Acts 28:29-31 Paul's Legacy

Paul's words had the usual effect, that the Jews departed significantly riled up. Evidently the Romans allowed him to continue to stay in civilian quarters for two more years before he was either heard by Caesar, thrown in jail, or executed. Paul's final outcome is not recorded in Scripture. But it appears that his access to people who would come to him was unhindered, either by Romans or Jews, and since he preached to all, he clearly had the opportunity to preach to Gentiles.

          And so this leaves us with an unfinished book. The gospel was preached, and continued to be preached, as of the completion of Luke's manuscript, and it continues to this day. Although Paul's time on earth eventually came to an end, the work of the Holy Spirit, the carrying of the gospel to the world, continues. The letter to the Ephesians must have been written in this period, as Ephesians 6:20 refers to Paul's chains. The second letter to Timothy gives indication that Paul's end was near, based on 2 Timothy 4:6, which follows Paul's challenge to Timothy.

2 Timothy 4:1-8 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Acts 28:23-28 Paul presents the gospel in Rome

Acts 28:23-24 Paul got his opportunity to present the gospel to at least the Jews in Rome, using apologetics that showed Jesus was the fulfillment of the promises in both the Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets. As in all the other venues where Paul preached, some received the message and some did not.

Acts 28:25-28 Paul's parting words seem oddly judgmental. He closed with a challenge to them that their hearts and minds were closed to what God was saying, quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:26-27. This passage occurs immediately after Isaiah's vision of the glory of God, and his initial response, Isaiah 6:5,

“Woe is me, for I am ruined!

Because I am a man of unclean lips,

And I live among a people of unclean lips;

For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”

and the cleansing of his lips by a lump of glowing coal transported by one of the Seraphim. This suggests that Paul was attempting to communicate to the Jews the immediacy and directness of his commission from God, comparable to that of Isaiah, in terms they could relate to.

          Paul follows this quote with the same statement that got the Jews in Jerusalem agitated, that he was going to take the gospel to the gentiles since the Jews had rejected Jesus. 

Acts 28:11-22 Paul arrives in Rome

Acts 28:11-16 After three months in Malta, the centurion and Paul's traveling companions booked passage on an Egyptian ship, which had managed to survive the winter intact. The remainder of the voyage seems to have been uneventful. Their ports of call included Syracuse, on the southeastern corner of the island of Sicily, Rhegium, at the tip of the toe of the boot that is Italy, and Puteoli, on the west coast of Italy. From there they travelled overland to Rome. The legs of the voyages from Malta to Syracuse and Syracuse to Rhegium were both approximately 135 km, and from Rhegium to Puteoli approximately 320 km. The overland journey was approximately 230 km. There were some believers in Puteoli who offered them lodging, and then they proceeded on to Rome. By this time, the centurion apparently knew Paul well enough to trust him with a soldier but did not need the whole contingent. The whole journey from Jerusalem to Rome was approximately 3,400 km, not including whatever distance the boat took them during the storm that was off course.

Acts 28:17-22 Paul wasted no time in asking the leaders of the Jews in Rome to come to him. He recounted the reason for being a prisoner, although apparently he did not present the full gospel at this time. Oddly, they had not heard anything from the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem about him, but they were aware of the Christian sect and wanted to hear Paul's opinion of it. It seems uncharacteristic of the Jewish priests, the Pharisees and the Sadducees that they had not sent word to Rome of Paul and their accusations against him. Perhaps the winter had prevented them from sending messages as well, and Paul's journey, difficult as it was, had still beat their messenger.

Acts 28:1-10 The Gospel in Malta

Acts 28:1 They found out they had been shipwrecked on the island of Malta. The minimum distance between Cauda and Malta is approximately 767 km. This would not have required two weeks to cover with fair skies and following seas, but who knows where the ship had been driven in the storm. Certainly the sailors did not.

Acts 28:2-6 The natives of Malta showed great hospitality, this being the middle of the stormy season, and a storm. The irony of a minor miracle when the snake bit Paul and he was not affected (as promised by Jesus in Mark 16:18), the pagan superstition changed from thinking Paul was a murderer being punished by the gods to thinking that Paul was himself a god. The irony is that the storm demonstrated the power of the one true God, whom Paul served. The workings of God's justice were in the pagans' minds personified in a separate deity, but they had no concept of what had really happened. Paul was not in his glorified body, but he was under the protection of God and with the flow of the Holy Spirit, had been preserved with all who were on the ship with him. Whether it is the deception of Satan or the natural human tendency, it seems almost a universal tendency to assign the work of God to other agencies or beings. Of course, Paul had not yet had the opportunity to preach the gospel here, but he would over the next few months.

Acts 28:7-10 Paul's ministry that had been so effective in Asia and Achaia continued in Malta. Publius' father was healed, and then the rest of the people of the island came to Paul and were healed. We have to infer that Paul also preached the gospel while he was there, as this is not stated. But he would pray for healing in no other name than Jesus.

Acts 27:27-44 Shipwreck at Malta

Acts 27:27-32 After two weeks at sea in the storm (this was a really long-lasting storm!) the sailors recognized the signs that they were approaching land. A fathom is the distance fingertip-to-fingertip of an adult with arms outstretched to the sides, typically thought to be about 5 feet 6 inches to six feet, depending on the size of the person whose arms are used as a standard. Twenty fathoms would be about 110-120 feet or 33-36m of depth. The average depth of the Adriatic Sea is reported to be 250 m and of the Mediterranean Sea 1,500 m. The Syrtis shallows are not in the Adriatic, but in the southern part of the Med, off the north coast of Africa. So verse 27 indicates that somehow the sailors had figured out that they had been pushed north to the Adriatic.

          One has to wonder why the sailors thought they would be better off escaping from the ship in the small boat than staying with the big boat. Granted, it would only founder in very shallow water compared to the larger ship, but it would offer virtually no protection against the waves and wind. By this time, the centurion was apparently trusting of Paul, or at least recognized the wisdom of his words, and the soldiers thwarted the sailors' plan. The soldiers probably did not know that much about sailing, although perhaps they had learned a lot by observation. But they knew enough to know that without the sailors operating the ship, they would not be able to save it.

Acts 27:33-38 They had been on lean rations, no doubt, but Paul indicates they had eaten nothing for two weeks. Even under the best of circumstances, a two week fast would be trying and leave a person weakened. In order to survive being shipwrecked, they would need energy. So they ate and were encouraged by Paul's words that no one would perish.

Acts 27:39-44 After two weeks in a storm at sea, the trip ends with a scene of utter chaos. The guardian angels must have been working overtime to protect the lives of all 276 people as the ship hit a reef, the soldiers wanted to kill the prisoners, and everyone had to swim to shore or float to shore with a piece of debris. But they succeeded in getting to shore alive, all of them. 

Acts 27:18-26 The storm continues a long time

Acts 27:18-20 The storm continued; to lighten the ship they threw the cargo overboard. The day after that they threw the ship's tackle overboard. It is not clear to me why they did this. The tackle serves a purpose. Perhaps the ship was riding so low in the water that they feared being swamped and were willing to do anything to avoid that. But the storm continued, even though the ship was not swamped; the number of days is not stated here, but gradually everyone was losing hope.

          "The storms of life" is often used as a metaphor for trials and tribulations that we go through year in and year out. We do the things we know to do to try to avoid the shipwreck of life that we are certain is just ahead. But the storm continues. We lose hope because nothing we do seems to make any difference. This is not the same as the storm that struck the ship that Jonah was on, even metaphorically. In Jonah's case, he was running from God, and he knew full well that was impossible. (Jonah 1:10-12) Job was not at sea when his trials came, but he was also helpless before them; he gave evidence of losing hope. (Job 3:1-26)

Acts 27:21-26 Paul did not lose hope because he clung to the promise made by The Lord that he would testify in Rome. (Acts 23:11)  He was visited by an angel in this instance, who repeated the promise, and added that God would preserve the lives of all who were sailing on the ship. Perhaps we can infer that Paul was praying for this, that the lives of all who were with him in this storm would make it through. It may have been a bit of the human side showing up when he couldn't resist reminding them with an 'I told you so' comment. But God's grace can be seen in these circumstances. Paul's focus remained on his mission, that he would testify before Caesar. The captain of the ship lost his cargo, and would lose his ship. The price to be paid for ignoring the warnings of God's spokesperson. But they would all survive this test.  They would not run aground on the shallows of Syrtis, but on an island.

Acts 27:6-17 Stormy Seas

Acts 27:6-8 The centurion found a ship from Egypt that was bound for Italy. The next part of this segment of the trip took them close to Cnidus, which is at the tip of a peninsula on the southwest corner of modern Turkey. Cnidus is primarily known for the sea battle that took place there in 394 BC during the Corinthian war. The distance of this leg of the trip was approximately 200 km. At this point the captain of the ship probably wanted to sail due west for the shortest transit to Italy, but due to the prevailing winds was unable to, and so went essentially due south to Crete. Luke's comment that they sailed slowly and with difficulty from Myra to Cnidus suggests that they were beating into the wind, tacking back and forth, in order to sail against the wind. To sail crosswind to Crete would have been relatively quick, but would have gotten them no closer to their destination. Salmone, on the eastern end of Crete, was a voyage of approximately 200 km from Cnidus. From there they sailed on the south side of the island as far as Fair Havens, about 130 km, pretty much due west, and as Luke notes, again with great difficulty.

Acts 27:9-12 Paul was not trained as a sailor, but having seen day after day of sailing into the window, tacking back and forth, laboriously trying to advance upwind, even an observer could perceive that the voyage was difficult. Paul had the advantage of hearing from The Lord although he did not in this passage cite that The Lord had told him that the voyage would be accompanied with loss of cargo, ship, and life. (And in the end, no lives were lost, so it wasn't fully of The Lord). But Paul was an amateur so the captain of the ship and the pilot thought they could make it to Phoenix, a mere 55 km or so further west from Fair Havens.

Acts 27:13-14 So when they set out, the storm hit them. Euraquilo (Gr. eurokludon) was literally a violent east wind. Coming out of the east, one might think it would have pushed them more or less in the direction they wanted to go. Late in the fall, the weather turns nasty anywhere in the northern hemisphere. This storm is referred to as a tuphonikos, presumably to emphasize the severity of the storm as being like a tempest.

Acts 27:15-17   The ship was caught in the wind which was so violent the sailors were unable to steer it, so they were forced to simply run alee. This quickly brought them to the island of Clauda or Cauda, now called Gavdos, less than 40 km from the southern coast of Crete. The ship's boat was evidently a small boat being towed behind the larger ship, which was probably bobbing around at the end of its rope uncontrollably due to the heavy seas. So they brought it up and tied it to the main ship. It should be noted that this was a fairly large ship since it had 276 people on board (Acts 27:37). Passing by the island, they feared that the wind would drive them into the sandbars off the north coast of Africa known as Syrtis where they would founder. There is some confusion about what they let down; sea-anchor is the NIV rendering of skeuos, which could also be translated instrument or gear. In fact, according to Strong, this is a root of uncertain affinity, but is used in several other words, including things such as packing baggage, preparing equipment, preparing oneself, tackling of a ship. Lowering the sea-anchor and letting themselves be driven along could also be lowering the sail and letting themselves be driven along. The context does not seem to provide further guidance. If they lowered the sail, the wind would not be able to drive them as hard. If they let down the sea anchor, the current would have more influence on the direction of the ship than otherwise. If they did both, perhaps that would reduce the likelihood of being driven to the shoals of Libya. Whatever it was, the sailors felt this was the best way to reduce the risk of being driven southwest and running aground on the shallows of Syrtis.

Acts 27:1-5 First leg of the journey to Rome

Acts 27:1-28:16 Paul's journey to Rome has four major segments.

Acts 27:1-5 The first segment of the trip was on an Adramyttian ship, which took them from Caesarea to Myra

Acts 27:6-44 The second segment of the trip was on an Alexandrian ship that took them from Myra to Malta

Acts 28:1-10 The third segment of the trip was a three month layover in Malta

Acts 28:11-16 The fourth segment of the trip was on another Alexandrian ship which took them from Malta to Puteoli, followed by an overland hike to Rome

Acts 27:1-5 Presumably the Adramyttian ship was based out of some port along the Adramyttian Gulf on the western end of the province of Asia (now Turkey). Paul had previously visited that region on his second missionary journey, but that is probably irrelevant to the selection of this ship by the centurion. The significance of being accompanied by Aristarchus from Thessalonica is not stated, but this suggests that the centurion allowed Paul the privilege of having a friend travel along with him to provide companionship and quite possibly practical ministry such as food. Since this is written in the first person plural, it suggests that Luke also accompanied Paul on this trip. Most likely this was a commercial ship so Luke and Aristarchus could have booked passage and paid their own way. The ship made port a call at Sidon. Sailing west at that time of year may have been difficult if the prevailing winds were from the west, or it may have been just the weather at that particular time. Myra is on the south coast of what is now Turkey, a major seaport at the time, in the province of Lycia. Today there is a small town, Kale, in Antalya Province. The total distance of this segment of the trip from Caesarea to Myra was over 900 km. 

Acts 26:24-32 Agrippa - so close but no decision

Acts 26:24-29 In this interchange between Paul and his judges, we begin to see who is really on trial here. Festus thinks Paul insane. This shows how little he understood of what Paul had been saying. From the viewpoint of the world, perhaps. But only from that viewpoint that ignores the creation of the world by a God not subject to the law of cause and effect, and a priori rules out God's continuing supernatural intervention in the world. Verse 26 speaks specifically to the idea that there can be knowledge about these things. Paul says that none of these things (presumably Jesus' death and resurrection) could have escaped his notice for this was not done in a corner. And then Paul turned to Agrippa as to whether he believed the Jewish prophets. Agrippa, clearly under conviction, indicated that he was a short distance from becoming a Christian. And yet, from the later text, there is no record that he ever did.

          What are the factors that keep most of the rich and powerful from receiving the gospel and walking with Jesus?  Jesus identified several in His ministry. In Luke 8:14 He said that riches and pleasures choke out the word of God. In Luke 12:16-21 He told the parable of a rich man who focused on his treasure and ignored God. In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man, in which it appears that the rich man lived well and ignored Lazarus who begged at his doorstep. In Luke 6:22-34, Jesus summarized His teaching by saying that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. And that seems to be the bottom line. The rich and powerful put their heart in their earthly possessions or position. And that leaves no place for a commitment to Jesus. Because if Jesus is not the top priority in a person's life then that person is not truly committed. If Jesus is not Lord of all, then He is not Lord.

          It is not just the rich and powerful who struggle with the dominance of worldly stuff over the spiritual. A person at any level of income, or in any position, can still fall into the trap of valuing those things over a relationship with Jesus. Perhaps this is why the letter to the church in Ephesus, Jesus holds against them that they had lost their first love. (Rev 2:4)

Acts 26:30-32 And so the three rulers conferred, evidently not completely privately since Luke records their comments. The charges of the Jews could have been dismissed, but since Paul had appealed to Caesar, they apparently could not make this decision themselves. Festus had set up the hearing in order to determine what the charges were that were to be referred to Caesar. It does not look as though he had accomplished his purpose. 

Acts 26:1-23 Paul's defense before Agrippa.

Acts 26:1-3 The charges by the Jews are not recorded here; it is not clear when they were presented to Agrippa, but given the Roman penchant for bureaucratic procedure, there must have been some occasion on which they were allowed to make their case. Doubtless it would have paralleled the charges that Tertullus brought before Felix. (Acts 24:2-8) Paul begins with the usual pandering to the ego of the Roman ruler.

          Agrippa should have been an expert in all customs of the Jews, since he was from a line that had ruled the Jews for close to one hundred years. He was also known as Herod Agrippa II, the seventh generation from Herod the Great, whose reign began in 37 BC. Bernice was the sister of Herod Agrippa II. Not mentioned in scripture is that Drusilla, who was the wife of Felix (Antonius Felix), and also the sister of Herod Agrippa II. The transition in power from Felix to Festus dates that trial to approximately 58 AD. Agrippa was on close terms with Josephus and provided him with much information for his book on the Antiquities of the Jews.

Acts 26:4-18 Paul continues with a brief summary of his life as a zealous and devout Jew, his persecution of the church, his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to following Christ. He gave a detailed and explicit version of the words spoken to him by Christ in that encounter, specifically of his commission to go and preach the gospel to the Gentiles. These words spoken to him by Christ were not recorded by Luke in Acts 9:4-6. It seems clear that these events were indelibly marked in Saul's memory since he once again brings up the stoning of Stephen (Acts 26:10), and the goad that Jesus referred to (Acts 26:14) must have referred to his conscience, which Paul repeatedly said was clean (Acts 23:1, 24:16).

Acts 26:19-23 Paul continues with a description of his ministry declaring the gospel to the Gentiles, and then explaining what the gospel that he presents consists of. That Jesus suffered and died and rose from the dead, thus establishing the kingdom of God and fulfilling all that was promised in the Law and the Prophets, and that people, both Jews and Gentiles, should repent and turn to Him. 

Acts 25:1-27 Festus defers to Agrippa

Acts 25:1-5 When Festus became governor, the Jews attempted again to murder Paul by treachery. Whether Festus was aware of the previous plot and how it had been thwarted is not stated, but he at least prevented a similar plot. So he followed procedure and told the Jews to bring charges before him. We get here a small picture of the Roman Empire, whose bureaucratic procedures were well established, but also functioned well. As Solomon said, there is a proper procedure for everything. (Ecclesiastes 8:5-6)  And Paul referred to the proper role of government in Romans 13:3-4.

Acts 25:6-12 Festus held court in Caesarea. The Jews were not able to prove any of the charges, and Paul declared his innocence before both God and man. Festus also wanted to curry the Jews' favor.  And so Paul refused to go to Jerusalem for a trial; what would be the point?  They could bring the case to Caesarea, they had already tried to make it and failed, so he knew full well what their game was. It is not clear why he appealed to Caesar. Perhaps that was the next step in the process, to avoid being extradited to Jerusalem. Perhaps it was simply a means of putting to an end the charade that the Jews were putting on. Perhaps it was because Jesus had told him it was time to go to Rome, to carry out what was promised earlier. (Acts 23:11). Being a Roman citizen, it was his right to appeal to Caesar, and so he did.

Acts 25:13-22 Agrippa arrived in Caesarea and Festus explained Paul's situation to him. How Luke got the transcript of this conversation is puzzling. Perhaps they held open court. Perhaps a bit of wry humor by Luke, quoting Festus as saying he was at a loss as to how to investigate a disagreement over whether Jesus was dead or alive. Is this solely a matter of faith, or is it possible to actually investigate such a claim, gather evidence, apply logic, and make a determination? That is the subject of the book Knowing Christ Today, by Dallas Willard, in which the author makes the case that such questions can be investigated in such a way as to establish  knowledge of such facts. But Festus was a politician, not a scholar.

Acts 25:23-27 Festus came to Agrippa in court and publicly passed the responsibility for Paul to him. Paul had given him the perfect bureaucratic excuse to not have to take the risk of making a decision, by appealing to Caesar. It may have made him look weak, but it completely avoided the risk of alienating the Jews, whom he had just begun to rule over as governor and would have to rule for his term of office. And it doubtless curried favor with Agrippa by bumping the case up to him.

Acts 24:22-27 Felix and Paul

This narrative is a bit confusing. Felix was evidently familiar with the early church, so he postponed the hearing until the chiliarch from Jerusalem came to give his version of events. But there is no record that Lysias ever came, which seems odd. If the Roman governor told the commander to come, under Roman practice, he would come. And so the next hearing didn't happen right away. And then some days later Felix arrived with his wife, although the text doesn't mention that he ever left. Paul presented the gospel, or at least some version of an appeal to Felix to turn to God, since he discussed righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment. The text does not say what Paul said about faith in Christ. We would have to infer that the Holy Spirit was having Paul share aspects of faith that Felix could grasp. Evidently there was enough conviction through the Holy Spirit that Felix became afraid; certainly not of Paul, his prisoner, but more likely of the judgment of God.

          In a typical bureaucratic response to things not within the normal protocols of doing business (and what bureaucracy exists that doesn't mostly work by having established procedures for routine transactions?), Felix postponed any decision. At the same time, he evidently wanted or expected a bribe. He would occasionally have Paul talk to him, but there is no record he ever responded to the gospel. When his term of office came to an end, he did nothing, but left Paul in prison, as a favor to the Jews. Why do a favor for the Jews? No reason is given. 

Acts 24:10-21 Paul's defense of a clear conscience

The Holy Spirit had Paul make a direct response to the first charge. The first riot had not been caused by anything Paul did or said, but was solely because Jews from Asia thought Paul had brought a Gentile into the temple. The claim that he was evangelizing there was not the reason for the riot, and was not even true. No Gentle was present. No one came forward to say that Paul had tried to evangelize them in the temple. res ipsa loquitur.

          Paul then went on to present a case for the gospel. As a Pharisee he had believed in the resurrection of the dead, and that since he feared the judgment of God in that resurrection, he had tried to live with a clean conscience. The same statement he had made in Acts 23:1, although this time the High Priest could not command to have Paul struck for saying it. Since the Holy Spirit had Paul repeat this statement in both instances, it must have some significance. Paul stated that he served God according to the Way (hodon - a road or a manner of conduct) which was the then current reference to the church, which they called hairesin, which could be either a choice or a dissension, usually rendered as a sect. Paul emphasized that he did so in full faith in everything that was written in the Law and the Prophets. It is interesting that the Holy Spirit did not have Paul name Jesus as the fulfillment of all the things prophesied in the Old Testament, but implicitly presented the gospel to that point. Instead, he closed by repeating the statement that incited the riot at the second hearing in Jerusalem, which had set the Pharisees and the Sadducees into a heated dissension. (Acts 23:6-10)

          What was the significance of Paul's repeated statement that he had a clean conscience? Paul made numerous references to conscience in his epistles, including his own conscience (Romans 9:1, 2 Tim 1:3), the conscience of a believer (I Tim 1:5, 1:19, 3:9) the conscience of a sinner (I Tim 4:2, Titus 1:15), and the conscience of a Gentile (Romans 2:15, I Cor 8:10-12). This suggests that the Holy Spirit was attempting to communicate to the hearers (who were hopefully also listeners) that the human conscience is one of the primary means by which God communicates to all people. The Jews were privileged to have the Law of Moses and the writings of the Jewish prophets, but God practices equal opportunity. Every person alive has a conscience. A brazen sinner may have seared his conscience, but it was there. In fact, the wound of a seared conscience may cause more pain that a conscience that is sensitive to God, because God forgives and can comfort, but the scar over the wound of the seared conscience will block that healing flow of the Holy Spirit.

          Conscience is one means by which people can hear from God. The on-line dictionary defines conscience as the awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong. But God has other means by which to speak to use. He can speak to us about things that we can or should do that may not have a moral dimension, but are simply pragmatic. That would be felt as an inner voice where we just have a feeling we should do something, which we might call intuition. Another means of communication may be a sense of God's presence in our life that is not connected directly to our actions past, present, or future. Rather this sense often takes the form of a feeling of God's love surrounding us, encouraging us, comforting us, which we might label communion. Not the communion that is symbolically enacted with the elements of unleavened bread and wine, but a relational connection and experience. Of course there are also means by which God can communicate to us externally, such as circumstances (although they can have many different interpretations), through the reading of His written word, or through the words of other people. 

Acts 24:1-9 Tertullus argues the prosecution case

Acts 24:1 The Jewish leaders figured that at this point they would go back to plan A, eschewing duplicity and treachery, and try legal arguments. Having failed before with religious arguments, they brought a lawyer with them to argue their case before Felix. We have to presume that this lawyer would do a much better job of making legal arguments that the Romans would respond to.

Act 24:2-9 After the usual obsequious pandering to Felix's ego, Tertullus brings the charges. First, that Paul is the source of all the unrest that occurred, not only in Jerusalem but throughout the world (!), and second that he had tried to desecrate the Temple when they arrested him (!). He called Paul a real pest (loimos), pestilence, like a plague. It is clear that many of Paul's experiences recorded in many places in the book of Acts had resulted in riots or unrest (most notably in Ephesus, but also other places). Tertullus' argument seems to have been that regardless of the fact that it was the Jews' (or Gentiles in Ephesus) hyper-reaction to the preaching of the gospel that brought this unrest, it was Paul's fault for preaching the gospel in the first place. Of course, the real source of the unrest was spiritual kingdoms in conflict, but neither Tertullus nor Felix was going to operate on that plane. Tertullus also went on to badmouth the Roman chiliarch who had rescued Paul from the mob, which was perhaps not the wisest course of action. He did not mention that the soldier's actions were prompted by the attempt by the mob to kill Paul on the spot - twice in two days - without even completing any kind of hearing of the charges.

Acts 23:11-35 The Romans protect Paul from conspiracy

Act 23:11 The Lord appeared to Paul to encourage him. Perhaps Paul was wondering if all this chaos was really honoring Jesus, if he was fulfilling the purpose for which The Lord had sent him to Jerusalem. After all he had accomplished on the mission field, it would have been sad if he had died at the hands of a mob without having really presented the gospel. In any event, Jesus promised him that he had indeed witnessed in Jerusalem and would live long enough to do so in Rome.

Acts 23:12-22 Having failed to get the Romans to do their dirty work, the Jews decided to use duplicity and treachery to murder Paul. At least forty men committed themselves to this task. Somehow Paul's nephew heard about this plot and told Paul, who then had a centurion take him to the commander. We haven't heard anything about Paul's family before this, but apparently they had not excommunicated him. Perhaps he had evangelized them, or perhaps it was simply familial connection. With a conspiracy as large as that described, it would have been hard to keep a secret, and perhaps Paul's nephew was young enough that he was not considered a threat and happened to overhear loose talk.

Acts 23:23-35 The commander did his duty to protect Roman citizens. Seventy cavalry troops and 200 infantry was perhaps an overreaction to forty poorly armed conspirators, fanatical though they might be. At least the issue was not in doubt. The chiliarch sent Paul with a letter to the governor Felix in Caesarea. He explained the situation as he could, not mentioning that he first intended to examine Paul by scourging before finding out he was a Roman citizen. But since his attempts to get at the heart of the matter had left him mystified, and it was clearly a political issue, not a military one, he probably made the pragmatically best choice. The soldiers delivered Paul to Antipatris that night, and then the next day the cavalry took Paul the rest of the way to Caesarea, the reverse of the 120 km journey that Paul had made only a few weeks earlier. Antipatris was a city built by Herod the Great, and named in honour of his father, Antipater II of Judea. It lay between Caesarea Maritima and Lydda, two miles inland, on the great Roman road about halfway between Caesarea and Jerusalem, .

          It is not clear what the significance of Paul being from Cilicia (where Tarsus is) was, but it apparently influenced Felix to hear the case himself. Perhaps he feared to tread on another governor's prerogatives if Paul had been from Judea and the whole matter should be heard locally. Or perhaps he would have preferred to not hear the case and avoid the risk of having to make a decision, but found out that he couldn't because the rules of administration within the Roman Empire made it his responsibility.

Acts 23:1-10 Paul's defense before the Sanhedrin

Acts 23:1-5 Paul begins his defense to the Sanhedrin. The Holy Spirit's purpose in this talk has to be inferred. Paul began with a simple statement that his conscience is clear before God, which caused the high priest to have him struck on the mouth. This was a violation of judicial procedure (Lev 19:15), which Paul immediately pointed out. And then there was a little flurry of discussion about Paul's response. In calling the high priest a white-washed wall, Paul seemed to be paraphrasing some words Jesus had said. (Matthew 23:27) However, when the bystanders pointed out that he had just reviled the high priest, he recognized that was also a violation of the Law of Moses. (Exodus 22:28).

          This all occurred 20-30 years after Jesus had been crucified by the plans and purposes of the High Priest at that time, so doubtless this was a whole new generation of Jewish leaders. However, it appears that their approach to ruling was pretty much unchanged. Lacking the authority to implement capital punishment on those they believed to be heretics, they sought to get the Romans to do their dirty work. It is not clear (and never becomes clear in the Biblical account) whether their biggest issue was that Paul was bringing the Gospel to Gentiles successfully, or that he was successfully evangelizing the Jews and getting them to turn to Jesus, or that he was a threat to their privileged position. There is even the possibility that his words were bringing conviction because of their own sin and their recognition that their own belief system offered them no real release from it. (The fact that Paul looked them in the eye and stated that his conscience was clean before God could easily have made anyone who was still in their sin uncomfortable.) Acts 24:5 suggests that is the conversion of Jews to Christ-followers that was their primary problem with Paul, but that could simply have been the legal argument they presented to the Romans.

Act 23:6-10 At this point, the Holy Spirit led Paul to change tactics, although it is not clear why. Perhaps there was some hope for those who were Pharisees, as Paul had once been, that they might encounter Christ and become converted. The Sadducees were as unspiritual as modern ‘liberal’ Christians, denying  angels, spirits, and life after death. In any event, Paul appealed to one of the core doctrines of the Pharisees that were consistent with Christianity. In a brief statement, he re-opened the dispute within what was probably an uneasy coalition between Pharisees and Sadducees in leading the Jewish faith. As the parties warmed to their respective positions in the dispute, the Roman commander, who was probably mystified by the fervor of this religious debate, took Paul into protective custody again. Having established that Paul was a Roman citizen, he knew he could be held responsible if something happened to him at the hands of the mob.

Acts 22:1-30 Paul attempts to give his testimony

Acts 22:1-16 Paul related his testimony of having been educated under Gamaliel, and then zealous in persecuting the early Christians. He went on to describe his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, how Ananias came and prayed for him, and his baptism.

Acts 22:17-21 Paul went on to explain that he came to Jerusalem and prayed in the temple, when The Lord spoke to him that he could not preach the gospel in Jerusalem, and that He would send Paul to the Gentiles in distant lands.

Acts 22:22 The Jews had been listening to what Paul said to this point, but reacted viscerally to his statement that The Lord had sent him to the Gentiles, at which point they began vehemently demanding his death.

          It is a puzzle as to how the Holy Spirit determined what topics to have Paul discuss in this talk. (Luke 12:11-12) But he did not even get to the presentation of the gospel, as he was only partway through his testimony when the mob erupted and cut him short. Perhaps his credentials as a former Pharisee and also a former persecutor of the church could have gained him an audience. But the fundamental issue was that his ministry was to the Gentiles, and that was anathema to the Jews.

Acts 22:23-30 The Roman commander wanted above all to maintain public order, so he took Paul back into the army barracks and wanted to understand what was causing this riot. When he had Paul prepared to be examined by scourging, Paul played his citizenship card. Having been born a Roman citizen gave him a significant status within the Empire, which the army officer immediately realized. So he took a different tactic to find out what was the cause of all this unrest, bringing Paul and the Sanhedrin together for a face-to-face confrontation.

          One has to feel a bit of sympathy for this Roman officer, who had been assigned to pacify one of the most rebellious provinces in the Empire, who fought over trivial matters of religious doctrine, and refused in practice to accept the official tolerance of the Empire for the wide variety of religions in the lands they controlled. We don't know whether he was acquainted with the history of the Jews, the rebellion of the Maccabees against the Greek successors to Alexander, and/or their earlier history under the various other world empires, such as Babylon, Assyria, the Medes and the Persians.

Acts 21:27-40 Paul Seized in the Temple.

The Jews from Asia were not the believing Jews in Jerusalem, but the Jews who had not believed in Christ, and they had come from Asia, quite likely from the region around Ephesus where Paul had ministered for a few years. It is quite likely they knew Trophimus from their home region; from the text it seems that Trophimus was a Gentile. So they either leaped to the conclusion, or used this as a false accusation for the purpose of inciting a riot. Paul was physically assaulted, but before the rioters could kill him, the Roman army intervened to quell the riot. The Chiliarch (commander of 1,000) was unable to get any meaningful response from the mob. It is not clear if he took Paul into protective custody, or simply wanted to remove him from the mob as the focus of the unrest. The conversation indicates that the Roman officer thought he was an Egyptian who led a revolt a few years earlier in Jerusalem. Perhaps this was because of the size and violence of the mob. These assassins were not the assassins we more typically think of in history, the cult of assassins that was prominent in eleventh through thirteenth centuries A.D., and were not located in Israel, but in Western Iran, centered in Alamut. Furthermore, they were from the Ismaili sect of Islam, not Jewish. The assassins referred to here were labeled with a Roman term for a public bandit murderer, transliterated to Greek as sikarios.

          Paul indicated that he was a Roman citizen and asked permission to speak to the crowd. Being a Roman citizen was a fairly significant card that Paul only played sparingly, but here he put it to good use, to get an opportunity to present the gospel in Jerusalem.

Acts 21:15-26 Paul arrives in Jerusalem; fasting.

Acts 21:15-17  Paul and his companions travelled to Jerusalem. Evidently Mnason of Cyprus lived in Jerusalem and had a lodging capable of housing Paul and his baggage carriers. Mnason received them graciously. Since Mnason is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, we would only be speculating that he might be one of those who first became a Christian as a result of Paul's visit to Cyprus during his first missionary journey.

Acts 21:18-26 Paul's preparation to go to the temple. Paul met with all of the elders of the church in Jerusalem, and told them everything that God had done through his evangelization and teaching among the Gentiles. The response was first to give God the glory, and then to bring up the Jews who had become believers but remained zealous for the Law. The issue being that even though Paul was evangelizing Gentiles in Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia, and that Jews were also turning to Christ in these regions, that there were rumors. And these rumors were that Paul was telling the Jews in the dispersion who converted that they did not have to keep the law of Moses, did not have to circumcise their male sons, and that they did not have follow the customs of the Jews. The church elders' recommendation to Paul was to purify himself and pay the expenses of four other men who had volunteered to take similar vows. Somehow this was supposed to persuade the Judaizers that there was nothing to these rumors. The elders repeated the contents of the letter to the Gentiles, as recorded in Acts 15:23-29. Paul then followed their advice.

          There are several issues that come to mind, that revolve around the role of the Jewish law for Jews who became believers in Christ. There might be some degree of truth to the rumor, based on Galatians 2:11-16, when Paul confronted Peter over his fall into legalism because neither of them was strictly following the Jewish rules. But Paul elaborates further in this letter about the difference between salvation by grace and seeking to be justified by works. Galatians 2:16 says,  "a man is not justified by the works of Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of  Law; since by the works of Law no flesh will be justified". Galatians 3:10-14 continues to elaborate this thought. Now this is not the same as telling Jews who have believed in Christ that they should not follow the Mosaic Law. But is does reduce the value of the Law in the eyes of those who received this letter.

          Perhaps this is just a picture of the condition of the church in Jerusalem at that time, and Paul's visit there may have been for the reason of addressing this doctrinal issue. Romans 13:8-10 explains that the one who loves his neighbor fulfills the law. Paul never said that the Jews did not have to keep the Law. But as to custom, there is a very specific teaching on circumcision. The letter to the Gentiles was written on specifically that point, that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to become Christians. Romans 2:25-29 tackles head-on the issue of circumcision for Jewish believers. It is summarized in the final verse in this passage: "But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2:29) So it is fairly clear from these passages that the rumors that the Jewish believers had heard were not far off the mark.

          We then get into the politics of what was happening in Jerusalem. In the events that followed, Paul complies with a Jewish ritual of purification, as an effort to placate the Jewish believers who were zealous for the law. Perhaps this is what he referred to in I Corinthians 9:19-21 when he said that to those under the law, he became as one under the law that he might win some. It did not mean he believed in or trusted in the law for his salvation or for his relationship with The Lord, but he was willing to go through this ritual purification in order to attempt to reach out with the gospel to the Jews. But what happened ultimately shows little immediate fruit of it. It was the unbelieving Jews, the Jews who rejected Christ, who used these circumstances to attack Paul and ultimately have him arrested. And yet, this laid the groundwork for Paul's later demonstration, in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians, that the Law was unable to save, and that those who used the Law as their own justification were in fact capable of great evil, and used the Law to justify themselves in doing it.

          The actual ritual of purification would most likely follow the command prescribed for the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6, with the shaving of the head marking the end of the period of the Nazirite ritual (Numbers 6:18). Following this ritual according to Jewish custom was perhaps intended to demonstrate that Paul still respected the Law of Moses. However, it seems to be very similar to Paul's earlier actions mentioned in passing in Acts 18:18. Perhaps it is worth considering the appropriateness of various activities of self-control and self-denial in the Christian life. (see also Acts 24:25) According to Numbers 6:2-8, the purpose of the Nazirite vow is for a person to dedicate himself, or separate himself, to the The Lord. Three aspects of this vow are listed in Numbers 6:1-12.

•   The Nazirite must abstain from anything that comes from the grape, including alcoholic beverages, vinegar, and even grapes from the vine.

•   The Nazirite is to let his hair grow without being cut all the days of his vow.

•   The Naririte is not to touch or even go near a dead person. There are special provisions if he inadvertently is exposed to such a person.

The Bible records a few persons who practiced the Nazirite vows for extended periods. Samson (Judges 13:5 & 16:17), the implication that Samuel the prophet was since he did not cut his hair (I Samuel 1:11), and the implication that John the Baptist did, since he abstained from wine (Luke 7:33). It seems from Numbers 6:13-20 that the intention of this vow was for a temporary period, with a defined beginning and end, after which the person would perform a ritual offering to The Lord and then be able to drink wine. Keeping these vows for life would require that the parents begin them before the child was old enough to know about them, and then for the child to continue to observe them when he became able to choose (as Samson failed to do, Judges 14:9, 15:15, 16:17).    The implication of Acts 18:18 is that Paul was ending the period of a Nazirite vow, and the implication of Acts 21:23-24 is that the Jerusalem church elders had four men who were then in the process of carrying out this vow, and recommended to Paul that he do likewise. Is it possible that the early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, practiced this kinds of ritual self-denial, possibly not exactly the Nazirite vow, but some similar ritual, as part of their Christian life?

          The most common practice of this kind practiced among Christians today is fasting. Some believe that abstinence from alcoholic beverages is part of a holy lifestyle, while others believe it is simply a wise practice to avoid the problems that typically arise from it. Fasting cannot be a permanent lifestyle unless one is on a hunger strike and intends to die by starvation.

          When we fast, what is our purpose? There could be multiple reasons. The purpose of the Nazirite vow was to dedicate oneself to The Lord. This would have been for the sake of obedience (if The Lord had called someone to do this), or out of a desire to seek a closer identification with Him, if one felt that he or she was not in as a close relationship with Him as they would desire. The Nazirite vow was not a fast from food, except for the fruit of the vine. The Bible does speak about fasting in other passages. In several Old Testament passages, fasting was part of a season of mourning and repentance before The Lord. (Judges 20:26, I Samuel 7:6, 31:13, 2 Samuel 1:12, 12:16-23, 1 Kings 21:27, Nehemiah 1:4, 9:1, Esther 4:3, Psalm 35:13, 69:10). Fasting was also part of seeking The Lord in a time of difficulty or trial. (2 Chronicles 20:3, Ezra 8:21-23, Esther 4:16, Psalm 109:23, Jer 14:12, 36:6 & 9, Daniel 9:3, Joel 2:12-17) There are two instance where Gentiles fasted (Daniel 6:18 and Jonah 3:5) in response to being confronted by God. Isaiah 58:1-6 speaks specifically to the purposes of fasting and concludes with this statement: “Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free and break every yoke?" (Is 58:6)

Zechariah 7:2-7 speaks to whether fasts were a means to get something from God, or turn their hearts to God. Zechariah 8:19 speaks of the blessedness of fasts in a future era when Jews truly seek God.

          In the New Testament, Jesus spoke about fasting in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:16-18) primarily from the viewpoint that people should fast before God and not before men, so that God would reward them. This is also brought up in Luke 18:12 where Jesus contrasts the Pharisee with the Publican. The question of why Jesus' disciples did not fast while John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees did fast was answered. (Matthew 9:14-15, Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35) Jesus commented that His presence was like a wedding celebration - no one fasts then; but when He was gone, then they would fast. Jesus commented on deliverance that there is a class of demon that can only be cast out by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21) Jesus Himself fasted during the forty days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:2). Luke 2:37 mentions Anna who served in the temple among other ways, with fasting. Fasting was taken for granted as part of the Christian lifestyle in Acts (13:2-3, 14:23, 27:9). 

          In reviewing all of these passages, we can draw a few conclusions. Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount indicate that one ground rule is that fasting is to be a private matter between a believer and God, but seems to promise rewards from God as a result. There is a hint in the discussion about why the disciples did not fast while Jesus was present, that one of the primary purposes for fasting would be to draw close to God or experience His presence or hear His voice. The physical presence of Jesus in the flesh obviated the need for fasting to achieve any of these, but this was a unique circumstance occasioned by the Incarnation. In the comment about the category of demons that only come out with prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:21), Jesus gives clear indication that in some circumstances, we can fast towards a specific end, although it should be noted that the power to cast out difficult demons comes from God Himself. Therefore, from this view, even though there was a specific purpose and goal in this kind of fasting, the link to the efficient cause of the deliverance was that fasting invoked the power of the presence and immanence of God the Father.  Jesus Himself fasted in the wilderness for forty days; but He was God in the flesh, so He had no need to fast in order to draw close to God. Perhaps what we are to learn from this is that He still felt the need to separate Himself from the world, to deny natural appetites, in order to draw close to God the Father.

          In reviewing the words of Isaiah 58:6 quoted above, it seems clear that there is also a link to deliverance, although Isaiah does not identify demons as the affliction from which deliverance is sought. In this case, wickedness is generalized and the implication is that the yoke is bondage to sin, that oppression is part of that yoke. Through Isaiah, (58:1-12) God is speaking in the first person, to a people who have forsaken the essence of the revelation He had given them, but cling to its form. Fasting had become a ritual by which they expected God to respond to their prayers, but although they abstained from food, they still allowed themselves other pleasures of life and expected their employees to work hard. There is nothing wrong with the legitimate pleasures of life, or of hard work, but they are aspects of life in this world. It becomes clear from this passage that God's purpose and intention in fasting is to change the heart, so that those who trust God and fast will refocus their lives on Him and His ways, by denying themselves the legitimate satisfactions and pleasures of the physical and worldly existence. God's desire is to take care of the poor and to free those in bondage to sin or to other people, and from the passage in Isaiah it seems that He views fasting as primarily a means by which His people join Him in this effort, both by taking action and by turning their heart towards this end. 

          Seen in this light, the concept of fasting for a particular situation could be viewed as seeking God's presence and power in it. When Jesus spoke of casting out a particular type of demon only by prayer and fasting, could He have been saying, in effect, that it takes a very strong presence of God to do this, which requires a person to fast, in order to draw close enough to God? When Isaiah spoke of fasting in order to set captives free and minister to the poor, was he saying that the power of God's presence is needed to accomplish these things, but they (and potentially we) nullify God's manifest presence when in the physical domain we take actions to directly counter His ministry, even though we are fasting?

          It is hard to see how Paul was separating himself to God in his vow; rather, the circumstances described in the text indicate that Paul was going forward with a ritual for the purpose of appeasing the legalists. In this circumstance, it does not appear that the primary purpose of this vow was to seek God's presence.

Acts 21:9-14 Paul in Caesarea, warned of captivity in Jerusalem

Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied, but a prophet from Judea came to give Paul the message that confirmed both what he knew and what had been told him in Tyre, with just a bit more detail. Agabus did not say that Paul should not go to Jerusalem, only what would happen when he got there. Then both Paul's traveling companions and the believers in Caesarea begged him not to go. This must have been quite difficult for Paul, but he was determined that the he was called to go there. He was prepared to make his life count to the uttermost, regardless of the personal cost.

          This degree of commitment is rare in our day, but not unknown. There are still missionaries who travel to lands to preach the gospel in difficult circumstances, knowing often that the personal cost will be high. The Deseret News listed, in 2005, the names of 177 Christian missionaries who had died in the period from 1999-2005. There is no focus geographically or culturally; the rejection of the gospel and the murder of those who proclaim it has continued from the earliest days of the church to the present. Hebrews 12:1 speaks of the great cloud of witnesses that surround us, as an encouragement to reject and overcome the temptation to sin. Revelation 17:6 describes the great harlot who is drunk with the blood of the saints and the witnesses. Paul describes his view of his own martyrdom in 2 Timothy 4:6-8, where he says

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Paul is careful not to say that he will receive a special reward because of being martyred. The crown of righteousness is laid up for all who love Jesus' advent (Gr. epiphaneian). But he says very clearly that he had contended in the excellent contest, he had finished the run, and he had kept the faith. Perhaps we can infer from this that these are the elements of the drive that he had to get to Jerusalem and bear Christ's name and the gospel there.

          It might be an interesting debate on why Paul had to go to Jerusalem. The gospel had certainly been preached there, definitely on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently in the first twelve chapters of Acts. But it was the springboard for his journey to Rome. Perhaps that was the ultimately purpose behind his journey to Jerusalem - that he would ultimately get to proselytize in Rome, which he could not do on his own.

Acts 21:1-8 The trip from Miletus to Caesarea.

This trip included multiple stops and took at least five ports of call. Passing by Cyprus they landed at Tyre in Syria. Since they were stuck there for a week they visited the other believers. The distance from Tyre to Caesarea is approximately 90 km, so they could have walked it, but perhaps they did not know how long it would take to unload the ship.

          There is a curious statement about warnings to Paul not to go to Jerusalem. The disciples in Tyre kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. How exactly they were saying this through the Spirit is not clear. And it seems to have conflicted directly with Paul's determination to go to Jerusalem, which he seems to have had the conviction also came from the Spirit. How should we interpret these warnings? How did Paul interpret them? One possibility is that Paul was mistaken about his belief that the Spirit was leading him to Jerusalem, and The Lord was trying to tell him that. Another possibility, evidently the interpretation that Paul applied, was that this was confirmation that when he got to Jerusalem, he would be arrested and endure hardship.

          Paul and his companions pressed on, after the ship was unloaded, and then sailed to Caesarea with one intervening port call. In Caesarea they stayed with Philip the evangelist, one of the original seven deacons, (Acts 6:5), who was much better known for his evangelism. (Acts 8:5-40) 

Acts 20:18-38 Paul's valedictory address to the Ephesian elders

Acts 20:18-38 The Ephesian elders meet Paul in Miletus. Paul's words to them are recorded in some detail, suggesting that either Paul had written out his talking points, or else Luke was an eyewitness and took notes.

•   First, Paul talks about what he had told them, diligently telling them everything and holding back nothing, in any and every venue available (vss 18-21).

•   Second, Paul talks about his determination to go to Jerusalem, no matter what the cost or outcome, in order to complete what The Lord had called him to. (vss. 22-24).

•   Third, Paul repeats his diligence in declaring and teaching, adding now the warning that he would no longer be around to do this, and the burden would now be theirs. (vss 25-28)

•   Fourth, he warns of those who will come to create division and lead people astray,  false prophets as Jesus called them in Matthew 7:15-23. (Acts 20:29-30) 

•   Fifth, he implores them to counter these schismatics and sectarians by relentless, sound teaching (vss 31-32).

•   Sixth, he defends his own ministry, based on hard word and not being a financial burden or seeking anything from anyone, but rather working to be able to be generous to the poor. (vss 33-35).

They concluded this meeting with a season of prayer and fellowship, and Paul headed to the ship. (vss 36-38).

          As a valedictory address to the Ephesian elders, Paul included here all of the key themes of Christianity: faith in Christ; repentance; being led by the Holy Spirit; sacrificial love; faithfulness in obedience to God; redemption through the blood of Christ; the grace of God to sanctify believers; and the practice of personal holiness, as seen through generosity to the poor. All of these themes occur in various places in his letters, most of which were written after this point. (Estimated to be around AD 55.) Paul knew prophetically that he was headed for heavy seas and that the result would be that he would not be returning to Ephesus, or for that matter, to Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, or Achaia. He was prepared to make his life count to the uttermost, regardless of the personal cost, as he had demonstrated during his three previous missionary trips.