As most of you will know I have been attending Liberty University through their on-line program for almost a year now as I work on completing my Bachelor of Science in Religion with a focus on Apologetics and Theology. This is a research paper I wrote for a class this last sub-term looking over four of the Apologies of Paul. This will be by far one of the longest blog posts, but one I hope will benefit and bless you.
Both the Gospel according to Luke and
Acts were written by Luke to provide an absolute assurance to Theophilus on the
“exact truth” (Luke 1:4, New American Standard) in relation to that which he
had been taught in his faith in Jesus Christ.
In Acts there is a narrative provided of how the truth of Jesus Christ
was being taught and spreading throughout “Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria,
and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In the last quarter of
his narrative Luke separates from the spread of Christianity to primarily focus
on the accusations brought against Paul and his defenses. The sudden shift of
Luke from the historical narrative to the apologies of Paul is to provide
Theophilus with not only the historical truth, but also an applicable truth in
the defense of the faith in “an atmosphere of hostility, contention, and
debate”.
In Acts 21 through the end of Acts there
are “six defenses”
that Paul offers in regards to the faith that he had been proclaiming since his
conversion. These defenses, or apologies
[a transliteration of the Greek term used by Paul in Acts 22:1 “hear the defense
that I now make before you” (English Standard Version)] are shared before
different groups, the Jewish Crowd who apprehended him at the Temple; the
Sanhedrin; Felix; Festus; Festus with King Agrippa and Bernice; and finally
before the Jews in Rome. For the sake of
time and size of the paper the focus that will be drawn upon is the focus on
three of these apologies in which there appears to be a greater focus on the
speeches of Paul. These defenses will be
the apologies before the Jewish Crowd; Felix; and Festus, King Agrippa, and
Bernice.
The first question that must be answered
to fully get into the greatness of these apologies, and why Luke took so much
time to focus on these is to understand the charges that were brought against
Paul which lead to the legal need for him even to provide a defense. Paul had just returned to Jerusalem for the
feast of Pentecost with the intention of providing an offering that had been
taken among the Gentile Churches for the sake of the Church of Jerusalem. Luke does not address the attitude of the
elders of Jerusalem in regards to how they received the offering, but he does
address that they “glorified God” (Acts 21:20) when they received the report
from Paul as to the response of the Gentiles to the Gospel of Jesus.
However, it was also prudent for the
elders to share a concern that had come to their attention. The great enemies of the Gospel, the
Judaizers, had been spreading reports throughout the Jews, both saved and
unsaved, about how Paul had become apostate, and an enemy of the Law, the
Jewish people, and the Temple. Although
there was no proof to these egregious claims, they were so persistent in their
message
that many of the Jews who were in Jerusalem were susceptible, and the elders wanted
to attempt to prevent any issues in their ministry inside of Jerusalem. There is some debate amongst scholars as to
whether the course of action dictated to Paul, to partake in a purification
ceremony and to pay for the offerings of the four men who had taken the vow of
the Nazirite, was Spirit lead or not.
This is not the focus of this paper, but to not mention it would be deft
of any student of Scripture. Many
theologians today hold to a few that this was well fitting in with Paul’s own
admonition in Romans 14, 15, and in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. The author of this paper tends to favor this
same conclusion.
In Acts 21:27-36 Paul is in the temple
honoring his sacrifice when some Judaizers recognize him, and cause a great
commotion in the Temple. They do this by
creating a great riot laying against Paul two charges. First, he is the one who teaches people
against the Jews, the Law, and the Temple.
The second charge is that he had brought Greeks into the Temple, and
therefore defiled it (Acts 21:28). The
crowd is immediately incensed by the charge, and they rise up and drag Paul out
of the inner court with the intent of killing him (vv. 30-31). At that time the Romans who are close by here
of the commotion, and quickly come taking custody of Paul.
Now that the charges have been
presented the focus of this paper will turn upon the defenses of Paul. The
first apology to be examined is Paul’s apology before the Jewish crowd.
Acts 22:1-21 is the very first
defense that Paul offers against the charges levied against him. A few important aspects of this apology that
jump out is; first, Paul does not provide a direct response against the
charges; secondly, Paul choses to address his accusers in the Aramaic
dialect. This apology of Paul starts off
in a biographical approach to Paul’s defense.
There are three approaches to Paul’s apology in this passage which will
be looked at individually.
First, Paul identified with the
people. F.F. Bruce speaks about Paul’s
“first attempt at conciliation was his speaking Aramaic.” The Jews present at this time were Jews
throughout the Roman Empire, and therefore Paul could of addressed the people
in the language of the empire, Greek, yet he specifically chose to address them
in the language of their culture. This
is important because it again shows Paul consistent in his philosophy of being a
Jew to the Jews in Romans 9.
In his commentary on Acts, Steven
Ger points out the fact that Paul used this, as well as his term of affection
“brothers and fathers” (Acts 22:1) in order to refute the charge that he was
“an apostate Jew” but instead demonstrate that he was an obedient Jew. Ger, John MacArthur Jr., and Darrell Bock all
point out the fact that not only does Paul identify himself first and foremost
as a Jew, but goes on to explain that along with his exceptional education at
the “feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3) but like the people he had great “zeal for
God” (Acts 22:3). Darrell Bock points
out though that Paul recognized that his zeal for God was not according to
knowledge. Having been trained as a Pharisee Paul would
have been very knowledgeable of both the Law and the Prophets, yet before his
conversion Paul could not see or accept how Christ had been the very
fulfillment of the Scriptures that he knew so well. In his zeal Paul sought out to either imprison
or to force those who claimed to be members of “the Way” to recant and
blaspheme. This hatred for this new sect
led Paul to seek out those who had forsaken Judaism far outside of the confines
of Judea. In part, as John MacArthur
points out, Paul’s own zeal far overshadowed those who brought accusations
against him now.
As such there was no one present who
could realistically challenge his love for God and the law.
The second aspect of Paul’s first
apology is related to his calling. Paul informs the crowd about how in the
course of his assignment from the religious leadership of Jerusalem, Paul was
confronted by a surprising reality; “Jesus the Nazarene” (Acts 22:8). John MacArthur explains this confrontation
with Jesus as such: “The One whom he had despised and rejected as a charlatan,
a blasphemer, and a false Messiah was in fact the Lord of glory.” It is possible that the Jews could have
simply dismissed this claim, but there was one problem. What Paul was describing was very simply
historical fact,
and Paul had some witnesses. The men who
had accompanied him to Damascus could attest to the very things that Paul
described; a blinding light and a voice. More than just this, the calling that Paul
had received on the road to Damascus was confirmed through a healing he
received in which God used a man of great piety and respect of the Jewish
community in Damascus to bring about in Paul’s own life. Ananias not only was the tool God used, but
also the voice that God used to confirm Paul’s ministry. Bruce explains how Paul ultimately became a
follower of Christ because the circumstances left him no additional options.
Paul’s final point he makes to the
Jewish crowd is related to the fact that he was commissioned by God to be a
“witness to the nations”. However, even in his commission Paul’s heart
is always first towards the Jews. After
three years in Nabataean Arabia Paul came back to Jerusalem
and preached Jesus Christ Messiah, the great persecutor became the great
preacher. So great was Paul’s heart for
the people of Israel that even after an assassination plot was discovered, it
took the word of Christ to persuade him to leave.
In his first defense Paul clearly
demonstrated that he was not anti-Jewish
as the crowd claimed. G.R. Perry says
this about the defense of Paul: “Luke’s mature characterization of Paul clearly
rejects the charge of infidelity to the Law and confirms the scriptural
legitimacy of Paul’s mission.” In his defense Paul tried to focus on how by
being a follower of “the Way” but even a more legitimate follower of God whose
new zeal for God “was rooted in revelation and knowledge”. In this defense Paul’s focus was on his heart
for the Jewish people.
The second apology that will now be
looked at is Paul’s apology before Felix in Caesarea found in Acts
24:1-21. This particular defense of Paul
is different from the first one addressed as it is not biographical, but as
Bruce points out: “the most directly forensic of his speeches”.
In this speech Paul will directly counter the individual charges leveled
against him by the Jewish leadership.
In Acts 24:1 there is an
introduction to a new player on the field, an attorney Tertullus. Tertullus was
a paid orator. MacArthur notes that
often Jews would hire someone who understood Roman law and proceedings to
represent them in Roman courts. Clarkson
however points out that there must have been great agitation on the side of the
Jews that they even had to appeal to a Roman judge to get their own countryman
returned to their jurisdiction. The Jews were angry and were not seeking
justice, but condemnation.
Upon the beginning of the proceedings
Tertullus laid out three accusations against Paul. Ger provides a great
explanation of the charges. Paul was
stirring up sedition throughout the Roman Empire, the ringleader of the sect of
the “Nazarenes”, and finally that he had defiled the temple.
Bock points out that the charge of Paul being the ringleader of the Nazarenes
was more political in nature then the charge originally Acts 21:28, and it is
“framed in a way that connects this case with Felix’s chief area of
responsibility, keeping the peace”.
Acts 24:10 begins Paul powerful
apology as they related to the charges that were laid against him. First Paul addressed the issue of sedition by
providing a few details of his trip to Jerusalem. First, he was only in Jerusalem for a very
short time. There is debate among
scholars as to how it was determined that Paul had only been in Jerusalem for twelve
days. Of the details that are known Paul
was at least five days in Caesarea locked up and therefore unable to cause any
kind of riot or sedition in Jerusalem. MacArthur also points out the fact that the
other days prior to Paul’s arrest were spent in the purification process. Ger points out that in reality Paul was also
attempting to keep a low profile per the request of the elders of Jerusalem,
and so there was no evidence that anywhere in Jerusalem was he caught trying to
spread derision.
Additional to the lack of support
that could be offered for the claim Paul was seeking to cause sedition, is the
fact that he testified before Felix that he had come on a mercy of mission to
Jerusalem. Far from wanting to cause declension in
Jerusalem Paul “was supportive of Judaism and the nation of Israel” and sought
to foster unity in honor of the “contribution Jerusalem has made to the
Gentiles’ faith”
and was bringing an offering that he had received from the various Gentile
Churches in support of Jerusalem. This
will be also discussed in the third aspect of his defense.
Regarding the charge that Paul was a
“ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) Paul does profess that he
is a follower of “the Way”; however, this is not an acceptance of guilt, but
just a general confirmation of his faith. First, by identifying Paul as a member of
this sect Tertullus basically showed that this was still a part of
Judaism. Due to the Pax Roma that was in
effect in Rome, Judaism was a legal religion in the Roman Empire. This charge of Paul being the ring leader of
the sect of the Nazarenes as well as his alleged defilement of the temple are
religious in nature, and as such were outside of the jurisdiction of the Roman
Empire. In verses 14-16 Paul makes the case that the
sect is actually a more orthodox faith then even his accusers hold to. The biggest contention is the fact that Paul
does not just believe in the resurrection of the dead, both the “just and unjust”
(Acts 24:15) as do the people who are bringing this religious charge against
him, but that he believes the Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Trites explains that in this discussion Luke
is demonstrating that Christianity is not a “religio illicita” (an illegal
religion). More than that, as Ger points out: Paul
“presented Christianity as the truest representation of Judaism.” Moreover, as Paul continues to offer his
apology he stresses the fact that because of the religious view he holds to, he
attempts to “maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before
men” (Acts 24:16, N.A.S.B); therefore, his “orthodoxy impacts his life”.
In his response to the accusation of
him “defiling the Temple”, Paul again stresses that he came to Jerusalem not to
stir up controversy or sedition, but instead to honor his people with a gift
that had been received from the various Gentile Churches. In verse 18 Paul stresses that the charges
that were brought against him were not based off of any kind of uproar in the
temple in which he was the cause, but instead that other Jews caused the
commotion and Paul was simply about his religious practices as an orthodox
Jew. Barker in his homily in the Pulpit Commentary points out that Paul
“had not been the originator of any disturbance.”
Paul continues in his apology by
making another point “there were certain Jews from Asia” (Acts 24:18). In verse 18 and 19 one can hear that Paul
almost seems to indicate that it was these Jews who caused the commotion in the
temple; however, he holds that comment in check, and instead choses to focus on
the fact that these Jews who had originally brought the charges against him
were not now present before Felix. Ger
argues that Paul is therefore making the point that the entire proceeding was
an “abuse of Rome’s time and energy.”
Although there is certainly validity to this claim, Bock paraphrases
Sherwin-White who makes a very clear statement regarding the lack of the
accusers being present at the hearing: “the Romans thought little of people who
abandoned their legal charges.” Perry explains the brilliance of Paul’s
defense the best when he wrote: “Paul’s solitary and rhetorically adept
refutation of their charges exposes the weakness of their case.”
The third and final apology that
will be discussed in this paper is Paul’s appearance before Festus, King
Agrippa, and Bernice in Acts 26. This
particular apology is very unique due to the very evident evangelical purpose
of this apology. John MacArthur makes
the point that Paul sought to not necessarily defend himself of the charges,
but instead to convert Agrippa.
Paul has now been in Caesarea for
over two years as he was kept their under Felix, and not released when Felix
was transferred to Rome, and therefore Paul’s case was brought by the Jewish
leadership before Festus. Festus had
attempted to transfer Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 25:9). After Paul’s defense before the Jewish Crowd
and the Sanhedrin Christ had appeared to him and told him that he was also
going to be a witness in Rome (Acts 23:11); therefore, Paul exercised his right
as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar.
This appeal did put Festus into a quandary as he knew that he had no
charges to send on to Caesar. Taking
advantage of a visit from Agrippa and Bernice, Festus decided to have Agrippa
offer some insight, as one knowledgeable of Jewish law to help him compose his
letter to Caesar.
Paul’s defense before Agrippa can be
again broke down into three key segments. Like his defense before the Jewish
Crows Paul begins this apology with a biographical introduction
(Acts 26:2-11). In verse 4 Paul first
makes the point that all the Jews of Jerusalem knew of his upbringing and
dedication to the law. Paul was raised
up in Jerusalem as a “pious Pharisee”
and later was the “chief persecutor of the Christian faith.” More than that however, Paul was still living
as a Jew who had come to realize the hope of the promise made by God found in
Jesus Christ the Messiah. As Bruce
points out, Paul’s preaching indeed focuses on the promises given to the nation
of Israel through Moses and the Prophets.
In verses 12-15 Paul begins his
second segment of his defense, his confrontation by Christ on the road to
Damascus. In his zeal and desire for the
purification of Judaism Paul had set out not only in Jerusalem but also in “foreign
cities”
Paul set out to bring any of the blasphemous members of Christianity to
Jerusalem to face charges. Again
MacArthur stresses the fact that Paul is confronted by the Jesus Christ, whom
he had considered a false Messiah.
Paul uses his conversion account to
flow into his third and final segment of his presentation before Agrippa, his
commission and his obedience to this commission. In his commission there was a key aspect that
Paul was to present to Jews and Gentiles alike, repent and turn to God
(Acts 26:20). It was this message that
Paul then delivered, and it was this message that Paul delivered now. In verse 24 Paul’s apology is interrupted by
Festus, but Paul does not lose focus. He
turns to Agrippa and asks a powerful question, in which he then answers for
him: “Do you believe the prophets” (Acts 26:27).
In this paper there have been three
apologies of Paul that have been carefully examined and explained. Each of the apologies was unique in
perspective. Paul’s defense before the
Jewish Crowd was biographical in nature, attempting to show that Christianity
was not contrary to Judaism, but a more complete understanding of the Law and
the Prophets. In his apology before
Felix, Paul is more direct, and willing to deal directly with the charges laid
against him by the Jewish leadership.
However, again Paul demonstrates that his belief was a natural
conclusion based on an understanding of the Law and the Prophets. Finally in his defense before Agrippa, Paul
did not seek so much to defend himself from the charges, although he did
address them; but instead Paul sought to show clearly to the audience the need
for repentance and turning to God as based off an understanding again of the
Law and the Prophets.
In conclusion, Luke turned to these
defenses of Paul to provide Theophilus with a firm foundation of the faith that
he had come to believe (Luke 1:4). Perry
explains how through “Paul’s proclamation, practice, and mission” Theophilus
would be able to see that they “were contiguous with “the Law and the Prophets
and authorized by Israel’s Messiah.”
Theophilus lived at a time when “the Messiahship and Lordship of Jesus” were in
dispute, and Luke sought to “demonstrate these claims ‘by many convincing
proofs.’” For the believer today, these apologies
provide a framework as we engage a post-modern culture that also has great
“hostility, contention, and debate”
towards any claim of Jesus Christ as God and the only way to eternal salvation.
Works Cited
Barker,
P. C. "Homilies by Various Authors." In The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II,
edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, 202-3. The Pulpit Commentary 18.
Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Bock,
Darrell L. Acts. Baker
Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2007.
Bruce, F.
F. "Paul's Apologetic and the Purpose of Acts." Bulletin of the John Rylands
University Library of Manchester 69,
no. 2 (01/01/1987): 379-93.
Clarkson,
W. "Homilies by Various Authors." In The Acts of the Apostles Vol. II,
edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, 198. The Pulpit Commentary 18.
Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Ger,
Steven. The Book of Acts: Witnesses
to the World. Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series. Chattanooga,
Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 2004.
MacArthur,
John Jr. Acts 13-28. The
MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1996.
Perry,
Gregory R. "Paul in Acts and the Law in the Prophets." Horizons in Biblical Theology 31, no. 2 (November 2009): 160-77. doi:10.1163/019590809X12553238843140 (accessed March 05, 2013).
Trites,
Allison A. "The Importance of Legal Scenes and Language in the Book of
Acts." Novum Testamentum 16, no. 4 (October 1974): 278-`284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560223(accessed March 01, 2013).
