Acts 21-28

A shift has taken place when we start reading these chapters. The word "we" appears frequently in chapter 21 which tells us that our author, Luke, the Greek doctor, has joined Paul and his group. (The word "we" first appears in Chapter 20 - when they are in Greece.) This is significant because it reminds us that at least this part of the book of Acts is first-hand reporting. The author actually witnessed and was part of the events he writes about. Not only that, but since he spent so much time with the people involved, we can safely assume that even the events he records prior to chapter 20, and after Luke parts company with Paul, can be relied on. Those involved would have talked about them to Luke.

In 21:4 & 11 Paul is told not to go to Jerusalem, first by the disciples "through the spirit" and then by Agabus, the prophet, who warns that he will be captured if he goes there. But Paul goes anyway. Why? Well, if there's one part of Paul's personality which comes through clearly in the Bible it's that he's headstrong and determined. He has several reasons for going to Jerusalem despite the counsel he's given:

• Acts 20:16 - he wants to be there for the day of Pentecost, a day of special significance, and naturally he want to be in the place of significance which goes with it
• Acts 21:13 - he is "ready to...die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus". He knows the dangers, but accepts them
• Acts 21:14 - he feels it's the will of the Lord that he should go (consider then the importance of personal revelation, which may contradict revelation given to us by others - but remember that Agabus was correct)
• Acts 21:17 - when he arrives at Jerusalem he is received "gladly". He knew the people there were anxious to see him
• Acts 21:26 - the Temple was in Jerusalem, and Paul wanted to go there.

The book of Acts contains three versions of Paul's testimony. First, in chapter 9 as part of the narrative. Then in chapter 22 in front of the "Chief Captain" (37) and the soldiers and the people we recounts his conversion story "in the Hebrew tongue", and in chapter 26 he speaks before King Agrippa (Herod Agrippa II, the son of Agrippa I who killed James, imprisoned Peter, and died in Acts 12) and Festus (Porcius Festus, the Roman Governor). There are some differences in the versions of the story that Paul relates and we have recorded. He leaves out parts about Ananias and going to Damascus, the timeline is differently reported, and the emphasis is quite different. There are also significant difference in who heard the voice and saw the light. In chapter 9 it is just Paul who sees and hears, in chapter 22 Paul hears the voice but his companions only see the light, and in chapter 26 everyone hears the voice and sees the light.

Is this an issue for us? Bear in mind that there are four different versions of Joseph Smith's first vision.

I found the best answer to this on the MD Harris Institute website:

"Far from being proof of a fabrication, the differences in the accounts demonstrate the reliability of the account. Depending upon the purpose for telling a story and the audience that will hear it, people choose to emphasize different aspects of the story. The account in chapter 9, in which Luke’s purpose was to tell the story of the early church, emphasized Paul and the believers in Damascus. The chapter 22 account was not intended to be a story but a testimony. It emphasized Paul’s essential Jewishness and faithfulness to the Law, and referred to “the God of our Fathers”. One can sense that he yearned for his Jewish accusers to see that Jesus is their Messiah. [Note that this is also the account he gave in Hebrew, the language of the Jews.] Paul’s defence to Agrippa in chapter 26, a small, more private and less hostile audience, was different. Both in medicine and in law, a story that is totally unchanged between events is more likely to be considered a fabrication." [Emphasis added]

As people remember new details and forget old ones, or speak to new audiences with different perspectives, their stories will naturally differ slightly. To me it seems that Paul is exaggerating for effect as time passes. Someone telling the same story in exactly the same way time after time has probably rehearsed it, because it isn't true.

What is a testimony? I became a Christian in an Evangelical church, and when asked to bear or tell our testimony it meant to relate our conversion story - the circumstances which led to becoming a Christian. (Mine involved a church youth club and my sister's best friend when I was 14; it's considerably more interesting now.) Officially the word "testimony" has several meanings:

1. a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.
2. evidence or proof of something.
3. a public recounting of a religious conversion or experience.
4. a solemn protest or declaration

In the Christian circles I moved in formerly I think definition 3 was the one which applies. In the Christian circles I move in now (primarily Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I enjoy the odd visit to other churches once in a while) I think declarations 2 and 4 apply. A testimony is a solemn declaration intended to demonstrate the proof of something.

So what sort of testimomy is Paul giving? All four, I think. It's certainly a formal written statement as Luke records it in scripture, and as Paul declares in before authorities. His experience at hearing the voice of Jesus is his proof of the risen saviour, he is certainly recounting his religious conversion and experience, and he is doing so as a declaration - to all around him - that Jesus of Nazareth is the expected messiah.

In Acts 26:28 King Agrippa responds to Paul's testimony with the words "Almost thou persuades me to be a Christian." In the original Greek the word translated as "almost" relates to time rather than the argument Paul put forward. The meaning of this verse might be, "If you'd had more time I might have been persuaded to become a Christian." When we bear testimony to people, or invite them to learn about the gospel, this is a reminder to give them enough time. Some of us take five years. Some take twenty (*cough*Del Brown*cough*). Don't rush them into a decision and don't give up because they don't seem interested right away.

Agrippa is moved by Paul's words, but his hands are tied. In Acts 25:11 Paul has exercised his right, as a Roman citizen, to appeal to Caesar, and Agrippa doesn't have the authority to release Paul due to this. Paul has to be transported to Rome as a prisoner.

Paul faced a great deal of suffering as a result of bearing his testimony. He may have escaped being scourged by dint of being a Roman citizen, but that appeal ultimately led to his arrest and death. Remember that he knew that this would happen - Agabus had prophesied it.

The shipwreck in chapter 27 is a typical example of the Boys' Own Adventure which is the book of Acts and has many lessons within the narrative, but eventually we come to Paul spending "two whole years in his own hired house" (28:30).  Despite being under house arrest Paul continued to preach, "receiving all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence."

The book of Acts ends here. It's around 62AD and we know that Paul died in 64AD, being beheaded eventually, his punishment for his preaching. Luke doesn't record this, and there's some speculation that it's because Luke didn't know as he was writing his account before it happened, but it may also be that Luke chose to end his narrative here, before the story took such a depressing turn.