29. Filling in the Blank (Acts 18:18-19:7)

Introduction

In my second year of seminary, I watched a very amusing incident in Greek class. It was second year Greek, and the instructor was doing a “chalk talk” entitled, “How to Fell the Greek Goliath.” The “five stones of David” were the five means of dealing with Greek in such a way as to learn the language (and to survive the course). The second “stone” was the Greek Lexicon (or dictionary). The standard Greek lexicon is known in seminary jargon as Arndt and Gingrich, or more simply, “A and G.” The instructor had referred to “A and G” a couple times when one student, sitting in the front row, interrupted the chalk talk with a question. “Pardon me sir,” the student interjected in a voice strikingly similar to the cartoon character, Huckleberry Hound, “but what is ‘A and G’?”

At first, the instructor thought that this student was putting him on. It had to be a joke. And so he replied with a smile, “‘A and G,’ Arndt and Gingrich. You, know, that lexicon which you use whenever you translate your Greek assignments.” Now I must explain to you that in first year Greek, there comes a time when your vocabulary and grammar skills have developed sufficiently that you can begin to read the Greek text of the New Testament (often it is the Gospel of John). By second year Greek, one is expected to be able to translate even more of the Greek text of the New Testament. In order to do this, it is necessary to use “A and G,” the Greek lexicon, to look up the various shades of meanings of the Greek term, and then to choose the meaning which best fits the context. My fellow-classmate was expected to have been a good ways down this path and thus daily making use of “A and G.”

This student’s response took the instructor totally by surprise when he responded, “I’ve never used ‘A and G’.” The teacher’s expression changed from one of amusement, to shock, and finally to bewilderment. “Well then how do you translate your Greek assignments?,” he asked. “Oh,” the student replied innocently, “I just use my interlinear translation—it’s easy, and fast!” And so it was, but it missed the point of the whole Greek language program of the seminary. Well, from that time on translating the Scriptures was not so easy for my fellow-classmate. He had learned that there was something very vital missing from his study of the Greek New Testament.

In the case of Apollos in Acts chapter 18 and the 12 “disciples” in the first seven verses of chapter 19 there was also something vital missing. Initially I was inclined to handle these passages separately, but then I noted that they have much in common. Both Apollos and the disciples were lacking some very important revelation. Both Apollos and these 12 men were acquainted only with the teaching and baptism of John the Baptist.

The text we are about to study raises a number of questions in my mind as I read it and meditate on it. The first question is, “Why is so much detail omitted by Luke in this account, detail which is of great interest to the reader?” Among these details would be a disclosure of what Paul’s vow consisted of, and more information about the conclusion of the so-called “second missionary journey” and the commencement of the “third missionary journey.” A second question is, “Why did Paul not stay on at Ephesus when he first visited the city, and when he was encouraged to stay on by those in the synagogue there?” A third question is, “Just what was it that Apollos and the 12 disciples lacked?” Finally, “Why does Luke include this account of the filling in of Apollos and the 12 at this point in his book?” These are but some of the questions which this text raises. I believe that we will find the lessons of this passage are not only interesting and informative, but relevant.

The Context of Our Text

As I have considered this text, and the blanks which will be filled in for Apollos and for the 12 disciples, it now appears that there may also have been blanks that were filled in for those seekers of the truth in Berea, and for Aquila and Priscilla as well. The response to Paul’s teaching at the synagogue in Thessalonica was similar to that in other synagogues—some received the gospel, but many Jews rejected it and began to oppose Paul and his preaching. But at Berea it was a different matter. Here, the synagogue worshippers were eager to hear what Paul had to say about Messiah, and were eager to receive Jesus as Messiah, once they searched the Scriptures for themselves and were convinced that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament pertaining to Messiah. Paul’s teaching at Berea thus “filled in the blank” in the understanding and belief of the Bereans—the blank, into which the name of the Messiah was to be filled in, once Messiah appeared, was now filled with the name, Jesus of Nazareth.

Initially I had thought that Aquila and Priscilla were already believers when Paul first met them. Now, I am inclined to doubt this. We are not told that this couple had become believers before meeting Paul. We are not told that their association was rooted in a common faith or in a common ministry. Aquila is introduced to us as “a certain Jew,” and we are then told that Paul lived with them because they had the same trade. When Paul and his colleagues stayed at the home of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the invitation was rooted in the fact that she had now come to possess the same faith as Paul. She wanted her home to be a base of operations for the proclamation of the gospel, as so it was. Nothing of this kind is said of the initial association of Paul and Aquila and Priscilla. I am therefore inclined to think that this man and his wife were looking for the coming of Messiah, like the Bereans, but that they did not yet understand that Jesus was the Messiah. I think that Paul “filled in this blank” for them, and on believing in Jesus, they found their association based on much more than a common occupation.

If I am correct in my conclusion, then we have in chapter 18 and the first part of chapter 19 a thread which links the Bereans, Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, and the 12 disciples, and this thread is that of a “blank” which was filled in, so that Jesus of Nazareth is now recognized and believed in as Israel’s promised Messiah.

Heading Home
(18:18-23)

18 And Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. 19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there.⁴²¹ Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 And when they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent, 21 but taking leave of them and saying, “I will return to you again if God wills,” he set sail from Ephesus. 22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch. 23 And having spent some time there, he departed and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

Paul left Corinth, after spending a year and a half there (18:11). Unlike many other occasions, he did not seem to leave Corinth because of Jewish or Gentile opposition. We really do not know why he left. It seems more that Paul was “drawn to” somewhere else more than he was forced out of Corinth. The question is, “What was it that caused Paul to leave Corinth, and to leave Ephesus so quickly as well?”

While we are not told exactly why Paul was drawn away, I do believe that we are told where he was drawn to—Syria (verse 18). Syrian Antioch, you may recall, was the city in which Paul and Barnabas ministered (Acts 11) and it later served as the starting and ending point for the so-called “first missionary journey” (Acts 13:1–14:28). It would therefore seem that Paul felt the need to return to home base in Antioch. Paul’s destination was therefore Syria, and he was determined not to be prevented from reaching there as soon as possible.

Luke’s account of this final “leg” of the second missionary journey, of Paul’s itinerary and ministry on the way and upon his arrival, seems purposefully brief and sketchy. The more I read it, the more I am inclined to the conclude that Luke is really just informing us that Paul directed of God so that he was “out of the way,” set aside for a while, so that the ministry of others might blossom and develop.

If this is true, Luke is only briefly explaining Paul’s absence, and is more intent on describing what took place in his absence through the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, and then of Apollos.

Paul’s “second missionary journey” comes to an end in these verses, and yet Luke makes little of it. The dividing up of Paul’s ministry into three missionary journeys may therefore be more a matter of our doing than it was a part of Luke’s structure or argument in Acts. And if Luke wants us to know that a “third missionary journey” has now commenced, he has surely not made a great point of it. As we read these verses, we have to remind ourselves of the structure of Paul’s three journeys, or we would not even notice that one journey had ended and another had begun.

From Corinth, Paul went on to Cenchrea.⁴²² Here, Luke tells us only that he cut his hair, terminating a period of time during which he was under a vow. This vow, if not the same as that described in Numbers chapter 6, would at least be a vow which Paul observed as a Jew. We are not told what the vow was, although it is tempting to speculate on such matters. Luke seems only to be informing us that while Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (see Galatians 2:7), he had not ceased to be a Jew, nor did he need to. He only rejected legalistic Judaism, and its system of works-righteousness which was a perversion of the purpose and intent of the Law. Paul’s practice here is completely consistent with principles which governed Paul’s lifestyle and ministry, such as we find referred to in 1 Corinthians 9:

19 For though I am free from all {men,} I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

Paul sailed from Cenchrea in Achaia to Ephesus in Asia, taking along Priscilla and Aquila.⁴²³ He would leave them in Ephesus when he departed. Their ministry was soon to blossom, as our text will indicate, as well as that of others.⁴²⁴ Paul went to the synagogue at Ephesus, as his custom was, and those who heard him wanted to hear him out, but Paul declined, pressing on for Syria, and promising to return if it was the will of God. This strongly suggests that Paul felt it was God’s will for him to leave, and that he, as yet, had no leading as to his future ministry at Ephesus. We should probably not forget that on Paul’s first journey through Asia, he was forbidden to “speak the word in Asia” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6). Was Paul reluctant to stay on there until he received clear direction to do so, as he received in Corinth (Acts 18:9-11)? Possibly so.

Paul pressed on to the city of Caesarea in Syria. Luke tells us that when Paul landed he “went up and greeted the church,” and then “went down to Antioch” (verse 22). The question is, “What church did Paul go up to and come down from?” Initially, it would seem that Paul went up to the church at Caesarea. There well may have been a church here. We know that Cornelius and his whole household lived here, for this is where Peter came at the prompting of God to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his whole household (Acts 10:1, 24). But it is also true that when one spoke of “going up” from Caesarea, he often referred to going up to Jerusalem. So, too, when one went to Caesarea from Jerusalem you “went down” (see Acts 25:1, 6).⁴²⁵ Thus, Paul could have “gone up” to the church at Jerusalem. If this was so, Luke certainly did not make much of this visit.

Paul then went to Antioch, where he spent some time. The length of his stay, and the role which he played in the church is not stated. It, too, was not important to Luke, at least not important enough to his argument to include these details here. Paul then returned to the “Galatian region and Phrygia,” once again visiting the saints in the churches which he had helped to establish, strengthening them in their faith and Christian walk.⁴²⁶ Follow-up was a very important ministry to Paul, who either personally visited those to whom he had previously ministered, or he sent a representative (like Timothy), or he wrote. Sometimes he may have done all three. The church at Ephesus is one example (see here, Acts 20:16ff.; 1 Timothy 1:3; the Book of Ephesians).

Priscilla and Aquila Enlighten Apollos
(18:24-28)

24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

In Paul’s absence, Priscilla and Aquila will play a very crucial role in the life and ministry of Apollos, a man of great intellect and ability, but also a man with a “blank” which needed filling in. This man was a Jew, born in Alexandria, an Egyptian city located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, a city of great learning and education, a city to which Christians would later migrate. It may have been here that Apollos received much of his training. He was regarded as “an eloquent man,” a man who not only knew his subject matter well, but was skilled in communicating what he knew. He was, in short, both a scholar and a communicator. His abilities were all related to his love for and knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. He was so well versed in the Old Testament that Luke would refer to him as “mighty in the Scriptures.” He was also a man a great intensity—”fervent in spirit.” This may also indicate that he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, not perhaps in the same way as the apostles, who had received a special empowerment by the Spirit at Pentecost, but as was true of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist.

What, then, was this mighty man, Apollos, lacking? In the synagogues, Apollos accurately taught “the things concerning Jesus,” and yet he was “acquainted only with the baptism of John.” How can this be? We must first take note of the fact that while the knowledge of Apollos was limited, he was accurate and correct in that which he did teach. As far as his teaching about Jesus went, it was absolutely right. How, then, did it fall short? It fell short in that it went only as far as John’s baptism.

My greatest difficulty in trying to understand what Luke wrote here is that the two expressions, “the way of the Lord” (verse 25) and “the way of God” (verse 26) seem to be reversed. Apollos was instructed in “the way of the Lord,” and yet Priscilla and Aquila more fully informed him of “the way of God.” It would seem from these expressions that he had already been taught the things pertaining to Jesus, but that he was taught by Priscilla and Aquila in the more general “ways of God.” I would have expected from the context that Apollos already knew the Old Testament revelation well, and that he only lacked specific knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Christ, the promised Messiah.

This is exactly Luke’s point. The problem is that we tend to read into the two expressions (“the way of the Lord” and “the way of God”) meanings opposite to that which they were meant to indicate. A little search in my concordance cleared up the problem for me, in a very informative way. The expression, “the way of the Lord,” is one that is found quite often in the Old Testament, while the expression, “the way of God” is not an Old Testament expression at all. This expression, “the way of God” is found only in the New Testament, on the lips of Jewish leaders, who were seeking to trap the Lord Jesus by asking Him a loaded question pertaining to paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21). The expression, “the way of the Lord,” however, is often used in the Old Testament, in both a general way (Genesis 18:19; 2 Kings 21:22; Proverbs 10:29; Jeremiah 5:4-5; Ezekiel 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20), and in a way which more pointedly referred to the Messiah (Isaiah 40:3).

When this expression, “the way of the Lord,” is used in the New Testament, it is found four times before it occurs in out text in Acts. Note these four instances:

For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’” (Matthew 3:3).

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight’ (Mark 1:3).

As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight’” (Luke 3:4).

He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said” (John 1:23).

It is not often that every one of the four Gospels includes an account of the same event. The ministry of John the Baptist is one such event. All four Gospel accounts are parallel, referring to the same event and the same reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. On the basis of this Old Testament text, John rests his calling and ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.⁴²⁷ The key to understanding Isaiah’s prophecy is the word “Lord.” The meaning and significance of this term can be seen by this remark, found in the preface of the NASB, which explains the way the word Lord is rendered:

The Proper Name for God: To professing Christians, whether of conservative or liberal persuasion, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus the most common name for deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH. See Exodus 3 and Isaiah 42:8. The name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated LORD.⁴²⁸

When the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Greek language (in a version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint) the Hebrew word for Yahweh (or Jehovah, as some English versions render it) was rendered by the Greek term KURIOS. This is the same term which all four gospel writers used in their account of John the Baptist’s citation of Isaiah 40:3, cited above. It is also the term which is found in Acts 18:25. Thus, when Luke tells us that Apollos was “instructed in the way of the Lord” he meant that he was instructed in the Old Testament, in those Scriptures pertaining to Yahweh, and in particular the text of Isaiah 40:3, which indicated that the Messiah was not only the “Servant of Yahweh,” but Yahweh in person. Apollos therefore knew about the coming of the LORD, based upon his instruction in and from the Old Testament. His knowledge was confirmed by and consistent with the preaching and ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to prepare the way of Messiah by calling upon the nation Israel to repent.

The early teaching of John the Baptist would not have informed Apollos as to who the Messiah was, but only as to the fact that Messiah was coming, and that repentance was necessary to be prepare for His arrival and kingdom. John himself did not know who the Messiah was until the day that Jesus appeared for His own baptism:

19 And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 And he confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 They said then to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, {but} among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 “{It is} He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”

28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31 “And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 And John bore witness saying, “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 “And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus (John 1:19-34).

John’s ministry had two phases: (1) that phase during which he announced to the nation Israel that Messiah, as yet unidentified and unknown to him, was soon to appear; and, (2) that phase after Jesus had been designated as Messiah, when John proclaimed Him to be the Messiah, introducing Jesus to the nation as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Until the time that Jesus was designated as the Messiah, when He was baptized by John, John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, and a baptism of anticipation of the One who had not yet been revealed.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were a God-fearing Jew, who eagerly awaited the coming of Messiah. You knew that Messiah would make His appearance at Jerusalem. All your life you had been saving up money so that you could make one trip to the “holy city,” Jerusalem. You, along with thousands of others, would go there for one of the feasts. And when you made your trip, it was during the time when John the Baptist was proclaiming the coming of Messiah. But it was still at a time when John had not yet been informed that Jesus was the Promised One. You would have left Jerusalem with heightened expectation, but without the specific identification of Jesus as Messiah. You might, from that time on, make an intensive study of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah, but these would only tell you a part of what you wanted to know—what Messiah was like, and what would characterize His coming. What you would not (and could not) know is who He was.

Apollos was like this, as I understand Luke’s words in our text. He was limited in his knowledge and preaching of Messiah to the revelation of Him in the Old Testament and, more recently, through John the Baptist. No doubt there were rumors circulating about concerning Jesus, His presentation to the people of Israel as their Messiah, His teaching and ministry, His miracles, His rejection, execution, and even, perhaps, His resurrection and ascension. But none of this had been documented or defended from Scripture. It was only rumor. How was Apollos to know for certain that Messiah had come?

I believe that this is the situation with Apollos, as perhaps also it might have been with the Bereans, Priscilla and Aquila, and the 12 disciples of chapter 19, verses 1-7. For someone who had finally learned of Jesus, and had come to trust in Him as the Messiah, how strange it must have been to hear a man like Apollos preach, a man who was still living in a past era, still looking for Messiah, but not knowing He had come. As Priscilla and Aquila sat in the synagogue and heard Apollos teach, they must have looked at one another in astonishment, and said, “His teaching points to Jesus, and he doesn’t know it.” I believe that what Priscilla and Aquila did was to “fill in the blank” for Apollos, informing him that Jesus of Nazareth was not only Messiah, but that He was Yahweh—God in person, in human flesh.⁴²⁹

Once this was known to Apollos, his preaching now filled in the blank for others. I can imagine Apollos trying to recall all the places he had been, and the synagogues he had preached in, so that he could return to tell them what he had just come to know himself—that Jesus was the Christ. From this point on, this was his message, which he proclaimed powerfully in the synagogues. He was, as it were, another Paul:

But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ (Acts 9:22).

And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Filling in the Blanks for Twelve Disciples⁴³⁰
(19:1-7)

1 And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples, 2 and he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 And there were in all about twelve men.

It is difficult not to see Luke’s account of these mysterious “12 disciples” as having a very close link with the immediately preceding account of the enlightenment of Apollos. There is a common element in the two accounts. Apollos was acquainted only with the “baptism of John” (18:25), just as these “disciples” had experienced only the “baptism of John” (19:3). I therefore see the two accounts as similar, placed side-by-side to make an impression on the reader, and to further the argument which Luke is striving to develop. Based upon my conclusion (above) that Apollos was an Old Testament saint when found by Priscilla and Aquila, and that he became a New Testament saint due to their ministry, I am likewise inclined to see these 12 “disciples” in the same light. The one difference is that Priscilla and Aquila “filled in the blank” for Apollos, while Paul “filled in the blank” for the 12.

Many would agree that what was missing for these “disciples” is the same as that which was missing for Apollos. Where I would differ with them is on what it was that both lacked. Others say that what both lacked was a “Pentecostal experience,” the second blessing consisting of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” If this is true, why then does Luke not say anything about the Holy Spirit when speaking of the enlightenment of Apollos? I believe that the Holy Spirit fell upon these twelve men because they had just come to a personal faith in Jesus as their Messiah, in addition to (and culmination of) their hope of a Messiah, based upon the Old Testament and the ministry of John the Baptist. Let me seek to demonstrate why I believe this to be true.

(1) The term “disciple” does not always mean a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. In the Gospels and the Book of Acts there are various kinds of disciples, based on the fact that the term disciple may have various shades of meaning, all the way from a mere follower (perhaps out of curiosity) to those deeply committed to Jesus. There are those “disciples” who follow Jesus, but are not committed, are only temporary, and are not even believers in Him (see Matthew 8:21; Luke 6:17; 19:37, 39; John 6:60-61, 66). There are the disciples of John the Baptist (Luke 5:33; 7:18). There are also those who are disciples of men other than Jesus or John the Baptist (Matthew 22:16). In the Book of Acts, the term “disciple” almost always refers to believers (6:1, 2, 7; 9:10, 19, 25-26, 36, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20-22, 28; 15:10; 16:1; 18:23, 27), but not always.

One notable exception to the general rule in Acts that “disciples” are believers is to be found in the near context of our passage:

But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9).

One might think that these “disciples” were true believers in Jesus, but I am not so certain. These were those who had not, like the other Jews, become hardened to Paul’s reasoning, and were still interested and wanted to hear more. But the fact that Luke tells us Paul “reasoned” with them causes me to think that some of them may, as yet, have been unbelievers.⁴³¹

(2) The baptism of this group of 12 disciples by the Holy Spirit argues for their salvation here, in the fullest sense of the word. There are four “pentecosts” recorded in the Book of Acts. The are described in chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19. There are distinct differences between these “pentecosts,” but they share a couple of common features. To begin with, these “pentecosts” are never the experience of but one person, but of a group of individuals. Those who are baptized by the Holy Spirit are all God-fearers, those with a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures and of the prophecies pertaining to the coming Messiah and His kingdom. There are no “raw pagan” Gentiles included in any of the four “pentecosts.” I believe this is because they would have understood what happened as the fulfillment of prophecies which they were aware of and understood. For a Gentile, with no understanding of the Old Testament prophecies, such a spectacular spiritual experience might have had associations with their pagan past, more than with biblical prophecy (see 1 Corinthians 12:1-3, especially verse 2). Finally, I believe that each of these baptisms of the Spirit was directly related to the salvation of those baptized. Peter promised those who were at Pentecost that those who repented and were baptized would “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38-39). I believe that this is what is described in the four “pentecosts.” The baptism of Cornelius and his household and of these 12 disciples came immediately upon their belief in Jesus as Messiah.⁴³² The delay of the reception of the Holy Spirit at the initial Pentecost (Acts 2) and for the “pentecost” at Samaria was purposeful. In the first instance, the disciples needed to wait and to pray, and leave this to God’s timing. In the second instance, the apostles, Peter and John, needed to arrive, so that they could receive these new believers as fellow-saints and so that they could identify themselves with the work of God among the Samaritans.

(3) I believe that Paul’s question about their reception of the Holy Spirit at the time they believed was intended to determine whether or not they had come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Think about it for a moment. Suppose that you were Paul, and that you met some fellow-Jews, who believed in the Old Testament, and who were waiting for Messiah to come, in fulfillment of the words of the prophets. How could you quickly determine whether or not these folks had come to a completed faith, knowing about Jesus and trusting in Him, or whether they still waited for a Savior with the blank for His name not yet filled in? For Paul, the way to determine whether or not a person had trusted in Jesus for salvation was to discern whether or not they had received the Holy Spirit. Paul’s question to the 12 disciples was based upon his assumption expressed in Romans chapter 8:

9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you. 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God (Romans 8:9-14).

For Paul, to be saved was to have received the Holy Spirit, and to have received the Holy Spirit was evidence of one’s salvation. When he asked these twelve men if they had received the Holy Spirit “when they believed” I understand him to be assuming that they believed in Messiah, in general terms, just as Apollos did, based upon Old Testament revelation and the preaching of John the Baptist. But if their belief also included the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth (may I call it the “full gospel”?), the gospel with the blank filled in, then they would have received the Holy Spirit.

These “disciples,” like Apollos and many others, knew only of Messiah from the Old Testament Scriptures and through whatever word they had heard of John the Baptist and his preaching. As Priscilla and Aquila filled in the blank for Apollos, so Paul filled in the blank for these 12 men. And when they believed, they received the Holy Spirit, in the same way as those at the Jerusalem Pentecost (Acts 2), and at the Samaritan (Acts 8) and Caesarean (Acts 10) Pentecosts.

Conclusion

There are a number of important lessons to be learned from our text. I want to begin by looking at how our text contributes to the developing argument of Acts, as Luke seems to have intended it. I see Luke indicating, once again, but in a very different way, the fact that time is running out for Israel and for the Jews to repent and to accept Jesus as the Messiah. I have said previously that Paul’s sense of urgency in preaching the gospel as widely as possible seems to emerge out of his realization that the time of the Gentiles is about to begin and the times of the nation Israel are, for a period of time, to end. Paul hurries from city to city, eager to press on and to preach Christ to everyone who has not yet heard and received Jesus and the Christ, their Messiah.

But there is another side to this coin. Not only does the gospel need to be proclaimed to those who never heard it before, but it also needs to be proclaimed to all those who are, in reality, the last of the Old Testament saints, and who must transfer their faith from a Christ that is to come to the Lord Jesus who has come. If time is running out for the people of God, then time requires that the gospel be proclaimed to all those (like the Bereans, Aquila and Priscilla, and Apollos) who were waiting for Messiah, but did not know that Jesus was the Promised Savior. I look at this paragraph as God’s “cleaning up” all the untidy ends, so that all who have looked for Messiah in truth may find Him.

There is yet another “transition” which Luke is aware of, in addition to the transition from Israel to the church and from a predominantly Jewish orientation to one that is Gentile, and that is the transition which is about to occur in the ministry of Paul. Paul’s ministry has, to this point in time, been a personal one, a direct, “hands-on” ministry, to the churches he has helped establish. But Paul is soon heading toward Jerusalem, and ultimately to Rome (19:21). From this point on, much of Paul’s ministry will be from a distance, and from a prison cell. His pen and his prayers will become God’s powerful instruments in ministry to others.

I think that the Holy Spirit has guided Luke to show us the laying of the groundwork for this new era of ministry in the life of Paul. In our text, we have seen God at work through Paul, in his presence, and we have seen God at work in Paul’s absence (in his return to Syria), through others, such as Priscilla and Aquilla. I further believe that to some degree, Apollos is to Paul what Elisha was to Elijah. Apollos was to serve as Paul’s successor, speaking in the synagogues with great eloquence and power, proving that Jesus is the promised Messiah. And just as Paul was raised up for his work, independent from the 12 apostles, so Apollos was raised up for his work, independent of Paul. God has a new focus, and a new location for Paul’s ministry, but He has already made arrangements for the continuation of the ministry which Paul has been doing. God’s sovereign plans and purposes continue on, without a hitch or hesitation. He does all things well!

There is a sense in which this “transition period” described in Acts is unique. Those people whose lives encompassed the ministry of the last Old Testament prophet—John the Baptist—and the fulfillment of his prophecy—Jesus Christ—were a unique group. We do not have the same situation today, nor will we ever see this dilemma again. The problem for these “Old Testament saints” was that their faith in the Messiah who was to come had to be converted, updated, or revised so as to be a faith in the One who had come—Jesus of Nazareth. That is what we see described in our text.

But there is in this at least an analogy, an illustration which can be made. There was a necessity for these “Old Testament saints” to hear of Jesus and trust in Him personally. That need was met through Priscilla and Aquila, as well as by Paul. My friend, if these “believers” in the “Christ to come” had to be told of Jesus and His coming, and to trust in Him, no one will be saved apart from a personal knowledge and trust in Jesus as the Savior today, either. Unlike these “Old Testament saints,” who had not heard of Jesus, you know all that you will ever need to know about Him. You know that He came as the sinless Son of God, that He lived a perfect life and that He died as a perfect sacrifice, for sinners, and that by faith in His death, burial, and resurrection, you can have the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life. But have you ever really crossed the line, from a knowledge about Jesus to a personal faith and trust in Him? Have you made the transition (known as conversion, or being born again) from knowing about Jesus to knowing Him intimately as Savior and Lord? If not, the hour is late and the need is urgent. Cross that line today!

Finally, I want to say a word about Priscilla and Aquila. What an encouragement this couple should be to every Christian. It was this couple that God used mightily in the “conversion” of Apollos from an “Old Testament saint” to a New Testament Christian. Think of it for a moment. Apollos was a highly trained, highly intelligent, Bible scholar and communicator. Who would you have sent to Apollos, to tell him, in effect, that he was “not far from the kingdom of God”? Who would you have chosen to “fill in the blank” so that this man’s faith was not in the Messiah to come, but in the Jesus who had come, as Messiah?

God chose Priscilla and Aquila. God did not choose Paul—our first choice, for sure. Why? First, because God does not appeal to men’s pride. Humility is the beginning of wisdom, and if Apollos was to be wise in God’s sight, he must be humble enough to believe the truth, regardless of the worldly standing or stature of the instruments through whom he was informed. But more importantly, God did not choose a scholar to inform Apollos because what he needed to know was very simple. He had not overlooked the tense or nuance of some Hebrew verb. He did not need some hidden truth exposed to him. He needed to know that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, that He had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and that He had not only died for sinners, but had risen from the dead.

Think on this for a moment. God can use simple (in the eyes of this world) people to accomplish His great purposes because the gospel is simple, and because it is the power of God unto salvation. What joy there is to know that He uses such simple people as we to achieve His purposes, and what encouragement to us to tell others the simple message of the Savior. May God raise up many more men and women like Priscilla and Aquila.

⁴²¹It is difficult to discern how strong Paul’s influence had a bearing on their decision to stay on at Ephesus. Did Paul recommend that they stay on, knowing the ministry they could play here, or was this entirely their decision?

⁴²²Phoebe lived here and served the church in this city. See Romans 16:1-2.

⁴²³Note that the order here and in verse 26 is reversed from 18:2.

⁴²⁴See Romans 16:3-5 and 2 Timothy 4:19.

⁴²⁵“Went up--went down”--See Luke 2:42; 18:10; Acts 11:2; 18:22; 21:15; 24:1, 10; 25:1, 6.

⁴²⁶It seems that Paul did not try, on this occasion, to evangelize in this region. Why? I suspect it was because there was now a church there, and this was their task. His task now was to edify and build up the body of believers.

⁴²⁷It is interesting to note that while in each gospel John is quoting from Isaiah 40:3, the rendering of the Isaiah text is slightly different in the NASB, “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness,” but the sense is the same. The King James version does render it, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD.”

⁴²⁸The New American Standard Bible (La Habra, California, 1973), p. ix.

⁴²⁹There were two things about Messiah that perplexed the Old Testament saint. The first was that He was prophesied to be a mighty, conquering King, who would subdue His enemies and establish justice, while at the same time He was spoken of elsewhere as a suffering Savior (compare Psalm 2, 110 with Isaiah 52-53). Peter spoke of this tension in 1 Peter 1:10-12. The second tension was that the Messiah would be a man, a human being, the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), and of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 17:15-21; 2 Samuel 7:13-14), and yet He was God (Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 5:2). He was to be the Son of Man and the Son of God. John’s reference to Isaiah 40:3 was, therefore, a clear reference to the deity of the Messiah, in the minds of those who knew and understood this text as referring to the Messiah as LORD (Yahweh). The teaching of Priscilla thus linked together the complete revelation of the Old Testament (that Jesus was the Suffering Savior and the Triumphant King, and that He was both divine and human) with the events of Jesus’ first coming and His on-going ministry through His church. The very things of which Priscilla and Aquila informed Apollos are, in my opinion, the things of which Luke wrote in his first (Luke) and second (Acts) volumes, addressed to Gentiles.

⁴³⁰I must confess, the appearance of “twelve (Gentile) disciples” seems just a bit coincidental. Is there any possibility that Luke is somehow drawing some kind of analogy to the “twelve (Jewish) disciples”?

⁴³¹Every other time the term “reasoned” is used of Paul’s ministry in Acts, it has a definite apologetic sense, and he does not appear to be teaching primarily believers, but rather trying to convince unbelievers. See Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9.

⁴³²Note, however, that the order of events differs, for Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before their water baptism, while the 12 disciples were baptized with water first.

30. The Evangelization of Ephesus (Acts 19:8-41)

Introduction

The story of the evangelization of Ephesus does not begin in chapter 19, or even in chapter 18 of the Book of Acts. It started with the ministry of John the Baptist, whose teaching had produced a number of “converts,” men and women who looked for the Messiah, promised by the Old Testament prophets, who was His forerunner. Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) and the “12 disciples” (Acts 19:1-7) were among those who believed in the Savior to come, and who must have spoken to others of their (Old Testament) faith.

Paul came to Asia on his second missionary journey (so called), but the Holy Spirit forbade them from proclaiming the gospel (Acts 16:6). Paul finally came to Ephesus, but he was intent on reaching Syria (Acts 18:18-21), and so he spent only a short time there. He did, however, leave Priscilla and Aquila behind (18:19), and they must have played a significant part in “plowing the soil” in preparation for Paul’s lengthy stay as recorded in our text. It is here in our text that we will read,

… all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10).

It was God’s time for the evangelization of Asia, and it all seems to have started from the city of Ephesus.

If the Ephesian church was the launching place for the evangelization of Asia, it is important for several other reasons as well. Let me mention several reasons for the importance of this church.

(1) It was here, in Ephesus, that Paul fought the “wild beasts” (1 Cor. 15:32). Since the context of Paul’s words dealt with death and the resurrection from the dead, it would seem that there was very real danger there. He will later tell the Ephesian elders of his difficulties in that city:

“You yourselves know, form the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews” (Acts 20:18b-19).

(2) Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 16:8). (3) The epistle to the Ephesians was written to the Ephesian church (cf. Ephesians 1:1). (4) The church at Ephesus was one of the “seven churches of Asia” (Revelation 1:4), to which specific words of admonition from the Lord were given (Revelation 1:11; 2:1-7). (5) Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3) was sent there by Paul, and thus 1 Timothy concerns the life and conduct of the church there in Ephesus.

Chapter 19 is not the definitive chapter of Acts when it comes to a description of the ministry of Paul at Ephesus. This chapter focuses on three major events: (1) the meeting of the “12 disciples” and their coming to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, receiving baptism as an evidence of their faith, and being baptized by the Spirit as an evidence of God’s reception of them into His church (verses 1-7). (2) The ministry of Paul in the synagogue and then the school of Tyrannus (verses 8-20). (3) The uprising in Ephesus, as a result of the opposition of Demetrius (verses 23-41). A great deal of information concerning the ministry of Paul at Ephesus will be supplied in chapter 20, when Paul calls for the Ephesian elders and gives them his parting words of instruction and admonition, based upon the fact that he will not see them again.

The Structure of Acts 19

The “Twelve Disciples”—19:1-7
The Jewish Evangelist and the Jewish Exorcists—19:8-20
Paul’s plans—19:21-22
The Uprising at Ephesus—19:23-41

The devious deeds of Demetrius—(vv 23-29)

The attempted addresses of Paul and Alexander—(vv. 30-34)

The rebuke and benediction of the town clerk—(vv 35-41)

From the Synagogue to the School
(19:8-10)

8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning⁴³³ daily in the school of Tyrannus.⁴³⁴ 10 And this took place for two years,⁴³⁵ so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.⁴³⁶

After his encounter with the 12 disciples upon his arrival at Ephesus (19:1-7), Paul began to minister in the synagogue at Ephesus. His topic was “the kingdom of God” (verse 8). I would think that Paul began with the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to the kingdom, showing over a period of time how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled these, and then going on to disclose those aspects of the kingdom which were revealed by Jesus, or to the apostles by the Holy Spirit.

The thing which impresses me about Paul’s teaching in the synagogue is how long he taught there before it became necessary to move to another location. It strongly implies that Paul established his case, over a period of time, as opposed to his stating the same case repeatedly. This is consistent with Paul’s approach elsewhere. For example, in Berea, Paul taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and the people had all week to search the Scriptures and to think about it. This is the exact opposite approach to that of brainwashing. Brainwashing attempts to weaken the critical facilities of the audience, wearing them down, physically and mentally, until they just don’t care to think critically any more.

There are a number of cults that employ this methodology. A couple of years ago there was a certain “teacher” who was able to persuade some Christians to believe that which they had firmly rejected previously. He was able to “convince” some by means of a seminar, which bombarded the audience with endless ideas and assumptions, which were not proven, but which, they were told, they would understand later. Some were convinced, not because they were shown the truth from Scripture, and in the calm of their own study and meditation accepted it, but because of a kind of “circuit overload,” which caused them to cease thinking about it. Paul’s teaching was the opposite. He taught in smaller doses, and there was time in-between to think it over. So that when men or women believed his teaching it was because it conformed to the teaching of the Scriptures and the Spirit of God bore witness to its truthfulness.

Over the three month period of time Paul preached at the synagogue in Ephesus some were convinced of the truth of the gospel, while others became more and more opposed to it. There was a sequence to their growing opposition, which Luke indicates in verse 9. They became gradually hardened to Paul’s teaching, and then they became disobedient to it, and finally they began to verbally oppose it in public. It would seem that they began to disrupt Paul’s public ministry, much as “hecklers” disrupt the speeches of political candidates. It became impossible to carry on his teaching in a way that would facilitate good teaching. And so Paul changed his base of operations. He moved from the synagogue to the school house, the school of Tyrannus.

Very little is said of the teaching ministry of Paul in this “school.” The most complete picture of his ministry while at Ephesus is found in chapter 20. For example, we know that he worked with his own hands during his stay in Ephesus, so that he would not be a burden and that he could minister to the material needs of others (Acts 20:33-35). We are told that Paul’s ministry while in Ephesus echoed throughout the land, so that Luke can tell us “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord” (verse 10). Since Paul stayed in Ephesus and did not seem to travel about (20:18), it would seem that much of the preaching which took place outside the city was done by others, some of whom may be named in Acts 20:4. Although the Spirit had once forbidden the preaching of the word in Asia (Acts 16:6), now the word had been proclaimed throughout Asia. In God’s time, the word of God was proclaimed.

Luke does not mean for us to conclude that every single person living in Asia had heard the gospel, but he does mean that the entire area was canvassed with the word. And so it was that Paul could say,

“Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:26-27).

Miracles and the Ministry of Paul
(19:11-12)

11 And God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons⁴³⁷ were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.

The gospel had been proclaimed in Asia, and not only this but God bore witness to His word through many signs and wonders and miracles, as he worked through the apostle Paul. No one else is said to have worked such miracles, but Paul did, even unintentionally. We are not told of all the miracles accomplished at the hand of Paul, but we are told that some miracles happened in some secondary fashion. Handkerchiefs or aprons which Paul had touched were taken to those who were sick or demon possessed and they were made whole (verse 12). The “aprons” which were taken seem to have been Paul’s work aprons. Can you imagine him coming to work at his tentmaking in the morning, looking about for his apron, and saying to himself, “Now where did I put that apron …?” They were hauling off anything which Paul touched, and when the infirmed came in contact with these items, they were delivered. As usual, these signs and wonders were accomplished to validate and underscore the words which Paul was speaking—the words of the Gospel.⁴³⁸

I must admit that the kind of miracles which Luke mentions here sound like a carnival atmosphere. But remember that we are not told this was Paul’s emphasis or purpose. He did not throw his handkerchiefs into the crowds, as some would do today. In a somewhat superstitious way, they people grabbed for any article which he had touched. The fact that people were healed is explained, I think, purely in terms of the grace of God. These people, with their pagan background, knew of only this way of being healed, and they acted in a very simple faith, and God in His grace gave them what they sought by faith—deliverance. And so the word was given the divine stamp of authenticity and authority, and many came to faith.

The Exorcists “Exposed”
(19:13-20)

13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists,⁴³⁹ who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize⁴⁴⁰ Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued both⁴⁴¹ of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. 18 Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices.⁴⁴² 19 And many of those who practiced magic⁴⁴³ brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

The hand of God was at work through Paul, and there were some who wished to cash in on it. If Paul could accomplish what he did through the name of Jesus, so could they—they thought. There were in Ephesus, as in Israel (see Luke 11:19), Jewish exorcists, who sought to cast out demons through the use of the name of one who had great power. This was a kind of spiritual “name dropping,” whereby the power of the one named was believed to be able to exorcise demons. Such “ministry” was hardly to be performed without a fee, and so it appears to be a business, not altogether unlike that business of Acts 16, the business of fortune-telling. This kind of exorcism must have proven effective at least part of the time, but it would not work this time.

There were a number of exorcists practicing in Ephesus, but Luke draws our attention to one family in particular—a Jewish chief priestly family (verse 14). This man, Sceva, had seven sons who were exorcists. At least two of them were involved in attempting to exorcise a particular man in Ephesus. Luke computer “hackers” who had just learned the password of a giant mainframe computer system, these men had discovered the power of the name of Jesus. This is the Jesus who, as Jews, they refused to accept as Messiah, but they were not reluctant to use His name in order to cast out demons. They did not use the name of Jesus as Paul did, for they did not know Him personally or belong to Him, as Paul did. Thus, they sought to exorcise the man “by the name of the Jesus Paul preached” (verse 13).

This particular demon was not impressed. He indeed recognized and reluctantly surrendered to the power of Jesus, and he also acknowledged the power of Jesus at work in Paul, but he did not know these men. Did these men wish to name drop? Fine. But what was their name? The demon was unwilling to be given orders through anyone who wished to try to use the name of Jesus, as Paul did. For the demon, this attempt was like trying to use a stolen credit card, and he was not about to be ordered about by such hucksters. And so the demon, through the demonized man, attacked these Jewish exorcists and beat the badly, sending them fleeing from the house naked and wounded.

If these Jewish exorcists were attempting to copy the ministry of Paul, they ended up being a very clear contrast to it. And in his rebellion against authority, this demon served the cause of Christ by testifying to the power of the Gospel in contrast to the counterfeit ministry of the sons of Sceva, and others like them. We have already been told that the gospel had gone forth from Ephesus to all of Asia, and now it would seem that this incident was one means which God used to spread the word. News of this incident spread abroad, serving to contrast the power of God at work through Paul with the counterfeit power of the exorcists. All of Ephesus heard of the exposure of the exorcists, and they feared God, so that His name was magnified. He would not be used by men, as though he were subject to the rules of magic.

What a contrast one could see between Paul and the sons of Sceva and all like them. Paul worked with his own hands, and ministered freely to men. These exorcists undoubtedly charged a substantial fee for their services, living off of the misery of those to whom they “ministered.” In the case of Paul, the power of God was at work through him, even when he did not seem to be aware of it. Even things which came into contact with Paul were instruments of deliverance and healing. On the other hand, as hard as these exorcists worked at “using” the names of Jesus and Paul, they were not successful.

The impact of these incidents—the miracles performed at the hand of Paul, and the failure of the sons of Sceva—was even greater on those who had come to faith in Jesus. The response of the saints to these things is described in verses 18 and 19. Some of these believers may have come to faith as a result of these two incidents, but many seem to have already been saved. Although they had come to trust in Jesus as their Savior, they did not see the evil of their magical practices, and they had not yet renounced this as both worthless and evil. As a result of the shaming of the sons of Sceva a great conviction of sin fell upon the saints in Ephesus, causing them to renounce their magical practices and to destroy the magical books which they possessed.

Before we look at this response, however, let us make sure that we understand the connection between the power of God through Paul, the powerless defeat of the sons of Sceva, and the wide-spread turning from magical practices by the Ephesian saints. Nowhere in our text are the sons of Sceva called magicians, nor is their practice described as magical. Previously, we were told that Elymas (also called Bar-Jesus) was Jew, a false prophet, and a magician (Acts 13:6). Simon, of Acts chapter 8, was also a magician (8:9, 11), although he is not identified as a Jew. He was, most likely, a Samaritan, and thus a half-Jew.

The Christians of Ephesus understood, and rightly so, that the practice of the sons of Sceva were, in essence, magical. Magic is the manipulation of “gods” or “powers,” so that the magician gets what he wants. It was no great mental leap to see that the “magic” of the sons of Sceva was like the other forms of “magic” which were so prevalent in Ephesus, and which were so much a part of the lives of Christians. When the power of God prevailed through Paul and the power of magic failed through the sons of Sceva, the Ephesian saints saw their magical practices as anti-Christian, evil, and worthless. They publicly collected their magical books and burned them in the sight of all, as a public testimony of their repentance and obedience. They would not sell these books or give them away because they were evil. Such garbage would only infect others, and so they burned their books, in spite of the fact that they could have brought much money if they were sold.

The city of Ephesus really began to take not of the gospel now. The gospel was being proclaimed by Paul and others. The power of God and the gospel was being demonstrated through the signs and wonders performed by or through Paul. And the power of the gospel was now evident in the lives of the Christians, who renounced their evil deeds and permanently put off their magical practices. The saints were beginning to become “salty,” and the difference was noted. And so it was that “the word of the Lord grew mightily and was prevailing” (19:20).

Paul’s Plans
(19:21-22)

21 Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the spirit⁴⁴⁴ to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome⁴⁴⁵.” 22 And having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus was a most successful, but these verses indicate to us that Paul was already planning his next movements and ministries. His plans are those which were “purposed in spirit,” raising the question as to whether they were only Paul’s plans, purposed in his spirit, or whether they were God’s plans, directed by His Spirit. The answer is likely “both,” as Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 clearly indicate:

“And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:22-23).

A look at the map would indicate that Macedonia and Achaia were hardly on Paul’s way to Jerusalem. For that matter, Jerusalem was hardly on Paul’s way to Rome. Paul was in Ephesus, and so traveling to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia would require him to go north and then to double back, past Ephesus to Jerusalem. Rome would then require him to go Northwest. There were reasons for this itinerary. Paul was planning to go to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia so that he could take a collection from these churches to the poor saints in Jerusalem. The apostles in Jerusalem had urged Paul to remember the poor, and this was something which he was more than happy to do:

And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do (Galatians 2:9-10).

And so Paul had purposed to minister to the poor in Jerusalem by taking a collection from Macedonia and Achaia to the needy. When Paul gave his defense before Felix, he said,

“Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings” (Acts 24:17).

And as he wrote to the Romans,

25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 Yes, they were pleased {to do so,} and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. 28 Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain (Romans 15:25-28).

Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead, to begin making preparations for the collection. Paul then wrote to the saints in Corinth, encouraging them to make a generous contribution to the needy in Jerusalem:

1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. 3 And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I shall send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me. 5 But I shall come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I shall stay with you, or even spend the winter, that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now {just} in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective {service} has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. 10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid; for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I also am. 11 Let no one therefore despise him. But send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me; for I expect him with the brethren. 12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all {his} desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity (1 Corinthians 16:1-12; see also 2 Corinthians 8:1-15).

These verses are an excellent illustration of the guidance of God. Paul has a plan in mind, which is fully in accordance with biblical principle and the encouragement of the Jerusalem apostles. But God is going to modify the plan, as later developments in Acts will reveal. And with respect to Paul’s visit to Rome, he will surely go there, but in a way very different from that which he might have expected. He will get there by means of a near riot in Jerusalem, legal charges made against him, and an appeal to Caesar. How God’s ways are beyond our thoughts and expectations. Paul will arrive in Rome, under military guard, and that city will never be the same for it. Luke now proceeds to inform us of the events which precipitated Paul’s departure from Ephesus and ultimately his arrival at Rome. Just as Jesus “set His face toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51, 53), so Paul has set his face toward Jerusalem, and ultimately Rome.

Demetrius and the Ephesian Uprising
(19:23-32)

23 And about that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, was bringing no little business to the craftsmen; 25 these he gathered together with the workmen of similar trades,⁴⁴⁶ and said, “Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. 26 “And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. 27 “And not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis⁴⁴⁷ be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship should even be dethroned from her magnificence.” 28 And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 And the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theater,⁴⁴⁸ dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia.

If there was a connection between the miracles performed in conjunction with the ministry of Paul, the exposure of the sons of Sceva, and the renouncing of magic by the saints in Ephesus, I believe there is also a connection with the riot instigated by Demetrius. The name-dropping of the sons of Sceva is a form of magic, but so is idolatry. Idols are fashioned by men, in the form which men want them. Idols represent what men value and want most. In essence, idols represent what men choose to worship. Idols are worshipped in such a way that they will produce for men what they want. Thus there are idols for everything men desire … material prosperity, power, victory in war, safety at sea, rain, good crops, and so on. Idolatry is the “worship” of a certain “god” which is intended to result in that which the “god” is designed to control and to provide. Idolatry is but one of many forms of magic. And so, if the people of Ephesus have come to see the futility of magic, they have also come to see the futility of idolatry. It was not just Paul’s preaching, then, that threatened the business of the idol-making industry, it was the practice of the Christians and its impact on the whole city which was threatening their business.

Demetrius was the instigator of the disturbance. He was a silversmith, who not only made silver shrines of Artemis, but who brought much business to the craftsmen. When Demetrius spoke, these craftsmen listened, for their livelihood and prosperity were dependent, to some degree, on this man and on his favor. Demetrius called the craftsmen together, in a kind of union meeting (not that all unions or union meetings are evil), seeking their support in ridding their city (and, indeed, all of Asia) of Paul and his preaching. Notice the argument of Demetrius, as outlined by Luke:

(1) Our prosperity depends upon the business of making idols of Artemis (verse 25).

(2) Paul’s preaching is contrary to the practice of idolatry and is greatly damaging our business (verse 26). Paul preached that there was but one God, and that He alone was the Creator of all things. Idols are but a creation of men, and are not gods at all. This preaching was being widely accepted, and as a result, the idol sales were down, and so were their profits.

(3) Our trade may not only suffer, but it may fall into disrepute. Not unlike the abortionists, who make money off of the sin and sorrow of their clients, and off of the death of the innocent, these idol-makers do not wish to be looked down upon, and their trade to become a matter of ill-repute. Once a part of the upper echelons of Ephesian society, these craftsmen are now looking little different than the Jewish exorcists. If magic falls from favor, and the books which teach the art of magic are burned, then what will people think of the idol-makers?

(4) If Artemis continues to lose favor, then her temple will become worthless, and the role of Ephesus as the guardian of her temple will be worthless.

“The way”—does this not suggest a lifestyle, and is this lifestyle not that which threatened the business of the angry men? It is not money which motivates the murder mongers in the abortion clinics, who cater to the self-indulgence of those who want their services? And they are so incensed when their “rights” are threatened. It was a matter of pride. The pride of these craftsmen would soon be lost, for their trade would be looked down upon. The pride of Ephesus would likewise be lost, for the goddess Artemis and her temple would lose their glory and glamour.

This was all these craftsmen needed to hear. Paul was threatening their livelihood, their trade, and their pride. It was really self-interest that moved these men into action, just as it has so often been the case, whether for the employee or for the employer, whether for the union or for management. But the chant which they took up had to sound more religious, more paganly pious. And so they shouted, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” (verse 28). This was a cry rooted in rage and anger, not in love or devotion. But it was a cry which caught the attention and motivated others to join in. It was like saluting the flag (at least in days gone by) or eating apple pie. It was the civic thing to do in Ephesus.

While there was great confusion among the masses who joined in, not knowing what “cause” they were for or against (verses 29, 32), there was some careful orchestration taking place behind the scenes. It was Paul whom they really wanted to arrest and to run out of town (or worse), but they were only able to seize Gaius and Aristarchus on their way to the theater (verse 29). These men were companions of Paul, and thus they would have to do, at least for the time being.

Attempted Addresses by Paul and Alexander
(19:30-34)

30 And when Paul wanted to go into the assembly, the disciples would not let him. 31 And also some of the Asiarchs⁴⁴⁹ who were friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to venture into the theater. 32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what cause they had come together. 33 And some of the crowd concluded it was Alexander, since the Jews had put him forward; and having motioned with his hand, Alexander was intending to make a defense to the assembly. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

Paul was a typical preacher in that whenever he could find a crowd he was eager to preach to them. When Paul got word that his companions had been seized, and that the disturbance was really over him and his preaching, Paul wanted to address the mob. The disciples knew better. This was a hostile mob, that was capable of anything at this moment in time. There was no order and thus there was no assurance that he would be heard, or that he would have lived long enough to have delivered his sermon. The disciples would not allow Paul to go there, and neither would some of the “Asiarchs,” who were friends of Paul (verse 32). They repeatedly sent him messages to stay away, and not to enter the theater. For a man who preached the gospel, Paul was well regarded by at least some of those in positions of influence and power.

Luke then includes a somewhat puzzling story of another man who wished to address the crowd, whose name was Alexander. We know from our text that this man was a Jew. Since the Jews wanted to put him forward, it is unlikely that this man was a believer, or that he wished to defend Paul. It is my opinion that this Jew was anti-idols. This was a point of pride with the Jews. No doubt this was a point of irritation with the Ephesians, for they needed only to see that Alexander was a Jew to know they didn’t want to hear him, and to flaunt their idol worship before him. It was like a Southern Baptist preacher standing before a large crowd at a brewers convention. I believe that the Jews hoped Alexander could convince the Ephesian mob that they were not on Paul’s side, but that they were opposed to idols. But in spite of the fact that Alexander was given the platform, he was not given the chance to speak. He was shouted down, for they could tell he was a Jew, and as a Jew he could not have anything good to say about Artemis.

I think that Luke’s accounts of these two men who attempted to address the mob are related. Both men were Jews. Both men rejected idols and idolatry, at least in principle. Paul was not allowed to enter the theater, but Alexander was present. Paul never reached the platform, but Alexander did. But we know that the disciples and the Asiarchs were right in keeping Paul from going to the theater because the one man who tried to speak (beside the city clerk) was not able, based solely on his race. And so I believe Luke is telling us that had Paul stood before that mob, they would never have heard a single word. Going to that theater would not have gained a hearing for the gospel, and it could have cost Paul’s life.

The City Clerk’s Rebuke and Benediction
(19:35-41)

35 And after quieting the multitude, the town clerk⁴⁵⁰ said, “Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, and of the image which fell down from heaven? 36 “Since then these are undeniable facts, you ought to keep calm and to do nothing rash. 37 “For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples⁴⁵¹ nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 “So then, if Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint against any man, the courts are in session and proconsuls are available; let them bring charges against one another. 39 “But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly. 40 “For indeed we are in danger of being accused of a riot in connection with today’s affair, since there is no real cause for it; and in this connection we shall be unable to account for this disorderly gathering.” 41 And after saying this he dismissed the assembly.

While neither Alexander nor Paul could get a hearing from the crowd, the city clerk did. Notice that even he did not get an immediate hearing, however. This man seems to have been very wise. I think that in his wisdom he chose to wait for some time to try to address the crowd. He let them shout for two full hours after Alexander was put forward, until the crowd must have worn down. As they were gasping for breath, he move forward and spoke to the mob. His words would prove to be effective, for when he was finished he would have shown them the error of their ways and, having dismissed them, would succeed in sending the crowd home, without further violence. Let us consider the argument of the clerk, especially in comparison to the argument of Alexander, as outlined above. Notice how his argument is almost the exact opposite, in order, to that of Alexander. While the argument of Alexander begins with profits and self-interest, ending with the worship of Artemis, the clerk’s argument begins with the worship of Artemis and ends with economic concerns.

(1) Who can possibly undermine the worship of Artemis in Ephesus, for everyone knows and believes that she fell from heaven, and everyone knows that Ephesus is the guardian of her temple. The clerk gives every appearance of being a worshipper of Artemis. That she is a true god seems to be the premise of his whole argument. Everyone knows and believes that Artemis is the god of Ephesus, and that Ephesus is the guardian of her temple. So what are these people so upset about? Do they really think that some foreigners can come and upset the “faith” of the Ephesians by any teaching they might put forth? In essence, the clerk is telling the craftsmen and the crowds to relax, and to “keep the faith” (of Artemis).

(2) The men who have been brought forward are men of good reputation, who are not guilty of any violations of Ephesian law concerning the worship of Artemis. While they were charged with offenses against the religion of Ephesus, the city clerk knew better. He was aware of the presence and ministry of Paul and others, and they had not broken any laws. While these men did not believe in Artemis or worship her, they did not desecrate her temple or speak blasphemously of her. What a testimony to the circumspect lifestyle of these men and of Paul, who taught against idolatry, but who did not engage in the blasphemy of Artemis (as the Jews blasphemed Jesus, see 18:6).

(3) If anyone had done damage to the business of the silver craftsmen, there were courts to settle these matters. This was, at best, a “kangaroo court.” It really looked more like a lynch mob. There were legal remedies for any grievances. If Demetrius or any of his colleagues had a grievance with anyone, let them take the matter up in the right place and manner. That’s what the courts are for. No mob rule in this city.

(4) If there are any laws being broken, it is Demetrius and this mob who are guilty, and so the sooner everyone goes home, the better for all concerned. Rome would not look favorably on this mob. Things were out of control. This was an illegal assembly. Unless this crowd is eager to have a Roman regiment disperse them, they had better move on, and quickly.

With this argument, the crowd was persuaded and went home. And with this disturbance, Paul was persuaded to move on. After calling the saints together and encouraging them, Paul set out to fulfill his plans. And so the great Ephesian campaign ends, at least so far as Paul’s presence is concerned.

Conclusion

One can hardly view the city clerk’s dismissal of the mob assembled at the theater in Ephesus apart from the story of Gallio’s decision in Acts 18. While our Lord’s promise to Paul was for his safety there in Corinth, it seems that from Corinth on Rome becomes the protector of Paul and of the preaching of the gospel, rather than his persecutor. Here we find a pure pagan, a man who seems to have worshipped Artemis himself, taking a position which defended not only Paul, but also those with him, even though they preached a gospel message that denied the existence of his “god.” Here, as in Corinth, Paul’s safety and protection was not the result of his own defense, for neither in Corinth nor in Ephesus did he have the opportunity to speak in his own defense. In Corinth, he was interrupted by Gallio, before he could offer of word of defense; here, in Corinth, Paul was not even allowed to enter the theater, to speak in his defense. But God provided protection for Paul and for the preaching of the gospel through pagan men who were in positions of political power. The sovereignty of God is once again evident.

I think that it is worthy of note that this pagan politician seems to be aware of what Paul and the other Christians preached, but also that he was confident that they had not broken any laws. The faith of the Christians in the power of God enabled them to live within the laws of the land. If they differed with the worship of the Ephesians, they made their differences clear in a way that was within the law. In Acts the laws of the land are only disobeyed when they directly contradict God’s law (see Acts 5:29).

There is a rather strong movement in our own days to disobey the laws of the land, in the name of Christian “protest.” In the Book of Acts, I do not see “protest,” but I do see “proclamation.” It was through the preaching of the Word of God and through the divine demonstration of the power of God that the business of Demetrius and others was threatened, not by angry Christians, protesting against the temple of Artemis and the worship of idols. I am not saying that protest is always wrong, but when protest involves the violation of the laws of the land, we find ourselves acting in a way that finds no precedent in the Book of Acts, and I am not so sure that we will find it elsewhere, either. To follow the pattern of Acts, I would think that the preaching of the Word of God would so change lives and values that abortion clinics, for example, would find that fewer and fewer women wished to use their services. There is room for some careful thought given to this matter. Is the “mere” proclamation of the gospel not enough? The way that John the Baptist, Jesus, and His apostles preached it, it was enough. In each case, the gospel was proclaimed in a cultural context, exposing the sins and evils of that culture, and presenting the shed blood of Christ as sufficient atonement for all sin.

I want to end this message by focusing your attention on the matter of magic in the Bible. Magic is always that which is contrary to faith in God and which is a part of heathen or apostate religion. The contest between God and “false religion” is often presented in terms of the power of God versus the power of magic. At the exodus, the first great contest between God and magicians can be seen. While the Egyptian magicians could not interpret the dreams of the Pharaoh, Joseph could, by the power of God (Genesis 41:8, 24). When the contest between God and the “gods of Egypt” began through Moses (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18-19; 9:11), God’s power was demonstrated to be superior to man-made magic. This was even evident to the magicians (see Exodus 9:19). Later on, Daniel could do through the power of God what the magicians of Babylon could not do (Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:7, 9; 5:11).

The sad fact is that magic did not only characterize the heathen. This we could easily understand. Magic began to worm its way into the beliefs and practices of the Israelites:

1 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy from their own inspiration, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord! 3 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. 4 “O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. 5 “You have not gone up into the breaches, nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. 6 “They see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, ‘The Lord declares,’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of {their} word. 7 “Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?” ‘“ 8 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Because you have spoken falsehood and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you,” declares the Lord God. 9 “So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord God. 10 “It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 {so} tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 “Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered {it}?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume {it} in wrath. 14 “So I shall tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 “Thus I shall spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I shall say to you, ‘The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 {along with} the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace, ‘declares the Lord God. 17 “Now you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own inspiration. Prophesy against them, 18 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the women who sew {magic} bands on all wrists, and make veils for the heads of {persons} of every stature to hunt down lives! Will you hunt down the lives of My people, but preserve the lives {of others} for yourselves? 19 “And for handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.” ‘“ 20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against your {magic} bands by which you hunt lives there as birds, and I will tear them off your arms; and I will let them go, even those lives whom you hunt as birds. 21 “I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the Lord. 22 “Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way {and} preserve his life, 23 therefore, you women will no longer see false visions or practice divination, and I will deliver My people out of your hand. Thus you will know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 13:1-23).

There is a world of difference between faith and magic. Faith rests in the character of God, as well as in His promises. Faith also recognizes the sovereignty of God, and His infinite wisdom, which is beyond human expectation or comprehension. Thus, faith does not dictate to God, but trusts in Him, and waits for Him to act, in His own time and way. “Wait upon the Lord” is a guiding principle for those of faith. With magic man manufactures “gods” according to the wants and needs of man. And those who make such “gods” then establish the rules by which this “god” is supposed to act. Getting what one wants becomes of matter of formulas and the skill of the men who call upon the “god.”

Two key ingredients of true religion and magic are (1) worship, and (2) words. Allow me to explain what I mean. Worship establishes or acknowledges the values which underlie one’s religion. As you have probably often heard, worship is really “worthship.” That is, we worship that which we hold to have the greatest worth. The Israelites’ primary obligation was to worship God, to love and serve Him with their whole heart, soul, mind and strength. The first commandment made this worship exclusive—God alone. Idolatry and magic makes something else the object of greatest worth and thus of worship. If men value success, or prosperity, or fertility, or military might, they create a “god” or “goddess” who controls such things. Men then worship that “god” to get what they value so highly.

Second, true religion and magic are dependent upon words. Notice that in magic, you have to have the right words to produce a certain spell or result. And so the sons of Sceva used the words “the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” This was their formula. But God is not controlled by men or by formulas. He is sovereign. The sovereign God has given us words, however, which we are to keep, and by which we are to live. The “words” are the Word of God. Our faith is to be rooted in God’s Word (see Hebrews 11), not in our “words.” When men trust in God, they trust in His Word, but when their trust in God is absent, they begin to trust in other words. How often, in Israel’s history, these were the words of the false prophets, who assured the people of God that they could disobey God and prosper, while God promised prosperity only for those who obeyed His Word (see Deuteronomy chapters 6-8; 28).

Put in the context of the history of Israel, we can say that magic found its way into the life of God’s people when their faith waned. Magic is a man-made replacement for faith, when faith has ceased to exist. Magic is trust in false “gods” and trusting in false “gods” is magic.

In the Book of Acts, magic is most often associated with Judaism. Simon, of Acts 8, was at least a Samaritan, a half-Jew. Bar-Jesus (Acts 13) was a Jewish false prophet. The sons of Sceva, likewise, were Jews, of the high priestly family. Judaism had so turned from faith in God that they had resorted to magic instead. Here was the source of power for many Jews. It was not the Word of God and the worship of God which were primary any longer, but “words” (magic spells and formulas) and the worship of material things. For the Jews, who had forsaken literal idols, their “god” was often money, they money that could be made, for example, by casting out demons. No wonder our Lord taught that men cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24).

In Acts, we find Judaism at it best and at its worst. In the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15) and Apollos (18:24-28), and the “12 disciples of Ephesus” (Acts 19:1-7), we find Judaism at its best. Its faith is in Messiah to come, and in the promises of the Word of God found in the Old Testament. People like these folks needed only to have “the blank filled in,” needed only to be shown that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But in the sons of Sceva and many other Jews we find Judaism at its worst. They have turned from trust in God and in His word to magic, to man-made religion, which promised to “meet their wants and needs.” What a sad departure from that which God had desired and demanded of His people.

In the New Testament epistles the teaching and practice which Paul or others condemns as false is often “Jewish” in nature and in origin. Ephesus will be greatly impacted and troubled by Jewish false teaching. This is very evident in the epistles of Paul to Timothy. The error which Paul refutes is that which is taught by those who wish to be “teachers of the Law” (1 Timothy 1:3-11). These would-be teachers engaged in speculation (1:4), although they spoke with great confidence (1:7). Their theology was really rooted in myths (1:4), not in the revealed Word of God. When these Jews turned from the truth of God they turned to speculation, myth, and conjecture. When they turned from the power of God, they often turned to some form of magic.

The people of Ephesus, and especially the saints, recognized that the practice of the sons of Sceva was really magic, that it was worthless, and that it was evil. And so they learned from the beating of the sons of Sceva and they renounced that form of magic which they had formerly practiced. As a result, the people of Ephesus took note and the gospel was advanced in Ephesus and all of Asia.

I find a principle to be underlying our text in Acts 19, which could be stated something like this: To the extent that the church has power, the unbelieving world will seek to imitate it; to the extent that the church lacks power, it will seek to imitate the world and its power.

The sons of Sceva were Jews, Jews of the high priestly line, but they had forsaken the faith of their fathers, and so they lacked power. The power of God was at work in Ephesus through Paul, and the sons of Sceva sought to imitate this power. Those who lack power seek it elsewhere.

My question for us today is this: “Is the world attempting to imitate the power of God which is evident in the church, or is the church today trying to imitate the power which is in the world?” I fear that the answer is all too evident. If the world is not trying to imitate the power of God in the church, then the church must have lost its power. And if the church is trying to imitate the power which is in the world, it has surely lost its power. The church is imitating the world much more than the world is imitating the church. The church, I fear, has turned from the worship of God and the Word of God to magic.

“What forms of magic are being practiced by Christians today?” There are, of course, those illicit forms of magic which Christians may practice in private, which they know to be wrong. For example, Christians may become involved in Tarot cards, in astrology, or in other occult practices. But these things are clearly forbidden. We recognize these as magic, or at least as evil.

What I am referring to is that form of “magic” which may be passing for Christianity. I am speaking of those practices which have the adjective “Christian” before them, but which are really magic. I will not be very popular for saying so, but these forms of magic have their “books,” too, books which ought to be burned, and which were probably purchased in Christian book stores. Some of them are books on “success” in one form or another, success which can be attained by following the right formulas. This “success” may be in the form of “answered prayer,” prayer which says the right things, which has the right words.

Magic finds its way into Christian thinking and practice to the degree that we turn from God alone as the object of our worship, and when we turn from His Word as the basis for our faith and practice. I have been greatly impressed concerning the relationship of God’s Word to God’s power in the Bible. Satan promised power to Adam and Eve, but to get it they had to disregard and disobey God’s word. Satan offered Jesus power, if He would but act independently of God and His word (Matthew 4; Luke 4). Notice that when Jesus responded to Satan, He always used the Word of God. That is because our Lord knew that the power of God cannot be divorced from the Word of God. To put it differently, we have power when we obey the Word, not when we reject it. Jesus rebuked His Jewish opponents by telling them that they knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29). Notice these texts which directly link the power of God to the Word of God:

For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it {the} righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous {man} shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:12-13).

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (2 Peter 1:2-4).

Christian magic often takes the thoughts, methods, and means of secular, ungodly people, and seeks to sanctify it with Christian labels. How often Freudian psychology or some revised version of it (for example, Transactional Analysis) and pawns it off as Christian psychology. How often the church borrows its fund-raising methodology from the world and then seeks to give God the credit. How seldom the hand of God is evident in such a way that even the unbelievers recognize that it is God who is at work.

How much of our Christianity has magic as the motive and the method? We want God to meet our needs, to give us what we want, and thus we turn to formulas which assure us of His blessings? How much of our doctrine is speculative, rather than authoritative? How much of our knowledge is based upon secular thought, rather than on the Word of God? How many of our terms cannot be found in the Bible or defined by Scripture? How much emphasis is there on the “right method” or formula? How much room is left for God to overrule our desires or plans? How often is “integration” spoken of, in the sense of integrating Bible truth with other “truth,” under the banner, “All truth is God’s truth”?

I say to you that there is a great deal of magic being practiced today, but unlike the Ephesian saints of Paul’s day, we have not come to recognize it yet. Paul’s deliverance was not by magic, but by the sovereign working of God, not so much because of Paul’s efforts (which God disallowed), but in spite of them, through the instrumentality of a pagan politician, whose name is never mentioned—the city clerk of Ephesus. May God’s power be at work in and through us, so that the magic of unbelief is seen to be a fraud, and so that we renounce and reject it, to the glory of God and to the advancement of the gospel.

⁴³³“Reasoning” in Acts usually implies a kind of apologetic ministry, addressed to unbelievers. See Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 24:25

⁴³⁴“According to the Western text, Paul had the use of the building from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Whatever the textual basis of this reading may be, it probably represents what actually happened. Tyrannus (if he was the lecturer) no doubt delivered his lectures in the early morning. At 11 a.m. public activity came to a stop in the cities of Ionia (as in many other parts of the Mediterranean world), and Lake and Cadbury are no doubt right in saying that more people would be asleep at 1 p.m. than at 1 a.m. But Paul, after spending the early hours at his tentmaking (cf. 20:34, devoted the burden and heat of the day to his more important and more exhausting business, and must have conveyed something of his own energy and zeal to his hearers, who had followed him from the synagogue to this lecture hall, for they were prepared to forgo their own siesta in order to listen to Paul.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 366, fn 22, citing Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings, I.4, p. 239

⁴³⁵The total time Paul spent in Ephesus, according to Paul’s words in Acts 20:31, was three years.

⁴³⁶“Forty years after this Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan from Bithynia will say of Christianity: ‘For the contagion of this superstition has not only spread through cities, but also through villages and country places.’” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 315.

“For two full years this work went on. While Paul stayed in Ephesus, a number of his colleagues carried out missionary activity in neighboring cities. During those years his colleague Epaphras appears to have evangelized the cities of the Lycus valley, Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis--cities which Paul evidently did not visit in person (Col. 1:7-8; 2:1; 4:12-13). Perhaps all seven of the churches of Asia addressed in the Revelation of John were also founded about this time. The province was intensively evangelized, and remained one of the leading centers of Christianity for many centuries.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 366.

⁴³⁷“Linen aprons used by servants or artisans (Martial XIV. 153). Paul did manual work at Ephesus (20:34) and so wore these aprons.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 317.

⁴³⁸The phenomenon of miracles, signs, and wonders were almost always manifested through apostles (though see Philip in Acts 8:6, 13) to accredit the messenger and his message--the gospel. See Acts 7:36; 8:6, 13; 14:3; 15:12, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:22; 14:22; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Hebrews 2:4.

⁴³⁹See Luke 11:14-26, especially verse 19.

“The closest parallel to the Ephesian exorcists’ misuse of the name of Jesus appears in a magical papyrus belonging to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, which contains the adjuration: ‘I adjure you by Jesus, the God of the Hebrews.’ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 368, fn 32, citing K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I (Leipzig, 1928), Pap. Bibl. Nat. Suppl. gr. 574, lines 3018-19.

⁴⁴⁰“The first know is ginosko, the second, epistamai. Page comments: ‘It is easy, but unsafe, to say that ginosko = ‘acknowledge,’ i.e., as recognizing His power, whereas epistamai = ‘know’ merely expresses acquaintance with a fact.” The variation seems strange, and the reason for it is not clear. Gloag translates it: “Jesus I know, and with Paul I am acquainted.’ In the closing question ye (hymeis) is put first for contemptuous emphasis: ‘But you, who are you?’” Carter and Earle, page 289, citing Page, p. 206, fn 49.

⁴⁴¹There is a slight problem here, because Luke has told us that there were 7 sons, and yet he says here that “both” (which seems to imply 2 sons) were attacked by the demonized man. There seem to be two solutions. (1) Only two of the seven sons were involved with this man. (2) The term “both” includes all seven. This second view is held by A. T. Robertson, who writes, “Papyri examples exist where amphoteroi means ‘all’ or more than ‘two’. . . . So here amphoteroi includes all seven. ‘Both’ in old English was used for more than two.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 318.

⁴⁴²“Of praxeis, deeds, Lake and Cadbury say: ‘The noun also has the technical meaning of ‘magic spell,’ so that the probable meaning here is that the former exorcists now disclosed the secret formulae they had used.’” Carter and Earle, page 290, citing Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings IV, p. 242, fn. 52.

⁴⁴³“Perierga, magical arts, is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Timothy 5:13 (‘busybodies’). But it is also ‘a technical term for magic.’ Books is biblous, the Greek word ‘for papyrus. These would be parchment or papyrus scrolls with magical charms written on them. Deissmann gives numerous examples of these. Moulton and Milligan assert that biblos always has ‘the connotation of sacredness and veneration.’ Gloag notes that the term ‘Ephesian Letters’ was commonly used for magical charms or amulets worn by the Ephesians and widely prescribed by the magicians of that day. So this scene is especially appropriate to Ephesus.” Carter and Earle, p. 290, fn. 55, citing Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 250-260, 304-309; Moulton and Milligan fn 56 VGT p. 111; Gloag fn 57 Op. Cit., II, p. 206.

⁴⁴⁴Paul says in Acts 20:22: “And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.” This is surely a commentary on Luke’s statement in Acts 19:21.

⁴⁴⁵See also Acts 23:11; 28:14, 16.

“This was the way that he actually went, but originally he had planned to go to Achaia (Corinth) and then to Macedonia, as he says in II Cor. 1:15f., but he had now changed that purpose, perhaps because of the bad news from Corinth. Already when he wrote I Corinthians he proposed to go first to Macedonia (I Cor. 16:5-7). He even hoped to spend the winter in Corinth ‘if the Lord permit’ and to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, neither of which things he did.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 320-321.

⁴⁴⁶“The guilds, and the problem they presented to the non-conforming Christian, haunt the background of the New Testament. They were societies not trade unions, primarily social, and multitudinous in ancient society. Records exist of guilds of bankers, doctors, architects, producers of woollen and linen goods, dyers, workers in metal, stone or clay, builders, carpenters, pastry cooks, barbers, embalmers and transport workers. ‘No other age’, writes S. Dill, ‘felt a deeper craving for some form of social life, greater than the family, but narrower than the state.’ Formed under this gregarious urge, the trade guilds satisfied the need of the people at large for social intercourse and self-expression. On the other hand, the tumult at Ephesus shows that the social club, under adroit leadership such as it found in Demetrius, could be used as a sharp political weapon. Hence the sensitiveness of the Roman administration on the whole subject, and the severe laws about illegal association.” Blaiklock, pp. 158-159.

⁴⁴⁷“The cult of Ephesian Artemis was of earlier date than the Greek settlement at Ephesus; the name Artemis is non-Greek. Artemis was traditionally venerated as the protector of wild creatures. This association with wild creatures survives, in an altered form, in her worship on the Greek mainland as the “queen and huntress, chaste and fair” of Ben Jonson’s poem; Ephesian Artemis, on the other hand, seems to have acquired some of the features of the great mother-goddess venerated from time immemorial in Asia Minor. Her temple, replacing an earlier one which was destroyed by fire in 356 B.C., was reckoned one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It covered an area four times as large as that of the Parthenon in Athens; it was supported by 127 pillars, each of them sixty feet high, and was adorned by Praxiteles and other great sculptors of antiquity. It stood about a mile and a half northeast of the city which Paul knew. All knowledge of its whereabouts had been forgotten for centuries, when its foundations were discovered on the last day of 1869. The great altar, west of the main building, was discovered in 1965.” Bruce, pp. 373-374.

⁴⁴⁸“When the excitement spread to the crowd, the theater was the natural place for them to stage a demonstration. The theater of Ephesus, cut out of the western slope of Mount Pion (modern Panayirdag), could accommodate nearly 25,000 people. It was the regular meeting place of the civic assembly, which was held three times a month; on this occasion the demonstrating populace appears to have constituted itself as a meeting of the assembly, but a highly irregular one.” Bruce, p. 376.

⁴⁴⁹“Lily Ross Taylor writes: ‘The Asiarchs were the foremost men of the province of Asia, chosen from the wealthiest and the most aristocratic inhabitants of the province.’ They held office for one year, and several were appointed each year.” Carter and Earle, p. 296.

⁴⁵⁰“This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the strategoi, had charge of the city’s money, was the power in control of the assembly, and communicated directly with the proconsul. Inscriptions at Ephesus give frequently this very title for their chief officer and the papyri have it also. The precise function varied in different cities. His name appeared on the coin at Ephesus issued in his year of office.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 330.

“This was the town clerk, the executive officer of the civic assembly, who took part in drafting the decrees to be laid before it, and had them engraved when they were passed. He acted also as liaison officer between the civic government and the Roman provincial administration, which had its headquarters in Ephesus. The Roman authorities would hold him responsible for the riotous assembly, and might impose severe penalties on the city. He therefore did his best to calm the assembly, and when at last he succeeded, he addressed them.” Bruce, p. 378.

⁴⁵¹“But Lake and Cadbury say that the term ‘came to mean “‘sacrilege’” as being the real crime involved in robbing a temple.’ So they translate the adjective ‘sacrilegious’ (cf. RSV). Josephus quotes the Egyptian historian Manetho as declaring that the Jews ‘had been guilty of sacrilege {hierosylia} and destroyed the images of the gods.’ He also quotes Moses as telling the Israelites before they crossed the Jordan: ‘Let no one blaspheme those gods which other cities esteem such; nor may one steal what belongs to strange temples, nor take away the gifts that are dedicated to any god.’ It is obvious that these two accusations, of blasphemy and temple-robbing, were leveled against the Jews.” Carter and Earle, p. 299.

31. Paul’s Parting Words (Acts 20:1-38)

Introduction

When I was in Jr. High School, we had a fellow fall asleep in our class. As I remember, the teacher decided to teach the student a lesson by having the class silently slip out at the end of the period. The next class was also instructed to slip into their seats quietly. The student slept peacefully on—until about half way through the next period. Everyone was waiting and watching for him to wake up, which he did, of course. He opened his eyes, looked around the class, and came to the realization that it was another class, and not his own. He quietly gathered up his books and left class, as inconspicuously as possible.

Sleeping in class has happened for centuries. In our text, we are told of a young man named Eutychus, who fell asleep during Paul’s lengthy sermon, and then fell three stories down to his death. As you know, this young man was raised to life, and so the story is a happy one in the end. I am inclined to entitle the section which describes the death and raising of Eutychus, “Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class.” It is indeed and interesting story, and in time I believe we will see why the story was included in Luke’s account.

It would be an amusing exercise to swap “falling asleep in church” stories this morning. I only wish that there was time. Over the years I have seen a few of you fall asleep. I am frankly tempted to use this account as a proof text for lengthy sermons. A. T. Robertson makes this comment about Paul’s extended sermon:

“Paul’s purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.”⁴⁵²

But I am afraid that if I did preach any longer you would insist that I would have to be able to raise the dead, like Paul, or at least promise to leave the following day.

Structure of the Passage

The structure of the text is quite simple. There are four main sections. The first paragraph (verses 1-6) takes us from Ephesus to Troas, the scene of Paul’s ministry to the church there, and the raising of Eutychus, which is described in the second paragraph (verses 7-12). The third paragraph (verses 13-17) takes us from Troas down to Miletus, where Paul calls the Ephesian elders and gives them his parting words of exhortation and admonition, described in the last (and major) section (verses 18-38). The structure of this chapter can thus be summarized this way:

From Ephesus to Troas vv. 1-6
Paul’s ministry in Troas vv. 7-12
From Troas to Miletus vv. 13-17
Paul’s ministry to the Ephesian elders vv. 18-38

The Selective Nature of this Chapter

The events of chapter 20 cover an indefinite, but fairly extensive, period of time, and span a broad geographical area, from Ephesus in Asia, across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, Achaia, Greece, then (back) to Macedonia, and (back) across the Aegean Sea to Asia. Many important events occur during the time period encompassed in this chapter, and yet Luke is very brief in his description. There is much we would like to know that we are never told, and there is much that we are told elsewhere (in Paul’s epistles) which Luke does not even allude to here:

“We have valuable commentaries on this journey from Paul’s own pen in 2 Corinthians, which looks forward to the visit which he paid to Corinth, and in Romans, which was written during Paul’s stay at Corinth and throws light on his immediate plans for travel. From these letters we learn of the importance which Paul attached to the collection of money which he was taking from the Gentile churches under his superintendence to help the church in Jerusalem with caring for its poorer members.”⁴⁵³

“We have no way of knowing why Luke did not tell of Paul’s stay in Troas (II Cor. 2:12f.) nor of meeting Titus in Macedonia (II Cor. 2:13 to 7:16) nor of Paul’s visit to Illyricum (Rom. 15:19f.) to give time for II Corinthians to do its work (II Cor. 13), one of the most stirring experiences in Paul’s whole career when he opened his heart to the Corinthians and won final victory in the church by the help of Titus who also helped him round up the great collection in Achaia. He wrote II Corinthians during this period after Titus arrived from Corinth. The unity of II Corinthians is here assumed. Paul probably met Luke again in Macedonia, but all this is passed by except by the general phrase: ‘had given them much exhortation’… During this period {the ‘three months’ of verse 3} Paul may have written Galatians as Lightfoot argued and certainly did Romans. We do not have to say that Luke was ignorant of Paul’s work during this period, only that he did not choose to enlarge upon it.”⁴⁵⁴

We must conclude from this that Luke has deliberately chosen to be selective, and that the things he has omitted were not important to the development of his argument in this book. We must also determine what it is that Luke has chosen to emphasize, and how this points to the message which he intends for the reader to understand. We shall thus approach this chapter in the light of what Luke has written, as well as that which he has not written. Herein is the key to the message of this chapter.

From Ephesus to Troas
(20:1-6)

1 And after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he departed to go to Macedonia. 2 And when he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. 3 And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. 4 And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus; and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 5 But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.

Paul had plans as to what he intended to do. We know from Acts 19:21-22 that Paul intended to visit Jerusalem, and then Rome, and that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead into Macedonia. We also read of Paul’s plans as he outlined them in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Paul was in Ephesus when he wrote this epistle to the Corinthians. He spoke of the great opportunities there, as well as great opposition. It was his intention to stay in Ephesus until after Pentecost, and then to travel to Macedonia and finally on to Corinth, where he intended to spend the winter. Paul’s schedule was changed, however, for the uprising at Ephesus, brought about by Demetrius and his colleagues (Acts 19:23ff.), forced him to move up his departure date, as Luke informs us in verse 1 of Acts 20.

Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry from the time he left Ephesus until he reached Troas is incredibly brief. It is his intention to focus on Paul’s arrival and subsequent arrest in Jerusalem, which will then turn him toward Rome. He will not allow himself to be distracted by the many interesting aspects of Paul’s journeys or ministry because they do not contribute to his argument.

Perhaps the biggest omission is Luke’s refusal to write anything about Paul’s primary purpose for going first to Macedonia and Greece, and then to Jerusalem. If Paul was in Ephesus and he wanted to go to Jerusalem, he would have headed in a southerly direction. Instead, Paul went north and west, in the opposite direction of Jerusalem. Why? The answer to this question is very obvious from Paul’s writings. We see it mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapter 16, above, as well in these passages from the pen of the apostle, texts of which I am confident Luke must have been aware:

22 For this reason I have often been hindered from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while—25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 Yes, they were pleased {to do so,} and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. 28 Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain. 29 And I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ (Romans 15:22-29).

But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. 17 For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord. 18 And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in {the things of} the gospel {has spread} through all the churches; 19 and not only {this,} but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work, which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and {to show} our readiness, 20 taking precaution that no one should discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; 21 for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. 22 And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things, but now even more diligent, because of {his} great confidence in you (2 Corinthians 8:16-22).

When Paul met with James, Peter, and John in Jerusalem, they recognized his calling as an apostle to the Gentiles. The only thing they urged upon Paul was that he remember the poor, which Paul was eager to do (Galatians 2:7-10). Paul had previously been involved in taking gifts to the poor saints in Judea (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25), but he wanted to take up a collection in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece, to take with him when he went to Jerusalem again. Thus Paul gave specific instructions in 1 and 2 Corinthians about the collection. Paul doubled back, going north instead of south, so that he could collect the offerings from these churches in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece, and then go down to Jerusalem.

There were several hitches in the plans Paul made. First, the riot at Ephesus caused Paul to leave Ephesus earlier than he expected. Second, when Paul was about ready to leave from Corinth, he learned of a plot on the part of the Jews, to kill him (Acts 20:3), and so he canceled his boat trip and journey by land back up to Macedonia, and then, after the feast of unleavened bread, across the Aegean Sea to Asia, where he ended up at Troas, the setting for the next incident to be recorded by Luke—Paul’s ministry at Troas, including the death and raising of Eutychus.

But before we press on to this next section, let me ask an important question, “If taking up a collection (for the poor in Jerusalem) in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece was so important to Paul, as is evident from his epistles, why does Luke not even bother to mention the collection? Why, especially when he does give us the names of those men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, who were representatives of the churches which had given the money?

I believe that there are two reasons, which are somewhat related to each other.

First, Luke’s purpose was to record the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and the offering which Paul took from the Gentile churches did not play a major role in this advance. The money which Paul collected and took to Jerusalem was not for “missions,” but for the poor. Thus, this collection, while an important matter to Paul and to the giving and receiving churches, was not important to the advance of the gospel, other than its being the strong incentive for Paul to go to Jerusalem, even though he knew bonds and afflictions awaited him there (Acts 20:22-23).

Second, as strange as it may sound, money was not essential to the spread of the gospel in the Book of Acts. Think about it for a moment. The Book of Acts is a description of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and from an almost entirely Jewish church to one that is predominantly Gentile. Putting on your accountant’s mindset and taking in hand your pocket calculator, add up the cost to the church of the advance of the gospel in Acts. What did it cost the church to get the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome? To narrow the field, what did it cost to have the gospel saturate all of Asia, as Luke tells us it did, and in only three years time? The answer: not one thin dime! How can this possibly be?

We would certainly wonder how the gospel could be proclaimed so widely and so many come to faith in such a short time, given our culture and mindset. You see we have come to believe that ministry is not possible without money, and that the degree to which ministry can be achieved is directly proportional to how much money is spent to do so. Is this not why so many of the televangelists spend as much as half of their broadcast time asking for money? Is this not how we excuse ourselves for not doing more? We don’t have the money.

What I am saying even surprises me, but let us pursue this matter of ministry and money a bit farther. When Jesus called His disciple to follow Him, He did not tell them to put their money on deposit with Him. Neither did He instruct His disciples to save up their money, so that they would have the means to minister in the future. Instead, Jesus instructed His disciples to sell their possessions and to give the proceeds to the poor—not to the television budget or the public relations fund. And when the beggar asked Peter and John for alms, they did not say that they would have to write a check. They said that they had no silver and gold, but they did have a healing to give him, along with the gospel.

Much ministry can be achieved without money, and much money can be spent which produces little ministry. Ministry is not proportionate to the amount of money that is spent. This is not to say that all ministry can be done without money, or that all ministry should be carried on without money. It is only saying that much ministry can be done without much money. All of Asia was reached with the gospel, in a period of three years, without radio, television, and the printed media. It was done by Spirit-filled Christians who shared their faith, who proclaimed the gospel in the power of God. If ministry is not proportionate with money, it is proportionate with the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in and through men. That is what the Book of Acts continually informs us.

I am not saying that all ministry is free, and that ministry does not require money. Jesus’ ministry cost money (see Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught that while money is merely temporal and passing, it can be used in such a way as to produce eternal results and eternal blessings (see Luke 16:1-13). Jesus had a great deal to say about money, but He did not teach about money only to pass the plate at the conclusion of His message. Money, therefore can be used in such a way as to perform a ministry in the lives of others, and to the glory of God, just as Paul taught:

Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food, will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service {the gift of the Macedonians to the poor in Jerusalem} is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).

As I understand the Scriptures, the Bible would consistently teach us that if we have money, we should seek to use it in ministry to others, and if we do not have money, we should minister anyway, for God’s working is not dependent upon money.

Allow me a very brief digression, which is but another piece of the whole. It is a secular, humanistic, mindset which equates ministry with money. It is also a humanistic mindset which equates effectiveness with status (position), influence, education, and intelligence. We often pursue and cater to the rich because we think that God’s work needs their money. We likewise pursue and cater to the learned, the educated, the “wise” because we think that the advancement of the gospel is directly proportionate to the wisdom and “clout” of the proclaimer. This is a denial of the Word of God, which teaches that God has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom and the strength of the wise (see 1 Corinthians 1-3). When God’s work is accomplished by those means which “work” for unbelieving men, men tend to take the credit. When God’s work is done through weakness, it is God who is given the glory, as it should be (see 1 Corinthians 1:26-31;l 3:18-23).

Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class
(20:7-12)

7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. 8 And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. 9 And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” 11 And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12 And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.

What a strange feeling it must have been to see this city of Troas across the Aegean Sea, coming into view on the horizon. This was they city where Paul and Silas had arrived, having been denied the opportunity to minister in Bithynia and in Asia (Acts 16:6-8). It was here, in Troas, that Paul received the vision, providing him with the “Macedonian call” (16:9-10). Now, on Paul’s return to this city, there is a church. How it was started and by whom is not said. Somehow, in the wisdom of God, this city was evangelized, but according to God’s timetable, not man’s. It was Paul’s desire to worship with the saints in Troas, and to teach them from the Scriptures, and from the revelation which God had given him.

When the church gathered on the “first day of the week”⁴⁵⁵ in order to “break bread”⁴⁵⁶ Paul was there. There are two areas of emphasis evident in Luke’s description of Paul’s ministry to the church at Troas on this occasion: (1) the strong desire of Paul to teach these saints, and (2) the miraculous raising of Eutychus from the dead. Let us look at what is said about these two elements, and what is not, for herein we find a key to the message of this incident.

To begin with, let us consider the miracle of the raising of Eutychus. There are many who would cast doubt on whether a miracle really happened here. The liberal mind would like to deal with the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the same way they explain the raising of Jesus from the dead—by insisting that neither died, but that they only swooned, later on to revive. They would have us understand that Eutychus was taken up as though dead, but not really dead. They would suggest that Eutychus was drug off, later to revive and be carried back alive, so that all could be comforted. Luke, Dr. Luke, was there, and he has, as it were, written us a death certificate. This boy did die, and he was raised from the dead.

The reason why a liberal would reject this resurrection is because they do not believe in miracles. The reason why a miracle-accepting Christian might wonder if Eutychus was raised is because so little is made of this event as a miracle. The raising of Eutychus is stated matter-of-factly. There is no hype, no trumpet blowing, only a very brief description of the event. We are not told, for example, that Paul prayed for Eutychus to be raised from the dead, as, for example, Peter seems to have done in Acts 9:36-42). Paul fell over the young man, and he announced that he was alive, but the process of his raising is not spelled out. And after the event, there is no praise gathering for the miracle, even though all were greatly comforted by his raising (verse 12).

Why is so little emphasis put on this miracle? Why is it passed over so quickly? Because this was not Paul’s priority. Paul is instrumental in the raising of the lad, but it was not his main interest. Paul was intent on teaching these folks, so much so that when the boy was raised to life, he quickly went back upstairs to observe communion and to teach more, for the rest of the night (verse 11). It is almost as though Paul looked at his watch and said, “Oh my, we have just lost 20 minutes of teaching time, let’s quickly go upstairs and break bread and then I have some more things which I need to teach you before I leave.”

Why do both Paul and Luke give this miracle “second place” status? Many seem to think that Acts is a book of miracles, and that this book is our basis for assuming that God not only can but will work miracles on a daily basis. When one reads the Book of Acts carefully, you find that the book records fewer miracles than we might expect—fewer miracles than actually occurred.⁴⁵⁷ I believe that both Luke and Paul were firmly convinced that while miracles would come and go, but that the Word of God would be eternal. I believe that both were convinced that while miracles will not sustain faith, the Word of God will. This is why Paul and Luke deal briefly with the miracle and deal emphatically with the teaching. Faith is not based upon what is seen (miracles, for example), but on the Word of God (see Hebrews 11). Thus miracles will not sustain our faith, but the Word of God will.

And thus we see the sense of urgency of Paul with regard to the need to teach these saints. Shortly after they began to meet (it would seem) Paul began speaking to them, knowing that his departure was on the following day. He knew he had only a little time, but much to say (see verse 7). Because of the shortness of his time with them, Paul extended his teaching until midnight (verse 7). It was because of Paul’s lengthy teaching and because of the many lamps in that room that Eutychus fell asleep and from the window to his death (verses 8-9). When Eutychus was raised to life, Paul went back upstairs, eager to continue on with his teaching, throughout the night.

Who could argue that Paul was not strongly compelled to teach these saints? And yet, notice that while we have a great deal of emphasis on Paul’s sense of the need to teach, we are not given so much as one word as to what it was that Paul did teach. If what Paul had to teach was so important, why did Luke not preserve the content for us? I think I have the answer. First, Luke’s purpose here is not to outline Paul’s curriculum, but to show the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke does not have the time to spell out Paul’s teaching here, because that is not his point. If Paul was intent of getting the gift from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Greece to Jerusalem, Luke had no problem in passing over this. If Paul was intent on teaching the saints at Troas, Luke had no problem in passing by the content of that teaching. And the reason why Luke could pass by these matters is that Paul has written many epistles, which we have in our Bibles, which not only describe this gift, but which also lay out, in full from, the things which Paul felt were important for the churches. Luke can omit Paul’s teaching because it was in print, in the Bible (or would soon be).

From Troas to Miletus
(20:13-16)

13 But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos,⁴⁵⁸ intending from there to take Paul on board; for thus he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. 14 And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. 15 And sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus.⁴⁵⁹ 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

Paul left these saints in Troas, still chomping at the bit to reach Jerusalem before Pentecost. For some unstated reason, Paul went on by land, while the others stayed on board ship. He had arranged to board ship at Assos. It almost seems as though someone forgot to put some of Paul’s baggage on board ship (surely he would not have planned to carry it as he went by land), for he will later write,

When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments (2 Timothy 4:13).

The ship which Paul sailed on seems to have been on a “milk run,” stopping at various ports along its way toward Caesarea (Acts 21:8). One may well wonder why Paul would have taken a ship which had so many delays if he were in such a hurry to reach Jerusalem. The only reasonable answer to this is that all such ships would have had delays for onloading and offloading cargo, for supplies, repairs, and seamen. The ship which Paul took must have had the shortest travel time, and thus Paul endured the delays because they were minimum.

The ship passed by Ephesus, which seems to have been at least part of the reason why Paul took it. When it made port at Miletus, it was to have a one week layover, and so Paul sent word to Ephesus, for the elders to come to him at Miletus, some thirty miles distant. It was at Miletus that Paul met for what he thought was the last time with these church leaders. He message to these men was of great importance to them, and it is vitally important to us as well. The remainder of our lesson will focus on the farewell address of Paul to the Ephesian elders.

Paul’s Final Words to the Ephesian Elders
(20:17-38)

17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,

“You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 “And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. 24 “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. 25 “And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. 26 “Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 32 “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. 34 “You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. 35 “In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” 36 And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37 And they began to weep aloud and embraced Paul, and repeatedly kissed him, 38 grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship.

General Observations

Our passage is one of the outstanding texts in Acts,⁴⁶⁰ conveying the impassioned final words of Paul to the leaders of the Ephesian church. We shall not in any way exhaust its study or fathom its depths in this lesson. I would like to begin, however, with some general observations.

Notice, first of all, that Paul’s words look backward and forward in time. Paul looks back over the years which he has spend with these men, drawing upon his conduct and teaching and the work of God in their midst. And then Paul looks forward, to his own fate and the dangers which lie ahead, which seem to spell his death, or at least imprisonment, and thus his “farewell” to these leaders. Paul also looks forward to the dangers which lie ahead of this church and to these men in particular. He therefore warns them of these dangers and spells out God’s resources for them.

Second, these words of Paul are those of man who has a deep affection for these elders, and they are received by these men with the same love and affection for Paul. These are words that are tearfully delivered and which are tearfully received. Paul can talk to these men as he does because they know him well, just as he knows them intimately. He speaks to them frankly, out of love, as they listen with hearts of love for him, through whose ministry (no doubt) they have come to faith. The message and the man are very much inter-twined. Paul’s conduct and his content are inseparable, and thus he moves from his practice to his preaching, back and forth. He also wishes for his teaching to work itself out in very practical terms, and so he moves from his teaching to the lifestyle which it requires.

With these general observations, let us look at each section of Paul’s final words, noting some of its particulars, and then I will attempt to draw the material together in such a way as to characterize Paul’s ministry, as a pattern for the Ephesian elders and for us.

Paul’s Practice in the Past (Verses 18-21)

Paul begins his exhortation by pointing to his practice while with the Ephesians for those nearly three years among them. It is evident that he was not distant from these saints, but that he had an intimate association with them, and that his life had a transparency to it, so that they could know him well. Over this extended period of time they could see Paul’s consistency in lifestyle. He was putting on no show for them. He served the Lord among them, with humility, with great love and concern (tears) and with much opposition from the Jews.⁴⁶¹ Paul evangelized, proclaiming the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike, always calling men to repent of their sins and to have faith in the Lord Jesus as their Savior. In addition to his ministry of evangelism, he taught those who believed, both in public and in private (house to house, verse 20). Paul did not hold back (shrink) from telling men what they needed to hear. He did not selectively proclaim what men wanted to hear. All that was profitable, he proclaimed, to the saved and to the unsaved. Opposition neither silenced Paul, nor did it cause him to be selective in what he said, so as to avoid opposition or reaction.

Paul’s Practice in the Light of His Future (Verses 22-27)

Paul was pressing on toward Jerusalem, in a hurry to get there as soon as he could (Acts 19:21; 20:16). And yet what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem was far from pleasant. He was “bound in spirit” (verse 22) and informed by the Holy Spirit (verse 23) concerning his future plans. He did not know all the details, but he was informed wherever he went⁴⁶² that bonds and afflictions (note the plural, “afflictions”) awaited him in Jerusalem. Saving his life was not the goal however, but spending his life in fulfilling his calling—the proclamation of the gospel. The warnings of his future bonds and afflictions were but further clarification of what he had been informed at the time of his conversion:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16).

Paul’s goal was to “finish his course,” to accomplish that which God had given him to do. So far as Ephesus and Asia were concerned, Paul was content that he had fulfilled his mission there, and thus he could leave, never to return again, if that were the will of God. He was innocent of the blood of all men there because he had not held back from proclaiming the gospel, nor had he failed to teach the saints the whole counsel of God (verses 26-27). He could leave them because he knew his work there was completed. There was still work to be done elsewhere, and thus he must press on, even though suffering awaited him.

The Dangers Ahead for the Ephesian Elders (Verses 28-32)

It was not just Paul who was in for trials and tests. There were dangers ahead for the church at Ephesus, and even for these elders themselves. Paul’s words of encouragement must also include words of admonition and warning. These men must be on guard, not just for the flock, but also for themselves. These men were appointed as elders by the Holy Spirit, and as such they were to shepherd the flock of God, among which God had placed them. This flock was threatened by “wolves,” and these “shepherds” were to guard the flock and protect them from such individuals, who would seek to do them harm.

Notice the “sheep” symbolism which Paul used here. The flock were the “sheep,” and the elders were the “shepherds” of the flock, who were appointed by the Holy Spirit to protect and to feed the sheep. The danger was to come from the “wolves” who would savagely seek to destroy the flock and to devour some of the sheep. If this were not bad enough, some of the wolves were present there with Paul. There would be some of them who would assert themselves and who would seek to create a following of their own. In so doing, they would teach perverse things, things which would appeal to some and which would draw them to these false teachers. These teachers would no longer be shepherds of the flock, feeding, guiding and protecting the flock, but would feed themselves off of the flock, teaching what was perverse to attract and to mislead them. The would not seek to make disciples of our Lord, but to make disciples of their own, much like the Pharisees (Matthew 23:15). The dangers for these men were great, which is why Paul persistently admonished them while he was with them (verse 31). They, like he, must be vigilant, on the alert for such falling away.

The “wolves” of whom Paul warned these elders were those who were self-seeking and self-serving, who would prey upon the flock, bringing destruction as they savagely devoured the sheep. The shocking part of Paul’s warning was not that false teachers would arise, and that the flock of God would be attacked from without; the shocking news was that some of those who would prove to be “savage wolves” were among them. Some of these elders would actually cease to be shepherds, who fed the sheep and protected them from danger, and become wolves, preying upon the flock, and speaking perverse things to achieve their destructive ends. They would cease to think and act like shepherds (and especially like the “Good Shepherd”), caring for the flock and laying down their lives to protect the flock.

How could such a terrible thing happen? How could a true shepherd of the flock become a wolf? It seems to me that the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, provide us with some very direct evidence as to how things go wrong. Ezekiel 34 is a divine rebuke of the “shepherds of Israel,” who have forsaken their task and calling as shepherds, and have begun to feed themselves from the flock, rather than feeding the flock. In John chapter 10 our Lord speaks of Himself as the “Good Shepherd” and He contrasts Himself with those who are thieves and robbers, and also with the hirelings, who have no real love nor care for the sheep, and who look out for themselves first.

From these texts and from the context of Paul’s words of warning, I think that the first step in the fall from a shepherd to a wolf is that one ceases to think and act like a servant and begins to expect to be served. The “good shepherd” (not our Lord, but the faithful shepherd or elder) is one who gives of his life, who sacrifices personally for the benefit of the sheep. The “wolf” becomes willing to sacrifice the sheep so that he may benefit. He expects to gain from the sheep, even at the expense of the sheep. He may first become a mere “hireling,” looking out for himself and not really caring for the sheep. When there is danger or demands, he is not present to care for the sheep. But eventually he becomes the wolf, who actually devours the sheep.

Paul may have had some specific revelation on this matter of the Ephesian elders, but then again he may have merely been convinced of the effects of the fall and of the sinfulness of the heart and of the power of sin through the flesh. He may also have already seen such transformations from shepherds to savage wolves. History has borne out Paul’s warnings, time and time again.

No longer would Paul be present with them, to continue to warn them of these dangers, or to point out those who would rise up as devouring wolves. He did not despair, however, for it was no he on whom the church in Ephesus was dependent, but upon the Lord. And so it is that Paul can leave, commending this body of saints to the Lord, and to the “word of His grace.”⁴⁶³ It was God, through His Word and through His Spirit, who would build men up, keep them from falling, and bring them into the inheritance which He had promised. Jude, in the same context of false teachers, would give a similar benediction:

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24-25)

When you look through the New Testament to read the final, parting words of the apostles, you will discover that all of them turn the focus of their readers to the Word of God, not that they have not always done so, but that they do so especially in the light of their absence (see 2 Peter 1; 2 Timothy 3 & 4; 1 John 2:18-29).

Paul’s Example and the Shepherd’s Spirit
(20:33-35)

In addition to the “word of God’s grace” and the direct involvement of God in the lives of these elders, they also had the example of Paul to draw upon as an illustration of the kind of motivation and lifestyle which should characterize them—a motivation and lifestyle directly opposite to that of the “savage wolves” mentioned above. The savage wolves prey upon the sheep, while the shepherd cares for the sheep, even a great personal sacrifice. These wolves were savage wolves, with ravenous appetites. They wanted more—more from the sheep—more money, more power, more status and honor. In exchange they “fed” the sheep perverse teaching, which appealed to the lower natures and desires of the sheep. These men facilitated the self-indulgence of the sheep, only to fatten them for the kill, so that they could indulge themselves on the sheep.

Paul, on the other hand, had a ministry which was marked by a servant’s spirit. He did not gain from his ministry among them, even though he could legitimately have done so (see 1 Corinthians chapter 9). He worked with his own hands, supporting not only himself but those who traveled with him. His ministry came at great cost, not to the sheep, but to himself. He was free from lust for their money or possessions. His ministry did not require money from others, and so he was free from the time-consuming process of raising funds, and from the temptation to misuse them so as to personally gain from his ministry. His ministry was characterized by giving, not by getting. His strength was not used to prey upon the weak, to take advantage of their weaknesses, but to support the weak. His life was lived on the principle taught by our Lord Himself: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (verse 35).⁴⁶⁴

A Tearful Parting
(20:36-38)

At the end of Paul’s exhortation, Paul knelt in prayer with these men. From the beginning of Acts to the present, there was nothing more important than “the ministry of the Word and prayer” (see Acts 6:4). Paul had ministered the word to these men, and now they must pray. Once again, Paul’s dependence and that of these elders, was upon God. And so they called upon Him for grace.

The parting of these men was indeed painful, with many tears shed. Not only was Paul leaving them, but so far as they knew it was for the last time. They were convinced that they would never see his face again. The one who had played such a vital role in their salvation and spiritual growth was now leaving them. What they did not know was that there would be further contact with Paul, through his writing (the epistle to the Ephesians) and through those whom Paul would send their way, such as Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3) and others (2 Timothy 4:12). God would minister to these saints by other means as well, as we can see in the first two chapters of the Book of Revelation. But what we see here is the heart of the apostle toward these saints, and their deep love and affection for him. The man who had once brought tears to the eyes of the saints by his persecution now brought tears to the eyes of the saints because of his coming persecution.

Conclusion

As we conclude this lesson, I want to focus your attention on several areas, which are directly applicable to our own lives.

First, I want to call your attention to those Scriptures which pertain to Ephesus after Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. Some time later, after Paul’s arrest and during his imprisonment, Paul wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians. In this epistle, he does not seek to address any specific problems in the church, but to declare the whole counsel of God and its practical implications in the lives of those who believe. In a word, this epistle surely is a “word of His grace.”

As time went on, problems did arise in the Ephesian church, the very problems which Paul predicted in his farewell address. These problems were the reason why Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and why he wrote the his first epistle to Timothy. Just as Paul warned that false teachers would arise, so Paul spoke of those “would-be teachers of the Law” who turned aside to fruitless, speculative discussions, spoken with great confidence, but having no profit so far as godly living are concerned (1 Timothy 1:3-11). In chapter 3, Paul laid down the qualifications for elders. The church at Ephesus already had elders, those who may have been appointed by Paul. But in light of the falling away of some, new elders may have been needed. Some of the existing elders, if they had wandered from the truth, may have needed to be re-evaluated in terms of these qualifications. In chapter 4 Paul spoke against those who, out of a defiled conscience (contrast 1:5) were forbidding those things which were God-given blessings, in the name of righteous living. Finally, in chapter 6 Paul spoke of those whose doctrine was speculative and corrupt, and based upon the premise that godliness was a means of getting rich. Paul’s words of warning to the Ephesian elders had indeed come to pass.

The last reference to the Ephesian church in the New Testament is found in the Book of Revelation (see 1:11). One of the seven churches of Asia to which the Lord gave a word of rebuke and encouragement was the church at Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7). From this text it would appear that the church had finally come to grips with its need to reject false teachers, but in the process they had gone overboard. In their zeal to remain doctrinally pure they had become cold, loveless (see 1 Timothy 1:5). They were therefore exhorted to repent and to return to their first deeds. From some reports of this church later in history, it appears that they took this admonition to heart.

From this “track record” of the church at Ephesus, I think we can see that the temptations and dangers which a church faces may change, but that there will always be some threat to its purity, practices, or devotion. This church which, at first, was threatened by doctrinal deviation, later corrected this problem but swung to the other extreme of devotional coldness. From one direction or another, the church of our Lord will always be under satanic attack, and fighting some form of evil. The moment we deal with such evil and begin to pride ourselves on this, we are threatened by another evil, as deadly as the first. Let us look for those things which threaten our doctrinal purity and or devotion to Christ and to one another. No church is without these dangers.

Second, I would like to briefly summarize some of the characteristics of Paul’s mindset and ministry, which should also characterize us. I will only briefly summarize the characteristics which I see in Paul’s ministry, but hope that these will stimulate further thought and study on your part.

(1) Paul had a strong sense of mission and a clear conception of his calling. Paul had no doubt as to what he was called to do, and he purposed to complete his calling, even if this meant suffering or death.

(2) Paul had a strong sense of his priorities. Because Paul knew what he was called to do, he also had a strong sense of his priorities. First, he served God, and then he served others, and this he did even if it meant losing his own life. Paul’s priorities are the exact reverse of our culture. Our generation serves ourselves first, others second, and God hardly at all.

(3) Paul’s life and ministry is marked by consistency and stability. He can refer to his conduct among the Ephesians as that which he consistently lived out among them—”how I was with you the whole time” (verse 18; see also 1 Corinthians 4:16-17). He was persistent even in the face of opposition or disagreement. He did not “shrink” from his duty (verse 20, 27). He was consistent in the gospel which he preached, a gospel of repentance and faith (verse 21).

(4) Paul’s life and ministry were characterized by balance.

Balance between doctrine and lifestyle, between theory and practice
Balance between edification of the saints and evangelization of the lost
Balance between public and private ministry (“publicly and from house to house,” verse 20).
Doctrinal balance (no hobby horses)—”the whole counsel of God,” v. 27
Balance in his ministry to the Jews and to the Gentiles
Balance between tenderness (tears) and toughness (admonishing night and day)

(5) Paul’s ministry reflected a profound grasp of the relationship between strength and weakness. He knew that his strength came from God, ministered through his weakness (see 2 Corinthians 12:1-10) and that from the strength God supplied, he was to serve the weak. Unlike the “wolves” who used their strength to prey upon the weak, Paul’s strength was employed in serving the weak.

(6) Paul’s ministry is characterized by a profound sense of freedom. Paul’s ministry was marked by a freedom from guilt. While much of Christian ministry today is motivated by guilt (often guilt imposed by church leadership), Paul was free from a sense of guilt, free because he knew that he had been obedient and had fulfilled his ministry and calling at Ephesus. Thus he was free to leave, free from the blood of all men. He was also free to live or die, based upon his hope of eternal life (see Philippians 1:19-26). Finally, he was free from the bondage of greed, self-seeking, and self-interest, the very things which would be the downfall of some of the Ephesian elders and many others.

(7) Paul’s ministry was marked by a profound grasp of the fallibility of men and of the faithfulness of God. Paul knew the fallibility of men, and thus he predicted the downfall of some of these elders, not to mention the rising up of other “wolves” who would prey upon the flock. And yet in spite of Paul’s realistic view of man’s fallenness, he was convinced of God’s faithfulness, and on this he could have absolute confidence. On this basis he could leave Ephesus, commending these saints to God and to the word of His grace.

Third, there is in this passage, once again, the undercurrent of the sovereignty of God, working out His plan and purpose, through men. While Paul’s sense of urgency had to do with the offerings of the churches of Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece to the poor in Jerusalem, God was intent only to get this man to Jerusalem, where by a very different means, he would get Paul and the gospel to Rome. Paul purposed to go to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21-22), and God would get him there, but in ways that even Paul did not comprehend at the time. His ways and His thoughts are always higher than ours.

Finally, this passage reflects the primary role of the Word of God and the secondary role of money and miracles. In Troas and at Miletus, Paul’s ministry was one of “preaching the Word.” That was Paul’s priority. He saw the need for teaching the saints at Troas to be so great that he taught them all night. And even when his teaching was interrupted by the death of Eutychus, immediately after his miraculous raising, Paul went back to worship and teaching. When Paul ministered to these Ephesian elders, he ministered the word and he commended them to God and to His word. While money and miracles played a role in the events of our text, they were clearly secondary, not primary. Why is it today that miracles and money seem to be primary, while the ministry of the Word is secondary?

May God continue to use this great chapter to renew our minds and lives, for His glory and for our good.

⁴⁵²A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 340.

⁴⁵³I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 322.

⁴⁵⁴A. T. Robertson, III, pp. 335-336.

⁴⁵⁵There is some discussion as to whether this was on a Saturday evening or a Sunday evening. The difference is really of no consequence, and does not change the thrust of this text.

⁴⁵⁶There is likewise a great deal of discussion as to whether this “breaking of bread” is the celebration of a common meal, as a part of the celebration of the Lord’s table, or whether it was merely the eating of a meal. From the use of this term in Acts 2:42 and the description of the love feast in 1 Corinthians 11 as a part of a meal, I am strongly inclined to view this as the celebration of a meal as a part of the remembrance of the Lord in communion.

⁴⁵⁷For example, in Luke’s description of Paul’s rather lengthy ministry in Corinth, no miracles are mentioned, but the emphasis is on Paul’s teaching (see Acts 18:11). But in 2 Corinthians 12:11-13, Paul speaks of “signs and wonders and miracles” being performed by him among them, as evidence and proof of his apostleship. There is a similar reference in Romans 15:19, but speaking of a broader group than just those in Corinth.

⁴⁵⁸“Assos (modern Behram-kale) was a well-fortified city standing on a volcanic cone about 750 feet high. Its harbor, on the shore below, was protected by a mole, which is still to be seen.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 386.

⁴⁵⁹“Miletus stood on the south shore of the Latmian Gulf. Even then the gulf was being constantly silted up by the river Maeander, which entered it from the north. Today the Latmian Gulf survives as an inland lake (Lake Bafa), which is connected with the Maeander by an outlet on the north. The island of Lade, which then stood off the coast to the west of Miletus, has for long been part of the mainland. Miletus was a city of high antiquity; it is mentioned in Hittite and Mycenaean texts. Homer knew it as a Carian city, before the Ionians settled there; it was in fact the most southerly of the Ionian settlements in Asia Minor.” Bruce, pp. 386-387.

⁴⁶⁰“This speech is quite distinctive among all the speeches reported in Acts. It is the only Pauline speech delivered to Christians which Luke has recorded, and it is not surprising to discover how rich it is in parallels to the Pauline letters (especially, in fact, to the later ones).” Bruce, p. 387.

⁴⁶¹It would be some of these very Jewish opponents who would create the disturbance which would get Paul arrested in Jerusalem, and which would lead him ultimately to Rome (see Acts 21:27-29).

⁴⁶²In “every city” (verse 23) Paul was informed of the bonds which awaited him in Jerusalem. Thus there were prophets in each city. It seems that this revelation may have been as much for the sake of the saints as it was for Paul. Such revelation did not deter Paul, for he continued to press on to Jerusalem, much like his Master.

⁴⁶³I understand the expression “word of His grace” to refer to more than just the Old Testament Scriptures, but to refer to the message of the gospel, to the inspired words of the New Testament prophets, and especially to the inspired Word of God that would be revealed in the New Testament epistles.

⁴⁶⁴While there is no reference to these words of our Lord in the Gospels, there is no reason to doubt that they were our Lord’s words.

32. The Giving and Taking of Advice (Acts 21:1-40)

Introduction

Advice can be a wonderful thing … or a disaster. I remember once advising my sister, as she was making ginger snaps. I told her that she should sift the flour and the molasses together into the bowl. I’m sure that a moment or two of thought on your part could bring back memories of bad advice you have heeded in your life, and hopefully some good advice as well.

In our text Paul is given advice by two groups, each of which had considerable influence. The first group was a fairly large group of those who knew Paul, who cared deeply about him, and who urged him not to go to Jerusalem, where bonds and affliction awaited him. Paul rejected this advice, even though it was apparently given by those who traveled with him—men like Luke (see 21:12). The second time Paul was advised in chapter 21 it was by the elders of the church in Jerusalem, who urged Paul to do as they suggested, so that it would convince the Jewish saints in their city that Paul had not utterly renounced his Judaism personally, nor was he advocating that other Jews who had come to faith in Messiah do so. This advice Paul followed.

First impressions might incline us to conclude that Paul made the wrong choice in both cases. In going on to Jerusalem, that which had been prophesied about his being bound and handed over to the Gentiles came to pass. And, from a human point of view, it happened because Paul took the advice of the elders in Jerusalem, worshipped in the temple as they suggested, and was mistakenly accused of wrong-doing in the process.

There is yet one more “mistake” which Paul will appear to make in these final chapters of the Book of Acts: He will appeal his case to Caesar, and thus require that he be held in custody and taken to Rome.

All of these apparent mistakes are simply that—apparent mistakes. The bonds and afflictions which awaited Paul at Jerusalem, along with his subsequent appeal to Caesar, were God’s means of proclaiming the gospel to “Gentiles and kings,” just as God had purposed and foretold (Acts 9:15). In a similar way, the advice given Paul by the elders at Jerusalem was intended to enhance the gospel in one way, but God used it in a very different way to propel Paul and the gospel to the very court of Caesar, in Rome. It is, in fact, fitting that the gospel which, in Acts, was first proclaimed in Jerusalem (Acts 2) and last proclaimed in Rome (Acts 28) should find its way to Rome via Jerusalem (Acts 21-22).

Christians are just as inclined to give advice today as they were in Paul’s. Unfortunately, much (if not most) of the advice which is given by Christians is like that which the saints along the way to Jerusalem give to Paul—well-intentioned, but wrong. In our study, we will take note of the two very different forms of advice given to Paul in this chapter—that given by the saints in the cities on the way to Jerusalem, and that given by the elders in Jerusalem. We will characterize each of these, and then compare and contrast them. Finally, we will seek to identify some principles governing advice which may guide us in the advice we give as well as in the advice we choose to follow.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of chapter 21 is geographical in nature. Verses 1-6 take us from Miletus, where Paul met with the Ephesian elders, to Tyre, where Paul and his party will look up the saints and stay with them for seven days. Verses 7-14 take us from Tyre to Caesarea, where Paul and the others will stay at the home of Philip the Evangelist. And verses 15 through 40 are the description of the arrival of Paul and the others in Jerusalem, where they will meet with the elders, where Paul will worship, and finally where he will be taken into custody, accused of a “crime” which never occurred. The last verse of the chapter takes us to the beginning of an address by Paul to the Jews who had gathered. The address is recorded in chapter 22.

The chapter can be outlined as follows:

From Miletus to Tyre—verses 1-6
From Tyre to Caesarea—verses 7-14
From Caesarea to Jerusalem—verses 15-40

Paul’s reception and report to the elders—verses 14-19

The elders’ response and recommendation—verses 20-25

Paul’s compliance, the Jews’ charges, and the consent of the commander—verses 26-40

The Importance of our Passage

Our text is a very important one in Acts for it tells us how it was, in the plan and the purpose of God, that the gospel made its way to Rome. It was a way that no one would have expected, and many of the saints were trying (unwittingly) to prevent. But it was God’s way. The very thing which God was going to do, and which Paul was committed to do, the saints were seeking to turn around, to do the very opposite. Our text has a great deal to say about suffering, and about the will of God, about the giving and receiving of “advice” and “council,” and about standing alone. Let us listen well to Luke’s words, for they contain the inspired instruction of the Holy Spirit, and let us look to Him to make the message and meaning clear to us, as it relates to our daily walk of faith.

From Miletus to Tyre
(21:1-6)

With tears in their eyes, Paul and his companions “tore themselves away”⁴⁶⁵ from the Ephesian elders at Miletus and set sail for Jerusalem, where Paul knew that suffering and bondage awaited him (see 21:22-23). Luke’s account quickly moves about, informing us of their making port at Cos, and then Rhodes, and next Patara,⁴⁶⁶ where they found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia.⁴⁶⁷ As they headed for Syria, they sighted the island of Cyprus on their left, and landed at Tyre,⁴⁶⁸ where they ship had to unload its cargo.

One incident at Tyre is reported by Luke, which was typical of what took place in every city Paul met with the saints (20:23). He tells the reader, in very brief terms, of the prophecy concerning Paul’s fate in Jerusalem, and the response of the saints to this revelation. Looking up the saints at Tyre, Paul and the rest spent the week with them. During this time, the Holy Spirit revealed Paul’s bondage and suffering in Jerusalem. The result was that the saints persisted in urging Paul not to continue with his journey to Jerusalem.

It would appear, from the words of verse 4 alone, that the Holy Spirit not only revealed through one or more prophets that Paul was to suffer in Jerusalem, but that it was not God’s will for him to do so. Luke’s terse report, “they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem” (verse 4), seems not only to allow for such a conclusion, but to require it. Later revelation in this chapter makes this impossible. We are apparently faced with choosing one of these three explanations of Luke’s words:

(1) These saints not only understood Paul’s future, if he pressed on to Jerusalem, but the Spirit revealed to them that Paul should not go. Thus, Paul was “out of God’s will” in pressing on to Jerusalem.

(2) The Holy Spirit not only informed the saints at Tyre of Paul’s fait in Jerusalem, but “led them” to advise against it, so as to test or demonstrate Paul’s obedience and faith in pressing on anyway, in spite of the dangers and warnings.

(3)These saints were correct in understanding that Paul would be bound in Jerusalem, but they were wrong in their conclusion that Paul should not go. Paul, on the other hand, was correct in pressing on to Jerusalem.

I find only the third option acceptable. I believe we must conclude that the Holy Spirit revealed only the fact of Paul’s fate, and that the conclusions drawn from this were not those which came from the Spirit, and were not the will of God for Paul.⁴⁶⁹ The expression “speaking in the Spirit” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “speaking through the Spirit” (NASB) must refer to the fact that the words spoken “through the Spirit” were the words pertaining to Paul’s bondage, while the words spoken urging Paul not to go were not spoken “through the Spirit” but were spoken out of the loving and well-intentioned hearts of these mistaken saints.

Paul did not take their advice, for when the ship was ready to sail, he was on it. Sadly, no doubt, these saints and their families escorted Paul to the ship, where they knelt down on the beach and prayed with these travelers before they departed. The party then boarded ship and set sail for Ptolemais, while the saints at Tyre returned to their homes, probably thinking that they would not see Paul again (see 20:25).

From Tyre to Caesarea
(21:7-14)

From Tyre, the party sailed to Ptolemais,⁴⁷⁰ a distance of some twenty miles.⁴⁷¹ They spend a day with these saints, the following day departing for Caesarea, some forty miles away.⁴⁷² Here, they stayed in the home of Philip the Evangelist, one of the “seven” deacons appointed to supervise the feeding of the widows (Acts 6:1-6). He later played a significant role in the evangelization of Samaria and was God’s instrument in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:5-8; 26-39). He also evangelized the coastal cities between Gaza and Caesarea (Acts 8:40).⁴⁷³ He seems to have settled in Caesarea and lived there for a number of years. He married and had four daughters, all of whom were virgins and had the gift of prophecy.⁴⁷⁴

It was not through these daughters that God spoke to the church at Caesarea, but through a prophet from Judea—Agabus (verse 10). This is the same Agabus who came to Antioch, to inform the saints in this church that a world-wide famine was to come upon the whole earth (Acts 11:27-29). In a dramatic fashion, similar to that of some of the Old Testament prophets,⁴⁷⁵ Agabus took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands.⁴⁷⁶ He told the church⁴⁷⁷ that Paul would be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem and would be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. What Agabus said was new to the Caesarean saints, but not to Paul or those with him.

It is what Agabus did not say which is of greatest interest to us. Agabus, through the Holy Spirit, told only of Paul’s bonds and affliction, which awaited him in Jerusalem; he gave no inspired instructions to Paul about turning back or avoiding Jerusalem. The Caesarean saints did so, along with all those in Paul’s traveling party, including Luke it would seem (21:12), just as the saints of Tyre had just done previously. The saints from both cities came to the conclusion on their own that Paul should stay away from Jerusalem, a conclusion based upon the prophecy of Paul’s treatment in Jerusalem, but not because the prophecy specifically indicated that Paul should turn away from Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit indicated to Paul and to the rest what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem; the saints concluded, on their own, what Paul should do about the Spirit’s revelation. And these saints were wrong, even though they were unanimous in their conclusion! Paul’s response to their advice will convince these well-meaning saints that he was right and that going to Jerusalem was the will of God. They respond to Paul’s insistence that he is going to Jerusalem by saying, “The will of the Lord be done!”

Let us consider why the majority felt that Paul should turn back, and afterwards we shall consider Paul’s reasons for refusing to do so.

Reasons for Trying to Turn Paul Back

The following reasons seem to emerge from our text as the basis for seeking to turn Paul back from pressing on to Jerusalem:

(1) These Christians cared much for Paul and did not wish for him to have to suffer. I am convinced that the motive was that of genuine love and concern. Who wants someone they love to suffer?

(2) These friends of Paul probably concluded that imprisonment might not only lead to suffering, and perhaps death for the apostle, but would also spell the end of his ministry. How could the apostle minister from prison? How, indeed!

(3) These seem to have understood that the prophecy of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem was revealed to them, and thus they were obliged to do something about this. Mistakenly, they concluded that it was their calling to turn Paul from his course.

(4) These saints may well have thought that this prophecy was not a revelation of what God had destined to happen, but of what He threatened would happen, unless Paul’s course changed. There were different types of prophecy in the Old Testament. If we were to divide prophecy into two categories, it would be (a) that which God had purposed, and was going to happen, regardless of men’s actions; and (b) that which God promised on a conditional basis, unless men’s conduct changed. An example of the first type would be Pharaoh’s dream of seven years of feast, followed by the seven years of famine (Genesis 41:32). An example of the second would be Jonah’s threat, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), based upon God’s words in texts such as Jeremiah 18:5-10. No doubt, these well-meaning saints saw this prophecy as the second kind, and thus they set out to change Paul’s actions, in order to change his fate.

Paul’s Reasons for Pressing on to Jerusalem

Paul was not about to change his mind. He was convinced that he was to go to Jerusalem. I believe that his reasons can be seen from this text, as well as from the account of his life and ministry as outlined by Luke in the Book of Acts. Consider the following reasons for Paul’s determination to press on to Jerusalem.

(1) Paul was given a very clear understanding of the will of God for his life, including his calling to go to Jerusalem to suffer for the sake of the gospel.

“And a certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, {and} well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear an utterance from His mouth. ‘For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard’” (Acts 22:12-15).

“‘But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the {Jewish} people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ “Consequently, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but {kept} declaring both to those of Damascus first, and {also} at Jerusalem and {then} throughout all the region of Judea, and {even} to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:16-20).

(2) Paul’s ministry was characterized by suffering, and the threat of death, from the very outset. Luke’s account of the conversion of Saul informs us that Paul was immediately opposed and persecuted by the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah, so that Paul had to secretly leave Damascus, lowered from a wall in a basket (Acts 9:23-25). So, too, in Jerusalem, Paul was in great danger and had to leave (Acts 9:29-30). In Lystra, Paul was stoned and left for dead (Acts 13:19). In his epistles, Paul referred to a number of other incidents of his sufferings which were not recorded in Acts (see Romans 15:31; 1 Corinthians 4:9-13; 2 Corinthians 4:7-15; 6:3-10). Paul was no stranger to suffering. Would they seek to turn him from suffering in Jerusalem, as though this would be some new experience? Paul’s whole ministry had been marked by suffering.

(3) Paul was not only willing to suffer; he was ready to die for the sake of the gospel. Paul rebuked those who tried to turn him away from Jerusalem, assuring them that he knew well that he would be bound and would suffer when he arrived there. But even more than this, Paul was ready to die there, if necessary. Having dealt with the greater issue of his death, suffering was really of little concern to him. Over and over we see Paul’s willingness to die, if need be. For him who could say, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21), suffering was not a problem, but a privilege. He, like the saints in the “hall of fame” of Hebrews 11, was looking for a city that was not of this world. Death would not keep Paul from his reward, but would hasten him to it.

(4) In short, Paul saw suffering more as a privilege than as a problem, and as an inseparable part of his calling to proclaim Jesus as the Savior. In the Book of Philippians, Paul spoke of suffering as that which God graciously granted, along with believing in Christ (Philippians 1:29). He also understood that his suffering, in a special way, drew him into a more intimate understanding knowledge of his Lord (Philippians 3:10), as God’s way of encouraging the spiritual walk of other Christians, and of promoting the proclamation of the gospel (Philippians 1:12-18).

(5 ) While it is not stated, I believe that Paul understood that the prophecy of his being bound in Jerusalem was more for the benefit of the saints than for him. He knew that God was telling these people something important. Just what it was that God was doing is our next concern.

God’s Reasons For the Prophecies of Paul’s Bondage in Jerusalem

The more one reads Luke’s account of the Holy Spirit’s revelation of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem, in virtually every city where he stopped along the way to Jerusalem, the more obvious it becomes that the Spirit was not informing Paul of his fate so much as He was informing the saints. But to what end? If the Spirit did not want the saints to try to stop Paul (as they mistakenly concluded), then what was the Spirit seeking to do? What were the saints to learn? What was the reason for these revelations? I believe that the following statements help us to clarify the purpose of the Holy Spirit in giving the repeated revelation of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem to the saints in those cities along the way.

(1) The revelation was not given “to Paul” but to all. The prophecies were given publicly, to the saints and churches where Paul stopped on his way.

(2) The prophecies were not given to change Paul’s course or direction.

(3) The prophecies did reveal the differences in Paul’s attitude toward suffering and that of many of the saints.

(4) The advice of these saints is contrasted with the advice of the Jerusalem elders, later in the chapter. The first advice was bad; the second was good. We will consider the differences later in this message.

(5) The prophecies did reveal Paul’s commitment and dedication to his calling.

(6) The prophecies would reveal that Paul’s suffering was to be for the advancement of the gospel, and due to his obedience, not his sin. How many saints do you know who think that we suffer for making the wrong choices?

(7) The prophecies are the occasion for listening well to Paul, whose face they might not see again. Paul’s words to them would be viewed as his final words, and would have greater weight.

(8) The prophecies will incite these saints to prayer and care for Paul while in prison.

(9) These prophecies will result in Paul’s “prison writings” having much greater impact. This, in my opinion, may be the most important reason of all for the revelation of Paul’s bonds and afflictions which were awaiting him in Jerusalem. The prophecy of these things showed that Paul was a hero of faith, willing to suffer and to die for the sake of the gospel. A man who is sent to prison for a crime, or for his foolishness is not a man whose “prison epistles” would be sought, read, and preserved down through the ages. But a man who, like Paul, was imprisoned for his faith and his obedience to the command of Christ, was a man worth listening to. These prophecies along the way to Jerusalem were both publicity and a divine commendation, which paved the way for an even greater ministry from behind the bars of a prison.

(10) The prophecy of Paul’s bonds would be a further evidence of the sovereignty of God, who would use this bondage to proclaim the gospel even more broadly, to kings, as far away as Rome. Did some saints think that the gospel would be kept behind bars? Did they think that Paul could work most effectively outside prison walls? Then they were wrong. God’s ways are always higher than our ways. God’s work is often done in a way that defies our understanding, and thus brings Him the praise and the glory.

From Caesarea to Jerusalem,
and From Jerusalem to Jail
(21:15-40)

Paul was not turned from the course which God had appointed for him, a path which led to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Mnason, a Cyprian disciple of long standing (had he been saved at Pentecost?), put Paul’s party up in his home, either at Jerusalem or (as seems more likely) on the way there.

Paul and the others received a warm welcome. No mention is made of the gift from the Gentile churches to the poor in Judea,⁴⁷⁸ but this was certainly delivered at some point in time. Such a gift must have helped greatly to create a bond of love and unity between the Gentile churches and the church in Jerusalem.

The following day, a meeting was arranged between Paul and others (“us,” verse 18) and James and all of the elders of the Jerusalem church. Paul reported to them in detail how his ministry had resulted in the salvation of many Gentile believers. They responded to this report with great joy, glorifying God for the salvation of these Gentiles saints.

Having done so, there was a matter of considerable concern to them which they shared with Paul, along with a specific recommendation. While there were many new Gentile converts, living in far away places, Jerusalem had thousands of Jewish believers, who were still “zealous for the law.” These saints had been distressed by (false) reports that Paul had been teaching Jewish converts to turn from the law and from all of their Jewish practices and rituals, as though this was not profitable, and perhaps even wrong.

It was apparently of no concern to the elders or to these “zealous for the law” Jewish Jerusalem saints that the Gentiles would not observe the law. After all, this was what the church had decided, some time ago, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The only requirement placed on the Gentile believers was that they “abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (verse 25). The problem seems to be in what the Jerusalem Council did not say about Jewish practice. The Jerusalem elders probably clarified the fact that Jewish Christians could continue to keep the law, not as a means to salvation, but as an expression of love and obedience. They could delight in the law, not because it gave them any merit or standing before God, but because it had been fulfilled in Christ, and because they were now righteous in God’s sight. The standards of righteousness which the law upheld were now no longer a cause of fear, but the basis for rejoicing and worship. They once were frustrated by their own failure to fulfill the laws demands, but now they rejoiced because Christ had fulfilled the entire law and they were not under the curse. And the kingdom to which the Old Testament saint looked forward was a certainty, which Jewish and Gentile saints would receive together (see Hebrews 11:39-40).

The question which remained was now what the Jewish Christian was free, as a believing Jew, to observe, but how Paul stood on this matter. Did Paul agree with the position taken by the Jerusalem elders, or did he reject this position, teaching Jewish Christians to discard the law and Old Testament Jewish rituals, as thought they were worthless, perhaps even evil, as some rumors had it? Paul could settle this matter once and for all, by publicly worshipping in the Temple, as a Jew, and as the Jerusalem Jewish Christians did. This is what James and the elders proposed, and what Paul did. This is also what got Paul into trouble, so that he was placed under arrest. This is what would eventually take Paul to Rome.

The main question for us is this? Were these elders wrong for asking Paul to do as he did, and was Paul wrong for doing it? I think that the answer must be a categorical “NO!.” The elders were not wrong in asking this of Paul, nor was he wrong in doing so. Paul’s very strong words in the Book of Galatians were addressed to those who would impose the law and law-keeping on Gentile believers, not toward those who were true believers and who wished, as Jewish Christians, to continue to live in accordance with the law and to observe Old Testament rituals. It was one (damnable) thing for Judaisers to insist that Gentile saints must keep the law in order to be saved, and quite another for Jewish Christians to keep the law because they were saved. Even Gentiles were not turned away from the law, but were enabled to fulfill its requirements:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4).

Paul was not asked by these elders to do something against his doctrinal beliefs or his convictions. In fact, Paul was only encouraged to practice publicly that which he already did. In what seemed at the time to be a most parenthetical and unnecessary comment, Luke said this of Paul: “In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow” (Acts 18:18).

Would they ask Paul to participate in worship with some of his Jewish brethren from Jerusalem, pertaining to a vow? This was something which Paul could gladly do, for he had done so himself as a Christian. Paul elsewhere indicated his desire to continue in some of those practices and rituals which he had observed (ignorantly) as a Jew (see Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8). Paul did not need to do this reluctantly, but he could do so gladly, with conviction and with joy. Paul was only being urged to practice what he (along with these elders) believed, and what he (along with the Jerusalem Jewish saints) practiced.

It was not because this was the wrong thing to do (any more than going to Jerusalem was wrong) that everything seems to have fallen apart when Paul did it. Even when Paul attempted to demonstrate his continued commitment to (true) Judaism, his unbelieving brethren would have no part of him, of his teaching, or of his practice. Note however that it was not the Jerusalem Jewish believers, nor even the unbelieving Jerusalem Jews, who caused this trouble for Paul. It was the “Asian Jews” (verse 27) who created the uproar, and all because of their own hasty and inaccurate conclusion—that Paul had brought a Gentile into the Temple, so as to defile it. Their conclusion was wrong, but it did not take a great deal of evidence to convince these folks, who were predisposed to believe such a thing of Paul, that he was guilty.

Paul took the four men who were “under a vow” and participated with them in temple worship. I am not clear as to the precise ritual, though it at least resembles that described in Numbers 6.⁴⁷⁹ When the seven days of this ritual were nearly completed, some of the Asian Jews, who were familiar with Paul and with Trophimus, and who recognized them both, falsely concluded that Paul had brought him into the temple. This was a horrifying thought to them, and one which stirred them to act, dragging Paul out of the temple and closing the doors behind him.

Removing Paul from the temple was not nearly enough. For this supposed evil he should die. They were on their way to achieving this goal—of putting Paul to death—when the Roman commander and his cohort came on the scene. He had heard a report of this confusion and was intent on quickly bringing the situation under control. It was not that he knew anything of Paul, or that he came to save his life. But it did work out that way. When the Jews saw the troops arriving, they quickly ceased their brutal beating of Paul, pretending to be good, law-abiding citizens.

The commander quickly sized up the situation, or so it seemed. He realized that Paul was in the middle of the chaos, and so he ordered him to be bound with chains, and started to interrogate him, assuming that it must have been his fault for all this trouble to have resulted. There was no way of unraveling the situation by listening to the crowd, for few seemed to know what was going on. Various charges and explanations seemed to have been shouted out by those in the crowd. The commander wanted to get this man away from the crowd, and in a more calm and quiet atmosphere, get the truth out of him. The conduct and the words of the crowd (“Away with him!”) are reminiscent of the words of the crowd when Jesus was put to death (compare 21:36; Luke 23:18; John 19:15).

On the way to the barracks, Paul spoke to the commander in Greek, asking if he could speak to him. This caught the commander off guard. He had come to the conclusion that Paul was an Egyptian revolutionary, who had previously led a revolt and then led 4,000 men into the wilderness. Paul convinced him that he was a Jew, not an Egyptian, and that he was from the “north” (Cilicia) and not the “south” (Egypt). This caught the commander off guard, so much so that when Paul asked to address this hostile crowd, the man gave him permission. Here was Paul, standing before his Jewish brethren, under the protection of the Roman army as he gave them his testimony and shared the gospel with them one last time. In the sovereign purposes of God, Paul was being handed over to the Romans by the Jews, but in doing so the gospel was not silenced, it was proclaimed to an ever increasing audience. The content of Paul’s speech will be the subject of our next lesson.

Conclusion

The geographical sequence of the proclamation of the gospel was given to us in the first chapter of this book. Let us refresh our memories as to where the gospel was to be proclaimed:

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

As the Book of Acts has unfolded through the pen of Luke, the historian, the gospel has been proclaimed in just this order. As the book begins in Jerusalem, so it will end in Rome. The chapters which we are currently studying make it very clear that the unbelief of Jews who were in Jerusalem was directly linked with the proclamation of the gospel in Rome. The charges which are to be leveled against Paul in Jerusalem will lead Paul to appeal to Caesar, and thus to go to Rome, care of the Roman army. In the sovereign will and purposes of God, things are working out just as He planned and promised (Acts 1:8). It surely has not worked out the way which we would have expected, or the saints of that day either, for it was they who urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem.

If our text serves to illustrate, once again, the sovereignty of God in the outworking of His plans and purposes, it also serves to clarify the role of the law in the life of the Christian. There are many who would think that Paul did teach that of which he was falsely accused—the utter rejection of the law by the Jews and everyone else. This is simply not true. Paul fought hart against legalism and against the use of the law which made law-keeping a means of earning God’s favor. But Paul loved the law (as did David, see Psalm 19; 119, etc.), and he found great joy in observing its commands and rituals, as an expression of worship, not as a means of earning favor with God. We would do well to re-think our view of the law if it does not conform to the view of the elders of the church of Jerusalem, and of Paul.

In this message I have chosen to focus on the advice which was given to Paul, that which was given by the saints in the various cities—not to go to Jerusalem—which he rejected, and that which he accepted from the elders of the church at Jerusalem—to worship in a way that showed he was still zealous for the law. As I conclude, I would like to contrast the “advice” of the saints in the churches along Paul’s way to Jerusalem with that of the elders in Jerusalem. I believe that the text indicates the first advice is wrong, while the second it right. What makes bad advice bad and good advice good? Let’s take a look, and see if the text, viewed in the light of the Bible as a whole, does not tell us what makes for good advice.

(1) Good advice is not lightly or hastily given. It is an inference from the text, I admit, but it seems that the problem the elders were addressing was one which had gone on for some time. These men did not give Paul this advice without having given it much thought in advance, and even when he arrived in Jerusalem, they gave him time to give a detailed report of his activities among the Gentiles, before they made their recommendation. The saints in the churches, on the other hand, gave their advice immediately upon hearing of Paul’s future. They seem to have spoken immediately after the prophet spoke, and before Paul was consulted. Paul had to interrupt them, it would seem, in order to give them his perspective. They were too quick to speak, and not very slow to hear.

(2) The advice of the elders was based upon principle, while that of the saints was based more on their subjective feelings. The counsel of the saints was very emotionally oriented—they cared for Paul, and they did not wish to see him suffer. The advice of the elders was rooted in truth. They saw a problem, and they based their advice on the principles laid down at the Jerusalem Council. How easy it is to let our well-intentioned concern carry us to ill-conceived advice.⁴⁸⁰ If doctors are reluctant to perform surgery on those who are close to them, we need to be cautious about giving advice to those close to us, for our advice may be colored by our desire not to see them suffer, more than on our desire to see them do the will of God.

(3) The advice of the saints sought to avoid suffering, while the advice of the elders sought to urge Paul on to doing what was right.

(4) The advice of the saints urged Paul to look out for himself, to avoid personal pain and adversity, while the advice of the elders urged Paul to act in a way that would benefit others. There is a world of difference between advice which puts self first, and that which puts others first. Few seek the path of suffering for the sake of self-interest.

(5) The advice of the saints sought to turn Paul away from a course of action which he believed was the will of God; the advice of the elders urged Paul to do that which he was already convinced of and committed to doing. The elders’ advice was encouragement; the saints’ advice was discouragement.

(6) The elders’ advice was for Paul to do that which would promote the gospel; while the saints’ advice (unknowingly) was that which would hinder the gospel.

(7) The elders’ advice was that which, in the sovereignty and power of God, caused the gospel to be promoted and Paul’s ministry to be expanded, while the advice of the saints would have greatly limited the gospel and Paul’s ministry.

(8) The elders’ advice required faith in God, while the saints’ advice betrayed a lack of faith in God’s ability to work through opposition and suffering, and even limitations such as imprisonment.

Advice on Giving Advice

I think that my first “advice” (forgive me), based upon our text, would be that Christians should give much less advice than they do. My second exhortation would be that we advise people only to the degree that we have a clear biblical principle underlying our advice, and that our counsel does not encourage others to act in a way that is contrary to principle, but rather on preference and self-interest.

Advice on Taking Advice

(1) Each individual must decide for himself what the will of God is for his or her life. Even when others are inspired of the Spirit to speak of our future, it may well be in more general terms than in the specific.

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14).

(2) The Christian may have to reject the advice of others, even when they present a majority view. Here, Paul must reject the advice all the rest, including Luke (21:12).

(3) The advice of others may be given to us with the full conviction (at the time) that the Holy Spirit has directed them to so advise us, even when it may not be so. We may be given the distinct impression that God has spoken to us through others, when He has not. How easy it is when we give advice to think God is on our side.

(4) The bad advice of other Christians is often occasioned by suffering in the life of the saint.

(5) The bad advice of other Christians is often well-intentioned and based in their love for us, and for their desire for us not to suffer. It would be hard to overestimate the number of times Christians have been counseled by other Christians, based upon the assumption that God does not want us to suffer.

(6)This passage is not teaching that Christians should live autonomously, independently of others and of their counsel, only that we alone are responsible to determine God’s will for our lives, and that not all advice is good advice. Good advice will stand on Scripture, and not apart from it.

⁴⁶⁵Such is the sense of the expression, and this is the way it is rendered in the NIV.

⁴⁶⁶“From Miletus they sailed to Cos, one of the islands of the Dodecanese, famed as the home of the medical school founded by Hippocrates in the fifth century B.C. The following day they put in at the harbor of Rhodes. ‘Rhodes’ is here the city rather than the island of the same name (the largest island of the Dodecanese). . . . From Rhodes they turned east (formerly the port of Xanthus, capital of the kingdom of Lycia, and now the headquarters of the Roman governor of the province).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 397-398.

⁴⁶⁷“Paul was still in a hurry with the limited time available (20:16) and therefore chose a ship which would sail direct across the open sea, a journey of some 400 miles (644 km).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 388.

⁴⁶⁸“According to Chrysostom, the voyage from Patara to Tyre took five days.” Bruce, p. 398.

⁴⁶⁹In the Book of Acts, Luke speaks several times of prophecy being revealed, which tells of a future event, but which does not include any inspired application. This will be the case later on in Acts 21, as it was also the case in Acts 11:27-29.

⁴⁷⁰“Ptolemais was perhaps the last port at which their ship was due to put in; it is not clear whether they took another ship to Caesarea or went there by road.” Bruce, p. 399.

⁴⁷¹Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 318.

⁴⁷²“The following day they departed for Caesarea, a distance of some forty miles, which probably occupied about two days’ travel time. . . . Thus the long voyage “that may have begun about April 15 . . . finally terminated about May 14, two weeks before the Pentecost festival that Paul wanted to spend at Jerusalem.” Carter and Earle, p. 318.

⁴⁷³See Carter and Earle, pp. 318-319.

⁴⁷⁴It is not without significance that it was through Agabus, and not these daughters, that the prophecy of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem was revealed to Paul and to the others at Caesarea. It would seem that such a revelation, coming through these women, to Paul and to the other men present, would have violated the Scriptures which prohibit women from taking a leadership role over men (see 1 Corinthians 14:26-40; 1 Timothy 2:8-15).

⁴⁷⁵“The mode of his prophecy is reminiscent of much Old Testament prophecy; it is conveyed in action as well as in word. As Ahijah the Shilonite tore his new cloak to show how Solomon’s kingdom would be disrupted (1 Kings 11:29-39), as Isaiah went about naked and barefoot to show how the Egyptians would be led into captivity by the Assyrians (Isa. 20:2-4), as Ezekiel mimicked the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem by laying siege himself to a replica of the city (Ezek. 4:1-3), so Agabus foretold the binding of Paul by tying himself up with Paul’s girdle. The action was as much part of the prophecy as the spoken word; both together communicated the effective and self-fulfilling word of God (cf. Isa. 55:11).” Bruce, p. 401.

⁴⁷⁶How ironic, indeed, that Paul was bound, the one who, in Acts 9:2, bound saints, to carry them away to punishment for naming Jesus as Messiah.

⁴⁷⁷The language of Agabus, recorded in Acts 21:11, makes it quite clear that the Holy Spirit was not speaking to Paul, who knew all too well of his coming bondage in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23), but to the church, who were not yet aware of what was to befall him when he arrived there.

⁴⁷⁸“Paul was accompanied by the representatives of the churches who had come up to Jerusalem with him. We may assume that the presence of the latter was connected with the presentation of the collection to the Jerusalem church, although Luke lets this motive for Paul’s visit appear only later in an incidental comment (24:17) addressed to Felix.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 342-342.

⁴⁷⁹“The termination of their vow would be accompanied by the offering of a sacrifice at the temple, and it was proposed that Paul should pay the expenses of the sacrifice on their behalf. This was an accepted act of Jewish piety; Josephus relates that Herod Agrippa I directed many Nazarites to have their heads shaved, the implication being (according to Bruce, Acts, p. 393 n.) that he paid their expenses. The problem is that Paul is directed to purify himself along with them. The circumstances are far from clear.

Paul’s action would make it clear that he lived in observance of the law, but many scholars have doubted whether the historical Paul would have agreed to this proposal. A. Hausrath put the objection most vividly by saying that it would be more credible that the dying Calvin would have bequeathed a golden dress to the mother of God than that Paul should have entered upon this action. Luke, it is claimed, has invented the incident to show that Paul was a law-abiding Jew.” Marshall, pp. 345-346.

⁴⁸⁰“How often has human sentiment and solicitation, growing out of personal friendships or relationships, served to deter God’s servants from His higher will.” Carter and Earle, p. 320.

33. Paul’s Defense to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26—22:29)

Introduction

There are times in life when we simply wish we could disappear or “fall through the cracks,” or at least make an exit, even if not a dignified one. This was one of those times in Paul’s life. If Paul were like most men or like many of us, he would have gladly accepted being carried off by the soldiers as his exit. Instead, Paul spoke to the commander, asking if he could speak to this crowd. Amazingly, the commander gave him permission to do so, resulting in yet another riot.

This text poses us with several questions, the answers to which will significantly help us to understand what is taking place, and what Luke wishes his reader to learn from these events. The first area of investigation is this: “Why would Paul wish to delay his exit, and to speak to this crowd, who had just tried to kill him, and who would still do so if given the opportunity?” The second avenue of inquiry is: “Why did Paul speak to this crowd in the Hebrew language, when only a part of this crowd could understand this language, and all others would have no idea what was said?” A third line of investigation is: “Why does Luke record three accounts of Paul’s conversion?” Is this not repetitious? What is unique about Paul’s account in chapter 22, which is not given elsewhere? A final crucial question is: “What was it about what Paul said which caused the crowd to explode, as described in verse 22?”

Our Approach

In this lesson, we will seek to answer these questions, in order to learn what took place and the message which Luke and the Holy Spirit intended the reader to learn from these events. We will begin by reviewing the events which occur here in chapter 22 in the broader context of Acts. We will then compare (really contrasting) Paul’s defense here with that of Stephen in Acts chapters 6 and 7. We will next focus on those unique or emphatic elements of Paul’s defense, to determine what is given emphasis in this account. We will then attempt to determine Luke’s argument in this passage, and explore its implications for us.

Outline of the Structure of the Text

The Uprising in the Temple (21:26-30)
The Intervention of the Army and Paul’s Arrest (21:31-36)
Paul’s Identification, Petition, and Permission to Speak (21:37-39)
Paul’s Defense (21:40—22:21)
Another Riot, Further Identification, and Paul’s Release (22:22-30 )

An Overview of the Events
Surrounding Paul’s Arrest and Trials

God’s plans for the apostle Paul were formulated in eternity past (see Galatians 1:15-17; Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-3), but they began to unfold in the Book of Acts at the end of chapter 7, where Saul was included among those who took part in the execution of Stephen. At the time of his conversion, God made it clear that Paul had been saved for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel, not only to his fellow-Israelites, but to Gentiles and to kings (see Acts 9:15).

After some twenty years or more of service, in the church and as a missionary, Paul began to sense the necessity of visiting Jerusalem, and then Rome (Acts 19:21). When Paul met with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he told them that while he did not know the details of what was to happen to him in Jerusalem, he did know that “bonds and afflictions” awaited him (Acts 20:22-24). In every city, as Paul made his way to Jerusalem, prophetic indications of his fate in Jerusalem were revealed to the churches, and these well-meaning saints urged Paul to change his plans, something which he strongly refused to do (see Acts 21:1-14).

When Paul and his party arrived in Jerusalem, they were warmly greeted by the church. James and the elders met with Paul and the others, and rejoiced at Paul’s detailed report of the way that God had saved many Gentiles through his ministry (Acts 21:17-20). They also informed Paul of some reports which had come to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, which caused them to wonder about Paul’s doctrinal position, and to look at his ministry with some concern. They were told that Paul instructed Jewish Christians to forsake the law and their Jewish rituals altogether, and to become (in effect) Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, the elders reminded Paul, they had determined that Gentiles did not need to become Jews in order to be saved. The opposite was also true: Jews do not need to forsake their Jewish heritage and practices altogether—becoming Gentiles, in essence—in order to be saved. They recommended to Paul that he worship publicly in the temple in such a way as to demonstrate his agreement with the position of the Jerusalem church leaders, and this Paul did (see Acts 21:20-26).

As Paul’s time of worship in the temple was coming to an end, some Asian Jews saw Paul with Trophimus (a Gentile from Ephesus, whom they knew associated with Paul) and incorrectly concluded that Paul had taken him into the temple, which, if true, would have defiled the temple (in their minds) and was worthy of death. Immediately these Asian Hellenistic Jews, there in Jerusalem only for a time, called upon their “native Hebrew” brethren (“men of Israel,” verse 28) to come to their aid. A riot ensued, and Paul was severely beaten.

Had the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem not arrived quickly, Paul would have been killed. He hurried to the scene, not to save Paul’s life, but hoping to capture an Egyptian revolutionary, who had led 4,000 Assassins into the wilderness (21:38). When the commander arrived on the scene, the Jews stopped beating Paul, and pretended to be law-abiding citizens. The commander was not able to get any consistent accusations against Paul, and was about to take him into the barracks for questioning. Paul had been chained, and was being carried up the steps to the barracks when he turned to the commander, speaking to him in Greek. He asked him for permission to address the crowd. The commander was taken back, first, by the fact that Paul spoke to him in Greek, second, in learning that Paul was not the Egyptian revolutionary he thought him to be, and third, in learning that he was a Cilician Jew. Amazing though it may seem, he granted Paul permission to speak to the crowd.

Paul’s speech will not convince the crowds that they were mistaken. Instead, Paul’s words will send the crowds into an even greater frenzy, throwing dust into the air and yelling for his blood. The commander now proceeds take Paul into the barracks, where he intends to “examine” him by flogging. He will then learn that Paul is not only a Jew, but that he is a natural-born Roman citizen. This forces him to release Paul, and to arrange for his trial on the following day, before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:10).

Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin is another disaster, at least from a Roman and Jewish point of view. Paul knew that he was to be tried by a group of men who strongly differed in several areas, one of which was the resurrection of the dead. When Paul identified himself as a Pharisee, believing in the resurrection of the dead, the Sanhedrin was irreversibly divided. The whole trial became chaotic, and the commander had to intervene again, taking Paul into a kind of protective custody, lest he would have been torn limb from limb by the two groups.

The Lord appeared to Paul in the night, assuring him that he would speak of His cause in Rome, just as he had done in Jerusalem (23:11). Having failed to put Paul to death legally, a conspiracy was formed by 40 Jews, who informed the Sanhedrin, and asked them to help in their plot to assassinate Paul (23:12-15). Paul heard of the plot through his nephew, and had the commander informed of this scheme. The commander therefore mustered an armed escort and sent Paul to Caesarea, where he was to stand trial before Festus, once the Jewish leaders arrived there to press their charges (23:16-30).

This “trial” before Felix was also a fiasco, from a legal point of view. The high priest, Ananias, along with some of the elders from Jerusalem, went down to Caesarea, bringing charges against Paul, but without any of the “witnesses” who claimed Paul had taken a Gentile into the forbidden temple area. The outcome was inconclusive, and Felix “sat on the fence” for two years, failing to either convict Paul or to release him, but keeping him in custody with some measure of freedom (24:23, 27). As Herod was both drawn to the teaching of John the Baptist, and frightened by it (Mark 6:20), so Felix was both drawn to Paul and frightened by him (24:24-27). He also had hopes of Paul bribing him to be released (24:26). By keeping Paul in confinement, he also won some measure of favor from the Jews (24:27).

Felix was pathetically “wishy-washy” and never settled the issue of Paul’s guilt or innocence. Finally, after two years, he was succeeded by Festus. At first, the Jews tried to get Paul sent back to Jerusalem for trial, so they could kill him as they had plotted earlier. Failing in this effort, another trial was held at Caesarea, at which the Jews could not make a case. Festus, too, played to the crowd, and sought to convince Paul to go back to Jerusalem for trial. Knowing that this would only lead to his death, Paul appealed to Caesar (25:11).

Festus found himself with a problem. He could not convict Paul, and he was afraid to release him. And now that Paul had appealed to Caesar, he would have to send Paul to Rome to stand trial there. The problem was that he did not have any charges that would stick. He would look the fool to send Paul to trial with such shoddy evidence. Happily, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived before Paul was sent to Rome (25:13ff.). Festus told them his problem, and thus they agreed to help out by listening to Paul, with a view to formulating charges against him. With great pomp and ceremony, Agrippa, along with Bernice came into the courtroom, and then Paul was brought in (23:23). When it came time for Paul to speak in his defense, Paul gave his testimony of his conversion and calling once again (26:2-23). Seeing and hearing Paul’s intensity, they accused him of being mad, and of coming nigh unto converting them (26:24-29). They concluded that there were no charges serious enough to send Paul to Caesar, but since he had appealed, he would go. In their minds, Paul was a fool for having ever made such an appeal (see 26:32).

The final two chapters of Acts are a description of Paul’s journey to Rome, his arrival there, and his ministry while awaiting his trial. The actual trial is not described, or its outcome, for Luke’s purpose was not to focus on Paul’s personal fate so much as to emphasize the proclamation of the gospel to Gentiles, kings, and Jews. The gospel had spread from Jerusalem to Rome, just as the Lord had promised (Acts 1:8).

The Nature of Paul’s Defense

Paul’s speech, made from the steps leading upward to the Roman barracks, is not the first—nor is it the last—account of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. But Paul’s account of his conversion here is unique in several ways. First, this is the first time in Acts that Paul has given an account of his conversion. This account in chapter 22 is a “first person” (“I”) account. Luke’s account in chapter 9 was a “third person” (“he”) account. Several things stand out in this report of his conversion. We shall see these by comparing this account with that of the defense of Stephen in Acts 6 and 7, and by comparing Paul’s words here in chapter 22 with the other two accounts of his conversion in Acts (chapters 9 and 26).

First, then, let us compare Paul’s defense here with that of Stephen in Acts 6 and 7. Look at the early verses in Luke’s account of Stephen’s arrest, of the charges against him, and of his line of defense:

6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, {including} both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. 10 And {yet} they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and {against} God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. 13 And they put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us. “ 15 And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. 7:1 And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2 And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you.’ 4 “Then he departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and settled in Haran. And from there, after his father died, {God} removed him into this country in which you are now living” … (Acts 6:8–7:4).

The accusations made here against Stephen by some of the Hellenistic Jews are very similar to those charges made against Paul:

27 And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, {began} to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:27-28).

While the stoning of Stephen took place nearly 25 years earlier, the charges against Paul and Stephen were remarkably similar. The charge that Paul defiled the temple is but one of many charges. Paul, like Stephen, was accused of speaking against the Jews, the Law, and the temple. (Paul, of course, was present at the trial and execution of Stephen.)

The “defenses” of Stephen and Paul were very different, even if the charges were the same. Stephen immediately turned to the Old Testament; Paul turned back to his experience on the road to Damascus. Stephen emphasized the great gap between himself and the Jews of his day, and between Israel and her God, as being identical to the gap between the Israelites and God, and between Israel and the prophets, all through her history. Paul’s defense sought to establish the strong similarity between his beliefs and practices as an unbeliever, and that of his opponents, the zealous Pharisees, who persecuted Christians. Paul’s defense, as recorded in Acts 22, is just that—a defense. Stephen’s “defense,” as recorded in Acts 6 and 7 is not a defense at all, but an indictment of these Jews as being rebellious and “stiff-necked,” just as their forefathers had been.

There is very little duplication in these two accounts: the accusations against Stephen, and his defense; and the accusations against Paul and his defense. The strong similarity comes in the charges and conduct of the Jews who oppose both, who would falsely accuse these saints, and try to make their executions look legal (as they had done with Jesus before this), and if they could not make their case, to illegally kill these men anyway.

Second, let us compare Paul’s account of his conversion here, with the other accounts recorded in Acts chapters 9 and 26, especially with an eye to those elements in this account which are emphatic or unique.⁴⁸¹

The first point of emphasis in this account is the language which Paul chose to communicate his defense. When Paul spoke to the Roman commander, he surprise him by speaking in Greek (21:37). This not only served to impress the commander, but to convince him that Paul was no Egyptian (21:38). But when Paul spoke in his own defense to the howling Jewish mob, he did not speak to them in Greek, but rather in Hebrew. Doing this significantly reduced the number of those who could understand what he was saying.

In the first place, this kept the Roman commander and his troops from knowing what Paul was saying. How distressed he must have been at this! At the time the first disturbance broke out, the commander was not present, and he was completely foiled in his attempt to piece together what had happened. Perhaps he reasoned that if he allowed Paul to speak to the crowd he would understand what the problem was, and thus he could deal more effectively with this crowd and with Paul. What a shock it must have been to grant Paul permission to speak in this very delicate and explosive situation, and then to discover that he was addressing the crowd in Hebrew—a language he could not understand. I can see him turning to one of his men and asking, “Do you know what he is saying?” How he must have watched Paul, his “body language,” and the response of the crowd, in an attempt to monitor the situation. How shocked he must have been to see this crowd, initially silenced by Paul’s speaking, and then suddenly exploding into an even more violent mood.

More importantly, speaking to this crowd in Hebrew excluded the Hellenistic Jews, the very ones who had taken the initiative in the arrest and stoning of Stephen years before, and who had also taken the initiative in Paul’s arrest now. The ability to read and speak in Hebrew (or Aramaic) set the “native Hebrew” apart from the “Hellenistic Jew.” If you asked a “native Hebrew” about this (and he were honest) he would tell you this set him above the “Hellenistic Jew.”⁴⁸² When Paul spoke to this crowd, then, he spoke only to the native Jerusalemite, but he excluded the Hellenistic Jews. The question we should seek to answer is, “Why?” Why address only one part of this crowd, when speaking to them in Greek would have enabled virtually all present to hear Paul’s testimony? Would it not be better for more to hear the gospel than few?

I believe that Paul wanted to specifically address the “native Hebrew” Jews of Jerusalem because he had a special understanding of them, and because his past beliefs and behavior was virtually identical with their belief and actions toward him. He could understand them because he was just like them. And his conversion should be pertinent to them because they are like he was, before Jesus saved him. If God could convert Saul, as He had done years before and as Paul would describe here, then He could also change these men. Furthermore, this was perhaps Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, perhaps his last opportunity to present these Jews (for whom he had such a heart) the gospel, the way of salvation. And if Paul could convince these Jews, who were the dominant religious leaders in this city, the opposition of the Hellenistic Jews would fizzle and fad away. The Hellenistic Jews had called upon these men, these, “men of Israel” for their aid. Without their aid, Hellenistic opposition would not have enough strength to do away with Paul.

When Paul gestured (did the chains hinder him?), indicating his intention to address the crowd, a hush fell over them. When they realized that he was speaking in Hebrew, an even greater hush resulted (22:2). Those who were Hellenistic Jews were perhaps silenced by their lack of knowing this language, which, in the eyes of some, would be a shame and reproach. Those who were native Hebrews must have realized that this message was just for them, and so they listened more intently.

To sum up the first significant emphasis here in this account, Paul’s defense was one that was directed to the “native Hebrews” and kept from the Romans and the “Hellenistic Jews.” This was a selective message for a select group.

Second, as pointed out earlier, Paul’s defense here is vastly different than Stephen’s earlier defense. Stephen spoke from the Old Testament Scriptures and the history of Israel; Paul spoke from his own conversion experience. Stephen placed himself among the prophets, and distinct from the “stiff-necked” Jews of his day; Paul identified himself with the Pharisaical Jews,⁴⁸³ showing that he was just like them. Stephen did not defend himself, but indict his accusers; Paul defended himself as being a faithful Jew, and as true to the Scriptures and his calling.

Third, the most unique part of Paul’s account of his conversion is to be found in verses 17-21, which is found nowhere else in the Scriptures. Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion in chapter 9 is similar to Paul’s version in many ways, but when it comes to Paul’s temple “vision,” recorded only in 22:17-21, this is truly unique. Luke tells us of Paul’s witness in Damascus, of the plot of the Hellenistic Jews to kill him, and of Paul’s escape by being lowered through an opening in the wall of the city, in a basket (9:19-25). Luke then goes on to describe the difficulty (not unlike the difficulty he described with Ananias above) which Paul had in associating with the apostles in Jerusalem, of the intervention of Barnabas, of Paul’s acceptance, and ministry in the synagogues. And then we are told of the plot of the Jerusalem Jews to kill him, and of Paul’s escape with the help of the brethren (9:26-30).

Nothing is said in Acts 9, however, of Paul’s temple vision, of which he speaks here in chapter 22, before this crowd. Some would no doubt think of it as a contradiction to what was said in chapter 9. How could Luke say that the brethren learned of a plot to kill Paul and helped him escape, while Paul speaks of a temple vision? The answer is really quite simple: It took a vision from God to make Paul responsive to the appeal of his brethren to leave Jerusalem. He was convinced that the people would listen to him, since he was “one of them” before, but the Lord told him this was not to be the case. Thus, when divinely instructed of the futility of evangelizing his peers, Paul left Jerusalem, knowing that he was being sent to the Gentiles.

Paul’s report of this vision is the last thing which he spoke before the crowd erupted, and his words here are obviously the cause of the explosive reaction. What was it that he said here, which was so offensive, so provocative? These words, in verse 22, provide us with they key:

And they listened to him up to this statement, and {then} they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!”

What, then, is the statement which proved to be so upsetting? For a long time, I have been of the opinion that it was this: “‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (Acts 22:21).

This is partly true, but it is only a partial statement. In verses 17-21, Paul speaks of his vision as a dialogue, not a monologue. The first words are spoken by the Lord, interrupted, as it were by a protest from Paul. Then, after Paul’s interruption, the Lord speaks again. If we are to understand fully what it is that upset the Jews so badly, we must see the entire statement which the Lord made to Paul. So allow me to edit out Paul’s rebuttal:

“‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me … Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

It was not just the fact that God had commanded Paul to go to the Gentiles with the gospel. That was bad enough. It is what made the Jews of Nazareth so upset with Jesus—mad enough to kill Him (Luke 4:23-30). But the words of the Lord to Paul went beyond this. The command to “go to the Gentiles” was linked with a parallel command to “forsake the Jews in Jerusalem, who would not believe the gospel.” It was distressing enough for a Jew to think of God’s blessings being shared with the Gentiles (Jonah, for example, illustrates this), but this statement, quoted by Paul and made by the Lord, goes to the limit, by saying that God’s blessings will be taken from Jerusalem and sent to he Gentiles.

This, of course, is exactly what Paul describes in Romans 9-11, but it was the most horrifying thought a Jew could ever entertain. And this was the match which ignited the gasoline fumes of mob anger there in Jerusalem. Paul was telling his peers that the time of their blessings was coming to an end, due to their unbelief, and that times of blessings were coming to the Gentiles. If the nation Israel would not believe and obey and take the “light to the Gentiles” God would use their unbelief as an instrument to proclaim the “light to the Gentiles.” God’s purposes would not be frustrated by Jewish unbelief and disobedience. But the times of refreshing for which every devout Jew looked forward were to be postponed to a later time, a time after the Gentiles had heard the good news of the Gospel.

The Riot and the Roman Troops
(22:22-30)

This was no straw here, breaking the proverbial “camel’s back.” This was a ton of bricks! The crowd began to cry out, throwing dust into the air. They called for Paul’s death. The Roman commander was not having a good day. He thought the situation was under control. He hoped hearing Paul’s speech would clarify some issues. It only made matters worse, from a peace-keeping perspective. I think that the commander was exasperated by Paul by this time. One could see how Paul might have been blamed for all of this.

Now he really was going to get to the bottom of this matter. He had Paul taken to the barracks, where he was being prepared for interrogation—by scourging. Now, he must have reasons, Paul would tell him what he wanted to know, and in Greek! But the commander was still not really in control of things. He had learned that Paul was not an Egyptian revolutionary, and that he was a Jew from Cilicia, but he had not yet learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that as such he could not be treated this way.

As preparations were being made for his interrogation, Paul turned to the centurion who was nearby and asked if this were the way Roman citizens were to be treated, without yet having been tried or convicted. The centurion was stopped short, and he quickly went to the commander to inform him of this new development. He gently rebuked the commander and urged him to stop the scourging. The commander then approached Paul to verify the fact that he was, indeed, a Roman. He learned that Paul, unlike himself (who had to buy his citizenship at a high price), was born a Roman citizen. The centurions who were nearby almost automatically let go of Paul, fearful of what might befall them for treating a Roman harshly. If the commander was angry with Paul before, he was now fearful. Paul could make a lot of trouble for him if he wanted to do so. He was eager to make things right, and to appease Paul.

Instead of beating Paul, and holding him in custody, the commander released him, and set a hearing on the following day, so that Paul could stand trial before the Sanhedrin. It was through this legal means that he hoped the truth would become known. Such was not to be the case, as we will see in the next lesson.

Conclusion

Several truths emerge from our text. Allow me to highlight some of these as we conclude.

(1) The Sovereignty of God is evident as Paul, the Roman army, and the unbelieving and opposing Jews all are used to promote the gospel. We were told by our Lord, early in the Book of Acts (1:8) that the gospel would be proclaimed abroad, beginning at Jerusalem and extending to the remotest part of the earth. And so it is happening, but not only through faithful men and women, trusting in Jesus and committed to doing His will. It is being accomplished through the mistakes of a Roman commander, who probably should never have allowed Paul to speak, through the Hellenistic Jews who accused and opposed Paul, and through the “native Hebrew” Jewish leaders of Jerusalem. The gospel is going to Rome. The harder the Jews work to resist and overcome it, the more the proclamation of the gospel expands.

(2) One also sees the handwriting on the wall, the coming day when Jerusalem will not only be abandoned by God but devastated by Rome, while the gospel is also spread to the Gentiles with the unwitting help of Rome. Rome becomes the tool of God, not only to chasten His disobedient people, Israel, but also to protect Paul and to promote the gospel which he preached. One cannot help but sense that the days of these unbelieving Jews are numbered, and that Jerusalem will soon be sacked, just as Jesus warned (see Luke 21:20ff.).

(3) We see in Paul the heart of a man who loves his own people so much that he cannot be silenced from sharing his faith with them, even when they have nearly killed him. In passages like this, we read of Paul’s great love for his people, and his intense desire that they be saved:

1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, {separated} from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the {temple} service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen (Romans 9:1-5).

In our text in Acts 22, we see that Paul’s words in Romans 9 are no mere “lip service.” He does love these people, and desire that they come to faith in Jesus as Messiah. He loves them so much that even when they have nearly beaten him to death, even when they would still put him to death, he will not pass up an opportunity to tell them of the salvation he has found. If you and I had this kind of compassion and concern for the lost, we would not need evangelism methods classes, for we would find more than enough opportunities to share our faith, even as Paul did.

(4) Finally, we find the power of a testimony. We do not know that any were saved immediately, as a result of this testimony, but we do know that some might have been. The power of Paul’s testimony here is found (in part) in the fact that he was like them, in the similarity of Paul in his lost state to those whom he is addressing. When people know what we use to be, and see what God has done to change us, the power of the gospel is evident. The power of one’s testimony is proportionate (humanly speaking) to the similarity of one’s experience to that of those to whom we are speaking, coupled to the degree to which our lives have changed. Only a dramatically changed life justifies a personal testimony.

⁴⁸¹See the three accounts comparatively displayed at the end of this message.

⁴⁸²This same superior attitude can sometimes be detected in students or preachers who tout their ability to read the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible.

⁴⁸³In the providence of God, Paul was a hybrid Jew, a mixture of both “Hellenistic Judaism” and of “native Judaism.” By birth, (the Greek) language, and travel, he was a Hellenistic Jew. But by his (Hebrew) language, upbringing and training in Jerusalem, he was a “native Jew.” Thus, he could speak with authority to both groups. This is hardly a coincidence.

34. Paul’s Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:35)

Introduction

I can’t help feeling sorry for the commander of the Roman troops, who just can’t seem to rid himself of the responsibility for Paul and his protection. It is amusing to see this man, who would surely be viewed as being “in charge” and “in control” in Jerusalem as being “out of control” with regard to Paul. I wonder if this man did not initially see “Paul” as the means to a big promotion, and fearing, as time went on, that Paul would be the cause of his professional demise. Think through the events which brought Paul and the commander together, and the agony which Paul brought into this Roman commander’s life.

Hearing of a disturbance in the city of Jerusalem, the commander rushed to the scene, hoping that he would find and capture an Egyptian revolutionary. What a feather in his cap it would have been if he had captured one of the most wanted men in the Roman Empire. Now here was a promotion in the making, if he could only get there fast enough to catch this criminal before he slipped away, as he had done before. But instead of finding this Egyptian rebel the commander found Paul, who would have been beaten to death by the Jews, except that they drew back from their victim when they saw the commander and his troops arriving. Paul’s life was thereby spared, not because the commander had wanted to save him, but because he appeared too quickly, hastened by the mistaken thought that Paul was someone else.

The commander was now faced with a disturbance of major proportions—greater than he yet understood—as well as with a “prisoner.” The problem was that he did not know what the charges against Paul were. The shouting mob was no help. Accusations were either contradictory or confused, with many people not even knowing why they were assembled. The commander was willing to listen to Paul, and was surprised to find that he spoke Greek. He now realized that Paul was not the criminal he originally thought he might have been. Paul was a Jew from Cilicia, not an Egyptian. The significance of this would only sink in later, if ever, for this Roman soldier, who may not have been well informed about the various factions within Judaism.

When Paul asked the commander if he could address the crowd, I think that he may have given permission for a couple of reasons. First, he was rattled by the situation, and by the fact that Paul was not who he thought. Whatever Paul was guilty of, he seemed not to be a criminal or a revolutionary. Second, the commander was still trying to find out what charges to make against Paul. If he were to try Paul, there must be charges, and so far he had no idea what these might be (a situation that others would later face as well, see chapters 24-26). In allowing Paul to speak to this crowd, the commander expected to hear from Paul something that would tell him what all this commotion was about. There was one thing he had not counted on, however, and that was that Paul would speak to this crowd in Hebrew, not in Greek, and thus he did not understand of thing which was said.

How irritated the commander must have been when the crowd exploded, once again, and he had no idea why. He would get to the bottom of this! Enough was enough. And so he had Paul taken to the barracks, where he would “interrogate” him, which was an examination by scourging. The centurions who assisted were preparing Paul for his lashing when Paul caught all of them off guard with a further revelation about himself. Not only was he a Jew from Cilicia, he was a Roman citizen. As a Roman citizen, he was not to beaten without first having been charged, tried, and found guilty. The commander was about to have Paul beaten in order to determine what charges should be made against Paul, if any. To have beaten Paul as a Roman citizen would have been a mistake that could have cost the commander his career. Even to have gotten to this point was enough to jeopardize his future. If the commander was a “career man” his career would not have looked very promising at this point.

The centurions could not stop what they were doing fast enough. The let go of Paul as though he were something hot out of the oven. No one wanted to be guilty of treating this man as they were doing. The commander was even more frightened, for he had ordered Paul’s “interrogation.” No matter how upset he might have been with Paul, he very courteously and kindly inquired of Paul, to be certain that he was a Roman citizen. He learned that Paul’s citizenship was superior to his own, for Paul had been born a Roman, while the commander had to purchase his citizenship, at considerable cost.

When the commander verified, to his satisfaction, that Paul indeed was a Roman citizen, he began to take the necessary steps to “back out” of the problem he had created, by detaining Paul unlawfully, and by nearly beating him illegally. He released Paul, pending the outcome of his “trial” which was to be conducted by the Sanhedrin. He arranged for the trial on the following day. I can almost hear the sigh of relief which the commander breathed. “Now,” he said to himself, we will get to the bottom of this. I am off the hook, because I have tossed the ball back into the court of the Jews. They can try Paul and punish him, and I can be rid of this problem.”

If this man only knew what the future held. Paul does go to trial, as our text records, but there is no solution to the problem. Indeed, there is yet another uprising, this time within the Sanhedrin itself. Paul would have been torn limb from limb if the commander had not intervened—again. There are still no formal charges, and there seems to be no way of dealing with this problem. The solution to the commander’s problem seems to be provided by yet another crisis: forty Jews conspire to kill Paul if and when he is brought, once again, before the Sanhedrin. Now the commander is “forced” to send Paul to Caesarea, to be dealt with by someone else. Is it finally over for the commander? Is his life finally free of Paul? Time will tell. One thing is certain, the career of the commander was almost as much endangered as was Paul’s well-being. The difference is that God had purposed to save Paul’s life, and to arrange for his transportation to Rome, so that in the process “kings and Gentiles” would hear the gospel through his proclamation of the gospel.

Our Approach

Our approach in this lesson will be to give attention to the fate of the apostle, comparing and contrasting his treatment by the Roman commander (as a representative of the Roman government) and by the Sanhedrin (as representatives of the Jews). We will find that Paul fares much better at the hand of the heathen than he does at the hand of his own countrymen. We will then note how all of this affects both the apostle and the gospel. In conclusion, we will seek to identify those principles which underlie God’s work, through the ages, through Israel, and through the church, and then explore their implications for our lives.

The Structure of the Text

Chapter 23 is but a continuation of Luke’s account of Paul’s journey to Rome via Jerusalem. In this chapter, Paul will stand trial before the Sanhedrin. At the very beginning of the trial Paul will “lock horns” with Ananias, the high priest. Knowing that there is no hope for a fair trial, Paul raises the theological issue of the resurrection of the dead, which divides and deadlocks the Sanhedrin, forcing the Roman commander to intervene, and to take Paul back into custody. The Lord will appear to Paul to encourage him concerning the certainty of his arrival in Rome and his witness there. Unable to execute Paul legally, some of the Jews form a conspiracy, vowing to kill Paul. This conspiracy includes at least part of the Sanhedrin. Paul providentially learns of this conspiracy and sends word to the commander, who acts quickly and decisively to get him out of danger, sending him with an armed escort to Caesarea, where he will stand trial.

The structure of our text may be outlined as follows:

Off to a Bad Start 22:30—23:5
Chaos in the Council23:6-10
Divine Encouragement23:11
A Jewish Conspiracy and Roman Corrective Measures23:12-35

Off To A Bad Start
(20:30—23:5)

The commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem was “between a rock and a hard place.” If Paul was left alone with the unbelieving Jews, disorder was certain to break out. The commander did not know how or why. He had tried to learn what the issues were, and to determine whether or not Paul had broken any Roman laws. He was convinced that the Jews were dogmatic about the fact that he had broken their laws. And so he turned Paul over to the Sanhedrin for trial. It was not going to work out as the commander had hoped.

During the past 25 or more years the Sanhedrin⁴⁸⁴ had been confronted by the gospel at least five times. It deliberated anxiously over the growing popularity of Jesus after the raising of Lazarus, and determined He must die (John 11:47-53). In a hasty and illegal meeting, it determined that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and must die (Luke 22:66-71). After the resurrection of our Lord, it arrested Peter and John and warned them not to preach in the name of Jesus any longer, wishing that they had some legal grounds to deal more severely with them (Acts 4:1-22). They shortly after arrested a larger group of the apostles, this time beating them to underscore their threats and warnings if they preached in the name of Jesus any more (Acts 5:17-42). Under pressure from the Hellenistic Jews, Stephen was tried, on charges very similar to those made against Paul (Acts 6:8—7:60). The Council hardly seems to have reached a verdict, when the mob drug Stephen out and stoned him. Now, more than 20 years later, Paul stands before the Council. The issues have hardly changed through the years. The charges against Paul are virtually the same as those against Stephen, and not unlike those against our Lord.⁴⁸⁵

The Council assembled and Paul was brought before them to stand trial. Claudius Lysias was eagerly standing by, not so much to keep order (though this would soon be required), as to hear the precise charges against Paul, so that he could then have some basis for dealing with Paul under Roman law, or allowing his case to be handled by the Sanhedrin.

Paul “looked intently at the Council” (23:1) when he spoke to them. This added the strong sense of conviction which he held. He “looked them eyeball to eyeball” and said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day” (23:2). This was too much for the high priest, who ordered those standing by to strike Paul on the mouth. Why did the high priest find this statement so offensive? What was it about these words which set him off?

Before we seek to answer these questions, pertaining to the reaction of this ungodly unbeliever, let us seek to answer it to our own satisfaction. How could Paul say that he had lived his life with a pure conscience? Did he not write, referring to himself as “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15)? Had he not often spoken, with much regret, of the suffering which he had caused many saints, before his conversion (for example, Acts 22:4, 19)? How could his conscience be clear when he had done so much that was wrong? There are at least two reasons why Paul could say what he did:

First, Paul’s exact wording here refers primarily to his conduct as a citizen, to his civil obedience, living his life in a way that kept the laws of the land, and thus gave him no qualms of conscience. The marginal note in the NASB at verse 1 indicates that the expression, “lived my life” is more precisely rendered “conducted myself as a citizen.” This expression is a rare one, used elsewhere only by Paul in Philippians 1:27 (here rendered “conduct yourselves” in the NASB). Its specific reference is to one’s life as a citizen. And so when Paul here claims to have lived with a clear conscience to this very day, he is specifically referring to a clear conscience with regard to his civil conduct. If their charges were that he was conducting himself contrary to Jewish and Roman civil laws, Paul had no pangs of conscience on such matters in the least. Any such charges must therefore be false.⁴⁸⁶

Second, Paul could have a clear conscience with regard to his past sins because of the cross of Jesus Christ, the cross which he proclaimed. Paul possessed a clear conscience, and he offered this same cleansed conscience to all who would believe in Jesus as Messiah. Paul could possess a clear conscience due to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but because these Jews (and Ananias in particular) rejected Him and His atoning work on Calvary, they could not claim to have a clear conscience. Paul claimed to have that which they could not claim, and under the law they could never hope to attain:

1 Now even the first {covenant} had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which {were} the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which {was} a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it {were} the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest {enters}, once a year, not without {taking} blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit {is} signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which {is} a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they {relate} only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. 11 But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:1-14).

Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled {clean} from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22).

A devout Jew’s highest efforts at law-keeping might enable him to claim, as Paul did, that he was, as pertains to law-righteousness “blameless” (Philippians 3:6), but he could never stop “looking over his shoulder” with respect to God’s holiness. The Old Testament law never gave men the ability to claim a clear conscience, but grace did, in the Old Testament and the New. This was that which Paul had experienced, which he proclaimed, and which the high priest and his associates rejected.

No wonder the high priest was so upset! Paul was claiming a cleansing which the legalist could not even imagine. Did this “Paul,” this “law-breaker,” really dare to think of himself as so clean, so righteous? How dare he speak this way, or so Ananias seems to have reasoned (or, rather, reacted).

This high priest would have had a difficult time coming to any sense of a clean conscience. He was one of the most wicked men who ever held this position, and he was guilty of many of those things of which he accused Paul:

The high priest at this time was Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, who received the office from Herod of Chalcis (younger brother of Herod Agrippa I) in A.D. 47 and held it for eleven or twelve years. He brought no credit to the sacred office. Josephus tells how his servants went to the threshing floors to seize the tithes that ought to have gone to the common priests, while the Talmud preserves a parody of Ps. 24:7 in which his greed was lampooned:

“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; that Yohanan ben Narbai, the disciple of Pinqai, may go in and fill his belly with the divine sacrifices! Some five years before this time he had been sent to Rome by the legate of Syria on suspicion of complicity in a sanguinary conflict between Judaeans and Samaritans, but was cleared and restored to the high priesthood by the Emperor Claudius, thanks to the advocacy of the younger Agrippa. His great wealth made him a man to be reckoned with even after his deposition from office; and he did not scruple to use violence and assassination to further his interests. His pro-Roman policy, however, made him an object of intense hostility to the militant nationalists in Judaea, and when the war against Rome broke out in A.D. 66 he was dragged by insurgents from an aqueduct in which he had tried to hide, and put to death along with his brother Hezekiah. His son Eleazar, captain of the temple, took fierce reprisals on his assassins.⁴⁸⁷

Ananias was a bold, insolent, violent-tempered member of the Sadducean party, noted for its stern and exacting judgment on others. Josephus depicts his infamy. He made himself exceedingly wealthy on the ill-gotten gain of his office, forcibly took the tithes that belonged to the priests, thus leaving some to starve, sheltered a wicked brood of henchmen, and collaborated with the sicarii or Assassins of the country. He convened the Sanhedrin in the interim between the governorship of Festus and Albinus and condemned to death by stoning James, the brother of Jesus and pastor of the Jerusalem church, with other Christians, plus innumerable other wicked deeds, according to Josephus.⁴⁸⁸

Ananias was a hypocrite indeed. Here he was, a wicked man, misusing his office for his own gain, at the expense of others. He was a man who associated with and made use of the services of assassins. He stirred up political strife. And yet he was sitting there in his place of authority, acting so offended at Paul’s alleged offenses, which he knew to be unfounded. What distressed Paul was that he was sitting in judgment of him, trying him for violations of the law—seemingly to uphold the law—while he was, in the very process of “carrying out the law” disdaining and disobeying it. He was accusing Paul as a law-breaker, but he, the judge just broke the law, by ordering him struck (cf. John 7:51; 18:21-23).

Paul hotly retorted to this flagrant disregard of the law, calling Ananias a “whited wall” and indicating that God would strike him in due time. The expression “whited wall” may have come to Paul’s mind from the words of Ezekiel the prophet:

10 “It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 {so} tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 “Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered {it}?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume {it} in wrath. 14 “So I shall tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 “Thus I shall spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I shall say to you, ‘The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 {along with} the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace, ‘declares the Lord God” (Ezekiel 13:10-16).

Paul’s words were prophetic, when he said that God would strike this “whited wall,” for he was to be violently killed a few years later.

The question for us, however, is “How could Paul speak this way to the high priest?”⁴⁸⁹ Was this a quick-tempered act, which was sinful? Paul acknowledged his sin in speaking thus, but he also claimed it was a sin of ignorance. He did not know this man was the high priest. There are some who would doubt Paul’s words. I have no doubt that Paul was both sincere and honest in his claim of ignorance. I do not know why he did not know who the man was, but there are many possible reasons. (1) Paul had not been in Jerusalem for a long time, nor had he been there long this time. Why would he know who was the high priest, or, better yet, why would he know what he looked like? (2) This seems to have been a hastily called meeting, and may not have been nearly as orderly and formal. Was Ananias dressed casually or sitting in some seat other than his normal place? (3) Some think Paul had bad eyesight. Whatever the reason, Paul did not know who he was speaking to, and thus sinned in ignorance.

It does seem to be sin, and this Paul seems to have readily acknowledged.⁴⁹⁰ Much has been written about Paul’s response to the high priest here, either condemning him for a brash act of temper, or defending him. Luke does not really indicate the goodness or badness of the act, nor need he do so. Are any of our actions carried out with entirely pure motivation? Is there anything which we do that is not tainted by our own sin? Nothing we do, including our acts of obedience and worship, are entirely pure. Our purity comes from our identification with Him. Regardless of all the factors entering into Paul’s words, he did acknowledge error on his part, a violation of the law. But this was all a part of the divine plan. God’s will is not accomplished because we do the right thing, for all the right reasons. God’s will can be accomplished by evil men, acting out of evil motives, or by good men, acting out of mixed motives (see Philippians 1:15-18).

Though the high priest had no regard for the law, Paul did. He knew the words and the intent of Exodus 22:28, and he cited them to those nearby. For all of Paul’s freedom from the law, Paul was still a man who endeavored to live in accordance with the precepts and standards set by the law, and thus he knew he was obliged to show respect to this man, Ananias, not for his personal piety, but due to his position. The Paul who would teach the saints to live in submission to God-given authorities, even the wicked rulers (see Romans 13:1-7), would do so himself, even with regard to this evil and hypocritical high priest.

If Paul’s regard for the Jewish law serves to show up the disregard of Ananias for the law (Roman and Jewish), so does the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias. Claudius Lysias was careful to conduct the legal proceedings in a way that was prescribed by (Roman) law. It is true that he nearly mistreated Paul, in violation of the Law, but this was due to his ignorance of the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen. Once he was aware of Paul’s citizenship, he made certain that Paul’s rights, guaranteed by Roman law, were protected. But as for Ananias, he only pretended to carry out the law and to uphold it, and yet in his own practice and in the proceedings of Paul’s trial he disdained and disregarded the law, illegally ordering Paul to be struck. Claudius Lysias, the Gentile, was “more righteous” than Ananias, the Jewish high priest.

Chaos in the Council
(23:6-10)

The hot interchange between Paul and Ananias made one thing clear to Paul, as it should be clear to us as well—that Paul would not receive a fair trial before the Sanhedrin. I believe that Paul came to Jerusalem with high hopes, for he deeply yearned for the salvation of his own people, the Jews (Romans 9:1-5). The day before, standing on the steps to the barracks, Paul had spoken to those with whom he could easily identify, having once believed and behaved just as they were now. But when he spoke of his conversion experience, they would not listen. Indeed, they exploded violently, demanding that he be killed. That experience, along with this interchange with Ananias made it clear that these Jews had nothing in mind for him but death. All they sought was the legalization of his execution. Anything which Paul said would be used against him, if possible, or ignored. The words of our Lord, spoken to Paul in his “temple vision” many years before (Acts 22:18, 21), were even more relevant to Paul now. He must leave Jerusalem or be killed, and he must go to the Gentiles.

What was Paul to do now? No divine instructions seem to have been given. Paul was left to act in accordance with his knowledge of God’s will, and in accordance with the wisdom God gives at such times. If the decision of the Council would most certainly be unfavorable, then he must seek to prevent a decision from being reached. And so he chose to turn one part of this Council against the other, to set the Pharisees against the Sadducees. He did this by crying out, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees;⁴⁹¹ I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” (Acts 23:6).

The Pharisees, as Luke informs us in verse 8, strongly held to some beliefs that the Sadducees scorned and rejected. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, in angels and spirits, while the Sadducees reject all of these. At the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, He was immediately opposed by the Pharisees, based upon some of His teachings and practices. The main “bone of contention” was that Jesus was willing and eager to associate with sinners, and even spoke of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This was too much for these separatistic Pharisees to endure. But in spite of their many differences with Jesus, many of their theological presuppositions were in agreement.

The Sadducees were not only more “liberal” theologically and doctrinally, but they were more “the establishment.” They were more willing to cooperate with the Roman government and to accommodate them, for their own gain. They held many of the positions of power and of prestige, and did not wish to lose them. Thus, the Sadducees not only disagreed with Jesus more than the Pharisees on theological issues, but they strongly opposed Jesus because of the threat He posed to their position, power, and privileges. As Jesus took a public role in Jerusalem, the Sadducees took a more aggressive role in opposing Him, finally joining forces with the Pharisees to put Him to death.

After the resurrection of our Lord, and especially after Pentecost and the preaching of the apostles commenced, the Sadducees took the leading role in opposing the apostles and Christianity. After all, the gospel was based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. They could not allow such teaching to go unchallenged, especially when they were accused of instigating the death of Jesus. On the other hand, the Pharisees seemed to gradually become less aggressive in their opposition to the apostles. This stance can be seen in the speech of Gamaliel to the Council (Acts 5:33-39).

In this session of the Council or Sanhedrin, we see the fragile alliance between the Sadducees and the Pharisees disintegrating, and turning, once again, to open disagreement and debate. In Paul’s outcry he identified himself with the Pharisees in their belief in the resurrection from the dead and in the hope which stems from this belief. The Pharisees found themselves in a most interesting position: they found that they had more in common with Paul than they did with the Sadducees.⁴⁹² And so a number of the Pharisees had to acknowledge, at least in principle, that what Paul claimed and taught was, by their own system of belief, believable. The Sadducees, on the other hand, found Paul’s experience and teaching totally unacceptable and unbelievable. And thus the resulting “chaos in the courtroom.”

There is something to be learned here, I think, about presuppositions. Presuppositions either open the door to other revelation, or they close the door to it. The presuppositions of the Pharisees (with which Paul agreed) inclined them to at least acknowledge the possibility of what Paul claimed. The presuppositions of the Sadducees closed the door to any consideration of anything Paul said, for they did not believe these things were in the realm of possibility. It is not that such people cannot be saved, but that their presuppositional foundations must first be shaken. The rug must be first pulled out from under them, and a new foundation be shown as needed. This can only be done by the Holy Spirit.

Divine Encouragement
(23:11)

The evening of that ill-fated “trial” before the Sanhedrin, the Lord Himself appeared to Paul, with a very simple statement, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.” While we are not told a great deal about this appearance of the Lord to Paul, it must have had a profound impact upon his attitude and outlook. Let us consider some of the lessons which are implied in this incident.

(1) Even the most faithful servants of God can suffer from discouragement and despair. Some might wish to argue the point, but it is hard to imagine that Paul was not discouraged at this point in time. How intent he had been on getting to Jerusalem (see Acts 21:1-14), and how strong was his desire to see Israel saved (Romans 9:1-5). Did he, like Elijah of old, hope that his ministry might turn this nation around, only to realize that his efforts “failed”? Does he now see that his ministry is much like that of Isaiah (see Isaiah 6:9-10)?⁴⁹³ Even Paul can be discouraged. He seems to be tempted to doubt here, as John the Baptist did in his imprisonment (see Luke 7:19).

(2) Encouragement ultimately comes from the Lord. God often uses people to encourage us, but it is God who is the source of all comfort and encouragement. It is in His character, His power, His promises and purposes, that we find our hope and comfort (see Romans 5:1-11; 8:18-39; 2 Corinthians 4:16—5:10; 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-17; 3:16; Hebrews 13:5; 1 Peter 5:10).

(3) Encouragement and assurance is often given by being reminded of something which we already know, but have either forgotten or doubted. Paul was not told anything new by the Lord, but only assured that what he had already been told was still going to take place. Encouragement often is the result of being reminded of God’s promises, and being reassured that He always keeps His promises. The promise which God made to Abram in Genesis 12, He repeated on numerous other (later) occasions, and especially at points in time when Abraham needed to be reminded and reassured (for example, Genesis 13:14-17; 14:19-20; 15:12-21).

(4) Encouragement need not be based upon one’s success, but on one’s faithfulness, on one’s obedience to the task God has given. Paul’s testimony in Jerusalem had not been successful, but the Lord told him that he had completed his task of “solemnly witnessing to His cause” in that city. His task was done, and in this Paul could find comfort and encouragement.

(5) There is encouragement in the fact that God yet has a task for us to fulfill, and they we are to be used in fulfilling His purposes. Paul’s task was completed in Jerusalem, but he is yet to witness in Rome. There is more work to be done. What joy one can have in knowing God, in his grace, has chosen to use us (see 1 Timothy 1;12-17).

A Conspiracy and Counter-Measures
(23:12-35)

It may very well be that Paul’s treatment by his fellow-Israelites was the source of great discouragement. Thus, the appearance of our Lord to Paul on the night of his trial before the Sanhedrin would have been an encouragement to him in the light of what had happened. But the appearance of our Lord to Paul may also have been an encouragement to him in the light of what was yet to happen. If you were Paul, and you had been rejected by your own people, God’s chosen people, the Jews, and you had risked your life to witness to them, only to be beaten, and now imprisoned, there would be much cause for despair. But things were still to get worse. While the Lord was speaking with Paul, some of the Jews were speaking with each other, and the result was a conspiracy to kill Paul. More than forty Jews bound themselves to a solemn oath.⁴⁹⁴ They covenanted together that they would neither eat nor drink anything until they had put Paul to death.⁴⁹⁵ They had enough of trying to do away with Paul through the legal means. If they could not kill him due to Roman intervention, and due to the chaos in the council, they would kill him through intrigue.

The conspiracy was not merely the evil plot of a handful of evil men; it was a plan which won the approval and the participation of the leaders of the Sanhedrin.⁴⁹⁶ In order for this scheme to work, the leaders of the Sanhedrin would have to cooperate, convincing the commander of the Roman troops to release Paul for yet another trial before the Council. On the way to the Council, the forty or more men would see to it that he never made it alive. They would thus finally be rid of Paul. There is now little effort to retain the appearance of righteousness or legality. They would kill Paul any way they could.

The “Watergate mentality” has been with us since the beginning of time. It reasons that the cause is so important, and the danger so great, that any means is acceptable to rid the cause of that which threatens it. The cause, was not the law of God, nor justice, but the preservation of the power and position of these leaders. They were tired of the threat which the gospel posed to them, especially as boldly proclaimed by Paul.

On the surface, it would appear that Paul was really in danger now. Things seems to be going from bad to worse. But this is only the appearance of things. In reality this conspiracy is Paul’s ticket for a safe departure out of Jerusalem. It is also his next step toward Rome, although some time will yet pass before he arrives there.

It was no “coincidence” that Paul’s nephew just “happened” to be there when these conspirators met, and to overhear their plans. Providentially, this young man was given access to Paul, and then was received and taken seriously by the commander. How kind and gentle this Roman commander was.⁴⁹⁷ How cruel and cunning were these Jews. The chosen people of God were about to commit murder, while this pagan was about to take strong measures to protect the life of the apostle, and to indirectly help to promote the gospel!

The commander was not about to lose a prisoner to the Jews. He would take strong measures to assure Paul’s safe exodus from Jerusalem. He was intent on Paul having a fair trial. If the Jews had cast aside justice and the Old Testament law, this Roman soldier was following Roman law to the letter, giving Paul every benefit of the doubt and every privilege that was due a Roman citizen. And so he ordered two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to escort Paul safely to Caesarea, where he was to be handed over to the custody of Felix the governor,⁴⁹⁸ to stand trial there. The left shortly, traveling in the darkness to Antipatris, a city about half way (about 35 or 40 miles) to Caesarea.

The letter which Claudius Lysias wrote to Felix was a brief account, not altogether complete, accurate, or in the proper sequence of events. It was written in a way that reports usually are, so that the one writing the report is viewed in the best light. Nevertheless, the letter was reasonably accurate. Of particular interest is the fact that the commander indicated in very clear language, Paul’s innocence: “I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment” (verse 29). Why, then, did the commander not release Paul, if he knew him to be virtually innocent? Because he knew that the Jews would kill Paul, and that Paul’s rights, as a Roman citizen, would thus be violated. He felt obligated to keep Paul alive. On the other hand, if he turned Paul loose, there was a strong likelihood of another civil disturbance. Every time Paul and these Jews met the sparks flew and a riot inevitably seemed to commence.

What a sigh of relief the commander must have breathed, to have Paul a fair distance from Jerusalem and his area of responsibility. Felix, on the other hand, summoned Paul and discerned that he was in his jurisdiction, and so he summoned the Jews and prepared to conduct yet another trial when they arrived. This was not to be the last trial, either.

Conclusion

There are several very important lessons taught by our text. Let me point out some of these as we conclude.

(1) There is a very clear contrast in our text between the kindness and attention to the law of the Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, and the cruel disregard for the law of the Jews, and especially of the Sanhedrin. We would have hoped to have seen the Jews portrayed as eager to preserve, promote, and practice the law, and have expected the Romans to have a disregard for law, and to evidence a lack of compassion. Such is exactly the reverse of the matter, as Luke’s account describes the treatment of Paul.

Here is Paul, a Jew on the one hand, and a Roman citizen on the other. The Jews hate Paul, and want to kill him, which they are willing to go to any extreme to accomplish. The crowd tried to kill Paul by beating him to death, stopped only by the arrival of the Roman troops (21:31-32). Then, when the Sanhedrin was trying Paul, they must have hoped for a “guilty” verdict, which they hoped would have allowed them to execute Paul, as Jesus had been put to death. This, too, failed, because the Council was divided and the trial never was completed (22:6-10). Once their hopes of legally putting Paul to death were terminated, the Council agreed to take part in an illegal conspiracy to kill Paul (22:13-15). Justice and the practice of the Old Testament Law were thereby cast aside for the pragmatic issue of silencing Paul.

Contrast the cruelty, violence, and disregard of the Law by the Jews, especially the Sanhedrin (something like our Supreme Court), with the kindness, peace-keeping, and law-abiding of the Romans, and especially of the commander. As a Jew, the Jews deprived Paul of his rights under the Old Testament Law, but as a Roman, the commander gave Paul every consideration, going to great extremes to protect him from mistreatment, by his own people, by the Jews!

This contrast, between the Jews and the Roman commander, is similar to that found in the Old Testament Book of Jonah. There, Jonah had no compassion on the sailors, while they risked their lives to save him, even when they knew that he had greatly endangered them (Jonah 1). There, Jonah had no compassion on the Ninevites, even though the children and the cattle were innocent. Jonah wanted all of them to die a torturous death.

We see in these two instances (Paul, in our text, and Jonah, in the Old Testament Book of Jonah) that Israel’s judgment is both near and well-deserved. We see, as well, good reason for God’s compassion on the heathen, who in both instances were far more compassionate than their Jewish counterparts.

The more one reflects on Paul’s treatment in Jerusalem by his fellow-Israelites, the more one sees that the situation in Paul’s day is very similar to that which occurred all too often in the Old Testament (see Jeremiah 6:1-8, 13-19, 27-30; 7:1-11ff.; 8:8-12; 22:3, 16-17; 23:1-40; Ezekiel 13; 16; 34:1-10). And, as one looks ahead to the last days, one realizes that the same essential features found both here and in Israel’s past, are present in the future as well. The people of God cease to be grateful for God’s grace, and the privileges He has bestowed on them. They become self-righteous and even cruel. They disregard the Law of God. And those who are Israel’s leaders, the “shepherds” abuse their position. Rather than protecting the weak and the vulnerable, they prey upon them. Rather than to feed the flock of God, they feed upon the flock. This is a continual theme in the Old Testament, and the treatment of Paul in Jerusalem has all the same earmarks. It is happening again. And just as before, it will soon be the time for God’s judgment to fall on the city of Jerusalem once again. The treatment of Paul in Jerusalem (not to mention the earlier treatment of Jesus, the apostles, and Stephen) is more than sufficient cause for God’s wrath to fall upon the disobedient Israelites, and especially their leaders.

(2) In the Book of Acts in general, and in our text in particular, we see not only how the gospel was proclaimed to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles, but also why. The gospel was first preached to the Jews, but as a nation they rejected the gospel, even as they had rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Paul went to Jerusalem and then to Rome because the gospel was to be rejected one last time in Jerusalem, and then it would go, with Paul, to Rome. As Paul would teach in his epistle to the Romans (chapters 9-11), the gospel went to the Gentiles because it was rejected by the Jews. If the Jews would not be a “light to the Gentiles” by believing in Jesus and by proclaiming salvation in Him, it would go to the Gentiles through their unbelief, by men like Paul and others, who would proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. This rejection of Paul and his gospel in Jerusalem, by the people and their leaders, was the last straw. Now, the gospel was soon to make its way to Rome with Paul. It is with sadness that we find Paul coming to grips with the rejection of Jesus by his people, Israel, and with his turning from Jerusalem toward Rome. Here, not only is God about to turn His back on Jerusalem and the Jews, but Luke (and Paul) are leaving Jerusalem for the last time in this book.

(3) This chapter, like the rest of the Book of Acts, underscores the sovereign control of God over history, in such a way as to allow men freedom of choice, and yet to insure that God’s program will be carried out exactly as purposed in eternity past. In Acts 1:8 the divine program for the proclamation of the gospel was spelled out by our Lord. The gospel would be proclaimed in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest part of the earth. This is precisely how it happened, as Luke describes it in Acts. But it did not happen only due to faithful saints, who were careful to carry out God’s plan to the letter. Even the apostles and the early church seemed to misunderstand and to drag their feet. God used not only his saints, but the opposition of unbelieving Jews (see Acts 8:1; 11:19ff.) to propel the gospel outward. He also used the Roman government, its laws, and its officials in furthering the gospel (see Acts 18:1-2, 12-17; 21:30ff.).

It seems to me that too many Christians think that God’s will can be thwarted or hindered by man’s lack of faith or obedience, but the Book of Acts (not the mention the rest of the Bible) shows this to be untrue. God’s purposes always come to pass in Acts, and just as God planned and promised, although often in a way very different from the way we would have expected or planned. The more I study Acts, the more I find that we are not told whether certain decisions and actions were “rightly motivated” or “prompted by the Spirit”; they were just done. For example, were the eleven apostles “right” in choosing Mathias as the twelfth apostle (see Acts 1:15-26)? Some would say that they were, and others would differ, especially in the light of God’s appointment of Paul as an apostle, something none of the apostles decided to do, or were even eager to accept, when God did it (see Acts 9:26ff.). Were the apostles and elders “right” in appointing the seven “deacons,” so that they would be free to minister the word and pray? Why, then, were two of these seven men raised up by the Lord as great preachers, with seemingly more successful preaching ministries than most of the apostles? Was Paul “led of the Spirit” to cast the demon out of the fortune-teller, or just “fed up” with her constantly annoying him (Acts 16:16ff.)? Was Paul perfectly motivated in his determination to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21ff.)?

The more I study the Book of Acts, the more I am inclined to conclude that it didn’t matter whether or not men were perfectly correct in their actions, decisions, or motives. After all, who could ever claim such, except our Lord? But a sovereign God does not need perfect followers in order to achieve His will. He does not even need saints, to carry out His purposes. And so God used the apostles, Paul, the elders in Jerusalem, Roman officials, and unbelieving Jews, to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, and as far as Rome (in the Book of Acts). We need not spend long hours agonizing over the fact that our understanding of God’s will and our obedience to it were imperfect. We must press on, seeking to do that which is pleasing in His sight and according to His word, yet knowing that even when we fail, His purposes, promises, and program will not. What comfort there is in serving a sovereign God, whose purposes will never be frustrated by sinful men or seemingly unfavorable circumstances.

(4) Paul’s words to the Sanhedrin remind us that a “clean conscience” is available to even the worst sinner, who trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing of conscience. Paul was once just like these members of the Sanhedrin—an arch enemy of the gospel and a persecutor of the saints. He spoke of himself not only as the one who was formerly “chief of sinners,” but as one who was presently holding the same position (1 Timothy 1:13-15). How is it possible for such a sinner to have a clear conscience? The writer to the Hebrews made that very clear—it is not through one’s own works or righteousness, but through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and through His sacrificial and substitutionary death, in the sinner’s place (Hebrews 9).

Do you have a clear conscience before God? You can, just as Paul did, by personally trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s provision for the cleansing of your sin. This cleansing is not due to any good you have done or will do, but only due to that which Jesus Christ has done:

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).

I hear so much psychological jargon today, about “being in touch with your feelings” or “dealing with your past” or “having a good self-image.” What God offers is far better—a clear conscience, the assurance that the guilt of our sins has been washed away, so that God can accept us through Christ, and so that we can live our lives free from the guilt and self-condemnation of a defiled conscience. If your conscience has never been cleansed, I pray that you will be cleansed in conscience today, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, on your behalf.

⁴⁸⁴“The Sanhedrin (a Hebrew and Aramaic loanword from . . . the word translated ‘court’ in v. 15 . . .) was the senate and supreme court of the Jewish nation. In the NT it is also called the . . . ‘body of elders’ (22:5; Luke 22:66) and . . . ‘senate’ (5:21); Josephus also refers to it as the . . . ‘council’. . . The Mishnah calls it the Sanhedrin, the great Sanhedrin, and Sanhedrin of the seventy-one, the great law-court. It comprised the high priest, who presided over it by virtue of his office, and seventy other members. It first appears in history in the Hellenistic period (c. 200 B.C.) as the body which regulated the internal affairs of the nation (Josephus, Ant. 12.142); it maintained this role until the revolt of A.D. 66 . . . The Sanhedrin at this time included a majority of members from the Sadducean party, supporting the chief-priestly interests, and a powerful minority from the Pharisaic party, to which most of the scribes or professional exponents of the law of Moses belonged. The body is frequently referred to in the NT by some or all of its component groups; . . . ‘their rulers, elders, and scribes’ . . .” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 91, fn. 12.

⁴⁸⁵Consider the following similarities: (1) The issue with the Jews was always the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah. (2) The opponents were never able to win when they attempted to debate. (3) When accusations were made before the political authorities, there was never any consistency, but only conflicting charges and allegations, and thus there was no charge made that would stand up under scrutiny and investigation. (4) The general allegations had to do with disloyalty toward Rome, and worse yet, revolutionary activity, which was intended to turn the masses against Rome. (5) If a guilty verdict was rendered, it was done because of pressure being brought to bear on the Roman officials, and of their fear of losing control.

⁴⁸⁶“It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no “apologies” (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God’s commonwealth.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 398.

⁴⁸⁷F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 425.

⁴⁸⁸Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 342.

⁴⁸⁹“Paul’s reaction has been contrasted with that of Jesus, “who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return” (1 Pet. 1:23). But when Jesus himself was struck during his interrogation before Anna, he too protested against the illegality of the action. There is no need to join the chorus of disapproval voiced by older commentators, who felt free to condemn Paul for his righteous protest in a situation which they themselves were unlikely to face. The warm impetuousness of a man of like passions with ourselves is vividly portrayed in this trial scene, and there is no doubt who presents the more dignified bearing--Paul or the high priest. The metaphor of the “whitewashed wall” suggests a tottering wall whose precarious condition has been disguised by a generous coat of whitewash: in spite of appearances, a man who behaved as Ananias did was bound to come to grief. His was the “haughty spirit” of Prov. 16:18, which “goes before a fall.” Paul’s words were more prophetic than he realized; had he known the man intimately, he could not have spoken more aptly.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 425-426.

⁴⁹⁰Note these words of Marshall: “What is more surprising is Paul’s reply. Some commentators note how Paul’s swift reply goes against the spirit of Matthew 5:39 and his own words in 1 Corinthians 4:12. We should not dismiss out of hand the simple explanation that Paul lost his temper, with verse 5 giving something of an apology; Paul was both human and sinful, and we do not need to credit him with a sinless perfection that he himself never claimed.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 363.

Even if Marshall has gone too far, in explaining this outburst from Paul as a manifestation of his temper, we must never forget that neither Paul, nor any of the apostles, nor any other saint, was perfect. Only our Lord was without sin, and thus we should not be surprised at the fact that one so great as Paul would have acted in anger or in haste. But if Paul was quick to rebuke Ananias, he was also quick to acknowledge his sin.

⁴⁹¹Let us seek to square Paul’s words here, with those in Philippians or Galatians. Why would Paul claim to be a Pharisee here, and reject it elsewhere? For one thing, Paul was a “Pharisee” in many regards. He certainly was a Pharisee in terms of his basis belief in miracles, heaven and hell, eternal judgment, and the spirit world, including angels. He was in agreement with the Pharisees in terms of his belief in the resurrection of the dead, and probably in many tenants pertaining to Messiah. Paul’s point in Philippians and Galatians is not that Pharisaism is all bad, and entirely to be rejected, but that the self-righteous, works-oriented view of righteousness was wrong, damnable. All of Paul’s righteous deeds were but dung, so far as making him righteous before God and saving him from God’s wrath. One could easily, like Saul, be a lost Pharisee. But a Pharisee would still be able to retain much of his beliefs when he came to faith in Jesus as Messiah. Much more Sadducean theology would have to go in order to be saved.

⁴⁹²“A Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning a distinctive theological tenant of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee--in the apostolic age, at least.” F. F. Bruce, p. 428.

⁴⁹³Note that Paul cites this text from Isaiah 6 in the final chapter of Acts (28:26-27).

⁴⁹⁴There is a touch of irony here, for it was in conjunction with the taking of a vow that Paul worshipped in the temple, and as a result was arrested. Did Paul take a vow? So did these men, but a very different kind of vow. Yet both “vows” were taken in a religious context. How far from true religion the vow of these 40 men was.

⁴⁹⁵I seriously doubt that any of these men starved to death, or even lost any weight. These “gnat strainers” laid heavy burdens on the shoulders of their followers, but had ingenious ways of avoiding the laws themselves. Without a doubt they found a way out of their vows. As Bruce notes, “The Mishnah makes provision for relief from such vows as could not be fulfilled ‘by reason of constraint’” (Ne darim 3.1,3). F. F. Bruce, p. 431, fn. 37.

⁴⁹⁶Luke does not tell us that all of the members of the Sanhedrin were included in this conspiracy, but only that the “chief priests and elders” were (23:14).

⁴⁹⁷“Paul, as an unconvicted Roman citizen, was kept in honorable custody in the Antonia fortress: he was allowed to receive visitors, and centurions promptly saw to it that his commissions were carried out. So, when his nephew came to the fortress and reported the plot to Paul, Paul immediately told a centurion to take the young man to the tribune, so that he might hear for himself what was afoot. The tribune received the young man kindly. “Never was a tribune more amiable,” comments Alfred Loisy, perhaps in irony--but Luke presents all his Roman officers in an “amiable” light. Having listened to what the young man had to say, the tribune treated his report seriously, made up his mind at once what ought to be done, and dismissed his informant with a warning to tell nobody that he had reported this plot to him.” F. F. Bruce, pp. 432-433.

⁴⁹⁸“Marcus Antonius Felix (as his full name is usually taken to have been) was a man of servile birth, who owed his unprecedented advancement to a post of honor usually reserved for the equestrian order to the influence which his brother Pallas exercised at the imperial court under Claudius. Pallas was a freedman of Claudius’s mother Antonia, and was for a number of years head of the imperial civil service. Felix succeeded Ventidius Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in A.D. 52, but before that he may have occupied a subordinate post in Samaria under Cumanus. His term of office as procurator was marked by increasing insurgency throughout the province, and by the emergence of the sicarii. The ruthlessness with which he put down these risings alienated many of the more moderate Jews, and led to further risings. Tacitus sums up his character and career in one of his biting epigrams: “he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” Despite his lowly origins, he was remarkably successful in marriage (from a social point of view, that is); his three successive wives were all of royal birth, according to Suetonius. The first of the three was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who figures in the following narrative.” Bruce, pp. 436-437.

A. T. Robertson adds, “He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that “with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 408.

35. Paul Stands Before Felix: The Preacher and the Politician (Acts 24:1-27)

Introduction

As a husband and especially as the father of five daughters, I have spent a fair amount of my life waiting. Waiting has become an accepted part of life. There are “waiting lines” at the bank. We wait for traffic jams to clear, or to muddle on, or for the light to change. We wait at the checkout stand in the grocery store. We wait in the doctor’s office. Some of you may be waiting for this message to end. Waiting is an accepted (though not without complaint) part of everyday life.

Have you ever stopped to think how much of our time, as Christians, is spent waiting on God? As I read through the Old Testament, I see many “divine delays,” requiring saints to be constantly waiting. I find Abraham and Sarah, waiting for the promised son, and the blessings which God promised him and his seed. I see Joseph waiting for his dreams to be fulfilled. I see Moses, waiting for 40 years, to become the deliverer of Israel, and then another forty years before Israel could enter the promised land. Indeed, Moses still waits to enter into God’s rest, because he sinned in the wilderness. David had to wait to take the throne of Israel. Israel had to wait for her restoration, and for the Messiah to come. When I read Hebrews 11, I must come to the conclusion that all of the Old Testament saints waited on God, and are still waiting, for the full and final fulfillment of His promises.

In the New Testament, it is no different. Waiting is one of the duties of every saint. We, like the apostles and the early church, wait for the Lord’s return, for our complete sanctification, and for the perfection of heaven. In our chapter, Paul will find himself waiting for a decision from Felix. In this case, Paul will wait for two years, and still not have a verdict pronounced by this politician. In Paul’s situation, there was no good reason for a delay. An immediate “not guilty” verdict could and should have been pronounced, but this would not have been politically advantageous, so far as Felix was concerned.

The two years which Paul spent in his Caesarean cell would have been a source of great irritation and frustration to some of us. We can imagine all sorts of places that Paul could have traveled, and ministries he could have been performing. But God “waylaid” him in a prison cell, on charges which were totally unfounded, and all because of a politician who would not risk offending some of his constituency. The delay was a part of God’s divine design. Many good things must have resulted from this two year period, but Luke chose to tell us only of one of Paul’s ministries. In our lesson, we will seek to learn why Paul’s imprisonment was prolonged, and how God used this in accomplishing His purposes. For those of us who find waiting a frustrating experience, there is much to learn from this passage.

The Setting

For some time, Paul has had his sights set toward Jerusalem, and then toward Rome (see 19:21). As Paul began to approach Jerusalem, he was warned in every city that his arrival would result in “bonds and afflictions” (20:22-24). This did not deter him, however. When he finally reached Jerusalem, he met with James and the elders of the church, who gladly received his report of God’s work through the Gospel in the lives of the Gentiles (21:17-20a). They further urged Paul to correct some misconceptions about his ministry and message by demonstrating that in coming to faith in Christ he had not completely rejected Judaism, and especially its ceremonial worship. In other words, they asked Paul to prove that he was still, as a Christian, “zealous for the law” (21:17b-25).

Paul took their advice and went to the temple, along with the four men whom the elders had recommended, to purify himself and to make sacrifices, paying their expenses, and thus identifying himself with all that they did. At the end of seven days, some Asian Jews spotted Paul in the temple, and also Trophimus, a Gentile from Ephesus. They jumped to the conclusion that Paul had brought him into the temple to defile it. These Asian Jews called upon the Jerusalem Jews to help them be rid of Paul once for all. It was their intention to put Paul to death. A riot broke out as men gathered in the frenzy of the moment, many of whom did not know what was going on.

News of this riot reached the ears of Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander who was in charge. He wrongly concluded that a dangerous revolutionary had returned to Jerusalem and had started this riot, thinking Paul to be this man. His prompt arrival cut short the Jew’s efforts to kill Paul. When the commander learned that Paul was not the Egyptian revolutionary, and when he was unable to determine the cause of this riot from the crowd, he allowed Paul to address the crowd, hoping (it seems) to learn what the underlying cause of the riot was. Paul spoke to the crowd in Hebrew, preventing the commander from learning anything, and eventually leading to another outbreak, the result of Paul’s words which told of his vision, in which the Lord commanded him to flee Jerusalem and go to the Gentiles (22:17-21ff.).

The commander was greatly upset by this turn of events, and planned to learn the truth by examining Paul by scourging. In the course of preparing him for this “interrogation” Paul indicated to the centurions that he was a Roman citizen, which quickly changed the commander’s mind about beating him without a trial. The commander released Paul and arranged for his trial by the Sanhedrin the following day. After offending the high priest, Ananias, Paul turned the Council into a chaotic free for all by taking his stand with the Pharisees in believing in the resurrection of the dead (23:1-10). The commander, once again, had to intervene, to save Paul. He placed him in custody once again.

The Jewish opponents of Paul concluded that there was no legal way of disposing of him, and so they became party to a conspiracy in which Paul was to be assassinated (23:12-15). When Paul learned of this plot through his nephew, he sent the young lad to the commander, who took prompt and decisive action, sending Paul to Felix in Caesarea that night, under heavy guard. With Paul Claudius Lysias sent a letter which explained the situation:

26 “Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings. 27 “When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came upon them with the troops and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. 28 “And wanting to ascertain the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their Council; 29 and I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. 30 “And when I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, also instructing his accusers to bring charges against him before you.”

While Claudius Lysias’ account to Felix may not be completely accurate, we shall see that the account of the situation which was given by the Jews accusing Paul was completely fabricated, virtually inferring that Claudius Lysias was a liar. The story of the “Preacher and the Politician,” of Paul and Felix, takes up at this point.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text is simple and straightforward. The first nine verses are Luke’s account of the accusations made against Paul by the Jews, as represented by Tertullus, the lawyer. Verses 10-21 are Luke’s account of Paul’s defense. Verses 22 and 23 describe Felix’s decision (or indecision). And the final verses (24-27) are an epilogue, describing the dialogues which took place between Felix (and Drusilla, his wife, at times) and Paul, over the two year period of his incarceration in Caesarea. We may summarize the structure of this chapter this way:

The charges against Paul—verses 1-9
Paul’s defense—verses 10-21
Felix’s (in)decision—verses 22-23
Felix’s dialogues with Paul—verses 24-27

The Charges Against Paul
(24:1-9)

Five days later, Paul was brought before Felix to stand trial. Felix was a very colorful personality, as others point out:

“Marcus Antonius Felix (as his full name is usually taken to have been) was a man of servile birth, who owed his unprecedented advancement to a post of honor usually reserved for the equestrian order to the influence which his brother Pallas exercised at the imperial court under Claudius. Pallas was a freedman of Claudius’s mother Antonia, and was for a number of years head of the imperial civil service. Felix succeeded Ventidius Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in A.D. 52, but before that he may have occupied a subordinate post in Samaria under Cumanus. His term of office as procurator was marked by increasing insurgency throughout the province, and by the emergence of the sicarii. The ruthlessness with which he put down these risings alienated many of the more moderate Jews, and led to further risings. Tacitus sums up his character and career in one of his biting epigrams: “he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” Despite his lowly origins, he was remarkably successful in marriage (from a social point of view, that is); his three successive wives were all of royal birth, according to Suetonius. The first of the three was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who figures in the following narrative.”⁴⁹⁹

A. T. Robertson adds,

“He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that “with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave.”⁵⁰⁰

It was an interesting group which arrived from Jerusalem to prosecute the case against Paul. Noticeably absent were the Asian Jews, who had mistakenly assumed that Paul was seeking to defile the temple. Had these Jews come only for the religious holidays, and returned to Asia? Or, had they (or the Jerusalem Jewish leaders) discovered that they had jumped to the wrong conclusion? Were they reluctant to be cross examined in front of Felix? Also absent was Claudius Lysias, the commander of the Roman troops, who had rescued Paul and sent him to Caesarea for trial.

I am not sure how many of the Pharisees were present, for none are specifically mentioned.⁵⁰¹ If there are any Pharisees present, I do not think that their heart is in this attack on Paul nearly to the degree that the Sadducees were pursuing this matter. Ever since the resurrection of our Lord the Pharisees have taken a more retiring position in Jewish effort to oppose the gospel. It was Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who (in Acts chapter 5) advised his colleagues on the Council to “back off” and leave the Christians alone, for if this were of God, they could not be stopped, and if it were only of men, it would die of itself. When Paul cried out in the Council (Acts 23), affirming his belief in the resurrection of the dead, the Pharisees came to Paul’s defense. I do not think that the Pharisees were a party to the conspiracy to assassinate Paul, nor do I think they were enthusiastic about prosecuting him before Felix.

This put the Sadducees (that is, the high priest and the other elders who came to Caesarea) in a very awkward position. They were summoned to come and to press charges against Paul. They, if closely questioned, could be charged with responsibility for the disorder in Jerusalem. And they were now without any great support from the Pharisees, not to mention the fact that the Asian Jews were absent. They were indeed in a precarious position. Little wonder that they hired a Roman lawyer,⁵⁰² Tertullus,⁵⁰³ to represent them, and to prosecute Paul on their behalf. As weak as their position was, they needed a “Perry Mason,” who was familiar with Roman jurisprudence and who could make their case look stronger than it really was.

Before we look at the case which Tertullus presented against Paul, let us give a moment to consider just what verdict it was that the Jews were seeking. It is my opinion that the Jews do not expect, or even want, a verdict pronounced which would find Paul guilty of a minor offense. They did not want Paul imprisoned; they wanted Paul dead (see Acts 22:22; 23:12, 27; 25:3). They knew that Rome, to this point in time, was trying to save Paul’s life. While the Jews who opposed Paul would have delighted in having a verdict which found Paul guilty of treason and a death penalty imposed, they knew better than to expect this. Consequently, they really did not want Felix to try Paul at all, but to hand him back over to them for trial in Jerusalem, so that the conspiracy to kill Paul could be carried out.

Tertullus did the best he could with what he had to work with, but it was not enough to convince Felix, who was too well informed to be taken in by the arguments of the prosecution. Tertullus began with a very flowery and flattering introduction. He spoke of Felix as a very wise and benevolent leader, who skillfully had brought peace and progress to the Jewish nation. Even without a knowledge of secular history, the words of Tertullus are too smooth and too flattering. But with a knowledge of secular history, we know that these statements were hypocritical and dishonest. Felix was no man of peace, and the Jews did not have a high regard for him. It was due to a Jewish protest that Felix was recalled by the emperor.⁵⁰⁴

Whether or not Felix was a “man of peace,” his duty was to “keep the peace” in that region, for which he was accountable to Rome. If Paul was a trouble-maker and a disturber of the peace, Felix would find his job to be much easier without Paul’s presence. Thus, the Jewish leaders seem to be suggesting to Felix (through Tertullus) that if he simply turns Paul over to them, they will take care of him and thus rid Felix of a serious problem. Felix does not need to find Paul guilty of treason or of revolutionary activity, he need only find that Paul should be turned over to the Jews for trial in Jerusalem. “Leave Paul to us,” they seem to be saying, “and we will remove a major administrative problem for you.” It was, indeed, a tempting thought, for where Paul went there was often disorder, for whatever reason.

The case which Tertullus presented against Paul was a truly shoddy one. In the first place, there were no eye-witnesses. There were only general allegations, and mostly of misconduct elsewhere. The best that they can do is to point to what they considered an imminent threat of the temple being desecrated, for the offense had not actually taken place. And they have the audacity to suggest to this Roman official that he will find sufficient evidence from Paul’s testimony.⁵⁰⁵ In Roman law and in Jewish law, Paul is not required to testify against himself. We know of this legal protection as the “fifth amendment.”

The charges against Paul were:

(1) He was, in the eyes of the Jews, a ‘real pest’ (verse 5).

(2) He stirred up unrest among the Jews world-wide (verse 5).

(3) He was the ringleader of a non-Jewish sect (verse 5).

(4) He tried to desecrate the temple (verse 6).

The account which Tertullus gave of the riot which took place in Jerusalem was very different, both from that which Luke tells us really happened (chapters 21-23) and from the account which Claudius Lysias wrote in his explanatory letter to Felix (23:26-30). We know from Luke’s account that Paul had done nothing wrong in Jerusalem, and that the Asian Jews had jumped to a wrong conclusion, which precipitated their efforts to kill Paul with the aid of the native Jerusalemites. They would have killed Paul had not Claudius Lysias arrived on the scene. On more than one occasion, Paul was rescued from being put to death by this Roman commander. They had been unsuccessful in their efforts to try Paul in the Sanhedrin, because the issue of the resurrection of the dead divided the two major parties represented in this council.

The account which they Jews wanted Felix to believe, implied by the words of Tertullus, was very different from what actually happened. Their story would go something like this:

“We knew that Paul was a trouble-maker, and so we kept our eyes on him. We saw him attempting to desecrate the temple, and, fortunately, were able to stop him before he succeeded in this horrible task. {Incidentally, Paul seeks Roman protection, not only claiming to be a Roman citizen, but claiming to be a Jew. In reality, he does not hold to the Judaism of our nation or of our fathers, and thus he should not be protected in the conduct and propagation of his cultic religion.} We wanted to bring Paul to trial and to justice, but Claudius Lysias, your commanding officer in Jerusalem, violently intervened. Using excessive force, he kept us from bringing Paul to justice by seizing him from us (injuring some in the process).⁵⁰⁶ We are here, not because we think that you need to try Paul’s case, but because we believe you will agree with us that we should be given jurisdiction in this case. If you will turn Paul over to us, we assure you that we will bring this man to justice, and at the same time rid you of a major problem. We know you will be ever grateful to us for this.”

Paul’s Defense
(24:10-21)

Paul’s defense is recorded in verses 10-21. Paul began with an introductory statement, reported in verses 10b-13. In verses 14-16, Paul spoke about his relationship to Judaism, and its bearing on his conduct. He concluded (as least so far as Luke’s account of his defense is concerned) by specifically answering some of the charges which were made against him (verses 17-21).

Paul’s introduction is very different from that of Tertullus. Tertullus’ introduction was longer, contained much more flattery, and was essentially untrue. Paul’s introduction was short and truthful: he was grateful to stand trail before Felix because he was a man with considerable experience in dealing with this nation. Felix was no “wet behind the ears” novice, who would be taken in by the fancy words of Tertullus, or by the impassioned words of his opponents. Felix knew these Jews and the issues which were really at stake. Thus, Paul could gladly state his case before this official.

In his defense, Paul very carefully sticks to the issue at hand—his conduct in Jerusalem. He does not seek to bring up or to defend himself on any matters outside Jerusalem. Would Tertullus allude to him as a world-wide trouble-maker? Paul would not speak to such allegations. In the first place, there were no specific charges made, but only general, unsupported accusations. Tertullus did not even mention specific places or incidents. Second, Paul was not on trial concerning his conduct elsewhere, only for his conduct in Jerusalem. And so Paul spoke only to those charges which were pertinent.

Paul’s Introductory Comments
(24:10b-13)

After a very brief statement about his cheerful defense to Felix, based upon his years of experience in dealing with the Jews, Paul went right to the essence of the matter. He could not possibly be guilty of the charges, for he had only arrived in Jerusalem 12 days before. He had not been to Jerusalem for several years, and he could hardly have had the time required to do all the evil things which his opponents alleged. Throughout the short time of his stay, he had only engaged in private matters, and had not made any public appearances or statements. The charges which were leveled against Paul, he said, were without any basis. We know this to be true, and this was also exactly what Claudius Lysias had stated in his letter to Felix. There was no substance to the case against Paul. It should be thrown out of court.

Paul’s Relationship to Judaism
(24:14-16)

A very serious allegation, the most serious one to Paul and to the gospel, was that he practiced a form of religion that was contrary to Judaism. The Jews seemed to suggest that the reason why Paul’s ministry was so volatile and led to such violence was that he was not a true Jew and opposed Judaism. This charge was made in Corinth, before Gallio, and was rejected by Gallio, who knew better (see Acts 18:12-17). But the Jews continued to try to disown Christianity and Paul as anti-Jewish.

Paul now turns his attention to the allegation of Tertullus that Paul was a cult-leader, the ringleader of a “sect” called the “Nazarines” (verse 5). The Jews would like Felix to believe that Paul was not a true Jew at all, but one who opposed the Jews, and whose alleged attempt to desecrate the temple was the outgrowth of his “faith.” He openly professes his association with “the Way,” which the Jews call a sect, but he strongly protests the charge that it is a sect. Paul insists that his faith and practice is not only consistent with Judaism, but it is, in fact, the only true Judaism. His wording is carefully chosen so that instead of reflecting a “we/they” polarization, he refers to an “our/us” commonality in many areas, thus affirming his close ties with Judaism.⁵⁰⁷

Paul served “the God of our fathers,” not some other “god” (verse 14). Paul’s faith and practice was based upon the revelation of God to Israel in the “Law and the Prophets” (verse 14). His “hope” was like that of those who stood before him, opposing him. His hope was in God and in the resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked. It was this hope and this certainty that he would give account for his every deed that motivated him to “maintain a clear conscience, both before men and before God” (verses 15-16). Paul counters the implied charge that he held to a deviant religious faith, which prompted him to desecrate the temple, with his profession to hold to the same hope as his opponents, and which thus prompted him to live righteously before God and before men.

There is a “tension in the text” here, at least in my mind. In his reference to a common faith, Paul specifically mentions a belief in the “Law and the Prophets” and in the resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked. He indicates that his hope is based upon these beliefs, which he shares with those Jews who are present and who are opposing him. Now if there were any Pharisees present (none have been specifically identified as such), then Paul could simply be saying that his belief in these truths was the same as that of the Pharisees. We know this to be true from Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin, when the Pharisees sided with Paul on the issue of the resurrection (see 23:6-10). But it cannot be said that the Sadducees believed in these things, as Paul did. There must have been Pharisees present, then, and Paul must have identified only with these Pharisees. By implication, Paul was claiming to be orthodox, while these Sadducees were the heretics. If there was a “sect,” it was the Sadducees who were to be seen as in this camp, not Paul, and not Jewish Christians.

A similar statement, shouted out by Paul, was made during his trial before the Council, the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). To this incident Paul will draw attention in verse 21. It was such a statement that divided the Sanhedrin. They would not make the same mistake here, it seems, for that would prove Paul’s point, that whatever the differences between he and the Jewish leaders were, they were differences between Jews, differences within Judaism. I can imagine how irritated the Sadducees were when Paul spoke of his hope as the only true Judaism, thereby indicating that they were the heretics. How they must have wanted to debate this point, or even to kill Paul for what he said, but they could not, lest they lose this case.

Paul’s Answers to Specific Charges
(24:17-21)

Paul’s conduct while in Jerusalem was completely consistent with all that he had said up to this point. In order to refute the charges against him, Paul walked through the events of those few days in Jerusalem, explaining exactly what he did, and what happened as a result.

Having been away from Jerusalem for several years, Paul returned to his people and nation. He came there, not to stir up trouble nor to attack Judaism, but to “bring alms” to his own people and to present offerings (verse 17). These were not the actions of a revolutionary, an anti-Jew, but were the very things which a true Jew would do on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Paul’s time was spent in the temple, not in seeking to desecrate it, but involved in a cleansing and purifying ritual for himself and other (Jerusalem) Jews.

The uprising was not to be seen as the result of anything Paul did, but rather as the result of the activity of some Asian Jews, who were in Jerusalem at the time. These Asian Jews, who allegedly witnessed some violation of the Jewish law, and who started the riot which occurred, were not even present before Felix. Their absence spoke loudly in Paul’s defense, Paul implied. Why were they not here, since they were the only one’s who claimed to have witnessed his allegedly illegal activities? Paul’s case should have been thrown out of court, simply on the basis of this absence of any direct testimony.

Paul pressed on. Let those who stood before Paul and Felix, as Paul’s accusers, tell what laws Paul had broken (verses 20-21). They were seeking to have Paul turned over to them, so that they could try him. But they had already attempted to try Paul. And what was the result? Another disturbance, and it was they who were disorderly in this uprising, not Paul. And the cause of all this was Paul’s statement, identifying himself with the belief of the Pharisees, in the belief that there is a resurrection of the dead. The fact that the Pharisees sided with Paul in this debate was evidence that whatever Paul’s differences were with some of the Jews, there were other prominent Jewish leaders who agreed with him. If the trial of Paul before the Sanhedrin had resulted in a kind of mistrial, and one that caused a small riot, why should he them go back to be tried there again?

Felix’s (In)Decision
(24:22-23)

Paul was right in his statement to Felix that he was a man of experience, a man who understood the Jews and the issues which divided them. But Felix was also a man with considerable knowledge concerning Christianity, or “the Way” (see verse 22). Through sources which are not revealed, Felix understood Christianity and Judaism. The opposition of these Jews to Paul and to the gospel he preached came as no new thing to Felix. It was just a replay of the same old hassles. Because of this, Felix could have quickly pronounced judgment, finding for Paul, and setting him free. But this was not to be the case, for at least two reasons: (1) God, in His sovereignty, had ordained that Paul go to Rome and that he preach the gospel to kings (see Acts 1:8; 9:15; 23:11). God had ordained, as we shall see in the remaining chapters of Acts, that His plans and purposes for Paul would be achieved through the unbelief and opposition of the Jews, and through the good and evil actions of Roman rulers. (2) Felix was a politician, who hoped to use this situation for his own advantage. If he were fortunate, he might not only obtain a bribe from Paul, but he might also curry the favor of the Jews. In the concluding verses of this chapter we see Felix as the cunning politician and Paul and the consistent, faithful preacher of the gospel.

Felix could hardly find Paul guilty of any Roman offense, and he did have to concern himself with the protection of Paul’s rights, since he was a Roman citizen. He was not able to turn Paul over to the Jews or to the Sanhedrin, but he could postpone the verdict, thereby pacifying (if not pleasing) the Jews, and providing at least an opportunity for him to obtain a bribe from Paul. Since the Jews had (in my view) challenged the actions of Claudius Lysias, Felix could delay a verdict until this commander could be summoned and his testimony heard (but remember, he had written to Felix that Paul was not guilty of any crime worthy of death or imprisonment). And so Felix put off the decision, knowing that it would not gain him the favor of anyone. At the same time, he attempted to pacify Paul by instructing that he be given a measure of freedom while incarcerated, so that visitors could come and go freely, to minister to Paul. With considerable skill, Felix avoided coming to a decision and pronouncing a verdict for his remaining two years in office. He managed to leave this problem with his successor, Festus.

Felix Dialogues With Paul
(24:24-27)

I am convinced that many good things took place during the two years that Paul waited to go to Rome,⁵⁰⁸ but Luke chooses not to mention most of these. The one thing he does include in his account is the frequent discussions which took place between the politician (and, at least one meeting which included his wife, Drusilla) and the preacher.

Drusilla, the wife of Felix, was a Jewess, Luke tells us. She was a woman with an interesting heritage and past:

“Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and at this time was not yet twenty years old. As a small girl she had been betrothed to the crown prince of Commangene, in eastern Asia Minor, but the marriage did not take place because the prospective bride-groom refused to become a proselyte to Judaism. Then her brother Agrippa II gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa (modern Homs), a petty state in Syria. But when she was still only sixteen, Felix, with the help (it is said) of a Cypriot magician called Atomos, persuaded her to leave her husband and come to be his wife, promising her (with a play on his name) every ‘felicity’ if she did so. Accordingly, she joined Felix as his third wife, and bore him a son named Agrippa, who met his death in the eruption of Vesuvius in A. D. 79.”⁵⁰⁹

“She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I (Drusilla, Mariamne, Bernice). Her father murdered James, her great-uncle Herod Antipas slew John the Baptist, her great-grandfather (Herod the Great) killed the babes of Bethlehem.”⁵¹⁰

Felix must have told his wife, Drusilla, about the trial, and she seems to have expressed interest in hearing the message which Paul was proclaiming. At any rate, Luke tells us that after some days passed, Felix returned to Caesarea with his wife, and Paul was summoned. At first, it may have been with the guise of gaining more information from Paul. But there were obviously other reasons: (1) Drusilla, a Jewess, seems to have been at least curious about Paul’s preaching; (2) Felix himself seems to have had some interest in the gospel; (3) Felix also hoped that Paul might offer him money (a bribe) to speed up the wheels of justice.

If you were Paul, and you were summoned to Felix, a Roman governor, and his wife, a Jewess, and were asked about your message, what would you have said? What a temptation there would have been for Paul to “tone down” his message, to focus his attention on the “glad texts”⁵¹¹ of the Old Testament. If this would have been the course taken by others, it was not what Paul did. He spoke instead about the gospel, about “righteousness, about self-control, and about the judgment to come” (verse 25).⁵¹² Such topics hardly put the minds of these two people at ease, although they would have done so, if they had repented and come to faith in Jesus as Savior and Messiah.

When Paul got around to the judgment to come, Felix became frightened, as sent Paul away. He would talk with Paul more about this later. And so he did, but there is no indication that he or Drusilla came to faith. Many other times Paul was called before Felix. It was with incredibly mixed motives that Felix sent for him. He had some interest in the gospel, but he also felt the pressure of the Jews. He feared, to some degree, a judgment to come, and yet he also hoped for a bribe from Paul. His ambivalence and wavering never ended. And so, for two years, Paul’s imprisonment lingered on, and the discussions continued. Finally, Festus, his replacement, was left with the sticky matter of Paul’s case.⁵¹³ It seems that Felix was “off the hook.”

Conclusion

This text has much to say to us. Let me conclude by pointing out some important lessons.

(1) Our text underscores the grace of God to Felix and his wife. Most of us are probably inclined to view this two year delay from Paul’s point of view. It would seem that this was a needless waste of time, for Paul’s arrival in Rome is put off two years. But from another perspective, it is a manifestation of the marvelous grace of God. Paul’s two year incarceration in Caesarea was, as verses 24-26 underscore, a time for the gospel to be repeatedly proclaimed to this governor and his wife. What amazing grace we see! God had purposed and promised that Paul would be His instrument to proclaim the gospel to Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15), and this is exactly what happened at Caesarea.

It is true that Felix and Drusilla seem to have rejected this gospel, and thus they will experience the judgment about which Paul spoke. But think of it. God not only ordained that this Roman ruler and his wife hear the gospel, but that they hear it for two years. They are surely without excuse.

This text, when viewed in the light of other Scripture, illustrates the fact that delays are by divine design, and are manifestations of divine grace:

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with {their} mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For {ever} since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God {the} heavens existed long ago and {the} earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one {fact} escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up (2 Peter 3:3-10).

This two year delay was a manifestation of God’s grace to Felix and Drusilla. But this grace was rejected, and so this couple must face the eternal wrath of God, rather than to eternally enjoy His glorious salvation. How sad it is to see the procrastination of Felix. He thought that he was shrewd to put off the decision of Paul’s guilt or innocence, and along with this he put off the matter of his own guilt (through his sins) or innocence (in Christ). There is a coming day of judgment, and the matter of eternal salvation should be dealt with today:

And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain—for He says, “AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU”; behold, now is “THE ACCEPTED TIME,” behold now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION” (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).

Let Felix and his wife be a warning to you, not to put of the matter of your eternal destiny. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the offer of the Gospel to you, which produces self-control, and which keeps you from the coming judgment on unbelievers. Be saved today.

(2) The power of the gospel is inseparably linked with the purity of the gospel. Paul was surely given the opportunity to modify the gospel in such a way as to be less offensive to this ruler and his wife. Righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come were some of the most uncomfortable topics that Paul could have raised, but these are precisely the issues of the gospel, and a key to its power, for the Lord Himself promised that the Holy Spirit would “convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8-11). Are we as concerned for the purity of the gospel as Paul was? If not, the power of the gospel is at issue. While it is true that we are drawn to Christ by His love, and by the promise of the good things of gospel, it is just as true that we are driven to the gospel by the fear of sin and its eternal consequences. It is the false teachers who appeal to the self-indulgence of sinful men, and who represent God as one who condones sin (see 2 Peter). Let us never minimize the essential elements of the gospel, whether men wish to hear them or not.

(3) The power of God is inseparably linked to the purity of our lifestyle. From Luke’s words it would seem that a bribe from Paul might have secured Paul’s release. It is implied by our text that Paul not only refused to pay this bribe, but that he refused to consider this as an option. Paul believed in the sovereignty of God. God could achieve His purposes through unsaved, wicked, men, just as He could work through men and women of faith. If Paul was to be released, it would not be due to a bribe. Paul wanted a verdict which would protect and promote the preaching of the gospel. He left his fate in God’s hands. If he could not be released legally and honestly, he would not be released. Paul’s purity of lifestyle was directly linked, I believed, to his grasp of the power of God. A Christian need not “bend the rules” or “play the world’s games” in order to live godly lives and to promote the gospel. Are we really convinced of this? I fear that we are far more influenced by pragmatism here than we are by the power of God.

(4) The sovereignty of God assures us that His promises will be fulfilled, whether by means of faithful, obedient servants, or by self-serving government officials, or by those who are religious and who oppose the gospel. The Book of Acts is a constant reminder of the fallibility of men and of the faithfulness of God. Those things which God had promised in the Old Testament, and which our Lord had promised His disciples and the church, are recorded as being fulfilled in Acts. The fulfillment of God’s promises is not dependent upon men, nor can men successfully oppose God’s purposes. In our text alone, God’s purposes for Paul and for the gospel are achieved through the stubborn unbelief and opposition of the Sadducees, through the self-serving efforts of Felix, and through the obedience of Paul. God’s purposes and promises are sure, because God is sovereign. He works all things for the good which He has purposed and promised. We may rest in Him and in His promises, because of His power.

(5) God’s purposes are often achieved in ways we would never expect, and at times when His power seems least visible. From a purely human point of view, things could hardly have looked more bleak and less promising, for Paul or for the gospel. The Jews of Jerusalem wanted Paul killed, and seemed capable of doing so. Paul’s ministry in Jerusalem was cut short, and his future ministry in Rome seemed unlikely. At a time when Paul would have wanted his freedom, he was deprived of it—for two years, no less—and his future ministry looked far from promising. Faith never walks by sight, but always in the assurance of God’s person and promises.

(6) Ministry often occurs in ways that look incidental or accidental. Christians seem to have a “stained glass” concept of ministry. We think of ministry in very formal, structured, and planned terms. And yet the Book of Acts speaks of much ministry as though it were incidental, unplanned, and even unexpected. When we look at the events described in Acts 24, they look chaotic, out of control. Paul’s ministry seems terminated, and his life endangered, but in the midst of a maze of wrong motives and sinful actions (on the part of Felix and the Jews), God arranged for the gospel to be preached to this ruler and his wife. God was in control, although it did not appear to be this way. Ministry is doing the right thing when everything around us seems to be going wrong. Ministry is living in obedience to God’s commands, in the midst of sin, opposition, and confusion, out of faith in the person of God and in the certainty of His promises.

God is in control when the world seems to be out of control. What a message this has for us today, as we seek to live godly lives in a chaotic world. May He find us faithful, trusting in Him and in His promises, and living according to His Word, faithfully proclaiming His salvation to a lost and dying world.

⁴⁹⁹F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 436-437.

⁵⁰⁰A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 408.

⁵⁰¹Although Paul’s words in verses 14 and 15 seem, on the surface, to assume that some Pharisees are present.

⁵⁰²“The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin orator) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero pro Cael. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 412.

⁵⁰³I think most commentators would agree that Tertullus was, indeed, a Roman. Bruce thinks he was a Hellenistic Jew. This is hard to square with verse 9, which seems to state that when Tertullus, the Roman lawyer, presented his case the Jews present attested to what he said. The fact that Tertullus spoke as though he was a Jew (for example, “we arrested him,” verse 6) is to be expected, for he represented them and spoke on their behalf.

⁵⁰⁴“Felix had suppressed a riot, but Tacitus (Ann. XII. 54) declares that Felix secretly encouraged banditti and shared the plunder for which the Jews finally made complaint to Nero who recalled him. But it sounded well to praise Felix for keeping peace in his province, especially as Tertullus was going to accuse Paul of being a disturber of the peace.” A. T. Robertson, III, pp. 412-413.

“Obviously Felix had certain accounts to his credit in his Judean administration. In addition to the dispersing of the Egyptian Sicarii’s insurrection (Acts 21:38), he had quelled uprisings and banditry under the leadership of one Eliezer and a serious disturbance between the Syrians and the Caesarean Jews. But the other side of the ledger was seriously overbalanced with discredits. He was reprehensible for both bad character and maladministration. His lustful, mercenary, oppressive, unjust, and cruel conduct was all too well known by his Jewish subjects . . .” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 356.

⁵⁰⁵There is some discussion as to just who is referred to by “him” in verse 8. The shortened version would require that it be Paul who should be questioned. The longer version (including verses 6b-8a) would allow for “him” to be Claudius Lysias.

⁵⁰⁶Bruce reminds us that the words set apart in verses 6b-8a are “. . . added in the Western text, and were taken over into TR {Textus Receptus, the text from which the King James Version was translated}. They are not found in the Byzantine witnesses, and are therefore not included in The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. Z. C. Hodges and A. L. Farstad (Nashville, TN, 1982).” Bruce, p. 438, fn. 3.

It is my personal opinion that the words are a genuine part of the text, and that they are not only consistent with the argument of the Jews, but supportive of this argument. I believe that these words also provided Festus with his excuse, so that he refused to give his verdict until Claudius Lysias (whose conduct was questioned by Tertullus and the Jews present) was able to testify. So long as Claudius did not appear, a decision could be postponed, indeed, must be postponed.

⁵⁰⁷It is interesting to recall that Paul’s purpose for going to Jerusalem (the convey the gift from the Gentile churches) and his worship in the temple was for the purpose of narrowing the growing gap between Judaism and Christianity.

⁵⁰⁸“In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke 1:1-4).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 424.

“Some have conjectured that he wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews during this period (if indeed it was written by Paul); others that the Ephesian, Colossian and Philippian epistles, with perhaps Philemon, were written here. However, evidence is lacking for any of these hypotheses.” Carter and Earle, 366.

⁵⁰⁹F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 447-448.

⁵¹⁰A. T. Robertson, III, p. 422.

⁵¹¹You will recall that in the movie, “Polyanna,” this little girl is shown to get the preacher (who preached “hell and brimstone messages” prior to her counsel) to preach on “glad texts,” the positive, upbeat, texts of the Bible, and to set aside the others.

⁵¹²“‘Righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come’ (25) were, however, the last themes calculated to soothe either the governor or his wife. Righteousness had small part in Felix’ administration; self-control was not prominent in the court-favorite who had persuaded the young Jewess at his side to abandon her husband, Azizus, King of Emesa. And judgment to come was too direct a reminder, even to a man who took little thought of the hereafter, of that summons to Rome and a last accounting, which ultimately befell him. Felix was tangled in a web of evil circumstance of his own weaving, and the time was not convenient to cut himself boldly free (25).” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 182.

⁵¹³“The occasion of Felix’s recall from his office was an outbreak of civil strife between the Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, in which Felix intervened with troops in such a way as to cause much bloodshed among the leaders of the Jewish faction. On his return to Rome he would have faced a severe penalty, Josephus informs us, had it not been for the advocacy of his brother Pallas. Pallas had been removed from his post as head of the imperial civil service in A.D. 55, but (largely on account of his colossal wealth) he retained great influence for several years after that.” F. F. Bruce, pp. 448-449.

“Luke does not tell why Felix ‘received’ a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 424.

36. Paul’s Appeal (Acts 25:1-27)

Introduction

At the end of my first year of seminary, my family and I returned to the Northwest to rekindle some relationships and to hopefully find a summer job. The Lord actually had two jobs for me so that I was able to work the entire summer. The first job was filling in for a teacher whose class had gotten out of control, forcing her to take a leave of absence. Bringing this very unruly fourth grade class under control seemed to qualify me for my second job of teaching high school classes in a medium security prison. There I taught under my high school principal and alongside some of my former teachers. Because I was returning to my seminary studies in the fall, a permanent teacher was hired to take my place at the end of the summer. He was a nice enough fellow but straight out of college with no teaching experience.

I doubt if I would want my first days of teaching to be in a prison high school but such was the case for my replacement. While I was still teaching, he came to class to be introduced to his future students and to get a feel for the situation. Had this fellow known what adventures lay ahead of him, he would have been apprehensive about the future. He probably was insecure and apprehensive, but if this was the case, he made the mistake of trying to act a little too confident and “in control.” He took over the class somewhat highhandedly, informing the prison high school students about the class, about its curriculum, and especially about its discipline. I felt he overplayed his role. Having been the supreme test for some of my teachers, I thought I knew how these men felt. At least I know how I felt about this fellow.

When that class period ended, the men all filed out to their next class. One of the men lingered a bit. He slipped up beside me and having an inkling about my impression of the “show” that had just been put on for us all, he quietly mumbled so that I could hear him, “We’ll see.” The worst part of it was that I found myself emotionally identifying with this inmate, and not with the teacher. I rather hoped that this novice teacher would be humbled a bit, and that he would not “teach down” to these men, as it seemed he was inclined to do.

Inexperience and its outcome can prove to be a humbling thing. How many of us has had the uncomfortable experience of beginning a new job one about which we know very little. Beginning a new job is a most insecure feeling. When I read in our text of Festus, the new governor of Judea before whom Paul will stand, I think of that “wet behind the ears” college graduate who had little understanding or experience in that which he was about to attempt. I see this whole scenario which Luke has depicted for us in Acts chapter 25 as the result of the inexperience and insecurity of Festus, the new governor, the man who replaced Felix, his predecessor.

We know that Festus was a Roman governor, and therefore a man of considerable power. But he was also a novice, at least when it came to dealing with the Jews. His inexperience and insecurity plays a major role in the outcome of Paul’s two-year imprisonment, and is the cause for Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Felix was an “old pro,” a seasoned politician. He knew the political ropes, he knew the Jews, and he was well informed about Christianity, “the way” (24:22). He was also a corrupt man, whose corrupt administration created many problems for Festus, his replacement. He must have congratulated himself on the way he skillfully used Paul’s arrest to make some political gains. In addition to putting off a very delicate decision—on Paul’s guilt or innocence—he had gained some favor with the Jews (or at least not lost too much favor) by leaving Paul in prison. He had also hoped to obtain a bribe from Paul, failing to comprehend Paul’s deep sense of principle and confidence in the sovereignty of God. In any case, Felix would have been inclined to congratulate himself for “making the best of a bad situation” and not having his career destroyed by getting caught between Paul and his Jewish opponents.

When Felix left the scene, he was replaced by Festus. This man was new, “green,” inexperienced. He had some very hard lessons to learn. What appears to have been his first case was also one of the worst problems he would face in his short stay in office. He was persuaded to complete what Felix had started, but had not finished—Paul’s trial. It looked quite simple at first, cut and dried, but it proved to be a nightmare to Festus. This case would cause him many sleepless nights (in my opinion). It was a very touchy, almost explosive situation, and one which seemed to be very detrimental to his popularity and to his career.

If, in these final chapters of Acts, God is using the unbelief and opposition of the Jews to accomplish His purposes, He is also using the Roman political officials. He has used Claudius Lysias to save Paul’s life and to remove Paul from Jerusalem, where there was a conspiracy to kill him. He also used the politically shrewd Felix to keep Paul out of circulation (in what proved to be a kind of protective custody, out of Jewish hands) for two years. And now God will use this neophyte, Festus, to point Paul toward Rome, where he must proclaim the gospel (see Acts 23:11). Let us take note of how God sovereignly guides Paul toward Rome as we study our text, and let us look for those principles which will guide us as well.

Background

It is a mystery that Paul’s case ever got this far in the Roman judicial system. It is an even greater mystery that his case will go even farther—all the way to the Roman emperor, Caesar. The whole episode began with a hasty and inaccurate conclusion, drawn by men who were looking for an excuse to be rid of Paul. Paul had gone to the temple, along with four other Jews, at the suggestion of the elders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:17-26). As Paul was concluding his worship, he was seen in the temple by some Asian Jews (21:27). Previously these men had seen Paul in the city of Jerusalem with Trophimus, an Ephesian Gentile, and so they jumped to the conclusion that Trophimus was still with Paul, and thus that Paul had desecrated the temple by taking Gentiles along. At the very least, in their minds, he was about to do so, if he had not already done so (21:29). They charged Paul with this horrid crime of desecrating the temple, not before the religious officials or before the Roman officials, but before a mob which they assembled. Their intention was not to bring Paul to trial, but to kill him. The managed to quickly gather an angry crowd who were in the process of putting Paul to death (21:30-31). Had the Roman commander not gotten wind of this riot and quickly arrived on the scene, they would have succeeded and Paul would have been killed.

Because Paul was innocent of any crime, against the Jewish law, the Roman law or the temple, there was no charge that could be made against him that would hold up under scrutiny. From the very outset of Rome’s involvement in this case, the officials kept trying to identify some charge against Paul, so that he could be fairly tried. Claudius Lysias allowed Paul to address the crowd of Jews who had gathered to kill him, but since he did not understand Hebrew he missed the key points which Paul made (21:37—22:21). He could not fail to grasp the intensity of the riot that followed, due to Paul’s reference to the divine command to forsake Jerusalem and to go to the Gentiles with the gospel (22:22-23).

Frustrated by his inability to get a handle on this volatile situation, he was about to interrogate Paul by scourging until he learned that he was a Roman citizen (22:24-29). When Paul was brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin the following day, another riot broke out, and nothing more was learned about Paul’s alleged offense (23:1-11). When word of a conspiracy to kill Paul reached the commander’s ears, he sent Paul to Caesarea under heavy guard, to stand trial before Felix, who successfully avoided rendering a verdict for two years. Both Claudius Lysias (23:26-30) and Felix (implied in chapter 24) knew that Paul was not guilty of any serious offense. Nevertheless, he was held in custody for two years in Caesarea. Felix had hoped that this inaction would gain him some measure of favor among the Jews and that it might also enable him to obtain a bribe from Paul (24:26-27).

A Change in Administration:
From Felix to Festus

The events described in Acts chapter 25 are the result, in great measure, of the change in administration from the governorship of Felix to that of Festus. From what historical information is available, it would appear that Felix was an apple that was rotten to the core, while Festus seems to have been a significant improvement.

Felix was originally a slave, who, for some unknown reason, was given his freedom by the emperor Claudius Caesar. Suetonius referred to his military honors, as well as his governorship of Judea, bestowed upon him by the emperor. He also referred to Felix as the “husband of three queens or royal ladies,” far from a compliment. “Tacitus, in his History, declares that during his governorship in Judea he indulged in all kinds of cruelty and lust, exercising regal power with the disposition of a slave; and in his Annals (xi, 54) he represents Felix as considering himself licensed to commit any crime, relying on the influence which he possessed at court.”⁵¹⁴

As an example of his “leadership” we are told that Felix had a grudge against Jonathan, the high priest, who spoke out against this wicked governor’s methods and administration. Felix managed to have Jonathan killed with the help of one of the priest’s intimate friends, who arranged for a group of assassins to murder him. “While in office he became enamored of Drusilla, a daughter of King Herod Agrippa, who was married to Azizus, king of Emesa, and through the influence of Simon, a magician, prevailed upon her to consent to a union with him. With this adulteress Felix was seated when Paul reasoned before him (Acts 24:25).”⁵¹⁵

Relations between Felix and the Jews were rapidly deteriorating, and would be the reason for his recall by the emperor and the loss of his office which was filled by Festus. Had it not been for the influence of his brother Pallas in the court of the emperor, Felix would have faced even more severe punishment for his misdeeds. We should not wonder, then, that when Paul’s case came to him, Felix left Paul in prison to gain some favor with the Jews. He badly needed to gain some ground with them, though whatever gains he made were short-lived.

In comparison to the corrupt rule of Felix, Festus was a breath of fresh air:

Josephus’ writing picture Festus as a prudent and honorable governor. Felix’s maladministration bequeathed to Festus the impossible task of restoring order to a province embroiled in political strife and overrun by robbers. The Sicarii,… as the robbers were called on account of the small swords they carried, would come upon a village, plunder it, set it on fire, and murder whomever they wished. Through the use of an impostor, Festus succeeded in ridding the province of many of these criminals (Ant. xx.8.10 {185-88}). But his procuratorship was too short to undo the legacy of his predecessor, and under his successor, Albinus, the situation rapidly deteriorated once again (BJ ii.14.1 {272-76}).”⁵¹⁶

Unfortunately for Festus, he not only inherited a corrupt administration, but he also inherited the unresolved problem of posed by Paul, who was still being held prisoner in Caesarea, thanks to the indecision of his predecessor, Felix. It will now become the task of Festus to identify some charge against Paul so that he can be tried and this long-standing problem can be put behind him. The events of our chapter are really the result of the absence of any specific and demonstrable charges against Paul. Festus will do his best to isolate Paul’s offense, but he will not succeed. But in his search for the truth, the gospel will be proclaimed to many people of position and power, thus fulfilling the plan and promise of God (Acts 9:15).

The Setting:
Festus Gets a Promotion and a Problem
(24:27—25:5)

Felix was lucky, or so it seemed. He was able to put off the “problem of Paul” until he left office. Festus⁵¹⁷ was not so fortunate. The moment Festus took office, the issue of Paul’s trial was raised by the Jerusalem Jewish leaders, who urged the governor to send Paul to Jerusalem. Two years had in no way cooled their intense animosity toward Paul, nor their determination to be rid of his preaching. Their intention, as Luke makes clear in verse 3, was not to try Paul, but only to get him within reach of those who had vowed to assassinate him.

Festus was new at his task, unfamiliar with Judaism, and ignorant of the intensifying conflict between Christianity and unbelieving Judaism in Israel, and especially in Jerusalem. At this point in time, Paul was the most prominent Jewish Christian, and thus he was the focus of the unbelieving Jewish attack on the gospel. When Festus arrived in Jerusalem, he had unknowingly walked into the “lion’s den.” It would be several days before he would begin to grasp the gravity of the problem which was to be put before him in Jerusalem on his first official visit.

Festus wanted to start out his new administration on the right foot, so almost immediately upon assuming his position as the governor of Judea,⁵¹⁸ he made an appearance at Jerusalem. His headquarters were in Caesarea, but the headquarters of the Jews, over whom he ruled, were in Jerusalem. And so within a few days of taking office, Festus arrived in Jerusalem, where he spent several days. It was at this time that the Jewish leaders began to press Felix to send Paul to Jerusalem for trial. Whether this was represented as a trial before Felix, a trial before the Sanhedrin, or a combination of both is not entirely clear. It didn’t really matter, for the Jews had no intention of going through the motions of another trial. They only wanted Paul brought to Jerusalem where the plot to assassinate him could be carried out (25:3).

Festus quickly grasped the political implications of doing what the Jews requested. It would give the appearance that they were “in control,” that they were “calling the shots.” Festus declined, not because he was seeking to spare Paul from the danger of assassination (which dangers he either was ignorant of, or he did not take seriously), but because of the political “loss of face” that would result for him personally. No. If there was to be a trial, it would not be in Jerusalem. Paul was a Roman citizen, and Festus was a representative of the Roman government. He would try the case, and he would do so at his headquarters. If they wished to press charges, let them make the journey to Caesarea.

It was a brilliant move on the part of Festus. He intended to gain the upper hand, right from the beginning. He would not begin by having these Jews tell him what to do. He was going to “call the shots.” If they were so eager to have this dangerous criminal tried, he would try him in Caesarea, he would there be seated on his tribunal, from which he could pronounce a verdict as a representative of Rome and of the emperor. How quickly Festus will change his tune and seek to win the favor of these Jews.

The Trial, Festus’ Verdict, and Paul’s Appeal
(25:6-12)

Festus did not rush back to Caesarea. With a kind of calculated deliberateness, Festus stayed on in Jerusalem for another week and a half, before he returned to Caesarea. Then, promptly upon his return, he set the date for Paul’s trial to be conducted on the following day. The scene is now set for yet another trial, and yet another instance of indecision.

Festus was shocked to hear the charges of which the Jews accused Paul. They were nothing like those which he had expected, based upon his earlier conversation with these leaders in Jerusalem, only a few days earlier (see 25:18-19). Luke briefly describes the scene and the indictments against Paul:

And after he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove (Acts 25:7).⁵¹⁹

Like a pack of angry dogs, the circled Paul, unleashing their anger and hostility.

I think I can imagine how it all fell apart. The real disagreement with Paul was the gospel. The fundamental issue was over the person of Jesus. Paul insisted that He was the Messiah, the Christ, in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. One aspect of this fulfilled prophecy was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The Jews adamantly rejected these claims and resisted Paul and any who would seek to propagate them. The “official” grievances against Paul were some “Romanized” charges, which the Jews hoped would give at least the appearance of legality to the execution of this troublemaker. The Jewish leaders were calm and cool and business-like when they met with Festus in Jerusalem. But when they came face-to-face with Paul in the courtroom, the “official” charges quickly gave way to the real dispute. Thus, they circled about Paul, screaming out their charges. It was, I believe, a chaotic, unruly proceeding. The intensity of the opposition, along with its apparent unanimity, caused Festus to back off and to try to appease these zealous opponents of Paul.

Paul’s defense, like the allegations of the Jews, is very briefly summarized. Paul’s defense refers to three alleged offenses, none of which were true:

… Paul said in his own defense, “ I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar” (Acts 25:8).

Festus quickly began to change his way of dealing with these Jews and with Paul. Luke explains his actions by telling us that he was “wishing to do the Jews a favor” (25:9). He was, after all, a politician. Granted, he was not an elected official, but an appointed one. Nevertheless, he had to keep the peace and also to maintain a certain level of acceptance with the Jewish leaders or his position could be in jeopardy. Remember that it was the protest of these Jews against the corruption of Felix which resulted in his removal from office. Even dictators have to maintain a certain level of popular support or at least toleration. Paul was but one man (albeit a Roman citizen), and these Jews seemed to represent the masses (a conclusion which was not altogether accurate). As Festus weighed the political implications of the case before him, he realized that protecting Paul against these folks could be a very costly move. And so he began to seek to appease them, and to win their favor, by failing to carry out his task. So far as dealing fairly with Paul, Festus would prove to be no better than Felix.

There was at least one other reason for the compromise which Festus was about to offer Paul,⁵²⁰ a reason which Luke saves until later in this story, but which we will take note of here: since the charges brought against Paul were really religious and theological in nature, and not matters concerning Roman Law, Festus was incompetent to deal with them. He did not have the foggiest idea what these Jews were arguing about. He knew that they considered their differences very serious, but he was not like Felix or Agrippa, for he did not understand Judaism. How much more competent the Sanhedrin would be to judge such matters. Thus, he will explain to Agrippa:

“And when the accusers stood up, they began bringing charges against him not of such crimes as I was expecting, but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a certain dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. And being at a loss how to investigate such matters, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these matters” (Acts 25:18-20).

And so Festus proposed a compromise, which, in his mind should have been acceptable to all. He proposed that Paul go to Jerusalem, where he would stand trial, and at which he (Festus) would preside. On the surface, it did not seem like such a bad suggestion. The Jews would get what they wanted—Paul would be brought to trial in Jerusalem. And, if things did not change, Paul might very well be found innocent there. How could Paul possibly refuse?

It seems to me that Festus either failed to have all the facts before him, or he closed his eyes to these facts. Did he have a copy of the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix? Was he aware of the riots in Jerusalem, and of the abortive attempt of Claudius Lysias to have Paul tried before the Sanhedrin? And was he aware of the plot to assassinate Paul? These records might have been lost in the change of administration, or Festus might not have come to this trial adequately prepared. Or, Festus may have chosen not to believe the reports. For whatever reason, he was asking Paul to go back to Jerusalem, where these Jewish leaders planned to have Paul assassinated. It is no wonder Paul refused the offer, much to the surprise (I think) of Festus.

Paul’s response to Festus is a courteous rebuke, and it is also a very important commentary on his teaching on the role of government and its God-given responsibilities (see Romans 13:1-5; also Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17). If government is a God-ordained institution, assigned with the task of rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do evil, then it has an obligation to protect those who are not guilty. Paul has been tried, and the charges against him have not been proven. It is the duty of Festus to pronounce him innocent. In seeking to please the Jews, he is failing to carry out his divinely ordained duty. It is not because Festus has failed to be convinced of Paul’s innocence, either (see 25:24-25). In fact, he has not yet been able to even identify the charges. Festus is failing to carry out his duty.

Paul therefore uses his rights as a Roman citizen to the full. If Festus will not do the right thing and pronounce him innocent, then Paul will exercise his right of appeal to Caesar.

The right of appeal (prouocatio) to the emperor arose out of the earlier right of appeal to the sovereign people (the populus Romanus), one of the most ancient rights of a Roman citizen, traditionally going back to the foundation of the republic in 509 B.C. It was usually exercised by appealing against a magistrate’s verdict, but might be exercised at any earlier stage of proceedings, claiming “that the investigation be carried out in Rome and judgment passed by the emperor himself.” At an early stage in his principate, Augustus was granted the right to judge on appeal; not many years later, the Julian law on public disorder safeguarded Roman citizens not only against degrading forms of coercion or punishment but also against being sentenced after an appeal had been voiced or being prevented from going to Rome to have the appeal heard there within a reasonable time.⁵²¹

For Paul, making this appeal must have been a major turning point. Paul was still a devout Jew, one who saw that the hopes of Judaism had been fulfilled in the person of Jesus, the Christ. How he loved his own people and yearned for their salvation. How he looked forward to the time when all Israel would turn to the Lord in faith, and when the kingdom of God would be established on the earth. His appeal to Caesar may well have been the final straw for Paul, indicating that Israel would not turn, and that God’s judgment was soon to come upon this nation, and particularly on the city of Jerusalem. With this appeal, I believe that all hope of Israel’s repentance and turning to the Lord was lost for the near future, and would only occur in the more distant future.⁵²²

If Paul’s appeal was a deeply painful experience for him, it was perhaps even more traumatic event for Festus. It may have taken Festus a little time to realize this, however. From Luke’s account, I get the impression that when Paul appealed to Caesar, Festus turned to his counselors and said something like this: “Can he do that?” They assured him that he could, and so he indicated to Paul that his appeal would be honored.

Initially, Festus may have breathed a sigh of relief. He may very well have thought, “Well, now takes a load off my mind. Now I don’t have to take the heat for protecting Paul. Let Caesar get all the credit for this verdict.” Eventually, however, Festus had to realize that he had one very serious problem, a problem that was even greater than the one that had originally confronted him. At first, he was caught between Paul and the Jews who wanted him dead. Now, he was caught between Paul and Caesar.

The implications of Paul’s appeal to Caesar began to sink in, as Festus considered his plight. In the first place, Festus was required not only to send Paul to Caesar, but he was also required to send a full report with Paul of the circumstances leading to his appeal. Let’s suppose, for the moment, that he had a government form to fill out, in triplicate—for 2301 B. Paul could not be sent without the form, and the first thing that would be required on this form would be a listing of the charges against Paul. That was the problem every Roman official had faced since Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. No Roman official was able to identify any charges! How could Festus send Paul to Caesar with no charges filed against him? Second, the absence of these charges was not only embarrassing, but the whole episode would be certain to reflect badly on Festus and his administration. Here he was, a new governor, seeking to establish himself with the Jews, and eager to prove himself to Caesar, who had appointed him. And his first case results in an appeal. His first case has not even gotten to the point of identifying the exact nature of the alleged defense! He was in a bunch of trouble.

If Paul’s light was on, late that night, it was probably because he was reading the Scriptures or meeting with some saints, or writing an epistle, or praying. But one thing is for sure, the light of Festus was on late that night, and for many nights thereafter. He was sitting up, staring off into space, sweating profusely, wondering what he could possibly write to Caesar which would explain the presence of Paul and of his appeal.

A Helping Hand:
The Arrival of Agrippa and Bernice
(25:13-22)

Seemingly, it was just a coincidence, but it was one that Festus welcomed. Herod Agrippa and Bernice happened to arrive in Caesarea, for a lengthy visit, and they stopped by to pay their respects to Festus, probably to congratulate him on his appointment to his new position as governor. These two visitors are very interesting characters, and knowing a little about them sheds much light on the next chapter of Acts.

“Herod Agrippa II, ruler of a client kingdom to the northeast of Festus’s province, arrived in Caesarea on a complimentary visit, to congratulate the new procurator on his appointment. This man was reputed to be an expert in Jewish religious questions, and Festus hoped he might give him some unofficial help in drafting his report.

Marcus Julius Agrippa, as he calls himself on his coins (using his name as a Roman citizen), was the son of Herod Agrippa I. He was in Rome when his father died in A.D. 44, and the Emperor Claudius was disposed to make him king of the Jews in succession to his father; but because of the younger Agrippa’s youth (he was seventeen years old at the time) he was dissuaded from this plan, and Judaea was once more administered by Roman governors. In A.D. 50, however, Claudius gave him the kingdom of Chalcis (in Lebanon), in succession to his father’s brother Herod, together with the right of appointing the Jewish high priests. In 53 he gave up this kingdom in exchange for a larger one consisting of the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. This territory was augmented three years later by Nero, who added to it the regions of Tiberias and Tarichaea, west of the lake of Galilee, together with Julias in Peraea and fourteen neighboring villages. In token of gratitude to Nero, Agrippa changed the name of his capital, Caesarea Philippi (modern Banyas), to Neronias.”⁵²³

“On this visit Agrippa was accompanied by his sister, Julia Bernice. She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, born in A.D. 28. She was given by her father in marriage to his brother Herod, king of Chalcis. When Herod died in 48, she lived in the house of her brother Agrippa. Later she married Polemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa. On inscriptions she is entitled “queen” and even “great queen.”⁵²⁴

There is an on-going interface throughout the gospels and Acts between the Herods and the gospel. Here, in Acts 24 and 25 we meet three members of the family. They are all the children of Herod Agrippa I, who had James killed, and who died shortly after (Acts 12). Drusilla, the wife of Felix (24:24), and Bernice (25:13) are sisters, and their brother is Agrippa (24:13ff.). Unfortunately, Agrippa and Bernice were more than brother and sister. Their relationship was scandalous. Later, she had an affair with Titus, but her past immorality was so wicked, the Roman people would not tolerate her marriage to this emperor.⁵²⁵

In spite of their immoral lifestyle, I think that Festus was happy to see them in this social context. I think he was even happier when the occasion arose for him to speak with Agrippa about his dilemma concerning Paul and his appeal. (I wonder if Festus didn’t work to bring this subject up.) Festus shared his predicament with Agrippa, as reported in verses 14-21). From his words to Agrippa, we learn some important factors in his decision to seek to persuade Paul to go to Jerusalem for trial. We learn, for example, that the charges which Festus heard (or assumed) from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were not the same charges which became the major issues in the trial he conducted. We also learn that Festus now understood the hostility of the Jews toward Paul was based upon religious and theological issues (upon the gospel), and not on any infraction of any law, Jewish or Roman. We finally learn that Festus realized he was totally incompetent to judge this matter, and thus sought help from the Sanhedrin. His honest is refreshing, as well as revealing.

The problem which Festus shared seemed to arouse the curiosity of Agrippa. His family, after all, had frequently come into contact with the gospel, beginning with John the Baptist, and then Jesus, followed by the apostles, and now Paul. He was probably fascinated both by Paul himself, and also by the perplexing issues of the case. If he was an expert in Jewish affairs and Festus was a novice, here was a chance to “show his stuff.” For whatever reason(s), Agrippa indicated that he would like to hear Paul personally. This was an offer quickly accepted by Festus, and so a meeting was arranged for the following day.

The Stage is Set For
Paul’s Proclamation of the Gospel
(25:23-27)

As I understand the argument of the Book of Acts and this chapter (25) in particular, it is to show how God arranged an opportunity and an audience for the proclamation of the gospel by Paul, as is recorded in the following chapter (26). The events of chapter 25 set the scene for the preaching of Paul in chapter 26.

From a purely human point of view, things look bad for Paul and for the gospel. The Jews want to kill him, and the Roman rulers want to avoid ruling in Paul’s favor, even though all the evidence would demand it. Paul’s circumstances here in chapter 25 appear to be the result of sin, incompetence, and bureaucratic bungling. But such a conclusion would be both hasty and incorrect. If the divinely ordained goal were for Paul to be given the opportunity to preach the gospel to the greatest number of people, from the highest political and social strata of society, and in the most effective manner, what would we expect to find at this point in the Book of Acts? I believe that the human mind could not conceive of a plan that would be more effective than that which God brought to pass in our text.

The preceding section (25:13-22), along with the final segment of the chapter (25:23-27), informs us of several important facts. First, Paul’s words, recorded in chapter 26, are not his defense, so much as they are his proclamation of the gospel. Paul is not on trial here. No verdict is to be rendered. Nothing can be changed, because of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. This is an unofficial gathering, an unofficial proceeding.

Second, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to a large group of very prominent people. Due to the divine plan which we see being worked out in Acts, Paul will be given the opportunity to speak in his defense, but we know that he will respond by boldly proclaiming the gospel. His audience is much larger than just the governor, Festus. In addition to the governor, those present will include Agrippa and Bernice, Roman military commanders, and a large number of the prominent men of the city of Caesarea (25:23). These all entered an auditorium, to hear Paul. This is a far bigger collection of “shakers and movers” than a preacher could ever have hoped to have assembled in one place and at one time. But it was not Paul who “called this meeting,” it was God who did so. Paul therefore has the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to a large number of powerful people.

Third, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim the gospel, to a large number of powerful people, without the hindrance and the interruptions of the Jews who opposed him. Since Paul’s speech from the stairs in the city of Jerusalem, Paul was not allowed to speak unhindered and uninterrupted. His “trial” before Festus seems to have been chaotic, hardly the occasion for a clear, concise presentation of the gospel. But here, in this auditorium, Paul was given the chance to speak for himself, but without the Jewish audience who continually harassed him and who wanted to debate every point he tried to make. Here, Paul could preach the gospel, to many influential people, without interruption.

Conclusion

I understand chapter 25 as preparatory and explanatory to Paul’s preaching of the gospel in chapter 26. Our text (along with those which precede it) explains to us just how it was that Paul had this opportunity to preach to this many leaders and influential people. Not only did God give Paul the message, the gospel, but He also gave him the audience and this opportunity. Let us consider how this applies to us.

(1) We are reminded, once again in Acts, that God always keeps His promises, in ways that leave us amazed at His wisdom and power. In theological terms, we are speaking of the sovereignty of God. Over and over again in the Scriptures we find men and women of God marveling not only at what God has done, but also at how He has done it. For example, Paul elsewhere has written:

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him {be} the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:30-36).

At the time of Paul’s conversion, God revealed that he would bear testimony of the gospel “before the Gentiles and kings” (Romans 9:15). Paul has already stood before Claudius Lysias, and Felix, and now Festus, and in the next chapter of Acts (26) he will stand before “king” Agrippa and Bernice. Before very long, he will stand before Caesar. God always keeps His promises.

But notice how the promise of God pertaining to Paul’s mission and ministry is being fulfilled. It is not through one event alone, or through one person. It is by means of God’s orchestration of a host of people and events. God has used Paul’s love for his people and his desire to bring a gift from the Gentile churches to get Paul to Jerusalem, even when he knew that his arrival would result in “bonds and afflictions.” He also used the counsel of the Jerusalem church leaders, who loved Paul and who shared his faith, along with the opposition of the Jerusalem Jewish leaders, who hated Paul and the gospel. He has used Claudius Lysias, and his meticulous care in protecting Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen, as well as the self-seeking efforts of Felix, who sought to use Paul to further his own interests. And now, He has used the inexperience and indecision of Festus. By means of all of these elements, God has given Paul a platform, an occasion to speak, without opposition from the Jews, and before the leading men of Rome who are in Caesarea, including Festus, King Agrippa, and Bernice. How marvelous are His ways!

The experience of Paul has a great deal to say to each of us. God has given us His precious promises, too. Some are promises which include all the saints, while others may be only for certain saints. But we can be assured that just as God fulfilled all of His purposes and promises pertaining to Paul, so He will do and in through us. And, just as He accomplished these in ways we would never have predicted, so He will do through us.

From a human standpoint, one could look at the events of Paul’s arrest and numerous trials as a “comedy of errors.” These things have taken place out of sheer ignorance or prejudice (the accusation that Paul sought to desecrate the temple), out of desire to do one’s job well (Claudius Lysias), out of sinful self-interest (Felix, and also the Jewish leaders), and out of ignorance (Festus). But as our chapter unfolds, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim his faith, apart from the constraints of a courtroom, where one’s testimony is always limited to what the court desires, and where the opposition of the Jews is absent. And while Paul’s audience begins with only Festus, it continues to grow throughout the chapter (by what seems to be a coincidental dropping in of Agrippa and Bernice) until an auditorium of celebrities is gathered to hear the gospel.

The point I am trying to make is simply this: THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINISTRY OFTEN COME DRESSED IN THE FORM OF FAILURE OR OF FRUSTRATING CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE WE SEEM TO BE LIMITED. It is not until the end of chapter 26 that we begin to see how the hand of God has been behind all of the frustrating events of Paul’s life over the past two years, in order to give him the opportunity of a lifetime, to proclaim the gospel to people who he would never have encountered in the normal course of events, or even as a result of his finest efforts. Paul did not plan these events, nor was his the prime mover in bringing them to pass. Neither was any other person. God was a work here, causing all things to work together for good (Romans 8:28), for the proclamation and advancement of the gospel.

Does your life lack the typical indicators of “success” and “significance”? So did Paul’s. Do you sometimes feel like you have been taken out of the action, and that you life is “on hold”? Does it seem that you have been hemmed in by your circumstances? Well then consider Paul. His life seems to have been put “on hold” for two years. Two years he has been confined in prison. Two years he has been kept from traveling about those churches which he helped to establish. Two years were seemingly wasted because of the self-seeking, greedy, gutless actions of men. But look at the fruit which God will bring out of these frustrations and seeming failures. Paul could have worked for two years to get an appointment with but a few of those gathered in this auditorium. Who would have thought that being falsely accused, beaten, arrested, and then wrongly detained would have been the means to gaining this audience?

I think when time has passed and we look back upon our lives from the vantage point of eternity, we will see that many of the most significant ways God has been able to use us for His glory are very much like the way in which He has used Paul in Acts. God will not only fulfill His promises in and through us, but He will do so in such a way that He gets the glory and the praise, and that we will fall before Him in wonder and in worship. The disasters of your life, like those which befell Paul and other biblical saints, are the materials with which God builds His program, and by which He promotes His gospel. While we need not pursue disaster and difficulty as though such were pleasant, we need not dread them when God brings them our way, for He will cause “all things to work together for good, to those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). What a comfort to those who live in a fallen, chaotic world, which seems to be unguided, unguarded, and uncontrolled. My friend, behind the chaos is a sovereign God, who is able to use man’s best efforts as well as his worst to achieve His purposes.

(2) Our text provides us with insight into the way God guides men. If God’s ways are beyond our own ways—and they are (Isaiah 55:9)—then man would never be able to anticipate or predict what God was going to do. This is the case, and thus the will of God must be revealed to men, which is done through the Word of God and the Spirit of God (see also 1 Corinthians 2). Many Christians think that God’s will is spelled out, both in great detail and in advance. What we see in Luke and in Acts (not to mention elsewhere in the Bible) is considerably different. God did reveal some of what He was planning to do, but He most often did not reveal the timing of the event, or the means by which it was to be accomplished. For example, in the gospels Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God and of the salvation which He was to accomplish, but the timing and the means were not at all clear. At the time of our Lord’s ascension (Acts 1), the disciples are still pressing Jesus for the details, which things Jesus said were not for them to know.

In Paul’s case, we see, once again, that Paul was called to be a witness to the Jews, to the Gentiles and to kings, but the timing and the means were not indicated. In His appearance to Paul in prison, the Lord told Paul that he would bear witness of the gospel in Rome, just as he had in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). He was not told that he must be detained for two years in a Caesarean prison cell, however, or that all of the things which Luke has reported to us would be the means to attaining this end.

Seldom, if ever, in the life of the apostle Paul, was the guidance of God like that which most Christians seem to want and to demand today. Seldom, if ever, was Paul told precisely what to do, when and how to do it, and what the precise results would be. Most often, Paul was merely assured that a certain thing would happen. This is the case in Acts 23:11. Let me seek to summarize what I am trying to say in one general principle:

IN PAUL’S LIFE AND MINISTRY, AS IN OUR OWN, THE GUIDANCE OF GOD HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE GOALS OR OUTCOME, THAN WITH THE MEANS, AND WAS PROGRESSIVELY AND PARTIALLY REVEALED IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY BOTH FAITH AND REASON.

Let me state this differently:

IN NO CASE, WAS GOD’S WILL GIVEN IN TOTAL, WITH ALL THE DETAILS, AND ONLY TO BE METICULOUSLY AND MECHANICALLY FOLLOWED.⁵²⁶

The will of God is a matter of partial and progressive divine revelation, of human reasoning (enabled by the Holy Spirit), of action based upon faith, and of unexpected providential intervention. As someone once put it, “The will of God is a compass, not a map.”

Why is it, then, that Christians seem to expect God to tell them every step they are to take, or to think that God will spell out His will for them, from the beginning to the end, before He asks them to believe and to act in faith and obedience? Why do we look for God to speak to us directly on every matter that concerns us, and to think that this is the way He guided men of the Bible? It simply isn’t true. It surely is not true of Paul’s life and ministry.

When God guided Barnabas and Paul so as to commence the “first missionary journey,” He did so through the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch. But this guidance only informed to “Set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work to which He had called them” (Acts 13:2). The church had to discern what the work was, to which Barnabas and Paul were called. Barnabas and Paul had to discern where they were to go, which was not told them in the beginning, but was progressively revealed or determined. They did not know, at the beginning, that Paul would take prominence over Barnabas (so that the order of their names would be reversed).

In the “second missionary journey,” impetus to make this journey came first from the hearts of these two missionaries, Paul and Barnabas, to visit those churches which had been founded on their first journey (Acts 15:36). The missionary team was divided by an argument between Paul and Barnabas, and the team was reformed over a period of time (15:40—16:3). The journey went far beyond that which was first envisioned, and the places to which they were to go, or to avoid, were indicated over time and in different (sometimes unexplained) ways (16:4-8). The so-called “Macedonian vision” was not as specific in its guidance as some seem to think. Paul was not told to go to Macedonia, no was he told to go to Philippi. He simply had a vision of a Macedonian, who pleaded for help. Paul and the others had to think and pray about this vision, to conclude that it was God’s guidance to go to Macedonia (16:10—note the word “concluding”). The decision to go to Philippi seems to have been made apart from any specific revelation.

God’s guidance is such that we are told all that we need to know. We are told, for example, what God purposes to do in us and, to some degree, through us. We are assured of God’s ends, and we must often reason our part in these things. We are given divine principles as guidelines, governing how God’s work is to be done. But very often we are given situations in which we must decide to do, apart from a voice from God, based upon His Word and the wisdom which the Spirit provides.

How did Paul know that he was to appeal to Caesar? I believe that he “reasoned by faith” that this was the thing to do. He knew from his vision in Jerusalem that his work in Jerusalem was ending, and that he had a work to do in Rome. He knew the Jews were trying to kill him, and that they wanted him in Jerusalem to do so. He knew now that Festus wanted to appease the Jews by persuading him to go to Jerusalem. Paul knew of his rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar, which would take him to Rome. It was a decision, based partly upon divine revelation, and partly on human reasoning (aided, I believe, by the Holy Spirit).

Abraham discerned God’s will in the same way. God gave Abraham a number of promises, pertaining to the goal or the outcome of what He was going to do for him and through Him (see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6, 12-21). The timing and the means were not revealed. Abraham was told to leave his homeland and his relatives, to go to the place where God would lead him, but he was not told, initially, where this would be (Genesis 12:1). It became more and more clear that some of God’s promises could only be fulfilled through a son, whom we know (in time) would be Isaac. When God later commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, this caused a real dilemma for Abraham, for he was to kill the means by which many of God’s promises (and his hopes) were to be fulfilled. In the New Testament, we learn that Abraham came to grips with this matter by reasoning and by faith, or, should I say, by “faith reasoning”:

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19).

God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son, telling him at the same time that He would spare this son by providing an animal in his place. He did not assure him of His ability to raise the dead. His ability to raise the dead was taught Abraham by the way in which Isaac was born (see Romans 4:18-21). If God could give Abraham and Sarah (who were as good as dead when it came to child-bearing), then He could also bring this dead child to life, if he were sacrificed. The obedience of Abraham was based upon partial revelation of God’s will, and upon a reasoning of faith, based upon what God had already said and done in the life of Abraham.

I believe that this is the way that God generally guides men, as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New, and as He continues to do today. Let us not wait for a divine voice from heaven. Let us not demand a full revelation of God’s plan, including the timing and the means. Let us act in faith, on the basis of what God has told us He will do, on the basis of those principles which should govern how we act, and on the basis of “faith reasoning,” enabled by His Spirit, confident that we cannot thwart his purposes, and that we will not ever be able to predict His means, but that He will use us as He wills, to further the gospel.

(3) Finally, let us be reminded of the gospel which confronts us, which demands a decision of us, and of the judgment of God which awaits all who reject the gospel. In the minds of Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, and those dignitaries, it was Paul who was on trial, but this was not really true. Paul was a preacher of the gospel. Paul was not the one who needed to fear judgment, but those who heard him in that auditorium. They were on trial, and the gospel was to be their judge. Would they believe in Jesus? This was Paul’s concern, and not his own defense. There will come a time when the “pomp and circumstance” of that event will be overshadowed by the majesty and glory of God’s throne, when men must stand before him. Those who trust in Jesus as the Savior, the Messiah, need not fear this judgment. But those who reject Him, will one day give account for their unbelief and sin. May none of you, my reader friend, be among that number who reject the gospel, to your own eternal doom. May we all, like Paul, be willing to lay down our lives for the gospel, knowing that we have been forgiven, and that heaven awaits us.

⁵¹⁴“Felix,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 348.

⁵¹⁵“Felix,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 348.

⁵¹⁶“FESTUS PORCIUS,” C. M. Kerr, and Nola J. Opperwall, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), Vol. 2, p. 299.

⁵¹⁷“In the year of Felix’s recall by Nero (or possibly a little later), Porcius Festus came into the office of procurator of Judea where he lived but two years and then died in office. Little is known concerning the life or character of this man, apart from a brief account by Josephus. He appears to have been an honorable and prudent man, for the most part. Had the circumstances of his reign been more favorable, his success might have been greater. However, the impossibility of his situation was brought about by the corruption and maladministration of his predecessor, Felix. Violence, intrigue, sedition, and extreme loyalist bigotry made of the Jews an impossible people for this Roman procurator. Josephus describes the beginning of his rule thus: “Festus succeeded Felix as a procurator, and made it his business to correct those that made disturbances in the country. So he caught the greatest part of the robbers, and destroyed a great many of them.” Josephus describes somewhat in detail the nature of these disorders and the measures employed by Festus to correct them. Withal his task proved impossible and the situation grew worse, a condition which may have contributed to his early death.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 369.

⁵¹⁸Previous governors included King Agrippa and Pontius Pilot.

⁵¹⁹Let’s face it. By this time, the Jew’s case against Paul, which could never hold water, is virtually a dead horse. The Asian Jews who started this whole thing were wrong in the first place and long gone in the second. In sheer desperation, the Jews were throwing everything at Paul, including the kitchen sink. The fact of the matter is that they didn’t care about a conviction, only about getting Paul to Jerusalem, where they could kill him.

⁵²⁰How often our actions are prompted by a combination of motives, some of which are more noble than others.

⁵²¹F. F. Bruce, p. 453.

“Appellatio, to which process Paul thus resorted, was the act by which a litigant disputes a judgment, and the effect was that the case was brought before a higher magistrate, normally the one who had originally appointed the magistrate of the lower court. The litigant either pronounced the word appello, as Paul did here (11), or submitted his appeal in writing to the court of the magistrate whose judgment was impugned. That magistrate in either case was under obligation to transmit the file together with a personal report (littarae dimissoriae) to the competent higher magistrate. Hence, probably, there was some measure of embarrassment for Festus when, after consultation with his board of assessors (12), he accepted the appeal. He had virtually acquitted the prisoner, and, as a newcomer, had no exact knowledge of the religious situation out of which the charge had arisen. He must have been at a loss how to phrase the letter which was to accompany the appellant to the imperial court, and the terms of the communication to a tribunal so exalted as Caesar’s were a matter of some importance, if only to the reputation of the magistrate concerned.” Blaiklock, p. 183.

⁵²²Rackham seems to agree, at least in part: “Rackham further states: . . . it was with great reluctance that S. Paul made his appeal. It was the final and complete assertion of his Roman citizenship and acceptance of Caesar as his king; to the Jews it meant repudiation of the theocracy and apostasy from Moses. But the apostle in the past two years must have thoroughly weighed the question. The Lord himself in the vision at Jerusalem (XIII, 11) might almost be said to have suggested it; for it seemed at the time the only possible method of reaching Rome.” Carter and Earle p. 373.

⁵²³Bruce, p. 456.

⁵²⁴Bruce p. 457.

⁵²⁵“Like her brother, she tried hard to avert the war which broke out in A.D. 66. In spring of that year she performed a Nazirite vow in Jerusalem, and attempted, but in vain (and not without considerable personal risk), to prevent a massacre of Jews by the procurator Gessius Florus. Later, however, when her house (together with Agrippa’s) was burned down by insurgent extremists, she became an ardent pro-Flavian. She attracted the attention of Titus during the war, and lived with him on the Palatine when she came to Rome with her brother in 75. Titus would have married her, had it not been for strong expressions of disapproval among the citizens of Rome, which made him sever his connection with her. See Josephus, BJ 2.217, 220-21, 310-14, 333-34, 405, 426, 595; Ant. 19.276-77, 354; 20:104, 143, 145-146; Life 48.119, 180-81, 343, 355; Juvenal, Satire 6.156-60; Tacitus, Histories 2.2; Suetonius, Titus 7.1; Dio Cassius, History 65.15; 66.18; also G.H. Macurdy, ‘Julia Berenice,’ AJP 56 (1933), pp. 246-53.” Bruce, p. 457, fn. 26.

⁵²⁶As an Old Testament illustration of these principles, think of Joseph, who was informed by God through two dreams that he would rule over his family. In no way did he ever fully fathom how God was to accomplish this, until much later in his life (see Genesis 37:5-11; 42:7-9; 50:15-21).

37. Paul’s Appeal to Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32)

Introduction

What a scene it must have been, with Paul standing before this august gathering of celebrities and leaders. They, having arrived and seating themselves, with all due dignity and solemnity; he, in his chains, accompanied, no doubt, by one or more guards. It was not to be as dramatic as in days yet to come, when the Romans would watch the Christians be devoured by the lions, but some of this same spirit may have prevailed. After all, this gathering was, at best, an informal hearing, a favor to Festus, and probably a matter of curiosity to those who attended. So it seems to have been for Agrippa. Paul was hardly to be taken seriously, nor did anyone come hoping or expecting to be converted. But perhaps hearing Paul would at least help them to understand the mindset of Judaism, and thus some of the cause for all the uprisings and disorder they were constantly fomenting.

For some men, this hearing would have dazzled them, standing before such a large gathering of “shakers and movers” of that day. Some might have entered into this occasion with apprehension, perhaps contemplating how to make the gospel more tolerable to such pagans as were gathered. For Paul, it was just one more of a long sequence of hearings, where his conduct, his ministry, and his gospel were scrutinized by public officials for some sign of wrong-doing.

It all began when Paul arrived in Jerusalem, and was engaged in worship in the temple. He was mistakenly accused of desecrating the temple, and a mob of Jews was quickly assembled, who were about to kill him. He would have been killed except for the prompt arrival of Claudius Lysias, who not only saved Paul’s life and sought (when informed) to protect his rights as a Roman citizen, but who also tried through various means to determine what Paul was being accused of, so that a trial could be conducted and Paul’s guilt or innocence could be pronounced. A plot to kill Paul let to his transfer to Caesarea, and to his unfinished trial under Felix. Festus, his successor, also attempted to decide the matter, but this only resulted in Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Now, in order to identify some charges against Paul, to include in a letter to Caesar, this group has assembled to hear from Paul and to give their advice to Festus.

While Paul always proclaimed Christ with “fear and trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5), knowing that the gospel was a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), he must also have rejoiced at the opportunity to proclaim Christ before this audience of Caesarean dignitaries. It did not matter that they were powerful or influential, but only that they were lost. The gospel will be preached this day, and with great enthusiasm (see Acts 26:24-29).

We will endeavor to look carefully at this defense of Paul’s, especially in comparison to Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, and also to Paul’s previous account of his conversion in chapter 22. We will seek to identify what is unique about this defense, and what point Luke is seeking to make by including it. We will attempt to identify and follow Paul’s argument here, and then to discover its meaning and application to us. I believe that we will find this record has a great deal to say to those who live in our own day and time.

The Structure of the Text

The Setting (25:23—26:1)
Paul’s Introduction (26:2-3)
Paul’s Judaism (26:4-8)
Paul’s Judaism and Jesus (26:9-11)
Paul’s Conversion and Commission (26:12-18)
Consequences of Paul’s Obedience to His Commission (26:19-23)
The Conversation of Paul with Festus and Agrippa (26:24-29)
The Conversation between Festus and Agrippa (26:30-31)

Characteristics of Paul’s Defense

Before we begin to look at our text in detail, following Paul’s argument verse by verse, let us begin by looking at some of the characteristics of Paul’s defense as a whole.

This is the third account of Paul’s “conversion” in Acts. Acts chapter 9 is an historical account, written by Luke; the second account occurs in chapter 22 and is Paul’s personal testimony, spoken to his Jewish opponents in Jerusalem. The third occurs here in chapter 26. There are both similarities and differences in the accounts. These differences will help us identify the unique emphasis of this account in chapter 26.

This is an eye-witness account of Paul’s defense. The account is undoubtedly an abbreviated one, with only selected details included, but the wording is such that we are informed that it is written by one who was there. How else could Luke write, “Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded …” (Acts 26:1)?

This is Paul’s defense of the gospel and of his ministry, more than a personal defense.⁵²⁷ This was not a trial, but an unofficial hearing, to help Festus determine what charges he should include on his report to Caesar. Paul is not trying to prove his innocence, to much as he is trying to explain the reasons for the opposition of the Jews to him and his ministry.

There is a strong “Jewish” emphasis here. Paul begins by indicating his pleasure that Agrippa is well versed in Jewish affairs. Throughout the emphasis falls upon Paul’s conduct as a Jew, and his opposition from the Jews. In all of this, Paul is asserting that Christianity is Jewish.

Paul’s Jewish opponents do not speak and appear not even to be present. How providential that his Jewish opponents are absent. Paul is not interrupted, and he is able to give his defense without hindrance. The only interruption will come from Festus.

Paul’s message is directed toward Agrippa. From beginning to end, it is evident that Paul’s words are addressed particularly to Agrippa. Luke tells us that this hearing was the result of Agrippa’s interest. It was Agrippa who was named in Paul’s introduction, and in his conclusion. It was also Agrippa (“O King,” verses 7 & 13) who was addressed in the middle of the defense.

Paul’s argument hinges on the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and particularly on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The resurrection has been central in the teaching of Jesus, in the preaching of the apostles (in Acts) and in the opposition of the Jews. It is not the substitutionary atonement which Paul chooses to emphasis here, but the resurrection. We shall seek to see why later in the message.

Paul’s account is not really an account of his conversion at all. Only seven of seventeen verses describe the “Damascus road experience” of Paul. Of these seven verses, none of them really describes Paul’s conversion. A study of Acts 9 and 22 will indicate that Paul’s conversion took place over three days. To be more accurate, it seems incorrect to refer to Paul as being “saved” until the end of the three days, as a result Paul’s repentance and belief, based upon the words of Ananias. Ananias is not mentioned in Acts 26, nor is anything but Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. The account of Paul’s experience on the Damascus road is that of his confrontation and correction (Jesus is alive; Paul has been persecuting Jesus by persecuting His church), and of his divine commission. His conversion is not even mentioned, as such.

This account is not only one of Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road, but is an account covering Paul’s whole life. The other accounts place more emphasis on Paul’s conversion experience (proportionately) than does Paul’s account here, which stresses the entire span of his life, up to this moment.

The Setting
(25:23—26:1)

It was a befuddled Festus who came away from the trial of Paul at Caesarea. It was perhaps the first trial at which Festus had presided. But this trial ended without a verdict, mainly because Festus did not want to offend the Jews. When Festus tried to persuade Paul to return to Jerusalem for yet another trial, he appealed Caesar. This left Festus in a tight spot. He did not have an acceptable explanation for the appearance of Paul. He knew Paul was innocent, and he had no charges to file against him. If Festus was caught off guard by the issues which surfaced during the trial of Paul before him at Caesarea, he was even more shocked when Paul appealed his case to Caesar. He was in more trouble than Paul. This would not look good on his record. He must think of something to put in his report to Caesar. He could hardly send Paul to Rome without an acceptable explanation.

It was a happy day when Herod Agrippa arrived in Caesarea, along with his sister Bernice. And when Agrippa expressed interest in hearing Paul personally, Festus leaped at the offer, arranging for a hearing on the following day. Along with Agrippa and Bernice, Festus invited the commanders and all of the influential citizens of Caesarea to help him determine the charges against Paul which should be reported to Caesar. It was with great pomp and circumstance that they all gathered in the auditorium. Paul was then brought in and Festus explained the purpose of the gathering to those present. Then, Festus turned to Paul and indicated that it was his opportunity to speak in his defense.

Paul’s Introduction
(26:2-3)

Paul began his defense by laying a foundation with King Agrippa, whom Paul understood to be in charge of the proceedings. Paul could hardly express his admiration and respect for a man like Agrippa,⁵²⁸ but there was good reason for Paul to be pleased that Agrippa was the one to whom he was speaking. Agrippa was a man with much experience and knowledge pertaining to Judaism. Paul believed him to be a Jew who, himself, believed in the Law and the Prophets (verse 27).

The issue at hand, in Paul’s mind, was not so much his own beliefs or conduct, nor even his alleged crime of attempting to desecrate the temple. The issue was the gospel. The issue was whether or not the gospel was legitimately to be considered a part of Judaism, or whether, as the Jews charged, it was a cult, distinct from Judaism and opposed to it (see the charge of Tertullus in Acts 24:5). Paul was setting out to show that the gospel he proclaimed was the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, as promised by God through Moses and the Prophets. Christianity, Paul asserted, is Jewish. Thus, at the outset of his defense, he expresses his delight that Agrippa understands such matters (unlike Festus). He also draws Agrippa’s attention to the “Jewishness” of his case, so that this factor will be prominent in his mind, and that he will be attentive to the Jewish issues Paul will raise. In the next verses, Paul will turn to his own involvement in and commitment to Judaism, from a very early age.

Paul’s Judaism
(26:4-8)

The Jews consistently attempted to disown Christianity in general, and Paul’s preaching in particular, as a “counterfeit Judaism,” as a sect which did not have their sanction and which was diametrically opposed to their faith. Paul chose to deal with the issues through his own example, because his life explained and illustrated the animosity between Judaism and the gospel. Would his Jewish opponents represent Paul as some out-of-town foreigner, who came to Jerusalem to stir up trouble for the Jews? Paul was a Jew, not born in Jerusalem, but a Jew who was brought up there, trained in the strictest order of Judaism. He was no stranger to Judaism or Jerusalem, but was, from his early days as a child, an active, dynamic, leader. And so Paul began his defense by starting at the beginning, with his own faith and practice as a Jew, in Jerusalem.

Those who represented Paul as a newcomer were willfully forgetful or dishonest about their acquaintance with him, his personal religious life, and his involvement with them in Judaism. Paul was a very public figure as a Christian, but he was also well known before his conversion. If Paul was now a viewed as the enemy of Judaism and as a traitor, it was not always so. He was once their national hero. They would have delighted to have him for a son-in-law. For a long time Paul was known to these Jews as a devout Jew, a Pharisee, no less. More than this, he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (see Philippians 3:5). He was one of the outstanding young men of Judaism.

Verses 6-8 are somewhat parenthetical. Was Paul a devout Jew, once, and now he is guilty of forsaking it all? Far from it! Paul, in his remarks in verses 6-8, muses that it is on account of his Jewish hope that he is now on trial. He is not really on trial for opposing Judaism, but rather for adhering to it. It is his opponents who have forsaken Judaism. Paul therefore claimed that he was standing trial “for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers,” his and theirs (verse 6). Paul is guilty of hoping and believing in the promise which God gave to the twelve tribes of Israel, and which they think they are still looking for, as they go about their religious rituals of worship.⁵²⁹ It is for the same kind of hope and expectation—a hope which includes as a vital part the resurrection of the dead—that Paul is now being accused. Paul’s crime, for which he is being attacked by the Jews, if for being too Jewish.⁵³⁰

Paul now turns to Agrippa, a ruler, but also a Jew, and asks, “Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” (verse 8). If belief in the resurrection of the dead is a fundamental premise of Judaism, how is it that the Jews condemn Paul for believing in the resurrection of Jesus? Why do they find believing in an actual instance of resurrection (namely, Jesus) so incredibly difficult? Judaism was not consistent with itself in its response to Paul’s proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Here is the key issue, the watershed, the bone of contention between Paul and his Jewish opponents—the doctrine of the resurrection, and especially the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is the fuel which fires the opposition of the Jews against Paul and Christianity. This is reason for the uprisings over Paul which the Roman rulers were trying to discover. Paul let Agrippa know, at the outset, what the issue was. Paul will now follow this matter through, showing how he, as an unbelieving Jew, opposed Christianity because of the same failure, and how, through a confrontation with the resurrected Christ, he was converted, from an opponent of the gospel to one of its most renowned proponents.

Paul’s Judaism and Jesus
(26:9-11)

The failure of the Jews to be consistent with their own faith was not foreign to Paul. As an unbelieving Jew, Paul found Christianity and the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, an abhorrent thing, something to be violently and rigorously opposed. Could Paul understand and explain the opposition of his Jewish peers? Of course. He had done the same thing himself, before he was saved, and as a high calling thrust upon him by his own Judaism.

Paul felt obliged to attack and to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth, who was worshipped and followed by Christians as the risen Messiah of Israel (verse 9). He practiced his opposition in Jerusalem and far beyond, even to foreign cities (verse 11). With a vengeance, he sought to force Christians to renounce their faith in Jesus as Messiah, by blaspheming.⁵³¹ Many, he cast into prison, and others he enthusiastically voted for their execution, as heretics. In his opposition to Jesus, he worked closely with the Sanhedrin⁵³² and with the cooperation and support of the chief priests, the very ones who now took the lead in opposing him.

Paul understood his opponents well, and well he should. He understood them well because what they were to him, he once was to many other saints. His opposition to Christianity, to the gospel, was the result of his own misguided Judaism. This error was only to be exposed and corrected by a direct encounter with the risen Jesus, which Paul now goes on to describe as the turning point in his life and in his understanding and practice of Judaism.

Paul’s Conversion and Commission
(26:12-18)

Paul’s conversion is but one part of his defense. Seven verses describe his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, while his entire defense is contained in 17 verses. His conversion is not the only aspect of Paul’s life which is described in his defense, but this experience of being confronted by the risen, glorified, Jesus was the turning point of his life. The change from what he once was, a violent persecutor of the church, to what he had become, a powerful proclaimer of the gospel, is the result of his “conversion” and his “commission,” which took place as Paul was on his way to Damascus, to persecute the church there.⁵³³

Paul did not describe his conversion as some kind of evolution, but rather as a radical transformation, a change from darkness to light, from death to life, a change from persecuting Christianity to practicing and promoting it. He was actively opposing the church when Jesus stopped him dead in his tracks and turned him around. He was not seeking the truth; he was convinced that he knew the truth, and that Christianity was a lie. He was not acting independently in his persecution of the Christian community; he had the full consent and authority of the chief priests.⁵³⁴

At midday, when the sun would be at its brightest, Paul and those with him were smitten with a heavenly light, far brighter than the sun (verse 13). All fell to the ground, but only Paul heard the voice from heaven, spoken to him in the Hebrew dialect, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads”⁵³⁵ (verse 14). The light alone should have been terrifying to Saul, but the words which were spoken to him from heaven must have been even more troubling. The voice was a heavenly one, and Saul therefore rightly recognized the speaker as “Lord.” God was talking to Saul. And, God was somehow being persecuted by Saul. How could this be? Saul was persecuting Christians, followers of Jesus. The next words, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads,” are found only in this account, and not in the other two. These words seem to indicate that while Saul was strongly opposing Christianity, and at the same time persecuting the “Lord,” he was doing so in a futile effort, to his own loss. In our own vernacular, Paul was “shooting himself in the foot.”

Paul asked the inevitable and ultimate question, to make certain of the identity of the “Lord” who was speaking to him from heaven, “Who art Thou, Lord?”⁵³⁶ If Paul had not already figured it out, the voice supplied the answer: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” Paul never argued this matter, not now, not ever. It was Jesus. He had been dead wrong. Jesus was alive! Therefore, Jesus was the promised Messiah, and the hope of Israel! And in persecuting the church, Paul was persecuting Jesus. In seeking to serve God according to his understanding of Judaism, he was actually opposing Him. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was now no longer a mere theory, but a reality. Jesus is alive. Jesus rose from the dead!

Paul is not concerned with reporting all of the details of his actions over the next three days, and of his conversion. For his purposes, the appearance of the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus was the cause of his conversion. It was the truth of the resurrection of Jesus which was the turning point in his life. No wonder the resurrection was such a crucial matter with Paul. And little wonder that the proclamation of the gospel (including the vital element of the resurrection of Jesus) was such a touchy point with the unbelieving Jews. To admit that Jesus was risen from the dead would not save one, in and of itself, but it would logically point to the fact that Jesus was who He claimed to be—Messiah—and that the Jews (as well as the Gentiles) were wrong to have rejected and crucified Him.

Paul now moves on to the “divine commission” which was given to him at the time of his conversion. Like every believer, Paul was saved for a reason, and that reason is expressed in the song which goes, “We’re saved, saved to tell others …” Paul was commanded to stand up, and was told that his commission was the purpose for which the Lord had appeared to him (verse 16). He was appointed to be both a minister and a witness, not only to the things which he had just seen, but also to those things which were yet to be revealed to him in subsequent appearances.

With this call to be a witness, was the promise of divine protection, both from the Jews, and from the Gentiles, for he was being sent as a witness to both groups (verse 17). He was called to be God’s instrument of salvation to men and women of both groups. The nature of this “salvation” is described in verse 18. His calling was to “open the eyes” of those who were blinded by their sin, so that they might “turn from darkness to light,” and “from the dominion of Satan to the kingdom of God.” The goal of this was the “forgiveness of sins” and the reception of “an inheritance,” by all who have been sanctified by faith in Jesus.⁵³⁷ What volumes of truth and encouragement are found in these few words, which only summarize that which occurs when one is saved. Books have been written on these matters. Paul, in his epistles, will have much more to say about these things himself.

What is important for us, here, is that the Lord has commissioned Paul to proclaim the gospel, so that what he has come to experience, may be the experience of countless others. His eyes have just been opened, to “see the light.” He has just been plucked from the clutches and control of Satan, and now is under the dominion of God. He has received the forgiveness of sins, and has the sure hope of an eternal inheritance. And he now has the privilege of introducing others to the same salvation.

The Consequences of Paul’s Obedience to His Commission
(26:19-23)

Paul now presses on to show the consequences of his conversion and commission. His encounter with the resurrected Jesus radically changed his life. He no longer persecuted the church but preached Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. His conversion and commission was the basis for the life which he now lived. He would not disobey his heavenly calling. His desire was to fulfill his calling.

It was the pursuit of this calling which brought about his persecution by the Jews. If Paul’s conversion and commission radically changed Paul, it also changed Paul’s status with the Jews. Was he once a “Hebrew of Hebrews”? Was he once a Pharisee of the strictest order? Was he once the hero, the bright and shining star of Judaism? No longer. His conversion made him a traitor to Judaism. Just as he once pursued Christians to the death, he was now pursued by the Jews to the death. They wanted him dead, and simply for believing in Jesus as the Messiah, raised from the dead. He now believed in Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, and thus he became their “public enemy number one.” Would the Roman rulers wish to understand what all this intense anger and opposition was all about? Here is the reason.

It is because of this that Paul was seized in the temple, and the Jews sought to put him to death. It was not because he had desecrated the temple, but because he had believed in Jesus, and was now proclaiming Him as the Messiah. And, his deliverance from the Jews, while through the instrumentality of Roman officials, was ultimately the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to protect him from the Jews and the Gentiles. Neither the Jews nor the Gentiles could prevent Paul from fulfilling his commission.

This is why Paul is now standing before this group of prominent leaders, because he is still endeavoring to fulfill his calling, “testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (verses 22 and 23).

To this group of “great” people, Paul had nothing different to say than to the “small,” that the salvation of the world comes only through the “hope of Israel,” the Lord Jesus Christ, who was coming, death, and resurrection was foretold by the Prophets and Moses. These promises were fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Jesus was put to death by the Jews and Gentiles (with the help of Roman rulers), and by virtue of His resurrection from the dead, he was (on the road to Damascus) the first to proclaim “light” to the Jews and the Gentiles. And what Jesus first did, Paul and the church continued to do.

Paul’s message was a declaration of the gospel. This group, who thought they were judging Paul, and making some decision about his ministry, must make a decision about his message. They must repent and must believe that which the Jews rejected, that which Paul himself rejected, until he had seen the risen Lord himself. No report is given of any having come to faith that day, though some may have believed. But there is at least no question but what they heard the gospel, perhaps for the first and only time. Paul had fulfilled his commission this day.

The Conversation of Paul with Festus and Agrippa
(26:24-29)

The gospel controlled Paul, it dominated his life. The text does not tell us this in so many words, but I get the feeling at this point that Paul was getting excited about his presentation of the gospel. He was no longer talking about Christianity as some academic theory, or even as the topic of great debate and intense opposition. He was presenting the gospel as the means by which this audience could be saved. Paul was actually calling on this group to repent and to believe. He was not only trying to convert the Jews and the heathen, but them. He was not pleading with this crowd for understanding or sympathy; he was calling on them to believe and be saved. He was trying to convert them!

Festus could not stand it any longer. I can almost hear him mumbling to himself, “What next? Will this Paul give an invitation? Will he have an altar call? This is no defense, it is a crusade!” Festus broke in. He could stand it no longer. He accused Paul of being out of his mind. Was Paul a scholar? Festus would grant this. Was Paul correct in his understanding and interpretation of the “Jewish Scriptures”? Festus might even grant this. But leave off this invitation. Forget the altar call. Festus protests, “This is insane!”⁵³⁸

Paul defended his presentation. His message was nothing less than solemn truth. The words of an insane man cannot be taken seriously; the words which Paul spoke must be taken as a matter of eternal life or death. The gospel is both truth and reality.⁵³⁹ Paul quickly turned his attention to Agrippa, a Jew, whom Paul believed was convinced that the Old Testament revelation was the Word of God. Agrippa also knew from his own experience that Paul was speaking truthfully and accurately. These were not mad ramblings, the product of a confused mind. Paul’s words, Agrippa must know, were consistent both with Old Testament revelation and with events as they had taken place in Israel. And so, turning his attention to Agrippa, Paul pressed him for a commitment. Does he believe? Will he believe? Paul’s case is no longer in view, but Agrippa’s salvation. Where does he stand? What will he do? Even if Festus rejects Paul’s words as insanity, Agrippa has much more knowledge. Paul urges him to cross the line, to make the commitment, to see the light, to be saved.

Agrippa knows he is on the spot, and appears to be uncomfortable. He seems unwilling to believe, and yet unable to deny what has been said. His response to Paul has been understood in various ways.⁵⁴⁰ One thing we can all agree upon, however, Agrippa did not come to faith in that hour. He makes no confession of faith. Whether he speaks with “tongue in cheek” or with some sincerity, he does not profess faith in Jesus.

Paul is not taken back. He picks up the conversation where Agrippa left off. Would Agrippa accuse Paul of trying to convert him? Paul did wish to do so. It was Paul’s desire that Agrippa and all the others might be just as he was—saved by grace, through faith in Jesus as the risen Lord—except he would not wish his chains on anyone else. This seems to be said with a “twinkle in his eye.” And with this final statement (at least as reported by Luke) the interview is over. Things are getting uncomfortable, not for Paul, but for his audience. It was they, after all, who were on trial, not Paul.

The Conversation Between Festus and Agrippa
(26:30-31)

The reason for this meeting was not (in the minds of that crowd) to give Paul a chance to preach to them and to seek to convert them, but to hear Paul’s case so as to give Festus something to report to Caesar. And so as Paul left, those gathered together for this occasion turned to one another, expressing their unanimous conclusion: this man was not guilty of any crime. Agrippa had come to the same conclusion, when he expressed privately to Festus. There really were no charges against Paul that would hold up in court. Paul should never have been brought to trial in the first place.

This must have been an unsettling thing for Festus to hear. It was no compliment to his handling of the matter. The reason why Festus had a problem on his hands was because there were no valid charges against Paul. The Jews were wrong. Had Festus dealt with Paul justly, he would not have the problem which he now faces.

But Agrippa not only thinks that Festus was mistaken; he also indicates that Paul was foolish to have appealed to Caesar. Had Paul not made this appeal, Agrippa reasoned, Paul would now be a free man. Agrippa must not have been aware of the plot against Paul in Jerusalem, for he would have realized that to be free in Jerusalem (or even to be in Jerusalem under Roman guard) was to be in danger of assassination. It may have seemed foolish for Paul to go to Rome, but then Agrippa was not aware of the divine plan, which included Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, and then Rome.

Conclusion

As we conclude our study of Paul’s “appeal” to Agrippa, let me point out several important elements:

(1) Paul’s “appeal” to Agrippa was not an “appeal to be pronounced innocent” but an “appeal for him to be saved.” The conclusion of Paul’s address informs us of the fact that Paul did not care so much about his own condition as he was about the condition of those who stood before him. Paul may have been a prisoner, in chains, doomed to die, but he was saved, with the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins and the inheritance that awaited him in heaven. It was not Paul who was “in trouble,” but his audience. While all outward appearances were that they “had it made,” they were lost, headed for an eternity of separation from God and the agonies of hell. No wonder Paul was more concerned about his audience than himself.

(2) Paul’s best defense was his own life story. There is a sense, of course, in which Paul is giving his defense. I find it most interesting that the most powerful and convincing explanation Paul can offer his audience is the story of his own life. By describing what he once was and did, and the changes which took place at his conversion, Paul can prove not only his own innocence, but the power of the gospel to save and to change men. It also reveals the power of unbelief, to oppose and resist the gospel and those who proclaim it. Would that each of us who name the name of Christ could claim our own life story to be so powerful a defense for the transforming power of the gospel.

(3) Christianity is Jewish. Paul’s argument in this chapter is based upon a very important truth: Christianity is Jewish. Paul was once a religious Jew, a Pharisee, but as a Christian he is now a true Jew, enjoying and looking forward to the hope of Israel. If Paul’s defense proves anything, it is that the gospel which Paul proclaims and practices is the fulfillment of all that Judaism hoped for. Indeed, the gospel continues to be all that Israel still hopes for, even in its unbelief. Judaism desperately wanted to disown Christianity, as a cult or sect. This would have meant that it would not have received the protection of Rome which unbelieving Judaism enjoyed. Paul has, once again, shown that his faith is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the enemy of it.

(4) Paul’s defense explains the intensity of Israel’s unbelief, and the dramatic means which will be required to turn this nation to faith in Jesus. In spite of the fact that the Jews should recognize Jesus (and the gospel) to be the fulfillment of the promise of God through Moses and the Prophets, they vigorously oppose it. They do this contrary to the Scriptures, history, and logic. They do so because of the “hardness of their hearts.” Paul was just like them in this regard, before his conversion. I believe that our text strongly implies what other Scriptures teach—that all Israel will only come to faith in Jesus when He appears to them in His resurrected, glorified form. Then, they too will believe and be saved.

The conversion of the Gentiles is not really any different. Men do not evolve toward faith. They are predisposed to hate God and to oppose the gospel. Men cannot be logically convinced and converted, any more than Paul. In order for men to be converted, God must radically and powerfully intervene into their lives, convincing them that Jesus is alive, and that He is the Messiah. Our text is but one which reveals the deep-seated unbelief and hard-core opposition of men toward God, and of the dramatic, divine intervention required to save lost men.

(5) Paul’s defense here in Acts 26 reminds us of the crucial role which the resurrection of Jesus plays in the gospel and in the conversion of men. Note that in his defense of the gospel Paul places little emphasis on the death of Christ, or the substitutionary atonement, but rather the crucial issue is the resurrection. Why? Is it because the doctrine of the atonement is not true or not important? Certainly not! It is because the issue with the Jews and with men of that day was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. No one in that day argued about the fact of Jesus’ death. The Jews believed in substitutionary atonement because of the fact that is was woven into the fabric of the Old Testament sacrificial system. What Judaism rejected was the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, and thus had to be the Messiah.

For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was the crucial issue, the key to conversion, his own and that of others. The apostles, from the outset proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, raised from the dead. To grant the resurrection of Jesus was tantamount to granting His claim to be Messiah, and this was just as Jesus intended it (see Matthew 12:38-40). Thus, the resurrection of Jesus was emphasized by Paul because it was the watershed issue, the turning point, even as it had been for him in his conversion.

(6) The problem with Judaism then, and with Christian today, is that the things we believe in principle, we refuse to believe in practice and in particular. Paul claimed that his hope was a Jewish hope, a hope which required a belief in the resurrection of the dead, and which required, in particular, the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead. Any true Jew (this excluded a Sadducee) believed in the resurrection of the dead (see Hebrews 11:13-40). The Pharisees thus found themselves more in harmony with Paul over the resurrection than with the Sadducees (see Acts 23:6-9).

The failure for such Jews, who believed in the resurrection of the dead in principle, was that they refused to believe in it when it came to the resurrection of Jesus. Even though they could find no other explanation for the disappearance of His body, they would not grant His resurrection. To do so would require believing in Him, and admitting their sin and guilt in rejecting Jesus. But when the fact of Jesus’ resurrection is powerfully attested, whether by the personal appearance of Jesus to Paul, or by the power of Jesus manifested through the apostles, or by the illumination and conviction of the Holy Spirit through the preached Word, men are converted, and their lives turned around.

I would like to suggest that the same failure exists today, in Christianity. There are many truths, many doctrines, of which professing Christians are firmly convinced, in principle, but which they refuse to practice in particular. We say we believe in the goodness of God, in His omniscience (knowing all), and in His omnipotence (having all power), but when the chips are down, and when life seems to challenge these truths, we are not so willing to act upon these truths which we claim we believe.

Let’s take the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for example. We profess to believe that because Jesus was raised from the dead, we, too, shall be raised. But what happens when the doctor tells us we have a malignancy? What happens when we are required to take a stand which puts our life in danger? Where, then, is our faith in the resurrection of the dead?

If we fail to believe in practice what we claim to believe in principle, what is the solution? What is the cure? How can we develop a practical faith, a faith which not only believes, but which acts on this belief? I believe that the answer is much more simple than we would wish. We develop a living faith by living in accordance with the Word of God, and in obedience to the commands of our Lord (whether given personally by Jesus or through His apostles in the epistles of the New Testament).

I would encourage you to read through the entire New Testament, making note of all the commands that are given, either by our Lord in the gospels, or by the apostles in the epistles. Then, do them. I submit to you that it will be very difficult to obey these commands apart from believing in the doctrines on which they are based. I think that our practical faith is proportionate to our practice of our faith by our obedience to the commands of Scripture. Would we have a practical faith, and not merely a theoretical one? Then let us practice our faith, by obeying God’s commands.

One further thought on this matter. I would recommend a study in the gospels of those who recognized Jesus as the Messiah, in contrast to those who refused to recognize Him as such. What was it about those who recognized Jesus as Messiah which set them apart from the rest? The answer to this is the key to having a practical faith, rather than a theoretical one. The scribes knew (theoretically) that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, for example (Matthew 2:3-6), but they would not believe that Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem, was the King. Why not? The answers to this question will be fruitful.

(7) For Paul, every opportunity to speak to men was the opportunity to speak of Christ, and to seek to win men and women to Him by faith in Jesus. Even this hearing, which was Paul’s opportunity to convince his audience of his innocence, was, for him a greater opportunity—the chance to tell men of Christ. Oh that we would use our opportunities as well. Paul was faithful to his commission. May we be as well.

Afterthought

There is one thought that has occurred to me as I have been studying this chapter. I was reminded, once again, of the overall purpose of this book, indeed of both volumes which Luke has penned, Luke and Acts. It occurred to me that Luke wrote these two books to an unknown Gentile—Theophilus. Could it be that these books were written to answer the very questions for which the Roman rulers had been seeking the answers? Could it be that Luke/Acts was the “answer to the prayers” (so to speak) of Festus? What better background to Paul’s case before Caesar could be penned? And is it not interesting that Acts ends before Paul’s trial before Caesar? I am somewhat tempted to theorize (pure speculation, of course) that Luke may have been motivated to write these two books to answer the very questions for which the Roman rulers sought answers, so as to rightly inform Caesar of the issues involved in Paul’s case. Regardless of the purpose Luke had in mind, wouldn’t it be interesting if Luke finished his manuscripts before Paul’s trial, and submitted them into the court records as evidence in Paul’s support? Just a far-fetched thought.

⁵²⁷“If his speech is called his “defense,” it is so called in no forensic sense; it is rather a defense of the gospel which he preached and of his way of life in conformity with it.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 461.

⁵²⁸“. . . he now made bold, even before Agrippa whose father had beheaded James and sought to execute Peter (Acts 12:1-6). Carter and Earle, p. 383.

⁵²⁹You will notice that in the expression, “as they earnestly serve God night and day” (verse 7), the term “God” is in italics in the NASB. This is because the word has been supplied--I believe wrongly so. The term is used for the worship of God, but it is also used of worship which could include false worship. I do not think that Paul is here saying that they earnestly worship God, but that they earnestly go about their religious observances. The Amplified Version seems to agree, for it renders the text this way:

“Which hope {of the Messiah and the resurrection} our twelve tribes confidently expect to realize, as they fervently worship (without ceasing) night and day.” The New Jerusalem Bible renders it likewise. Other versions supply the word “God,” but with italics.

⁵³⁰“In fact, it would appear that Paul was implying that the real controversy was one of the liberal Sadducean Jewish party against the orthodox Pharisaic party, rather than the Jews against him personally.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 382.

⁵³¹“The best parallel to Paul’s activity is provided at a later date by Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, who tells us that he brought people suspected of being Christians before his court: ‘Those who denied they were, or ever had been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered invocation, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ--none of which acts, it is said, those who are really Christians can be forced into performing--these I thought it proper to discharge’ (Epistles 10:96). This account is written, of course, with reference to a pagan court, but a similar kind of procedure will have taken place in a Jewish setting.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 394.

⁵³²Some believe that Paul was actually a member of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin:

“However, Conybeare and Howson state: ‘There are strong grounds for believing that if he was not a member of the Sanhedrin at the time of St. Stephen’s death, he was elected into that powerful senate soon after; possibly as a reward for the zeal he had shown against the heretics. He himself says that in Jerusalem he not only exercised the power of imprisonment by commission from the High Priests, but also, when the Christians were put to death, gave his vote against them. From this expression it is natural to infer that he was a member of the supreme court of judicature.’

The foregoing authority notes that membership in the Sanhedrin was restricted to fathers with children, since such would dispose them to mercy. Since it was customary for Jews to marry young, Paul may well have qualified, though it is not known what became of his wife and family. Dummelow is specific when he says, “The Gk. means ‘the vote of a judge’ and establishes the fact that at the time of the death of Stephen, Paul, though so young a man, was a member of the Sanhedrin. Thus we must be content to conclude that Paul was either a member of the Sanhedrin, or if he was not, then he was invested with very special authority by that body, before his conversion.” Carter and Earle (quoting Conybeare and Howson, op. cit., p. 12 and Dummelow op. cit., p. 851.), p. 384.

⁵³³Technically, Paul’s conversion and commission were spread out over three days, as a reading of all the accounts will indicate.

⁵³⁴This Saul, was commissioned by the chief priests, but he is about to be converted and commissioned by the risen Savior. It seems that Luke contrasts these two “commissionings.”

⁵³⁵“A proverbial saying, found both in Greek and Latin, usually with reference to fighting against the will of the gods, but not yet paralleled from any Semitic source. The word . . . means, in this context, not “difficult” but “painful,” hence RSV, It hurts you . . .” Carter and Earle (quoting from The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, 326), p. 385.

“Another remarks of the expression: ‘It supplies an apt figure for resistance to God; and here it conveys an important intimation that Saul’s zeal for Judaism had not been according to knowledge, but rather against the driving of the divine will.’” Carter and Earle (quoting Rackham, op. cit., p. 468) p. 385.

⁵³⁶Paul also asked the Lord, “What shall I do, Lord” (Acts 22:10), but this question is not repeated here. What Paul must do will be indicated--not his immediate actions, such as going into Damascus, but his life-long tasks, his calling, his divine “commission.”

⁵³⁷“In summary it may be noted that Paul’s commission implies a series of spiritual transferences for the converted man: (1) from blindness to sight (2) from darkness to light; (3) from the kingdom and dominion of Satan to the kingdom and dominion of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:18-32); (4) from condemnation unto death to remission of sins unto eternal life; and (5) from spiritual poverty and moral pollution to a heavenly inheritance and moral purity.” Carter and Earle, p. 387.

“His task is defined more closely in language based on the description of the Servant’s commission in Isaiah 42:6f. He is to open eyes that are blinded by sin, to convert people and bring them out of the realm of darkness into that of light, i.e. from the power of Satan into the area where God reigns (cf. Is. 42:16 and especially Col. 1:13f. which gives a remarkably close parallel to the wording here.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 396-397.

⁵³⁸“Maine, thou art mad, meant first ‘to rage, be furious,’ then ‘to rave, be mad.’ It was often connected with demonic influence (cf. John 10:20). Here it perhaps means that Paul’s ‘enthusiasm seems to have overcome his better judgment.’ Carter and Earle, quoting Abbott-Smith, op. cit., p. 275 and Arndt and Gingrich, op cit. p. 487, p. 389.

⁵³⁹“The word soberness answers Festus’ petulant accusation of insanity. The Greek word has no reliable English equivalent. It is sophrosune. To translate it, as the New Testament does, by ‘soberness,’ ‘moderation,’ ‘self-control,’ ‘temperance’ is to touch its meaning from various angles, but not to cover it. The word has two roots, an adjective root meaning ‘safe’ and a noun root meaning ‘mind.’ It meant in Greek that ideal balance of thought which never flew to extremes. It is implicit in Paul’s survey of Christian virtue in Romans xii where it may be rendered ‘Christian sanity.’ Notice, for example, verse 3: ‘For as God in his grace has enabled me, I charge every one of you not to think more of himself than he ought to think, but to cultivate Christian sanity, according as God has given to every man faith as a measure.’” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 188.

⁵⁴⁰“Alford takes a somewhat more negative view of Agrippa’s seriousness. He declares: ‘Most of the ancient commentators take the words as implying some effect on Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest: but this I think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically.’ Brown supposes that Agrippa’s reply was ‘a high compliment to the persuasiveness of the speaker.’

It does not appear that the question as to whether Agrippa was serious or sarcastic can be settled on the basis of the Greek text. The best that can be said is that the Greek of this verse seems to favor an insincere or cynical attitude on his part. Carter and Earle (quoting Henry Alford, op. cit., II, 283 and JFB, VI, 175), p. 390.

38. A Biblical Look at Leadership (Acts 27:1-44)

Introduction

When I come to Acts chapter 27, it is like a breath of fresh air to me. I have always looked upon the Apostle Paul as a godly man, a zealous servant of Jesus Christ, and a powerful preacher of the gospel. But it is here, in our text, that I see Paul as a very wise man in practical matters, a man who is a leader of men, and whose counsel is taken seriously because he knows what he is doing.

Paul’s leadership emerges on board the ship, on which he was headed toward Rome. As time went on, as Paul was better known, and as the crises on board the ship became more pronounced, Paul stepped forward, giving both direction and hope to all the others on ship. Paul accomplishes all this without any formal leadership position or authority. He was not the captain of the ship, nor one of the soldiers. He was not a sailor; in fact he was not even a paying passenger. Paul was a prisoner, on his way to stand trial before Caesar in Rome.

What was it about Paul that made him a leader among men, even in matters pertaining to sailing and storms? What kind of leadership did Paul exercise, and how did this impact the gospel? What is the relationship between “spiritual leadership” and “secular leadership”? What can we learn about leadership, which can benefit others, and can promote the gospel? These are questions that we shall seek to answer in our study of Acts chapter 27.

Overview of the Passage
and the Structure of the Text

The first 8 verses of the chapter take Paul from Caesarea to a harbor named Fair Havens, not far from the city of Lasea. This journey began on an Adramyttian ship, which took them as far as Myra, where they boarded an Alexandrian ship, headed for Italy. The journey was delayed by unfavorable winds. Verses 9-13 describe a crucial decision that was made. It was too late in the sailing season to travel on to Rome by sea. The question was where the ship would make port for the winter. Paul strongly urged them to stay where they were, at Fair Havens. Since this was not an ideal place to spend the winter, and sailing conditions looked favorable at the moment, they decided to press on to a more accommodating port. Verses 14-20 describe the sudden onslaught of the storm, the steadily deteriorating conditions, and the complete loss of hope of those on board. A late night visitation by an angel of God and Paul’s words of encouragement to his shipmates is reported in verses 21-26. In verses 27-29, Luke describes the ship’s approach to some body of land. Verses 30-32 describe the sailors’ attempt to abandon ship, which they aborted, due to the action taken by the soldiers, who heeded Paul’s words of warning. Verses 33-41 report Paul’s encouragement, in words and deeds, and the grounding and breaking up of the ship. The final verses (42-44) tell of the plan of the soldiers to kill the prisoners, of the intervention of the centurion, and the safe arrival on land of all 276 passengers.

The chapter may therefore be outlined in this way:

Verses 1-8: From Caesarea to Fair Havens
Verses 9-13: A Critical Decision
Verses 14-20: A Sudden Storm and Lost Hope
Verses 21-26: Paul’s Night Visitation and Words of Encouragement
Verses 27-29: Nearing Land
Verses 30-32: Sailors Stopped From Abandoning Ship
Verses 33-41: Paul’s Encouragement and the Ship’s Grounding
Verses 42-44: Prisoners and Passengers Spared From Death

From Caesarea to Fair Havens⁵⁴¹
(27:1-8)

One way or the other, Festus must have found some way to explain Paul’s appearance before Caesar. Paul and a number of other prisoners were put aboard an Adramyttian ship,⁵⁴² which was setting sail for ports along the coast of Asia. A centurion of the Augustan cohort by the name of Julius⁵⁴³ was placed in charge of the prisoners. This centurion was to develop a deep respect for Paul, so that he would extend considerable liberties to him, take seriously his advice, and make every effort to protect him. Accompanying Paul were Luke⁵⁴⁴ and Aristarchus, who was from Thessalonica.⁵⁴⁵

They made port in Sidon, a city about 70 miles north of Caesarea. Here, Julius, the centurion in charge of Paul and the other prisoners, allowed Paul to go to his friends and be cared for by them (verse 3). From here on, sailing will not be smooth. When the ship set sail, they began to encounter unfavorable winds. This necessitated sailing close to the coast of Cyprus, which, to some degree, sheltered them from the contrary winds (verse 4). Sailing past Cilicia and Pamphylia, they landed at Myra in Lycia (verse 5).⁵⁴⁶ It was here that they had to change ships.

The centurion found an Alexandrian ship,⁵⁴⁷ laden with wheat that was headed for Italy. They boarded this ship and set sail. Progress was slow, due to wind conditions. With difficulty, they finally arrived off Cnidus, but were then forced by the winds to sail under the shelter of Crete, off Salmone. Passing it with considerable difficulty, and apparently not being able to make port there, they finally were able to make port at a place known as Fair Havens,⁵⁴⁸ which was not far from the city of Lasea, where they could have spent the winter. Their arrival had not been without difficulty, but things were only to go from bad to worse. Their troubles to this point would seem insignificant compared to what was soon to come.

A Crucial Decision
(27:9-13)

A crucial decision had to be made at Fair Havens.⁵⁴⁹ Sailing was not safe in the winter, due to wind conditions and seasonal storms. The time which had been lost, due to unfavorable winds, made it evident that they would not be able to reach Rome, not without wintering at some port, and finishing the journey in the Spring.⁵⁵⁰ The only question now was where they would winter, and whether or not they would press on to some more favorable port.

The decision that faced these sailors is not an uncommon one, even in our day. Airline pilots must constantly monitor weather conditions, and make decisions as to the route they will take, their altitude, and even their destination. I read in the paper the other day that when faced with the decision as to whether he should change to an alternate airport or press on to the original destination, the pilot of a commercial airliner left the choice with his passengers. Some things don’t change.

Apparently Paul discerned that those in charge were predisposed to sailing a little further. Paul had a fair bit of experience with sea travel. He had already survived one shipwreck, and he knew the dangers of sea travel:

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. {I have been} on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from {my} countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:25-26).

Paul spoke up, cautioning them about sailing on any further, and warning them that if they pressed on this would result in the loss of lives and property. Paul did not seek to “sanctify” his words by giving them any spiritual flavor. He did not claim to have a certain (prophetic) knowledge of what was going to happen. Indeed, the fate of the ship was not exactly as Paul had warned, for there was no loss of life.⁵⁵¹ He simply spoke as a seasoned traveler, an astute observer, and one who had experienced dangers at sea. Simply put, Paul warned those making the decision about whether or not to press on that continuing on was not wise. They were not going to get to Rome until after winter was over anyway, and they could stay right where they were, with no real problems. They had little to gain and much to lose. Time would prove Paul right.

The centurion respected and trusted Paul a great deal, as can be seen by his previous dealings with him (see verse 3). He took Paul’s warnings seriously here, too. It is not surprising, though, that he would take the advice of the ship’s captain and its pilot as being more expert. After all, the ship’s captain and the pilot had more experience, and they also had more to lose.

Paul’s caution is rather interesting. I would think that Paul would have more reason to be reckless than these seasoned seamen and the centurion, because he was a Christian. He had “God on his side.” His God was in control of all things, including the sea. But more than this, God had already assured Paul that he would reach Rome. Paul was as secure as any man could be. But Paul’s concern here was not for himself, but for others. Paul knew that he would reach Rome, but he also strongly sensed that the ship and some of its passengers would not. After all, a number of the passengers could not even swim (see verses 43-44). It was needlessly endangering others that Paul was trying to avoid.

Furthermore, Paul was an apostle, a man through whom God had worked many signs and wonders. As the journey to Rome continues, there are yet to be more signs and wonders accomplished through the hands of Paul (see 28:3-10). But Paul did not presume to have “God on tap” and thus to be able to perform some miracle any time his wished. To Paul (in my opinion) this would be akin to “jumping off the pinnacle of the temple,” and thus “putting God to the test” (Luke 4:9-12). God’s power and His sovereign control are no pretext for carelessness or recklessness. To sail on, therefore, was a foolish decision in Paul’s opinion, and thus he discouraged it as strongly as he could, but to no avail.

Paul was overruled. In fact, it seems that virtually everyone voted against him when the decision was made. Several factors contributed to the decision to sail on. First, those who were considered the experts favored doing so. Second, the majority of those who voted on this issue favored going further. Third, the port where they were anchored was not as ideal for wintering as some other ports, which were not that far away. Fourth, a moderate south wind had come up,⁵⁵² which seemed to promise fair sailing to a better port. Given all these factors, the ship set sail from Fair Havens. How this decision would be regretted, and soon!

A Sudden Storm and All Hope Lost
(27:14-20)

The ship’s crew tried to “hug the shore” of Crete, until they could reach Phoenix, a harbor not all that distant. It did not take long at this time of year for a storm to brew at sea. The storm caught the ship in its force, and so they could do nothing but allow the ship to be driven along by it. The winds seem to have blown the ship away from the island of Crete. They would hardly wish to be close to shore in the storm anyway, for there was more danger of the ship breaking up on the rocks than of it breaking up in the open sea. Even running under the shelter of a small island (Clauda, verse 16), they could hardly get the ships dingy on board. It seems as thought they had left it in the sea, towed along behind, when the storm suddenly came upon them and swamped it.

With great difficulty, the dinghy was hoisted on board, and then supporting cables were used to undergird the bottom of the ship, so that it might not break up under the weight of its cargo and the stresses of the storm. Fearing that they might drift into shallow and dangerous waters some distance to the south,⁵⁵³ they put out a sea anchor of some kind, perhaps something like a parachute, which filled with water and slowed the ship down.⁵⁵⁴

The storm continued through the night, and the next day things looked even worse. Until now, they had been trying to save the ship’s cargo, but now some of it⁵⁵⁵ was thrown overboard, lightening the ship and reducing the stress on the hull. On the third day, some of the unnecessary tackle on board the ship was thrown overboard. It seems as though the passengers, including Luke and Paul, were needed to help carry out this operation (see verse 19).⁵⁵⁶

Three days have already passed, and Luke provides us with the description of some incident for each day. Luke now passes over the details of a number of the days that followed, indicating only that many days passed, and that the storm continued to abuse the ship and to terrify its passengers. By the end of this time, all hope had been lost, either of the storm abating, or of any rescue. Except for Paul, they had all reached the conclusion that the situation was hopeless and that they were doomed.

Paul’s Encouragement
(27:21-26)

It is only when all hope is lost that Paul addresses his fellow shipmates.⁵⁵⁷ Much time had passed, the storm had not diminished, the ship was being constantly mauled by the storm, and the passengers had gone a long time without food. This was probably due to seasickness, and perhaps to the difficulty of cooking under such circumstances. Food supplies may have been washed overboard or ruined by moisture.

Paul reminded his shipmates that they should have listened to him sooner. The danger in which they found themselves was unnecessary. Had they heeded his warnings, this would not have happened. I do not think that Paul’s words were meant as a typical “I told you so” so much as they were spoken to motivate his peers to listen to him now. If Paul had been right before, and his words had come to pass, he had even more important words to speak now, not from his own perception or judgment, but from the God whom he served.

During the night, an angel of God had appeared to Paul, with a sure and certain word about the future, a word that would bring encouragement to all on board ship. If Paul was completely right in his previous warning, then many were about to die. The encouraging news that Paul was about to tell them was that he was both right and wrong when he had warned them not to sail. He was right in that a great storm had swept down on this ship, and that both the ship and its cargo would be lost. But he was wrong about the loss of passengers. His previous warning did not take into account the intervention of God, resulting in the escape of every person on board the ship.

The “God” who was to rescue them was Paul’s God, the God whom he served, and to whom he would bear testimony before Caesar. Paul was told by the angel not to be afraid, because he was going to stand before Caesar. He was going to survive. But in addition to his surviving this storm, God promised to spare all the other passengers on board as well, not for their sakes alone, but for Paul’s sake. Imagine this, they would have Paul to thank for their deliverance. Because of one prisoner on board that ship, all the other passengers were spared.

The passengers were not to lose hope, but to keep up their courage. Paul encouragement the passengers to trust God to do all that He promised. The ship would be lost, but not one of the passengers would perish. One more detail about the future was revealed by Paul: the ship must run aground on a certain, but unnamed, island. Looking back on these words would demonstrate that this was indeed prophecy. The “God whom Paul served” was a God who was (and is) in control.

Allow me to make one last observation here. While Paul had not lost hope, as had his shipmates, he must have been afraid. The angel of God told Paul not to be afraid, which would indicate that he was afraid. And who would not be afraid in such a storm. There is nothing wrong with a healthy fear of danger. But we can still have hope, even when we are afraid. Paul need no longer fear, because he knew the outcome of this storm. When the outcome is known, and the One who determines it is both faithful and sovereign (in control), the danger of harm is removed, along with the need for fear. By the way, Paul may not have been frightened so much for himself as for the others.

Nearing Land
(27:27-29)

Fourteen days have passed since they left Fair Havens and the storm first struck the ship.⁵⁵⁸ The sailors now have little idea as to where they were, or how far they might be from land. Nearing land in a storm is a very dangerous thing. A ship can be tossed about in the sea and survive much better than it can survive being dashed upon the rocks. In a storm, control of the ship is limited, and so navigating a narrow entrance to a port would be almost impossible. All in all, it would be best to wait out the storm at sea. But there was a problem. They were not in control of the ship. It was drifting wherever the storm carried it. Because of their very limited visibility, they might not see the land until it was too late. Thus, the sailors continually took soundings, measuring the depth below them, so that they could discern, far in advance, their approach to land (which would be indicated by progressively diminishing depths).

About midnight on the fourteenth day, the sailors determined that land was nearing because the depth of the sea below had diminished from twenty fathoms to fifteen. As it was the middle of the night and the storm was still fierce, the sailors put out anchors, to drag along the bottom, to slow down their drifting. They hoped that daybreak would come so that they could visually navigate the ship, rather than to attempt to make port (or even to ground the ship) in the dark. The approaching land brought a new temptation to the sailors, who better than anyone else knew they were coming upon land.⁵⁵⁹

The Sailors Stopped From Abandoning Ship
(27:30-32)

When the ship was far out at sea, and no one knowing how far they might be from land, abandoning ship was no temptation. Doing so would be certain death, for the larger vessel offered more protection, so long as it held together. But once the sailors discerned that land was nearby, staying on board ship became increasingly dangerous. They could not handle the ship in the stormy waters. Because of its size and cargo, it required deeper water. The smaller boat, was much more easily handled, and would have been the logical choice when trying to make shore, especially in such circumstances.

In so doing, the sailors would not only be abandoning ship, they would be abandoning all the passengers on board ship, leaving them helpless. There would be no one left who was an experienced sailor, who could help land the crippled ship. Handling the ship in this storm was almost impossible, and any attempt would require an expert crew. (This also required a small boat, which was going to be taken by those abandoning the ship.) What the ship’s crew intended to do was a cowardly thing. They planned to slip away, on the pretext of laying out anchors, but they were going to take the “lifeboat” (as it were) and leave the people to fend for themselves in the ravaging storm, in a ship drifting ever near the rocks of the approaching shore. Their actions revealed that they did not believe Paul’s words of assurance, that all would be saved, though the ship would be grounded and destroyed.

Whether by divine revelation, intuition, or by learning of their plans from some human source, Paul became aware of their intentions. He turned to the centurion and the soldiers and gave them what were really orders: “Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved” (verse 31). If this was all that Paul said to these soldiers, he did not tell them that these men were attempting to abandon ship. He only said that their remaining on ship was necessary if these soldiers wanted to survive. The soldiers were thus acting to save themselves, as well as the rest on board. The soldiers were acting, as it were, on Paul’s orders. If the sailors didn’t believe Paul, the soldiers did. It seems that there was no protest from the sailors when the ropes to the lifeboat were cut. Now, no one had the use of this boat.

Paul’s Encouragement and the Ship’s Grounding
(27:33-41)

It was still late at night, too dark to try to make shore until it was light. They all waited for the morning light. No doubt there were some anxious thoughts racing through the minds of the passengers. It was time for another word of encouragement. Paul once again stepped forward, speaking out to all aboard, so as to assure and encourage them, as well as to persuade them to prepare themselves for the rigors and physical demands of the hours that were to follow.

Several days before, Paul had told the passengers, who had lost all hope, that they would all be saved, although the ship would run aground (verses 21-26). Up to this point in time, they had gone a long while without food. In spite of Paul’s words of encouragement, the passengers had still not eaten. It would seem that they had “fasted’ nearly two weeks—throughout the entire time the storm was raging. If they were to have the strength necessary to make it to shore, they would need to “start the day with a good meal.” I know it sounds more like mother or a TV commercial, but Paul was dealing with a very practical necessity.

Had people ceased eating, in part perhaps, because they thought they were going to die anyway? Paul assured them that “not a hair from their head would perish” (verse 34). If their safety was assured then let them do what they could to help themselves—let them eat. To reinforce his words, Paul now did what he urged each of them to do—he ate. Paul took bread, and giving thanks to God before all, he began to eat. Did Paul pray for their meal, as well as his own? I suspect so. I would like to have heard that prayer, but Luke’s silence here requires us to wait till heaven to find out what was said.

Paul’s faith and his courage were contagious. The others—two hundred and seventy-six in all—followed his example. And so they were strengthened, both in spirit and in body. Now they were ready for the day’s activities. With renewed strength, the passengers set about lightening the ship by throwing the remainder of the cargo – the cargo of wheat – overboard. This was, I think, to cause the ship to draw less water, and thus to float higher in the water, so that it would not as easily drag bottom.⁵⁶⁰ The ship would therefore be closer to shore when it struck bottom, making it a shorter swim (or float).

They did not know exactly where they were and they could not recognize anything familiar about the land, but they did resolve to run the ship aground in a bay which they could see ahead. Then the passengers would have a better chance to reach shore. They cut loose the anchors, which set the ship free, as wind and waves propelled it toward land. They also loosened the ropes which lashed down the rudders and hoisted the sail.⁵⁶¹ They were on their way toward land.

As Paul had already informed them, neither the ship nor its cargo would survive, only the passengers. The ship did not make it all the way to that beach toward which they were steering it. The ship ran aground on a reef, where it would be broken up by the action of the still raging waves. They just happened to run aground at the place where two seas met.⁵⁶² It seems that the action of the water created some kind of sandbar or shallows, on which the ship stuck fast. The stern of the ship began to break up. They had to move quickly now to get off the ship and to swim to shore.

Prisoners Spared and All Ashore
(27:42-44)

All must abandon ship now. This created a serious problem. The prisoners (at least the dangerous or violent ones) may have been in chains. If the prisoners were to make it to land, the soldiers would have to release them. The soldiers who were guarding them were not as concerned about their survival as much as the possibility of an escape. They intended to put all the prisoners to death,⁵⁶³ thus eliminating the risk of an escape.

The centurion did not seem to be concerned with any of the prisoners, except one – Paul. He wanted to spare him, and so he forbade them from killing any of the prisoners.⁵⁶⁴ All of the prisoners were spared, on account of one person—Paul, just as all of the passengers were spared for Paul’s sake. These prisoners were (pardon me for this) “twice pardoned.”

The centurion commanded that all should make it to land if they could. Those who could swim should jump first, and make their way to shore. The non-swimmers could wait a little longer, perhaps for the ship to further break up, and then clinging to some piece of floating wreckage, paddle their way to shore.

Every passenger made it safely to shore. All 276 passengers were saved. Not one soul was lost. God’s promise was fulfilled, just as Paul had said He would.

Conclusion

(1) A look at leadership. I do not believe that Luke’s central purpose in Acts 27 is to teach us about leadership, but I do think that Paul’s leadership is very apparent in our text. Think of it. Paul is one of a number of prisoners, on his way to Rome to stand trial before Caesar. The death penalty is certainly one possibility. Paul’s circumstances certainly do no give him any status, any “clout,” with anyone on board that ship. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul is the object, the one who is acted upon. Others decided Paul and the other prisoners should set sail, and so Paul and they were turned over to Julius. But by the end of this chapter, it is Paul who is active, Paul who is leading, and the others are following him. Paul tells the soldiers that the sailors must remain on board ship, if they themselves are to be saved. The soldiers heed Paul’s words and cut the ropes to the lifeboat, letting it fall away. Paul encourages all on board to eat, and they do.

What has happened over the course of these events, so that a lowly prisoner, a man at the bottom of the ladder, so far as position and influence are concerned, is now the outstanding leader? What are we to make of this dramatic change in Paul’s standing before his fellow-shipmates? What did Paul do to bring about such a change? Did he do anything? The broad issue is that of leadership. How can Paul, a prisoner, emerge as the leader on board a ship, while in the midst of a storm? Let me suggest a few characteristics of Paul’s leadership in this crisis, which may provide fuel for future thought.

Paul was not striving to be a leader here, but simply trying to be of help. Too often, I hear leadership spoken of as a place of status, rather than a place of service. I see leadership held out to men and women as a prize, rather than as a humbling responsibility. I see people working for a place a leadership, rather than working to serve others, and letting leadership develop or not on its own.

Paul’s leadership was not viewed as “spiritual leadership” by those on board the ship. No one followed Paul because he was a “man of God,” or even because they concluded the God was with him. They followed Paul because he knew where he was going and inspired confidence in others to follow him. Julius and the others did not seem to look upon Paul in religious or spiritual terms, but only in terms of practical and proven ability and knowledge.

Paul did not have a formal position as “leader,” but was rather a functional leader. Paul was a leader here because people followed him. I am not certain that anyone ever thought of Paul as the leader, but he did lead and they followed.

Paul’s leadership emerged in a time of crisis, in an hour of need, when no one else seemed to have any answers.⁵⁶⁵ Functional leadership (as opposed to formal leadership) emerges in times of need. We live in a time of great crisis. Our world, like that ship of Paul’s, was headed for destruction. If there was ever a time for Christians to emerge as leaders, it is now. The need is great. The hour is hopeless. Unsaved men do not have the answers. God’s Word gives us those answers. Let us, like Paul, have a word from God for such needy times as ours.

Paul’s leadership emerged in a “democratic society.” We are told that “the majority reached the decision” to sail on, rather than to winter in Fair Havens. I take it that this was a form of democratic rule. In spite of this fact, one man, Paul, emerged as the leader. When he spoke, there was no vote taken.

Paul’s influence was not the result of his political maneuverings, but men’s response to his personal competence. I confess, I am distressed at the ways in which Christians are trying to “take control” of the political and governmental positions of authority. They want to use numbers and influence decisions based upon voting power. The great leaders of the Bible, men like Joseph, Moses, David, and Daniel, were men who had an impact because they were men of God, men of great skill and ability, and men who God raised up. They were not men who manipulated people or their circumstances in order to further their own power or position.

Paul’s leadership enhanced the preaching of the gospel. If Paul had been incompetent and impotent in this time of crisis, who would have wanted to hear him tell about faith in Jesus as the Messiah? Paul’s skillfulness and leadership gave the gospel a credibility it would not have otherwise have had in the eyes of these people.

(2) The Sovereignty of God and Man’s Safety. There is no place safer than the place of obedience to the Word of God. Humanly viewed, Paul was constantly in grave danger, but he was never more safe or secure than when he was on his way to Rome. God’s mission for Paul was to go to Rome and there to preach the gospel. The angry mob, which the Asian Jews had incited in Jerusalem, were trying to kill Paul, but God used Claudius Lysias and his soldiers to save his life. Paul’s execution was sought by the Sanhedrin, which first tried to execute him legally (like Stephen) and then by assassination, but God used Roman soldiers once again to spare His servant. The assassination conspiracy was still the main hope of the Sanhedrin as Paul was imprisoned for two years by Felix, but God kept Paul from Jerusalem. God used this two-year delay of Felix and the bungling of Festus to bring Paul to the point where he would appeal to Caesar. In all of this God protected Paul.

Now, in our text, Paul is again in great danger. The storm threatens not only the life of Paul, but also the lives of all on board his ship. When the ship is grounded and the passengers must swim for their lives, the soldiers plan to kill Paul, along with the other prisoners, to prevent any from escaping. God used the centurion, who had come to deeply respect and admire Paul, to spare him, along with the rest. The grounding of the ship, some distance from shore, and then its breaking up poses another threat, which all survive. Finally, in the following chapter, there will be the snake bite, from which Paul will be spared as well. Paul lived dangerously, in one respect, but no one could have been any safer.

Paul’s safety and deliverance was so certain that it was sufficient for others as well. For Paul’s sake, all the passengers on board his ship were spared from the storm. And also for Paul’s sake, all of the prisoners were spared from execution by the soldiers. How often, I wonder, are others benefited by the presence of a believer? Such would have been the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. If there were but ten righteous in the city of Sodom, God would have spared the city for the sake of those righteous (Genesis 18:22-33). Is this principle of extended “deliverance” perhaps an explanation of Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 7, that the unbeliever is sanctified on account of the believer?

And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:13-14).

How does Paul’s safety relate to you? If you are a Christian, the same safety is yours, when you are walking in obedience to His commands, and within His purposes. Whatever God has promised to do, He will do. When you are walking in accordance with God’s purposes, whatever obstacles to the accomplishing of His will are encountered, He will overcome. Whatever dangers might arise, He will protect His people, in accordance with His purposes and promises. But what are some of these purposes and promises? Let us consider just a few:

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:8-10).

28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God {is} for us, who {is} against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:28-39).

{For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to {obtain} an inheritance {which is} imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 that the proof of your faith, {being} more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls (1 Peter 1:3-9).

As the song goes, “More secure is no one ever, than the loved ones of the Savior…”

(3) The Sovereignty of God and the Ultimate Peril of the Lost. Paul was kept safe, and as a result, all of those with him were saved as well. Their safety was relative, however. Their safety was contingent on the presence of Paul and the patience of God. There will come a time, however, when God will take His own to the full and final safety of heaven. When this happens, there will be no protection for the lost. The sovereignty of God will then result in the overthrow of His enemies and in the judgment of the wicked. If God’s sovereignty is the source of comfort to the Christian, it is the source of terror for the unbeliever, for God has warned of His coming judgment. It is as certain as the salvation of His own. Flee to safety today. That safety is only in Christ. If the relative safety of the passengers was in being on board ship, with Paul, our certain safety is in being “in Christ.” He has weathered the storm of God’s wrath on the sinner. He has been beaten by the storm of God’s anger toward sin. And He has come forth from death and the grave, to give us new life. If we are not in Christ, who has weathered the storm, then we must endure the storm ourselves, to our eternal destruction.

(4) The Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility. The sovereignty of God is the basis for our safety and security, but it is not an excuse for our sloppiness. It was the crew of the ship who lived dangerously, foolishly risking the ship, the cargo, and the lives of all on board, just to “get ahead” a little. The potential gains were minimal, while the potential loss was great. Nevertheless, they decided to press on to a better harbor.

Is there not a kind of parable here? Isn’t it true that men do those things which they know to be risky, partly for the love of the risk, and often due to some small gain they wish, prompted by a false sense of assurance, and by the hope for some small gain? Take aids, or drugs, for example. All one needs is a “clean needle” or a “condom” or possibility an abortion and they’re off and running, seeking a little pleasure, at the cost of the loss of their life, and of their soul.

The one whose fate was sure and certain, was the most cautious; those whose ultimate fate was most uncertain were those who lived most dangerously. It was Paul who showed caution, warning those in charge of the dangers ahead. Here is a man whose personal safety was assured, and yet who lived with care and caution. The sovereignty of God is no excuse for careless or reckless living.

Some Christians are inclined to live their lives sloppily, believing that because God is sovereign He will, on demand, produce a miracle to deliver us from the fruits of our own foolishness. Paul believed in the power of God and in His infinite control over all things, in heaven and on the earth. Paul was frequently the instrument through which God’s power was manifested. He spoke prophetically of the fate of the ship and its passengers. He would later, on the island, work signs and wonders. Nevertheless, he did not presume that God would intervene in this instance.

The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is multi-faceted, something which careless and thoughtless Christians often forget or set aside. The sovereignty of God means not only that God is able to intervene supernaturally, but that He is also able to work naturally, through human instruments (like the Roman soldiers, and in our story, like the centurion, in Paul’s behalf). Beyond this, God is free to act or not to act in any way that He chooses. The sovereignty of God means that He is not at our disposal, to carry out our whims or wishes, but that we are at His disposal. The sovereignty of God means that we dare not presume that God will work a miracle for us, at the time and in the way we choose, due to our foolishness, carelessness, or sin. God does not “jump through our hoops” and thus Paul never presumed that he had God’s power “on tap” to use when and how he chose. Thus, he did not expect a miracle, nor did he even ask for one. He left this to God. Because it was a part of God’s sovereign plan, God did purpose to spare Paul and the ship’s passengers, but in a way that would to some seem only like “good luck.” The miraculous aspect is seen in Paul’s prediction of what happened in complete agreement with all that did happen, even to the minute details.

To Paul, the sovereignty of God was not an excuse to avoid his human obligations or his personal responsibility; it was the motivation for him to live responsibly. Thus, the safety of the ship, according to Paul’s words, required the presence of the crew. The safety of the passengers, involved their actions, in eating a good meal, in lightening the ship, and in swimming to shore or in clinging to some wreckage and floating to shore. The sovereignty of God is no excuse for us not to work, but the assurance that our work is not in vain, in the Lord.

(5) The storm, and the gospel which leads to salvation. It was, I believe, for the sake of the gospel that Paul and these passengers were saved. Paul was spared so that he could go to Rome, and there proclaim the gospel. These passengers were spared, I suspect, so that they could not only hear the gospel, but experience the hope which the gospel gives, and the power by which the gospel saves unworthy sinners. These people saw first hand the hope of the gospel in Paul, when all hope was lost. Christianity is not a “fair weather” religion. The gospel sustains men in the greatest storms of life. Would any have heeded Paul or the gospel as seriously as they did, had the trip to Rome gone quickly and smoothly? I think not. But the storm brought men and women face to face with death, and with the truth of the gospel. What grace was made evident in this storm! The storms of your life may not have been sent your way to destroy you, but to turn you to God’s salvation.

⁵⁴¹“Luke’s narrative of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul on his way to Italy is a small classic in its own right, as graphic a piece of descriptive writing as anything in the Bible. It has long been acknowledged as ‘one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship.’” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 474.

⁵⁴²“The ship in which they embarked belonged to Adramyttium (modern Edremit), a seaport of Mysia in northwest Asia Minor, opposite the island of Lesbos. It was a coasting vessel, which was to call at various ports of the province of Asia; at one of these Julius knew he would find a ship, preferably a grain ship, bound for Italy.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 477.

⁵⁴³“The centurion Julius, into whose custody he was delivered, belonged (we are told) to the Augustan Cohort. (The term “Augustan,” i.e., “His Imperial Majesty’s,” was a title of honor bestowed on several cohorts of auxiliary troops.) The precise status of Julius is difficult to determine: from the authority which he assumed when once (from Myra onward) he found himself on board a ship of the Alexandrian grain fleet, it might be inferred that he was a frumentarius, an officer charged with supervising the transport of grain (frumentum) to Rome.” Bruce p. 477.

⁵⁴⁴We know that Luke was on board ship because of the “we” references, and because of the great detail that he includes, as an eyewitness of the journey, the storm, and the safe landing of the passengers.

⁵⁴⁵This seems to be the same Aristarchus mentioned in Acts 19:29; 20:4; Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24.

⁵⁴⁶“‘With the westerly winds which prevail in those seas,’ says James Smith, ‘ships, particularly those of the ancients, unprovided with a compass and ill calculated to work to windward, would naturally stand to the north till they made the land of Asia Minor, which is peculiarly favourable for navigation by such vessels, because the coast is bold and safe, and the elevation of the mountains makes it visible at a great distance; it abounds in harbours, and the sinuosities of its shores and the westerly current would enable them, if the wind was at all off the land, to work to windward, at least as far as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased. Myra lies due north from Alexandria, and its bay is well calculated to shelter a windbound ship.’” Bruce quoting J. Smith, Voyage, pp. 72-73, p. 480.

⁵⁴⁷“Ramsay is of the opinion that the ship was a government vessel of which the centurion, as senior officer, was properly in charge. This may have been the case, and if so the calculations upon which the shipmaster (not owner as AV and RV, according to Ramsay) based his rash advice are less apparent.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [photolithoprinted], 1966), p. 191, quoting Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 319.

⁵⁴⁸“This harbour is named Kalus Limeonas, a small bay two miles east of Cape Matala. It opens to the East and Southeast, but is not fit to winter in. This harbour would protect them for a time from the winds. . . . Neither Lasea nor Fair Havens is mentioned by any ancient writer, two of the hundred cities of Crete.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 460.

⁵⁴⁹“Smith observes ‘that Fair Havens is so well protected by islands, that though not equal to Lutro [Loutron, a port some 40 miles farther west along the coast], it must be a very fair winter harbour; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprang up in the passage from Fair Havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by St. Paul may probably be supported even on nautical grounds.’” Bruce, pp. 482-483.

⁵⁵⁰“As they waited for a change of wind at Fair Havens, it soon became clear that they could not complete the voyage to Italy before the onset of winter. The dangerous season for sailing began about September 14 and lasted until November 11; after the latter date all navigation on the open sea came to an end until winter was over. They were now well into the dangerous season; as Luke notes, even the Fast had now gone by. The Fast is the day of atonement (Yom Kippur), which falls on Tishri 10. Luke’s remark has point only if it fell rather late in the solar calendar that year. In A.D. 59 it fell on October 5, but in all the neighboring years from 57 to 62 it fell earlier. A late date for the day of atonement is required also by the time notes of the subsequent journey to Italy. When they set sail from Fair Havens, fifty or sixty miles brought them under the lee of Cauda (v. 16); on the fourteenth night from Cauda they drew near the coast of Malta (v. 27), and the next day (v. 39) they landed on that island, where they spent three months (28:11). The seas were closed to sailing until the beginning of February at the earliest; the three months spent in Malta must therefore have corresponded roughly to November, December, and January, so they must have left Fair Havens not much before mid-October. The solar date of the day of atonement in A.D. 59 thus accords well with Luke’s implication that the Fast took place while they waited at Fair Havens.” Bruce, p. 481.

⁵⁵¹Although there almost certainly would have been some loss of life, apart from divine intervention. The lives which Paul warned would be lost were those lives which were spared by God, for Paul’s sake (see verses 22-24). And so Paul was correct, though not speaking at the moment with prophetic inspiration, authority, or inerrancy. There is no “thus saith the Lord” here, but Paul’s words were worth heeding.

⁵⁵²“‘A south wind having blown gently,’ in marked contrast to the violent northwest wind that they had faced so long. They were so sure of the wisdom of their decision that they did not even draw up the small boat attached by a rope to the vessel’s stern (verse 16). It was only some forty miles to Lutro.” Robertson, p. 461.

⁵⁵³“The storm was now heavy upon the lumbering vessel, as it came roaring out of the north-east. Far to the south, off the African coast, lay the notorious Syrtes (17), the graveyard of many ships, as underwater archaeology has vividly revealed in recent years. Hence the battle to maintain a westerly course, aided, it appears, by a veering of the wind to the east, as the cyclonic disturbance shifted its centre.” Blaiklock p. 190.

⁵⁵⁴The wind would tend to blow the ship much more quickly than the current, and so a sea anchor would reduce the force of the wind on the ship by using the sea as a brake. Bruce writes,

“The Greater Syrtis was still a great distance away, but the wind might continue to blow for many days, and that was the direction in which it was blowing them. So, says Luke, they ‘lowered the instrument,’ not being more specific perhaps because he did not know, or did not remember, the technical name for whatever it was that was lowered. The most probable account is that they dropped a floating anchor or drift anchor, which was dragged astern at the end of a rope of suitable length so as to offer the maximum resistance every time the ship plunged down from the crest of a wave.” Bruce, p. 486.

⁵⁵⁵From verse 38 we know that all the cargo was not thrown overboard at this time.

⁵⁵⁶“The following day, a more drastic measure was necessary: the spare gear had to go if the ship was to have any chance of surviving. Smith suggests that ‘the mainyard is meant; an immense spar, probably as long as the ship, which would require the united efforts of passengers and crews to launch overboard.’” Bruce p. 486.

⁵⁵⁷This is not to suggest that Paul now emerged because he knew that this was the low-point of his fellow-passengers, but because the night before the angel of God had appeared to him. He arose, then, for two reasons: (1) his shipmates were in desperate need of encouragement, and (2) he now had a word from God for them.

⁵⁵⁸“The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. In the sea of Adria (en toi Hadriai). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece.” Robertson, p. 469.

⁵⁵⁹If the soundings were made at midnight, and if the passengers were at least inside the ship, rather than on deck, only the sailors would have known that land was approaching. This “inside information” was, I think, a factor in their plan to abandon ship.

⁵⁶⁰The higher the ship floated in the water, the closer to shore they could get before the ship grounded.

⁵⁶¹Before, adrift in the sea, they made no effort to guide the ship. They could not see the sun nor the stars (verse 20) and so they were unable to navigate. They took down the sail, which would have been ripped to shreds by the winds, and lashed down the rudders, which would have been broken up as they were smashed against the ship by the waves. Now, when they knew where they wanted to go, they again began to rig the ship for sailing, to whatever degree this could be done in such a storm.

⁵⁶²“St. Paul’s Bay is sheltered on the northwest by the island of Salmonetta, which is separated from the Maltese mainland by a narrow channel about a hundred yards wide. This channel is the place ‘between two seas.’ Here the ship, in Smith’s words, ‘would strike a bottom of mud graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, whilst the stern was exposed to the worst of the waves.’ After the long battering which the ship had endured for the past two weeks, its exposed part could not take this further punishment, and it quickly disintegrated.” Bruce, p. 494.

⁵⁶³This seems to suggest that the charges against these prisoners were serious. There were no petty thieves on board this ship.

⁵⁶⁴Would he not have dared to command the soldiers not to kill Paul, but to have allowed the others to be put to death? It was simpler, it seems, to forbid them from killing any of them.

⁵⁶⁵“In particular, much may be learned from Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s character and behavior in circumstances in which the real man is most likely to be revealed. He portrays Paul in many roles throughout Acts, but here he shows him standing out as the practical man in a critical emergency--keeping his head when all about him are losing theirs. Not once or twice the world has had to thank the great saints and mystics for providing timely help in moments of crisis when realistic, practical men of affairs were unable to supply it.” Bruce, p. 475.

You are here

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

29. Filling in the Blank (Acts 18:18-19:7)

Introduction

The Context of Our Text

Heading Home (18:18-23)

Priscilla and Aquila Enlighten Apollos (18:24-28)

Filling in the Blanks for Twelve Disciples430 (19:1-7)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

30. The Evangelization of Ephesus (Acts 19:8-41)

Introduction

The Structure of Acts 19

From the Synagogue to the School (19:8-10)

Miracles and the Ministry of Paul (19:11-12)

The Exorcists “Exposed” (19:13-20)

Paul’s Plans (19:21-22)

Demetrius and the Ephesian Uprising (19:23-32)

Attempted Addresses by Paul and Alexander (19:30-34)

The City Clerk’s Rebuke and Benediction (19:35-41)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

31. Paul’s Parting Words (Acts 20:1-38)

Introduction

Structure of the Passage

The Selective Nature of this Chapter

From Ephesus to Troas (20:1-6)

Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class (20:7-12)

From Troas to Miletus (20:13-16)

Paul’s Final Words to the Ephesian Elders (20:17-38)

General Observations

Paul’s Practice in the Past (Verses 18-21)

Paul’s Practice in the Light of His Future (Verses 22-27)

The Dangers Ahead for the Ephesian Elders (Verses 28-32)

Paul’s Example and the Shepherd’s Spirit (20:33-35)

A Tearful Parting (20:36-38)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

32. The Giving and Taking of Advice (Acts 21:1-40)

Introduction

The Structure of the Text

The Importance of our Passage

From Miletus to Tyre (21:1-6)

From Tyre to Caesarea (21:7-14)

Reasons for Trying to Turn Paul Back

Paul’s Reasons for Pressing on to Jerusalem

God’s Reasons For the Prophecies of Paul’s Bondage in Jerusalem

From Caesarea to Jerusalem, and From Jerusalem to Jail (21:15-40)

Conclusion

Advice on Giving Advice

Advice on Taking Advice

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

33. Paul’s Defense to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26—22:29)

Introduction

Our Approach

Outline of the Structure of the Text

An Overview of the Events Surrounding Paul’s Arrest and Trials

The Nature of Paul’s Defense

The Riot and the Roman Troops (22:22-30)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

34. Paul’s Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:35)

Introduction

Our Approach

The Structure of the Text

Off To A Bad Start (20:30—23:5)

Chaos in the Council (23:6-10)

Divine Encouragement (23:11)

A Conspiracy and Counter-Measures (23:12-35)

Conclusion

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Acts: Christ at Work Through His Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

35. Paul Stands Before Felix: The Preacher and the Politician (Acts 24:1-27)

Introduction

The Setting

Heading Home
(18:18-23)

Priscilla and Aquila Enlighten Apollos
(18:24-28)

Filling in the Blanks for Twelve Disciples⁴³⁰
(19:1-7)

From the Synagogue to the School
(19:8-10)

Miracles and the Ministry of Paul
(19:11-12)

The Exorcists “Exposed”
(19:13-20)

Paul’s Plans
(19:21-22)

Demetrius and the Ephesian Uprising
(19:23-32)

Attempted Addresses by Paul and Alexander
(19:30-34)

The City Clerk’s Rebuke and Benediction
(19:35-41)

From Ephesus to Troas
(20:1-6)

Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class
(20:7-12)

From Troas to Miletus
(20:13-16)

Paul’s Final Words to the Ephesian Elders
(20:17-38)

Paul’s Example and the Shepherd’s Spirit
(20:33-35)

A Tearful Parting
(20:36-38)

From Miletus to Tyre
(21:1-6)

From Tyre to Caesarea
(21:7-14)

From Caesarea to Jerusalem,
and From Jerusalem to Jail
(21:15-40)

An Overview of the Events
Surrounding Paul’s Arrest and Trials

The Riot and the Roman Troops
(22:22-30)

Off To A Bad Start
(20:30—23:5)

Chaos in the Council
(23:6-10)

Divine Encouragement
(23:11)

A Conspiracy and Counter-Measures
(23:12-35)

The Charges Against Paul
(24:1-9)

Paul’s Defense
(24:10-21)

Paul’s Introductory Comments
(24:10b-13)

Paul’s Relationship to Judaism
(24:14-16)

Paul’s Answers to Specific Charges
(24:17-21)

Felix’s (In)Decision
(24:22-23)

Felix Dialogues With Paul
(24:24-27)

A Change in Administration:
From Felix to Festus

The Setting:
Festus Gets a Promotion and a Problem
(24:27—25:5)

The Trial, Festus’ Verdict, and Paul’s Appeal
(25:6-12)

A Helping Hand:
The Arrival of Agrippa and Bernice
(25:13-22)

The Stage is Set For
Paul’s Proclamation of the Gospel
(25:23-27)

The Setting
(25:23—26:1)

Paul’s Introduction
(26:2-3)

Paul’s Judaism
(26:4-8)

Paul’s Judaism and Jesus
(26:9-11)

Paul’s Conversion and Commission
(26:12-18)

The Consequences of Paul’s Obedience to His Commission
(26:19-23)

The Conversation of Paul with Festus and Agrippa
(26:24-29)

The Conversation Between Festus and Agrippa
(26:30-31)

Overview of the Passage
and the Structure of the Text

From Caesarea to Fair Havens⁵⁴¹
(27:1-8)

A Crucial Decision
(27:9-13)

A Sudden Storm and All Hope Lost
(27:14-20)

Paul’s Encouragement
(27:21-26)

Nearing Land
(27:27-29)

The Sailors Stopped From Abandoning Ship
(27:30-32)

Paul’s Encouragement and the Ship’s Grounding
(27:33-41)

Prisoners Spared and All Ashore
(27:42-44)