True to our native land, p.49
True to Our Native Land, page 49
Paul is the most important character in the Acts of the Apostles. . . . His character is portrayed as embodying most of the important lessons or ideas that the writer wants to convey to the audience. . . . His greatest achievement was his ability to step out of his sectarian past to shake hands with others throughout the Roman Empire. Paul’s egalitarianism touched the lives of women from different classes, slaves, uncircumcised Jews, politicians, artisans, tent makers, followers of John the Baptist, sailors, Jewish-Christians, and even procurators and kings.111
Interestingly, however, compared with many of his speeches, Paul’s speech at the Areopagus of Athens was apparently unsuccessful (17:15–34): there were few converts, and there is no record in the New Testament that a church developed in Athens as a result of Paul’s mission there (cf. 17:34).112 However, using Stoic and Jewish arguments, Paul expands upon the idea of Jew and Gentile unity under the sovereignty of God. Both Jews and Greeks agreed that God is the creator of the cosmos (17:24–25), that all human beings have a common origin (or are “from one blood” kjv, 17:27), and that God created all nations (17:28–29). These universalist themes aptly congeal in this speech. Such important ideals of human unity could not go unnoticed by African Americans in search of authoritative support for their arguments and rhetoric of freedom and equality. For this reason, Acts 17:21 became a touchstone for their religious-political rhetoric of human unity and equality.
Excursus: The African American Protest Tradition and the “One Blood” Doctrine
Benjamin Banneker (1731–1806), one of the most remarkable figures of eighteenth-century America, was born free in Maryland. His Almanacs were published widely throughout the United States in the 1790s, and he was one of a team of three who planned and surveyed the site for the present city of Washington, DC. In a letter sent to Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, he alluded to Acts 10:34–36 and 17:26, and also employed his own personal example of intellectual excellence and nobility of character to counter claims of Black inferiority. Banneker stated:
Now Sir, if this is founded in truth [that Jefferson himself is a reasonable man, well-disposed to the Black cause], I apprehend you will embrace every opportunity, to eradicate that train of absurd and false ideas and opinions, which so generally prevails with respect to us; and that your sentiments are concurrent with mine, which are, that one universal Father hath given being to us all; and that he hath not only made us all of one flesh [Acts 17:26] but that he hath also, without partiality [Acts 10:34] afforded us all the same sensations and endowed us all with the same faculties; and that however variable we may be in society or religion, however diversified in situation or color, we are all in the same family and stand in the same relation to him.113
For Banneker and other Blacks, it was not enough to hold a particular idea to be true, but especially for Christians, those who hold the Bible as authoritative, that conviction should compel or motivate one to action. The passages from Acts 10:34 and 17:26 aided Blacks in their efforts to realize freedom and equality in a society where the odds were stacked against them. Likewise Bishop Ransom, in his speech “The Race Problem in a Christian State, 1906,” perceived from Acts 17:26 the true basis for the foundation of civil government. He noted that Jesus’s own ministry was carried out in the midst of racial antagonisms, and the basis of his ministry and death on the cross was to eliminate these barriers to human unity and equality. He declared:
St. Paul, standing in the Areopagus, declared to the Athenians that, “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth [Acts 17:26].” . . . Jesus Christ founded Christianity in the midst of the most bitter and intense antagonisms of race and class. Yet he ignored them all, dealing with Jew, Samaritan, Syro-Phoenician, Greek and Roman. . . . God, through the Jew, was educating the world, and laying a moral and spiritual foundation. That foundation was the establishment of the one God idea.114
Ransom again, in a sermon titled, “Golden Candlesticks Shall Illuminate Darkest Africa,” emphasized the unity and equality of humanity through the declaration of Acts 17:26 that all humanity stems from “one blood.”
The “one blood doctrine,” as Ransom termed it, was an important means of underscoring the central theme of the unity of humanity, as well as the equality of all people before God. In his speech “The Sixtieth Anniversary of the Founding of the AME Church in West Africa,” Ransom could also refer to this passage with reference to the ministry of the AME church: “Ours is not a church that is born out of theological controversy, but stands upon the doctrine that all men everywhere are of one blood and that in the church there should be neither nationality, race, nor color, but all meeting together in a plain of absolute freedom and equality.”115
Bishop Ransom and the “One Blood Doctrine”
Since all the families of the earth are now one through their daily contacts upon the land, sea, and the air, they are in a position now to receive and accept the “One Blood Doctrine,” as a final link in a chain that not only reveals the sovereignty of God, but also unites all the peoples of the earth by affirmation of the “One Blood Doctrine,” which means the brotherhood, freedom, and equality of all mankind.
After his twenty-seven consecutive years of presidential leadership in the National Baptist Convention, Dr. E. C. Morris’s final address was read posthumously. Morris claimed that racial justice was a necessary condition if Blacks were to remain Christians:
I may be criticized for devoting this much of my address to racial matters, but my only apology is that, unless we can in what may be termed a Christian land, secure for our race, from the dominant race such privileges to which they are entitled, we cannot hope to hold them in the Christian religion. . . . We early imbibed the religion of the white man; we believed in it; we believe in it now, and hope never to be divorced from it; but if that religion does not mean what it says, if God did not make of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth [Acts 17:26], and if we are not to be counted as part of that generation, by those who handed the oracle down to us, the sooner we abandon them or it, the sooner we will find our place in a religious sect in the world. . . . If the American ideal—viz. Freedom . . . guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States—is not given us, then we should in mass rise up and leave our churches, and schools, and . . . seek asylum among a people who will recognize merit in any man regardless of his color, creed or condition.116
Florence Spearing Randolph, a renowned AME Zion minister, missionary, suffragist, lecturer, organizer, and temperance worker, spoke out directly against racist attitudes in her sermon “If I Were White.” She grounded her attack against racism on the “one blood” saying of Acts 17:26:
If I were white and believed in God, in His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Bible, I would speak in no uncertain words against Race Prejudice, Hate, Oppression, and Injustice. I would prove my race superiority by my attitude towards minority races; towards oppressed people. I would remember that of one blood God made all nations of men to dwell upon the face of the earth.117
Randolph inferred that race really means nothing in the sight of God, because all humanity shares a common ancestry, a fact that challenges those whites who claim a racial superiority. If such a thing exists, it would be based on how one treated those who are oppressed and on the fringes of society. What these and countless other expressions reveal about Black Christian communities is that they understood and explained their existence not through exclusive theological propositions or dogma, but chiefly on account of social—here including political and economic and educational—realities.118
18:1—20:38, Paul in Corinth, Ephesus, and Greece
Leaving Athens, Paul’s next stop was Corinth, where he met with a Jewish-Christian couple, Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca), recently arriving from Rome on account of an edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from the city (18:1–2).119 As tent makers, Paul and Aquila worked together in their trade and in the gospel, preaching first in the synagogue (vv. 3–4). However, after receiving some opposition from “the Jews,” Paul declared that he would go exclusively to the Gentiles (of that city!). After the conversion of Crispus, the official of the synagogue (whom Paul baptized; cf. 1 Cor 1:14), Christ confirms Paul’s success in Corinth through a vision, despite more opposition from “the Jews,” and Paul stays there about eighteen months (18:5–17). At the end of this period, Paul bids the believers of Corinth goodbye, returning to several areas he visited before (18–23), ending what scholars have termed his “second missionary journey” (Acts 15:36–18:23). Finally, Luke recounts in 18:24–28 how both Priscilla and Aquila (name order is reversed and important) lead Apollos, a well-versed Alexandrian Jew, more accurately in the Way of God (v. 26).
While Apollos is in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:1–9, 21–23), Paul is in Ephesus, where he stays for more than two years (19:1–20). His time in Ephesus supplies the background to his Corinthian correspondence (1 and 2 Corinthians). While in Ephesus not only does Paul preach, but he also performs “extraordinary miracles” of casting out demons and curing the sick with “healing handkerchiefs” (vv. 11–12). Paul’s positive example is contrasted with the negative example of the seven sons of a Jewish priest named Sceva, who as exorcists try to exorcise a demoniac in Jesus’s name but are shamefully overpowered (vv. 12–20). It is in Ephesus that, according to Luke, Paul desires to see Rome (v. 21), and this is the first intimation of such, which is comparable to Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem in the Gospels—this is where both meet their fate! Following the uproar in Ephesus (20:22–41), Paul makes some last visits to Greece (Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea) and settles for a brief while in Troas (20:1–6). While in Troas he raises Eutychus (20:7–12) and then starts a return trip to Ephesus (10:13–20). It is at this time that he calls the Ephesian elders together and makes his farewell speech (20:18–35), in which he (1) upholds his integrity in the gospel in the face of plots and opposition, knowing the fate that awaits him in Jerusalem (vv. 18–24) and (2) warns the elders of the dangers awaiting the church after his departure and gives them a charge to hold fast to the example he has provided for them (vv. 25–35). When Paul finishes his speech, he and the elders weep and embrace, and they bring him to the departing ship knowing that they will never see one another again (vv. 36–38).
Chapters 21–28, The Gospel and the Roman Empire
21:1—23:35, Paul’s Fateful Journey to Jerusalem and Personal Defense before Jewish Leaders
Paul now makes his way to Jerusalem, passing through various locales (Cos, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Syria on to Tyre; 21:1–6). When he arrives in Caesarea and visits the house of the evangelist Philip and his four “prophesying daughters,” the prophet Agabus demonstrates to him his fate in Jerusalem by means of a symbolic act (he binds him hand and feet with his own belt, vv. 10–11). Nevertheless, they cannot persuade Paul to stay, for his heart is fixed (vv. 12–14): so after some days he makes his way to Jerusalem (vv. 15–16). Consistent with Luke’s narrative, Paul’s initial arrival is positive: the Jerusalem brothers receive him warmly (vv. 17–19) and encourage him to demonstrate his faithfulness to the law by undergoing a purification vow (vv. 20–26). Then, in vv. 27–40, the tide turns on account of “Jews from Asia” (vv. 27–30), who stir up the crowd against Paul. If not for the intervention of the tribune, who arrests and initially mistakes Paul for an Egyptian who led a recent revolt in Palestine, Paul might have succumbed to mob violence (vv. 31–40). The tribune grants Paul permission to speak, and Paul offers his defense against his accusers. He recounts his birth and upbringing, his “conversion,” his subsequent ministry to the Gentiles, and his Roman citizenship, which immediately gains the attention of the tribune (22:1–29). The next day Paul is given another audience before the Sanhedrin (22:30—23:11), in which he exploits differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees to gain support from the Pharisees. After a plot is discovered (vv. 12–25), the tribune sends Paul for an audience with Felix, procurator of Judea (52–56 ce, vv. 26–35). Thus, in accordance with Agabus’s prophecy, Paul is taken captive in Jerusalem.
24:1—26:32, Paul’s Defense before Roman Magistrates and His Appeal to Rome
The narrative audience now shifts from Jewish to Roman, although some Jerusalem elders attend the hearing (24:1–27). Paul offers another speech in his defense (vv. 10–21), but Felix holds him over under limited custody until his appointment is succeeded by Porcius Festus (appointed in 60 ce, v. 27). Under Porcius Festus, Paul makes his appeal to Rome (the emperor’s tribunal [v. 10], 25:1–12). After several more days, he offers a defense before Agrippa (25:13—26:32). In this speech Paul proffers a convincing defense of his position, and Agrippa makes a pronouncement of his innocence but detains him because of his appeal to Caesar (26:32).
27:1—28:31, Paul’s Final Adventurous Journey to Rome
His fate sealed, Paul and other prisoners set sail for Rome. They pass through several locales on the way from Caesarea in the east toward Rome in the west (27:1–7). When they arrive at Fair Havens, Paul, perceiving danger, prevails upon the captain to delay the journey, but to no avail (27:8–13). Paul’s perceptions are confirmed when the ship encounters a large storm at sea. An angel, however, assures Paul that no harm would come to the crew or passengers, and the ship runs aground on the island of Malta (27:14–44). Just as Paul saves the life of the Philippian jailer who supposed that the prisoner had escaped (16:27–28), so too are the lives of the prisoners aboard the ship spared on account of Paul (vv. 42–44). While on the island, a snake bites Paul, but he suffers no ill effects, which amazes the inhabitants. Moreover, after healing the father of the leading man of the island, Publius, the inhabitants bring their sick to Paul, who heals them also (28:1–10). Leaving the region, after a few more stops along the way, Paul finally arrives in Rome (28:16). Soon after his arrival, Paul calls together the leading Jews and recounts his case to them. Some believe and some do not (28:17–25). This situation leads to Paul’s (or more likely, Luke’s) quote of Isaiah 42:1, 6, which decries Israel’s lack of perception, resulting in Paul’s declaration that the Gentiles will hear the gospel (28:26–29). Luke ends his narrative with Paul under house arrest, preaching and teaching without hindrance (28:30–31).
Excursus—The Portrayal of Paul and His Mission in Acts
Acts provides a representative picture of Paul’s mission that includes a particular pattern: (1) He preaches first in the Jewish synagogue but turns to Gentiles when the synagogue preaching is no longer possible. (2) He announces the one God to Gentiles who have no contact with Jewish monotheism. (3) He repeatedly encounters persecution and moves on when necessary, but he does not abandon his mission, thus strengthening the new churches. In this mission Paul is fulfilling the Lord’s prophecy that he would “bear my name before Gentiles, and kings and sons of Israel” and “must suffer for my name” (9.15–16).120 From Acts 13 to 28 Luke presents Paul as challenging both religious and political powers; Paul’s enthusiasm to fulfill the divine call brings violence to his own life and to almost every city he visits. In addition to this picture of Paul, there has been a tendency in biblical scholarship to read Acts’ portrayal of Paul’s activity as a series of three “missionary journeys.” This arises not so much from a careful reading of the text as from the interest of missionary societies and movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in finding in Acts guidelines for their own missionary work.121 To be sure, African Americans also found in Paul’s mission and journeys a paradigm for their own missionary activity. It was not lost upon them that Luke represents Paul’s missionary ethos (character) as that of powerful words and deeds. For him “Paul represents not just the ideal Christian in the story; he is the ideal male.”122 Thus the narrative suggests that mission builds character and suffering refines it. In Luke’s portrayal of Paul the ideal of manhood and mission are combined.
Excursus—African Americans and Mission to Africa: Manhood and Mission
William H. Becker, in a seminal article, “The Black Church: Manhood and Mission,” proposed two interrelated theses regarding African American missions to Africa: (1) the definition and assertion of Black manhood as a conscious motive and overriding theme throughout the history of the Black church, and likewise (2) the assertion of Black manhood as a conscious motive in the Black appropriation of the widespread nineteenth-century belief that it was Black America’s providential calling to convert Africa to Christianity. Thus the idea of Black manhood and mission to Africa came to be united in Black Christian consciousness.123
Toward the latter half of the nineteenth century, this idea became fused with the identity of the AME Church. This is evident in a statement of the General Conference of 1872, which adopted this report on church union:
We are now more than ever convinced that the African Methodist Episcopal Church has yet a mission to perform, not only in the elevation and religious training of our long-neglected people in the United States, but in the perfect evangelization of Africa and the islands of the seas. . . . When prejudice on account of color shall be swept from the Church and shall disappear . . . then, and not until then, will the grand mission of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, as a separate organization, be at [an] end.
The emphasis on African mission is noteworthy. Why would the independent Black churches, Becker asks, dependent upon the poorest classes for its support, faced with financial difficulties and a shortage of educated leaders, and also confronted in 1863 with the task of serving millions of enslaved persons who had been newly freed, undertake foreign missions across the seas in Africa? Why cast the net so far, when the need is so great at home in America? In short, the challenge to white prejudice necessitates the existence and constitutes the identity of the AME Church and its mission to evangelize all Blacks, including those across the Atlantic in Africa. This also provided a means for Black men to exercise their manhood.124
