I’m one of those weirdos who likes to pick up a book and read the last chapter, just to find out how the story ends. I don’t quite know why I do this, other than because I can. Contrary to my actions, however, I do believe this is bad practice for a couple reasons. One, it divorces the ending from any sort of context. I can read that Sally and Bob end up living happily ever after and that the evil Dr. Sallybob perishes in a fiery inferno, but I have no idea how they got there, and I have no way of appreciating the outcome. Two, I believe that skipping to the ending robs the story of its unfolding power. It shows that I’m more concerned with how the story ends than I am with what the author wanted to convey. And, on a more personal note, it shows that I just am not good at waiting – I want to know now!
The Bible is not just another novel on the shelf, but we often jump to the end of books like Acts without appreciating the story as it unfolds. I know its been tedious at times (how many towns has he been to, and why do I have to know all their names?), but we’re finally at the end of the book. And speaking as a chronic ending-jumper, I’m enjoying it much better now that I’ve walked through the whole story! So, here’s some things to chew on for Sunday:
1.) Compared to the rest of Acts, do we see in chapter 28 anything different in Paul’s behavior? In the Gentiles’ behavior? In the Jews’ behavior? Or is it pretty much the same?
2.) One of Paul’s main goals has been reached: he has made it to Rome. Why is this important?
3.) Why did Paul quote Isaiah 6:9,10 to the Roman Jews?
4.) What is your understanding of the kingdom of God (28:23, 31) and your place in it?
I’ll see you guys on Sunday . . . I’m looking forward to studying the last chapter in the correct sequential order – at the end!
I thought it was interesting that Luke didn’t include in the story how Paul responded to the people of Malta calling him a god. In Acts 12:22-23 people thought that Herod was a king and he was eaten by worms for not giving the glory to God. So I guess we have to assume Paul corrected them. No great theological insight, just a thought I had while reading today.
I do have a question for the Biblical historians out there.
Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written before he arrived in Rome in Acts 28? My ESV Bible says that Romans was written in AD 57 and Acts was written sometime between AD 62 and AD 64. But I wasn’t sure if that is just when the letters were written or when the events actually took place. I guess I’m curious if the Roman brothers that Paul is meeting with in Acts 28 have already received his letter or not. Where does Acts 28 fit in the timeline of Paul’s travels and letters?
By: Mikel Berger on March 2, 2007
at 12:57 pm
My understanding is that Romans was written probably from Corinth on Paul’s 3 missionary journey. If you remember back to when we studied Acts 20, we looked back on Acts 19:21 and saw that Paul at that point really set his eyes on Rome. From there, I believe that all his planning was bent toward Rome. He made this decision while in Ephesus. Shortly after that he traveled through Greece (and most likely hit Corinth while in Greece). My research suggested that his letter to the Romans was written in this time from the region near Corinth and sent to Rome via a woman named Phoebe. This is thought because at the end of Romans (16:1), Paul commends Phoebe who was part of the church at Cenchreae (which is very near Corinth) and the context of the commendation makes it looks as though she is with the church in Rome. The evidence strongly suggests to me that the church in Rome had indeed received his letter by that point.
As far as where it fits with the other letters, I’m pretty sure (I’ll need to check though) that it’s thought that by Acts 28, Paul had written all but his letters to Timothy. When I teach next, we’ll be talking about what happened after Acts 28 and fitting the letters to Timothy in there.
By: Matt Borg on March 2, 2007
at 1:35 pm