Chapter 22

2022 - This first verse:

1 "Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you." [Act 22:1 ESV]

Even my ESV has NO FOOTNOTE here, claiming that Paul actually meant brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers.  He did not mean that here any more than he means brothers and sisters elsewhere when he says it.  The word is adelphoi, just as it is elsewhere when he says brothers.  In that culture, men spoke to men, not to other men's wives and daughters.  It just wasn't considered proper.  When we get that ESV footnote, we are imposing the "mores" of our culture onto that culture.  We should not do that!

2023 - This following verse:

4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, [Act 22:4 ESV].  Here is a good example to show that when Paul means  both men and women, Paul knows how to say that in Aramaic!  He surely knows how to say it in Greek also.  We are adding to the Bible when we append "women" to what Paul said instead of explaining that what he said is correct in his culture.  When we do this, we are opening the door to all kinds of attacks on the Bible based on the actions of OT characters who did things we would "never do" in today's culture.  Besides this being a lie anyway, we ought to insist that actions be "judged" in light of the culture in which they happened.  We cannot apply today's standards to those of the ancients.  Furthermore, the behavior of the ancients does not disqualify the teachings of today!  It isn't a two-way street!  The counter to the argument I am making is that in say, Assyria, there were many cultural things that were clearly wrong to us, but were inside the cultural box of the time.  Was that ok?  No.  We are NOT saying in either case that these things were "right".  The Patriarchs sinned, and so did the Assyrians.  But there was NO Holy Spirit indwelling the Patriarchs, and Abraham had no Bible to tell him what to do.  His morals were dictated by his culture and modified by direct verbal direction from God.  Do not let the Bible's truth be impugned by such a puny argument.

2022 - And this verse:

2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet. And he said: [Act 22:2 ESV].  There is a footnote to this verse that says "Or the Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic).  I didn't realize that Hebrew and Aramaic were related, so I looked it up and found this:

Hebrew and Aramaic are sister languages from ancient times, and both are still spoken today!  Modern Hebrew is the official language of the nation of Israel and is also spoken by about 220,000 Jewish Americans. Biblical Hebrew is used for prayer and scripture reading in Jewish communities around the world.  Aramaic is still spoken by Jewish Kurds and other small groups living in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.  (The whole article is here:  https://biblereasons.com/hebrew-vs-aramaic/ ).  This explains how it was that Jesus sometimes used Aramaic.  There is also some Aramaic in the book of Daniel, and this article says we now know that the Babylonians used and spread the language.  (That fact may have been in a different article...but I read it this morning.)  I also remember reading that modern criticism claimed Daniel was written after the fact BECAUSE it was in Aramaic.  That argument was killed by Babylonian use of the language.  Those who deny the Bible must deal with the prophecies in Daniel.  They are too accurate to have been made before they happened - unless they are true prophecies from God.  So modern criticism has to make Daniel a much later book, inserted as if it were written in the old days, or bow to Daniel's true prophecy.

Paul recounts his conversion on the road to Damascus.  We learn in this story - at least I learned - that Paul was baptized right after his sight was restored.  I think that is recounted earlier also, but as he tells the story, Paul includes his baptism into Christ. 

2022 - This verse:

16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.' [Act 22:16 ESV].  "...and wash away your sins...".  How are we to explain this  if we want to claim that baptism is just a ritual, and technically unnecessary to salvation?  "Wash is "apolouo", Strong's G628.  It is only translated wash or wash away in the KJV.  The word is only used twice in the NT.  Here is the other place, also Paul:

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [1Co 6:11 ESV].  In this verse, the washing is by the Spirit, so baptism of the Spirit is in view.  But in Acts, it is water baptism that is in view, unarguably.  In Acts, it is Paul himself who is giving us the details of his baptism, as he was instructed by Ananias, who was "a devout man according to the law" - a Christian still practicing the Law while a follower of the Way? 

The point is that this is a very very sticky verse to deal with for those who would demean baptism to ritual only.  Surely this verse says it is MORE than that!

2024 - Also, in vs 16 just above, note that "wash away" is in the aorist middle imperative.  (I also note that "be baptized" is also aorist middle imperative.)  As is so often the case where there are two possible interpretations and no real way of "winning" on either side, the aorist tense - which CANNOT BE DIRECTLY TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH - is at the middle of the dispute.  Just reading the definition of the aorist tense gives an idea of the difficulty of interpretation in English:

"Is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases."

In this case it is in the middle voice: "Denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action."  I think in this verse the implied subject is Paul, as in Paul, get yourself washed.  So Paul is the one who will carry out the baptism and it is himself that will be washed.  This surely ought to tell us that water baptism is not something God does to save us.  It is something we do because the NT commands it. 

Last but not least, this is in the imperative mood: "Corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers."  This is pretty unarguably clear.  No matter what you might decide to believe about what baptism is and about why we do it, Ananias does not offer it here as a choice Paul needs to make.  It is instead a "do it right now" command.

I can't help but think that the complexity generated in translating the aorist into English very often obscures the plain and simple idea that is being conveyed.  Paul, now that you can see again, the VERY NEXT thing you need to do is get baptized in water.  Do that, and then dig as deeply into it as you care to dig...but this is not a choice, it is a command.

Paul says that later, as he was praying in the temple, God warned him that the Jews wouldn't listen to him, and God sent him to the Gentiles far away. 

2024 - I did not remember that Paul had been given this information about the Jews in Jerusalem.  Paul knew from the beginning that they would pursue him, and God tells him outright that they will "win" if he stays in town.  So it is no wonder Paul was aware of what might await him when he returned at this time.  You also have to wonder why nothing much happened earlier when Paul was in Jerusalem for the Council meeting.

When the Jews hear this, they turn back into a mob.  They will not hear that their God sent Paul to the Gentiles.  Their God would never do this.  Who are these men???  Unconverted Jews I would hope.  But the culture in Jerusalem is obviously still strongly Jewish, and the "peer pressure" to keep the law - even as converted Christians - would be intense.  These guys will kill you if you aren't careful. 

2021 - Further, the Jerusalem church was well aware of Gentile conversions, and after their council they had sent a letter to the Gentiles to "quiet" the controversy over whether Gentiles should observe the Law, and giving them a pretty good pass on the subject.  So...either since that time the church at Jerusalem had become far more legalistic and it was the accepted way to behave, and these were church members who go back into their uproar when Paul says he preaches to Gentiles...or, the mob was mostly unconverted Temple Jews with no thought whatever of hearing Paul's real message. 

So, as the crowd's murderous intent begins to heat up again, the Tribune brings Paul inside.  Determined to get the truth from Paul, they decide to flog him.  And rather than be flogged, Paul tells them he is a Roman citizen and that they are about to flog him without trial. This upsets them.  Even the Tribune is now afraid because he has bound Paul with two chains, though he hasn't been charged with any crime.

The next day, the Tribune brings Paul to the Jewish council, determined to find out what Paul is accused of that has so stirred up the city.