Part 101
Elijah and Elisha at i Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:33 (cf. Lk 4:26, 27); but the closest parallels are with the gospel story of Jesus' healing of Jairus' daughter (Mk 5:22—4, 35—43 par.). It is intriguing that only Mark records the Aramaic form of Jesus' words to the child, talitha cum (Mk 5:41); this is so close to Peter's words here (though in the gospel story talitha is not a name) that it is tempting to think Luke has either held over this detail deliberately from the gospel to Acts, or has received a parallel healing tradition that transposes the miracle to Peter and to a non-Galilean location.
(10:1—8) Cornelius' Vision Like the conversion of Saul, this is really a story of two visionary experiences, each confirming the other. Luke leaves his main protagonist temporarily immobile (9:43) and takes the reader to Caesarea, 32 miles north up the coast. Here we are introduced to a man with the good Roman name of Cornelius, belonging to the noncommissioned officer class who were the backbone of the Roman army (10:1). The 'Italian Cohort' is known from inscriptional evidence to have been in Syria before 69, though we do not have precise details about its stationing. Cornelius is characterized as a pious man with a godfearing household (w. 2,7), and his piety is borne out by actions both charitable and religious (10:2). The term 'devout' (eusebes) is one of a group of words Luke uses rather loosely, apparently to characterize Gentiles who were attracted to the religious practice of Judaism but shrank from the rigours of full conversion (generally called Godfearers to distinguish them from Gentile proselytes who had converted fully to Judaism). This may never have been a formal category, and its existence has been disputed in recent years; but the probability that some such group existed now seems to have been confirmed, at least for some diaspora cities, by the discovery of an inscription in Aphrodisias which includes a category of theosebds among a list of charitable donors to a synagogue (Levinskaya 1996: 51-82: Barrett 1994-9: i. 500-1).
10:236-33 Peter Meets Cornelius It is hard to convey the extent to which Luke slows down the action in this scene, making explicit a series of apparently trivial actions of a kind normally left to the reader's imagination in biblical narrative. All of this, with the constant repetition of narrative detail, adds to the effect of drawing the reader into Peter's dilemma, to experience with him the gradual steps by which this new stage in God's plan is unfolded. The journey to Caesarea takes a full day (v. 24), and Peter takes with him some of the 'brothers' from Joppa (v. 23). All this time Peter has been associating with the Gentile soldier (v. 7) and the house-servants (probably also Gentile) sent by Cornelius: when he arrives, to find a houseful of the centurion's 'relatives and close friends' assembled in his honour (v. 24), the next decisive step is entering this Gentile household (v. 27). But Peter has already made the connection with the animal vision: the prohibition against calling anything 'common or unclean' is not about food but about people, not about what you eat but about who you associate with (v. 28). Cornelius' recapitulation of his own vision (w. 30-3) heightens the solemnity of the scene: we find ourselves alongside the listeners, poised and expectant 'in the presence of God' to hear what God has commissioned Peter to say (v. 33).
(10:9-16) Peter's Vision Cornelius' vision establishes not only his own piety but the much more important fact that God is taking the initiative in reaching out to the Gentiles. The interleaved timing, with the visitors moving purposefully on to meet a man who does not yet know of their existence
(10:8—9) reinforces the point: everything about this sequence is miraculous, even Peter's noontime siesta with its combination of prayer and (albeit enforced) fasting (10:10). 'Trance' (ekstasis) is a strong word that strengthens the sense of an aweinspiring revelation (cf. Mk 16:8; Lk 5:26; Lk 3:10; 22:17). Th£
opening of heaven (10:11) is a standard feature of theophanic vision (cf. 7:55), but the rather bizarre details of Peter's vision are not: the container (skeuos) 'like a large sheet' sounds like a ship's sail, and fits the maritime setting of Peter's vision (cf. 10:5). The immediate focus of the vision, however, is on food. The list of'four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air' (v. 12) echoes the creation narrative of Gen i, and is deliberately inclusive: the heavenly voice prohibits the classification of foods into 'clean' and 'unclean' that was fundamental to the Jewish food laws (cf. e.g. Lev 11:47). Th£ use of koinos
(10:34—43) P£ter Preaches to the Gentiles This is the last evangelistic speech Peter will make in Acts, and it is both parallel to and subtly different from those he has made in Jerusalem. Its burden is that God shows no 'partiality', no preferential treatment as between Jew and Gentile: acceptability before God is open to those 'in every nation' (v. 35) who fear him and perform righteous acts (cf. Rom 2:10-11, where the same word is used). Peter then moves into a recapitulation of the gospel message he has preached in Jerusalem, subtly adapted for this Caesarean setting. This is the
('profane', v. 15, lit. common) as a gloss for 'unclean' is paralleled in the discussion of food laws in Mk 7:1-23 (par. Mt 15:120) and in Rom 14:14. Interestingly, however, the heavenly voice in Peter's vision does not make Paul's rather general
ACTS 1042
scene's key event. So Peter highlights the role of the Spirit, the importance of not 'making a distinction' (v. 12), and the parallel with Pentecost (v. 15). In Peter's own mind, the event triggered memories of Jesus' words (v. 16; cf. Acts 1:5), and to him the theological inference is clear (v. 17). Like Gamaliel
fullest summary Luke gives of the gospel story in Acts. It brings out the characteristic shape of the story, starting in Galilee after John's baptism (v. 37), and stressing the charismatic power of Jesus' healing ministry: nowhere else does Luke make it so clear that he sees all healing as liberation from demonic power (v. 38). As in his Jerusalem speeches (cf. ACTS 2:14—36; 3:11—26), Peter now repeats the charge that Jesus was 'put to death' (v. 39), though without specifying who was responsible (for 'hanging on a tree' cf. ACTS 5:30); now that we have moved out of Jerusalem there is less emphasis on Jesus' death and more on his resurrection (w. 40—i), including a reprise of the apostolic commission (v. 42). Peter (or Luke) is very interested in denning audiences here: God's message is sent first to Israel (v. 36), then to a smaller group of witnesses (v. 41), whose prime target is still 'the people' (v. 42, i.e. Israel). The message, however, is universal: judgement of 'the living and the dead' (v. 42: cf. 17:31) and forgiveness of sins for 'everyone who believes in him' (v. 43). The stage is set for an extension of the word of God to an audience which includes Gentiles (v. 33). (10:44-8) The Coming of the Spirit: Caesarea It is at this precise point that the Holy Spirit intervenes. 'All who heard the word' (v. 44) are caught up in the same charismatic experience: the 'astounded' reaction of Peter's JewishChristian companions from Joppa highlights the fact that this includes 'even Gentiles' (v. 45). 'Speaking in tongues'
(5:39), Peter warns that withholding baptism from the Gentiles would be tantamount to 'hindering God': this is one of Luke's major underlying themes, and his whole narrative is designed to offer convincing proof (as Peter's does here) that each step in the development of the church is initiated by God.
Act II Scene 4: Antioch and Jerusalem (11:19-12:25)
After the unified and tightly constructed episode of Cornelius' conversion we move to a rather more rambling section that combines summary accounts of the founding of the church in Antioch (11:19-26) and the sending of a famine relief mission to Jerusalem (11:27-30; 12:25) wrth traditional stories of martyrdom and imprisonment from the Jerusalem church (12:1— 19) and the bizarre retributory death of Herod the persecutor (12:24). (11:19-26) The Church in Antioch There is a very definite closure and change of scene at 11:19, as the narrative thread returns to 'those who were scattered' at 8:1, and follows them to Antioch, 300 miles to the north. Luke gives the impression that the persecution that followed Stephen's death was an explosive event, creating an unstoppable momentum: those caught up in it are still on the move, blissfully unaware of developments elsewhere, and 'speaking the word' as they travel (v. 19; cf. 8:4). Some of these anonymous Christians
(v. 46) has not been mentioned since the Pentecost experience of 2:4; Peter's question ('just as we have', v. 47) underlines the parallel, which is surely intentional. The act of baptizing Gentile believers (v. 48) follows as a logical consequence: the structure of Luke's narrative makes it quite clear that the initiative in this case is God's. The form of the question ('Can anyone withold?', v. 47) recalls the Ethiopian's question about baptism in 8:37: within the narrative, this is a rhetorical question which expects the answer 'No', but the very existence of the question implies that some at least in Luke's audience might have preferred to answer 'Yes'. (11:1-18) Ratification in Jerusalem There are indeed some who object to the reception of Gentiles into the church, identified in 11:2 as 'circumcised believers' in Jerusalem, who are making precisely the kind of 'discrimination' that Peter was warned against in 10:20 (cf. 11:12). The question is framed in terms of the traditional restrictions on table-fellowship between Jews and Gentiles to which Peter himself had referred in 10:28, and which we know from Paul (Gal 2:11—14) con~ tinued to be a bone of contention within the church (see below on ACTS 15:1-35 on the relation between Galatians and Acts on this issue). In Luke's narrative, it emphasizes the gap in understanding that has opened up between Peter and his fellow apostles: now he has to bring the rest of the Judean churches to accept the same radical break with tradition that he has made, and he can only do it by talking them through the same story, 'step by step' (kathexes, 11:4). As with all Luke's recapitulations, there are minor variations between the various retellings: this allows Luke to reveal more of the real significance of what has happened each time the story is retold. Presenting this retelling in Peter's own words also allows Luke to reveal some of the character's own thought processes and to give a theological interpretation of the
(Luke knows only that they came from Cyprus and Gyrene) take the momentous step of speaking the word to 'Greeks' as well as Jews in Antioch (v. 20). The MS reading hellenistas
(Hellenists, so NRSV) can hardly be right: the reading hdllnas (Greeks, as in NRSV marg.) is attested in P74 and other early MSS and is to be preferred.
The foundation of the church in Antioch is a major development which indirectly confirms all that Luke has been highlighting in the Cornelius episode. The apostles' reaction to the news (v. 22) parallels that in 8:14, except that they send Barnabas (4:36) rather than travelling to Syria themselves. Barnabas acts both as a vital go-between linking Jerusalem with the satellite church in Antioch, and as the agent who brings Saul back onto the scene (w. 25—6), to spend a year quietly engaged in 'teaching'. The passing note that the name 'Christian' was first applied to believers in Antioch (v. 26) is of marginal significance for the plot, but it illustrates Luke's antiquarian concern for detail and suggests that he does have some interest in avoiding anachronism. The implication is that the name is much more familiar in Luke's own time. (11:27-30) Famine Relief Measures This notice raises a number of historical difficulties, (i) The best candidate for Luke's famine is the one dated by Josephus to 46—8 (Ant. 20.101); but Acts 12:20—3 appears to date the relief mission before the death of Herod Agrippa I, which is externally dated to 44 CE (cf. ACTS 12:20-4). It is possible that Luke simply did not know the exact order of these unconnected events, and has grouped them thus in his narrative for reasons of convenience rather than chronology (cf. his placing of the death of the Baptist, Lk 3:19-20). But it is also true (Barrett 1994-9: i. 563-64) that
io43 ACTS
lous portents (e.g. Jos. J.W. 6.293, Tac. Hist. 5.13) or miraculous escapes (note esp. the escape of Moses reported by the hellenistic Jewish historian Artapanus: Eusebius, Praep.
Luke narrates the return of the relief party after Herod's death (12:25). (2) Th£ passage appears to conflict with Paul's own account of his relationship with Jerusalem. Paul himself claims to have visited Jerusalem only once before the critical encounter of Gal 2:1-10. If Gal 2:1-10 is identified with the Apostolic Council of Acts 15, and the first visit is equivalent to that of Acts 9 (as we have argued above: ACTS 9:26—30), then Luke has inserted an extra visit here, against the explicit asseverations of Gal 1:17-24. But there are other options: see further ACTS 15:1—35. (3) One of the enduring puzzles of Acts is why Luke never explicitly mentions the collection for the poor of Jerusalem on which Paul lavished so much attention in his later ministry (cf. e.g. Rom 15:25-8; i Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8—9). Is this story a clumsy Lucan attempt to fabricate an earlier 'collection' in place of the real one? Or is it a relic of an earlier charitable collection to which Paul himself alludes briefly and puzzlingly in Gal 2:10?
Evang. 9.27.23). Luke's technique here shows no signs of the cognitive distancing that Greek or Roman readers would expect of a historian's account of a miraculous event: the reporting is much closer to the style of biblical historiography, and is designed to stress the divine protection enjoyed by the Christian community.
12:12—17 Peter's Reception by the Church There is an element of comic bathos in this account of Peter's reception by the church: far from expecting their prayers to be answered, they are completely taken aback when he knocks at the door, and the maid Rhoda (a nice example of a Lucan minor character) is too flabbergasted even to open the door. Despite his supernatural escape, Peter is a very human figure here: prison doors may open up for him, but house doors remain obstinately closed. Peter's story comes to an abrupt end at this point (apart from 15:7—11). He stays only long enough to tell his story to the house-church (v. 17), and asks that it be passed on to 'James and the brothers'. Luke does not trouble to explain the name, but this James (as we will discover) is the brother of Jesus (cf. 1:14); he has not been mentioned by name before, but from now on he will act as spokesman for the Jerusalem church (15:13; 21:18; cf. Gal 1-2). Neither does Luke give us any information about Peter's subsequent destination. Later tradition places his death in Rome (cf. JN 21:8), but in Acts he simply fades out of the picture.
(12:1-4) Herod Persecutes the Apostles The scene moves to Jerusalem, where the apostles are harassed by a fresh bout of persecution (12:1). This is not the Herod of the passion narrative (Lk 23:6-12; Acts 4:27) but Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, who gradually regained control of his grandfather's kingdom through the patronage of the Roman imperial family (only Acts identifies him by the family name Herod). Judea was added to his territory by Claudius after 41 CE, and he was engaged in a constant battle to retain favour with the Jewish population of the areas he controlled. Quite why he should have identified James as a threatto public order (v. 2) is unclear, and Luke seems to have little information on this martyrdom: it serves simply to establish Herod's character as a persecutor of the church, and to heighten the dramatic tension in the story of Peter's imprisonment. Peter's arrest, by contrast, is recounted with a wealth of dramatic detail. The note that it was Passover (v. 3) immediately suggests a parallel with the arrest of Jesus, as does the detail that Herod was intending to bring Peter 'out to the people' (v. 4)—though the parallel is more explicit in John's passion narrative than in Luke's. This narrative has two dramatic locations: while Peter is in prison 'the church' (v. 5) is engaged in 'fervent' prayer (cf. Lk 22:44, where the same word is used of Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane).
(12:18-23) Herod's Reaction and Death The scene shifts briefly back to the prison, where Peter's mysterious disappearance causes consternation among the soldiers (v. 18). Herod is depicted as a typical persecuting tyrant, venting his frustration on his subordinates. The judicial detail ('examined', v. 19) highlights the irony of the situation: neither the soldiers nor Herod share the readers' privileged knowledge of Peter's secret, and no amount of examination can possibly discover it. Herod's sensational death (w. 20-3) was well-known, and a similar story appears in Jos. Ant. 19.343-50. But Luke's story is independent: both have Herod dying a horrible death as a punishment for being acclaimed as divine, but in Josephus' story it is the robe itself ('a garment woven in silver... illumined by the touch of the first rays of the sun') that inspires the crowd's acclamation. Luke also provides a political setting
(12:6—11) Peter's Miraculous Escape This is one of the most sensational episodes in Acts. The timing is precise (v. 6); but despite his perilous (and doubtless uncomfortable) position, Peter is sleeping peacefully between his guards. The scene recalls 5:22—3, though the dramatic tension is heightened here: there Peter and John disappear from a locked prison cell, here Peter is spirited away despite being shackled to two soldiers (v. 6). The sudden appearance of the angel is reminiscent of the birth narrative (Lk 2:9): this direct intervention of heavenly personages is unusual in the narrative of Acts (though cf. 5:19-21), and contrasts strongly with the generally more realistic tone of the Paul narratives. Peter in fact (as we learn in v. 9) thinks that the almost comically precise instructions given by the angel are part of a dream: the reader knows better (w. 7-8). The dramatic detail continues as the apostle leaves the sleeping guards and passes through the iron gate which opens 'of its own accord' (v. 10). The expression recalls a number of passages in ancient literature recording marvel-
(otherwise unconfirmed, though not implausible) which is absent in Josephus (v. 20). Both writers represent typically Jewish responses to ruler-cult, a phenomenon widespread in the Hellenistic world and enthusiastically adopted by the Roman imperial family. The offence in Agrippa's case was all the greater in that he was prepared to pose in Jerusalem as a pious Jew: the acceptance of divine honours was strictly for his Greek territories, but was grossly offensive to Jewish observers. The message of this particular tradition is clear: those who seek to resist the power of God manifest in the church will be punished (cf. 5:5, 10). 'Worms' (maggots infesting a gangrenous wound?) tend to figure among the gruesome deaths attributed to tyrants in contemporary literature. Josephus (Ant. 17.168—9) attributes a similar fate to Herod the Great.
ACTS 1044
God (v. 5; cf. 4:31; 6:2; 11:1). The additional note that the party now includes an 'assistant' in the shape of John Mark (v. 5) adds to the sense of a formal prophetic embassy. (13:6-12) The Governor and the Guru In this dramatic scene, Saul/Paul demonstrates the awesome supernatural power wielded by the emissaries of the gospel: opposing spiritual forces are put to rout, and a proconsul is startled into faith. The scene parallels Peter's encounters with Simon Magus
(12:24-5) Summary and Transition The death of the persecutor is contrasted with the continuous growth and success of God's word (v. 24): any expansion attributed to the church (cf. 9:31) is, as Luke makes clear, entirely due to God. ¥.25 acts as a narrative link after the digression on Herod's fate; the relief mission is successfully completed, and the narrative picks up what will from now on be its major characters before returning to Antioch. The text here is puzzling: it would be much easier to read 'from Jerusalem' (NRSV marg.), but this looks suspiciously like a very early correction to a text already felt to be difficult. If the more difficult reading 'to' is accepted, we would have to link it with 'mission' rather than with 'returned' and translate 'returned [i.e. to Antioch] having completed their service (diakonia) to Jerusalem'.
(8:14-24), and with Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), where the power of the Spirit (v. 9) is exercised in judgement. Luke uses the correct Greek title (anthupatos, proconsul) for the governor of a senatorial province (v. 7). A Roman inscription mentions a Sergius Paulus holding office in Rome under Claudius at about the right date to be Luke's proconsul; the family also seems to have a connection with Pisidia (Nobbs 1994: 89). Educated Romans had a particular interest in divination, and it was not uncommon for a wealthy senator such as Sergius Paulus to keep a soothsayer as part of his household.
Act Three: Paul the Missionary (13:1-21:16)
Act III Scene i: Paul's First Missionary Journey
(13:1-14:28)
We are now entering the third phase of the geographical plan of 1:8, moving out from Jerusalem (chs. 1-7) and 'Judea and Samaria' (chs. 8—12) into uncharted waters. The impetus for expansion also changes. The first phase was the work of the apostles, and the second came about almost by accident as believers were 'scattered' after Stephen's death (8:4; 11:19); but this third phase begins with a deliberate and prayerful step undertaken by the church in Antioch. Thus a young church founded by refugees from persecution (11:20—6) now becomes an active missionary church in its own right. (13:1-3) The Church in Antioch It is important for Luke to convey the impression that Paul's mission was not his own initiative, but was undertaken in obedience to a believing community which was itself acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (w. 2, 4). The liturgical framework of prayer and fasting is carefully described, and forms an indusio with the end of this first journey at 14:26. Apart from Barnabas and
For Luke, of course, it is obvious from his failure to recognize the truth of Paul's message (w. 8) that Elymas is a 'false prophet': the term magus (v. 6, 8), is always defamatory in the narrative world of Acts (ACTS 8:5—13). Many diaspora Jews had Greek or Latin names alongside their Hebrew names, and Paul's change of name (v. 9) is appropriate to the move into Gentile territory. His encounter with the proconsul's guru is sharp and violent: Paul refuses to tolerate spiritual opposition, and he denounces Elymas in strongly prophetic language (w. 10-11). The result is graphically described (v. nfc) in words that echo Paul's own experience in 9:8-9: the parallel suggests that Elymas' temporary blindness may similarly lead to conversion. The story demonstrates the supernatural power of the gospel, encouraging the reader to share the proconsul's 'astonishment' and 'belief (v. 12). But it also serves to distance the Christian message from one of its closest rivals in the market-place of ancient religions: and this is one of Luke's major concerns as a Christian teacher (cf. ACTS 19:11-20). (13:13-16) The Journey Continues: Paphos to Antioch The events in Cyprus serve as a prelude to the big set-piece scene of Paul's synagogue sermon in Antioch (13:16—41), itself the centrepiece of a longer travel-and-mission complex, moving out into new territory (13:13-14, 51; 14:6-7), then successively back retracing each stage of the outward journey (14:21, 246): no other missionary journey in Acts is so tightly constructed. Although Luke does not use the name here, all the sites visited by Paul on this journey fall within the boundaries of the Roman province of Galatia in the first century (Hansen 1994: 382): whether or not Luke's story of their foundation is accurate, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these are the churches Paul addresses in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Saul (cf. 11:25-6), the members of this group (v. i) are otherwise unknown. Lucius of Gyrene maybe one of the founders of the Antioch church (11:20). Manaen (Gk. form of Menahem) is another of Luke's links with the Herodian household (cf. Lk 8:3). The laying-on of hands here (v. 3) is not an 'ordination' but a commissioning for a particular task, in which Barnabas and Saul will act as delegates of the Antioch church (cf. Num 27:18-23).
(13:4—5) The Journey Begins: Antioch to Paphos A new stylistic feature of these chapters is the way in which the journeying process itself is foregrounded by the use of redundant placenames (e.g. Seleucia, v. i) and precise verbs for sea-travel (e.g. 'sailed', v. i) in the narrative summaries that link one part of the scene to the next. Travel, increasingly as Luke's narrative progresses, becomes an event in its own right. Cyprus, the party's first destination, was not exactly new ground to the gospel (cf. 11:19), and it was Barnabas' home territory (4:36). What is new is that, unlike earlier believers who had come to Cyprus as refugees, Barnabas and Saul have a real sense of being on a mission ('sent out by the Holy Spirit', v. 4), and set out deliberately to visit the formal meeting-places of the Jewish communities they pass through (v. 5) to carry out the prophetic/apostolic task of proclaiming the word of
The party pauses long enough in Perga to drop off John Mark, who can presumably hope to pick up a ship travelling eastwards along the coast to take him back in the direction of Jerusalem (v. 13). The reason for his defection is not revealed: this subsidiary character has no real role in the narrative
(except perhaps to explain the subsequent rift between Paul and Barnabas: 15:37—9). As in Cyprus, Paul begins his mission by heading for the synagogue (v. 14). Luke takes some trouble to set the scene for this first major speech to a diaspora
io45 ACTS
never claims to be a witness to the resurrection in his own right (contrast i Cor 15:8).
audience: the note that it was the sabbath underlines the regularity of Paul's attendance as well as creating a time-frame forthe whole episode (13:42,44). Philo (Hypoth. 7.12—14; Spec. Leg. 2.62) confirms the regular sabbath-day reading of Scripture in first-century synagogues. There are many inscriptions referring to archisynagogoi (officials, v. 15): these were wealthy local patrons (rather than rabbis) who took responsibility for the general maintenance of the synagogue and its services.
(13:32^7) Paul's Synagogue Speech (3): The Testimony of Scripture Again the contrast with Jerusalem is foregrounded: they witness to the people (i.e. in Jerusalem) (v. 31), we bring the good news to you, here in Antioch (v. 32). And the good news is that the God of Israel's past is also the God of Israel's future (v. 33). The continuity between past and future is highlighted in the pattern of promise and fulfilment, as Paul traces the foreshadowings of the resurrection through a skein of scriptural testimonia. There is a considerable overlap here with the closing section of Peter's first Jerusalem speech
(Cf. further Riesner 1995: 179-210; Meyers 1992: 251-63.)
(13:16-25) Paul's Synagogue Speech (i): The Testimony of the Past This long speech marks a new step in the progress of the gospel in that it is consciously addressed to a diaspora audience and addresses both ethnic Jews and 'others who fear God' (v. 16; cf. ACTS 10:1-8). Paul's potted resume of Israel's history can be read as complementary to the one given by Stephen in 7:2—48. Both have the same goal: to show that the whole movement of biblical history points forward to and is consummated in the Christ-event. It is, of course, a highly selective history, beginning with the Exodus (v. 17) and the wilderness period (v. 18), moving on to the Conquest (v. 19) and the period of the Judges (v. 20), then to Saul (v. 21), and David (v. 22). The unusual attention given to King Saul (v. 21) may be a deliberately 'Pauline' touch (cf. Phil 3:5). Of all the speeches in Acts, this is the one that makes the most explicit use of Davidic messianism, picking up the divine election of the Davidic line (v. 22, an amalgam of i Sam 13:14 with Ps 89:20), and linking it directly with Jesus' Davidic descent (v. 23; cf. Rom 1:3). God is the main actor in Israel's history: almost all the verbs in these six verses describe God's actions ('chose, 'led', 'gave'). This is no heroic national saga but a narrative of election and grace. Paul's story lacks the aggressive critique of Stephen's, though there may be an implied criticism of the wilderness generation in v. 18 if we follow the reading 'put up with' (cf. Ps 95:8-11). Both variants occur in the Greek text of Deut 1:31. Luke assumes Paul's hearers will have heard of the mission of John the Baptist
(esp. 2:25-36), which likewise uses Scripture to reflect on the theological significance of the events just described. Here the text from Ps 16 which early Christians took literally as a prediction of Jesus' resurrection (w. 35-7; cf. 2:27-32) is combined with two other testimonia. Ps 2:7 (v. 33) was a key verse in Christian Christological hermeneutic: patristic exegesis links it with the words of the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism (cf. the Western text at Lk 3:22), but the 'today' envisioned here and in Heb 1:5, 5:5 is the day of the enthronement of the Davidic king, which for the early church was the moment of Christ's resurrection and exaltation (seen as a single event as in 2:32-3; cf. Rom 1:4). The third text used here is from Isa 55:3 (v. 34), which leads in via the catchword hosios (holy) to Ps 16 (v. 35): the underlying thought seems to be, as in 2:25—30, that God's everlasting covenant with David (Isa 55:3) entails that all the promises made to David must be fulfilled in the Messiah. (Further, Lindars 1961: 16; 139-44; 201.)
(13:38-41) Paul's Synagogue Speech (4): The Challenge of the Future The speech concludes with a solemn address to the audience. What was offered in Jerusalem is now being offered more widely: but the conditions are the same. The offer is 'forgiveness of sins' (v. 38; cf. 2:38); but Luke here gives it a characteristically Pauline twist (v. 39), the only distinctively Pauline element in the whole speech. Commentators have debated how close this summary really is to the theology of the Epistles (cf. LK D; IPCB): it seems best to regard it as a reasonably successful summary of the theology of justification by faith, written by someone for whom it does not hold the central position that it does for Paul. What are missing from Luke's summary are the distinctively Pauline reflections on the saving significance of the death of Christ. Underlying both, however, is the same core Christology, in which the person of Jesus is essential to salvation: 'by this Jesus' (lit. in him, v. 39). Either way, salvation is not simply a matter of 'having faith': it is mediated and received through the person of Christ. The diaspora community is being offered the same fulfilment of promise as the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a promise embodied in Jesus and the events of his death and resurrection. But it carries a health warning (v. 40): they now run the risk of making the same tragic mistake as their counterparts in Jerusalem, and thus unwittingly fulfilling the predictions of the prophets (v. 41).
(w. 24—5), which he places at the climax of Israel's history, the final tip of an arrow pointing in one clear direction (cf. Lk 16:16).
(13:26-31) Paul's Synagogue Speech (2): The Testimony of the Present The central section of the speech focuses on the Christ-event itself. It is introduced (v. 26) by a renewed address which stresses the inclusive nature of Paul's mission. But the focus is first of all on Jerusalem, scene of the fateful rejection of God's promised Messiah (v. 27). Luke never charges all Jews everywhere with complicity in the death of Jesus: here, as repeatedly in Peter's speeches, it is 'the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders' (cf. 2:14; 3:17) who share the moral responsibility for Jesus' death (though the Gentile Pilate was the judicial instrument of execution: v. 28; cf. 2:23). But there is a deeper level of predetermination in the whole tragic complex of events. The death of the Messiah was already predicted in Scripture (v. 27), so that the human actors in the drama simply 'carried out everything that was written of him' (v. 29): it was all part of God's plan (4:28; cf. 2:23). This is a classic case of tragic irony, and one that would be easily recognizable to readers of Greek tragedy. And it is the Jerusalem apostles whom Paul here singles out as the prime witnesses of the risen Christ to the people (v. 30): Luke's Paul
(13:42-50) Divided Reactions Paul's speech leaves his audience with a stark choice, dramatized in the final verses of the chapter: 'believe' or join the 'scoffers' (v. 41). Initial reactions are uncommitted but favourable (v. 42); but by the next sabbath the mood has changed. 'The Jews' now suddenly become
ACTS 1046
terms. Paul's sermon here is totally consistent with the orthodox Jewish critique of pagan religion, which stresses (against a broadly animistic religious culture) the distance separating God from the created order (v. 15). The pagan gods are 'worthless' (i.e. they are 'idols'), and the good news is an invitation to 'turn' away from idols to the living God (cf. i Thess 1:9). The providential care God bestows on all the world's inhabitants acts as a silent witness to his beneficence, but pagans who fail to recognize the source of creation's bounty are not so much sinful as misguided (v. 16).
a character-group distinct from 'the crowds' (v. 45). This designation of 'the Jews' as a hostile group (cf 9:23; 12:3) will become increasingly common in the Pauline section of Acts: here they 'speak against' the gospel message and so unwittingly fulfil Simeon's prediction of Lk 2:34. This negative reaction carries its own punishment: those who reject the message have passed judgement on themselves (v. 46). But it is only after this rejection, Luke implies, that Paul feels justified in pursuing the mission to which God has called him and 'turning to the Gentiles' (v. 46): and note that even here Paul does not say he will stop preaching to Jews (cf. 14:1). The words cited from Isa 49:6 (v. 47) form a hermeneutical key to the second part of Acts: Luke interweaves the related themes of'light to the Gentiles' and 'salvation to the ends of the earth' throughout this section (both themes are anticipated in Lk 2:30-2; see further ACTS 28:23-31). A pattern is now being established: success with Gentile residents of the city and its surrounding country region (v. 49) only intensifies the opposition of'the Jews' (v. 50), who use their influence with the city elite to get the missionaries expelled. The close of the episode recalls the gospel advice to itinerant preachers
(14:19—23) Return and Consolidation The narrative returns abruptly to summary mode and picks up the theme of persecution, depicted as a concerted plot against Paul by 'the Jews' of Antioch and Iconium (v. 19; cf. 2 Cor 11:25, which uses the same verb). Luke's account may have an exemplary function in depicting Paul's remarkable courage as well as the fraternal solidarity of the disciples (v. 20). Derbe lay 100 km. to the SE of Lystra, cf. Hansen 1994: 385: it was a considerable journey for someone in Paul's condition, and the motive for the visit is unclear, but it must not be forgotten that all this time Paul is moving closer to his own home province of Cilicia, and he may have had some prior knowledge of this mountainous region. On the return journey, the focus is on the consolidation of the newly planted churches. Strengthening the soul and encouraging believers to remain in the faith (v. 22) are major functions of the Pauline letters, and Luke (who never mentions the letters) here gives us a glimpse of Paul performing this function in person: cf. esp. i Thess 2:14—16; 3:2—4. The description of Paul's ministerial arrangements for these churches (v. 23) is tantalizingly brief. 'Elders' do not appear as church officials in the Pauline letters before the Pastorals (Titus 1:5; i Tim 5:17,19); it is possible that Luke has anachronistically transferred this term from his own time to the Pauline foundations, while correctly retaining in direct speech Paul's own term episkopoi (20:28; cf. Phil 1:1).
(v. 51; cf. esp. Mt 10:14).
(14:1^7) Preaching in Iconium and Lystra This is a summary passage rather than a 'journey' section: Luke shows consistently less interest in land journeys than in sea travel. Paul's party now turns east and follows the Roman road (the Via Sebaste) linking the Roman colonies of Antioch, Iconium (modern Konya, 150 km. SE) and Lystra (30 km. SW: Hansen 1994: 384-5). Despite the fact that there are many converts both Jewish and Gentile (v. i), this is not really a church foundation-narrative: Luke's report concentrates more on the pattern of preaching and rejection that he sees repeated at Iconium (v. i). Here the opposition is classified as 'unbelieving Jews', or better (given the aorist tense) 'Jews who had decided against belief: it is the message itself that provokes these violent and divided reactions, just as Simeon had foreseen (Lk 2:34), and the same diversity of reactions characterizes the Gentile population of the city (v. 4). The missionaries' response to persecution, like that of the Jerusalem apostles (e.g. 4:13, 29, 31) is the proper prophetic stance of 'bold' and persistent speech, accompanied by miraculous healings (v. 3). This and the following are the only sections of Acts (w. 4, 14) where Paul and Barnabas are given the title 'apostles': Luke normally restricts the title to the twelve, but here is most probably using it in its root sense of 'delegates'
(14:24—8) The Journey Home: Return to Antioch The whole episode is brought to a closure with a journey section (w. 245) tracing the regions traversed on the way home; Attalia is mentioned as the natural port of embarkation for the coastal voyage to Seleucia. The church which had sent out its delegates in obedience to the Spirit receives a formal report on the work completed (v. 26). Just as the impetus for the journey came from God, so did the grace by which it was accomplished (v. 27): particularly significant in the report is the opening of a 'door of faith' for the Gentiles (Paul uses this metaphor in a more general sense at 2 Cor 2:12). But it is precisely this piece of divine opportunism that creates the next problem to be solved within the church (ch. 15).
(i.e. of the Antioch church). (14:8-18) Miracle at Lystra There is a new feature in this scene: we are now deep in pagan territory, among crowds whose native tongue is not Greek but Lycaonian (v. n). Inscriptions confirm the survival of this pre-Greek language in this period, as well as the joint worship of Zeus and Hermes in the region (Bruce 1990: 321—2). Luke seems faintly amused at the crowd's superstitious reaction to the miraculous healing, with its ambivalent reading of the relationship between Paul and Barnabas (v. 12: Zeus, as chief of the gods, was the more important figure). But Paul quickly realizes that it is no joke when the priest of Zeus-before-the-Gates prepares to offer sacrifice to the apostles (v. 13). The emergency occasions Paul's first attempt in Acts to explain the gospel in totally pagan
Act III Scene 2: The Apostolic Council (15:1-35)
The hectic journeying of this third act of Luke's narrative is interrupted at this point by the more static scene of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. This is no irrelevant interlude: the growth of the Antioch church, and the mission Paul has completed on its behalf, have raised a fundamental question of principle which must be resolved before the mission can proceed. Can Gentiles be allowed to join the church direct (as it were) from the pagan world, or can they come in, like the Godfearers and proselytes, only via a prior attachment to the
1047 ACTS
their own particular purposes in view here: part of Luke's agenda is to strengthen the Pauline argument by giving it the support of the most prominent of the Jerusalem apostles
synagogue? The admission of Gentiles in fact raises in an acute form the question of identity that is one of the underlying themes of Acts. All the first Christians (like Jesus himself) were Jews: following Jesus, for them, meant finding in him the culmination and true fulfilment of their ancestral religion. But if this was so, then new entrants from outside Judaism should logically be expected to follow the normal procedures for incoming proselytes, which included circumcision (15:1, 5). That is the point at issue in this formalized debate, which Luke has arranged as a pair to the earlier debate after Peter's visit to Cornelius (11:1—18).
(while part of Paul's agenda is to stress his independence of Jerusalem). Thus Luke's Peter here voices some of the most strongly 'Pauline' arguments in Acts: that the coming of the Spirit is evidence that God has cleansed the hearts of the Gentiles 'by faith' (v. 9: cf. Gal 3:2-5 and contrast 10:44-8), that circumcision means subjecting the disciples to the 'yoke' of the whole law (v. 10, cf. Gal 2:14; 5:1—3), and that Jews and Gentiles are saved on an equal footing through grace (v. n; cf. Gal 2:15-21).
The circumcision controversy was the occasion for Paul's most impassioned letter, the Epistle to the Galatians, and sparked off much of his most profound theological reflection on the relationship of law and grace in the Christian life. It is natural, therefore, to read the Acts account with one eye on Paul: but our first priority must be to understand Luke's story in its own terms. What is not clear is whether Acts 15 parallels Paul's visitto Jerusalem in Gal 2:1—10, or whether this 'private' visit is the one mentioned in Acts 11:30, in which case the full Council would fall after Galatians was written. This would explain why Paul does not mention the Council or the decree. On problems of Pauline chronology see further IPCE; Alexander (19930); Jewett (1979); Lildemann (1984); Witherington (1998: 77-97).
(15:13-21) The Council (2): The Decision of James The emergence of James as effective leader of the Jerusalem church is surprising (though it is hinted at in 12:17), but indicates further how little inclination (or information) Luke has for a concerted 'history of the church'. His speech affirms the validity of the narrative arguments of Peter, which was based on the charismatic events associated with the mission itself
(v. 14), and adds a scriptural argument (w. 15—18), thus providing a hermeneutical framework for interpreting these same events. James' quotation of Am 9:11-12 reflects the Greek rather than the Hebrew, though it is not identical with the LXX. Although there are many textual and exegetical problems relating to the details of this decree, it is clear that James comes to the formal decision (v. 19) that Gentile converts should observe the same restrictions as had been placed since biblical times on 'aliens' wishing to live among God's people (v. 20; cf. Lev 17-18: Fitzmyer 1998: 557). There is a puzzling lack of 'fit' between James' conclusion (and the decree that follows) and the introduction to the debate: the implication is that circumcision is not required of Gentile converts, but it is not stated in so many words. The observation cuts both ways: if this was a verbatim report of an actual debate, we might expect it to be more coherent (though it would of course be considerably abbreviated); but the discrepancies are equally hard to explain if Luke is making the whole thing up. (15.22-9) The Council (3): The Apostolic Decree The formal setting is highlighted by Luke's language here: cf. esp. the archaic impersonal use ofedoxe + dative ('decided', w. 22,25, 28), which follows classical syntax (familiar from the formal decrees of Greek cities) against normal NT usage (cf. Lk 1:3, another formal passage). The letter is addressed only to the Gentile believers of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (v. 23), not to the whole church or even (surprisingly) to Paul's new foundations in Galatia. The wording implies an increasingly centralized authority in Jerusalem (v. 24), with a hierarchical council which regards its decisions as divinely sanctioned (v. 28). In this slightly amended form (v. 29), the list of prohibitions is even more clearly designed to facilitate table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, the issue that sparks off the 'Antioch incident' in Gal 2:11—12; if Luke's account is accurate, it is very hard to locate this incident after the decree, but it could make sense as the kind of incident to which the decree was a reply. But we are still left with the problem of Paul's failure ever to mention the decree in any other letter.
(15:1-5) Controversy in Antioch The Jerusalem Council is framed by opening and closing scenes in Antioch, an indication of how the narrator's perspective has shifted since the early chapters of the book. Antioch is now 'home ground', and events in Jerusalem are much more cloudy. We have no background information on the identity of the 'certain individuals' (v. i) or of the 'elders' (w. 2, 4) because we have not been following developments in Jerusalem since Peter's departure in 12:17. Th£ narrator shares the point of view of the Antioch church that the 'conversion' of the Gentiles is a matter for rejoicing (v. 3). When the Antioch delegation reaches Jerusalem (v. 5) it becomes clear that there are differing viewpoints within the Jerusalem church, and that this particular controversy stems from a group of Christians with Pharisaic roots: but that is not itself a negative description in the narrative world of Acts (cf 26:5).
(15:6—12) The Council (i): The Testimony of Peter Luke stresses the formal nature of this deliberation (v. 6): the formal opening address (w. 7, 13: 'Men, brothers', NRSV marg.) would remind a Greek-educated reader of the speeches of classical rhetoric. Peter's intervention is crucial in the debate; it presents the reader with a brief but telling reminder of the narrative argument set out in chs. 10-11. It is an indication of its importance for Luke that we have now heard this story three times, once from the narrator (10:44—8) and twice from Peter (cf. 11:15-17). As in ch. n, Peter stresses that the whole Cornelius episode stemmed from the sovereign choice of God (v. 7), and that the clinching testimony is the visible activity of the Holy Spirit (v. 8), which demonstrated that God makes 'no distinction' between Gentile and Jewish believers (v. 9). Peter's role in the decision to accept Gentiles on equal terms is more positive than we would expect from Paul, who sees Peter's vacillation at Antioch as a betrayal of the whole principle (Gal 2:11-12). Both Paul and Luke are writing with
(15:30—5) Return to Antioch The episode closes with a triumphant return to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas are now accompan-
ACTS 1048
with Barnabas comes to an end at this point (w. 37—9): he is not mentioned again in Acts, though Paul assumes he is known to the Corinthians (i Cor 9:6). The link with Jerusalem is maintained, however, in the person of Silas, who has apparently returned from Jerusalem (unless we accept the Western text of 15:34: NRSV marg.) in time to be selected as Paul's new travelling companion (v. 40). Like Barnabas and Paul, Silas is a 'prophet', that is, he is anointed by the Holy Spirit (15:32). This must be the same as the Silvanus with whom Paul evangelized Macedonia and Achaea (i Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19); Luke uses a Greek form of the Aramaic name, Paul a more Latinized form. This time (perhaps because he is not travelling with the Cypriot Barnabas) Paul heads up through the Taurus mountains via his home territory of Cilicia (v. 41), which means following the mountainous route up into southern Turkey through the Cilician Gates. (16:1-5) Timothy Joins the Group Timothy became one of Paul's most trusted co-workers (Rom 16:21), and must have been well known in Pauline circles; he is mentioned in letters to the churches in Rome and Corinth, and cited as co-author of the letters to Philippi, Thessalonica, Philemon, and Colossae. The story of Timothy's circumcision (v. 3) seems at odds with Paul's statement about Titus in Gal 2:3 and with Paul's own attitude to circumcision in that epistle. But Luke seems to assume that Timothy (unlike Titus) was ethnically Jewish (16:1), in which case this is not about the circumcision of a Gentile believer but about Paul's desire to keep open his channels of communication with the Jewish community, here and elsewhere (cf. i Cor 9:20). The Apostolic Decree
ied by the Jerusalem delegates Judas and Silas (v. 2 2), who prove to be congenial companions (v. 32) and, like Barnabas (who was himself originally sent down from Jerusalem to keep an eye on what was happening in Antioch, 11:22-4) provide encouragement and strengthening (cf 14:22).
Act III Scene 3: Paul's Second Missionary Journey
(15:36-18:23)
The next five chapters of the narrative are devoted to a vivid descriptive portrait of Paul in the context of his missionary activities—the evangelist, the controversialist, the prisoner, the pastor, but above all the indefatigable traveller, covering an amazing amount of territory around the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. The journeys are conventionally classified as two 'missionary voyages', and I have followed this division (see Map n) for convenience. But in fact the pattern is not as simple as that: none of these journeys has the clear outward-and-return structure of the first, and although Paul makes periodic trips back to base, these do not have the clear symbolic function of his first return to Antioch.
There are three bodies of literature that may help us to understand this section better, (i) Paul's own letters give us a comparative body of data and may provide some confirmation for the Acts narrative. Taking these letters seriously as primary evidence gives us a sequence Philippi-Thessalonica-AthensCorinth, which fits the basic configuration of this second journey in Acts (cf. Alexander 19930), though it does not give us much in the way of internal chronology. We do not know whether Luke had access to Paul's letters, but most scholars think he did not. (2) Ancient itineraries: the final chapters of Acts contain a puzzling phenomenon known as the 'we-sections', where the narrator suddenly and without explanation slips into the first person and out again (16:10-16; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). They also contain a remarkable amount of redundant travel information (stopping-places, ports of embarkation, etc.), especially relating to sea travel, and it has been suggested that the simplest explanation for both is that Luke himself was with Paul on some of these journeys, or alternatively that he had access to a travel log or itinerary written by one of the party. There is some contemporary evidence that such logs existed (though by their nature they would be ephemeral): there are tattered remains of one such (dating from the fourth century CE) among the Rylands papyri (P.Ryl. 616—51), and it seems to show both the weformulation and the lists of stopping-places that might form the basis of a narrative. (3) Ancient travel-writing: travelwriting was a popular genre in the ancient world, ranging from detailed geographical description to pure fantasy. Some scholars have observed that in such descriptions the use of redundant place-names and the use of the first person may serve a literary function, and therefore conclude that these features of Acts are not necessarily indications of eyewitness testimony. See further Rapske 1994: 1-47; Scott 1994: 483544; Porter 1994: 545-74.
(Luke uses the plural dogmata, appropriate for a formal decision by a civic assembly) is mentioned for the last time at this point (16:4): clearly Luke sees it as relevant to the churches in this area, even though it did not address them directly (15:23). (16:6-10) Journey: Phrygia to Troas This short journey section summarizes a huge swathe of travelling, which takes Paul out of his previous mission fields and right across to the north-west corner of Asia Minor. For the 'region of Phrygia and Galatia' (v. 6) see now Mitchell (1992: 871): this is most naturally understood as the area between Iconium and Antioch, which was ethnically Phrygian but divided between the Roman provinces of Galatia and Asia. The Roman roads north of Pisidian Antioch are later than Paul's day, but there are ancient trade routes across this area, and one of them, branching off not far north of Antioch, led westwards down the Lycus valley towards Ephesus. Having been 'forbidden by the Holy
Spirit' (v. 6) to extend his mission in this direction, or to turn west at the next crossroads for Smyrna, Paul had no choice but to follow the road north towards the Black Sea coast. Somewhere along the road (Luke knows only rather vaguely that it is 'opposite Mysia') there was a further choice: north to Bithynia and Pontus, or west to Troas? Again, the guidance of the Spirit (v. 7: 'the Spirit of Jesus' is clearly interchangeable with the commoner 'Holy Spirit') determines their route: westwards, down towards the coast. But where was the mission to take place? There is no record of any preaching along this part of the journey: Paul seems to be waiting for guidance, and in the port city of Troas it comes in the shape of a dream which Paul interprets as a revelatory oracle: a call for help from Macedonia.
(15:36-41) Paul and Barnabas Part Company Paul's second journey begins after an unspecified interval (v. 36) and withoutthe formal commissioning ceremony of the first. Its initial motive is simply to follow up the previous mission and revisit the converts made on that occasion (v. 36). But the partnership
1049 ACTS
(16:15—34) Tne Saving of the Jailer Luke shares with the Greek novelists a taste for dramatic scenes of imprisonment and escape (cf. 12:6—17), an(^ this scene allows him to depict another aspect of Paul's spiritual power as something that allows him to triumph over adversity. Like the philosopher Socrates, he sings hymns in prison (Epict. Diss. 2.6.26—7); like the prophet Daniel, he is rescued by divine intervention from a punishment that he has incurred simply by being faithful to his God (cf. Dan 3, 6). Paul's status as a true philosopher is further enhanced by his treatment of the jailer: by honourably staying put when the earthquake would have allowed him to escape (and by implication keeping the other prisoners in place), Paul prevents the jailer from a shame-induced suicide (v. 28). The result is a reversal of roles: disregarding his original orders (v. 23), the jailer now treats his prisoners with honour (v. 30), washes their wounds (v. 33) and supplicates them for salvation (v. 30). Thus Paul is able to use the shameful experience of prison to further his mission (v. 32), even in the middle of the night (w. 25, 33). The jailer in his turn becomes a paradigmatic convert, hearing the word and responding in faith 'with his entire household' (stressed three times, w. 32, 33, 34), baptized, sharing table-fellowship, and 'rejoicing' (w. 33, 34). (16:35-40) The Shaming of the Magistrates The real losers in this drama are the colony's magistrates. The 'police' (rhabdouchoi, lictors, v. 35) come to tell the jailer to release his troublesome visitors; but Paul has another trick up his sleeve. Only now does he choose to reveal his true civic status: as Roman citizens, he and his companion should not have been publicly humiliated, and they are certainly not going to let the authorities get away with this crude mistreatment (v. 37). The revelation terrifies the magistrates. Roman citizens had a right to higher standards of legal treatment than other inhabitants of the empire: in the previous century, the senator Verres had been prosecuted in Rome for a series of crimes against provincials which included the mistreatment of Roman citizens (Cicero, Against Verres, 2.5.169-70). Whether Paul was actually a Roman citizen is a matter of some dispute: he never mentions the fact in his letters, and it has been thought to be incompatible with his upbringing as an observant Jew (Phil 3:5-6). But it is an important feature of the plot of Acts (ACTS 22:22-9; 25:1-12), and here serves to complete the role-reversal in the story with the complete discomfiture of the magistrates, who have to come to 'apologize' to Paul
(16:12-15) Journey: Troas to Philippi The we-narrator, who joins the party at this point (v. 10) immediately displays his passion for the details of travel, especially by sea: cf. the interest in ports of call (Samothrace, Neapolis) and in the jargon of seafaring ('set sail', 'took a straight course', v. n). From Neapolis the party travelled along the Via Egnatia, the Roman road linking the northern Aegean to the Adriatic ports (Gill 1994: 409): Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica (17:1) were all on this road. Philippi, as a Roman colony (originally settled by army veterans, partly to pacify a hostile area), operated as a kind of mini-Rome, whose citizenship, magistrates, and laws were Roman. But it was not 'the first city of Macedonia' (as v. 12 appears to say): most commentators now read 'a leading city' (as NRSV) or emend to 'a city of the first district' (as NRSV marg.), which it was. Luke's term proseuche (v. 13, 'place of prayer'), though used elsewhere of a synagogue, may indicate a less formal meeting-place here, perhaps because the Jewish community at Philippi was not large enough to have a purpose-built community edifice. First-century evidence suggests that Jewish communities liked to meet close to running water: cf. Jos. Ant. 14:258. Lydia's independent status as a trader (v. 14) and householder (v. 15) is not uncommon for women in the ancient world, especially among the travelling merchants and artisans who formed a major component of the population of most Greek cities: such women not infrequently take on the role of patron and benefactor to Jewish and other immigrant communities.
(16:16-24) Exorcism and Imprisonment Paul's stay in Philippi takes a dramatic turn from a chance encounter with a fortune-teller. Luke describes this slave-girl as having a 'python spirit' (v. 16, 'spirit of divination'), that is as having the ability to deliver oracular pronouncements in the manner of the shamanistic prophetesses of the Delphic oracle. This was a well-known phenomenon in the ancient Mediterranean world, and its potential for commercial exploitation is nicely satirized by Lucian (e.g. Peregrinus; Alexander the False Prophet). Luke, unlike Lucian, sees this as a genuine spiritual force which intuitively recognizes Paul's own supernatural power (v. 17): as in the gospels, such pronouncements, though expressing spiritual truth, emanate from evil spirits which can be exorcized (v. 18; cf. Lk 4:34-5). At one level, therefore, this is a story that demonstrates Paul's spiritual power (while stressing that it is strictly subordinate to that of Christ, v. 18). The episode descends to civic melodrama, however, when the slave's owners (whose motives Luke characterizes as purely commercial) take Paul and Silas to court. Luke uses the standard Greek term strategoi (v. 20) for the local magistrates (their Latin title would have been praetores), who are correctly shown as meeting in the city's agora (market-place, Lat. forum, v. 19). The charge (w. 20-1) is interesting: though the practice of Judaism was not in itself illegal in the empire, Roman sources show a deep-rooted prejudice against the adoption of foreign religious customs by Roman citizens, and this periodically expressed itself in official enactments (cf. ACTS 18:1-11). The magistrates, tacitly accepting the support of the crowd (v. 22) impose a standard Roman punishment (v. 22, 'beaten with rods', i.e. beaten with the fasces carries by the lictors: cf. 2 Cor 11:25).
(better 'implore'; parekalesan, v. 39) and beg him to leave. The episode (which has its humorous side) shows Paul coming out with honour from a situation where he seemed to be humiliated, and demonstrates above all that faithfulness and boldness in preaching God's word will be vindicated; but it hardly leaves the impression that Paul is a model Roman citizen.
(17:1—9) Thessalonica The first-person narrative has disappeared at some point in the Philippi story, and the next few episodes see Paul continuing his travels with Silas and Timothy. Thessalonica (Salonika), a couple of stages down the Via Egnatia, sees a repeat of the pattern set at Pisidian Antioch. Thessalonica has a well-established Jewish community with a synagogue (v. i), where Paul spends three successive sabbaths arguing for his own messianic interpretation of
ACTS 1050
the charge brought against Socrates of preaching 'new divinities' (kaina daimonia: cf. Xen. Mem. 1.1.1—4: this is the only place in the NT where daimonia has the neutral Greek sense 'divine beings' rather then the normal NT sense of 'evil spirits'). The Areopagus was the chief administrative body in the city in Paul's day (Gill 1994: 447), but to Luke's Greek readers it is pre-eminently the place where philosophers are tried, just as for his Jewish readers Jerusalem is the place where prophets are put to death (Lk 13:33—4). See further Alexander 1993/7: 57—63.
Scripture (v. 2). As in Antioch, there is initial success among synagogue members and even more among Gentile adherents (v. 4), but this leads to an outbreak of 'jealousy' (or possibly 'fundamentalist zeal': zclosantcs, v. 5) on the part of 'the Jews', who enlist the help of the city mob to launch an attack on Paul and Silas. The civic authorities here are called 'politarchs' (v. 6), a title which is attested in inscriptional evidence forThessalonica (Horsley 1994: 419-31). Who Jason is, and how Paul comes to be staying at his house (w. 5-7), are not explained. Once again, a disturbing charge is laid against the missionaries, bringing out the latent political radicalism of the Christian mission (w. 6-7): it is easy to read Paul's proclamation of the Kingdom (cf. 28:31) as inherently incompatible with the personal oaths of loyalty to the emperor demanded of all inhabitants of the empire (Barrett 1994—9: ii. 815-16). And once again, Paul is given no chance to rebut the charge: the overall impression left by this episode is that trouble does indeed follow the mission wherever it goes.
(17:22—34) Paul's Areopagus Speech This speech allows Luke to present a more complete and studied version of Paul's preaching to Gentiles than the emergency sermon of 14:1517. The points of focus are very close to Paul's own summary of his message at i Thess 1:9—10: a repudiation of idolatry in favour of the 'living and true God' (v. 29) and an eschatological expectation ofthe risen Christ's return from heaven (v. 31). In preparation for this day of judgement, all humanity has to repent (v. 30). Apart from the reference to Christ, Luke's Paul here stands well within the traditions of diaspora Judaism, which believed that the pagan world was guilty ofthe sin of idolatry, that is, of failure to recognize that the living creator God behind the created universe (w. 24—8) cannot possibly be worshipped in human temples (v. 24) or through humanmade religious images (v. 29). Like other diaspora Jewish apologists, Paul seeks to exploit points of common interest with his audience. Athens was famous for its profusion of religious images: to Paul's Jewish eyes, this is nothing better than a collection of'idols' (v. 16), but the fact that the Athenians liked to include altar-dedications to 'unknown gods' creates a bridgehead for the preaching of the one 'unknown God' behind the universe (v. 23). Greek philosophers had already popularized a kind of philosophical monotheism among more sophisticated pagan thinkers (this was one reason why Judaism attracted their respect), and Paul is able to use a line from the Stoic poet Aratus (v. 28; Aratus, Phaenomena, 5) to reinforce his point: the same line had already been quoted by the Jewish apologist Aristobulus (Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 13.12.6). The similarities and differences between this speech and Paul's own survey of pagan religion in Rom 1—3 have occasioned much scholarly debate: what is missing, again, is the specific preaching of Christ crucified (cf. i Cor 1:18—25), and Rom 1:32 seems to leave no room for the 'ignorance' of Acts 17:30; but both approaches are clear that the coming of Christ signals a universal human need for repentance.
17:10—15 Beroea A similar pattern is repeated at Beroea, some 80 km down the road. The dependency of the Pauline mission on the networks of the Jewish diaspora is clearly visible in this section: arriving in an unfamiliar city, Paul heads straight for the synagogue and encourages the community to a flurry of exegetical study. The Jews of Beroea are presented as a paradigm of positive response: belief is the result (v. 12), but this is built on a foundation of careful and open-minded examination (anakrinontes, v. n) of the scriptural testimony to Christ. This community is described as 'nobler' than the Jews of Thessalonica (eugenesteroi, v. n: NRSV 'more receptive') , an implicitly elitist value-word which clearly reveals how Luke wants his readers to respond: note again that it is 'women of high standing and men' who believe (v. 12), while it is 'the crowds', i.e. the urban proletariat, who are stirred up to protest by the negatively portrayed Jews of Thessalonica
(v. 13). The unnecessary detail provided about the complex movements of Paul and his associates (w. 14-15) sounds as if it is based on inside knowledge of the Pauline retinue.
(17:16-21) Waiting in Athens That Paul visited Athens shortly after founding the church in Thessalonica, and that he spent some time waiting there (v. 16), is confirmed by i Thess 3:1—6, which must have been written not long after the visit. Whether the speech described here actually happened is another question: many commentators believe Luke has simply seized the opportunity of Paul's visit to the heartland of Hellenic culture to create a type-scene, portraying his hero as a philosopher in the best Greek traditions, taking on the philosophers at their own game and preaching the gospel in Greek terms. Although Luke characterizes the philosophical scene in terms of the most popular philosophies of his own day (v. 18), the whole dramatic setting is redolent of the Athens of the classical period, the golden days of philosophy, when Socrates walked the streets of Athens and engaged in philosophical dialogue (dielegeto, 'argued', v. 17) in the agora with everyone he met. Significantly, here in Athens the charge brought against Paul has a distinctly Socratic flavour: in this setting, and for readers educated in the popular traditions of the Greek philosophical schools, 'foreign divinities' (xenon daimonion, v. 18) can hardly fail to evoke
(18:1-11) Corinth Corinth was the administrative centre ofthe Roman province of Achaea and was to become an important centre for the Pauline mission. Aquila and Priscilla (v. 2) are to become important associates of Paul's, well known to the Corinthian church (i Cor 16:19; cfR°m 16:3-4); here Luke records their first meeting at the time ofthe founding ofthe church in Corinth. The implication is that they had already become Christians, presumably in Rome. According to the imperial biographer Suetonius (Life of Claudius, 25), the reason for Claudius' expulsion ofthe Jews from Rome was that the Jews were 'constantly causing disturbances at the instigation ofChrestus"; there may well be a confusion with Christus, which would sound the same in first-century Greek. A later
1051 ACTS
how much longer Paul stayed in Corinth after 52 (v. 18). The impression Luke gives is that he himself has only sporadic pieces of precise information here. At some point, however, after a long and successful mission in Corinth, Paul decides to return to Syria. Cenchreae (v. 18) was the port of Corinth on the eastern side of the Isthmus; Paul mentions a church there, of which Phoebe was deacon and patron (Rom 16:1—2). The point of the vow (presumably a Nazirite vow, cf. 21:23-4) is
chronicler dates the event to Claudius' ninth year, i.e. 49 CE. Paul's tentmaking (v. 3) is mentioned here for the first time; Paul himself asserts his determination to support his mission by manual work, especially in Corinth (i Cor 4:12; 9:6; i Thess 2:9), but never says what the work was. Paul's own attitude to the 'hardship' involved in this work suggests that he regarded it as a demeaning occupation; but Luke does not make this an issue.
unclear, but it may show Paul's continuing fidelity to Jewish modes of piety. He takes Priscilla and Aquila with him as far as Ephesus (v. 19; cf. i Cor 16:9) and seizes the opportunity for a tentative foray into the synagogue there, apparently testing the waters for a future visit: the earlier sense that the Spirit had forbidden mission in Asia (16:6) appears to be still in his mind (v. 20). Luke seems to have no inside information on Paul's motivation for this visit. He clearly wants to touch base with the home church in Syrian Antioch (v. 22), but appears to have paid a brief visit to Jerusalem as well: the Greek has simply 'he went up', but this is a reasonable construction given that he then goes 'down' (normal idiom for a journey away from Jerusalem) to Antioch. A brief note (v. 23) shows Paul going back to the churches founded on the 'first missionary journey' for a third pastoral visit, and marks the start of the second phase of his most extended period of missionary activity.
For Silas and Timothy (v. 5), cf i Thess 3:1, 6; Luke may have simplified the story. Paul's mission in Corinth follows the now familiar sequence (w. 4—5). His disputations in the synagogue come to an abrupt end as opposition builds up (v. 6), and Paul makes a symbolic gesture of repudiation
(cf. 13:51). Paul's 'innocence' here (v. 6) is prophetic: he has discharged his responsibility to the Jewish community, and now turns to the Gentiles with a clear conscience (cf. Ezek 33:1-9). The house of Titius Justus (v. 7) is used as a meeting-place and becomes the base for the meetings of the nascent Christian community. This is undoubtedly how many of the Pauline churches originated, as breakaway groups which began holding separate meetings alongside the synagogue: other households soon joined them (v. 8; cf. i Cor 1:14; and see ACTS 13:15 on 'official of the synagogue'). (18:12-17) Gallic After a period of quiet church growth, opposition flares up again and Paul is brought before the proconsul Gallic. Since proconsuls were in office only for one year, this name provides another chronological indicator in Luke's narrative, in fact one of the key dates for NT chronology. An inscription surviving in Delphi in which Claudius refers to Gallic as his friend and proconsul (full text in Fitzmyer 1998: 621) places Gallic in Achaea during the first part of 52 CE; he seems to have left his province early because of illness, so Paul's appearance before him must fall between the spring and early autumn of the year 52. The charge is that the form of religious practice advocated by Paul is 'contrary to the law' (v. 13); once again, Paul gets no chance to defend himself, but Gallic makes the significant judgement that the only law at issue is Jewish law: there is no question of 'crime or serious villainy' (v. 14), i.e. nothing that contravenes the Roman law of the colony. From the Roman perspective, in other words, disputes between synagogue members and church members are still intramural disputes between rival factions (or 'sects', cf. 24:14) within the Jewish community. This is almost certainly a correct perception for the period Luke is describing; Suetonius' account of Claudius' expulsion of the Jews (ACTS 18:2) shows that a Roman writer could still make the same assumption in the second century. Gallio's studied indifference (v. 17) is not a particularly good advertisement for Roman justice, but it does make the point dramatically that the dispute over the messianist interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures was not something with which the Roman authorities needed to be concerned. (18:18-23) Return to Base Attempts to establish a precise internal chronology for the Pauline mission are continually baffled by Luke's vagueness on matters of time. It is probable