19 So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 And the news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. 23 Then when he had come and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; 24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. 25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

27 Now at this time some prophets²⁰⁵ came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

Introduction

It is with good reason I have entitled this lesson, “One Step Backward and Two Steps Forward.” In terms of time, Luke has taken a step backward. In Acts 11:19 we find ourselves in Acts 11:19 at exactly the same point in time (or so it would seem) to Acts 8:1-4. We are taken back in time to the persecution which arose on account of Stephen, and to the scattering of the church. In Acts 8:4–11:17 Luke has described the way in which the gospel was proclaimed and received in all of Judea and Samaria. When Luke takes up the persecution and scattering of the church in Jerusalem in Acts 11:19 and following, he does so to show the propagation of the gospel to the Gentiles, with the first major church founded being at Antioch.

But if our text is a step back in time, it is easily two steps forward for the gospel. Not only are Gentiles saved, but an entire Gentile city—Antioch—is impacted with the gospel, an impact which will continue to grow long after the lives and ministries of men like Barnabas and Saul. It is, in fact, this church at Antioch which God ordained to be the launching pad for the gospel to many nations. It is from Antioch that Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:1), soon to become “Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 13:4ff.), will be sent for as missionaries. It is also Antioch which will play an interesting role with Jerusalem. It will be ministered to by those from Jerusalem, and it will, in turn, minister financially to those in Judea. It will also be the church in Antioch which will respond to the heretical teaching of some from Judea, by sending Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem where the so-called “Jerusalem Council” will be convened which will make a landmark decision concerning the gospel and the Gentiles.

It is shortly to come in Acts that we will leave Jerusalem and press toward Rome, that we will leave Peter and the other apostles in Jerusalem, and turn to Paul. Acts chapter 12 is a farewell to Peter, by and large, and beginning at Acts 13 we will begin to accompany Paul and Barnabas as they go forth with the gospel, to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. We are, here, seeing a giant stride being taken by the church, as purposed by God and as achieved through His Holy Spirit, working through His church.

The last part of Acts 11 is something like the “tomb of the unknown soldier,” for honored here are great heroes of the faith, and yet men and women who are unnamed and unknown to us, but known to God. These are, for the time being, anonymous heroes, heroes who contrary to their culture, and even contrary to the practice and convictions of their own Christian peers, carry out the implications of the gospel and the commands of Christ. What great lessons this text has for us!

The “Tight-Lipped” and the “Open-Hearted”
(11:19-21)

19 So then those who were scattered²⁰⁶ because of the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.

20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them,²⁰⁷ and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.²⁰⁸

Two very different kinds of people fled from Jerusalem ending up in places which could rightly be called “heathen.” The gospel was clearly in Gentile territory now, and the world would never be the same nor would the church. But before we look at those who proclaimed Christ and the many who believed, let us look at those who did not, who would not. What was the difference? Why did some preach Christ and others refuse? Here, I believe, is a “tension of the text.”

All we are told by Luke is that some—it would appear that they were the vast majority—went from Jerusalem and Judea into the world speaking the word to Jews only. Who would these people be? Luke does not tell us here. He only tells us that some went out speaking to Jews only, while others went out preaching Christ as Messiah to Gentiles. But we are given several lines of evidence which help us to suggest some reasons why one group sought to evangelize the Gentiles and the other did not.

(1) We are told where those people came from who preached Christ to the Gentiles. Those who preached Christ to the Gentiles were men of Cyprus and Cyrene.²⁰⁹ Barnabas, for example, was from the island of Cyprus (4:36). Simon, who carried the cross of our Lord (Luke 23:26) was a Cyrenian. Lucius too was a Cyrenian (Acts 13:1). There is one thing which we can safely and confidently conclude from what Luke has told us: those who proclaimed the gospel to the Gentiles were Hellenistic Jews.

(2) We can therefore infer that the “native Hebrews” did not share their faith with the Gentiles. This is understandable. If the apostles (such as Peter), who were “native Hebrews,” were reluctant to go to the Gentiles with the gospel, surely the other saints would be too. But even more than this, the “native Hebrews” were unable to speak the languages of the Gentiles. We see this at Pentecost, where the apostles were given the gift of tongues, so that they spoke of the mighty deeds of God in the native tongues of those who were “Hellenistic Jews.” Those “native Hebrews” (as I understand the text) did not know these “tongues” and thus wrote the whole matter off as the result of too much wine (cf. Acts 2:5-13). How difficult it would be to “speak the word” to those who spoke a language other than your own! These “native Hebrews” who went out, then, must have tended to associate only with other Jews, whose language they shared and with whom they could communicate. There may have been a cultural element here too, though it is something much harder to define. Likely, the “native Hebrews” were more provincial and certainly less cosmopolitan. They seem to be much more inclined to “keep to themselves” and not very open to association or communication with the “heathen.” And finally, it would seem that there were simply some who saw the gospel as universal, for all men, and thus they simply could not be kept from preaching it to the Gentiles as well.

Initially, I was inclined to think that the evangelization of the Gentiles was a kind of accident, something which no one really meant to happen, but it just did. I thought these saints were so overflowing with joy and love for God, they could not be selective to whom they told about Him. There may be an element of truth in this, but the longer I look at the text the more I am convinced that the evangelization of the Gentiles was purposeful and deliberate, rather than a matter of chance (even divinely “providential” chance). The expression, “preaching the Lord Jesus” (11:20), does not seem to imply mere chance, but clear intent.

There is an interesting interchange of words in verses 19 and 20 which I consider a significant clue to what Luke is trying to communicate here. Luke tells us that those scattered went out, “speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone” (11:19). He then goes on to describe the second group, who did evangelize the Gentiles. He uses two phrases to describe their activity: “speaking to the Greeks also,” and “preaching the Lord Jesus.” The first two instances of the word “speaking” employ the Greek root, laleo, while the third instance “preaching” is the Greek word euangelizo, the same term used in Acts 8:4, also rendered “preaching” by the NASB. In 8:5 “proclaiming” is the rendering of yet another Greek word, derived from the root, kerysso.²¹⁰

I understand Luke to be saying that the many who were scattered from Jerusalem, who “spoke the word” to Jews alone, were able (and/or willing) to speak only with Jews, which prevented them from sharing the gospel with anyone but fellow-Jews. The normal, conversational word for “speaking” is used by Luke to describe the communication of the “tight-lipped” native Hebrews. But when Luke came to this magnificent small group²¹¹ who “preached the Lord Jesus” to the Greeks, although he first described them as “speaking to the Greeks” (the same word used before, of the native Hebrews), he then described them as “preaching the Lord Jesus.” Here is a deliberate evangelism, which begins with a communications link of language, culture, and understanding, and ends with the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah.

(3) Those who were scattered from Jerusalem would have been inclined to pattern their lives according to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. It has taken a while for this fact to soak in, but I am convinced it is true and significant. As my wife and I talked about this text and about the reasons why so many saints failed to share their faith with the Gentiles, it suddenly occurred to me that these people were taught and led by the apostles, who did not believe the Gentiles should be evangelized. That is precisely the point of the whole account of Peter’s preaching at the house of Cornelius which immediately precedes this text.

We can see from the Old Testament that God had always intended to bring about a salvation for the Jews and the Gentiles. The Old Testament prophets spoke of this. It was a part of the revelation which accompanied our Lord’s birth (cf. Simeon’s citation of Isaiah’s prophecy in Luke 2:32). It was an early, a clear, and a consistent part of our Lord’s teaching as well (cf. Luke 4:22-27; 11:29-32; 13:6-9, 22-30; 20:9-18). Jesus, as He was leaving His disciples behind, gave them the Great Commission, a command to preach the good news to men of every nation (Matthew 28:18-20). In the first chapter of the Book of Acts, the disciples are pressing Jesus to know when Israel will have the kingdom of God restored to it, and Jesus’ words were a gentle rebuke, pointing to the inappropriateness of the question and assuring them that they would receive the Holy Spirit and that they would be witnesses to “the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:6-8).

The apostles, along with all who followed Jesus and His earthly teaching, should have known that the plan and purpose of God included the salvation of the Gentiles. But the fact is that the apostles were “slow of heart,” and what is so clear to us was not at all clear to them. This is why Peter, in his vision, refused to touch the unclean food, even when God commanded him to partake of it. This is why the saints in Jerusalem called Peter on the carpet for going to the house of Cornelius and preaching the gospel as though it were some great evil.

If those who were scattered from Jerusalem were those who were saved at Pentecost or later, and if they were taught “the apostles’ doctrine” (cf. Acts 2:42) and were led by the apostles—these men who were opposed to preaching to the Gentiles—is it any wonder those who were thus brought up in their Christian faith would be “like their teachers”?

As I initially thought about these Judean saints who went from Jerusalem speaking to no one by Jews, I was very inclined to look down on them as prejudiced and willfully disobedient. I now have a great deal more understanding and compassion, for many of these saints were handicapped by their (one) language and culture, and even those who were not were brought up as saints to believe that the gospel was for the Jews alone. No wonder Luke portrays the prejudice of Peter and the Jerusalem apostles and saints just prior to this account of the “tight-lipped” saints who were scattered from Jerusalem.

In contrast to this larger group of those who kept their faith to themselves and within Judaism, Luke tells of a smaller group who purposely evangelized the Greeks which eventually brought about the birth of the church at Antioch, a church which was to become a dominant and driving force in the world of that day and for centuries to come. What set this group apart so that they went about evangelizing the Gentiles, something not only contrary to their own teaching and background, but which was even looked down upon as an evil by their peers and fellow-believers? What made these people live the exception rather than the rule? Let me propose several factors.

(1) The sovereignty of God. In the final analysis, we must both start and end here at the sovereignty of God. When God purposes to save men of every nation, He will do so, apart from men’s ignorance, prejudice, or active resistance. He was thus able to save Nineveh even though Jonah rebelled all the way. If God could use the unbelieving opposition of a Saul to scatter the church so that the gospel was more broadly proclaimed, He could use men like the apostles and the rest of the Jerusalem saints in spite of their limitations and disobedience. God does not achieve His purposes through men because of our grasp of His ways or because of our great vision or understanding. God achieves His will through men because He is a Sovereign God who can even use the rebellion of men to praise Him. The salvation of the Gentiles was the work of a sovereign God, working through finite and fallible men.

(2) The “hand of the Lord was with them.”²¹² By and large, this statement refers primarily to the success which God gave to their evangelization efforts. That is, God empowered their preaching so that many were saved. But it is also possible to understand that, in addition, the “hand of the Lord was upon them,” moving them to do as they did. The Spirit of God could have convicted them of the need for evangelism and given them the opportunity and the desire to do so. What God sovereignly purposes, God brings to pass, and often by means of His Spirit.

(3) God prepared and equipped them with the necessary background, language, and culture for this task. These men who went forth with the Gospel to the Gentiles were, in the first place, “Hellenistic Jews,” but they were also men from two geographical locations: the Island of Cyprus and the North African city of Cyrene. It would seem that in the sovereign workings of God, He prepared men with a certain cultural background, and with a language (or languages) which equipped them for the task of evangelizing the Gentiles. This could be seen by hindsight, but it would likely not have been understood in advance.

(4) They surpassed their leaders because they lived their lives by what the Word of God taught, rather than by what men taught. I cannot tell you how important this truth is, and how clear. The chronology of events in Acts, as Luke clearly shows, indicates that the preaching of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles by these saints occurred at a time when neither the masses nor even the apostles understood the necessity of doing so. The revelation which God gave to Peter, and thus the lesson which God gave to the Jerusalem church, was not the cause of this evangelistic outreach for Peter’s vision and encounter with Cornelius came some time after the scattering of the church. The conclusion which the church reached, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18), was not the basis for the evangelization of the Gentiles in Antioch, but the basis for the Jerusalem church’s response to the birth of this church, as described in verses 22 and following.

I must linger here for a moment, however, for I dare not let the impact of this incident fail to strike hard in your heart and mind. THESE SAINTS SURPASSED THEIR PEERS, THEIR TEACHERS, AND EVEN THE APOSTLES, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LET THE LIMITATIONS OF THEIR LEADERS BE THEIR OWN.

I have purposely put this in even larger letters. As a teacher of the Word of God, my task is not to teach you all you need to know. It is, I believe, to teach you some of what you need to know. But my task is that of communicating a sense of absolute confidence in God and in His Word. It is to help create a love of learning God’s Word and some starting point for your own study of it. But the ideal is that you will thereby be equipped to study the Word for yourself, and in those areas of my own prejudice, bias, or just plain blindness, you need not be limited at all. You, like these men of Cyprus and Cyrene, are not limited in your knowledge of the Word of God, or in your obedience to it, by the limits of your leaders and teachers. If you gain no other thought than this, my friend, you have learned much. God does not excuse us for failing to do right or for doing the wrong, simply because that is the way we were taught or led.

Here, I believe, is one of the fundamental differences between the cults and Christianity: its concept and practice of leadership. The cults almost invariably are founded by some “charismatic” leader, who wants to do your thinking for you. You need not trouble yourself to discern the “will of God,” for the cult leader will tell you what God wants you to do. It was different with the apostles. And while Luke does not describe in detail how these “magnificent missionaries” came to act more on the Word of God than their leaders, I can see a number of the reasons in the New Testament. Let us pause to consider how it was that God used the apostles and others to promote the kind of growth and godliness we see evidenced here.

(1) In Christianity, Christ is the Leader, the Head of His church. Peter’s words to Cornelius sum it up: “He is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). Paul frequently makes reference to the headship of Christ, but this text is especially emphatic:

And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Colossians 1:15-20).

(2) In the church, leaders are servants, not “lords.” Because Christ is the Head of the church and He is the “Leader,” His leaders are servants. Jesus contrasted the leadership exercised by His disciples with that of the Gentiles (cf. Matthew 20:20-28); Paul spoke of himself as a gentle nursing mother (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12), and he contrasted his leadership style with the authoritarian domination of others:

For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly. For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face. To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself (2 Corinthians 11:19-21).

Peter taught elders to lead not by dictating, but by example (1 Peter 5:1-4):

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1-4).

And finally, John, in his Third Epistle, warns of Diotrephes, “who loves to be first among them,” and thus, “does not accept what the apostles taught” (3 John 9).

(3) The apostles had confidence in God, the Author and Finisher of our faith. His work in men’s lives is accomplished (in large measure) through the Word of God and the Spirit of God.

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).

And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified (Acts 20:32).²¹³

As we search the New Testament, we see that the apostles had confidence in the Word of God and in the Spirit of God²¹⁴ to convince men and to change lives. They believed that leadership is by God’s working through the Word and the Spirit in men’s lives. And so, when Paul referred to those who did not agree with him, he conveyed his confidence in God’s ability to change the minds of men:

Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you (Philippians 3:15).

(4) The cultists and false teachers do not want men to be left alone with their Bibles; they want to tell men what the Bible teaches, and thus to promote their own distortions of the Word of God above the Word itself. In a passage that does not seem well understood, John warned the saints of would-be Bible teachers, who offered to “teach” them what the Bible said:

As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him (1 John 2:24-27).

John is here exhorting his readers to abide in the Word of God and in the gospel of Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal life as found in God’s Word. There were those who were going about offering to “teach” these saints what the Bible said, but it is evident that they were distorting the Word. John’s response was to remind these saints that the Word of God, when illuminated by the Holy Spirit who indwelt them, was all that they needed. John had confidence in the Word of God and in the Holy Spirit, and thus He told these saints that this was enough. If the Word of God and the Spirit were all that were necessary, they need not listen to these would-be teachers.²¹⁵

It would seem that because of their confidence in God’s working in the lives of the saints through the Word and the Holy Spirit, the leadership of the apostles tapered off as time went on. When you read through the Book of Acts, we find that it was initially the apostles who taught, preached, and led. But as times passes and the Book of Acts develops, leadership begins to pass to the hands of others who have grown and matured in their faith. Peter’s leadership seems to fade, and James seems to become more dominant (or a least prominent). Barnabas will move from the “driver’s seat” to the “passenger’s seat” in Acts. The apostles, who initially seem to make all the decisions regarding the church in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 6:1-6; 8:14), seem to give way to the elders of the church and to others, who seem to take a more aggressive leadership role as time goes on (cf. Acts 11:1-2, 18, 27-30; 15:1-2).

As you find the apostles growing older, and facing the approach of death, you will see that their last words express confidence in God’s working in and through those they will leave behind. And there is the strong exhortation to these who will be left behind to rest in God and in His Word. So we find Paul stressing the Word of God in his second epistle to Timothy, especially in chapter 3, and Peter underscoring the importance of the Scriptures in 2 Peter, chapter 1, along with warnings by both Paul and Peter about those who would distort the truth of God’s Word (cf. 2 Timothy 4; 2 Peter 3:14-18).

(5) The apostles had confidence in those who trusted in God and in whose lives God was at work, knowing that the Word of God would adequately equip them for any work God called them to do.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:14-17).

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:12-13).

And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able also to admonish one another (Romans 15:14).

I believe that while the apostles were not sinless nor infallible, the way the Lord Jesus had taught them to lead was, to some degree, self-correcting. That is, even when the apostles personally failed, those under their leadership were not destined to fail with them. The way God taught the disciples to lead was to lead as servants, with humility, and not as authoritarian dictators. They were to lead in such a way as to point men to God and to His Word, rather than to cause men to develop some kind of dependence upon them. Thus, even when the apostles were wrong, those who were under their authority need not fall prey to the same evil. What a comfort to know that our confidence is not in fallible men, but in a perfect and powerful God, a God who has given us His Word, which is adequate, sufficient, infallible and inerrant. And He has given us His Spirit, to interpret and apply the Word to our hearts and lives. While teachers may expand our understanding and challenge our shallow or erroneous understanding of Scripture, we are not doomed without them, and we are not to blindly follow them. We are to “search the Scriptures,” like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), to follow God rather than men, when men depart from the Word of God, like these Hellenistic Jews, who preached to the Gentiles, even when Peter and the apostles refused to do so.

This handful of noble saints who preached the Lord Jesus to the Gentiles knew the difference between the “teachings of men” and the “teachings of God.” No doubt they had a great love and respect for their leaders, the apostles and the elders. But their grasp of God’s Word, of His goals and purposes, and of His commands, was not limited to that of their leaders or teachers.²¹⁶ Oh, that God may grant that you surpass me in your knowledge of God’s Word, and in your obedience to it!

Antioch

Before we press on to consider Luke’s account of the response of the church in Jerusalem to the birth of the church in Antioch, let us take a moment to ponder the place where God sovereignly chose to plant this Gentile church—Antioch. This city of Antioch is somewhat familiar to us, for the church at Antioch will become the launching pad of the gospel to the Gentiles. But most of us, myself included, are not very familiar with this great city, either before the gospel arrived or after. I will therefore cite from those who know better than I about this city:

“Antioch on the Orontes (modern Antakya in the Hatay province of Turkey), situated some eighteen miles upstream, was founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, first ruler of the Seleucid dynasty, and was named by him after his father Antiochus. He had already given his own name to Seleucia Pieria at the mouth of the Orontes, the port of Antioch (cf. 13:4). As the capital of the Seleucid monarchy Antioch rapidly became a city of great importance. When Pompey reorganized Western Asia in 64 B.C. he made Antioch a free city; it became the seat of administration of the Roman province of Syria. It was at this time the third largest city in the Graeco-Roman world (surpassed in population only by Rome and Alexandria). It was planned from the first on the Hippodamian grid pattern; it was enlarged and adorned by Augustus and Tiberius, while Herod the Great provided colonnades on either side of its main street and paved the street itself with polished stone. The produce of Syria and lands farther east passed through it on its way to the west; it was a commercial center as well as a political capital. Because of its situation between the urbanized Mediterranean world and the eastern desert, it was even more cosmopolitan than most Hellenistic cities. Here Christianity first displayed its cosmopolitan character.”²¹⁷

“Jewish colonization in Antioch began practically from the city’s foundation. By the beginning of the Christian era, proselytes to Judaism are said to have been specially numerous in Antioch; we have already met Nicolaus, a proselyte from Antioch, as a leader among the Hellenists in the primitive Jerusalem church (6:5). Many other nationalities were represented among its residents: it is Antioch that the Roman satirist Juvenal has in mind when he complains that “the sewage of the Syrian Orontes has for long been discharging itself into the Tiber.” The city’s reputation for moral laxity was enhanced by the cult of Artemis and Apollo at Daphne, five miles distant, where the ancient Syrian worship of Astarte and her consort, with its ritual prostitution, was carried on under Greek nomenclature. But a new chapter in the history of Antioch was about to be written, for it was to be the metropolis of Gentile Christianity.”²¹⁸

“Antioch was founded in 300 B.C. At the time of its evangelization it was said to have been composed of four cities, each with its own surrounding wall. Reaching around the whole was a long wall which enclosed more area than the city of Rome. The four cities were separated by the two main streets of Antioch. Situated five miles from the city was Daphne, a main center for the worship of Apollo and Artemis. This contributed a great deal to the notorious immorality of Antioch. Yet it had a large Jewish colony, with many proselytes, which provided a starting point for the evangelization of the city.”²¹⁹

“The dispersed disciples followed the great trade routes by land and sea northward to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. Antioch in northern Syria ranked the third greatest city (about 800,000 inhabitants, including suburbs) of the Roman Empire and was called ‘The Queen of the East,’ ‘Antioch, the Beautiful,’ and ‘Antioch the Great.’ It was beautifully situated on the Orontes river about 15 or 20 miles from its seaport city of Seleucia. It was the capital of Syria and seat of the Roman governor. The population was mainly Syrian, but Greek in language and culture, with a considerable Jewish representation who had equal rights with the Greeks. Here Christianity first contacted and came to grips with Roman and Greek civilization. The moral corruption of Antioch is reflected in Juvenal’s statement, when he wished to say the worst about Rome: ‘The Orontes has flowed into the Tiber.’ Antioch soon superseded Jerusalem as the center of Christianity and remained so for long, producing such honorable Christian names as Ignatius and John Chrysostom, and a famous school of theology.”²²⁰

“Something of the extent of this early evangelization movement among the Grecian Antiochians is indicated by the fact that by the time of the Nicean Council in A. D. 325, there are reported to have been more than 200,000 Christians in Antioch alone. Between A.D. 253 and 380, Antioch was the seat of no less than ten church councils, and its patriarchs took precedence over those at Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.”²²¹

How God’s ways always surpass man’s. Who would have thought that this heathen city would have become the vanguard of the gospel in the ancient world? The church in Jerusalem did not envision or promote this. If they had known of it in advance, they would have likely resisted it. Who would have thought that such a “God-forsaken place” would have become the city which produced great Christian leaders, and which hosted church councils? An unnamed group of noble men went to a God-forsaken place, preaching the gospel. How God worked then! How He still works today, in ways that we would not ever conceive of nor let alone ask. His ways are always above and beyond our own.

Jerusalem’s Response to
Antioch’s Acceptance of the Gospel
(11:22-26)

22 And the news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas²²² off to Antioch. 23 Then when he had come and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;²²³ 24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. 25 And he left for Tarsus to look for²²⁴ Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.²²⁵

To some degree, we have seen the negative effects of the leadership of the apostles in the refusal to preach the gospel to the Gentiles by many of those believing Jews who were dispersed from Jerusalem. The redeeming element was that the overall leadership of the apostles helped those who followed to see beyond the prejudices of their leaders and to obey God, rather than men. In verses 22-26, however, we see a very positive form of leadership being taken by the apostles in Jerusalem, and thus the church was edified and blessed, and many others were brought to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The response of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem to the conversion of the Gentiles is Antioch was largely the result of the actions of Peter in going to the house of Cornelius, and of the decision which the church reached after “calling Peter on the carpet” for his actions.

Because of the revelation which Peter received from God, and which the church received (indirectly) through Peter, the Jerusalem church was able to accept the salvation of these Gentiles at Antioch and the birth of a church there. In response, they sent Barnabas to Antioch as their representative, in much the same way they had sent Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8:14ff.).

Before we consider why Barnabas in particular was sent, rather than one of the twelve apostles, let us first ask the question, “Why was anyone sent to Antioch?” Many had been converted without the involvement of the church. Why not simply leave them alone? Had they not done well enough thus far? The following statement summarizes the primary reason why Barnabas was sent by the church in Jerusalem to the saints in Antioch:

BARNABAS WAS SENT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM TO THE NEW BELIEVERS IN ANTIOCH TO CARRY OUT ITS GOD-GIVEN LEADERSHIP ROLE OVER THE CHURCH AT LARGE, THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL.²²⁶

Allow me to suggest the biblical basis for this leadership role and some of the ways in which the church in Jerusalem sought to carry it out, both at Antioch and elsewhere.

(1) In His “great commission” to the apostles, Jesus gave to His disciples, the apostles, the responsibility of making disciples of every nation. It is this commission, I believe, that is the undergirding foundation for the leadership which the church at Jerusalem has taken in our text. “Making disciples” begins with the proclamation of the gospel, but it also includes baptizing and instructing the new converts. While the apostles did not initiate the preaching of the gospel at Antioch (God did), they did respond to God’s leadership by following up on these new converts. I believe they did so because it was their duty to do so, based upon the command of Christ in the great commission. This may go a long way to explain why, when the saints were dispersed from Jerusalem on account of the persecution that arose in connection with the stoning of Stephen, the apostles remained behind. For the time being, Jerusalem was the capital, the home base of the church. The leadership must remain behind to continue to give leadership to the churches which would emerge. This would remain the case for some time, and then the headquarters of the church would change location. It was probably Antioch that took up where Jerusalem left off, especially after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

(2) The church in Jerusalem must have sought to determine whether the pure gospel was preached and to see if these people of Antioch had truly turned from idols to serve God. I believe the apostles and the church in Jerusalem were very sensitive to the truth being proclaimed. Thus, they want to hear the “gospel” that men are preaching and that others are believing. They want to be assured not only of the purity of the gospel, but of the sincerity of the profession. Is it any wonder, then, that Peter rebuked Simon the magician so soundly (Cf. Acts 8)? A false or distorted gospel would have gotten instant attention from Barnabas and from the apostles.

(3) Based upon other instances in Acts (chapters 8 and 19), Barnabas may have been sent to Antioch to determine if these new believers had experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whether that be external and visible or internal and invisible. It was Peter and John who prayed that the new believers in Samaria would receive the Holy Spirit, just as Paul would do in Acts 19. If the Spirit had not yet descended upon these saints in Antioch, then the church in Jerusalem would sense the obligation to facilitate it.

(4) The church in Jerusalem seems to be taking the lead in helping establish the church in Antioch. We are not told that these new believers at Antioch constitute a church until Acts 11:26. Up to this time they are merely individual Christians. But from this point on, they are a church, and they are expected to act in accordance with this fact. Had Barnabas not been sent to Antioch, the saints may not have identified themselves with any church. You see, up until this time, Gentile converts would have become proselytes, and they would simply have been included (to some degree) in the worship and teaching of the synagogue. But now, these saints in Antioch are saved as Gentiles, and thus they need not attend the synagogue or keep the law as their Jewish brethren strived to do. The church must be established according to God’s requirements, and it would seem that this was one reason why the church at Jerusalem so quickly and eagerly responded to the report of the salvation of many at Antioch.

(5) The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch in an effort to facilitate and communicate the essential unity which exists between the two churches. To become a Christian was to become a part of the body of Christ. To become a church was to become one with other churches, especially the church in Jerusalem. I believe this was one of the primary goals of Barnabas as he traveled to minister in Antioch—to teach, facilitate, and strengthen the unity of the body of Christ and the unity of these two churches.

It would be wrong to leave you with the impression that Barnabas was primarily and exclusively the “apostle” of the church at Jerusalem, sent to “take charge” of the church at Antioch and to see to it that things are set in order. Barnabas was a gift of the church in Jerusalem²²⁷ to the church in Antioch. He went not so much to rule as to serve, to serve by exercising God-given, God-appointed leadership.

I believe all of the above were at least possible factors in the reason God arranged for a representative from Jerusalem to be sent to Antioch. I am now inclined to think that the church in Jerusalem may have had a very simple reason for sending Barnabas—the situation in Antioch required spiritual leadership, and the church there was “poor” in leaders, while the church in Jerusalem was “rich” in leaders. Just as the church in Antioch will share of its material wealth, giving to minister to the poverty of the saints in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), so the church in Jerusalem will share of its wealth in spiritual leadership, ministering to the poverty of the saints in Antioch. Simply put, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch because there was a need for the kind of leadership which Barnabas could offer.

But why Barnabas? Why not one of the apostles, as before? Was Barnabas a kind of “second class” apostle, who was sent to Antioch because none of the apostles would go, or because the Jewish believers in Jerusalem did not think these heathen brethren were worthy of full-fledged apostles? Not at all; indeed, quite the contrary. Consider with me some of the reasons Barnabas would have been sent.

(1) Barnabas, unlike most of the apostles, was raised in a culture similar to that of the Antiochians, and he also spoke their language. The apostles, it would seem, were “native Hebrews,” born and raised in the Holy Land and largely unfamiliar with the Greek culture, and one cannot be too sure about their facility in the language of the people. Barnabas could understand and relate to the people of Antioch much more than the apostles, and so he was sent instead of one of them.

(2) The church founded in Antioch was founded by Hellenistic Jews, and it might be an affront to them and to their ministry to send “native Hebrews” there to inspect their work and to take some measure of oversight over it. These magnificent Hellenistic saints had done well. Why offend them by sending the apostles? Barnabas was a man they trusted, and who was, it would seem, highly esteemed by them. He was the right man for the job.

(3) Most importantly, I believe, Barnabas was a man of godly character and of spiritual vitality and power—the best man for the job. Verse 24 is quite clearly an explanation:

For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith (Acts 12:24a).

On the one hand, it is an explanation of the reason Barnabas could rejoice at what he found in Antioch, as described in verse 23, and of the reason he was personally motivated to encourage these saints to “remain true to the Lord.”

But on the other hand, it is also an explanation for why the church in Jerusalem chose to send Barnabas to Antioch. He was a man with the character and the charisma required for the job. He was a man who found great joy in the grace of God, particularly (here) in the lives of others. He was a “good man.” We might be inclined to say, in our vernacular, “He was the best man for the job.” He was a man whose personal life was characterized by faith, and in whom the Spirit of God was controlling and producing spiritual fruit.

In summation, Barnabas is the most highly qualified man, in every area. From the standpoint of his culture and background, he is “the best man for the job.” From the standpoint of his character, he is also “the best man for the job.” And finally, from the standpoint of supernatural spiritual enablement and control, he is “the best man for the job.”

It is only appropriate to point out here that it was the character of Barnabas which Luke emphasized, not his methodology nor his technique. We, in our day and time, have an undue fixation on methods. We are quick to imitate the methodology of those who are successful. When we see men who are successful, we seek to learn the magical methods they used which assure success. We buy books written by successful people to learn their secrets. Luke does not mention the methods of Barnabas, but only his character, because who a man is determines what he does. We need more men of character and fewer men of technique. There will always be a shortage of men who are “good men, full of the Spirit, and of faith.”

Searching for Saul
(11:24b-26)

And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. 25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Barnabas quickly recognized and rejoiced in the grace of God which he found evident in the lives of the saints at Antioch. He immediately began to encourage them to resolutely remain true to the Lord. Sanctification, like salvation, is the work of God, but it is a work with which the Christian is to cooperate. Barnabas did not envision a passivity on the part of these new Christians. He encouraged them to be diligent in their pursuit of the Christian walk. He recognized the very real danger of some falling away from the Lord,²²⁸ especially if they become lax in the disciplines of the spiritual walk.

Barnabas was indeed a good man in many ways. One of the evidences of his goodness and of his spirituality (full of the Holy Spirit) and his faith was his search for Saul, which took him away from Antioch and brought him to Tarsus where Saul was staying. He had been sent there by the saints in Jerusalem in order to spare him from death at the hands of the Hellenistic zealots, among whom Saul was formerly a leader (cf. Acts 9:26-30).

Barnabas was “good” in that he was not selfish. He did not seek to build an empire for himself. He did not fear the ministry of Saul as that which would be competitive to his own interests, because his interest was the growth of the saints at Antioch. I believe that both the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit were instrumental in Barnabas’s decision to look for Saul. I further believe that Barnabas had faith in God’s ability to minister to this body of believers through Saul.

The reason for Barnabas’s search for Saul is given in the last part of verse 24: “And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.” The church was continuing to grow. The number of new Christians was growing beyond Barnabas’s ability to minister to them. The greater the size of the church, so to speak, the larger the number of those who would minister.

The growth of the church at Antioch is mentioned twice in our text (verses 21 and 24). The first time it is mentioned (v. 21), it is due to an emphasis on evangelism. The second time, it is the result of an emphasis on edification and discipleship. These two endeavors are not competitive nor are they mutually exclusive. The more the saints grew in their faith, the more they lived their faith and shared it with others. The church that grows spiritually is equipped to grow numerically as well.

This was no casual trip, but it was a diligent, determined search for Saul—one which would not be terminated until Saul was found and persuaded to go to Antioch.²²⁹ Barnabas had a significant influence on Saul’s early life as a believer, and now he would once again come alongside. But it would not be long before it was Paul who would emerge as the leader, and not Barnabas. I am not so sure but what Barnabas, by faith, realized this. And so Barnabas returned with Saul, and for a period of a year they ministered side by side, teaching considerable numbers of new converts.

Luke makes a seemingly incidental statement in verse 26:

… and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

We should know Luke well enough by now to realize that he does not waste his words. This statement has a purpose. I think I am beginning to understand what that purpose may have been.

Names are given to things in order to identify them and to be able to distinguish them from other things. For example, names were given by Adam to each of the different types of animals in the garden. The name “Saul” will soon change to “Paul,” indicating some significant change. God often gave new names to men, indicating a particular future or destiny. Thus, Abram (exalted father) was renamed Abraham (father of a multitude), before he was even a father at all. The significance of Luke’s words here is two-fold. First, it is significant that the disciples needed a name. And second, the name that they were given is of significance as well. Let us consider both of these matters.

Up until this point in time, most of those who were saved were Jews. When they were saved, they remained Jews. They were what we now call “completed Jews,” but they were still Jews. They continued to observe the Jewish holy days and festivals, and to worship in the temple or to gather at a synagogue. Those who were Gentiles were, up until this point in time, proselytes, or God-fearers. They too became a Jew, in a manner of speaking at least.

But now we are dealing with Gentiles, pure pagans. They were not Jewish, and when they came to faith in the Lord Jesus they did not go to the synagogue nor did they associate with the Jews. They were very different and distinct from the Jews, and their faith did not make them Jewish. These people had no identity. What would you call this new group of people, this large body of people, who had been saved, but were not a part of any established religion? They needed a name, a name which depicted their essential uniqueness and which characterized them. The name which that city coined was the name “Christians.” The one thing which characterized every one of these new believers was their faith in Christ, their belonging to Him, and so they were appropriately named Christians.

The point of this naming of the saints is that the people of Antioch recognized that which the church was a bit slower to acknowledge—the fact that the church was distinct from Judaism, that Israel and the church were different. Luke includes this detail as a signal to the fact that the people of Antioch recognized the reality which was taking place: that the church was a new entity, distinct from Judaism, and that the one unifying element was Christ. This pagan city saw what many still have not recognized—the church as a separate entity, a body which is united in and by Christ, which belongs to Him, and which is neither Jewish nor Gentile. How significant this brief statement is.

The Uncircumcised Respond
to the Needs of the Circumcised
(11:27-30)

27 Now at this time some prophets²³⁰ came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus²³¹ stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.²³² 30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul²³³ to the elders.

We know from Acts 13:1 that the church at Antioch had prophets of its own. And yet for some reason God sent several prophets to Antioch from Jerusalem. This raises some important questions. The first question is this: “Why would prophets come to Antioch from Jerusalem, if Antioch already had prophets of its own?” I can think of several reasons.

(1) As it was the Spirit who spoke through the prophets, it was the Spirit of God who arranged for this message to the Antiochians to come from prophets from Jerusalem.

(2) Since the church at Jerusalem was older and more mature, the prophets from Jerusalem may have had something to teach the younger prophets of Antioch.²³⁴

(3) God wanted to demonstrate the unity of the body of Christ, the church, and to emphasize the interdependence of one part of the body on the rest of the body. We often think of the interdependency within the body of Christ as individual—one member of the body needs the rest of the body, just as the rest of the body needs the one member (cf. 1 Corinthians 12-14). But there is a corporate and geographical sense as well, so that the church in one part of the world depends upon members of the church in another. This is true in financial matters, and in matters of prophecy. God gives to some members of the body in one place so that they may minister to other members of the body in another.

The second question which comes to mind is this: “Why was it necessary to send more than one prophet to Antioch from Jerusalem?” If the purpose of the arrival and ministry of the prophets was to encourage and edify the body, the more prophets the better. Obviously the church needed to know more than the fact that a famine was coming to the whole world. A plurality of prophets was sent, as I understand it, so that the words of Agabus could be confirmed by others with the same gift. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14 make a great deal of sense in this light:

And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment (1 Corinthians 14:29).

I used to suppose that each of the two or three prophets had a different message, and that two or three messages from God was all that the church could bear at one sitting. I am now inclined to think that the two or three prophets all had the same revelation from God, which was confirmed by their independent testimony. The church was then to judge this revelation in the light of God’s Word.

Verse 28 is indeed fascinating:

28 And one of them named Agabus²³⁵ stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world.

Agabus, whom we will see again later on in Acts (21:10-14), indicated by divine inspiration that a great famine was coming. That famine was certainly coming. There was no doubt about its coming. This famine was also a world-wide famine. This means that the famine was also coming upon the land and the people of Antioch, and not just on the people of Judea. What a temptation it would have been for the saints at Antioch to use this prophecy for their own gain. If you knew that a famine was coming and you invested your money wisely, you could get rich. When the saints from Antioch gave to the saints in Judea, they did so at their own risk. It is one thing to give to others when you know you will have more than enough for yourself. It is another thing to give when you know that you might lack as well.

We are never told that Agabus (nor any other prophet) told the Antiochian saints what they should do about this prophecy. From what Luke tells us, they seem to have come to the decision to save up and to give to the saints in Judea on their own. It is one thing to be told to do so, and to obey. It is a far better thing to be told that a famine is coming, and then to think through the implications of this, and then to act on these willingly and joyfully. This is what I see happening at Antioch.

I can see someone saying to the others, “Well if there is to be a world-wide famine, there are going to be some people who will be hit especially hard.” Someone else may have chimed in, “Things will really be hard on the saints in Judea. They have already sold many of their possessions, and because of persecution they have lost the rest. These poor saints will really suffer.” And someone else may then have said, “Well then why don’t we plan to help them. We can save up our money, prepare ourselves for the hard times to come, and also have a reserve fund to help the saints in Judea.” I personally think that it happened this way.

Prophets did not always tell the people what they should do in the light of their prophecies. They sometimes left this decision to the saints, guided by the Spirit. For example, when Agabus later foretold Paul’s arrest and suffering, if he went to Jerusalem (Acts 21:10-11), he did not tell Paul what he should do about this. But some of the people came to the wrong conclusion—that Paul should escape this arrest and suffering by avoiding Jerusalem. Paul knew that this was the will of God, and so he rejected this bad advice. The fact that the prophecy of Agabus was correct did not mean that the proper response to it was also indicated by the prophet. But here in Antioch, the prophecy of Agabus brought a magnificent response.

It is my contention that the way in which the church at Antioch ministered to the church at Judea with money provides us with a pattern for ministry of any kind. As we conclude our study of this text, let us compare our ministry with that of this newly-born church, founded in a heathen city, but destined in God’s plan and purpose to be the launching pad for a great missions endeavor.

(1) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was a ministry to fellow saints. The Antiochian saints did not take up a collection for every needy person, though there would surely be many needy people as a result of the famine. The obligation of Christians to minister first to fellow-believers is a matter of biblical priority. We see it in practice here and in principle in Romans 12:16 and again in Galatians 6:10. We are “our brother’s keeper.”

(2) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was a ministry from one church to another church. This generosity and giving was not the act of a few isolated saints; it seems to have been the decision of the entire church. And the giving was done from church to church, not from individual to individual. The gift was sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the elders in Judea.

(3) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was an “international” ministry, to those of another race and from another country. By and large, the saints in Antioch had never met the saints in Judea. They were people of another race, another part of the world, and another culture. More than this, it was a ministry of those who would have been at odds with one another, apart from the grace of God and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. How often our ministry is to “our folks,” our kind of people, “our own.” This is not good enough. The unity of the body of Christ necessitates ministry which crosses racial, social, political, and economic lines. We know all too little of international ministry today.

(4) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was a demonstration of the unity of the church, the body of Christ, and of its inter-dependence.

(5) The ministry of the saints at Antioch seems to have been a ministry which they voluntarily determined to undertake, not one that was imposed upon them.

(6) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was facilitated by men, in whom these saints had confidence. The contribution of the Antiochians was the result of information provided by prophets from Jerusalem. The contribution was sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, delivered to and distributed through the elders of the church in Judea, many of whom the saints in Antioch had never met. Ministry is not an individual effort. It often requires networking with others, others who are “good men, full of the Spirit and of faith,” men whom we can trust and into whose hands we can entrust material wealth and other things of value.

(7) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was their response to a future need. How often in our “Christian culture” churches and organizations have seasonal, very predictable “crises” arisen at which time great sums of money are urgently needed. We have become like Pavlov’s dogs, conditioned to respond only when the church or organization seems to be teetering on the brink of disaster. Not so with the church at Antioch. They knew a crisis was coming, and they prepared for it. Oh, that we were more like the saints at Antioch and did not need a present crisis to motivate us to give and to minister.

Again, I stress we are not only talking about money but about ministry in general. Wise ministry looks ahead and anticipates trouble and problems. It seeks to prepare ourselves and others to be able to minister to needs that will arise in the future. It does not put off thinking, planning, and preparing.

(8) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was one which they anticipated, which they prepared for, and which they completed. The Antiochian saints purposed to give and then prepared to give by saving. How sad that we are so “credit poor” we have very little cash to set aside. And we do not think ahead far enough to save up to be able to give. We, who have more to give than any other people in history, are so deeply in debt we have little to give. And because we do not plan to give or set aside to give, we give all too little. Being in debt is one of the great hindrances to giving.

(9) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was a ministry from their strength to the weakness and need of the Judean saints. The Judean saints were impoverished, while those in Antioch were better off. Thus, the saints at Antioch gave of their wealth to a church that was poor.

I regret to say that while the church in the West is extremely rich, and the Third World church is extremely poor, we in the West are giving very little to the Third World church. There is no excuse.

(10) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was carried out in proportion to the ability of each saint to give. The saints committed to save and to give in accordance with what God had given them. Christians are only called upon to minister in accordance with the grace manifested to them (cf. Romans 12:6-8; 2 Corinthians 8:11-12).

(11) The ministry of the saints at Antioch was, to some degree, an opportunity to reciprocate for the ministry of the saints in Jerusalem to them. If the saints in the church of Judea and Jerusalem ministered to the church at Antioch out of their wealth of gifted men (like Barnabas and the prophets who went down to Antioch), the saints of the church at Antioch reciprocated from their monetary wealth, ministering to the saints of Judea in their poverty. In this there is an evident reciprocation.

(12) The ministry of the Jerusalem saints to Antioch (through Barnabas and the prophets) and the ministry of the Antiochian saints to those in Jerusalem, bound these two churches together in love and unity. There would surely have been the tendency for friction and dissension between these two churches, or at least between certain individuals in these churches, but God providentially arranged for a demonstration of love that would set aside many of the barriers to their experiencing of the unity which comes through Christ.

(13) The ministry of the saints in Antioch to the saints in Judea is one which remarkably parallels the practice of the Macedonian church, as described by Paul in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. The practice of the Macedonian church and the principles which Paul outlined in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are illustrated by the practice of the church at Antioch. This church, saved by God’s grace and led by His Spirit, did that which Paul would teach others, perhaps even before it was taught to do so.

How gracious God was to bring these two churches—so diverse, so different, so easily inclined to drift apart and to contend with each other—together. He first brought them together by salvation in Christ, and then He brought them together through ministry, one to another. The saints in Jerusalem ministered through their gifted men, and the saints in Antioch ministered through their money. What a wonderful union God hath wrought here. May God manifest this same unity among us in our church and between our church and other churches as well.

---

²⁰⁵ Note the role of prophets in Acts. In chapter 11, prophets from Jerusalem come down to Antioch. In 15:27, 31-32, Judas and Silas brought encouraging words to the church at Antioch. And, in 21:9-11, Agabus came down to Caesarea, where Paul was, to foretell his arrest and bondage, which would take place when he went to Jerusalem. It is interesting, in this last instance, to note that Philip’s four daughters were prophetesses, and yet God used Agabus to give Paul this revelation.

²⁰⁶ The first (Greek) words of verse 19 are identical with those in Acts 8:4.

²⁰⁷ “This O. T. phrase (Ex. 9:3; Isa. 59:1) is used by Luke (1:66; Acts 4:28, 30; 13:11). It was proof of God’s approval of their course in preaching the Lord Jesus to Greeks.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 157.

²⁰⁸ “The usual expression for Gentiles turning to the true God (14:15; 15:3, 19; 26:18, 20; 1 Thess. 1:9).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 157.

²⁰⁹ Cyprus is the island in the Mediterranean Sea, to the west of Israel. Cyrene is a port city of North Africa, also on the Mediterranean. While Cyprus and Cyrene were not close to one another in space, they probably had much contact and much in common.

²¹⁰ Carter and Earle explain the meaning of the term rendered “preach” this way:

“The verb euangelizo (preach) is a favorite with Luke. He uses it ten times in his Gospel and fifteen times in Acts--about half the total number of times in the New Testament. It occurs only once in the other Gospels (Matt. 11:5). The literal meaning is ‘announce glad tidings or good news.’ It is especially appropriate as a missionary word to describe the preaching of those who carried the gospel to new regions.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 111.

²¹¹ I assume this group to be quite small, a small group of daring saints, and I would suspect that some, if not all, of them are named in Acts 13:1.

²¹² Note this same phrase, employed by Paul, in the blinding of the Jewish false prophet, Elymas (or Bar-Jesus), in Acts 13:11. It is interesting to consider the options as to how the “hand of the Lord was upon him”? Did God purpose to save this man too, just like Saul? Or is this merely an expression indicating that what was to happen was the working of God, through His power, and not of some greater magic performed by Paul.

²¹³ The context of this text in Acts 20 is very significant. Paul is addressing the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17), giving them his final words (vss. 36-38). Here, Paul warned these leaders that some from among them would rise up, speaking perverse things, so as to attract their own following (v. 30). And yet, in the midst of this danger, and knowing the he would not see these people again, Paul was confident in God’s keeping and care through “the word of His grace” (v. 32).

²¹⁴ Jesus gave them the basis for this confidence in such passages as John 16 and 17.

²¹⁵ If there is a danger (to which John here speaks) of being overly dependent upon men’s interpretation of God’s Word so that one does not get into the Word for himself, there is the opposite and equally dangerous error of being so independent and autonomous in your study of the Word that you refuse to learn from others, and you begin to filter the Scriptures through the dangerous grid of your own thinking, sinful desires, and misconceptions. It is to this danger that Peter spoke in his second epistle, warning men against “private interpretations” (2 Peter 1:20-21). The ultimate issue is not, “What does the Bible mean to me, but what does the Bible mean?” The Bible is written because our minds (as also our emotions and our will) have been adversely affected by sin. It is the Word of God which is to transform our minds, rather than our minds which are to transform God’s Word (cf. Romans 12:2).

²¹⁶ We have a way of focusing on the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12) as those who were model saints. I would like to propose that these “magnificent missionaries” of Acts 11 are to be commended even above the Bereans. The Bereans went so far as to test the teaching of the apostle Paul against the Old Testament text. The ones who preached Christ to the Antiochian Gentiles went beyond their teachers, the apostles, both in their understanding and in their practice of the Word of God.

²¹⁷ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 224.

²¹⁸ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 224-225.

²¹⁹ Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 156.

²²⁰ Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, p. 155.

²²¹ Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 157.

²²² “Something of the esteem in which Barnabas was held by the author of the Book of Acts is indicated by the fact that he is mentioned in Acts no less than twenty-five different times, beside five references to him by Paul outside Acts.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 158.

Note the shift which is evident in the leadership of the church in Jerusalem as the Book of Acts develops: Peter and John sent by the apostles--Acts 8:14; Apostles and brethren received word of Peter’s actions 11:1; The church (“they”) sent Barnabas--apostles not mentioned 11:22; Money sent to the “elders”--Acts 11:30; By Jerusalem Council it is Apostles and elders, and James seems to be taking the lead--Acts 15; Brethren decided to send Paul and Barnabas 15:2; Received by church, apostles, and elders 15:4; James has the final word--15:13ff;.Decision reached & communicated by apostles & elders 15:22ff.

²²³ Compare Acts 13:43.

²²⁴ “Anazeteo is a common verb since Plato, but in the N. T. only here and Luke 2:44-45, to seek upon and down (ana), back and forth, to hunt up, to make a thorough search till success comes.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 159.

“Moulton and Milligan state that in the papyri anazeteo (seek) ‘is specially used of searching for human beings, with an implication of difficulty, as in the NT passages.’” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 159.

²²⁵ “Until now the followers of Christ were known by such designations as disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the people of the Way (or this Way), the church of God, Galileans, or Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 160.

²²⁶ The term, “universal church,” refers to the whole body of Christ, those who have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, throughout the history of the church. This includes those both “asleep” (dead) and alive in Christ. The “local church” is a specific body of believers, in a given place and time, which has Christ as its Head, and which has leaders who have been appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28).

²²⁷ Notice that there is a growing shift in leadership in the church at Jerusalem. Initially, in Acts 8, it is the apostles where heard of the salvation of the Samaritans, and who decided to send Peter and John to the city of Samaria. In our passage, it is the church who hears of the salvation of the Gentiles at Antioch, and who determines to send Barnabas.

²²⁸ I do not mean that these who “fall away” lose their salvation, but that they neglect it, and thus cease to grow in the fear and knowledge of the Lord.

²²⁹ The term which is used here, rendered “to look for” is found elsewhere only in Luke chapter 2 (verses 44 and 45), referring to the diligent search for the missing Jesus by His parents.

²³⁰ There are a number of prophets mentioned in the Book of Acts: Agabus 11:27-28; 21:10; Several 13:1; Judas and Silas--14:4; 15:32; Daughters of Philip--21:9.

²³¹ Cf. Acts 21:10ff., where Agabus foretold Paul’s suffering, as a result of his going to Jerusalem.

²³² “We know that Judaea did in fact suffer severely from a famine at some point between A.D. 45 and 48. At that time Helena, queen-mother of Adiabene, a Jewish proselyte, bought grain in Egypt and figs in Cyprus and had them taken to Jerusalem for distribution, while her son King Izates sent a large sum of money to the authorities in Jerusalem to be used for famine relief. The church of Antioch similarly organized a relief fund for the mother-church. The various members of the church appear to have allocated a fixed sum out of their income or property as a contribution to this fund, much as Paul was to advise the Corinthian Christians to do when he was organizing a later relief fund for Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-4).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 230-231.

²³³ This is the second occasion in Luke’s record on which Paul visited Jerusalem after his conversion (the first being briefly described in 9:26-30). He himself records two visits which he paid to Jerusalem; the possibility arises that the famine-relief visit of Acts 11:30 is identical with that described in Gal. 2:1-10, when he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas in the fourteenth year after his conversion (which is the most probable interpretation of Gal. 2:1). More common, however, is the identification of the visit of Gal. 2:1-10 with that of Acts 15; this raises problems which will be considered later. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 231.

²³⁴ This leads us into a very involved question as to what the gift of prophecy was (and is), but suffice it to say that, in my opinion, it was more than simply speaking direct quotes from God about future events. It may have had an element of preaching involved as well. Nevertheless, the gift of prophecy, like the other spiritual gifts, needs to be developed. It does not instantly emerge in full bloom. There was the “school of the prophets” in the Old Testament, which helped in the development of prophets (cf. 2 Kings 2 & 5). For an exploration of the nature of the New Testament gift of prophecy, I recommend that you read The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, by Wayne Gruden (Crossway Books, 1988).

²³⁵ Cf. Acts 21:10ff., where Agabus foretold Paul’s suffering, as a result of his going to Jerusalem.

Introduction

I have always wanted to leave a church the way Barnabas and Saul did in our text. And thus I have entitled this message, “What A Way To Go.” There were no arguments. No one was fired. Everyone seemed to agree that it was God’s will for these two to leave, even though they were loved and would be greatly missed. This exit is indeed an ideal one, one which I would like to experience if God ever calls me to leave this church and go elsewhere.

As I shared this with a friend in ministry while conducting a series in his church some distance from Dallas, he related that this had always been his desire also—to have the church reluctantly conclude it was time for him to leave, at the same time he felt God’s leading in the same direction, thus having a very unanimous sense of the Spirit’s guidance.

Although this was his ideal, my fellow-teacher continued that in his experience, it had not actually worked out this way. Out of the blue he received a call from a distant church, a church he had never heard of nor contacted. They wanted him to come and consider the possibility of God’s leading him and his family to this new ministry. Although reluctant, he decided to share this invitation with the elders of his church, and while he really did not want to check out this opportunity, the elders encouraged him to do so anyway. And so he went—and he fell in love with the people and the place. He really wanted to go. Submitting his resignation, he accepted the call.

But just before I arrived at his church, he had a change of mind. Having had some second thoughts, he “unresigned” and called the other church to reverse his acceptance of their offer to serve there. It was a very difficult and embarrassing situation which called for some adjustments on the part of all. A few months later, I noticed my friend’s address had changed, to the church that had invited him to come which he had declined.

My friend’s experience did not work out as nicely and neatly as that of Barnabas and Saul. But this was an ideal departure and not the consistent experience of these men either. The so-called “second missionary journey of Paul” began with an argument with Barnabas. leading to this team splitting into two teams (cf. Acts 15:36-41). And Paul’s ministry to Rome commenced with his arrest (cf. Acts 21:15ff.). We see then that even apostles did not always have a comfortable change.

And so, as we approach this first “call” to missionary service, let us remember that it was a wonderful, ideal experience, but it was not necessarily a typical one. God’s guidance sometimes comes through pleasant circumstances, and at other times it comes through painful or even tragic circumstances.

Our text is a very important one, for it describes the birth of what we might call “foreign missions.”

“The importance of the present narrative is that it describes the first piece of planned ‘overseas mission’ carried out by representatives of a particular church, rather than by solitary individuals, and begun by a deliberate church decision, inspired by the Spirit, rather than somewhat more causally as a result of persecution.”²⁵⁵

Up to this point, evangelism has occurred but not missions. The persecution resulting from the death of Stephen did scatter the saints from Jerusalem, and many of these saints did share their faith. But had you asked any of these saints why they were leaving Jerusalem, they would not have told you that it was as a part of a massive missions program of the church in Jerusalem. They fled to save their lives, not to save souls. Evangelism happened providentially, but not purposefully, so far as the church in Jerusalem was concerned. Now the church, prompted by the Holy Spirit, made a conscious decision to send forth Barnabas and Saul for the purpose of what we might call “missionary activity.”

We must recognize the brevity of this account, and thus we should be informed that God is not here giving us a “pattern” to follow closely. Luke is telling us what happened, but he has not gone into detail as to how it happened. There are several features of our text, however, which do not seem to match present missions practice. Actually some of our “foreign missions” practices are “foreign” to this text. It remains for us to see what these are and to determine whether we are in violation of biblical principle, or whether we are simply operating within the freedom of God’s Word in terms of our practice. Let us seriously take a close look at “missions” in our text and explore its implications for “missions” today.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of our text may be summarized as follows:

• The Setting Apart of Barnabas and Saul (vv. 1-3)
• The Ministry of Barnabas and Saul in Cyprus (vv. 4-12)

The Setting Apart of the Gospel from the teaching of Elymas

The Setting Apart of Paul over Barnabas

• The Separation of John Mark from Saul and Barnabas (v. 13)

Setting Apart Barnabas and Saul
(13:1-3)

Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch,²⁵⁶ and Saul.²⁵⁷ 2 And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

It is interesting to note that while Luke does not record the names of those “magnificent folks” who shared their faith with the people of Antioch, he does record the names of those who were prophets and teachers there. It is possible that some of these men may have been some of those early evangelists. Lucius of Cyrene, for example, might have been one of them.²⁵⁸

The naming of these five men does several things. First, it indicates that this church was blessed with five men who were filling the vital role of prophet and teacher, a role that was vital in this early church which did not yet possess any of the New Testament writings. It also indicates to the reader that there were other men who were able to carry on this role when Barnabas and Saul left the church. The fact that Luke names not only Barnabas and Saul, but the remaining three may be God’s way of documenting the leadership of this church, accrediting these three men. The order of the names, with Barnabas listed first and Saul last, indicates that at this point it was Barnabas who was the prominent leader of these men and that Paul was the “rookie.” This will change at the end of our passage. The names of these men, along with details supplied by Luke, indicate that they were a diverse group. They appear to be functioning as the leadership of this newly-born church.²⁵⁹ The fact that this church had a plurality of gifted men is no surprise, for Barnabas seems to have been a man who sought and encouraged other men to develop (cf. Acts 11:25-26).

This missionary call came not to Barnabas alone or just to Barnabas and Saul, but to the leadership of the church at Antioch and thus to the whole church. I believe the Holy Spirit spoke to the church through one of these men whom Luke has listed and has designated as a prophet. Unlike the revelation that came to this church from Agabus, who came down along with other prophets from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-28), this revelation came to the church through a “home grown” prophet.²⁶⁰ The two men who were sent out were Hellenistic Jews; they were the leaders of this church, and they were the best the church had to give. As these “founding fathers” moved on, the church was challenged in its growth and ministry in a very healthy way. The move was one that was good for all, even if it was a painful one.

The “call” came to the church through its leaders at a time when they were going about their worship and service to God, as usual. Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit spoke “as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting” (v. 2). I used to think these leaders were in a special time of prayer and fasting, seeking the Lord’s will and guidance, as though they sensed that “something was up,” that some new course was to be taken. I do not think so now. This has never yet been the way God has worked through the church to this point. God has led in unusual ways and has brought the church to action which it would not even have dreamed of doing. The sovereignty of God and of His leading has always been evident to this point. Men have not anticipated God’s leading, and they would often have resisted it if they did sense what it would be.

My understanding of the word “fasting” as the reason I was inclined to think this revelation came to the church at some time of special seeking. Fasting is not a part of my own practice, and it is surely not a part of the normal practice of our church. Fasting is never popular in a self-indulgent society, and that we are. And so, to me, fasting is a kind of “emergency procedure,” something you do only on special occasions.

It is of course true that fasting did happen on special occasions, especially those of mourning and/or of repentance (cf. Jonah 3). But fasting was practiced on a much more regular basis as well. Jesus fasted (cf. Matthew 4:2). He also taught his disciples about fasting (cf. Matthew 6:16ff.). Contrary to the practice of the scribes and Pharisees, who made their fasting a “badge of spirituality” and thus made it a public matter, Jesus advocated fasting in a way that was not public—a merely external ritual. When questioned as to why His disciples did not fast, Jesus’ answer was that He was still with His disciples, but that when He was gone, they would fast (Matthew 9:14-15). Thus, Jesus practiced and taught fasting. The church fasted too as we will see in Acts 14:23. I believe, therefore, that the Spirit spoke to the church as they went about their normal course of worshipping God through service.

Luke, however, describes not one time of fasting, but two. It was while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting that the revelation came, but after it came, the church²⁶¹ again returned to “fasting and prayer” (v. 3). This may seem unnecessary at first, but not after some thought. There was now a very pressing matter before the church, one which called for fasting and prayer.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were among those five men, and that the Holy Spirit had said to you, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Would this not pose several problems and raise a number of questions?²⁶² What was “the work to which God had called Barnabas and Saul”? This was not spelled out, and they must come to a clear grasp of what it was. And what did it mean to “set apart” these men? Were they, for example, to be financially supported by the church at Antioch? It would seem that the answer to this was “No.”²⁶³ No wonder the church set apart a time for prayer and fasting.²⁶⁴ They had some important decisions to make and some very important actions to take. They wanted to be certain that they were doing that which would be pleasing to Him.

When they had come to a clear sense of direction, they acted. They laid their hands on these two beloved leaders, to indicate that God was with them, as were they, in this work to which they were now to continue in a different context. They sent them out, in one sense, but Luke makes it plain that in the final analysis it was the Holy Spirit who did so.

Implications for Missions Today

I have already indicated that it is not so much the process which is emphasized here as it is the fact that Barnabas and Saul were divinely appointed by the Spirit to go from Antioch and to continue their work in a much broader geographical context. Nevertheless, this is the first “missionary sending” of the New Testament, and thus we are obliged to lay this incident alongside current missionary methodology and see how the two compare. While I in no way see these three verses in Acts as laying down an inviolable pattern for sending out missionaries, I do think that our practice today is radically different, and in ways that at least cause me to wonder if we are going about mission in the best possible way. Much of what we are doing in missions is a matter of tradition, and not of biblical precedent. Let me point out a few areas of rather striking contrast.

(1) Current missionary practice is to send out young, inexperienced people, rather than mature, proven and experienced men. God sent out the two key leaders of the church at Antioch, not two young and inexperienced people. The work of missions requires all the maturity and proven giftedness the church can give. Why is our practice so different from what we read here? The young and inexperienced, I might add, were taken along as helpers, as John Mark was. In his first venture, Mark failed, but not irreversibly.

(2) Current missionary practice tends to leave the “leading of the Spirit” to the individuals who are sent out, rather than to reveal God’s leading through the most mature leaders of the church. In our times, missionaries go to the mission field when they feel led of God to go. Missionary boards are often those who are left with the decision as to whether or not God has led them to be sent out, but the church is not nearly as involved in the process of discerning God’s guidance, or in expressing God’s leading. I wonder why.

(3) Current missionary practice does not usually send out missionaries in teams, as Jesus did, and as the church at Antioch did. Happily, I think that there is a return to this practice of sending missionaries out in teams, but there are still many instances where this is not the case. The biblical precedent seems to be both clear and consistent. Sometimes there may be more than two sent out at the same time, but seldom, if ever, less.

(4) Current missionary practice seems to emphasize the need to send out “many” missionaries, but this church sent out only two. The theme goes something like this: “Millions (now billions) are dying without Christ; the more missionaries we can sent forth, the more of these lost can and will be saved.” From the standpoint of mere mathematics, this seems true. But God sent out only two men from Antioch, and look at the impact these men had. I am not so sure that the problem in missions is sending out too few people as it is not sending out those who God has called, and those whom the Spirit of God will empower and bless.

(5) Current missionary practice is dominated by the raising of missionary support, and yet money is not even mentioned in our text. If we had more money, more missionaries could be sent out, and these could be better equipped. That is the argument which I often hear. How many missionary letters have you read that did not mention money? I fully agree that those who minister have the right to be supported, although this support should come from those to whom we minister (cf. Luke 9:1-9; Luke 10:1-9; 1 Corinthians 9). The support of missionaries was commended (Philippians 4:15-16; 3 John 5-8), but Paul’s normal practice was to support himself, something which we do not hear a great deal about today.

I fear that in missions today there is too much human wisdom and too much dependence upon men and not on God. I pray that I am mistaken, but I frankly doubt it.

Saturating Cyprus with the Gospel
(13:4-12)

4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. 6 And when they had gone through the whole²⁶⁵ island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, 10 and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? 11 “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, begin amazed at the teachings of the Lord.

Barnabas and Saul were obediently sent out, by the church but ultimately by the Holy Spirit (v. 4). As Antioch was located some 18 miles or so upstream on the Orontes River, the two men first had to go downstream to Seleucia, 5 miles from the mouth of the river, and thus the seaport of Antioch. From there they sailed approximately 100 miles to the west to the island of Cyprus,²⁶⁶ where Barnabas had been born (Acts 4:36). Here, they would make their way across the island (approximately 150 miles), stopping at every synagogue, where they would preach the Word of God.

It would seem that an established pattern of evangelism is already set in motion. The apostles would go to those cities in which a synagogue could be found, and there they would preach the Word of God. They were thus enabled to preach the gospel “to the Jew first” (cf. Romans 1:16; see also Acts 13:46; 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8), but also they came in contact with Gentile proselytes and God-fearers, who were already knowledgeable with the Old Testament and the promise of Messiah, and many of whom were prepared to receive Jesus as this Messiah.

It is here, for some reason, Luke chose to indicate that John Mark, who had gone with Barnabas and Saul from Jerusalem back to Antioch, also accompanied them on this journey, as their attendant or helper. This is no doubt to prepare us for the account of his desertion in verse 13.

Crossing the island of Cyprus from east to west, Barnabas and Saul reached Paphos.²⁶⁷ Here, they encountered two men: Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus,²⁶⁸ and Elymas, known also as Bar-Jesus, who attended the proconsul. This proconsul, Luke informs us, was an “intelligent man” (v. 7). What could he possibly hope to gain by his association with a magician,²⁶⁹ a Jewish magician at that? I do not think that Luke is referring to the I.Q. of Sergius Paulus, but rather to the fact that he had a ready and inquiring mind, and that he was one who was quite knowledgeable, especially about religions. This proconsul is not called a proselyte, and I suspect that he did not attend the local synagogue, but I do think that he was inclined toward Judaism, and from what he knew he felt that salvation might well come from the Jews. Thus, one could infer, Sergius Paulus kept Bar-Jesus about, hoping to learn from him about the faith of the Jews. This Bar-Jesus, known also as Elymas, his Gentile name, was a magician, but he was also a Jew. More than that, a Jewish false prophet.

It is my understanding that Elymas was definitely not a true believer, but his name, Bar-Jesus, meaning “son of Jesus” may not be coincidental. Did he in any way seek to represent himself as the depository of truth, having somehow merged the Gentile magic arts with Judaism, and this somehow including the faith of Jesus? Heresy has a way of borrowing from various religious traditions, and I think that Bar-Jesus was a borrower.

Elymas was not some kind of freak, some “once in a lifetime kook,” however. As I read the New Testament, unbelieving Jews persistently sought to undermine the church. Orthodox Jews (like Saul had once been) opposed both Jesus and His disciples, because they saw Him as being a false Christ, a heretic, so far as their interpretations of Scripture and their own traditions were concerned. While many orthodox Jews refused to trust in Jesus as their Messiah, they nevertheless strongly opposed the preaching of Jesus as Messiah to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:44-52; 17:13; 22:21-23).

But there were many other “non orthodox” Jews, like Elymas, all about the Roman Empire. Some of these Jews opposed the church from without, like Elymas, but others actually sought to penetrate the church, and to corrupt it from within. Allow me to turn your attention to just two passages (both written by Paul), warning the church about Jewish false teachers, who specialized in “myths,” rather than in truth:

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me (1 Timothy 1:3-11, NIV).

10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good (Titus 1:10-16, NIV).

In both of these texts, the error is “Jewish” in that the teachers seem to be Jews and the curriculum is the “Law.” It is my understanding that the further one traveled from Jerusalem and Israel, the more the “Judaism” that was found was somehow merged with the pagan theologies and practice of that place. Elymas, then, is typical of those Jews who professed to be Jews and to represent Judaism, but who merged Judaism with heathen doctrines and practices.

The proconsul, Sergius Paulus, seems to have been attracted to Elymas because he claimed to represent Judaism, and also because he may, through his association with the magic arts, also appeared to have supernatural powers at his disposal. But the proconsul seems to have been especially attracted to the “Jewish” dimension of Elymas’s teaching. When Barnabas and Saul appeared on the scene, the proconsul must have seen this as a golden opportunity to learn more of the Jewish faith from them. And thus he invited the two men to come and to share their message with him.

Elymas saw the handwriting on the wall. He knew that Barnabas and Saul would not in any way teach and practice what he did. He knew that Sergius Paulus was an “intelligent man” and that he would see the contradictions in his own theology. He saw these two men and their teaching as a threat to his own. And thus, he began to aggressively oppose them. I can see him sticking close to the proconsul, listening to every question he asked, and to every answer the two missionaries gave. I can see him repeatedly interrupting and trying to “correct” their message.

Finally, it was simply too much for Saul, who, filled with the Spirit, strongly rebuked Elymas, exposed him as a fraud, and demonstrated the power of God and of the gospel by casting a spell on this “magician.” Did this Jew call himself Bar-Jesus, “son of Jesus”? He was no “son of Jesus,” he was a “son of the devil.”²⁷⁰ He was, as such, a deceiver and a fraud. He did not seek to lead the proconsul in the way of truth, but into error. His motivation was selfish, seeking to improve his own lot, at the expense of the proconsul. He did not teach “righteousness,” but was an enemy of righteousness. He had taken the “straight ways of the Lord” as taught by the Old Testament, and then by Jesus and His apostles, and twisted them. He was no teacher of the truth, but a perverter of it. He was no friend of righteousness, but its enemy.

What a strange feeling must have come over Paul as he cast the spell of blindness on this misguided Jew. It was so much like his own blindness.²⁷¹ It, too, was but for a time—temporary. It, too, was a gracious act in that it gave him reason and time for contemplation. It, too, was a testimony to the truth of the gospel and to the error of his own Judaism. It, too, had a great impact on those who beheld this man of power, now immobilized; this “blind guide,” now being led about by others. The teachings of Barnabas and Saul were now seen, like those of our Lord,²⁷² to be not only true but powerful. And so the proconsul believed.

A Subtle Change in the Program
(13:13)

13 Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John left them and returned to Jerusalem.

One must wonder why it is that Saul took the initiative in confronting Bar-Jesus, and not Barnabas, the evident leader up to this point in time. On one level, we can attribute Paul’s actions to his own gifts and calling. The differences between Barnabas and Paul are going to be especially evident in their disagreement over taking John Mark along with them on their second journey, after he had deserted them on the first (Acts 15:36-41). Barnabas was inclined to give a person some slack, while Paul took a harder line. Both men are right, because each has a different set of gifts and a different ministry. Paul, a former enemy of the gospel himself, goes hard after Elymas, calling a spade a spade, but in so doing, confronting him with his sin and with the gospel. It was ultimately an act of compassion, for it was the opportunity for him to repent and be saved.

In the final analysis, we must see this act of Paul as that which was prompted by the Holy Spirit (he was, we are told, “filled with the Spirit” when he thus confronted Elymas). It was God’s way of prompting Paul to take the lead, as he did, and as he would continue to do from this point on. And so we find in verse 13 it is no longer “Barnabas and Saul,” but “Paul and his companions.” God has moved this man Saul, from the position of following to that of leading.²⁷³ It was the sovereign plan and purpose of God, worked out in this way, and recognized as such by both Barnabas and by Luke.

Notice that there is not only the change from “Barnabas and Saul” to the reversal of their order, but there is also the change in the name by which Paul will be known. “Saul” was Paul’s Jewish name; “Paul” was his Gentile name.²⁷⁴ In the change from “Saul” to “Paul” we do not see a renaming of this apostle, but rather a change in the name which was most characteristically used of him, from this point in time on. Paul was to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and was to be God’s leader in so doing. To this Luke has born witness by the subtle changes evident in verse 13.

Conclusion

In the developing argument of the Book of Acts, a very significant step has been taken. Leadership is changing hands. We have moved from the twelve apostles, with Peter as the leader, to Barnabas and Saul, with Paul now the leader. We have moved from the church in Jerusalem, as the sending and supervising church, to the church at Antioch. We have departed from Jerusalem and are on our way to Rome. We have seen the salvation of many of the Jews, and are about to enter into the “times of the Gentiles,” when the church will be made up of more Gentiles than Jews. And, we have seen the evangelism of the world move from the providential working of God through men (in the scattering of the saints from Jerusalem—Acts 8:1ff.) to the purposeful sending forth of missionaries by the church (Acts 13:1ff). We have moved to a new era in the history of the church, and a very exciting one at that.

---

²⁵⁵ I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 214.

²⁵⁶ “But what a commentary on the mystery and sovereignty of divine grace that, of these two boys who were brought up together, one should attain honor as a Christian leader, while the other should be best remembered for his inglorious behavior in the killing of John the Baptist and in the trial of Jesus!” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 245.

²⁵⁷ Based upon the Greek text, A. T. Robertson concludes that we are able to determine who, among these five men, were prophets, and who were teachers:

“The double use of te here makes three prophets (Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius) and two teachers (Manaen and Saul). Barnabas heads the list (11:22) and Saul comes last. Symeon Niger may be the Simon of Cyrene who carried the Saviour’s cross. Lucius of Cyrene was probably one of the original evangelists (11:20).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. p. 177.

Whether Barnabas is a “prophet” or a “teacher,” it would seem that his gift of “prophecy” or “teaching” (or both) would be the means by which Barnabas encouraged others as a “son of encouragement” (cf. Acts 4:36).

²⁵⁸ In Acts 11:20 Luke wrote that the early evangelists were men of Cyprus and Cyrene.

²⁵⁹ Before elders and deacons could be recognized, some time would need to pass, so that the qualifications of these leaders could be evaluated and these men could be recognized as such by the church. Prophets and teachers could supply the leadership of the church until this time. Who better could have done so. I think that they were a provisional leadership, appointed by God. As God reduced their number, I would expect that elders and deacons would be appointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) and the church (1 Corinthians 16:15-16).

²⁶⁰ While the Jerusalem prophets would have had greater maturity, due to the fact that they had been saved longer, I think that these Antiochian prophets would have had greater openness (if not insight) into God’s plan and purpose to save the Gentiles. Word of the famine which would affect the saints in Judea fittingly came from Judean prophets, but the word from God which would send Barnabas and Saul out as missionaries came fittingly from Antiochian prophets.

²⁶¹ There is some discussion as to whether it was just the leaders -- the five men listed in verse 1 -- or it was the church as a whole who were engaged in the fasting and prayer and the commissioning of Barnabas and Saul. The “they” of verse 3 may refer only to the five, but I do think that the church was a rather active part of what took place. God led through their leaders, but the whole church took part, in my opinion.

²⁶² I am operating under a certain premise here, which I need to explain. I am assuming that these words are the only words which the Spirit spoke. The brevity of prophecy in Acts is something which I have only gradually recognized and appreciated. When the Spirit spoke through the prophet Agabus, all we are told that He said was that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world (Acts 11:28). It seems that it was left to the church to conclude that the saints in Judea would be especially hard hit, and that they should do something to prepare to help them. The same is true in Acts 21, when the Spirit again spoke through Agabus, indicating that if Paul went to Jerusalem, he would be bound and delivered to the Gentiles (Acts 21:11). It seems quite evident that the Spirit did not reveal what Paul should do about this, because his friends immediately began urging him not to go to Jerusalem (21:12). His friends were wrong, of course, as Paul recognized. My point is that the Holy Spirit’s revelation was a brief one, telling of a specific future event, but not providing all the details as to what to do about this. Even in those days, the Spirit did not do all of men’s thinking or agonizing for them. They had to discern the will of God in some particular and practical areas, and thus “fasting and prayer” were the order of the day.

²⁶³ “But Paul makes it plain in Phil. 4:15 that the church in Antioch did not make financial contribution to the campaign, but only goodwill. But that was more than the church at Jerusalem would have done as a whole since Peter had been arraigned there for his activities in Caesarea (Acts 11:1-18). Clearly Barnabas and Saul had to finance the tour themselves. It was Philippi that first gave money to Paul’s campaigns.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 178-179.

²⁶⁴ From Acts 14:23 we see that Paul and Barnabas made prayer and fasting a part of their practice in appointing elders in every church.

²⁶⁵ “Ramsey further comments: ‘The word ‘whole’ is probably intended to bring out clearly that they made a complete tour of the Jewish communities in the island, preaching in each synagogue.’” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 178.

²⁶⁶ Carter and Earle speak of the success of this mission to Cyprus when they write:

“The larger success of this mission of planting Christianity in Cyprus is indicated by Harnack’s citation of three bishops, Gelasues of Salamis, Cyrl of Paphos, and Spryidon of Trimithus, who attended the council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Again, Harnack relates that the register of the synod of Sardica (A.D. 343) reveals the signatures of twelve bishops from Cyprus; both of which evidences are a testimony to the rapid growth of Christianity in Cyprus.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 181.

²⁶⁷ “Paphos ranked second in importance to Salamis, but while Salamis was the capital of eastern Cyprus, Paphos, in the west, was the seat of the Roman government. . . Paphos was, further, the seat of the island’s chief deity, Aphrodite or Venus, a form of worship that rendered Paphos one of the most immoral and dissolute centers of the world. The superb temple of Venus here with all its elaborate, but immoral, rites won for her the title ‘Queen of Paphos.’” Carter and Earle, p. 179.

²⁶⁸ “There were two types of Roman provinces: (1) those governed by procurators, responsible to the emperor; and (2) those governed by proconsuls, under the senate. Cyprus had been governed by a proconsul since 22 B.C.” Irving L. Jensen, Acts: An Independent Study (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), p. 182.

²⁶⁹ “These Jewish mountebanks were numerous and had great influence with the uneducated. In Acts 19:13 the seven sons of Sceva, Jewish exorcists, tried to imitate Paul. If one is surprised that a man like Sergius Paulus should fall under the influence of this fraud, he should recall what Juvenal says of the Emperor Tiberius ‘sitting on the rock of Capri with his flock of Chaldaeans around him.’” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 180.

²⁷⁰ “He addressed him not as a ‘son of Jesus’ but as a son of the devil, a man full of trickery and evil, who was thwarting the ways of God (for the phraseology see Je. 5:27; Gn. 32:11; Pr. 10:9; Hos. 14:10), and pronounced the judgment of God upon him in the form of an attack of blindness. The character of the judgment suggests an analogy with what had earlier happened to Paul himself, and the phrase for a time suggests that it was meant to be merely temporary; hence the judgment was probably meant to be a warning and intended to act as a stimulus to conversion, although we do not know whether it achieved this result.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 219.

²⁷¹ “Paul, says the Venerable Bede, ‘remembering his own case, knew that by the darkening of the eyes the mind’s darkness might be restored to light.’” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 249.

²⁷² Cf. Mark 1:22, 27.

²⁷³ “Now Paul ranks first always in Acts save in 14:2; 15:12, 25 for special reasons.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 184.

²⁷⁴ “. . . Here for the first time in Acts is given his Roman cognomen Paulus (Paul), by which he is henceforth regularly called.” Bruce, p. 249.

“. . . but from now on Luke employs Paul save when there is a reference to his previous life (Acts 22:7; 26:14). His real career is work among the Gentiles and Paul is the name used by them. There is a striking similarity in sound between the Hebrew Saul and the Roman Paul.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 181.

… 34 But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.³²² 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching, with many others also, the word of the Lord.

Introduction

While there is a time to fight, there are many times when a fight is simply not worth it. I can remember Vance Havner once saying something like this: “Shucks, a hound dog can lick a skunk any day, but it just isn’t worth it.”

A friend of mine used to say, “There are some things I would go to the wall for, but this isn’t one of them.” We should strive to avoid conflict, but there are those few times when we must engage in conflict in order to stand for what is essential and true.

Acts 15 contains Luke’s account of two such instances, where conflict was necessary and where the gospel was advanced as a result of both disagreements. The first 35 verses describe the conflict which Paul and Barnabas had with certain men who had come to Antioch from Judea. The issue at hand was whether Gentile converts had to become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved. The outgrowth of this conflict was the first church council, which included some heated words but resulted in a very wise decision on the part of the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem. The remaining verses in Acts 15 describe the disagreement which arose between Paul and Barnabas. This was a matter which was settled privately and into which the church leaders were not drawn.

We will concentrate in this lesson on the first conflict between Paul and Barnabas and some overly Jewish Christians, and the Jerusalem Council which met to settle the dispute. We will take note of the way in which the problem was handled and of the basis for the decision, as well as the decision of the Council and its impact. We will then seek to discern those principles which are inherent in our text and ponder their implications for the church today.

The Issue, Its Advocates and Its Assumptions

The issue is that of the gospel itself. What did the gospel require of those who were Gentiles and who were converted to faith in Christ? The answer of Paul and Barnabas can be summed up in these words:

The gospel requires nothing more than a personal faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, in the sinner’s place, resulting in the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the certainty of eternal life.

There were certain unnamed men who had come down to Antioch from Judea who held to a very different “gospel,” a “gospel” which, in reality, was a false one.³²³Their “gospel” might be summed up in this fashion:

Christianity is Jewish. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, but in order to be a part of this covenant community, Israel, one must become a proselyte, which is entered into by circumcision, which obligates the individual to keep the Law of Moses.

Put differently, to these “Judaisers” salvation meant identifying not only with Christ but with the nation Israel. It meant placing oneself under the Mosaic Covenant and keeping the Laws of Moses, as defined by Judaism.

We know for certain that these men who opposed Paul and Barnabas were from Judea. We can be sure they were Jews and that they had been and continued to be Pharisees (15:5). We are also told that these men were believers (15:5). We can infer, with some confidence, that these men either claimed or implied that their position represented the viewpoint of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.³²⁴ It is probably safe to say that they taught with great confidence and an air of authority. When Paul and Barnabas opposed them, the sparks began to fly. Neither party was willing to budge.

As wrong as these “Judaisers” were, they believed their position was biblical.

A brief look at some Old Testament passages will show us the basis for their error, as well as an explanation of the error. Tracking the concept of circumcision through the Old Testament provides us with the reasons these Pharisees believed as they did and the reason they were wrong. Consider these two passages, the first found in Genesis 17 and the second in Exodus 12:

5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” … 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen (Genesis 17:5-14, 22-25, NIV).

43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. 46 “It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. 49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you” (Exodus 12:43-49, NIV).

Circumcision was no mere ritual—it was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. By being circumcised men bore witness to their faith in the God of Abraham and in His covenant with him and his descendants. Failure to circumcise his son nearly cost Moses his life (cf. Exodus 4:24-26). Failure or refusal to be circumcised placed one outside the covenant community. In order for one to participate in the Passover meal, one had to be circumcised. Aliens (Gentiles, for all practical purposes) could participate, but only after being circumcised.

How easy it would be for a Jew to reason that these circumcision passages applied equally to those who wished salvation in Christ. Jesus was a Jew, the Jewish Messiah. If men wished to benefit in the blessings which God promised in and through the Messiah, they must identify themselves with Israel, with their covenants, and with the Mosaic commands.

The fallacy of this Pharisaical position was that one did not have to identify with Israel to be saved, but only with Christ. Indeed, the baptism of John and later that of our Lord and His apostles was a public renouncing of Judaism as a system of works and an identification with Christ, on the basis of faith alone. Men turned their backs on legalistic Judaism and turned to Christ, who alone kept the law and bore its (death) penalty for sinners. The law could not save anyone; it could only condemn all men as sinners. Christ alone can save, and thus men had to choose between self-righteousness, based upon perfect obedience of the law, or Christ’s righteousness, a gift of God’s grace, through faith in the person and work of His Son, Jesus.

The Judaisers viewed circumcision from these early texts in the Old Testament, but not from the other texts which showed the “true circumcision” to be an act of God, performed on men’s hearts and not on their physical flesh.³²⁵ Notice how this “spiritual” circumcision becomes more and more clear as the Old Testament progresses:

14 To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. 15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. 16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer (Deuteronomy 10:14-16, NIV).

6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (Deuteronomy 30:6, NIV).

1 “If you will return, O Israel, return to me,” declares the Lord. “If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, 2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, ‘As surely as the Lord lives,’ then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.” 3 This is what the Lord says to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it (Jeremiah 4:1-4, NIV).

23 This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord. 25 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh—26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:23-26, NIV).

Though the term “circumcision” is not used, God’s promise of a new covenant and a new heart is surely referring to the “spiritual circumcision” which God will perform on men’s hearts, by faith, under a new covenant:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:31-33, NASB).

Paul will make much of this in his epistles. Here are a few of his comments on circumcision:

23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God (Romans 2:23-29, NIV).

3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all (Romans 3:31–4:16, NIV).

17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him (1 Corinthians 7:17-20, NIV).

2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you … 11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17 “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:2-5, 11-20, NIV).

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love … 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand! 12 Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. 14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God (Galatians 5:1-6, 11-16, NIV).

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)—12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit (Ephesians 2:11-22, NIV).

3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3, NIV).

11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence (Colossians 2:11-23).

I find myself wanting to give these “Judaisers” the benefit of the doubt. I would like to believe they were sincerely trying to follow the Scriptures, as they understood them. Up until this time, when Gentiles were being saved in large numbers, there was no need to agonize about a few Gentiles (most of whom were God-fearers or Jewish proselytes) who came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. But now large numbers of heathen, pagan, Gentiles were being saved. How were these Gentiles believers to be taught? What, if anything, was to be required of them? The demand of these Pharisee Christians made it necessary for the church to more clearly define the gospel. And the strong conflict of Paul and Barnabas with these Judaisers made it necessary to declare one or the other (or neither) to be correct.

The Journey to Jerusalem

The Antiochian church seems to have been unable to settle this debate, and so they appealed to the church in Jerusalem. This, after all, was where the apostles would be found, or at least some of them, and this was the church from which (it would seem) the Judaisers had come. And since these Judaisers seem to have given the impression that they spoke for the apostles and the Jerusalem church, who better to confirm their teaching or to confront their error? And so it was decided that Paul and Barnabas and others (were any of the opposition included in this group?) were sent to Jerusalem for a decision from the apostles and the elders there.

Paul and Barnabas do not appear to have lost any of their confidence or zeal concerning their ministry to the Gentiles. Consequently, as they traveled up to Jerusalem through Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported, in detail, the conversion of the Gentiles which brought great joy to those who heard of God’s grace, manifested in this way (15:3).

When they arrived at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were welcomed and received by the church there, including the apostles and the elders. In what may have been a kind of congregational gathering, they gave their report of the salvation of the Gentiles to the Jerusalem saints. This message was received differently, however. There is no report of any rejoicing, though I am sure that some must have done so. Others may have inwardly rejoiced, but not openly, knowing the reaction this would cause among some of the Pharisaical brethren. Here was the occasion for which the Pharisee party within the church, a party of true believers but ones who held fast to their Pharisaical traditions and theology, waited. These men grasped the moment and stood, insisting, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).

These words would hardly have come as a surprise to those saints in Jerusalem, for advocates of this Pharisaical view of salvation had come from Judea and had gone out as far as Antioch. But somehow, since Paul and Barnabas were a fair distance away and the Gentiles who were being converted were also far away, the issue was not addressed, and the error was not rebuked. It is evident that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem³²⁶ had not taken a position and had not dealt with this matter, because it is only at this time that they meet to determine what their position would be.

It would appear that another meeting was scheduled, for a later time, at which the apostles and the elders would be the ruling body but to which all who had something to say would be allowed to speak their mind. James may have been the moderator. The opponents seem to have spoken first, and Luke does not bother to include any of their arguments. Everyone who wanted spoke, and there was a great deal of heated discussion. The testimonies of Peter and Paul and Barnabas were saved until last, and then James, as it were, made a motion as to the action which this Council should take.

Peter’s Testimony
(15:7-11)

7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

Peter, who spoke first, had himself stood “on trial” by many of these same Jewish saints (Acts 11:1ff.). In that instance, Peter was called on the carpet by the “circumcised” who challenged the legitimacy of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles at all. When Peter had finished describing the events which led him to go to the house of Cornelius and the testimony which the Holy Spirit bore to the salvation of these Gentiles, the circumcised saints had to admit that God must have opened the door to Gentile evangelism. So that now, when Paul and Barnabas stand before this Council, the issue is not whether Gentiles can be saved, but how Gentiles are to be saved. Peter’s trial was over the issue of whether Gentiles should hear the gospel; now the issue was what that gospel must be. This Council was faced with the responsibility of defining the gospel that would be preached.

Peter reminded his audience that God had ordained him to be the first apostle to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and by this the precedent had been established that the Gentiles were, by divine design and purpose, to hear the gospel and be saved. Peter’s argument rests on the testimony which God bore in the evangelization of those Gentiles at the home of Cornelius. God, he reminded these circumcised saints, cleansed their hearts by faith. They had not yet been baptized, and they were apparently never circumcised (unless they had undergone circumcision in the process of becoming proselytes), and yet the Holy Spirit came upon them, baptizing them in exactly the same way that He had at Pentecost. If God testified to their salvation, based solely upon their faith, how could this Council require anything more of Gentile Christians? Furthermore, God did not make any distinctions between these new Gentile saints and those who came to faith who were Jews. How could this Council make any distinctions in the gospel which was proclaimed to Gentiles?

If no distinctions were to be made, then Gentiles must be saved in exactly the same way as Jews. Who, among Peter’s audience, would dare to say that any Jew had ever been saved by law-keeping? If Jews were saved by grace, through faith, apart from law-keeping, why would they possibly insist that the Gentiles be put under this impossible burden? This argument, incidentally, is precisely that same argument which Paul used in rebuking Peter for separating himself from eating with Gentile saints, when circumcised saints came for Jerusalem to Antioch. It is my opinion that God had prepared Peter for this moment in time by using Paul in his life to underscore its truth.³²⁷

Peter’s argument was a persuasive one. God had clearly indicated that it was His purpose to save Gentiles. The way in which they were saved was no different than the way Jews were saved. God did not make any distinctions. If the salvation of those Gentiles in the home of Cornelius set not only a precedent but a pattern, then simple faith in Christ alone was all that was necessary for a Gentile to be saved.

And so it was for the Jew. This Council dare not make distinctions which God did not make.

The Testimony of Barnabas and Paul
(15:12)

12 And all the multitude kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Peter’s words seem to have brought order to what had been a chaotic, heated exchange. This set the stage for Barnabas and Paul³²⁸ to tell of their ministry and their message. A hush had fallen over the group, and Barnabas and Paul told the story of their ministry and message. The thrust of their words, at least as summed up by Luke, was that God had accredited them and authenticated their gospel by the signs and wonders which He granted them, in addition to their words. These signs and wonders were God’s “Amen” to their message and ministry. Here is yet another testimony from God to the accuracy of the gospel they preached to the Gentiles.

There is one thing about the testimony of Barnabas and Paul which catches my attention—its brevity. It was, in large measure, the ministry of Paul and Barnabas which precipitated this Council. How was it then that they had so little to say? My answer is this: They had little to say because it was they who were on trial. On the theoretical side, the gospel must be defined, but on the personal level, the Council must decide between Paul and Barnabas and those circumcised teachers who claimed to have apostolic support and accreditation. In reality, it is not Paul and Barnabas but the Jerusalem church that is on the spot. This church may have sidestepped the issue until now, but now they are forced to take a stand. Thus, Luke focuses on their testimonies and verdict. Once Paul and Barnabas are accredited by the Jerusalem Council, it will be Paul who will do the definitive work on the subject of circumcision and the Law of Moses, as it relates to the Gentiles. But here, these two have little to say.

The Judgment of James
(15:13-21)

13 And after they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.³²⁹ 15 “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I WILL RETURN, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH WAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 IN ORDER THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM OF OLD.’

19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

James, the half-brother of our Lord, begins where Peter left off, passing by the testimony of Barnabas and Paul. He now takes the lesson which Peter has drawn from his experience and puts it to the test of biblical revelation. Theology can be learned from our experience, but it ought not to be viewed as biblical doctrine until it has been tested by biblical revelation. James set out to test Peter’s theology by Old Testament revelation. He will say, in effect, that what Peter had just said had been prophesied in the Old Testament.³³⁰

Turning to the prophecy of Amos 9,³³¹ James draws on this text which speaks of God’s judgment and destruction of Israel, which is not complete, and which is not permanent. He promised to return and to restore Israel, rebuilding it as in the days of old (Amos (9:11). But the restoration of the kingdom to Israel is not an exclusive blessing, only for the Jews. It will be, God promises through Amos, a restoration which will enable the Gentiles to seek the Lord and worship Him. In the context of the Jerusalem Council, James is pointing out from this text that both Jews and Gentiles will worship God when the kingdom is restored to Israel, and that they will do it as Jews and as Gentiles. In other words, Gentiles will be blessed as Gentiles, not as Jews. Thus, there would be no need for a different gospel, and there would be no need for the Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes. The very things which Paul and Barnabas have reported are thus consistent with the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets concerning the restoration of the kingdom.

James then moves to a proposal which he put before the Council. The Gentiles who were turning to God should not be troubled by the Jewish saints and in particular by the decision of the Jerusalem Council. The things which were proposed as requirements were not requirements for salvation, but rather requirements for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile saints. These four prohibitions were the four most offensive things to a Jew:

(1) Partaking of foods contaminated by their involvement with idol worship

(2) Fornication—sexual practices contrary to God’s standards

(3) Eating those things which were strangled, not killed as God had instructed

(4) Eating blood

Refraining from these things would greatly reduce the cultural tensions which existed between Jews and Gentiles.

Doing this would in no way set aside the Old Testament law, as though it were evil or worthless. Indeed, the Gentiles had access to the synagogues, where the Law of Moses was taught each Sabbath. There was ample opportunity for the truths and principles of the Law to be taught to Gentiles. Studying the Law is a very different thing from placing oneself under the law, obliged to keep the whole law, without violating any part of it.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council then was that the gospel, for Jew or Gentile, was salvation as a gift of God’s grace, through faith alone, faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the Messiah who bore one’s sins and judgment, so that they could be pronounced righteous in God’s sight and have eternal life in the kingdom of God. Those who taught otherwise did not have the approval of church in Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were right, and those men who came to Antioch from Judea were wrong.

There is great wisdom evident in the way the Jerusalem church dealt with this issue. They gave ample opportunity for discussion and debate. They made their decision on the basis of human and divine testimony, which was in accordance with the teachings of the Old Testament. And now, having reached their definition of the gospel, they decide on the implementation of their decision.

The first thing the Council did was to put their decision in writing and to appoint men to accompany Paul and Barnabas with the letter, to bear witness to the decision of the Council. Were there “certain men” who came down to Antioch from Judea with “another gospel”? Then let the churches hear from this group of men, who came from Judea and who could attest to the decision the Council had made concerning the gospel and that which was to be required of Gentile converts. The two men who accompanied Paul and Barnabas were Judas and Silas, leading men among the saints, men whose word had clout among the Jewish saints. Judas is an unknown individual, but Silas will accompany Paul on his second journey.

The letter itself was not long nor was it extensive. Its emphasis was on men, disclaiming the men and the message of those who had come from Judea, insisting on the circumcision of the Gentiles, and on their obedience to the Law. Further, the letter commended Paul and Barnabas, as beloved brethren, who risked their lives for the sake of the gospel. With this condemnation of the false teachers and the commendation of Paul and Barnabas, the door was opened for Paul to write in much greater detail on the matters decided, in principle, at the Jerusalem Council. Paul’s epistles, as it were, had the forward written by the Jerusalem Council, and his views were formally approved as consistent with the gospel. The four prohibitions were laid down as those things which the saints would do well by observing. And with this, the letter ended, with a simple, “Farewell.”

The Return to Antioch
(15:30-35)

30 So, when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 And Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 And after they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.³³² 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching, with many others also, the word of the Lord.

The delegation, along with the letter they bore from the Jerusalem Council, made their way to Antioch where they formally delivered the letter. The response of the church was great rejoicing. Grace encourages, but legalism does not. Being a Christian did not mean being Jewish; they could be Gentile Christians. Judas and Silas ministered to the Antiochian congregation, with a lengthy message which encouraged and strengthened the saints. While we do not know the precise content of the message of these men, I think we can safely say the thrust of it was probably upon grace. As the writer to the Hebrews put it,

“Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited” (Hebrews 12:9).

Those sent to Antioch from Jerusalem returned home, except for Silas (who was to accompany Paul on his next journey). Paul and Barnabas remained on at Antioch for some time, preaching and teaching the saints there, along with others. And in God’s time and God’s ways, they would go out again, not together this time, but separately, as we shall soon see.

Conclusion

From a historical (and thus Luke’s) point of view, the gospel has been officially defined and defended at the Jerusalem Council. It was not until the gospel was challenged and corrupted by false teaching that this was viewed as a matter of urgency. The men who first corrupted the gospel were seemingly true believers, but men who brought much of their past baggage with them. It appears that the Jerusalem Council not only silenced these men, but changed their definition of the gospel. At least I would like to believe that these men were teachable. If these men were convinced and changed their teaching, there would be many others who would quickly take their place and would seek to corrupt the gospel. As time went on, these men would be looked upon as unbelievers and not as true saints at all (cf. Galatians 2:4). Much of the error which is confronted in the epistles has a distinctly “Jewish” flavor. The attack on Christianity from without (by opposition and persecution) would also come from within. And so the New Testament indicates.

The Jerusalem Council is a kind of “watershed” decision, for in the immediately preceding chapters (13-14) of Acts, Gentile evangelism had begun as a conscious program, led by Paul and Barnabas. As a result of the conversion of many Gentiles, it became necessary to more carefully define the gospel, and the heathen culture of the Gentiles began to collide with the self-righteous culture of Judaism. Having defined the gospel and defended the authority of Paul and Barnabas, the program of evangelizing the Gentiles could continue on, with the blessings of the Jerusalem church. And so the subsequent campaigns will now be described by Luke as Paul heads from Jerusalem, bound ultimately for Rome. And so also would come the destruction of Jerusalem, not many years hence, to free the Gentile from the pressure of Judaism. With the exception of one more visit of Paul to Jerusalem, we are at this time saying farewell to Jerusalem and to the church there. We are rapidly coming to the age of the Gentiles.

I cannot help but marvel at the wisdom of God, who raised up a man like Paul, independently of the church in Jerusalem and the apostles (cf. Galatians 1 and 2), who became a catalyst in the definition of the gospel. Here was Paul, a former Pharisee, and now a saint, opposing Pharisee-Christians and their “gospel.” How was it that

Paul, a former Pharisee, could so strongly oppose fellow-Pharisees who were genuine believers?

As I have thought about the differences between Paul and this “circumcision party,” made up of Pharisees, the best explanation for Paul’s unique stance is to be found in his view of his past religion—Pharisaism. The Pharisees sought to bring their Pharisaism with them into Christianity; Paul left his Pharisaism behind. The Pharisees took pride in their Pharisaism; Paul counted it as “dung,” boasting only in Christ. Paul saw his Pharisaism as a works system, in which a man could take pride in his spirituality, and he utterly renounced it when he came to faith in Jesus as his Messiah. The Pharisees seemed to add faith in Christ to their religion, rather than to exchange their religion for Christ. Rather than seeing that they were saved in spite of their religion, they tended to think their religion helped them along.

How easy it is to cling to those things which give us, in human terms, status. And yet this only produces pride, rather than humility, and self-sufficiency, rather than dependence upon God. How much of our baggage have we tried to bring along with us when we came to faith? Paul looked upon his past religious achievements and counted them not only as worthless, but as offensive. And that is precisely what religion is to God. God does not want religious people; He wants “sinners” who will confess their sins and trust in Christ. Leave the religious baggage behind. When you see how offensive it is to God, that will make it easier to forsake.

How quickly Christianity becomes confused with culture. Some Jews, it seems, wanted to impose their culture on the Gentiles, in the name of Christianity. The gospel could not be defined in terms of the Jewish culture, and thus the Council separated the culture of Judaism from the gospel. And thus, when Peter will write to the dispersed saints in his epistles, he will speak of holiness in terms of their culture, rather than in terms of the imitation of a Jewish culture.

This passage informs us that there is a time to fight. There are many times to avoid conflict, as we can see from other passages of Scripture, but here, it is the gospel itself which is under attack. Men, intentionally or not, were striving to adapt the gospel to their own liking, and it cannot be done. Paul’s strong words in the Book of Galatians are proof that there is to be no toleration of any error which would corrupt the gospel. Christians can disagree on many subjects, but they cannot differ on the gospel. In that we must always stand firm and united.

And so, as I close, I must ask you this question, my friend. Do you understand the gospel? Is it the simple message that all men are sinners, incapable of saving themselves and doomed for eternal torment? Salvation has been provided by Jesus of Nazareth, God’s Son, and God’s Messiah (Savior). He died for your sins on the cross of Calvary. He was buried and was raised to newness of life. All you need do is to believe in Him, to admit you are a sinner, and to trust in His death as the payment for your sins. His resurrection is the promise of your own, and the basis for the power of God to work in your life. I pray that you will not only understand the gospel, but that you will accept it as your own.

---

³²² The marginal note in the NASB indicates that some manuscripts include this verse, although the editors of the NASB chose to omit it. I have chosen to let the verse stand as a part of the text.

³²³ Cf. Galatians 1 for Paul’s strong reaction to this gospel of faith and works.

³²⁴ The Jerusalem Council was careful to indicate that they had neither sent these men out nor did they hold to their definition of the gospel (cf. 15:24).

³²⁵ That a spiritual circumcision was necessary for salvation, rather than a physical one, should have been obvious to any Israelite who thought about it very long. Only men could be circumcised. If only men were circumcised, and circumcision were necessary for salvation, what was to become of the women? Circumcision, then, like baptism, was a physical symbol of an inward, spiritual activity, and that activity was performed by God, through the faith of the individual.

³²⁶ Notice the gradual change that is taking place in Acts, moving from a leadership exclusively by the twelve apostles to one shared by the apostles and the elders of the church. And note too the shift from Peter’s dominant role to that of James, who was not one of the twelve apostles, but was apparently an elder. Could it be that Peter had lost some of his standing in the eyes of this church because of his mission to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11)? Regardless, James is emerging as a most prominent leader in the Jerusalem church.

³²⁷ If this is not so, and Paul’s rebuke of Peter as described in Galatians 2 came after the Jerusalem Council, then Paul simply reminded Peter at that time of what he had already said at the Jerusalem Council.

There are some interesting parallels between the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and the events of Galatians 2. There are also some critical differences between the two accounts. Consequently, Bible students are not agreed as to whether Acts 15 and Galatians 2 describe the same event or different incidents. Either way, each passage sheds some helpful insight into the other.

³²⁸ The order of the names of Paul and Barnabas is reversed, for the second time, here. I think this can be explained by the fact that Barnabas was the better known of the two, and perhaps the more popular. Paul was confident and dogmatic in his view of the gospel, and he may have offended some of these saints. Compare Jerusalem’s view of Paul as described in Acts 21:17-25.

³²⁹ “The English translation of the words, ‘God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for his name,’ scarcely bring out the paradoxical force of the Greek. In the Old Testament the ‘nations’ or ‘Gentiles’ . . . stand in contrast to the ‘people’ . . ., that is to say, Israel. When Moses says to the Israelites in Deut. 14:2, ‘Yahweh has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the nations that are on the face of the earth,’ the Greek version uses laos for ‘people’ over against thene for ‘nations’; the two terms are opposed the one to the other. But when James uses the same two terms here, he does not speak of ‘God’s taking a people in contrast to the Gentiles, but of his taking a people consisting of Gentiles--an ‘outstanding paradox,’ as Bengel says. The Scofield Reference Bible, in its note on this text, had a point in calling it ‘dispensationally, . . . the most important passage in the NT.’ What James states concisely here is implied throughout the New Testament: one example is 1 Pet. 2:9, where God’s description of the returning exiles of Judah, ‘the people whom I formed for myself, that they might declare my praise’ (Isa. 43:21), is applied to Gentile converts to Christianity. Cf. also Tit. 2:14.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 293.

³³⁰ Peter does not use the singular, prophet, but the plural, prophets. Thus, he cites Amos 9:11-12, not as his sole text but as a sample text, which could be buttressed by the writings of other prophets.

³³¹ It has been noted that James’ quotation of Amos 9:11-12 seems to have been from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, rather than from the original Hebrew (Massoretic) text. While this poses a few problems, it does not nullify the point which James was making. For a discussion of this textual matter, cf. Bruce, pp. 293-294.

³³² The marginal note in the NASB indicates that some manuscripts include this verse, although the editors of the NASB chose to omit it. I have chosen to let the verse stand as a part of the text.

Introduction

My mother is an amputee who lost her leg due to a hit-and-run accident a number of years ago. She now walks very well by means of an artificial limb and a cane. My mother is also a very spunky woman. One day, as she and my father were arriving at a shopping mall and she was going through the main doors, some men came running toward the door passing very close by my mother and very much in a hurry. My mother sensed something was wrong. These men just were in too much of a hurry. As they passed her, Mother had to make a split-second decision … should she put out her cane and trip them, or let them pass by? Wisely, she opted to take no action without knowing the circumstances. In a matter of moments, the men were gone, and my mother learned why they were in such a hurry—they had just robbed the store which she was about to enter and which they were in such a hurry to leave. Tripping these men, possibly armed, could have led to violence and injury.

Sometimes people are in a hurry for the wrong reasons. Surely that was surely the case with the robbers my mother encountered. But being in a hurry is not always bad. As I continue to read the Book of Acts, I am inclined to conclude that Paul was a man who was constantly in a hurry. Certainly he did not stay in one place very long. Granted, he often left one town and went to another because of strong persecution on the part of unbelievers (often Jews, but also Gentiles). Such was the case at Pisidian Antioch (13:50-51), Iconium (14:4-6), Lystra (14:19-20), Philippi (16:19-40), Thessalonica (17:5-10), and Derbe (17:13-14). But Paul did not stay long at any one place in Cyprus, where no persecution is mentioned (13:4-12), or Athens (17:16–18:1), or Ephesus (18:19-21). Indeed, when Paul did spend a longer time than usual at Corinth, it was to some degree the result of a divine vision, instructing him to do so (18:9-11).

What was it that kept Paul moving about from city to city, not staying at any one place for very long, with the exceptions being just that—exceptions? What was the hurry? Was there something wrong? We shall seek to answer these questions as we proceed with our lesson.

The Context of our Passage

Paul and Silas and Timothy (but not Luke, it would seem) have left Philippi, where not only Lydia and her household and the jailor with his household, but a number of others have come to faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Acts 17 contains the description of the evangelistic efforts of Paul and Silas and Timothy in three cities: Thessalonica (17:1-10a), Berea (17:10b-15), and Athens (17:16-34). In all three of these cities Paul visited synagogues where he proclaimed Jesus as the promised Messiah. The focus of the campaigns in the first two cities is strongly Jewish, while the focus in the last campaign is Gentile. In his description of Paul’s ministry in the first two cities of Thessalonica and Berea, Luke dwells on Paul’s speaking in the synagogue, on the belief of some, and on the strong opposition of some of the Jews who rejected the gospel and who strongly opposed Paul and the others with him. In the last city, Athens, Luke only casually mentions that Paul went to the synagogue each Sabbath, but he gives much attention to the ministry of Paul in the streets and in the market place. He focuses on Paul’s ministry to the heathen, not to those familiar with Judaism.

Our Approach

Because Luke’s shift of emphasis is from a Jewish focus to a Gentile focus in this chapter, we will devote our attention in this lesson to only the first two cities, Thessalonica and Berea (verses 1-15), and save the campaign at Athens for our next study. We will study the preaching of the gospel in these first two cities, and then we will attempt to point out some major areas of emphasis found in our text and in the broader context of Acts.

The Birth of the Church in Thessalonica
(17:1-10a)

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica,³⁷⁷ where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths³⁷⁸ reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded³⁷⁹ and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.³⁸⁰ 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place,³⁸¹ formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. 6 And when they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world³⁸² have come here also; 7 and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”³⁸³ 8 And they stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things. 9 And when they had received a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them. 10 And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.

We are not told directly why Paul and his party “passed through” Amphipolis and Apollonia, but we are given a strong inference as to the explanation—there seem to have been no synagogues in these two cities, while there were synagogues in Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens. It cannot be that Paul passes these cities by because they are small or insignificant, for they are neither, while Berea appears to have been an insignificant place, from a human point of view.³⁸⁴

I believe Paul’s actions to this point in the Book of Acts may raise a question in our mind: “How is it that this ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (cf. Galatians 1:16; 2:7) is spending so much time in the synagogues and with the Jews?” There are several answers to this question.

(1) Paul was not called to preach the gospel exclusively to the Gentiles. At the time of his salvation, his “calling” was spelled out to Ananias, who, in turn, must have passed this on to Paul:

But the Lord said to him {Ananias}, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15).

(2) Preaching in the synagogues was an effective means of reaching Gentiles. In nearly every synagogue there were Gentile “God-seekers” or “proselytes” of one kind or another. In Paphos, on Cyprus, was Sergius Paulus, the proconsul (13:6ff.).In Philippi, it was Lydia (16:14ff.). In chapter 17, we learn of a number of Gentiles who were saved through Paul’s preaching in the synagogues of Thessalonica and Berea (17:4, 12). These Gentile “God-seekers” had already come to the point of looking for salvation from a Jewish Messiah, and they also had some knowledge of the Old Testament. These converts would not need as much instruction as raw pagans, and thus they were potential leaders in the churches which were formed as a result of the evangelism of Paul and Barnabas and Silas and others.

(3) Paul’s ministry was conducted on the principle, “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16).

(4) Paul’s ministry, like that of the twelve apostles, followed the pattern set down by our Lord in Acts 1:8. We can see the Book of Acts developing in a way that follows the geographical sequence of Acts 1:8. The spread of the gospel begins at Jerusalem, spreads to Judea and Samaria, and then expands to the other nations of the world. It never struck me until now that Paul’s ministry did likewise:

“‘Consequently, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:19-20).

(5) In Paul’s ministry we can see a gradual transition, beginning with a strong Jewish focus and ending with a strong Gentile focus. As I understand the development of the Book of Acts, Paul’s ministry is predominantly Jewish, up until his final visit to Jerusalem, which resulted in his rejection and accusation by the Jews there and his appeal to Rome (Acts 21-26). Before Acts 21, evangelization of the Gentiles often happened providentially.

Paul’s preaching in the synagogue at Thessalonica was “according to his custom” (verse 2). Paul had a plan of action for his ministry, which he customarily followed at most of the cities where he sought to proclaim Christ. This “custom” was to find a city with a synagogue, and then to go there on the Sabbath where he was granted the opportunity to speak about the Old Testament Scriptures to those gathered.³⁸⁵ Paul would use this opportunity to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. There were exceptions, of course, as in Philippi where there was no synagogue (although there was a “place of prayer”), but this was the norm.

And so it was at Thessalonica when Paul and the others went to the synagogue and were invited to speak. Here, as always, Paul preached of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. His argument could be summarized: (1) The Old Testament prophets spoke of Messiah. (2) This Messiah must be rejected by His people, Israel, and be put to death for the sins of men. (3) This crucified Christ must, according to the Old Testament prophets, be raised from the dead. (4) Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, having fulfilled all of these prophecies. (5) Each listener must make a choice, either to accept Jesus as their Messiah, or to reject Him, as the Jewish leaders and people of Jerusalem had done. To receive Him was to obtain the forgiveness of sins and the assurance of eternal life; to reject Him was to await the future day when He will come to judge and to punish His enemies (cf. Acts 13:38-41).³⁸⁶

As almost always was the case, the response to Paul’s preaching was mixed (verse 4). Some of those who heard (who seem to be Jews, verse 4) believed, joining Paul and Silas. An even greater number of Gentiles believed, including a number of the leading women.

But there was also a strong negative response, not to the message of Paul, per se, but to the popularity of his message, to its reception. I would imagine the unbelieving Jews not only rejected Paul’s message, but they disliked it—and him. But Luke does not describe the strong opposition to Paul and his preaching as opposition to the message itself; rather he describes the jealousy arising out of its acceptance by so many. It was not just the numbers that bothered Paul’s opponents, but who it was who believed the gospel and followed Paul: the Gentiles, and, in particular, the influential ones. These Jews, like Jonah of old, like the people of Nazareth (Luke 4:16ff.), and like the Jews of Jerusalem later on (Acts 22:21-22), were greatly angered that a “salvation of the Jews” was being offered to the Gentiles and that many were placing their trust in Him, following Paul and the others. Sadly, the issue was not a matter of truth and not a matter of Scripture, but a matter of position and power.

In retaliation, the opposing Jews sought to “overpower” Paul and the other missionaries, by manipulating the crowds and the political system. Skillfully, a crowd was gathered and worked up into a very agitated mob. The “peace” was deliberately “disturbed,” with the city being set into an uproar. The angry mob stormed the house of Jason (verse 5), who apparently was a believer and who may have been providing food and lodging for the missionary party.

What a setback it must have been for this bloodthirsty crowd to find none of their intended targets at home. It was all rather anti-climactic—something like calling a person who has made you very angry with the intent of “giving them a piece of your mind”—and getting a recorded answer from their answering machine. In this case, however, Jason was home, even if neither Paul, nor Silas, nor any of the others were there. He would have to do, and so they drug Jason out of his house and before the city authorities, not unlike the way Paul and Silas had been unceremoniously seized and charged at Philippi (Acts 16).

These Jewish opponents of Paul and the gospel, these men who had stirred up the whole city, now accused them of upsetting the world, of inciting men to acts of violence and insurrection by advocating a King other than Caesar. And Jason, they charged, was guilty of “aiding and abetting” these men and their revolutionary movement. The crowd and the authorities were, due to the skillful moves of these Jewish resisters, duly impressed with this line of argumentation, even though they should have seen that the “pot was calling the kettle black” and that these Jews who were really the trouble-makers were calling the missionaries trouble-makers.

To insure that no further violence would occur, a pledge or a bond was secured from Jason.³⁸⁷ It is possible that it was either implied or clearly stated that Paul would be sent out of town as a part of the agreement. At least this was the immediate result of Jason’s release “on bond.” Paul and Silas left by night for Berea. The ministry of these men in Thessalonica was cut short, from a human point of view, thus “forcing” Paul to minister to these saints “by mail” (1 and 2 Thessalonians), so that in the providence of God we could profit from Paul’s teaching and exhortation, even as they did. How often reversals and setbacks, from a human point of view, prove to be advances from a divine and eternal perspective!

The Evangelization of Berea
(17:10b-15)

10 And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea;³⁸⁸ and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there likewise, agitating and stirring up the crowds. 14 And then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. 15 Now those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.

It would seem that the brethren in Thessalonica wanted to avoid any further confrontation with their hostile adversaries. This might be for any or all of the following reasons:

(1) This would comply with the terms agreed upon in conjunction with the bond that Jason posted.

(2) This would ease tensions and hostilities and enable the church at Thessalonica to go about its ministry with less opposition.

(3) This would keep Paul out of the hands of his enemies, who might not have been satisfied with “running him out of town” and may have wished to kill him, if the opportunity presented itself. They did what they could to prevent such an opportunity.

Luke seems to want us to view Berea in contrast to Thessalonica, rather than in terms of comparison. One contrast is to be seen in the size of these two places. Thessalonica was a large, major city; Berea, so far as we can tell, was a small, “sleepy town,” an “out of the way place” (see footnote 12 on Berea). Another contrast is that while Amphipolis and Apollonia seem to have had no synagogue, this town did. And finally, Luke draws out the contrast between the “more noble-mindedness” of the Jews in Berea than those in Thessalonica.

The first two contrasts pose somewhat of a problem. How is it that two major cities, Amphipolis and Apollonia, would not have a synagogue while a small town like Berea would have one? The answer may well be simple. We can rather quickly discern from the statements made about Jews by those at Philippi and that which was implied about Jews in Thessalonica, that Jews were not at all popular in this part of the world at this point in time (cf. fn. 7 above). The Jews did not seem to want to risk the exposure of public worship in Philippi, Amphipolis, or Apollonia, or racial bigotry was such that they chose not to live in these cities. In the “sleepy little out of the way town” of Berea, however, they may have been more tolerated; indeed, it could have been heavily Jewish in its racial makeup. Here, then, there may have been more Jews, more public Jews, and thus a synagogue. Here, the brethren in Thessalonica may have reasoned, was a perfect place for Paul to be sent, where a Jewish community could be found. Sending Paul to such a place would give him a place of ministry and would allow things to cool down at Thessalonica.

The noble-mindedness of these Berean Jews is a matter of emphasis with Luke, and thus we should seek to isolate what set these particular Jews apart from the Jews at Thessalonica (and elsewhere as well). What, then, did set these Bereans apart from the Jews at Thessalonica? What made these people “noble-minded”?

(1) The noble-mindedness to which Luke referred was characteristic of the Jewish community at Berea. Luke is contrasting the Jews in Berea with those in Thessalonica. This also suggests that he is speaking of the Jews as Paul found them; in other words, the Jews at Berea, before they had heard the gospel. Thus, “noble-mindedness” is characteristic of this Jewish community as unbelievers.

(2) The noble-mindedness which Paul found characteristic of this Jewish community was that which ideally would have characterized God’s people, Israel. The picture Luke paints of this Jewish community at Berea is one that depicts Judaism at its best, the way God intended for His people to be. Sadly, the Bereans were the exception and not the rule, but happily they did approach the ideal for the Old Testament people of God. The remaining characteristics of these Bereans is what set them apart from other Jews, as those who were, indeed, “noble-minded.”

(3) The noble-minded Jews of Berea were looking for Messiah and did not need to be convinced of anything other than the fact that Jesus was the promised Messiah. These Jews “received the word with great eagerness.” They obviously loved the Word of God and sought to live by it. Paul seemed to have to work hard to convince any Jews in Thessalonica. Luke speaks of Paul’s ministry there as “reasoning,” “explaining,” and “giving evidence,” and those who believed as having been “persuaded.” The same effort is not required at Berea.

Let me seek to illustrate this difference between these two groups of Jews. The Thessalonian Jews were somewhat like the reluctant housewife who does not wish to have her daily routine interrupted, and thus does not welcome the vacuum cleaner salesman who comes to the door. The salesman may be able to convince this woman to buy his product, but he will have to overcome all kinds of resistance. The Bereans were like the woman who is almost out of her favorite make-up and opens the door delighted to find the Avon salesperson standing there. This woman has her order ready and simply waits for the opportunity to place it. She does not need to be “sold” anything for she already wants to buy it.

This is the mood of the Bereans, as I see it. They were Jews, and they were, I believe, waiting for the Messiah to come. When Paul arrived, his words about the coming of the Messiah were eagerly heard, although very carefully checked out. They were waiting for Messiah. They did not need to be “sold” or convinced, only informed.

(4) The noble-minded Jews of Berea were Jews who loved the Word of God and who sought to live according to it. For these noble-minded Jews, it was not man’s word which they were to act upon, but God’s revealed Word. Thus, when Paul came to them, speaking to them from the Scriptures, they eagerly listened. But they did not let Paul do their thinking for them. They saw themselves as individually responsible to search out Paul’s teaching from the Scriptures, and to see if it was consistent with biblical revelation. This assumes that the Scriptures did speak clearly and sufficiently about the Messiah, and that individual seekers were capable of discerning what God said, without the help of some “expert” who did their thinking for them. These were people of the Word, who eagerly received that which was consistent with the Word, once they confirmed it from the Word, for themselves.

How different these Berean Jews were from many of their fellow-Jews in other places. Most Jews seemed to care little about truth or about what the Old Testament actually taught. What they cared about was their position and their power and prestige. They were motivated and driven, not by their hope of Messiah, nor by their love for and confidence in the Scriptures, but by their jealousy. They cared less about what the Bible taught than about what they wanted for themselves.

(5) These noble-minded Berean Jews were predisposed toward Paul’s teaching, while the Jews of Thessalonica were predisposed against it. This is simply a summation of what we have said thus far. Their hope and eagerness for the coming of Messiah, their confidence in the Scriptures, and their diligence in testing teaching by the Word predisposed them toward Paul’s message, while the self-seeking, self-righteous Jews of Thessalonica were predisposed against Paul’s teaching. No wonder only a few Thessalonian Jews believed Paul’s words and accepted Jesus as their Messiah, while many of the Berean Jews did (compare 17:4 and 17:12).

(6) Finally, the noble-minded Jews of Berea had a very different way of handling those with whom they differed. The Jews of Thessalonica, like those in other cities, were willing to resort to political manipulation and to mob violence. Not so with these Jews at Berea. It took outside instigators to create the disturbance which finally caused Paul to leave this city and the saints there. If there were to be any violence and unrest, the Berean Jews would not be the cause of it.

One way or another, word reached the Jews at Thessalonica that Paul had been very successfully preaching the gospel at Berea. The fact that many Jews believed and joined him must have been especially aggravating. A number of Gentiles, including some prominent Greek women, believed as well. These Thessalonican Jews, or at least a delegation of them, set out for Berea, where they proceeded to recreate the same unrest and turmoil which they had successfully instigated in their own city. The crowds were stirred up, and the saints of Berea quickly sent Paul away,³⁸⁹ hoping, it would seem, to put an end to this unrest before it reached ugly dimensions.

Paul alone was sent away. Silas and Timothy remained there. It would seem that Paul’s ministry caused more reaction than that of his colleagues. Perhaps Paul’s ministry was more apologetic and evangelistic, directed toward unbelievers, while the ministries of Silas and Timothy may have been directed toward the new converts, thus not precipitating as violent a backlash. Paul sent word by way of his escorts to Silas and Timothy, instructing them to join him as quickly as possible. Paul was ready to move on again, but he would have to wait for his teammates to return first.

Conclusion

As we conclude this lesson, I wish to highlight three important subjects which have a great deal of relevance and application to our own day and time.

(1) As Luke develops the transition of Christianity from a primarily Jewish to a predominantly Gentile phenomenon, he underscores the remarkable similarity between the response of the Jews to Jesus and the response of the Jews to Paul. Geographically speaking, Acts begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. It begins with Jesus, and it ends with Paul. It commences with a predominantly Jewish congregation in Jerusalem and ends with Gentile congregations in cities around the world of the Mediterranean. As we read of the opposition of these Thessalonican Jews to Paul, we cannot help but think of the similar opposition of the Palestinian Jews to Jesus. Consider, for a moment, some of the common characteristics.

Jealousy was the principle motivation behind the opposition of both groups of Jewish opponents to the Gospel. It was jealousy³⁹⁰ which prompted the Jewish religious leaders to accuse Jesus of treason and to demand His crucifixion (Matthew 27:28; Mark 15:10; cf. John 7:31-32, 45-49). So too it was jealousy which prompted the Jews to oppose Paul and his preaching of the gospel (Acts 17:4; cf. Acts 13:6ff., 45; 14:1-2ff.).

Both Jesus and Paul were accused by their opponents of creating unrest and of insurrection and revolutionary activity against the political power of Rome. The false premise on which Jesus was arrested and convicted was treason—of being a King who would assert Himself over the rulers of that day (Luke 23:1-5, 14; John 19:12, 14). Paul too was frequently accused of the same offense (Acts 17:7; cp. Acts 16:20-22).

Both groups of Jews resisted the gospel by stirring up a crowd and by putting pressure on the political leaders. The Jewish leaders could do little or nothing against Jesus so long as the crowds favored Him (Matthew 21:46), but finally they were able to enlist the multitudes in the process, and this got the attention of Herod and Pilate (cf. Matthew 26:55; 27:20). Such was the case with the opposition to Paul and his preaching (Acts 17:5, 13; cf. 13:50; 14:2-5, 19).

The opposition of the Jews to Jesus and Paul came to a head at Jerusalem. This point is a more debatable one, but I think it is true nonetheless. At the climax of His earthly ministry, Jesus had His face set toward Jerusalem (Matthew 16:21; 20:17-18; Luke 9:51-53). It was there that the Messiah would officially appear to Israel, which Jesus did at His “triumphal entry.” It was there that He must die. The major turning point in Jesus’ life and ministry, and in the history of Israel, came when Jesus arrived at Jerusalem. Paul too will find Jerusalem to be a turning point. The decision of the Jerusalem Council was a kind of turning point (Acts 15), but Paul’s appearance in Jerusalem (Acts 21:10ff.) will lead to his arrest and trials, and ultimately to his appeal before Caesar in Rome, where the Book of Acts leaves off. Jerusalem was, for both Jesus and Paul, a major turning point.

The response to both Jesus and Paul, and to the (same) gospel which they preached, was, by and large, rejection and opposition on the part of the Jews. This, of course, was a part of the eternal plan and purpose of God, resulting in the salvation of the Gentiles (cf. Romans 9-11). It would not be correct to stop here, however, and to suggest that rejection of the gospel is only a Jewish phenomenon. As we have already seen in Acts, the Gentiles too will act in a very similar fashion to the gospel, particularly when it threatens the self-interest of sinful men. Gentile economic self-interest is the cause of similar reaction to Paul and the gospel in Philippi (Acts 16) and in Ephesus (Acts 19).

The gospel is a double-edged sword. On the one side, it offers mercy, grace, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life to every sinner who trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation. On the other hand, it overturns values, attitudes, and lifestyles, in such a way as to threaten the self-interest of unbelievers (individually) and their culture (corporately). Peter spoke of this, particularly in 1 Peter 4. The Book of Hebrews is based upon the reality of resistance and persecution. Paul spoke of it as well, not as the unique or isolated experience of a few, but as the norm which is to be expected by all (Philippians 1:29-30; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; 1 Timothy 4; 2 Timothy 3). Our Lord Himself said much to His disciples of the certainty of opposition and persecution (cf. Matthew 10:16-33; 24:9-14; John 15:17-27).

The question which we must ask ourselves, then, is this: “Why is it that Christianity is so popular today, or at least that Christians and the gospel are not the focus of the kind of opposition and persecution of which our Lord and the apostles spoke? I fear the answer is both clear, and undeniable, by anyone who takes the Bible seriously: IN OUR MOTIVATION, IN OUR METHODS, AND IN OUR MESSAGE, CHRISTIANS LACK THE URGENCY WHICH MARKED JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES, AND WHICH PROVOKED STRONG REACTIONS.

With this premise in view, let me press on to my next major conclusion, based not only upon our text but upon the entire biblical revelation concerning Paul, his conversion, his ministry and message, and most of all, his intense sense of urgency, the kind of urgency which our Lord had and which we seem to lack.

(2) The apostle Paul, in his motivation, in his methods, and in his message, reflected a great and intense sense of urgency, an urgency which shaped his life and ministry and which shaped the course of church history.

Let me begin by trying to define, as briefly as possible, the nature of the urgency which Paul evidenced.

The urgency which Paul evidences is an urgency occasioned by the gospel, a “gospel urgency.” It was an urgency based upon the conviction that men are sinners, desperately lost, and destined for eternal punishment. It was the conviction that the gospel of Jesus Christ alone proclaims God’s way of salvation. Thus, Paul had an urgency to preserve the purity of the gospel (as seen in his response to those who would pervert it, in theory or practice, cf. Acts 15; Galatians 1 and 2), and he had an urgency to proclaim the gospel. Adding to this urgency was a deep sense of the command of Christ to preach the gospel (the great commission, Matthew 28:18-20), and his personal calling to do so (Acts 9:15-16; cf. 22:21). Finally, there was the urgency of the shortness of time. Mankind is eternally doomed, apart from faith in Jesus as Messiah (the gospel), and time is limited. Paul’s days were numbered, and he knew it. Thus he sought to make the most of every moment, every opportunity. Second, knowing that life is a vapor, and that the life of any man is uncertain (cf. James 4:13-17), there is the urgency of proclaiming the gospel to men who are dying. And finally, there is the added time urgency of the nearness of our Lord’s return, when there will be no further opportunity for salvation. There is a final urgency, and that is the urgency of knowing that someday each Christian must stand before our Lord to give an account of our stewardship of the gospel.

No wonder Paul had a “gospel urgency”!

Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences (2 Corinthians 5:9-11).

There was an additional source of urgency for Paul which provides us with a key to his strong commitment to and involvement in Jewish evangelism. As I read of Paul’s actions here in chapter 17 and elsewhere in the Book of Acts, I find a very close parallel between Paul’s evangelistic methodology and that methodology laid down by our Lord in the sending out of His disciples (cf. Luke 9:1-9; 10:1-11). In this same context of the sending out of the disciples, note these significant words of our Lord:

“But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23).

When was the Son of Man to come, and why were the disciples to move quickly from city to city, without lingering long in any, and quickly departing when persecution began? I believe the answer is both clear and simple: Jesus’ “coming” was His arrival and presentation of Himself at Jerusalem at the time of His triumphal entry and afterward. The Old Testament prophets had prophesied the coming of Messiah, the last of whom was John the Baptist, who indicated that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ. He was to formally present Himself on His arrival at Jerusalem. Jesus wanted all Israel to know of His identity and to be informed of this before His appearance at Jerusalem. This is why the apostles were not to linger long in any one city. They were to spread the gospel through all the cities, knowing that He had set His face toward Jerusalem and would present Himself formally there.

God’s plan for Israel and for the world was on a time schedule. The Messiah had to come first to His people and be rejected and put to death, and then resurrected from the dead. Israel’s last sign was the sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:38-42). The deadline for Israel’s acceptance of Messiah was not the day of His execution, but 70 A. D., the day of her destruction, of her defeat and captivity as a nation, when Rome sacked Jerusalem, slaughtered thousands, and scattered most of the rest. That short period of time, from the public presentation of Jesus as Messiah to the destruction of Jerusalem, was Israel’s hour for repentance and turning to Messiah. At the point in time when Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., God’s plan for Israel went into a holding pattern and the “times of the Gentiles” began. The time was short for Israel to hear the gospel and to turn to Jesus as the Messiah.

At this point in time, approximately 15 years have passed since the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus took place. This means that the year would be somewhere in the vicinity of 47 to 48 A.D. It also means that Israel has less than 25 years to hear the gospel and repent and be saved, before the program for Israel is suspended for at least 20 centuries (till now). Jesus had His disciples cover the entire scope of Israel, as commanded in Luke 9 and 10. But now, after Jerusalem’s “hour of decision,” it is time for the Jews of the dispersion to decide. Paul’s urgency is based upon the revelation which God gave him of the setting aside of Israel and of the dispensation of the church age (Ephesians 3, Romans 9-11). He knew that Israel’s days were numbered, and thus he hurried about, from city to city and from synagogue to synagogue, telling the Jews about Jesus, their Messiah, and calling upon them to repent. When the Israelites around the world of that day heard about Jesus and the majority rejected Him and His messenger, Paul, time was up. Paul knew this and was thus prompted to an even greater sense of urgency to preach the gospel to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles.

The urgency of the gospel, which dominated the life and ministry of the apostle Paul, can be seen in numerous places and instances in the New Testament. It helps to explain the very strong reaction which unbelievers had toward the gospel, and toward Paul in particular. It explains, I believe, the strong inclination of Paul to press on to other places, and to preach where the name of Christ was unknown (Romans 15:20-21). It also explains why Paul encouraged Christians to consider not being hindered by marriage and a family (1 Corinthians 7:25-35), and why Paul could not be hindered by taking along John Mark (Acts 15:36-41).

It is my strong conviction that North American Christianity desperately lacks the sense of urgency which characterized Christ and the apostles. We lack the urgency to proclaim the gospel. Many seem to think that we fail to evangelize because we do not know how, and thus we find class after class being taught on methods of personal evangelism. I am not opposed to such classes, but classes in methods do not make up for a lack in motivation. Indeed, when the motivation is present, we find the methods to do what we think is important.

I am going to state something here that many of you will not agree with and you surely will not like, but I believe it must be said. One of the most popular and prominent methods of evangelism today is that of “friendship evangelism.” I am not completely opposed to this method of reaching our neighbors by befriending them. What I am opposed to is the fact that I and many other Christians gravitate to this method as a cover-up for my lack of urgency, and as the pretext for obeying God when, in truth, I am not. I can go by, week after week, assuring myself that I will share the gospel with my neighbor “when the right time comes” or “when I have built a better relationship.” While Scripture nowhere forbids or condemns friendship evangelism, the instructions of our Lord in Luke 9 and 10 indicate that much more than this must be done, and that friendship evangelism can be a hindrance to evangelism if it becomes a substitute for methods which reach greater numbers more quickly and pointedly. Laid back evangelism can be a symptom of a lack of urgency, and this, my friend, is a most serious ailment. The Laodicean church was “laid back,” too (cf. Revelation 3:15).

Why is it that we lack Paul’s urgency concerning the gospel? What is it we lack? There are many reasons, I am sure, but I would like to suggest one for you to consider. I think the principle reason for my own lack of urgency is that I really do not believe the gospel; I really do not take it seriously. If I believed men are lost and dying, destined to eternity in hell apart from Christ; if time is short and the gospel is the only means of man’s salvation, then surely I would have a sense of urgency. It is not so much that I don’t believe the gospel, as it is that the glitter of this world dims the glory of eternity, and the cares of this world choke the grasp of the gospel on my life.

Think about those glorious days when you were first saved. How often new Christians are bold in their witness for Christ in the proclamation. Why do they stop? For one thing, they are chilled by the coolness of older saints, who have lost the glow and forgotten the reality of the gospel. We often look back on those early days of our lives, days when we were aggressive and outspoken, and sigh, as though we were young and foolish. I wonder if we would not be better off immature and foolish than to be “mature” and silent about the gospel. As the truth of the gospel grows dimmer, the urgency to proclaim it diminishes as well.

I want to be very clear that while every Christian should share Paul’s sense of the urgency of the gospel, we will all express that urgency differently. Every Christian must express this urgency in a way that is consistent with their individual gifts, status in life, and calling. How easy it would be for all of us to go on a guilt trip, because we do not live and preach like Paul. Paul was single, while most Christians are not. Paul was able to live by means of his own labors, and even to support others, and yet he affirmed the principle that the “laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Corinthians 9:3-18; cp. Luke 10:7). Paul seldom stayed long in any one place, and yet this does not mean that everyone must be an itinerant preacher in order to express the urgency of the gospel. Paul was doing that which he was called of God to do. He was carrying out his unique gifts and calling. Silas and Timothy did not minister in exactly the same way as Paul, even though they accompanied him. While Paul manifested his sense of urgency by declining to take John Mark along, Barnabas manifested his sense of urgency by taking Mark with him.

Let us not seek to imitate Paul in his every action, but in his attitude of urgency. Every one of us must have a sense of urgency about the need to proclaim Christ to a fallen world, a world heading for eternal death, but every one of us is gifted to contribute toward the evangelization of the world by doing different tasks, as a part of the body of Christ. Thus, I challenge you to seriously reflect on your sense of urgency, and then to seek God’s guidance in that which you should be devoted to doing, for the sake of the gospel.

Perhaps you do not share Paul’s urgency concerning the gospel because you have not come to grips with your own need of a Savior and of the urgency of your receiving Jesus Christ as your Savior. Apart from Him, you will die in your sins and spend eternity apart from God in eternal suffering. The gospel of Jesus Christ informs you that God has provided for the forgiveness of your sins through the death of Jesus Christ in your place, bearing your condemnation, and offering you His righteousness. Time is limited. He may return at any moment, or your may die before He comes. Accept Him today:

And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain—for He says, “AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU”’; Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION” (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).

(3) Finally, our text challenges us to be “Berean Christians.” The noble-mindedness of the Berean Jews is surely set before us an ideal, as a goal for every Christian. There is much that could be said about the characteristics of the Bereans, but let me set down those primary characteristics which I believe we should strive to have as characteristic of our lives as well.

The Berean Attitude

The Berean attitude can be summarized by two words: confidence and distrust. The Bereans were characterized by a great confidence in the Word of God, as God’s authoritative source of revelation, and as the standard by which all teaching and conduct should be appraised. Second, though not stated directly, the Bereans had a confidence in their own ability to understand and interpret the Bible. The Bible (the Old Testament at this point in time) was not only God’s authoritative revelation and standard, but it was one which every individual was to study for himself in order to come to his own doctrine and practice.

The second characteristic of the Berean attitude was that of distrust. While God’s Word is perfect, men are not. Thus, the Bereans did not assume that the teaching of the Bible was what some man said it taught. Even a teacher as great as Paul was not assumed to be “right” because he sounded authoritative. Every man’s teaching must be tested by the Word of God. No one’s teaching or viewpoint was to be accepted on the basis of his confidence, his methodology, his claims, his academic pedigree, or his reputation. The only final basis of authority is God’s Word, pure and simple.

Now these words are indeed “music to the ears” of some people, who are autonomous Christians. They quickly point to texts like this one in John’s first epistle:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him (1 John 2:26-27).

I could not agree more with this verse. It does confirm the confidence of the Bereans in the simple teachings of God’s Word, as they are led to understand them by the Holy Spirit. But our confidence is in God’s Word and in His Spirit, not in ourselves. If we cannot trust other men as being infallible, neither can we trust in our own interpretations as infallible (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21). Thus, we must be aware of our own tendency to use the Scriptures to confirm and proof text our sinful inclinations and desires. This is why we need gifted teachers, like Paul and others, who will challenge us and our interpretations, who will make us uneasy, and urge us to go back to the Scriptures to test our own thinking and interpretation of Scripture.

There are two great tests for the Christian when it comes to the teaching of others. The first test is the test of teaching which challenges our own thinking, which indicates that we are wrong and need to change. It is a difficult thing to admit we are wrong, but the teaching of others should serve to change some of our own thinking and actions. But the second and even greater test for the Christian comes when the teaching of another confirms our own viewpoint, attitudes, doctrines and actions. Just because someone (or a great number of people) has the same view as we do does not prove we are right. The false teachers have great followings, not because they are right, but because they say what people want to hear, and they advocate what people want to do.

How I hate introductions! Too long a time is spent, telling us why we ought to listen to and believe the one who will teach. We are told of his place of study and of his years spent in training. We are told of his accomplishments, of his great esteem and standing in the Christian community, of his world-wide travels. But the fact is, we do not know ahead of time that God will speak through any man (unless Old Testament prophets still exist). We do not know that a man’s teaching will be correct because of who he is, of where and how much he has studied, or any other factor, until he has spoken and we have studied the Scriptures for ourselves to see if his teaching squares with the Word of God as a whole. Introductions tell us what we cannot know until after one has spoken. That is why the Bible says,

And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22.

Let us, then, seek to be Berean in our handling of the Word of God. Let us ask God to give us the love and eagerness to study God’s Word, and to test the teachings of all men. Let us see ourselves as responsible for discerning what the Bible teaches and not let others do our thinking for us. Let us listen to faithful men carefully, and then do our own homework, daily studying the Word as the only authoritative source of doctrine and practice.

Follow-up Questions
(17:1-15)

As a rule, I have given out study questions to be considered before the next lesson. With this lesson, in the light of the text, I wish to suggest some questions for you to consider so that you may test the teaching of this lesson. Ideally, you should provide your own questions, but this week I want to give you some questions to “prime the pump” of your study. May you be a Berean this week.

(1) What tensions of the text, observations, or questions did you come up with, as a result of your study of this text?

(2) What dominant patterns, practices, principles or trends appear in our text?

(3) How does this text relate to its immediately preceding and following context?

(4) How does our text contribute to the argument of the Book of Acts?

(5) From a position of hindsight, looking back on the difference of opinion between Paul and Barnabas as to taking along John Mark (Acts 15:35ff.), how would you now view Paul’s position? In other words, does Luke’s account of the second missionary journey bear out Paul’s stance or question it? What would Mark have had to face on this journey which he had not handled well before?

(6) Do you think there are any guiding principles or critical factors for Paul’s choice as to whether or not to preach in a certain city? What factors, if any, do you see involved in the decision to preach at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, but not in Amphipolis and Apollonia?

(7) What made the Bereans worthy of the designation, “noble”? In what was their nobility? Was this “nobility” from God, like the “opening of Lydia’s heart,” or was this nobility a trait of these people, a part of their character? Were all the “noble” Bereans believers? If you were to be a “Berean” what changes would it require in your life?

(8) Who opposed Paul and Silas in Thessalonica and Berea? What was their real motivation for doing so? Why were they so intense in their opposition? What was their method of opposing Paul and those with him? Why did they seem to react more strongly to Paul than to those with him?

(9) Comment on the charges and techniques of the Jewish opponents of Paul and Silas?

(10) What light do we find shed on our passage by Paul’s first and second epistles to the Thessalonians? What light does our text shed on these Thessalonian epistles?

(11) Compare the response of the Jews at Jerusalem to our Lord’s appearance and claim to the throne of David, to the response of the Jews in cities like Salamis (13:6ff.), Pisidian Antioch (13:44ff.), Iconium (14:2, 4ff.), Lystra (14:19ff.), Thessalonica (17:4ff.), and Berea (14:12ff.) to the gospel as preached by Paul and those with him.

(12) Explain Paul’s calling as “an apostle to the Gentiles” in the light of his very strong Jewish involvement to this point in time. Just exactly what was his “call” as recorded in Acts 9?

(13) What was the basis for Paul’s sense of urgency? What were the manifestations of Paul’s sense of urgency, as seen in his ministry and message? Does Paul command others to have this kind of urgency too? Does our Lord? What form should it take? Is it the same for everyone? Consult all of Paul’s epistles here, especially the Thessalonian Epistles.

(14) How do we explain Paul’s command to the Thessalonians to, “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business,” in the light of his own life and ministry, which did not seem to be very “quiet”?

---

³⁷⁷ “Leaving Philippi, the party followed a southwesterly course for thirty-three miles over the Via Egnatia to Amphipolis, originally the Roman capital of one of the four districts of Macedonia, but now having taken second place to Philippi and being devoid of a synagogue or Jewish population and generally decadent, Paul passes it by as a field of missionary activity. . . . Thessalonica was founded by Cassander about 315 B.C. and named after his wife, Thessalonica, who was the sister of Alexander the Great. It was made a free city in reward for “its support of Antony and Actavian in the Battle of Philippi.” Thessalonica was the modern Salonika, an important Allied military base during the First World War, having a present population of about one-quarter million. It is located on the favored Thurmic Bay.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 245.

“There was a synagogue here in this great commercial city {Thessalonica}, still an important city called Saloniki, of 70,000 population. It was originally called Therma, at the head of the Termaic Gulf. Cassander renamed it Thessalonica after his wife, the sister of Alexander the Great. It was the capital of the second of the four divisions of Macedonia and finally the capital of the whole province. It shared with Corinth and Ephesus the commerce of the Aegean. One synagogue shows that even in this commercial city the Jews were not very numerous. As a political centre it ranked with Antioch in Syria and Caesarea in Palestine. It was a strategic centre for the spread of the gospel as Paul later said for it sounded (echoed) forth from Thessalonica throughout Macedonia and Achaia (I Thess. 1:8).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 266-267.

³⁷⁸ “Luke does not say that Paul was in Thessalonica only three weeks. He may have spoken there also during the week, though the Sabbath was the great day. Paul makes it plain, as Furneaux shows, that he was in Thessalonica a much longer period than three weeks. The rest of the time he spoke, of course, outside of the synagogue. Paul implies an extended stay by his language in I Thess. 1:8.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 267.

³⁷⁹ “Some were persuaded” (v. 4), indicates the human dimension of evangelism, whereas the opening of Lydia’s heart (16:14) refers to the divine side. Both the divine and the human dimensions are present in Acts, and neither should be minimized or ignored.

³⁸⁰ “The latter are described as leading women, which may mean that they belonged to the upper class in the town; alternatively the phrase can mean ‘wives of the leading men’, a sense made explicit in some early textual witnesses. Either way, this would not be surprising, since we know that Jewish women were to be found in upper-class society, and even Nero’s mistress and wife, Poppaea, was reputed to have Jewish sympathies (Jos., Ant. 20:195).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 277.

“Literally, ‘And of women the first not a few.’ That is, a large number of women of the very first rank in the city, probably devout women also like the men just before and like those in 13:50 in Antioch in Pisidia who along with “the first men of the city” were stirred up against Paul. Here these women were openly friendly to Paul’s message, whether proselytes or Gentiles or Jewish wives of Gentiles as Hort holds. It is noteworthy that here, as in Philippi, leading women take a bold stand for Christ. In Macedonia women had more freedom than elsewhere. It is not to be inferred that all those converted belonged to the higher classes, for the industrial element was clearly large (I Thess. 4:11). In II Cor. 8:2 Paul speaks of the deep poverty of the Macedonia churches, but with Philippi mainly in mind. Ramsay thinks that Paul won many of the heathen not affiliated at all with the synagogue.” A. T. Robertson, p. 269.

³⁸¹ Blaiklock writes, “The lewd fellows of the baser sort {KJV} (5) are literally, ‘bad men from among the market people’, the labourers, no doubt, and humbler trade-associates of the Jewish commercial houses. Mt. xx. 3 pictures those who stood ‘idle in the market-place’ awaiting work. The desperate have often become the tools and dupes of the evil. So they were at Thessalonica.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 129.

A. T. Robertson has a similar view: “So the Jewish preachers gather to themselves a choice collection of these market-loungers or loafers or wharf-rats. The Romans called them subrostrani (hangers round the rostrum or subbasilicari).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 270.

I am just not convinced that this “blue collar” explanation is acceptable. It seems to me that the manipulation of this crowd took a great deal of skill and involved more than just the street rabble. Some of the riots which occur today, which seem strikingly similar, involve young college students. I am not convinced that a lack of status, position, or education is the best explanation, or even a justified one.

³⁸² “Turned . . . upside down is anastatosantes. The verb means ‘to stir up, excite, unsettle.’ In the New Testament it occurs only here, in 21:38, and in Galatians 5:12, Deissmann gives as its meaning: ‘incite to tumult, stir up to sedition, upset’. . . . These accusers appear to have had an inverted perspective of the world. Actually, it was already upside down, and the missionaries were simply turning it right side up. Men may become so accustomed to inverted circumstances and ways of life that wrong appears right, and right appears to be wrong.” Carter and Earle, pp. 248, 249.

³⁸³ “A most serious complaint was lodged against the missionaries and their hosts. Jason and his friends were charged with harboring Jewish agitators, political messianists such as had stirred up unrest in other cities of the Roman Empire. Rome and Alexandria had recently experienced such trouble; now, said the accusers, the troublemakers had come to Thessalonica. Their seditious and revolutionary activity was not only illegal in itself; they were actually proclaiming one Jesus as a rival emperor to him who ruled in Rome. This was a subtle charge; even an unfounded suspicion of this kind was enough to ruin anyone against whom it was brought.” Bruce, pp. 324-325.

³⁸⁴ “Beroea is described by Cicero as an “out-of-the-way town,” but all that he means is that it lay off the Egnatian Way. It is about forty miles west-southwest of Thessalonica, on a tributary of the Haliacmon at the foot of Mount Bermios. It was the first city of Macedonia to surrender to the Romans at the end of the Third Macedonian War (168 B.C.); it was then included in the third of the four districts into which Macedonia was divided. At Beroea Paul and Silas were rejoined by Timothy.” Bruce, p. 327.

³⁸⁵ Acts 13:15 seems to reflect the opportunity as it would be offered in virtually synagogue: “And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, ‘Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.’”

³⁸⁶ The same preaching of Paul which Luke has very briefly summarized here in chapter 17 has been recorded in much greater detail in 13:16-41.

³⁸⁷ “A Greek idiom = Latin satis accipere, to receive the sufficient (bond), usually money for the fulfillment of the judgment. Probably the demand was made of Jason that he see to it that Paul and Silas leave the city not to return. In I Thess. 2:17f. Paul may refer to this in mentioned his inability to visit these Thessalonians again. The idiom lambanein to hikanon now is found in two inscriptions of the second century A.D. . . . . In Vol. III Oxyrhynchus Papyri no. 294 A.D. 22 the corresponding phrase dounai heikanon (“to give security”) appears.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 273.

³⁸⁸ “Paul and his company proceeded overland southwest from Thessalonica for a distance of about fifty miles to the small city of Beroea, now known as Verria or Veroia and presently having a population of about 6,000. The city lay on the eastern side of Mount Olympus near Pella, the birthplace of Alexander the Great. It had a community of Jews and a synagogue. It is thought that Paul resorted to Beroea for rest and comparative seclusion for a time, but if so, he had not long to enjoy it. Cicero designates the city as ‘an out of the way place.’” Carter and Earle, p. 251.

³⁸⁹ We are told by Luke that the saints in Berea sent Paul out “as far as the sea” (verse 14). Some think that Paul then sailed to Athens, while others feel that this was but a diversionary move, and that Paul then traveled by land to Athens.

³⁹⁰ In the Gospel of Luke, the Jews were jealous of the grace of God, which was to be manifested to Gentiles as well as Jews (4:16ff.), and which was evident by our Lord’s association with “sinners,” when the “righteous” Pharisees and scribes expected Messiah to dote over them (Luke 5:29-39; cf. 6:7).