(1) Avoiding Covetousness (20:33)

(1) Avoiding Covetousness (20:33)

II. PAUL’S EXAMPLE OF GENEROSITY (20:33–35A)

Not only has Paul not coveted others’ possessions (Acts 20:33); he has labored to have resources to share with others (20:34).

(1) Avoiding Covetousness (20:33)

One who has and preaches a secure “inheritance” (20:32) has little need of silver, gold, and clothing (20:33; cf. 3:6).[1095] “Silver,” “gold,” and “clothing” is an example of rhetorical “amplification by accumulation” (as in 20:19).[1096] Textiles were important in Asia—for example, the black wool of Laodicea[1097] and the dyers’ guilds of Thyatira (see comment on Acts 16:14). Romans liked bright colors, provided they were not too bright.[1098] Moreover, expensive garments were sometimes part of wealth.[1099] Most silk, for example, was imported from China and hence expensive;[1100] dyes, too, could be expensive (see comment on Acts 16:14). In the ancient world, clothing was expensive enough to appear in wills, divorce settlements, and dowries, sometimes alongside gold and jewels.[1101] Thieves also readily stole clothes, whether those left unguarded at the baths or sometimes those from the backs of passersby at night.[1102]

We should not, however, think of the terms in ascending order of worth[1103] (contrast Rev 18:12); although some clothes could be more expensive than (a given amount of) gold, this was not always the case, and the term is too general to allow us to infer this here. This is, in fact, the usual sequence in the OT (Gen 24:53; Exod 3:22; 12:35; Josh 22:8; 1 Kgs 10:25; 2 Kgs 5:5; 7:8; 2 Chr 9:24; Jer 10:9; also 1 Macc 11:24), though occasionally gold appears before silver (Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:72; Zech 14:14).

Paul has not merely avoided exploiting his followers financially; he has even avoided “desiring” or “coveting” their possessions. Judaism heavily emphasized the avoidance of coveting (Exod 20:17),[1104] a principle easily illustrated, for example, in prohibitions regarding sexual desire outside one’s spouse.[1105] Regarding wealth, too, one should not “covet” (Let. Aris. 223, μὴ ἐπιθύμει; cf. Philo Jos. 144).

Again, though ancient speeches were never direct quotations (unless memorized, usually by the author), the sentiments (cf. 1 Cor 9; see pp. 3054–55 above) and language appear Pauline. Whereas Luke nowhere else uses ἐπιθυμέω in the negative sense of “covet,” as here (Luke 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 22:15), Paul does so (Rom 7:7; 13:9; 1 Cor 10:6; cf. Gal 5:17).[1106]

(2) Providing for Others (20:34)

As in his opening in Acts 20:18, Paul is able to appeal to the elders’ knowledge of his behavior (see comment on Acts 20:18). One could even justifiably boast about one’s behavior if it were for the designated purpose of provoking others to emulate what was good.[1107] The appeal would be rhetorically effective. Watson finds several conventional rhetorical topics in 20:32–35, many relevant here: “presenting a past action without argument” (Cic. Part. or. 21.71), “emphasizing acts of . . . generosity done for the sake of others,”[1108] and “noting the performance of an action chiefly alone” (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1368a38).[1109]

Although manual labor normally bore a stigma among the elite (see comment on Acts 18:3), it would appeal to other laborers, and we know of many artisans with high status in Ephesus.[1110] A laborer is worthy of support (Luke 10:7), but Paul gave up this right (Acts 20:34; cf. 1 Cor 9:12–15). In his letters, he also speaks of work with his “hands” (1 Cor 4:12) and praises the value of such work (Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11).[1111] One purpose of such work, according to a Pauline letter circulated most prominently in Ephesus, is that one can then share with others who are in need (Eph 4:28).

In his letters, Paul reports his excessive labors (1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27).[1112] He defends himself in advance against being compared with a charlatan by emphasizing that he worked hard with his hands night and day (cf. Acts 20:31) so that he could preach to the Thessalonians freely (1 Thess 2:9). He did this, as here, as an example (2 Thess 3:8–9; cf. 1 Cor 4:12, 16);[1113] they too should work (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:10–12; Eph 4:28), as here (Acts 20:25).[1114] Likewise, he emphasizes to the Corinthians that he worked manually (1 Cor 9:3–18) to avoid hindering the gospel (9:12).[1115]

The aorist ὑπηρέτησαν presumes a period of fixed duration that has ended; it need not imply that Paul supported himself and his colleagues during his entire ministry in Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:3–5). The term ὑπηρετέω can apply to ministering to others by financial support (24:23) as well as to ministry of the word (13:36).[1116] Those “with him” might suggest that they were staying with him (as in 18:3),[1117] but it could simply refer to their having come with him from outside Ephesus. When teachers had large classes (up to two hundred), they often used their income from fees to hire assistants.[1118]

Ancient moralists opposed laziness.[1119] Idleness or inactivity was a vice.[1120] Socrates thought genuine work good and idleness (cf. ἀργούς, the “idle”) evil (Xen. Mem. 1.2.57). Musonius Rufus, though born an equestrian, valued earning one’s living by working hard with one’s hands.[1121] Philostratus claims that Apollonius tried to turn the Ephesians from idleness to philosophy.[1122]

Some scholars think that the emphatic position of “these hands” (αἱ χεῖρες αὗται) at the end of the sentence suggests “a rhetorical gesture.”[1123] Although lack of mastery of more complex physical gestures could have been among Paul’s rhetorical weaknesses (cf. 2 Cor 10:10),[1124] hand movements were basic, and they appear elsewhere in Acts (Acts 12:17; 13:16; 19:33; 26:1). Paul’s emphatic language draws attention to the sacrifice involved (1 Cor 4:12).

(3) An Example of Serving the Weak (20:35a)

That 20:33–35a represents Paul’s example is explicit in 20:35a. Paul “showed” (ὑπέδειξα)[1125] them how they should labor by his own example (“in this way,” οὕτως); teachers often used themselves as examples (see comment on Acts 20:18–21). Despite Luke’s appeal to people of status, he does not allow the despising of toil (18:3; cf. Luke 5:5); the purpose of having enough was to “help” (ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι; cf. Luke 1:54; 10:40) the weak. Paul expresses the same idea in 1 Thess 5:14; for working so that one has enough to help others, see Eph 4:28. (On hard work, see comment on Acts 17:5; 18:3.)

Paul wants the elders to work, to help others; his example is intended to motivate them (cf. similarly 1 Cor 4:12, 16; 2 Thess 3:7, 9; cf. 1 Thess 1:6). Presumably most of these elders do not belong to the elite, whose colleagues would be alienated by such behavior (see comment on Acts 18:3). Some others in antiquity emphasized defending the helpless (e.g., Libanius Declam. 36.1). Stoic philosophers, for example, insisted that Nature gives society a responsibility to share in common protection for its weaker members (Cic. Fin. 3.20.66).

The term for being “weak” (ἀσθενέω) and its cognates can apply to those who are sick, though status and wealth may be involved as well (1 Cor 1:26–27). The terms sometimes applied specifically to the physical weakness of sickness or infirmity (this is always the case in Luke-Acts),[1126] and some scholars see an emphasis on this idea here.[1127] Certainly, among the weakest who most needed help were the infirm, unable to procure a living in ancient society (cf. Acts 3:2–3); hospitals (in the later sense) and health insurance did not yet exist.[1128]

Helping the weak appears also in Paul’s writings (1 Thess 5:14; cf. Rom 15:1), at least sometimes financially (Rom 12:13; cf. Heb 6:10). Paul’s writings oppose the “weak” to the “strong,” sometimes in terms of conscience (Rom 14:1–2; 15:1; 1 Cor 8:7–12) but sometimes also probably in terms of social status (1 Cor 1:27; 4:10). Paul may summon the elders, as congregational leaders, to follow Jesus’s teachings on status inversion (Luke 14:10–11; cf. 1:52; 18:14).[1129]

Some scholars apply Acts 20:35 partly to the support of church leaders, a support that Paul rejects for himself in 20:34.[1130] Although this application would fit 1 Cor 9:4–18 (cf. 2 Cor 11:7; 12:14, 16) well, it is too narrow for what Acts 20:35 says, especially given Paul’s ideal model here for church leaders.

On the historical level, Paul may have urged especially help of the poor[1131] (who usually overlapped substantially with the socially weak and included most of the sick). It is noteworthy that in Paul’s letters, caring for “the poor” usually applies specifically to the needy saints in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26–27; cf. 1 Cor 16:1–2; 2 Cor 8–9; probably Gal 2:10). Given the climax of this sermon in Acts 20:35, if this is Luke’s summary paraphrase of a sermon he actually heard (as argued above from the “we” in 20:15), it is possible that Paul historically concluded by affirming the offering of the Ephesian church for the saints in Jerusalem.[1132] This would be a natural and important topic on a journey to Jerusalem; many recognized the risks involved (Rom 15:31; Acts 20:23; cf. 21:4), inviting Paul to explain the mission’s importance. Luke is so focused on the Spirit’s leading Paul to suffer in Jerusalem (and ultimately to bring him to Rome) that he barely mentions the offering (Acts 24:17), but he does not obliterate all possible traces of it. In Luke’s text, the exhortation therefore bears a more general sense, but it may well bear inadvertent witness to a pre-Lukan Pauline concern from a historical speech.

III. JESUS’S TEACHING ON GENEROSITY (20:35)

In 20:35, Paul claims not only to model working hard to help the weak but also to model following Jesus’s example.[1133] Paul’s closing appeal to Jesus’s authority appears rhetorically effective.[1134] Acts, like Paul’s letters, does not regularly cite Jesus,[1135] but sometimes it does cite him at strategic points (such as in the climax here; likewise the climactic citation of 11:16). Although a citation of an authority would prove effective only among those who accepted that authority,[1136] Jesus would be the highest authority for Paul’s (and Luke’s) audience.

Moreover, in the mid-second century, Justin Martyr climaxes an argument even to Trypho, who does not accept Jesus’s authority, with such an agraphon (Dial. 47.5).[1137] Most important, Peter climaxed his case in Acts 11:4–17 with an appeal to a saying of “the Lord,” Jesus (11:16). Appealing to what hearers already remembered was frequent in paraenesis (Rom 15:15; 2 Pet 1:13; see comment on Acts 20:31).

(1) Climactic Maxims

Speakers and writers often cited proverbs, the points of which were illustrated in particular events.[1138] School exercises in rhetoric included developing anecdotes (χρεῖαι), wise sayings, into essays or doing the same with maxims (γνώμαι, basically the same as anecdotes except usually unattributed).[1139] This is no exercise, however, and the saying is not “developed” here;[1140] Seneca points out that simple maxims can often communicate adequately with no explanation (Ep. Lucil. 94.27–28).

Rhetorical handbooks treated the use of maxims to advance one’s case;[1141] they were important in Greek writing and speeches,[1142] and unattributed maxims could be invented for the occasion.[1143] Handbooks could suggest ending both a section of a speech[1144] and the speech as a whole[1145] with an enthymeme and a maxim. As Watson notes, “Maxims give the speech an ethical quality and a clear moral purpose which increase the speaker’s ethos” (Arist. Rhet. 2.21, 1395b16). Maxims “should be brief and placed at the end of the sentence, at the end of an element of arrangement, or at the conclusion of an epideictic speech. All three cases are true here.”[1146] They could even be translated from another language when necessary (relevant to at least many of Jesus’s sayings at some point in the tradition).[1147]

The literary form beatitude[1148] appears throughout the Hebrew Bible and the LXX[1149] and continued in use in early Judaism afterward.[1150] Although most pervasive in Jewish sources, the form also appears in Greek sources.[1151] For example, “How happy you kings are” because of your advantage;[1152] or the one “is blessed [μακάριον] who dies not late but well.”[1153]

(2) Jesus’s Teaching?

Some scholars doubt that the saying is genuinely from Jesus, for two major reasons. First, they argue that it is not multiply attested. Others argue that the saying is multiply attested, noting what may be a variant of the saying in 1 Clem. 2.1.[1154] One could argue that 1 Clement depends on Luke’s source without reflecting genuine Jesus tradition. But it is precisely the skepticism about preserved Jesus tradition at this date that is problematic.[1155] We should not think that Luke included in his Gospel all the sayings of Jesus he knew or that the oral Jesus tradition or written sources had vanished by the time he wrote (Luke 1:1–2).[1156] This is not the only agraphon Luke quotes in Acts (see Acts 11:16; cf. 1:5). Moreover, it is the criterion of multiple attestation here that is flawed, when employed in its negative, minimalist form.[1157] Certainly the concept is multiply attested in Jesus’s teaching, whether the particular wording is or not. Because agrapha become less and less dependable in later periods, however,[1158] a valid argument against reliability can shift the scales in that direction, which is why the second argument is important.

Second and more important, the saying resembles Greek wisdom and is usually thought to be a Greek aphorism.[1159] Greeks attributed to a Persian ruler the claim that it was “more kingly to give to one who has than to take away.”[1160] What has usually been considered the closest form of the saying also describes a Persian custom (Thucyd. 2.97.4);[1161] if the parallel is not precise,[1162] it at least reflects the sentiment. In Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23, the ideal ruler enjoys bestowing benefactions more than their recipients enjoy receiving them. The sentiment is widespread and is attributed to a variety of sources (who may or may not have drawn on their earlier analogues).[1163] We grieve to give money and rejoice to receive it, Musonius Rufus complains (6, p. 56.3–5); we must discipline ourselves, he advises, to value giving more than receiving (p. 56.10–11).[1164] When a saying was so widespread, it was frequently employed (in diverse forms) by various sages, all of whom could be quoted as its “source.”[1165]

Jesus did, however, adapt the Kaddish and/or other Jewish prayers (Matt 6:9–13; Luke 11:2);[1166] he also may have adapted other sayings, such as that in Matt 7:12//Luke 6:31 (which is paralleled in both Greek and Jewish settings).[1167] Eastern wisdom became common property, and Jewish and Gentile proverbs often are similar, whether because of direct influence or not. If Greeks attributed their version to Eastern sources (the earliest attributions are Persian) and Jewish sources emphasize giving to the poor (e.g., Prov 11:25; 19:17; 28:27; see comment on Acts 3:3), sometimes in beatitude form (e.g., Ps 41:1; Prov 22:9; beatitudes, as already mentioned, were most commonly Jewish), one need not attribute the saying’s composition to someone who knew Greek sources. Compare the sentiment in Sir 4:31, sometimes cited in this regard: “Let not your hand be extended to receive but closed from giving.”

A mediating position is possible. Luke may summarize some of Jesus’s sayings material, using a familiar Greek way of phrasing this summary for the sake of his audience; he appears to do precisely the same thing in Acts 26:14. This could even allow for a direct allusion to Thucydides (or at least the classical tradition) in Luke’s way of wording the saying;[1168] at the least it could help explain the use of the comparative form of the beatitude.[1169] As noted in the commentary introduction, writers of speeches were under no obligation (and usually had no means) to preserve the exact words of a speaker.[1170]

Though using Pauline thought, Luke provides rhetorically acceptable summaries for him and makes no secret of the fact that his speeches are not transcripts (2:40). The problem with this proposal is that the briefer sayings of the Jesus tradition were mediated in a different way, and his Gospel shows us that Luke did not polish Jesus’s sayings or conform them to Hellenistic wisdom.[1171] The problem does not rule out the possibility of the mediating position, but it does remind us of the limits of our access to secure details at the remove of two millennia. Since this is “we” material, perhaps it reflects Luke’s awareness of a form of a Jesus saying or summary quoted by Paul, who may draw on such teaching in his own words (as in 1 Thess 4:15–5:2), though he sometimes quotes Jesus more closely (as in 1 Cor 7:10–12; 11:23–25).[1172]

By appealing to Jesus’s teaching, in any case, Luke reminds his audience that the portrayal of the church’s sharing of goods in Acts is grounded in Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel.[1173] The saying probably recalls Jesus’s use of beatitudes[1174] and could be read as a summary of Luke 6:20–21, 24–25, 35, 38.[1175] It may well be an independent agraphon, but whether it is independent or Luke’s hellenizing summary, it is certainly in keeping with Jesus’s message as reported in Luke’s Gospel. The epistolary Paul occasionally appeals to Jesus’s teaching (1 Cor 7:10; 11:23–25), though no more commonly, proportionately, than does the Paul of Acts.[1176]

(3) Benefaction Ideology

Showing benefaction to others, the opposite of harming them (cf. Luke 6:9; Mark 3:4), authenticates a speaker, as Brawley points out:

Socrates claims that he merits no punishment, since he has been the benefactor of Athens (Plato Apology 36A-D). Demosthenes defends himself as worthy of a golden crown, awarded to him by Ctesiphon, because he has acted for the genuine benefit of the city (De Corona passim). Josephus claims that the Galileans in Gabaroth rally to him and proclaim him benefactor and savior (Life 47 §244).[1177]

The way of showing benefaction here would challenge the patronage system known to Luke’s audience,[1178] a system in which (in its strictest form) clients followed patrons about in their civic business, forming a retinue and providing political honor.[1179] In an honor-shame culture, giving would be significantly more honorable than receiving.[1180]

h. Tearful Parting (20:36–38)

Although Luke describes intimate details of Paul’s departures on the journey only rarely (here and in Acts 21:5), these examples represent what Luke expects us to recognize as a larger pattern of the way Paul must have parted in each place he stopped. The description of Paul’s departure here, replete with abundant signs of affection, resembles OT departure and reunion scenes.[1181] People in the ancient Mediterranean world emphasized honorable partings. In addition to farewell speeches (see comment on Acts 20:18–35), there were even poems wishing farewell to departing friends.[1182] Departures, like death and other events, often involved sorrow, and genre conventions also existed for poems[1183] and letters of[1184] (as well as essays about)[1185] consolation.[1186]

I. ESTABLISHING PAUL’S ĒTHOS

The disciples here mourn to see Paul leave; this portrayal fits a number of pictures of affection that others showed Paul (9:25; 19:30–31; 21:5, 12). What was the literary function of such sometimes lavish descriptions of love? They probably provide the narrative equivalent of Paul’s expressions of affectionate longing in his letters (e.g., Rom 1:11; 1 Thess 2:7–11; 3:1, 5, 8), expressions that typically underlined and reinforced the bond between individuals.[1187]

In narratives, we may compare the affectionate description of Socrates as one whom everyone would love, so that all who knew him now missed him more than anyone else (Xen. Mem. 4.8.11); or descriptions of how Cyrus was loved by all his friends (Xen. Cyr. passim); or details about the loyalty of many of David’s subjects (2 Sam 15:19–23; 17:27–29).[1188] Praising the elders whom Eleazar the high priest was sending to Ptolemy, Pseudo-Aristeas notes how clearly they and Eleazar loved (ἠγάπησαν) each other; their love was clear from the distress they experienced in parting (Let. Aris. 123).

Such descriptions contribute to the character’s ēthos: if all those who knew an individual best loved him, he was a lovable person who could, for example, have obtained many letters of recommendation had he needed them (on these, see comment on Acts 9:2). Among qualities that would commend a person to an audience were love for and loyalty to friends;[1189] since this was usually mutual,[1190] the loyalty of Paul’s friends reflects well on his character. He loved and helped others and hence gained their affection and trust; by contrast, Paul’s enemies in Acts usually do not know him well. Jesus demands more than the traditional Greek emphasis on friendship (Luke 6:27–28); he certainly does not demand less.[1191]

II. PARTING PRAYER (20:36)

Formulas such as “when he had finished speaking” (cf. esp. here Luke 5:4) were natural and common in ancient texts.[1192]

After a farewell speech, one should pray for those one is leaving (Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.23–24) as well as for oneself and one’s journey (433.10–13). Prayer with others is a theme in Acts (Acts 1:14; 2:42; 4:24; 13:2–3; see comment on Acts 1:14). Kneeling accompanies prayer in Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; and another farewell scene in Acts 21:5.[1193] Kneeling sometimes accompanied prayer in the OT,[1194] as here, although, for Jewish people standing was more common.[1195] (See comment on Acts 7:60a.) Prostration was common before kings and deities (see, fully, BDAG). Gentiles sometimes prostrated themselves before rulers,[1196] and Jewish people apparently often followed suit;[1197] even looking at another’s feet instead of another’s face showed respect for the other’s higher status.[1198] Prostration could connote intense respect (e.g., Rev 3:9) or that one was begging or seeking mercy.[1199]

III. WEEPING AND DISPLAYING EMOTION (20:37)

Emotion was appropriate in sending-off speeches, particularly love and the emotions related to it.[1200] But whereas a superior sends off an inferior with advice (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.8–10), a friend sending off a friend (or other equal) omits advice and just expresses deep love (395.12–17). Thus it is not surprising that the elders in Luke’s narration here, having received advice from Paul, display affection rather than give counsel.

Stoic philosophers argued against the use of negative emotions such as grief insofar as was possible.[1201] Traditional Romans had also been known to display fortitude by resisting mourning if the higher interests of the state were against this.[1202] Most people, however, expressed their emotions more freely. Thus, for example, husbands and wives displayed grief to emphasize their love for each other when apart (P.Oxy. 528.6–9); so also a young minister apart from his mentor (2 Tim 1:4). “Even . . . sober historical accounts” included “such outbursts of emotion.”[1203]

Tears were an appropriate sign of familial affection for another in danger (Diod. Sic. 34/35.11.1) and for loved ones who had returned safely from danger (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1).[1204] More to the point at hand, tears were appropriate at partings, where they demonstrated the intimate bonds of those being separated.[1205] Thus, in Josephus’s Hellenistic version of Israel’s history, people wept when they heard Moses’s farewell speech (Ant. 4.194), and women beat their breasts and children lamented when they realized that he would die (4.320; cf. Deut 34:8). One could grieve not only for relatives but for friends or virtuous public figures (e.g., Pliny Ep. 9.9.1).[1206] This sentiment could extend to sadness when a prominent person—for example, a town’s patron—was departing (4.1.4).

Tears could be used to stimulate sympathy—for example, by those entreating favor or mercy or by those portrayed as wronged.[1207] A speaker’s tears (cf. Acts 20:19, 31) could move an audience,[1208] and rhetoricians prized this skill;[1209] the tears of one person often stimulated another’s tears (e.g., Hom. Il. 1.413). Narration of tears, as in Luke’s account here, could have similar effects. Orators could vividly narrate imaginative scenes to provoke pathos.[1210] A careless historian would overdo such scenes of pathos; Polybius condemns Phylarchus for his scenes “of clinging women with their hair disheveled and their breasts bare” or of children and “aged parents weeping and lamenting as they are led away to slavery.”[1211] Granted, such scenes may be safely inferred in the events that even Polybius describes; but a rhetorical historian would elaborate such scenes excessively, manipulating his readers’ emotions. Other historians felt that one could scarcely muster sufficient pathos to communicate adequately the sorrows of a period covered (Vell. Paterc. 2.67.1). Luke makes only restrained use of such scenes;[1212] but no historian entirely avoided scenes that stirred emotion, and like most speakers or storytellers, Luke knew the sort of feelings his accounts could stir.[1213] See further discussion of tears at Acts 20:31 and especially 20:19. Such tears build toward the climax here; rhetorical design often built toward an emotional climax toward the end of a speech (see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 3.13.162–63).

“Falling on the neck” and “kissing” both appear in an earlier emotional scene in Luke’s work (the reunion of the father with the prodigal son in Luke 15:20). Embracing was employed for partings,[1214] reunions,[1215] protecting a relative,[1216] and other emotional events.[1217] A person of rank might also show favor by embracing one.[1218] In earlier generations, some Romans regarded negatively any public displays of affection; Cato allegedly expelled a prominent member of the senate “because he embraced his wife” publicly in front of his daughter.[1219] Greeks and even Romans of Luke’s period, however, would not have shared this degree of rigor. Some scholars provide literary parallels to embracing while kneeling, or raising up kneeling persons for embracing;[1220] these images may be relevant, although we need not suppose that Paul remained kneeling after the prayer (Acts 20:36).

IV. KISSING (20:37)[1221]

Kissing normally expressed love; the term φιλέω, indeed, can mean either “love” or “kiss,” and occasionally writers played on words to signify both (Diod. Sic. 9.37.1). In dramatic situations kissing and weeping were conjoined as here[1222]—for example, as signs of mourning the deceased[1223] or of the joy in being reunited.[1224] The imperfect tense may suggest repeated kissing, more emphatic than everyday greetings (although it should also be noted that Paul would have received repeated kisses even if each person kissed him only once).

Relatives greeted one another with kisses,[1225] notably when reunited[1226] or about to be separated.[1227] Kissing was a conventional greeting for family members.[1228] Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen;[1229] likewise, a child should kiss his mother[1230] and father.[1231] A mother’s kissing a son[1232] or a father’s kissing a daughter[1233] was normal, considered suspicious only if excessive and immodest. Male friends could embrace and kiss without sexual connotations;[1234] the kiss functioned as an intimate greeting.[1235] Kissing between friends was apparently less common in urban settings, however.[1236] Kisses could be conveyed by proxy, often in secondary greetings in letters.[1237]

Kisses further served as respectful greetings to one of higher status;[1238] they showed respect among social peers as well as connections between patrons and clients;[1239] one could also offer congratulatory kisses.[1240] Disciples and pupils kissed teachers,[1241] often on the head;[1242] in such cases, the kiss could be an affectionate contact on the mouth.[1243] One person who wished to honor his teacher in a particularly extreme way kissed his feet.[1244] An arrogant person of wealth might offer his hand to be kissed.[1245] A general needing to secure soldiers’ favor might go about, greeting them with kisses (Suet. Vit. 7.3). Kissing was such a standard salutation that neglecting it could function as an obvious insult.[1246]

A person might kiss another who pleased him;[1247] a kiss was generally seen as pleasant (Prov 24:26) and hence might function as a suitable reward. A king might rise to kiss a teacher whose wise discourse had pleased him (1 Esd 4:47). A rabbi might rise and kiss the head of a student who expounded well;[1248] a Roman patron could also greet a client with a kiss.[1249]

Kissing could also have sexual overtones, however, under some circumstances;[1250] demanding labial as well as genital virginity, a strict father executed his freedman for kissing the father’s daughter.[1251] Traditionally, Roman values condemned public erotic kissing, restricting it to the private sphere,[1252] but erotic banquets had given way to excesses.[1253]

Some kissing may have been on the cheek.[1254] Most kissing, however, was on the mouth[1255] (closer to, e.g., one older Russian form of greeting than to, e.g., the contemporary way of kissing cheeks in France or much of Latin America). This included kissing teachers, as noted above. One typically kissed relatives on the lips.[1256] Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen on the lips;[1257] mothers kissed daughters on the lips;[1258] a Roman father might kiss his son on the lips, albeit lightly,[1259] or his daughter on the lips in pure innocence.[1260] A mourning sister might wish to kiss her dead brother on the mouth;[1261] children might do likewise with a deceased mother.[1262] Facial kissing may have sometimes compromised hygiene; it was said that social kissing in Rome led to “at least one outbreak of an infectious facial disorder among the leading citizens.”[1263]

A kiss of greeting could become the occasion for lustful abuse,[1264] but such abuse could be betrayed by the kiss’s character. Kissing on the lips was common, but a kiss on the lips of a sister (Ovid Metam. 4.334) or mother (4.222) was naturally said to be less passionate than that of a lover; likewise, maidens kissed one another on the lips, but only modestly. Thus a lustful deity in disguise might give himself away (2.430–31).

That Pauline (and other) Christians greeted with a kiss is clear in our early sources,[1265] where it appears less a rite than an expression of familial affection.[1266] Later the “kiss of peace” even achieved a liturgical role (Justin 1 Apol. 65).[1267] The earliest form of this practice probably was not limited to one’s own gender (Tert. Wife 2.4), producing condemnations for those who kissed a second time (Athenag. Plea 32); concerned with abuses, Christians eventually restricted its practice to members of one’s own gender (Apost. Const. 2.7.57).[1268] It came to express Christian ideals of spiritual equality.[1269] Conjoined with embraces and weeping, the kisses here in Acts mean more than the casual kisses typically used to greet family, friends, or teacher; they resemble the stronger expressions of emotion encountered at sad partings (as here) or reunions.

V. THE FINAL PARTING (20:38)

For the warning Paul had made that the elders of Ephesus would not see him again, see comment on Acts 20:25. They “sent him off” by accompanying him to the boat (cf. Acts 21:5). Farewell customs mentioned in rabbinic literature include escorting as well as embracing and kissing.[1270] Sometimes such “sending off” implied providing financial provision (Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6; 2 Cor 1:16; Titus 3:13; 3 John 6), but such assistance would not likely be implied in the act of seeing Paul to the boat, especially at one stop among many on the way to Jerusalem.

Accompanying Paul to the ship was a way of showing affection and loyalty.[1271] As with patrons and clients, the greater the retinue, the greater the honor of loyalty displayed; thus a later novel reports that the protagonists had so impressed Rhodes that the entire city “saw them off” when their ship sailed.[1272] One might think also of some letters’ lingering farewells meant to express affection (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.7, though this is not typical); many in the ancient Mediterranean world were lavish in their displays of affection.[1273] Paul had secured the affection and loyalty of the leaders of the Ephesian church—at least so long as he was near (Acts 20:30; cf. Phil 2:12; 2 Tim 1:15).

5. Voyage and Warnings in Tyre (21:1–7)

In Acts 21:1–16, Luke portrays Paul as much loved by the disciples in the Diaspora churches and as hosted warmly by Philip, the first pioneer of the Gentile mission (8:5–40). Likewise, Luke shows that Paul’s captivity will be no surprise or sign of God’s rejection, because, like Jesus, Paul knew of it in advance yet chose to follow God’s plan (21:4; esp. 21:11–14; cf. 20:23).

After mentioning again the sad parting of 20:36–38 in 21:1,[1274] Luke focuses on details of the voyage. Why might Luke emphasize its details? First of all, ancient readers appreciated them (even in mainly entertaining narratives) much more than do many modern Bible readers, sometimes eager only for “theological” capital (see comments on Acts 16:11; 20:13–16). Records of journey itineraries were common both in historical and in fictitious texts;[1275] writers kept track of days at sea.[1276] Second, such details grounded the narrative in the real world known to Luke’s audience. Whereas some writers included such details to display geographic knowledge, Luke demonstrates that his message, though grounded in Israel’s ancient story, is also relevant to his audience’s Greco-Roman geographic horizons. Conversion required Gentile believers to forsake old gods and myths, but the real places that figured in those stories and in subsequent historical and geographic discourse remained valid locations for the true God’s activity.

a. En Route to Tyre (21:1–3)

Because of uncertain breezes, ships’ voyages along the south coast of Asia Minor were normally slow and tedious; ships frequently stopped at Rhodes.[1277] Commentators often observe ancient itineraries that list two or more of these sites together (e.g., Livy 37.16; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.6).[1278] The “straight course” that Luke mentions fits northeasterly winds;[1279] Cos was southwest of Miletus, but the next stop, Rhodes, was to the southeast, and Patara roughly due east from there.[1280]

I. COS (21:1)

The island of Cos is one of the Sporades (near Patmos), about sixty-five miles (105 km.) around its coasts.[1281] It was the most famous of islands near Rhodes[1282] and known for its excellent wines.[1283] The people of Cos (like those of Rhodes) were supposed to be Dorian colonists from after Homer’s era (Strabo 14.2.6); they had opposed the Romans in 88 B.C.E. (Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23) but had long since accepted Roman rule.

The coastal city of Cos, named for the island on which it lay, was said to be very beautiful when approached by the sea (Strabo 14.2.19). For its loyalty, Rome made it a free city until Augustus attached it to the province of Asia.[1284] The Asclepius temple at Cos had a reputation similar to that of the famous one at Epidaurus, with cures reported on tablets.[1285] The medical establishment at Cos was well known,[1286] and Hippocrates was from there.[1287] For this reason and because of its climate and hot springs, Romans viewed it as a resort, and in 53 C.E., the emperor Claudius, under the influence of his personal physician from Cos, made the city free from taxes (Tac. Ann. 12.61).[1288] Cos also had an imperial cult at some point.[1289] We know of a Jewish community in Cos from Josephus (Ant. 14.112–13, 233; War 1.424) and inscriptions.[1290]

II. RHODES (21:1)[1291]

Those with much knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean world recognized that Cos was near Rhodes;[1292] at times they had acted together (Polyb. 30.7.9). Thus one novelist noted that once a ship passed Cos and Cnidus, “beautiful” Rhodes became visible (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). It was a natural stopping place on voyages near Ephesus (5.10–11, 15); after sailing beside Asia, travelers moved away from land on the left as they moved southeast toward Rhodes (Tac. Hist. 2.2). Generals and magistrates en route to eastern provinces always stopped in Rhodes (Suet. Tib. 12.2). It was so well recognized that the geographer Strabo often calculates nautical distances from Rhodes (Strabo 2.4.3; 2.5.9). The island was also massive.[1293] The city of Rhodes, the capital of Rhodes built later than the island’s other most prominent cities, was well designed.[1294]

Rhodes was known for its wealth (Polyb. 5.90.3; 31.31.1–3), naturally attributed to its location by the sea (5.90.4; Strabo 14.2.10). Its leading city, also called Rhodes, was said to have an incomparable harbor (as well as roads and walls; Strabo 14.2.5); this city was on the northeast, toward Patara and easily approached from Cos to its northwest. In the early second century B.C.E., Rome and Alexandria controlled maritime trade in the East;[1295] although this monopoly was broken soon afterward, Rhodes remained a prosperous island. The memory of earlier prosperity also remained; later Dio Chrysostom praises the Rhodians for their sense of honor in rejecting the debt forgiveness accepted by other peoples, despite being devastated by wars (Or. 31.66–67). Like other nearby islands, Rhodes was known for its wines.[1296]

Rhodes appears in Homer, supplying more Greeks to war against Troy (Il. 2.652–54); it was an island “of ancient fame” (Aul. Gel. 15.31 [LCL]). It surrendered to Alexander of Macedon.[1297] Its present inhabitants were said to be Dorian colonists (Strabo 14.2.6); even in the empire, they continued to speak a Doric dialect of Greek (Suet. Tib. 56). Rhodes was reputed to be a healthy place to reside (Tib. 11 passim).[1298]

As other famous cities were associated with particular deities, so Rhodes was known for its association with Helios, the sun deity.[1299] Rhodes was also known for its old Helios statue known as the Colossus,[1300] a massive, seventy-cubit-high construction earlier broken by an earthquake.[1301] Like the Artemis temple in Ephesus, it was one of the traditional Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.[1302] Presumably reflecting on the island’s beauty and climate, some Greeks claimed that Rhodes was the offspring of Aphrodite and bride of Helios (Pindar Olymp. 7.14). As this version of the story went, Helios was absent when the gods divided the earth, but when Rhodes was formed he offered to take that land rather than have the lots recast (7.54–63).[1303]

Most of the island’s cities supposedly derived their names from the sons of Helios and Rhodes (Pindar Olymp. 7.72–74). In one of these, Lindus (near the city Rhodes), was a famous temple of Athena.[1304] Apollo had a temple there,[1305] as did Dionysus (Lucian Affairs 7). Isis and Serapis worship, an Egyptian import, was prominent in both Rhodes and nearby Cos (as in Samos, Acts 20:15).[1306]

Rhodes was known for its learning.[1307] This city provided better elementary education than most others.[1308] The famous classical Athenian orator Aeschines settled in Rhodes to teach rhetoric.[1309] It remained an excellent place to study rhetoric and philosophy in the late republic (Plut. Cic. 4.4)[1310] and the early empire (Suet. Tib. 11.3).[1311] Rhodes was also famous for its art.[1312] Dio Chrysostom regarded Rhodians as particularly dignified and honorable, walking with an honorable gait and avoiding running in the city.[1313]

Rhodes was well known even in Rome, not least for its political activities when Rome began to conquer the East. It was famous for its fleets and earlier supremacy over the sea (Strabo 14.2.5). After the general who defeated the Rhodians at Samos (Livy 37.28.6) lost to Rome, the Rhodians became eager allies of their Roman benefactors.[1314] Rome was pleased by a speech in which the Rhodians stressed their services to Rome against Antiochus (Polyb. 21.22.5; 21.23.13), and hence it handed over some of Antiochus’s territories to Rhodes (21.23.7–8) and was even ready to renew war to provide more for the Rhodians if they insisted on it (21.23.10–14). Rome gave nearby Lycia and Caria to Rhodes, but this gift created conflict with these regions (22.5.1–10). After they eventually achieved freedom from Rhodes (30.31.4), these places sought the restoration of their property (31.4.3). The emperor Claudius had by now restored Lycia to Rhodes (Suet. Claud. 25.3).

Many Rhodians, however, did not want to support Rome’s fight against Macedonia (Polyb. 29.10.1–7), thereby incurring Roman anger (29.19.5–11).[1315] Once Rome defeated Macedonia, the Rhodians quickly sought to execute any of their leaders who had sided with Macedon (Livy 45.10.14–15; 45.24.6), and they begged Rome to forgive them and restore their alliance (Polyb. 30.4.1–30.5.16; Livy 45.20.9–10; cf. 45.25.10). Displeased by their former ally’s recent ambivalence, Rome reduced their territories (Polyb. 30.21.1–5) and was reluctant to reestablish the alliance (30.23.2–4). These actions ended Rhodes’s “commercial supremacy as the centre of the Mediterranean transit trade,” leading Rhodes to accept “an unequal alliance to Rome” and the end of “its political independence.”[1316] The island remained strategic; Caesar drew fleets partly from there (Caesar Alex. W. 1.1);[1317] Cassius subdued Rhodes under his authority during the Roman civil war in 43 B.C.E. (Appian Hist. rom. 4.9.65–73). Nevertheless, by maintaining its “friendship” with Rome, Rhodes remained relatively autonomous (Strabo 14.2.5), a “free” island (Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.52).

Even without much geographic sophistication, Diaspora Jews would recognize the name Rhodes (Sib. Or. 3.444, probably from pre-Christian Asia). The Jewish community there was apparently influential, having left inscriptions (IG 12.1.11, 593); in the last decade of the first century B.C.E., we also hear of a Jewish teacher who lectured there (Suet. Tib. 32.2).[1318] That the Romans informed Rhodes, among other places, of their extradition treaty with Judea (1 Macc 15:21–23) suggests an early Jewish community there.

III. PATARA (21:1)

Patara[1319] was in Lycia, a region once controlled by Rhodes (see comment above). Some Diaspora Jews also might recognize the name Patara (Sib. Or. 3.441). It was a large port city with a temple of Apollo (Strabo 14.3.6);[1320] on the basis of various sources, including local inscriptions, scholars suggest that the form of its name is neuter plural.[1321] Like some of the most notable ports, it had a lighthouse.[1322] Patara was an important “transfer harbor for the Roman grain fleet” sailing from Alexandria.[1323] (Myra, mentioned on the westward voyage in Acts 27:5, was an even more famous Lycian port to the east of Patara that also transferred Alexandrian grain; the Western text may add it here at 21:1 on the basis of 27:5 and/or a knowledge of Asian geography.)[1324]

Patara is difficult to excavate, because the ancient harbor has sanded up and the coastline has advanced; nevertheless, evidence of Patara’s prominence is accumulating, even as Roman Lycia’s “metropolis” and first city.[1325] This prominence is evident from a pillar, inscribed in 45 C.E. and found in the harbor, that lists all important communities in the new province with distances and routes between them.[1326]

IV. PASSING CYPRUS (21:2–3)

From Patara Paul is able to catch a larger ship making the 350-mile (ca. 550 km.) voyage to Tyre without needing to hug the coast and put in at ports along the way.[1327] Only a large ship would commit to open sea between Patara and Tyre in a way that would leave Cyprus (cf. 13:4) “on the left”;[1328] no other land would be visible during the voyage. One sailing south from Asia would often pass Rhodes and Cyprus, then go across open sea to Syria.[1329] Paul would have earlier sailed to Syria directly had it not been for a plot against him (20:3).

b. Visiting Tyre (21:4–6)

Travelers needed to wait for ships sailing toward their own destination, a destination normally determined by where ships would unload cargo (21:3).[1330] Although Luke omits the number of days from Rhodes to Tyre, Xenophon of Ephesus gives an estimate of four days for the voyage (Anthia 1.11–12; 1.14.6).[1331] This seems to be a not-unreasonable estimate; thus Chrysostom estimates a five days’ voyage from Patara to Tyre (Hom. Acts 45). The Roman province of Syria (Acts 20:3; 21:3) “included old Phoenicia,” whose capital and main port was Tyre (21:3;[1332] on which see comment at Acts 12:20). Phoenicia (21:2) had been famous in nautical matters from an early period,[1333] and this fame continued in later times (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.3). The church had already been established there (Acts 11:19; 15:3).[1334]

I. STAYING IN TYRE (21:3–4)

A week’s stay in Tyre (21:6) was a significant layover (contrast 21:7), but a ship with a major cargo unloading at a major port could take much longer than that.[1335] One ancient sunken ship from the first century B.C.E. transported 4,500–7,800 amphoras of wine, “between 225 and 390 tons”; another, 11,000–13,500 amphoras—that is, “500 to 600 tons.”[1336] Elsewhere archaeologists have found ships with cargoes of stone. One carried 39 blocks altogether weighing 350 tons (the biggest stone weighing “over 28 tons”); the other carried 15, overall weighing 172 tons (the biggest stone weighing “40 tons”).[1337] Many freighters during the empire carried 340 tons, and grain ships typically carried 1,200 tons; we know of one from about 40 C.E. that carried about 1,300.[1338] In a period that lacked modern equipment on its docks, moving such a cargo could take a considerable amount of time.

More than likely, the group need not have stayed at Tyre for this layover. Tyre was only about forty-eight kilometers (ca. 30 mi.),[1339] no more than two days’ walk, from Ptolemais,[1340] and so Paul probably stayed longer in Tyre less for reasons of transportation than for ministry (contrast one day in Ptolemais in 21:7); smaller vessels would probably be traveling between the two cities regularly. Perhaps by this point in their voyage, they have made good enough time to exercise more flexibility with regard to visits (cf. 21:8, 10; contrast 20:16). Perhaps Paul wanted to have more “fruit” among the believers there than before (cf. Rom 1:11, 13); it is also possible that he knew many Christians here from previous journeys and that hospitality conventions and mutual affection obligated him to visit these believers and perhaps teach (the situation that Paul may have avoided in Acts 20:16, except there at a significantly greater level).[1341] Luke’s point in mentioning the stay, in any case, is probably to underline the wide and hospitable network of this new Christian “family” in the eastern Mediterranean world, and Paul’s acceptability to this spiritually united movement.

Roman historians such as Quintus Curtius Rufus believed Tyre to be ancient.[1342] By the time of Alexander of Macedon, the old city was on the mainland,[1343] separated, by a strait of the sea, from the newer island kingdom of Tyre.[1344] The island fortress of Tyre appeared to the Tyrians impregnable, so that they risked enduring a siege.[1345] Alexander built a land ramp out to the island kingdom,[1346] capturing it after seven months of siege in 332 B.C.E.[1347] The ramp that Alexander built connected Tyre thereafter with the mainland about seven hundred yards away.[1348]

By Paul’s day one could thus walk on a paved road from the mainland into the city, entering through a monumental arch; burial places surrounded the road. Tyre’s main street, inside the archway, was colonnaded and lined with shops.[1349] Beside this street was also an aqueduct, which brought the city water from a spring on the mainland.[1350] Tyre housed one of antiquity’s largest known hippodromes, and the city had “a large bathhouse and forum.”[1351] Given the limited space available on the island, it is not surprising that Strabo (16.2.23) claimed that houses in Tyre had even more stories than those in Rome.[1352]

Following ancient conventions of hospitality (see comment on Acts 16:15), Paul and his companions could assume that they would receive hospitality wherever they went.[1353] That they “sought” or “looked up” (ἀνευρόντες, a temporal use of the aorist participle) the disciples may suggest that they went looking for them; the verb can apply to looking for something one expects to find (Luke 2:16; 3 Macc 3:13–14; cf. BDAG). Paul already knew that there were disciples there (Acts 11:19), and had likely visited some of them a few years earlier (15:3; cf. also in Sidon, 27:3),[1354] but given the intervening years and the possibility that some had moved and that he did not remember directions in every city, it is not surprising that he would need to look for some of them. Once he and his companions found any disciples, however, they would quickly locate the entire group.[1355]

II. AMBIGUOUS PROPHECIES (21:4)

The imperfect “were saying” (ἔλεγον, 21:4) probably indicates either multiple voices at different intervals or the group’s insistence (cf. 21:12; also 20:23). Many modern interpreters stress prophecy’s role for the entire community (cf. 1 Cor 14:4) and hence minimize prophecy to individuals;[1356] but in emphasizing its community function, Paul’s letters need not negate other uses, and in OT narratives, recorded prophecies to individuals outnumber those to the community. (Granted, these are typically to kings, given the narratives’ focus, but the narratives are also clear that prophets did not limit their activity to what directly affected the community [e.g., 1 Sam 9:5–6, 20; 2 Kgs 4:3–4, 16].)[1357] What happens to Paul affects the community, but personal concern for Paul likely also motivates the community (Acts 21:12–14; cf. 20:37–38).

Ancients sought to discern the plans of deity or fate before proceeding, by auspices or other means (Val. Max. 2.1.1).[1358] Prophecy was often implicitly conditional and thus sometimes provided warning of future events so that people could escape them (2 Kgs 6:9–10). Most people believed that this foreknowledge allowed them to evade the danger by changing plans or persuading the deities.[1359] Sometimes, though, people believed that such revelation of future events should not be used to evade events if God wanted one to go through them (e.g., b. Ber. 10a, where Hezekiah, seeing the future, wrongly sought to refrain from procreating). In other cases, the nature of the prophecy was such that even attempts to evade it (especially without repentance) could not succeed (see comment on Acts 2:23).

Prophecies were often (indeed, among Greeks, usually) ambiguous,[1360] such as the famous Delphic promise to Croesus that if he waged war, he would destroy a great empire (in the end, he destroyed his own).[1361] A minority of critics viewed such deliberate ambiguity in oracles with skepticism,[1362] including in the case of Croesus.[1363] Others opined that the gods kept most of the future from mortals, revealing only very limited elements.[1364] Given mistrust of failed prophecies or those that contradicted other sources of knowledge,[1365] Luke presumably would not have invented a prophecy (attributing the guidance somehow to the “Spirit”) worded as if prohibiting his reliable protagonist from doing what he in fact did.

Some prophecies became intelligible only in retrospect (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 15.2–3), but recipients tended to interpret them favorably while awaiting their fulfillment. Cyrus interpreted an oracle favorably, but in retrospect it applied instead to his death (28.11–12). Hamilcar dined in the city as he had dreamed, but as a prisoner rather than, as he had supposed, a victor (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 8). Oracles were often obscure, like riddles, until they were fulfilled;[1366] attempts to obey them sometimes led to one’s demise through misinterpretation, and not only in the case of Croesus![1367] For professional oracles, such ambiguity reduced the dangers of error, but early Christians could also recognize such ambiguities in the biblical prophets.[1368] Although Luke offers far less in the way of apocalyptic-style revelation than John of the Apocalypse does, he would undoubtedly have shared his conviction that revelations could sometimes seem obscure (see Luke 2:34–35).

III. THE PROPHECIES HERE (21:4)

If it was God’s will for Paul, like Jesus in the Gospel, to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:13–14), why do these disciples warn him not to do so, “through the Spirit”? Scholars have proposed various interpretations. The least likely, given the direction of the narrative and parallel with the Gospel, is that Paul simply failed to heed God’s true warnings.[1369] The text implies not that Paul failed to recognize that the Spirit was speaking (cf. 20:23; 21:13) but, rather, that he was certain that he himself acted in God’s will (21:14).

Another unlikely interpretation is that Tyrian Christians warned him against going to Jerusalem, on the basis of Tyrian hostility toward Jews.[1370] Paul himself was Jewish, and Luke was perfectly able to exploit explicit portraits of hostility toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:53) and so need not have suppressed this sentiment had it been expressed on the journey. Nor were most Gentile Christians (much less Diaspora Jewish Christians among them) so disposed, at this early date, to despise Jerusalem’s leadership (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:3; Gal 2:12–13).

Others argue that Paul evaluates and rightly rejects prophetic speech here (cf. 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22).[1371] Certainly many early Christians viewed even accurate prophecy as partial knowledge (1 Cor 13:9).[1372] Yet Luke is explicit that those who warn Paul speak “through the Spirit,” the agent of prophecy, and that it is not the warning of coming suffering (which is fulfilled) but the application (to not go) that his hero Paul rejects (Acts 20:23). Certainly, in 21:13, Paul does not deny the content of Agabus’s prophecy (21:11) but instead expects that he may suffer in Jerusalem, just as Agabus has said. Most scholars recognize that “through the Spirit,” while suggesting that prophetic speech is involved, is ambiguous in attributing the advice itself to the Spirit. The warning not to go is the Tyrian disciples’ application rather than the Spirit’s self-contradiction.[1373]

The more extended example in 21:10–14 suggests that the experience in Tyre is “a ‘condensed’ version” of the same pattern.[1374] The Tyrian disciples’ warning to Paul not to go is based on the Spirit’s revelation of what he will suffer (cf. 20:23; 21:11); it is not the offering of a direct prophecy not to go. The Spirit’s message is the occasion for, rather than the substance of, their warning.[1375] Through prophecy they (in this case) foreknow some events, but Paul has a higher assurance of God’s will for him to undertake this journey.

Because of the partial nature of prophecy, however, balancing competing partial revelations in a charismatic setting, even apart from the question of error or deception (cf. 1 Kgs 13:18–26; 2 Kgs 8:10), requires discernment.[1376] Interpretation of accurate prophecy could be fallible (e.g., Jer 35:5; Luke 7:19–20). In probably the closest OT model (or perhaps simply analogy) for Luke’s accounts of prophecies en route to Jerusalem, prophets in various locations tell Elisha that his master is about to be taken from him (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7). Their knowledge is so partial, however, that they expect to find his body (2:15–18); only Elijah and Elisha have the fuller understanding (2:2, 4, 6, 9–10). Why do the others have this knowledge at all when its lack of context does them little good? Although we might assume that narrators would clean up these kinds of tensions,[1377] such narratives probably reflected the ambiguities of genuine charismatic experience (1 Cor 13:9–12; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22) and highlight superior protagonists able to surmount such ambiguities (cf. 1 Cor 14:18, 37–38). One suspects that ancient “charismatics” experienced problems with the ambiguities of prophecy often analogous to the best of their modern counterparts, especially regarding interpretations supplementing the revelations themselves.[1378] That “Luke felt no embarrassment” about such conflicting interpretations[1379] probably should simply reinforce our conviction that he remained accustomed to such charismatic phenomena in the church he knew. It also reinforces our conviction that he did not invent these reports.

Nevertheless, Luke has reason to record the warnings: such prophecies (also Acts 20:23; 21:11) fit one level of his apologetic. Ancients might assume that people would not make mistakes if accurate prophets were among them (Philost. Hrk. 23.5). Like Jesus, Paul did not simply suffer captivity and eventually martyrdom by accident. It was God’s plan, and God’s servant accepted it. Just as Jesus had to expect serious hostility in Jerusalem after challenging the temple yet remaining in the city (Luke 19:45–48),[1380] Paul’s earlier experiences would hardly dispose him to doubt the possibility of suffering there (Acts 9:29; Rom 15:31; cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Thess 2:15). Paul’s own writings before he began the journey already suggest an awareness of danger there, though at least at that time he still hopes to avert the danger by prayer (Rom 15:30–31).

IV. FAREWELLS (21:5–6)

This farewell scene evokes the pathos of the one that precedes it (Acts 20:36–38), without needing to repeat all the details. A crucial element that Luke does repeat is kneeling to pray (see comment on Acts 20:36), fitting Luke’s consistent theme of prayer and Jesus’s invitations to prayer in a farewell scene preceding the passion (Luke 22:40–46). As noted above at Acts 20:18–35, orators even devised special forms of speeches for offering farewell; this occasion is much less formal than those envisioned by ancient orators, but the formal speeches reveal how seriously farewells were taken in ancient Mediterranean society. The distress of parting expressed the depth of affection shared (Let. Aris. 123). Luke’s point in describing these farewell scenes (offering details not strictly necessary for the story’s action) seems to be to provide character witnesses (if we may borrow forensic rhetorical categories for Luke’s narrative apologetic) supporting Paul’s ēthos by showing how loved he was by those who knew him best.

Luke uses a correct term for the smooth “beach” outside Tyre (αἰγιαλός, Acts 21:5), as distinct from ἀκτή, “a rocky shore.”[1381] In besieging the ancient island citadel, Alexander had a mole constructed connecting the island to the mainland. Sand accumulated over the centuries, creating “two smooth beaches.”[1382] Strabo claims that the shore between Tyre and Ptolemais (21:7) was notably sandy, used for making glass (Strabo 16.2.25).[1383]

Whereas the elders bidding Paul farewell in Acts 20:36–38 (having traveled themselves from Ephesus) had not brought their families (cf. 20:17–18), here Luke allows us a picture of a broader cross section of the church that was seeing Paul off. Portraying wives and children, who were culturally more apt to mourn (see comment on Acts 8:2) and more readily objects of pity than men, often increased pathos.[1384] That the group includes “children,” unlike some official delegations,[1385] makes sense: early Christians met in homes, parents with younger children could not leave them unattended if both parents[1386] came,[1387] and Pauline household codes address children as well as their parents (Eph 6:1–3; Col 3:20).[1388] In any case, women and children had long been welcome at Israel’s assemblies (Ezra 10:1; Neh 12:43).[1389] On the literary level, Luke’s mention of this detail may add pathos (cf. Num 14:3; Esth 3:13; Isa 13:16; Jer 18:21), even beyond his references to women in some texts (Acts 8:3); pathos was helpful in farewell scenes (see comment on Acts 20:36–38).

c. Visiting Ptolemais (21:7)

Greetings (21:7) were an essential part of Mediterranean culture.[1390] This practice occurred in formal court settings (Acts 25:13; 1 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc 1:8; Let. Aris. 173, 235; Ahiq. 6.1; 7.21) but was far more widespread (e.g., in LXX, cf. Exod 18:7; Judg 18:15; Tob 5:10; 1 Macc 7:33). One should return greetings to another with whom one is on good terms.[1391] Those who failed to return greetings normally angered those who greeted them (cf. Jos. War 2.319, 325), though Socrates reportedly opined that one should be angry when meeting neither those healthier than oneself nor those ruder (Xen. Mem. 3.13.1). Sometimes people used greetings deceptively because such greetings were supposed to communicate friendship (1 Macc 7:29; Luke 22:47–48).

Because greetings, ideally, were social markers of respect and affection, they appear prominently in Luke-Acts, whether from angels (Luke 1:29),[1392] God’s servants visiting relatives (1:40–41, 44), or God’s servants visiting spiritual kin (Acts 18:22; 20:1; 21:19). By contrast, religious pretenders desire the respect that such greetings communicate (Luke 11:43; 20:46), and on urgent missions of proclamation, greetings would have to be omitted (10:4; cf. 2 Kgs 4:29). Greetings are pervasive in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–21; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–18; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Thess 3:17; cf. 2 Tim 4:19–21; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23), as in many letters from the period, Christian (Heb 13:24; 1 Pet 5:13–14; 2 John 13)[1393] and otherwise.[1394]

Why did Paul’s company spend only a day in Ptolemais whereas they spent seven days in Tyre (Acts 21:4) and “some days” in Caesarea (21:10)? It is possible that the ship on which they had come was spending only a day at this port and that Paul did not wish to risk the delay of locating passage for his entire company on another ship.[1395] But the next destination, Caesarea, was a short distance even on foot (see comment on Acts 21:8). They may have stopped in Ptolemais only because that was the next destination of their ship; Paul may have known fewer believers there (it was smaller than Tyre). But as with Tyre, Luke probably mentions the hospitality to emphasize the wide (hence rapid) spread of the early Christian movement, its virtuous display of hospitality and affection, and the acceptability of Paul within a wide geographic range of this movement’s representatives. In contrast to most NT authors, Luke makes comparatively little use of explicit “love” language; he offers frequent narrative displays of affection, however.

Ptolemais was formerly Acco (which ancient Israel had failed to subdue, Judg 1:31);[1396] it lay at the northern side of a harbor, with Mount Carmel on the southern side.[1397] It was a strategic city from which Persia mounted its operations against Egypt (Strabo 16.2.25), but Ptolemy II Philadelphus reportedly refounded it and named it Ptolemais.[1398] It came under Roman control in 65 B.C.E., and Caesar later found it strategic in his military campaigns (C.W. 3.105). Jews knew it as a notable port like the nearer harbors at Ashkelon, Joppa, and Gaza (Let. Aris. 115). Claudius made Ptolemais a Roman colony in 51; it thus preceded Caesarea by nearly two decades.[1399] Although Claudius settled veterans there as a colony,[1400] it remained relatively independent and continued its central role in northern Palestine from the time of Alexander until 70 C.E.[1401] Not surprisingly in view of the sand, as already noted, in the region, Ptolemais was known for its glass industry.[1402] It had a Jewish population[1403] and would be well known to cosmopolitan Judeans.[1404]

Perhaps some members of Luke’s ideal audience might have known the city’s history soon after Paul’s visit: in 66 C.E., Greeks massacred many Jews there; in 67, Vespasian marched from there into Galilee.[1405] We cannot be certain how these events would have affected the Christian community (especially Jewish Christians) there, but they could add pathos to a post-70 C.E. reading of the narrative as well as a sense of urgency to Paul’s mission to establish churches in politically stabler areas of Achaia and Asia. This would be even truer for Caesarea, soon to figure so prominently again in Luke’s narrative (Acts 21:8; 23:23, 33); Josephus, exaggerating (it is hoped),[1406] claims that more than twenty thousand Jews were killed there in a single hour and the Jewish population there was exterminated (War 2.457–58).[1407]

6. Warnings in Philip’s Home in Caesarea (21:8–14)

The stay in Judean Caesarea is particularly eventful, reconnecting Paul with one of the leaders who previously fled his persecution and who probably supplied some of the earlier scenes for Luke’s volume. Luke focuses on a particular incident that climaxes and provides a more detailed illustration of the earlier warnings (Acts 20:23; 21:4), building further suspense concerning Paul’s reception in Jerusalem.

a. Visiting Philip in Caesarea (21:8)

Caesarea was as much as forty miles from Ptolemais, a day’s journey by ship;[1408] Paul and his companions might also have reached there (if they rented animals, which is unlikely, or walked long and briskly, which could make completing the journey on the same day more difficult) by the road along the coast.[1409] Given the relatively short distance, it would have been more economically feasible for the company to have covered it by land, at least if they could avoid an overnight stay on the road. It was quicker by boat if they knew that a boat was going their way (or if their fare from Patara covered the full distance to Caesarea without anticipating the duration of the layovers). Some understandably suggest that Luke’s language is not clearly decisive as to their means of travel.[1410] If 21:8 suggests that the group arrived in Caesarea the same day that they left Ptolemais, they surely took a boat; what makes this interpretation less than certain is that Luke elsewhere employs such language ambiguously.[1411]

That we find Philip here in Caesarea is not surprising. Just as Luke’s narrative leaves Saul in Tarsus and revisits him there (9:30; 11:25), and probably the narrator himself in Philippi (16:10; 20:6), so it returns to Philip in Caesarea, where an earlier evangelistic itinerary left him (8:40).[1412] The location was strategic and is historically plausible.[1413] Caesarea bordered Samaritan villages on the east and reportedly had a Samaritan minority (Pliny E. N.H. 5.68); this may have been one factor in drawing Philip there.[1414] More important in inviting any strategically planned ministry, however, were Caesarea’s sizable and mixed population and strategic importance as an influential center (see discussion at Acts 10:1). It is possible that Philip and many other Christians left Caesarea a few years after this encounter. Papias and Polycrates suggest that Philip and his daughters later migrated to Hierapolis in Phrygia, perhaps because of the ethnic tensions in Caesarea that led up to the hostilities of 66 C.E.[1415]

In view of the positive role of hospitality in Luke-Acts, Philip’s role here is positive.[1416] Luke uses Philip’s title “evangelist” here to remind us that this is the Philip who was “evangelizing” (εὐαγγελίζω) in Acts 8:12, 35 and in 8:40 (where Luke’s narrative left him; cf. 8:4, 25). The term εὐαγγελιστής probably bears the same sense in Eph 4:11 and 2 Tim 4:5, all from the Pauline circle: an individual specially adept in making converts but without the same charismatic authority for leading the church given to the apostles (unless the evangelist is also an apostle).[1417] The office of a proclaimer of good tidings (εὐαγγελιστής) reflects especially the herald of Zion’s restoration in Isaiah (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1), refracted through the prism of Jesus’s ministry in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 16:16; 20:1; Acts 10:36)[1418] and the apostles (Acts 5:42; 8:25; 13:32; 14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18) and their followers (11:20) in Acts.[1419]

Given the ethnic composition of Caesarea, it is not surprising historically that the disciples there (cf. 21:16) would have received Paul favorably. Even if the Jerusalem church’s leadership opposed Paul’s mission to Gentiles (which I will argue is unlikely), a church in a mostly Gentile area[1420] (probably even one with ethnic tensions)[1421] would likely appreciate him and show hospitality. (When Publius Clodius Pulcher ordered that no one within five hundred miles of Italy should provide Cicero shelter, most people nevertheless respected him and helped him on his way [Plut. Cic. 32.1].) We cannot know the size of Philip’s house, but the Jewish community in Caesarea as a whole was fairly wealthy (Jos. Ant. 20.175–76).[1422]

It is safe to assume that the several days’ visit (Acts 21:10) included conversation; hospitality obligations would entail time with the guests. Paul and his former nemesis Philip will have stories to tell; news spread whenever people from different cities came together (e.g., Polyb. 18.46.1–2), and guests carried news.[1423] Because this is part of the “we” narrative, Luke would have had access to Philip as an informant or through listening to Philip’s conversations with Paul, including about Stephen. This could be a natural way for a Hellenistic historian to indicate his access to sources—in this case, at least for Acts 6, 8, and 10 (esp. Acts 8).[1424] (He already had Paul as an eyewitness for some of Acts 6 and all of Acts 7.) Thus, for example, Plutarch considers one source about Demosthenes reliable because the source claimed that he had heard the accounts “from Demosthenes himself, now grown old” (Demosth. 11.1 [LCL]). Hellenistic historians (unlike their Roman counterparts) sought to interview witnesses;[1425] although Luke is a more popular historian than many extant historical writers (see comment on Acts 25:13–22), the genre still could invite informed members of his first audience to consider his sources. Most important in this respect, once Luke was so introduced to Philip, he would undoubtedly have had further opportunities to consult with him during the lengthy period that Paul was detained in Caesarea (Acts 24:27).

There are, however, other literary reasons to report Paul’s stay in Caesarea. That Paul is now a guest in Philip’s home is ironic, part of the irony that permeates Luke’s (and much other early Christian) understanding of the gospel and God’s sovereignty (cf. Gal 1:23–24). Paul had aided in killing Philip’s colleague Stephen,[1426] and his persecution had forced Philip from Jerusalem on the evangelistic tour that led him to Caesarea.[1427] But Stephen’s colleague here welcomes Paul, bringing Paul’s recorded life full circle directly before he himself will confront essentially the same charge in the temple as led to Stephen’s death (Acts 6:13; 21:28).[1428] (It is possible that Paul already met Philip [cf. 9:30; 18:22]; Luke reports their encounter, however, only in this more detailed “we” material.) Paul’s acceptance by a wide range of early Christians is part of Luke’s apologetic for Paul and for early Christianity; as Spencer puts it, Philip’s hospitality “represents part of a cluster of events demonstrating the prevailing unity between Paul and those Christians he had formerly persecuted.”[1429] (This also contrasts starkly with the negative reception of Paul by some Asian Jews in Jerusalem in 21:27–30.)[1430]

We also dare not miss the salvation-historical significance with which Luke invests the meetings in 21:8–18 (with Philip, Agabus, Mnason, James, and unnamed disciples). Representatives from the newer Pauline churches of the Diaspora (20:4–5) are now meeting leaders from the church’s earliest days.[1431] Although Luke barely mentions the collection and there is no church council as in Acts 15, the uniting of two cultural streams of faith interests him.

Luke’s own narrative suggests another reason for the report, however, especially for the chronological information here (several days, 21:10) and earlier (20:16; 21:4, 7). Luke offers evidence of how short a time Paul was in fact in Jerusalem before his arrest (cf. 21:18, 26–27), which left no time at all to foment a rebellion (24:11). When Paul, on trial in Caesarea, claims that he entered Jerusalem only twelve days before, he speaks in a city where witnesses could be on hand to testify precisely when Paul left for Jerusalem (21:16). As noted in the commentary introduction,[1432] part of Luke’s apologetic appeal is to show that the apostolic movement posed no threat to Roman order (for that matter, even its initial challenge to the power of Jerusalem’s religious elite may have settled into semitolerant coexistence; cf. 21:20–21); the apostles proclaimed the kingdom but waited for God himself to establish it.

b. Philip’s Virgin, Prophetess Daughters (21:9)

Although not directly germane to the point he is making about Paul, Luke reports Philip’s four daughters still at home,[1433] information that he considers interesting and that may further cast Philip in a favorable light[1434] besides reinforcing Luke’s prophetic emphasis and his balancing of genders (see esp. 2:17–18). Although scholars debate exactly what Luke intends by using the participle προφητεύουσαι with Philip’s daughters,[1435] Luke likely emphasizes that they prophesied regularly, not simply on the occasion when Paul was present.[1436] That is, Luke wishes to underline their activity as prophetesses.[1437]

Why not then simply employ the noun προφῆτις (“prophetess,” Luke 2:36) to designate them “prophetesses”? Although a distinction between office and ministry is probably anachronistic for this period,[1438] it is reasonable to think that Luke lays emphasis on their activity (including while the visitors were present) rather than on an accepted title (in contrast to the more widely recognized itinerant Agabus and his colleagues [11:27; 21:10] or the leaders in Antioch [13:1]). Paul often employs the present participle (albeit with the article, unlike here) for those who prophesy (1 Cor 11:4–5; 14:3–5) and likewise uses the title “prophet” for all who prophesy (14:29, 32).[1439] While Luke seems to expect prophetic speech among believers even more widely than Paul does (Acts 2:17–18),[1440] he apparently reserves the title “prophet” for a special group (11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10), as he usually does (albeit with rare exceptions; 14:4, 14)[1441] for “apostles” as the Twelve. But if the basis of the reservation is that “prophet” applied only to recognized, senior prophets,[1442] he could hardly apply the title already to virgins (by which Luke probably indicates their youth; see comment below); if, by contrast, he reserves it for those who prophesy regularly, his present participle here indicates that he expected it to apply to these young women. He could not, in any case, have denied the title to them on account of their gender; prophetesses appear in the biblical record (see below), which Luke accepts as authoritative; and Luke himself affirms this role (Luke 2:36).[1443]

Just as Luke pairs Simeon and Anna as male and female prophetic figures (Luke 2:25–38), he here pairs the famous prophet Agabus with Philip’s four virgin daughters (Acts 21:9–10). Luke often links male and female figures in healing narratives (e.g., 9:32–42), summary reports (8:3; 17:4, 34), and parables (Luke 15:4–10; 18:2–14), and here he probably provides narrative examples of the programmatic text in Acts 2:17: “your sons and daughters will prophesy” (just as the Gospel’s mission program in Luke 4:18–19 echoes later, e.g., in 7:22). One sign of the Spirit’s coming, for Luke, is the transcending of traditional gender barriers.

Some scholars object that Acts 2:17 is not yet fulfilled, because the daughters do not speak in the narrative and Agabus takes center stage.[1444] This objection would be more reasonable if we thought that Luke played down the significance of the young women because of their gender, but various other factors made Agabus’s prophecy more focal for Luke’s narrative: he was a much older and much more prominent prophet;[1445] he had a much wider geographic ministry; he came “down from” Judea—that is, probably from the city he was warning about (21:11);[1446] he had apparently brought bad news north about Jerusalem before (11:28–29);[1447] and he was demonstrative in OT prophetic fashion in a way that would certainly attract attention (both for those present and for Luke’s audience hearing the narrative). Most important, it is Agabus’s prophecy that specifically relates to the action that follows in the narrative, both in Caesarea (people urging Paul to turn back) and in Jerusalem (Paul’s mistreatment and Roman custody).

Moreover, since the daughters probably discouraged Paul from going (21:12), reporting their words would not in itself honor them. The fact is that Luke need not mention them at all, or at least not specify their gender and age, to maintain his central plot focus surrounding Paul; others had prophesied to Paul without such details being mentioned (20:23; 21:4).[1448] Luke mentions them and specifies their gender here, in connection with Agabus, partly because they provide gender balance. That he also probably indicates their age (“virgins”) confirms the connection with 2:17, where young and old also prophesy as here. That he does not report their words may even draw attention to these other factors for mentioning them.

These four prophetesses not only provide gender balance but shine a favorable light by association on one of the protagonist pioneers in his narrative. Whatever Luke’s relationship with the Testament of Job,[1449] it is likely that just as the narrator honors Job’s piety by recounting his daughters’ spiritual proclivities (cf. Prov 22:6),[1450] Luke also highlights that Philip the evangelist, while now settled in Caesarea instead of itinerant, continues to have a godly influence.[1451] In Luke’s day the behavior of children could shame their parents[1452] and, presumably, honor them as well.[1453] Given the authority that society granted fathers over their children, the latter’s behavior could even be used to evaluate the fathers’ fitness for office.[1454]

Historically, Luke’s theological interest in these prophetesses does not suggest that he fabricated them.[1455] Papias reportedly knew Philip’s daughters after they later moved to Hierapolis in Phrygia (Papias frg. 6 [Euseb. H.E. 3.39]). While Luke’s literary and theological interest in prophetesses recalls his Joel quotation and biblical prophetesses, it also reflects their pervasiveness in early Christianity, where they probably constituted a higher percentage than they had in ancient Israel (see 1 Cor 11:4–5),[1456] presumably including in circles known to Luke (cf. Acts 2:17–18; Luke 2:36). (Their acceptability in Gentile converts’ culture may have cultivated an environment more conducive to developing this particular gift. Women were also more prominent in Philippi, where Luke apparently ministered [Phil 4:2–3].)[1457]

Excursus: Prophetesses

Luke was familiar with prophetesses in the Greek tradition (see, e.g., the “pythoness” in Acts 16:16).[1458] Even more certainly, Luke would be familiar with the significant number of biblical prophetesses. For Jewish or other biblically immersed hearers, prophetesses might evoke Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22),[1459] and, perhaps more closely, Isaiah’s initially virgin (hence young) prophetess wife (Isa 8:3 taken in light of 7:14).[1460] Believing that early Christians continued to live in the biblical era, in the time of fulfillment, Paul also expected Christian women to prophesy (1 Cor 14:1, 31, 39), albeit with their heads covered. Since Philip’s daughters were unmarried, they would presumably be exempted from this Eastern custom of married women wearing head coverings.[1461]

Jewish tradition continued to acknowledge biblical prophetesses.[1462] Targum Jonathan on Judges 4:4; 5:3, 7, 9 remains explicit that Deborah prophesied;[1463] Amoraim also claimed that the matriarchs were accurate prophetesses (Gen. Rab. 67:9; 72:6).[1464] Although later rabbis often portrayed prophetesses respectfully, they could also attribute to them any negative traits that such rabbis normally associated with women;[1465] affirmation of prophetesses did not necessarily give them or their contemporaries modern sensibilities regarding gender.

The tradition most closely resembling Luke’s portrayal here is the charismatic speech of Job’s daughters in Test. Job 48–50. This document may well stem from a century after Luke; scholars debate whether the portrayal reflects Christian influence (especially because it is one of the few possible examples of inspired speech in another [here an angelic] language, which resembles early Christian glossolalia).[1466] If it reflects Christian influence, it may depend partly on Philip’s four daughters (adjusted to three per Job 42:13–15);[1467] if not, it may attest to a tradition on which Philip and his daughters drew in their prophesying or on which Luke drew in his portrayal (though the brevity of his description may count against the latter solution). For prophecy more generally, see the excursus at Acts 2:17.[1468]

Excursus: Why Mention Their Virginity?

Some pagan texts tell us about consecrated virgins with special spiritual power (especially the Vestals and oracular virgins). Some texts also connect celibacy with spiritual revelations. The vast majority of texts about virgins, however, simply designate them as young women not yet married, an interpretation more relevant to Philip’s Jewish family (although some of Luke’s audience may have thought of additional connotations). Most likely, then, Luke’s point is that these daughters are young; together with the now older male prophet Agabus in this passage, they serve to illustrate that the prophetic Spirit is for males and females, young and old alike (Acts 2:17–18). This is not the only point at which Luke shows respect for young (probably teenage) women (see the account of Mary in Luke 1:26–56).[1469] Mentioning their virginity, and hence their unmarried status, also helps explain why they remain in Philip’s home. Nevertheless, it is appropriate here to survey the wider range of sources that could have informed the understanding of Luke’s first-century audience.

1. Consecrated Virgins[1470]

The best-known consecrated virgins in the Roman Empire were the Vestals,[1471] although more-local models may have come to mind first in the eastern empire. The Vestals were in a sense a living sacrifice on behalf of Rome; their defilement brought judgment on the state.[1472] The Vestals were so much part of Roman identity that an orator could stir a patriotic audience by promising not only to defend the city more generally but also to protect the Vestals from outrage.[1473] Augustus’s will was deposited with the Vestal virgins (Suet. Aug. 101.1), and Tiberius both donated funds to a Vestal (Tac. Ann. 4.16) and left legacies to Vestal virgins in his will (Suet. Tib. 76).

This office was one way for a woman to achieve fame; a statue could commemorate a famous Vestal.[1474] Thus Tarquinia was so honored that her testimony was accepted, though this was not true for other women.[1475] Senators could hear respectfully a Vestal’s request on behalf of her condemned brother (Tac. Ann. 3.69). Vestals were so influential that they managed to reconcile Julius Caesar to Sulla (Suet. Jul. 1). It was understood in return that their consecration sacrificed the opportunity to bear children.[1476]

Many spoke of the Vestals as “holy”—that is, consecrated (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.69.4; 1.76.3); Plutarch calls them “completely holy [παναγῶν] virgins” (Rom. Q. 96, Mor. 286E). As the chief example of virginal modesty, they were the very antithesis of prostitutes.[1477]

To be chosen for the order, a virgin had to be chaste, pure, and of chaste and pure parents.[1478] Any virgin who stammered or spoke indistinctly could not be chosen.[1479] The six virgins served a minimum of thirty years and were no longer counted as part of their family of origin.[1480] Although they had to remain celibate, their garb recalled that of matrons, and their hair was apparently arranged like that of a bride.[1481] When a Vestal virgin became too sick and needed care instead outside the Vestal hall, she was entrusted to a married woman.[1482] After thirty years in the order, they were free to leave it and marry if they chose to do so; but few, by then past childbearing, did so, and it was thought that those who did so regretted their choice.[1483]

Vestals were required to remain chaste, on penalty of death. A Vestal could be severely punished for negligence in guarding the “eternal fire.”[1484] But the most severe case was unchastity. Sexually defiled Vestals were to be buried alive,[1485] and a Vestal’s unchastity could bring judgment against the entire state until she was so buried.[1486] One Vestal, though found innocent, was warned to avoid immoderate dress and jesting, since these had led to the charge.[1487] Another Vestal proved less fortunate; suspected of unchastity because she dressed unbecomingly, she was accused by a slave, then convicted and buried alive.[1488] It was expected that the goddess could vindicate those falsely accused.[1489]

The basis for charges could be flimsy,[1490] and the politically powerful exercised control over the verdicts. Thus one of the sexual scandals reported about Nero was that he debauched a Vestal named Rubria.[1491] Domitian banished a senator on the charge of having defiled a Vestal virgin (Pliny Ep. 4.11.4–6), but the charge may have been concocted merely as a pretext so that the emperor could have Cornelia, the chief Vestal, burned alive.[1492]

Men were not permitted to go among the Vestals.[1493] Nevertheless, their virginity did not exclude all male contact; thus a Vestal could embrace a father[1494] or brother[1495] to protect him. Nero even began permitting the Vestals to watch athletic contests.[1496] Vestals also aided in other ceremonies, such as the feminine rituals of Bona Dea, “the Good Goddess.”[1497] They were supposed to have special powers; it was popularly believed that they could use a spell to help capture escaped slaves.[1498]

In addition to Vestals, some other priestesses remained permanent virgins (e.g., Paus. 8.13.1) or were young and had to leave office once married (e.g., 2.33.2–3).[1499] It was natural to envision as a virgin a priestess consecrated to Apollo.[1500] In the eastern Mediterranean, hearers might think first of the Pythia, a young virgin serving Apollo’s Delphic sanctuary.[1501] If so, the prophesying of these four virgin daughters of Philip contrasts favorably with that of the slave girl in Acts 16:16.

In later traditions (perhaps shaped by the growing ethos of late antiquity, which also shaped ascetic Christian piety),[1502] Artemis’s priestesses remained cloistered and virgins (Apoll. K. Tyre 27).[1503] Soranus (early second century) was probably the first Greek physician to recommend chastity (Gynec. 1.30–32).[1504] On virgin priestesses, see also comment on Acts 16:16; 19:24.

2. “Prophetic” Virginity

Virginity was sometimes associated with prophecy in antiquity.[1505] This is especially true for women viewed as mouthpieces of Apollo, though the connection between their virginity and their oracular powers is Apollo’s weakness for young women and sometimes that they remained virgin by eluding Apollo; such a connection is, naturally, irrelevant in a Jewish-Christian theological framework. It has already been mentioned that the Delphic pythoness was a virgin.[1506] Cassandra[1507] and the Sibyl were both virgins. Normal gender considerations aside, Romans obeyed the Sibyl (and the Sibylline books traced to her) as a prophetess.[1508] Even the inspiring Muses are virgins:[1509] despite some traditions about the pythoness (a Delphic virgin) raving, Dio Chrysostom opines that the Muses, who inspire, would not be indecorous; they are “virgins” (παρθένους), indicating their modesty and self-control (Or. 32.56).[1510]

Some rabbis apparently believed that, to receive revelations, biblical prophets had abstained temporarily from sexual activity.[1511] Some scholars suggest that a variety of early Jewish circles (as diverse as those reflected in Philo and 1 Enoch) urged temporary abstinence so as to receive revelations.[1512] Such approaches were not, however, pervasive so far as we can tell from our sources.

It is possible that Luke does associate the sacrifice of forgoing marriage with prophetic endowment;[1513] Anna had long been a widow (Luke 2:36–37), and it seems that Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul were all unmarried, at least during their ministries; Paul’s long-term traveling companions, such as Barnabas, probably shared the same status (cf. 1 Cor 9:5–6). From Luke’s perspective, family ties can be an obstacle to the kingdom (Luke 14:20) and sometimes must be abandoned for the kingdom (14:26; 18:29).[1514] Luke himself (or his eyewitness source) was likely single[1515] (at least much of his life), given the time between the “we” in Acts 21:18 and 27:1; it seems difficult to think that he failed to return to a wife for roughly two years (24:27)[1516] and sailed to Rome without informing her, and still less plausible to suggest that he returned to Macedonia during Paul’s custody yet was coincidentally back on hand when Paul was suddenly scheduled to voyage to Rome.

At the same time, Luke knows that some of his protagonists were married (Luke 1:13; 2:5; 4:38; 8:3; Acts 18:2), including some who prophesied (Luke 1:67).[1517] Although celibacy may have aided in prophetic sensitivity, along with other spiritual sacrifices such as fasting (Acts 13:2), Luke does not seem to have viewed it as obligatory. Indeed, despite the preference of later Christians (and their late antique environment) for celibacy, they preserved the tradition that Philip’s daughters later married (Euseb. H.E. 3.30.1).[1518]

3. Views on Marriage and Celibacy in Antiquity

The vast majority of people in antiquity, both Jewish and Gentile, recognized marriage as the norm and urged its value, especially for procreation.[1519]

A minority of people, however, thought otherwise. Some favored short- or long-term celibacy or, far more often among Gentiles, avoidance of marriage (but not necessarily of intercourse). On eunuchs, see comment on Acts 8:27; the severely insane could not legally marry.[1520] Some girls did not wish to marry,[1521] and the mythical Amazons were thought to spurn marriage;[1522] but Greco-Roman society did not approve or grant such sentiments. A few men refused marriage for fear of broken trust,[1523] warned against marriage for misogynist reasons,[1524] or, more often, avoided remarriage for various other reasons.[1525]

More commonly than such individual reasons, some philosophers said that it was better to avoid marriage.[1526] Cynics opposed marriage as an encumbrance and distraction.[1527] An Epicurean insisted that it was better to avoid sexual passion if possible,[1528] and Epicureans normally opposed marriage,[1529] prompting a Stoic critique based on social utility.[1530] Many philosophers rejected sex for pleasure; it was only for intercourse, the purpose for which nature designed it.[1531] Some philosophers and others warned against intercourse, at least in wrong amounts, as being unhealthy.[1532]

Temporary celibacy was more common.[1533] Neither widows (Ovid Fasti 2.557–58) nor virgins (2.559–60) were to marry during days of the year devoted to mourning the dead.[1534] Intercourse could normally defile a sacred precinct and hence might be prohibited for a set time before one entered.[1535] (On virgin priestesses, see also comment on Acts 16:16; 19:24.) Pythagoras urged abstaining from intercourse during summer, when it was unhealthy.[1536] Some urged procreating late—for example, after twenty for males.[1537] Others were glad to escape the sexual urges of youth and stop having intercourse when they were older.[1538] Although marriage had its advantages, one would also have to endure the evils of a wife or children.[1539]

Because intercourse was often viewed as impure,[1540] abstinence from sex could contribute toward purity in some sources.[1541] Virgins could be seen as pure or associated with purity (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.7.3);[1542] Aseneth’s virgin attendants had never so much as spoken with males (Jos. Asen. 2:6/10–11). Some ancients even thought of virginity as asexual.[1543]

Judaism emphasized marriage and childbearing even more consistently than Roman thinkers did, but there were exceptions, though usually temporary or isolated in particular sects. Later rabbis (here reflecting earlier traditions) normally recommended divorce if a husband withheld intercourse for more than two weeks,[1544] but even they allowed prolonged abstinence for some extenuating circumstances.[1545] With their wives’ permission, husbands could leave home to study with a rabbi for extended periods of time,[1546] like Jesus’s disciples (Luke 18:28–29). An early second-century rabbi is said to have supported the standard rabbinic requirement of procreation yet insisted that he had to abstain himself for study of the Torah.[1547]

In extreme situations, rabbis permitted temporary abstinence. Noah was said to abstain on the ark,[1548] and one rabbi hiding from Roman soldiers was said to have concealed his location from his wife to prevent her betraying it.[1549] But nonrabbinic, often prerabbinic, sources approved of celibacy far more often than the rabbis did.[1550]

Examining Philo’s approach to the Therapeutae, many scholars see in his thinking an adoption of Greek views on abstinence.[1551] Others note, as the rabbis did, special circumstances: thus Jacob abstained until he was over the age of sixty because he would not marry a Canaanite,[1552] and Israelites started abstaining to prevent having sons for Pharaoh to kill.[1553] Second Baruch 56:6 thinks that childbearing stems from the fall (contrast Gen 1:28). Wilderness sages and prophets such as Banus (Jos. Life 11) and John (Luke 3:2) likewise may reflect necessity and are also exceptional, though perhaps not temporary.

The case of Jewish celibacy most clearly indicated in ancient sources, however, concerns the Essenes.[1554] Many scholars doubt whether the Essenes were genuinely celibate, at least throughout their history,[1555] but a range of sources indicate that at least some were widely assumed to have been.[1556] Women’s skeletons might suggest that some women lived at Qumran during part of its history,[1557] but their role, and whether they lived there during the duration of the sect’s time there,[1558] is debated. Some Qumran texts also describe women,[1559] though not all scholars agree that this means that women lived at the site. (See also comment on Acts 1:15.)

4. Luke’s Point

All of the above cases, however, are rare exceptions, and it is more probable that Luke simply intends “virginity” in its most common sense. “Virginity” in its most general sense referred to any woman who had not had intercourse.[1560] Preserving a girl’s virginity till marriage was crucial (Deut 22:13–21; Ach. Tat. 2.25.1); “virgin” was a suitable term for a bride at her wedding (Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.11).[1561] The Mishnaic definition of “virgin” normally refers to those below puberty, whether married or not, which might suggest that Philip’s daughters may have been prepubescent.[1562] Children were also often thought more susceptible to inspiration[1563] (though naturally it was not limited to them).[1564]

If 1 Cor 7:36–38 refers to fathers and daughters as some scholars suggest, it may depict early Christian fathers facilitating their daughters’ celibate singleness, at least temporarily and with their consent, for promoting spiritual maturation. Thus perhaps Philip and his daughters have prolonged the daughters’ virginity for spiritual reasons. This is not, however, the dominant view of 7:36–38, and even if it were, Luke could hardly take for granted that his audience would take “virgins” in a restrictive sense instead of its more common application to younger virgins.

Luke’s primary point is probably thus not a specific association between prophecy and virginity but to indicate the daughters’ age. A connection with celibacy is likely not the point (though it may be safely assumed for godly Jewish virgins), since Luke nowhere else explicitly connects prophecy to this. Rather, the issue is their youth, providing a clear fulfillment of the Joel prophecy about even the young and women prophesying.[1565] Luke does cast a glance back to the aged widow Anna (Luke 2:36–37), but not as if to imply that the prophetic gift is given to women only if they are unattached to men.[1566]

Rather, Luke shows that the Spirit inspires both old (1:41–42, 67; 2:26–29)—including Anna (2:37), as might be more readily expected—and young, as here. The closest analogy to a young man filled with the Spirit in Luke-Acts might be John the Baptist (1:15, 80), though Luke does not report any of his youthful prophecies, as he does not report those of these young women (and, in John’s case, is not even explicit about his youthful prophesying). A connection with age as well as gender would reinforce the allusion to Acts 2:17–18. An association with their age may also serve a more mundane purpose: that they are virgins explains why they continue to live in Philip’s home and hence are accessible to the group of travelers.

5. Conclusion

Luke may value the prophetesses’ virginity because he respects a spiritual advantage in celibate singleness (cf. Luke 2:37), but his emphasis certainly lies on their youth. The prophesying of virgins illustrates the age as well as gender diversity promised in Acts 2:17. They contrast thus not only with Agabus’s gender but with Anna’s age (Luke 2:36–37; and perhaps Simeon’s, 2:26–29).[1567]

c. Response to Agabus’s Warning (21:10–14)

After Agabus warns of Paul’s impending suffering in Jerusalem, Paul’s many friends seek to deter him from completing his journey, but they ultimately acquiesce to his insistence.

I. REMAINING IN CAESAREA (21:10)

That Caesarea was a location where Paul delayed for several days makes sense, given the company he found there; that he could afford to delay suggests that he apparently still had sufficient time before the feast (Acts 20:16). Another purpose, however, may have been to reach Jerusalem just before the Feast of Pentecost. The crowds were at their height at festivals, allowing both a greater cover of protective anonymity and, perhaps more important, a larger Jewish Christian audience (including Galilean and rural Judean pilgrims) for his mission.[1568] Although perhaps any feast would have sufficed, the symbolism of an offering from the firstfruits of the Gentile churches (cf. ἀπαρχή in Rom 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15) arriving on Pentecost would not be lost on the Jerusalem church’s leaders (cf. Deut 16:10, 16).[1569]

Although Luke barely mentions Paul’s offering (Acts 24:17), an implied arrival near Pentecost (cf. 20:16) would be significant to Luke for other reasons: on Pentecost the exalted Lord bestowed the Spirit to reach the Gentiles (1:8),[1570] and now Paul brings representatives of Gentile churches to meet their “mother” church (20:4–5). This will allow Luke to compare and contrast Peter’s and Paul’s Pentecost speeches and their respective audiences’ responses.[1571] (The contrast, in turn, allows Luke to connect Jerusalem’s destruction with its hostility toward Paul’s ministry of welcoming Gentile subjects for Israel’s king.)

Technically, Caesarea itself was in the province of Judea (it contained the governor’s residence, no less), and Luke himself sometimes uses the expression “Judea” quite broadly (e.g., Luke 23:5; Acts 10:37); but this is not the only occasion where Luke applies it to the environs around Jerusalem distinct from Caesarea (Acts 11:1; 12:19).[1572] Luke’s expression “down from” (cf. 15:1) indicates descent from Judea’s hill country (cf. Luke 1:65), most likely from Jerusalem (10:30; Acts 25:7), as is clear in the identical expression in Acts 12:19.

II. AGABUS’S COMING AND SYMBOLISM (21:11)

That Agabus came to the Christians in Caesarea may mean that he visited Philip’s house to bring the message. If his appearance proved sudden and unannounced, no one would have thought this behavior unusual for a prophet.[1573]

Those who believed in divinities were loath to think that those close to divinities would not have received warnings of impending danger.[1574] Romans indeed expected omens to precede people’s deaths, especially those of the emperors.[1575] Sometimes, however, they expected people to seek to flee such prodigies through propitiatory rites, and they complained that the Jews’ failure to believe in such rites in the face of portents led to their demise in 70 C.E. (Tac. Hist. 5.13). Luke’s account is lavish with warnings to Paul (Acts 20:23; 21:4).

The symbolic “binding” fits other prophecies that Paul would be “bound” (20:23), a detail fulfilled by Roman guards in 21:33 in response to the temple crowd’s outcries (continuing in 24:27; 26:29). Paul, who had once bound others (9:2, 14, 21; 22:5), would now be bound himself. The prophecy’s specific wording—that Paul would be “delivered over to the hands of Gentiles” (cf. 28:17)—suits Luke’s parallelism between major characters, linking Paul’s passion with that of Jesus (“delivered to the Gentiles,” Luke 18:32; for “delivered into the hands,” cf. 9:44; 24:7).

Most scholars concur that Agabus’s actions resemble those of biblical prophets.[1576] (The form of wording in both of Agabus’s prophecies here and in the indirect report of Acts 11:28 also resembles Greek and Roman predictive oracular forms.)[1577] First, he offers a symbolic action that he then interprets,[1578] like Hosea marrying a prostitute (Hos 1:2–3), Isaiah going naked and barefoot (Isa 20:2–3), Jeremiah smashing a pot (Jer 19:1–15), or Ezekiel simulating a siege (Ezek 4:1–17). Two of the closest analogies are Jeremiah’s use of a linen waistband to symbolize judgment on Judah (Jer 13) and Jeremiah’s binding himself, in a sense, by wearing a yoke (signifying slavery, 27:2).[1579]

Some pagan prophets also offered visible symbols to reinforce their message (e.g., Plut. Caes. 47.2), and some early Jewish prophets used dramatic behavior to secure similar attention (Jos. War 6.301). Possibly Agabus offered symbols in Acts 11:28 as well, since he “signified” (ἐσήμανεν) the famine,[1580] an expression that sometimes implies the use of symbols or signs,[1581] though often verbal ones, and even this connotation is not necessary (25:27; 1 Esd 2:3; 8:49; BDAG).

Here Agabus’s sign consists of his tying himself with Paul’s sash, a strip of cloth that one would wrap several times around the waist and in which one could carry money and so forth.[1582] (This is presumably not a leather girdle, since attempting to bind one’s feet and hands in such “would have been,” as Haenchen puts it, “an acrobatic performance.”)[1583] Tying his feet might not be too difficult if seated, perhaps on the floor, but if Agabus actually tied his hands in any secure way he would have had to use his teeth to finish the job.[1584]

Second, Agabus introduces his prophetic declaration with an equivalent of the OT messenger formula: “Thus says the Holy Spirit.”[1585] The LXX regularly uses the same expression, τάδε λέγει, to translate the biblical formula “thus says.” YHWH’s messenger formula follows that employed by other rulers in the ancient Near East (e.g., Exod 5:10; 2 Kgs 18:19, 29, 31; 19:3; 2 Chr 36:23; Isa 36:4; 1 Esd 2:3; Jdt 2:5).[1586] “Thus says” was also a familiar edict formula in the Greco-Roman world.[1587] Attributing prophecy to the Spirit (cf. Acts 2:17–18; 19:6; Luke 1:67) fit early Christian conceptions (1 Cor 12:4, 7–10) as well as the dominant views in early Judaism (developing a biblical theme).[1588] This was probably a fairly common formula for early Christian prophecy; though some scholars think the evidence for the formula slender,[1589] it appears in some form in almost all our few extant examples of early Christian prophecy: τάδε λέγει (“thus says,” Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) and attribution to the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει, 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

III. AGABUS’S PROPHECY (21:11)

Many predictive prophecies were assumed conditional and could be averted by repentance (e.g., 1 Kgs 21:29; Jer 18:7–10; Ezek 33:14–16; Jonah 3:4–10). Such aversion of predictions is characteristic of many Greek and Roman oracles[1590] and appears in some early Jewish prophecies exhibiting Greek influence.[1591] But not all predictions could be averted; both Greek and Israelite tradition recounted ironic cases of prophecies fulfilled in the very attempts to evade them (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:30–35).[1592] One recipient of prophecy was told that he would be not in the war but in Euboea, and so, thinking it a warning, he went to Euboea—and there died of disease (Val. Max. 1.8.10). One should note, however, that Luke assigns no interpretation to the quoted prophecy of Agabus (thereby perhaps hinting that Acts 21:4 included human interpretation); it is a warning to prepare Paul, not specifically a command not to go.[1593] Prophecy informs, but Paul has a higher wisdom about what to do with it (21:13; see the discussion of 2 Kgs 2 in the comment on Acts 21:4).

Technically, Jewish people did not bind him or voluntarily hand him over to the Romans (according to Luke’s, as opposed to their own, version—cf. 24:6); the Romans inadvertently rescued Paul, and they were the ones who bound him (21:32–33; 22:29). Some scholars think that Luke therefore presents Agabus as making a mistake unacceptable by OT prophetic standards (Deut 18:22).[1594]

This charge, however, likely presses Agabus’s words with a pedantic literalism that no biblical prophet’s (or historian’s) words could long survive.[1595] Agabus’s sense is fulfilled: it was fellow Jews who brought him into trouble with the Romans.[1596] Even OT prophets exercised considerable poetic license; many of their details were imagery meant to drive home a larger point (e.g., Isa 37:29; 40:31; Jer 4:5, 8, 19–21; Mic 1:10). Ovid virtually identifies two distinct cities in his “predictions,” employing such license (Metam. 15.823–24); it is also common in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles. Agabus’s earlier reference to famine throughout the inhabited world (Acts 11:28) is generally recognized as hyperbolic, even if he refers only to the empire; hearers knew not to press all prophetic words literally.

This license may simply be an alternate way of articulating the plight in light of Luke’s pattern of Jewish accusation to the Romans (Luke 23:2, 5; Acts 18:12–13; 24:1–6); Paul himself later claims that he was handed over to the Romans (Acts 28:17). Further, Paul, a reliable character, expects Agabus’s prophecy to be accurate (21:13; cf. 20:22), as in the earlier passage where Agabus prophesied (11:28); and the mere eight verses that report Paul’s arrest are themselves a summary, perhaps omitting some details.[1597] Even novelists, whose primary interests were literary, sometimes included different features in different reports of a prediction.[1598]

Most important in support of the authority of Agabus’s prophecy from Luke’s perspective is that it is so Lukan: the wording allows Luke to recall for his hearers the passion predictions and Jesus’s passion in the Gospel (Luke 18:32).[1599] Like Jesus, Paul is handed over to Gentiles by his own people.[1600]

IV. PLEAS NOT TO GO TO JERUSALEM (21:12)

In a speech for a departing friend, a person might try to dissuade him from leaving, recalling their good times together and even pretending to charge him before an imaginary journey for abandoning his friend.[1601] Paul’s friends here, however, are not pretending or simply reminiscing about old times; they fear for his life. Their love for Paul reinforces the portrait emphasized especially since Acts 20:36–38; Paul was well loved by those who knew him best, and so readers should appreciate him and experience the same sense of impending loss. As Johnson rightly points out, “the chorus expresses in place of the reader the anguish and dismay” that the occasion demands in 21:12, but also helps the reader transition to its model “of obedient faith, to declare, finally, ‘May the will of the Lord be done.’ ”[1602]

Given Luke’s inclusive wording, the renowned Philip and his four prophetess daughters must have been among those who pleaded with Paul not to go; since prophets in the early church often worked together (Acts 11:27–28; 13:1–4; 1 Cor 14:29–33),[1603] they may have confirmed Agabus’s prophetic word. In any case, in view of the prophecy, the disciples in Caesarea, like those in Tyre in Acts 21:4, must have been insisting “through the Spirit” that Paul should not go.

Perhaps more than some modern readers, many ancients would have understood that both Paul and his friends acted honorably in their respective roles.[1604] Attempts to dissuade a protagonist from martyrdom could come from persecutors[1605] but also from friends.[1606] Speakers might attempt to affectionately dissuade their hearer from risking his life, pointing to the great loss to the speakers that this sacrifice would incur (Cic. Marcell. 8.25).

Even if affection for Paul temporarily misled his friends as to how to apply the prophecies (cf. Acts 21:4), their copious display of affection is a positive trait. Ancients, informed by their values of honor, shame, and loyalties, probably recognized the conflict of positive values and loyalties much more often than we do;[1607] Luke does not develop Paul’s internal conflict beyond 21:13, but it is sufficient to reveal the tension of conflicting concerns, although these will not sway the outcome.[1608]

V. READY TO DIE FOR JESUS (21:13)

Tears were contagious (e.g., Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.21) and sometimes efficacious in changing a leader’s intention (Caesar Gall. W. 1.20);[1609] although the philosophic emperor Marcus Aurelius restrained his emotions throughout an entreaty, he burst into tears when the people decried their hardship with intense pathos (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.561).[1610] The emotional pressure on Paul from beloved and respected colleagues was undoubtedly intense (Acts 21:13a).[1611] That their weeping breaks Paul’s heart emphasizes his connection with them and would soften the rebuke if any is implied.[1612] Sometimes philosophers averred that they were prepared to die but wished to endure for the sake of those who loved them (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.2–3), as did Paul (Phil 1:24); but this willingness to accommodate others could not come at the expense of dereliction of duty[1613] or of disobedience to God.

Jesus’s disciples also doubted that his mission was to suffer (Luke 9:45) and offered him little support (22:45–46, 57–60; despite 22:28), though Luke omits the Markan Peter’s initial expression of confidence that Jesus would not suffer (Mark 8:32). Jesus, by contrast, wishes not to suffer but obeys the Father (Luke 22:42). The wording here reinforces the echo of Jesus: Paul is ready to suffer for Jesus’s name—that is, for his sake (paralleling also the Jerusalem apostles, Acts 5:41).[1614]

Peter made a similar pledge in Luke 22:33 (ready to face prison and death; contrast the wording in Mark 14:29, 31), but whereas Peter reneges on his promise in the Gospel, Paul fulfills his in Acts.[1615] Luke also emphasizes God’s wisdom by the contrast: Jesus accurately predicts Peter’s failure to embrace suffering (Luke 22:34), just as the Holy Spirit accurately predicts that Paul will suffer (Acts 21:11). Although ancients expected that the will of God or of deities would be fulfilled, they respected those who embraced their destiny freely.[1616]

Others had dissuaded Paul from harm before (19:30–31; cf. 9:30), but in this case he is convinced that God wants him to go to Jerusalem (19:21). It was honorable not to be deterred,[1617] and examples may be multiplied. Ancients praised heroes who faced suffering bravely;[1618] this courage might include enduring grief by submitting to God’s will (Jos. Ant. 3.208).[1619] This also included facing suffering despite the entreaties of loved ones.[1620] When Jason’s mother seeks by tears to dissuade him from his dangerous mission, he comforts her but insists that he will not be deterred (Ap. Rhod. 1.292–305). Despite the pleas and tears of their families, whom they sent away to safety, the Athenian men chose to face the Persians.[1621] Moses was ready to face death without concern because he trusted God’s will and the law of nature (Jos. Ant. 4.322); in one account, when Joshua lamented Moses’s impending death, Moses shared the weeping but comforted Joshua (Test. Mos. 11:2–3).

Paul’s readiness to die not for an abstract necessity but for Jesus’s name loyally reciprocates Jesus’s love (Luke 22:19–20); laying down one’s life for a friend,[1622] a spouse,[1623] a master,[1624] or others[1625] was the highest expression of loyalty and love. In Paul’s letters, too, we find a preparedness to die for Christ’s honor (1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 4:7–5:10; Phil 1:20–23), and even before embarking, Paul knew that he would face potential danger in Judea (Rom 15:31). Like many philosophers and moralists, Paul sees life and death not as ends in themselves but as instruments that could be used beneficially or not (Rom 8:38; 14:8; Phil 1:21–26; 1 Thess 5:10).[1626]

Although all of this picture fits Luke’s purpose, its literary utility does not make it less plausible. More recent figures heading into potential conflict have also faced supporters seeking to dissuade them on the way; such was the reported case, for example, of Luther en route to Worms.[1627] Even the parallel that this makes with Jesus’s approaching his passion, which Luke structures his material to emphasize, may not have been lost on Paul himself,[1628] just as Luther reportedly saw his going to Worms as a parallel to Jesus’s Palm Sunday, facing his death.[1629]

VI. ACKNOWLEDGING GOD’S WILL (21:14)

Their concluding acceptance of God’s will (Acts 21:14) reinforces Luke’s tracing of divine design in Paul’s, like Jesus’s, suffering. They “fell silent” like those corrected by God’s plan earlier (11:18).[1630] Moreover, like Jesus facing his passion, they affirm the Father’s will rather than their own (Luke 22:42).[1631] Greeks and, even more frequently, Jews affirmed that it was best to obey the will of deity.[1632]

In Acts, Paul is a reliable character who does in fact know God’s will (Acts 22:14). Friends might wish Paul not to go, but in the end, it was appropriate to resign oneself to a determined friend’s wishes, even against one’s affectionate desire for the friend. Thus orators recommended (in a more formal and less dangerous setting) that one complain of failing to dissuade one’s friend from departing but then abide by what the friend wishes (βουλήσει, Men. Rhet. 2.5, 397.13–15). That Paul’s friends here explicitly embrace God’s will rather than Paul’s—acknowledging a greater design—is significant for the narrative’s apologetic portrait of Paul and deliberative invitation to suffer for Jesus’s name. Paul’s ensuing Roman custody and the embarrassment that it entailed for many Christians was a result not of folly or lack of foresight but of obedience to God’s commission (Acts 26:19–21).

7. Final Journey to Jerusalem (21:15–16)

Paul started for Jerusalem and lodged with an old disciple named Mnason. Although Luke’s entire itinerary is detailed, the details as Paul approaches his promised suffering might also have the effect of heightening pathos for some readers (cf. the details in Gen 22:1–8). But Luke is less detailed than he could have been (ignoring the names of stops between Caesarea and Jerusalem).

a. Starting to Jerusalem (21:15)

Paul’s friends knew that once he entered Jerusalem, he would face danger (Acts 21:12; cf. Rom 15:31). That the group now heads toward Jerusalem means that the matter is settled (Acts 21:14); there can no longer be any turning back from the promised suffering.[1633] That its members “prepared” before they left would simply indicate that they acquired provisions for the journey.[1634] Perhaps these included several days’ worth of food, although given the number of believers in Judea (21:20), it is also reasonable to suppose that they expected hospitality on the way (21:16; cf. Luke 9:3–5; 10:5–7).[1635]

If they followed the coastal route and then cut over the mountains to Jerusalem—for example, from Joppa to Lydda to Jerusalem—they would have encountered communities of believers founded by Philip and Peter (Acts 8:40; 9:32–42). This might explain Luke’s familiarity with this route earlier in his narrative; Luke’s knowledge of the coastal route and Jerusalem appears much more detailed than his knowledge of rural inland geography in Palestine.[1636] If they took a more inland route via Sebaste and surrounding Samaria, they would still encounter communities influenced by the ministry of Philip and Peter (and Paul, 15:3).[1637] The roads would likely be well traveled; numerous caravans would be making the journey for the Pentecost festival in this season.[1638]

b. Lodging with Mnason (21:16)

In 21:16, Caesarean disciples provide Paul’s entourage with an escort; such escorts were an important expression of hospitality and respect (cf. 11:12), and guides would simplify the journey even though directions would have sufficed (see comment on Acts 10:5–6). This introduction would be even more honorable than a letter of recommendation (cf. 9:2; 22:5).

These factors do not require us to think that the entourage, already large (20:4–5), needed several more men (the number is unspecified) for protection, though the issue of Paul’s safety in Jerusalem cannot have been far from people’s minds (21:11–12). It is possible that the members of the escort did not even accompany him to Jerusalem, since they are stated only with respect to Mnason’s house; but they may well have continued on for the Feast of Pentecost (cf. 20:16) themselves (and Paul may have timed his departure for Jerusalem in part to accommodate their convenience in travel as well as his own). More significant may be that the group travels with Paul’s Gentiles (unless the Caesarea disciples were already ethnically mixed, which would also be significant).[1639] On the deep and often violent ethnic division in Caesarea, see comment on Acts 10:1.

“Mnason” was an old Greek name (cf., e.g., the purported father of Zeno in the fourth century B.C.E., Diog. Laert. 7.1.1);[1640] Jews tended to prefer the similar “Jason” (see comment on Acts 17:5), and Romans “Nason,” both of which names appear in textual variants here.[1641] The Greek form was commonly Μνήσων (the alpha in the name of Luke’s Mnason is often thought to be a Cypriot variant),[1642] though the present form also appears (P.Hib. 1.41.3).[1643] This familiar Gentile name may correspond to a similar-sounding Semitic name, such as Menahem or Manasseh.[1644] A later rabbi in Rome is named Μν(ι)ασέας (CIJ 1:372, §508).[1645]

That Mnason is named here though he figures nowhere earlier in the narrative and contributes only hospitality (like countless unnamed disciples in Acts 20:6–7, 17; 21:4, 7) is significant. Details of names are expected from an eyewitness; thus, for example, Xenophon generally provides names for troop losses only when they are members of his command (Anab. 4.1.18) or for other common soldiers (as opposed to officers) only when they interact with him (3.4.47–49; 4.2.21).[1646] The “we” narrative purports (reliably, in my view) to reflect eyewitness material.

Luke does not, however, offer such names throughout his itinerary without special reasons (e.g., Eutychus is central to the action in Acts 20:9). Mnason’s name probably appears here not simply because of his hospitality but because he is said to be an “old” disciple—that is, like Philip, a potential informant for Luke’s history of the early Christian mission.[1647] (Thus, for example, Philostratus cites as his direct source one Aristaeus, “the oldest of all the educated Greeks in my time,” who knew most about the figure about whom Philostratus is writing.)[1648] Luke wants his audience to understand that many witnesses from the early days remained.

How “early” a disciple Mnason was Luke does not say; he may have been a convert from the missions to Cyprus (11:19; 13:4), but more likely he was a Cypriot “Hellenist” Jew living in Jerusalem when he became a disciple, like Barnabas (4:36), and had been scattered by Saul’s persecution (11:19–20). (He need not have been one of those who came to Antioch, who were only “some” of the scattered Cypriots in 11:20.)[1649] If so, the meeting with Paul would bring Luke’s narrative concerning Paul full circle (as Paul’s meeting with Philip had); he who once persecuted Christians in Jerusalem now returns there to face persecution himself (cf. 9:13–16, 29).[1650]

Housing uncircumcised Gentiles (which presumably at least some of his companions were, though happily not idolaters; see comment on Acts 10:28) might be more difficult in the homes of zealous Jerusalem believers (though somehow it was done, 21:17); perhaps a Hellenist such as Mnason would have found it easier.[1651] Paul had some uncertainty as to how his ministry would be welcomed (Rom 15:31), and Luke makes no secret that Paul had enemies in Jerusalem even among believers (Acts 21:21).

Mnason could be a Hellenist disciple in Jerusalem (21:16), as most commentators suggest,[1652] yet the sequence of the text sounds as if the group reaches him before it reaches Jerusalem (21:17).[1653] Granted, Hellenists would be likelier in Jerusalem than in a small town (unless it was on the coast), and Luke does not specify the stop by name (or even a stop per se unless one accepts the Western reading here, which likely represents an inference). In contrast to much of his itinerary, Luke does not detail the towns where the group may have stopped en route to Jerusalem, but he knows that one day is insufficient (23:32).[1654] A sixty-mile journey (68 Roman mi.) by foot at normal speed (and normal speed might be presumed from the leisure suggested in 21:10) suggests a three-day journey (with two overnight stops) or (less likely here, given the leisure of their departure) a more rushed journey with one overnight stop.[1655]

By horse the group could cover the same journey in two days, but hiring so many horses would be expensive and is less likely.[1656] The Western text says that they rested in Mnason’s house while the Caesarean disciples returned home; the accepted text could be read the same way. This information inclines some scholars to favor the two-day journey by horse,[1657] but this view assumes that Luke lists every stop.[1658] The texts D and syr^hmg note that the company stayed in “a certain village” with Mnason;[1659] although this information may reflect an inference rather than tradition, it is a logical one, explaining why Luke either did not catch or felt no need to record the relatively obscure location’s name (though Hellenists were probably less likely to settle in villages, bilingualism was common enough to permit this).[1660]

It appears (given the conjunction of the aorist subjunctive and the present participle) that arrangements had already been made with Mnason, presumably during the several days Paul spent in Caesarea (21:10).[1661] Mnason was probably a person of means, given the size of Paul’s company (20:4–5). If the stop was fairly near Jerusalem directly before the festival, however (and especially if, with many commentators, it was in Jerusalem), lodging would be at a premium, and Paul’s Caesarean hosts would want to secure in advance for him and his Diaspora delegates the most generous hospitality possible.

↑ Back to top