Book of Acts

Why Does Paul Return to Jerusalem in Acts 20:1-6?

In Acts 20, Paul left Ephesus to return to Jerusalem to deliver the collection to the Jerusalem church at Pentecost. The collection was a gift from the Gentile churches to the Jerusalem believers. Romans 15:26 states that “Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.” Romans was written from Corinth during the three months preceding Paul’s journey back to Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul tells the church to have their contribution ready when he arrives.

It may be the case that this fundraising is a response to Paul’s meeting with James, the Lord’s brother, Peter, and John in Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul says that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem agreed that the gentile convert Titus did not need to be circumcised. They only asked Paul to “remember the poor,” which he was eager to do (Gal 2:10). The “poor” in this context may refer to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who were still living in poverty. (See this post on the poor in the Letter of James.)

What is unusual is that Luke does not mention the collection in the book of Acts, although that is the point of a large part of traveling back to Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. Why Luke would omit this collection is not clear. Some have speculated that the collection was not well-received by the Jerusalem church, perhaps even rejected. It is certainly true that the scene is rather tense when Paul arrives with a large contingent of Gentiles to deliver the gift.

Sometime after the riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41), Paul resumed his plan to visit several churches in Macedonia and Greece. Paul stayed in Corinth for three months. Based on the greetings at the end of the book, it is likely he finished the Book of Romans during this stay. That he stays in Corinth shows that many of the problems present in the letters to the Corinthians are resolved, or at least that Paul can remain in fellowship with the church for some time (2 Cor 12:14; 13:1). Jews in Corinth plot against Paul, forcing him to change his travel plans (20:3).

Several people now accompany Paul on his return to Jerusalem to deliver the collection. These individuals are from churches Paul founded. These men represent Paul’s churches who have chosen to accompany Paul back to Jerusalem to deliver the collection. This large entourage may have been practical. Traveling with a large sum of money is always dangerous. No one can accuse Paul of collecting funds for himself since these men will accompany Paul all the way to Jerusalem. The group goes to Troas to meet Paul and Luke there.

  • Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, a Berean, “probably identical with the Sosipater of Rom. 16:21.”[1] “The patronymic ‘Pyrrhus’ is likewise characteristic of Macedonian nomenclature” with two inscriptions from Thessaloniki.
  • Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica. Secundus may be a slave name, whether he is now free or not.
  • Aristarchus is a Macedonian (Acts 19:29; Acts 27:2; Col 4:10).
  • Gaius of Derbe.
  • Timothy, of Lystra.
  • The Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, from Ephesus. Trophimus (Acts 21:29, 2 Tim 4:20). “The name is listed as the twelfth commonest Greek cognomen in Rome in GPR990–95; 3.1439), with no fewer than 297 occurrences. Horsley points out that its popularity peaks markedly in the first century AD (New Docs 3.91–93, No. 80).

Luke is now traveling with Paul. He is possibly from Philippi. Since a representative from Philippi is not mentioned, Luke may serve in that role. Witherington has suggested on several occasions that Luke is from that city, and he is undoubtedly a companion for the final trip to Jerusalem (Witherington, Acts, 603).

Paul leaves just after Passover (20:6), not Christian Easter. Paul is eager to arrive in Jerusalem by the time of Pentecost. This gives him fifty days, which may be enough time for favorable sea travel. What is his motivation for this haste? Paul may wish to exploit the symbolism of Pentecost, the feast that celebrates the firstfruits of the harvest. The salvation of the Gentiles is, in fact, a great harvest; the gift from the Gentile churches is an indication that God has given a great harvest among these Gentiles (Witherington, Acts, 603). Several texts in the prophets indicate that the nations would come to Jerusalem to worship the Lord (e.g., Zech. 8:20-23). It may be that Paul intends to emphasize this symbolism by timing his arrival at Pentecost– God is saving the Gentiles.

Paul’s return to Jerusalem, therefore, fulfills his commitment to “remember the poor” (Gal 2:10), specifically the Jewish Christians who still lived in voluntary poverty in Jerusalem. But more than that, Paul is enacting the eschatological pilgrimage of Gentiles to Jerusalem by bringing a gift to the Jerusalem Christian community, accompanied by representatives of Gentile Christianity.

 

Bibliography: Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 932-947. Scot McKnight, “The Collection for the Saints” in DPL, 143-147. Paul mentions the collection in 1 Cor 16:1-4, 2 Cor 8-9, and Rom 15:25-32.

Acts 7:54-8:1a – Stephen is Stoned for Blasphemy

When Stephen finished his sermon, he saw a vision of heaven standing open and the Son of Man standing by the throne of God (7:55-56). It was this vision that led to his being stoned for blasphemy.

Acts 7:55–56 (ESV) But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

At the ascension, Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. Here, he is called the Son of Man, Jesus’s title to describe himself.  This is the only place outside of the gospels where this title calls Jesus – but it is crucial here because it connects the execution of Stephen to the words of Jesus in Luke 22:69. Before the Sanhedrin, Jesus states that he, as the son of Man, will be seated on the right hand of the Father. The words of Jesus combine Daniel 7:14 and Zechariah 12 to refer to his return in judgment on the nation and the whole world.

Stoned for Blasphemy

In Luke 22:69 Jesus says he will be seated on the right hand of the father. Why is he standing in this vision? A judge would stand to condemn a person, so the Son of Man’s standing indicates that the point of the vision is a judgment on the Sanhedrin and the Jewish people in general. They have rejected the Son and the Spirit and are now condemned. Notice how the Sanhedrin react when they are told that Stephen sees (in a vision) the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

The Sanhedrin reacts with extreme fury (7:54, 57-58). They are furious and gnash their teeth. To “be furious” is literally “their hearts were torn in two.” The Greek word (diaprivw) means “to saw in two.” In Acts 5:33, the word has the sense of being “cut to the quick” (BDAG), but here, it is usually translated as “infuriated.” To gnash one’s teeth is a sign of great anger (c.f., Luke 13:28, Ps 34:16; in Matthew, the word “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is different).

They shout and cover their ears. This is a reaction to Stephen’s description of his vision. These are the people who handed the human Jesus over to be executed. For them, there is no way a human would be standing beside the throne of God. Even if there was a human was permitted to be on the right hand of God, it would not be a convicted criminal like Jesus (Witherington, Acts, 276).

They dragged him outside of town to stone him. This is a lynching. No verdict is given; the high priest has lost control of the assembly. There is no legal basis for the execution. It is simply mob violence. Think of this as a lynching.

Luke dramatically introduces Saul as a member of the group that executed Stephen. “Laying their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul” (7:58).  The word translated young (νεανίας) does not indicate Saul’s age. He might be as old as thirty but still be considered a young man in the Sanhedrin. Saul is described as having approved of the death of Stephen, and he is possibly the ringleader of the persecution that breaks out because of the stoning of Stephen. Witherington suggests it is at least plausible that Saul represents “Zionist, conservative Jews from the Diaspora” who initiated the persecution (by stoning Stephen) and led the house-to-house persecution in Jerusalem (Acts, 278).

To what extent is Stephen’s vision an apocalyptic judgment on the part of Israel that rejected Jesus as Messiah and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of the apostles? Is it fair to say that Luke’s dramatic introduction of Saul at the end of the story signals a shift in the trajectory of the apostolic mission?

Acts 7:44-50 – Stephen’s Speech: The Tabernacle and Temple

Nearing the conclusion of Stephen’s speech, he finally turns to the accusation against him that he has spoken out against the temple. He does not answer the charges. He does not answer the charges. Instead, he makes a theological argument that God never needed the Tabernacle or Temple because heaven is his throne, and the earth is his footstool (Acts 7:49).

Stephen's Speech

The Tabernacle and the temple were important elements of Israel’s worship (in the wilderness and the kingdom). Stephen does not deny that building a temple is wrong; it is not a sin; it was what God had commanded Moses to do in the first place. It was a sign of God’s favor on David that David’s son Solomon was allowed to build the Temple. Central to the hopes of the Davidic dynasty was the Temple. Just as in the first century, Jews looked to the Temple as a representation of their religious life and their hopes for a revived kingdom. David wanted to build a tent, and Solomon built the Lord a house (1 Chron 17:1-14; 2 Sam 7:2-16; 1 Kings 5:1-6:38; 2 Chron 1:14-5:1).

Sylva suggests four clear allusions to 1 Kings 8:14-30, Solomon’s speech at the temple’s dedication. These four points generally make the same theological points as Acts 7:44-50 (Sylva, 262).

  • David’s intent to find a skēnōma for God (7:46)
  • Solomon’s building God a temple (7:47)
  • The assertion that God does not dwell (katoikeō) in cheiropoiētois (7:48)
  • An assertion of God’s relation to the heavens, the earth, and an oikos (7:49, 50).

Stephen quotes Isaiah 66:1-2 to show that his critique of the temple and the leadership’s confidence in the temple is part of the long tradition of the prophets. In Isaiah, the writer emphasizes transcendence: God cannot dwell with men; he is so great that the heavens are his throne, and the earth is merely his footstool. “It is my contention that the transcendence thesis offers the best explanation of Acts 7:46–50” (Sylva, 262).

Israel struggled with the idea that God was so far above them, even though he had also promised to be with them. In the early stories, God led the people; his presence is seen in the cloud and fire in the wilderness, and when the temple is built, that glory dwells in the temple itself! But the image of a cloud for God’s glory indicates that it is not the real glory of God.

The Temple is only a shadow, a misty representation of the reality of God’s glory, which could never dwell in a temple made by human hands. Sylvia argues, “Acts 7:46-50 is not a rejection or criticism of the temple, but rather it is an assertion of God’s transcendence of the temple” (Sylva, 267). This is not much different from what Jesus said. In Mark 14:58, Jesus claimed to replace the temple with one not made by hand.

It is entirely possible that if the Sanhedrin had discussed the theology of God’s presence, many would have agreed with Stephen’s Speechephen at this point in his speech—but he takes it a bit further by comparing the present generation to those who did not understand God’s presence in the Hebrew Bible.

 

Bibliography:  Sylva, Dennis D. “The Meaning and Function of Acts 7:46–50.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 261-73; Steve Walton, “A Tale of Two Perspectives?,” in Heaven on Earth, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004), 135-  (in logos)

 

 

Acts 7:37-43 – Stephen’s Speech: Moses as both Ruler and Redeemer

This section of Stephen’s speech describes what God did through Moses, although Israel rejected God in each case. Each of these examples anticipates Israel’s rejection of Jesus (and the current rejection of the Holy Spirit). They rejected Moses as judge and ruler, even though God appointed him as both ruler and redeemer (v. 35).

Stephen’s speech

Redeemer (λυτρωτής appears only here in the NT; the noun redemption (λύτρωσις) and the verb (λυτρόω). The word group means paying the price to free something from bondage, such as freeing a slave. Redemption is a keyword in Luke-Acts. It appears in Luke 1:68 in the first line of Zechariah’s prayer, praising the God of Israel for visiting his people and redeeming them. In Luke 2:38, Anna spoke of her encounter with the infant Jesus to “who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” This is a reference to the messianic hope for the soon-deliverance of Israel. At the end of Luke, one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus says they “had hoped that [Jesus] was the one to redeem Israel.” This makes the question in Acts 1:6 more messianic and eschatological:  “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” In some sense, the “redemption of Israel” is restoring the Kingdom to Israel.

Just as Israel rejected Moses as their judge and redeemer, they have rejected Jesus as the redeemer, the one who restores the kingdom to Israel. They are now rejecting the apostles announcing the coming of the Holy Spirit and the soon restoration of the kingdom (Acts 3:16-17).

Stephen’s speech continues: Moses led Israel through the Red Sea, accompanied by signs and wonders. In Exodus, “wonders and signs” (τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα) authenticated Moses as God’s representative. In the Gospels, Jesus did signs and wonders to authenticate his announcement of the messianic age (and that he was the Messiah). Peter says this in his first sermon in Acts. Jesus was “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst” (Acts 2:22). Now the apostolic community continues to do signs and wonders to demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit as they announce the soon-coming of the messianic age (Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12).

Just as Israel rejected Moses after God demonstrated his appointment through signs and wonders, they rejected Jesus after he performed signs and wonders. They are currently rejecting the apostles performing the same kinds of signs.

Moses led the congregation in the wilderness (7:38-43). In Numbers, Moses spoke directly with God. In Acts 7:38, “the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai” and Moses received living oracles. In the context of the Golden Calf Incident, Moses is on Mount Sinai speaking directly to God and receiving the Word of God (the Law, the tablets inscribed by God’s own hand).

The fathers “refused to obey him but thrust him aside.”  The verb translated “thrust aside” (ἀπωθέω) can have the sense of reject or repudiate. In Acts 13:46, Paul uses the word to describe his listeners rejecting the word of God. Stephen’s speech began this section with the same word (they rejected Moses when he tried to defend the Hebrew slaves). When he is on Mount Sinai, they reject Moses and turn to worship the Golden Calf. After the Golden Calf incident, God “hands them over” to the worship of other gods (Acts 7:42–43). Although παραδίδωμι is a common verb in the New Testament, it is the same verb Paul used in a very similar context. After humans reject the creator and instead worship the creation, God “hands them over” three times to sin (Romans 1:24; 26; 28).

Citing Amos 5:25-27, Stephen connects the first example of Israel’s idolatry in the Torah (the Golden Calf) to the worship of Molech and Rephan, which led to the exile beginning in 722 B.C. The people “took up around the gods,” ἀναλαμβάνω has the sense of carrying something. Steve Walton suggests this is a parody of carrying the Ark of the Covenant (Walton, Acts 1-9:42, 466). The result of rejecting Moses was the Babylonian exile. Stephen changes the wording of Amos from exile “beyond Damascus” to Babylon to make Amos’s prophecy to the northern kingdom of Israel apply to Jerusalem (which went into exile in Babylon).

Israel is called “congregation in the wilderness” (7:38). Luke first used this noun (ἐκκλησία) in 5:11. Virtually all English translations use “church” in Acts 5:11 (KJV; ESV, NIV; NRSVue), but congregation in 7:38. Steve Walton suggests “Stephen is making a typological point about the believing community as in continuity with the congregation of Israel” (Walton, Acts 1-9:42, 464). Consider the number of allusions to the Jerusalem community in Acts 2-5 as an ideal Israel or a restored Israel. Translating “church” in 5:11 obscures the continuity with the Jewish people in the Old Testament and implies more continuity with Paul’s congregations later in Acts. Perhaps “assembly” (or the Hebrew qahal) would be a better translation since what is happening in Acts 2-5 is not “the Christian Church” as we know it later.

Stephen’s speech summarizes Moses’s life and argues that rejecting Jesus (and the apostolic teaching) is the same as idolatry that led to the Babylonian exile. Stephen is not the one who is blaspheming Moses; the Sanhedrin is.

 

Glen L. Thompson and Mark Wilson, In This Way We Came to Rome

Thompson, Glen L., and Mark Wilson. In This Way We Came to Rome: With Paul on the Appian Way. Lexham Press, 2023. xviii+279 pp. Pb; $29.99. Link to Lexham Press

In This Way We Came to Rome is a commentary on Paul’s travel implied in Acts 28:13–14. Paul arrived in the port city of Puteoli and stayed there for seven days before traveling to Rome. The authors aim to allow readers to travel the road Paul traveled and “see it through his eyes.” Well documented and richly illustrated, Thompson and Wilson succeed in their goal. Readers will follow a suggested route for a seven-day trip from the port city of Puteoli to Rome. Whether Paul took this exact route or not, this book will be an excellent primer for travel in the Roman world.

travel in the Roman world

The twenty-seven-page introduction covers Paul’s sea voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Puteoli (Acts 27:1-28:13).  After tracking some of the details of sea travel, the shipwreck, and Paul’s time on Malta, Thompson and Wilson describe the harbor city of Puteoli in detail. Modern Pozzuoli, Puteoli was Rome’s chief seaport at the time (17). By Paul’s time, Ostia’s harbor was silted up, preventing larger ships from sailing upriver (19). Puteoli was the main hub for huge grain ships arriving from Alexandria and goods imported into the region of Campania.

Thompson and Wilson suggest a seven-day itinerary based on the distance traveled and cities between Puteoli and Rome. This assumes Paul and his companions covered 18-23 miles, traveling 7.5-10 hours daily. A chart on page 27 conveniently summarizes this data with suggested towns for overnight stays. Citing Procopius (Wars, 5.14.6), an unencumbered person could travel from Capua to Rome in five days. Thompson and Wilson add one day for Puteoli to Capua and one day because he was not unencumbered (27). Other Acts commentaries suggest the journey took as many as ten days.

In any case, Paul would have traveled along the consular road from Puteoli to Capua, then the first 132 Roman miles of the Via Appia (the Appian Way). As the authors observe in the introduction, there is no previous description of the road from the port city of Puteoli to Capua (xvii). Italian guidebooks for Via Appia tend to focus on nearby sites and monuments. This book provides readers with what a first-century traveler would have seen and experienced. Thompson and Wilson want to help readers see this journey “through Paul’s eyes.”

Each of the book’s seven chapters covers one day of this suggested itinerary. Each chapter begins with a detailed map of the day’s journey, using ancient Roman descriptions to track possible stops in towns they passed through on that day. The authors provide detailed descriptions of each town that the travelers pass through, with plenty of references to primary sources. The chapters are illustrated with charts, maps, and plans of towns, and photographs when available. Many of the photographs were taken by the authors when they visited the locations. The descriptions of locations often cite Italian archaeology reports.

Each chapter has several maps (twenty-eight in all). Glen Thompson and Jesse Cordes used maps from OpenStreetMap and superimposed ancient roads and city features. This results in a sharp, easy-to-read map correlating ancient locations with modern streets and landmarks. In addition to these maps, the book contains forty-five photographs and illustrations. Physically, this is a beautiful book that is a pleasure to read.

Two added features make this book particularly valuable. Thompson and Wilson provide modern GPS and satellite imagery for most of the locations mentioned in the book. An appendix provides coordinates to road positions and monuments so interested readers can follow along on Google Earth or Google Street View. This data is available as a download from Lexham Press. Second, Thompson and Wilson used Topos Text. This website maps more than 6300 historic places and connects them to more than 730 ancient texts (over 257,000 ancient references). You should bookmark the page or get the app for iOS and Android to enhance your travels with Paul.

The book has several appendices. First, the authors briefly discuss the route from Puteoli to Rome found in popular Bible Atlases. Second, they discuss the rise in elevation along the Via Appia. They suggest using the coastal route to avoid Mount St. Angelo, which would have saved only about a quarter of an hour. Third, they define Mansiones and Stationes as two options for travelers to purchase food and shelter. Appendix 4 lists GPS coordinates for the places mentioned in the book.

Conclusion. In This Way We Came to Rome is a detailed study of one particular seven-day journey mentioned in the book of Acts. Although Paul may have taken more or less time on this trip or even a different route, Thompson and Wilson describe the kind of travel Paul and his companions experienced. The book is well-illustrated and will appeal to academic readers and non-professionals interested in what travel in the Roman world may have been like.

 

NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.