Retrospect (Acts 20:18–21)

Retrospect (Acts 20:18–21)

Witherington provides a more conventional Hellenistic-Roman rhetorical analysis:[512]

He finds the pathos that often accompanies a peroratio in the narrative scene of 20:36–38. Recognizing that ancient speeches in practice frequently departed from the models in rhetorical handbooks, I see the exhortation in 20:28 as the primary point of the speech,[515] supported by Paul’s example in the narratio (20:18–27) and explained and developed in 20:29–35. Because it revisits the example of the narratio, 20:31–35, or 20:33–35, may function like a peroratio.

Speeches did not always follow tight-knit rhetorical structures,[516] but they typically included common elements, and this speech in particular reveals more interest in various rhetorical elements (both in structure and content) than in the prescribed outlines characteristic of rhetorical handbooks. The narratio seems clear enough at least in 20:18–21; Paul mingles ἦθος and πάθος in 20:22–25 (like the narrative, used to support his argument);[517] on my reading, the deliberative thesis, in a sense, is 20:28. For further discussion of rhetorical motifs, see discussion above (especially Watson’s observations).

b. Setting of Speech (20:17–18a)

Although the connection is not clear, Luke might emphasize messengers to draw a connection with Jesus’s ministry in the Gospel; when Jesus was on his final journey to Jerusalem as Paul is now, he also sent messengers ahead of him (Luke 9:51–52). For discussion of the time involved in Paul’s decision to have the Ephesian elders come to him in Miletus, see comment on Acts 20:16; on the meaning of “elders,” see comment on Acts 14:23. If some of these elders were not completely supported by the church (cf. 1 Tim 5:17–18), getting away from their trades, shops, or the like would represent a considerable sacrifice or difficulty (probably few were leisured aristocrats).

That the elders would go to such trouble to meet Paul is the equivalent of epideictic narrative: their love for Paul illustrates how he was valued by those who knew him best. Paul had had great influence in Ephesus (Acts 19:9–10; 20:1), had served the Ephesians wholeheartedly (20:20–21, 27, 31–34), and had earned their affection (20:37–38). We should not think historically of Paul as making them go out of their way for nothing; it was unwise for Paul to set foot in Ephesus because of conflict there, and his collection mission was genuinely urgent. By providing neither of these reasons here, however, Luke leaves us with an undistracted picture of the Ephesian elders’ loyalty and Paul’s importance to them. Perhaps he was aware that their loyalty was challenged soon afterward (2 Tim 1:15; cf. Acts 20:29).

Some scholars object that Luke’s use of the term “elder” here reflects his own later generation rather than that of the one he depicts;[518] others counter that the term was naturally borrowed from the synagogue and may have been in use from an early period.[519] I have argued in some detail that “elder” would have been used in Paul’s day (see comment on Acts 14:23), but if it was not, we dare not begrudge Luke the freedom to communicate in the language familiar to his audience (a freedom on which the very principle of translation is based). There can be no question that Pauline churches included people in leadership roles, whatever their “titles” (1 Cor 16:15–16; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12). Clearly, if the term was in use in Ephesus, it did not have to apply only to those who had been Christians for many years; most conversions there had come in the previous four years. But if the term was borrowed from Judaism, it could be applied to the mature leaders in the congregation, older, on average, and hence more respectable than others from the standpoint of ancient Mediterranean culture.

c. Paul’s ēthos and (Implicitly) His Example (20:18b–21)

Paul emphasizes his own ministry example, as if defending his legacy. The purpose, however, is deliberative: he will call the elders to the same model of sacrificial care for God’s people (Acts 20:28–31, grounded again in Paul’s model in 20:31–35).

I. INTRODUCTION

A person leaving a city[520] might confess gratitude to the city in his farewell speech,[521] praising its buildings, its professions, and so forth.[522] If Paul offers a specifically epideictic element in his rhetoric here, however, it is himself whom he praises! How would an ancient audience have responded to this shift?

Paul here uses his own example (20:18–27, 31, 33–35) as a model—that is, to illustrate ideal behavior, as in his writings (esp. 1 Cor 4:16; 9; 11:1) and as sometimes in moralist literature.[523] Here, as in Paul’s letters, Paul’s appeal to his example is not authoritarian but an appeal instead to his model of servanthood.[524]

Jesus also offered himself as an example in his farewell discourse in Luke (Luke 22:20, 24–27), which fits Hellenistic concern for narrative models for imitation.[525] Just as rhetoricians could develop themes by appealing to the “three times,” past, present, and future (not always in that sequence),[526] so here Paul’s speech addresses past (Acts 20:18–21), present (20:22–24), and future (20:25), all in terms of his ministry.

This focus on Paul’s character need not necessarily reveal that Paul’s legacy was already under attack within either the narrative or the real world;[527] one could answer conventional charges even without knowing of actual ones.[528] But we do know that toward the end of Paul’s life or shortly after his death, his legacy did come under attack in some circles (e.g., 2 Tim 1:15); indeed, some serious criticism was occurring at the height of his ministry (Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8; 11:4–6, 12–15; Gal 4:16–17). Luke may then have some apologetic reason for defending Paul’s legacy.[529] Nevertheless, personal examples had place enough in moralist argumentation even apart from this consideration.

Self-praise was also accepted if countering false accusations and so could be framed in response to potential accusations to make it more rhetorically acceptable.[530] The acceptable reason for self-praise here, however, is probably that of using himself as an example. Self-praise could be justified if used to provoke hearers to emulation.[531] A teacher was expected to be an example,[532] and his behavior was to confirm the truth of his teaching (see comment on Acts 27:21–26).

In this section, Paul establishes ēthos, his character,[533] which provides a basis for emulation (and would provide a basis for credibility were that not already established). Earlier classical orators who wrote forensic speeches for others normally attributed to their clients good moral thoughts.[534]

Speakers did need to avoid the appearance of self-boasting[535] unless they could justify it according to appropriate conventions;[536] Paul had to deploy these conventions in 2 Cor 10–12.[537] The balancing act could prove delicate; thus, when competing with one Caecilius, Cicero notes that he dare not praise himself—but that Caecilius was clearly even less qualified.[538] Self-recommendation did not always entail self-praise,[539] but self-praise was acceptable under certain circumstances, especially if one could explicitly justify it as being for others’ good, including its offering a model for emulation, as suggested above.[540]

Of the various topics for praise in ancient rhetoric (such as birth, education, and appearance), achievements were naturally considered the strongest because most dependent on the person’s own activity.[541]

II. PAUL’S SACRIFICIAL SERVICE (20:18–19)

Paul appeals to the elders’ own direct knowledge of his life among them (Acts 20:18), how he served and suffered (20:19).

(1) Appeal to Their Knowledge (20:18)

By claiming, “You yourselves know,” Paul appeals to the same rhetorical strategy as in 1 Thess 2:1–12: he calls them to witness how sacrificially he lived when he came to them. Some motifs here resemble those in the Thessalonians passage, probably because these topics were conventional.[542] Disciples might learn from a teacher’s example by deliberately “being with” him.[543] Paul’s letters often appeal to what his hearers already know (e.g., 1 Cor 12:2; 16:15; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 4:13; Eph 5:5; Phil 2:22; 4:15; cf. 2 Tim 1:18), especially in the Thessalonian correspondence (1 Thess 1:5; 2:1–2, 5, 11; 3:3–4; 4:2; 5:2; 2 Thess 2:6; 3:7).[544] “You know” is also frequent in speeches in Acts (Acts 10:28, 37, 38; 15:7; 19:25; 20:18, 34).

Appealing to the knowledge of one’s audience was a well-established rhetorical strategy (see comment on Acts 26:26).[545] A classical orator might note, “You have already heard . . . ,”[546] or, “You yourselves are my witnesses . . .”[547] To claim something that will be recognized as exaggerated undermines one’s credibility (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 398.1–5), but it was safe to claim what others acknowledged (398.5–6). “You know” was a natural expression then as today (e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.12.4). Appealing to the audience’s knowledge can be used in service of pathos, as when Cicero pauses in his speech to express emotion on behalf of the defendant, who (as everyone knows) served both Cicero and Rome nobly (Sest. 69.144). Such emotional appeal is possible here, given the context of a farewell speech.

“The first day” Paul entered Asia probably refers to his ministry summarized in Acts 18:19–21, suggesting that, as we would expect, a number of these elders originally belonged to the synagogue in Ephesus and hence were schooled in Judaism and probably among Paul’s earliest converts there (19:9).[548] Paul’s first convert in Asia was apparently one Epaenetus, but by this time he is in Rome rather than here (Rom 16:5).[549]

Paul’s behavior “with them” (Acts 20:18) shows that he was not exhorting them (20:28, 31) to do something he had not been doing. A leader’s self-restraint (20:19) was part of the example that would commend him to his followers (e.g., Polyb. 10.19.3–7). If a leader joined in the battle along with his soldiers, this behavior also appeared honorable (3.116.3–4).

(2) Serving Sacrificially (20:19)

Paul’s example of sacrificial service, emphasized here, dominates the entire speech: his ministry in Ephesus (Acts 20:20–21), his willingness to sacrifice his life in Jerusalem (20:22–25), and his approach to possessions (20:33–35). Speeches commonly introduced their major themes toward the beginning.[550]

The accumulation of three nouns in the genitive case (here δακρύων, πειρασμῶν, συμβάντων) would appeal rhetorically.[551] Paul could have depicted his sufferings at greater length (and would have done so perhaps in a fuller speech, of which Luke’s version would represent only a précis). But the summary would bring the shared events to the minds of Paul’s hearers,[552] and for Luke’s purposes, the summary points to additional incidents that he has not been able to depict.[553] Although Luke’s Paul does not provide a list, his summary narration of his sufferings here performs the same function as hardship lists in moralist literature, demonstrating Paul’s genuineness and providing a model for others.[554] Such lists appear frequently in Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 8:35–39), especially regarding himself (1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 4:8–13; 6:3–10; 11:23–28).

In his farewell instruction, Jesus said that the greatest should be a servant (Luke 22:26), following his example (22:27). This teaching inverted the normal status expected of a teacher-disciple relationship;[555] Paul, like Jesus, will serve rather than be served. When Paul speaks of “serving” with humility, he employs an image implying self-sacrifice, but this image was positive in some settings, certainly for “servants” of the Lord (Acts 2:18; 4:29; cf. 16:18). For the image of slavery as often being high-status when the slave belongs to a ruler, see the section “Slaves with High Status” in the excursus “Slaves and Slavery” at Acts 12:13.[556]

The conjunction of “serving” and “humility” probably means relinquishing status, but even this could be honorable for a leader.[557] The most explicit Lukan model for a “servant” whose humility invites God’s favor is Mary (Luke 1:48); in her case (1:52), as in general (14:11; 18:14; cf. 3:5), Luke values humility as a prerequisite for divine exaltation. But the biblically literate hearer, recognizing that the quotation in Acts 8:32–33 referred, in context, to the “servant of the Lord” (whom Luke understands as Jesus), might also think of his “humiliation” (8:33).[558] Paul’s own “passion narrative” is soon to begin in Jerusalem (21:27–28:14).

Although humility was sometimes associated with servility,[559] it could also be viewed positively (especially as gentleness),[560] and the motif of a “humble” leader was widely valued.[561] (I draw here on texts using a common concept though it was expressed through several different terms.) A ruler’s “humility” was often considered power under control.[562] Those who govern gently (πρᾴως) commend themselves to their subjects (Polyb. 1.72.3); Roman conquerors also surpassed the Carthaginians in kindness (πρᾳότητα) and so won over many of the Spaniards (3.99.7). Vespasian was praised for identifying with common soldiers (Tac. Hist. 2.5), and Vitellius increased his reputation by kissing even common soldiers (Suet. Vitellius 7.3). A later ruler was so “gentle” that he ignored a spiteful thinker’s verbal abuses (Lucian Peregr. 18). Even a statue of Zeus could convey his “gentleness” (πρᾷον; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.77).[563] Paul’s epistles cultivate not only a model of merciful leaders (2 Cor 10:1) but identification with the broken (Rom 12:16) and relinquishment of public status (1 Cor 4:10–13; 2 Cor 12:10).[564]

(3) Pathos (20:19)

The adding up of “humility,” “tears,” and “trials” is rhetorical accumulation; each of these terms further provides emotional appeal, increasing pathos. The conjunction of tears with a leader’s “humility” in this verse may be significant for other reasons as well. A historian might present as praiseworthy a leader able to mourn over another.[565] It was honorable for those in power to weep over others’ suffering,[566] even that of their enemies.[567] Luke does not clarify whether the tears here relate to Paul’s trials or to his humble “serving,” in which case it could involve rhetorical pathos as he beseeches hearers to respond (as in Acts 20:31). In both biblical[568] and Greek[569] tradition, tears were appropriate for heroes under duress. As Malina notes, “The show of emotion is an attribute of the honorable man in the ancient Mediterranean.”[570]

But tears also served a rhetorical function. Although restraining tears could be praiseworthy, especially for traditional Romans[571] or philosophers,[572] tears were more often used as a tool of pathos, often to demonstrate sincerity (albeit sometimes fake sincerity).[573] Whereas aristocratic Romans might consider excessive public displays of emotion undignified, such displays were deemed appropriate in forensic rhetoric as expressions of fidelity to relational obligations.[574] A good orator had to present his case with emotional passion or risk his rhetorical reputation (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.6).[575] Rhetoricians often expressed and invited empathy for the matter at hand by tears, often explicitly in our written accounts, both narratives[576] and speeches;[577] “I can no longer speak for tears,” Cicero weeps, “and my client forbids that tears should plead his case” (Mil. 38.105). Apparently Quintilian often appealed to emotion, using tears.[578] This behavior also appears in Paul’s letters (2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:18). A moving speaker might also stir his audience to tears (cf. Acts 20:37).[579]

Such pathos, or emotional appeal, was an essential component of persuasive rhetoric.[580] In reality, emotion is not the opposite of reason[581] and hence need not be viewed as unethical provided that it serves rather than subverts reason. See fuller comment on pathos at Acts 20:31.

The “testing”[582] that came through plots from Jewish adversaries fits Luke’s portrayal of earlier Jewish hostility (13:50; 14:2, 19; 17:5–7, 13; 18:12–13), sometimes explicitly including “plots” (20:3, most recently; cf. 23:12–15).[583] The epistolary Paul also mentions that he faced conflicts with Jewish as well as Gentile opponents (2 Cor 11:24, 26). Luke has not reported Jewish plots in Ephesus, but what he does report makes it clear that Paul incurred hostility from some of the synagogue community there (Acts 19:9, 33–34; 21:27–29; 24:18–19), and Luke omits more opposition than he includes (1 Cor 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8–9).

One technique for increasing audience goodwill in the exordium “is to give the impression of struggling against difficulties and misfortunes”; hence Paul here serves despite testing (cf. also Acts 20:22–23).[584] A true sage should endure rather than avoid hardships.[585] Paul in his epistles regularly boasts in his afflictions (Rom 5:3; 1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 11:23–28; 12:10).[586] Had Luke not been writing compressed summaries, he might have amplified some sufferings here in a hardship list or with vivid description,[587] but his narratives as a whole perform this function. Since adversity was “the litmus test of character” for ancients, hardship lists could be used to demonstrate the true character of a sage.[588] Likewise, those who suffered for a cause might vividly display their wounds to demonstrate their commitment to the cause[589] and sometimes to generate pathos and sympathy.[590] Someone who had suffered for his audience had a special claim on its attention.[591]

III. PROCLAIMING OPENLY (20:20–21)

Among the examples of Paul’s sacrificial service (Acts 20:18–19), Paul preached openly, not withholding anything useful even if it would cause offense (20:20a). He announced whatever was profitable, teaching in public and private and bearing witness to all of the gospel (20:20–21).

(1) Withholding Nothing (20:20)

Paul in 20:27 reiterates the theme of holding nothing back (Luke’s only other use of ὑποστέλλω, “draw back from,” “shrink from”); speeches often reiterated the same point in different parts of the speech.[592] Not “shrinking from” announcing God’s message is tantamount to announcing it, but it is worded negatively, perhaps for stylistic reasons.[593]

Some scholars suggest that Paul responds here to misrepresentations; these were often answered initially toward the beginning of a speech.[594] The charge that one’s actions were unprofitable (ἀσύμφοροι, Rhet. Alex. 4, 1426b.32) for the public good was apparently a common one. Some even suggest that a specific enemy in Luke’s day is in view, such as “a secret gnostic teaching.”[595] Aside from being speculative, however, the latter proposal dates “Gnosticism” too early (or defines it too broadly to be helpful, inviting readers to presuppose later gnostic systems),[596] and if a secret teaching were in view, it would not need to be gnostic.[597] More to the point here, responses to potential accusations could be conventional, as noted above. Paul had made many enemies in Ephesus (Acts 19:9, 23–27; 1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Tim 4:14), but most of them would not have charged him with holding back anything “profitable.” Paul’s claim is nevertheless plausible within Luke’s narrative world. In view of this claim and Paul’s willingness to die in Acts 20:24, no one can regard his failure to appear in the theater as due to dishonorable lack of courage (19:30–31).

Not to draw back or shrink from declaring what was for the good of one’s audience undoubtedly implies that some persons might draw back from this because what was for the good of their hearers was not always what they would wish to hear. This portrayal places Paul in the role of one speaking with παρρησία;[598] this approach could genuinely confront uncomfortable vices but at other times was a rhetorical strategy by which a speaker pretended “to risk the good will of the audience” yet instead invited it by showing courage for truth.[599]

Moralists regularly contrasted the virtue of such frank speech with flattery, in which one tells an audience what they want to hear (see comment on Acts 4:13; cf. 24:25). Telling the truth even when one’s audience did not want to hear it appears in Paul (2 Cor 6:11; Gal 4:16; 2 Tim 4:2–4) and would appear virtuous in the Greek moralist tradition.[600] Thus Apollonius is portrayed as later confronting the Ephesians with harsh truth, even at the risk of potentially alienating them.[601] By contrast, topics that people enjoyed hearing might be called particularly “sweet.”[602]

“What was profitable” (here συμφέρω in participial form) does not appear in this sense elsewhere in Luke-Acts (Acts 19:19 uses it differently), but it does appear in this sense frequently in Paul’s letters from Ephesus in the mid-50s (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7; 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1).[603] This was common language, but it was especially popular as a moral criterion, notable in rhetorical argumentation,[604] in moral philosophy,[605] and in political theory and practice.[606] In this context, what is “profitable” is identified with the “whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).

(2) Public and Private Teaching (20:20)

That Paul taught both publicly (e.g., the synagogue and the lecture hall, 19:8–10) and from house to house (i.e., privately) shows that he exploited every possible means to make his teaching available.[607] Then as now, some people proved better in a large public setting than in a smaller one (Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 1) or vice versa, but Paul was effective in both.[608] Some ancient sages advised other sages to attend to both venues, profiting both disciples and the public.[609] The conjunction of public and house meetings here complements the same procedure used by Jerusalem’s apostles in Acts 2:46 and 5:42.

The emphasis on the point that some of Paul’s teaching was public is important (see comment on Acts 26:26). Romans feared the potential subversiveness of private meetings, but what was public was available to all.[610] Many in antiquity also laid claim to private, esoteric teachings for an inner circle (cf. Luke 8:9–10; but also Greek and Jewish sages).[611] House meetings meant that Paul provided intimate contact for the disciples, probably knowing most of them personally until his departure in Acts 20:1.[612] Knowing the names of their fellow citizens could increase leaders’ popularity with the people.[613]

(3) Repentance and Faith (20:21)

Three word pairs in 20:20–21 help elevate the rhetoric of these verses: “publicly and house-to-house [i.e., privately],” “Jews and Greeks,” and “repentance and faith.”[614] Luke has already emphasized that Paul’s ministry in Ephesus included both “Jews and Greeks” (19:10, 17).[615] For witness, see comment on Acts 1:8; for the same verb as here (διαμαρτύρομαι), see, for example, 2:40; 8:25; for Paul witnessing, 18:25; 23:11; 28:23. Luke employs this verb again in 20:24, where Paul’s testimony is “the good news of God’s grace,” a message therefore equivalent to the message of repentance and faith here.

Luke here summarizes Paul’s teaching as including both “repentance” and “faith”; this reinforces the continuity of message that runs throughout Luke-Acts (e.g., compare Acts 2:37–38 with 16:30–31). The conjunction of faith and repentance was probably familiar from Judaism (Heb 6:1) and certainly from the gospel tradition (Mark 1:15). Although this is the only text in Luke-Acts that conjoins them explicitly (though cf. Acts 26:18), the centrality of each concept to Luke’s conception of conversion links them closely, implying that true faith includes repentance and the reverse.

The message of “repentance” (see comment on Acts 2:38) belonged to John (Luke 3:3, 8; Acts 13:24; 19:4),[616] Jesus (Luke 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30), and Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18) as well as Paul (17:30; 20:21; 26:20; cf. his citations of John the Baptist in 13:24; 19:4) and was to be the message for all Christ’s witnesses (Luke 24:47).[617]

Faith appears often,[618] and it is sometimes explicitly connected with conversion,[619] sometimes as a label for the converted.[620] Peter preaches it, but it is associated especially with his preaching to Gentiles (Acts 10:43; 15:7), though the message about faith was not a challenge only to Gentiles (cf., e.g., 13:41; 15:9, 11); the message is more characteristic of Paul (13:39; 16:31; 19:4; 24:24; and here). Thus, although Luke emphasizes the continuity of the gospel message, he also allows for distinctive emphases, with Peter employing the language of repentance more often[621] and Paul employing more often that of faith.

d. Paul Expects Danger in Jerusalem (20:22–25)

A climactic example of Paul’s sacrificial service (20:19) is his impending “passion”; like Jesus, he goes to Jerusalem knowing that he will face sufferings there. (Unlike Jesus, Paul does not know the details [20:22]; Luke cannot present Paul as predicting for himself the same fate as Jesus, since he knows that Paul was not executed in Jerusalem.)

I. RISKING DANGER IN JERUSALEM (20:22–23)

Paul’s “passion prediction” here is historically plausible even if Luke emphasizes it to recall Jesus’s passion predictions.[622] Historically, that Paul was aware as early as his recent visit to Corinth (20:3) that hostility might await him in Jerusalem is clear from a letter he wrote from Corinth (Rom 15:31). Luke as a historian cannot fully identify Paul’s mission to Jerusalem with that of Jesus, knowing that Paul was not executed there. Nevertheless, Luke does highlight the growing concern during Paul’s trip to Jerusalem; he has already informed his audience that Jerusalem is the appropriate place for prophets to be martyred (Luke 13:33; cf. Luke 13:34//Matt 23:37).

(1) Bound by the Spirit (20:22–23)

“And now, behold” (καὶ νῦν ἰδού) appears in another solemn pronouncement of Paul’s in Acts (Acts 13:11) but most notably in this same context (20:25, its only other NT use), where its repetition reinforces the pathos of Paul’s departure. The language echoes the LXX.[623]

One might interpret “bound in spirit” as “bound by his [own] spirit,” but Luke’s usage and the immediate context decisively favor reading this as “bound by the Spirit”—that is, God’s Spirit.[624] When Luke uses “spirit” without qualification he normally means the Holy Spirit (see comment on Acts 18:25; 19:21), and in context, “bound in Spirit” means something like “bound, as the Holy Spirit testifies” (20:23); thus in 21:11 the Holy Spirit testifies through a prophet that Paul will be “bound” in Jerusalem.

As Paul had once “bound” Christians (9:2, 14, 21) and as Peter was once “bound” in chains (12:6), so would Paul experience the shame of being “bound” (δέω, 21:11, 13, 33; 22:5, 29; 24:27). “Bonds” (20:23) now awaited the one who was “bound” by the Spirit (20:22). This is probably a wordplay;[625] the perfect participle for “bound” probably suggests antecedent action, which, in the context of Acts, likely refers to when Paul “purposed” or “resolved” by the Spirit in 19:21.[626]

(2) Paul’s Passion Predictions (20:22–23)

Paul’s not knowing what awaits him (20:22) except suffering and being bound (20:23) leaves suspense as to whether captivity will lead to death.[627] Those in the Diaspora probably had knowledge of increasing nationalism in Jerusalem, given continuous contact of those communities with the mother city. Historically, Paul, at least, somehow knew in advance that serious trouble of some sort could await him (Rom 15:31). Whether knowledge of the nationalistic situation in Jerusalem played a role, however, we cannot say for certain, but Luke emphasizes prophetic knowledge (as in the more detailed Acts 21:4, 11).

Thus this prediction, like the prophecies in 20:23; 21:4, 11, functions as analogous to Jesus’s passion predictions in the Gospel.[628] Ancient literature often reports that dreams[629] or other signs[630] portended the deaths of important figures; others sometimes could predict their own impending deaths,[631] and many ancients believed that a dying person could exercise special prophetic insights.[632] Knowledge of impending death was also normal in testaments and in many farewell speeches (though one could, as in this chapter, be leaving for reasons other than death).[633] As I have argued elsewhere, there is good reason to believe that Jesus did foresee his death, since our best historical evidence suggests that (through challenging the temple establishment and disrupting the market there) he deliberately provoked it.[634] But the Gospel writers also had literary and theological reasons for emphasizing this point.

Luke’s emphasis on this point may serve an apologetic purpose for those concerned with Paul’s custody and eventual execution.[635] By comparing Paul’s arrest to passion predictions, Luke explains that it was no accident, no senseless tragedy, and certainly no judgment on Paul; it was part of God’s plan (cf. 2:23).[636] Just as John’s suffering (Luke 3:20; 9:9) foreshadows that of Jesus and Stephen’s martyrdom emulates that of Jesus (Acts 7:58–60), Paul stands in continuity with this tradition. Difficult as it was for Paul’s friends to accept, they had to conclude that his “passion” was God’s will (21:14). No one would regard Paul’s voluntary coming to Rome (as planned in Acts 19:21; Rom 15:23–24) as scandal, but his chains would be so regarded unless, like the cross, his coming to Rome as prisoner belonged to God’s plan. Probably some in Luke’s day also despised Paul’s chains (2 Tim 1:8, 16) or doubted God’s purpose in such events. That the Holy Spirit, presumably through prophets (see comment on Acts 13:2),[637] announced Paul’s departure in every city alludes to Jesus’s passion but very probably also evokes the departure of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7), whose ascension becomes the primary model for that of Jesus in Acts 1:9–11.[638] Moreover, as the prophets in each city in 2 Kgs 2 highlight the proliferation of prophets since Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel, Luke highlights the proliferation of new prophets in multiple cities since Pentecost, emphasizing Jesus’s movement as a continuing prophetic movement.

Luke here prepares the reader for the long and otherwise disturbing arrest and detention of Paul that consumes most of Acts 21–28, nearly the final quarter of the book. Ancient writers often announced the impending fate of various characters, thereby unifying the plot.[639] One could also use foreshadowing to build suspense; for example, Agamemnon’s death when he returns home creates suspense by foreshadowing what Odysseus could have suffered had he not avoided it (Hom. Od. 13.383–85).

Prophecies within the story world could also advance the plot; this was so in Hellenistic historiography, in Josephus, and in Luke-Acts (including both prophecies of Scripture and those by Jesus, Paul, and other reliable voices in the narrative).[640] Implying that words in one’s speech are inspired or directed by deities was a familiar rhetorical device;[641] citing oracles could have the same rhetorical effect.[642]

Although biblical prophecies were often conditional and could sometimes be evaded by changed behavior (1 Kgs 21:29; Jer 18:7–10; Jonah 3:10), attempts to evade prophesied fate without changed behavior were futile (1 Kgs 22:30–35). Ancients widely believed that attempts to evade oracles were futile and that the attempts sometimes fulfilled the predictions in the process.[643] How can Cassandra, a mantic who foreknows her death, confront it so bravely, Aeschylus asks (Ag. 1295–98). She replies that it is because there is no escape (1299–1301). Greeks knew Achilles’s oracular dilemma: he could live quietly if he relinquished combat in Troy, yet to avenge his friend he chose the other destiny, to die in combat (Hom. Il. 9.410–16; 18.88–116; 19.421–23; cf. Libanius Anecdote 1.22). Paul’s colleagues view the prophecies as conditional warnings (Acts 21:4, 12); Paul, certain that God wants him to go to Jerusalem, views the prophecies as merely preparing him and others for the events that will unfold (21:13).

(3) Timing of Death Unknown (20:22)

That Paul does not know what will happen to him in Jerusalem (20:22), then, does not mean that he does not expect suffering;[644] it means that he knows he will suffer and is prepared for his own passion and death (20:24) but does not know whether God’s plan will involve him experiencing death as part of this mission to Jerusalem.[645] Ancients regarded oracles as generally obscure,[646] and Paul recognized similar limitations for Christian prophecy in his letters (1 Cor 12:10; 13:9; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–21). When leaders’ plans turned out badly, they often had to remind their followers that not knowing the future was not a crime.[647] Luke provides an alternative defense: Paul knew something of what awaited him in Jerusalem, but he also understood that God’s plan for him entailed suffering, not escape.

Luke does avoid narrating Paul’s death in Acts; some scholars have explained this omission as Luke warning his readers against a martyr complex,[648] but he may simply have a literary purpose of keeping the narrative enjoyable (and paralleling the Gospel, which, after all, had a happy ending).[649] This hint of coming suffering might also foreshadow Acts 20:25.[650] On the level of Luke’s literary work, Paul’s death is not narrated; it may be hinted at in 20:24, though imprisonment could also prevent a return to Ephesus. Ancient writers often hinted at a future event without narrating it.[651]

Paul’s imminent suffering (20:22–23) both foreshadows his warning about the elders’ coming conflicts (20:29–30) and underlines his credibility for encouraging them to confront it bravely. That is, it serves a deliberative purpose; the epideictic praise of Paul is a practical model for the believers (see introduction to the speech).

II. FULFILLING THE CALLING REGARDLESS OF COST (20:24)

Paul was determined to fulfill his calling regardless of the cost, even in the face of death. Fulfilling Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel, Paul does not fear those who may kill only the body (Luke 12:4); he counts himself as doing only his duty (17:10).[652] The Paul of the epistles also resolved to face death for the gospel’s sake (1 Cor 15:31–32; 2 Cor 4:10–11; 6:9; 11:23; Phil 1:21; 2:17; 3:10–11).[653]

(1) Motif of Bravery

It is fairly obvious that Paul’s letters attest his willingness to face death for Christ and that the biblical prophetic tradition and the example of Christ could stimulate such willingness. This motif would also present Paul very favorably to Luke’s Greco-Roman audience. As Conzelmann notes, “Joy at the opportunity for self-sacrifice is a favorite motif in ceremonial inscriptions and in rhetorical historiography.”[654] Ancient literature extolled courage, including the brave endurance of suffering and death.[655] Romans regarded as virtuous the sacrificing of one’s life for country and often thought that one should “serve the whole world” rather than oneself.[656] One who valued his personal safety above the city’s welfare might be viewed as unfit for public leadership.[657] Only after facing trials could one’s bravery be lauded (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.50); warriors counted it honorable to endure sufferings for praise (Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1).

This principle was expressed most obviously in war for service of the state. Military leaders were sometimes said to urge their troops on by their own example of suffering.[658] Roman soldiers normally counted it shameful to flee from their post because of fear (Polyb. 6.37.10–11); they preferred death from enemies to shame among their colleagues (6.37.12–13).[659] When one commander died in battle, the senate angrily suspended his legion’s pay for failing to protect him at the cost of their own lives (Val. Max. 2.7.15d); when Carthage captured six thousand Romans, the senate said that they would not have been captured had they chosen to die honorably (2.7.15e). Even eulogies, which are epideictic, could make fallen soldiers deliberative models for bravery (Thucyd. 2.43.4).

In the literary ideal, heroes were unafraid to die. Josephus created a speech for Jonathan that bravely accepted execution at Saul’s hands (Ant. 6.126–27). By the time of the empire, Greeks and Romans embraced the portrait of Philoctetes, who suffered bravely in pain.[660] Palamedes died unjustly but heroically, refusing to even lament for himself (Philost. Hrk. 33.37). Leaders could profess their willingness to die in battle (Diod. Sic. 13.97.5; 13.98.1). Romans might exhort their soldiers that they were reared to give their lives (Fronto Bell. parth. 1). Writers often used examples of bravery from the past to encourage the imitation of heroism, such as Demosthenes’s suicide to avoid capture (Lucian Demosth. 43–50).[661] A noble death, many opined, must be preferred to an inglorious life (Dion. Hal. Isoc. 5).[662]

Courage in the face of death was appropriate for a sage’s character as well; Maximus of Tyre compares Socrates at his trial to the Spartan Leonidas, who died defending Greece without retreating (Or. 3.8). If many have faced death bravely in war or at sea, he reasons, why should a philosopher such as Socrates fear, clinging to life rather than virtue (3.7)?[663] To one who claimed that he had already “lived long enough” for nature and glory, Cicero protested that his country loved him and he ought to stop “playing the sage” and making light of death, as philosophers did (Marcell. 8.25).

Stoics such as Seneca warn against fearing death or the future, since life’s end is predetermined and not in our hands.[664] The late first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus is representative of Stoic thought in this period: most supposed that suffering does not cause true loss;[665] likewise, he opined that a philosopher who cannot endure hardship, much less death, is worthless.[666] One must daily be prepared to die;[667] one should abandon fear of death;[668] death “is a debt everyone owes”;[669] and living without fear is living according to nature.[670] Since death is everyone’s fate, “he is blessed who dies not late but well” (Mus. Ruf. frg. 34, p. 134),[671] but one must choose life or death, depending on which benefits the greater number of people (frg. 29, p. 133).[672] Those who viewed Paul as a sage would thus read his affirmation in Acts 20:24 as very honorable.

(2) Sacrificial Devotion

Dying for someone was a special way to demonstrate one’s devotion.[673] A beloved might be to the lover dearer than life (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). Courageous, heroic, and honorable death was an ancient Mediterranean virtue.[674] Greek ethics highly regarded laying down one’s life for another[675] or for one’s nation.[676] Because great dangers normally obliterated the closest ties, even those of friendship,[677] true friends were viewed as those who would share in one’s hardships,[678] who would do for one whatever was necessary.[679] The willingness to die together[680] or to die for one another was regarded as the greatest expression of devoted friendship.[681]

Early Jewish sources prohibit sacrificing another to spare one’s own life but allow that one’s life takes precedence over another’s life.[682] Nevertheless, though one was not required to love one’s neighbor more than oneself, Judaism did praise as heroic those rare persons who would sacrifice their lives on behalf of their friends.[683] Moreover, in Jewish tradition, one could show love for God by martyrdom.[684] Josephus honors those desiring to die nobly for their nation or for fame (e.g., War 1.43–44, 58); rabbis praised a Roman senator (probably fictitious) who died to spare the Jews.[685]

All this emphasis on self-sacrifice contrasts with the popular ancient understanding of self-love, by which ancient moralists usually[686] meant selfishness[687] (as distinct from the modern concept of self-respect and necessary identity formation).[688] Paul readily relinquishes his life for the greater prize of fulfilling his calling.[689]

(3) Fulfilling His Ministry

Finishing[690] the course is an athletic metaphor, as in Paul’s speech in Acts 13:25 for the end of John’s ministry (using the same term for “course” and a synonym for “finish”). The running metaphor appears frequently in Pauline literature (1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16; 3:12–14; 2 Tim 4:7–8; cf. Rom 9:16; Gal 5:7), though it is not limited to that body of texts (Heb 12:1). Other athletic metaphors also appear in Pauline literature (cf. Phil 1:30; Col 1:29–2:1; 1 Tim 4:8; 2 Tim 2:5). Such metaphors were commonplace among rhetoricians[691] and especially in ancient moralist literature.[692] (See fuller comment at Acts 13:25.) Given the massive athletic complexes in Ephesus,[693] the image would be relevant there, as elsewhere in urban centers in the empire.[694] Finishing the course also appears in 2 Tim 4:7 (employing the same term for “course” and a close cognate for “finish”) for the completion of Paul’s ministry.

The ministry[695] that Paul “received from the Lord Jesus”—that is, from Jesus himself in revelations on the Damascus road and afterward (Acts 9:3–4; 22:6–7, 21; 26:16)—was to testify as a witness (26:16) so that both Jews and (more distinctively for Paul) Gentiles could be saved (26:17–18). The commission is here summarized as a witness to God’s grace, just as the focus of Paul’s revelations in 26:16–18 was grace.

Although “testify” and “witness” were not exclusively forensic terms (see comment on Acts 1:8), their frequent repetition in this speech (20:21, 23, 24, 26) suggests a forensic element. Everyone has been warned of the truth (cf. 20:31) and is thus responsible. Forensic elements can drive home pathos in a farewell speech (cf. 1 Sam 12:3–5). “Testifying” about the good news of God’s generosity (Acts 20:24) is equivalent to the message about repentance and faith, about which Paul also “testifies” (20:21); it is also equivalent to the message of the “kingdom” (20:25; cf. 8:12).[696]

III. SAD PARTING (20:25)

It was customary to express grief when apart from loved ones, as a way of showing love.[697] In a farewell speech, when saying good-bye to friends, one should display grief and tears,[698] indicating distress, or at least great fondness for those whom one is leaving.[699] One who suffered might also express sadness that one’s plight brought sorrow to the loved ones one was addressing.[700]

In at least one ideal for farewell speeches, an individual moving to another city should praise its glories so that the audience will understand why he must go;[701] he should also base his reason for going on necessity,[702] amplifying this point especially if his destination is less attractive than the place he is leaving.[703] Although Paul mentions his other destination, he does not imply that he is drawn by its greatness (20:22); instead he bases his reason for quickly leaving them (and not returning) on necessity (20:23–24).

The introductory, pleonastic “and now, behold” (καὶ νῦν ἰδού) captures attention but also provides continuity, repeating the opening words of 20:22.[704] In 20:22, Paul does not know what will happen to him (except being bound and suffering, 20:23); here he does know at least that he will not see them again.[705]

Paul mentions his preaching here to underline the pathos: though he has been tightly bonded with them, he will not see them again. Paul was “proclaiming” (κηρύσσων)[706] the “kingdom” (as in 14:22; 19:8), as he does until the end (28:23, 31).[707] The verse and its context connect varied soteriological language used by Luke (and some other writers), identifying the different phrases. Preaching the kingdom is synonymous with testifying of the gospel in 20:24 (though the ministry in 20:24 is future and in 20:21 and 25 is past).[708] Like his preaching of repentance in 20:21, Paul’s preaching the kingdom here connects his message with the message of Jesus (e.g., Luke 4:43; 6:20; 8:1, 10; Acts 1:3),[709] the first apostles (Luke 9:2), Jesus’s other followers (9:60, 62; 10:9, 11),[710] and Philip (Acts 8:12).[711]

Paul did not “know” what awaited him in Jerusalem (20:22), but he did “know” that he would not see the Ephesian elders again. This verse heightens the pathos already introduced in the speech, bonding speaker and hearers: he does not know what is coming (20:22) except suffering (20:23); but he is ready to die (20:24), and now they will not see his face again.[712] To “not see his face” obviously means never to see him again (again in 20:38).[713] It is difficult to be certain whether this concern was fulfilled historically or whether Paul’s words to this effect merely serve Luke’s narrative purposes of generating pathos and honoring Paul’s devotion to his calling.

Does this mean, as most scholars think, that Paul believes that he will die? Finding Paul’s death here might contradict his uncertainty as to what would happen to him (20:22), but it certainly does parallel Jesus’s warning in his final discourse that he would not meet with the disciples again (Luke 22:15–16, 18). It does, then, sound as if he will die, but Luke does not carry the parallel this far within the scope of Acts.[714] Because of where he will finish his work (in Rome), Luke may need this passage to function as Paul’s farewell (and something like a testament theologically) whether Paul dies in Rome at that time or not (i.e., it does not by itself settle the number of Paul’s Roman imprisonments). A narrative could include reliable predictions of what would occur within the narrative world after that narrative’s close.[715]

Excursus: Acts and the Pastorals

Especially because some scholars argue for a close relationship between Luke and the Pastorals,[716] consideration of their respective itineraries is valuable here. According to very early tradition, Paul apparently did return to somewhere near Ephesus (despite Acts 20:25) and told Timothy to remain there, before Paul left for Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). It is possible that Paul’s presence in Ephesus and his visit to Macedonia correspond to Acts 20:1, but most of those who accept the testimony of both the Pastorals and Acts assign this visit to Ephesus to a period after the close of Acts, before a second imprisonment. The Pastorals’ itinerary cannot easily be harmonized with Acts without Paul being released from Roman custody, returning to the East, then later being imprisoned in Rome again.[717] And even on this view, he would have either seen (with the Pastorals) or not seen (with the prediction in Acts) the Ephesian believers again. Are the two traditions impossible to harmonize? Is Luke unaware of the tradition in the Pastorals? Conzelmann thinks that 20:25 “excludes the possibility that he was set free from Roman imprisonment (and succeeded in making another visit to the East).”[718] The contradiction is a genuine one, but its textual basis is not compelling enough in itself to rule out the tradition preserved in the Pastorals.[719] If, as noted above, the size limitations of the book of Acts force this passage to serve as a farewell, it may function in somewhat the same way as the Fourth Gospel’s promise of the Spirit climaxing in John 20:22: whatever may have happened later, John allows this passage to function theologically and representatively as his equivalent of “Pentecost.”[720] That is, if other reasons support the tradition in the Pastorals, we ought not to press the pathos-inviting claim of Acts 20:25 against their accuracy on this point.

Still, it is difficult to connect Acts with the Pastorals consistently, at least without the hypothesis of a second imprisonment. Certainly the style of the Pastorals differs too much from that of the earlier letters to have been written at the same time, if one argues for Pauline authorship (without unusually heavy dependence on an amanuensis), but this would not exclude accurate information about the itinerary. Yet even connections in the itinerary appear strained at points without a second imprisonment. Below is an attempt to chart the Pastorals’ itinerary against Acts and the undisputed (or less disputed) Pauline letters; if there was no release (see comment on Acts 28:30–31), significant problems arise in the traditions or reports found in the Pastorals.

Pastorals

Acts

Earlier Pauline Letters

Paul and Timothy are in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3)

Paul and Timothy are in Ephesus before Macedonia, but Paul sends Timothy before he leaves (19:22)

Paul sends Timothy from Ephesus to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10); Paul is with him in Corinth (Rom 16:21)

Paul goes to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3)

Paul goes to Macedonia (20:1–3; cf. 19:21–22)

Paul goes to Macedonia (2 Cor 1:16; 2:13)

Timothy remains in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3; cf. 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12)

Timothy starts with Paul from Corinth to Jerusalem, and Paul does not stop in Ephesus (20:4, 15–17)

Timothy is with Paul during his detention (Phil 1:1; Phlm 1), and Paul sends him to Macedonia (Phil 2:19); could he have settled in Ephesus afterward?

*

Acts omits Titus entirely

—

Paul is in Nicopolis for a winter and will send Tychicus or Artemas to Titus (Titus 3:12)

Paul might journey west while in Macedonia (20:1, 3; cf. the period in 17:10, on some views)

Paul evangelizes Illyricum (Rom 15:19)

Paul wants Titus to join him after winter (Titus 3:12)

Acts omits Titus entirely

unless

Apollos will pass through Crete (Titus 3:13)

Apollos’s destination is unknown after Corinth (18:27; 19:1)

Apollos’s destination is unknown after returning to Ephesus from Corinth (1 Cor 16:12)

Paul leaves his cloak in Troas (2 Tim 4:13)

Paul is in Troas most recently in 20:5–6

Paul is in Troas in 2 Cor 2:12 (but presumably on his return journey to Jerusalem as well; Rom 15:25–26)

Paul is chained and detained in Rome (2 Tim 1:16)

Paul is in custody in Rome in 28:16, 20

Paul is detained in Rome (probably Phil 1:7; Phlm 10; cf. Eph 6:20)

Onesiphorus finds Paul in prison in Rome; he settles in Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16; 4:19; but both are in an indeterminate past)

—

Onesimus finds Paul in his Roman detention, and Paul sends him back (Phlm 10, 12; cf. Col 4:9)

Fellow workers are with Paul in Rome: Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Tychicus (2 Tim 4:10–12)

They travel with Paul to Rome: at least Luke and Aristarchus (27:2)

Fellow workers are with Paul in Rome: Demas, Aristarchus, and Luke (Col 4:14; Phlm 24); also Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7)

Most leave (2 Tim 4:10); Luke remains (4:11); Paul sends Tychicus to Timothy in Ephesus (4:12)

Tychicus is last mentioned traveling to Jerusalem with Paul (20:4)

Paul sends Tychicus to churches in Colossae and around Ephesus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7)

Apparently, local Christians are not supportive (2 Tim 4:16; is this an earlier hearing or an earlier imprisonment?)

(Paul may have some concern about his reception in Rome, though it is assuaged; 28:15)

Some local Christians are not supportive of Paul (Phil 1:15–17)

Aquila and Priscilla are in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19)

They are last mentioned in Ephesus (18:26; cf. 1 Cor 16:19; so it is plausible that they would return there)

They are in Rome when Paul is in Corinth (Rom 16:3–5), probably after Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19); may have left during persecution (when Paul was arrested)

Erastus stays in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20)

Erastus is in Macedonia sometime earlier (19:22)

Erastus lives in Corinth (Rom 16:23)

Paul leaves Trophimus in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20)

Paul stops in Miletus (20:17), but Trophimus accompanies him to Jerusalem (21:29); Paul never returns to Miletus

—

Paul wants Timothy to come (2 Tim 4:11, 21)

—

Timothy is with Paul during at least the early part of his detention (Phil 1:1; Phlm 1)

Paul wants Timothy to bring Mark (2 Tim 4:11)

—

Mark is in Rome with Paul before Paul sends Onesimus (Phlm 24; cf. Col 4:10; 1 Pet 5:13); does he leave (like others in 2 Tim 4:10–11) and now have to return?

Presumably Timothy does come

—

Timothy is later released from prison (Heb 13:23), probably in Italy (13:24); Paul is presumably deceased

*

Cf. the use of ἀπέλιπον

in 2 Tim 4:13, 20.

If one tries to harmonize the elements above without postulating a release and second imprisonment after the close of Acts, one faces serious problems. These problems would still allow for substantial tradition in the Pastorals, but it appears that complete harmonization could be achieved only by forcing elements. Thus, if we assume that the Pastorals cover the same period as Acts:

None of this is impossible, but it requires considerable lacunae in each source coincidentally filled by the others, much more than the correspondence between Acts and the other sources.

With a release from prison, one can harmonize elements much more easily, though partly because there is much less to harmonize; the Pastorals depict a ministry after the close of Acts and the earlier Pauline letters. A second imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim 4:16) in the Mamertine prison, as opposed to the house arrest depicted in Acts and probably implied in earlier Pauline letters, fits church tradition.[721] The possibility of two imprisonments does leave apparently suspicious parallels between the imprisonments depicted in both the Pastorals and the earlier Pauline letters. But if Paul was imprisoned twice, apparent doublets would then simply reflect the likelihood that Paul kept the same people with him later in his ministry as he had throughout much of his earlier ministry and that in many cases (not Crete), he revisited earlier locations of ministry (as was apparently his custom; cf., e.g., Acts 14:21; 15:41–16:1; 1 Cor 16:1, 5). When revisiting the same churches, particular routes consistently proved the most convenient for visiting the optimum number of churches. Because of the way I read the close of Acts (see comment on Acts 28:30–31), I favor the possibility of two imprisonments. In this case, the Pastorals address a different imprisonment and attest traditions about Paul’s final years more generally (e.g., about the identity of his trusted companions), though not the same detention.

The other major possibility (held by scholars who doubt the predominance of accurate Pauline tradition in the Pastorals) is simply that the Pastorals do not very accurately reflect Paul’s itinerary.[722] Starting from this premise, however, one could try to fit the Pastorals’ tradition into the period depicted in Acts. In this case, the above table provides some striking correlations, suggesting that the Pastorals contain some legitimate tradition, probably trying to represent Paul’s activity and “voice” fairly accurately, even if they are not correct on every detail. Although our evidence does not yield easily to full correlation of the sources, it does suggest that even if one is skeptical about many Pauline traditions in the Pastorals, they could independently support some traditions about him also preserved in Acts.[723]

e. Innocent of Ephesian Blood (20:26–27)

In Acts 20:26–27, Paul shifts from recounting his example to explaining its significance vis-à-vis God’s judgment. As with Ezekiel’s watchman, God would hold Paul to account as to whether he made everyone within his sphere of influence aware of the gospel message.[724]

Paul recites this demand for hortatory purposes. Paul is innocent of people’s blood (20:26); this implies that leaders who fail to take care of the flock are guilty of the blood of its members (cf. 20:29). In the following context, indeed, they may even be guilty of squandering God’s own blood (20:28).

I. PROTESTING INNOCENCE

It was rhetorically appropriate for a speaker to protest his innocence, sometimes as a means of testifying against one’s hearers’ wrong choices (cf. Paul’s warning in 20:29–31).[725] Perhaps the prototypical example for Paul’s audience would be Samuel’s protest as he prepares to give way to another leader: “Testify against me,” he demands (implying, “if you can,” in turn implying, “you cannot”); “whose ox or donkey have I seized, or whom have I cheated while being your leader? Whom have I mistreated, and from whom have I taken a bribe?” (1 Sam 12:3).[726] Such a series of rhetorical questions was highly effective in Greek and Roman rhetoric as well, including in protesting one’s innocence. A speaker in classical Athens, demonstrating why the jury ought not to rule against him now, asks if anyone has ever found him seizing others’ property, or provoking troubles, or being insolent, and so forth (Lysias Or. 24.24–25, §170).[727] Another asks what anyone could conceivably prosecute him for: “What decree have I proposed, what law have I repealed, what law have I kept from being passed” that was not approved by all the people? (Aeschines Embassy 160).[728] Cicero also provides a series of rhetorical questions to protest innocence (twelve in Sest. 21.47).[729] Apuleius opens the concluding peroration of his self-defense with a series of rhetorical questions, reducing accusations to the absurd (Apol. 102). The expected answer to all such questions is, “No, you have not wronged us.”[730] Leaders could rehearse their benevolence to the people now refusing to follow them (Arrian Alex. 7.9.1–7.11.2).

Protests that one is innocent of another’s blood appear frequently,[731] but one element of Paul’s protest points most specifically to Samuel’s. When Paul says that he “testifies,” he continues the forensic language appropriate to his protest of innocence and found in the context (Acts 20:21; cf. 20:23). That Paul acts “this day” reflects frequent OT terminology;[732] the one OT passage to which this phrase alludes, however, is 1 Sam 12:5: God is “witness” (μάρτυς) against you this day (σήμερον ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ) that I (Samuel) am innocent.

Here, however, Paul follows a different model with the same function. Instead of ironically demanding whether there is evidence against him, he simply asserts his innocence (again, regarding potential exploitation of the flock, in Acts 20:33). Such assertions were acceptable rhetorically (e.g., Aeschines Embassy 182). One might even protest that one had never been accused by another.[733] Forensic rhetoric also included appeals to the positive benefits one had conferred on hearers in the past,[734] as Paul does in this context (Acts 20:18–21, 25, 27, 31, 35).

II. EZEKIEL’S WATCHMAN

The clearest model, however, is suggested by the verbal allusion to Ezekiel. Bloodguilt was a frequent image in the OT (see comment on Acts 18:6), but the passage here recalls especially Ezek 3:17–21 (esp. 3:18, 20) and, even more, 33:2–9 (esp. 33:8): if the watchman fails to warn the wicked, God will hold the watchman responsible for the wicked person’s blood.[735] Paul has already told those who reject his message that their blood is on their own heads and he is “clean” (καθαρός, as here) from it (Acts 18:6).[736] Paul is like Ezekiel’s watchman in Acts 20:26; he contends that the Holy Spirit, who is sending him to Jerusalem (20:23), has passed on this responsibility of being watchmen to the elders (20:28). Paul’s description of them as shepherds of God’s people in 20:28 carries forward the allusion to Ezekiel’s context (Ezek 34:1–8).

Paul claims to be innocent because he did not shrink from declaring the whole truth (Acts 20:26–27);[737] logically, this is an enthymeme, a syllogism with one proposition implied rather than stated.[738] The implied, assumed premise is that one who speaks God’s message fully does not incur bloodguilt.[739] (Conversely, the watchman who does not warn the hearers is responsible for their destruction.) That is, the speaker is judged by God not for the audience’s response but, rather, regarding the speaker’s own fidelity to God and God’s message.[740]

God’s providential “plan” must include the cross (2:23; 4:28; see comment on Acts 2:23), as spelled out in Scripture (13:27), and the continuing mission of the gospel, which nothing could stop (5:38–39). Probably the phrase refers to God’s plan in the prophets[741] for the mission of Jesus and the church, as summarized in Luke-Acts. This purpose made a claim on individuals’ lives (Luke 7:30).[742] This claim summarizes climactically not only Paul’s faithfulness to preaching this message but also that of others (cf. Jesus’s death in Acts 2:23) who announced God’s purpose carried out in Jesus’s mission.[743]

f. Paul Warns Leaders to Guard the Believers (20:28–32)

Although the largest part of the speech consists of Paul’s example (20:18–27, 33–35), his example serves a hortatory function that climaxes in Paul’s exhortation to the elders in 20:28–32. They must carry on his ministry.

Although 20:28–31 is not directly a censure of his audience,[744] it is a strong warning and exhortation and develops the impression of courageous speech found in 20:20, 27 (see comment on Acts 20:20). Farewell speeches, especially in the Jewish testamentary genre, often include warnings (e.g., those of Moses, Deut 32; Jos. Ant. 4.177–93).[745]

I. GUARD GOD’S FLOCK (20:28)

When hearing about leaders’ responsibility to care for the flock, Luke’s ideal audience could recall leaders’ special responsibility and accountability before God (Luke 12:41–48).[746] Although it does not read like a technical rhetorical thesis, this exhortation summarizes the primary point of the speech,[747] which follows Paul’s example (Acts 20:18–27, the narratio) and is amplified and developed in what follows (20:29–35, with a return to Paul’s example in the peroratio in 20:33–35).[748]

(1) Taking Heed to Themselves and the Flock

The exhortation to “take heed” (cf., e.g., Acts 13:40; Luke 21:34; or “be alert” in Acts 20:31)[749] was conventional in public speech[750] and was especially typical of hortatory language,[751] including in testaments.[752] It was appropriate in exhortations to church leaders (e.g., 1 Tim 4:13, 16),[753] in eschatological contexts (Luke 21:34; Mark 13:33; 2 Pet 3:1–3; Rev 1:3),[754] and in warnings against false teachers (Luke 12:1; 20:46; Mark 13:22–23; 2 Pet 3:17). At least two and possibly all three factors are at work here. (I am treating here the concept of vigilance found more explicitly in Acts 20:31 as well as the more general matter of “taking heed” in 20:28.)

The importance of vigilance, of remaining sober, awake, and alert while guarding, may be reinforced by the recent account of Eutychus’s fall due to sleep (20:9); conjoined with the admonition to alertness in 20:31, it may represent an image to which Luke wishes to draw attention. Exhortations to vigilance appear elsewhere[755] but may sometimes evoke the image of literal vigilance.[756] The vigilance of sentinels was essential,[757] for entire units and armies could be destroyed through their failure to watch adequately;[758] warfare typically ended at night,[759] making night attacks all the more unexpected and deadly.[760] (For examples of the punishment of negligent guards, see comment on Acts 12:19.) Others emphasized the importance of vigilance (e.g., Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.4). Roman cities had vigiles to maintain nocturnal security, though they were more concerned with fire than with robbers.[761]

Being “watchful” or vigilant was appropriate for guards of all sorts, but in this context (Acts 20:28–29), it is particularly notable that it was appropriate behavior for shepherds (cf. Luke 2:8).[762] Careful shepherds might count the sheep twice a day to make certain that none was lost.[763] Shepherds often also employed dogs to help;[764] their primary role was to guard the sheep.[765] (We should not expect most Jewish shepherds to have used dogs, since they would have regarded them as unclean;[766] but cf. Job 30:1.)

Leaders must guard themselves so as not to abuse the flock. Leaders abusing their subordinates appear commonly in ancient (no less than in modern) sources.[767] The responsibility of shepherds caring for the flock probably suggests Ezek 34, in view of the allusion to Ezek 33 in the immediate context (Acts 20:26).[768] This allusion also fits Paul’s warning about greedy predators who exploit the sheep (20:28–29), just as the God-appointed but unfaithful shepherds in Ezek 34:1–8 eventually did.[769] It is not likely that the Ephesian elders brought a scroll or that Ezekiel was a lectionary reading, and probably not likely even that Paul was giving primarily an exposition of one text, but it is plausible that Paul’s complete speech made fuller, midrashic reference to these texts in Ezek 33–34, which are merely alluded to in Luke’s summary (here and in the context).

(2) Overseers

That the Holy Spirit appointed[770] the elders does not contradict the apostolic practice in Acts 14:23 “but throws the process further back”;[771] Luke highly values the Spirit’s guidance in church leadership (13:2, 4). (The Spirit made them overseers when they were first appointed, but the emphasis in this context seems to suggest that, with Paul not returning, they will become sole overseers.)

In first-century sources, the church retained the looser organizational pattern of the synagogue; by the time of Ignatius, however, a more centralized structure began to emerge, in which each city had a single ἐπίσκοπος.[772] Our earliest sources that specify the nature of the use of ἐπίσκοπος identify it with “elder” and the function of “shepherd.”[773] Probably various forms of leadership existed in early Christianity.[774] It is possible that “elder” might include an overseer of local overseers in 1 Pet 5:1 (which allows for later practice); but the emphasis there is egalitarian (5:1, 3–5), and church leadership in the NT remained primarily local, aside from the ministry of the apostles (and in the latter case sometimes both). The cognate ἐπισκοπή in Acts 1:20 does apply to the apostolic office. On the period in which the form of church leadership depicted in Acts may have arisen, see comment on Acts 14:23.

Title or function

Acts 20:17, 28

Titus 1:5, 7

*

1 Pet 5:1–2

†

Elders

Acts 20:17

Titus 1:5

1 Pet 5:1; cf. 5:5

Overseers or “oversight”

Acts 20:28

Titus 1:7 (cf. 1 Tim 3:2)

Perhaps 1 Pet 5:2

‡

§

Acts 20:28

‖

1 Pet 5:2

*

Compare perhaps also 1 Tim 3:1 with 5:17.

†

Outside Luke (Luke 12:32; Acts 20:28–29), only 1 Pet 5:2–3 employs the term ποίμνιον

in the

NT

, but it occurs nearly seventy times in the

LXX

. Specifying a particular

LXX

allusion, however, would be problematic (its uses in proximity to περιποιέω

[1 Sam 15:9, 15] and προσέχω

[Ps 79:2 (

ET

80:1)] are irrelevant).

‡

The participle ἐπισκοποῦντες

here is missing in some of the early manuscripts. Christ is both “shepherd” and “overseer” in 1 Pet 2:25.

§

The Qumran

mebaqqer

(“overseer”) is also compared with a shepherd in CD XIII, 9 (Fitzmyer,

Acts

, 679).

‖

In earlier Pauline literature, cf. 1 Cor 9:7; Eph 4:11.

The semantic range of the term ἐπίσκοπος is broad, the term appearing commonly in classical Greek for an overseer or guardian;[775] it applied to financial oversight, temple administration, or inspectors of colonies or associations.[776] Athenians used it for those they dispatched to manage states they had conquered;[777] Plato used it for an educator.[778] Jewish people writing in Greek were well aware of the Greek usage and had already adapted it for leaders, both Jewish and Gentile, in the LXX.[779] Although Paul and other early Christians apparently borrowed this title “for officers in voluntary associations,” they lack other titles, such as ἄρχων (Latin magister), normally an association’s highest officer, and also those for treasurers, secretaries, and so forth.[780]

We lack concrete evidence for use of the term to refer to the oversight of synagogues, but certainly the LXX attests Jewish usage of it for “overseers,” with the same extensive range of meaning as that found in non-Jewish Greek.[781] The Qumran scrolls employ an analogous Hebrew term for an overseer, mebaqqer,[782] as scholars frequently point out.[783] This official records offenses of those reported for community discipline.[784] Because the earliest Christian use always appears outside Judea, however, it probably reflects Diaspora usage.[785] The Greek usage of ἐπίσκοπος is already reflected as a leadership title in the LXX.[786] It may be significant that the LXX uses the cognate verb ἐπισκέπτομαι for “overseeing” God’s people (although not always honorably), along with the title “shepherd” (Jer 23:2; Ezek 34:11; Zech 10:3; 11:16).[787]

The term “overseers” here is functional rather than a formal title, but Luke’s audience would undoubtedly think of the title. The earliest NT use of ἐπίσκοπος is probably Phil 1:1 (surely earlier than Acts), but the Pastorals provide our earliest description of at least some early Christians’ expectations for qualifications and hence may shed light on what Luke’s audience assumed the function of the term would be here. Ideally, they should not be new converts (1 Tim 3:6),[788] though most leaders of the Ephesian church addressed in Acts 20 could not have been Christians for more than four years (cf. 20:31).[789] Thus they should be tested (1 Tim 3:10)[790] and not ordained prematurely (5:22). The Pastorals desired heads of stable, successful households in church leadership (1 Tim 3:2, 4–5; Titus 1:6; cf. 1 Tim 3:12),[791] at least given the local situations addressed (1 Tim 4:3; 5:11–14; 2 Tim 3:6–7; Titus 1:11).

(3) Shepherds

It is unlikely that Luke conceived of the shepherd image independently.[792] Paul was apparently well aware of the shepherd image for church leaders (1 Cor 9:7; Eph 4:11), but it was also known elsewhere in early Christianity (1 Pet 5:2; John 21:16), probably derived from Jesus’s role as shepherd (1 Pet 5:4; John 10:11–16; cf. Mark 6:34; 14:27; perhaps Luke 15:4–7).

This image was, however, in widespread use before early Christianity.[793] As rulers of sheep,[794] shepherds readily provided a natural image, in metaphorical contexts, for rulers;[795] this was true in both Hellenistic[796] and Jewish[797] contexts. For example, many of Egypt’s early rulers were called “shepherds.”[798] As early as Homer, “shepherd of the people,” clearly an equivalent for “ruler of the people,”[799] became a familiar label for both Greek[800] and Trojan[801] leaders and their allies, especially for Agamemnon, the leader of the Achaian host.[802] Later writers continued to exploit this image.[803]

The shepherd image ideally implied benevolence. Xenophon’s Cyrus compared a good ruler to a good shepherd (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.14). The image was applied figuratively for leaders; for example, a general guarding his soldiers would be compared to a shepherd.[804] Interpreters suggested that Homer called Agamemnon “shepherd” of the people because shepherds must care for the sheep’s safety and food (Xen. Mem. 3.2.1). Dio Chrysostom pointed out that Homer calls a king a “shepherd” (Or. 4.43) because he should protect and nurture the sheep, not exploit them (4.44).[805] A philosopher might “shepherd” youths in a morally positive direction (Eunapius Lives 464). Shepherds provided an image of intimate concern for their sheep, both in ancient Israel (Ps 23:1; Ezek 34:2–6, 11–16) and in early Judaism (e.g., CD XIII, 9; Mark 6:34).

The positive uses of the image here would necessarily override some negative ones for Luke’s urban audience. Some people in the western Mediterranean may have recalled nostalgically “the idyllic life of” shepherds,[806] but a more widespread perception, especially among urban dwellers, was one of suspicion, since many people perceived shepherds “as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other people’s land and pilfered wool, milk, and kids from the flock.”[807]

Despite the important shepherds in biblical times (Exod 3:1; 1 Sam 16:11; cf. Amos 7:14),[808] they represented a frequently despised profession by this period,[809] as scholars frequently point out.[810] Texts often portray them as rogues, sometimes even responsible for brigandage and murder[811] (though certainly not consistently enough to link them securely with the “wolves” in 20:29). Some Palestinian rabbis link them with Gentiles (t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:33);[812] others treat them as a dishonorable profession like tax gatherers,[813] counterfeiters, and perjurers[814] or robbers and the financially dishonest.[815] A haber should avoid this profession,[816] and at least in later times, their testimony was invalid.[817] Like field watchmen, shepherds were normally unable to join communal prayers of local communities.[818] Sanders may be right to doubt that they were social outcasts[819] and is surely right that society depended on shepherds,[820] yet he too readily dismisses evidence for their low social status.[821] Throughout the rural empire, peasants were impoverished, but among the peasants there was but one class distinction: “Only the goatherds and shepherds constitute a separate and lower class.”[822]

Still, it should be observed that it was the elite and their urban audience who would most despise shepherds;[823] shepherds themselves undoubtedly held a higher opinion of their rightful status. Thus the negative opinions of shepherds in Jewish literature generally stem from the rabbis, who represented an educated elite; most Roman lists of despised professions also originate from the elite.[824] Although elite opinions usually trickled down to the masses, this evidence allows the possibility that those who looked down on shepherds were especially people with wealth and status. Various rural dwellers, however, may have shared antipathy toward shepherds if the latter gained a reputation for grazing their flocks on others’ farmland.[825] Luke’s audience is largely urban, so they may have not viewed contemporary shepherds highly.

As noted above, the negative status connotations would not be relevant to the traditional image of shepherds for leaders. Yet such negative images would not override Luke’s larger story, in any case. Shepherds appear positively in Luke’s work as early as Luke 2:8–20 and again in 15:6 (cf. 17:7), but especially relevant is 12:32, where Jesus calls his disciples a “little flock.”[826] Nor would the general image be unfamiliar to the Ephesian audience in the narrative world; though obviously not part of urban life, shepherds were very common in the interior of Asia, especially in the Galatian highlands.[827] Certainly Paul’s hearers knew what they were.

Moreover, generally negative images would not negate significant exceptions from the past,[828] such as Hesiod[829] in the Greek tradition.[830] More decisively for Luke’s ideal audience, with its background in the LXX and ultimately in the synagogue, early Judaism also often continued the portrait of Moses as the shepherd of Israel.[831] For example, a few centuries after Acts, a rabbi told a parable in which Moses had to rescue Israel, a lamb, from a wolf, Pharaoh.[832] David,[833] the prophets,[834] Ezra,[835] the leaders God appointed over Israel[836] (sometimes including important teachers[837] or officers),[838] and the Messiah[839] also appear as shepherds.[840] But the chief shepherd of early Judaism and especially of the OT was God himself.[841] God acted like a shepherd for his people, carrying the young (Ps 28:9; Isa 40:11; 46:3–4) and leading his flock as in the first exodus.[842]

In Jewish tradition, Israel was God’s flock[843] and God was the shepherd.[844] But the image also applied to human overseers; thus Israel’s leaders in the OT were sometimes called shepherds, the most obvious background for early Christians’ application to their leaders.[845] The image remained valuable in Judaism in the centuries just before this period; at Qumran an overseer (mebaqqer; see comment above) is compared to a father and a shepherd (CD XIII, 9).

Sheep had various uses. Sheep were prized then as now especially for wool.[846] At least in Egypt, sheepshearing occurred in January or February and, after sheep had grown another coat, in September. Although modern Westerners most often think of cheese as being from cow’s milk, Greeks and Egyptians preferred cheese from sheep’s milk and from goat’s milk. The skins of dead sheep, pigs, and especially goats were used as leather, particularly for carrying liquids.[847]

More relevant to the purpose of portraying God’s people as sheep, however, was the reputed character of sheep. Although most animal fables by the first century included an interpretation, animal fables from the start were often too obvious to require explanation;[848] this degree of perspicuity presupposes a cultural milieu where much was known about the characteristics of animals. In Nat. An. 7.27, Aelian regards sheep as the most obedient of animals, submissive to others’ rule, following the shepherd and his dogs and even goats; they also remain near the rest of the flock.[849] Sheep were considered gentle (placidum, Terence Brothers 534–35). The typical obedience of sheep to their shepherd provided a natural image of Israel as God’s sheep in Scripture,[850] an image that continued in early Judaism.[851]

Leaders are shepherds in early Christianity (e.g., Eph 4:11; cf. John 21:16), an image meant to inculcate a gentle and compassionate leadership (1 Pet 5:2–4).[852] In the early second century, Ignatius viewed overseers as shepherds (Phld. 2.1),[853] exhorting the members of the flock to follow their shepherds (Phld. 2.1).[854]

(4) The Great Cost of God’s Church

Whatever the conclusions of particular debates concerning this phrase in Acts 20:28 (especially whether the blood is that of God or God’s own), obtaining the church by such precious blood suggests an infinite cost (cf. 1 Pet 1:19). Thus it communicates that God’s church is of priceless value to him; woe to those who do not care for it lovingly.

The phrase “church [ἐκκλησίαν] of God” (or “churches of God”) appears here outside Paul’s letters (singular in 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; plural in 1 Cor 11:16; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:4). It derives from a biblical title for Israel, rendered in the LXX as “the assembly [ἐκκλησία] of God” (Neh 13:1), “the assembly of God’s people” (Judg 20:2), or “the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:2–4, 9; 1 Chr 28:8; Mic 2:5).

In the LXX, God “obtained” (περιεποιησάμην) his people (Isa 43:21).[855] The term περιποιέομαι need not include the idea of payment (cf. Luke 17:33; 1 Tim 3:13; 1 Clem. 54.3), but especially in this context, where it is conjoined with “blood,” it might have some association with the idea of redemption, an idea common in early Christianity (cf. Rom 3:24–25;[856] Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:2, 18–19; 1 Clem. 7.4; 12.7; 21.6; Barn. 5.1; perhaps Col 1:14, 20; Ign. Trall. 8.1; Rom. 7.3; Phld. 1 intro.; 4.1; Smyrn. 1.1; 6.1).[857] That Jesus’s (or “God’s”) “blood” constituted God’s people likely reflects an allusion to Luke 22:20, where Jesus’s blood initiates a new covenant, and which employs language used for sanctifying sacrificial blood in ancient Israel (Exod 24:8).[858] Regardless of debates about textual and interpretive details, the connection with the exhortation is clear enough: the elders have a great responsibility to shepherd a flock that God values so highly. The chief shepherd paid a great price for the flock, and so they must shepherd it well, in contrast to the wolves that seek to exploit the flock for their own interests (cf. John 10:11–15). Some other early Christians warned that prophets who sought long-term lodging or asked for money were to be deemed false prophets (Did. 11.5–6).

The apparent claim that God obtained his church by “his blood” generated major variants in the textual tradition because it appeared so problematic.[859] Should we read the text as a reference to God’s own blood? Luke elsewhere affirms Jesus’s deity (Acts 2:21, when read with 2:38; also 16:7; cf. Luke 3:4, 16) but not with the direct title “God.”[860] If we read, “God’s own blood,” it might be imprecise language, yet it might perhaps be intended to imply the unity of Jesus with his Father to the extent that it was as if the Father offered his own blood (cf. Luke 10:16; Jesus’s sharing Christians’ sufferings in Acts 9:5; God’s blood in Ign. Eph. 1.1).[861]

According to the grammatically likeliest interpretations, the epistolary Paul is not averse to occasionally calling Jesus “God” (Rom 9:5;[862] cf. 2 Thess 1:12; Titus 2:13–14),[863] though he usually prefers to use other divine titles (cf. Phil 2:6–11; wisdom language in 1 Cor 1:30; the Shema and perhaps wisdom in 8:6) or prerogatives (cf., e.g., Rom 1:7).[864] Orators sometimes did use jarring language to seize hearers’ attention;[865] even the idea of redemption through the Messiah’s blood (and, to many, the image of cleansing by blood)[866] would be jolting. This interpretation, “God’s [i.e., Jesus’s] own blood” is not impossible if Luke depends here on a jolting line in Paul’s actual speech.

Still, although “his [God’s] own blood” is how one would ordinarily translate the phrase, it is so unexpected in Luke (or even the NT in general)[867] that most scholars find it too jarring here. More often scholars prefer to read the text as “the blood of his [God’s] own”—that is, the blood of Jesus—arguing that this construction appears frequently in the papyri.[868] Some compare the expression to the Hebrew yachid, which appeared in Greek as “beloved” or “only.”[869] But while this grammatical reading is possible, it is far easier to explain “his own blood” as a clear and normal expression than to so explain “the blood of his own.”[870] It thus seems to me that either the first explanation or another, third one is likelier. Perhaps Luke deliberately provides a jarring statement to grip attention, functioning something like hyperbole.[871] Or perhaps he simply has shifted, without concern for grammatical precision, to a new subject (Christ) that is simply implied by the audience’s knowledge that the redemptive blood was Jesus’s.[872] Even in this case, however, the close relationship between the Father and Jesus undoubtedly would have facilitated this shift. The point in any case seems to be to emphasize the great cost to God.[873] Paul is innocent of others’ blood (Acts 20:26)—that is, of bloodguiltiness; Jesus gave his own blood to purchase others (20:28),[874] and the church’s shepherds dare not take lightly his sacrifice (or his example, cf. 20:24, 35).

II. DANGEROUS WOLVES (20:29–30)

Just as shepherds must risk their lives to protect the flock from wolves, so these shepherds (20:28) must guard the flock against wolves (20:29). Ultimately this concern would require them to guard even against their own number (20:30), requiring them to value the welfare of the sheep above the normal expectations of collegiality.

(1) Paul’s Departure (20:29)

Paul warns of coming wolves because he will not be there to protect the sheep himself. This was not necessarily because he was about to die but simply because he would be absent.[875] On ancient beliefs about the ability of a person nearing death to predict the future, see the introduction, above, to Acts 20:17–38.[876] But in Acts’ narrative, Paul is apparently four or (more likely) more years away from death, and the term used here for “departure” (ἄφιξις) means simply “departure” (or, from the modern reader’s vantage point, often “arrival”), not death (e.g., 3 Macc 7:18).[877] Further, Acts 20:31 emphasizes that Paul has been preaching these same warnings all along. Ancient hearers would understand that “wolves” was a metaphor;[878] moreover, this metaphor was frequent enough that they would have a fairly accurate sense of its meaning here.

Biblical history, especially in the book of Judges, lamented Israel’s unfaithfulness after the deaths of godly leaders (Judg 2:7–11, 19; 4:1; 8:33; 10:5–6; cf. 2 Chr 34:33). Some postbiblical sources[879] suggested the same pattern; thus, after the death of Judas Maccabee, corruption spread (Jos. Ant. 13.2), and Hegesippus offered the same complaint about the period following the death of the apostles (Euseb. H.E. 3.32.7–8).

(2) Shepherds versus Predators

Warning about some of the shepherds (Acts 20:28) becoming predators (20:30, if not specifically the wolves of 20:29) flows naturally from the comments on Ezek 33–34 in Acts 20:26, 28. Reviewing Ezekiel’s description may therefore flesh out some of the fuller context that Paul’s or Luke’s speech assumes (or that a fuller original speech might have elaborated). Ezekiel prophesies as a watchman (Ezek 3:17; 33:2–7);[880] in Ezek 34, God denounces the shepherds who feed themselves rather than the flock (34:2, 8), slaughtering the fat without feeding the flock (34:3).

They do not help the sick or broken or seek out the lost but rule them by force (34:4); the sheep are scattered for lack of shepherd, and so beasts devour them (34:5).[881] Thus God will punish the fat and deliver the weak (34:16), punishing the fat who scatter the weak and take all the pasture and waters for themselves (34:17–22). God himself will seek the lost (34:16; cf. Ps 119:176), a statement to which Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’s seeking the lost (Luke 19:10, with Zacchaeus as an example) refers. Ezekiel’s reference to beasts devouring the sheep (Ezek 34:5) because of careless shepherds is particularly relevant in Acts 20:29 (although Paul further stretches the image so that some of the shepherds themselves may become wolves; 20:30).

Ancient writers contrasted shepherds, who sought to preserve the sheep, with the latter’s predators.[882] Thus a caring shepherd protected his flock, but robbers, wolves, and other predators endangered the flock if he proved remiss in his duties.[883] When pursued by wolves, helpless domestic animals had no protection except their shepherds or herders.[884] Thus an ancient orator compares the Persian ruler Cyrus to a good shepherd warding off the wolves (other peoples) but (as in essence here; cf. 20:30) warns that Cyrus’s successors forsook shepherding and became wolves themselves (Max. Tyre 6.7). Scholars also cite the claim that Apollonius of Tyana protected his followers, his “flock,” from wolves (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22).[885] Although writers could speak of the dangers of a single wolf (e.g., John 10:12), it was usually as a pack (hence the plural here; Luke 10:3) that they posed the greatest danger.[886]

Sheep faced various dangers,[887] most notably a range of predators, such as lions[888] and thieves.[889] Ancient literature often employs the image of wolves as predators[890]—for example, of cattle,[891] asses,[892] and sometimes people.[893] Most relevant here, however, is the frequent image of wolves preying on sheep[894] (cf. Luke 10:3; Matt 7:15, in which the sheep are Christ’s followers, as here).

(3) Figurative Wolves

Writers often used the image of “beast” figuratively for a terrible person,[895] and so it is hardly surprising that “wolf” would be so employed.[896] Wolves had long been employed as a somewhat positive image for warriors;[897] as wolves and lambs were natural enemies, warned Achilles, so must he slay Hector.[898] But the quality most valued on the battlefield proved to be vice in other settings.

Wolves were thought to be deceitful[899] and eager to plunder.[900] Figurative wolves could prove treacherous and unfaithful.[901] Like ravens, figurative wolves could devour the resources of the unwary (Lucian Tim. 8). One writer used the image for rapacious moneylenders;[902] such an image fits the warning against greed probably implicit in this context (cf. the contrast with Acts 20:33–35).[903] Another writer compares a wicked king (Statius Theb. 4.361) to a wolf who is conquering among the herd (4.363) yet fears the pursuit of shepherds (4.368–69). Paris pursues Helen like a wolf stealing a heifer.[904] Apollonius wanted to guard his “sheep” from “wolves,” by which he meant forensic orators, those who exploit people and profit from hatred and strife (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22).

Naturally, the image of a wolf as predator of sheep also appears in biblical and early Jewish tradition,[905] sometimes representing Israel’s enemies[906] or Israel’s evil leaders.[907] Ezekiel compares Israel’s exploitive political leaders with wolves (Ezek 22:27) as he compares the false prophets with greedy lions (22:25, 28). Wolves became a regular symbol for false teachers in early Christian literature.[908]

Bad shepherds could become like predatory wolves themselves. One fictitious farmer’s wife complains that the hireling is continually falling asleep, so that a wolf seized their best she-goat; she warns that if her husband discovers what happened, the hireling will be beaten and the husband will go looking for the wolf.[909] One slave is compared to a wolf, having sold or killed some of the goats; he will be shackled once captured.[910] Whereas a caring shepherd protects his flock, robbers, wolves, and other factors would diminish a flock whose shepherd failed to care for them.[911] Another writer opines that whereas Cyrus ruled Persia like a shepherd who lovingly guards his flock against wolves, his successors “turned from good shepherds into wicked wolves, ravaging the flock and straying from the path of knowledge.”[912]

The speech prefers wolves to a different predatory image, that of lions (more formidable than wolves);[913] lions are a conventional image of courage,[914] strength,[915] and savage ferocity[916] and are often the object of fear.[917] Sometimes both images could be conjoined (1 En. 56:5). But the image of a “wolf” was available in the Jesus tradition (Matt 7:15; John 10:12) and was more consistently portrayed as hostile specifically to sheep.

Although βαρύς normally means “burdensome,” regarding people it can mean “troublesome” (LSJ). The expression “not sparing” (μὴ φειδόμενοι) is appropriate; a first-century Stoic compared selfish people to wolves or beasts (Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.21), “sparing nothing from which they may gain some advantage” (p. 92.21 [Lutz, 93]).[918]

(4) Who Are the False Teachers Here?

Warnings against false teachers were common (see comment on false prophets at Acts 13:6). Some philosophers also warned against false philosophers in order to recommend the true variety.[919] Each philosophic school might, however, envision the false teachers differently; scholars debate what group this passage envisions.

Some scholars have argued that the false teachers warned against here were (for Luke and his Pauline circle) the Johannine Christians in Ephesus.[920] Yet this is not the only passage in Luke concerned about false teaching (cf., e.g., Acts 8:9–11; 13:8–10), and so Luke does not associate it solely with Ephesus;[921] indeed, even the circumcisionists of 15:1, 5, though defeated, could perhaps resurface (cf. 21:21).[922] Further, John appears positively in Acts, coupled with Peter, though not as often as one would expect from Gal 2:9 (yet more positively than in that passage also).[923] Luke offers a much more thoroughgoing comparison of Paul with Peter, yet such comparisons in antiquity did not require us to assume competition (see discussion in the commentary introduction;[924] also comment on Acts 19:1).

Johannine Christians had a sectarian worldview vis-à-vis the larger world, probably related to their situation in that world, but they did not necessarily have such a relationship with all other Christians.[925] Whereas some Jesus tradition appears in Paul,[926] it seems to me, from working through John’s Gospel in detail,[927] that John’s Gospel is closer to Paul than are the Synoptics; perhaps most obviously, their emphasis on the indwelling Christ reflects some theological connection.[928] I would be inclined to conclude that “Johannine Christians” embraced more of the Pauline perspective than we find in some other streams of early Christianity (e.g., James).

Some have suggested that Luke wishes to dissociate Paul from Gnosticism here.[929] But only the relatively small minority of scholars dating Luke-Acts to the second century can make an extrinsic argument for this, since we lack any evidence for the gnostic schools before that time.[930] More important from an intrinsic standpoint is that nothing in this passage points specifically or characteristically to Gnosticism, as opposed to any other threat.

Others have compared the false teachers to Jewish arguments against the church’s claim to be the true remnant of Israel.[931] Although this view could have some more internal evidence within Acts to support it than the previous proposal (Acts 15:1–5; cf. 21:21), it is still beyond what Luke specifies. The primary emphasis here, as in Ezekiel, is individuals who exploit the flock, rather than a specific doctrinal system (Acts 20:29–30). Given the context, their dominant erroneous interest may be more pecuniary than theological (cf. 20:33–35).[932] Their speaking “things that are perverted” (διεστραμμένα) does indicate false teaching, but unless it bears some association with magic (Acts 13:8, 10), Luke’s use of the term refers to any sort of distortion rather than a particular kind (Luke 9:41; 23:2; cf. Deut 32:5, echoed in Luke 9:41; Matt 17:17; Phil 2:15; Acts 13:10; Philo Sob. 10). That is, if Luke had a narrower focus of false teachers in mind, certainty regarding its character eludes us now. Rather, these are teachers who draw disciples “after themselves” rather than keeping Jesus central (see comments on Jesus’s name in Acts 3:6; 9:34), who build the faith around themselves rather than recognizing that it is not about them but about Jesus Christ (see comment on 13:36). False prophets like Judas the revolutionary attracted crowds to follow “after” (ὀπίσω) him (5:37), and so would later false prophets claiming to be Jesus (Luke 21:8), but disciples must follow only “after” Jesus (Luke 9:23; 14:27).

Consistent with the view of a general warning applicable to various situations here, Greek sages also warned against charlatans, often in a general way.[933] Thus some lamented that many people rejected all philosophers because of the many bad ones.[934] Philodemus warns against γόητες who mislead many after they have experienced some hardship, luring them with kindness.[935] Paul distinguishes himself from such charlatans in Acts 20:33–35 (see further discussion there).

In this period in his ministry, Paul was already warning churches against false teachers in his letters (e.g., Rom 16:17–18; 2 Cor 11:12–15, 18–23;[936] Galatians passim).[937] If no mention of “wolves” is preserved for us, he at least did not hesitate to call them “dogs” (Phil 3:2, referring to the circumcisionists), a derogatory title used, if anything, more frequently in ancient literature.[938] The epistolary Paul also worked to distance himself from charlatans, sometimes in conventional ways (2 Cor 2:17; cf. 1 Thess 2:3–7; see comment on Acts 20:33–35). The warning also reflects a concern of Luke’s, however; early in Paul’s ministry, Bar-Jesus sought to turn a proconsul from faith (Acts 13:8), and Paul later confronted false teachers who required circumcision for salvation (15:1).

(5) From among Yourselves (20:30)

The most startling claim about the false teachers is what Paul adds in 20:30: some of them would arise “from you yourselves.”[939] Although it is not impossible that this means from the group of elders, implying future elders, it is far more likely that it is meant at face value: some of these very elders would distort the truth to gain followings for themselves. Luke’s audience may recall Jesus’s warning to his disciples that one of them would betray him (Luke 22:21), with the attendant promise of judgment (22:22). False teachers from “among you” drawing away God’s people was a serious offense (cf. Deut 13:13, referring to other deities).[940]

Probably this false speaking includes flattery instead of the sort of frank speech Paul is offering (see comment on Acts 20:20); early Christians recognized that false teachers sometimes flattered to achieve advantage over others (Jude 16). A generous and benevolent leader might prove too trusting, but it was commendable when such a leader could also guard himself from manipulators (Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.12).[941]

Those mentioned here speak “twisted” things (διεστραμμένα); Luke applies the same verb (διαστρέφω) to Elymas Bar-Jesus the magician in Acts 13:8, 10; God’s way is straight (Luke 3:5). That selfish elders wish to draw disciples “after” (ὀπίσω) them may imply that they seek to make them their own disciples instead of those of Jesus (Luke 9:23; 14:27); they want others to follow them (Acts 5:37). True disciples of Jesus, however, dare not follow them (Luke 21:8).

We have abundant evidence that false teachers flourished in Ephesus in the first century. Following the early tradition that Johannine literature circulated in Asia Minor (in the areas of Revelation’s seven churches, Rev 2–3), the false teachings condemned there are noteworthy (1 John 2:18–26; 4:1–6; 2 John 7–11; Rev 2:14, 20).[942] Although the hints in Ephesians[943] are minimal (cf. Eph 4:14), false teachers are clearly a problem in 1 and 2 Timothy, addressed to Ephesus[944] (1 Tim 1:3–7, 19–20; 4:1–3, 7; 6:3–5; 2 Tim 2:16–18; 3:4–9, 13; 4:3–4).[945] Since the Ephesian church was faithfully rooting out false apostles at the end of the first century (Rev 2:2), these indications of conflict probably derive from the generation between Paul’s speech and Revelation’s circulation in the 90s. This fits observable patterns of church development elsewhere as well: only in the second or later generations can individuals profit much from holding positions of leadership in churches, and so corruption and seeking benefits for oneself become more common at that stage.[946]

III. CONTINUAL VIGILANCE (20:31)

Paul has exhorted the elders to take heed to themselves and the flock (Acts 20:28); now he warns them to be on the alert (20:31), like shepherds guarding a flock against predators (20:28–29). Just as he prepared for his exhortation in 20:28 with his own example (20:18–27), so here he recalls his example (20:31) immediately following his exhortation (20:31). Being “alert,” as defined by Paul’s example, would involve warning everyone continually with tears (20:31), or, more likely, involves watching out for the behavior against which Paul warned.

(1) Hortatory Language

Being on the “alert” could be eschatological language (Luke 12:37; cf. 12:40; 21:36); both γρηγορέω and other ways of expressing the same concept often appear in eschatological contexts.[947] For the language and image of guarding (here shepherds guarding the flock from wolves; cf. Acts 20:28–29; Luke 2:8), see comment on Acts 20:28.

Calling on an audience to “remember” was appropriate in rhetoric and moral exhortation.[948] By calling on them to “remember,” Paul again appeals to what they already “know” (see comment on Acts 20:17); he makes the same appeal to memory in Acts 20:35. Apart from an appeal to Scripture in Luke 17:32, Acts 20:35 is the only other use of μνημονεύω in Luke-Acts,[949] though it appears in Paul[950] and elsewhere in early Christian literature.[951] “Admonishing” (here νουθετῶν) is also appropriate for moral exhortation.[952] The term νουθετέω is common in Paul’s letters (Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15); it appears nowhere in the NT except in Paul and here.[953] “Each one” (ἕνα ἕκαστον) emphasizes the individual attention that Paul gave to his hearers, a practice of the best philosophers.[954]

(2) Continuous Activity

The speech underlines Paul’s exhortation to the elders in various ways; one is to emphasize that his warning is not simply a last-minute suggestion but a continuous proclamation over a period of years (cf. also the emphasis on warnings in Acts 14:22; 1 Thess 3:4). “Day and night” reinforces the image of Paul’s exhortation to them by stressing its continual character and Paul’s sacrificial effort on their behalf; “three years” reinforces the image by emphasizing its duration; and the “tears” reinforce it by emphasizing his passion and appealing to pathos.[955] That Paul worked hard in Ephesus is clear in Luke’s account, regarding both public ministry (Acts 19:8–13) and physical labor (20:34).[956]

“Day and night” is a common figure of speech. (The sequence of the phrase is sometimes stylistically significant but is inconsequential with regard to meaning.)[957] Luke likes the phrase “day and night” for describing worship or prayer (Luke 2:37; 18:7; Acts 26:7),[958] but he can also use it other ways (Acts 9:24). It was a fairly familiar pairing, and Paul also applies it to his ministry, as here (1 Thess 2:9; 3:10; 2 Thess 3:8). The OT and Greco-Roman texts also use the phrase to depict hard labor that consumed parts of night as well as day.[959] Although day laborers might work from dawn until dusk,[960] some Romans carried the emphasis on work and not sleeping too much to great lengths. Pliny the Younger praises his namesake uncle for his long hours of work, even during parts of the night (Ep. 3.5.7–8). The uncle engaged in research and writing at night, sleeping as little as possible and counting only waking hours as part of his life (Pliny E. N.H. pref. 18).[961] However hyperbolic in Paul’s case, most ancients would view this picture of Paul’s labors as industrious and positive.[962]

“Day and night” is what some would call a merism,[963] a combination of opposites suggesting the whole (e.g., Gen 1:1; Deut 6:7)—thus, in this case, “continually” or “all the time.” This phrase appears both in biblical[964] and in Greco-Roman literature.[965] In addition to being a figure encompassing the whole, the phrase here is also hyperbolic,[966] since it is impossible that Paul literally warned everyone continually without sleeping.[967] Had the author intended all day and night, he would have used the accusative; the genitive means “during the night and day,” hence parts of them.[968] Paul may have been active during part of the night and most of the day, and he does speak of some “sleepless nights” (2 Cor 6:5; 11:27),[969] but we need not think of supernatural sustenance that rendered sleep unnecessary! Normally people stopped work or other activities at nightfall,[970] but some individuals (perhaps mentioned because unusual) did have different sleep schedules.[971] Urban laborers normally worked from dawn till sundown, apart from their midday siesta,[972] so that long hours were not unusual during daylight. Paul’s ministry at night is best illustrated by the account preceding Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders, where he spoke throughout the night to believers in Troas (Acts 20:7, 11).[973]

The “three years” counts, as was customary, part of a year as a whole; it includes both the “three months” of 19:8 and the two further years of 19:10.[974] That one has acted in a positive manner for a significant period of time is appropriate information for self-recommendation (see introduction to 20:18–21), and it appears in some expectations for epideictic rhetoric.[975]

(3) Emotional Intensity

Emotional appeal is important in rhetoric (Quint. Inst. 6.1.9), and the best rhetoric should be able to move an audience to tears (4.2.114; 6.1.30).[976] Tears can signify the intimacy of connection between a leader and followers,[977] and they often generate tears also among the hearers or readers (cf. Acts 20:37).[978] Paul’s writings also suggest that he wept as he delivered some exhortations (cf. 2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:19).[979] See further comment on Acts 20:19, 37.

Ancient speeches often included pathos, or emotional appeal.[980] Pathos was important in forensic speech and argument;[981] rhetoricians recognized the affective aspect of human personality and that persuasion often had an emotional component.[982] Alternating rational and emotional appeals helped add variety to speeches.[983]

One earlier Hellenistic handbook suggested that a speaker should appeal to friendly feelings (Rhet. Alex. 34, 1439b.15–1440b.3); one could conclude a prosecution speech by stirring the audience’s disgust for the opponents or pity for oneself (36, 1443b.16–21) or stir sympathy by reminding the audience of one’s kindness either to them or to those who have now wronged one (1444b.35–1445a.12).[984] A first-century Roman handbook advocates expressing various emotions in seeking to persuade the judge.[985] Sufferings often generated sympathy,[986] as did reminders of benefaction.[987] One could rouse indignation against how one has been wronged.[988] One could even appeal to pathos while disclaiming it, portraying the emotion as too strong to be voluntary.[989]

For example, Cicero,[990] defending Sestius, claims that he must stop his speech, moved by the sight of Sestius, who served Rome; Sestius’s weeping son; and others who have served the state.[991] Cicero further pleads with his hearers to remember his own sufferings for the state, contending that convicting his friends would increase his suffering.[992] One might appeal to a defendant’s old age to urge hearers to act compassionately.[993] Cicero believed that, when appropriate, a good orator should protest passionately, at other times pleading gently.[994] It was, indeed, essential to be able to move the judge to indignation or tears “or in short (and this is the one supreme characteristic of the orator) sway his feelings in whatever direction the situation demanded.”[995]

One could appeal to pathos by invoking more sympathy-generating relatives.[996] Thus, by appealing to the suffering of the defendant’s small children that a hostile verdict could produce, an effective speaker could secure acquittal.[997] One’s aged mother could be without support;[998] one’s aged father could be heartbroken.[999] Likewise, Cicero could appeal to a long-standing Vestal’s sacrifice for the state and to the pain her brother’s conviction could cause her, since she could bear no children of her own.[1000]

Conversely, an opponent might respond that one’s resort to pathos (seeking mercy) was a tacit admission of guilt.[1001] Orators needing to counter an appeal to pathos would appeal to rational criteria[1002] or deliver a counterappeal to pathos (e.g., vividly recounting afresh the crime).[1003] Instead of appealing to the defendant’s forlorn family, a prosecutor could appeal to the survivors of this evildoer’s victims.[1004] A defendant could in turn respond to such rousing of emotion by noting that although indignation against the alleged crime is just, the defendant did not commit it.[1005]

Genuine feelings—for example, of grief—could add passion to one’s case.[1006] Generally, speakers should genuinely feel the emotions they wish to stir in others.[1007] Still, a rhetorician could advise that although one should not grow angry, one should simulate anger when necessary (Isoc. Ad Nic. 23).[1008] Pliny the Younger complains that an orator for the opposing side depended entirely on pathos (moving people to tears),[1009] but believes that such appeals lose ground over time as reason prevails.[1010]

Intensity of passion was important in rhetoric (Plut. Cic. 5.3), but some ancients condemned others who shouted too much as not understanding the appropriate ways to use passion (5.4).[1011] Stoics rejected the validity of emotional appeals[1012] and believed that appeals and decisions based solely on emotion have little effect.[1013] Thus Seneca claimed that he would prefer to express his feelings rationally instead of acting undignified like orators who stomp around, wave their arms, or raise their voices.[1014] But while many thinkers about speech rejected oratory that depended solely on emotion,[1015] most allowed it a role in persuasion. Against many philosophers, Cicero and Quintilian defended the rhetorical use of emotion.[1016] Modern empirical studies have demonstrated that human reason and emotion are not as easily separable as those who are appealing solely to reason might prefer.[1017]

Paul also appeals to pathos in his letters (e.g., 2 Cor 2:4; 6:11–13; Gal 4:12–20);[1018] he probably felt that his supreme ends justified such appeals, even though some modern critics would demur in the case of his polemic against opponents.[1019] Intense emotion was not at all foreign to letters, though the emotion most commonly expressed is affection.[1020] Yet such intense emotion appears no less commonly in speeches, and there is no reason to doubt that the epistolary Paul could have employed it in spoken rhetoric.

As in Acts 20:20, where Paul ministered from house to house as well as publicly, so here Paul is emphatic that he warned “each one” (ἕνα ἕκαστον) of them (though the phrase does not require privacy; cf. 2:3; Luke 16:5).[1021] Despite the importance of group education, ancients recognized the value of private instruction.[1022] To win the people’s favor, one must be approachable “day and night,” showing even a welcome face whenever visitors come.[1023]

IV. COMMITTING THE ELDERS TO GOD (20:32)

“Committing” the elders to God and to the message about his grace brings to a climax the emphasis on commissioning in the speech (see the section introduction, above). The verb “commit” (παρατίθημι) appears in this sense in Acts 14:23; as he is leaving, Paul entrusts their spiritual welfare to God’s gracious care—just as he did with earlier elders whom he had appointed to carry on in his absence. This verse looks back to the previous exhortations to the elders in 20:28–31a, but also forward (occurring in the midst of personal example in 20:31b–35). Some writers group this statement with 20:32–35 because its climactic role makes it suitable to open the speech’s peroratio.[1024]

Personification is a frequent rhetorical device,[1025] and Watson suggests that the “message of grace” here is personified as a “builder.”[1026] The building metaphor was frequent enough that early Christians may well have forgotten the image that originally stood behind their usage (i.e., it could have functioned as a dead metaphor; but see comment on Acts 9:31); the use of personification here is therefore likewise uncertain. “Build” appears with a spiritual sense in Acts 9:31; Rom 14:19; 15:20; 1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:4, 17; Gal 2:18; Eph 4:12, 16; 1 Thess 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5, 7.[1027] “Word of grace,” meaning “message of God’s favor,” is a distinctly Lukan construction,[1028] though, of course, “grace” is a frequent Pauline term (close to two-thirds of the NT uses).

Against those who view the “set-apart ones” (ἡγιασμένοις) here as angels[1029] (a legitimate and common use by itself[1030] but not with regard to inheritance!),[1031] the phrase refers here to God’s set-apart people, as with the cognate adjective in Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10. In early Jewish literature, such titles typically apply to the whole or the remnant of Israel[1032] or (often the same in early Jewish ideology) to the righteous.[1033]

“Inheritance among those set apart” thus plays on the language of Israel’s inheritance, translated into eschatological terms in early Judaism. Although this is OT language for Israel, Acts 26:18 applies almost the same expression to Gentile believers as well (26:17). In Scripture, Israel was to “inherit” the promised land; in early Judaism, this image extended to the entire earth.[1034] In Luke-Acts, the inheritance includes especially “eternal life,” the life of the kingdom (Luke 10:25; 18:18).[1035]

g. Paul’s Example of Sacrifice (20:33–35)

Paul’s self-sacrificial service (Acts 20:18–21) was also expressed in giving to others rather than seeking from others (20:33–35). Following the ultimate model of Jesus (20:35), Paul again offers himself as an example (explicit in 20:35a), this time in contrast with greedy false teachers (20:29). In 20:35, Luke recalls and encapsulates some of Jesus’s life and teaching from his Gospel.

I. INTRODUCTION

In Acts 20:33–35, Paul’s speech reaches its stirring conclusion. Watson sees 20:32–35 as the speech’s closing peroratio and finds techniques here often characteristic of peroratio, with hortatory use of exempla, inviting generosity and displaying affection.[1036] The exhortations in a peroratio carry the greatest weight.[1037] On the use of personal examples, see comment on Acts 20:18–21; on the appeal to ēthos, see comment on Acts 20:20–21. Paul’s example in 20:34 also would reduce the likelihood of artisans taking offense at the portrayal of hostile artisans in 19:24–28.

(1) Leaders and Greed

Paul’s example of sacrifice here can guard leaders from becoming greedy false teachers (20:29) and harks back to Paul’s example in the beginning of the speech (20:18b–21), bracketing the speech. Paul’s example is dominant here, as earlier in the speech (20:18–27).[1038] Such an appeal makes sense. One of Paul’s letters written a year or two before this journey cites his own example, explaining why he works rather than accepts patronage (1 Cor 9:1–18).[1039] A hero leader’s example could motivate others to join in (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.363–64), though the ultimate hero leader’s example implicit behind Paul’s here is that of Jesus (cf. Acts 20:35). One’s conduct adds persuasiveness to one’s speech (Rhet. Alex. 38, 1445b.30–34).

A teacher would normally be expected to receive payment of some sort, but Paul had refused to receive pay from churches that might view him as a dependent (1 Cor 9; see comment on Acts 18:3).[1040] Paul refused pay especially to avoid the unsavory reputation that attached to any teachers who could be remotely accused of teaching only for money (cf. 2 Cor 2:17; 7:2; 11:7–13; 1 Thess 2:5).[1041] Luke provides numerous examples of those who act for personal gain (Simon in Acts 8:20; Paul’s accusers in 16:19; 19:24–27; Pharisees in Luke 16:14; scribes in 20:47).

Many ancients believed (probably often rightly) that impostors became rich off the gullible whom they could deceive.[1042] The motif of greedy sophists was a polemical topos deployed by Plato and others, perhaps to distance themselves from potential competitors.[1043] Commitment to avoid personal gain thus authenticates leaders or heroes, as Brawley notes:[1044]

Part of Socrates’ defense is that he does not profit from his philosophy (Plato Apology 19D–E), and he denounces those who do (Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.6–7). Philo notes that some people travel for pleasure or financial advantage, but he portrays Abraham in contrast as one who migrates in obedience to God and gives no thought to personal gain (On Abraham 62–67). Josephus charges that his colleagues accept bribes to allow John of Gischala access to imperial grain, but he defends himself as unswayed by monetary enticements (Life 13 §§70–73).

Such authentication and separating of oneself from charlatans are not Luke’s fiction for Paul; they appear in Paul’s own letters, including his earliest letter.[1045] Distinguishing oneself from charlatans was essential for a wandering preacher (2 Cor 2:17; 1 Thess 2:5), and many other sages offered the same kinds of distinctions that Paul did. Popular preachers such as Dio Chrysostom (vis-à-vis bad Cynics) and Philostratus’s Apollonius (vis-à-vis magicians) sought to distinguish themselves from disreputable preachers.[1046]

Plutarch notes that most philosophers are worse than average persons but that this should not be held against the minority of genuine philosophers.[1047] Lucian enjoyed the pastime of mocking phony, greedy philosophic preachers.[1048] Good sages criticized,[1049] or are sometimes portrayed as exposing,[1050] the bad sages and religious practitioners, further differentiating honest from dishonest speakers. Criticizing impostors became a serious enough pastime that rhetoricians themselves criticized the insincerity of “sophists.”[1051] Other rhetoricians protested against the dismissal of all rhetoricians because of the abusive behavior of some.[1052]

Leaders in general had to beware of suspicion of greed[1053] (see Luke 12:13–48, esp. 12:41–48). Thus one ruler avoided the extravagance of other rulers to avoid suspicion and set a good example (Isoc. Nic. 37 [Or. 3.34]). Athenian officials who coveted the city’s possessions were to be executed (Lysias Or. 28.3, §179). A Roman soliciting an office might emphasize that he sought glory, not the salary;[1054] letters of recommendation might emphasize that the person recommended avoided seeking personal gain.[1055] Exploitation of office,[1056] including provincial office,[1057] was common, and so a governor who avoided the temptation of a rich province such as Asia was praiseworthy (Tac. Agr. 6).[1058] Lack of greed appears even among qualifications for midwives (Soranus Gynec. 1.2.4), and so it is hardly surprising for church leaders (1 Tim 3:3; 1 Pet 5:2).

Philosophers and others who refused money, or at least were very discerning about the people from whom they would accept it, were praised.[1059] Thus a probably pseudepigraphic letter attributes such an attitude to Apollonius.[1060] Socrates is said to have disdained personal gain, not influenced by his greedy wife.[1061] An Athenian orator insists that he has always lived with moderation, satisfied with only a little money (Aeschines Ctes. 218). Plutarch praises Aristides for remaining poor (and valuing his poverty) despite his office.[1062]

Many ancients believed that good teachers should not care about money.[1063] Plato’s guardians (though not all the community) would share their property in common.[1064] Even philosophers who were not Stoic or Cynic could regard wealth and poverty as inconsequential.[1065] Some philosophers also believed that they should avoid any situation that would obligate them to wealthy patrons, prejudicing their free speech.[1066] Among the stock criticisms of traveling teachers (especially those who begged or charged fees) was that they were greedy for gain.[1067]

Jews had charlatans like anyone else,[1068] but as a minority movement, they sometimes suffered from public prejudices resulting from generalizations based on the exceptional charlatans among them.[1069] Christians could expect the same. Some later rabbis warned that those who taught Torah only for their own benefit would perish eternally;[1070] in an apologetic context, such attitudes would surely translate into the need to distinguish true from false teachers.

Early Christians warned church leaders against greed (1 Tim 3:3; cf. Exod 18:21)[1071] and recognized that false teachers were often eager for money (1 Tim 6:5; 2 Pet 2:3, 14; Did. 11.6, 12). Given their commitment to share with the needy, however, early Christians were sometimes viewed as gullible targets for charlatans (Lucian Peregr. 13). Not only in this speech in Acts but also in his letters, Paul follows Greco-Roman philosophers’ convention of distinguishing between true and false teachers (e.g., 1 Cor 9:12b–18; 2 Cor 2:17).[1072]

(2) Austerity

Not only were condemnations of avarice widespread,[1073] but austerity was respected. Romans highly valued austerity and self-control, though more in traditions about the past than in this era.[1074] Thus they praised the values of earlier Rome, when the senate expelled an otherwise virtuous man for procuring a ten-pound silver plate;[1075] it also expelled a tribune for revoking a law limiting the amount of money that could be spent for banquets.[1076]

Most writers especially praised strict discipline and a rugged lifestyle for military camps and their leaders.[1077] Moralists could employ such examples to provoke more disciplined living among their civilian audiences.[1078] For them, those who were extravagant in their lifestyles could not be trusted with public funds.[1079] Leaders should not treat money as important (Val. Max. 4.3.4–12); a leader who remained poor was particularly trustworthy and praiseworthy (4.3.6a). Because people are apt to complain against their leaders in difficult times,[1080] being above reproach was all the more important (see comment on Acts 6:3). Leaders were sometimes charged with being eager for personal gain (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.58.3) and sometimes had to defend themselves against charges of misappropriating funds.[1081]

Authentic philosophers would defend themselves by “disavowing the vice” of love of money.[1082] Love of money was a conventional accusation that some philosophers had leveled against other philosophers from Socrates’s day onward.[1083] Pythagoreans insisted that those who charged for learning, which should be free, are worse than common laborers.[1084] Philostratus’s later story of Apollonius of Tyana illustrates the ideal of one without ambition: despite his many invitations (Vit. Apoll. 1.1; 4.1), Apollonius chose a modest home over a palace (1.33), and he refused the gift of a camel, continuing his journey on foot (3.50–51).[1085] Some ancients also complained about prophets who spoke for financial gain.[1086]

Moralists advised seeking such contentment;[1087] this emphasis was particularly prominent among Stoics, who were popular.[1088] Even Epicurus was “content” with little,[1089] and even hypocritical philosophers praised contentment when they spoke in public.[1090] Jewish moralists agreed (Let. Aris. 223; Ps.-Phoc. 6). The emphasis on contentment appears in Pauline literature (Phil 4:11; 1 Tim 6:6, 8).

(3) Relevance for Ephesus

Paul addresses the elders in Miletus, but they will be returning to Ephesus. Romans associated Asia, especially Ionia (which included Ephesus and Miletus), with indulgence and luxury (Val. Max. 2.6.1),[1091] and so the temptation would be especially prominent there. Ephesus itself was prosperous (see comment on Acts 18:19; 19:27), but this general prosperity for the city did not translate into prosperity for all individuals.[1092] A later writer praises a wealthy Ephesian for his benefactions to the city, including helping the poor of Ephesus (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.605). Apollonius allegedly taught the Ephesians that they should share goods (Vit. Apoll. 4.2).

Although labor and the issue of wealth were both relevant in Ephesus, we cannot yet reconstruct the precise venue for Paul’s work. If Paul had taught at the auditorium when in Ephesus, he would have had only a short distance to travel if he worked in the commercial agora;[1093] but scholars now question the auditorium identification (see comment on Acts 19:9), and we cannot be certain that either represented the site of his activity. Wherever Paul lived and worked, however, he would have had some contact with various strata of society; people of all social classes lived in close proximity to one another in much of Ephesus.[1094]

↑ Back to top