A. Barnabas And Saul (12:25–13:3)

25 Barnabas and Saul⁴² returned, having fulfilled their ministry at Jerusalem,⁴³ they took along with them John, surnamed Mark.⁴⁴

25 Barnabas and Saul’s famine-relief visit from Antioch to Jerusalem was related in 11:30 by way of completing the account of Agabus’s prophecy and the Antiochene Christians’ response to it. The response took the form of weekly contributions, and some time elapsed before the collection was complete and the need arose in Judaea. By the time Barnabas and Saul went to Jerusalem, Agrippa was dead. Their return, though not their setting out, is related in chronological order.

Both the textual variations and the syntax of this sentence have prompted many questions, to which diverse answers have been proposed.⁴⁵ But, as it stands in Luke’s narrative, the sentence provides the transition from 11:30, where Barnabas and Saul go to Jerusalem, to 13:1, where they are in Antioch again. As for the reference to Mark, it provides the transition from 12:12, where Mark is by implication in Jerusalem, to 13:5b, where he accompanies Barnabas and Saul as they set out from Antioch to Cyprus. If (as is most probable) this is the Mark mentioned in Col. 4:10, the latter passage informs us that he was Barnabas’s cousin.

42. Some Western witnesses (614 lat^p ) add “who was surnamed Paul.”

43. Gk. , the reading of B 81 byz eth. For A 33 945 1739 al read , D E 36 614 1175 al read . Some minuscules substitute for , while E 104 323 945 1175 1739 1898 cop^sa have the conflate reading (or ), .

44. After “Mark” Ephrem adds “and Luke the Cyrenaean” (see p. 244 with n. 1, on 13:1).

45. See n. 43. The reading “from (out of) Jerusalem” instead of “at (to) Jerusalem” arises from the attempt to construe the phrase with the verb “returned” (since “returned to Jerusalem” makes no sense in the context). The phrase is to be construed with “having fulfilled their ministry.” To delete the phrase as a gloss, as L. E. Browne does (cf. his treatment of a similar phrase in 9:28), is a counsel of despair. See J. Dupont, “La mission de Paul ‘à Jérusalem’ (Actes 12,25),” Études sur les Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 1967), pp. 217–41, for an admirably satisfactory account of this sentence.

ACTS 13

2. Barnabas and Saul Sent Out from Antioch (13:1–3)

1 In Antioch, in the church that was there, there were prophets and teachers—Barnabas, Symeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said,¹? “Come, set Barnabas and Saul apart for the work to which I have called them.”

3 Then, after² fasting and praying, they laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and released them.

1 The church of Antioch had among its leaders some very remarkable men. In addition to Barnabas and Saul, three receive special mention as “prophets and teachers.” We may wish that we knew more about them. Who was “Symeon called Niger”? Why was he given a Latin surname?³ The reason for the surname, apart from its Latinity, can scarcely be in question; he was presumably of dark complexion. It is tempting to identify him with Simon of Cyrene, who was made to carry Jesus’ cross on the way to the place of execution,⁴ but Luke does not suggest the identification, although he mentions Simon in his passion narrative (Luke 23:26); moreover, it is Lucius, not Symeon, who is here called the Cyrenaean.

As for Lucius, there is no evidence to connect him with the Lucius (Paul’s kinsman) of Rom. 16:21, and his identification with Luke the physician and evangelist is not only unprovable but improbable, although it was made in early Christian times, as appears from variant readings in the text.⁵ Lucius, one of eighteen Latin praenomina, was a common name in the Roman world. This Lucius may well have been one of the men of Cyrene who, along with men of Cyprus, first preached the gospel to Gentiles in Antioch (11:20).⁶

Manaen is a Greek form of Hebrew Menahem (meaning “comforter”). The title “foster-brother” was given to boys of the same age as royal princes, who were taken to court to be brought up with them. (The word is found in inscriptions with the looser meaning “courtier” or “intimate friend,”⁷ but there is no reason to give it this looser meaning here.) Herod the tetrarch, to whom Manaean was foster-brother, was Herod Antipas, youngest son of Herod the Great, who ruled Galilee and Peraea as tetrarch from 4 b.c. to A.D. 39.⁸

Josephus⁹ mentions an earlier Menahem, an Essene, who was honored by Herod the Great for having foretold his rise to royal estate; it has been conjectured that he might have been the grandfather of this Menahem (Manaen). It is natural to suppose that Luke’s access to information about the Herod family was derived from Manaen. But what a commentary on the mystery and sovereignty of divine grace that, of these two boys who were brought up together, one should attain honor as a Christian leader, while the other should be best remembered for his inglorious behavior in the killing of John the Baptist and in the trial of Jesus!

2 As these prophets and teachers were carrying out their appointed ministry in the church, the Holy Spirit made known his will to them—doubtless through an inspired utterance from one of their number.¹⁰ There are indications in the New Testament that Christians were specially sensitive to the Spirit’s communications during fasting. On this occasion, the divine message directed the leaders of the church to set Barnabas and Saul apart for a special work to which he had called them. It is perhaps worth noticing that the two men who were to be released for what would nowadays be called missionary service overseas were the two most eminent and gifted leaders in the church.

3 After further fasting and prayer, Barnabas and Saul were commissioned and released for their new service. Their colleagues laid their hands on them, and sent them away with their blessing and goodwill. The laying on of hands in this instance imparted to Barnabas and Saul no spiritual gift or authority that they did not already possess; but by this means the church of Antioch, through its leaders, expressed its fellowship with them and recognized them as its delegates or “apostles.”¹¹ They were sent out by the whole church, and it was to the whole church that they made their report when, in due course, they returned to Antioch (14:26–27).

B. CYPRUS (13:4–12)

1. The Missionaries Arrive in Cyprus (13:4–5)

4 So Barnabas and Saul, commissioned thus by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and from there they set sail for Cyprus.

5 Arriving at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. They had John as their attendant.

4 Barnabas and Saul, then, having been sped on their way by the Antiochene church, took ship from Seleucia Pieria, the port of Antioch, five miles north of the mouth of the Orontes,¹² and sailed for Cyprus. Cyprus figures in cuneiform texts from the eighteenth century B.C. on under the name Alashiya, the Elishah of Gen. 10:4.¹³ Its principal export was copper, to which it gave its name.¹⁴ Its inhabitants in early days were known to the Greeks as Eteocypriots, but in historical times it was extensively colonized by Greeks and Phoenicians. It was annexed by Rome in 57 B.C., and was incorporated in the province of Cilicia two years later. In 27 B.C. it became a separate province, governed on behalf of Augustus by an imperial legate; in 22 B.C. Augustus transferred it to the control of the Roman senate, and from that year, like other senatorial provinces, it was administered by a proconsul,¹⁵ as Luke indicates in verse 7.

5 John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, whom they had taken with them from Jerusalem to Antioch, accompanied them on this mission, and acted as their “attendant”—which some scholars have taken to imply that they availed themselves of his eyewitness knowledge of certain important phases of the gospel story, in particular the passion narrative.¹⁶

The first place in Cyprus where they preached was Salamis, a Greek city on the east coast of the island and the administrative center of eastern Cyprus. It was a flourishing commercial entrepôt, and its Jewish community, dating probably from the time when the island belonged to the Ptolemies, was apparently large enough to require more synagogues than one. The practice of presenting the Christian message first of all in the Jewish synagogue or synagogues of each city they visited was to be a regular feature of Barnabas and Paul’s missionary procedure. It was a practical expression of the principle laid down by Paul in Rom. 1:16—that the gospel should be presented “to the Jew first.” It has been asked if Barnabas and Paul would have continued this policy after the Jerusalem agreement described in Gal. 2:9, by which they were to concentrate on preaching the gospel to Gentiles, leaving the evangelization of Jews to Peter and the leaders of the Jerusalem church. But even then the synagogue provided a bridgehead for reaching Gentiles: Paul “was always sure of a good opening for his Gentile mission among the ‘God-fearing’, who formed part of his audience in every synagogue.”¹⁷

2. Confrontation at Paphos (13:6–12)

6 They traversed the whole island as far as Paphos. There they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet named Barjesus.¹⁸

7 He was in the entourage of the proconsul, Sergius Paullus. The proconsul, a man of intelligence, sent for Barnabas and Saul, and asked to hear the word of God.

8 But Elymas¹⁹ the magician (which is what his name means when interpreted) opposed them, and endeavored to divert the proconsul from the faith.

9 Then Saul, whose other name was Paul, was filled with the Holy Spirit; he fixed his eyes on him and said,

10 “You son of the devil, full of all guile and craftiness, will you not cease perverting the right ways of the Lord?

11 See now, the Lord’s hand is against you; you will be blind, and for a time you will not see the sunlight.” Immediately a misty darkness fell on him, and he went around trying to find people to guide him by the hand.

12 When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed: he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

6–8 From Salamis the two missionaries traversed the island from east to west until they reached Paphos, the seat of the provincial government, on the southwest coast. This was the Greek settlement of New Paphos, so called to distinguish it from the Phoenician settlement of Old Paphos, which lay about seven miles to the southeast. Both cities were noted, among other things, for the cult of the goddess called “the Paphian,” a divinity of Syrian origin identified with the Greek Aphrodite. Here the missionaries had an interview with the proconsul; here, too, they met the sorcerer Barjesus, who was somehow attached to the proconsular entourage.

The proconsul at this time was Sergius Paullus,²⁰ member of a family which rendered distinguished services to the empire in the first and second centuries. This man may be identical with Quintus Sergius Paullus, who is mentioned in an inscription from Kythraia, in the north of the island, as holding office in Cyprus under Claudius (apparently).²¹ The proconsul summoned Barnabas and Saul to his presence, questioned them about their message, and showed an interest in it. But the sorcerer did his best to distract the proconsul’s attention from the gospel, opposing it for all he was worth; no doubt he suspected that, if the proconsul paid too much attention to the faith the missionaries were proclaiming, his own place at court was likely to be endangered.

The Greek word translated “magician” or “sorcerer” is magos.²² As Peter confronted Simon Magus in Samaria, so Paul confronts Barjesus in Cyprus.²³ A Jew, even a renegade Jew (as this man evidently was), would not have been a member of the magian priesthood; he was a magos in the more popular sense. Luke calls him a false prophet, not (probably) in the sense that he foretold things which did not come to pass, but in the sense that he claimed falsely to be a medium of divine revelation. Elymas, the alternative name which Luke gives him, is probably a Semitic word with a similar meaning to magos;²⁴ it cannot be an interpretation of “Barjesus.”

9–11 For his attempt to prejudice the proconsul against the gospel, the sorcerer was severely rebuked by Saul—who here for the first time in Acts is given his Roman cognomen Paullus (Paul), by which he is henceforth regularly called.²⁵ By his opposition to the truth he had shown himself to be a child of the devil,²⁶ rather than a son or follower of Jesus (as his name Barjesus might imply).²⁷ Divine judgment had been pronounced against him, and it would take the form of temporary blindness. Paul, says the Venerable Bede, “remembering his own case, knew that by the darkening of the eyes the mind’s darkness might be restored to light.”²⁸ As Paul spoke the words, the man was smitten with blindness, and fumbled around for someone to guide his unseeing steps.

12 The proconsul was greatly impressed. What exactly is meant by the statement that he “believed” is a matter of dispute. Ramsay suggests that, for Luke, belief is the first stage in the process of conversion, in which the second is “turning to the Lord” and the third the settled Christian life.²⁹ Lake and Cadbury, on the other hand, suspect that the missionaries “may have mistaken courtesy for conversion.”³⁰ But if the proconsul had already been impressed by their teaching, that impression could well have been confirmed by the sudden blindness which fell on the magician. At the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, the people of Capernaum were impressed by the authority of his teaching, as they not only heard his words but witnessed his healing power (Mark 1:22, 27).

Ramsay thought he had found inscriptional evidence for the presence of Christianity in the family of Sergius Paullus in later generations: his arguments are more ingenious than convincing.³¹

C. PISIDIAN ANTIOCH (13:13–52)

1. Arrival at Pisidian Antioch (13:13–15)

13 Then Paul and his companions put to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. There John left them and returned to Jerusalem.

14 They for their part crossed (the mountain range) from Perga and arrived at Pisidian Antioch. On the sabbath day they entered the synagogue and sat down.

15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent them a message: “Brothers, if one of you has a word of exhortation for the people, let us have it.”

13 Having evangelized part of Cyprus, the missionaries now sailed to the south coast of Asia Minor. Perga stood near the river Cestrus (modern Aksu); one could reach it from the sea, Strabo tells us, by sailing some seven miles up the river.³² The city (the impressive ruins of which are a tourist attraction today) stands on a flat-topped hill about three miles from the nearest point on the Cestrus, where it presumably had a landing stage and port facilities. Perga, as its name indicates, was a pre-Greek foundation, but it was colonized by Greeks from the late Mycenaean age on, and after the conquests of Alexander the Great it became thoroughly hellenized.

Pamphylia lay between the Taurus range and the Mediterranean; it was bordered on the west by Lycia and on the east by Cilicia. At this time (between A.D. 43 and 68) it formed part of the Roman province Pamphylia-Lycia.

Luke does not say why John Mark left Barnabas and Paul at Perga and returned home. He indicates at a later point in his narrative (15:38) that Paul regarded his departure as desertion. Perhaps he was unprepared for the increasing rigors which evangelization in Asia Minor would involve; perhaps he resented the way in which his cousin Barnabas was falling into second place. When the expedition sets out from Syria, Luke speaks of “Barnabas and Saul”; by the time they leave Cyprus, it is “Paul and his company.” It is unlikely that this change of expression is due purely to a change of source.

14 Paul and Barnabas now struck up-country. It has been suggested that, on leaving Perga, they crossed the Taurus range by the Klimax pass (modern Çubuk Boğaz) and traveled north to Lake Limnae (modern Eğridir), moving then along the southeastern shore of that lake into the Anthios valley, and so to Pisidian Antioch.³³ W. M. Ramsay inferred from Paul’s reference in Gal. 4:13 to the ill health which caused his first visit to Galatia that he had caught malaria in the low-lying territory around Perga, and went to recuperate in the higher altitudes to the north.³⁴ Certainly Pisidian Antioch was high enough: it lies 3600 feet above sea level. But Ramsay’s inference is quite speculative.

Pisidian Antioch, or Antioch of Pisidia, was so called because it was situated near Pisidia, or over against it, as Strabo points out.³⁵ It actually lay in Phrygia, in that part which had belonged to the kingdom of Galatia and was incorporated in the province of Galatia, established by Augustus in 25 B.C.³⁶ At that time Augustus made it a Roman colony (with the name Colonia Caesarea); it was the civil and military center of that part of Galatia. Paul seems to have attached importance to the evangelization of such centers, from which the gospel would readily radiate out into the adjoining country. The ruins of Pisidian Antioch are still to be seen near the village of Yalvaç.

15 There was a Jewish colony in Pisidian Antioch, and therefore a synagogue. On the first sabbath after their arrival the two missionaries made their way to the synagogue and took their places among the congregation. After the call to worship and the recitation of the appropriate prayers the scripture lessons were read—One from the Pentateuch and one from the Prophets.³⁷ (The Pentateuch was read in sequence according to a triennial lectionary;³⁸ the lesson from the Prophets was normally selected because of some relation to the Pentateuchal lesson.)³⁹ Then an address was usually delivered by some suitable member of the congregation. It was part of the duties of the ruler or rulers of the synagogue to appoint someone to deliver the address.⁴⁰ In the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch there was more than one such official. They sent an attendant to approach the two visitors and invite them to speak a “word of exhortation”⁴¹ to the gathering.

We are indebted to Luke for accounts of two synagogue services—one in Palestine, in the Nazareth synagogue at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (Luke 4:16–27),⁴² and the other, given here, in a synagogue of the dispersion. These two accounts make a valuable contribution to our knowledge of synagogue procedure in the first century A.D.

2. Paul’s Synagogue Address in Pisidian Antioch (13:16–41)

a. Exordium (13:16)

16 Then Paul stood up, made a gesture with his hand, and said, “Fellow Israelites, and those of you who worship God, listen to this.

16 Paul responded to the invitation by going to the bēma or pulpit and addressing the congregation. He made a gesture inviting attention, and began to speak. His opening words indicate quite clearly the twofold composition of the audience. There were the “Israelites” (Jews by birth and possibly, in some cases, by conversion) and there were Gentiles who recognized that the true God was worshiped in the synagogue, and desired to join in his worship. They are the people who are commonly, but not technically, known as God-fearers.⁴³ In this as in many another synagogue where Paul preached, it was the latter group that proved more ready to accept the good news which he proclaimed.

The standing posture seems to have been the normal one for synagogue preachers in the dispersion. Jesus, on the other hand, stood up to read the lesson but sat down to expound it. This may reflect a difference in practice between Palestinian synagogues and those of the dispersion; it has also been suggested that a word of exhortation was delivered by a standing preacher, whereas one sat to expound the scriptures.⁴⁴

b. Preparation for Christ (13:17–22)

17 “The God of this people Israel chose our forefathers and exalted the people during their sojourn in the land of Egypt, and he brought them out of it with uplifted arm.

18 For about forty years he supported them⁴⁵ in the wilderness.

19 Then, having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he allotted their land to them after 450 years.⁴⁶

20 After that,⁴⁷ he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.

21 Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.

22 When he removed him, he raised up David to be their king. Concerning him he bore this testimony: ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man who is all that my heart could wish; he will do everything that I desire.’

17 Paul’s exhortation takes the form of a historical retrospect,⁴⁸ as Stephen’s defense did. Paul’s retrospect surveys the course of God’s dealings with his people Israel from his election of the patriarchs and deliverance of the nation from Egypt on to the accession of David and the establishment of his dynasty; it then moves directly from David to Christ, as the one in whom the divine promises given to David for himself and his posterity were fulfilled.

Verses 17–22 correspond to an ancient confessional summary: they narrate “precisely those redemptive acts of God to which the Israelite bore witness in his confessional recital of the works of God.”⁴⁹ The earlier phases of this recital are embodied in the acknowledgment of Deut. 26:5–10, in which the worshiper, bringing his offering of firstfruits to the altar, remembered with gratitude how God had chosen the patriarchs and redeemed their descendants for himself in the events of the Exodus, and how he had given them the land of Canaan as their inheritance (cf. also Josh. 24:2–13, 17–18). To these acts of God the worshiper of later days added his choice of David as king over Israel (cf. Pss. 78:67–72; 89:3–4). These events, in fact, constitute an Old Testament kerygma which is summarized in Paul’s address as a prelude to the New Testament kerygma: the events proclaimed in the apostolic preaching are shown to have taken place as the inevitable sequel to God’s dealings with his people in ancient days.

This address, says J. W. Doeve, was composed by someone who “must have had an excellent command of hermeneutics as practised in rabbinic Judaism.”⁵⁰ More specifically, J. W. Bowker has recognized in it a particular form of synagogue homily, the “proem homily.” This form of homily was related not only to the scripture lessons for the day but also to a relevant text which served as a proem to the homily.⁵¹ The proem text on this occasion may have been 1 Sam. (LXX 1 Kms.) 13:14 (quoted in v. 22 below). It has further been conjectured that the Pentateuchal reading was either Deut. 1 or Deut. 4:25–46, and that the reading from the Prophets was 2 Sam. (LXX 2 Kms.) 7:6–16.⁵² These are only tentative inferences from the address itself; we do not know at what time of the year it was delivered.

The language in which the history of Israel is outlined from patriarchal times is strongly reminiscent of the very wording of the Old Testament narration. The “uplifted arm” with which God led his people out of Egypt is an allusion to Ex. 6:1, 6 and Ps. 136 (LXX 135): 11–12; the figure of speech emphasizes the mighty power manifested by God at the Exodus.

18 God’s supporting them through the wilderness is taken from Deut. 1:31. There are two variant readings: according to our decision for the one or the other, he either sustained them or endured them. Both would be true to the record, but the former is more probably what is meant.

19 The seven nations destroyed in the land of Canaan are enumerated in Deut. 7:1, the wording of which is reflected here; they are named there as the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, “seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves.” The dispossession of these nations and the occupation of their territory were spread over a long term of years; it was not until the seventh year of David’s reign that the Jebusites, the last mentioned, were reduced. (The Jebusites were the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem.) The 450 years seem to cover the period of sojourning in Egypt (four hundred years, according to Gen. 15:13; cf. Acts 7:6), together with the forty years of wandering in the wilderness and the interval that elapsed between the crossing of the Jordan and the distribution of the land recorded in Josh. 14:1–5.⁵³ (The wording of Josh. 14:1–2 has also left its mark on the language of verse 19.)

20–21 The age of the judges, terminating with Samuel the prophet,⁵⁴ was followed by the reign of Saul⁵⁵—“a man from the tribe of Benjamin,” like the Saul who was delivering this address.⁵⁶ But King Saul proved not to be all that the heart of God could wish, and his dynasty did not endure; he was removed from his kingship and replaced by another.⁵⁷

22 This other man was David, to whom God confirmed his promise of abiding sovereignty, because of his readiness to do whatever God desired.⁵⁸ To him God bore witness in the words reproduced in Ps. 89:19–29:

“I have set the crown upon one who is mighty,

I have exalted one chosen from the people.

I have found⁵⁹ David, my servant;

with my holy oil I have anointed him;

so that my hand shall ever abide with him,

my arm also shall strengthen him.…

And I will make him the firstborn,

the highest of the kings of the earth.

My steadfast love I will keep for him forever,

and my covenant will stand firm for him.

I will establish his line forever

and his throne as the days of heaven.”⁶⁰

These words, recording the promises made by God to David, were written in a day when disaster had overtaken David’s house, and the psalmist was distressed by the contrast between the divine promises and the sorry sight that met his eyes—the crown of David profaned and cast to the ground. No wonder that he cried (Ps. 89 [LXX 88]:49):

“Lord, where is thy steadfast love of old,

which by thy faithfulness thou didst swear to David?”

In later days, however, when the sovereignty of the house of David seemed to have passed away forever, so far as human agency was concerned, it came to be recognized that the promises made to David would be fulfilled and indeed surpassed in a ruler of David’s line whom God would raise up. The Davidic kingship, according to the word of God through Ezekiel when the Judaean monarchy fell, was to lie in ruins: “there shall not be even a trace of it until he comes whose right it is; and to him I will give it” (Ezek. 21:27).⁶¹ This coming ruler would be a new and greater David; the character of his rule was expressed by his name which, said Jeremiah, would be “The LORD our righteousness” (Jer. 23:5; 33:16).⁶² As the postexilic centuries passed, and especially after the Roman extinction of the national independence enjoyed briefly under the Hasmonaeans, the longing for this messianic deliverer became more intense than ever.⁶³

c. Fulfilment in Christ (13:23–37)

23 “From David’s offspring God, according to his promise, has brought⁶⁴ to Israel a Savior—namely, Jesus.

24 Before his coming, John had already proclaimed a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

25 As John was completing his course, he said, ‘What⁶⁵ do you suppose that I am? I am not he. ⁶⁶ But see: after me someone is coming whose sandals I am not worthy to untie from his feet.’

26 Brothers, sons of Abraham’s race, and all of you⁶⁷ who worship God, it is to us⁶⁸ that this message of salvation has been sent.

27 The inhabitants of Jerusalem⁶⁹ and their rulers failed to recognize him. Not understanding the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, they fulfilled them by condemning him.⁷⁰

28 Although they found no charge deserving death proved against him, yet they asked Pilate that he should be killed.

29 Then, when they had fulfilled all that had been written concerning him, they took him down from the gibbet and laid him in a tomb.

30 But God raised him from the dead,

31 and he appeared over a period of several days to those who had gone up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem: they are now his witnesses to the people.

32 So, we bring you good news about the promise made to our forefathers:

33 God has fulfilled it to us and to our children⁷¹ by raising up Jesus.⁷² Thus it stands written in the second psalm:⁷³ ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’⁷⁴

34 And with regard to his raising him from the dead, to return to corruption no more, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David’—

35 for in another psalm he says further, ‘You will not let your holy one see corruption.’

36 As for David, when he had served the will of God in his own generation, he fell asleep and was gathered to his forefathers, and underwent corruption;

37 but he whom God raised up did not undergo corruption.

23 What Paul announced, then, was that the messianic deliverer had been raised up by God in the family of David, and that his name was Jesus. The significance of Jesus’ Davidic descent is emphasized in this address as it was in Peter’s address in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (2:25–36).⁷⁵

24–25 These verses introduce an outline of the primitive kerygma comparable to Peter’s preaching in the house of Cornelius, beginning with John the Baptist’s ministry (cf. 10:37). John’s baptism of repentance paved the way for the public appearance of Jesus, as John himself made clear: when people wondered if John himself might not be the object of widespread expectation, he replied, “I am not he.”⁷⁶ So far did he reckon himself beneath the coming one whose way he was preparing that he declared himself unfit even to untie his sandal straps.

This summary of John’s ministry combines features from the Synoptic record (the baptism of repentance and the impending advent of the one who was greater and stronger than John) with features peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, especially John’s denial that he was the Messiah.

26–29 “To us,” said Paul, again addressing the two elements in his audience, the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, “to us this message of salvation has been sent.” Then he went on to tell of the death of their deliverer: the people of Jerusalem, in the person of their rulers, showed their ignorance of the true meaning of prophetic scripture and consequently failed to recognize in Jesus the deliverer to whom it pointed forward. Instead, they passed adverse judgment on him, and thus unwittingly fulfilled the prophecies which foretold how he must suffer and die. Yet their adverse judgment was totally unjustified: he did no more than claim to be the person he actually was. In spite of his innocence, they asked Pilate to sentence him to death, and the sentence was carried out by crucifixion. As on some earlier occasions (cf. 5:30; 10:39), the cross is called the “gibbet,” in order to emphasize the connection with Deut. 21:23. When all was over, and the prophecies of his passion had been fulfilled, his body was taken down and buried.⁷⁷ The explicit mention of the tomb in which he was laid may be intended to underscore the reality of his death, and therefore also of his resurrection.⁷⁸ Besides, the burial of one who has been hanged on a tree or any erection of wood is specifically enjoined in Deut. 21:23, and there may be an implied insistence that everything was carried out in accordance with scripture.

30–31 But God reversed the judgment of men: here the constant note of triumph which made the apostolic preaching so joyful a message is struck again. God raised Jesus up from death, and over a period of many days—forty in all, Luke has said at the beginning of his second volume (Acts 1:3)—he appeared to his disciples who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They were now personal and public witnesses to his resurrection and messiahship; in Luke’s eyes, they are the primary guarantors of the gospel story (cf. 1:21–22). No more than in the Gospel of Luke is any mention made of resurrection appearances in Galilee. More surprising still is the absence, in an address ascribed to Paul, of any mention of the Lord’s appearance to him on the Damascus road. We may be sure that, if Paul referred to the appearances witnessed by Peter and others, he added, “Last of all he appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:8).

32–33 Here then is great good news. The promise made by God to the patriarchs has now been confirmed to their children—and not only to them, the historical Paul would have said, for believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews are blessed with believing Abraham (Gal. 3:8–9).

After long ages of earnest expectation, God, who had once “raised up David to be their king,” had now raised up the Son of David, in accordance with the royal oracle of Ps. 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”⁷⁹ The day of the king’s anointing in Israel “was ideally the day in which he, the nation’s representative, was born into a new relation of sonship towards Jehovah.”⁸⁰ Jesus entered into no new relation of sonship to his heavenly Father; but on the day when God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power⁸¹ and called him to his messianic mission, it was in terms of that oracle that he addressed him: “You are my Son” (indeed, the Western text of Luke 3:22 reproduces the full quotation from Ps. 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”).⁸²

34–37 Not only did God raise Jesus up to be his people’s Messiah; he raised him up in a further sense when he brought him back from death; and this too was a fulfilment of prophetic scripture. The promises made to David and his posterity could not have been realized apart from the resurrection of the crucified Messiah. Centuries after the promises were made to David himself, God renewed them at the time of restoration after exile by assuring his people that he would yet give them the pledged tokens of his “steadfast, sure love for David” (Isa. 55:3). One of these pledged tokens—indeed, the greatest of them—was the resurrection of the Son of David, in accordance with the assurance of Ps. 16 (LXX 15): 10, quoted in this same sense by Peter on the day of Pentecost (cf. 2:27): “You will not let your holy one see corruption.” In the Greek version a link between these two texts is provided by a common term, the adjective hosios, “holy”—”I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David” and “You will not let your holy one see corruption.”⁸³ The exploitation of such a common term is a well-known feature of rabbinical interpretation: Paul practises it in his letters, even when (as here) the common term is found only in the Greek version, and not in the Hebrew text.

The argument used by Peter at Pentecost is, in essence, repeated here by Paul: the words of Ps. 16 (LXX 15): 10 could not refer personally to David, for he died, was buried, and underwent bodily decomposition, after he had accomplished the will of God in his own lifetime. They refer rather to the one who was not permitted to “see corruption”—the one whom God raised from the dead, thus demonstrating him to be the Messiah.

The similarity between Peter’s speech in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and Paul’s speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch has caused some readers to question the authenticity of one, if not both, of the two speeches. B. W. Bacon, for example, held that the present speech could not “be more than the historian’s attempt to tell what Paul might have said: for as a whole it simply rehearses the speech of Peter at Pentecost, with a few variations, some of which remind us of the speech of Stephen. At all events, it is quite un-Pauline, and contains not one trait of his characteristic gospel.”⁸⁴ Percy Gardner, on the other hand, thought that Peter’s speech at Pentecost “so nearly resembles the speeches given to Paul that we can scarcely be mistaken in regarding it as a free composition,” whereas the matter of the present speech “is eminently Pauline; and the manner, apart from the mere choice of words, is also Pauline.… We may then fairly consider the speech at [Pisidian] Antioch as an abridgement of the kind of address used by Paul towards his own countrymen.”⁸⁵

More common is the view that both the Petrine and Pauline speeches are Lukan compositions, a view based on the twofold ground of their common style and common interdependent exegesis.⁸⁶ But we should bear in mind (a) Paul’s own insistence that the gospel story which he proclaimed was the same as that proclaimed by the other apostles and early witnesses, (b) the fact that the common outline of the primitive kerygma may be traced throughout the New Testament, no matter who the speaker or writer may be, and (c) the evidence for a common stock of testimonia or Old Testament selections used by all the early preachers of the gospel, which goes far to account for their common interdependent exegesis.⁸⁷

d. Peroration (13:38–41)

38 “Therefore, brothers, take knowledge that this is the one through whom forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.⁸⁸

39 By him, indeed, everyone who believes is justified from all things—a justification which you could not have received by Moses’ law.

40 See to it, then, that the saying in the prophets does not come upon you:

41 ‘See, you despisers, be amazed and vanish away; in your days I am doing a work which you will never believe, even if someone tells you of it.’ ”⁸⁹

38–39 The preaching was regularly rounded off with a direct application to the hearers. Here the application comprises the offer of forgiveness and justification through faith in Christ and a warning against rejecting this offer. Forgiveness of sins has been regularly proclaimed at the end of similar speeches in Acts (cf. 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43), but now justification is mentioned as well. Knowing Paul’s gospel as it is unfolded in the letters to the Galatians and the Romans, we are not surprised to find this reference to justification in the first address attibuted to him in Acts. But we may be warned not to be misled by a purely verbal coincidence. “The language of 13:39,” says B. W. Bacon, “is claimed as Pauline because of the single word ‘justify’. The doctrine is exactly that which Paul fundamentally repudiates, and which in Gal. 2:15–21 he demonstrates against Peter to be untenable, namely that a man may rest upon the works of the law for his general justification, and rely on the death of Christ to make up the deficiencies.”⁹⁰

Even if Bacon were on the right lines in his exegesis of the words, they need not involve so radical a contradiction with the argument of Galatians as he supposes. One could conceivably understand the words in this sense: “Even if you hope to enjoy a right relationship with God on the basis of Moses’ law, remember that Moses’ law does not provide for the forgiveness of sins committed ‘with a high hand.’ For such deliberate sins, by contrast with sins of ignorance, no atonement is available: the full penalty is prescribed. Why, then, go on trying to establish a right relationship with God in this way, now that you have presented to you a Savior who assures justification from all sins and complete acceptance with God to everyone who believes in him?”

Grammatically, the words could indeed be taken to mean that Christ provides for everyone who believes justification from all those things from which Moses’ law provides no justification—namely, most deliberate sins. But quite certainly they mean that believers in Christ are completely justified (“justified from all things”)—something which Moses’ law could never achieve for anyone. In other words, Moses’ law does not justify; faith in Christ does.⁹¹ If the agreement of this interpretation with the doctrine of justification in the Pauline letters is dismissed as irrelevant to the exegesis of the words in their present context, let it be said that the context itself, with the natural emphasis of the argument, requires this interpretation. Paul in this peroration is not making partial but total claims for the efficacy of the gospel over against the law. It is true that, in expounding justification by faith, Paul in his letters does not speak of it as being justified from anything. But that does not make the general sense of the present words un-Pauline. It is relevant to recall, too, that in the only other place in the Lukan writings where justification is spoken of as an act of God, the tax-collector who confessed himself to be a sinner and cast himself on the divine mercy went home justified, rather than the man who carefully regulated his life by the demands of Moses’ law (Luke 18:14).

40–41 The address ends on a note of warning. The prophet Habakkuk, on the eve of the Chaldaean rise to world power, called on the nations, in the name of God, to look with astonishment on the impending invasion:

“Look among the nations, and see;

wonder and be astounded.

For I am doing a work in your days

that you would not believe if told” (Hab. 1:5).

As these words of Habakkuk were reminiscent of warnings uttered earlier by Isaiah in the days of the Assyrian peril (Isa. 28:21–22; 29:14), so Paul now takes them up (in the Septuagint version, which makes the application more pointed)⁹² and applies them to the new situation in which God is offering deliverance through the greatest of all his mighty works. Great as was the disaster that overtook those who ignored the prophetic warnings, an even greater disaster will befall those who refuse the gospel.⁹³

3. Response to Paul’s Address (13:42–43)

42 As they were going out, the people begged that these words might be spoken to them the following sabbath.

43 When the synagogue congregation had dispersed, many of the Jews and worshiping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas. They spoke to them further and urged them to persevere in the grace of God.

42 Paul’s words aroused intense interest in a large part of his congregation. They had heard expositions of Scripture before, and moral exhortations, but nothing like this. They wanted to learn more of this new message, and asked to hear more on the same subject the next sabbath day. This request had to be addressed to the rulers of the synagogue, for it was their province to invite preachers to address the gathering.

43 The rulers of the synagogue, however, with other persons of authority in the community, had listened to the discourse with misgivings. They dismissed the congregation, perhaps, as Hort suggests, “for prudential reasons.”⁹⁴ Many of the hearers, however, both Jews by birth and proselytes, followed Paul and Barnabas and showed themselves favorably disposed to the message, with its proclamation of forgiveness and justification through faith in Jesus. Paul and Barnabas encouraged them to continue in this mind, to persevere in their joyful response to the grace which God extended to them in the gospel.

A question arises about the “worshiping proselytes” mentioned here. Some commentators identify them with the Gentile God-fearers of verses 16 and 26, and the participle used here occurs in reference to such people elsewhere in Acts. But it is not a technical term, and the determinant word is “proselytes,” which must be taken here as elsewhere to denote full converts to Judaism. Proselytes were members of the synagogue, as Gentile God-fearers were not; it would probably have been regarded as improper for the latter to make suggestions regarding the conduct of the service or the subject of the preaching.⁹⁵

4. Gentile Interest Arouses Jewish Opposition (13:44–52)

44 The next sabbath day almost the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.⁹⁶

45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and contradicted what Paul was saying, reviling him.⁹⁷

46 Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly: “It was necessary,” they said, “that the word of God should be spoken to you first. But since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, see, e are turning to the Gentiles.

47 For this is the command the Lord has given us:

‘I have set you as a light for the Gentiles,

as a means of salvation⁹⁸ to the end of the earth.’ “

48 When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified⁹⁹ the word of the Lord;¹⁰⁰ and all who were enrolled for eternal life believed.

49 So the word of the Lord was carried throughout the whole region.

50 But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high rank, and the principal men of the city, and stirred up persecution¹⁰¹ against Paul and Barnabas. The authorities expelled them from the district.

51 They, however, shook off the dust of their feet against them and came to Iconium.

52 The disciples, meanwhile, were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

44–45 During the following week, the Gentiles who had heard Paul’s address spread the news through the city to such good purpose that on the next sabbath a great crowd of Gentiles turned up at the synagogue. Knowing (as we unfortunately do) how regular Christian worshipers can manifest quite un-Christian indignation when they arrive at church on a Sunday morning to find their customary seats occupied by rank outsiders who have come to hear some popular visiting speaker, we can readily appreciate the annoyance of the Jewish community at finding their synagogue practically taken over by a Gentile audience on this occasion. But there was a further reason for their annoyance: these Gentiles were plainly disposed to give a favorable hearing to a message which they themselves, for the most part, found unacceptable. Many Jews, according to the narrative, did welcome the gospel as Paul had proclaimed it the previous sabbath, but the majority, and especially their leaders, had no use for a salvation which was open to Gentiles on the same terms as Jews. It was just this, indeed, that aroused their opposition. So they spoke out in an endeavor to refute Paul’s arguments, and cast unworthy aspersions on the missionaries (perhaps including the name of Jesus in their defamatory remarks).

46 Paul and Barnabas gave a straightforward answer to their disparaging words. It was right and proper, they affirmed, that Jews should have the first opportunity of hearing and believing the good news.¹⁰² Had the Jews of Pisidian Antioch accepted the message, theirs would have been the privilege of evangelizing their Gentile neighbors, in accordance with the terms of Israel’s world mission laid down in the Isaianic servant songs and their contexts.¹⁰³ But if they refused to receive the light themselves, they could not be allowed to pursue a dog-in-the-manger policy. The life of the age to come¹⁰⁴ had been brought near to them here and now as God’s free gift in Christ; if they showed themselves unworthy¹⁰⁵ of the gift by declining to accept it, there were others who would appreciate it: it would be offered direct to the Gentiles.

Thus we are introduced to a pattern of events which was to be reproduced in one place after another to which the gospel was brought, right on to the end of Luke’s narrative. The local Jews, almost invariably,¹⁰⁶ gave a corporate refusal to the gospel (though in every place there were some among them who did believe it), and it was accordingly proclaimed to Gentiles, who embraced it in large numbers.¹⁰⁷ It was regularly the God-fearing Gentiles who attended the synagogue that formed the nucleus of Paul’s “churches of the Gentiles.”

This in itself won Paul the disapproval of the Jewish leaders. They regarded him as one who poached on their preserves, a sheep stealer who seduced from the synagogue many well-disposed Gentiles for whose complete conversion to Judaism they had hoped—and seduced them by offering them God’s full blessing, with incorporation in his people, on what seemed to be easier terms than those which the synagogue required from would-be proselytes. Paul’s reply to this complaint would have been that it was only their own refusal to receive the gospel light that prevented them from being light-bearers to the Gentiles. A synagogue which yielded its allegiance to Jesus as the Messiah would not be in danger of losing its Gentile adherents but, as Paul (and Luke) saw the logic of the situation, would be able forth-with to incorporate them as full members.

47 This is in effect what Paul and Barnabas said on this occasion, quoting the words of Isa. 49:6. It is noteworthy that in the context of this prophecy (the second Servant Song) the nation of Israel is first addressed as the servant of Yahweh (v. 3):

“You are my servant,

Israel,¹⁰⁸ in whom I will be glorified.”

But Israel as a whole was a disobedient servant, and the prophecy was to find its particular fulfilment in one who is in some sense the representative or embodiment of Israel, yet distinguished from the nation, to which indeed his mission is first directed, as well as (thereafter) to the Gentile world:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to restore the preserved of Israel;

I will give you as a light to the nations,

That my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

In the New Testament this obedient servant is identified with Jesus (who was probably himself the pioneer in making this identification). Luke has already told how, in Jesus’ infancy, Simeon of Jerusalem, seeing the long-expected Lord’s Anointed lie at last in his arms, rejoiced that he should have lived to greet that day (Luke 2:29–32):

“Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,

according to thy word;

for mine eyes have seen thy salvation

which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,

a light for revelation to the Gentiles,

and for glory to thy people Israel.”

But if the faithful Servant, through suffering and consequent triumph, accomplished the saving work single-handedly, his mission was henceforth shared with his followers, as they spread the gospel light in his name throughout the nations. Paul’s own account of his call echoes the language of the Servant’s call. But he would have said, more clearly than Luke does, that while others shared that aspect of the Servant’s ministry which was directed to Israel, his own specific commission was to proclaim the Son of God among the Gentiles¹⁰⁹—and, according to Paul’s account, Barnabas was also recognized as called primarily to Gentile evangelization.¹¹⁰ Here both of them read their own appointment in the Servant’s commission: “this is the command the Lord has given us.”

48–49 Distasteful as this announcement was to the synagogue leaders, it was joyful news to the Gentiles who heard it, and many of them believed the gospel—all, in fact, who had been enrolled for eternal life in the records of heaven (for this appears to be the sense of the words here used).¹¹¹ And not only in the city itself, but throughout the surrounding countryside as well, those who believed the good news carried it to others.

50 The Jewish leaders could not prevent the Gentiles from accepting the gospel, but they could make the place too hot to hold the mission-aries. This they did by prejudicing the civic authorities of Pisidian Antioch against them. The wives of many of these authorities—like well-to-do women in many other cities of the Roman world—were attracted to the Jewish religion and were found among the God-fearing Gentiles who frequented the synagogue, and it was evidently through them that their husbands were influenced, to the disadvantage of Paul and Barnabas. Luke is at pains to represent the Jewish leaders as foremost in stirring up opposition to Paul in one place after another, rather than civic or provincial authorities acting on their own initiative.¹¹² This is an element in Luke’s apologetic argument. The influential part played by the women, says Ramsay, “is in perfect accord with the manners of the country. In Athens or in an Ionian city, it would have been impossible.”¹¹³

51–52 Thus forced to leave Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas “shook off the dust of their feet” against those who had expelled them—a gesture which Jesus had commended to his disciples when they left an inhospitable place¹¹⁴—and took the eastward road to Iconium. The gesture did not in this instance imply complete breach of relations with Pisidian Antioch: the missionaries had left a body of believers there, and they paid a return visit to them a few months later (14:21).

Iconium (modern Konya), lay about ninety miles east-southeast of Pisidian Antioch. It was the easternmost city of Phrygia.¹¹⁵ For two and a half centuries it had been ruled by Seleucid, Galatian, and Pontic kings. It passed into the Roman sphere of influence in 65 B.C., and became part of the empire in 25 B.C., when the former kingdom of Galatia was incorporated as the province of Galatia. From Claudius it received the honorific imperial prefix and became known for a time as Claudiconium.¹¹⁶ To this city, then, the two missionaries came. But the converts whom they left behind in Pisidian Antioch, far from being discouraged by the expulsion of the men who had brought them the gospel, were (in spite of that expulsion, and doubtless in spite of some persecution which they themselves had to endure) filled with the joy begotten by the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

1. A remarkable reading of vv. 1 and 2 down to this point is found in a Latin work entitled Prophecies collected from all the books, originating in the African church early in the fourth century: “Now there were in the church prophets and teachers, Barnabas and Saul, on whom the following prophets laid their hands—Symeon who is called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene who remains to this day, and Titus his foster-brother; they had received a response from the Holy Spirit, by reason of which they said …” As this work is also a witness for the Western reading at 11:27–28, which introduces the narrator at Antioch, it may be that here it identifies Lucius of Cyrene with Luke the evangelist. As for Titus, it is a natural inference from Gal. 2:1–3 that he was an Antiochene; that he was Luke’s brother has been suggested, e.g., by W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 390; Luke the Physician (London, 1908), pp. 17–18; A. Souter, “A Suggested Relationship between Titus and Luke,” ExT 18 (1906–7), p. 285; “The Relationship between Titus and Luke,” pp. 335–36. T. Zahn, in reconstructing the Greek text presumed to underlie this Latin reading, supposes that some words have fallen out and expands “Titus his foster-brother” to “Titus (an Antiochene, and Manaen, Herod the tetrarch’s) foster-brother” (Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte [Leipzig, 1916], pp. 280–81; he reproduces the Latin text on p. 80). He takes this reading to be the original Western text of the passage.

2. D expands: “when they had all fasted and prayed.”

3. Latin was spoken in the Roman province of Africa, but that lay farther west along the North African coast than Cyrene. Do the evangelists use “Cyrenaean” in the general sense of “African”?

4. Mark 15:21, where this Simon is identified as “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” If he is so identified because Alexander and Rufus were known in the Roman church, the question arises if Rufus is the man to whom Paul sends greetings in Rom. 16:13.

5. See p. 243, n. 44; p. 244, n. 1.

6. See H. J. Cadbury, “Lucius of Cyrene,” Beginnings I.5 (London, 1933), pp. 489–95.

7. See MM, s.v. (p. 615); New Docs. 3 (1978), § 9.

8. See p. 99, with n. 44 (on 4:27).

9. Josephus, Ant. 15.373–78.

10. This is implied by the reading quoted on p. 244, n. 1.

11. See on 14:4 (p. 271).

12. On or near the site of modern Samandaǧ. Seleucia was founded by Seleucus Nicator (founder of the Seleucid dynasty) in 301 B.C.

13. It is usually called Kittim in the Old Testamemt, from the name of its chief Phoenician settlement Kition (modern Larnaka).

14. Lat. cuprum = aes cyprium, “Cyprian bronze.”

15. As Gk. was used as the equivalent of Lat. consul., so () served as the equivalent of proconsul.

16. The word “attendant” represents Gk. , used also in Luke 1:2, , “ministers of the word—among whom Mark is probably reckoned. A. Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels (London, 1890), pp. 15–16, argued that Mark attended Barnabas and Saul as a duly authorized catechist; cf. G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1897), p. 142. “It may be that Mark was taken on Paul’s first missionary journey because his eye-witness reminiscences supplied an element in the Gospel-preaching that neither Paul nor Barnabas could supply” (G. J. Paul, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary [London, 1965], p. 26, n. 1, quoted by C. F. D. Moule, Essays in New Testament Interpretation [Cambridge, 1982], p. 47).

17. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 72. W. Schmithals, Paul and James, E.T., SBT 46 (London, 1965), pp. 46–61, agrees that Paul started his mission in each new place by trying to establish a connection with the local “God-fearers,” but denies that, after the agreement of Gal. 2:9, he did so by going to the synagogue to find them. But the synagogue was the most convenient place for him to get in touch with them.

18. D reads Bariēsouan. a closer approximation to Aram. Bar-Yēšũa’, supplied with the Greek accusative termination -n.

19. The Western text seems to have read Etymas or Hetoimas, spellings which remind one of Atomos, the name of another Jewish magician who is recorded as living in Cyprus about this time (Josephus, Ant. 20.142; cf. pp. 447–48 below). See also p. 249, n. 24.

20. The Latin spelling is Paullus rather than Paulus.

21. IGRR 3.935, corrected reading in J. L. Myres, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus (New York, 1914), 1903 (pp. 319, 548). An inscription from Soloi, N. Cyprus, mentions a proconsul named Paullus who held office in some emperor’s tenth year (IGRR 3.930). The writing is probably too late for the principate of Claudius; in any case, even if the emperor were Claudius, his tenth year (A.D. 50/51) would be too late for the present incident. Others have favored the identification of our proconsul with Lucius Sergius Paullus, a curator of the Tiber under Claudius (CIL VI.31545); there is no evidence to connect him with Cyprus.

22. Cf. p. 166 with n. 29 (on 8:9).

23. See A. D. Nock, “Paul and the Magus,” Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart (Oxford, 1972), I, pp. 308–30.

24. Perhaps akin to Arab. 'alīm, “sage.” The attempt has been made (by A. Klostermann and T. Zahn) to associate the Western reading (cf. Gk. , “ready”) with the Western reading (ν) in v. 6, as though the latter were derived from Heb. in the sense “be ready” (cf. the name Ishvah in Gen. 46:17; 1 Chron. 7:30). This is too farfetched to be plausible.

25. As a Roman citizen, Paul would have had three names—praenomen, nomen gentile, and cognomen—of which Paullus was his cognomen. It is probably a mere coincidence that Luke should first designate him by his Roman name in a context where another Paullus figures. The apostle’s praenomen and nomen gentile have, unfortunately, not been preserved; the nomen gentile would probably have given some indication of the circumstances in which his family acquired Roman citizenship (see on 22:28). See C. J. Hemer, “The Name of Paul,” TynB 36 (1985), pp. 179–83.

26. Gk. , “slanderer,” was used as a rendering of Heb. , “adversary” (cf. 10:38). In his letters Paul prefers to use the Gk. transliteration (cf. p. 105, n. 14. on 5:3); occurs in Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:6–7; 2 Tim. 2:26.

27. His father’s name was probably Jeshua.

28. Comm. on Acts, ad loc.; cf. Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, 28.

29. W. M. Ramsay, BRD (London, 1915), p. 165.

30. Beginnings 1.4 (London, 1933), p. 147.

31. BRD, pp. 150–72.

32. Strabo, Geog. 14.4.2.

33. Cf. T. R. S. Broughton, “Three Notes on St. Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor,” in Quantulacumque: Studies presented to K. Lake, ed. R. P. Casey etc. (London. 1937), pp. 131–33.

34. St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 94–97.

35. Geog. 12.3.31, 6.4, 8.14. See W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul (London. 1907), pp. 245–314: “Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age,” JRS 6 (1916), pp. 83–134; W. M. Calder, “Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia,” JRS 2 (1912), pp. 78–109; B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967), pp. 34–35, 58–67, 130–44 et passim.

36. The Roman province of Galatia, formed in 25 B.C. after the death of Amyntas, the last king of Galatia, was (like Amyntas’s kingdom) more extensive than “ethnic Galatia,” the inland territory so called from the Galatians (Gauls) who settled there after their invasion of Asia Minor in the third century B.C. In addition to ethnic Galatia the province of that name included parts of Pontus, Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia, and Isauria, with a number of Greek cities and Roman colonies. An enlarged province of Pisidia was formed in A.D. 295, with Pisidian Antioch as its principal city; hence, no doubt, the reading “Antioch of Pisidia” (, Δ Е 33 81 byz), replacing the earlier “Pisidian Antioch”" (, P⁴⁵ ⁷⁴ A B C pc, where is an adjective).

37. See Schürer, pp. 447–54.

38. See A. Büchler, “The Reading of the Law and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle,” JQR 5 (1892–93), pp. 420–68; 6 (1893–94), pp. 1–73; J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (Cincinnati, 1940); J. Heinemann, “The Triennial Lectionary Cycle,” JJS 19 (1968), pp. 41–48. For this purpose the text of the Pentateuch was divided into 154 . Beyond the Euphrates an annual lectionary cycle was used, the Pentateuchal text being divided for this purpose into 54 ; it is essentially this cycle that is followed today in orthodox synagogues throughout the world.

39. See I. Abrahams, “The Freedom of the Synagogue,” Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I (Cambridge, 1917), pp. 1–17.

40. The were chosen from the elders of the congregation to take general charge of the synagogue services. Sometimes the office was hereditary; sometimes the title was bestowed honoris causa. See Schürer II, pp. 433–36.

41. For cf. Heb. 13:22; perhaps it was current as an expression denoting a synagogue sermon.

42. See N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids/London, 1951), pp. 68–92.

43. See p. 203 with n. 7 (on 10:2).

44. See I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, p. 8.

45. The textual evidence is fairly evenly balanced between , “he nourished them” (“carried them like a nurse”) and , “he endured their ways.” The same two variants are found in Deut. 1:31 LXX (to which Paul is here alluding). The Hebrew text reads simply , “bore.”

46. The Western and Byzantine texts read “for about 450 years” immediately before “he gave them judges” (v. 20) instead of in the position indicated above (which is that of the Alexandrian text, the Latin Vulgate, and the Armenian version).

47. The Western text omits “after that.”

48. Cf. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, p. 8: the address, he says, “follows Jewish lines in its structure.”

49. G. E. Wright, God Who Acts (London, 1952), p. 76.

50. J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen, 1954), pp. 175–76.

51. J. W. Bowker, “Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,” NTS 14 (1967–68), pp. 96–111, especially 101–10.

52. That the seder was Deut. 1 has been suggested by A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960), p. 78; the other suggestions are those of J. W. Bowker (see n. 51).

53. The dative expresses point of time, not duration of time; one might have expected the ordinal numerals: “in the 450th year.”

54.Samuel, the last of the judges, appears in 3:24 as first in the succession of prophets (after Moses).

55. The figure of 40 years given here for Saul’s reign is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 6.378 (Greek text; the Latin version gives 20 years, as also does the Greek text of Ant. 10.143). J. A. Bengel (Gnomon Novi Testamenti, p. 441) reckoned that the 40 years here covered the administration of Samuel and Saul together.

56. Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5.

57. Cf. 1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:23, 26, 28.

58. The words “a man who is all that my heart could desire” () are taken from 1 Sam. (LXX 1 Kms.) 13:14 (.) (om B) is a more precise equivalent of Heb. than is LXX . The added clause “he will do everything that I desire” () conforms to the paraphrase of Heb. (“according to his heart”) in the Targum of Jonathan: (or plural ra). See M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts(Oxford, 1965), pp. 21–24.

59. LXX (Ps. 88:21), whence “1 have found” in v. 22.

60. These verses of Ps. 89 (LXX 88) are based on the narrative of 2 Sam. (LXX 2 Kms.) 7, where Yahweh undertakes to maintain the dynasty of David in perpetuity (cf. 7:46 above, with accompanying exposition, pp. 147–49).

61. Probably an expanded reference to Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen. 49:10, “… until he comes to whom it belongs.”

62. Cf. also Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24.

63. This longing finds eloquent expression in the Psalms of Solomon, composed shortly after the Roman conquest of Judaea in 63 B.C., especially in the passage beginning “Behold, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David …” (Ps. Sol. 17:23).

64. A number of witnesses (including C D 33 614 syr^{pesh hcl} cop^sa arm) read “raised up” () instead of “brought” (). This variant reading may have been influenced by such OT passages as Judg. 3:9, “the LORD raised up a deliverer for the children of Israel.”

65. The Western and Byzantine texts have “whom” for “what.”

66. It is possible to punctuate differently and take these two clauses together as one sentence: “I am not what you suppose I am.” But the punctuation above gives better emphasis.

67. A D 81 read “those among us” () for “those among you” ().

68. P⁴⁵ C E byz lat syr cop^bo read “to you” () for “to us” ().

69. The Western text of vv. 27–29 has been reconstructed by J. H. Ropes (Beginnings 1.3, p. 261) in a form which may be translated thus: “For the inhabitants and rulers of Jerusalem, not understanding the writings of the prophets which are read publicly every sabbath day, have fulfilled them, and although they found no charge deserving death proved against him, they judged him and handed him over to Pilate to be put to death. And when they were completing all the things that had been written concerning him, they requested Pilate after his crucifixion that he might be taken down from the gibbet, and having obtained their request they took him down and laid him in a tomb.”

70. The phrase “by condemning him” () was transferred by Lachmann to follow immediately after “failed to recognize him” (Moffatt accepts this emendation in his version: “by condemning him in their ignorance”). Blass emended (“condemning”) to (“not discerning”).

71. The weight of the evidence (P⁷⁴ A B C* D pc lat) favors “to our children” (). But as the promise was made to the fathers, we should expect to be told that it was fulfilled to their children; in fact, “to us [their] children” () appears as the reading in C³ E byz syr. “It can hardly be doubted that is a primitive corruption of ,” says Hort. But the wording (“to us and to our children”), conjectured by F. H. Chase, The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1902), p. 187, n. 1, is very attractive; it would bring the passage into line with 2:39, “to you and to your children” (cf. Ps. Sol. 8:39, “to us and to our children is his good pleasure forever”).

72. The Western text has the reverential expansion “the Lord Jesus Christ.”

73. The Western text reads “in the first psalm” (P⁴⁵ reads simply “in the psalms”). Origen (on Ps. 2) says that he has seen two Hebrew manuscripts in which the first two psalms were joined as one. Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Hilary also testify more or less explicitly to the practice of regarding these two psalms as one, and there is rabbinic evidence for the tradition that “Blessed is the man” (Ps. 1) and “Why do the nations conspire?” (Ps. 2) form “one chapter” (TB 9b).

74. The Western text continues the OT quotation by adding “Ask of me, and I will give the nations as your heritage, and the ends of the earth as your possession.”

75. See pp. 64–66.

76. Cf. Luke 3:15–17; John 1:20 (“I am not the Christ”). See on 19:4 (p. 364 with n. 13).

77. The plural subject, “they took him down … and laid him in a tomb,” may be generalizing; in the Gospels Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus (members of the Sanhedrin) are specially mentioned in this connection (Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38–42). The rulers appear in any case to have taken steps to ensure that his body should be removed from the cross before sunset (John 19:31).

78. The mention of the burial of Jesus, immediately before the mention of his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4), implies that the tomb was found empty, as the Gospel narratives explicitly affirm.

79. The raising up of Jesus to be his people’s Messiah, rather than his being raised from the dead, seems to be the sense in v. 33 (his being raised from the dead is mentioned in v. 34). For this sense of cf. 3:22, 26; 7:37; the synonymous is used in this sense in 5:20; 13:22. On the use of Ps. 2 in the apostolic preaching see 4:25–26 with exposition and notes (pp. 98–99).

80. F. H. Chase, The Credibility of Acts, p. 126.

81. Cf. 10:38 with exposition (pp. 213–14).

82. Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), pp. 31–32.

83. In Isa. 55:3 LXX renders , “pledged mercies"; in Ps. 16 (LXX 15): 10 renders , “thy holy one.” The rabbinical exegetical principle of gezerah shawah (in which the sense of two texts is linked to their sharing a common term) is here applied to the Greek text (as in Gal. 3:10, 13).

84. B. W. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul (London, 1905), p. 103.

85. P. Gardner, “The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts,” in Cambridge Biblical Essays, ed. H. B. Swete (Cambridge, 1909), pp. 397–98.

86. Cf. H. J. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts,” Beginnings I.5, pp. 402–27.

87. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 21944), p. 30: “If we recall the close general similarity of the kerygma as derived from Acts, as well as Paul’s emphatic assertion of the identity of his gospel with the general Christian tradition, we shall not find it altogether incredible that the speech at Pisidian Antioch may represent in a general way one form of Paul’s preaching, the form, perhaps, which he adopted in synagogues when he had the opportunity of preaching there.”

88. The Western text recasts v. 39 thus: “… and repentance from all things from which you could not be justified by Moses’ law; in him therefore everyone who believes is justified in the sight of God.”

89. The Western text (614 syr^hcl*) reads “and he held his peace” (the reading of D. “and they held their peace,” is probably a corruption of this).

90. B. W. Bacon, The Story of St. Paul, p. 103, n. 1; cf. A. Harnack, Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, E.T. (London, 1911), p. 58; P. Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts” (1950/51), E.T. in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (Nashville/New York, 1966), pp. 41–42.

91. This is practically what Peter says in 15:7–11. Cf. William Tyndale’s marginal note on our present text: “Fayth iustifieth and not the lawe.”

92. MT (“among the nations”) is replaced in LXX by (“despisers”), which renders the Hebrew variant , a reading attested in the Qumran commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab). There is nothing in MT corresponding to LXX (“and vanish away”).

93. Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, p. 87. In addition to other literature cited in the exposition and notes above, see M. Dumais, Le langage de l’évangelisation: L’annonce missionnaire en milieu juif (Acts 13,16–41) (Tournai/Montreal, 1976).

94. “Notes to Select Readings,” Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in the Original Greek, II (London, 1882), Appendix 1, pp. 95–96.

95. K. Lake properly takes the Greek to mean “many of the Jews and the proselytes who were worshipping” (“Proselytes and God-fearers,” Beginnings I.5, p. 88). It is not necessary, with E. Haenchen (Acts, p. 413, n. 5), to suspect that is a gloss (similarly K. G. Kuhn, TDNT 6, p. 743, § 4, s.v. ).

96. For “the Lord” B* C E byz lat^vg.cl syr cop^bo read “God” (cf. similar variation in v. 48).

97. The Western text amplifies to “contradicting and reviling” (“contradicting” is pleonastic after “contradicted” in the main clause).

98. Literally, “that you should be for salvation” ().

99. Some Western witnesses (D lat^g) read “accepted” () for “glorified” ().

100. BDE and some other witnesses read “the word of God.”

101. The Western text amplifies to “great tribulation and persecution” (cf. the similar amplification in 8:1).

102. See p. 247.

103. See exposition of v. 47 below.

104. “Eternal life” () reflects Heb. , “the life of the age to come”—i.e., the resurrection age. In Christ this life may be possessed and enjoyed here and now as God’s free gift. In Paul’s teaching it is Christ’s own risen life shared by him with those who are united to him by faith.

105. For the idea of worthiness or unworthiness in this respect cf. Matt. 22:8; Luke 20:35.

106. Those of Beroea are recorded as an exception (17:11).

107. Cf. 28:28 with exposition (pp. 508–9).

108. For arguments against the extrusion of “Israel” from the text here see H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord (Oxford, ²1965), pp. 8–9.

109. Cf. Gal. 1:15–16, “God … was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I should preach him among the Gentiles” (), echoing not only Isa. 42:1; 49:6, etc., but also Jer. 1:5.

110. Cf. Gal. 2:9.

111. There is no good reason for weakening the predestinarian note here, as (e.g.) H. Alford does by rendering “as many as were disposed to eternal life.” The Greek participle is from , and there is papyrus evidence for the use of this verb in the sense of “inscribe” or “enroll” (cf. , “thou hast signed a decree,” in Theodotion’s version of Dan. 6:12). The idea of being enrolled in the book of life or the like is found in several biblical contexts (e.g., Ex. 32:32–33; Ps. 69 [LXX 68]:28; Isa. 4:3 Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12–15;21:27), in the pseudepigrapha (e.g., Jub. 30:20; 1 Enoch 47:3; 104:1; 108:3), and in rabbinical literature (e.g., TJ Rosh ha-Shanah 1.9.57a; TB Rosh ha-Shanah 16b). The Targum of Jonathan on Isa. 4:3 (“written among the living”)explains this as being “written for the life of the age to come” (i.e., eternal life).

112. Exceptions are the incidents at Philippi (16:19–24) and at Ephesus (19:23–41).

113. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 102. Cf, 16:14; 17:12.

114. Luke 9:5; 10:11. The original idea behind the gesture was that the community against which it was directed was doomed (possibly self-doomed) to destruction—a destruction so thorough that it extended to its very dust, which must therefore be removed. Cf. 18:6.

115. It had been so since Xenophon’s day (Anabasis 1.2.19). See further on 14:6 below (p. 272 with nn. 10–15).

116. See w. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, pp. 317–82.

↑ Back to top

A. Barnabas And Saul (12:25–13:3)