Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Monday, August 12, 2013 Read – Acts 21:37-22:5 As Paul is rescued by the Roman tribune, we learn that the tribune had mistakenly identified Paul with an Egyptian insurrectionist who had caused quite a stir in Jerusalem. The tribune discovers the case of mistaken identity when Paul speaks to him in the finest Greek. The implication is that the Egyptian would not have used Greek, although that would not necessarily have been the case – Greek was spoken in Egypt too. The tribune is surprised by Paul’s articulate language. Incidentally, Josephus tells a story of an Egyptian insurrectionist who arose at about this same time claiming that he was the Messiah, the deliverer of the people from the Romans. I have at times been critical of Luke’s historical accuracy, but in general Luke’s story does reflect historical accuracy, and that is surely the case here. My point is that sometimes Luke has subjected historical accuracy to theological necessity, which is not necessarily a bad thing – it just means that we need to receive what Luke says with this in mind. As I have said many times before, the writers of the Bible are not nearly as concerned about historical accuracy as we moderns are, which is probably more our problem than theirs, since we have placed so much emphasis on the Bible being always historically true. Our notion of inerrancy would likely have not been understandable to Biblical writers. Perhaps we can learn something from them. Perhaps the best way to think about all of this is that Biblical authors simply did not have all the historical details about what really happened. They have the broad sense of what occurred and a number of pieces of information that have been passed on over the course of time. They have fit all this together and created the “storyline” as a narrative to proclaim the gospel. Mark was likely the first to do this. Luke has followed in Mark’s path and expanded the story to include the first years of the church. Neither Mark nor Luke, or for that matter any other gospel writer, knew exactly what happened and when it happened. Their story and their creative genius have provided us with a proclamation of Jesus as the suffering Messiah whom God raised from the dead and through whom God offers forgiveness of sins and new life. We have noticed this core message in the speeches of Acts – that is the core of the gospel and the proclamation that ultimately matters. Historical details add understandability to the story and make it more interesting, even if they are not strictly accurate historically. Once the tribune learns that Paul is not the Egyptian insurrectionist, he also learns that Paul is a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia and a citizen of that important city. Exactly what Paul means when he says he is a citizen is not fully clear – it will become clear shortly – but Paul’s identity makes an impression of the tribune. He is not sure what he has on his hands now. Paul begs to speak to the people – people who have just raged against him and threatened him with death by mob violence. The tribune grants Paul permission to speak. Exactly how the crowd was quieted down enough to hear is a puzzle. Once again it may be important to remember that Luke is likely not reporting a “verbatim” speech telling us exactly what Paul said – Luke is creating a speech that was appropriate for Paul to proclaim to the Jews of Jerusalem. The speech is as much for the benefit of Luke’s readers as it is for the crowd. Luke tells us that the crowd does reach a point of silence as Paul begins to speak to them in Hebrew – actually the language used would have been Aramaic since that was the language spoken in Jerusalem at the time. Those who have studied “defense speeches” of that time have recognized that Paul’s speech follows the standard model. The standard defense speech contains three basic elements: (1) an opening statement providing the defenders good credentials and designed to identify with those who hear, (2) a presentation of the basic issue of contention, and (3) a provision of corroborating evidence to justify the defenders position. All three of these elements are present in Paul’s speech to the Jerusalem Jews. We will look at the first element of the speech today and pick up the remaining elements in the coming days. Paul begins by addressing his hearers as “brothers and fathers” which is a very respectable way to begin. Paul is one of them and lends the proper respect to those who are older than he is. Paul is attempting to identify with his hearers. He then goes on to provide his credentials. It is important that we hear Paul when he says “I am a Jew.” Paul does not say, “I was a Jew.” As far as Paul is concerned he is still a Jew – always was one and always will be one. This is exactly the claim that Paul makes in his letter to the Philippians. There he says, “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh. I have more; circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:4-6). Of course Paul will go on to say in Philippians that all of those credentials, which remain true of Paul, are worthless – garbage to be thrown away because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus and being made his own. In Philippians it is not that Paul is saying that his credentials as a Jew are not true, just that they do not matter. Luke and Paul agree with one another fully about Paul’s credentials. Luke reports much of the same things as Paul does, with a few variations, none of which are in conflict with one another. Luke tells us again that Paul is from Tarsus in Cilicia – something Paul never reveals in his letter but that does not matter. Luke also tells us that Paul was educated in Jerusalem “at the feet of Gamaliel” – the same Gamaliel who rescued Peter and John from the Sanhedrin when they were about to put them to death (Acts 5:34-39). As we mentioned then, this Gamaliel was the grandson of the great Hebrew rabbi Hillel. Luke does not tell us at this point that Paul was brought up to be a Pharisee, though he will soon corroborate Paul’s own claim that he is indeed a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5). Luke describes Paul as zealous for the law, which is exactly what Paul said in Philippians. Both Luke and Paul tell of Paul’s persecution of the church. While Paul does not mention that he had letters of support from the high priests in his pursuit of believers in Damascus, Paul does confirm that it was in Damascus that he was rescued by being let down through the wall in a basket (2 Corinthians 11:33). Luke and Paul are very much in agreement about Paul’s credentials. And those credentials are impeccable! Paul’s defense speech has met the first criteria – provide good credentials and identify with the hearers. Will Paul’s speech have a good effect? We will need to wait and see.