Bailey Sadler Class

SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON STUDY GUIDE - 2010

1.        What is apologetics (v. 15b)?

2.        In what sense should every Christian be an apologist?

3.        What kind of persecution were Peter’s readers experiencing?  (See 1 Pet. 2:12-15; 3:8:12.)

4.        Why did Peter’s friends need encouragement?

5.        How do verses 13-14 provide the setting for verses 15-17?

6.        In what kinds of situations should the readers have obeyed these instructions?

7.        How did Paul advise them to prepare (vv. 15-17)?

8.        Why did they always need to be prepared (v. 16b)?

9.        In what settings does this instruction apply?

10.     How could Peter’s audience defend their belief in Christ without being defensive (v. 16)?

11.     Why is it sometimes difficult to defend or explain your beliefs with gentleness and respect?

12.     Based on verse 15a what can we do that will help us defend our faith with gentleness and respect?

13.     Do gentleness and respect mean that you must never offend anyone, even at the price of truth?

14.     What do you think is the biggest barrier to defending your faith with gentleness and respect? What would you do to overcome that?

15.     How do you “set apart the Messiah as Lord in your heart”?

16.     What kind of pressure was faced by those to whom Peter was writing?

17.     How are these pressures the same or different than the kinds of pressures Christians face today?

18.     How is the defense of your faith affected if your walk does not match your talk?

19.     What are some things we can do to be prepared to defend our faith effectively?

20.     Why is it important to be ready at all times to defend one’s faith in Christ?

21.     What keeps one from being prepared to defend his faith?

22.     How does one’s willingness to defend her faith affect one’s preparedness?

23.     What is the difference in defending your faith and acting defensively?

24.     What is the relationship between one’s preparedness to defend his faith and the willingness to share that faith?

25.     How would you describe the hope that is in you?

1.        What was the setting for this incident?  (Read Acts 21.)

2.        What prevented Paul from being killed by the mob?  (See 21:31-36.)

3.        To whom was Paul speaking (v. 40)? 

4.        In verse 1, how did Paul address the crowd?

5.        What language did Paul use? Why did he speak to them in Aramaic (v. 40)?

6.        How did he identify with them (v. 22:1)?

7.        What can we do to show our audiences the common ground we share?

8.        In verse 3, how did Paul describe the man he had once been?

9.        Who was Gamaliel?  (See Digging Deeper.)

10.     How did Paul seek to establish a common point of contact with this audience (vv. 1-2)?

11.     When Paul made a defense of his faith in this situation, what did he say that indicates that he used the principle of knowing to whom he was talking (vv. 1-2)?

12.     Why did Paul need to give a defense?

13.     How is this incident an example of apologia?

14.     Why is it important to establish connecting points with unbelievers?

15.     What are some things we have in common with the people in our neighborhoods? At the golf course? Where we shop? At the gym? How could these commonalities provide opportunities for us to explain our faith?

16.     What groups in our community do you think are most critical of Christians?

17.     What are some common criticisms of Christians and the church made by these groups?

18.     What could be done to lessen the tension with persons in these groups so as to allow for a hearing of why we believe what we believe?

19.     What are some things believers might have in common with some members of these groups?

20.     Why is it important to make an effort to connect with critical persons when seeking to present a defense of our faith?

1.        Why was Paul’s audience so abusive?

2.        What things did Paul do during the persecution (v. 4)?

3.        Why could the high priest and the whole council of elders testify to Paul’s persecution of the Way (v. 5)? (See 9:1-2.)

4.        What had the high priest and the council of elders charged Paul to do (v. 5)?

5.        What happened to Paul while on the road to Damascus (vv. 6-10)?

6.        What in verse 10 indicates Paul’s submission to Christ?

7.        Why do you think Paul felt it necessary to share his conversion experience with such a hostile crowd?

8.        How would you summarize Paul’s message to the crowd?

9.        How would you summarize the turn-around in Paul’s life?

10.     In defense for one’s faith, how important is a changed life?

11.     What elements in Paul’s testimony are helpful to us in knowing how to share our personal testimony?

12.     Do you believe that describing your life before you met Christ, how you came to know and trust Christ, and how your life has been transformed by Christ is a good model to follow?  If so, why?

13.     How has your faith in Christ changed your life?

14.     What makes sharing your experience of life with Christ an important part of defending your faith?

15.     When do you find it most effective to use your own personal experiences in the defense of your faith?

16.     Paul was a strong-willed individual, and the Lord got his attention in a dramatic way.  What can you do to help those around you to listen to God?

17.     Why does the absence of a dramatic conversion experience tempt us to sometimes shy away from sharing a personal testimony?

18.     Why do we sometimes major on how we came to Christ at the expense of how Jesus continues to transform our lives today?

19.     What lessons for apologists can we learn from these verses?

Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions, and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:

SOURCE: Bible Studies For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

(NOTE: Commentary for the focal verses comes from four sources: “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament,” “IVP New Testament Commentary1 Peter,” “The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts,“ and “IVP New Testament Commentary Acts,” and is provided for your study.)

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament

The Suffering and Persecution of Christians

The Blessing of Suffering for Righteousness (3:13-17)

Peter’s major emphasis in this letter is on Christian conduct under persecution (cf. Introduction: Occasion and Purpose). Especially from now on (3:13-5:11), this is Peter’s chief concern. Dalton divides his treatment of 3:13-5:11 into two main sections (each with three subdivisions)—“Persecution viewed in calm detachment,” 3:13-4:11; “Persecution faced realistically,” 4:12-5:11 (pp. 72-86). These two headings capture the essence of the rest of the letter.

3:13 While suffering and unjust treatment have been in the background (1:6-7; 2:12, 15, 19 ff.; 3:9), now they come to the fore. In the Greek, v. 13 begins with “and” (kai), which shows the connection with the preceding section. If Christians have the zeal for good that Psalm 34 speaks of, who will do them harm? The “harm” Peter alludes to must be understood in the light of Paul’s rhetorical question “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31) and his reference to Christians as being like “sheep to be slaughtered” and yet being “more than conquerors” (Rom 8:36-37). Kelly (p. 140) cites an interesting parallel from Plato (Apology 41d) concerning Socrates before his judges: “No harm can befall a good man, either when he is alive or when he is dead, and the gods do not neglect his cause.”

3:14 “But even if you should suffer” (all’ ei kai paschoite) is a conditional clause in the Greek (fourth class) that has a “future less probable” sense. The use of this construction (optative) points to the fact that suffering is not the expected outcome of zeal for good. The suffering Peter is considering is that which results from righteousness—i.e., from the kind of life that conforms to God’s standard. If this should happen to his readers, they are “blessed” (makarioi). This blessedness or happiness is the certainty that comes from belonging to God and his kingdom with the promises of future vindication (cf. Matt 5:3-10; “blessing in DNTT, 1:215-17). The last part of v. 14 and the beginning of v. 15 are built on the words of Isaiah 8:12b-13:

Do not fear what they fear,

do not dread it.

The LORD Almighty is the one you are to

regard as holy.

In the Isaiah passage, the prophet admonishes the godly in Israel not to fear the impending invasion as the unbelievers in the nation do. Instead, godly reverence is to be their concern (cf. Matt 10:28).

3:15-16 So Peter admonishes his readers not to be afraid of men but acknowledge “Christ as Lord.” This passage is important for Peter’s Christology. The “Lord” as applied to Christ refers to “Yahweh of armies” in Isaiah 8:13. The literal Hebrew of Yahweh of armies is LORD Almighty in NIV. (See Preface to NIV [p. ix] for an explanation of the principle involved in its translation of “Yahweh of armies.”) The Christians Peter is writing to are to acknowledge in their hearts Christ as the Holy One. In biblical revelation, the heart is the religious center of man (cf. DNTT, 2:18-84). When the center of one’s life is rightly related to God, he is able to respond properly to the vicissitudes of life.

One of the distinguishing marks of Christians is their possession of hope (elpidos, cf. 1:3, 21; Rom 4:18; Eph 2:12; Titus 2:13; DNTT, 2:238-44). Christian hope is so real and distinctive that non-Christians are puzzled about it and ask for a “reason” (logos, “account”). The type of questioning could be either official interrogations by the governmental authorities—the word for “answer” (apologia) can relate to a formal inquiry (cf. Acts 25:16; 26:2; 2Tim 4:16)—or informal questioning.

Christians should respond with care. “Gentleness” (or “meekness”) is the quality that trusts God to do the work of changing attitudes (cf. 2Tim 2:24-25; cf. also Prov 15:1: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger”). The “respect” (phobos, “fear”) is reverential awe of God (cf. 1:17; 2:17; 3:2). The “clear conscience” relates to the liberty and boldness that come from living before God in purity (cf. Acts 24:16; 1Tim 1:19). So in the case in which non-Christians slander believers the statement of the truth may shame them into silence (cf. Luke 13:17). “Speak maliciously” (epereazontes) is a word classical writers used of false accusations; in the NT papyri it is used of “treating wrongfully (MM, p. 232).

3:17 Peter next states that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Suffering is a just recompense for doing evil. But if one does good and still suffers, there is no disgrace if his conscience is clear before God—for he can have confidence that his suffering was not caused by his sin. There must be a providential reason for it—perhaps to prick the conscience of some and bring them to salvation. Or suffering may be a necessary prelude to glorification.

SOURCE: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

IVP New Testament Commentary1 Peter  (1 Pet. 3:[13,14]15-17)

The Blessings and Opportunities of the Persecuted (3:13-17)

A cartoon strip that appeared in our church bulletin showed a man reciting various biblical passages which assure us that the Lord will take care of us and protect us from fear. In the last frame the dentist’s receptionist says to him, “Dr. Jones is ready for you now, sir,” at which he breaks into a cold sweat. Fear of physical pain is strong in most of us, and quoting biblical texts like “The Lord is my helper, whom shall I fear?” does not always drive it away.

Equally strong is the fear of hostile attitudes, of being cold-shouldered and ignored, of suffering loss of face and much else. Peter did not need to tell his readers that they might suffer for being Christians; they had already experienced it. When he said to them, Do not repay evil with evil, or insult with insult (3:9), he referred to situations that had already arisen. A taste of opposition was enough to make them fear for the future. Against that background, Christians could well worry about what persecution they would endure for being Christians and ask what good it would do them in the long run. Some must have shrunk from certain actions for fear of the consequences, persuading themselves that these lines of action weren’t really worth following anyhow. Because of this fear Peter begins this section by taking up the question: What will happen to us if we live as Christians?

Be Eager to Do Good ( 3:13)

On the whole, Christians are not so likely to suffer. The people who suffer most are those who do wrong and suffer the penalties inflicted on evildoers. It is the slave who displeases his master by failing to do his work properly or by stealing his property who will get into trouble. But the Christian, simply because he is a Christian, lives a different kind of life. He is eager to do good. “Doing good” means following the Christian way of life as it has been developed earlier in the letter (see especially 3:11).

This lifestyle would conform in many ways with the standards of pagan morality. Christians should not mistakenly assume that only they have standards of goodness or try to live up to them—that the rest of the world lives in the darkness of unrelieved immorality. In fact what Peter says here could well apply to the world in which many of us live, where Christian morality may not seem to be too different from non-Christian morality, and where, as a result, Christians do not stand out. Truly there will be important differences. As Peter goes on to say, our way of life is good behavior in Christ (3:16), which means that our submission to his rule and imitation of his example should engender a life of a different quality from pagans. Nevertheless, insofar as Christian morality is in harmony with worldly morality, the world will recognize and approve it. It will note that Christians are eager to practice it. So much so that Peter can ask rhetorically, “If you do good, will anybody try to cause you bodily harm?” In general, those who do the right thing will not be attacked.

NOTES

3:13 Verse 13 is linked to verse 9 rather than to verses 10-12.

Eager in Greek is zēlōtēs, a word used for enthusiasts, especially for Jews who were enthusiastic partisans for God’s law and the temple (Acts 21:20; 22:3; Gal 1:14). Here the point is that Christians do good not simply because it is their duty but because they want to do it.

Another interpretation of this verse reads: “If you do good, nobody can really harm you” (compare 2 Tim 4:18). That is to say, you will suffer bodily harm, but it cannot really hurt you because they cannot touch your spirit. This interpretation, though true as a principle, is inappropriate here, since it gives a bad connection with verse 14.

The Possibility of Suffering ( 3:14)

Verse 13 stated what is only a general rule, and general rules can have exceptions. Doing good may lead, in certain circumstances, to hostile attacks. The Christian standard of righteousness may not be acceptable to the surrounding world. As I write, some Christians are suffering verbal abuse for suggesting that the simplest (and cheapest) prophylactic against the spread of AIDS is the practice of Christian sexual morality—which holds that the only context for the right enjoyment of sexual intercourse is heterosexual marriage. Today some opponents of Christianity reject any kind of moral standards and react violently against those who uphold them. What happens then?

Christians should claim the promise of Jesus whose wording is echoed here: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness” (Mt 5:10). Those who suffer for being Christians receive gracious gifts from God, which more than compensate for the suffering. God’s Spirit rests upon them (1 Pet 4:14). The thought, therefore, is definitely not confined to bliss in the next world but includes spiritual blessings that God’s people receive from him in this life. This prospect puts the sufferings caused by persecution into perspective.

NOTES

3:14 Peter uses the somewhat unusual optative mood of the Greek verb here and in 3:17 to express a rare contingency; later in 4:14 he is much more definite about the possibility.

The phraseology in verses 14-15 is based on Isaiah 8:12-13: “Do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.” The Greek is literally “do not fear the fear of them.” The niv text has “do not fear what they fear” in conformity with Isaiah 8:12. A marginal note suggests, “do not fear their threats” (threats as the fear-inspiring object that they put before you). But the Greek could simply mean “Do not be afraid of them.” Note how Peter, having quoted from Isaiah 8 in 2:8, now returns to that chapter.

Freedom from Fear ( 3:14-15)

Fortified by the promise above, Christians must take positive attitudes toward the threats that they face. They need not be afraid or alarmed. The patient awaiting treatment from the dentist may well get the courage and endurance to face physical discomfort from the knowledge that it is the price for long-term relief from the agony of chronic toothache. Sportsplayers will put up with injuries on the field that they wouldn’t if inflicted for no good reason off the field. The more conscious Christians are of the blessings promised by God to his people the more they will see suffering in a different way.

In fact, instead of being afraid of people, Christians’ minds should be dominated by their heavenly Lord. Jesus told his disciples not to fear what their enemies might do to them, but rather to fear God, who has the power to destroy people in Gehenna (Mt 10:28; Lk 12:4-5). Peter is encouraging people who need no such stern warnings, and so he continues in verse 15 in a positive vein, still drawing on Isaiah 8. To hallow Christ as Lord means to have an inward attitude of obedience to him that dictates our behavior in the world. Christians will not act in any way that will bring dishonor on Christ or suggest that they do not reverence him as Lord.

NOTES

3:15 Christians must set apart or “hallow” Christ as Lord. The phrase is similar to the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be thy Name,” which is addressed to God. The text in Isaiah 8:13 speaks of regarding the Lord Almighty as holy. By adding the words “the Christ” Peter applies to Jesus what was originally said with respect to God, a clear indication of how Jesus was ranked alongside God the Father by the early Christians (and yet not identified with him; see 1:3).

The phrase asks you to give a reason was a current Greek idiom for “requiring a legal defense,” but the usage here is broader.

Readiness to Bear Witness (3:15-16)

With this inner motive of obedience to Christ, the Christian should seize the opportunities of witness presented in situations of persecution. There will be occasions when Christians are directly asked about their Christian commitment. The picture is not necessarily one of appearances in court (though it may be included) but of less formal questioning, which can be more difficult to cope with. It may be easier to speak for Christ in the dock than on the spot among sophisticated, worldly people.

The object of investigation is the Christian’s hope, which, as Peter’s synonym for faith, stresses the element of future expectation (1:3, 21). This may have been particularly noteworthy to outsiders. And their interest should gladly be grasped as an opportunity for a positive, reasoned presentation of the gospel.

The text probably implies no more than that Christians should always seize such opportunities when they arise, but it is fair to add that they will be unable to capitalize on the opportunities if they are not already prepared with a coherent understanding of faith and some practice in rehearsing it. Jesus’ saying in Matthew 10:19 is meant to rule out worry, not preparation!

In impromptu “interrogations” the temptation to reply sharply would be strong. As we have already seen, such illustrations can readily be found in the accounts of the trials and deaths of Jewish martyrs. Christians, however, must respond with gentleness and respect (literally, “fear”). Gentleness should be shown toward the antagonists and respect emphatically toward God (otherwise we would have a sharp contradiction with 3:14). The former quality surely implies that the aim of answering is evangelistic—the conversion of the opponents. Paul is a good example of this attitude in Acts 26:25-32, as King Agrippa fully recognized (v. 28). In the context of this letter, a gentle response is in harmony with Christians’ general pattern of behavior, maintaining a conscience that does not condemn them (compare 3:21). Of course, this does not necessarily mean that they have lived a perfect life in every detail.

It is this gentle behavior that excites opprobrium from non-Christians. But now they are puzzled by the way in which the Christians respond to their slander, and the hoped-for result is that they will be ashamed of their earlier attitudes. Peter says that the demeanor of Christians on trial for their faith should make those who formerly jeered at them think again as they are confronted by their gracious attitudes. Possibly he is thinking of the way in which persecutors will be ashamed at the Last Judgment when they realize that the people whom they despised are honored by God. More likely he has in mind a change of heart by the persecutors here in this life.

The Better Way ( 3:17)

Finally, Peter again makes the point that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. The statement is a proverbial one and could simply mean that it is morally better to suffer at the hands of ignorant and evil people for doing good than to bear one’s punishment for having done evil. But Peter writes in a Christian context. Surely he means that, if we are going to suffer at all, it is better to suffer persecution than to be punished for breaking the law (2:19-20; 4:15-16). Such patient endurance of persecution is a powerful form of Christian witness. It is also possible that Peter means that to suffer persecution from men for doing good is better than to incur God’s judgment for doing wrong (Michaels 1988:191-92).

SOURCE: IVP New Testament Commentary1 Peter by I. Howard Marshall InterVarsity Press Downers Grove, Illinois, USA Leicester, England

The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts

Paul’s Request for Permission to Address the Mob (21:37-40)

Though torn and tattered, Paul was more interested in addressing the crowd than in being carried safely away from it. His request to the tribune was in a polite, polished Greek: “May I say (εἰ ἔξεστίν μοι, ei exestin moi) something to you?” Surprised that Paul would know how to speak Greek rather than Aramaic (the preferred language of Palestinian Jews), he immediately wanted to know if Paul was “the Egyptian who started a revolt.”

His reference was to an incident also reported by Josephus. Three years earlier an Egyptian had arrived in Jerusalem promising the Jews that the walls of Jerusalem would tumble down if they joined him on the Mount of Olives. He then claimed that God would lead the Jews to victory over the Romans. Josephus says that 30,000 people followed him. Felix the procurator put an end to the adventure, however, sending troops who killed 400 of the rebels, took another 200 prisoners, and the rest fled. The Egyptian managed to disappear.^21-31

Perhaps the commander suspected that Paul was the Egyptian who had returned to the temple and was recognized by Jews eager to get even with him. Paul may have surprised him when he replied that he was a Jew “from Tarsus in Cilicia,^21-32 a citizen of no ordinary city.” Paul’s comment here spoke of his citizenship in his hometown, not of his Roman citizenship.

Standing on the steps above the crowd, Paul received permission to speak. With a gesture of his hand the crowd quieted, and Paul addressed the crowd in Aramaic. Not only would Aramaic capture the interest of a Palestinian Jewish audience, it would also be appropriate for Jews outside of Palestine. It was the common language of all non-Greek speakers as far west as Western Asia and as far east as the Parthian Empire.

NOTES

21-31. Polhill attributes the discrepancy between Luke’s 4,000 rebels and the 30,000 found in Josephus as an example of the tendency to exaggerate numbers which is seen in Josephus (John Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), p. 455). For a discussion of the chronology of this historical reference see Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 40.

21-32. See comments below on 22:3.

Paul’s Defense to the Jews 

Paul’s Early Days (22:1-5)

Paul’s address to the Jewish crowd did not, as might be expected, take the form of a defense of himself.^22-1 He did not refer to the charges made against him by the Asian Jews (see 21:28). Instead, Paul directed his remarks toward the larger issue of his relationship to Judaism. He demonstrated that he had been raised in orthodox Judaism and that his conversion came only as the result of an experience beyond his control and given by God. In reviewing this experience, the events on the Damascus Road are related for the second time in Acts (see also 9:1-22; 26:9-18).

Paul began his address with a formal introduction similar to the one Stephen used before the Sanhedrin (see 7:2). With his mention of “brothers and fathers” he used an introduction which would show respect toward any elders or temple authorities in the crowd. His request was that they hear his “defense” (ἀπολογία, apologia).

His use of Aramaic caught the attention of his audience because of its importance for Palestinian Judaism. Even Paul’s language showed he was an orthodox Jew. They quieted in order to listen.

Paul’s first point was his Jewish roots. He explained his birth, his upbringing, and his education,^22-2 and all of it in terms of his Judaism. He was born in Tarsus, but brought up in Jerusalem, and thus should not be characterized as some rebel from the Diaspora. The influence of Tarsus on his life was negligible. Not only his education, but also his rearing was in Jerusalem.

Tarsus was located in Cilicia, some ten miles from the coast on the Cyndus River. Thirty miles north stood the Taurus Mountains with its series of deep, narrow gorges called the Cilician Gates which permitted travelers access to the west. Tarsus had become an important educational and commercial center.

In addition to his birth and rearing, Paul said that he was educated “under Gamaliel,” perhaps the most respected rabbi of the first century.^22-3 Modern scholars have established the link between Paul’s letters and rabbinic patterns of thought.^22-4 Paul mentions the fact here in order to demonstrate how orthodox was his training in the Old Testament faith (“the law of our fathers”).

Paul even described his zealous spirit in terms of the audience before him. He had been as “zealous for God” as any in the crowd who had attacked him in the temple, going so far as to attack Christians wherever he could find them (see 8:3; 9:1-4; 26:9-11; 1 Cor 15:9; 1 Tim 1:13). He referred to these Christians as “the Way,” a descriptive term also used when Paul set out for Damascus (see 9:2).

Paul observed at this point in his address that “the high priest and all the Council” (Sanhedrin) had direct information on these matters, since at the time he had worked closely with them in this effort against the Christians. In addition some members of the Sanhedrin at the time Paul set out for Damascus were perhaps still active members, though by this time the high priesthood had changed hands. Caiaphas was dead by this time, but the new high priest, Ananias, would have records to corroborate Paul’s account.

NOTES

22-1.  Fred Veltman examines the defense speeches of Paul through the rest of Acts, especially as they compare to defense speeches in ancient literature from such writers as Thucydides, Livy, Rufus, Tacitus, and Josephus. He notes a common structure for these speeches and applies the model to the speeches of Paul in Acts 22-28. See his “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. Charles Talbert (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), pp. 243-256. Trites discusses the legal terminology found in this section of Acts (especially in cases where speeches are presented). He thinks that Luke is motivated by the desire “to show that Christianity cannot be construed as a religio illicita” (illegal religion), and that the “claims of Christ are being debated” in the issues surrounding Paul’s custody hearings. See his “The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of Acts,” NovT 16 (1974), 278-284.

22-2. This triad, “born, reared, educated,” was a set formula in ancient literature. See W.C. Van Unnik, “Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth,” trans. G. Ogg, Sparsa Collecta, Part 1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), pp. 259-320.

22-3. For a summary of scholarly objections regarding Paul’s claim to an education in Jerusalem under Gamaliel see Richard Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), pp. 23-25; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981), pp. 32-37.

22-4. See, for example, W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1958).

SOURCE: The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts By Dennis Gaertner, Ph.D.; New Testament Series Co-Editors: Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., Cincinnati Bible Seminar; Tony Ash, Ph.D., Abilene Christian University; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri

IVP New Testament Commentary Acts  (Acts 21:40–22:3)

Correcting Wrong Thinking (21:37-40)

At the top of the stairs, just as the Roman soldiers are about to take Paul into the Antonia fortress barracks, away from the tumult of the pursuing mob, the apostle asks permission to speak with the commander. Paul’s polite and polished Greek catches the tribune off guard; he replies, Do you speak Greek? He had expected the cause of such a disturbance to be a Jew of rough character and no education. Now he tries to place him among foreigners who were potential troublemakers. Is he that Egyptian false prophet who, some four to five years earlier (a.d. 54), had raised up a large following, four thousand terrorists, taken them into the desert and returned to the Mount of Olives? From there, he had promised his band, he would command the walls of Jerusalem to fall flat. The Roman garrison would then be an easy conquest, and the Egyptian could be installed as ruler (Josephus Jewish Wars 2.261-63; Jewish Antiquities 20.169-72). Governor Felix’s troops, however, took preemptive action, slaying four hundred, taking two hundred prisoner and scattering the rest, including the Egyptian. Has he now returned to Jerusalem, and is the populace venting its anger on him for the failed revolt and its aftermath?

Paul answers that he is a Jew, not a foreign false prophet. This also explains why he is in the temple. He is citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, not an Egyptian; a person with civic status, not a disenfranchised revolutionary. Tarsus of Cilicia, southeastern Asia Minor, was ten miles from the Mediterranean Sea on the Cydnus River, population 500,000 at the height of its prominence. It was of strategic importance, for it commanded the Cilician Gates, a pass through the Taurus Mountains which led to the central Asia Minor plateau and trade routes to the west. It was not an idle boast to call it no ordinary city. From the early days of the Empire, the life of Tarsus had been closely intertwined with that of the highest levels of Rome. Julius Caesar visited the city in 47 b.c., and Antony granted it the status of a free city in 42 b.c. Augustus sent Athendorus, his former tutor, a Stoic philosopher, back to his native Tarsus to reestablish just administration. Nestor, tutor to Marcellus, Augustus’s intended heir, continued the Rome-decreed line of “philosopher-governors.” The people of this university town had a zeal for learning and philosophy beyond that of Athens and Alexandria, though it did not attract as many students as the latter centers. Tarsians were known for finishing their schooling abroad and finally settling in Rome or elsewhere (Hemer 1988).

What Theophilus and we should learn from this interchange is not to confuse the gospel’s liberation with political revolution. The Lord Jesus and his kingdom present a more radical challenge than that.

Paul asks and receives permission to speak to the crowd. His courage and determination are at once remarkable and readily understandable. What would cause him to want to address a crowd that had slandered him, given him an executioner’s beating and, only minutes before, so violently rushed on him and called for his death that Roman soldiers had to physically pick him up so they could make a hasty exit? It is a total commitment to his Lord and his calling (20:23-24; compare Lk 21:13). This perspective gives the gospel its integrity. It’s a stance we must all adopt.

With the stairs as his platform and the crowd below as his ready-made congregation, Paul stood … and motioned to the crowd with his hand (Acts 12:17; 13:16; 19:33). Miraculously, they become silent. Here is not simply the force of personality or even of a courageous character. Here the power of God is at work to gain a hearing for the battered, arrested, faithful apostle. Paul addresses the people in Aramaic (better, as the niv margin states, in Hebrew—tē Hebraidi dialektō, literally, “in the Hebrew language”; see notes).

NOTES

21:40 William LaSor (1979a:233) argues convincingly that though Aramaic was more commonly understood than Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that Hebrew was more widely known among the masses in the first century than scholars usually assume. These references to the “Hebrew language” may indicate an exception to Paul’s normal practice of speaking in Greek or Aramaic. Using Hebrew attracted attention and demonstrated his loyalty to his Jewish roots.

Exordium and Narratio: Declaring Paul’s Jewish Piety (22:1-3)

Paul’s address, Brothers and fathers, together with his use of Hebrew, is a proper and effective exordium or opening. He shows respect to the dignitaries, priests and Sanhedrin, the older members in the crowd. He identifies with his audience in the use of their sacred language. They quiet down and listen.

Paul’s brief narratio, a statement of the facts adapted to persuade his listeners that the charges are groundless, follows the common ancient pattern for describing one’s formative years: birth, rearing, education. He is a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia. Hence he is not against the Jewish people. He was brought up in Jerusalem. One can hardly expect the son of Diaspora Jews, returned to Jerusalem for his formative years, to be against the temple. Under (literally, “at the feet of”) Gamaliel Paul was trained “according to the strictness of the law of the fathers.” How could one who had allowed himself to “be dusted by the dust” of such an eminent scholar’s feet now teach against the law (Pirqe’Abot 1:4)? Would one who is as zealous for God  as any in the crowd bring a Gentile into the temple’s sacred courts and defile them? Paul prizes his Jewish heritage, and so should every Jewish Christian. Such loyalty will get Theophilus’s attention.

NOTES

22:2 William LaSor (1979a:233) argues convincingly that though Aramaic was more commonly understood than Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that Hebrew was more widely known among the masses in the first century than scholars usually assume. These references to the “Hebrew language” may indicate an exception to Paul’s normal practice of speaking in Greek or Aramaic. Using Hebrew attracted attention and demonstrated his loyalty to his Jewish roots.

22:3 The niv makes two interpretational choices that, while individually permissible, when taken together do not account for all the elements of the Greek syntax. If kata akribeian is taken as an adverbial modifier of pepaideumenos, yielding the phrase thoroughly trained (niv), then the genitive phrase “of the law of our fathers” must be related to the subsequent verb “to be zealous.” If not, the genitives are left dangling in the Greek syntax. It is better to translate the whole as a prepositional phrase with genitival modifiers modifying “train”—that is, “having been trained according to strictness of the law of our fathers.”

SOURCE: IVP New Testament Commentary Acts; by William J. Larkin, Jr.; Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA; Leicester, England.

The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts

The Episode on the Damascus Road (22:6-11)

Paul’s description of the event on the road to Damascus differs only slightly from the previous account of the incident in 9:1-22.^22-5 Here, unlike in 9:1-22, Paul specified that the hour in which the event occurred was “about noon.” The reason for this may have been to emphasize how bright the light was, even in comparison to the sun at its highest point. Indeed, Paul’s account of his experience on the Damascus road places heavy emphasis on the light which “flashed around” (περιαστράπτω,  periastraptō) him, which his companions saw (22:9), and which blinded Paul (22:11).

Also in this passage Paul quotes Jesus who identifies himself as “Jesus of Nazareth,” unlike 9:1-22 and 26:9-18. This addition was also appropriate before Paul’s Jewish audience.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the accounts is the detail in 22:9. Paul said his companions saw the light, but did not understand the voice. In 9:7 his companions had heard the sound, but not seen anything. This is hardly a contradiction. Quite possibly Paul intended here to imply that some sound was heard, but it was impossible for the companions to perceive what the voice said. At any rate, Polhill’s observation is appropriate here. Paul intended to make it clear that the experience was his alone, and his companions stood very much on the outside of it. They saw light, but did not see Jesus the Lord; they heard a sound, but did not understand his words. His companions were thus corroborating witnesses, but the experience belonged to Paul.^22-6

NOTES

22-5. For a detailed comparison of the three accounts in Acts and the one in Galatians see Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, trans. Frank Clarke, (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959), pp. 13-35.

22-6. John Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pp. 459-460.

SOURCE: The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts By Dennis Gaertner, Ph.D.; New Testament Series Co-Editors: Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., Cincinnati Bible Seminar; Tony Ash, Ph.D., Abilene Christian University; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri

IVP New Testament Commentary Acts  (Acts 22:4-10)

Probatio–Proof One (22:4-5)

Paul’s probatio (body of proof section) offers four scenes from his conversion and its aftermath. They provide evidence, substantiated by witnesses, that his life of Jewish piety and his calling to preach the universal gospel are compatible.

Scene one portrays Paul as the persecutor of the followers of the way. The extent of his persecution (women as well as men) and the outcome (sometimes death—7:58; 8:1; 26:10) proved Paul’s zeal for the Jewish God (Phil 3:6). They were also a silent witness to his sin and rebellion against God. Luke consistently portrays sinful ethnic Israel as the persecutors and murderers of God’s true apostles and prophets (Lk 11:49; Acts 7:52; compare Lk 21:12). Paul never recovered from the shame of what had been for him a badge of honor (1 Cor 15:9; 1 Tim 1:13-15).

At this point Paul simply wants his audience to know his zeal, and he appeals to the records or the memory of high priest and Sanhedrin as testimony to the fact. One of the most exasperating things about self-righteous rebellion against God is that it can appear in the guise of zeal for God.

Probatio–Proof Two (Acts 22:6-11)

Scene two, the risen Lord’s encounter with Paul on the Damascus Road, places under judgment his life of persecuting believers out of zeal for God. Luke highlights the overpowering nature of the divine encounter by noting that in the brightness of the midday sun a divine light flashed around Paul. Blinding at noontime and being cast to the ground picture the spiritual judgment under which Paul found himself (Isa 25:12; 26:5; 29:4). Jesus’ haunting question Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me? reveals that Jesus of Nazareth, in his resurrection power, is the key for distinguishing between proper and misguided zeal for God. And it is the same today for Jew and Gentile alike. Jesus is the litmus test. Any zeal for God that turns a person against the followers of Jesus is misguided.

Paul makes sure that this supernatural event can serve as a sign and undeniable proof in his probatio by describing the experience of corroborating witnesses, his companions. Paul’s encounter with Christ was objective yet personal. His companions saw the light surrounding Paul but not the risen Lord who appeared to him (Acts 22:9, 14; 9:7). They heard a voice addressing Paul but were not privy to its message (9:7; 22:9).

Paul’s enlightenment concerning his guilt led to enlistment in Christ’s cause. Neither as a good Jew responding to divine revelation (contra Longenecker 1981:525) nor as one simply stupefied, realizing he must change (contra Marshall 1980:355), but like the Pentecost crowd, realizing it was under judgment, Paul asked, What shall I do, Lord? (2:37). The Lord did not answer directly but called for trust and allegiance as he directed Paul to the city. Paul’s blindness was another sign that something supernatural had indeed happened to him on the Damascus Road. Luke’s phrasing, brilliance of the light (doxa tou phōtos, “glory of the light”) leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind that this is the splendor of the exalted Lord Jesus appearing from heaven (Lk 24:26; 21:27; also see 9:26, 31-32; 2:9; Acts 7:2, 55).

NOTES

22:9 What the companions did or did not hear of the voice from heaven is not at odds with the account in Acts 9 (v. 7). A. T. Robertson (1934:506) explains how aspects of the range of meaning of akouō—“hear, understand”—can be indicated by objects in the genitive and accusative. This leads to the proper harmonization of 9:7, “they heard a voice” (genitive), and 22:9, “they did not understand the voice” (accusative).

22:11 Is the cause of blindness natural or supernatural (compare 9:18)? There is no necessary contradiction of the two presentations of Paul’s blinding, for God can use secondary means to accomplish his ends.

 SOURCE: IVP New Testament Commentary Acts; by William J. Larkin, Jr.; Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA; Leicester, England..

Apologetics: pl. n. [treated as sing. or pl.] reasoned arguments in justification of a theory or doctrine.

SOURCE: Concise Oxford Dictionary; Tenth Edition; Oxford University Press

Defense (1 Pet. 3:15;  “answer,” KJV): The Greek word for defense is apologia, from which we derive the English words apology and apologetics. To make an apology means not only to express remorse but also to present an explanation, the key meaning of apologetics. Christian apologetics means to present a coherent defense for our beliefs and commitment. While we certainly need a group of highly trained and skilled apologists to confront challenges to Christianity, the greater need is for typical Christians to explain their beliefs to people they know. All Christians should be apologists.

SOURCE: Family Bible Study; Life Truths; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN.

“defense” (1 Pet. 3:15): The Greek word apologia  could be rendered “answer” or “defense.”  It is the root word for “apologetics.”  Christian apologetics strives to present a positive witness to Christian beliefs while responding to criticisms, questions, and objections to Christian beliefs.  The Greek word appears several times in the New Testament (Acts 25:16; 26:2; Phil. 1:16-17; 2 Tim. 4:16).  The word could refer to a defense in a formal legal trial or to an informal response to questions.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

Gamaliel (Acts 22:3): Gamaliel I, as he is identified by contemporary scholars, was a descendant of Hillel, a famous rabbi.  Widely known and respected in the first century, Gamaliel played a key role earlier in the Acts of the Apostles (5:33-40).  When the Sanhedrin debated what to do with the Christians, Gamaliel argued the best policy was to ignore them.  If their movement was purely human, it would disappear eventually.  If, as we know, it was inspired by God, the Sanhedrin could not stop it!

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

GAMALIEL (guh may' lih ehl): A Pharisee who at the meeting of the “council” succeeded in persuading its members to adopt a more reasonable course when they were incensed at the doctrine of Peter and the rest of the apostles and sought to slay them (Acts 5:33-40). That he was well qualified for this task is attested by the fact that he was himself a member of the Sanhedrin, a teacher of the law, and held in high honor among all the people. In his speech he pointed out to his fellow-councilors the dire consequences that might ensue upon any precipitous action on their part. While quoting instances, familiar to his hearers, of past insurrections or seditions that had failed, he reminded them at the same time that if this last under Peter “is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.” As a result of his arguments, the apostles, after being beaten and admonished to speak no longer in the name of Jesus, were released. In the speech which he was permitted by Lysias¹ to deliver from the stairs of the palace after the riot in Jerusalem, Paul referred to Gamaliel as the teacher of his youth, who instructed him rigidly in the Mosaic law (Acts 22:3).

The toleration and liberality displayed by Gamaliel upon the occasion of his speech before the Sanhedrin were all the more remarkable because of their rarity among the Pharisees of the period. Although the strict observance by the Christians of temple worship, and their belief in immortality, a point in dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees, may have had influence over him, no credence is to be attached to the view that he definitely favored the apostles or to the tradition that he afterward became a Christian. The high place accorded him in Jewish tradition, and the fact that the title of Rabban, higher even than Rabbi or Master, was first bestowed upon him, testify that he remained a Pharisee to the end. His speech is rather indicative of one who knew the deeper truth in the Old Testament of the universal fatherhood of God, and who recognized that the presence of His power was the. deciding factor in all human enterprise. His social enactments were permeated by the same broad-minded spirit. Thus his legislation on behalf of the poor was formulated so as to include Gentiles as well as Jews.

1.  Claudius Lysias (klayew' dih uhs  Lihs' ih uhs): A chief captain who intervened when the Jews sought to do violence to Paul at Jerusalem (Acts 21:31; 24:22).

SOURCE: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; James Orr, M.A., D. D., General Editor; Parsons Technology, Inc.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“zealous” (Acts 22:3): the term “zealous” means enthusiastic or committed to an idea or a cause.  In the first century, one Jewish group, the Zealots, were noted for their use of violence in their zeal against the Roman authorities.  Paul had been a “zealot” in the more general sense of being committed to God and his Jewish faith.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

“Way” (Acts 22:4): this term was used to identify early Christians (see 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).  Although Luke did not explain the origin of this nickname, it probably related to Jesus’ teaching.  Jesus identified Himself as “the way, the truth, and the the life” (John 14:6).

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

·   “Instead you must worship Christ as Lord of your life.  And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.”—1 Peter 3:15 (NLT).

·   Defending our faith does not mean being defensive.

·   No matter how strong our intellectual defense of our Christian beliefs, that defense must be supported by clear evidence of a changed life.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND READING:

Purification and Defilement

By Martha S. Bergen

Martha S. Bergen is professor of Christian education at Hannibal-LaGrange College, Hannibal, Missouri.

“Pure and Simple!” “One Hundred Percent Pure!” These are phrases most people have heard at some point.  Whether in reference to soap or maple syrup, advertisers often employ these phrases to convince would-be buyers that their products are nothing but the real deal, containing no additives or potentially harmful ingredients.  To say something is pure implies it is undiluted and free of inferior or unsafe chemicals.  The appeal of a pure product is attractive, because people see something that is mixed or tainted as being substandard.  Purity implies that which is unspoiled, uncorrupt, and, thereby, wholesome and good.

The Need for Purity

As much as people like to think themselves pure, a serious reading of the Bible reveals the opposite.  The Bible teaches the God is sinless and absolutely pure, while humans are sinful and defiled (Gen. 3:1-19; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:23).  In an unclean state, humans are unfit for God’s service.  Representative of this is Isaiah’s claim in his vision of God at the temple: “Woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips and live among a people of unclean lips . . . because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts” (Isa. 6:5).¹ Isaiah saw God for who He is, and himself for who he was in relationship to God—unclean!  God wants fellowship with people, but since they are sinful they must be purified to relate properly to Him.

Purity is based on and models God’s own character and holiness.  He thus both desires it and requires it of His covenant people.  While they could not achieve purity in and of themselves, this quality was made possible by their relationship with Him and manifested itself in willful obedience to Him.  God established both individual and community practices which, when observed, achieved outward (ritual) purity.  Ideally, this reflected inward (moral) purity.  So often, however, Israel defiled itself by choosing to violate God’s laws and guidelines.  Likewise, people could go through the motions outwardly and yet not mean them inwardly.  Jesus spoke to this when He chided the scribes and Pharisees for such things as giving a tenth of their spices while neglecting those things of greater value—“justice, mercy, and faith”: or straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:23-24).  “The strict Pharisee would carefully strain his drinking water through a cloth to be sure he did not swallow a gnat, the smallest of unclean animals.  But, figuratively, he would have no qualms about swallowing a camel—one of the largest.”²

The Matter of Defilement

For the Jew, to be defiled meant being unclean and , as such, being unable to approach God or do His work.  Unless he was ritually pure, he was not allowed to participate in religious events and ceremonies.  Some circumstances, such as having leprosy, meant a person was banned from the community.  Likewise, certain defilements limited one’s involvement in the community, while others were reasons for banishment form the community.  Further, when a Jew became unclean, anyone or anything he touched also became unclean.  Because all of life was holy, defilement was possible in any realm.

Purity was based on the Torah and distinguished Israel from pagan nations, marking them as God’s people: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for the nations I am driving out . . . have defiled themselves by all these things” (Lev. 18:24).  God’s stipulations for purity affected every part of life, whether on the individual or community level.  Leviticus in particular speaks to the central theme of holiness and gives numerous guidelines for purification or avoidance of defilement in such areas as sacrifice and offerings, food, health and disease, touching dead bodies, sexual practices, childbirth, bodily discharges, and contaminated clothing or objects.  God expected His people to take seriously ritual purity because of their respect for and allegiance to Him.  These areas continued to be important concerns for first-century Jews.

The modern Western mind cannot fully appreciate this type of ancient reverential perspective on doing whatever was necessary to approach and please holy God.  Because humans are sinful, persons made special efforts in approaching Him.  Such efforts were never to be taken lightly, as the inferior subjugates himself to the Superior.  Though a rough analogy, perhaps one can liken it to the painstaking efforts a person would willingly take to be fully prepared for a job interview—boning up on necessary facts, dressing his best, arriving early, and expressing cordiality no matter what is said or done—all for the sake of pleasing a superior.

Judaism and Ritual Purity

Much of what is known about first-century purification comes from the New Testament and the Mishnah.  Jewish Christians during the New Testament period took seriously the laws of the Torah, a fact reflected, for example, in Acts 21.  Some Jews thought Paul was abandoning certain practices of the Law, particularly circumcision (v. 21).  His seeming abandonment was exaggerated during a time of intensified Jewish nationalism under Gentile, Roman rule and misunderstandings about Gentile concessions from the Jerusalem Council.³ Consequently, the Jewish brothers who met Paul in Jerusalem advised him to purify himself along with four men who were unclean—probably because they had not completed their Nazirite vow—and to pay for their heads to be shaved.  By doing this, Paul would show himself submissive to Mosaic law in hopes that the false accusations would cease.  But even then, some Jews from Asia Minor saw him in the temple and accused him of bringing in Greeks and defiling the temple (vv. 27-29).

Judaism emphasized, based on the Old Testament, the need to be in right standing before holy God.  All Jews agreed that purification was necessary to be accepted by God, but prominent factions within Judaism disagreed vehemently about how to achieve it.  In fact, many became obsessed with it, conjuring up their own regulations.  Since all of life was to be holy, they thought everything should have its prescript.  Among others, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes all held their own opinions regarding rituals that were needed to avoid defilement or obtain a state of ritual purity.  In contrast, Christians emphasized inner purity over outward actions (Matt. 15:17-20; Col. 2:20-22).

Purification was among the most sacred arenas of Rabbinic concern.  The most elaborate of the Mishnah’s  six “Sedarim” (or Orders”) deals with this subject alone.  Two tractates focus on the purification of “Hands” (Yadayim ) and “Vessels” (Kelim ).⁴ Yadayim  raised questions, for example, about what rendered the hands unclean or how much water was necessary to pour over the hands for cleaning.⁵  Kelim  raised such concerns as how long an earthen vessel could be used before it was defiled and discarded, how to purify a defiled oven, and what size hole in a utensil made it unclean.⁶  Such emphases, even well intended, often lost sight of God’s overall purpose.

Jesus reminded the Jews that God’s rules were not primarily an outward mandate, but a reflection of one’s heart and life, showing character and values according to God’s will.  As He aptly taught: “Blessed are the pure in heart, because they will see God” (Matt. 4:8).  ♦

1.   All Scripture quotations are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

2.   See note on Matt. 23:24 in The NIV Study Bible, gen. ed. Kenneth Barker (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985), 1476.  Leviticus 11:4 forbade eating camels.

3.   John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26 in The New American Commentary  (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 447.

4.   Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah  (McLean, VA:  MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), 357.

5.   Joseph Jacobs and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, “Yadayim,” JewishEncyclopedia.com [online, accessed 13 October 2009].  Available from the Internet: www.jewishencyclopedia.com.

6.   Joseph Jacobs and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, “Kelim,” JewishEncyclopedia.com [online, accessed 13 October 2009].  Available from the Internet: www.jewishencyclopedia.com.

Felix and Festus:  Roman Governors

By Bill Tolar

Bill Tolar is Vice-President and Provost, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

OME RULED PALESTINE from 37-4 BC through a client-king, Herod the Great.  Upon his death in 4 BC, his son Archelaus ruled Judea (and Samaria) for 10 years but was removed by Augustus Caesar in AD 6 because of complaints by disgruntled Jewish leaders.  Rome then governed Judea from AD 6-66 with 14 “governors” or “procurators” except for a 3-year kingly reign (41-44) by one of Herod the Great’s grandsons.  Antonius Felix and Porclus Festus were numbers 10 and 11 in this list and ruled AD 52-60 and 60-62 respectively.¹ One modern scholar says that although the first-century Jewish historian Josephus depicted the procurators between 44-55 as barbarians and extortioners, “they were hardly worse than the general run of Roman colonial officials.”² This scholar thinks the violent Jewish reaction was more likely due to the political situation than to the bad reigns of the Roman procurators.

Usually, procurators were drawn from the “equestrian” class (persons of dignity and high rank), but Felix was a “freedman”—a freed slave!  William Barclay declared that Felix was the “first slave in history ever to become the governor of a Roman province.”⁵ Historians agree that he was appointed originally because of family influences and personal wealth, and not because of personal qualifications.

The first-century Roman historian Tacitus made a classic statement about Felix saying, “with all manner of cruelty and lust he exercised the functions of a prince with the disposition of a slave.”⁶ Tacitus pictured a man who would stoop to almost anything for personal gain.  John Polhill says Felix was “totally lacking in understanding of or sympathy for the Jews.”⁷

Josephus indicated that Felix inherited a chaotic situation when he became procurator.  He said the land had become filled with “robbers” and “fanatics.”  Felix was determined to eliminate the terrorism that had plagued Judea for many years, so he bribed informers, used torture, and relentlessly pursued troublemakers.  He crucified many of them (including leaders of the Zealots and other religious groups).

The Zealots became more fanatical and desperate, and in Jerusalem they organized themselves into a group of assassins called sicarii, a name derived from the short, curved daggers they hid under their clothes and with which they killed anyone who sympathized with the Romans.  According to Josephus, they committed numerous murders every day in broad daylight, causing everybody to live in terror!

Luke pictured Felix as basically fair and courteous to Paul.  In Acts 24:23 he said that Felix ordered the Roman centurion to keep Paul in custody, let him have a large measure of liberty, and allowed his friends to care for his personal needs.  Luke also indicated in 24:26 that Felix had hoped for money to be given to him, even though bribery was strictly forbidden by Roman law.  In Acts 24:27 Luke stated that Felix wanted to please the Jews and thus left Paul in prison so as not to infuriate the powerful Jewish leasers who could create incalculable difficulties for him.

The final event that brought Felix’s downfall was his sending Roman troops to put down a serious outbreak of hostilities between Jews and Gentiles in Caesarea.  Thousands of Jews were killed; and Roman troops, with the consent of Felix, sacked and looted the houses of the wealthiest Jews in the city.  Outraged Jewish leaders sent a delegation to Nero who removed Felix from office!

Porcius Festus (60-62 AD)

Nero appointed Porcius Festus to succeed Felix.  Unlike the freedman Felix, Festus was of a higher social status, an equestrian.  We know much less about him than we do Felix because he is mentioned only in Acts and in Josephus; the later gave him little attention.  Most scholars write about Festus in positive tones, stating that he was fair-minded, tough, and incorruptible.

Festus inherited problems of many years’ standing.  He faced a virtually impossible situation.  One modern scholar says of Festus, “It appears he was a prudent and honorable man, and in happier circumstances might have proved a successful ruler.  But he was charged with an impossible task; after Felix’ maladministration the province was a hotbed of bigotry, faction, and intrigue.”⁸

In Acts 25:9 Luke said that Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, asked if Paul were willing to go to Jerusalem and be tried there.  Paul may now have sensed an inclination by Festus to send him to Jerusalem (where Paul knew he would not receive a fair trial if tried by the Sanhedrin).  Thus, he exercised his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to the emperor for a hearing.

In Acts 25:25-27 Festus confessed to King Agrippa and to all those present the he had found nothing worthy of condemning Paul.  Polhill says that “Festus behaved much like Pilate in the trial of Jesus.”⁹ After listening to Paul’s testimony and defense of himself before Agrippa, Festus declared Paul must be going insane with all his massive learning!

In Acts 26:31-32 Agrippa confirmed what Festus had already known and publicly stated—Paul had done nothing worthy of death or continued imprisonment and could have been freed if he had not appealed to Caesar.

Conclusion

Among the many problems Festus inherited upon becoming procurator was the deep, continual, bitter strife between Jews and Gentiles in Caesarea.  Eventually blood was shed between the two groups.  When Festus arrived in Caesarea, the situation was very tense, and the matter was referred to Rome for Nero to decide.  The decision did not come until AD 62—long after Paul had been sent to Rome.  When Nero decided in favor of the Gentiles, the Jews were infuriated by the decision; bands of assassins spread out once again over the land.  More false messiah arose, and the army had to be called out.  Order broke down, and Festus died in office at this critical time.  His sudden death in 62 brought renewed vigor to the extremists!

Four years later, in AD 66, the tension between the Jews and Gentiles in Caesarea burst into bloodshed again, and this time it turned into war that spread all over the country—eventually resulting in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70.¹⁰  ♦

1.      Along with Luke’s account in the Book of Acts, three important extra-biblical historians provide essential information in our study of Felix and Festus.  One is the Jewish historian Josephus, born in Jerusalem about AD 38, who later served as a military leader in the rebellion against Rome in 66.  He eventually retired in Rome and wrote his exceedingly important works, The Wars of the Jews  and The Antiquities of the Jews.  Two Roman historians are also important: Tacitus, who lived about AD 55-120, and wrote The Annals  and The Histories;  and Suetonius, who lived about AD 69-121, and wrote The Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

2.      Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era  (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 203.

3.      “Roman Provinces,” Holman Bible Handbook, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 654.

4.      T. C. Smith, “Acts” in The Broadman Bible Commentary,  vol. 10 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970), 133.

5.      William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles  (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 167.

6.      Tacitus, Histories, V. 9.

7.      John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26 in The New American Commentary  (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 476.

8.      G. H. C. MacGregor, “Acts” in The Interpreter’s Bible,  vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), 316.

9.      Polhill, 488.

10.    For an excellent and lengthy study of the procurators who ruled from 44-66, see Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish Peoplein the Time of Jesus Christ,  vol. 2 (New York: Charlse Scribner’s Sons, n.d.), 166-91.

TARSUS

By R. Garland Young

Garland Young is assistant professor or religion, Cumberland College, Williamsburg, KY.

ODERN TARSUS IS A CITY of approximately 60,000 people that is located on the Cydnus River in southeast Turkey and sits on an alluvial plain about 10 miles north of the Mediterranean Sea.  Just to the north of Tarsus rise the Taurus Mountains, a range that in ancient times effectively isolated the city and its port from the interior of Asia Minor.

Modern westerners seldom hear today of this ordinary, moderately-sized city.  However, buried beneath the streets and shops of this Turkish town lie the ruins of one of the most significant cities in all of Asia Minor.  The city has been occupied continuously for a t least 2,700 years, and at one time its population may have approached 500k000 persons.¹

The historical importance of Tarsus is linked to its proximity to the Cilician Gates, a narrow mountain pass must north of the city.  The pass provides land access to the interior of the country.  In ancient times, armies that controlled the Cilician Gates usually could control all of Asia Minor.

Some ancient legends associate the founding of ancient Tarsus with the spread of the Assyrian Empire early in the first millennium BC.  According to the Greek geographer, Strabo, there was a monument in Tarsus that marked the tomb of Assyrian King Sardanapulas (]SAHR-duh-NAHP-u-lus] about 824 BC?; possibly another name for Shamshi-adad V).  The inscription on the stone claimed that Sardanapulas built the city of Tarsus in one day (Geography, XIV.5.9).  However, other historians believe the city may have been founded by the lonian Greeks.  The name of a nearby town, Mopsuestia [MOP-soo-ESS-tee-ah], comes from the name of the Greek god, Mopsus, and means “hearth of Mopsus.”²

The first specific, historical reference to Tarsus comes from the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (ruled 859-824 BC).  The spread of the Assyrian empire into Asia Minor in the eighth and ninth centuries marked a temporary end to the prominence of Greek culture in and around Tarsus.  Instead, coinage from the period suggests a heavy Oriental influence.³

However, the conquest of Asia Minor by Alexander the Great in 333 BC marked a decisive point in the cultural development of Tarsus.  Alexander passed eastward through the Cilician Gates on his way to his important victory over the Persians at the Battle of Issus.  Classical historians note that Alexander’s advance guard may have saved Tarsus from destruction by the retreating Persians.⁴

Alexander’s conquest of Asia Minor signaled the return of Greek culture in Tarsus.  This renewal of Hellenistic influence is signaled by the coinage and pottery from this period found in the area.  Under Alexander’s successors, the Seleucids, colonization programs resulted in a large influx of Jews at Tarsus.  Perhaps even the apostle Paul’s ancestors immigrated to Tarsus during this period.⁵

In 47 BC Julius Caesar visited Tarsus while on a military campaign in eastern Asia Minor.⁶ Tarsus also was the scene of the famous first meeting between Mark Antony and Cleopatra in 42 BC.  On that occasion Antony granted to Tarsus the status of a free city.⁷  As a free city, Tarsus gained the right to leby its own municipal taxes, mint its own coinage, and in general govern itself.  Such free cities also were immune from the national tax that later was levied in most occupied territories of the Roman Empire.⁸

During the reign of Caesar Augustus (27 BC—AD 14) the city came under the leadership of a series of philosophers and other intellectuals.  As a result, Tarsus became an important university city.  The city’s fame as a center of philosophy and learning eventually rivaled the reputation of cities such as Athens and Alexandria.⁹

Most of ancient Tarsus lies beneath the structures of the modern city.  The only part of it to be excavated by modern archaeologists is the mound of Gozlu Kule, which lies on the southwest edge of the modern city.  This mound consists of two artificial hills that over the centuries have risen some 25 meters above the surrounding coastal plain.  Western archaeologists worked here intermittently from 1935 to 1949.

Several unfortunate aspects of the ruins at Gozlu Kule made the excavation of the site difficult.  When work began on the mound in 1935, it already was in a poor state of preservation.  The site was pock-marked with deep pits that were dug as garbage dumps in Islamic times.  This practice in effect mixed later artifacts with materials from an earlier date.  In addition, extensive French military operations took place near the site in 1921.  A series of gun emplacements and troop trenches did terrible damage to valuable data.¹⁰

Even after the work at Gozlu Kule was suspended in 1949, the many years of digging revealed only a poor suburb on the ancient city’s southwest side.  Of all the public buildings that must existed in so large a city, excavators found only parts of a Roman theater.  The rest of the dig revealed an array of small dwellings, shops, and a poorly preserved cemetery.¹¹  Most of the dwellings date to between 300-200 BC.  Unfortunately, the excavation revealed relatively little from the time when Paul lived in Tarsus.  Most of the findings from the first-century AD consist of pottery, coinage, and cemetery remains.¹²

On the basis of Acts 21:39 and 22:3 scholars long have supposed that Paul not only was born in Tarsus but spent his youth there as well.  According to this theory, Paul received a thorough initiation in Greek culture in the universities and schools of Tarsus.  He then moved to Jerusalem in his young adulthood to study under the famous Jewish rabbi, Gamaliel.¹³

More recently, interpreters have come to believe that Paul was born in Tarsus but reared in Jerusalem.  Precisely when or why Paul’s parents moved from Tarsus to Jerusalem is unknown, but the passages in Acts seem to indicate that it occurred when Paul was still quite young.¹⁴

Acts 22:25-29 informs us that Paul was born a Roman citizen.  Under what conditions his parents received their citizenship is speculation.  However, it is possible that Paul’s ancestors received citizenship from one of the important Roman generals who visited the city; men such as Pompey, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, or Augustus.  The right to bestow Roman citizenship on individuals was part of the imperial prerogative of these leaders.  Regardless, Paul must have come from a rather prominent family in Tarsus, for Roman citizens in eastern cities of the empire often were regarded as the aristocratic elite.¹⁵

Paul undoubtedly was influenced by his early contacts with Greek culture in Tarsus.  The extent to which the atmosphere of this great city affected the apostle’s thought remains a mystery.  This mystery, and others, remains buried far beneath the shops and alleys of modern Tarsus. ♦

1.      C. J. Hemer, “Tarsus,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 734.

2.      William Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul  (New York: Armstrong, 1908), 117.

3.      Hemer, 735.

4.      Hemer, 735; see Arrian, Anabasis ii.4.5 and Quintas Curtius, Historia Alexamdri iii.4.14f.

5.      Hemer, 735.

6.      David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Vol. 1: Text (Princeton, NJ: University Press, 1950), 410.

7.      Hemer, 735; Magie, 429.

8.      Helmet Kosster, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 332.

9.      Hemer, 736.

10.    Hetty Goldman, ed. Excavations at Gozlu Kule, Tarsus, Vol. 1: Text (Princeton, NJ: University Press, 1950), 3.

11.    Goldman, 3.

12.    Goldman, 16, 36.

13.    Hemer, 736.

14.    W. C. Van Unnik, Tarsus of Jeruslame: The City of Paul’s Youth, tr. George Ogg (London: Epworth Press, 1962), 52.

15.    F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1972), 234-35.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Fall 1991.

MAP SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Fall 1991.

Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s Trivia Question Found?  Who was the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites?

The answer to last week’s trivia question:  What prophet was himself the subject of prophecy? Answer:  John The Baptist; Isa. 40:3.