Why do the islanders in Acts 28:4–6 first label Paul a murderer and then a god, and does this shift reflect historical misunderstanding or mythmaking? Historical Context and Scriptural Overview In Acts 28:4–6, we read: “When the islanders saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, ‘Surely this man is a murderer. Although he has escaped the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.’ But Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. They expected him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.” This passage describes the apostle Paul’s interaction with the inhabitants of Malta following his shipwreck. Initially, they label him a murderer; then, when he is unharmed by the snakebite, they conclude he is a god. Below is an exhaustive exploration of the reasons behind this extreme change in perception, addressing whether it reflects historical distortion, misunderstanding, or mythmaking. 1. Geographical and Cultural Setting of Malta Situated in the central Mediterranean, Malta was a natural stop for ancient shipping routes due to its strategic location between Sicily and North Africa. First-century Malta, under Roman rule, had a diverse population. The inhabitants that Luke (the author of Acts) labels as “islanders” or “natives” (sometimes rendered “barbarians” in some translations) were neither necessarily primitive nor uneducated; rather, the term suggests they spoke a language other than Greek or Latin. Archaeological research on Malta has uncovered ruins of Roman settlements that corroborate Luke’s account of a civilized locale, including the presence of a leading official named Publius (Acts 28:7). This aligns with ongoing historical and archaeological studies—for instance, Sir William Ramsay’s early 20th-century investigations, which affirmed much of Luke’s detailed geographical precision in Acts. 2. The Islanders’ Initial Reaction: “Surely This Man Is a Murderer” Upon witnessing a viper fasten onto Paul’s hand, the Maltese observers interpret it as divine justice for some crime—specifically murder. Spiritually and philosophically, the ancient world was rife with the concept of retributive deity or fate (Greek: moira, or the Roman concept of “justice” personified). • Contextual Belief in Divine Vengeance: In Greco-Roman thought, if someone survived a calamity only to fall victim to another catastrophe, it was often seen as the gods’ punishment or Nemesis for hidden guilt. • Parallel in Scripture: This notion resonates with accounts elsewhere in Acts, where mistaken assumptions about God’s judgment lead onlookers to false conclusions (cf. Acts 14:8–11, where Paul and Barnabas are mistaken for gods). • Textual Accuracy: The language in Acts 28:4 is direct. Luke describes the islanders’ reasoning step by step, reflecting an eyewitness record rather than any mythical rendering. Early manuscripts of Acts—such as Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century)—preserve consistent wording that fits the cultural context of attributing adversity to divine retribution. 3. Paul’s Lack of Injury: Defusing the “Murderer” Assumption Paul’s complete lack of physical reaction to the viper’s venom plays a critical role in the sudden change of opinion. • Immediate Observations: The islanders “expected him to swell up or suddenly drop dead” (Acts 28:6). Given the prevalence of venomous snakes in certain Mediterranean regions, the locals would have been well-acquainted with the typical effects of such bites. • Biblical Parallels: This episode recalls the broader promise of divine preservation that appears in passages like Luke 10:19 and echoes a theme of Paul’s life: God’s hand of protection upon His apostolic witness (Acts 27:23–24). • Medical-Historical Consistency: Historical records from the Roman era note that viper bites typically resulted in swelling, intense pain, or even paralysis. The sudden shift from assumptions of guilt to the possibility of divinity reflects the islanders’ cultural worldview—observing dramatic supernatural or extraordinary occurrences could imply the intervention of a deity. 4. The Islanders’ Final Declaration: “They Changed Their Minds and Said He Was a God” When Paul suffers no harm, the islanders swing to an opposite extreme, deducing that he must possess divine power. • Precedent in the Book of Acts: This is not the first time an apostle was mistaken for a god (see Acts 14:8–18, where the people of Lystra label Paul and Barnabas “Hermes” and “Zeus”). It is a hallmark of ancient societies that startling miracles or unexplained healings could lead to veneration of the instrument (Paul) rather than the Source (God). • No Mythmaking Indicated: Contrary to any suggestion of deliberate mythmaking, Luke’s account fits seamlessly into the known cultural and religious mindset of the time. Eyewitness accounts—Luke himself traveled with Paul—heighten the credibility. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, often wrote of the common people’s quick leaps to interpreting events as divine demonstrations. This does not negate historicity but rather reflects normal human response in a pre-scientific context. • Salient Historical Detail: If Luke or other early Christians had been fabricating a myth, we would expect the story to place Paul’s “godhood” in a more permanent or glorifying light. Instead, Luke merely reports the islanders’ brief, mistaken reverence, followed by Paul’s ministry among them, including healing Publius’ father (Acts 28:8–9). This consistency points to historical reportage. 5. Addressing Potential Claims of Historical Misunderstanding or Mythmaking Some might argue that such an account is evidence of a legend’s development over time. However, several strands of support counter that idea: 1. Literary Style of Acts: Classical scholar Colin Hemer and archaeologist Sir William Ramsay observed that Acts contains numerous verifiable geographic and social details (Acts 18:12 and the inscription about Gallio in Delphi, for example). This reliability in other details gives weight to Luke’s credibility in narrating events on Malta. 2. Eyewitness Testimony: Luke often uses “we” language in Acts (e.g., Acts 28:2, “The islanders showed us extraordinary kindness…”), implying first-hand observation. The directness of the passage suggests Luke was simply describing what he and others saw, rather than shaping it into a myth. 3. Archaeological Confirmation: The mention of “the chief official of the island” (Acts 28:7) matches archaeological discoveries of inscriptions referencing leading figures on Malta. This external evidence bolsters the notion that Luke recorded actual events, including the islanders’ cultural reaction. 4. Textual Preservation: In the thousands of Greek manuscripts that preserve the Book of Acts (e.g., Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae), the consistency in the text of Acts 28 lends further support to the reliability of this account. Textual scholars such as Dr. Dan Wallace point to the stability of Acts’ manuscript traditions, showing that the story has been faithfully transmitted. 6. Insight into Human Behavioral Reaction From a human and behavioral science perspective, people often interpret unexplained or dramatic occurrences through the lens of their existing beliefs. Here, the islanders had a framework that included gods or divine forces enacting justice. When two conflicting data points—Paul’s survival at sea and a deadly snakebite—merged, they attributed the second event to vengeance for some heinous crime. On seeing the opposite outcome (no poisoning), it became a “divine sign” of Paul’s otherworldly nature. The shift from labeling Paul “murderer” to “god” highlights the swiftness with which an unexpected event can upend preconceived notions. Far from undermining the historical account, Luke’s portrayal is an honest reflection of the psychological transitions that occur when people encounter the miraculous—or what they perceive to be supernatural intervention. 7. Conclusion and Theological Implications In summary, the islanders’ dramatic shift in perception—first calling Paul a murderer, then calling him a god—neither indicates mythmaking nor historical misunderstanding. Instead, it reflects: • The cultural and religious worldview of first-century Malta. • The immediate human response to unexplained events. • Luke’s reliability as a historian documenting an eyewitness scenario. • God’s power and protection over Paul, consistent with broader biblical teaching. The episode underscores, not Paul’s divine status, but divine sovereignty working through Paul. Paul himself, as shown elsewhere (cf. Acts 14:14–16), always points people back to the true and living God whenever mistaken adoration arises. Acts 28:4–6 is not an isolated or fictitious legend. It fits coherently within the historical, archaeological, and textual record, and it aligns with the overall scriptural narrative of God’s miraculous guidance and preservation of His apostolic witnesses. This passage not only defends the historicity of Luke’s account but also serves as a reminder that signs and wonders—as witnessed on Malta—point to the Creator who actively intervenes in human history. |
    |