway slave was guilty of theft. He was the property of his
master. He had stolen himself!
[28.7] (28:30) When we look at the names of Paul’s companions in Rome, all
sorts of questions arise, few of which we can answer!
Tychicus (Colossians 4:7) came from Roman Asia (Acts 20:4) He took
Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon from Rome to Asia. In 2 Timothy 4:12, a
few years later Paul sends him to Ephesus, which makes it unlikely that he
went to Crete: see Titus 3:12. For Onesimus, see the Commentary on Philemon
and the remarks in note [28.6] above..
Aristarchus we met in Acts 19:29. He came from Thessalonica (Acts 20:4)
which also tells us he left Corinth with Paul, like Tychicus on the way to
Jerusalem. He gets a mention in Philemon 24. (See Hemer page 236 on 19:29.
He refers to an inscription from Thessalonica of about this date which
refers to a father and son, both called Aristarchus!) The name is not at all
Jewish, and in Colossians 4:11, Paul probably means that Mark and Jesus
‘Justus’ only are Jews. More difficult: Paul calls Aristarchus a ‘fellow
prisoner’. This may mean that Aristarchus chose to live like a prisoner in
company with Paul. If Aristarchus was a prisoner in Rome, he was probably a
prisoner when the party left Caesarea. Or did Paul and Aristarchus share a
time in prison together after the riot at Ephesus?
Mark we know well, but we notice that he and Luke are together here in Rome
- two Gospel writers. Jesus ‘Justus’ is unknown. Had he come from Jerusalem
with Mark?
Epaphras came from Colosse. See Colossians 1:7. In Philemon 23 Paul calls
him a ‘fellow prisoner’. It is useful to see that in Romans 16:7 Paul means
that Andronicus and Junias have been in prison with him in the past. Paul
was not a prisoner when he wrote Romans. So he may mean here that Epaphras
had been a prisoner with him at some time in the past. Paul just names
Demas. He must have worked with Paul for two or three years. See 2 Timothy
4:10. He is not called ‘a faithful brother’ or anything like that. Perhaps
Paul was already unsure of him. |