Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 21, 2013 Read – Acts 16:1-15 As we mentioned, we no longer hear about the ventures of Barnabas. Luke continues to tell us the story of Paul. We left off with the story of how Paul and Silas travelled through the region of Syria and Cilicia strengthening the church Paul had established there. They move on to Derbe and Lystra – two of the places where Paul and Barnabas had established churches. It seems Luke’s primary interest in telling us about this visit is to introduce us to Timothy who will become a travelling companion and co-worker with Paul. Paul also writes of Timothy in many of his letters and may well have written two letters to Timothy – scholars are divided about whether the letters to Timothy are genuinely from Paul, but for my part I consider them genuine since I can see no compelling reason to think of them differently. The story of Timothy is a fascinating one in light of what we have just heard from Paul in his letter to the Galatians. Luke tells us that Paul had Timothy circumcised since he was the son of a Jewish mother but a Greek father (Acts 16:3). With Galatians ringing in our ears, this does not sound credible. Yet, perhaps Timothy represents a special case – he should have been circumcised since it was his mother that would determine his nationality according to Jewish understanding. Had Timothy been fully Greek circumcision would have been inappropriate given the decision made in the Jerusalem conference. Luke is showing Paul to be a loyal supporter of the Jerusalem decree. In fact, Luke tells us that one of the things Paul did as he visited the churches he had founded earlier was to “deliver to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Would the Paul we meet in Galatians have done that? It seems very unlikely that he would. Again we are confronted with an irreconcilable problem in the text. While it is theologically important for Luke that Paul carry forward the Jerusalem decisions – and we should note that it is decisions, plural, that Luke speaks of – it is likely that historically Paul did not do so. Again we will need to live with the differences. I for one, side with Paul, though I do understand the function that Luke has assigned to the Jerusalem church. Luke is consistent theologically and his story reflects that commitment. With Timothy on board, Luke now relates some interesting things about what happened to Paul. After strengthen the churches he and Barnabas had established, Luke tells us Paul ventures into new territory – or at least he attempts to. Paul meets with no success – in fact Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit forbids Paul to minister in the areas he wants to work (Acts 16:6-7). What does this mean? How did they know that the Holy Spirit had forbidden them to speak in Asia and in Bithynia? Was it because they could find no one who would listen to them? Did they “come up empty?” All of these are questions that we cannot answer. Perhaps they are part of the skillful writing of Luke since their effect is to move Paul and his co-workers on to Troas where Paul receives a vision. At the very least Luke has presented us with a fascinating story. In Troas, Paul has a vision during the night. His vision is of a man of Macedonia pleading with him to “come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:9). The reason for the failure is now clear. God was moving Paul on to Europe. At this point in the story, readers of Acts suddenly notice that Luke uses the pronoun “we” to speak of the response of Paul and his co-workers (Acts 16:10). On two more occasions Luke will use the pronoun “we” to speak of the action taking place. What are we to make of this? The simplest solution, of course, is to understand that the writer of the book of Acts has joined the mission! That could be the case. However, I have already given my judgment – a judgment shared by most of the readers of Acts and Paul’s letters – that the differences between the way in which Acts portrays Paul and the way in which Paul’s letters portray him makes it unlikely that the author of Acts and Paul ever knew each other personally. There are just too many conflicting issues. I wish I could just jump on board and accept what seems to be obvious – the author of Acts was a companion and co-worker of Paul, at least in those short places where “we” shows up – but I find that nearly impossible to fathom. What other explanations might there be? Perhaps Luke has found a source that uses the pronoun “we” and has simply repeated it in those parts of the story where he found it. Perhaps, but the style of writing is so consistent throughout the book of Acts that no distinction can be made between those parts where “we” is used and those parts where it is not. While one cannot rule out the answer that it is the source that gives us the “we” it is probably not the answer. Perhaps Luke is creatively entering himself into the story as a writing technique through which he means to give credibility to the story. Without having actually “been there” Luke writes himself into the story to highlight the adventure. Yet, this seems rather far-fetched as well. One thing of note is that in those instances where Luke uses “we” the action is always in the midst of a sea voyage and immediately afterward. Just as quickly as Luke begins to use “we” he will revert to “they” without warning. The “we passages” are not long, except for the final voyage to Rome and the shipwreck following the storm. What the significance of using “we” on the sea voyages is no one seems to know. There is one more possibility that we should consider. Perhaps the author of Acts and Paul were merely acquaintances who crossed paths on three occasions over the course of the five or so years that is narrated in the story in Acts. Their first chance encounter was on the sea voyage from Troas to Macedonia and on into the city of Philippi (Acts 16:10-40). When Paul leaves Philippi the author returns to using “they” and not “we.” The next time the author uses the pronoun “we” is when Paul has determined that he “must” visit Jerusalem and then go to Rome. As the contingent leaves Macedonia their intention is to travel by ship directly to Syria, but Paul travels instead by land because a plot to kill him has been uncovered. Paul and his companion travel by land while “we” brought the ship by sea and joined Paul and his companions who were waiting in Troas – the same city from which the first sea voyage was made and the author began to use the pronoun “we” (Acts 20:6). The author continues to use the pronoun “we” until the contingent arrives at Jerusalem. The last time we encounter the use of the pronoun “we” is in the fateful journey to Rome where Paul and his companions suffer shipwreck (Acts 27:1-28:16). Could it be that the author was in fact involved in each of these sea voyages and yet not an intimate companion of Paul – he was not a co-worker with Paul – and perhaps he and Paul never actually spoke to one another? This explanation would account both for the use of “we” – the author and Paul really were in the same place at the same time on those three sea voyages – and it would account for the observation that the author misunderstands Paul and his ministry as it is spoken of in Paul’s letters and he has Paul say and do things that Paul would never have said or done – he was not associated with Paul’s ministry nor in Paul’s inner circle – therefore he could not be the Luke that Paul wrote of in 2 Timothy. It would be easy to surmise that as a young person the author of Luke-Acts was involved in the ship traveling business and in the process was placed in the presence of Paul without ever really knowing Paul. Of course this is all speculation – maybe speculation gone wild which is what usually happens when we speculate about something and then begin to view it as fact. The same thing likely happened with early Christians who jumped to the conclusion that the author of Acts is the Luke we find in the story. Perhaps it remains best for us to plead ignorance about the whole issue. The use of “we” remains a mystery. Once the contingent arrives in Philippi Luke tells us that on the Sabbath day Paul and his companions went looking for a “place of prayer” which likely means they were looking for a synagogue (Acts 16:13). What they find is a gathering of women. One of those women is named Lydia and, according to Luke, she becomes the first Christian in Europe as the result of Paul’s ministry. Luke tells us “the Lord opened her heart to listen” and at the conclusion of Paul’s proclamation she and her whole household are baptized. Paul and his co-workers are compelled to stay at her house and thus she becomes the leader of the first house church in Philippi. Once again we see Luke’s love for lifting up women in the story and giving them significant roles in the life of the early church. Paul’s mission in Philippi begins well – but will it continue?