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.

Acts 20:1-17 Paul begins his return to Jerusalem

Acts 20:1-6 Paul travels to Macedonia, Greece, back to Macedonia, and back to Asia. The description of Paul's travels in this section is condensed. In six verses, Luke covers Paul's trips to Macedonia (presumably Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea), Greece (presumably Corinth, Cenchrea, and Athens), a return to Macedonia, and then a return to Asia, landing at Troas. The times and specific destinations are not given, other than three months in Greece. It is not entirely clear why, when the Jews formed a plot against him as he was about to sail from Greece to Syria, he changed his plans and went by way of Macedonia. His party of traveling companions had grown by this point to include at least six others, who are named, along with their city or province of origin.

•   From Berea, Sopater;

•   From Thessalonica, Aristarchus and Secundus

•   From Derbe, Gaius

•   From Asia, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus

But all of these went ahead onto Troas while Paul was still in Philippi. Paul sailed after the end of the feast of unleavened bread, which establishes the schedule which will come up later. It took five days to sail from Philippi to Troas, where they stayed seven days after Paul's arrival. Evidently Luke was traveling with Paul on this segment of the trip. The last autobiographical reference by Luke was in Acts 16:11. Perhaps Luke had been in Macedonia continuously since that reference, rather than traveling with Paul the whole time.

Acts 20:7-12 The story of Eutychus in Troas. During Paul's all-night sermon in the upper room, a young man named Eutychus fell asleep. Probably not the only person to have had trouble staying awake during a long message, but in this case, his circumstances were such that he fell down from a third-story window. In his great mercy, The Lord brought the young man back from the dead. Paul was not distracted from his purpose, and continued to preach, finishing his message at dawn.

Acts 20:13-17 Paul's traveling companions arrange for a meeting at Assos, and then proceed with Paul to Miletus. The abbreviated travelogue continues. Paul's companions sailed to Assos, while he traveled overland to meet them there. The hike would have been about 30 km, the sailing route farther. They then sailed on together from Assos to Mitylene. After three more port calls, they arrived at Miletus, which is perhaps as much as 50 km from Ephesus. Paul chooses not to travel to Ephesus himself, because he was hurrying to try to be in Jerusalem at Pentecost. From the feast of unleavened bread to Pentecost is a total of fifty days (the feast of weeks, seven of them, plus one day). He spent five days sailing from Philippi to Troas, seven days in Troas, and at least four days between Troas and Miletus. This adds up to sixteen of the fifty days. Pentecost is approaching fast. The path Paul took to Caesarea would be over 1,000 km. The schedule was tight. So Paul asked the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet him in the seaport of Miletus.

Acts 19:23-41 The Riot of the Silversmiths

Acts 19:23-41 The silversmiths in Ephesus riot. The Temple of Artemis in Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, in the list compiled a few hundred years BC. Artemis of the Ephesians was not identical to the Greek goddess Artemis, the merger appearing to be the result of Greek syncretism. Statues of the Ephesian Artemis were noted for being covered with bumps which were variously interpreted, but substantially different the Greek goddess of the hunt. In the superstitious culture of the Mediterranean described above, in which the sale of religious trinkets thought to bring protection or good luck to the possessor, the manufacture of these trinkets was very lucrative. So Demetrius had correctly diagnosed that Christianity would mean that people would  turn to the one true God and away from false religions, and that this would cut into the business of selling trinkets.

          The riot that followed Demetrius' rabble-rousing rushed into the theatre. Presumably this was a Roman assembly place, not the Temple of Artemis. Perhaps Paul thought this was an opportunity to present the gospel and reason with the people. However, it did not happen this time. The mob was not likely to listen to anyone presenting that point of view, and Paul's fellow disciples, and even some of the rulers who he had befriended, recognized this and kept Paul out of harm's way.  Gaius and Aristarchus had been manhandled by the crowd, and Alexander was planning to speak to them, but he was recognized as a Jew which incited the crowd. Although Paul was advocating Christianity and had been behind the bonfire of the magic books, the Jews also rejected idolatry, and the distinction was most likely lost on the mob. Two hours of shouting 'Great is Artemis of the Ephesians' must have expended some of their energy. It is oddly humorous that at this point the town clerk or scribe, likely one of the few people who could read and write and was the official secretary or administrator, quieted the crowd with a very simple speech. Oddly he defended the Christians saying they were neither temple-robbers nor blasphemers. But he was the voice of reason in a mob scene saying, we are in danger of being charged with rioting, and we can bring charges in court if needed. And so he dismissed the assembly.

          Mobs and riots are not unusual in history and seldom have they been dispersed with an appeal to calmness and the voice of reason. Typical outcomes have been:

•   The riot runs pretty much uncontained for an extended period with serious damage to lives and property, until the rioting group has expended their emotional energy

•   The riot is confronted by overwhelming organized force with the application of the power of the state, usually with considerable violence, and the crowd flees.

•   The riot is confronted by organized force that is insufficient to quell the riot, resulting in a prolonged battle with great casualties on both sides.

The amazing thing about this riot is that none of these happened. The town recorder convinced them that there was nothing worth rioting over, and somehow his words overcame their emotional fervor. Perhaps they all (rightly) feared the wrath of the Roman army.

Acts 19:21-22 Paul Lingers in Asia

Acts 19:21-22 Paul makes future travel plans. Paul pondered in the Spirit going to Macedonia and Achaia, which he had previously visited (on his second journey), and then to Jerusalem, and ultimately to Rome. However, he apparently did not feel that the Spirit was leading him to immediately embark on this journey, so he stayed awhile longer in Ephesus and sent Timothy and Erastus ahead of him to Macedonia. Sometimes, when The Lord gives us a vision or a sense of future things, we have a natural human tendency to want to run right out and start on it. But whether that is God's plan and desire requires further discernment. In many cases, The Lord is laying the groundwork in our soul for future work on His behalf, but the time is not yet ripe. In some cases, the word is given for immediate execution. So we need to be sensitive enough to His voice to go when He says go and wait when He says wait, and know the difference in what He is saying.

Acts 19:18-20 The bonfire of the books of magic

Acts 19:18-20 The lesson of what happened to the sons of Sceva was not lost on the believers in Ephesus. So great was their conviction that they came forward and confessed that they had been practicing magic of one sort or another. And wanting to be under the protection of Christ, they realized that they had to forsake all of their magical arts. We don't have details about what sorts of magic they practiced, but we have already run into a few such persons in previous chapters (Simon in Acts 8:9-13, and bar-Jesus in Acts 13:6-11), so it seems clear that this practice was widespread in this part of the world in those days. Once people turned to Christ and realized that they were dealing with demons when they practiced the magical arts, and having seen the object lesson of the sons of Sceva, they chose to have a great public bonfire of their books about magic. The total value of the books that were destroyed was estimated at 50,000 pieces of silver. If a piece of silver was typically a day's wage in those days, to translate this into modern value, it would be something like 25 years of salary. So at a typical salary of $40,000 per year, this meant that $1 million dollars’ worth of books were burned. Of course, books were much rarer and more expensive in those days, before the printing press was invented. Nevertheless, this is still a staggeringly expensive repentance.

          The practice of magic or patronage of magicians can have more than one root. For some, it may come from a desire to have some kind of power denied them in the normal physical world. This could simply be knowledge about future events or things going on that they have no way of knowing about, or influence over events that will take place. For some, it may be to seek favor of or protection from supernatural beings that they sense are lurking around them, for good or ill, that need to be influenced or controlled. And for some, magic seeks to satisfy that interior spiritual void. A final category would be those who want to cash in on all of these other motivations either for money or power over people.

          The rejection of all the magic arts goes back to the books of Moses. (Genesis 41 & Exodus 7-9 in which God demonstrated His power over them; and Leviticus 20 & Deuteronomy 18 in which all such arts were banned.) There are multiple injunctions against several different types of magic, which are punctuated with admonitions that The Lord God is the complete and sufficient satisfaction of all needs and motivations for contact with the spiritual world.  Jesus demonstrated His power over demons on numerous occasions. It is here in Acts 19 that the obvious is brought out. The magical arts that exist are part and parcel of the demonic activity associated with idolatry. Any spiritual or supernatural being or power that does not come from God, and honor God, is part of and takes part in the rebellion of evil spiritual beings against God. God's authority over these beings is sovereign. But no believer in Christ should ever take part in or even desire to be part of this rebellion. And we should not be fooled. We pray to God, we receive from God, and we honor God with our lives.

          In this instance, it was recorded after the bonfire that the word of God continued to grow and prevail. 

Acts 19:11-17 Sevens sons of Sceva

Acts 19:11-17 The Lord was performing may miracles at Paul's hands. If this were to happen today, people would suspect some kind of huckster scam. Articles of cloth were taken from Paul to sick people who recovered, and demons went out. Jesus had demonstrated this kind of power while He was on earth, Peter had experienced this flow of power in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 5:12-16. Now it was manifest through Paul, in Ephesus in Asia.

          The next story is almost humorous (although it probably was not, at the time), that the sons of a Jewish priest were attempting to use Jesus' name to cast out demons. As Jews, they evidently had not accepted the gospel, but also apparently did not understand that they had no authority to invoke His name. (One has to wonder what their father thought). The evil spirit responded truthfully; it knew Jesus and about Paul, but then mocked their lack of authority. Somehow this demoniac had enough power to subdue seven men, beat them, and tear their clothes off them.

          This story ought to give pause to anyone dabbling in the magic arts, or dealing with demons. In Jesus' name, believers have authority over demons. Jesus said so. (Mark 16:17) But it is important to understand that this promise was given to believers in Jesus. Dabbling in spiritual power is not a game for those who are not committed to Christ. They are no match for the spiritual forces of wickedness on earth or in heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:10-12) The sons of Sceva found this out. And so everyone who heard this story in Ephesus was afraid, and Jesus' name was being lifted up.

Acts 19:1-10 Paul returns to Ephesus

Acts 19:1-7 Paul returns to Ephesus. Acts 18:23 mentions that Paul passed through Galatia and Phrygia. Quite possibly he visited the same cities that he had on his first two journeys - Derbe, Lystra,  Iconium, and  Psidian Antioch assuming he traveled overland. He eventually got back to Ephesus on the western end of the province of Asia, as he had promised (Acts 18:21). By the time he got there, Apollos had already gone to Achaia and was in Corinth. In Ephesus he found some believers who had not heard of the Holy Spirit. This seems odd, since Aquila and Priscilla had been there and they had been taught by him in Corinth and then travelled to Ephesus and remained there when Paul returned to Judea. Perhaps they had returned to Corinth with Apollos. We know that as of the writing of I Corinthians, they were back in Corinth and led a house church (I Cor 16:19).

          Paul found these disciples who were not acquainted with either the doctrine or practice of the Holy Spirit. The statement that they were disciples implies they believed in and followed Jesus, but evidently their instruction had been incomplete. At Paul's hand, they were baptized in water, in the name of Jesus, and then Paul laid hands on them and prayed for them. There was a mini-Pentecost, this time in Asia, but not unlike Peter's visit to Cornelius recorded in Acts 10.  

Acts 19:8-10 Paul teaches in Ephesus. After all this, Paul spent three months presenting the gospel in the synagogue in Ephesus. He tried to persuade but some rejected it, and began to badmouth believers. He then left the synagogue and began teaching in the school of Tyrannus, which lasted for two years. At this school, Gentiles were also able to hear the gospel. There is no additional information in Acts on this school, whether Tyrannus was a believer who allowed his school to be used for teaching, or whether it was rented space.

Acts 18:23-28 Paul's third missionary trip; Apollos receives the full gospel

Acts 18:23 Paul departs on his third missionary trip, revisiting Galatia. The specific stops on this trip are not mentioned until Acts 19.

Acts 18:24-28 The story of Apollos in Ephesus is a bit of a sidebar. Priscilla and Aquila had stayed in Ephesus, and ran across Apollos. Where Apollos heard the gospel is not stated, but he had been accurately teaching about Jesus. He was acquainted with water baptism. He was teaching in the synagogue and there is no record that his teachings were rejected. But Priscilla and Aquila heard him and then explained the way of God more accurately to him. What does this mean? He was already teaching things concerning Jesus accurately. John the Baptist had spoken of the coming of Messiah, and had told people to be baptized for repentance as a preparation for His coming. The text does not indicate exactly what Apollos was teaching, but it must have been derived from John the Baptist's teaching. So although Apollos could speak from the Old Testament law and prophets about the coming Messiah, he was apparently unaware of Jesus' death and resurrection, and of the details of the atonement, the new birth, and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

          We can infer that this means that Christianity is more than the doctrines concerning Jesus. It is also about a life lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. At this time, being mighty in the scriptures would imply that he knew the Old Testament very well, and was able to explain how Jesus fulfilled all that the Law and the Prophets had promised. So one can only make the interpolation that Aquila and Priscilla explained to him about being empowered by the Holy Spirit, about hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking, and welling up from a person's innermost being to become a river of living water. In other words, the presentation of the gospel is not just about apologetics; giving the evidence can persuade a person's mind, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit to change a person's heart in response to the gospel and bring about the new birth.

          Subsequently, Apollos wanted to go to Achaia (Greece), the believers in Ephesus encouraged him, and he went there. The only specifically named city he visited was Corinth (Acts 19:1) but perhaps he itinerated through Cenchrea, Berea, and Philippi. He did not lose any of his powerful eloquence in explaining the Scriptures and was able to refute the Jews in public debate from their own scriptures.

Acts 18:18-22 Paul travels back to Antioch

Acts 18:18-22 Paul travels back to Antioch (on the Orontes). Paul's trip back to Antioch included stops in Cenchrea, Ephesus, and then landing at Caesarea the seaport about 120 km from Jerusalem. Cenchrea is a seaport in Greece not far from Corinth (perhaps 15 km). He may have evangelized there, as Romans 16:1 refers to the church there, and he greets Phoebe who is from there. The vow is not otherwise referenced, and it is not even clear whether having his hair cut meant the end of a vow or the beginning of a vow. Vows have a history in Jewish law, and so the most likely explanation is that he was completing the vow of a Nazirite according to Numbers 6:18. The purpose of the Nazirite vow was to separate oneself apart unto The Lord. Jesus had more or less discouraged them (Matthew 5:33-37), and the only other mention of vows in the book of Acts (Acts 21:23) is in reference to trying to placate the Jews in Jerusalem regarding whether Paul was an observant Jew or teaching Jews to ignore the law of Moses. (More on this below).

          Paul sailed to Ephesus, on the coast of Asia Minor, about 400 km from Cenchrea. There is no record that he had ever visited before. He visited the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews, who must have received his message since they asked him to stay. There are mentions of subsequent visits by him to Ephesus in Acts. His letter to the Ephesians was written considerably later. The reference in I Cor 15:32 is not otherwise connected to Acts; when did he fight with wild beasts at Ephesus? I Cor 16:8 implies he was in Ephesus when he wrote this letter, which most likely would not have been on this visit since he had just left Corinth and the problems discussed in the letter would likely not have had time to develop, and then word to get to him, unless he spent a lot of time in Ephesus, which Acts 18:20-21 suggests he was unwilling to do. I & II Timothy both mention Ephesus, also written at later times. Rev 2:1-7 contains a letter from Jesus to the church at Ephesus.

          It is not clear what his plan for Aquila and Priscilla was when he left Corinth; perhaps he was planning for them to travel back to Antioch with him, but he evidently felt that they were capable enough to instruct the church in Ephesus, as he sailed back from there to Caesarea. There is no mention of any other members of his traveling party, including Silas, Timothy, and Luke; perhaps they had all stayed at Corinth. Paul evidently traveled by himself from Ephesus back to Syria, a sea voyage of over 1,000 km.

          Paul landed at Caesarea and visited the church. Recall that Peter had first preached the gospel to Gentiles in Caesarea some years earlier, but no previous mention of Paul's visit there. No doubt he taught and encouraged those in the church there. Whether he went up to visit the church Jerusalem is not stated. There is no record of anything Paul did upon his return to Antioch. He spent some time, and then left for Galatia. No mention of traveling companions, meeting with the leaders of the church in Antioch, teaching in Antioch, confronting the Judaizers there. He visited, stayed a while, and left.

Acts 18:1-17 Corinth

Acts 18:1-4 Paul travels to Corinth and preaches at the synagogue. The trip overland is a little more than 80 km, along the coast. Upon arrival, he stayed with some Jews, Aquila and Priscilla, who themselves had recently come to Corinth from Rome, because the emperor, Claudius, had told all the Jews to leave. Whether they first became believers in Christ upon meeting Paul, or he simply stayed with them because they were tentmakers is not entirely clear. That they became believers is evident from later discussion in this chapter, and their mention in three of Paul's epistles (Romans 16:3, I Cor 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19). As was his custom by now, Paul presented the gospel in the synagogue and attempted to persuade both Jews and Greeks.

          Claudius ruled from 41 to 54 AD. He was previously mentioned in Acts 11:28, but that was in connection with a famine that was prophesied and later came to pass. According to secular history, he was seen as vulnerable throughout his reign, which led to his need to take action to shore up his power. During his reign the Roman Empire was expanded, including the annexation of Judea and several other provinces, and the conquest of Britannia. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome seems to have been a minor event, and may have been largely due to his rejection of proselytizing within the city.

Acts 18:5-11 Most Jews in the synagogue rejected the gospel but Paul ministers to those who do believe. Paul had requested that Silas and Timothy join him in Athens (Acts 17:15) but apparently they didn't catch up to him until after he had gone to Corinth. It appears that Silas and Timothy must have worked to support their basic needs after arriving in Corinth, so Paul could evangelize full time, focusing on the Gentiles.  The gospel was not well-received. However, since some believed, including the leader of the synagogue, he was able to continue ministering to the Jews (one suspects) although he turned his focus to the gentiles. He spent eighteen months teaching there. In view of the persecution he had previously experienced in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, perhaps he needed such assurance as The Lord evidently wanted Paul to stay in Corinth for a while. The time was fruitful for both evangelization and teaching.

          In this story of the initial founding of the church in Corinth, there is no suggestion of the later problems that will surface, that Paul had to deal with in the letters he later sent to them. No doubt, these surfaced after he left. Crispus is mentioned in I Cor 1:14 incidentally, as being one of the two people Paul personally baptized.

Acts 18:12-17 The Jews in the synagogue attempt to persecute Paul in court, but the Roman proconsul rejects their charges. When the Jews who had rejected Paul's presentation of the gospel brought Paul into court, he did not even need to present a defense. The charges were of course based on religious disputes, and perhaps the Jews thought they could make common cause with the pagans because Paul attacked both of their belief systems and religious practices. The proconsul took the very secular position that it wasn't the government's job to sort out such things. There was a new leader of the synagogue who apparently instigated the complaint. It is not clear who took hold of him and began beating him in front of the judge. Perhaps the judge should not have been so disinterested in this aspect of the proceedings, but one has to suspect he may well have been annoyed by the Jews, who could have been a nuisance on occasions before this. 

Acts 17:19-34 Philosophizing on the hill of Ares

Acts 17:19-31 Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. Areopagus is a transliteration of the Greek words which mean the hill of Ares, the Greek equivalent of Mars, the Roman god of war. The hill of the god of war seems an odd place for philosophers and visitors to spend time telling and hearing new things.  But apparently this was well enough established that the Athenians who had heard Paul preach Jesus and the resurrection in the marketplace thought he should go there, because it was strange and new to them. So Paul went and preached. This message is substantially different from the gospel that he preached to the Jews.

          Paul's sermon starts with the pagan religion of the Greeks, and quite politely praises them for their religious devotion. He then turns this to an opportunity to preach, first of all explaining that the one true God, of whom they were ignorant but (in his politeness implied) worshiped anyway. He used a philosophical argument that goes back to Aristotle's deduction that there must be an immovable mover to explain the existence of the universe. This is a very simple argument. Everything that we know in the universe has a cause. We can follow the causal chain backwards as far as our understanding will allow us, but it will never explain why the causal chain exists. Somewhere upstream in this causal chain stands a first cause that is not subject to the law of cause and effect. There must, or else nothing would exist.

          The next step for Paul is to connect this immovable mover, this first cause, who created the world and everything in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, to His present, continuing presence in the world and in the lives of people. He invokes the concept of Adam, the first human, without naming him, and the sovereignty of God over all the peoples of the earth, even though they may be ignorant of Him. His argument here is that even though the argument from first causes establishes the necessity of God's existence, we have more information than that. Every person senses a need for God (he does not quote Solomon here, but again a common theme is that God has set eternity in man's heart, per Ecclesiastes 3:11). Every person senses God's immanence, for it is truly part of the human makeup to be aware that in Him we live and move and are. In this last word, a prolonged present tense case of the verb 'to be'. God created us and we are. We exist. In Him.

          Paul was evidently well enough versed in Greek writings to quote one of their own poets, Aratus, who in his poem titled Phaenomena had said that we are His children. Except that in this poem, Aratus was referring to Zeus. The introduction to the poem is an interesting description of Zeus, which, if one were to substitute the word 'God' for 'Zeus', would not be a bad ode to God. In fact, the immanence and loving care of Zeus described in this passage are exactly germane to Paul's description of God

From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last. Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men.... [[1] http://www.loebclassics.com/view/aratus-phaenomena/1921/pb_LCL129.207.xml  ]

The poem goes on, after this introduction, to describe the constellations. Many of these constellations are familiar to us, and in fact could be identified with those named in Job.

          Paul then goes on to distinguish the God of the Jews and Christians from pagan gods by attacking one aspect of idolatry, that is, the concept that men can make a meaningful representation of God out of physical things. The idols do not represent God and the characteristics that idols represent are limited to human nature. God is transcendent and even in our highest achievements and most noble actions, He is fundamentally unlike us. Paul then goes on to deliver the gospel, that God raised Jesus from the dead. Except that Paul links this to the statement that through Jesus, God will judge the world in righteousness. This presentation of the gospel seems to omit the good news that punishment for sin was paid for by Jesus. But obviously appealing to Jesus' fulfillment of the Law of Moses and all the Prophets had foretold would not have meant anything to the Greek philosophers. These Greek philosophers were not really pagan idol worshipers, they were atheists, so it is hard to tell how what Paul said about the Greek gods would have been received.

          Paul gives us an example of how to attempt to reach people that basically have rejected all forms of faith. Much like the modern world.

•   A logical appeal to the evidence for God based on the things we can see and touch

•   An appeal to the innate sense that every person has of God's presence

•   Evidence for the love of God manifested in daily life

•   The universality of mankind's sense of God, of our responsibility before Him for our moral condition and actions, and our failure to live up to our own understanding of right and wrong

•   The transcendence of God's nature and character over human nature and character

•   The transforming power of Christ's death as atonement to reconcile us to God, as evidenced by His resurrection

This is not to suggest that this is a template for witnessing to atheists and intellectuals. We should instead look at this passage as an example of how the Holy Spirit can inspire us to shape the aspects of the gospel message that will reach the person that is the hearer. Each person and situation is unique.

Acts 19:32-34 The Athenians' response to Paul. Some of the atheists sneered at Paul's message, but apparently others indicated they wanted to hear more. Some actually believed and joined him, of whom two are named. Dionysius was evidently a member of the court of Ares that met on the hill of Ares. Being of that court suggests that he may not have been either a Stoic or an Epicurean.

Acts 17:10-18 Berea, and Greek philosophers in Athens

Acts 17:10-15 Paul and Silas in Berea. The believers in Thessalonica sent Paul and Silas away to Berea, about 80 km away. The Jews in Berea were much more receptive than in Thessalonica and met daily (not just on the Sabbath) to study the Scriptures to determine for themselves if what Paul was telling them, the gospel, was true. Many came to the conclusion that this was so and believed, as well as many non-Jews. We aren't told how long this lasted, but evidently the Jews from Thessalonica were checking up on Paul, a notorious trouble-maker (Acts 24:5). So as soon as they (the Thessalonian Jews) stirred up trouble in Berea, the believers sent them away. It appears that at this point the traveling evangelists split up. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea, but the Berean believers took Paul to Athens, a little over 500 km by land. This is hilly terrain, the route rather circuitous. Paul then asked his escorts to return to Berea and send Silas and Timothy as soon as possible.

Acts 17:16-18 Paul in Athens. Paul did not waste any time. He talked to the Jews in the synagogue, to those who were in the marketplace (most likely on business), and with Greek philosophers of the Epicurean and Stoic schools. The gospel was evidently completely outside the pagan philosophers' realm of experience.

          Stoicism's view of the universe relies on formal logic to weave physics and ethics into a unified whole. It is entirely naturalistic, allowing no place for anything that includes spiritual or emotional sources. The universe's operation is defined by causal physics. Ethics are derived from what is. As a result, Stoics believe life is best lived by aligning oneself to the universe. Perhaps the best known attribute of Stoicism is their approach to this life, developing and practicing self-control to enable them to overcome emotions and think logically and clearly. For a Stoic, virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with nature, according to Bertrand Russell. Stoicism was quite popular among the Greek and Roman leadership; elements of Stoicism persist to this day.

          Epicurean philosophy is also materialistic and naturalistic, allowing no place for superstition or divine intervention. It differs from Stoicism in that it defines pleasure as the greatest good, but pleasure was defined by Epicurus as a modest life based on knowledge of how the world works and limiting one's desires. This approach leads to a state of tranquility, freedom from fear, and the absence of bodily pain. Epicureanism differs from hedonism in that Epicurus defined freedom from pain as the highest pleasure. Although this sounds to most of us as being very close to Stoicism, in the day of Paul, Epicureanism and Stoicism were considered opposing philosophies.

          The commonality between the Stoics and Epicureans is that both rejected pagan mythology, and religion in general, as a means of understanding the universe, due to its explanation of events by supernatural causes. They also rejected ethics based on supernatural revelations or commands. They were well acquainted with Greek and Roman mythology, and probably were also aware of Jewish traditions. However, they had not heard of Jesus and the resurrection and so considered this to be a new religion, but from their perspective, subject to the same objections as all of the other religions they were acquainted with.

Acts 17:1-9 Rioting in Thessalonica

Acts 17:1-4 Paul and company travel to Thessalonica where Paul preaches. The Holy Spirit must have been leading Paul regarding what cities to stop in, since he passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia without sharing the gospel. His custom was to start by taking the gospel to the synagogue. After three weeks some Jews joined Paul and Silas, along with many Greeks. The text does not say whether the leading women were Greeks or Jews or some other category. Since he reasoned with the Jews in the synagogue on the Sabbath for those three weeks, it seems likely he spent many of the other days of the week sharing the gospel with non-Jews, although no details are given, since many Greeks joined him.

Acts 17:5-9 The Jews attack the believers. Whether this was jealousy because of the choice of some of the Jews to follow Jesus, or because the gospel was well-received by many Greeks, we cannot tell. However, the Jews were not above inciting non-Jews from the marketplace to start a riot and then attack Jason's house. Jason was not previously mentioned but it seems clear he must have been one of those who joined Paul. Based on his name, it seems likely he was Greek rather than Jewish, but again it does not say. The accusation at least bears the marks that they had heard something of what Paul was saying, since the accusation in Acts 17:7 is reminiscent of the charges raised against Jesus (Luke 23:2). At this early stage in church history, it seems odd that they would say that these men (Paul and Silas) had upset the world (anastatosantes - stirred up, excited, unsettled). They had been to four cities in Asia Minor and only one city in Greece. Granted, the events in Philippi had made the magistrates there uncomfortable, but that was scarcely upsetting the world. From the Jewish viewpoint, their homeland, Judea, was being evangelized, but it seems unlikely that would have upset the Greeks, for whom Judea was a backwater province. When they failed to find Paul and Silas at Jason's house, they realized they had no real charges against Jason and the other believers. It is not stated what pledge they received from Jason, but perhaps the magistrates realized that they were following in the path of the magistrates in Philippi and wanted to avoid public embarrassment.

          The opposition to the spread of the gospel seems almost demonic in its intensity. Jews who rejected the gospel were following in the path established by the Jewish priests and elders who had rejected Jesus and had stirred up the mob against Him. (Matthew 27:20).  The response of the Greek mob from the marketplace seems disproportionate to the events, suggesting that the Jews who were inciting them got a much bigger reaction than they ever got in sharing the Jewish law with the Greeks. Perhaps this suggests that sharing slander and tale-bearing, stirring up people's emotions through anger and hatred is a much easier thing to do than encouraging them to live in a fashion that is righteous and loving and honoring of God. But it also hints at a possible level of spiritual opposition to the gospel entertained by the Jews who rejected it.

          Paul makes reference to the opposition to the gospel in I Thessalonians 2:2, following on the heels of their persecution in Philippi. He also makes reference to the suffering of Jason and the other believers. (I Thessalonians 2:14) In his letter, Paul goes on to mention that he sent Timothy to them since he could not himself return to them. There does not seem to be anything in this passage that suggests a need for the focus of his later letter to be on the second coming of Christ.