4. The Preaching of Paul

4.1 Introduction

Luke has recorded direct speech in seven of Paul’s Gospel addresses, plus some sort of description in many others. Of the speeches, one of these is in a Synagogue at Antioch Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41), and closely parallels Peter’s address at Caesarea. Two of them are open-air sermons to pagan Gentiles: Acts 14:8-20 at Lystra, and Acts 17:22-34 at Athens. Two of them are personal autobiography: Acts 22:1-29 before the Jerusalem mob, and Acts 26:1-32 before king Agrippa. The remaining two are brief addresses to individual Gentiles in authority over him: Acts 16:25-34 to the Philippian Jailer, and Acts 24:10-25 to Felix.

It has been pointed out how Luke often presents pairs of events in order to provide two witnesses, and these seem to be examples of such a scheme. In some cases there is a contrast as well as a strong similarity between the pairs, as will be seen. For example, the same message leads Gentiles at Caesarea to salvation and Jews at Antioch to rejection.

With regard to the programmatic statement of Acts 9:15-16, “But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel’”, three of the seven speeches are to ordinary Gentiles, two are to ‘kings’ (Roman rulers), and two to Jews. It can therefore be seen that Luke has taken care to illustrate the way in which the Apostle served as a witness to the name of Christ, in each of these contexts.

The messages will be considered in pairs, following as closely as possible chronological order.

4.2 Synagogue Addresses

There are eleven times where Luke records that Paul preached in a synagogue, plus the occasion at Rome which actually took place at Paul’s lodging, but served the same purpose of taking the Gospel first to the Jew. For most occasions there is very little recorded of the message itself. The table below lists these events:

 The only occasions where a sermon is recorded is at Antioch in Pisidia. The simplest explanation for this is that Paul’s method of discourse in the synagogue usually followed the same pattern, so Luke only needed to give us one address in detail. This suggestion is supported by Luke’s own words in Acts 17:4 where he records that “Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” Paul followed a predictable pattern—when he arrived at a town he first presented his message in the Synagogue. In Acts 19:8, Luke reports that Paul was “reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God.” This phrase is a shorthand that assumes that the reader already knows what ‘the things’ are.

For these reasons, I am assuming that Luke has chosen the message given at Antioch to be a good representative of Paul’s usual style of synagogue discourse. The brief descriptions given on other occasions support this assumption. He preached “from the Scriptures”, the death and resurrection of Christ, and that “Jesus is the Christ”. The table above includes a reference to Apollos’s ministry because his message was derived from Paul through Aquila and Priscilla. It is not surprising, therefore, that what he taught falls closely into line with Paul’s own teaching.

Paul at Antioch in Pisidia

The following tables compare the sermon of Paul in Antioch to the previously considered message given by Peter to the household of Cornelius at Caesarea. The overall outline is the same as that given earlier for Peter’s speeches, but the structural similarity between these two sermons is even closer, and this will be noted section by section.

A. Sermon Introduction

The introduction has four parts: 1) a historical preamble; 2) a proclamation that Jesus has been sent by God as a Saviour for Israel; 3) a reference to the preaching of John the Baptist; and 4) at Antioch there was an intensified repetition of (2)—this word has been sent to them. The order of these elements is not precisely the same in each account, and in two places I have changed the sequence in the Caesarea account in order to better show the correspondence of ideas. This has been indicated by square brackets. This slight change in order does not significantly diminish the close parallel between the two messages.

The historical preamble is appropriate to the audience, and is very different in content between the two messages. In the address to Jews, Paul surveys their history from the Exodus, through to the raising up of David. Several phases are described:

God exalted them and brought them out

God destroyed seven nations and distributed their land

God gave them judges until Samuel

They asked for a king 
God gave them Saul

God removed Saul and raised up David

God promised a seed

The point of the message is that God has faithfully brought them through to each new phase of their covenant history, in spite of their rebellion. Paul ends the historical preamble with God’s promise to David of a seed. He will take them into the next phase of their covenant relationship.

Both accounts stress that Jesus was sent to Israel. Both of them refer to the baptism of repentance that John preached, and the implication is that the audience knew about him. In Paul’s speech he adds v.25 which heightens the expectation of the promised seed. Paul ends the introduction by repeating that they themselves are the heirs to this long-awaited promise. He includes, ‘and to those among you who fear God’, which is very similar to Peter’s ‘in every nation whoever fears him’.

B. “they Crucified Jesus”

Both accounts specify precisely that it was the Jerusalem Jews who committed the crime, and that Jesus was hung on a tree, as one accursed by God. Peter was a witness to these events, but Paul was not. Instead, Paul substitutes the witness of the Prophets whose words have been fulfilled. It is important for Paul to tie the crucifixion into his historical prologue and show that it was no mistake, but was in fact exactly what the prophets had foretold.

C. “but God raised him up again”

The parallel between the two sermons is very close here. Both state that it was God who raised Jesus up, and that this event was witnessed. Both make the point that not everyone was a witness of the risen Lord, but only his disciples. They are the ones who were selected to be his witnesses to the people.

D. “and exalted him to the throne”

In both cases there is an announcement at this point that it is this message of the resurrected Christ, that is to be declared. Both speakers emphasize that it is God who has fulfilled this. There is a slight difference in emphasis—Peter testifies that Jesus is ordained to be judge, whereas Paul declares that the resurrection is the fulfilment of his promise to the fathers. But these amount to the same thing, since the promise was for a ruler to sit on David’s throne.

Both preachers invoke the testimony of the Scriptures at this point, but Paul is much more detailed in his explanation. Effectively he continues the historical narrative, broken off after v.22. Just as God had raised up Israel out of Egypt, and raised up David, so he had raised up Christ in exact accordance with the promises in Psalm 2, Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10. Peter quoted from Psalm 16 in his first sermon and Paul follows exactly the same line of argument—that David lies in the grave, so the promise must refer not to himself but to his seed. The idea of being ‘raised up’ also includes a vindication motif. Jesus was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Tim 3:16) even though the Jews had condemned him.

The context of the quotation from Isaiah 55 fits perfectly with the final section of the sermon as it appeals for repentance, “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (Isa 55:6-7)

E. “so repent so that your sins will be forgiven.”

Both Peter and Paul close with an appeal to believe so that their sins will be forgiven. Peter says, “through his name”, and Paul, “through this Man”, but they are equivalent statements. The difference is that Paul adds some theological explanation, and ends with a curse.

The statement “by him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (v.38-39), explains that Christ is a source of justification which is superior to that of Moses. Paul is once again working with the theme of a new phase in covenant history, and here he comes to the climax—the law of Moses was not ultimately able to justify, but pointed forward to Jesus Christ! Now he has come, the law has ceased from its function. Such a conclusion must have been startling to the Jews, to say the least, especially when one considers that the man whom Paul proclaims as replacing the law, died as an outcast from the covenant.

In Habakkuk 1:2 the prophet cries out to God in complaint that he allows such wickedness in Israel and does not intervene. God answers that he will intervene in a horrific judgment on his own people for their apostasy, by removing them from his land. Paul has shown a progression through history which culminates in Jesus Christ. The stream that flows through Abraham and David runs directly to Christ. The Jews view Jesus as being outside of this stream, cut off from the covenant, but Paul tells them the opposite is true, it is they who risk being sidelined. What Paul is saying to the Jews amounts to an ultimatum—unless they embrace Christ, they will cease to be the people of God, they will be outside of the next phase of covenant history.

Paul’s synagogue dialogue

Many of the references to Paul’s preaching in the synagogue indicate that he followed a method of dialogue or discussion . In doing this he was following the synagogue model of debate. We have an example of this style in the book of Romans, which is patterned in the format of questions and answers.^[40] Examples can be found in Acts 17:2, “Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures”, and also in Acts 18:4 and 18:19.

That he continued using the same style outside the synagogue can be seen from Acts 17:17: “Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there”, and also in Acts 19:8-9, “And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.”

Discussion

To summarize, the two sermons are very close in structure and in content, but Paul has a much more highly developed argument from redemptive history. It could be argued that since his preaching was not supported (here at least) by the miracle-working testimony of the Spirit, and he could not claim to be giving an eye-witness account of the events, it was necessary for him to give more attention to the testimony of the Old Testament than Peter needed to give.

Another explanation is that Peter and Paul were men of different backgrounds and with different gifts. Peter was a fisherman, and Paul had received a rabbinic training which gave him a massive knowledge of the Old Testament. Now that his understanding had been unlocked by Jesus Christ, he was able to develop persuasive arguments from redemptive history.

Both sermons are received joyously by Gentiles, but at Antioch, the Jews are split in their response, and eventually drive Paul from the region.

One further comment is that it is interesting to ask why Luke should place a sermon of Paul in parallel with one of Peter? Peter and Paul are the two great Apostolic figures of Acts, and by pairing their sermons Luke is showing the unity of the Gospel message, as it spread from Judea to the rest of the world. These two figures, one standing over the first part of the book and the other standing over the last, preached essentially the same message.

4.3 Preaching to Pagan Gentiles

Only twice do we have a record of Paul’s preaching to Gentiles who have little or no contact with the Old Testament. Bruce comments: “If the address at Pisidian Antioch in Ch. 13:16 ff. is intended to be a sample of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to Jewish and God-fearing audiences, the present address may well be intended as a sample of his approach to pagans.”^[41] The message he gives is very different to his synagogue address, but there are also some similarities.

We should not expect such preaching to insist on the fulfilment of OT prophecy, as preaching to Jews and God-fearers did; instead, an appeal to the natural revelation of God the Creator is put in the forefront. Yet this appeal is couched in language largely drawn from the OT. Martin Dibelius points out that the speech at Lystra shows dependence on the LXX—even more (he thinks) than the later speech at Athens does.^[42]

Audience and Context 

Both contexts describe an idolatry that is excessive to the point of being ridiculous, and which shocked Paul. The Lystrans were so superstitious that they were prepared to identify Paul with Hermes and Barnabas with Zeus, and even to sacrifice to them on the spot. Horrified, they “tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude” (14:14). The Athenians displayed a level of idolatry that caused such a reaction in Paul that “his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols” (17:16).

Both the Lystrans and the Athenians interpreted Paul’s religion in the framework of their own. To the Lystrans, the miracle showed that he was one of their gods. To the Athenians, he was merely the proclaimer of another god, whom they happened not to have heard of yet. One of Paul’s main concerns is to distinguish himself radically from this conception, and to show that the God he proclaims is utterly outside their own framework. In both cases it was the idolatry that provided a point of contact for Paul.

Paul points out the rational failings in their systems, and sets the living God against their idols. The Lystrans have failed to observe that Paul and Barnabas are ordinary men of flesh and blood and the Athenians’ own system exposes their ignorance. Although Paul uses persuasive reasoning in both cases, the style is one of proclamation. He announces the true God and demands that they turn to him.

The arguments here are almost identical. The creation itself bears witness to a God who is, by definition, greater than his creation. In 17:25 Paul uses language similar to that of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!”(1 Kings 8:27). It is also reminiscent of Isaiah 66:1-2, “Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, And all those things exist”

There is not a pantheon of gods, each responsible for one aspect of the universe, but one God who created everything, and provides directly for his creation.

If the first witness provided by Paul is the creative work of God, the second is his providential care. In 14:17 Paul uses the word witness, and in 17:27 tells them that God’s providence is intended to direct them to himself. In Athens he refers to their preappointed times “—by which, following the analogy of the Lystran speech in Ch. 14:17, we are probably to understand the seasons of the year by whose sequence annual provision is made for supplying men with food.”^[43]

It has been pointed out^[44] that Paul’s words are chosen to directly contradict the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers. The Stoics believed in cosmic determination and natural law, whereas Paul says that a personal God controls all events. The Stoics taught that deity was impersonal and distant, but Paul says that “he is not far from each one of us” (17:27). The Epicureans said that the soul perishes with the body, and the general Greek view of history was of an endlessly repeating cycle, but Paul announces that “he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness” (17:31).

Paul’s use of quotations from pagan philosophers has caused some problems. These quotations, from Epimenides and Aratus, when seen in their original pagan contexts, do not teach the one true God. However, by quoting from them, Paul is not validating their belief systems but demonstrating that their paganism was self contradictory. They claimed to be the offspring of God, and yet worshipped gods of stone and metal, inferior even to themselves.

Yet even so, he does cite their philosophers as being truthful. As N. B. Stonehouse has put it, these writers,

as creatures of God confronted with the divine revelation were capable of responses which were valid so long as and to the extent that they stood in isolation from their pagan systems. Thus, thought which in their pagan contexts were quite un-Christian and anti-Christian, could be acknowledged as up to a point involving an actual apprehension of revealed truth.^[45]

These verses could be taken to mean that God was not concerned about their sins up to this point, and they were not guilty, but the statements that God had not left them ‘without witness’, and had provided some means for them to ‘grope for him’, indicate that they were still culpable, and repentance from their idolatry was demanded. “His ‘overlooking’ their errors betokened not indifference but patience”.^[46] If before they had some excuse for their errors, now they had none.

Just as for the Jews, the coming of Christ brought in a new phase of covenant history, so did it also for the Gentiles. The difference is that Jew and Gentile were entering the new covenant from different directions, and so the historical preamble had to be different, but at this point the messages converge. The proclamation that now is the time to repent and be forgiven runs through both kinds of messages.

The call to repentance is present in both sermons, albeit in a slightly different place. The repentance is from idolatry, in contrast to the repentance demanded from the Jerusalem Jews which was from rejecting Christ, although, as we can see from Stephen’s speech, the Jews themselves were guilty of idolatry. In Athens, Paul adds a reference to the judgement at this point, and uses it as a bridge to proclaim the risen Christ. Although the reference to Christ was minimal here, one must remember that these two speeches are Paul’s first ground-breaking addresses to these audiences, and those such as Dionysius who ‘believed’ (17:34) must have received further instruction.

The popular idea that his determination, when he arrived in Corinth, to know nothing there “save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” was the result of disillusionment with the line of approach he had attempted at Athens, has little to commend it.^[47]

It seems that neither message received an overwhelming response, but there is no hint given by Luke that Paul regretted the sermons. The fact that Luke gives us this pair of very similar addresses indicates that this was a representative message to such an audience. Maybe it was also a representative response.

Discussion

It is clear that Paul accurately understood the beliefs of those he was addressing, and was not just blasting them for being pagans. On the one hand, he used reason and attempted to persuade them, but on the other, he never appealed to them to make a choice based on whichever sounded most rational to them. The truth was proclaimed, as it was to the Jews, and their responsibility was to accept it.

Paul made no reference whatever to the Scriptures for two reasons. First, they would have carried little weight with his audience, who would have viewed Judaism as just another religion, with its own set of religious literature. Secondly, Paul’s Old Testament arguments presupposed a fairly good understanding of salvation history. In order for his audience even to understand his reasoning, Paul would have had to have spent a long time training them in Old Testament concepts.

Nevertheless, the ideas he presented are firmly rooted in the Old Testament, and the call to turn from idolatry is an echo of the prophets’ call to Israel to turn away from the foolishness of worshipping images of wood and stone (e.g. Isa 44:9-20). What is more, there is a parallel between the call to Israel to believe on the basis of God’s gracious dealings with them in the past, and the call to the Gentiles to believe because of the blessings that he has given them. There is an echo, not only of God’s goodness as a Creator, but also of the Noahic covenant:

While the earth remains,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease. (Gen 8:22)

The reference to a judgement to come parallels that of the Caesarean address in Acts 10:42, the curse on unbelieving Jews at Antioch (13:40-41), and the reasoning with Felix (24:25).

In summary, perhaps the most important thing to be learned from Lystra and Athens is that Paul adapts the message to his hearers, and is sensitive to where they are in their understanding and what they will accept as an authoritative argument. He is also careful not to be misunderstood as ‘just another religion’, but takes pains to distinguish his Gospel from their current beliefs, as Van Til has pointed out:

Then we must surely do what Paul did, tear our garment when men would weave our message into the systems of thought which men have themselves devised. We must set the message of the cross into the framework into which Paul set it... the doctrines of creation, providence and the consummation of history in the final judgement... the only method that will suffice is that of challenge of the wisdom of the world by the wisdom of God.^[48]

4.4 Paul’s Autobiographical Speeches

Paul implores the Roman commander for an opportunity to address the Jerusalem mob (21:39) and permission is given to him. One might have expected him to have used this occasion to present some of his finely honed arguments from the Old Testament, or at least refer to the cross and the resurrection, but Paul chooses not to do so.

At first sight it seems strange that Luke should have included three separate and fairly full accounts of Paul’s conversion and commissioning. It would be useful to compare all three narratives so as to understand the distinctive emphasis of each one. The similarities and differences are noted by Bruce:

This speech is closely parallel to the speech delivered before the younger Agrippa (Ch. 26:2-29), but along with the virtual identity of the subject-matter there are subtle divergences of style and presentation between the two speeches, each of which is specially adapted to its audience. Here he emphasizes his education in that very city of Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel the Elder, his zeal for God such as his hearers were showing that same day, a zeal which he had expressed by harrying the infant Christian community in Jerusalem and elsewhere. He speaks here as a Jew to Jews; “the brethren” at Damascus to whom he went with letters from the high priest and Sanhedrin (v.5) are Jews, not Christians; he emphasizes the part played in his conversion at Damascus by “Ananias, a devout man according to the law” (v.12).^[49]

In both cases, Paul presents his conversion and commissioning as a defense. Before Agrippa it really was a legal defense, but before the Jews he voluntarily uses the law court metaphor as he presents the evidence. There is a similarity between the two accounts, down to the detail of Paul motioning with his hand and asking for a proper hearing.

The wording here is very similar to that which Paul uses in Galatians 1:11 ff. Longenecker argues that in Galatians 1:14, “ here should be taken only as ‘an ardent observer of Torah’—as it appears also in Acts 22:3”.^[50] He goes on to say, “What Paul is insisting on is that as far as his standing in Judaism is concerned, his credentials are impeccable”.^[51] However, Dunn points out that the term ‘zeal’ had a special meaning to the Jews: “In Jewish circles the classic examples of such zeal were well known: Simeon and Levi (Gen. 34;... ). It is notable that in each case this zeal led to taking the sword to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness as God’s covenant people.”^[52] That Dunn’s interpretation is correct will be seen from Paul’s next words, found in 22:4-5 and 26:9-11. The main example of zeal in the Old Testament is found in Numbers 25:11-13:

Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with my zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in my zeal. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.’

This interjection is found only in the third account, and is a plea to Agrippa to see how irrational is the accusation against him.

That a faithful Pharisee believed in the resurrection of the dead, and saw no fulfilment of Israel’s ancient hope apart from the resurrection, went without saying. But the amazing and indeed absurd feature of the present dispute was that he was being prosecuted for his proclamation of this very hope—and prosecuted by Jews of all people!^[53]

Paul can even call upon the high priest to testify of his zeal—to purify Israel from the apostates. In both cases he emphasizes that he was guilty of their deaths, following the model of Phinehas. He believed that to serve God was to be contrary to Jesus of Nazareth (26:8).

Paul was addressing the mob in Jerusalem who considered themselves zealous for the law, but Paul had exceeded them in his zeal, by even going to foreign cities to root out apostasy. Once again he mentions that this was done with the official blessing of the highest religious authority.

In both addresses, Paul mentions that the light was from heaven, that it was great, brighter than the sun, and that this happened at noon, when the sun was at its brightest, and so the special light would have had to have been that much brighter. Paul may have been alluding to Isaiah 9:1-2, “In Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.” cited by Matthew (4:14-16, cf. Luke 1:79). He also is almost certainly alluding to God’s creative work, since when he makes a connection between light and salvation in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”, there is a strong parallel drawn between the old creation and the new.

It is also likely that Paul had in mind Isaiah 64:1, “Oh, that You would rend the heavens! That You would come down!” which continues: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” (Isa 65:17). So the vision that Paul receives is associated with God’s new creative work, as foretold in the prophets.

Hedrick, in his detailed comparison of these three accounts, says:

Up to this point the similarity among the three accounts is striking—they are virtually the same! The dissimilarity in the verses that follow, however, is as great as is the similarity in the verses compared above. It is the latter “half” of the narratives that gives each its own distinctive formal character.^[54]

Jesus identifies persecution of Christians as being persecutions of himself, and so identifies Paul as an enemy of the covenant, rather than its defender.

There is a slight variation in the order of words here, which should warn us that Luke does not intend to give us the exact chronology of the conversation. That does not mean that he is in error, just that we must not impose on him our own standards of word-for-word reporting.

There is a repetition in all three accounts of the statement that Paul is persecuting Jesus. The word ‘kick’ is interesting. In only two places in the Old Testament does the verb (baa-at =kick) occur, and in both places it is associated with the apostasy of Israel: “But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; You grew fat, you grew thick, you are obese! Then he forsook God who made him, And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation” (Deut 32:15); and “Why do you kick at my sacrifice and my offering which I have commanded in my dwelling place, and honour your sons more than me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel my people?” (1 Sam 2:29). This identifies those who persecute Christ as those who kick against the covenant of God and even Christ, the “Rock of his salvation”. By implication, the Jews who continued to persecute Christians out of supposed zeal for the law, were in fact, kicking at the very covenant they claimed to be defending, just as Israel had done long ago.

Here the accounts differ: before Agrippa, Paul condenses the commissioning from Christ into the Damascus road experience. Bruce points out that this difference can be explained by Paul’s sensitivity to what would be important to each audience:

It was important to emphasize on the present occasion that the commission which Paul received from the risen Christ was to a large extent communicated by the lips of this pious and believing Jew, Ananias of Damascus. In the later speech before Agrippa there was no call for this particular emphasis, and so the substance of what Ananias said to him in the name of the Lord is there included in the words spoken by the heavenly voice on the Damascus road (Ch.26:16-18).” 

At this point, where the accounts diverge, the distinct emphasis of each version can be observed. Whereas in Acts 9, Ananias was a ‘disciple’, in Acts 22 it is pointed out that he was devout according to the law, and that this fact is witnessed by other Jews. At every step, Paul is repudiating the charge that he is the lawless one—it is the Jerusalem Jews who are the covenant violators. Detail is removed from the Acts 22 account, such as Paul’s fasting, where it does not serve the purpose of his message.

This section was important in the Acts 9 setting, where there is interest in the impact of the conversion of Paul on the believers, but Paul omits it from his later testimony.

At the hands of a devout Jew, Paul received an immediate (i.e. miraculous) healing.

Here we have a significant difference between the three accounts. The commissioning in Acts 9, is told to Ananias; in Acts 22, Ananias tells Paul; and in Acts 26, the event occurs later in the temple. There is no necessary contradiction here—all three events could have occurred, but what is interesting is that a different one is brought to the fore in each case. In Acts 22, “The Jewish matrix of Paul’s commission is highlighted by the description of Ananias as a ‘devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there’ (v.12); and the Jewish flavor of the episode is strengthened by the expression ‘The God of our fathers’ and the messianic title ‘the Righteous One’ (v.14; cf. 3:14).”^[55]

When speaking in Jerusalem, Paul deliberately delays mentioning the Gentiles at this stage, probably because he is aware that it will be the last thing he says! In both addresses Paul is called to be a witness of the things which he has seen and heard. As mentioned earlier, this motif runs through the book of Acts from beginning to end.

The quotation from Isaiah 42:6-7 (a servant song) is most significant because Luke applies the same words to Christ in Luke 2:32. Here in 26:18, Christ applies them to Paul as he continues to do the work of Christ (cf. Acts 1:1). In Isaiah 49:6 they are applied to the prophet, and in Acts 13:47 Paul applies them to himself. Christ is the true Israel—the perfect suffering servant of God, but as he lives and works in his servants, the prophecies apply to them, as Paul says, “I... fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” (Col 1:24).

Traditionally, the climax of Paul’s testimony has been assumed to be his conversion, but the emphasis given in these two addresses is on his commissioning.

Paul’s own testimony, that his commissioning to preach Christ to the Gentiles was given him in his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, ought to be accorded greater importance in discussions of Paul’s conversion and of the origin of his characteristic and distinctive theological emphases. Paul’s conclusion, ‘therefore to the Gentiles’, seems to lie closer to the root of his theology than has generally been recognized.^[56]

This commissioning is patterned after the Old Testament prophet. Indeed, the Isaiah 42 passage which he quotes is one of commissioning the Servant of the Lord. Paul uses “terms which recall those in which the prophets Jeremiah [fn. Jer 1:7 f.] and Ezekiel [fn. Ezek 2:1,3] received their commissions in earlier days.”^[57]

The accounts totally diverge at this point. In the Jerusalem address, Paul pictures himself as the faithful Jew, returned to Jerusalem and praying in the temple. He reminds his hearers that his zeal had been so great, that he had beaten and killed believers—surely “people who knew his former record would be more readily convinced that his change of attitude must be based on the strongest grounds.”^[58] And with the description of his previous zeal still ringing in their ears, Paul tells of his commission to the Gentiles, but they will hear him no further.

Before Agrippa, Paul uses the conclusion of his speech briefly to explain the Gospel message that he preached to both Jews and Gentiles. It was “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance” (26:20). The basis on which they should do this is that the eschatological time of fulfilment has arrived in which “the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (26:23). For the first time in Acts there is a hint of a more developed view of salvation, in terms of it being a union with the resurrected Christ (cf. Rom 6:4-5; 1 Cor 15:20-23).

The mob is not enraged against Jesus as long as he is a Messiah to the Jews alone, but what angers them is Paul’s doctrine that Jesus Christ has replaced the boundary markers of the old people of God. This can be seen in the expostulation of Acts 21:28, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” What drove them to a murderous fury was Paul’s teaching concerning the Torah, the Land and Temple, and the election of Israel, three of the “four pillars of Second Temple Judaism”.^[59]

Their response to Paul, as he stands before them under Roman guard, is almost identical to their response to Jesus in very similar circumstances: “And they all cried out at once, saying, ‘Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas’” (Luke 23:18). Before Agrippa, Paul is declared innocent by the Roman ruler in the same way that Pilate found no fault in Christ. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to do more than note that these are two of many^[60] parallels between Luke and Acts which serve to identify Christ with his followers.

Bruce suggests that the arguments were beyond Festus: “things to which a sensible Roman could attach no meaning”^[61] but Agrippa better understood the issues. We have an example of Paul’s dialogue style, as he challenges the king to believe the message, but he brushes Paul off.

Discussion

Here were two golden opportunities for Paul to present his Gospel message, but at first sight it looks as if he has passed them over in order to give his testimony. But on closer examination, what he says can be seen to be a Gospel message that is perfectly adapted for each particular audience.

The issue in Jerusalem was focused on Paul’s dealings with the Gentiles. One might ask why Paul had to be so firm on that point—after all, surely the main goal was to evangelize these Jews, and then when they were converted they could be brought round to a friendlier relationship with the Gentile converts. To argue thus is to totally misunderstand the heart of the Gospel. The Jews wanted the Torah plus the Messiah, because they idolized their Law and boasted in their distinctiveness as a nation. The Law was intended to be a temporary system, pointing forward to Christ, but they had made it their boast, and were so zealous for the law that they had killed the Law-Giver. It was designed to promote love, but they had turned it into an instrument of hatred (Gal 5:14-15). Their zeal for the law had been turned on its head and shown to be against the Lord. Like an Old Testament prophet, Paul calls Israel to come back into covenant relationship with their God, and stop kicking at his goads.

Superficially it seems that the choice that Paul puts before them has to do with whether they would accept the Gentiles into the covenant or not, but in reality he is facing them with the question: “Is your trust in your own status as God’s chosen people, guardians of the law, or are you willing to consider them worthless and trust only Christ?” As Paul says in Philippians 3:5-8,

...circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.

The issue of the Gentiles was at the heart of their refusal to accept the salvation that Christ brought, and Paul was faithful in not glossing over the issue, but drawing attention to it.

The speech to Agrippa ends with two separate statements concerning Paul’s Gospel: verse 20 is an appeal for repentance, and verses 22 and 23 are a proclamation concerning the person of Christ If we compare these with his other recorded messages, we see that the proclamation of Christ usually comes first and is the basis for the appeal, but irrespective of the order, the usual elements are present.

4.5 Preaching to Individual Gentiles

There are two further evangelistic occasions where Paul’s direct speech is reported—the Philippian jailer and Felix. Both of these are individual Gentiles who it seems have no Old Testament background, and in both cases Paul was their prisoner. There is no parallel in the structure of the addresses, so they will be dealt with separately.

The Philippian Jailer

A remarkable difference between the sermons of Peter and of Paul is that even though miracles accompanied Paul, he did not link them into his Gospel message. In fact, the only occasions where this was ever done was at Pentecost, or soon after. We do read that miracles continued to bear witness to the Apostles, as in Acts 14:3, “...the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands”, but on occasions, such as here and at Lystra, when Paul could have linked the miracle into his message, he did not do so. When Peter did interpret miracles, they were a sign of Christ’s exaltation, and his subsequent outpouring of blessings at Pentecost, i.e. a sign to the Jews of the inauguration of the new age, spoken of by the prophets. This finding contradicts those who claim that miracles were an integral part of New Testament preaching.

The actual message had two parts to it, a proclamation and an appeal, as with all the messages examined up till now (except Acts 22 where the appeal is implicit). Although the appeal to believe comes first here, Paul immediately follows it with “the word of the Lord”. In Acts 26:23 he claims that the message he always preaches is “that the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” So we can assume that this is what he explained to the jailer and his household. It is wrong, therefore, to claim that all that needs to be preached is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved”, without a proper explanation of who Christ is, and what he has accomplished.

Felix

This speech presents some difficulties in that there is no mention of Christ. It could be answered that it is primarily a legal defense, yet in Acts 24:25 when Paul is speaking to Felix on a personal level, he continues to use exactly the same kind of language. The issue of righteousness appears in both verse 16 and 25, and the judgment to come is mentioned in verses 15 and 25. Christ is mentioned in verse 24, and in the context of Paul’s use of the term righteousness elsewhere, we must assume that he explained the righteousness that is ‘in Christ’.

To understand properly verse 25 it is necessary to know that Drusilla was Felix’s third wife, and that he had lured her away from her original husband.

But he made it clear that the Christian faith had ethical implications, and as he talked about these, Felix and Drusilla felt that the interview had taken an uncomfortably personal turn... Paul’s distinguished hearers had probably never listened to such pointed and practical teaching in their lives as when he talked to them about “righteousness and self-control and the judgement to come’’—three subjects which that couple specially needed to learn about. No wonder that Felix began to feel afraid, and decided that he had heard enough of this for the time being.^[62]

Felix already had a knowledge of the Christian faith (24:22), but refuses to believe because of the demands it would make on his life.

^[40] Hengel, p.134, note 238

^[41] Bruce, Commentary, p.354,355

^[42] Bruce, Commentary, p. 293. Reference to Martin Dibelius’ essay “Paulus auf Areopag” (pp. 29ff.) Heidelberg: 1939.

^[43] Bruce, Commentary, p.358

^[44] Brian Allison, lectures in Apologetics, Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College, March 1993

^[45] N. B. Stonehouse, The Areopagus Address, (London: 1951) p.37, quoted in Bruce, Commentary, p.360.

^[46] Bruce, Commentary, p.294

^[47] Bruce, Commentary, p.365

^[48] Van Til, Paul at Athens, “The Frame of Reference”, p.15,16

^[49] Bruce, Commentary, p.440

^[50] Longenecker, Galatians, p.30

^[51] Longenecker, Galatians, p.30

^[52] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, p.68

^[53] Bruce, Commentary, p.489

^[54] Hedrick, p.417-418

^[55] Longenecker, p. 526

^[56] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, p.100

^[57] Bruce, Commentary, p.491

^[58] Bruce, Commentary, p.443

^[59] Dunn, Partings, p.18 ff.

^[60] Talbert lists 32 parallels on p.16-18

^[61] Bruce, Commentary, p.443

^[62] Bruce, Commentary, p.473

Contents        Home