Military Leaders And Jonah In The Writings Of Luke, Part 2

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Kenneth W. Yates is a retired Army chaplain and is pastor of Little River Baptist Church, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.]

Abstract

The Gentile soldier Naaman is mentioned in the first teaching by Jesus that Luke records. At the end of Acts, Luke describes Julius, another Gentile soldier. The two accounts share similarities with each other and with the story of Jonah that reinforce Luke’s message concerning the outreach of God to Gentiles.

* * *

Introduction

The first part of this series argued that Naaman, a Gentile military leader, is used by Luke to support his message that Gentiles are included in God’s plan of salvation. The Lord Jesus mentions Naaman in his first sermon, given at Nazareth (Luke 4:27). This sermon shows not only that God reaches out to Gentiles, but that these Gentiles can respond to the revelation of God, even when some Jews fail to respond. God can reach these Gentiles in spite of their pagan backgrounds. Related to all of this are the allusions to the Old Testament prophet Jonah in the sermon at Nazareth and the mention of Naaman.

In Luke, Naaman is part of the earliest teaching of the Lord. At the end of Luke’s two-volume work, Luke–Acts, he writes of another Gentile military leader, a Roman centurion named Julius. Therefore, Naaman is found in the beginning of Christ’s ministry and Julius is found at the end of the ministry of Christ’s apostle. In the account of Julius the reader finds the same themes that were present in the mention of Naaman. As such, these two men form an inclusio that supports Luke’s message about Gentiles.

Julius And Jonah

The centurion Julius escorts Paul during the latter’s trip to Rome to appear before Caesar in Acts 27-28. Many have noted the similarities with Jonah in the journey of Paul and Julius.[1] Both Jonah and Paul were missionaries to the Gentiles. Both were involved in a storm on the Mediterranean that threatened the lives of all on board, and both were responsible for the deliverance of all of them. Both ended up on dry land and both preached in the Gentile capital of the world afterwards.[2] Among sailors who relied on other gods for protection, both gave credit to the God of the Jews for their deliverance (Jonah 1:14-16; Acts 27:34-36).

The jettisoning of the cargo in Acts 27:18 echoes the actions of the sailors in Jonah 1:5. Both accounts record the fear of the sailors and the danger of the ship being torn apart. Talbert and Hayes say the parallels reflect a “type-scene” situation, even though there are obvious differences between the account of Jonah and Paul.[3] When Paul says he serves God, the reader hears an echo of Jonah’s statement that he fears God (Acts 27:23: Jonah 1:9).[4]

The sailors in Luke’s account in Acts 27-28 reflect the pagan belief that the gods punish evildoers who travel on the sea. Such a belief includes the idea that innocent people can be harmed simply by association with an evil person. If this is the case, there is another parallel with Jonah. The sailors in Jonah 1 also believe that the gods are angry with someone on board (Jonah 1:7) and that they may suffer dire consequences as a result. In both Jonah and Acts, the sailors “pray” (Jonah 1:6, 14, 16; Acts 27:29).

Pervo and Parsons see another connection between the account of Paul’s shipwreck and Jonah. Jonah’s near drowning and his escape from it in Jonah 2:1-10 are an example of death and resurrection.

As seen in the previous article, Jesus draws a parallel in Luke 11:29-30 between his death and resurrection and the experience of Jonah. Pervo maintains that, similarly, the parallels between Paul and Jesus are all but overwhelming. If so, Paul’s near death through drowning and his escape from it correspond to the death and resurrection of Jesus.[5]

Both Paul and Jesus make a final journey to Jerusalem, during which there is a lack of understanding among those around them (Luke 9:51-19:46; Acts 19:21-21:17). Both are praised by the people of God (Luke 19:37; Acts 21:17-20). Both go into the temple (Luke 19:45-48; Acts 21:26). Both are seized (Luke 22:54; Acts 21:30). Both have four trials and are declared innocent by the Roman authorities. Both are saved from death, with Jesus experiencing resurrection and Paul being saved from drowning. Prior to their deliverance both experience a time of darkness (Luke 23:44; Acts 27:20).[6] It is significant, too, that in both cases there is a centurion who recognizes the innocence of the man in question. In the case of Jesus, it is the centurion at the cross (Luke 23:47). In the case of Paul, it is Julius.

If Paul’s shipwreck is a type of Jesus’s death and resurrection as well as an allusion to Jonah, this takes the reader back to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry. As discussed in the previous article, Jesus begins his ministry at Nazareth after his baptism. At his baptism he is associated with Jonah. His baptism, the reference to Jonah, and the voice from heaven prefigure His death. With both Paul in Acts 27-28 and Jesus in Luke 3-4, a pagan military leader plays a role. At Nazareth it is Naaman. In Paul’s case, it is Julius. Both Gentiles are open to the revelation of God before their eyes and respond to it like the Ninevites did to the preaching of Jonah.

These men are Gentiles to whom God reaches out. This would agree with Luke’s theology, as would the idea that when Gentiles such as Julius and Naaman are open to the revelation of God, it is a rebuke to unbelief among some Jews. The sailors in Jonah and the Ninevites also provide rebukes to such unbelief. The trouble on the sea caused the sailors to call out in faith to God (1:6, 16),[7] and the Ninevites repented at Jonah’s message.

The Background Of Julius

Julius comes across in a very positive light in Acts 27-28. His actions are completely understandable from within his pagan background.

There was a belief in the Greco-Roman world that the gods punished evildoers on sea voyages. Homer writes that the sea is a place where evildoers are punished.8 This meant that if innocent people associated with a guilty person, they might also experience the punishment of the gods. Miles and Trompf refer to this as religious pollution.[9] Livy indicates that at least some in the Roman army believed such pollution was possible.[10]

This belief may have existed for centuries. In the fifth century BC, a passenger on a sea voyage was charged with murder because he was the last to see a fellow passenger during a stop. Part of the defense was that the accused man must have been innocent because all of the other passengers safely reached their destination not only on that particular voyage, but on all the other voyages he had been on as well.[11]

When Julius saw that Paul’s predictions turned out to be true and that the whole ship was saved, these beliefs may have persuaded Julius that Paul was innocent. And the fact that Paul said he got his information from a messenger of God (27:23) would suggest that he was more than simply innocent. In addition, 27:24 suggests that Paul had asked God to save the people on board. Julius saw that Paul was connected with the Divine.[12]

Since Julius belonged to a profession that valued courage, it is likely that he was impressed with that quality in Paul. Twice Paul encouraged those around him to have courage (27:22, 25), even though they were in mortal danger (27:20). As a centurion, Julius would have been responsible for instilling such courage in those under his charge. Paul did this very thing based on his faith in God. He was calm in the face of danger (27:33-34). This calm is more impressive when compared with the fear of the sailors (27:29-30). This faith in God and calm in the face of death were shared by Jesus on the cross. The centurion at the cross was impressed by these attributes when he saw them in Jesus and proclaimed that he was a righteous, or innocent, man (Luke 23:47).

Throughout the account of the voyage, Luke reminds the reader of the pagan belief that the gods punish the evildoer and rescue the innocent. The islanders expressed this belief when Paul was bitten by the snake (28:4).[13] Parsons suggests that the islanders believed Paul was a murderer. The viper, a murderer, would have recognized another of its own kind.[14] Since the natives would almost certainly have known that Paul was a prisoner, the bite of the viper would have initially indicated that he was guilty.

A Greek sepulchral epigram records a similar account of a sailor who suffered shipwreck. He barely survived the ordeal, arriving on the coast of Libya naked and exhausted. A viper then bit him. The epigram asks, “Why did he struggle with the waves in vain, escaping then the fate that was his lot on the land?”[15]

The seemingly insignificant mention of the Twin Brothers as the figurehead of the ship Paul took to Italy also points to this pagan belief (Acts 28:11). Epictetus says these gods protect innocent travelers and sailors.[16] Horace says that their constellation is a good omen in a storm.[17] These gods were particularly associated with punishing evildoers and protecting the innocent on the seas. Not surprisingly, they were among the favorite gods of sailors.[18] Bethe calls them an “inseparable pair of knights in every need, especially in struggle and storm,” and “helpers at sea.”[19] The Twins were also guardians of truth and punishers of liars. They protected those who cherish justice. These beliefs date from the fifth century BC but existed in the first century as well.[20] Ladouceur states that it is significant that the Twins only appear on the last leg of Paul’s journey. This part of the trip confirms what has already been shown during the shipwreck and stay on Malta.[21]

Luke may also be indicating this belief in pagan gods in 27:29. The sailors “prayed” (ηὔχοντο) for daylight as they approached the island. This may have been a prayer for deliverance from danger.[22] Although εὔχομαι can simply mean “to wish,” its use in the New Testament suggests there is a spiritual component involved here.[23] If so, the sailors were praying to their own gods for deliverance.

Julius lived in an empire with this worldview and religious belief. The fact that Paul was delivered through all these dangers would have impacted Julius’s view of his prisoner. In addition, it played a part in his actions toward his prisoner.

The Character Of Julius

Luke clearly indicates the virtuous character of Julius. In Acts 27:3, when the ship landed in Sidon, Julius treated Paul with kindness (φιλανθρώπως). This includes allowing Paul to stay with friends while waiting to sail to Rome. For security reasons, a centurion would usually keep prisoners on board. This is an unusual act of kindness and at the very least an indication that Julius trusted Paul.[24]

It seems that Luke wanted to connect the kindness of Julius with that of the natives and Publius on the island. Publius and the natives took Paul in as a guest. They helped him after the shipwreck and sent him off with gifts when he left the island. Luke uses similar words to describe the kindness of all these individuals (φιλανθρωπίαν; φιλοφρόνως; 28:2, 7). Φιλανθρωπία is used in the New Testament to describe the kindness of God in Titus 3:4.

Ulrich Luck groups φιλανθρωπία and φιλοφρόνως together.[25] The words describe the kindness of pagan kings in their clemency in relation to the Jews (3 Macc. 3:15; 2 Macc. 9:27). Philo says such kindness is part of what makes up perfect virtue[26] and that in order to be a friend of God one must practice it.[27] It is to be shown toward one’s enemies.[28] It is a characteristic of God.[29]

Luke’s mention of this kindness suggests that the attitude of Julius was out of the ordinary. Ignatius, who was probably martyred around AD 120, did not have a similar experience. He was transported overland and by sea from Syria to Rome. Roman soldiers escorted him. He described them as “leopards” because they were so cruel to him. When he was kind to them, they only treated him worse.[30] Rapske maintains that prisoners would normally be kept under the deck during a voyage. Luke, however, pictures Paul above deck. He was able to talk with others, encourage them, and even eat with them. This is another indication of Julius’s kindness toward Paul.[31] The first-century reader would probably have seen the actions of Julius as virtuous.

Luke does not say why Julius treated Paul this way. As discussed above, his later kindness may reflect his pagan beliefs, but it is also possible that Julius knew about Christianity. He was familiar with Caesarea, where the voyage had begun, and in which Cornelius and his household had come to faith. With a relatively small number of centurions in the region, it is entirely possible that Julius would have heard of his fellow centurion’s faith. Polhill says Julius’s kindness simply means that he had a generous spirit, while Pervo says the centurion was impressed with Paul’s character.[32] He recognized virtue in others.

Julius’s kindness to Paul suggests that he saw the Divine at work in Paul. After the shipwreck, Paul’s prediction in 27:22-26 certainly caused Julius to see this. Paul said that an angel of God appeared to him with a revelation about the things that would happen to the ship—the ship destroyed, no loss of life, and running aground on an island. The odds of all these things happening were extremely small. The island they landed on was the only one in a distance of 250 miles in which such a landing could take place.[33] Paul’s prediction was like finding a needle in a haystack.

The island provided a unique opportunity for Paul’s prediction to come true.[34] James Smith describes Malta in detail and says that the traditional place of the shipwreck met numerous necessary conditions. Included in these is that on the island the rocks disintegrate into fine particles that form mud offshore. This mud caused the ship to become stuck without being destroyed.[35]

Even when the ship arrived at the island a number of things occurred in order for Paul’s prediction to become reality (27:41-44). The actions of the seasoned sailors in 27:30 show that they did not think the prediction was possible. When the prediction did come true, it seems to have had an impact on Julius as he saved Paul from the intent of the soldiers to kill him (27:43). The verb ἐκέλευσέν is best taken as a perfective or consummative aorist. Julius not only hindered the plan of the soldiers, he prevented it.[36]

As Julius observed the character of Paul and saw Paul’s predictions come true, he learned to listen to this Jewish prophet (27:30-32).[37] The cutting away of the small boat of the ship came about by order of Julius (27:32). It was not a practical thing to do and put those on board in greater danger.[38] That this order resulted from Paul’s warning indicates that Julius had come to respect and trust Paul. Whereas before, Paul had given his opinion (27:10), now he said that his God had appeared to him with direct revelation. Julius was open to these developments. He evidently came to believe that he owed his life to the God Paul served.[39]

Paul’s prediction involved more than deliverance from the seas. The people on the ship needed deliverance on shore as well. There was the danger of pirates in the Mediterranean. Natives on an island could very well have been hostile to those involved in a shipwreck. It would have been an excellent opportunity for the natives to harm those on board and steal loot.[40] However, these natives treated Paul and his fellow travelers with kindness.

Luke mentions that there were 276 people on the ship and Paul’s prediction that not one of them would suffer harm came true. The miraculous nature of this prediction perhaps explains why Luke included the number of people on board (27:37). Josephus’s own account of a shipwreck shows the extent of the miracle. Only 80 of 600 people from that ship survived.[41]

Conzelmann notices a difference between Luke’s presentation of Paul on the ship and on the island. In Acts 27, Paul is a prisoner. After the shipwreck, on the island, the military presence disappears.[42] Since Julius was the senior ranking military man present, this change in Paul’s status was the result of Julius’s kindness. It is extremely likely that Julius would have been invited into the home of Publius and thus have observed the miracle in his home (28:7-8) and all but certain that Julius would have known about the other miracles on the island (28:9).[43] It seems that the episode on the ship and the events on Malta caused Julius to be impressed by Paul.

When the party arrived in Puteoli, Julius allowed Paul to stay with friends for seven days (Acts 28:14). It appears that the kindness Julius showed toward Paul was the result of Paul’s character, leadership, and the evidence of God’s work in him. It is not surprising that a centurion would appreciate these qualities. Paul seems to have the same impact on other military members in Philippians 1:12-13.[44]

Since Julius responded properly to the revelation of God’s power, he was in that sense a God-fearer. In Jonah, similarly, the pagan sailors were the true God-fearers. When they saw the power of God at work, they responded appropriately and “feared the Lord greatly” (Jon. 1:6, 16). They made vows to the God of Jonah. It is perhaps significant that during the fearful experience the sailors prayed (1:16). The Septuagint here uses the same verb as that used to describe the sailors on board Paul’s ship (Acts 27:29).

Julius’s pious deeds in Acts 27-28 are a rebuke of the unbelief and actions of certain Jews. The reader is well aware that Paul was on his way to Rome because the religious Jews in Jerusalem had rejected his message and tried to kill him (Acts 23:12-15). Julius not only accepted what God did in Paul, he even saved the apostle’s life.

The Gospel In Acts 27-28 And The Conversion Of Julius

A striking feature of Paul’s journey to Rome in Acts 27-28 is that the gospel is not preached. A number of miracles occur, though, including Paul’s miraculous predictions on the ship, his salvation from a snakebite, and the healings on Malta. Even when the soldiers cut the small boat away from the ship in 27:32, which made Paul’s prediction more difficult, it all became true.[45]

In addition, Gentiles were friendly toward Paul. They showed him kindness and hospitality. The actions of Julius, the islanders, and Publius resemble the hospitality Christians gave Paul (27:3; 28:2, 7, 10).[46] The combination of miracles and the friendly attitude of Gentiles toward Paul prompts the question Why did Paul not preach the gospel to any of them, especially since he spent three months on the island (28:11)? The apparent omission is even more amazing because elsewhere in Acts miracles are a prelude to the preaching of the gospel (Acts 3:6-26; 14:9-21; 19:11-17). Miracles confirm the truth of the good news.

These facts lead Williams to conclude that the gospel was indeed preached on the ship and on Malta. Even though Luke is silent on the issue, the opportunity to proclaim the good news of Christ would have been too good to pass up.[47] Luke may have had reasons for not recording the preaching of the gospel to Julius, Publius, and the islanders.

This hospitality of the Gentiles to Paul is in contrast to the reception of Paul by the Jews in Rome (28:25-28). Paul said that the gospel would go to the Gentiles. The attitude of the Gentiles on the voyage to Rome is a reproach to Israel. Even if the gospel is not mentioned as preached to them, the whole episode indicates that the Gentiles were open to the messengers of the gospel. Since it was the Jews’ negative reaction to Paul in Jerusalem that caused Paul to sail to Rome in the first place, the contrast with these Gentiles is even clearer. In people like Julius, Publius, and the islanders, readers see that just as Paul reached out to Gentiles, so should they (28:30-31).[48]

The location of Malta is significant for this message. It marks the farthest west that the gospel had traveled in Paul’s missionary journeys. As the church expanded into new regions, the account in Acts 27-28 shows that Gentiles outside the current domain of the church were open to the gospel. Alexander observes that, of all the people in Acts, these are the only ones Luke calls “barbarians.”49 The message would be that even “barbarians” were open to the message of Christ.

These Gentiles were open to what God was doing in Paul. This probably explains the enigmatic eucharistic language of Acts 27:35, where Paul ate with Gentiles on the ship. This is not a Eucharist celebrated with unbelievers. There is no wine, no explanation of the elements, and no distribution.[50] This meal was to curb hunger and give the sailors physical strength for what lay ahead. It likely refers to a normal meal that Jews and Christians both ate after giving thanks. Even so, it may foreshadow that God was bringing salvation to the Gentiles.[51]

Conclusion

Luke’s presentation of Julius exhibits many of the same themes seen in the mention of Naaman. Since these two Gentile military leaders mark the beginning and end of the message of Christ in Luke’s work, they form an inclusio that supports Luke’s purpose and theology.

Julius was open to the revelation of God. He also exhibited pious characteristics. Both of these traits are rebukes to the rejection of God’s revelation by some in the Jewish nation. Allusions to Jonah in the account of Julius’s trip to Rome reinforce this rebuke.

In these passages and throughout Luke–Acts, Luke emphasizes that God’s plan of salvation includes those outside of Judaism. People do not need to come to Judaism to experience spiritual deliverance. God can reach people in whatever background they find themselves.

For the Christian reader of Luke–Acts there is another message. As Jonah went to Nineveh, Elisha went to Naaman, and Paul went on the journey to Rome, the reader is to take the message of salvation to all people. It is noticeable that the Scriptures do not tell the reader if Naaman or Julius became believers.[52] That is not Luke’s point. The point is that believers should go and proclaim the gospel. When they do, they will find people who are open to that message.

Notes

1. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts, New International Comm-entary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 498; Everett F. Harrison, Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 411.
2. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 652-53; Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition, Westminster Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 477-78.
3. Charles H. Talbert and J. H. Hayes, “A Theology of Sea Storms in Luke-Acts,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy, ed. David P. Moessner (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 768-69; see also Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 704.
4. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Intro-duction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 771; M. D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: S.P.C.K., 1964), 177.
5. Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 360; Pervo, Acts, 648-49, 675.
6. Goulder, Type and History in Acts, 61; Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series (Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press, 1974), 15-23.
7. Rackham, Acts, 486, n. 7.
8. Odyssey 12.127-41, 259-446; see also David J. Williams, Acts, New Interna-tional Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 426.
9. Gary B. Miles and Garry Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27-28 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution, and Ship-wreck,” Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): 261-63.
10. History of Rome 22, §§1-6.
11. Antiphon, On the Murder of Herodes, §§82-83.
12. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 1201.
13. Pervo, Acts, 645; David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 703; John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 532.
14. Parsons, Acts, 361.
15. W. R. Paton, trans., The Greek Anthology, Books 7-8, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917), 159, §290.
16. Discourses 2.18.29.
17. Odes 3.29.62-64.
18. Barrett, Acts, 1227; Bruce, Acts, 525; Peterson, Acts, 703. Peterson says that Luke meant this as a joke that the original readers would have understood. Pagan gods were not responsible for the safety of Paul and those on board. The one responsible was the God of Paul.
19. E. Bethe calls them “unzertrennliches ritterliches in jeder Not, jumal in Kampf und Sturm,” and “Helfer zur Seet hervor” (“Dioskuren,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 5 [Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1903], 1087).
20. David Ladouceur, “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1989): 445-46.
21. Ibid.
22. Peterson, Acts, 691.
23. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 321. The word is used seven times in the New Testament. In at least five of the other six instances it means to pray to God, including Luke’s only other use in Acts 26:29.
24. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 427; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 404; Williams, Acts, 427; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 760. Witherington says φιλανθώπως indicates that Julius was “truly human” and treated Paul as an equal. This equality, however, was simply because both were Roman citizens.
25. Ulrich Luck, “φιλανθρωπίαν, κτλ.,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 107-12.
26. De Abrahamo 107-118.
27. De decalogo 110.
28. De virtutibus 116-118.
29. Ibid., 77, 188.
30. To the Romans 5:1.
31. Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 3, Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 270.
32. Pervo, Acts, 655; Polhill, Acts, 516.
33. Polhill points out that with the wandering route they took due to the storm, they actually travelled much further, making the prediction an even more miraculous event (Acts, 524). See also Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 217.
34. Haenchen, Acts, 705; Peterson, Acts, 690; Polhill, Acts, 524; William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 341.
35. James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848), 89-103.
36. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 559-61.
37. Bruce, Acts, 516.
38. Bock, Acts, 739.
39. Bock, Acts, 728, 741.
40. Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Acts: Acts 16-28, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Academon, 2003), 1477-78; Pervo, Acts, 671; Williams, Acts, 442.
41. Josephus, Life §3; Bruce, Acts, 517; Polhill, Acts, 528.
42. Conzelmann, Acts, 223.
43. Witherington, Acts, 777.
44. Bock, Acts, 746; Everett F. Harrison, Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 422; Brian Rapske, “Acts, Travel, and Shipwreck,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 2, Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 18.
45. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 1205.
46. Polhill, Acts, 534.
47. Williams, Acts, 445.
48. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 697.
49. Loveday C. A. Alexander, Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles, Library of New Testament Studies (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 214.
50. Bruce, Acts, 517; Conzelmann, Acts, 227; Harrison, Interpreting Acts, 420; Marshall, Acts, 413; Talbert, Literary Patterns, 20; Witherington, Acts, 773. The giving of thanks can simply accompany a normal meal, as in 1 Timothy 4:5-6.
51. Bock, Acts, 740; Fitzmyer, Acts, 778-79; Rackham, Acts, 490; Williams, Acts, 439. Williams suggests that the Christians on board may have celebrated the Lord’s Supper.
52. This seems to be another similarity with Jonah. The reader of Jonah is not told whether the Ninevites converted, either. The message to the Jewish reader of Jonah was that God wanted to reach out to Gentiles as well.