Continuing Ministry in Rome (28:16–31)
CONTINUING MINISTRY IN ROME (28:16–31)
Luke directs the trajectory of his second volume toward the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8), which is fulfilled in a proleptic way (promising future success) with the arrival of the apostle to the Gentiles in the (Roman) world’s capital. On my view of the work’s date, Luke could have narrated Paul’s eventual execution in Rome (perhaps after an initial release and a period of continuing ministry), but, in keeping with a pattern through most of his work, he chooses to end the narrative on a happier note that reveals the trajectory that he expects for the gospel’s spread. Despite obstacles and sufferings, the gospel that reached Rome will continue its success to the ends of the earth.
This volume ends relatively abruptly, but it recapitulates some of the work’s major themes, including the Gentile mission, the importance of evangelizing Rome (and hence, in principle, all peoples), and the obduracy of God’s own people. Against many interpreters, however, it does not teach a final rejection of Israel.
Ancient writers were more comfortable with “open” endings than are modern readers (see discussion at Acts 28:30–31). Yet there is a reason Luke ends with Paul in Rome.
Many real hearers, including Theophilus, may have known that Luke narrated the mission’s movement from Jerusalem to Rome, but we should also consider how the ending would have sounded to less-prepared auditors. A first-time reader can expect that the gospel will reach the ends of the earth, in light of 1:8; throughout Luke’s narrative, the reader will simply question how that will be fulfilled. For an uninformed first-time reader, 28:16–31 is a surprise ending; Paul fulfills the mission (or, in my reading, provides the proleptic conclusion pointing to a greater future fulfillment) as a captive.1 This ending would be all the more striking in a setting where many wanted to dissociate themselves from the memory of Paul’s imprisonment and execution.2 Yet Paul’s custody in Rome is an occasion not of tragedy (or for viewing Paul negatively)3 but of triumph; the gospel has reached Rome. As Jesus triumphs through his own unjust execution, so do his agents accomplish God’s purposes in the very face of their unjust treatment.4 As Spivey, Smith, and Black observe, “Though some might regard Paul’s imprisonment and journey to Rome as the result of the work of evil men or the quirk of a cruel fate, for Luke they are the fulfillment of God’s will.”5 And if the gospel has reached the heart of the empire, it will also reach the ends of the earth.
That Luke leaves off his story of Paul at a literarily unexpected point6 draws attention to his concluding scenes and summary. Luke’s use of “narrative suspension” fits ancient models and allows him to emphasize major themes.7 This suspension allows Luke to reiterate emphatically his primary themes: expected heirs of God’s promises reject the message of those promises’ fulfillment; good news about Israel’s king is offered to the Gentiles (in a movement from heritage to mission, without rejecting the former); “pagan” Rome is not the enemy but, in fact, offers positive legal precedents for Christians’ “religious freedom”; and nothing can stop the gospel or God’s purpose for its expansion. This narrative conclusion may also allow Luke to reframe the church’s memory of Paul and his martyrdom, thereby supporting the expansion of the Pauline (noncircumcisionist) Gentile mission.8
Luke leads readers to expect Paul’s acquittal,9 his condemnation, or perhaps both.10 But in 28:30–31, Luke offers a positive, surprise ending, an almost comic upturn, just as his Gospel concludes with resurrection and Jesus’s ascension.11 Although an uninformed audience, on its initial hearing, expected Acts to end with Paul’s execution, Luke ends with Paul’s relative freedom even in custody, showing that Roman law was favorable to Paul’s case and contending that Nero’s tyranny and repression of the church was legally anomalous, not an appropriate precedent for others in the empire to follow. Luke also ends with the tension that pervades his two volumes: because God’s own people do not, as a whole, embrace his new work, it is right for his agents to share God’s promise also with the Gentiles (28:23–28).
b. Recapitulating Earlier Themes
That Luke’s conclusion would revisit earlier themes in his work is not surprising.12 A closing summary was frequent in speeches and rhetorical essays13—for example, “I will now sum up what I have said, and I beg the close attention of you all.”14 Some rhetorical handbooks emphasized the value of recapitulation (παλιλλογία)15 as a form of reminder (ἀνάμνησις)16 at the end of a division of a speech and finally at the entire speech’s conclusion;17 after finishing a speech, one should normally “conclude by giving a concise repetition, recalling what [one has] said to . . . hearers’ memory.”18 The longer the speech, the more important the recapitulation.19 Indeed, epilogues in speeches often recapitulated the arguments of a speech in sequence or reverse sequence; they also could be used to arouse emotion.20 Conclusions did not always summarize,21 but it was not unusual for them to do so.
Because Luke writes narrative, he does not have sequential arguments to revisit,22 but we can expect themes to recur in this closing section. (Books of history could also include closing summaries;23 they did not need to include explicit summaries, however, and Luke does not offer one. Other genres also often included closing summaries.)24 The concluding section of Acts revisits some themes developed during Paul’s defense in Acts 21–26, including references to Paul’s chains, the hope of Israel, Jewish accusations or unbelief, and Paul’s fidelity to his heritage.25
Underlining its importance for recapitulating many of Luke’s most prominent themes, this closing section of Acts recalls numerous key points in Luke-Acts. Charles Puskas examines some of the obvious locations: the introduction and conclusion of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1–3; 23–24), the programmatic section of the Gospel (Luke 4), and the introduction to Acts (Acts 1). He compares Acts 28 with Luke 1–326 regarding references to the Spirit speaking through prophets (Luke 1:67; 2:25–27; Acts 28:25),27 opposition to Christ and his followers (ἀντιλέγω in Luke 2:34; Acts 28:19, 22),28 and σωτήριον for the Gentiles, using the language of Isaiah LXX (Luke 2:30, 32, echoing Isa 40:5; 42:6; 49:6; Luke 3:6, quoting Isa 40:5; Acts 28:28, quoting Isa 40:5).29
Although Acts 1 is not “parallel” with Acts 28 in the same way that some other texts are, both include διδάσκω (1:1; 28:31); the Holy Spirit (1:2, 8; 28:25); four of Acts’ eight uses of βασιλεία (1:3, 6; 28:23, 31); knowledge (withheld in 1:7 and given in 28:28);30 and witness (1:8; 28:23).31 Most important is that the concluding passage allows the completion of the mission from Jerusalem (1:8) to Rome (28:16) and presents the worldwide mission as Luke’s last reported words of Jesus (1:8) and Paul (28:28).32 That an ending would recall a beginning would not surprise an ancient audience.33
In more detail, Puskas offers ten comparisons (some much more significant than others, and some reflecting a consistent pattern in Luke-Acts) between this passage and Luke 4:34
Puskas suggests nine parallels of Acts 28 with Luke 23–24:35
Certainly Acts 28:17–31 provides a fitting climax to Luke’s work, and in a sense it interprets Paul’s “passion” in light of that of Jesus. This both vindicates the Pauline mission and reinforces Jesus’s warning that those who want to follow him must share his cross as well as the resurrection hope (Luke 9:23).
Jesus’s model in the Gospel and especially his commission in Luke 24 and Acts 1 determine the direction of Acts’ narrative. Jerusalem geographically frames Luke’s Gospel, whereas the second volume moves from Jerusalem to Rome. The mission that begins with Jerusalem is recapitulated in Rome, as in many earlier cities, by starting with the Jewish people. Luke ends with Paul carrying on the mission, looking toward the future of the Gentile mission (28:28). The work thus ends with a prospective view toward the future, a future that, on my post-Pauline dating of the book, has already begun for Luke’s audience. He expressly expects the Gentile mission to continue, presumably empowered by the same Spirit as from the beginning (2:38–39).
Not only does the passage echo many earlier themes of Luke-Acts; it recalls a conflict with some Diaspora Jews that was sounded from shortly after Paul’s first full-length speech in Acts (13:45–46).37 Some scholars suppose that this is a final repudiation of Israel, the “time of the Gentiles,” climaxing the developments in Acts 13:46 and 18:6.38 This argument, however, reads the conclusion of Luke-Acts against rather than in light of what precedes it; it probably also reads Luke-Acts anachronistically, in light of the duration of the subsequent schism between Jews and Gentile Christians, which proved far longer and more thoroughgoing than Luke (or Paul) could have imagined. Granted, the “time of the Gentiles” has come, but Luke sees this period as a temporary era (see ἄχρι in Luke 21:24), followed by a “redemption” (21:28) that includes Israel (1:68; 2:38). Moreover, it is unclear why the pronouncement of this passage constitutes a more decisive rejection of Israel than does the stronger language of Acts 13:46 and 18:6 (here Paul mentions the mission to the Gentiles; there he indicates turning from Jews in order to turn to Gentiles). A paradigmatic, continuing pattern during the “Gentile era,” of ministry to Jewish people followed by ministry to more receptive Gentiles, seems more likely.39
This passage cannot function as a decisive and permanent rejection of God’s plan for all Jews. Paul’s Jewish audience remains divided; some are receptive (28:23–24), and Paul keeps ministering to them, fitting the pattern of his earlier ministry.40 Specifically, they were divided earlier in Acts (13:43–45; 14:1–2; 17:4–5, 10–14; 18:4–8) and presumably continued to be so after Paul’s statement in 28:25–28. He continues welcoming “all” visitors, evidently both Jew and Gentile (28:30),41 and preaching the “kingdom” (28:31), as he did with the synagogue leaders (28:23).42 Paul and Luke express anguish not because there is no “remnant” but because a mere remnant cannot constitute “a satisfactory fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel.”43
Further, Paul’s turning to the Gentiles is no more a decisive rejection of future opportunities for the Jewish people than his earlier turnings in 13:46–48, 18:6, 22:21, and 26:17–18—“no more final indeed than the words of Isa. 6.9–10 were for Isaiah’s mission to his people.”44 Luke simply reiterates (like Paul in Rom 1:16; 9:24; 10:12)45 that the gospel must always be offered to Israel first in each location, repeating the pattern.46
Luke wants to continue to affirm heritage while focusing on mission; it is highly improbable that he roots Jesus and the Jerusalem church so securely in the story of Israel throughout his work only to reject that heritage (and the people who maintained it) at the end.47 Indeed, Paul speaks favorably of the ancestral customs (Acts 28:17), “my nation” (28:19), and “the hope of Israel” (28:20).48 Tannehill argues that far from rejecting Judaism here, Luke reaffirms Paul’s fidelity to his Jewish heritage. The focus of Luke’s defense of Paul in 21:17–28:31 is “to defend Paul against the view that he has betrayed Judaism.”49 Paul elsewhere asserts his Jewish identity (21:39; 22:3) and his loyalty to his ancestral heritage (22:3; 23:6; 24:11–17; 25:8; 26:4–7; 28:17).50 If, as most scholars argue, Luke writes after the destruction of Jerusalem, the question of mission is paramount, but the question of the identity of the heritage’s true guardians has taken a fresh turn.51
2. Paul Meets Jewish Leaders (28:16–22)
In each city, Paul begins with the Jewish community (see discussion at Acts 13:5), and he does the same in Rome despite a flourishing Christian community already there (cf. 28:15).52 Luke also shows that Paul carries on his ministry openly under the nose of the Roman authorities, while in Roman custody. That is, despite the idiosyncratic activity of Nero, the Roman authorities, by and large, recognized that the Christian movement was a politically innocuous form of Judaism.
a. Entering Mighty Rome (28:16)
Since the Augustan era, Roman propaganda exalted the capital as “the eternal city” and divine.53 Until London reached a million in the eighteenth century, no Western city grew so large again, and only the empire’s infrastructure could support a capital so massive.54 Rome imported at least two hundred thousand tons of food each year; other regions also had imports, but Rome was taken care of first, subsidized by its empire.55 Some scholars estimate that Rome’s annual income was 100 to 200 million denarii—somewhere close to 10 percent of the entire empire’s product.56
Pliny the Elder boasts, “There has been no city in the whole world that could be compared to Rome in magnitude.”57 Earlier, Dionysius of Halicarnassus noted that by conquering the world, Rome seized the attention of all the world’s cities.58 Some later rabbis, despising Rome’s paganism, hyperbolically envisioned its majesty: 365 sections of Rome with 365 palaces each, each having 365 stories, and each story holding enough to provide the whole world with food.59
Some have estimated only two hundred thousand residents for ancient Rome, rejecting the usual consensus;60 but concrete ancient census data seems to make this estimate problematic. Some others estimate that first-century C.E. Rome had about half a million inhabitants.61 Some reach this estimate by extrapolating population density from Pompeii and Ostia.62
Packer extrapolates from housing in Rome. Later (fourth-century) building catalogues indicate some forty-five to forty-six thousand insulae in Rome;63 estimating their population density along the lines of Ostia’s (at 84.6 persons per insula, with 33.9 per the insulae that include luxury apartments),64 he concludes that later Rome had half a million inhabitants and at its height, closer to Paul’s day, Rome had less than a million.65
Others contend that more-concrete ancient sources support the traditional, higher estimate of a million,66 a range that probably remains closer to the consensus.67 Earlier census figures indeed yield fairly consistent numbers. A census in the early period of the consulate indicated 130,000 adult citizens (i.e., not including children, foreigners, or slaves);68 around the seventieth Olympiad, there were 150,700 adult citizens;69 and a census at the time of Menenius Agrippa’s death in the fifth century B.C.E. lists 110,000 citizens,70 as did a later one.71 But the population grew in time. Although 320,000 householders were said to be receiving the grain dole before the civil wars of the first century B.C.E., the numbers were only 150,000 in Rome afterward (Suet. Jul. 41).72 The population then steadily increased again.
Augustus reckoned (Res gest. 15) that his handouts went sometimes to 320,000, 250,000, or, at other times, 200,000 male citizens. This could imply a median estimate of about 670,000 free citizens and, in addition, an estimated slave population of 30 percent, resident free foreigners, and citizens of status either too high or too low to be figured into the grain dole.73 (Many free foreigners lived in Rome in all periods.)74 This could suggest in turn a population of no less than a million.
As Italian towns were romanized, more Italians migrated to Rome, and its population grew rapidly in the first century.75 Because Rome’s mansions and public buildings consumed more than half of the city’s sixteen square miles, the population density must have been comparable to that of many crowded cities in our own era.76 That the Circus Maximus was later expanded to hold about a quarter of a million spectators77 suggests a high figure, since ancient theaters did not accommodate the majority of a city’s residents.
Some disparity in figures may arise from what segment of the population one counts. Packer’s estimate, based on insulae, reckons from the space enclosed in Rome’s walls whereas the grain dole may have served the metropolitan area.78 Romans might have included the city’s population for a mile outside the city walls.79 Emphasizing particular methods of calculation will produce somewhat different results, but all estimates (usually half a million to slightly more than a million) yield the same basic order of magnitude.
Drinking water for such a large population would not be a problem. Estimates of aqueducts importing 332,306,624 gallons of water every day by the early second century80 show that they provided more than was necessary merely for a million people’s drinking purposes.
Traveling along the Appian Way, Paul would have been near the Aqua Claudia, the aqueduct built by Claudius. As with roads approaching many cities, monumental tombs lined the road approaching Rome. Rome’s fourth-century B.C.E. wall had been falling into a somewhat ruined state, its relevance diminished by the city’s spread beyond the wall (a situation remedied under duress only more than two centuries after Paul’s arrival).81
Along this route, Paul undoubtedly entered Rome by the Porta Capena (the Porta Appia, farther out on the same route, is later, part of Aurelian’s wall).82 Thus he would have passed near Nero’s palace83 and the Circus Maximus. This was also one of the locations that probably held a larger-than-usual proportion of Christians.84 Ahead lay the seven ancient hills,85 famous in ancient sources.86 Paul would have reached Rome early in the new year after his departure; thus, if Paul left Caesarea in 59 C.E., he would have reached Rome early in 60 (on the unresolved question of dating, see comment on Acts 24:27).
That Paul was a prisoner in Rome was a strong tradition of early Christians;87 although they might have wanted to invent a trip to Rome, they would not have invented his prisoner status any more than they would have invented Jesus’s crucifixion on the charge of treason. Paul is a prisoner in numerous Pauline and disputed Pauline passages (Eph 3:1; 6:20; Phil 1:7; Col 4:18; Phlm 10, 13; 2 Tim 4:16), some texts apparently pointing more specifically to detention in Rome (Phil 1:13;88 4:22; see comment below).89 Going to Rome had been Paul’s own intention all along (Rom 15:22–24, 28), and so, if he visited there without being detained at some point, why would the tradition have invented his imprisonment there, given the shame attached to detentions?90
As in Acts 27:2, Paul’s own material shows that Luke and Aristarchus were with Paul during his detention (Col 4:10, 14; Phlm 24). The Pauline corpus, however, also supplies personal details missing in Acts—namely, that Mark (Col 4:10; Phlm 24), Epaphras (Phlm 23, as a fellow prisoner; Col 4:12), and Demas (Col 4:14; Phlm 24) were with him and later that Demas left him (2 Tim 4:10), that Luke remained (4:11), and that Mark needed to join him (4:11).
Who made the determination that Paul would be permitted (ἐπετράπη here indicates some official ruling) to stay by himself with a single guard?91 Luke might even deliberately refuse to name the official out of discretion,92 but the later Western text does not share his reticence, indicating a ruling by the στρατοπέδαρχος. If the Western text has a particular office in mind, its opinion could be useful whether it preserves reliable tradition (more readily available in the West, where the events occurred) or even merely speculation more historically informed than our own might be. The Western text could allude to the Praetorian prefect (the sense of the term in LSJ), since the Praetorian Guard was in charge of prisoners sent from the provinces (cf. Pliny Ep. 10.57.2).93 Afranius Burrus filled this office by himself94 from 51 until 62 C.E., when he died, possibly from poison (though Tacitus regards this suspicion as uncertain).95 Because the Praetorian prefect’s office was powerful, equestrians rather than senators filled the office to prevent rivalry with the emperor.96
The term, however, could also apply (at least etymologically, admittedly not a decisive argument) to a commander of a military camp or of an army (στρατόπεδον),97 and in any case Burrus would probably have delegated the prisoners’ respective assignments to a lesser official.98 Another proposal is the princeps peregrinorum,99 but this officer was originally in charge of grain (more relevant to Paul’s ship), and his police duties are not clear before the second century C.E.100
A stronger proposal appears to be the princeps castrorum, head administrator of the officium of the Praetorian Guard.101 There is, however, at present no certain record of this office before Trajan’s time;102 our sources are too incomplete to rule it out, but we cannot be certain. In any case, as already noted, Burrus could have delegated the detention of incoming prisoners (separating citizens on appeal from the larger numbers sent to satisfy the Roman public’s thirst for bloody amusements) to any of his high-ranking subordinate officers. Each of the twelve cohorts under him was commanded by an equestrian tribune.103
The Praetorian Guard originally consisted of nine cohorts, but Claudius and Nero raised their number to twelve, with five hundred to a thousand soldiers each.104 Traditionally the emperor’s bodyguard, they maintained order for Italy as the legions did in the provinces,105 though Rome also had an urban police force (the three or four cohortes urbanae, lesser paid than Praetorians) under the consular praefectus urbi.106 In contrast to the freedmen used in the fire brigade and the night police, the Praetorians and the city cohorts were recruited exclusively from free persons.107 Most of the recruits were from Central Italy, but some exceptions came from Asia or Macedonia.108 Praetorians were the elite of the Roman military: they served sixteen years (versus a legionary’s twenty), were paid two denarii a day (versus a legionary’s ten asses), and received five thousand denarii on discharge (versus three thousand for a legionary).109 It is possible that Paul’s own correspondence reveals the involvement of Praetorians in his custody arrangements (Phil 1:13; 4:22),110 as well as his influence on some of them.
Careful track would be kept of the location and length of the prisoner’s custody; detailed data, including regular updates on the prisoner’s status, would be available to the appropriate officials.111 If Paul was not yet adequately conversant in Latin, translation of the decision was probably provided for him;112 in any case, he and his companions saw it soon enough.
A prisoner was normally kept by two soldiers,113 and so the assignment of a single guard114 (per shift) confirms that the official saw little threat in this older Roman citizen from the East. This is his lightest form of custody since shortly after his arrest.115 Useful as such a positive arrangement is for Luke’s apologetic, Luke does not appear to be merely inventing information here. His foundation in genuine information seems confirmed in that Luke can no longer claim that Paul is guarded by a centurion; a regular soldier guards him. Because the rank of the guard corresponded with one’s status and Paul’s Roman citizenship is anything but unusual in Rome, he now has only a regular soldier guarding him.116 Luke’s mention of a single soldier suggests that Aristarchus was Paul’s voluntary companion (and that “fellow prisoner” in Col 4:10 is figurative for, at most, Paul’s companion during captivity), not a literal captive (see comment on Acts 27:2).
Luke’s portrayal of Paul chained to a guard117 meets his portrait of Paul ever eager to evangelize in Phil 1:13 and 4:22. Paul, with perhaps characteristic hyperbole (given the size of the Praetorian Guard in Rome), claims that his testimony of imprisonment for Christ has become known throughout the entire Praetorian Guard (and everywhere else, 1:13!). He also claims that members of Caesar’s household have become Christians (4:22), which could indicate imperial servants but which many apply to members of the Praetorian Guard.118 (Of course, Paul is not the only one in Rome preaching [cf. 1:14–18].)
If some guards are converted,119 why does Luke (who may have known of the Letter to the Philippians even if he knew of few others) not mention it? On an early dating of Acts (before Paul’s execution), he might not yet know; a bit later, during the Neronian persecution, it might endanger the converts. Possibly (and more compatible with most proposed datings), he does not want to distract from the Jewish focus of the final scene. Luke has reported enough converts; he is nearing the end of the standardized scroll, and he cannot record every detail yet keep his work to two volumes.
If either Burrus or any of his subordinates (exercising his delegated authority) treated Paul as leniently as Luke reports, Paul was not viewed as a threat.120 Julius’s favorable oral report about Paul, which could interpretively supplement or even temporarily replace Festus’s likewise favorable letter,121 no doubt helped in Paul’s kindlier treatment. Certainly a Roman citizen accused by fellow Judeans who either were not citizens or had a history of problems with Roman authorities could be viewed favorably or even sympathetically (a matter that Luke, with his conciliatory emphasis toward Roman government, would readily report).
Festus presumably recommended the sort of custody appropriate for Paul as a citizen awaiting trial (cf. Acts 26:31).122 Not all imprisonments were equally severe; much depended on the location of detention. The worst prison in Rome was the state prison, and its harshest chamber was “the Tullianum or death cell.”123 Even Rome’s quarry prison, where prisoners quarried stone, was more bearable than this.124 The corpses of criminals executed in Rome’s state prison were normally hurled onto the stairs on the Capitoline Hill, then dragged by hooks into the Forum and discarded in the Tiber.125 Military custody was lighter than imprisonment;126 confinement in a barracks was a severer form of military custody than confinement to a private house,127 and so Paul’s arrangements are lighter than most, probably lighter than those of the other prisoners sent to Rome along with him.
One should nevertheless not overestimate Paul’s freedom.128 If the severest form of custody was imprisonment, the lightest was to be on one’s own, without chains (e.g., entrusted to the supervision of a person of higher rank).129 Because Paul stays in his own place, some scholars regard his detention as “free” or “open custody” (custodia libera), as opposed to custodia militaris,130 but Paul’s chains make this assumption questionable (26:29; 28:20). Nevertheless, on a spectrum of punishments, it would be custodia liberior: freer, or a lightened, form of custody.131
Chains were most characteristic of harsher forms but could also occur with lighter forms of custody; chains were normally waived for high status (which Paul would not have as a Roman Jew in Rome, in contrast to the East).132 Military custody often entailed being manacled to guards, as here,133 even for house arrest (Jos. Ant. 18.237).134 (Nor did the waiving of fetters for a high-status person guarantee lenient treatment; one could be kept without chains [e.g., Plut. Cic. 19.2] yet sentenced to death [20.3; 21.3].)
Within the home, Paul would exercise considerable freedom. Some access to prisoners, at least for relatives to supply food, was common even in prisons (see comment at Acts 24:23); access would be easier for someone “under house arrest” but remained at the supervisors’ discretion.135 That large numbers of visitors (Acts 28:17, 23) had ready access to Paul, however, suggests not that each of his individual guards proved generous but that they had orders to allow it; “unhindered” (28:31) is a significant legal term.136 Prisoners could engage in philosophic or religious conversation with guests and others.137 The venue would not hinder this: philosophers sometimes taught students in their homes or rented quarters besides using public places or patrons’ homes.138
Educated prisoners often read and wrote,139 and we have many examples of ancient literary works written from prisons.140 Given Paul’s lighter custody, he would have ready access to writing materials through his visitors;141 writing letters such as Philippians or Philemon would not have been problematic. Yet in Rome, Paul would have lacked the unusual status considerations that merited special treatment in the East; why then was his custody relatively light? Presumably it was light because the documentation from the procurator Festus demonstrated that the case against him was weak.142 For Paul’s use of Greek and possibly some Latin, see comment on Acts 18:12–13.143
The Western text’s “outside the barracks” could imply a place “in and later near the Praetorian barracks located at the Porta Viminalis just beyond the walls to the NE of the city.”144 Although technically outside the gates, the Praetorians’ camp counts as part of larger Rome.145 But the Western text here may be an inference from the use of a soldier; the Praetorian Guard was active throughout Rome, and Paul’s housing situation does not appear unusual, nor do his visitors seem put off by it.146
Although the Vulgate suggests that Paul stayed in a boardinghouse in Rome, such lodgings tended to be cramped spaces that could not readily accommodate the description in 28:17, 23, 30. A secondary consideration is that a long-term prisoner chained to a guard might have seemed a threat to “business” at an inn or boardinghouse, and food would be unclean.147
An apartment is far more likely. Multioccupant apartment buildings were the norm in Rome.148 Paul could have met with larger groups of people in the bottom-floor atrium or courtyard for the building, if one was available. This would not disturb neighbors, who used apartments mainly to sleep and store possessions.149 Perhaps Paul had a third-story or higher apartment to control the cost,150 but if his friends also stayed with him and they had any means of income, he may have had better accommodations closer to the ground floor. Because Paul already had friends in Rome, they could have located the accommodations for him or perhaps even allowed him (and his guard) to stay with them for a portion of rent.
Paul’s accommodations function like house churches did, and local churches may have helped. This may indeed be Luke’s primary point, connecting Paul’s ministry with the usual form of local ministry in Luke-Acts (cf. Acts 5:42; 20:20–21): Luke emphasizes (in Rapske’s words) “that the prisoner Paul’s entire two year ministry in Rome was house church-like.”151 Luke does not use the term “house,” but this is because he is constrained by his historical data; in Rome, upstairs apartments were about all that was available, and these are not called houses (1:13; 9:36; 20:8).152 Only a few aristocrats in Rome could afford a domus, or house; nearly all Rome’s residents stayed in insulae, or tenements.153
How should we envision Paul’s accommodations? Only about 3 percent of Rome’s residents lived in a domus; most lived in multioccupant insulae.154 Like many modern cities, Rome responded to urban crowding by expanding upward, with multiple-story apartment buildings.155 The quality and size of apartments tended to decline as elevation increased.156 Firms that made money by building quickly and cheaply often skirted building codes, leading to frequent collapses.157 Poorer persons sometimes shared apartments;158 it is estimated that most people lived in one- or two-room apartments, sleeping and storing possessions there but conducting their life outside in public areas.159
Although there may be problems with the figures in the fourth-century Regionaries, those figures probably reflect statistics kept by the praefectus urbi and are the most objective numbers we have to work with. They indicate forty-four to forty-six thousand insulae in Rome.160 Some scholars suggest that if we construe these as property units surveyed in the census (rather than as blocks), they could average about 250 square meters with (on average) twenty-two persons per unit, divided over four to five floors, not an exceptionally high urban-population density.161 (The meaning of Rome’s insulae, however, is a matter of great debate.)162 Yet the average probably tells us little about specific social realities: some blocks had five stories, but others only two or three;163 moreover, wealthier residents consumed more space, indicating severe crowding for poorer residents.
Many insulae had tabernae, or shops, on the outside ground floor, which sometimes included a mezzanine or back room for the family who ran the shop. Sometimes higher-class apartments facing the inside courtyard lay behind these tabernae; such wealthy apartments often contained multiple rooms, including space for servants, and could welcome a small number of guests. Even these “deluxe” apartments, however, rarely had kitchens or latrines.164 At least well-to-do ground-floor apartment dwellers could dig cess trenches, but seepage could occur.165 For excreting waste, there were chamber pots, the areas beneath stairs, or a walk to public latrines.166 Although public latrines were inexpensive, the poor used especially the more convenient chamber pots, typically stored under the staircase (CIL 6.29791) and dumped on the nearest smelly dung heap (cf. Livy 39.44.5; Lucret. Nat. 4.1026).167
Most buildings contained between three and five floors of apartments (cenacula) above this ground floor; the cheaper, higher apartments were more flimsy, with one or two rooms.168 The inside rooms, lacking access to fresh air or sunlight, served little purpose except for sleep. Each family might have its own inside sleeping room, but families would “share a common sitting room.”169 But even the common sitting room would accommodate too few people for much of a “house church”; where available, house churches in Rome may have met in the ground-floor apartments of some better-endowed members.170
Those who wished to cook could use portable stoves, typically charcoal braziers close to a window; these often led to residential fires.171 Residents could and often did, however, resort to neighborhood restaurants for hot food.172 Based on remains from nearby Ostia, Rome’s apartments would lack heat, and upper floors would lack running water.173 Summer heat in the upper stories would be stifling; residents of the top floor also might have to contend with leaky roofs.174
Seneca viewed apartment buildings as brittle, repeatedly employing images of such buildings collapsing or burning down.175 Despite Nero’s renovation of the city after the great fire of 64 C.E.,176 similar complaints continued afterward.177 In the early second century, Trajan established a height limit of 60 Roman feet to minimize such disasters,178 but by the middle of that century, another writer could still attest the burning of an entire block of apartments, noting that such fires made them a bad investment.179 For more discussion on apartment buildings in the empire, see comments on Acts 18:2–3; 20:9.
Housing in Rome, as in most urban areas today, was expensive. A house could cost up to 875,000 denarii (3.5 million sesterces), which few could afford; rent for the cheapest (upper-story) apartments (rooms) might run from 100 to 125 denarii (400–500 sesterces) annually, and much more for nicer apartments.180 Considering that housing was much more expensive in Rome than elsewhere181 and in view of average wages, life in Rome must have been difficult for most of its residents. The average person may have earned 200 denarii per year; soldiers in legions received 225 denarii, and auxiliaries 100 to 200.182 Thus even the cheapest rent would consume half of one’s wages, most of the rest being needed for food.183 If this was the situation of the working poor, the chronically unemployed can have barely survived in the city. In this period, rich and poor often lived in close proximity, often with the wealthy living on the ground floor of multistory buildings.184
The term μίσθωμα of Acts 28:30 normally means “contract price” or “rent” (BDAG),185 but in the context the best sense is “rented quarters” or “at his own expense.”186 Since most Romans lived in rented accommodations, this translation makes sense.187 As noted above, however, rent in Rome was expensive—in fact, about four times that in any other part of Italy.188 How would Paul have paid for his room? Some suggest that he worked at his trade while in custody. But Paul’s earning money by his trade during this period of his life is improbable; although Paul has reduced custody arrangements, they remain custody. Prisoners could sign business documents and so forth, but they could not work at a trade during imprisonment. They were also kept from barbers’ knives and other dangerous utensils, which would likely include leatherworking tools (though Paul could have otherwise borrowed them from Prisca and Aquila). Storefront apartments were expensive, and it might be physically difficult to work leather or make tents while chained, even loosely, to a soldier.189 Another possibly substantive factor is that there could be prejudice against buying from a prisoner (though perhaps Aquila and Prisca could have sold his products for him).
Paul may have had support from other local Christians (28:15–16).190 If Paul’s letter to the Philippians has a Roman provenance, he received a substantial gift from believers in Philippi during this period, one for which its carrier made a risky trip (perhaps during a season of difficult travel).191 Given the circumstances of the shipwreck, we can hardly assume that he and his colleagues brought money with them192 (which would be too heavy to swim with and which shipwreck survivors usually abandoned in the sea). If Luke “the physician” (Col 4:14) was one of his companions, Luke probably could have made and contributed significant earnings; Rome had earlier sought to recruit more Eastern physicians to relocate there.193 Food would be less problematic. As a Roman citizen with a registered dwelling in the city, Paul qualified, as did other Romans, for the grain dole (which, as grain, would not be ritually impure).194
If he was staying in an apartment, his stay may have required special arrangements with the landlord. Because apartments were often paid for at the end of a period of tenancy, a landlord may not have easily welcomed a prisoner on a capital charge (who might be executed before payment was due); thus the lease would favor the landlord.195 Owners sought as much profit as possible, gaining considerable money from their frequently flimsy structures, which often burned or collapsed.196
Luke’s portrayal contrasts starkly with traditions, preserved later, of Paul’s final detention in the Mamertine prison. On my view that Paul was released at least briefly, these portrayals need not conflict; the Mamertine was a death prison, in contrast to Paul’s light custody portrayed at the end of Acts (and presupposed in texts such as Phil 1:13; 4:22). The Mamertine lay at the foot of the Capitoline, near the temple of Concord. The upper chamber is vaulted, with sides varying from twelve to sixteen feet (3.6–5 m.) long; the subterranean chamber beneath it, called the Tullianum, which people originally entered through an opening in its ceiling, is fairly round, with a diameter of more than twenty feet (7 m.). Notorious prisoners were detained there and sometimes were executed there.197
b. Inviting the Jewish Leaders (28:17)
Here as elsewhere in Acts, Paul starts his ministry in a new location first among his own Jewish people. In this case, Paul is immobile and hence invites the Jewish community leaders to visit him instead of him going to them. Because he is preaching to them in chains, he must also explain the circumstances of his custody.
Paul waits only three days to become acclimated to Rome before calling leaders of the local Jewish congregations; acting just three days after a long journey demonstrates efficiency in getting down to business quickly (as with Festus in Acts 25:1; cf. Luke 14:21–23). Aided by his knowledge of Roman culture,198 motivated by his heart for his people (cf. Acts 24:11–17; Rom 9:3–5) and his long-standing desire to minister to Rome (Acts 19:21; Rom 1:10–11), and perhaps eager to compensate for the long delay of winter, Paul wastes no time in beginning his mission there. Paul must invite these congregational leaders because, in contrast to his earlier travels, he cannot visit the local synagogues this time.199 There is also some irony in Paul as a prisoner inviting the Jewish community’s leaders;200 but Paul is recognized as a leader and an authority concerning the Nazarenes.
In addition to his evangelistic motives (the only ones relevant to Luke’s presentation here), Paul’s meeting with Jewish leaders could serve his case legally. Given the strength of the Jewish community in Rome and their political clout (attested in this period particularly when Poppaea Sabina was Nero’s mistress), their support could help him if they would give it.201 He could preempt any hostility by emphasizing that he would not be their enemy in court and that he remained faithful to his heritage despite the hostility of Judean authorities.202 That Paul is willing to dispute with Jewish leaders over Jesus’s identity, however, indicates that his primary concern is evangelistic rather than an interest in gaining legal allies. Here, as everywhere else, he preaches to the heirs of the ancestral promises first.
Rome had a sizable Jewish community, known to other Jewish communities in the empire (Philo Embassy 155–57).203 This community had many synagogues, with different names reflecting their sponsors (such as Agrippa) or geographical origins (e.g., Tripoli).204 (On their names, see further comment below.) Some scholars argue that these synagogues sometimes represented various Diaspora communities and hence were fairly diverse.205 One early synagogue named “Hebrews” may stem from first-century B.C.E. immigrants.206 Some Jews in Rome also descended from Jewish slaves freed there.207 Scholars generally concur that each synagogue had its own leadership, and the Roman Jewish community, in contrast to that in Alexandria, lacked a single gerousiarch or other leader to speak for the entire community.208 Many of the Jewish gatherings in this period may have met in homes.209
The majority of Jewish residences, and more than half the synagogues, were located in Transtiberinum (modern Trastevere)—that is, across the Tiber from Rome’s center (Philo Embassy 155); this continued to be where most Jews lived into medieval times.210 The Jewish community began especially here, spreading later to “the Campus Martius and the Subura,” and by the first century B.C.E., they were found in the port town of Ostia;211 but the majority remained in Transtiberinum.212 Hundreds may have lived in each cramped building in an area with “narrow, crowded streets and towering apartment buildings thronged with poor, unassimilated immigrants.”213
Probably many of the free Jewish residents found employment “at the nearby docks on the Tiber.”214 Because most of the first Christians in Rome were Jewish or poor Romans, many Christians would be in Transtiberinum as well.215 This information gives us an idea about where many of Paul’s Jewish visitors lived, however, rather than about where he himself was staying; Luke offers no indication that the sites were related (Acts 28:16–17), although, if Paul could choose, he may have preferred a low-rent area with many Greek-speaking Jews and Christians.
Rome’s synagogues could be named for their patrons, characteristics, founders’ cities, or location within Rome.216 Synagogues from the Augustan period that were named for Augustus and his lieutenant, Agrippa, probably took these names to honor the imperial family for relieving Jews’ situation in Rome.217 There may also be a synagogue “of the Herodians” (although the text is reconstructed), honoring Herod the Great as a patron who helped Diaspora Jews and “as king of all Jews everywhere.”218 Like most immigrant religious cults, synagogues generally adapted existing buildings when they first arrived;219 some evidence suggests that even an early second-century synagogue in Ostia may have evolved from an insula.220 Many synagogues in Rome, however, would by now have their own buildings.221
The fortunes of Rome’s Jewish community, and possibly their population, had varied considerably in recent generations. Pompey’s enslavement of Jews increased Rome’s Jewish population significantly, but gradually some became free citizens.222 Augustus had been personally benevolent toward Rome’s Jews, influencing Roman tolerance during his reign.223 After a scandal involving a Jewish charlatan raising funds from Roman women, Tiberius deported 4,000 Jews able to bear arms (Suet. Tib. 36; Jos. Ant. 18.81–84); in 4 B.C.E., 8,000 Roman Jews joined their concerns to a Judean delegation (Jos. Ant. 17.299–303; War 2.80).224 From these figures some scholars have extrapolated a guess of 20,000 Roman Jews at the time of Paul’s arrival.225 Others suggest at least 30,000, a reasonable estimate.226 Some have estimated higher, more than double the lowest figure;227 Leon, for example, thinks that 40,000 to 50,000 would be a fair extrapolation of Josephus’s 8,000 men, though he allows that Josephus’s figure may be exaggerated.228 Nevertheless, it is difficult to be precise even to the degree of such estimates. These varied estimates are based partly on Tiberius’s expulsion of 19 C.E., yet that event must have reduced the Jewish community and further immigration augmented it. Further, if Claudius had expelled much of the Jewish community,229 Luke by Acts 28 assumes that it is again thriving, though auditors aware of the costs of moving might well infer that some Jews had not returned (and probably more had never left). Luke has mentioned only the expulsion, not the return, but though he does not explain the apparent incongruity in his narrative, inhabitants of the empire would understand that, with Claudius’s death, the Jewish exiles had returned (see comment on Acts 18:2).230
The extent to which Roman Jews integrated into Roman culture seems to have varied. That most continued to speak Greek rather than Latin231 (though apparently few used Hebrew or Aramaic as a major language)232 suggests that members of this majority of the community retained their distinct cultural identities. (A large percentage of names in Rome’s Jewish catacombs are Latin, but these may often indicate their freed status more than their linguistic preference.)233 The Roman church likewise remained especially Greek-speaking through the mid-second century.234 Although members of most immigrant groups lived near each other, this custom seems to have held particularly true for the Jewish residents.235
Jewish residents were culturally distinct from their neighbors. Jewish people contributed few iconographic symbols to Roman culture and, though using Roman decorations, preferred their own symbols to Roman ones.236 After Paul’s day, however, Christians, lacking their own distinctive iconography, adopted many Roman (but not many Jewish) symbols237—probably because of, in part, the large influx of Gentiles experienced by the churches.
Most Jews (and Christians) were probably among the city’s poor: some poor Roman citizens but many ex-slaves, non-Roman free persons, and some “Greek-speaking slaves.”238 At the same time, evidence from the Ostian synagogue suggests an upwardly mobile Jewish community, highly acculturated to Italian social life.239
Given various anti-Jewish incidents (at least one probably partly in response to Jewish Christians; see comment on Acts 18:2)240 and sentiments in Rome (see comment on Acts 16:20–21),241 the Jewish community had considerable reason for caution in associating with potentially troublesome Christians. Jewish proselytism was a major source of resentment,242 and this new movement was notorious for proselytizing zeal.243 Further, at least some Christians abandoned the circumcision, holy days, and food prescriptions for which other Jews sometimes suffered ridicule or ostracism.244 This laxer new movement thus offered a welcome alternative for some Gentiles as well as competition for available proselytes.245
Who were these leaders? The titles of many of Roman Jewry’s leaders over the centuries remain extant, although the duties of most remain unclear:246
Luke speaks of the “first ones” among the Jewish people in Rome, a familiar expression for high-ranking citizens (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.2.2) that he uses elsewhere (Acts 13:50), including shortly before this passage (28:7). Most scholars agree that Rome’s synagogues, in contrast to those in some other locations (e.g., Alexandria), lacked a central leadership beyond leaders of individual synagogues.256 This arrangement would be less apt to provoke concerns from Rome’s own administration and was probably conducive to the gospel’s spread. Evidence reflects a range in socioeconomic status among Roman Jews;257 although a much larger proportion of the community belonged to the lower end of that range,258 most of the leaders depicted here presumably belonged to the higher end of the range. Many Roman Jews were apparently well educated,259 with these leaders again representative of such elements.
The Christian movement in Rome started within Judaism, probably brought by Jewish immigrants.260 The number of synagogues and their loose connection probably allowed for the rapid spread of the Christian movement; even if some congregations expelled Christians, others might welcome them.261 A Jewish foundation seems necessary to account for the deep Jewishness of themes and argumentation in Paul’s letter to the Romans.262 Many make a strong argument, however, that by now most of the Roman believers are Gentiles;263 at the least, separation from the synagogue may be inferred from the difference between Suetonius’s and Tacitus’s reports of the Roman Christians, two decades apart.264
The primary schism probably began or was completed in Claudius’s time during events reported in Suetonius (Claud. 25.4; see comment on Acts 18:2).265 Because this conflict invited imperial intervention, synagogues undoubtedly distanced themselves from the Jesus movement, forcing Jesus’s followers into new house congregations.266 During the absence of many or most Jewish believers who were not Roman citizens (Acts 18:2), Gentile Christians would have developed independent congregations.267 The recent troubles in the Jewish community may have also inclined many Gentiles to avoid associating with the synagogues.268 Jewish believers who returned probably favored establishing their own congregations over joining existing synagogues.269 (Many scholars think that Paul’s earlier letter to the Romans was meant to reconcile Jewish and Gentile believers, and possibly house congregations, in Rome.)270
At this point most of the leaders do not paint all Christians alike (28:21), and though they have heard bad reports about Christians, they welcome dialogue with one of the sect’s scribally trained leaders (28:22). The language suggests, however, that their recent contact with Christians is minimal, confirming the suspicion that most of the Jesus movement in Rome no longer belongs to the synagogues. That the schism occurred some time before would also explain Paul’s offering his usual, initially conciliatory approach to a different Jewish community before turning to the Gentiles.
There may be five or more house churches represented in Rom 16:3–16,271 and this might be only the tip of the iceberg. By 64 C.E., Nero’s persecution uncovered massive numbers of Christians, enough that by burning those he caught he could light his imperial gardens at night and execute many others in different ways (Tac. Ann. 15.44).272 Nevertheless, Nero’s persecution failed to eradicate, and may have failed to even slow, the movement. With deadly persecution presumably lifted after Nero’s death (and the publicity, albeit hostile, during Nero’s reign), the movement probably grew in the following decades.273
Just as the synagogues of Rome lacked a centralized authority, the same was probably true for the first house churches there. Ignatius emphasizes the office of bishop in six of his seven letters to churches, the only exception being his letter to believers in Rome (ca. 110 C.E.).274 Likewise, the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. 2.4.3; 3.9.7) refers only to “elders who govern the church.”275 Centralization appears to have occurred later in Rome than in many other locations. Probably some house churches continued to observe traditional Jewish customs whereas others (perhaps the majority) did not.276 Paul’s dialogues about the law (cf. Acts 28:23) would be matters of great local interest in this context. Because Paul is an outsider to the local conflict and belongs to the same class as the synagogue leaders (and also had an excellent Jerusalem education in Torah), he can gain a hearing with synagogue leaders that local Christians probably cannot.
The speeches in 28:17–20 and 28:25–28 structurally resemble other speeches in Acts.277 (One may compare even the pattern in Luke’s report of Paul’s first major speech in Acts, 13:16–47.)278 On the address, “men,” see comment on Acts 2:14; on “brothers,” see comment on Acts 9:17. This pairing of terms (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί) appears frequently in Acts regardless of the speaker (1:16; 2:29, 37; 7:2, 26; 13:15, 26, 38; 15:7, 13; 22:1; 23:1, 6; 28:17); it does not appear in the Gospel or elsewhere in the NT, though it is not wholly unique to Luke (see, e.g., 4 Macc 8:19; 1 Clem. 14.1; 37.1; 43.1; 62.1).
Before one could hope to gain a hearing for one’s cause, it was necessary to show that one was not guilty of wrongdoing.279 That Paul did nothing against his people or customs responds to the populist charge in Acts 21:28 (people, law, and temple; for customs, see also 21:21; 6:14). It also portrays him, like Jesus, as a faithful Judean wrongly prosecuted by hostile political interests.280
Paul speaks of not having offended against “our people” and uses λαός, a term Luke employs throughout his work for God’s chosen people. (For “customs,” see comment on Acts 6:14.) Paul’s conciliatory approach at the beginning of this speech281 and throughout (28:19–20) prepares the reader to view Paul’s later warning (28:25–28) in its setting of rejected grace, not as hostility against his people.
That Paul was “delivered” as prisoner into “the hands of” the Romans would contradict the details of Luke’s narrative if pressed so far, but we should not read too much into Luke’s succinct wording here;282 Luke is not so careless as to undermine the claim of his own narrative in his carefully designed final section. Yet Luke has an important narrative reason to employ this wording, which also fits Agabus’s summary in 21:11: this language allows Paul to parallel Jesus’s passion.283 Jesus was “handed over” to the Romans by his own people (Luke 18:32; Acts 3:13; cf. Luke 9:44; 24:7). Puskas suggests that this is one of several echoes of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. (Although Jesus is the servant par excellence, Luke also applies the role to those who share Jesus’s mission; Acts 13:47.) Puskas sees the following parallels between the servant and Paul:
These parallels with Isa 53 are not so compelling with regard to Paul, but Puskas notes the same motifs with regard to Jesus (handing over, as above; “led” to execution in Luke 22:59; 23:1; declared innocent in 23:4, 14–15, 22), who is explicitly called the “servant” (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25, 27, 30) and identified with Isaiah’s servant (8:32–33, 35).284 Given the parallel between Paul and Jesus, these ideas therefore at least indirectly inform Paul’s mission.
Paul rehearses his innocence and the fact that Judeans objected to his release but emphasizes that he is offering no counteraccusation against his people. He is no apostate appealing to Rome to escape Jewish courts but a loyal follower of Jewish faith.
I. ROMANS WANTED TO RELEASE HIM (28:18)
Paul’s claim that Rome was willing to release him (28:18) until the Jerusalem leaders objected (28:19) either adds to our understanding of earlier narratives an element that Luke omitted or summarizes the narrative’s tendency from an apologetic perspective.285 Though Paul probably knows of a previous word of his innocence (from the chiliarch Lysias, 23:29), Festus’s commitment to this view and his willingness to release him are not recounted before the Jerusalem leaders’ objection to his release (possibly implied in 25:9). Yet Paul’s “you know” in 25:10 probably implies the recognition that Festus does know Paul’s innocence (a claim that he does not contest) and that Paul remains detained purely for political reasons. Further, in the logic of Luke’s narrative, it was certainly only on the basis of Jerusalemite objections that Paul was detained even after Festus’s public recognition of his innocence; that is, he was detained for political reasons.
The description in this passage is close enough for an apologetic summary, though it again illustrates that Luke’s focus is more on the larger picture of Paul’s innocence than on narrating all details. It also provides an echo of the passion narrative, where Pilate desired to release Jesus (Luke 23:15–18; Acts 3:13).286 There was no “cause” for putting either Jesus or Paul to death (Acts 13:28; 26:31). Although biographers and historians had limited freedom to tamper with historical details in support of their parallels between characters, speech material could allow a bit more freedom.287
II. NECESSITY, NOT COUNTERACCUSATION (28:19)
Because the real basis for holding Paul was Judean politics, Paul appealed to Caesar (25:11) to escape the political situation and obtain a fair trial.288 That he was “compelled” (ἠναγκάσθην) to appeal to Caesar is an argument from necessity,289 hence an argument that his appeal should not be held against him. His purpose was not, however, to bring a countersuit or countercharges (a conventional practice), or to bring Jerusalem’s internal “dirty laundry” before the world (an activity that could feed some Romans’ anti-Judaism and hence adversely affect the recently tenuous status of Roman Jews). If debates over the Messiah had led to political repercussions for Jews in Rome in 49 C.E. (see comment on Acts 18:2),290 this reassurance may be particularly welcome.
Romans understood the concept of political revenge. In Roman politics, when others prevented one from achieving some glory, one might work to diminish their honor accordingly (Suet. Jul. 11; 19.2). More important, when seeking to discredit accusers, one could impugn the credibility of prosecution witnesses; if they all belonged to a single people, one might dismiss the credibility of that entire race (Cic. Flacc. 4.9–10; 5.11–9.20). Returning charges was, as noted, a standard defense strategy.291 More concretely here, Paul implies that he could countersue (cf. Dig. 48.1.5) but allays his hearers’ concerns that he might do so.292 An orator could be more conciliatory with a politically powerful opponent whom he did not wish to alienate (e.g., Cic. Mur. 29.60).
Given the relatively recent expulsion under Claudius, the last thing that Roman Jewry would need was another scandal,293 such as a Jewish Roman citizen accusing the nation or even renouncing his Judaism (as Paul certainly will not do).294 Just as the behavior of a family member could shame one,295 so could that of one’s compatriot if prejudice against one’s people already existed. Thus in a conflict between Jews and Samaritans, each side closed ranks and accused only the other (Jos. Ant. 20.127).296 When Jews, even those who were not Roman citizens, appealed to Roman governors to complain about their Jewish judges, this could stir problems for the community as a whole. Especially problematic were instances where a Jewish court had sentenced someone for an offense not punishable under Roman law, such as intercourse with a Gentile or a Jewish woman serving as a prostitute.297
Still, even to his Jewish hearers, Paul must address his accusers’ malice, though only by means of insinuation and implicitly contrasting his benevolent motives with the motives of his accusers.298 He does, however, imply at least this much, and he cannot help but doing so if he defends himself; claiming that a charge against oneself was false would normally be construed as essentially claiming that one’s accuser was a slanderer or liar.299 Even so, it was helpful, when one was discrediting respected adversaries, to do so not in bitterness but gently; such responses seemed more plausible.300 To be able to present oneself as forced to speak in a court in spite of one’s inclination against it was the rhetorically superior position.301 For example, a person might claim that he had never before accused a fellow citizen but the accusation against him forced him to denounce the slanderer for the public good.302
“Jews” here can mean “Judeans,”303 though (contrary to the proposals of some scholars) the term does not always have a geographic referent.304 Writers could employ the term with neutral significance,305 could call themselves “Israel” but describe themselves as “Jews” (“Judeans”) when dealing with foreigners,306 and at other times could apply the label to Jewish opponents without detracting from their own Jewishness.307 (The term had various uses; some inscriptions employ it geographically, though more employ it ethnically or religiously, sometimes including Gentile adherents.)308 Both in inscriptions and in Josephus, some Jewish people used this term for other Jewish people.309 Given Paul’s own identity (cf. Acts 16:3; 18:18; 22:3; 23:6) and audience (28:17), a geographic reference to “Judeans” seems likeliest in this context.310 His hearers’ reply suggests that they understand him to mean Judeans here (28:21).
Diaspora Jews would regard Paul’s wording as honorable, like the appeal to a king by Onias not as an accuser (κατήγορος) of his fellow Jews but seeking their welfare (2 Macc 4:5). (Paul had insinuated the guilt of his Asian Jewish accusers in Acts 24:18–19, but even there he did not go beyond insinuation, did not attack his people [24:14, 17], and did not press countercharges against anyone.) Loyalty to one’s country was a highly respected virtue among Romans;311 they valued it even above parental authority.312 They praised duty and respect toward one’s people and relatives (a concept they enshrined in their own concept of Roman pietas).313 Concealing the shame of kin was a conventional Jewish value.314 Rhetorical handbooks recommended that when the plaintiffs were the defendants’ relatives, the plaintiffs should avoid appearing malicious;315 the same would necessarily apply to a defendant’s countercharges. Not mentioning one’s mistreatment could be honorable; one writer praised some envoys who, though spattered with urine and otherwise dishonored, simply delivered their message faithfully (Val. Max. 2.2.5).
Nevertheless, this portrayal of Paul is not simply Luke’s apologetic for his work or Paul’s apologetic within the narrative (though it suits the purposes of both).316 Paul did genuinely desire his people’s welfare (Rom 9:1–5; 10:1). Historically, we know that Paul did not withdraw from his community by appealing to his Roman citizenship to escape synagogue scourgings (2 Cor 11:24–25).317 The present situation was more dangerous, yet the closest Paul came to direct counteraccusations was insinuatio in Acts 24:18–19 and 26:10. Paul’s love for his people appears also in his letters (e.g., Rom 9:3; 10:1).
III. CHAINED FOR ISRAEL’S HOPE (28:20)
How did Paul “request” to speak with these Jewish leaders? He probably used some local Jewish Christians, who once belonged to, or were at least familiar with, local synagogues to make the contacts. The term for “request” here (a form of παρακαλέω) is strong enough to allow the sense “urge,” which was appropriate for matters of supreme importance.318 It was not dishonorable for a person of rank to employ even stronger language if the cause was urgent (see, e.g., Cicero’s frequent explicit “begging” in letters of recommendation;319 sometimes he even urged, “I earnestly beg of you again and again”).320
Paul must explain his chains, normally a badge of dishonor;321 he can turn them into a mark of honor instead by explaining that they are for the hope of Israel.322 (This connection does comport with the Paul of the letters, who viewed himself as imprisoned for Christ [Phil 1:13], whom he would indeed have regarded as Israel’s hope [Rom 11:26].)323 If in Acts 26:29 Paul uses the chains as a mark of pathos, here he employs them as a mark of honor, following the Jewish martyr tradition.324 Physically, chains could cause considerable suffering; a prisoner could wear chains weighing ten to fifteen pounds, but in cases of severe crimes, the weight could be as great as the prisoner’s own.325 Given the circumstances of Paul’s custody and the apparent favor that he enjoys, his chains are probably lighter than this.326 It was normal “security against escape in light custody.”327
In light of Luke’s usage, the “hope of Israel” to which Paul refers is the hope of resurrection (23:6; 24:15; 26:6–8),328 a hope grounded in Israel’s heritage and in God’s promises to the Jewish people’s ancestors.329 Again Luke is faithful to the historical Paul, who was ready to sacrifice for his people (Rom 9:1–3; 10:1) and expressed confidence in God’s faithfulness to his promises to them (9:4–5; 11:26–29), even if only a remnant had yet responded (11:5). How was Luke’s Paul suffering for Israel’s hope? Perhaps he viewed his suffering as for Israel because he went to Jerusalem in God’s will despite the prophetic warnings of Acts 20:23 and 21:4, 11,330 but more likely it is because Paul’s belief in the resurrection (as an intrinsic part of his faith in the risen Christ) provided implacable political enemies of high rank (23:6).
The Jewish leaders assure Paul, whom they treat as an intellectual and social peer, that they have not heard anything bad about him personally. They have, however, heard negative reports about the Christian movement and would appreciate his perspective as a learned Judean Jew and Roman citizen as well as a Christian. Although this group, as in many other local Jewish communities in Acts, is ultimately divided by Paul’s message, the community is tolerant, and there is no thought of persecution (unless Luke expects his audience to presuppose later conflicts not mentioned in his narrative).
I. NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST PAUL (28:21)
Although Paul notes that Judean leaders had raised charges against him (28:17, 19), his hearers here note that they have not received the charges. Historically, their claim is plausible, indicating that not everyone was as familiar with Paul as his significance in Luke’s narrative might lead one to expect. At the same time, the claim is significant for the narrative’s apologetic, reminding Luke’s audience that the charges against Paul were not universally known but came specifically from Judea.331
That no one in Rome had offered bad reports about Paul provides a significant contrast with Paul’s experience in Jerusalem (21:21), on a narrative level reinforcing the tentative expectation that Paul’s understanding of the gospel may face more success in Rome than in Jerusalem. (For the various senses of “brothers,” see comment on Acts 9:17.) This open-mindedness is no guarantee of conversion (cf. 17:32), but it was better than closed-mindedness (cf. 17:11). Elsewhere Paul was spoken against by many Diaspora Jews (9:1–2, 29; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:13; 20:19). But while Paul himself has not yet been the object of criticism, the messianic movement with which he is associated has been (28:22).
Not surprisingly, the strategic Roman Jewish community maintained connections with the Jewish people’s mother city in Jerusalem.332 Because Paul’s ship left Malta early in the season (28:11), it is not unusual that he would have reached Rome before any hostile reports from Judea, most travelers having been delayed by winter.333 Because it was always possible that such messengers334 would come, it was prudent for Paul to make his case first (cf. the haste in 28:17). (Indeed, had travelers gone most of the way by land, they might have reached Rome already. But most would prefer the sea, and even land travel was more difficult in winter; see comment on Acts 27:9. Apparently potential accusers, if they deemed the case worthy of pursuit at all, had also not chosen to sail before Paul.)
It is unclear, however, whether the accusers ever appeared (see comment on Acts 28:30–31); they may have abandoned the case as hopeless (see comment on Acts 24:19). Judean priests often won their cases in Rome.335 If they did not succeed before two Roman governors of Judea, however, there was little point of attempting the same before the emperor who received the governor’s opinion, especially given the penalties for frivolous prosecution.336 No one wanted to prosecute an unwinnable case; discovering in court the innocence of the person whom one was charging was shameful, a grave embarrassment (Suet. Claud. 16.3). If the chief priests know that Agrippa II himself supported Paul (though they were not likely privy to his private verdict in Acts 26:31, Festus presumably included it in his official letter, 25:26), they lack incentive to pursue their case further; at the least, they will know that Agrippa approved sending Paul on to Rome, and Agrippa retains far more of Rome’s favor than they would. In Luke’s narrative, it is clear in fact that Paul’s accusers did not believe that they could defeat him before a Roman judge, even in Judea; this was why they chose to resort to assassination (25:3).
One could not legally try a Roman citizen if no one had come forward to prosecute him (Cic. Verr. 2.5.54.141). When accusers initiated a case but did not finish it, it would be decided in favor of the defendant (see comment on Acts 24:19). Appeals to Caesar had to be settled, with both sides appearing, within a year and a half; otherwise, the case would be decided by default in favor of the one present.337 Technically, prosecutors had to appear or suffer penalty,338 but since the case has been transferred from Judea, the reluctance of high-status accusers to make the voyage for this single case is both understandable and probable, and lesser representatives would carry accordingly less weight.
The accusers’ apparent reluctance to address Paul’s case after two years (Acts 28:30–31) would be significant for Luke’s audience. The case of someone who delayed prosecution could, for example, also be questioned for that reason by opposing orators.339 Likewise, if those who initiated a charge appear reluctant to prosecute and test their charge in court, they can be portrayed as having fabricated it.340 That having no accuser was considered honorable341 is helpful to Luke’s portrayal (perhaps one reason he ends Acts where he does).
All these legal precedents in Paul’s favor lead us to expect an acquittal,342 which may indeed have happened (Nero’s persecution in Rome cannot be dated before 64 C.E., and the current narrative cannot easily be dated later than 60).343 Because Poppaea Sabina was favorable to Jewish interests and married Nero in 62,344 the case against Paul might have taken a suddenly different turn after Luke’s “two years” in 28:30–31, but it is not clear that the Roman Jewish community would have advocated against Paul (despite the earlier situation suggested by Suet. Claud. 25.4). If the Judeans had not taken up Paul’s now-distant case seriously by then, they may have invested little further effort in it; other matters in Judea were far more pressing, and the local leader of Jesus’s movement, his brother James, had been executed in a scandalous manner.
Some scholars also suggest that the deposition of the high priest Ishmael ben Phiabi, probably in 58 C.E., 59, or soon after, accounts for the dropping of the case.345 Ishmael was in fact high priest only briefly (ca. 59 C.E.; Jos. Ant. 20.179, shortly before Festus’s arrival in 20.182) before being deposed (20.195–96), and certainly not Paul’s only high-priestly enemy. But it is not impossible that this change of high priests offers an additional factor for the failure of members of Jerusalem’s council to follow through with Paul’s prosecution. Depending on the version of Pauline chronology preferred, it is also possible that the deposing of Annas II in 62 C.E.—for executing the Nazarene leader James and others—may have led to the dropping of charges.346
II. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THIS SECT (28:22)
The Jewish leaders’ interest in hearing more does not guarantee commitment (cf. Acts 17:19; 28:24).347 That the movement is “spoken against” (ἀντιλέγεται) may echo Paul’s own words: he did not come to “speak against” his own people (28:19), but the movement he defends has been “spoken against.”348 In Acts, the movement does not face opposition from everyone; but it often confronts opposition within the Jewish community, and (given the frequency of travel to and from Rome) these leaders may have heard about incidents elsewhere. On “sect,” see comments on Acts 5:17; 24:5; the phrase “this sect” merely specifies the movement and is not derogatory here.349
How is it possible that the local Jewish leaders did not know about the Christian movement firsthand?350 If these events occur in 60 C.E., just a few years later the church in Rome is massive enough that Nero can use large numbers of accused Christians as torches in his imperial gardens, presumably requiring hundreds of Christians, especially if this spectacle continued for successive nights. He executed other Christians by other means (Tac. Ann. 15.44), yet when he finished, the Roman church apparently remained vigorous or quickly recovered (cf. 1 Clement). This suggests a thriving church in Rome; we know that at least some of its leaders (e.g., Aquila and Priscilla, Andronicus and Junia, and Herodion [if a leader]; Rom 16:3–5, 7, 11) were Jewish.351 Certainly this movement must have affected these synagogue leaders’ congregations.
Various proposals offer a partial solution. Because Rome’s Jewish community lacked a central organization or hierarchy, communication may have been limited.352 If among Jesus’s followers only the Jewish believers were expelled from Rome a decade earlier, leaving a primarily Gentile church, Roman synagogues’ contact with Jewish Christians could have been minimal for a number of years.353 Likewise, even if most Jews were expelled (and not only Jesus’s followers among them), probably over the issue of Christ’s identity (see comment on Acts 18:2),354 Gentile Christians probably predominated in the church until recently.355
Further, messianic Jews would have remained an apparent liability to the community; whether all Jewish residents or only Jewish Christians were expelled, non-Christian Roman Jews, to protect their own standing, may have withdrawn from Christians after Claudius’s edict.356 Whereas Suetonius treats an intra-Jewish schism in 49 C.E., Christians by 64 are identified in Rome in a manner distinguishable from the rest of the Jewish community.357
None of these solutions, however, is fully satisfactory by itself, even if they help explain the apparently limited contact between these leaders and the Jesus movement. If my reading of Suetonius is correct (at Acts 18:2) and if the date of Claudius’s expulsion is 49 (see comment on Acts 18:2),358 then Jewish people in Rome were debating about this sect only about a decade earlier. Even if the entire community was expelled from Rome (which is unlikely; Roman citizens certainly would not have been affected), it is not likely that those who returned would have forgotten about Christians. If the debates about “Chrestus” concerned messianism in general and not the Christians specifically, the case for these leaders’ limited knowledge of Christians might be easier. Yet even if only messianism was debated, they would have acquired some knowledge of this messianic sect. Luke does not mention the cause of the expulsion in Acts 18:2 and hence need not presuppose Roman Jewish knowledge of Christians, but if we ask historically how his claim here can be harmonized with Suetonius, the above solutions must be supplemented.
To read the text as if the Jewish leaders lack all knowledge of Christians is inaccurate. In fact they do know about the Christian movement from hearsay (that it is widely spoken against); Luke seems clear about that.359 What they do not have is a fellow educated Jewish leader of status from whom they can learn what the movement teaches; they have come as leaders dialoguing with a leader, a member of their own class and a fellow Roman citizen of standing. Paul is scribally educated, and so he can give the best explanation for the movement. Aquila and Prisca are in Rome by this time (Rom 16:3–5), but they perhaps have little contact with the synagogue leaders (because, as some of the above suggestions propose, the church had already been separated from the synagogue by the events preceding Claudius’s expulsion or by the growth of its Gentile element; the couple may have belonged to the original schism [Acts 18:2]; and even Aquila and Prisca may have targeted Gentiles, Rom 16:4). For the meaning of “sect,” see comments on Acts 5:17; 24:5.
3. Recalcitrance of God’s People Prophesied (28:23–28)
When Paul finds Rome’s Jewish leaders divided, he appeals to Scripture to explain the unbelief of some (as he used it to warn of unbelief in Acts 13:40–41). Paul, once blind (9:8), now notes that others continue to be blind, maintaining a centuries-old pattern of recalcitrance among God’s people.360 This recalcitrance justifies the continuing offer of Israel’s hope to the Gentiles.
a. Paul Explains Jesus (28:23)
Although invited strictly to speak about the Nazarene sect (28:22), Paul (in Luke’s summary) explains about the kingdom and Jesus, the source of the sect. Paul preached to many in Rome and was probably instrumental in the expansion of the church before Nero’s persecution.
The summary of Paul’s ministry here resembles the summary in 20:18–35, though it is much briefer: Paul “solemnly testifies” (20:21, 24; cf. 18:5; 23:11; for others, 2:40; 8:25; 10:42) and preaches about God’s kingdom (20:25; cf. 14:22; 19:8; for others, e.g., 8:12; Luke 8:1; 9:2; Paul’s “solemn testimony” in Rome fulfills Acts 23:11). (For Paul’s use of “persuasion,” see, for example, 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28.) Paul’s preaching of the “kingdom” brackets the material from 28:23 to 28:31, explaining why the kingdom is offered to Gentiles as well as to Israel.361 The global reference to preaching from the law and the prophets resembles the pattern in Acts 3:18, 21, 24 and Luke 24:27, 44 (cf. Luke 16:16, 29, 31; Acts 10:43; 13:27; esp. 24:14; 26:27).362 Such preaching is summarized in Acts 7 and (for Paul’s preaching) Acts 13:16–47; closing mention of Paul speaking from the law and prophets might evoke especially Luke’s closing mention of Jesus doing so (Luke 24:27, 44).363
That “more” (πλείονες) were coming (in addition to those in 28:17) says nothing about the need for more biblically skilled reinforcements (i.e., more “experts”), as if refuting Paul were the primary objective.364 The point instead is the interest that Paul’s case and, if he continued after that day, his arguments generated. It is possible that all of 28:23–28 occurred on a single day (the day appointed in 28:23), but it is also possible that Luke has telescoped Paul’s regular practice with the visitors thereafter, as hinted in the use of the imperfect ἐξετίθετο (as well as the imperfect verbs in 28:24). (Paul’s words in 28:25–28 occurred on a single occasion, as suggested by the aorist participle εἰπόντος, but the continuation of his ministry afterward is probably suggested by the imperfect verb and the present participles in 28:30–31.)
Since we know explicitly of at least eleven ancient synagogues in Rome (at least four from the early empire) and that the Jewish community in Rome was large, the numbers of visitors could have been substantial.365 Visitors were important in Roman society;366 on Paul’s accommodations allowing so many visitors, see comment on Acts 28:16.367
That Paul could dialogue from morning to evening is not in the least surprising, given his wealth of knowledge and the coming and going of different visitors and groups of visitors.368 One might easily need to repeat oneself with new auditors arriving (Quint. Decl. 313.1). Nevertheless, “from morning to evening” suggests great effort (cf. Exod 18:14) and recalls Paul’s ministry of “day and night” in Ephesus (Acts 20:11)369 as well as occasions of his lengthy preaching and teaching (20:11).370
A divided audience is common in Acts and is by no means a specifically Jewish problem (17:4–5, 12; 19:9; cf. 13:43; 17:32; 23:7).371 The imperfect verbs here suggest a continuing division and response (one that probably continued in further discussions after Paul’s speech in 28:25–28; note the imperfect ἀπεδέχετο in 28:30). That some were persuaded (as Paul desired, 28:23; in contrast to others who would not “believe”)372 indicates that some became followers of Jesus; Luke omits the proportions, since his emphasis is merely on the division.373 This division and Paul’s continuing ministry to Jewish people after other Jews rejected his message fit the pattern of Paul’s ministry as a whole, including in 19:10 (after he left the synagogue).374
Against those who think that this passage constitutes a decisive rejection of the Jewish people or of a mission to them, the summary in 28:24 is less negative than many earlier summaries emphasizing Jewish unbelief (13:45, 50; 14:2, 19; 18:2;375 though clearly Paul’s ministry did reach many Jewish people, e.g., 18:7–8). The rejection here can be no more absolute than any other in Acts, especially in view of some believers being mentioned here.376 Earlier prophets had also affirmed a remnant (as here) while denouncing those that were not part of the remnant.377 But the pattern of repeated divisions in Jewish communities, and hence repeated rejections from many Jews, does suggest the disappointment of both Luke and Paul that Israel as a whole has not yet embraced the message.
Gentiles often held that active unbelief provoked the anger of deities.378 But one also finds judgments for disbelieving divine agents in the OT (2 Kgs 9:7; Dan 9:6–7; Amos 7:12–17), some Jewish texts,379 and Luke-Acts (Luke 1:20; Acts 13:11). Some ancients contended that their interlocutors’ unbelief stemmed from envy (Lucian Tox. 56). Although Luke has repeated many disappointing responses from God’s own people in his work, he may also contrast Jewish rejection here with the welcome Paul received as a divine messenger among Gentiles in Acts 28:1–10.380
Whereas some visitors may treat the debate as an intellectual exercise, Paul, though ready to dialogue academically, concludes like a prophet.381 If he has spoken from God, they will be judged if they reject his message. Luke is not following the particular modern academic approach that any position is acceptable provided one can make a case for it (useful as that approach is for teaching argumentation); he is convinced that Paul’s case is genuinely true and will convince anyone with an open mind and hence that people are morally responsible to be persuaded by it.382 Ultimately, though Paul may stand trial in a human court, it is his hearers who stand under Isaiah’s judgment (Isa 6:9–10; Acts 28:25–27).383 Whereas he may have no charge to bring against his people before Rome (Acts 28:19), he brings a prophetic charge from God against some of them here in 28:25–28.384
Unlike Mark, Luke in his Gospel does not offer the full text of this Isaiah passage in his parables section (he offers an abbreviated form in Luke 8:10; contrast Mark 4:12; Matt 13:13–15; John 12:39–40).385 Why does Luke locate it here? Sometimes a summation or closing argument could include the strongest argument for one’s case.386 Yet by expanding the quotation that he provides in abbreviated form at Luke 8:10, Luke makes that hermeneutical key for the parables a key also for evaluating obduracy throughout his entire narrative. Paul’s mission in the Diaspora can fit the paradigm of Jesus in Galilee, reflected in 8:5–8, 11–15387 (from the Jesus tradition):388 some ignored the message or rejected it immediately; some received it but fell away through hardship (cf. Acts 14:22); some received it but fell away through lives of ease or pleasure (cf. 13:43, 45); but others persevered to bear good fruit. Like Luke’s narrative in the Gospel, his narrative in Acts focuses on the first and fourth kinds of soil and hence a twofold division of response (the kind most evident in the sorts of individual scenes Luke narrates). Thus the rejection of Paul’s message is part of the larger rejection of Jesus’s message, and this, in turn, is part of the entire story of Israel’s history (Isa 6:9–10; cf. 53:1–3).
Jesus spoke parables so that his less-committed hearers would not understand (Luke 8:10); Isaiah supported the expectation that many would resist the truth. Paul here employs Isaiah’s words merely as a summons to repent389 and a prediction whereas Isaiah’s mission in the Hebrew text is to harden his hearers (Isa 6:9–10); but Paul follows the LXX rendering and interpretation of Isaiah closely.390 Even apart from the LXX form, however, this prediction can represent wholesale and permanent rejection of Israel for Luke no more than it did for Isaiah. Predictions fulfilled within the narrative suggest that other predictions, too, will be fulfilled, including the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in God’s time (Acts 1:6–7; 3:21; Luke 22:30).391 That the “Holy Spirit” (as inspirer of prophecy and here of Scripture)392 “spoke well” (καλῶς . . . ἐλάλησεν) was to be expected; speaking “well” appears also in Luke 20:39,393 but the gospel tradition known to Luke also applies the term to a prophecy of Isaiah (Mark 7:6; cf. Matt 15:7).394
Some Jews and Romans likely doubted the message’s or the movement’s Jewishness because so many Jews had rejected it (cf. Rom 3:3), but Luke is able to argue that this very rejection fits an expectation from the Jewish heritage and Scriptures (cf. similarly Isa 53:1 in Rom 10:16).395 Rhetorically, it was prudent to turn everything possible to the advantage of one’s argument;396 Luke’s (and other first-century Christians’) use of Isaiah proves more apologetic397 than in rabbinic (Isaiah promising ultimate forgiveness) or patristic (Isaiah proving predestination) interpretation.398 But Luke has a much longer subtext in Israel’s history to show that God’s people often rejected their prophets (Acts 7:9, 35–37, 51–53), making this Isaiah quotation merely an apt concluding summary of the larger pattern.399 Isaiah’s addressing the “ancestors” reinforces the antiquity of the pattern of the disobedience and repudiation by “our” and “your ancestors” (7:39, 51–52; cf. Luke 6:26; 11:47–48).400
What the text cannot mean is that Paul was giving up on any future plan of God for his people. Despite Jesus’s use of Isa 6 in Luke 8:10, Jesus continued his ministry to Israel.401 The point is not the abandoning of ultimate hope for Israel (Acts 1:6) but focusing on the mission to the Gentiles until the Father’s time for Israel’s restoration (1:7–8). Luke still believes in “the hope of Israel,” mentioned as recently as 28:20.402 This becomes even clearer when we examine the Isaian context from which Luke derives the quotation.
Some intertextual observations are in order, since the nucleus of Luke’s ideal audience is fairly biblically literate. Luke and his ideal audience surely knew (cf. 28:25) that these words first depicted Isaiah’s inaugural call; Isaiah did not terminate his mission after receiving these words but rather began his public ministry.403 Prophets and apostles came after Isaiah and preached to Israel (cf. Luke 11:49). After Isaiah saw the Lord’s glory (Isa 6:1, 5), he was commissioned to tell Israel’s people that they would not see with their eyes or hear with their ears (6:9–10)—that is, that they would be spiritually blind and deaf (cf. 29:9; 42:18–19; 43:8).404 Paul himself had been blinded yet received sight through seeing the Lord Jesus’s glory (Acts 9:3–4, 8); now he was called to open his people’s eyes (26:18). Isaiah’s proclamation to Israel also yields proclamation to Gentiles (e.g., Isa 56:3–8), as Paul’s does here (Acts 28:28).
Historically, it is interesting that Isaiah played a special role in Paul’s ministry to people in Rome; all Paul’s explicit mentions of Isaiah are in Romans (Rom 9:27, 29; 10:16, 20; 15:12). But this is likely the text Luke would have used anyway (Luke 8:10).405 More important, the Paul who wrote to believers in Rome also could use similar imagery for Israel’s blindness, including from Isaiah.406
Although Luke does not compose the quotation, it is a key text that helps inform his theology and vocabulary elsewhere.407 Isaiah’s prophecy here quoted (Isa 6:9–10) is in the context of Isaiah’s call (6:1–8) and the announcement of Israel’s judgment and devastation (6:11–13). It would provide an appropriate end for Acts, recognizing that there were two paths,408 one leading through Jesus to the Gentile mission, the other leading to resistance against Rome without divine sanction and to the holy city’s devastation.
“Go” (here πορεύθητι) is a common command, including in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 5:24; 7:50; 8:48; esp. 7:8); nevertheless, it seems noteworthy here how frequently this verb appears in commands for ministry (cf. Acts 9:11, 15), both ministry to Israel (5:20) and cross-culturally (8:26; 10:20), including Paul’s call to the Gentiles (22:21).409 Healing offers a spiritual analogy elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 5:31), as does blindness (see comment below).
The quotation in Acts 28:27410 lists images of body parts (with synonymous semantic force)411 chiastically:
A The heart has become dull
B The ears are hard of hearing
C They closed their eyes
C′ Lest they see by means of their eyes
B′ And hear with their ears
A′ And they understand with their hearts and turn
“And I heal them” (and perhaps the preceding phrase, “and they turn”) stands outside the chiasmus proper. The chiasmus draws attention to the insensate moral and spiritual state of the people who fail to perceive God’s true message. The chiasmus is Isaiah’s, but Luke reproduces it fully for good reason.
The passage, placed in the context of Isaiah’s call and mission, reflects themes pervasive in both Isaiah and other prophets.412 Physical blindness offers a metaphor for spiritual obduracy elsewhere in the biblical prophets (e.g., Isa 29:9; 42:18–20; 43:8; 44:18; Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2) as well as elsewhere in the culture (see comment on Acts 9:8).413 Israel lacked both eyes to see and ears to hear (Deut 29:4). Thus writers spoke of those who, though physically blind, revealed great intellectual414 or spiritual415 vision. Stoics regarded all people as ignorant, and hence as blind416 (sometimes as “deaf and blind”);417 some others also used blindness and deafness figuratively for ignorance.418 Jewish writers also spoke of spiritual blindness and deafness (1 En. 90:7); for example, Potiphar’s wife was “blinded by sin” (Test. Jos. 7:5).419
Paul was called to “turn” people and “open their eyes” (see Acts 26:18 and comment there), but he was not responsible for his hearers’ obduracy (cf. Luke 9:5; 10:10–11; Acts 20:26).420 Luke probably also links Paul’s transformation from blindness to sight with the call to turn others from spiritual blindness to spiritual sight (compare Acts 26:18 with 9:8, 18).421 Lack of understanding also characterized Moses’s people (συνιέναι, 7:25) and even Jesus’s disciples before the resurrection (Luke 18:34; 24:45; cf. 2:50).422 Physical “eyes” are used for, or fail to achieve, spiritual perception in Luke 2:30; 10:23; 19:42; 24:16, 31; and Acts 26:18; “ears” are used the same way in Luke 8:8; 9:44; 14:35.423 Already earlier in Acts, Stephen notably denounced Jewish opponents of his message for hard “hearts” and “ears” (Acts 7:51; cf. 7:57; see comment there); he also noted (as here in 28:25) that they continued their ancestors’ resistance against the Spirit through the prophets (7:51–52). Jerusalem’s blinded eyes to Jesus’s mission (Luke 19:42) invited judgment (19:43–44); Luke would also know that judgment came on God’s blinded people in Isaiah’s context (relevant here to the outcome of the Judean-Roman war, in the wake of which Luke may be writing).
The term for “turn” here (ἐπιστρέφω) involves repentance or restoration in many Lukan texts (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; cf. Luke 17:4; 22:32), sometimes with reference to Israel (Luke 1:16–17; Acts 3:19). Calling people to “turn” and opening their “eyes” were central to Paul’s mission (Acts 26:18, 20); perhaps most relevant here is that ἐπιστρέφω could refer to Israel’s eschatological turning (3:19).424 The term for “heal” here appears fifteen times in Luke-Acts—elsewhere for physical healings performed by Jesus and his followers, the majority (except for 9:34; 28:8)425 in Israel.426 In this climactic interpretation in Acts, Jesus’s and his agents’ signs to Israel become an offer of God’s restoration. Biblical prophets had also played on both spiritual and physical nuances of healing, often employing the image figuratively (e.g., Isa 53:5; 57:18; Jer 3:22; 17:14; 33:6; Hos 11:3; 14:4), yet in some collections alongside eschatological physical healing (e.g., Isa 29:18; 32:3–4; 35:5–6).
Luke’s ideal audience was biblically literate and might well think of Isaiah’s context (see comment on Acts 8:32–33). Paul, like Isaiah (Isa 6:1), was privy to a divine revelation (Acts 9:3–4). Further, Luke’s hearers might think of how the Isaiah text continued: until the land would be laid waste (Isa 6:11). For Luke’s audience (probably) after 70 C.E., this would be a significant context to mine. But presumably Luke, like Isaiah, also expected a future restoration (Acts 1:6–7; 3:19–21).
e. Salvation for the Gentiles (28:28)
Acts ends by emphasizing not Israel’s rejection but rather the more positive prospect of the message’s continuing expansion among the Gentiles. An unacceptably mixed Jewish response has continued, but it justifies the continued offer of Israel’s hope to the nations.
An emphasis on the worldwide mission, including the Gentiles, constitutes the final words of both Jesus before his ascension (1:8) and Paul (28:28) in Luke-Acts.427 (Peter’s last speech also defends the circumcision-free Gentile mission [15:7–11].) Paul’s quotation of Isa 6:9–10 in Acts 28:26–27 also evokes the context of Isaiah’s call (Isa 6:1–8); Isaiah’s call offers a relevant model for the Gentile mission in Acts 28:28.428 More explicitly, Isaiah’s verdict of blindness applied only to “this people” (Acts 28:26–27), leaving the Gentiles free to respond.
This is not the first time Paul had warned that he would turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46–47; 18:6), yet went on to offer his message to Jewish communities in new venues (e.g., 14:1; 19:8).429 Paul apparently continues his ministry to Jews and Gentiles alike immediately after this warning (28:30–31). For Luke, the “apostle to the Gentiles”430 (Rom 11:13; cf. 15:18; Gal 2:7–9; Acts 22:21) was, in fact, called to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 26:17; cf. Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 9:20; 2 Cor 11:24, 26) and always goes to Jewish people first in any location (e.g., Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10; see comment on Acts 13:5) despite rejection in many (not all, 17:11–12) previous locations. Luke reiterates that Paul was called to both Jews and Gentiles (9:15; 22:15; 26:17–18, 23),431 although it is his initially controversial Gentile mission that demanded the most attention for a first-century audience.
Far from Luke implying a final rejection of the Jewish people, Soards suggests, “the expectation created by the repetitions in the speeches and narrative of Acts is that Paul (and others?) will have increasing success among the Gentiles but that, as before, the preachers will certainly return to preach to the Jews. . . . While Luke writes Acts to explain an increasingly Gentile church to itself, through repetition he also created an expectation of an ongoing mission” to the Jewish people.432
If Israel’s rejection of the message invited a focus on the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; Luke 4:24–27; cf. 21:24), following the demands of Luke 10:10–14, the mission to both was God’s plan from the start, not a pure by-product of Jewish disobedience (2:32; Acts 1:8).433 What Israel’s failure to fully embrace the gospel allowed was a simultaneous mission to Israel and the Gentiles instead of believers finishing the mission to Israel before believers could turn to the Gentiles (cf. Gentiles’ conversion in response to Israel’s exaltation in Isa 2:2; 60:1–14; 62:2; 66:12, 19–20). Paul does not say that the Gentiles instead of Israel will heed the message; rather, he claims that they will “also” (καί) listen.434
Paul’s threat to turn to the Gentiles might also fit a rhetorical function of provoking Paul’s people to “jealousy” by not taking their privilege for granted (Rom 11:14).435 Although such a message may have remained intelligible to messianic Jewish communities in Judea and Galilee well into the second century, it became increasingly subject to distortion in the perceptions of Gentile Christians (by then numerically dominant) after the first century and has been tragically misunderstood by Gentile Christendom through most of its history.436
The phrase “salvation of God” evokes the theme of salvation for God’s people (with the ingathering of the Gentiles) in Isaiah; this is clear because Luke’s other clear reference to “the salvation of God” is his paraphrase of Isa 40:5 LXX (which adds “salvation” to the MT there) in Luke 3:6, which is for “all flesh” (cf. similarly Acts 2:17, 21).437 The “salvation” “sent” to the Gentiles was first “sent” to Israel (Acts 13:26). Luke uses Paul’s “let it be known to you” (γνωστὸν . . . ἔστω ὑμῖν) here for solemn pronouncements (Peter in 2:14; 4:10; Paul in 13:38).438 That the Gentiles will “hear” contrasts them with Israel in the Isaiah quotation in 28:26–27.
4. Continuing, Unhindered Ministry (28:30–31)
Most ancient works have some sort of conclusion, though the particulars vary according to genre.439 Although Luke offers no formal, structured conclusion (and touches on themes less clearly here than in Acts’ introduction), he does revisit some primary themes in these closing verses. (See also discussion at Acts 28:17–31 of ancient works’ conclusions, including their value for summarizing major themes.)
Luke’s collection of precedents and his positive ending offer hope of Roman toleration, but such hope was necessary precisely because the church in some places had experienced intolerance. The Jerusalem church was apparently no longer persecuted by the time of its closing mention in Acts and was probably dispersed by the time Luke wrote Acts. By contrast, Christians in Rome, the heart of the empire on which he has focused, faced severe persecution before (on the most likely view of Acts’ date) Luke wrote.440
Luke leaves the Pauline, Gentile mission open-ended because he remains optimistic that nothing could hinder the gospel from reaching the ends of the earth (1:8). What happened at the end of the “two years” (28:30) Luke mentions? Some signals within the narrative point to Paul’s execution, and others to his exoneration; perhaps the likeliest solution is the one also suggested by early Christian tradition, namely, that Paul was released, then later rearrested and executed. If Luke’s climax and goal are Rome, Paul’s subsequent departure would be anticlimactic. If Luke desires a positive ending (and/or positive precedents), an execution in Rome later in Nero’s reign was no better a place to end his account than an earlier execution if Paul died earlier. In any case, Acts is not a biography, and in Luke’s literary milieu, writers in many genres could end where they wished.
Scholars offer various explanations for Luke’s abrupt ending.441 Some scholars have argued that the book concludes as it does because Luke intended a third volume, tracing the gospel indeed to the ends of the earth.442 (Some ancient writers were dissatisfied with the ending and added more, such as the gloss, which became part of Ethiopic versions of Acts, about Paul’s later work in Rome.)443 But even if Paul proceeded to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28; cf. 1 Clem. 5.7), would Luke expect sufficient material for a third volume? Could the infrastructure of his narrative conceivably support the sort of parallelism found in the first two volumes into a third?444 Others suggest that the end (Paul’s martyrdom?) was later removed to allow further travels in the East.445 But more surgery than a simple amputation of final verses would be necessary for such an adjustment: even if Paul’s eventual martyrdom is implied (and this is debated), it certainly could not follow so abruptly upon all the positive indicators of Roman favor in the narrative as we have it.446
Some propose that Acts ends where it does because Luke finished it during the two years mentioned in Acts 28:30.447 This view merits far more consideration than it is often accorded, but for reasons suggested in the commentary introduction,448 I argue that it is less likely than a later date. Among my most important reasons for questioning this view is that, unless we date Mark’s writing and widespread circulation before 62 C.E. (so that Luke could have used it in his Gospel) or deny that Luke used Mark, it is difficult to contend for such an early date.449 Further, Luke does seem aware that Paul eventually has a hearing (27:24) and that something happened after two years (28:30).450 Political considerations could have dictated omitting Paul’s martyrdom,451 but one would expect a persecuted church to need the sort of encouragement provided by the stark moral dualism of the Johannine corpus, rather than the culture-friendly vision of Luke-Acts.
Some suggest that the incomplete conclusion recalls the end of the so-called Deuteronomistic History (at 2 Kgs 25:29–30);452 others suggest that Luke employs Mark (a major source in his Gospel) as a model.453 If Luke uses Mark’s model, he invites the reader to consider his earlier passages for clues to what follows.454 (The invitation to read the future in view of what Luke does include is probable even if he does not follow Mark, just as the same invitation may be inferred in Mark without knowledge of Mark’s models.)
But the question of specific models aside, “open” or unfinished endings were quite common in ancient literature.455 Some works ended “unsatisfactorily” because their sources did so.456 Some works ended abruptly because they were never finished.457 Thucydides’s history breaks off at a surprisingly incomplete point (Thucyd. 8.109.1);458 although the work was preserved in that form, it troubled ancient rhetorical critics.459 As one classical scholar notes, “Challenging, ‘unresolved’ endings are a specialty of classical historians, including Herodotus, Thucydides (unfinished), Xenophon (Hellenica), and Sallust (in both monographs).”460
In general, however, sudden endings also seem to have troubled ancient readers less than they trouble us. Some, for perhaps no particular reason, ended abruptly once the collection (as one might expect), story, or even topic was finished.461 No less a rhetorician than Dionysius of Halicarnassus ends a rhetorical essay by simply noting that though he would have provided more examples, he does not wish to go on (Demosth. 58). Other rhetoricians also ended speeches suddenly (at least in their extant written form).462 For other writers it was a stylistic habit.463 Although most speeches included summaries or conclusions, even a speech (at least in its published, extant form) could end suddenly with some stark evidence that seized the hearer’s attention.464
Some endings were deliberately “open” rather than unfinished. Narrative suspension could perform a standard rhetorical function in antiquity, leaving some matters open for the future, including in Hellenistic historiography.465 Writers also could end an account while projecting further events within the narrative world: Homer never narrates Troy’s fall in the Iliad, ending only with Hector’s burial (Il. 24). But because Hector was Troy’s last defender (emphasized already in 6.403; 22.506–7), this ending certainly implies the tragic fall of Troy.
The open-endedness of Acts may invite the audience to look beyond the closing words of the book,466 to project the same unstoppable progress of the gospel into the long-range future. That an ancient reader competent in literary and rhetorical conventions could recognize this invitation is clear: John Chrysostom recognized that Acts, following rhetorical conventions, closes here to leave the auditor thirsty for more and to reflect on the message.467 Acts’ incomplete ending may even invite the audience to participate in spreading the gospel;468 instead of writing an explicit third volume, Luke points to the continuing church as the continuation of his story.469 Given Luke’s Isaian backdrop for “ends of the earth” (1:8; 13:47; Isa 49:6), Acts clearly has not literally reached that goal.470 Paul and Jerusalem’s apostles have not reached the “ends of the earth” (1:8), so readers are invited to continue the mission.471 Something like “open” endings appear earlier in Luke-Acts,472 and Luke provides some closure by rehearsing persistent themes before his closing, hence pointing to the future “through circularity and parallelism.”473 By focusing on Paul’s preaching and not his martyrdom,474 Luke underlines his theme.
Though genuine, the open-endedness of the book should not be exaggerated. Whereas a biography without the subject’s death would be unusual,475 as would be a romance without a secure conclusion, a historical monograph treating a particular theme need not recount a primary protagonist’s end. Paul’s martyrdom or release is not Luke’s primary concern; in God’s providence, the gospel has reached the heart of the empire, which portends well for its future.476 Acts “ends with a good Greek sentence terminating in an effective rhythmical phrase,” an acceptable literary closing for a work in Greek.477
Moreover, Luke may wish to end where he does, or close to where he does, partly to preserve a happy ending. Mark’s abrupt ending involves witnesses afraid to speak; Acts ends with the model of continuing proclamation.478 Acts is not a novel, but Luke was surely well aware of the popularity of happy endings, likely one of the reasons for which novels came to be widely read.479 Similarly, whereas tragedy colored not only much Greek drama but also historiography480 (e.g., Tacitus; comedy affected novels rather than historiography), traditional Jewish works, emphasizing a perspective of God’s providence, more often preferred happy endings for those who obeyed God (e.g., the Joseph story; Esther; cf. even 2 Kings, for Israel).481 (Richard Pervo helpfully draws comparisons with “upbeat” endings in various genres.)482 Most commentators (including myself) think that Paul was probably dead when Luke wrote, but Luke ends on a hopeful note, showing that Paul’s gospel continues to spread “unhindered.”483 Foakes-Jackson compared Acts’ conclusion to that of 2 Maccabees, “which closes with the great victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor, leaving the hero at the moment of triumph, so soon to be followed by his defeat and death.”484 At the same time, Acts is not triumphalistic; Paul preaches the Lord’s kingdom but remains in the current human empire’s custody.485
Luke is not denying Paul’s eventual execution but pointing to the potential for legal vindication within the Roman system. Political considerations led to Jesus’s execution (without preventing divine vindication), but Paul’s articulate defense showed the possibility of different, more just outcomes, especially in hearings away from the political complications of pre-70 Judea. If Nero executed Paul and others, Luke believes that his tyranny was exceptional, not the norm for the Roman system. As Pheme Perkins points out, Acts ends not with Paul’s death but with his preaching (Acts 28:23–31); Luke’s focus is not biography but the gospel’s spread.486 Although Luke is aware of further events, his interest is not Paul’s eventual trial (27:24) but the vindication of the mission to the Gentiles (28:28).487 This mission has now extended to the very heart of the empire.488 (Luke’s audience need not be in Rome to appreciate the importance of the mission climaxing there; they need only be in the Roman Empire.)
So far I have written on the assumption that Paul was dead when Luke wrote. I think this view (and a post-70 C.E. dating for Luke-Acts) is likelier than not, but (unless we can date Mark with absolute certainty) it is not possible to be dogmatic on this point. Whether or not Luke writes after Paul is already dead, however, internal evidence within Luke’s work could point to the expectation of his eventual martyrdom, an expectation that many commentators suggest. Before turning to whether Acts leads us to expect Paul’s immediate death or release, we must digress to consider the common proposal of a two-year limit to cases.
Something apparently happened at the end of the two years (28:30); if after that point Paul merely continued what he was already doing in custody in 28:30–31, there is little reason for Luke to specify this limit.489 Thus, at the end of two years, Paul could have been released, executed, or banished to an island.490 Does Luke expect the audience to infer from Paul’s two years of favor in custody (28:30) that he was released at the end of this time? The legal data is ambiguous enough to suggest that ancient readers, like modern ones, could not have assumed that such a release was demanded, but the data also suggests that given other cues in the narrative, Paul was not likely held indefinitely (and thus Luke’s “two years” may point to the limit in Paul’s own case).
Luke has other reasons to mention the two years (undoubtedly a round figure). Paul spent two years in Ephesus (19:10; cf. three years, i.e., parts of three different years, in 20:31), and Luke might positively evoke this successful period in Paul’s ministry for his ministry while he was detained in Rome.491 His two years in Caesarea (24:27) mirror this period of captivity even more closely,492 suggesting a total of four rounded years (at least a period of more than two and probably three full years altogether). Two years was also a fairly common span of time specified in rental agreements (e.g., P.Mich. 9.563.19; see μισθώματι in Acts 28:30).493
Nevertheless, readers might well infer something about Paul’s case from the duration of his detention in Rome. Ancient writers generally agreed that two years was a long time for detention (Philo Flacc. 128), but contrary to many commentators’ assertions,494 such ancient opinions do not amount to a legal limit to the period of detention.495
Some scholars cite evidence that appeals to Caesar had to be settled (and hence both sides had to appear before the court) within eighteen months; if only one side was present, the case might go in its favor.496 This view rests especially on arguments of William Ramsay, who regarded eighteen months as the legal equivalent of two years,497 concerning limits for cases in what he regarded as third-century C.E. sources.498 In a noncapital case, the limit was six months for an appeal within Italy and “nine months if from the provinces”;499 in a capital case, the periods “were twelve and eighteen months respectively.”500 He argues that such limits stemmed from Claudius’s acquittal of those long detained whose accusers failed to show up;501 the problem is that his earlier, second-century source (Suet. Claud. 15) regards this acquittal as more unusual than his later source (Dio Cass. 60.28.6). Cadbury made the most widely cited case for a concrete “statute of limitations,”502 but Sherwin-White later refuted it.503
Although such long delays were never desirable, automatic release for a two-year delay is not attested as an established law before 529 C.E.504 Whatever the ideal, courts were congested, and people could be in prison longer than two years.505
IV. OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF RELEASE
Still, release need not be automatic in order for it to be granted. If accusers did not appear after two years, it is likely that Paul would be released;506 the case could be decided against them or simply dropped (see, at some length, comment on Acts 24:19). Luke indicates that Paul’s opponents did not get word to Rome before him (Acts 28:21) and offers no indication that they reached there in the two years of 28:30; given Festus’s letter (25:26–27; 26:31–32), they may well have abandoned a hopeless case (see comment on Acts 28:21).
In this period historically, when Nero was under Seneca’s influence (and Nero intervened little in the legal process),507 laws would probably decide the outcome, and especially if Paul or his allies in Rome knew of the relation between Seneca and Gallio, Paul could have even appealed to Gallio’s pronouncement as one of his favorable precedents (18:14–15). Before 62 C.E., Nero avoided involvement with cases, in deliberate contrast to his predecessor’s policy (Tac. Ann. 13.4.2). Although this disinterest could have occasioned more delays,508 it more likely simply allowed his authorized subordinates to decide the cases without him. In the year 62, by interceding with Poppaea, Josephus secured the release of some Jewish prisoners sent to Nero’s court by Felix (Life 16).
Paul would be quite vulnerable to Jewish accusations in 64 C.E., and tradition does in fact point to his arrest during the persecution of Christians that began then (Tac. Ann. 15.44).509 But it is difficult to date Luke’s account of Paul’s detention in Rome (perhaps beginning in 60) so late,510 and four years would have been unusually long for a single detention in one place,511 especially given Paul’s apparent enjoyment of favor in our narrative.512 Thus a release with subsequent rearrest (made easier by Paul’s earlier detention, which clarified his status in the movement) seems plausible.
Admittedly, cases for the emperor’s court could be backlogged (with or without Nero’s personal interest in the cases), and Paul’s case would hardly warrant priority from a Roman perspective.513 But even given these considerations, such a long delay seems unusual and improbable.514 Paul’s case was not a complicated one to decide if no accusers arrived within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, Greeks and Romans alike disliked punishments long after the crimes were supposed to have been committed;515 some kinds of actions had to be finished within a year, and so it was not good to delay bringing a suit or for magistrates to delay plaintiffs.516 If delays went too long, a prisoner could use a scribe to file a petition for his hearing or his release; though this probably would not have worked in Rome and Paul did not risk it in Caesarea (where it could have offended Felix, whose justice was less predictable than that of Festus), the fact that it was sometimes done illustrates that officials were not unmindful of the impropriety of excessive delays.517
The system also would not lose track of its prisoners; careful and extensive records were kept, and they were reviewed regularly.518 Though prisoners sometimes had no advance warning of when their case would come up, they were usually warned to have it ready.519 (Although our present book of Acts is not a mere collection of legal precedents for use at Paul’s trial, as some earlier scholars claimed, its many precedents may suggest that Luke or his sources deliberately collected such precedents for such an earlier occasion.)
Moreover, on the assumption here that Luke writes after Paul’s death, would Luke end with two years’ detention when the two years were followed by neither execution nor release but only another two years’ detention (until Nero’s persecution began)? As argued below, both tradition and the trajectory of Luke’s narrative suggest Paul’s eventual release—before his eventual martyrdom.
Most scholars believe that “two years” suggests that something happened at the end of that period, release or death. To which of these two alternatives does Luke’s narrative more readily point, from a literary perspective? Here again commentators are divided. Some even suggest that perhaps the Roman church, which is not mentioned after Acts 28:15, did not prove supportive520 (but given Luke’s tight focus on the relationship between Israel and the Gentile mission in 28:17–28, this suggestion constitutes a classic argument from silence).
Many scholars think that the narrative points to Paul’s eventual execution, a position that makes good sense.521 Obviously, if the trial was unsuccessful and Luke is reporting positive legal precedents or focusing on the gospel’s spread or simply wishes to end happily, he will want to end before narrating the trial.522 Given his apologetic emphasis, one might have expected Luke to report a favorable verdict if one occurred.523 But what if Paul was rearrested, tried, and executed within two or three years, as tradition suggests?524 Narrating a temporary release might still serve Luke’s purpose, but not if it took Paul away from Rome for a time, when Luke’s objective was seeing Paul’s gospel to Rome.
Scholars offer specific textual evidence for foreshadowings of Paul’s martyrdom, but these suggestions are of varying weight: Luke’s telling of the story does not suggest a return to Ephesus (20:25; cf. 20:29, 38), but the “imprisonment” that Paul faces (20:23) has been fulfilled for up to four years by the time Luke’s narrative leaves off; the prediction that Jewish people would bind him and hand him over to the Gentiles (21:11) is fulfilled already in 21:30–33.525 Paul’s willingness to die fits Luke’s model of discipleship (20:24; 21:13; cf. Luke 9:23; 11:49), but for all the suspense that his willingness offers, Luke offers no specific prediction of his death (in stark contrast to Jesus’s passion predictions, e.g., Luke 9:22; 20:15). The last narrated plots against Paul’s life that could parallel those against Jesus were in Acts 23:12–15 and 25:3—in Judea, far from Paul’s spiritually fruitful custody in Rome (28:30–31). The promise that he would appear before Caesar (27:24) does not specify the outcome.526
Some scholars object that Roman officials earlier in Acts prefer “political expediency” to justice;527 although this was true in the case of Pilate judging Jesus, it must be modified somewhat for Paul the Roman citizen. Luke provides several precedents where Roman officials protect Paul from Jewish hostility (18:14–15); even where they procrastinate (24:27) or consider following expediency (25:9), they do not hand Paul over to his accusers (25:4, 16), the most expedient course politically. Festus allows Paul’s irregular appeal to Rome, and Luke suggests an official consensus on his innocence (26:31–32); the narrative suggests that, once removed from the weight of excessive political considerations, Paul can expect better treatment from Roman justice. Historically, if the chief priests sent a delegation to Nero requesting Paul’s execution, they might have obtained what they wished;528 but travel to Rome demanded a significant investment of time, and most of our examples of successful delegations concerned major political issues in Judea. Luke’s own focus on Paul’s importance aside, would Paul have been worth such a delegation to them historically?529 Normally when Josephus reports Judean delegations, they involve matters directly affecting the status of their people or the leaders.530
Still, even if we find evidence pointing to Paul’s eventual martyrdom (and at least 20:25 might point this way),531 some commentators too easily confuse that expectation with the assumption that it is implied for the end of the two-year period in 28:30–31—a direction in which Luke’s narrative probably does not point. If Luke writes after Paul’s martyrdom, it is reasonable that he need not report what his audience can take for granted,532 but it also need not follow that the execution happened immediately after the close of his narrative.
Many scholars believe that Luke’s narrative points to “a positive outcome for Paul” after the specified two years.533 Although not certain, this is probable for several reasons. First, as Luke’s narrative closes, Paul is evangelizing without restriction under the very nose of Rome’s elite Praetorian Guard, a matter that Luke deliberately emphasizes (28:16, 23, 30–31; cf. Phil 1:13; 4:22). Second, at the last explicit mention of the issue, no accusers have come forward to prosecute the case, and so Paul, as the appellant, is the only voice in the case (and retains, or has regained a copy of, presumably favorable documentation from Festus; Acts 25:25; 26:31–32). “Two years” suggests that no one is pressing for his urgent prosecution, and so far, delays in his case have always thwarted his enemies rather than helped them. Third, Luke’s narratives render dubious the likelihood that the Judean authorities would follow the case to Rome (especially if assassination seemed a securer way to punish him than Roman condemnation, 25:3). Luke is emphatic that they could not prove their accusations (24:13; 25:7) and suggests that they and the government both recognize this fact (25:10).534 Meanwhile, according to Luke’s perspective, Roman Jewish leaders were not hostile to Paul or all of one mind (28:21).535
Fourth, Paul’s treatment by Festus, Julius, and those who approved his light custody in Rome points toward a positive resolution of his case and his release.536 His custody is exceptionally light, allowing unhindered access and his own rented quarters. As Rapske puts it in light of such factors, “the evidence against Paul is not only weak, inconsistent and hence false from the Lukan perspective but apparently from the perspective of Roman officialdom as well.”537 Fifth, although Jesus was executed within the narrative, Luke emphasizes that both Jesus’s and Paul’s judges thought them innocent;538 Paul, unlike Jesus, has escaped Judea, where there were political incentives to condemn Paul.539 Sixth, from the standpoint of the Roman government before 64 C.E., Paul was politically and legally inconsequential unless he had enemies powerful enough to generate problems for him in Rome. Finally, Paul’s letters probably written from Rome suggest his own expectation that it was more likely than not that he would be released (see comment below on Phil 1:24–26; Phlm 22).
Luke need not explicitly report the acquittal or release because, for all Luke’s apologetic interest, Paul’s preaching in Rome is the narrative’s appropriate climax.540 If Paul proceeded briefly to Spain afterward (cf. Rom 15:24, 28; 1 Clem. 5.7), this journey would be anticlimactic from the standpoint of Luke’s purpose (though at the “ends of the earth”; see comment on Acts 1:8).541 If he returned (then or later) to the East to strengthen older churches such as those in Ephesus (as the Pastorals could suggest), this mission would be even more anticlimactic (cf. the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:38). If matters suddenly turned for the worse and Paul was executed soon after his release, Luke has little reason to muddy up his closing portrait by explaining how this happened. His audience presumably knew that Paul was ultimately martyred under Nero; a brief release would make little difference in the basic account.
If Luke writes after Paul’s martyrdom but suggests his release beforehand, we can account for both suggested trajectories of data in Acts;542 scholarly arguments for both positions, then, could be correct. As noted below, this solution also makes the best sense of early Christian traditions. Luke may write in light of his audience’s knowledge that Paul was released before his martyrdom.543
Other evidence supports this reading of the literary evidence. Tradition suggests that Paul was in fact released, then rearrested and martyred on his second visit to Rome (Euseb. H.E. 2.22.1–7; probably implied earlier in 1 Clem. 5.5–7).544 If 1 Clem. 5.7 (which almost certainly includes Paul’s voyage to Spain) does not imply Paul’s release yet reports accurate tradition,545 Luke would have to have omitted a major period in Paul’s life after the collection for Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:24–28). For Luke to omit such a major portion of Paul’s ministry before the close of Luke’s narrative (and in what seems to be continuous “we” material) contrasts starkly with Luke’s methodology elsewhere; by contrast, no one would expect Luke to recount events that occurred after the close of his narrative. Likewise, whether or not one accepts some level of Pauline authorship in the Pastorals, even some of those who believe that the Pastorals are wholly pseudepigraphic allow that they reflect genuine tradition about Paul’s ministry in the East after his release.546
Historically, if Paul’s “captivity epistles” come from a period of detention in Rome,547 it is significant that Paul was cautiously optimistic about his release (Phil 1:19, 25) and anticipated seeing his friends in the East again (1:25–26; 2:24; Phlm 22).548 If Paul’s letters suggest as much reason for optimism as Luke’s own account independently suggests, is it not more probable that the optimism was justified than that it was not? His apparent plan to return to western Asia Minor (Phlm 22) and, if possible, Macedonia (Phil 1:27) is compatible with the later itinerary implied in the Pastorals tradition (if in fact he was released).549
If Paul was released, his rearrest is plausible or even probable: hundreds or even thousands of Christians were martyred, and Paul’s high visibility (especially given his first arrest) would have made him a particular target.550 (Those previously charged on any grounds were more easily prosecuted on subsequent occasions; see, for example, Isaeus Cleon. 35; comment on Acts 24:5.) If two different Roman detentions (the first under house arrest, the second a genuine imprisonment) seem to stretch unduly the bounds of plausibility (the simplicity of Occam’s razor) for some readers, we should recall how central Rome was; the saying that all roads lead to Rome was not without foundation. Many of Paul’s friends ended up there (Rom 16:3–15), and Paul himself desired to visit there (1:10–13; 15:22–29), so that he could have returned voluntarily.551 Less likely, if Paul was arrested elsewhere, he might have been taken to Rome (though it is not clear that Nero’s persecution extended beyond Rome,552 an exception might be made for a prominent leader who had already been charged once).553
Scholars diverge widely in their estimates of historical tradition in the Pastorals, but many do accept some tradition here, and these sources constitute at least some of our concrete ancient external evidence. Following is a summary of Paul’s movements implied in the Pastorals. As noted at Acts 20:25, it is difficult to account for many of these movements within the narrative of Acts, which is why many scholars have preferred to view them as occurring after that narrative.554
Titus 1:5
*
1 Tim 1:3
Paul left Timothy in or near Ephesus (despite Acts 20:25) and told him to stay there.
1 Tim 1:3
Then Paul went on to Macedonia.
Titus 3:12
Having passed west of Macedonia, Paul was in Nicopolis with Tychichus and urged Titus to come to him there before winter.
1 Tim 3:14
Paul hoped to return to Asia.
2 Tim 4:13, 20
Paul then returned to Asia, leaving Trophimus in Miletus and Erastus in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20); he also passed Troas (4:13).
2 Tim 1:8, 16; 2:9; 4:16–17
He was in Rome again as a prisoner.
2 Tim 4:11
Luke was with him there (cf. Acts 28:16).
2 Tim 4:11, 21
Paul wanted Timothy to bring Mark with him and come to him before winter.
2 Tim 4:12
Paul had sent Tychichus (who had probably remained with Paul since Nicopolis) to Ephesus, where Timothy probably still remained (cf. 2 Tim 1:18; compare also 1 Tim 1:20 with 2 Tim 2:17).
Titus 3:12; 2 Tim 4:10
After Crete, Titus rejoined Paul, probably in Nicopolis as invited (Titus 3:12), and then went north to Dalmatia (2 Tim 4:10).
*
Apart from a Pauline tradition, it is fairly difficult to account for the complexity of these movements, their degree of internal consistency, and the record of so many details. Pseudepigraphers could include details irrelevant to their point for the purpose of prosopopoeia (writing speeches “in character”), but rarely would they include so many. Documents that presuppose so much “history” normally depended on a substantial body of traditions (even if they were mostly mythological and legendary traditions portraying centuries past, as in Homer or Ovid). The Pastorals at the least reflect some traditions of Paul’s movements, but some can be reconciled with Acts only with difficulty unless they belong to a period after Paul’s release.555 If even some of these traditions are reliable, we may have additional support for Paul’s release before his rearrest.556
One could argue that Luke invented Paul’s capture in Jerusalem, and substitute the itinerary of the Pastorals (which omit the journey to Jerusalem). But Paul clearly did plan to go to Jerusalem before Rome and anticipated possible trouble there (Rom 15:24–25, 31), and so Acts’ itinerary is likely. The Pastorals may also imply that Paul was in Rome earlier, then visited Ephesus before returning to Rome (2 Tim 1:16–18, if related to Phlm 10).557
Later tradition reports the deaths of Peter and Paul (Peter’s martyrdom is reported as early as 1 Clem. 5.4, and Paul’s is suggested in 5.6). Finegan surveys some of the later evidence.558 Tertullian implies (by comparison with John the Baptist), and Acts of Paul states, that Paul was beheaded;559 this basic claim fits the claim of Paul’s Roman citizenship in Acts (which I have taken to be accurate; see discussion at Acts 16:37).560 One Roman presbyter toward the beginning of the third century seems to imply that the “trophies” (from the context, these were tombs or memorials) of Peter and Paul were at the Vatican and the Ostian Way, respectively (Euseb. H.E. 2.25.7).561 Sulpicius Severus (363–420 C.E.) claims that many Christians under Nero were crucified or burned alive and that Paul was beheaded and Peter crucified.562 His contemporary Jerome reports that both apostles died on the same day in Nero’s fourteenth year (67/68 C.E.), but this tradition seems more open to question.563 Finegan thinks that Peter was martyred about 64–65, and Paul in 67.564 Paul’s martyrdom could also be in 64; we do not know that Nero’s persecution lasted over a period of years. But even if it was in 64, it seems unlikely that Luke’s detention, which is depicted as having lasted for at least three years until, at the latest, 62, led directly to it (see discussion below).
b. Ministry in Custody (28:30–31)
Paul’s ministry in custody repeats various emphases that run throughout Acts. As at Caesarea, Paul is free to have visitors (Acts 24:23; 28:17–28); this makes sense of his continuing bonds with visitors in his letters at this time (Phil 2:19, 25, 30; 4:18; Col 4:7–14; cf. 2 Tim 1:16–17).565 Paul’s welcoming his visitors suggests hospitality (and perhaps expenditures additional to his rent); on ancient hospitality, see comment on Acts 16:15. (On his rented quarters, see comment on Acts 28:16.) Custody does not prevent his ministry; it redirects it to different and otherwise inaccessible venues.566 Such barriers could not stop the gospel.567
I. BOLDLY PREACHING THE KINGDOM
The phrase “boldly preaching the kingdom” evokes earlier themes in Luke-Acts. The “kingdom” (see comment on Acts 1:3) technically was associated with Israel (see comment on Acts 1:6),568 but Dan 2:44–45 had announced that it would come to all the earth (relevant in most uses in Acts). In Dan 2, God’s kingdom comes in the time of the fourth mortal kingdom (2:40–43), which was normally understood by Luke’s contemporaries as Rome.569 First-century interpreters would not trifle with a brief Median kingdom between Babylon and Persia (2:39)570 and would understand the “Kittim” of 11:30 as the Romans.571 For Daniel, this kingdom’s arrival is future; for Luke, it is both future (Luke 1:33;572 11:2; 13:28–29; 19:12; 22:29–30; cf. 6:20; 12:32) and present (11:20; 17:21; 18:17; 22:25–26), often in the same contexts.573 The mixture of present and future understandings of the kingdom in early Christianity stemmed from the understanding of two comings of the Christians’ king, Jesus (see comment on Acts 1:4).
The “kingdom” appears about fifty times in Luke-Acts, especially in the preaching of Jesus in the Gospel.574 It appears only eight times in Acts, twice from Jesus (Acts 1:3, 6), once from Philip (8:12, summarizing his teaching), and five times from Paul, though only two of these (14:22; 20:25) are direct speech (and even 14:22 is obvious summary). Two (40 percent) of Paul’s uses (and two-thirds of the occasions that are pure summaries of his usage) appear in the concluding section of Acts, where they form an inclusio bracketing the final scene of Paul’s contending with Israel (28:23, 31).575 Though appearing only eight times in Paul’s undisputed letters, βασιλεία (the term translated “kingdom”) has strategic significance there.576 Its role here in Acts, however, is particularly strategic. Not only does it bracket Paul’s final scene; this kingdom preaching thus also brackets the book, connecting Jesus’s teaching in 1:3, 6 and Paul’s in 28:23, 31.577 This theme binds Paul’s preaching with the message of Jesus,578 indicating that Luke expects his audience to apply to itself the demands and promises of God’s reign announced by Jesus.579
Luke uses κηρύσσω (“preach”) seventeen times;580 the verb διδάσκω appears thirty-one times;581 the various subjects demonstrate the same continuity as with the “kingdom” message. This emphasis on the message’s kingdom content is especially clear where two verbs of proclamation appear together (e.g., κηρύσσω with εὐαγγελίζω, Luke 8:1; cf. Acts 10:42; or εὐαγγελίζω with διδάσκω, Luke 20:1; Acts 5:42; 15:35).582
Paul speaks openly with παρρησία (a term that Luke reserves for his second volume, along with the cognate verb παρρησιάζομαι), just like the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31) and Apollos (18:26).583 Paul earlier “spoke boldly” publicly (13:46; 14:3; 19:8), including before rulers (26:26) and in the face of hostility from his own people (9:27, 28). In this context, Paul has no reason to fear Rome, which offers relative freedom for his preaching, but given Luke’s portrayal of Paul elsewhere as a genuine sage, Paul would have spoken courageously and forthrightly here as elsewhere, no less than any Cynic sage (see comment on Acts 4:13).584 Although chains were normally a matter of shame, Paul did historically display παρρησία despite them (Eph 6:19–20; Phil 1:20; 1 Thess 2:2).585 He also apparently requested prayer that he might speak boldly or clearly during his custody (Eph 6:19–20; Col 4:3–4).586
Luke’s two-volume work closes on the word “unhindered” (ἀκωλύτως). Stoics spoke of being “free”587 and hence not “subject to hindrance,”588 but because the sense here is different, it is probably only a fortuitous coincidence that Arrian ends Epictetus’s discourses almost on that very note (Epict. Diatr. 4.13.24, τῶν ἀκωλύτων, close to the end). That “unhindered” can be a “legal term”589 is significant in this context for what it says about Paul’s status and, as argued above, about a positive outcome for Paul’s immediate detention (or at the least a positive appraisal of what Luke considers normal Roman tolerance). The term could apply to freedom to practice Judaism without hindrance (cf. Jos. Ant. 16.41, 166).590 It shows Roman toleration, and Luke concludes on this note, rather than on Paul’s martyrdom, perhaps in part to invite Rome to continue this policy.591 If imperial officials of his day recognize the weakness of Nero’s discredited policies, they might find persuasive precedents before those of Nero.
What does Luke’s own usage tell us about how he employs this term? Although the term certainly belongs to Luke’s apologetic that was seeking Roman toleration,592 it also reflects the theological message that pervades his work: the kingdom is God’s doing, and whatever the obstacles and apparent setbacks along the way, God steadily advances it.593 The cognate verb κωλύω appears twelve times in Luke-Acts, sometimes for hindering people from entering the kingdom (Luke 11:52; cf. 18:16)594 or for God himself “hindering” ministry in some location (Acts 16:6). More significant here are the texts indicating (through implied answers to their questions) that nothing can hinder God’s surprising work among the Gentiles (8:36; 10:47; 11:17).595 God himself has established this work in the heart of the empire.
The closest formal parallel is 24:23, where Felix orders that none of Paul’s friends be hindered from helping him in prison; both there and here the idea is Paul’s legal freedom.596 But in the largest context of Luke-Acts, this lack of hindrance merely fills out the picture of the unfettered message: nothing could hinder God’s plan for the gospel, whether the prejudices of the church (Acts 10:47; 11:17; cf. 8:36; Luke 9:49–50; 18:16), the hostility of other religious teachers (Luke 11:52), or the power of Rome (Acts 24:23). Even through the very forms of suffering that appear to destroy the gospel—such as Jesus’s crucifixion and Paul’s imprisonment—the living God is at work to accomplish his purposes.
III. LUKE’S EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
“Unhindered” offers an apt closing word for the book of Acts. Luke’s point is that though Paul is bound, God’s message is not (2 Tim 2:9).597 As one scholar summarizes the message of Acts: “Nothing can stop the gospel”! “The very last word of the Greek text is akōlutōs, without obstacle. God’s plan has succeeded. The gospel has reached ‘the uttermost part of the earth,’ and there is boldly and effectively proclaimed.”598 Gamaliel’s supposition in Acts 5:39 was confirmed: if the movement was of God, nothing could stop it, for as Paul the persecutor learned, one cannot fight against God (26:14).
Luke also provides indication that the gospel will reach the ends of the earth (1:8); if it has reached the heart of the Roman Empire, it will prevail despite the obstacles.599 Far from being stamped out, it will continue to spread and multiply, whether by legal precedents, by successful debates, by signs and wonders, or by outsiders observing Christian unity. Luke celebrates this expectation; some Roman polytheists would have abhorred it.600 In his narrative Luke highlights the trajectory from Jesus’s concern for outsiders to the success of the Diaspora mission. It stemmed not from a single revelation but from the independent experiences of Philip (8:26, 29), Peter (10:9–22, 44–47; 11:5–17; 15:7–9), the Antioch church (11:20–24), and Saul of Tarsus (9:15; 22:17–21; 26:17–18), who would ultimately implement strategic elements of this vision. The Spirit guided the church across barriers it had taken for granted (8:29; 10:19; 13:2, 4; 15:28; cf. 28:25–28); obstacles arose, but Luke’s interest is more in the trajectory of success.
Subsequent history may allow us to highlight the failings of Christians and often those of the church more than Luke chose to do; the terrible legacy of Christian anti-Semitism also deeply marred Luke’s (and Paul’s) hopes for the Christian witness to the Jewish people for much of at least eighteen of the past twenty centuries. Nevertheless, subsequent history also suggests that Luke’s central insight about the Gentile mission’s success was remarkably accurate. In his world, when Christians remained a small sect in a sea of polytheism, Luke had faith that the divine leaven of Jesus’s kingdom message in the Christian movement would spread rather than be stamped out. He was convinced that centralizing the gospel in one culture or location, even in Jerusalem, was not the way of the future (a conviction most likely reinforced, before he wrote, by Jerusalem’s fall); instead, the way was the worldwide, Gentile mission advocated by Paul. Nearly two millennia later, Jesus is known and revered (in different ways) by the two largest world religions, and his followers live in almost every nation and culture.
Luke might grieve over much of what he would see in much of modern Christendom—certainly, for example, in the materialism and consumerism of Christians in the secular West (cf. Luke 12:33; 14:33). He would undoubtedly express surprise that the parousia (the “delay” of which he already recognized, Acts 1:6–8) has been delayed for so long. But he would surely regard the international fellowship of Christians worldwide as a dramatic confirmation of Paul’s calling and mission—a calling and mission that, at a deeper level, stemmed from Jesus’s command and depended on the leading and power of God’s own Spirit, for which believers are to pray. He might well ask why Christians in different cultures have not shared their lives and resources further for one another and for the objective of that mission.