Talk:Acts 13:1-21:14

Verses 17:30-31

Is anyone aware of other cases where the scriptures deal with this question of God overlooking people's errors versus calling all to the same law? --Matthew Faulconer 05:57, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Are the following references to he correct? Is the Greek more clear here?

Because he (God) hath appointed a day, in the which he (God?) will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained (Jesus); whereof he (God) hath given assurance unto all men, in that he (God) hath raised him (Jesus) from the dead. (v 31)

Also, I'm not sure the commentary I just wrote is right. The issue for me is what the connection is between the phrases "he hath given assurance unto all men" and "in that he hath raised him from the dead." An alternative reading would be that raising Jesus from the dead showed his primacy among us all--this was God's way of signaling this was the one that would judge us all.

Of course, one thing that seems implied here is the movement to judging ALL. But I don't follow the reasoning there. The argument would seem to work just the same if Paul were only talking to the Jews. Thoughts?

--Matthew Faulconer 06:21, 18 August 2007 (CEST)

Verse 19:36: The town clerk

These are my thoughts as to what is going on here. In verses 26-27 Demetrius justly asserts that his craft, of constructing images for people to worship, is in danger due to the Christians' preaching influentially that images are not gods. He then goes on to assert (and with reason) that this doctrine will also adversely affect the worship of Diana. (albeit indirectly)

This stirs the people up into a frenzy.

I've been reading alot of Josephus lately. In my mind, I read a description like this coming from him: "Hereby the people were induced to show their indignation, as though these Christians had been guilty of innovations against their goddess Diana, and that because they spoke against the images. Each man contended with his neighbor to show himself more zealous in his adoration of Diana. Two unfortunate men, Gaius and Aristarchus, were caught up by this crowd and brought into the theater. Here the Ephesians debated the matter of what was proper to be done with these men in order that they might deter other such supposed innovators and discourage such notions as that the Ephesians were such a people as would fail in their defense of their goddess and suffer blasphemes to go unpunished. Nay, these men most certainly would have been killed by these Ephesian had it not been for a certain official of the city, charged with the care of the public record, who stood boldly and succeeded in quieting the tumult and making himself heard. When he had thus succeeded in gaining his audience he spoke to the men of the city saying: 'Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing arashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, athe law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another. But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s auproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.' Now by this speach he succeeded in calming the assembly as causing those present to think more soberly on the matter, and moreover by making apparent to them how their conduct would appear once they had obtained their immediate object."

In any case, that's a bit of a dramatized reworking of the account, but it's what I see in these events. I clearly see a chiasmatic rhetorical style in the speech of the town clerk whereby he first addresses their ego, addressing the concern they had causing them to act so rashly, then appealing to reason, and then appealing to their egos again warning of the dangers of ignoring reason. A would sum up his speach this way: "You are currently dignified and are honored for your zealous respect for Diana. (He lays it on thicker.) These men, however, haven't really harmed you. Their issue is with someone else. If you still think there's an issue, bring it before the court and it will be settled. However, if you act to rashly, then that respect which all men have for you will be tarnished."

I think the success the town clerk has in this approach evinces why the people were really stirred up. (Insecure egos.) In any case, I don't think he was addressing the concern that the Christians might be effective so much as their insecurity that they might be seen as deffective.--Seanmcox 18:03, 23 August 2007 (CEST)

Hi Sean, this was fun reading. And I think it is helpful. Thanks. --Matthew Faulconer 00:35, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

Verse 21:14

I am sort of interested in the question of what it means to say something like "thy (referring to God) will be done." This is an interesting verse. I'm not totally sure how to interpret it here. It seems like it might be a way of expression resignation. --Matthew Faulconer 00:44, 27 August 2007 (CEST)