The Book of Acts

Acts 9 – Paul’s Blindness

When Saul meets the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, he is struck blind (9:8). While this blindness might be explained as the result of the theophany (he looked into a bright light and was physically damaged as a result, Acts 22:11 more or less implied this). But it is likely the original readers of the book of Acts would have thought this blindness was a judgment.

Paul Road to DamascusBoth Greek and Jewish often associated “being struck blind” with offending the gods/God. Keener (2:1640-2) offers a wide range of examples of this sort of judicial blindness. For example, Tiresias’s blindness was cause by Saturnia, although he is given the gift of prophecy to compensate for his blindness (Ovid, Metanm.3.335). In the Hebrew Bible, the men of Sodom who attempt to attack the angels are struck with blindness (Gen 19:11).

Perhaps the blindness is the result of the revelation Saul received. At the very least he learned Jesus is the messiah and he really was raised from the dead. As a teacher trained in reading the Hebrew Bible, Saul would have interpreted the glorious light he saw as a theophany. This would immediately associate Jesus with God in some very real way. This revelation alone would have been shocking to Saul, but if more revelation than this was given, then Saul experiences an encounter on a par with Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3.

Luke may intentionally contrast two blind men in the middle of the book of Acts. In Acts 9, Paul was persecuting the church and he is temporarily struck blind. Over three days he comes to fully realize what God has done through Jesus and he is called to be the “light to the Gentiles.” When the three days are over he is free from his blindness, but in a sense he had been blind all along as he attacked those who were claiming Jesus was the messiah.

In chapter 13 Luke introduces another Jew who seeks to hinder the preaching of the Gospel, Elymas. I plan on returning to this story later, but notice how this man is blinded and has to be led away by the hand, very similar to Saul in Acts 9. The difference is Elymas does not recover, as far as we know, and become a believer. He remains in his blind state, unable to see the truth of the Gospel.

Spiritual blindness is a well-known theme from the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Isaiah 6:9-10 is the most important context for spiritual blindness since Isaiah describes the inability of Judah to respond properly to God in the eighth century B.C. While there is a remnant of believers, the nation as a whole will reject the preaching of Isaiah. Jesus applies this verse in a very similar way to Pharisees in Matthew 13 as an explanation for teaching in parables, and later Paul will quote the verse and apply it a third time to the Jewish rejection of the gospel (Acts 28:25-28).

Saul was spiritually blind when he “saw the light” on the road to Damascus. Being healed from his physical blindness highlights his spiritual awakening. For the first time, Saul sees Jesus for what he really is, and his spiritual blindness is healed.

Acts 6 – Were Diaspora Jews “More Liberal”?

We cannot make a general judgment like “all Jews from the Diaspora were more liberal” or “all Jews from Jerusalem were more conservative.” These categories are derived from modern, Western ways of dividing an issue into opposing, black-and-white categories and highlighting the contrasts. It is entirely possible that a Jew living in a Roman city was very conservative on some aspects of the Law even though he lived and worked alongside Gentiles.Diaspora Jews

The apostle Paul is a good example of a diaspora Jew since he was a Jew from Tarsus, fluent in Greek but also able to call himself a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” in Philippians 3. He was conservative concerning keeping the law and traditions of the people.  Yet he was a Roman citizen and seems to have had little problem functioning in the Greco-Roman world. The phrase “Hebrew of the Hebrews” in Philippians 3:4-6 can be taken in several ways. This phrase may mean that Paul was born of true Jewish blood and that there is no Gentile in his lineage. It is sometimes suggested that Paul refers to his ability to speak and read Hebrew. Not all Jews spoke the language, especially in the home.  Paul claims to have come from a conservative Jewish family who maintained their distinctive Jewish practices even though they lived in Tarsus, far from Jerusalem. As J. B. Lightfoot once observed, Paul is making a progressive argument. A convert to Judaism may be circumcised. A few proselytes might claim a tribal affiliation, but Paul is a pure-bred true Jew! Paul believes that this heritage is of no value now that he is “in Christ,” but it seems evident that Paul’s Jewish heritage is one of the major factors behind his successful evangelism.

On the other hand, The High Priest, the Sadducees, and the Herodians appear to have been more relaxed concerning some aspects of the Law and had no real problem ruling alongside the Romans. But they were still concerned with keeping the Law and maintaining the Temple.  It was, therefore, possible to be “extremely zealous” in the Diaspora and extremely lax while worshiping in the Temple regularly.

Some in the Jerusalem community in Acts 6 are more committed to Jewish Christianity and are finding differences with the Jews who are more Hellenistic in attitude. This leads to the appointment of the deacons but does not solve the ultimate problem. By Acts 11, Jews living in Antioch are willing to not only accept Gentiles as converts to Christianity, but by Acts 13, Paul is preaching the gospel to Gentiles who are not even a part of a synagogue! Since these Hellenistic Jews were more open to Gentiles in the fellowship, the more conservative Jews in Jerusalem began to persecute the apostolic community even more harshly, leading to the death of Stephen and the dispersion of the Hellenistic Jews.

Acts 6 does not imply that the problem was theological. It was entirely social (Witherington, Acts, 250). Some of the Hellenists felt slighted because their poor were not supported at the same level as the non-Hellenists. The word Luke uses (παραθεωρέω) in Acts 6:1 means that one “overlooks something due to insufficient attention” (BDAG). The neglect may not have been intentional, but it was a real problem that the Apostles needed to deal with quickly.

As we read Acts 6, how deep is the divide between these two groups? Looking ahead at what happens in Antioch, Galatia, and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), does this “Hebrew” vs. “Hellenist” divide foreshadow bigger problems?

The Church in Rome Before Paul

The audio for this evening’s sermon is available here, as is a PDF handout.  Remember that you can leave comments and questions at the bottom of the page, or by clicking on the comments link just above this paragraph.

Chronologically, Romans provides the earliest glimpse at the character of the churches in the city of Rome.   Christianity came to Rome through these synagogues, likely from Jews who heard the gospel while in Jerusalem as early as Pentecost.  Paul wrote Romans in the second half of the 50’s to already existing congregations which have separated from the synagogues or were formed outside of the synagogues of Rome.

Evidence for the church developing out of the synagogue is found in Romans 16.  Aquila and Priscilla are Jewish, as well as Andronicus, Junian and Herodion who are identified as Jewish (7, 11), the names Mary and Aristobolus may also indicate a Jewish origin.  According to Acts 18:2 and Seutonius, Claudius 25.4, Jews were expelled from Rome in A.D. 49 (although Dio Cassius dates the edict of Claudius to A.D. 41, Acts and Seutonius both agree with the early date).  Just who was expelled is debated, it is hardly possible to have the whole population expelled given a Jewish population of 30,000 at the time.  It is possible just the ringleaders were expelled, people such as Aquila and Priscilla.  Perhaps only a single synagogue engaged in the rioting over Chrestus and was completely expelled.  The bottom line is that by 49 there were lively debates among Jews over who Jesus was and these debates were violent enough to attract the attention of the authorities.

Romans indicates that some Jews returned by the mid-50’s, specifically Aquila and Priscilla.  By the time Paul writes Romans, there are Jewish Christian congregations, perhaps mixed Jew and Gentile congregations, and maybe a purely Gentile Christian congregation.

How many congregations of Christians existed in the mid-50’s can be determined from Romans 16, Peter Lampe argues for at least five different Christian “islands,” but probably as many as eight, based on the following data:

  • The phrase “those with them” plus proper names is used five times in Romans 16 (5, 10, 11, 14, 15). This may indicate Paul knows of five separate house churches in Rome.
  • There are other Christian names listed who probably did not belong to the same congregation (or they would be listed with the others), so at least two more could be implied.
  • Paul lived in Rome in a rented house, likely constituting an eighth congregation.

There is no central meeting place for these congregations.  Paul hosts at least one in his house, perhaps others met with him at other times for instruction and debate.  It is not too much of a stretch to imagine Paul engaged in the sort of ministry he had in Ephesus, teaching and debating the scriptures in an informal “school” at times when people could visit – afternoons and evenings.  In addition, there is nothing which requires a “church” to meet only on Saturday or Sunday, in ten different locations at general the same time.  It is possible that ten congregations meet at various times and in various places during the week, and even some individuals attending multiple churches.

The congregation size of a house church would vary depending on the home in which the church met.  I would suggest that the churches initially met on the analogy of a Synagogue, where ten men coming together to study the scripture constituted a synagogue.  If this is the case, by the time Paul arrives in Rome in the early 60’s, there were no more than a few hundred Christian in a city of millions.

Acts 28 – Paul in Rome

The audio for this evening’s sermon is available here, as is a PDF handout.  Remember that you can leave comments and questions at the bottom of the page, or by clicking on the comments link just above this paragraph.

Paul meets with various Jewish leaders three days after arriving in Rome.  There was no centralized leadership of the various synagogues in Rome in the first century, so this sort of meeting may  have occurred many times over the next two years.  In general, these Jews seem open-minded, they have no instructions from Jerusalem, nor has anyone come to Rome to accuse Paul.  That there are no letters from Jerusalem is significant.

  • It is possible that the Sanhedrin chose to drop the case, choosing not to go to the expense of following Paul to Rome.
  • A second possibility is that travel conditions prevented letters from arriving before Paul.
  • A third possibility is that contact between Jerusalem and Rome was not particularly close – perhaps Jerusalem did not exert that much influence on Roman Jews.

With respect to Roman Law, this is a hint that the charges against Paul were likely dropped.  His accusers simply do not show up to offer evidence, therefore Paul would have been set free. Roman Jews would unlikely allies against Paul primarily because the political climate of Rome encouraged them to keep a rather low profile.  They would have had to employ lawyers in order navigate the imperial courts, an expense they may not have been able to afford at the time.

We know quite a bit about the state of the Jews in the early 60’s in Rome. There were at least four or five synagogues in Rome in A.D. 60, based on inscriptional evidence, but there were likely more, based on a population of between forty and fifty thousand Jews living in Rome at the time. As we have already seen, in A. D. 49 Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, although this likely only effected the leaders of the riots.  Claudius died in A. D. 54, after which time Jews likely returned to Rome, although they hay have “kept a low profile.”

The Jews had some support among the Romans, even in the Imperial household.  Converting to Judaism was seen as scandalous, although many were attracted to Judaism’s one God and higher moral teaching.  Nero’s second wife and consort, Poppaea Sabina was very pro-Jewish and may have been a Jewess herself.  Nero’s relationship with her began as early as A. D. 58; he kicked her to death in 64 or 65.

Paul is seen as representing a sect, or a schism within Judaism.  “People everywhere” are talking about Paul’s theology, but within the context of Judaism.  This is a indication that, at least as far as Rome is concerned, there is not yet a “parting of the ways” between Christianity and Judaism. The Greek word translated here as sect is the same used for the “party” of the Pharisees or Sadducees.  There is no negativity in the word itself in Greek, it is simply a way of describing a sub-group within a larger group.

The sect of Paul is being opposed by people “everywhere,” a word which is rare in the New Testament, but appeared in Acts 13:45 for the Jewish response to Paul after his first major synagogue speech. (The NIV translated it “speak abusively” there, the word has the idea of refuting an idea, contradicting, etc.)  This may be because the content of the Christianity in Rome primarily concerned who Jesus was (the messiah) and the status of the kingdom of God which he claimed to have established.

Acts 12 – Peter Arrested

The audio for this week’s evening service is available at Sermon.net, as is a PDF file of the notes for the service. You should be able to download the audio directly with this link, if you prefer.

In this chapter we see some significant changes in the church at Jerusalem.  James has been killed and Peter is about to die at the hands of Herod Agrippa.  It is only by a miraculous rescue that Peter avoids martyrdom in A.D. 44.

After Peter is rescued from prison, he tells the group which had been praying for him to report to James what has happened.  This is James, the Lord’s brother.  At this point in the story, we did not know that he was a believer, but he will be one of the major leaders of the Jerusalem church by Acts 15.

During Jesus’ ministry, the Lord’s family did not believe that he was the messiah.  After the resurrection we are told in 1 Cor 15:3-5 that Jesus appeared to James at some point.  We presume that after this appearance, James became a believer in Jesus as the Messiah.  James has a reputation for being an extremely zealous Jewish believer, and a leader among the Pharisees and priests who accepted Jesus.  This will be a problem later for Paul, but at this point we are only told that James is some sort of a leader in the Jerusalem church.

Some scholars have seen this passage as an indication that there is a shift in leadership in the Jerusalem community from Peter to James.  This is possible (and I would even go so far as to say probable!), but it remains only a hint in this chapter.  James, it seems to me, is a very significant leader in the Jerusalem church, although this fact is sometimes overlooked.  Since Peter is the leader of the twelve most people look to him as a defacto leader of the church.  I think this is a mistake, although Peter does continue to have some influence in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

It is significant that there is no effort to replace James the son of Zebedee after he is killed.  On the one hand, it is 13 years after the resurrection, so the pool of individuals who could be witnesses from John the Baptist through the resurrection is likely very small – even James the Brother of Jesus does not qualify as a witness under those requirements!