Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

PAUL AND COMPANIONS IN ASIA AND ACHAIA (15:36–19:41)

The Jerusalem Council was a turning point, and many scholars deem it (at least in some, though not every, sense) the center of the book of Acts; the rest of the book carries forward the Gentile mission that the council approved.[1] Paul’s journey in 15:40–18:21 proved strategic. If Paul’s undisputed epistles show us anything about his interests (they might reflect the commitments of the circles that preserved them), it is clear that churches planted on this mission were strategic to Paul’s vision (1–2 Corinthians; Philippians; 1 Thessalonians).[2] At such a distance from Jerusalem and Antioch, Paul also exercised considerable independence (cf. 2 Cor 10:13–16).[3]

Some scholars argue that Luke arranges disparate events in Paul’s ministry by means of a journey narrative, as in the Gospel (Luke 9–19) and some Hellenistic travel narratives.[4] Although Luke does use a travel narrative to organize material in his Gospel and Paul’s journeys may function somewhat analogously in Acts, he does not create Paul’s journeys from whole cloth. The chronology of this section of Acts simply does not allow for Paul’s returning to Antioch every so often, and his letters attest his ministry in many of the locations listed on this “journey.”

Scholars have assigned diverse chronologies to the journey that begins in this section. Too many variables exist for any of the chronologies to be exact, but they can provide us some approximate estimates. All modern reconstructions of Pauline chronology that ignore Acts differ significantly,[5] suggesting a heavy element of speculation; Acts provides a concrete source that should be taken into account.[6] Using both Acts and Paul’s epistles as a guide, Jewett arrives at an often-cited estimate as follows:[7]

Travels

Kilometers traveled

Minimum time estimated

Normal

time

†

Jerusalem to Antioch (15:30)

600

15 days

4 weeks

Visit in Antioch with time for word to return to Jerusalem

—

7 weeks

4 months

Antioch to Derbe (15:41–16:1)

471

12 days

3 weeks

Visits to churches in Syria, Cilicia, and Derbe (15:41–16:1)

—

5 weeks

10 weeks

Derbe through Lystra to Iconium (16:1–5)

144

3 days

4 days

Visits in Lystra and Iconium (16:4–5)

—

2 weeks

8 weeks

Iconium to Neapolis and Pisidian Antioch

142

3 days

4 days

Visit in Antioch in Pisidia (16:4–6)

—

1 week

4 weeks

Pisidian Antioch to Ancyra (16:6–7; Gal 1:2; 3:1); and to North Galatia (to bring them to where they were “opposite Mysia” and at approach to Bithynia)

312

8 days

2 weeks

Missionary activity and illness in North Galatia (Gal 4:13)

—

6 months

1 year

Ancyra and Troas (16:8)

771

20 days

6 weeks

Missionary activity in Troas (16:10ff.; 20:6–12)

—

2 weeks

8 weeks

Troas to Philippi through Neapolis (16:11) by sea

—

3 days

Missionary activity in Philippi (16:12ff.)

—

3 months

1 year

Philippi to Thessalonica (17:1)

140

4 days

Thessalonian mission (17:1–9)

—

3 months

4 months

Thessalonica to Beroea (17:10)

2 days

Beroean ministry (17:10–14)

—

2 months

Beroea to Athens (17:5–6)

‡

or 450

10 days

2 weeks

Ministry in Athens (17:16–34)

—

2 weeks

4 weeks

Athens through Piraeus, by ship to Cenchreae, on to Corinth (18:1)

By land, 16; by sea, 75

3 days

Totals for travel

3,497 (by sea, 775; by land, 2,722)

91 weeks; 640 days

201 weeks; 1409 days

At 40 km. per day, no delays.

†

At 30 km. per day, with delays.

‡

By land to Pydna, Piraeus to Athens.

By sea from Pydna to Piraeus.

Jewett concludes that this “missionary journey” took two to four—and probably three to four—years.[8] Although he seems right to critique the eighteen-month period often suggested, two years would probably be adequate; Paul’s companions sometimes apparently stayed behind for instruction (most explicitly, Acts 17:14–15), accounting for some of the estimated time.

Obviously, many estimates are pure guesswork.[9] The five to ten weeks spent visiting churches in 15:41 could have taken much longer, but total figures remain limited by the need to have Paul in Corinth for his meeting with Gallio in 18:12–17, during Gallio’s brief tenure of office. Some of the larger periods, however, are questionable. One year in Philippi is surely too long, especially given Luke’s copious detail for the closing scenes of Paul’s initial ministry there yet little attention to much of the rest. If Paul did not stay to minister in North Galatia (see introduction, above, to Acts 14), we may eliminate six to twelve months from this itinerary.[10] Given Paul’s mention of working in Thessalonica, we may presume that he stayed there more than three weeks; but given 17:2, need we really assume a minimum of three months? Granted that Paul must have made some disciples in Beroea (20:4), would it have taken Paul’s enemies in Thessalonica, two days from Beroea, two months to learn of his work there and stir trouble for him (17:13)?

The times spent traveling from one place to another—where Jewett is especially helpful—account for less substantial periods on the itinerary. Of course, it is easier to criticize any particular chronology for its educated guesses than to construct an alternative one; the alternative would offer its own educated guesses, no less susceptible to critique as guesswork.

1. New Colleagues, Old Areas (15:36–16:5)

Paul and Barnabas part over Mark, but God apparently uses the conflict (which is not portrayed positively) to produce two ministry teams. With at least two new colleagues (first Silas and then Timothy), Paul, delivering the decrees, revisits the churches that he and Barnabas founded. The mission must continue; in God’s plan, even the conflict between the missionaries may not stop it.

a. Conflict with Barnabas over Mark (15:36–39)

Luke does not portray the schism between Paul and Barnabas positively, but neither does he suppress it. He treats it briefly, explaining why the two missionaries separated. When partners differ over which absolute values take priority—in this case, loyalty or forgiveness, on the one hand, and expectation of wholehearted commitment, on the other—conflict appears inevitable.[11] Although the two parties’ motives may be honorable, their schism is unfortunate and is reported because it is necessary to explain the transition in Paul’s partners.

I. FOLLOWING UP ON CONVERTS (15:36)

“After some days” probably covers a considerable period of time here, like the “considerable days” of 9:23; given space available in a single-volume monograph, Luke simply cannot cover everything in detail.[12] He often employs the expression κατὰ πόλιν (Luke 8:1, 4; Acts 15:21; 20:23).[13]

Although Paul may wish to deliver the decrees to Cilicia (Acts 15:23; cf. 15:41; 16:4), his concern to follow up on the believers in Cyprus and Phrygia seems paramount here (14:21–23; cf. 1 Thess 2:17–3:11). On my later dating of Galatians, it is possible that the circumcisionist missionaries had not yet traveled north of Antioch and had not yet threatened the young churches in the vicinity of Phrygia.

Paul’s concern for the welfare of his converts is characteristic also of the epistolary Paul (2 Cor 11:28–29; 1 Thess 3:2, 5), but Luke has reason to record it. Luke elsewhere reports a protagonist’s plans (Luke 9:51), at least sometimes to point out that subsequent events are not the cause of the change of plans (Acts 19:21). W. L. Knox sees a contradiction between this passage and 16:4, where the council’s decrees are for the churches of Galatia as well; he resolves this tension by seeing 15:36 as Paul’s verbal report to Luke whereas the other passage represents Luke’s composition of what was not previously in written form.[14]

Acts 15:23, however, shows us that Jerusalem directed the decrees to the churches of Antioch in the province Syria-Cilicia; in 16:4, it is “for them to keep” in the sense that it is instruction for Gentiles (also 15:23, applied here analogously to different Gentiles), not for them as Phrygians. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians suggests that the matter eventually became an issue in Galatia, since Judaizers seem to have moved on to these churches after they lost their hearing at Antioch. That some continued to observe the decrees in the second century might reflect the influence of Acts but probably suggests that independently in some areas the decrees continued to be viewed as binding. But neither in Paul’s later letters nor later in Acts do we read further about the decrees, which, for the Pauline circle of churches, seem to have faded from relevance with increasing distance, whether of time from their promulgation or of place from their provenance.

II. BARNABAS’S LOYALTY TO MARK (15:37)

Barnabas acts in character; he had also shown Paul himself similar kindness (9:27; 11:22–25), making Paul’s refusal (15:38) appear more ironic. Barnabas’s willingness [15] to take Mark portrays the virtue of mercy or clemency, praiseworthy among people of rank in antiquity.[16] In typical ideals, sages should also nurture growth, not emulate the harshest Cynics.[17]

Some ancients opined that one should reject a friendship only if the friend has a major and unchanging vice (Iambl. V.P. 33.232).[18] Barnabas undoubtedly viewed Mark’s failure less severely than did Paul and thus maintained loyalty. Refusing to betray a friend is honorable behavior (Athen. Deipn. 15.965F, §25). Friendships functioned in urban Roman society, at least, as political alliances, so that the enemy of a friend became one’s own enemy and a person sought to isolate his enemy from his friends.[19] For Barnabas to fail to support Mark would therefore greatly disappoint Mark, whereas Paul would expect loyalty to himself rather than Mark.[20] Friends could quarrel when one advocated on behalf of others for the other friend to forgive them (Philost. Hrk. 53.19). Mark and Paul placed Barnabas in an unenviable position; culturally, he was expected to choose his allegiance or create friction anyway by refusing to do so.

Luke does not inform us of Barnabas’s kinship with Mark, which appears in Col 4:10, but historically it would have complicated the situation even more. Kinship was also an important bond that created loyalty (Aeschylus Prom. 39; 1 Chr 2:15–16).[21] It was, however, often a conditional value; for example, those who honored duty to the state would argue that a prosecutor must dutifully convict the accused even if the accused was someone loved by the prosecutor (Val. Max. 3.8.ext. 4). Further, the suspicion of nepotism, which Barnabas’s support of his relative might have raised,[22] was a negative judgment.[23] For Mark not to be able to go was also an insult to Mark; someone left behind on a voyage he wished to make might prove quite angry with those who had advised leaving him behind.[24]

Conflicts between fathers and children, or elders and those who were younger (here concerning Paul and Mark), proved interesting to ancient audiences. Because the issue was so emotional (and unfortunately not uncommon in genuine legal cases), declaimers often practiced speeches on topics about conflicts between fathers and sons and consequent acts of disinheritance;[25] in real life the situation was rarer (cf. John 8:35) but could occur.[26]

Philosophers allowed that students could make “progress” in the right way.[27] Character could change, though this happened especially in youth.[28] Some experts thus counseled patience toward those needing progress. More than some of his peers, Quintilian counseled patience with and sensitivity toward children (though Mark is hardly a child now): one should treat each boy individually, since some need control whereas this provokes others to rebellion; fear helps some and hurts others; appeals to ambition move some whereas others are crushed by rebuke (Quint. Inst. 1.3.6–7).[29] Some hearers would value Barnabas’s point here, though for most, as for Luke, Paul is the larger narrative’s main protagonist.

III. PAUL’S CONCERN WITH MARK (15:38)

The term for Paul’s judgment (ἀξιόω) can refer to a matter of prudence rather than a moral consideration.[30] This is in keeping with the Paul of the Pastorals, who expected coworkers in ministry to share his hardships as a disciplined soldier would (2 Tim 2:3–4); but the earlier letters’ Paul also valued the soundest coworkers (e.g., 2 Cor 8:16–22; Phil 2:20–22). If he acted as the de facto leader of the team, Paul was presumably responsible for making the decision,[31] but he and Barnabas had probably made decisions together on previous occasions.

The charge of desertion was a serious one (see comment on Acts 13:13), and much was at stake on this journey. The mission to reach unevangelized Gentiles took precedence over the formation of missionaries whose commitment might be in doubt. Many ancients counted it unwise to entrust something important to one who had already proved himself unworthy. Thus, for example, Cicero advised a governor of Asia to treat all courteously but to admit to his inner circle only those who have proved themselves trustworthy (Quint. fratr. 1.1.5.16); one should not trust someone one has not observed (1.1.5.15; cf. 1 Tim 3:10). If a subordinate has never offered reason to distrust him for the past two years, it is safe to trust him; if one finds grounds for suspicion, however, one ought not to trust him or stake any of one’s honor on his behavior (Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.14). Others also advised trusting a friend only if one had tested the friend and found him or her worthy (Publ. Syr. 134); generals also could test their soldiers.[32]

Similarly, teachers could be reluctant to accept untrustworthy disciples.[33] An expert teacher might test prospective disciples to determine if they would repay the investment of attention (Iambl. V.P. 17.71).[34] Accusers would charge that a disciple’s behavior reflected badly on the teacher, though a teacher’s supporters would claim otherwise.[35] Yet even the greatest teachers were often said to have disciples who turned out badly,[36] abandoning them [37] or even betraying them (Luke 22:4, 6, 21, 22, 48).[38] Rejection of proffered friendship could produce enmity.[39]

Although the implied author propagates a particular perspective, many ancient authors were sophisticated enough to recognize that readers often identify successively with various characters [40] and hence can see various sides of an issue.[41] Many ancient readers would have sufficient literary sensitivity to adopt a nuanced perspective, viewing both Barnabas and Paul as virtuous yet colliding with each other in tragic disagreement.[42]

Although clemency was praiseworthy (Acts 15:37), so was severity in the cause of a higher virtue (such as duty to the Roman state, in Roman moralists). Thus Valerius Maximus, after citing praiseworthy examples of severity, turns to praiseworthy examples of mercy (clementia, Val. Max. 5.1). He provides examples of paternal harshness and severity (5.8), followed by examples of moderation (5.9);[43] although he seems to prefer the latter, he learns from both. (For example, one father could have spared his son, “but that would have been the story of a wary father, this is the account of a stern one.”)[44]

Gentile moralists could point out the importance of reproof,[45] but this was especially a Jewish emphasis. Jewish law also emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof,[46] that admonition must always precede punishment,[47] and that it continue until the offender repents or decisively repulses the reprover.[48] Like some other ancient moralists,[49] rabbis emphasized that reproof was to be private [50] and taken before witnesses only if necessary.[51] A sage could hyperbolically rule that publicly shaming one’s fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age.[52] The Qumran scrolls, which include record keeping of rebukes,[53] also emphasize the standard Jewish sequence (seen also in Matt 18:15–17): private reproof, then before witnesses, and finally before the gathered assembly.[54] That Josephus adds to Exod 18:14 this principle of private correction in Ant. 3.67 reinforces the probability that Jewish people expected private reproof.[55] Love and concern could demand reproof, at least toward those who might trust one enough to hear.[56]

Ideally the same person could be uncompromising in insisting on the right standard [57] yet demonstrate mercy toward those who erred.[58] In practice one sometimes had to take one side or the other, and Luke presents the ideal character Jesus coming down on both sides of the line (e.g., Luke 9:41, 55; 12:28; 19:10; 22:32; 24:25).

IV. THE MISSIONARY SCHISM AND HISTORY (15:39)

Luke might have chosen to omit this split, simply noting that Paul took a new partner. If the Chronicler omitted David’s sin, Josephus omitted the golden-calf episode (see comment on Acts 7:41), and Plutarch omitted or minimized Caesar’s affairs,[59] we might expect Luke to follow suit. But biographers often did include unpleasant reports about even mostly positive characters.[60] Biographers believed that readers could learn from both positive and negative historical examples. On the level of Acts’ theology, however, God’s sovereign plan in the outcome may be more important (15:39–40).[61]

The conflict between Paul and Barnabas meets the criterion of embarrassment as something Luke probably would not have invented;[62] so, most likely, does the implied portrayal of Mark.[63] Luke has to report it because he must explain why Paul is no longer traveling with Barnabas, but Luke does not devote more space than necessary to the account. (In rhetoric, it was best to hurry over an embarrassing account.)[64] Many scholars, however, suggest that the primary reason for the split was not Mark (though that may have been involved) but a more serious conflict that Luke preferred not to mention—namely, the disagreement reported in Gal 2:13.[65] How plausible is this alternative motive?

Although it is reasonable that various matters of friction may have contributed to each other,[66] Galatians does not claim or imply that it was the encounter reported there that brought the split to its head. Galatians (like Paul’s other letters) does not in fact mention any split and hence does not offer a report that conflicts with Acts, though peripherally supporting its picture that tension sometimes occurred between the two and their respective personal characters, which played a role in it. Luke need not feel obligated to report the incident in Gal 2:11–14 if (assuming he knows of it) he views it as a merely temporary step back from the agreement in Acts 15; the hypothesis that it proved more than temporary does not accord with the almost unanimous consensus against the necessity of circumcising Gentiles that emerged in the Diaspora church, including Ignatius’s Antioch.[67] But Paul’s report in Gal 2:11–14 confirms the same attitudes revealed in Luke’s report: Barnabas is more conciliatory (in negative terms, lax), and Paul more of an uncompromising purist (in negative terms, inflexible).

Sometimes commentators are too eager to turn natural human differences into theological ones;[68] but as later rabbis observed, it is normal human nature that if business associates do not get along, they part company and do not wish to see each other (Num. Rab. 19:15). Nor should we play down the importance of Luke’s portrayal of the division, as if he has whitewashed division out of the picture evident in Galatians; “a matter of principle” informs the separation here no less than in Gal 2.[69]

The fallout of the disagreement in Gal 2:13 was probably not so traumatic as to be permanent and probably does not reflect fundamental divergence in values.[70] (The accusation of “hypocrisy” in Gal 2:13 in fact suggests that Barnabas agreed with Paul on the fundamental issue but that Paul felt that Barnabas did not act accordingly.)[71] After the putative breakup, Paul still refers to Barnabas as an example in his letters (1 Cor 9:6; cf. Col 4:10),[72] and even in Gal 2:1, 9, he continues to be portrayed as Paul’s partner; 2:13 speaks of “even” (καί) Barnabas, implying that the negative behavior (from Paul’s perspective) there attributed to him was regarded as not characteristic of him. Galatians 2:14 explicitly mentions Paul confronting only Peter. To infer the breakup with Barnabas in the Galatians passage is to read between Paul’s lines as well as Luke’s, though biblical scholars have certainly perfected the art of drawing inferences.

Against Luke’s portrayal of the Antioch church as supporting at least Paul (Acts 15:40; Luke is silent in 15:39–40 as to whether it also supported Barnabas, but it is a reasonable guess that it did), some think that the conflict resulted in the Antioch church withdrawing its authorization of Paul or even rejecting Paul’s gospel.[73] But several factors lead me to believe that this judgment is surely too harsh.

First, it infers a much harsher reading of that conflict than our harshest ancient source on the subject, Gal 2:11–14, presents. One could have disagreement, even acting separately when consensus on strategy proved elusive, without necessarily taking a posture of enmity. Paul’s “even Barnabas” emphasizes how bad the situation was by citing what is, from Paul’s and his audience’s perspective, an unexpected defection on the issue at hand. Had Paul and Barnabas actually split over the issue in Gal 2, it would have served Paul’s rhetorical purpose in that passage to have mentioned it (Paul is emphasizing the independence of his gospel). “Even Barnabas”—as opposed to something like “Barnabas, as you might expect”—hardly sounds as if Paul harbored long-term disdain for his former colleague. (In fact, he continued to treat him after the split as a normally appropriate model [cf. 1 Cor 9:6, which implies that Paul had also mentioned Barnabas’s ministry favorably to the Corinthians].) We lack any indication that he expected the Galatians to think that they must choose between him and Barnabas (the normal expectation in a newly formed enmity relationship).[74] The Galatians would likely read this as a negative incident in an otherwise usually positive relationship between their church planters. Whether in the conflict over John Mark or in the conflict over eating with the uncircumcised, Paul shows no signs of hostility toward his former companion in his extant correspondence. Genuine enmity was normally expressed much more harshly than “even Barnabas,” using invective utterly absent in Paul’s portrayal.[75] Nor does Paul’s Galatian letter clarify that the Antioch church in the end rejected Paul’s case for that of Jerusalem.

Second, this inference contradicts the explicit statement of Luke (Acts 15:40), who was much closer to the situation than we are and hence is more likely to have had reliable evidence than we are.[76] We have the option of doubting Luke’s evidence, but it seems curious to dispute his explicit statement on the basis of inference rather than any genuine explicit evidence to the contrary. Third, both Barnabas and Paul at least begin by revisiting locations where they previously started churches; neither is necessarily “replaced” in Antioch’s mission. Fourth, later hints suggest that historically Barnabas and Paul reconciled (1 Cor 9:6; Col 4:10), and taking Silas (cf. 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1) may suggest Paul’s wish to retain ties with Jerusalem.[77]

That Paul does not complete the description of the encounter in Gal 2:11–14 should not be used to argue from silence that his gospel was rejected in Antioch [78] or even (more plausibly) that he lost the debate to Peter, leading to the need for the Jerusalem decree that supposedly weakened his cause.[79] As noted above, Paul’s argument carried the day in the Diaspora churches, including Antioch. Moreover, because Paul was writing the letter, he could just as easily have cited Peter’s response and then refuted it; I believe that Peter, who sought in Antioch to be conciliatory to both sides, probably answered graciously or in terms Paul construed as an inadequate defense.[80]

In fact, like the Gospel writers, writers of philosophic biographies, and others,[81] Paul in Galatians concludes with the decisive words of the protagonist. That our reports favor one side surely does not require us to suppose that this side could not have offered persuasive words. Should silence concerning the replies of Jesus’s opponents in the Gospels be taken to mean that their replies must have been so persuasive as to lead to Jesus’s verbal defeat? Granted that the stories are shaped to end with Jesus as victor (in spite of the fact that his opponents must have often sought to continue challenging him),[82] this does not compel us to simply assume that the opposite of what the narratives suggest must be what happened. Jesus remained popular and his followers continued to think him more persuasive than his opponents, whatever the opponents thought.

Further, Paul recounts the scene as an example of his case, not necessarily a decisive turning point that his readers know about. Galatia was close enough to Antioch, and Paul’s opponents shrewd enough, that if that meeting had gone in such a hostile way, we cannot suppose Paul’s audience would have been unaware of it, and we might expect Paul to counter Antioch’s decision more explicitly. This, of course, is also an argument from silence, but one meant to counter what is weaker than a normal argument from silence because it discounts some explicit textual evidence—namely, Acts. Granted, one can argue that Luke had reasons to cover up such a split, but the fact remains that such an argument must first discount the explicit evidence we do have, of whatever quality, before arguing from the silence that remains. Luke is in fact our only clear source for the split between Paul and Barnabas.

V. A NEGATIVE PORTRAYAL (15:39)

The portrayal is not of a gentle and reasoned decision based on what would be most strategic for the kingdom (i.e., two teams instead of one); Luke reports an emotionally charged conflict. That Luke would describe the conflict between two of his protagonists as a παροξυσμός, typically a strong term (Deut 29:28; Jer 32:37),[83] supports his reliability [84] and reinforces the nuanced character of his portrayals (i.e., not simply the sort of binary dualism toward which Johannine literature tends). In a biography, one should not change what one disagrees with (though one need not always make it a point of emphasis); thus, for example, although Plutarch praises Cato the Elder freely, he criticizes his mistreatment of slaves (M. Cato 5.1, 5) and undoubtedly does not appreciate Cato’s mockery of Romans too fond of Greek culture and ways (12.4). In another biography he even insists that it is necessary to include failings in the biography of a good person but with the right balance for one whose character is otherwise noble (Cim. 2.4–5).[85]

Although conflict was understandable,[86] it was not positive. The schism here contrasts starkly with the establishment of harmony in Acts 15:25;[87] writers sometimes contrasted high and low points to highlight the difference.[88] Luke makes this clear by using here a cognate verb of that used for John Mark’s own departure in 13:13: if Mark’s action was inappropriate (as Paul thought), so must be the schism of Paul and Barnabas from each other over this earlier separation.[89]

Ancients knew that the stubbornness of a hero could also harm the whole cause; this was a major theme of the Iliad, the most commonly cited work in the Greek world (stated at the very beginning in Hom. Il. 1.1–4: the Iliad recounts Achilles’s anger and how many valiant warriors died because of it). (That God positively supplies two teams instead of one [Acts 15:39–41][90] merely emphasizes that the supreme protagonist of the narrative, though less its explicit focus, is God. It does not whitewash the disappointing failure of one or both human protagonists in the account.)

It was honorable to control one’s anger;[91] those who emphasized self-control sometimes claimed that to lose one’s temper was to lose one’s mind—that is, experience temporary insanity.[92] Stoics categorized different kinds of anger, a negative disposition;[93] the wise person would avoid it.[94] Other Gentile philosophers [95] and moralists [96] also urged against anger and said that a sage should correct a student but not in anger.[97] Jewish moralists, too, advised against anger,[98] and this value applied to sages also;[99] sometimes more hellenized Jews offered the Greek remedy of reason and its power for self-control.[100] Moralists warned that those who acted in anger might afterward regret it.[101]

Biographies, especially those of philosophers,[102] would praise a protagonist for not becoming angry.[103] Pauline literature itself opposes anger (e.g., 1 Cor 13:5, 7; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Eph 4:25–5:2; Col 3:8) and division (1 Cor 1:10–13; 3:3–4; Eph 4:3–6; Phil 2:1–4, 14; 4:2–3) and advocates love (e.g., 1 Cor 13; 1 Thess 3:9–10). Yet some forms of anger were considered more justifiable than others,[104] and letting go of anger quickly was at least better than holding it for a long time [105] (in Pauline literature, see Eph 4:26).[106]

That a former friend should become one’s enemy can be used to imply negative things about one’s character (Isaeus Dicaeog. 40); whether it stemmed from fickleness of character or from an abundance of new friends, the ending of friendly love was not honorable (Fronto Ad am. 1.19). How will Paul and Barnabas each explain to their churches the absence of the other primary colleague? The opposite of friendship (amicitia) would be partners torn apart by rivalry (Val. Max. 2.9.6a). Friendships were not always permanent,[107] and the refusal of gifts or other offenses could turn friendship into enmity.[108]

Given our evidence for Paul’s later reconciliation with Mark (Phlm 24; Col 4:10) and appreciation of Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6), either this separation did not lead to enmity [109] or relations were later reconciled (whether in person or by letter).[110] Friends could quarrel without permanently destroying their relationship (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 53.19).[111] When expedient, even Roman politicians made friends (political allies) of their enemies (Suet. Jul. 73). Most people wished to reduce enmities,[112] certainly including the mature epistolary Paul (Phil 1:17–18; 4:2–3), and people often did reconcile.[113]

Luke does not provide us this information, however, because his interests lie elsewhere. Luke thus is certainly not “covering up” for Paul; he may well have known of the reconciliation (especially since he ends up in Rome himself, Acts 28:16; and this was where Mark joined Paul, Phlm 24). Because it is not his focus, he does not revisit their reconciliation, though one topic that interested some ancient writers was notable reconciliation between famous men (Aul. Gel. 12.8).

Although Luke tells us no more about Barnabas (his focus being Paul), later legends filled in Barnabas’s story, many or all of them fancifully. The fullest source, Acts of Barnabas, is from the fifth or sixth century C.E.[114] In it, Barnabas ordained as Cyprus’s bishop one Heracleides, who had spent time with Paul at Kition (Latin, Citium); given that such bishops probably do not predate Ignatius by many decades, this tradition is likely false, though Heracleides may have been an early bishop. The legend claims that Barnabas carried an early gospel from Matthew (on the basis of Papias’s tradition that Matthew wrote first).[115] He confronted Bar-Jesus again, through whose instigation Cyprian Jews burned Barnabas alive in the hippodrome; Mark then went on to Alexandria (the last claim according with earlier tradition).[116] Tradition also claims that in 478 C.E. Barnabas’s tomb was revealed through a dream to Cyprus’s bishop, Anthemius; Barnabas was supposedly still holding Matthew’s Gospel.[117] Some earlier traditions [118] claim that Barnabas authored Hebrews. What is relevant for the text of Acts is that revisiting the churches was originally Barnabas’s plan (15:36); Barnabas chose to revisit those in Cyprus with Mark (who had remained with them during their Cyprus mission), leaving Paul to deal with southern Asia Minor.

b. Strengthening Churches in Syria and Cilicia (15:40–41)

Silas (Acts 15:40) was an obvious candidate for the mission; he is named in the decree letter itself (15:27) and appears to be a Roman citizen (16:37), a status useful in the eastern empire.[119]

Committing Paul and Silas to the grace of the Lord (15:40) included commissioning (14:23), as when Barnabas and Saul first left Antioch (13:1–3);[120] Luke employs the same verb for the retrospective on the Antioch church’s committing Barnabas and Saul to God’s grace in 14:26. Luke’s focus on Paul’s continuing mission, however, does not necessarily imply that the church failed to send Barnabas and Mark as well. With Barnabas heading to his homeland, however, the church expected Paul and Silas to bring the message of the decree to the churches of Syria-Cilicia outside Antioch (15:23, 41). By heading northward, this new team would be well positioned to continue on to visit again the churches of Galatia (16:1).

Both travel conditions and the disposition of the culture would invite the team to leave in the spring and in the morning.[121] Winters were difficult for travel, especially by sea but also by land, especially across mountain ranges such as the Taurus (see comment on Acts 13:14); for further discussion on the difficulties of winter travel, see the extensive comment at Acts 27:9.[122] Because travelers would need to lodge at night (cf. Luke 24:29), a morning departure allowed for a longer day’s journey (cf. Judg 19:8–21).

If Barnabas went to Cyprus (Acts 15:39, sailing from Seleucia as in 13:4), Paul could return to the land of his birth, Cilicia (15:41; see 9:11); Paul had spent much time in Syria-Cilicia earlier (Gal 1:21; cf. Acts 9:30; 11:25), and it was on the way to Galatia. Syria-Cilicia was a single province in this period (see comment on Acts 23:34; more briefly, on Acts 15:23), but there seems little reason to mention both unless Paul actually visited both. Even so, it is not certain that the two journeyed to Tarsus; since it was on the way, however, it is a reasonable surmise that they may have done so.[123] Since the decrees affected all of Syria-Cilicia (Acts 15:23), Paul and Silas probably minister among churches, likely churches that Paul himself founded earlier (9:30; 11:25).[124]

One Roman trade route passed through both Tarsus and Iconium, then branched in two directions, one of them west to Ephesus (cf. 16:6).[125] Most likely they took the most “direct route via the Taurus Passes”—that is, the Cilician Gates—“through the non-Roman territory of Commagene”; an approaching winter may have earlier prevented their later return by this route.[126] The distance from Tarsus to Derbe by this route was about 150 miles (240 km.). Lycaonia, where Paul would soon arrive (16:1), was close enough to Cilicia for the two to be later combined as a province, probably sometime between 138 and 146 C.E.[127]

Luke often speaks of “strengthening” churches (14:22–23; 18:23); the apostolic model was not just evangelism but planting self-propagating churches that would continue to evangelize their communities.

c. Recruiting Half-Greek Timothy (16:1–3)

In 15:36–39, Paul loses his main traveling companion (in a conflict over a younger, former traveling assistant). In 15:40–41, Paul takes a new major traveling companion (Silas) and here also adds a new younger assistant, Timothy. Unlike Paul’s earlier colleagues, Timothy is half-Greek. But whereas this might be seen by some as an advantage in reaching Gentiles, his ambiguous status would please neither Greeks nor Jews, and hence Paul seeks to normalize his status. In the process, Luke shows the extent to which Paul accommodated Jewish sensitivities such as those that had surfaced at the Jerusalem Council (15:5, 20). If some of Paul’s detractors regarding circumcision or Jerusalem considered him too inflexible or a cause of a rift with the mother church, Luke would surely have demurred, and expected his Diaspora audience to do the same.

I. TRAVEL TO DERBE AND LYSTRA (16:1)

Luke briefly summarizes Paul’s ministry in Syria and Cilicia,[128] beyond which Paul revisits churches he and Barnabas founded (as Paul had planned in 15:36). In contrast to Syria and Cilicia, Luke now mentions specific towns because he will offer an incident of note instead of merely summarizing regions.

The mention of Derbe before Lystra in 16:1 is deliberate. Already in Syria-Cilicia (15:41), Paul presumably took the land route through his own region of eastern Cilicia and then through a mountainous pass to the north. Passing through the gorge called the Cilician Gates [129] (rather than following the previous route from Cyprus to Attalia, Perga, and Pisidian Antioch), he would have reached Derbe before reaching Lystra (in contrast to the route in 14:6–8, 20).[130] The Cilician Gates, the pass through the Taurus Mountains, was 1,050 meters high.[131] It offered the only major land route between Syria to the east and Lycaonia to the west, which, “apart from the Via Sebaste, was the only route between the highlands and the south coast of Asia Minor that was suitable for wheeled traffic.”[132] This route would take Paul through the rugged territory east of the Taurus Mountains, which presumably suggests that they are not traveling in winter.[133] Once past the Cilician Gates, Paul and his companions would pass through several towns before arriving at Derbe and Lystra.[134]

Paul may have learned to traverse such paths from his previous journey rather than in his home province; he hailed from the rich southern plains of eastern Cilicia (Cilicia Pedias), not the mountainous, wild western portion (Cilicia Tracheia).[135] The use of the singular in 15:41–16:3 [136] reveals the extent of Luke’s focus on Paul here. Ministry in Cilicia and Phrygia was especially Paul’s follow-up work, and Silas may be mentioned especially once their new work together is emphasized, though they were obviously together (15:41; 16:4).[137]

II. JEWISH-GENTILE INTERMARRIAGE (16:1)

In small Lystra, intermarriages occurred among ethnic groups; we know of a prominent Roman colonist in Lystra (MAMA 8.12) and soldiers in the region (ILS 2403) who married local women.[138] Luke normally distinguishes proselytes (who serve his narrative purpose in emphasizing the Gentile mission) from born Jews, and so it is unlikely that Timothy’s mother simply converted to Judaism after marrying a Gentile (cf. also 2 Tim 1:5);[139] her parents (if both remained alive at the time of her marriage) must have been assimilated enough to permit the union (conservative Jewish communities looked askance at it; see discussion below).[140]

Regardless of theory, some Jews probably overlooked intermarriage.[141] In actual practice, the product of a mixed union might be treated as more knowledgeable and sensitive to Judaism than a Gentile would (much earlier, cf. 1 Kgs 7:14; Jos. Ant. 8.76). Some later rabbis even sought to whitewash Solomon’s marriage to pagan wives as a proselytizing venture.[142]

By and large, however, Jewish people merely rejected intermarriage with varying degrees of vehemence. Even a Gentile king had to be circumcised to marry a Jewish princess, though he might apostatize afterward if the marriage failed (Jos. Ant. 20.145–46).[143] Although Jewish men’s marriages to Gentile women were sometimes viewed as acceptable (Joseph in Ant. 2.91–92; Herod in 17.20; Antipater in War 1.181),[144] intermarriage was normally very negative.[145] The book of Tobit, for example, emphasizes endogamy within Judaism as well as within the clan (Tob 1:9; 6:12; cf. 5:11, 13).[146] More dramatically, Jubilees prescribes death for any man who marries off a daughter to a Gentile; the daughter should also be burned.[147] Jews traditionally regarded intermarriage with pagan women as a horrible sin (e.g., 1 Esd 8:68–96; 9:7–9; Tob 4:12; 2 Bar. 42:4); Scripture indeed warned against it.[148]

How did haggadah explain Judah’s allowing his sons to marry Tamar, likely a Canaanite? In one source, his own Canaanite wife arranged this marriage without his consent, so that he cursed her and she died for her sin along with her children (Test. Jud. 11:3–5).[149] Some women who married into Israel, accepting Israel’s faith, are presented nobly, whether Ruth, Rahab, or sometimes Tamar,[150] but when some Israelite women wanted to attract their Babylonian oppressors, God judged them harshly (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:6). Later rabbis cursed Esau for marrying foreign wives (Gen. Rab. 65:2).

Some scholars argue that the main purpose of 4QMMT was to oppose intermarriage with Gentiles (cf. esp. 4QMMT C 4–8, 31–32);[151] some even think that the Qumran community omitted the book of Esther partly because of its inclusion of Esther’s marriage to a Gentile.[152] Some think that 1 En. 6–7 adapts mixed human-divine marriages of Hesiod’s Catalogues of Women and Eoiae to warn against Jewish-Gentile unions;[153] 1 Enoch could have obtained this idea simply from Genesis itself, however, if the author read Gen 6:2–4 in light of other warnings in the Pentateuch (24:3, 37; 28:1; Deut 7:3–4).

In 1 Esd 9:9, God wanted his people to divorce their pagan wives. Later rabbis, who did not accept mixed marriages as binding (b. Qidd. 68b), could view the offspring as a mamzer (an illegitimate child) who could not marry Jews [154] or at least as legitimate but still not marriageable.[155] Mixed unions were so scandalous that the children could suffer for them: when Judah cursed his wife, not only she but also her children died.[156] Many later rabbis insisted that only the son of a Jewish mother, not that of a Gentile mother married to a Jew, could be circumcised on the Sabbath.[157] Gentiles, viewing it as part of Jewish separatism, sometimes criticized Jews for their thoroughgoing abstinence from foreign women.[158]

The matter was different, however, if the Gentile was converted.[159] Whether Timothy’s maternal grandfather was assimilated or not, early Christian tradition suggests that Timothy’s mother, Eunice, and grandmother Lois had strong faith before him (2 Tim 1:5)[160] and that he knew the Scriptures from childhood (3:15), which would be helpful for his work with Paul. Some Jews would not have respected even marriage to anyone who failed to uphold proper standards, Jewish or Gentile. Thus it was later said that women from Hillelite households dared not marry Shammaite men, since the latter did not accept Hillelite interpretations of halakah.[161]

Interethnic marriages were not in themselves objectionable to most peoples (e.g., Polyb. 1.78.8–9); thus Alexander and his Macedonians married Asian (e.g., Persian and Bactrian) women.[162] But even in this instance, the children from these unions were to be left with the Asian wives, not brought back to Macedonia, lest this mixing create cultural conflict.[163] Earlier Romans also married foreign women, but they viewed as a mark of their culture’s superiority that whereas their own daughters married to foreigners remained loyal to Rome, foreigners married to Romans also remained loyal to Rome.[164] Those who wished to defend someone’s mixed parentage could point to great historical examples of the offspring of such unions.[165]

Gentile customs, however, made intermarriage difficult among some other peoples or classes. In fifth-century B.C.E. Athens, the children of a union between an Athenian and another Greek could not be Athenian citizens.[166] Traditional Greek states sometimes had treaties recognizing marriages between their own citizens and those of other Greek states, thereby recognizing the children as legitimate and as citizens.[167] Those with some non-Greek ancestors could be subject to ridicule.[168] Romans accepted as legally valid Roman marriages only those in which both partners had conubium, the right to marry a Roman,[169] and laws carefully regulated Romans’ marrying non-Romans (e.g., slaves).[170] Augustus granted Roman citizenship sparingly to prevent the tainting of the Roman people’s blood (Suet. Aug. 40.3). Centuries later, Christians in government passed legislation forbidding marriage between Jews and Christians, a union that had long been occurring.[171]

Class intermarriage was also a serious issue.[172] In Egypt, the privileged metropolite class rarely married outsiders, since this would cost its children their special privileges.[173] Roman law at one time prohibited intermarriage between patricians and plebeians, a prohibition some of the latter found insulting.[174] Augustus’s laws had removed restrictions between free males of nonsenatorial classes and freedwomen,[175] but senatorial males could marry neither freedpersons nor actors.[176] Women marrying slaves could become slaves or take the status of freedpersons.[177] For some philosophers, the question of moral compatibility led to an insistence on virtuous partners.[178]

Luke does not view ethnic intermarriage with hostility (Acts 7:29) so long as one continues to practice the faith, but Timothy’s mother’s inability to have him circumcised may suggest that the marriage was not religiously ideal. Luke does not address the issue, in any case, and had fault been found, it probably would have been with the father of Timothy’s mother (who under normal circumstances would have arranged or at least approved the marriage), not with herself (who may have been very pious, as 2 Tim 1:5 suggests).

Timothy’s status with both Jews and Gentiles remained ambiguous and hence problematic for ministry in both communities until Paul helped him define it here. That Paul would think it worth doing so might suggest that Asian Jewish opposition was less thoroughgoing than one might guess from Luke’s usual emphasis, and this, in turn, suggests that Luke has preserved a genuine tradition here.

The tradition that Timothy had known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Tim 3:15) need not conflict with the claim that his father was a Gentile; even in 2 Timothy, our source for the former claim, the Jewish faith of only Timothy’s mother is indicated (2 Tim 1:5), which is not the usual pattern.[179] Fathers normally took the children in a divorce in Roman marriages,[180] but in other marriages the mother often received custody.[181] If Timothy’s father was elderly or for other reasons died when Timothy was a child, the mother’s influence would also be paramount.[182] Moreover, mother-son bonds tend to be close in Mediterranean societies, perhaps even closer than sibling bonds.[183] Wives also had varying degrees of freedom, but they had more freedom, in general, in this period than previously (though more among Romans).[184] A wife could also influence a marriage spiritually, for good or bad.[185]

Timothy’s Jewish faith (or at least instruction), however, might have been acceptable to, even if not welcomed by, his father, who, after all, had knowingly married a Jewess.[186] It is even possible that Timothy’s father was a God-fearer attracted to the synagogue without an ethnic commitment to Judaism, which had allowed his son the same degree of attachment.[187] Opposing circumcision, which to Gentiles seemed a form of mutilation, would not require opposing all Jewish beliefs and practices, as the existence of a class of God-fearers indicates (see comment on Acts 10:2). Philosophers concurred that children should be taught right from wrong starting from infancy (ἀπὸ νηπίων, Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.35–36),[188] a case that would fit how Timothy’s youth is described in 2 Tim 3:15. (On education more generally, see comment on Acts 7:22; 22:3.) Although fathers bore ultimate scholastic responsibility,[189] even in Rome, mothers could be responsible for early education;[190] in Jewish circles, the father bore primary responsibility for sons’ education in the Torah,[191] but a mother could assume responsibility for this education if the father was unavailable.[192]

III. TIMOTHY’S ETHNIC STATUS (16:1)

There is some debate as to whether Timothy’s status at this point was Jewish or Gentile by virtue of his parentage. Tannaitic sources counted as Jewish the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile man,[193] as many scholars note.[194] Many find here implications for Timothy’s status,[195] including a Jewish scholar (R. Jacob Emden, 1697–1776) as early as the eighteenth century.[196] The problematic question is the date of this evidence; Tannaitic evidence is the earliest rabbinic evidence we have, but in its compiled form, it is as much as one and a half centuries after the book of Acts was written (though mostly reflecting tradition earlier than its writing). Some doubt that the matrilineal principle precedes the Mishnah [197] and hence contend that Timothy was a Gentile.[198]

Others argue that the Mishnaic sources simply confirm the earlier picture provided here.[199] “If Luke’s evidence for the acknowledgement of the matrilineal principle is supported by later rabbinic law, then in accordance with the routine practice of ancient historians, we have to treat it as a terminus post quem.”[200] Roman law also provides an analogy for attribution of status. Although Roman law technically regulated only the marriages of Roman citizens (where status came from the father),[201] from a Roman perspective children in all other marriages took their status from the mother.[202] Some peoples known to the ancient Mediterranean world practiced matrilineal descent, but this was noteworthy (Polyb. 12.5.6–11; 12.6b.2).

Most likely, these rules were not yet standardized for all regions in this period, and Timothy’s status, however defined by Roman and Pharisaic legal experts, remained ambiguous in the eyes of outsiders. Further, although he may have been raised with Jewish knowledge by his mother (cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15), his uncircumcised status (presumably because of his father’s objection after his birth)[203] prevented him from being viewed as a full member of Israel among Jews. Regularizing his status would help Timothy with Jewish audiences and not hinder his hearing with Gentiles, for Jews probably would consider an uncircumcised man too Gentile whereas Gentiles would count a half-Jew practicing many Jewish customs too Jewish.[204] Given Luke’s emphasis that Paul fought against circumcision’s requirement for Gentiles (Acts 15:1–2), Luke clearly views Timothy as essentially Jewish (2 Tim 3:15 confirms this as his upbringing)—that is, at least Jewish enough.

At the same time, in a work that emphasizes the gospel crossing all barriers, often being preached at the intersection of Jewish and Greek worlds (19:10, 17; 20:21; even in synagogues, 14:1; 18:4), specification of Timothy’s ambiguous ethnic status is no coincidence. His “hybrid” status (in the language of current postcolonial scholarship) symbolizes the intersection of Jew and Greek, so that he embodies in himself the goal of the church’s unity (cf. also the interethnic union in 7:29).[205] Just as the culturally hybrid Hellenist Jews carried forward the mission in chapters 6–8 and the culturally hybrid Paul continues it, Timothy’s interethnic and intercultural heritage continues to symbolize the direction that the Spirit is moving God’s people.[206]

IV. TIMOTHY’S REPUTATION (16:2)

Timothy was probably a Pauline convert from Paul’s earlier visit; Paul calls him his “son,” and although this could simply involve imitation (1 Cor 4:17), the context also suggests evangelism (4:15).[207] This also fits the tradition of the Pastoral Epistles that Timothy knew firsthand Paul’s sufferings in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (2 Tim 3:11), which, so far as we may infer from Acts, were limited, or mainly limited, to his previous journey. But Paul had not spent long enough in Lystra to observe firsthand the maturation of all his converts; he might therefore have solicited reports of Timothy’s maturity. The concern that he was well spoken of, however, might be less for Paul’s benefit than for that of the group’s testimony, as Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:3) is.

That Timothy was “attested” by others, in this case the brothers and sisters in Lystra, fits an interest not only of Luke (6:3; 10:22; 22:12) but of others as well (e.g., Col 4:13; 1 Tim 3:7; 3 John 12). Good reputation was a matter of great importance (see Tob 10:13; Sir 34:23–24; comment on Acts 6:3). In a letter of recommendation, Pliny Ep. 10.86B urges that everyone who knows the person he is recommending compete to honor him. Apuleius praises his supporting witness as respected by all who know his skills (Apol. 61–62).

Because the church was fairly recent (despite the appointment of “elders,” Acts 14:23), consistency was important in evaluating prospects for ministry (cf. 1 Tim 3:6–7). Reputation was clearly important in the local region; people in the region (perhaps Jewish people specifically) already knew enough about Timothy to know that his father was Greek (Acts 16:3). Small towns with even smaller Jewish populations discussed the limited news available, and so this information would be more widely circulated than news about individuals in a location such as, for instance, Syrian Antioch. Other factors supporting Timothy’s selection might have included his bicultural background and perhaps his Jewish upbringing and biblical knowledge (cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15) as well as other factors on which Luke does not elaborate.

Although Paul came to Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1), the report about Timothy comes from the believers in Lystra and Iconium rather than Derbe (16:2). Although Lystra and Iconium belonged to separate jurisdictions, they were geographically close to each other (perhaps 30 km.), in contrast to the site of Derbe.[208] That the Roman road probably did not extend to Derbe, making travel there less pleasant, may have also reduced the exchange with this town. This conclusion comports well with the evidence of 2 Tim 3:11, where Timothy knew of Paul’s ministry in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra but Derbe is not mentioned. Acts 20:4 links Timothy with Gaius of Derbe but apparently implies that Timothy himself was not from there. Thus it is likely that Timothy had been involved with the churches of Iconium and Lystra and was from Lystra. Some suggest that Timothy was a Roman citizen,[209] which would fit an interest of Paul and Silas; his mixed Greek and Jewish parentage, however, do not offer confidence that he belonged to the Roman citizen element of the colony.

V. TIMOTHY’S NEW ROLE (16:3)

Timothy was probably young, especially if 1 Tim 4:12, addressing Timothy many years later, preserves reliable tradition;[210] that he is younger than Paul (who by now must be at least forty) is probably implied in Paul’s designation of Timothy as his “son” (1 Cor 4:17). (It was common for younger men to be disciples of rabbis or to be apprentices in a chosen field before having families. Some Romans enjoyed introducing younger men to political life,[211] though this may reflect peculiarly Roman patronage practices.) Mark as a young man had served as an apprentice-servant for the Barnabas-Paul team earlier (Acts 13:5, 13); now perhaps Timothy replaces him in this role for the new Paul-Silas team.[212]

If Timothy had any interest in ministry, this invitation provided an exceptional opportunity. Students often sought out private tutors (especially if the larger schools could not accommodate the demand); some teachers had not yet attracted sufficient students to act as other than tutors, though sometimes offering exalted claims for themselves.[213] Paul was much more than a private tutor despite the small number of his traveling companions, and for Timothy to travel with him was to assume a role similar to the disciple role that Jesus’s disciples filled in the Gospel. Disciples were often counted as “sons” to their rabbinic “fathers”—hence (again) Timothy’s title in Pauline circles (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1).[214]

VI. TIMOTHY’S CIRCUMCISION (16:3)

Although later Jewish tradition assigned the task of circumcision to a mohel, in this period anyone was able to perform it,[215] though one would hope that whoever did so was skillful and careful (cf. Gal 5:12).[216] For a grown man, however, circumcision would always be painful (Gen 34:25). That Paul circumcises Timothy here coheres with Timothy’s being regarded in Paul’s letters as a son in the faith (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22).[217] Mentoring younger men was considered a virtuous activity.[218]

It can be no coincidence that Luke reports this event soon after describing the Jerusalem Council; just as Jerusalem believers, when led together by the Spirit, affirmed Gentile converts’ freedom from circumcision, Paul here does not in principle oppose circumcision of a person of Jewish descent.[219] Even here, however, Luke supplies missionary strategy rather than theology as the reason;[220] this seems to fit the epistolary Paul, who sees circumcision as spiritually neutral (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15) and warns against making foods or holy days a stumbling block to Jewish Christians (Rom 14).

Scholars, however, often debate this difference as a serious incongruity.[221] How could Paul battle circumcisionists in Acts 15:1–2 (on the Lukan literary level) and struggle with Barnabas and contend for Titus’s freedom (Gal 2:3–5, 13, on the historical level),[222] then circumcise Timothy afterward? This would become a genuine contradiction only if we argue that Timothy is Titus,[223] and given the sequence, not necessarily even then. As already noted, the question is not hard to answer on the Lukan literary-theological level.[224] Luke deliberately juxtaposes this notice with Acts 15, providing an apologetic against those who claimed that Paul opposed Jewish circumcision (refuting the slander of 21:21 in advance).[225] Whether everyone regarded Timothy as Jewish or not (see discussion above), Luke plainly treats him as Jewish enough not to contradict his own account in Acts 15. Acts may be irenic as well as apologetic, showing that Paul posed no threat to the true Jewish message and heritage.[226]

On the historical level, however, scholars sometimes balk. Some suggest that Luke has simply accepted a slander about Paul as a fact useful to his argument, and they offer (rather speculatively) that it might be this very rumor that Paul refutes in Gal 5:11.[227] Others allow that it is “possible” that Paul circumcised Timothy yet regard it as improbable, citing this as evidence against Acts’ author having been Paul’s companion.[228] The supposed inconsistency was noticed already in late antiquity by some critics of Paul, who also complained about inconsistent views of the law in his epistles.[229]

Many scholars counter, however, that Timothy’s case differs substantially from Titus’s because Timothy has a Jewish mother and was raised with Jewish faith; he merely lacked circumcision.[230] As Luke’s Paul opposes only Gentile, not Jewish, circumcision, the same may be said for the epistolary Paul (1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15).[231] Further, Timothy’s circumcision is here explicitly a missionary strategy, not a concession to others’ mistaken standards of salvation or holiness.[232] Paul specifically says that he practiced Jewish customs and submitted to Jewish law to reach Jewish people (1 Cor 9:20).[233] It is difficult to believe that this submission to Jewish customs excluded circumcision where it was not a matter of Gentiles’ salvation, especially when Paul lists circumcision as among his own Jewish “qualifications” (Phil 3:5).[234] Ethnicity studies suggest that if Paul defined his primary identity as in Christ, he could adapt some elements of his identity to relate to Gentiles, while under normal circumstances maintaining his own Jewish identity.[235]

Although not all Gentile Christians agreed, even Justin in the mid-second century C.E. claimed that Jewish Christians could continue to observe the law so long as they did not impose this requirement on Gentiles (Dial. 47).[236] Indeed, Gentile (both Greek and Latin) patristic writers of the late second and early third centuries, who knew Greco-Roman intellectual currents well, already defended Paul’s circumcision of Timothy as “accommodation,” on the basis of 1 Cor 9:19–23 (Tert. Marc. 5.3; Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9).[237] Later rabbis preserve the adage that one should adapt to local custom wherever one goes (Exod. Rab. 47:5).

The Pastorals later report the beginning of Timothy’s ministry, presumably a sending off by church elders (Acts 14:23) in prayer similar to what is described for Paul and Barnabas in 13:3. When the elders laid hands on Timothy (1 Tim 4:14),[238] prophecies were given about him (1:18; 4:14). He also received on this occasion a spiritual gift (4:14) that was from the Spirit (2 Tim 1:7) and came through Paul’s laying on of hands (1:6), presumably along with those of the elders.

In conclusion, Luke’s depiction of Timothy highlights in one person the intersection of Jewish and Greek cultures treated elsewhere more broadly in his narratives. Moreover, Luke’s depiction of Timothy’s circumcision, coming on the heels of the Jerusalem Council, portrays Paul as continuing to approve Jewish practices so long as they are not imposed on Gentiles (see similarly 21:20–26).

d. Strengthening Churches in Phrygia (16:4–5)

Paul and his colleagues strengthen the churches of Phrygia, just as Paul did in Syria-Cilicia (Acts 15:41). The term “decrees” (δόγματα) suggests something official and authoritative (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), perhaps because of inspiration (Acts 15:28; cf. Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) but perhaps also because the mother church in Jerusalem remained somehow authoritative. The term κεκριμένα alludes back to the church’s “judgments” (Acts 15:19; 16:4). Paul in his letters grants the Jerusalem church a special role (Rom 15:27; cf. 1 Cor 16:3; Gal 2:1–2) but prudently does not cite its authority; the latter would have probably gained favor neither with his churches nor, had it come to its attention, with the Roman government (at least not if Roman officials accepted the argument of some Jews that the Christian sect of Judaism was disapproved by mainstream Judaism). Some scholars argue that some of his challengers may have also laid claim to Jerusalemite sanction (perhaps 2 Cor 11:22); in this case, emphasizing Jerusalem’s authority might not have helped his cause.

With his emphasis on the continuity between the church’s heritage and their mission, Luke is thus more apt to employ the term than Paul would have been (Paul, in fact, does not mention the decrees in his letters; see comment on Acts 15:20). The term does fit the official language of the letter in Acts 15:23–29, including the use of ἔδοξε in 15:22 (though cf. the nonofficial use in Luke 1:3);[239] this is probably Luke’s source for the term.

This region was not part of Syria-Cilicia, to whose conflicts (especially noted in Antioch) the decrees had been addressed (Acts 15:23), but their applicability was potentially broader, and Paul may have sought to neutralize any future influence of “Judaizers” in this region. His epistle to the Galatians (see introduction, above, to Acts 14) suggests that the Judaizers did indeed later achieve a position of influence; this would also suggest that the decrees failed to prevent this, which might in turn explain why he does not cite them there. If Paul taught his churches to depend on the Spirit and the gospel that they had received (Gal 3:2; cf. 1 Cor 2:4–5), they may have regarded the Jerusalem church’s decrees as of secondary importance. More important, if those who came after Paul claimed a more recent or authoritative testimony from Jerusalem, they could neutralize the decrees’ effects.

In his letters, Paul reasoned with the relatively autonomous Gentile churches instead of citing a temporally and geographically distant decree; he did, however, duplicate some of its content. He may not have emphasized the dietary aspect of the decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25), but he clearly condemned sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:1–13; 6:9–10; 1 Thess 4:3–8) and offered arguments against idol food (1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:14–11:1). There is no reason to doubt that initially [240] Paul did report the decree to churches, viewing it as mostly a victory for their autonomy. Apparently they also viewed the decree favorably (Acts 16:5; cf. 15:30–31). See comment on Acts 15:20 and the introduction, above, to Acts 15.

For churches being “strengthened,” compare 14:22; 15:32, 41; 18:23;[241] for their “increasing in number,” compare 4:4 and especially 6:7 (on which see comment); 11:21 (hence probably referring to members rather than to the number of churches, although, so long as the church met in houses, this would be a necessary outgrowth of the expansion of members as well). That the growth was taking place “daily” recalls the church’s growth after Pentecost, showing continuity between the Gentile mission and the Jerusalem church’s origins (2:47; cf. 2:46; 17:11; 19:9); “number” evokes 4:4; 6:7; 11:21.

2. God’s Leading to Macedonia (16:6–10)

Going where God wanted and when he wanted was key to being assured of God’s blessing—an assurance that would prove essential when the missionaries faced the sufferings that awaited them while breaking ground in Macedonia. In this passage they are revisiting Phrygian Galatia as they have done in 14:21–25, following up and perhaps building on what was done for more evangelism; but they clearly desire to move on to unevangelized regions (cf. also this interest of Paul’s in Rom 15:20–21). The evangelized region had changed; indeed, new civic structures had been constructed in growing Pisidian Antioch even since their last departure.[242] But providing opportunity for all regions was paramount for a small mission team in a sea of humanity unexposed to the gospel.

a. The Spirit’s Prohibitions (16:6–7)

Before receiving positive guidance (16:9–10), the missionaries are restrained from going elsewhere (16:6–7) and hence are initially unable to make much progress in their mission to new areas beyond Phrygia. To a reader unfamiliar with the ambiguity and delays sometimes experienced in seeking divine guidance (cf. 21:4 and comment there), the mission appears to wander almost aimlessly (cf. Gen 37:15; 1 Sam 9:4; Plut. Galba 1.4) now that Paul lacks Barnabas’s help and has pressed beyond the previous sphere of ministry. The picture contrasts with the success just narrated in 16:5. It is not the sort of report Luke would likely invent about his hero (though it might add suspense, it lacks the action and adventure of conflict scenes), and one that he does not elaborate. At the same time, ancient literature appreciated divine guidance, and those most sympathetic with dependence on it would not view Paul’s delays negatively. The information it suggests about the mission’s difficulties is thus likely historical, yet Luke can also derive theological capital from it.

I. THE PHRYGIAN-GALATIAN REGION (16:6)

Scholars debate the exact meaning of “the Phrygian and Galatian region” in 16:6. Nevertheless, in the earliest reading the definite article for the region precedes and brackets both Phrygia and Galatia, strongly suggesting that Luke means one region rather than two.[243] Many scholars thus adopt the unified phrase “Phrygian-Galatia” here, which also diminishes geographic difficulties (below).[244] (Luke uses a similar construction in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of the tetrarch who controlled “the region of Ituraea and of Trachonitis,” again with one article and χώρα.)[245]

Thus Luke distinguishes the part of Galatia that is Phrygian (much of the southern region of the province of Galatia) from Galatian territory that is not. The titles appear together as closely related again in Acts 18:23, though not grammatically identified as here. Presumably, Phrygian people inhabited this part of the Galatian province; as noted in the introduction to Acts 14, it is unquestionable that ethnic Phrygia overlapped with provincial Galatia. Antioch and Iconium belonged to Phrygia as well as Galatia; Lystra was near Phrygia and also in Galatia. Luke’s regional designation refers, then, to the cities Paul had visited on his previous trip, as in 16:4.[246] This makes better sense of the itinerary: if the missionaries wanted to head for Ephesus in Asia (16:6), North Galatia was far out of their way to the north;[247] even regarding Luke’s mention of Mysia, north Galatia “lay some 200 km NE of any natural route between Lystra and Mysia.”[248]

To translate “Phrygian-Galatia” here (with Ramsay) turns “Phrygian” into an adjective, and some commentators have complained that they find the term only as a noun in this period. Colin Hemer, however, has provided sufficient examples of the adjectival form to lay this objection to rest. It appears even in much earlier Greek (e.g., Eur. Bacch. 159; Tro. 151).[249] Those who doubt that Φρύγιος can function as a three-termination (i.e., -ος -α -ον) adjective assume that the adjective should appear primarily in a two-termination (-ος -ον) form, but the three-termination form, in fact, appears to be more common.[250] By the time Hemer wrote a later article, he complained that he had found so many more examples that it now seemed “superfluous to cite” them all.[251]

Some scholars reasonably object that the missionaries have already ministered in Phrygia and South Galatia in Acts 16:1–5, so that they are now moving beyond the province of Galatia into the region of North Galatia. But if 16:5 functions parenthetically, the first line of 16:6 may rehearse in different terms the action of 16:4 before moving forward, merely changing the earlier verse’s imperfect verb into a synonym phrased as a constative or culminative aorist from the perspective of completed action.[252] Luke’s use of the verb διέρχομαι in 16:6 is synonymous with his use of διαπορεύομαι in 16:4; the latter appears less frequently in Luke-Acts (only Luke 6:1; 13:22; 18:36; elsewhere in the NT, only Rom 15:24) but covers the same semantic range there. The immediate contextual proximity of Phrygian-Galatian towns already covered favors, rather than works against, the idea that Luke has the same “Phrygia” and “Galatia” in mind.[253]

Another argument offered for the North Galatian theory here is that “region” is not a technical term for an administrative district, as Ramsay supposed, and hence refers to the geographic region rather than the province.[254] Refuting one older supporting argument for the South Galatian theory, however, does not mean that the North Galatian view necessarily follows. Granted that the term does not specify a province, neither does it specify that Luke does not use the term to include the province. We might suppose that he does not intend the term to designate previously evangelized territory, because he did not employ the term earlier, but Luke is not bound to always employ the same title for a region. Thus, for example, he speaks of “Greece” (Ἑλλάδα) in Acts 20:2, after having spoken before (and more often) of “Achaia” (18:12, 27; 19:21).

Further, one could object that Luke, unlike Paul, often uses nonprovincial regional titles such as “Mysia” (16:7–8).[255] But “Bithynia” (16:7) was a Roman province,[256] indicating that Luke can employ both provincial and regional titles. “Asia” in 16:6 also appears in the provincial sense, matching the “strong sense of provincial identity fostered by Julio-Claudian policy and abundantly illustrated in the formulations of contemporary documents.”[257]

Luke introduces hearers of the gospel from Phrygia in 2:10. Phrygia in the broadest sense included even Troas (e.g., Strabo 2.5.31; 10.3.32)[258] but in the narrower sense included both a hellenized Galatian region and Phrygia Epictetus and adjoined Lycaonia and (to the west) Lydia (12.5.31). Because Phrygia Epictetus was the northern Phrygia that, with Mysia, bordered the south of Bithynia (12.4.1), the “Galatian” Phrygia to which Luke refers must be the southern one.[259] Galatians settled Phrygia as far as Lycaonia, and this Galatian Phrygia, along with Cilicia to the south, formed the western border of Cappadocia (12.1.1). Elsewhere also Strabo mentions that the Galatians conquered the part of Phrygia adjoining Cappadocia (4.1.13);[260] the border with Cappadocia supports the view that the Galatia referred to here is South, rather than North, Galatia.[261]

II. NOT NORTH GALATIA (16:6)

Did Paul minister in North Galatia? Even if Phrygia-Galatia refers to South Galatia, the road northward might have passed through North Galatia. Scholars are particularly interested in this question to determine the audience in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. If he ministered only in South Galatia, then it is the only option for his audience in the letter; if an argument can also be made for his ministry in North Galatia, however, one can choose between them. Even at the outset, however, we should note that the exact site of travel would not necessarily support the view that Paul and Silas founded churches in North Galatia (generally the issue of contention for the background of Galatians). Even if Luke refers here to North Galatia, he reports no ministry here; we may infer ministry here only if we may assume that he means South Galatia (and hence may read Acts 16:6 in the light of 16:4). They are journeying north, but Luke reports the Spirit’s restraint from ministry rather than new ministry itself.[262] The verb διέρχομαι can be used for ministry (Luke 9:6; Acts 8:4, 40; 9:32; 10:38; 11:19; 13:6; 15:3, 41) but also applies to any travel (Luke 2:15; 4:30; 8:22; 17:11; 19:1, 4; Acts 9:38; 11:22; 12:10).

North Galatia afforded much less opportunity for the ministry of two Greek-speaking Jews. Eastern Phrygia and the southern part of North Galatia were already sparsely populated (as remains the case today);[263] just north of Iconium, a semidesert region begins, and the only likely targets of ministry in North Galatia would have been near Pessinus or Ancyra, the provincial capital to its east.[264] The steppe of eastern Phrygia was completely rural, and only the upper classes were hellenized in the first century; “the Phrygian and Celtic tribal languages still predominated until the beginning of the Byzantine period.”[265] Paul could not speak the vernacular of Phrygian highland villages.[266] Four new, small cities were formed between Ancyra and Iconium in the late first or early second century, but there were few urban areas to evangelize in the mid-first century.[267] At some point, North Galatia and Pontus (to its north) were evangelized (1 Pet 1:1),[268] but it need not be on this mission by Paul, who certainly did not evangelize as far east as Cappadocia (which is also mentioned in 1:1, as is Asia in the west).[269]

Riesner makes a strong argument that Paul never even entered North Galatia on this journey.[270] One would not turn easily to Mysia if approaching Bithynia from Ancyra, nor does one reach Mysia easily from Pessinus.[271] North Galatia was far to the east of Mysia,[272] and Paul had no reason to travel this far east even to reach Bithynia; if it was out of the way from Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia, it is difficult to see why Paul would have gone there. As Mitchell, insisting that South Galatia must be meant here, puts it, North Galatia “lay some 200 kilometres as the crow flies northeast of any natural route between Lystra and the region of Mysia.”[273] Though the boundaries of Phrygia, Mysia, and Bithynia were confused over time (Strabo 12.4.4; 12.8.2), Mysia and part of Phrygia lay directly south of Bithynia (12.4.1; 12.8.1). If the missionaries traveled near Nacolea and Dorylaeum, this was Phrygian, not Celtic (Galatian), territory.[274] But if Luke’s phrase means Phrygian Galatia in the south, they followed the Via Sebaste (see comment on Acts 13:14) through the cities of Paul’s first journey and may have planned to follow the highway to Apamea and through the Lycus Valley to Ephesus (i.e., into Asia).[275]

Other scholars prefer the idea that Paul “passed through Phrygia and old Galatic territory” (North Galatia), approaching both Bithynia and Mysia but allowing them to reach Troas (Acts 16:8). By contrast, according to this view, if one went through Galatic Phrygia in the south, one would have to pass through Asia to Mysia.[276] But one could have headed northward from Pisidian Antioch to Dorylaeum without entering Asia (and they probably did travel north without entering Asia); in any case, the text does not deny that Paul traveled through Asia but only that he evangelized there. Likewise, Troas itself was in Mysia (according to the broadest definition of Mysia),[277] yet Paul “passed by” Mysia (16:8); the phrase means simply that they did not remain to do extensive evangelism in Mysia (though they may have inadvertently founded a church in Troas; see 20:6–7).[278] Thus the issue in the text is not where Paul traveled but where he evangelized (16:6).

Recently Breytenbach has offered a detailed analysis of the geographic data.[279] Paul would naturally seek out cities on the way; which would be the most obvious cities to seek? Paul may have earlier hoped to head west via the Roman post road to the heart of the province of Asia—namely, Ephesus [280]—but the Spirit had different plans.[281] If moving west to Asia (16:6) from Iconium, the group would seek the main route (west of Pisidian Antioch) that passed through Apamea, Colossae, and Laodicea on the Lycus. Just a few miles farther west, this road met another passing through Tralles and Magnesia and on to Ephesus.[282] Apamea, with its Jewish community, would have been attractive to Paul,[283] but other sources suggest that Paul did not pass along this route beyond Apamea.[284] Paul was probably forbidden to evangelize Asia not after entering Asia but before passing the province’s eastern edge; he was not able to evangelize Apamea, Apollonia, and other cities there.[285]

Ramsay suggests that after being forbidden to speak in Asia, Paul may have taken the route northward to Dorylaeum and turned north to preach in the Greek cities of Bithynia (Nicaea and Nicomedia). Forbidden, however, to enter Bithynia, he and his companions turned west, keeping near the frontier but hoping to enter elsewhere.[286] The road from Smyrna to Dorylaeum was significant in Roman times, connecting Bithynia with Smyrna and Ephesus;[287] but they had already been forbidden to enter Asia.

Luke’s phrase “over against Mysia” means opposite Mysia (cf. the same use of κατά in 27:2, 5, 7); Luke might mean at its eastern border, at Cotiaeum/Cotyaeum (Kotiaeion) or Dorylaeum (Dorylaion).[288] In the north of this northern Phrygian region,[289] they could go north (right) to Bithynia or west (left) to Mysia and Asia; here they stop facing Mysia, then proceed due northwest through Mysia (16:8). In the general sense of the title, Mysia was the northwestern part of Asia Minor (Strabo 12.4.5), and the Troad (including their temporary destination in Troas) was normally reckoned part of it.[290]

Breytenbach notes various possibilities for the route they followed when turned away from Bithynia. One possible target city, en route to Pessinus in North Galatia and “still in Phrygia παρόρειος,” was Docimeium/Docimium, where Jewish workers are attested;[291] the missionaries could have traveled there from Prymnessus. In this case, not entering Bithynia would mean that they would not have turned northeast “at the Colonia Iulia August Felix Germa,” a route to Bithynia that, avoiding mountainous terrain, entered Bithynia through a river valley. Instead, they could have remained on the mountains’ southern side, traveling west “on the unpaved road up the Tembris valley, probably until Dorylaeum.”[292]

Because they would not approach Mysia before Dorylaeum on this route, however, they may have instead traveled from Phrygian Prymnessus to Cotiaeum, a major city, and from there to Dorylaeum. Either way, they would ultimately reach Dorylaeum, and from here they would seek to pass west. Yet the way westward was obstructed by the present-day Sündiken Daglari, more than three thousand meters high.[293] These heights proving impassable, they could not proceed.[294]

What, on this view, would it mean to “pass by” Mysia? Παρέρχομαι can mean to “pass by without touching,” but it can also mean to “pass through” (BDAG). Breytenbach suggests that they followed the Tembris river valley “through Cotiaeum to Aezani,” then, “leaving the Phrygian highlands,” passed through Mysia. They could then walk along the paths known in “the east-west valley” where the Macestus forges a way

through the mountainous Mysia Abbaeitis. If they passed between the Alaçam Daglari and the Simav Daglari, they might have followed the northward bend of the river until the location of the later Hadrianuthera. . . . From here they probably moved westward, through the upper Enbeilos basin. They could have crossed over to the Aegean coast, ascending on Adramyttium by means of the Euenos valley.[295]

They probably had planned to reach strategic Nicaea and Nicomedia in Bithynia, but “insurmountable difficulties” turned them instead toward Alexandria Troas.[296]

III. MYSIA AND BITHYNIA (16:7–8)

Mysia (16:7–8) was named after the Mysi, a Thracian-Phrygian group who migrated from Europe and from whom Moesia (the region “south of the lower Danube”) was also named [297] (just as Asia’s “Galatians” were Gauls, or Celts, like those in Europe).

Mysia was not ethnically, geographically, or politically a unity,[298] and its reported boundaries vary according to the source.[299] Strabo defines its contours, which were large and which bordered on many strategic regions that must have interested Paul and Silas: it was north of Lydia (Strabo 13.4.10); near the Troad (12.3.3; 12.4.6); and on the south (with “Phrygia Epictetus”) of Bithynia (12.4.1). Several times he mentions that it was near Bithynia (12.4.5, 8) and it was difficult to distinguish its boundary from that of the Phrygians (12.4.4; 12.8.12). Mysia produced good wines (14.1.15) and also had herdsmen (Philost. Hrk. 23.6) and, in upper Mysia, milkers of mares (23.10).[300]

Mysia was the region that included the missionaries’ temporary destination in Troas (Acts 16:8, 11); Strabo reckons Troas as near it (12.3.3; 12.4.6). Philostratus notes that the Troad (Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4) and Mysia (23.6) shared the common feature of shepherds and cowherds; he claims that the Achaians purposely attacked Mysia before Troy to prevent the inhabitants from joining the Trojans (23.8) and that Heracles’s son then ruled there (23.9–10). In contrast to Paul’s earlier journey (and perhaps his own preference), the journey from Dorylaeum and Cotiaeum northwest to Apamea and Troas was not on a major road that was heavily traveled.[301]

Bithynia (16:7) also could appear an attractive destination. Pompey expanded Bithynia (Acts 16:7) in the mid-first century B.C.E. (Strabo 12.3.1); joined with the Propontis (the modern Sea of Marmara)[302] and parts of Pontus, it was one of the praetorial provinces arranged by Caesar (17.3.25). It would be a strategic region, though probably not to the same extent as Roman Asia; Bithynia produced many learned people (12.4.9) and controlled the southern part of the Propontis (between the Hellespont and the Pontus Euxinus [Black Sea], 12.3.2); this provided commercial prosperity.[303] It also had a known Jewish community (see Philo Embassy 281).[304] Some Christians evangelized Pontus and Bithynia in the first century (1 Pet 1:1). But this was not God’s mission for Paul at this time.

Some scholars suggest that Paul deliberately avoided paved Roman roads on this journey, in contrast to his first one, perhaps because he had experienced excessive hostility in the major centers on those roads.[305] Although admitting that the evidence is incomplete, others suggest that the roads between Dorylaeum and Troas were in reasonably good condition.[306] Mysia may have even had paved Roman roads, but at the present time we lack secure archaeological evidence to confirm this.[307]

IV. DIVINE GUIDANCE (16:6–7)

Waiting to be certain that God would be with a mission fits a pattern evident at times in Acts, where fully succeeding in an assigned mission is dependent on divine blessing and empowerment (Acts 1:4–8; 13:2–3; Luke 3:22; 24:49; cf. Isa 6:5–8; Jer 1:6–10).

The guidance by the Spirit in Acts 16:6–7 is mostly negative;[308] positive guidance awaits the vision and interpretation of 16:9–10. (Luke is not committed to only one form of guidance; elsewhere in Acts the Spirit’s words can supplement angelic guidance or a vision; see 8:26, 29; 10:10–16, 19.) Whereas elsewhere one dare not “hinder” (κωλύω) what God’s Spirit has affirmed (10:47), neither dare the evangelists, empowered only by the Spirit (1:8), venture where the Spirit has “hindered.”

We cannot be certain why the Spirit prohibited them from speaking in the province of Asia, but some possibilities based on the rest of Acts can be suggested.[309] Eventually Paul would have a very effective ministry there (19:10, 20), but only after he had learned some strategies from his ministry of reaching Greeks in Achaia, which historically probably exposed him to a higher level of rhetoric and philosophy than he had had before (cf. 17:22–34; 18:11; 1–2 Corinthians; see comment on Acts 19:9). Further, apparently he would have only a single period of opportunity there before pagan reaction would force his relocation (Acts 19:30–34; 20:16). The opportunity was better embraced at a maturer stage in his ministry than at this one.[310]

The apostles’ dependence on divine guidance here (and in 16:9–10) offers a contrast with pagan “revelation” in the following context (16:16–18) and underlines the superiority of the Spirit to pagan forms of divination.[311] Some scholars argue that Luke’s point here is that God’s revelation was clear, not ambiguous as in pagan oracles [312]—although it is debatable how clear it is here, and certainly Christians too had their ambiguous experiences with guidance (21:4).

It is not clear how the apostles heard the Spirit’s restraint. In line with 13:1–2, prophetic utterances is a possible means (cf. 2:17–18);[313] in light of 16:9–10, dreams or visions are also possible (cf. 2:17).[314] The Spirit could also speak less formally through one of them uttering his words (8:29; 10:19) or presumably even sharing a strong but preverbal sense of intuition.[315] It is important, in any case, for Luke to portray their uncertainty as a matter of waiting for divine guidance rather than of fickleness or human indecision, which were negatively regarded.[316] Because this is the beginning of their new work (after strengthening established churches), the contrast with previous successes when Barnabas initially led the team (13:5–12) may have given them pause; then again, that journey had its obstacles as well (13:13, 45, 50–51; 14:5, 19).

“Holy Spirit” (16:6), an expression used only twice in the OT (Ps 51:11; Isa 63:10–11), was now a standard title for God’s Spirit, appearing in the Qumran scrolls,[317] later rabbis,[318] and other sources between them.[319] What is extraordinary is that the “Spirit of Jesus” in Acts 16:7 performs precisely the same function in the very next verse, identifying the two. This is a mark of Luke’s high Christology (cf. also others, Rom 8:9; probably 1 Pet 1:11); Jesus is divine or at least the exalted divine agent who represents the Father as the Spirit represents him.[320] The phrase “Spirit of Jesus” adapts the familiar “Spirit of the Lord” (Luke 4:18; Acts 5:9; 8:39) as a template.[321] The presence of the exalted Lord is mediated through his Spirit (Acts 2:33; cf. 1 Cor 15:45; John 14:26; 16:10, 13–15).[322] Thus Jesus’s work is inseparably linked with God’s.[323] But we dare not miss another point—namely, who is being guided by the “Spirit of Jesus.” Paul and Silas, though not yet “successful” in this mission, already parallel Jesus in Luke’s first volume, who was also guided in his mission by the divine purpose (Luke 4:43).

Biblical piety included seeking divine guidance before battle (Judg 20:18, 23, 27; 1 Sam 22:10, 13; 23:2, 4, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23; 1 Kgs 22:5, 7; 1 Chr 14:10, 14; 2 Chr 18:4, 6; Jer 21:2). This was also the common polytheistic practice among ancient Israel’s contemporaries. Apparently, a truce was established with a rival Egyptian dynasty on the basis of a prophetic message,[324] and Assyrian kings took military actions based on oracles;[325] Akkadian oracles contain optimistic prophecies concerning Esarhaddon’s successes.[326] Omens by seers (probably diviners) affected the actions of armies from Mari.[327] Such practices also continued in Greco-Roman expectations.[328]

Even many philosophers accepted the mantic art as a matter of discerning “signs” (σημεῖα) from the gods or spirits.[329] Many ancients expected that those who routinely ignored bad omens would eventually suffer.[330] Historical works also reported omens, dreams, and other forms of divine guidance.[331] Most cities in southwestern Asia Minor, in Lycia and Pisidia, had dice oracles that anyone could consult,[332] and Phrygians were among those with a reputation for divining omens based on the stars.[333] People in Galatia thus would also be familiar with seeking divine guidance, albeit quite different from Paul’s dependence on the “Spirit of Jesus.” (On divination, see further comment in “Non-Jewish Sources” in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18.)[334]

Supernatural guidance sometimes guided those who were lost (ravens in Plut. Alex. 27.2). It was considered pious to act only after having heard favorably from the gods and to refuse to act without doing so.[335] Even the most peripheral members of Luke’s ideal audience would view Paul and Silas as servants of God.[336] Even pagans believed that oracles, portents, and other divine communications expressed the divine plan, and so such devices advance literary plots.[337] For Luke, however, they are central to his message that the eschatological Spirit has come, confirming Jesus as Israel’s Lord and the church as his people (Acts 1:6–8; 2:17–18).

b. Divine Invitation to Macedonia (16:8–10)

The Spirit prevented the missionaries from prematurely beginning work in Asia and elsewhere (16:6–7) because God had a better plan for them, which was revealed as they persevered in their mission. Whether or not John Mark might have changed by this point, Paul was certainly right to suppose that this new mission would require perseverance (15:38). Waiting for God’s more specific guidance must have seemed difficult and could have seemed embarrassing to Paul, as the expedition’s leader, had his companions not shared his faith that God had sent them.

I. TROAS AND ANCIENT TROY

After passing Mysia, Luke says, the group reached Troas (16:8). Although some earlier commentators wrote of an inland road to Troas without hard evidence, their surmise is a reasonable one. A dislocated milestone marked “15,” found about eighteen miles from Troas and thirteen from Scepsis, suggests a road at least that far inland.[338] We cannot be certain that they followed this road or how far it stretched. Troas was hardly the easiest destination to reach from where they started, and so it appears that they chose Troas deliberately instead of simply being led there providentially by the Roman road system.[339]

(1) Alexandria Troas

Because Troas was not far from the coast, the apostles’ “descent” to it in 16:8 is aptly phrased.[340] Troas was a strategic location especially for sea voyages to the west, but not a likely accidental destination from their previous locations (16:6–8);[341] in coming here, Paul and Silas probably hope to be permitted to minister somewhere besides Troas (though it was a colony; see comment below).

Although Troas in Paul’s day was still overshadowed by ancient Ilium’s legendary greatness, it was hardly forgettable on its own merit. It was the Troad’s largest city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[342] Most of the city remains unexcavated, but it is thought to cover more than a thousand acres, its ancient walls once being five miles around.[343] The limited archaeological data support the closeness of Strabo’s estimate for the walls, and some scholars, estimating a hundred persons per acre, have surmised a hundred thousand inhabitants. This estimate may well be too high, but clearly it was a significant city.[344]

Archaeologists have identified the theater; an agora in the city’s northern part, containing a small Augustan temple and an odeum to its east; an older Doric temple in the east of the city; and an elevated area walled off from the rest of the city.[345] A temple to Apollo Smintheus has also been found; Homer claimed Apollo among the original Ilium’s defenders.[346] The double-dock harbor “lies outside the city walls,”[347] but the walls apparently stretched close to two miles from the city proper northwest toward the harbor.[348]

Although the city bore the name “Alexandria” after its founding in the fourth century B.C.E., the emperor Augustus officially titled it “Colonia Augusta Troas” or “Colonia Augusta Troadensium” (CIL 3.39),[349] recalling the grandeur of its past.[350] “Troas” was thus Alexandria Troas’s preferred official title in this period. According to legend, Alexander of Macedon founded the city and dedicated it to Apollo Smintheus when he invaded Asia (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.8–9).[351] Scholars argue, however, that Antigonus (323–301 B.C.E.) named it “Antigonia” when he founded the site about 310 B.C.E. Lysimachus refounded it with the title “Alexandria Troas” (ca. 300 B.C.E.), and it remained a free Greek city under the Seleucids, Pergamene kings, and Romans until receiving the status of a Roman colony.[352] It had a large artificial harbor and was strategic for travel between the East and the West.[353] Their history and vibrancy made both Alexandria Troas and Troy popular destinations for ancient tourism.[354] Both its history and its location thus made the Troad an attractive point for strategic ministry.[355]

(2) Evocative Connections with Ancient Troy?

Ancient writers often assumed wide geographic knowledge for their informed audiences, including the history connected with places.[356] This assumption would especially hold for cities known from the most commonly retold stories, whether biblical stories for Jews or the Homeric epics for Greeks.

Although they were often confused in antiquity, the Roman colony of Troas was distinct from the site of ancient Troy, still inhabited as the town of Ilium. Hemer notes that Troas could never “escape the historic and civic prestige of Ilium” to the north, “which continued to hold the primacy in a religious league of confederate cities.”[357] Scholars recognized that Ilium was the site of Homer’s tales (Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.315), although many sites he had depicted in the Troad no longer existed (5.33.124). Archaeologists have observed forty-seven blocks of Roman Ilium, most of them 360 Roman feet north-south by 180 Roman feet east-west.[358] Still, Ilium owed Alexandria Troas a debt; more than two centuries earlier (ca. 216 B.C.E.), Troas sent a relief force of four thousand that delivered Ilium from the attacking Gauls.[359]

Despite its distance of ten or fifteen miles south-southwest from Homer’s Troy,[360] the continuity between later Troas and the famous past of its vicinity remained in popular thought.[361] Indeed, much more distant cities claimed such connections; Rome traced its founding to Trojans (esp. in Virgil’s Aeneid),[362] and some cities in Phrygia claimed that Phrygian heroes in the Trojan War had founded them.[363] Troas would naturally evoke the same connection, especially given its name and for an audience outside the Troad. Some believed that the fallen heroes of the Trojan War still lived in the area of Troy.[364]

Greeks recognized Troy as the subject of their most famous and widely read epic, the Iliad.[365] Allusions to the story pervaded Greek literature,[366] and in the period here depicted, an emperor could watch a reenactment of the Trojan War.[367] Educated people at banquets might take turns reciting the final leaders of Troy well more than a millennium after the purported time of its fall (Athen. Deipn. 10.457F); those who thought of Troy in their own day typically associated it with its past suffering (8.351a).[368] Diaspora Jews, too, were familiar with the city, as is evident in the Sibylline Oracles.[369] Various important figures were thought to have visited there.[370]

Nevertheless, Troas’s location on the Hellespont also made it the ideal site for disembarking to Macedonia, and so connections with the Trojan War would not appear paramount except in support of other allusions. When Troas was connected with Macedonia, however, another allusion may have come to mind: that of Alexander of Macedon invading Asia (see discussion below). Alexander paralleled his invasion with that of Achilles and the Greeks challenging Troy.

II. ASIA’S NEW GIFT TO EUROPE

Although divine guidance has occurred for the Diaspora mission previously (13:2), this is the first place in Acts in which divine guidance is narrated concerning a specific location. This may be partly because the places that offer the greatest opposition may require the greatest advance assurance, but the transition may also be strategic for the plot. It will later be narrated for Rome as well (27:24; cf. preparation for opposition in 18:9–10).

Given the ancient Greek association of the Troad with the Greek point of entry into Asia, ancients familiar with the Iliad (Greeks’ most popular work) and the famous conquest of Asia by Alexander of Macedon might view this as another strategic geographic point in the Acts narrative.[371] But whereas the traditional Greek story line was a military invasion of Asia (under Alexander spreading Greek civilization),[372] here messengers of what could be perceived as an Asian faith bring this faith to Europe.

(1) The Troad, Europe, and Asia

One distinction associated with Troy was that it guarded the Hellespont, since at least Homeric times the Greek boundary between Asia and Europe (e.g., Varro L.L. 7.2.21).[373] Greeks crossed via the Hellespont into “Asia” (e.g., Polyb. 4.46.1), as Persians did into “Europe” (Lysias Or. 2.28, §193). But whereas the Greeks invaded Asia in the eras of the Iliad and (from Macedonia) of Alexander,[374] now the gospel comes from Asia to Greece, Macedonia, and the rest of Europe. Greek and Roman literature normally portrays movements from Europe to Asia as more positive than the reverse; Jewish people, however, would think differently, as would ideally those adopted into and committed to a Jewish movement such as the Jesus movement.

Greeks and Romans viewed the legendary Trojan War as a clash between Europe and Asia.[375] A Roman tragedy could have a Trojan lament the loss of “mighty Asia’s” pillar.[376] From a Greek perspective, the Trojan War was a war of “Europe” against “barbarians” (Philost. Hrk. 31.2). This war became the prototype of any wars between Greeks and barbarians—namely, those across the Hellespont (23.12; cf. 23.16).

In more recent history, Alexander’s crossing the Hellespont also was viewed as marking his entrance into Asia from Europe;[377] the war between Alexander and Persia was between “Europe” and “Asia,”[378] and Alexander allegedly struck his spear into the ground and thereby claimed Asia as his conquest (Ps-Callisth. Alex. 1.28). Thus Alexander conquered Asia but never attempted to conquer Europe (including Italy; Livy 9.16.19); the Macedonian Empire controlled large parts of Europe and most of Asia in its heyday (31.1.7).[379] Some Greeks viewed Alexander’s invasion of “Asia” against the Persians as a deliberate reminiscence of Achilles’s fight against Troy. Tradition claimed that Alexander himself (who viewed himself as a new Achilles) evoked this comparison, invoking the spirit of Achilles against the Persians.[380] Alexandria Troas bore Alexander’s name (although Luke omits “Alexandria”), and tradition claimed that the city was founded in 334 B.C.E.—that is, during his lifetime.[381]

Greeks and Romans counted Persia as “Asia,”[382] Persian attacks on Greece as Asian designs on Europe,[383] and their defeats after invading Greece as Europe’s conquest of Asia.[384] Because Greeks and Romans encountered Asian kingdoms in periods of the latter’s weakness, Asia received the unfair caricature [385] of cowardice as against Europe and Africa, which proved harder to subdue (Appian Hist. rom. pref. 9).[386] Yet when Gauls crossed the Hellespont to invade the Troad, Alexandria Troas’s inhabitants fought back (Polyb. 5.111.1–7), providing a good warning to European barbarians not to invade “Asia” too eagerly (5.111.7).

Culturally, prosperous Asia Minor was increasingly hellenized and romanized; I have been noting these elements at length in preceding chapters. Symbolically, however, its heritage, epitomized especially by Troy and the wider ancient empire of Persia, was quite different. At least as attested in later sources, those who wove legends reported the enduring hatred toward Troy of Achilles’s ghost, still hovering near Troy (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11; Hrk. 56.6–10), and the continuing Greek perception that Troy was hostile territory (Hrk. 53.13).[387] The location of the Protesilaus cult on the Hellespont suited that hero’s role of avenger of non-Greek incursions against Greeks, guarding Europe from “barbarian” Asia.[388] Most people in the Aegean knew better, recognizing primarily shared culture in the urban areas, but the persisting mythic associations could provide symbolic value.

That Paul and Silas voyage from Troas to Macedonia could reinforce the possible contrast, for Luke’s audience, with Alexander, the Macedonian who invaded “Asia” at Troy. Granted, people sailed from Troas to Macedonia and the reverse on a regular basis (e.g., Acts 20:5–6), but the juncture in Luke’s narrative might be significant. The guidance that leads to this journey (16:6–10) immediately follows one of Luke’s summary statements (16:5), which many scholars take as markers of transition to the next phase in ministry.[389]

Also, a new stage in the story may be under way here, although the key issue is not Europe (an originally Greek notion, valuable for a Hellenistic empire) but the current empire, Rome. As already repeatedly noted, Luke’s first volume is framed by scenes in Jerusalem’s temple (Luke 1:5–22; 24:52–53), but his second volume is driven by the movement from Jerusalem (Acts 1–7) to Rome (28:16–31). As noted below, the voyage from the Roman colony of Troas to Macedonia would bring the apostles to the Via Egnatia, a Roman road that constituted a major link between Italy and Asia Minor in this period.[390] Many scholars believe that by starting on the Via Egnatia, Paul was already signaling his interest in Rome, though conflict in Thessalonica might turn him southward (17:10). Moreover, from Luke’s salvation-historical perspective, the gospel’s spread was even more significant for history than Alexander’s conquests and cultural fusion.

Given the culturally and geographically expanding movement of the narrative as a whole and the epic, salvation-historical dimension of that movement from Luke’s perspective, this transition could possibly evoke Alexander in reverse. It probably evokes at least the traditional divide between continents, showing that this “Asian” faith can reach all cultures. If one resists all of these conclusions by pointing out that Luke does not explicitly mention this division, one might infer that Luke does not regard continental divisions as significant. Some, noting Luke’s reticence to highlight explicitly this division that appears in other sources, think that Luke either lacks this interest or counters it.[391] This conclusion is certainly a defensible one and could be correct. At the very least, however, it is certain that many Gentiles who listened to Acts would have heard the narrative’s movement the way they understood other movements from Asia (whether the “cult” of Cybele or Judaism), as that of an Asian faith establishing itself in Europe.

(2) Between Asia and Europe?

Some scholars doubt that we should emphasize so much the division between Asia and “Europe” here, since Greek could be dominant in both Macedonia and urban Asia Minor and since Philippi and Troas were both Roman colonies.[392] A stronger reason to doubt the distinction’s relevance here is that Luke does not mention it; the context applies “Asia” solely to the Roman province in the narrowest sense (16:6), and the title “Europe” appears nowhere in the NT.[393]

We should also keep in mind the serious danger of understanding these categories anachronistically. For example, Asia Minor and Greece now belonged to the shared cultural sphere of the Hellenistic fusion of Greek and “Asian” cultures; northern Europe, by contrast, was entirely outside the Hellenistic cultural sphere (though not outside its knowledge), like China or Meroë.[394] Cultural spheres varied from one period to another and cannot be identified with traditional continental divisions, which reflect ancient Greek geographic prejudices.[395] The ancient Jewish population, central to the biblical story, by this period spanned both the Roman and the Parthian empires, thoroughly ignoring old Greek categories.

Despite these important caveats, however, it remains the case that ancient readers who possessed even basic oral-cultural literacy would be well aware of the symbolic division between historic boundaries of civilizations represented by passing from Troas to Macedonia. Although the phrase “Asia” by itself in 16:6 does not imply “Europe” as a contrast,[396] I suspect that many members of Luke’s real first-century audiences, familiar with the most prominent stories of Greek culture, would envision a transition between Asia and Europe when hearing of Troas and Macedonia in 16:8–9. This was especially the case for Macedonian and Achaian Gentiles conscious that the narrative heretofore had taken place mostly in Asia, originating with Judeans in the Roman province of Syria. Greeks divided the world into Asia (the civilizations to their east with which they fought bitter conflicts), Europe, and often (south of the Mediterranean Sea) Africa; the distinction continued in later literature, including Roman literature.[397] Some Greeks and Romans even divided the world into just Europe and Asia, including Africa in Europe.[398]

In most extant contexts, because of the issues addressed by most Greek and Roman writers, the division between Europe and Asia was the effectively essential one.[399] Some viewed this distinction as if it were as pervasive as that between Greek and barbarian (e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.268) or between heaven and earth (Varro L.L. 5.5.31). The distinction was geographic (purely in terms of ancient perceptions), not cultural; thus Asia included the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, though the Greek mainland was considered part of Europe.[400] I noted above the Asian component in Hellenism, which in turn heavily impacted the culture of Rome itself; but the geographic boundaries remained. By Greek definitions, Judea was plainly in Asia, and its religion now invading Europe was an Asian religion.

Romans, like Greeks, expressed both grudging respect for Asia (notably Parthia)[401] and xenophobia (such as Juvenal’s complaint about the refuse of the Syrian river Orontes).[402] As one source points out, Romans expressed their own “Eurocentric chauvinism,” as when Pliny the Elder calls Europe conqueror of the earth and “by far the loveliest portion of the earth” (N.H. 3.1.5).[403]

Luke’s perspective, however, can only be respectful, because the faith he recounts would be viewed by his audience as Asian. Luke-Acts reports the story of Jesus in Asia, uses LXX Greek, and otherwise would appear to Hellenistic historiographers as “Asian” historiography, just as did Josephus.[404] Acts thus in a sense narrates the beginning of what some could have viewed as an Asian movement’s (spiritual) “conquest” in the reverse direction. Jews were considered Asian; the gospel coming from Asia to Europe reversed the Greek invasions of Troy and, more recently, Alexander’s invasion of Persia.[405] Yet the movement would spread not by imperial conquest but by its agents suffering with a leader crucified by Rome.[406] Asia’s sacrificially offered gift of the gospel to Europe was better in this case than hellenization or conquest—though this perspective might be hard to sell even in Rome, which had made peace with hellenization but where, as we have mentioned, Juvenal could compare Eastern cults to Syrian refuse pouring into the Tiber (Sat. 3.62).

(3) A Mission toward Rome

Whether readers find persuasive an implicit boundary here between Asia and Europe, it is clear that here, as frequently elsewhere, the narrative progresses geographically. Another important distinction of Troy is that Romans counted it their ancestral, mythical home. Aeneas, a Trojan survivor of the Trojan War,[407] was legendary ancestor of the Roman people, whose triumph over Greece would reverse the story line of the Iliad.[408] Roman poets could associate Troy with Romans by means of Aeneas (e.g., Sil. It. 1.42, 126; 3.207; 8.199; 9.348), and the mid-first-century emperor Claudius exempted Troy from tribute because its refugees supposedly founded Rome (Suet. Claud. 25.3). Alexandria Troas (2 Cor 2:12) had been a Roman colony since the time of Augustus (Pliny E. N.H. 5.124).[409] Though Rome was viewed as nursed by Europe (3.1.5), it claimed Asian ancestry.

Paul’s ministry westward from Troas points to his ultimate mission (from Luke’s perspective) in Rome. Although the allusion is nowhere as explicit as the allusion to Socrates in Acts 17:19 (and certainly less explicit than connections with biblical figures), some members of Luke’s Greek audience might infer that Paul is something like an Achilles or Alexander in reverse, a new Aeneas. Even apart from any symbolic nuances, two essential eastern routes to Rome converged in Troas;[410] the Hellespont remained the traditional bridge between Europe and Asia. Anyone traveling westward to Greece or Rome from Asia Minor would most naturally travel from this location. Indeed, that Paul and Silas were staying in Troas may well indicate that travel westward was an idea they were at least considering,[411] though Troas was a Roman colony and Paul in any case typically favored efforts in Roman colonies such as Antioch, Philippi, and Corinth.[412] These elements will reinforce the narrative’s Romeward direction for the reader familiar with Paul’s later travel to Rome.

Although it is not Luke’s focus, information that he later reports suggests that Paul and Silas started a church while waiting in Troas (20:6–8). Still, it is possible that Paul planted the church during the period summarized in Acts 19:10 or perhaps even as late as 20:1 (cf. 19:21); Paul’s letters claim that a door of ministry was opened to him at that time in Troas (2 Cor 2:12, from Ephesus; cf. 2 Tim 4:13).[413] Troas consisted of different peoples forcibly united and made a Roman colony;[414] whether the church reflected these disparate elements from the community or merely grew among one of them, as sometimes happened,[415] we cannot say. Some scholars suggest that Luke was converted in Troas,[416] but although this proposal is very plausible (since Paul would have been among the first to evangelize this region), it can be no more than speculation.[417] Ancient sources report divinely given dreams in Troy (Plut. Luc. 10.3)[418] and concerning Philippi (Val. Max. 1.7.1), as here, but this is likely coincidence, given the wide range of dream reports in ancient literature.

III. THE DREAM-VISION (16:9–10)

After the negative guidance of Acts 16:6–7, the team is happy for Paul’s positive guidance in 16:9. Newcomers in a town might well not have a random dream about evangelizing a nearby location, unless perhaps they had been discussing such a location already, and whether it was discussed or not, ancient audiences might well attribute the dream to divine intervention.

(1) The Macedonian Man (16:9)

Who was the “certain Macedonian man” of 16:9? Proposals vary, and unfortunately no specific proposal is very persuasive. Some scholars have proposed Luke himself;[419] but Paul and his colleagues already know him in Troas (the “we” begins in 16:10), and Luke is among the dream’s interpreters. Another suggestion is that he represents Alexander of Macedon,[420] who might be recognizable from statues of Alexander undoubtedly visible in Alexandria Troas.[421] Especially among pagans, ghosts sometimes appeared in dreams;[422] Alexander was also said to appear in ominous dreams in his lifetime.[423]

This proposal concerning Alexander would certainly suit the possible allusion mentioned above, since Alexander was the most famous Macedonian;[424] the invasion of Asia is now reversed. Although an apparition of Alexander might fit his self-claims, divine associations would not be present here. Alexander permitted Eastern praise for his divinity,[425] but Greeks and his fellow Macedonians found this veneration repugnant.[426] Comparisons with Alexander do appear in ancient sources; thus Caesar lamented that he had failed to accomplish as much as Alexander (Suet. Jul. 7.1).[427] (Often the comparisons of Alexander are with philosophers, who considered themselves his superiors,[428] or Jewish sages.)[429] Had Luke had Alexander specifically in mind, however, he could have clarified this (and easily strengthened his allusion) by simply naming him.[430] If a specific Macedonian man is in mind, the Philippian jailer—perhaps the narrative’s first Philippian citizen convert—would make a likelier candidate, but there is no indication that Paul so recognizes the jailer. A generic Macedonian is likelier.

Others have suggested that he represents the angel of the church in Macedonia (cf. Rev 1:20), though the church was not yet formed. One could make a stronger case, perhaps, that he was an angel of Macedonia, akin to other angels of nations (cf. Dan 10:20).[431] Jewish people generally treated these spiritual powers [432] as angelic authorities appointed by God,[433] although, in some Jewish sources, God appointed them to lead the nations astray [434] or they had become malevolent powers and would be judged at the end of the age.[435] Although this way of looking at the world became common only in postbiblical Jewish sources,[436] it certainly predates early Christianity (e.g., Deut 32:8 LXX; Dan 10:13–12:1; Jub. 15:30–32; 1 En. 89:59–90:19).[437]

This approach allowed Jewish people to demythologize polytheistic claims about spiritual powers, such as the gods of various nations, influencing the course of those nations.[438] Some believed that they saw in their dreams superhuman figures that represented the spirit of a locale, for instance, of Africa, portending the dreamer’s future there (Pliny Ep. 7.27.2). After Apollonius dreamed of a tall old woman saying she was Zeus’s nurse, he figured that this represented Crete (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.34).[439]

In Scripture, messages in dreams were often delivered by God [440] or angels,[441] as with waking forms of revelation.[442] This observation need not, however, suggest that an angel is in view here: later dream-revelations often included people, even deceased people, among both pagans [443] and Jews.[444] Further, the Macedonian speaks not directly for God but for Macedonia and hence functions as a symbol rather than as an agent of the divine voice (and thus could be comparable to the animals in Gen 41:2–4; Dan 8:3–10, 19–25; or sheaves, stars, or corn in Gen 37:7, 9; 41:5, 22).

Sometimes the person appearing in a dream or vision represented the group of people about whom the person provided guidance. Thus it was the apparition of a superhuman figure resembling a barbarian that dissuaded a Roman officer from further pursuing fleeing barbarians (Suet. Claud. 1.2). It was said that a shepherd apparition blew a Roman trumpet and crossed the river, thereby signaling for Caesar to follow (Suet. Julius 32). Much later in history, Patrick reportedly returned to Ireland to evangelize because he dreamed that some people in Ireland pleaded with him to do so.[445]

In the end, Luke probably simply means any Macedonian. “Certain” (τις) need not identify a particular known individual, especially given Luke’s style. This language often identifies even fictitious characters in Jesus’s Lukan parables (Luke 7:41; 10:30–33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:4, 8, 11; 16:1, 19–20; 18:2; 19:12). Ethnicity would not identify him, since descendants of Greeks and Macedonians were scattered throughout the cities of the East. His accent or, most likely, apparel might identify him as Macedonian,[446] but Macedonians did not dress discernibly differently from hellenized residents of western Asia Minor.[447] (Sometimes figures in visions might be labeled,[448] but in more obvious cases, ancient statues were not.)[449]

Most important, the man’s request for Paul to come to Macedonia and help would identify the man as Macedonian.[450] Macedonia made sense as a destination strategically; it had belonged to the empire as a province since 146 B.C.E.,[451] and it provided a more strategic communication link between Rome and the East than did Achaia.[452] Thrace had a smaller Jewish presence and was less hellenized, and the Macedonian coast was probably a more common destination for ships.[453] Although Macedonia had experienced steady decline before the Roman conquest, historians glorifying Rome’s conquest could summarize the peak of Macedonian power before moving on to Rome’s victory.[454] Some scholars suggest that the plea [455] for help emphasizes that Christ’s agents go only where welcome and hence “can scarcely be regarded as threats to the empire.”[456] Most important, this dream climaxes a narrative of divine guidance (Acts 16:6–8), soon to be contrasted with pagan forms of supernatural revelation (16:16–18).

As Paul and his companions soon face hostility in Macedonia (in every Macedonian city where their ministry is narrated; 16:22–24; 17:5–8, 13), they will have reason to remember the combination of negative and positive guidance that sent them this way. They come to Macedonia to “help,” as in the dream, but there is no guarantee of exemption from suffering. This experience also fits the direction that Acts will take in a few chapters, beginning to prepare both Paul (within the narrative) and Luke’s audience for what lies ahead. Paul’s Roman custody will be no accident but a trial that Paul faces deliberately because of his confidence in God’s leading (20:22–23; 21:11–14; cf. 19:21).[457]

(2) Paul’s Dream (16:9)

Some argue that this account of a dream is Luke’s creation, because Paul never refers to this particular dream or to making apostolic decisions based on such guidance.[458] This skepticism may stem in part from the tendency to discount dream revelations in Western culture, a skepticism certainly not shared by Paul’s contemporaries (and a number of cultures today). Luke admittedly has good reason to emphasize such revelations (2:17), but this need not mean that he fabricates the occasions he mentions. Rhetorical practice included inventing divine dream reports for epideictic (not historical) use (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.4–10), but Luke does not create an extensive or rhetorically fashionable dream report, and we can be relatively certain that Luke knew that Paul did in fact have dreams. Paul’s own writings are clear that he had many visions, more, indeed, than Luke could report (2 Cor 12:1, 9; in view of 12:9, probably also 12:2–5); because Paul does not recount their content, these cannot be merely rhetorical dream reports.

Further, because Paul’s letters never specify the content of any of them, doubting a particular dream attributed to Paul because he does not mention that particular one is the weakest sort of argument from silence. A dream revelation is coherent with Paul’s claims, even if not specifically attested there, and if, before accepting it, we required specific attestation for each vision that Luke’s narrative attributes to him, we must ultimately dismiss every possible example of a category that Paul himself attests. Because of the subject of his narrative, Luke naturally stresses revelations for guidance in ministry (also with others, e.g., Acts 8:26, 29; 10:19); Paul’s letters are less specific about his guidance for ministry, but revelatory guidance should by no means be excluded (cf. 1 Cor 14:25, 37; some interpretations of Gal 2:2). In light of the conflicts that Paul and his companions would soon face in Philippi and Thessalonica (Acts 16:19–24; 17:5–10; 1 Thess 2:2), having already received assurance of divine guidance would offer a crucial encouragement.

Excursus: Dreams

For a longer, fuller excursus on dreams (along with visions) see the excursus on dreams and visions at Acts 2:17.[459] Here we note briefly that dreams can function as omens in many cultures [460] and are sometimes factors in the rise of new religious movements.[461]

Dreams of various sorts were attributed to the gods,[462] and people often sought dreams.[463] Most often people sought revelatory dreams by means of incubation, sleeping within a deity’s sacred enclosure; this activity is known from Egypt,[464] Israel (Gen 15:12–13; 1 Sam 3:4; 1 Kgs 3:4–5),[465] and Greece,[466] especially for Asclepius sanctuaries.[467]

Dreams could be used to advance narratives, including in novels;[468] but they were widely accepted as a means of divine guidance throughout the ancient world.[469] In some reports dreams function as warnings of impending death or suffering.[470] They also were thought to predict the future in other ways.[471] Sometimes dreams were repeated, becoming more insistent until heeded (Tac. Hist. 4.83; Gen 41:1–7); here a single dream is sufficient to communicate to those seeking clarity.

Dreams often were thought to provide guidance, as in Acts 16:9. Generals often depended on dreams before battles and in other situations, probably both in reality and in their postbattle propaganda as well as in later embellishments about them.[472] Sometimes obeying dreams reportedly saved one’s life (e.g., Suet. Aug. 91.1–2). One might do what one did not wish in obedience to deities speaking in dreams.[473] Dreams also could provide divine guidance for safe travel (Plut. Themist. 30.1, 3; Matt 2:12); for dissuasion from suicide (Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.97); for an invitation to full initiation (Apul. Metam. 11.22); for warnings to keep cultic mysteries secret (Paus. 1.14.3); for relocating religious functionaries;[474] or for propagating a cult (Strabo 4.1.4). Dreams could also be used to legitimize a ruler and his conquest (Jos. Ant. 11.325–39, on Alexander).[475]

Others were more skeptical, or at least more cautious. Pliny the Elder notes the debate over whether dreams foretell the future or are sometimes right merely by chance, warning that dreams influenced by eating or drinking are false—dreams are simply the mind resting.[476] Moreover, other mammals also dream.[477] Pliny the Younger may agree (Ep. 1.18.1) that dreams are from Zeus (citing Hom. Il. 1.63),[478] but he warns that not all dreams are true (Ep. 1.18.2); since he himself was successful despite a threatening dream (Ep. 1.18.3–4), he encourages his correspondent to interpret his dream favorably (Ep. 1.18.5).[479] Although most people believed that dreams foretold the future, Stoics did not believe that all dreams did so.[480] Epicureans explained even apparently prophetic dreams in psychophysical terms.[481]

The approaches of hellenized Jews like Philo to dreams resemble Greek approaches.[482] Josephus is certainly interested in dreams, highlighting the biblical report of Solomon’s (Ant. 8.22–25, 125–29).[483] He reports premonitions of death or demise in dreams (e.g., Ant. 17.345–46, 350),[484] allowing skeptics their doubt but insisting that it was appropriate to recount such events in his history, given the reality of God’s activity in human lives (17.353).

Often dreams were called night “visions,” as presumably here (in Acts 16:9) and in 18:9.[485] Sometimes they could come to an individual in response to the prayers of several who were seeking guidance (Dan 2:19). As common as such revelations are in Acts, we lack clear examples in Jesus’s experience in Luke’s Gospel, probably because Luke expects us to understand that Jesus experienced God in a more direct way (see Num 12:6–8).

(3) The Interpretation (16:10)

Sometimes one would recount the dream to others after waking (e.g., 4Q530 II, 4–5); whether Paul waited until morning, or whether all were praying together when the vision came, Paul shares it with his companions. Luke notes that “we” concluded that the Lord wanted them to minister to Macedonia.[486] One possible meaning of this group examination is that just as tongues speaking needed to be interpreted in Pauline churches (1 Cor 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26–28), so the dream needed to be interpreted.[487] Although Paul may be the team’s primary leader (cf. Acts 16:3; the singular in 15:41), decisions were apparently often shared or involved common input (on team leadership, see comment on Acts 13:1).

Many people depended on professional dream interpreters;[488] even the poor could usually depend, for a modest fee, on some specialists attached to temples.[489] But dream interpretation was more democratic than other forms of prophetic activity because it could be done without fees.[490] Stoics believed that wise people were capable of mantic dream interpretation.[491] Dream interpretation handbooks appear in the first millennium B.C.E. and earlier in Egypt and Mesopotamia;[492] in the Roman period, we have Artemidorus’s Oneirocritica from mid- to late second-century C.E. Ephesus (which laments the proliferation of other works on the topic, Artem. Oneir. 1.pref.). Later rabbis [493] averred that sages could often interpret dreams, except for the unnatural ones caused by wine (y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5); the rabbis treated dreams like obscure riddles (4:6, §5).[494] From a much earlier period, a “scribe” might be expected to be able to interpret dreams (4Q530 II, 11–12, on Enoch “the scribe”). Dream interpretation could be a divine gift (Dan 1:17). But correct interpretation would be essential, in any case. Most people recognized that one could misinterpret a true dream (e.g., Fronto Bell. parth. 6; Heliod. Eth. 1.18); some magi allegedly did so to please a doomed king.[495]

Another possibility is that just as prophecies needed to be tested (1 Cor 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22), so Paul’s dream needed to be tested. This questioning would fit well the recognition (noted above) that not all dreams communicated divine truth.[496] Some people were skeptical of dreams’ revelatory value,[497] but most people both affirmed the value of dreams and recognized that not all dreams were revelatory.[498] If uncertain about a vision of a person, one might inquire of an oracle and be commanded to obey (Hdt. 4.15).

Dreams could be ambiguous as a form of guidance; Paul and his colleagues had to interpret the dream somehow.[499] Paul and his colleagues determined that God had “called” (προσκέκληται) them to evangelize Macedonia. God had earlier “called” Paul and Barnabas to evangelize among Gentiles (Acts 13:2), but here a general calling becomes more targeted as Paul and his current colleagues have ventured forth in the process of fulfilling the wider calling.

↑ Back to top