Book of Acts

This account of Paul’s vision in the Temple is new information that was not found in the earlier part of Acts. In Acts 9, Ananias tells Paul that God is sending him to the Gentiles. But in Acts 22, Paul does not say Ananias told him about his commission, but God himself tells Paul this while Paul was worshiping in the temple. This is a significant change Paul may have made to appeal to the audience: Jews who worship in the Temple. Paul emphasizes this vision because he was in the Temple praying when he received it. How could he now be accused of desecrating the Temple?

Paul says that he “fell into a trance.” This word “trance” is usually translated as “amazed” or “astonished”, but in this passage and in Acts 10-11, it is clearly used to describe a state of viewing something supernatural, such as Peter’s divine calling. There may be a reason for using this phrase here, to parallel what happened to Paul with what eventually happened to Peter in Acts 10.

The content of this vision is a warning that he will not have success among the people of Jerusalem. Because of this, scholars often draw parallels between Paul’s experience here and Isaiah’s vision in Isaiah 6. Both occur while they are praying in the temple, and both are told they will not have success. But this is where the parallels end. Isaiah remains in Jerusalem and continues his ministry, knowing that a righteous remnant remains in the city. Paul is explicitly told to leave the city.

When did Paul receive this vision (in the chronology of Acts)? Acts 9:29-30 indicates Paul came to Jerusalem briefly and tried to reason with the “Grecian Jews.” This threatened Paul’s life, and the brothers helped him leave for Tarsus. However, Luke does not tell us that Paul was warned in a vision.  Galatians 1:18-21 mentions a trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. This is either the same trip as Acts 9:29-30 or another later trip. Acts 9 is not very clear in chronology, but three years may have passed before he finally went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles.

The Lord tells Paul that he has been sent to the Gentiles. While Paul objects to this commission based on his approval of Stephen’s execution, the Lord sends him “far away” to the Gentiles.

Hearing that Paul was sent to the Gentiles gets the Jews to demand that he be killed (22:22-29). Why?  Because they shout and throw dust cloaks into the air, it appears that they take Paul’s speech as blasphemy. Rather than accomplishing his goal (reconciliation with the Jewish crowd), he has angered them even more. The seeds of the nationalistic rebellion against Rome are already present in Jerusalem in the late 50s. The revolt begins only about eight years after Paul causes a riot in the Temple. The nationalistic fervor that fuels the rebellion is already at work in the Temple.

There are several differences between Luke’s narration of Saul’s encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 and Paul’s version in Acts 22. For example, he omits Paul’s bold preaching in Damascus and his flight from Damascus after preaching Jesus as the Messiah in the synagogues there. In Acts 22:17-21, Paul says he received his call to go to the Gentiles in a vision while worshiping in the Temple, something Luke did not mention previously in Acts. In fact, in Acts 9, God tells Ananias to inform Paul of his commission. Most of the differences can be explained as Paul’s accommodation to the zealous and hostile Jewish crowd he was addressing. Only a short time before this speech, the crowd was about to take Paul outside the city and execute him for profaning the Temple.

In Acts 22:12, Ananias is described as a devout Jew, someone who keeps the Law, and is respected by all the Jews living in Damascus. Devout (εὐλαβής) is the same word Luke used to describe Simeon in the Temple (Luke 2:25) as well as the devout men in the temple who were in the Temple at Pentecost (Acts 2:5) and the devout men who buried Stephen.

Ananias’s speech is slightly different in Acts 22 when compared to Acts 9. The way he describes God and Jesus is very Jewish. The “God of Our Fathers” and “Righteous One” are typical phrases used for the God of the Hebrew Bible. That Jesus is the Righteous One is found in Luke-Acts only in Jewish contexts (Luke 23:47, Acts 3:14, 7:32,13:23; Witherington, Acts, 672). So Ananias is a “devout man according to the Law” with a good reputation in the Jewish community in Damascus (22:12-15). Luke described the Jewish men at Pentecost as “devout men” (εὐλαβής), and devout men buried Stephen (8:2). In both cases, the word refers to diaspora Jews who are loyal to the Law.

Unlike Acts 9, Ananias does not tell Paul that God has called him to go to the Gentiles. Why? This is probably because Paul wants to emphasize his divine calling and waits to share this calling until the Lord calls him from the Temple. No details about his vision, conversation with the Lord (Acts 9:10-16).

Ananias tells Paul what “the God of our fathers” has appointed him to be. The phrase used for God appeals to a Jewish audience (3:13; 5:30; 7:32; 24:14). Paul’s calling is expressed in three clauses: To know his will (the purpose and plan of God), to see the Righteous One (God? Jesus?), and to hear a voice from his mouth. Ananias functions as Jesus’s prophet, delivering a message from God to Paul. Essentially, Paul will be a witness to all he has seen and heard (22:15).

Ananias then tells Paul to be baptized, to wash away his sins (22:16). Try not to read this like a modern American baptism. What would a Jewish person mean by saying “wash away your sins”?  This is an unusual way to express the command in Greek. Luke uses an aorist middle (quite distinct from the aorist passive). The nuance of meaning ought to be “go baptize yourself”). This may imply that Paul was to baptize himself in a mikveh, as we have observed several times in Acts.

Paul’s version of his encounter with Ananias in Acts 22:12-16 is different than Luke’s version in Acts 9:10-19, but this is because Paul is summarizing what happened and presenting it to a hostile Jewish crowd in a way that should make them more favorable to him. Would a well-trained Jewish man like Paul (who was accepted by a righteous Jewish man like Ananias) really profane the Temple?

At the end of chapter 21, the Roman soldiers rescue Paul from an angry mob in the temple courts. It was rumored that Paul brought a Gentile into the temple, an act so offensive that it was likely that Paul would be killed if the Roman commander had not stepped in and rescued Paul. This was no humanitarian act; the Romans suspected Paul was either a Sicarii or perhaps the Egyptian, a messianic pretender who had recently attempted to gather followers by claiming he would collapse the walls of Jerusalem. Remarkably, the Roman tribune allows Paul to make a defense before the hostile crowd.

Speaking to the Roman soldier, Paul proved that he was not an Egyptian, but an educated, Greek-speaking citizen of Tarsus and of Rome. As a result, he is allowed to speak to the crowd. Although he addressed them in Aramaic and described himself as a man zealous for the Law and one who has met God himself, he does not convince them, so the Roman commander arrests him.

Paul does not address the charges against him. He states he is a Jew, educated in Jerusalem, and called by God to a messianic role of Light to the Gentiles. Barrett suggests Paul’s conversion was not from Judaism (to Christianity), but within Judaism. “Luke wishes to make it necessary to show that the conversion was within and not from Judaism” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1031).

Paul addresses the crowd in Aramaic, demonstrating that he speaks the “local language.” The Jewish crowd was already hostile to him and thought he defiled the temple (and is therefore worthy of death). By speaking in Aramaic, he demonstrates that he is not a Hellenistic Jew unfamiliar with the language spoken in Jerusalem. Luke says he spoke in Hebrew (Ἑβραΐς). Most scholars think this refers to Aramaic, since Hebrew was used for the study of Torah rather than for conversation. When Paul speaks in Aramaic, the crowd becomes even quieter. Luke uses a noun (ἡσυχία), a respectful silence, indicating they are willing to hear what Paul has to say. He is at the top of the stairs, speaking loudly as an orator could, so the crowd can hear him.

Paul opens his speech by claiming to be a faithful Jew by sharing his personal credentials (22:3-5).  The whole speech is designed to impress a Jewish audience zealous for the Law” (Witherington, Acts, 668). He states that he is a Jew born in Tarsus but raised in Jerusalem (22:3). Unlike the Romans, who would be impressed by his Tarsus citizenship, the Jewish audience would be more impressed by Paul’s association with Jerusalem. “It is probable that Luke meant that Paul received not only his higher but also his elementary education not in Tarsus but in Jerusalem” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1035).

His education is impeccable: he was a student of Gamaliel (22:3). In Acts 5:34, Gamaliel defended the apostles before the Sanhedrin. He was the pupil of Hillel, one of the greatest of the Rabbis. His decisions and opinions are cited in the Mishnah. Paul does not claim to be a Pharisee in this speech, although he will in Acts 23:6. By claiming to be a student of Gamaliel, he is associating himself with one of the most respected teachers in Jerusalem.

At that time, Paul was as zealous for the Law as the crowd is now (22:3-5). This zeal took the form of violent action against those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul calls upon additional witnesses here since his authority to arrest followers of Jesus came from the High Priest and “council of elders.” They can attest to his zeal for the Law. Like Phineas or Judas Maccabees, Paul was willing to use force to compel fellow Jews to keep the Law completely if it was necessary.

Paul calls on the high priest and the Sanhedrin as witnesses. They authorized his mission to Damascus, and there would be some on the council who still remembered (perhaps bitterly) Paul’s betrayal (or conversion) to the Way.

After a riot breaks out on the Temple Mount, a Roman commander (the Tribune) sees the trouble and takes Paul to the barracks (Acts 21:31-36), thinking that Paul is a terrorist known as “the Egyptian.”

The crowd followed the Romans, maybe thinking that they were going to have him killed. There was a Roman fortress at the NW end of the Temple Mount that overlooked the Temple (the Antonia). Feast times were often of nationalistic pride and unrest (recall this around the time of Pentecost). The Roman authorities would likely be keeping a close eye on events around the Temple.

Once in the barracks, Paul speaks Greek to the Roman soldier, surprising the Commander. He thought that Paul was “The Egyptian.” This is a historical link between the Book of Acts and Josephus. Josephus mentions a Messianic pretender who appeared while Felix was governor and led about 30,000 into the desert (JW 2.261-263; Antiq. 20.169f). Luke says that it was more like 4,000, an estimate that is probably closer to the truth.

The NIV translates the followers as “terrorists.” The Greek is “Sicarii”. The Sicarii were a loosely organized band of Terrorists who would circulate among large crowds with hidden knives and assassinate noblemen. (Latin, sica is a knife.) They were responsible for killing the high priest Jonathan, son of Annas. Josephus reports that the activity of the Sicarii to the time of Felix (JW 2.254-57; Anitq. 20.162-65, 185-87), so the commander wonders if Paul is one of these urban assassins.

This Egyptian led his followers into the wilderness. Josephus mentions many who led their followers out into the desert to await the Messiah or the end times. The Qumran community, the authors of the DSS, are among the groups that separated away from the Jewish religious establishment by going into the desert. Jesus also spends time in the desert (the temptation, Mark 1, etc.) The Romans attacked the Egyptians, killing 400 of their followers, although the Egyptians themselves escaped.

The Roman centurion may have arrested Paul, thinking he was this terrorist, and was surprised to find out that he was not Egyptian. Perhaps the soldier thought he was arresting a wanted criminal; he might not have stopped the crowds had he known that Paul was not opposed to the Romans. Greek was commonly spoken in Egypt due to the influence of Hellenism.

Paul then says that he is a citizen of Tarsus and a Jew. Paul may be insulted to be considered an Egyptian. Jews who lived in Alexandria resented being called Egyptians (Witherington, Acts, 662). Instead, Paul identifies himself as a Jew and a citizen of Tarsus.

Paul asks for permission to speak to the crowd, and is granted it. Why would the Commander allow Paul to address the crowd? Paul has demonstrated that he is an educated man, fluent in Greek, and a citizen of a major city of the Empire. This level of social status affords Paul some privilege. The commander recognizes this and allows Paul to address the crowd.

Witherington points out that people in the ancient world were judged by the place of their birth; much of their honor derived from their citizenship in an important town (Witherington, Acts, 663). In addition, we know that Paul has dual citizenship, both of Tarsus and of Rome. This was not common, but there are some references to dual citizenship in the ancient world, even among Jews.

Paul was seen on the Temple Mount when he sponsored a vow for some young men. Jews from Asia spread the misunderstanding that Paul was preaching against the Law and the Temple, and accused him of bringing a Gentile into the temple. Who are these Jews from Asia? Asia refers to the Roman province, so they are most likely from Ephesus. They have come to Jerusalem, perhaps arriving for Passover and staying through Pentecost. Since Paul spent almost three years in Ephesus, he was known to these men. They recognized him and knew he was a troublemaker in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41). They had previously seen Paul in the city with Trophimus, a Gentile likely from Ephesus. They assume that Paul brought the Gentile into the Temple courts, where Gentiles were forbidden (the Court of the Men).

To “stir up” (συγχέω) often has the sense of “throwing into confusion” (BDAG). It is the word used in LXX Genesis 11:7, 9 for the “confusion” of the languages at Babel and Acts 2:6 for the response of the crowd when they heard the apostles speaking in tongues (Acts 2:6). The only other use in Acts is 9:22, the response to Paul’s conversion and Christian preaching in the Synagogue.

The charge brought against Paul was that he brought a Gentile into the Temple. This would be a serious offense, worthy of death for both Paul and the Gentile. The Jews did not allow women or Gentiles into the central courts of the Temple, believing them to be unclean. Although the Mosaic Law did not specifically forbid Gentiles from entering the Temple courts, by the first century, Herod the Great had expanded the Temple courts so that there was a large area where everyone was welcome, the Court of the Gentiles.

A four-foot-high wall divided the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts, and at least two warnings have been discovered warning Gentiles from entering the area. Tacitus, Hist. 5.8 know of these rules, and Josephus mentions the warning inscription that separated the outer courts (Ant. 15.417; War 6.125-26). He says the inscription was in Greek and Latin, so Gentiles could read the warning (War 5.194). The two inscriptions known today are only in Greek. Phileo (Embassy, 212) states that the Romans knew of the penalty for entering unauthorized areas. The larger inscribed stone was discovered in 1871 and is now in the Istanbul Museum. Another fragment was found in 1935 and is not in the Israel Archaeology Museum.

The Asian Jews accuse Paul of teaching against the Law and the Temple. Did Paul teach against the Temple? In Romans 12:1, Paul instructs believers to present themselves as a living sacrifice. In Ephesians 2:14, Paul says Jesus’s death destroyed the “dividing wall of hostility,” often taken as a reference to the warning on the balustrade dividing the Gentiles from the Jews in the Temple. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul describes the church itself as a living temple growing into a suitable dwelling place for God.  If Paul taught his congregations that they were the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16-17) and a spiritual temple (Eph 2:19-22), then it is possible that the Ephesian Jews who accused Paul of speaking against the Temple were aware of Paul’s teaching (Keener, Acts, 3:3152).

Is this violent reaction credible, or is Luke exaggerating the situation for rhetorical reasons? There is evidence that indicates there were zealots in Jerusalem in the mid-first century who were willing to use violence to guard the sanctity of the Temple.

m.Sanhedrin 9:6 He who stole a sacred vessel [of the cult (Num. 4:7)], and he who curses using the name of an idol, and he who has sexual relations with an Aramaean woman— zealots beat him upon the spot.

A priest who performed the rite in a state of uncleanness— his brothers, the priests, do not bring him to court. But the young priests take him outside the courtyard and break his head with clubs. A non-priest who served in the Temple— R. Aqiba says, “[He is put to death] by strangling [Num. 18:7].” And sages say, “[He is put to death] at the hands of Heaven.” (Translation from Neusner, The Mishnah, 604

Philo, Spec.Laws 2.253 And such a man will never entirely escape, for there are innumerable beings looking on, zealots for and keepers of the national laws, of rigid justice, prompt to stone such a criminal, and visiting without pity all such as work wickedness, unless, indeed, we are prepared to say that a man who acts in such a way as to dishonour his father or his mother is worthy of death, but that he who behaves with impiety towards a name more glorious than even the respect due to one’s parents, is to be borne with as but a moderate offender.

As Keener points out, many ancient cults had similar violent reactions to perceived desecrations of their temples. A violation could result in a rebuke (like a man who entered the temple after eating garlic) or a violent death (for entering a sacred area) (Keener, Acts, 3:3149).

The charges are not true. Paul did not bring a Gentile into the Court of the Men. The charge comes from “Jews from the province of Asia,” quite possibly from Ephesus. They would have been the most likely to recognize Trophimus as a Gentile convert and Paul’s associate. These men are never referred to as disciples, implying that they are Jewish pilgrims.

What is remarkable is the silence of the Jerusalem Christians – no one comes to the defense of Paul! James Dunn speculates: “Could it be that the Jerusalem Christians left Paul (like Stephen) to stew in his own juices?”