Acts
Acts
Christ at Work Through His Church
Contents
Preface................................................................................................................................................................................................
Lesson 1: Getting Ahead of God (Acts 1:1-26)..........................................................................................................................
Lesson 2: Putting Pentecost in Perspective (Part 1) The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (Acts 2:1-13)....................
Lesson 3: Putting Pentecost in Perspective (Part 2) The Holy Spirit in the Gospels (Acts 2:1-13)................................
Lesson 4: Putting Pentecost in Perspective (Part 3) Peter’s Interpretation of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-40)........................
Lesson 5: Putting Pentecost in Perspective (Part 5) The Firstfruits of Pentecost (Acts 2:41-47)..................................
Lesson 6: A Lame Excuse For Preaching the Gospel (Acts 3:1-26)......................................................................................
Lesson 7: Truth or Consequences (Acts 4:1-31).....................................................................................................................
Lesson 8: Profession and Possession (Acts 4:32—5:11).......................................................................................................
Lesson 9: The Great Escapes (Acts 5:12-42)............................................................................................................................
Lesson 10: Waiting on the Widows (Acts 6:1-7)...................................................................................................................
Lesson 11: The Stoning of Stephen (Acts 6:8–8:1)...............................................................................................................
Lesson 12: Simon and Simon (Acts 8:1-25).............................................................................................................................
Lesson 13: The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)..................................................................................................................
Lesson 14: The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-31).................................................................................................................
Lesson 15: Is Cleanliness Next to Godliness? (Acts 9:32–10:23)........................................................................................
Lesson 16: The Conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:36-48)....................................................................................................
Lesson 17: Peter is Called on the Carpet (Acts 11:1-18).......................................................................................................
Lesson 18: One Step Backward and Two Steps Forward (Acts 11:19-30).........................................................................
Lesson 19: The Death of James and the Deliverance of Peter (Acts 12:1-25)..................................................................
Lesson 20: What a Way to Go (Acts 13:1-13)........................................................................................................................
Lesson 21: Putting the Past In Perspective (Acts 13:13-52).................................................................................................
Lesson 22: Mission Accomplished (Acts 14:1-28)................................................................................................................
Lesson 23: The Jerusalem Council: The Gospel Defined and Defended (Acts 15:1-35).................................................
Lesson 24: When Division Becomes Multiplication (Acts 15:36–16:10)...........................................................................
Lesson 25: Paul in Philippi: From the Purveyor of Purple to the Purveyor of Pain Acts 16:11-40.................................
Lesson 26: The Evangelization of Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17:1-15).......................................................................
Lesson 27: The Apostle in Athens, Preaching to Philosophers (Acts 17:15-34)..............................................................
Lesson 28: Christianity Comes to Corinth (Acts 18:1-17).....................................................................................................
Lesson 29: Filling in the Blank (Acts 18:18–19:7)..................................................................................................................
Lesson 30: The Evangelization of Ephesus (Acts 19:8-41)..................................................................................................
Lesson 31: Paul’s Parting Words (Acts 20:1-38)...................................................................................................................
Lesson 32: The Giving and Taking of Advice (Acts 21:1-40)..............................................................................................
Lesson 33: Paul’s Defense to the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26—22:29).........................................................................
Lesson 34: Paul’s Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:35).....................................................................................
Lesson 35: Paul Stands Before Felix: The Preacher and the Politician (Acts 24:1-27).....................................................
Lesson 36: Paul’s Appeal (Acts 25:1-27)................................................................................................................................
Lesson 37: Paul’s Appeal to Agrippa (Acts 26:1-32)............................................................................................................
Lesson 38: A Biblical Look at Leadership (Acts 27:1-44).....................................................................................................
Lesson 39: Paul in Rome (Acts 28:1-31)..................................................................................................................................
Appendix A: The Holy Spirit in the Gospels...........................................................................................................................
Appendix B: Saul’s Conversion and Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans................................................................
! Lesson 1:
Getting Ahead of God
(Acts 1:1-26)
The Importance of the Book of Acts
One can hardly overstate the importance of the Book of Acts or its contribution to the canon of Scripture. Let me mention just a few of the reasons why Acts—and thus our study of this book—is so important.
First, Acts (combined with the Gospel of Luke) makes up over one-fourth of the entire New Testament. Luke/Acts is really one work in two volumes (remember that only so much could be put on one scroll, just as only so much can be recorded on a cassette). If this one work makes up over one-fourth of the content of the New Testament, the principle of proportion alone tells us that it must be very important material.
Second, the Book of Acts provides us with a vivid account of the radical change which took place in the attitudes and actions of the disciples, who were passive and almost invisible after our Lord’s death, as described in the Gospels. The Peter who would deny his Lord in the courtyard of the high priest, who would hide behind locked doors after Jesus’ death, and who would “go fishing” after His resurrection, is a very different man in Acts 2, where he boldly proclaims Jesus to be the Christ and announces to his audience that they were guilty of His death and were facing divine judgment. The transformation of the Lord’s disciples is evident in the Book of Acts.
Third, Acts is a crucial book because it is the only book in the New Testament which fills in the gap between the Gospels and the Epistles. The Gospels end in Jerusalem with no church, a few Jewish believers in Jesus, and a group of disciples who are still living, as it were, in the past. The Epistles, on the other hand, depict a growing number of churches made up of mainly Gentile believers and a group of disciples who are boldly proclaiming Christ as Israel’s Messiah, and as the Savior of the Gentiles as well. Only Acts fills in the gaps, to explain how these changes took place. We would not understand the Epistles apart from the Book of Acts.
Fourth, Acts provides us with an inspired account of the transition of the gospel from a largely Jewish context to a gospel which is universal, not only embracing the Gentiles but becoming, for a season, a largely Gentile phenomenon. We begin in Jerusalem with a handful of Jewish followers of Jesus. The Book of Acts ends in Rome, with a number of Gentile churches having been founded, and a predominantly Gentile Christian community. The Book of Acts describes this transition: geographically, from Jerusalem to Rome; theologically, from Israel to the church; and racially, from Jews to Gentiles.
Fifth, the Book of Acts (in conjunction with Luke) gives us the history of the origin and nature of the opposition against the gospel by the Jews. One of the greatest and most frequent problems the New Testament church had to deal with was the opposition of the Jews, who resisted the gospel, and the Judaizers, who sought to pervert it. The Gospel of Luke (and the other Gospels as well) describe the roots of this opposition, which began as a resistance to Jesus’ actions and teaching. The Book of Acts shows how this opposition continued on against the gospel and the church after the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. What Paul does theologically in the Book of Romans, Luke does historically in the Book of Acts. We would never understand the nature of the problem which faced the church (which, incidentally, has its own forms today) apart from Luke/Acts.
Sixth, the Book of Acts provides us with a historical background for many of the churches which are dealt with in the Epistles of the New Testament. When we read the Epistles of Paul to the church at Thessalonica, or Ephesus, or Philippi, we know much about the church and how it started from the account which Luke has provided for us in the Book of Acts. Acts provides valuable background information for the churches that are addressed in the Epistles. It is often not difficult to understand the problems these churches are facing in the light of their birth and early years.
Seventh, the Book of Acts supplies us with some excellent examples of the apostolic preaching of the gospel. Gospel preaching is modeled in Acts. If we would follow the example of the apostles in proclaiming the gospel, then we will learn from Acts how it is done.
Eighth, the Book of Acts contains a dramatic portrayal of the power of God at work in the church through the Holy Spirit which began at Pentecost and which will continue until the return of our Lord. If the Gospels contain the account of God’s working through Christ (empowered by the Holy Spirit), the Book of Acts depicts Christ at work in the church through His Spirit. The beginnings of the “age of the Spirit” are found in Acts, and only in Acts. A small, fearful, unpromising group of men and women become a revolutionary force, transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit (including the resurrection of Christ by the Spirit—cf. Romans 8:11).
Ninth, the Book of Acts is an account of the fulfillment of our Lord’s promises to His disciples concerning the coming of the Spirit and His ministry in the world to and through them. During His earthly ministry, Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit. Near the time of His death, He spoke in much greater detail concerning the Spirit. After His resurrection, He commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all nations,” but not until after they were endued with power, for which they were to wait. The fulfillment of these promises is recorded in Acts.
Tenth, the Book of Acts is a forceful defense of the apostleship of Paul. If one were to read the Epistles of Paul apart from the Book of Acts, one would wonder who he was and what right he had to speak with such authority. The Book of Acts not only contains the account of Paul’s conversion (in three accounts), but it is an account of the way in which God appointed him as an apostle, in spite of the actions and early resistance of the other apostles. Acts provides Paul and his epistles with a credibility and authority which enhances their impact on those who would read them.
Eleventh, the Book of Acts describes how the purpose of God to save the Gentiles through Israel was accomplished, but in a way no one would have expected. It was not through the obedience of Israel that the Gentiles received the gospel but actually through their disobedience. The book gives us the incredible account of how God achieved the beginnings of a world-wide religion (rather than a small Jewish sect) by the opposition of the Jews, by their persecution of the saints, and even in spite of the actions and example of the Jerusalem church. It is an account of the sovereignty and power of God, using even men’s sin to accomplish His purposes.
Finally, the Book of Acts is vitally important because it has become a battleground for evangelical Christians. Acts is unfortunately a battleground for Christians. The charismatic Christians make it their textbook, while anti-charismatics try to minimize it as merely transitional. My opinion is that neither position is totally correct. Christian living is intended to be more supernatural than many non-charismatics say, and it is not as continually miraculous as some charismatics maintain (Acts itself is not riddled with the spectacularly miraculous). Whatever the greater works are, it is not in the realm of the spectacular.
It is for these and other reasons that the Book of Acts is vital for our understanding and our practice of the gospel. I look forward to this study of Acts with great anticipation. I ask that you commence this study with much prayer for an open heart and mind to learn that which God has here for us. I urge you to read and reread this great book as often as possible. May God grant that we find our lives transformed by the truths of this book, and even more, that we be drawn ever more closely to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Spirit who now dwells among and within us who are saved.
Introduction to Acts 1
As I approach the study of the first chapter of Acts, one question overshadows all others, and it is this: Just whose name would be on the foundation in place of Judas? Who was the twelfth apostle?
In the twenty-first chapter of the Book of Revelation we read these words: The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Revelation 21:14).
In the first chapter of Acts we read of the selection of Matthias as the twelfth apostle, the replacement of Judas. Is the name “Matthias” the name which we will find on the twelfth foundation stone? Some would say, “Yes”; others, an emphatic “No!” Let us look at this chapter with this question in mind.
The Proportions of the Passage
Before we begin our study, I want you to take note of the proportions of the passage in light of the “principle of proportion.” Allow me to spell out this principle here:
THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTION BEGINS WITH THE PREMISE THAT MUCH MORE COULD BE SAID ABOUT THE LIFE OF OUR LORD AND THE EARLY CHURCH THAN HAS BEEN SAID IN WRITING (cf. John 20:30-31; 21:25). THUS, THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE RECORDED ARE IMPORTANT, AND THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE GIVEN MORE SPACE AND ATTENTION THAN OTHERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MORE IMPORTANT. IN SHORT, THE SPACE DEVOTED TO ANY TOPIC OR DOCTRINE IS INDICATIVE OF ITS RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO OTHER TRUTHS.
Look at the principle of proportion in action in Acts, particularly in chapter 1. Of the twenty-eight chapters of Acts, only one chapter (the first) gives an account of matters prior to Pentecost. The remaining chapters depict Pentecost (2:1-4), its impact (2:5-13), its interpretation (2:14-40), and its implications (2:41–28:31).
If only one chapter is devoted to pre-Pentecost matters, this tells us something. Of all that could have been said that fits into this category, Luke chose to take up the greatest part of the chapter with an account of the selection of the twelfth apostle. It would seem to me that this must be, in the mind of Luke (and of the Holy Spirit who inspired this book), a very important incident, at least as it relates to the unfolding argument of the book. Thus, I will focus most of my attention in this lesson on verses 12-26, because this is where Luke has indicated the emphasis should come, based on the principle of proportion. The mystery is that as important as this incident seems to be, Matthias is never specifically mentioned again. The rest of the Book of Acts, and the Epistles as well, virtually ignore Matthias. Why then is the selection of Matthias given such editorial priority? We will find the answer to this question at the conclusion of our study. We will, however, begin by making a few comments on the first eleven verses as they provide the background and the context of the episode of the choosing of Matthias as the twelfth apostle.
The Position of the Passage
While it may not be necessary to do so, let me underscore the importance of our text in chapter 1 by pointing out that the selection of the twelfth apostle is not only the only incident which Luke recorded during the ten-day period of the disciples’ waiting, but it is the incident which immediately precedes Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, in chapter 2. If there is any importance by association—as there surely must be—then what comes in the immediate context of Pentecost must be important. The position of our passage is a clue to its importance.
Structure of Acts 1
The structure of Acts 1 can be summarized as follows:
· Luke’s Introduction to His Second Volume (verses 1-2)
· Jesus’ Post-Resurrection Ministry (verses 3-5)
· The Disciples’ Question and Jesus’ Response (verses 6-11)
· Filling the Vacancy of Judas (verses 12-26)
The Chronological Sequence of Acts 1
If we are to understand the events in Acts 1, it is important for us to gain a sense of chronological sequence. In verses 1 and 2 Luke referred to his previous volume, the Gospel of Luke, in which he covered a time span of approximately thirty-three years. That Gospel began a little before the birth of Jesus and of John, His predecessor. It gave some detail about the births of both John and Jesus. Only one incident in the childhood of Jesus was briefly mentioned, and other than this, the first thirty years of Jesus’ life are virtually passed by. The major portion of that Gospel pertains to the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, beginning with the introduction of John and the baptism and temptation of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke ends with the resurrection of Jesus and with an anticipation of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s Gospel, then, covers a period of time somewhat less than forty years, essentially dealing with the life of Jesus from His birth to His resurrection.
The Book of Acts takes up precisely where Luke’s Gospel left off. The first eleven verses of Acts 1 deal primarily with that forty-day period when Jesus was risen from the dead but had not yet ascended to the Father. Verses 12-26 are the only inspired account of that ten-day period of time (approximately)[1] between Jesus’ ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, some fifty days after the time of Jesus’ resurrection. The actions taken by the disciples occur during that point in time much like the four-hundred-year period just prior to Messiah’s coming to the earth. Jesus was now physically absent, and yet the Holy Spirit has not yet descended. It was during this period of time that Jesus had told His disciples to wait. They spent most of their time at the Temple (cf. Luke 24:52-53) or in that upper room, praying, and perhaps discussing the Scriptures. The one event which Luke chose to record for us was the selection of the twelfth apostle which, we must assume, was an event important to us, and most of all important to the development of the argument of this volume. Let us press on to see what we are to learn from this first introductory chapter.
Linking Luke and Acts
(1:1-2)
1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen (Acts 1:1-2, NASB).
The Book of Acts is clearly a sequel, a second volume to be read in conjunction with the first, the Book of Luke. The author is the same, as well as the recipient, Theophilus. The content of the first volume pertained to the deeds and the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ, ending with His ascension. Jesus’ final words, Luke tells us, were orders to the apostles He had chosen. These orders were given, Luke includes, “by the Holy Spirit.” Those orders were given in Luke and will be reiterated here shortly. The purpose then of Acts is to provide an account of that which Jesus continued to do through His church, by means of the Holy Spirit. What Jesus began to do and to teach, the Holy Spirit would continue to do, through the church.
A Review of Jesus’ Ministry after His Resurrection
(1:3-5)
3 To these He also presented Himself alive; after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:3-5, NASB).
Verse 3 tells us something very clearly which is of great importance: Jesus set aside once and for all the doubts of the disciples concerning the fact of His resurrection. In the Gospel of Luke, the disciples are doubtful as to our Lord’s resurrection to the very end. Mark’s Gospel tells us most clearly that the disciples’ unbelief was deep-seated and that Jesus found it necessary to rebuke them for it (Mark 16:14). Here, in Acts, Luke tells us the reason the disciples could be so entirely convinced about His resurrection. It was not just that Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief, but that He presented Himself alive to them on various occasions and over a period of forty days. This evidence was irrefutable. They were convinced. Never again does the issue of the fact of His resurrection arise with them. Indeed, from this point on they are the “witnesses of His resurrection,” something which they will repeatedly and confidently affirm (cf. Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39-42; 13:31).
Verse 3 also informs us of the content of the teaching of our Lord during those forty days. It is summed up by Luke by the use of the phrase, “the kingdom of God” (verse 3). Jesus commenced His ministry by announcing that the “kingdom of God” had come (Mark 1:15), much the same as John the Baptist had been preaching (cf. Matthew 3:1-2). Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God and found it necessary to continually correct the misconceptions of Israelites and even of His own disciples. Now, after His resurrection, Jesus spoke once again of that kingdom, which was still future. It is not just a matter of the very distant future, however, but a matter of the present as well. While the promises of the kingdom of God have not been fulfilled in 2,000 years since the days of our Lord, there were some present aspects of that kingdom of which our Lord must have been speaking. Surely Jesus was not talking only of the distant future with His disciples, but He was teaching them the things which they needed to know pertaining to the near future and to their ministries in particular. Thus, the “kingdom of God” must have included the ministry and message of the apostles, which would commence with the coming of the Spirit.
Not separate from the teaching of our Lord and the kingdom of God was the matter of the “promise of the Father” (verse 5), for which they were to wait. It was a baptism which the Father had promised, and thus a matter of Old Testament prophecy, but it was also one of which our Lord Himself had taught (“which you have heard of from Me,” verse 4). While Luke has some things to say on this matter, John’s Gospel is the most thorough on the matter of the Holy Spirit (cf. 7:37-39; chapters 14-16). This promise was a “baptism,” not one like that of John, but distinct from it. Jesus contrasted the coming of the Spirit and the baptism He (Christ) would perform through the Spirit, with that of John. Indeed, it was a contrast which John himself taught. John told his audiences that while he baptized with water, Jesus would baptize men with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This was the “promise of the Father” for which they were now commanded to wait. It would not be many days before this would come to pass.
The Disciples’ Question and Jesus’ Response
(1:6-11)
6 And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” 9 And after He had said these things, “He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:6-11).
One of the things about which Jesus must not have spoken was the timing of the coming of the kingdom. The disciples found it necessary to ask Jesus when the kingdom was going to come about. More specifically, they asked the Savior if the kingdom was to be established immediately.
It is the Christmas season as I write this message, and the poem, “The Night Before Christmas,” somehow comes to mind in connection with this question of the disciples. Just as thoughts of Christmas and the “coming of Santa” filled the minds of children on Christmas eve, so thoughts of the kingdom seemed to be dancing in the minds of the disciples. I am not certain their motivation for wanting the kingdom to come was much different than it was during the earthly ministry of our Lord. Perhaps the disciples were still thinking of power and position and prestige. It isn’t impossible. The resurrection of Christ need not have changed the attitudes and motivations of the disciples. As we shall see, even Pentecost will not produce all the changes which are yet to come in the lives of the disciples of our Lord. It would seem that the disciples were preoccupied with the kingdom, a “Jewish” kingdom[2] (“restore the kingdom to Israel”), and an imminent one. How Acts will fill in the details here!
The timing of the kingdom was within the sovereign purposes of God, not to be known by the apostles. It is clear that knowing the time would not have been beneficial to them. What was within their realm of responsibility was to proclaim the good news of the gospel to all nations, and thus our Lord reiterated the Great Commission, not so much as a command, mind you, but as a prophecy of what was certain to come. The Holy Spirit would come upon them, bestowing power on them, and they would be witnesses to the nations. This was a certainty. It did not always happen consciously or voluntarily—even willingly—but it did happen. Acts is the historical account of how, in the wisdom of God, this was accomplished in spite of His disciples, as well as because of them.
It has often been noted, and rightly so I believe, that Acts 1:8 provides a geographical outline of the development of the preaching of the gospel and of the growth of the church, but also of the argument of the Book of Acts as well. The gospel will be preached in Jerusalem and Judea (Acts chapters 1-7), in Samaria (chapter 8), and eventually all the way to Rome (chapters 13-28). Luke gives us the key to the Book of Acts at the “front door” of this book, in Acts 1:8.
From the very outset of the Book of Luke, God’s intention of saving Gentiles, as well as Jews, has been indicated. The angel Gabriel (1:30-33) spoke of the Lord Jesus in terms of fulfilling Israel’s hopes; Mary spoke likewise (1:46-55). But the angel who spoke to the shepherds said, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people (Luke 2:10).
Jesus, in His first public announcement of His Messiahship in Luke 4, clearly spelled out that the salvation of the Gentiles was an inseparable part of the plan of God which He came to fulfill. Thus, Acts 1:8 spells out what Luke is going to report as the Book of Acts continues: The Holy Spirit will come on the disciples, empowering them to be witnesses of the resurrection and the gospel of our Lord world-wide, beginning at Jerusalem but extending to the ends of the earth.
The discussion ends with the ascension of our Lord. While they looked on, Jesus was taken up, into the clouds, disappearing from their sight. It seems as though the disciples must have stood there for some time, gaping into the clouds as though expecting Him to come back. The two angels who were present gently rebuked the disciples and sent them on their way with the assurance that the Lord Jesus would return in a similar way, but also informing them that their standing there, looking into the sky, was of no profit. No idle standing around waiting for the return of the Lord was sanctioned then. Surely such idleness is not of profit today either.
The Selection of the Twelfth Apostle
(1:12-26)
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 And at this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 “For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO MAN DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE.’ 21 “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, “Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two Thou hast chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (Acts 1:12-26, NASB).
Verses 12-14 give us a very general description of the activities of the apostles (and the broader group of disciples) during that ten-day “waiting period.” They went back to Jerusalem, as commanded, and went up to the “upper room,” where they, the eleven (verse 13), along with the women who had followed Jesus (cf. Luke 8:1-3; 23:49, 55-56; 24:1-10), Mary, the mother of our Lord, and His brothers (verse 14), waited. These men, who had not believed in Jesus during His life, had now come to faith.
There, in that upper room, this group of about one-hundred and twenty believers devoted themselves to prayer (verse 14). We are not told for what they were praying. It may well have included prayer that the kingdom of God would come (cf. Luke 11:2), but I suspect that it must have involved prayer for the coming of the promised Holy Spirit, based upon our Lord’s words recorded in Luke 11:
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him” (Luke 11:13).
It was in the context of this prayer vigil that the twelfth apostle was chosen, as reported in verses 15-26. Many have debated whether this action should have been taken by the disciples. Below are some of the arguments for and against this action.
Factors in Favor of the Actions of the Apostles
(1) The action is taken by the apostles, of whom Peter is the leader.
(2) The decision is one that is concurred with by the entire group of one-hundred and twenty.
(3) The decision appears to be based upon a study of the Scriptures, prayer, and discussion by the entire group.
(4) There is subsequent mention of the twelve, which would appear to include Matthias (cf. Acts 2:14; 6:2).
(5) There is never any word of condemnation, rebuke, or criticism for the action which was taken here.
All of the above are reasons some would hold that the action taken by the group was appropriate. On the other hand, there are other factors which seem to question the wisdom of what was done. Among these are the following:
Factors Which Question the Actions of the Apostles
(1) The action taken was prior to Pentecost, before the Holy Spirit had come upon the apostles to guide them.
(2) The apostles were “taking action” when Jesus had specifically commanded them to wait, until the Spirit had come on them.
(3) Jesus had chosen all of the other apostles (cf. 1:2), and He had given them no command to choose a replacement for Judas.
(4) While there is a minimal reference to “the twelve” later on, Matthias is never again specifically referred to in the New Testament. Why is so much attention giving to the choice of a man who is then ignored throughout the rest of the New Testament?
(5) The context surrounding this incident does not suggest that it was a decision prompted by a command of the Lord, a biblical imperative, or the guidance of the Spirit. I have mentally labeled this section, “Doing What Comes Naturally.” It seems that the apostles were, along with the rest, acting on their own, apart from any clear imperative or command. In the immediate context, the disciples seem preoccupied, and Jesus had to turn their attention toward things other than what they had in mind. The angels had to spur the group on, rather than to stand on the mount, looking into the sky. The immediately preceding context suggests that the apostles still had things out of focus, while the immediately following context (Pentecost) informs us that the Spirit’s coming was not yet, and thus suggests that the apostles were acting on their own initiative, and not that of God.
(6) The motivation of the apostles might seem suspect, when considered in light of their past thinking and actions. You will recall from the Gospel accounts that the disciples were eager for the kingdom to come, but from a motivation of self-interest, from a desire for position, power, and prestige. They were even competitive with one another. Why then the urgency for the position of the twelfth apostle to be filled? It could be suggested that it was because the disciples felt the kingdom could not come until there were twelve apostles in place, so that there would be twelve thrones filled in order that the twelve tribes could be judged. This would be a reasonable conclusion, based upon our Lord’s words to the disciples in Luke 22:30, spoken shortly before His betrayal, arrest, and crucifixion.
(7) While Peter’s interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures to which he referred may well have been sound, the inferences he drew from them are possibly more suspect. Jesus Himself linked Old Testament prophecy to His betrayal by Judas. He cited Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18 and 26. Peter seems to allude to the text in Psalm 41:9 cited by our Lord, but he specifically quoted from two passages from the Psalms. The first citation was from Psalm 69:25; the second was from Psalm 109:8. If Peter’s interpretation of these two texts as being prophetic is correct, I am not certain his interpretation necessarily follows from them. In the first citation from Psalm 69, the text Peter cited is this, “LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO MAN DWELL IN IT.”
(8) Now from the account of the fate of Judas, which Luke has given to us parenthetically in verses 18 and 19, who was it that made the homestead of Judas desolate? It was surely not the disciples nor was it anyone else who consciously did what they did in order to obey this prophecy. God fulfilled this prophecy. And so, when we come to the second statement, “HIS OFFICE LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE,” should we assume that there is anything called for here on the part of the apostles? I think not. If God fulfilled the first “LET …” from Psalm 69, why should the disciples feel obliged to fulfill the second “LET …” from Psalm 109? If the second citation were fulfilled in the same way the first was fulfilled, the disciples would not need to have done anything. I am not certain the Old Testament text requires anything of the disciples, but Peter and the others felt it did.
(9) The process used to choose Judas’ replacement seems somewhat suspect. At best, one can say that the selection of Matthias was carried out in an Old Testament fashion by the casting of lots. This method was never given to the disciples, nor is it ever found again in the New Testament as a means of determining who God has chosen to hold any office. The casting of lots allowed for a decision to be reached totally apart from divine intervention. Of course God can and does determine the outcome of the casting of lots (Proverbs 16:33), but is this the way God intended this decision to be made? The candidates were nominated, and the two candidates put before the Lord were chosen by the group, based on the requirements they themselves determined. They allowed God to choose between the two candidates. Somehow this seems sub-standard to me. The method employed by the group seems to put God in a box and to limit Him to the options men have placed before Him.
(10) Luke’s argument in Acts seems to challenge this action, because in Acts Paul’s apostleship seems to be affirmed at the expense of that of Matthias. Paul constantly stressed that his apostleship was the sovereign will and purpose of God, and not of man. He also spoke of himself as an equal with the rest of the apostles.[3] And remember, Paul was also a witness of the resurrection of Christ, for he was stopped short by a vision of the Lord Himself, risen from the dead. If Paul’s apostleship is affirmed and Matthias’s apostleship is ignored, there is good reason to question the legitimacy of Matthias’ apostleship. There is at least some evidence to challenge the action taken by the apostles due to this emphasis on Paul’s apostleship.
Having presented the pros and cons of the legitimacy of this selection of the twelfth apostle by the one-hundred and twenty, we now must square off with the issue of who was right and who was wrong. Or must we? Notice that while we are preoccupied with this question, Luke does not seem to have been so troubled by the issue. Indeed, Luke presents evidence supporting both sides. And Luke never chose to pronounce on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of this action. Why? In my opinion, the answer is simply that it did not really matter, because it was not the real issue.
The feeling that we must pronounce on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of this selection of Matthias reveals a serious fallacy in our thinking. What real difference does it make whether the apostles were “right” or “wrong”? We seem to think it makes a great deal of difference. But does it? Do we believe the plans and purposes of God collapse when men fail to do the “right” thing? Do we really believe God’s purposes are achieved only when we do the “right” thing? Then we are wrong, dead wrong!
If the Book of Acts underscores any truth, it is that of the sovereignty of God, who works all things in accordance with His will, whether or not men believe or obey. Much of what the Spirit of God accomplished in the Book of Acts was in spite of men. God can just as easily use the “wrath of man” to accomplish His will as He can the obedience of man. The Gentiles will hear the gospel, and many will come to faith on account of the Jews. Not because of their faith and obedience, mind you, but ultimately because of their stubborn unbelief. As Paul will clearly teach in Romans 9-11, and as Luke will clearly demonstrate in the Book of Acts, it was the rejection of Messiah by Israel that made the preaching of Christ to the Gentiles possible.
In the matter of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the selection of the twelfth apostle, God was not obliged to use Matthias just because the one-hundred and twenty “rightly” chose him, any more than He would have been prevented from using him if they had “wrongly” selected him. I believe the account of the selection of Matthias is a key to the message of the entire work, the message that God was sovereignly at work, through His Spirit, to accomplish His will in ways in which men would never have conceived and which they would not believe even if they were told. In this way, God receives the glory, and not men. Is this not precisely what Paul concluded in Romans 11, after spending three chapters explaining the relationship of the Jews and the Gentiles to the gospel:
For just as you once were disobedient to God but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! FOR WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? OR WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:30).
I believe Luke cites the incident of the selection of Matthias at the beginning of Acts because it is so typical of the way God will work throughout the book, and indeed, throughout the history of the church. Men may rightly or wrongly make decisions and take action, and God, in His sovereignty, is free either to use or to set aside their actions. God often sets aside the plans and purposes of men because they seldom, if ever, come up to the wisdom of God. That is precisely what Paul has concluded above. And it is what Acts will dramatically demonstrate for us as well. The Book of Acts is not the account of men so transformed that the growth of the church was inevitable. The Book of Acts is the account of the working of a sovereign God through His Spirit, by means of men, and in spite of them, to accomplish that of which men would never have conceived and in ways they would never have imagined. Acts is the account of the workings of a sovereign God, working through fallible men and women. This selection of Matthias is but the first of many of man’s plans (good or bad) which God will set aside for a better plan—His plan.
Conclusion
If I were forced to make a choice as to whether the apostles were guided by God to select Matthias as the twelfth apostle, I would have to answer in the negative. If I were asked whether the apostles thought they we are doing the will of God and were acting on the highest human plane, I would say, “Yes.” But that really is not the issue. It surely is not something on which Luke wants to pronounce, since he has simply reported what happened, without a word of commendation or condemnation.
To be perfectly honest, I believe many of the decisions we make and actions we take are of this same kind—they are based on our best understanding of the Scriptures and the situation, based on the best decision-making process we know, and done as though this were the will of God for us. Often times it will not be until much later that we will either see the hand of God at work in the matter, or we will not see it. While we do not always know, at the moment, whether God is in what we are doing, the really important thing is whether or not we are in what God is doing. When the purpose of God is evident, when God’s Word gives us a clear command, and when God’s Spirit has led the way, are we involved in what God is doing? The Book of Acts has much more to say about men getting in step with God’s plan than about God getting in step with ours. That is because He is God, and we are men; He is sovereign, and we are finite and dependent.
What we are talking about here is not unique to the apostles in their day and time. It is a phenomenon which is typical in our own time. Have you ever come to the conclusion, after much thought, counsel, and prayer, that God’s will for you was a particular line of work, or a particular mate, or a particular place, only to discover in time that such was not the case at all? Do you agonize over such decisions, or simply acknowledge that God’s will and ways are beyond our comprehension, and that we must, at times, continue to wait on Him to reveal His will clearly to us?
What we experience on a personal level, we also see happening on a corporate level. As a church we believe it is necessary for us to have certain organizational structures in place and certain programs in operation. We, as elders, may pray and talk and plan. We can, for example, organize outreach programs which seek to spread the gospel to the lost in our neighborhood. While we are responsible, I believe, to do such things in obedience to the clear commands of Scripture, we must always be alert to the working of God in ways beyond our ability to predict, plan, or execute. And when we see that God has been opening new doors, we need to be quick to move in these new directions, perhaps even setting aside our plans and programs. It does not matter that we have been well motivated or that our actions are based on biblical principles. God is not obligated to use such plans and programs, though He may. But God may wish to use methods and means which will not only be more effective but which will give all the glory to Him. We cannot, therefore, take pride in our plans, our program, our obedience. This, as I understand it, is what the sovereignty of God means in practical terms.
Let us look at another illustration of what our text, in the context of Acts, may mean for us. I believe our nation desperately needs revival. I also believe that the sovereignty of God means that only God can bring revival, in His time, in His way, and using His divinely ordained means. We can and surely should pray for revival, but let us never think that if we but pray hard enough God will produce a revival for us. He will bring revival in His own good time and in His own good way. We should pray for revival because, I believe, this is biblical, but not because we suppose that our prayers will produce the results we desire. Prayer should leave the matter in God’s hands and not presume He has put the matter entirely in ours. This does not mean we should be inactive, not doing anything at all. It does mean that when we actively seek a revival we wait for God’s good timing, and we look for God to work in ways that we would not have predicted. We don’t presume God will bring revival just as we have planned it or prayed for it. Prayer is the acknowledgment of our dependence on God. God is not waiting for us to be faithful or obedient enough. If He did, nothing would ever happen.
When it was time for God to bring revival to Nineveh, it was not because any Jews were faithfully praying for such an event. It was not because Jonah, a prophet of God, was eager for it to happen. It was not because Jonah was so obedient or because his preaching was so sincerely motivated. It was because God had purposed to save the Ninevites, by His grace. And because it was God’s purpose to save Nineveh, God did so, in spite of the spiritual condition of Israel and in spite of Jonah’s resistance and rebellion. This was a revival, and it was one that was the result of the plans and purposes of a sovereign God who is able to accomplish His plans, in His time, in His way, with or without our cooperation.
Quite frankly, little of the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles, as described in the Book of Acts, was the result of willing obedience on the part of men. The saints in Jerusalem were forced out of this city by persecution. It was not that they meditated on the Great Commission of our Lord and concluded that it was time for them to venture out to proclaim the gospel to Gentiles in far away places. It was that things became so unbearable in Jerusalem they had to flee for their very lives. Peter was jolted from his Jewish ceremonial cleanness, which practically forbade contact with Gentiles, to go the house of Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10). The Jerusalem church called Peter on the carpet for doing so in chapter 11, and even when they acknowledged God’s purpose to save the Gentiles in this same chapter, they did not see practically preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. The evangelization of Gentiles did not come through the apostles (save Peter and a few brave souls who were the exception), but through others, like Stephen, like those bold men of Cyprus (chapters 8 and 11), and like Paul. It was not the church at Jerusalem that was the launching pad for foreign missions, but the church at Antioch. Here is the sovereignty of God in the salvation of Gentiles.
In the Book of Acts, then, we should expect the theme of the sovereignty of God to be a very prominent one. I believe we shall see this in two areas in particular. First, we shall see the sovereignty of God in the spreading of the gospel to the Gentiles and not just to the Jews alone. Second, we shall see the sovereignty of God in the salvation of Paul and in God’s use of him as a chosen vessel (in contrast, perhaps, to Matthias) to carry the gospel to the Gentiles.
May God grant that our study of this great Book of Acts would prove to be a life-changing one, and that each of us may, in the power of His Spirit, be His instruments for the carrying out of the Great Commission in our day.
If you, my friend, have never heard this gospel which the apostles were to carry to all men, it is the same gospel which I bring to you today:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, …” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgivenss of sins” (Acts 10:43).
May you believe in Him today for the forgiveness of your sins and eternal life.
! Lesson 2:
Putting Pentecost in Perspective
(Part 1)
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
(Acts 2:1-13)
Introduction
The “coming” of the Holy Spirit is very much like the account of the birth of our Lord in Luke. It is a key event depicted at the beginning of the Book of Acts which sets the stage for what follows. If the ministry of Jesus in the Book of Luke is the outflow of His birth (His incarnation), then the ministry of our Lord through the church in the Book of Acts is the outflow of the descent of the Spirit in Acts 2. What a marvelous passage we have come to.
And yet, sadly enough, we have come to one of the great battlegrounds of evangelical Christians. When one begins to talk about “the Holy Spirit” and “Pentecost,” almost any group will begin to polarize into “pro-charismatic” and “anti-charismatic” segments. As we approach Pentecost in our study, let us be mindful of our predispositions. Let us seek, as much as possible, to let the text shape our thinking on Pentecost rather than to allow our thinking to “reshape” or distort the text. And let us rely on the Holy Spirit, who alone can teach us the true meaning of our text. Let us also seek to preserve the “unity of the Spirit” as we consider this passage. Too many of us come to this text to prove something rather than to learn something. Let us seek to be learners.
As I have approached this passage, I have been puzzled by something which our Lord said, not once, but twice. When He instructed His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit, He spoke of the Spirit as “the promise of the Father” (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). It is clear that Jesus spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit on several occasions (cf. Luke 11:13; 12:12; John 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:22). Why then did Jesus not tell the disciples to wait for the Spirit He promised? I believe the reason is because our Lord wished the disciples to see the coming of the Holy Spirit to have been that which was promised long before He came. If the Holy Spirit was promised by the Father, then the Holy Spirit was promised by the Old Testament. Our Lord could only reiterate a promise already made, a promise made by the Father. Indeed, in the Gospel of John, Jesus emphasized that it would be the Father who would send the Spirit to them (cf. John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:23-28).
It is my conviction that an accurate understanding of Pentecost is essential to our understanding of the Book of Acts. Thus, the exposition of this short passage will be protracted into several lessons. My desire is to first look to the Scriptures to shape our perspective of Pentecost, as depicted here. Second, it is my hope that Pentecost, rightly understood, would shape our own perspective of the role of the Holy Spirit in the church, in our day and time, and in our own personal walk with the Lord.
This lesson will be devoted to a study of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. If the Holy Spirit’s coming was a matter of the Father’s promise, then that promise should be clearly indicated in the Old Testament. We will look in this lesson at the ways in which the Holy Spirit worked in and through men, and then we shall look at the prophecies of the Old Testament related to the Holy Spirit and His coming, which commenced at Pentecost. The next lesson will focus on the Holy Spirit in the Gospels, in the life of our Lord Jesus and in others. We will also look at those promises of the Holy Spirit which we find in the Gospels. Then, and only then, we shall turn our attention to the text at hand and to the description and explanation of it which is recorded. We will further look at Pentecost in relationship to the three other “Pentecosts” which are found later in Acts 8, 10, and 19. Finally, we will attempt to view Pentecost from the vantage point of the Epistles.
The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Some Christians seem to think that the Holy Spirit was a stranger to the Old Testament and to the Old Testament saint. In reality, the Spirit of God is much more quickly evident than the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. A look at a concordance will quickly indicate this. The Holy Spirit first occurs in the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, actively involved in the creation of the earth. Shortly thereafter in Genesis 6, the Holy Spirit is said to be involved with creation and specifically with men, in striving with them due to their sin. In the closing books of the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned, that last clear reference being found in Malachi 2:15.
Let us consider a number of the passages in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned. Let us look to the ways in which the Spirit worked in the days of old, and let us (later on) compare these with the work of the Spirit in the New Testament times, as well as in our own. I believe we will see a great deal of continuity.[4]
The Holy Spirit as the Source of Life
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2).
The spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life (Job 33:4).
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth (Psalm 104:30).
The Holy Spirit is described as creative, life-giving, and life-sustaining. Is it any wonder that in the New Testament He would be similarly described (cf. John 3:5-8; 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6)?
The Holy Spirit Strives with Men
Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years” (Genesis 6:3).
The Holy Spirit as a Teacher and Guide
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst (Nehemiah 9:20; cf. also 9:30).
But it is the Spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding (Job 32:8).
Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground (Psalm 143:10).
The Holy Spirit as the Manifestation of God’s Presence
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me (Psalm 51:11).
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? (Psalm 139:7).
But now be strong, O Zerubbabel,’ declares the Lord. ‘Be strong, O Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land,’ declares the Lord, ‘and work. For I am with you,’ declares the Lord Almighty. ‘This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear’ (Haggai 2:4-5).
The Holy Spirit’s Special Relationship with Israel
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst (Nehemiah 9:20).
For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you admonished them through your prophets. Yet they paid no attention, so you handed them over to the neighboring peoples (Nehemiah 9:30).
By the waters of Meribah they angered the Lord, and trouble came to Moses because of them; for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, and rash words came from Moses’ lips (Psalm 106:32-33).
“Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the LORD, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine, Forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin; who go down to Egypt without consulting me; who look for help to Pharaoh’s protection, to Egypt’s shade for refuge” (Isaiah 30:1-2).
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people—where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses’ right hand, who divided the waters before them, to gain for himself everlasting renown, who led them through the depths? Like a horse in open country, they did not stumble; like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit of the Lord. This is how you guided your people to make for yourself a glorious name (Isaiah 63:10-14).
“But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry (Zechariah 7:11-12).
The Holy Spirit Filled and Empowered Men in the Old Testament
A. Craftsmen, Artists, Designers, Builders:
Bezalel (and others, involved with tabernacle furnishings):
And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts (Exodus 31:3).
Then Moses said to the Israelites, “See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts—to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship. And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as craftsmen, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them master craftsmen and designers. So Bezalel, Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the LORD has given skill and ability to know how to carry out all the work of constructing the sanctuary are to do the work just as the LORD has commanded” (Exodus 35:30–36:1).
David (design of the temple):
He gave him the plans of all that the Spirit had put in his mind for the courts of the temple of the Lord and all the surrounding rooms, for the treasuries of the temple of God and for the treasuries for the dedicated things (1 Chronicles 28:12).
B. Administrators and Leaders (including kings):
Joseph:
So Pharaoh asked them, “Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of God?” (Genesis 41:38).
Moses and the 70 Elders who help him:
17 “I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit that is on you and put the Spirit on them. They will help you carry the burden of the people so that you will not have to carry it alone.” … 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again. 26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the Tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 29 But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” (Numbers 11:17, 25-29).
Joshua:
So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him (Numbers 27:18).
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses (Deuteronomy 34:9).
Saul:
The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you” (1 Samuel 10:6-7).[5]
When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying (1 Samuel 10:10).
When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he burned with anger (1 Samuel 11:6).
Saul and his men—preventing them from doing harm to David, God’s anointed:
When David had fled and made his escape, he went to Samuel at Ramah and told him all that Saul had done to him. Then he and Samuel went to Naioth and stayed there. 19 Word came to Saul: “David is in Naioth at Ramah”; 20 so he sent men to capture him. But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came upon Saul’s men and they also prophesied. 21 Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied. 22 Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” “Over in Naioth at Ramah,” they said. 23 So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even upon him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. 24 He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Samuel 19:18-24).
David:
13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah. 14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him (1 Samuel 16:13-14).
“The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on my tongue (2 Samuel 23:2; cf. also Acts 1:16; 4:25).
C. The Judges of Israel:
Othniel:
The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war. The Lord gave Cushan‑Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him (Judges 3:10).
Gideon:
Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him (Judges 6:34).
Jephthah:
Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites (Judges 11:29).
Samson:
And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol (Judges 13:25).
6 The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done… 19 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle. Burning with anger, he went up to his father’s house (Judges 14:6, 19).
As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands (Judges 15:14).
D. The Prophets:
Balaam:
When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him (Numbers 24:2).
Elijah and Elisha:
I don’t know where the Spirit of the Lord may carry you when I leave you. If I go and tell Ahab and he doesn’t find you, he will kill me. Yet I your servant have worshiped the Lord since my youth (1 Kings 18:12).
9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?” “Let me inherit a double portion of your Spirit,” Elisha replied.… 13 He picked up the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 Then he took the cloak that had fallen from him and struck the water with it. “Where now is the LORD, the God of Elijah?” he asked. When he struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over. 15 The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, “The Spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him (2 Kings 2:9, 13-15).
But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money, or to accept clothes, olive groves, vineyards, flocks, herds, or menservants and maidservants? (2 Kings 5:26).
Isaiah:
“Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens I am there.” And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go” (Isaiah 48:16-17).
Ezekiel:
He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day” (Ezekiel 2:1-3; cf. also 3:12, 14, 24; 11:1, 5, 24; 13:3; 43:5).
Daniel:
8 Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.) 9 I said, “Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you. Here is my dream; interpret it for me (Daniel 4:8-9).
“This is the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar, had. Now, Belteshazzar, tell me what it means, for none of the wise men in my kingdom can interpret it for me. But you can, because the spirit of the holy gods is in you” (Daniel 4:18).
There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. King Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king, I say—appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. 14 I have heard that the spirit of the gods is in you and that you have insight, intelligence and outstanding wisdom (Daniel 5:11).
Micah:
“Do not prophesy,” their prophets say. “Do not prophesy about these things: disgrace will not overtake us.” Should it be said, O house of Jacob: “Is the Spirit of the Lord angry?
Does he do such things?” (Micah 2:6-7)
“But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin” (Micah 3:8).
E. Others, Who Spoke to Men for God:
Amasai:
Then the Spirit came upon Amasai, chief of the Thirty, and he said: “We are yours, O David! We are with you, O son of Jesse! Success, success to you, and success to those who help you, for your God will help you.” So David received them and made them leaders of his raiding bands (1 Chronicles 12:18).
Azariah:
The Spirit of God came upon Azariah son of Oded (2 Chronicles 15:1).
Jehaziel:
Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly (2 Chronicles 20:14).
Zechariah:
Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you’” (2 Chronicles 24:20).
The Holy Spirit in Prophecies Concerning Israel’s Future
Isaiah
The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. Then the LORD will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain (Isaiah 4:4-6).
5 In that day the Lord Almighty will be a glorious crown, a beautiful wreath for the remnant of his people. 6 He will be a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment, a source of strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate. 7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. 8 All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth (Isaiah 28:5-8).
12 Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vines 13 and for the land of my people, a land overgrown with thorns and briers—yes, mourn for all houses of merriment and for this city of revelry. 14 The fortress will be abandoned, the noisy city deserted; citadel and watchtower will become a wasteland forever, the delight of donkeys, a pasture for flocks, 15 till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest. 16 Justice will dwell in the desert and righteousness live in the fertile field. 17 The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever. 18 My people will live in peaceful dwelling places, in secure homes, in undisturbed places of rest. 19 Though hail flattens the forest and the city is leveled completely, 20 how blessed you will be, sowing your seed by every stream, and letting your cattle and donkeys range free (Isaiah 32:12-20).
1 “But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. 2 This is what the Lord says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. 4 They will spring up like grass in a meadow, like poplar trees by flowing streams. 5 One will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’; another will call himself by the name of Jacob; still another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord’s,’ and will take the name Israel (Isaiah 44:1-5).
20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the Lord. 21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord (Isaiah 59:20-21).
Ezekiel
“They will return to it and remove all its vile images and detestable idols. I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 11:18-21).
“Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! (Ezekiel 18:30-32).
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes. 24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel! (Ezekiel 36:22-32).
The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” … Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord’” (Ezekiel 37:1-3a,11-14).
I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 39:29).
Joel
28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. 30 I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 32 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls (Joel 2:28-32).
Haggai
3 ‘Who of you is left who saw this house in its former glory? How does it look to you now? Does it not seem to you like nothing? 4 But now be strong, O Zerubbabel,’ declares the Lord. ‘Be strong, O Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land,’ declares the Lord, ‘and work. For I am with you,’ declares the Lord Almighty. 5 ‘This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.’ 6 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. 7 I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty. 8 ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the Lord Almighty. 9 ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the Lord Almighty” (Haggai 2:3-9).
Zechariah
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty. 7 “What are you, O mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’” 8 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands will also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you (Zechariah 4:6-9).
I looked up again—and there before me were four chariots coming out from between two mountains—mountains of bronze! The first chariot had red horses, the second black, the third white, and the fourth dappled—all of them powerful. I asked the angel who was speaking to me, “What are these, my lord?” The angel answered me, “These are the four spirits of heaven, going out from standing in the presence of the Lord of the whole world. The one with the black horses is going toward the north country, the one with the white horses toward the west, and the one with the dappled horses toward the south.” When the powerful horses went out, they were straining to go throughout the earth. And he said, “Go throughout the earth!” So they went throughout the earth. Then he called to me, “Look, those going toward the north country have given my Spirit rest in the land of the north” (Zechariah 6:1-8).
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives (Zechariah 12:10-14).
1 “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity. 2 “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the Lord’s name.’ When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him. 4 “On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision. He will not put on a prophet’s garment of hair in order to deceive. 5 He will say, ‘I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land has been my livelihood since my youth.’ 6 If someone asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your body?’ he will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’ 7 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!” declares the Lord Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. 8 In the whole land,” declares the Lord, “two‑thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one‑third will be left in it. 9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The Lord is our God’” (Zechariah 13:1-9).
The Holy Spirit will Empower Messiah
Isaiah
1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord—3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist (Isaiah 11:1-5).
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations (Isaiah 42:1).
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor (Isaiah 61:1-3).
Listed above are those references in which the Spirit of God is clearly identified as such. There could also be many other texts in which the ministry of the Spirit is clearly implied or referred to, but using other terms than that of the Spirit of God. From these references, however, let us attempt to draw some conclusions about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Next, we will attempt to draw together some general conclusions as to the future ministry of the Spirit, as predicted by the Old Testament prophets. This will serve as a foundation for our next study of the ministry of the Holy Spirit as depicted in the Gospels.
The Old Testament Ministry of the Holy Spirit
The Old Testament Ministry of the Holy Spirit
The first thing we should note is that the term, “Holy Spirit,” seldom occurs in the Old Testament. Actually it is found only three times; once in Psalm 51:5, and twice in Isaiah 63:10-14. The most frequently used terms or expressions for the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament are:
· the Spirit of the Lord
· my Spirit
· the Spirit
· the Spirit of God
· the spirit of … (Judgment, fire, justice, etc.)
· your Spirit
In nearly all of these cases, the reference to the Holy Spirit is clear, although there are some instances where the Holy Spirit and the human “spirit” seem almost to merge, so that the Holy Spirit is referred to as the “Spirit of Elijah” (cf. 2 Kings 2:9-15). This is also the case with the “Spirit” which was on Moses, which also came upon the seventy elders who were to help him (Numbers 11:17-29). If there were any doubt in our minds as to whether or not the “Spirit” of the Old Testament were the same person as the “Holy Spirit” in the New, all we need to do is to read the inspired New Testament references to the Holy Spirit’s work in the Old Testament, both by our Lord (cf. Matthew 22:43; Mark 12:36), and by the apostles and others (cf. Acts 1:16; 4:25; 7:51; Hebrews 3:7; 2 Peter 1:21).
Regardless of the infrequency of the precise term, “Holy Spirit,” the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament times is much more prominent than one would suppose, apart from a consideration of the many texts referring to Him. The Spirit of God is almost immediately introduced in the Book of Genesis (1:2), and He becomes a frequent focus in the writings of the prophets. The Holy Spirit had a significant role in the creation of the world (Genesis 1:2) and in striving with sinful men (Genesis 6:3). He inspired men who revealed God to men, either in word, or in work. He instructed and guided men, especially the nation Israel. The Spirit of God instructed and guided not only the nation Israel as a whole, but men individually (e.g. David, 1 Samuel 16:13-14; Psalm 143:10). He enabled and empowered men to do that which was humanly impossible (e.g., the judges of Israel). He manifested not only the power of God through men (Isaiah 63:10-14) but the presence of God among men (Psalm 51:11; 139:7; Haggai 2:4-5). It seems as well that the Holy Spirit was the instrument through whom the glory of God was manifested (cf. Haggai 2:3-9).
The Holy Spirit therefore appears to be the agency through which God most often worked. God used men to reveal His will and His word (e.g. the prophets), but these men were inspired and empowered by the Holy Spirit so that the words they spoke were clearly the “Word of the Lord.” When men spoke in the Spirit, they spoke for God. When men disobeyed the Word of God, they were regarded as having not only resisted God, but His Spirit as well (Nehemiah 9:20, 30; Psalm 106:33; Isaiah 30:1-2; 63:10-14; Zechariah 7:11-12; cf. Acts 7:51).
It is noteworthy, I believe, to see that the Spirit’s coming upon men was the sovereign choice of God, rather than God’s response to the initiative of men. Generally speaking, men did not expect the Spirit of God to come upon them, nor did they do anything to prompt it. It happened. God took the initiative, and men responded accordingly. There is clearly no “pattern” for those who would wish to find some method or formula for obtaining the Spirit’s power. Men did not dispose of God or of His Spirit; rather God disposed of men, using His Spirit to do so.
The Spirit’s coming upon men in the Old Testament is not always the same. In some instances, the Spirit’s descent upon men seems to have been permanent, perhaps signaled by some unusual manifestation. The seventy elders of Israel, for example, manifested the Spirit’s coming upon them initially but not again, in an unusual way. In the case of Saul, the Spirit that was given was also taken from him when the kingdom was taken away. Samson is one on whom the Spirit came only at certain times. Thus, we cannot find a rigid pattern for the way in which the Spirit came upon men.
The Spirit’s coming upon men was, as a rule, not the result of their great spirituality nor did it necessarily result in spirituality. That is to say, when the Spirit came upon men, they possessed supernatural ability (or power). That power or ability was not unlimited but generally was limited to certain tasks, abilities, or functions. That power did not necessarily make the recipient more spiritual. Samson, for example, was “overcome” by the Holy Spirit, but his life was a moral disaster. He was a man, not dominated by the Holy Spirit—he was not a spiritual man—but a man dominated by his own flesh, or more pointedly, he was dominated by foreign women. Saul was not a greatly spiritual man before the coming of the Spirit upon him nor was he so afterwards. Balaam was a man who is perplexing, because we are not even certain that he was a true believer in God, even though he could not but speak for God when the Spirit of God came upon Him. Thus we could say that men possessed by or filled with God’s Spirit did that which they would not and could not ordinarily do. The control of the Spirit assured that God’s work would be done through men but not because of man’s abilities or inclinations.
This is dramatically illustrated in the life of Saul, the king of Israel and later on the enemy of David. Although Saul was a physical giant, he was far from self-confident or assertive (cf. 1 Samuel 10:20-24). When the Spirit came upon Saul initially, it was to endue him with power in order to reign as Israel’s king. Due to Saul’s sin, the kingdom was taken away from him and so was the Spirit. In place of the Holy Spirit came an “evil spirit from the Lord” (1 Samuel 16:14). In 1 Samuel 19 (18-24) we read of a most interesting “filling” of the Holy Spirit. Saul knew that his kingdom had been taken away and that David would replace him. He sought to capture David and to kill him. When he sent a party of men to apprehend David, these men were overcome by the Spirit so that they prophesied, rather than to carry out their duty of arresting David. (I cannot help but wonder whether these men prophesied about the coming kingdom of David, the one God had appointed and Saul had anointed.) Two other arresting parties were dispatched to arrest David, and the same thing happened to them. Finally, Saul went himself, only to experience the same overwhelming power of God’s Spirit. How different it was this time, as opposed to his previous “filling.” Then, it was evidence that God was with him and that God’s power enabled him to carry out his task as the king of Israel. But in this second instance, Saul was virtually immobilized and also made to look the fool, which he was. The Spirit was upon Saul, but not in the way anyone would wish. The Spirit simply overcame Saul so as to keep him from carrying out his evil intent.
I infer several additional factors related to the passages at which we have looked. The first is that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (like the New) was necessitated by the nature of God and the nature of man. God is infinitely above men, so that man would never think God’s thoughts apart from a divine work of God in man (which is what the Spirit did and what He continues to do). Beyond this, men would not be able to accomplish God’s purposes, even if we comprehended them and were committed to achieving them. God’s work is a divine work and thus the need for divine power. Even men of faith have a limited grasp of God’s ways, and they also have limited power. Thus, the ministry of the Spirit was necessitated by the greatness of God and by the ignorance and impotence of men. The Holy Spirit was God’s way of assuring that His will was accomplished in the world, through men.
Related to this, I believe, is the element of representation. One of the common threads or themes I see in these Old Testament passages is that God “filled” (you may use a different term if you prefer) men with His Spirit when men would represent Him in some way, by word or work, and thus they would have to be empowered by His Spirit so as to accurately reflect and represent Him. When prophets spoke or wrote under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit, they could rightly say, “Thus saith the Lord.” When leaders like Moses and David led, the Spirit’s control and power over them enabled them to lead as though God were leading men through them (which He was).
This applies to the craftsmen, like Bezalel and Oholiab. It may seem strange to say this, but I am convinced it is true. The best representation of God that man can create is but an idol. The golden calf of Aaron was intended to represent the God of Israel who led them out of Egypt (Exodus 32:4), but it was only an idol, a distorted representation of God. When the tabernacle, and later on the temple, were built, those items of furniture and symbolic representation could only reflect God if God Himself created them. Thus, His Spirit gave Bezalel and Oholiab the skill to create those things which would accurately represent God. Even though these men appear to have been the finest craftsmen of their time, their natural abilities were inadequate. So too when David designed the temple, God worked through him with His Spirit so that the temple would reflect the God of heaven and not the distorted conceptions of God which men had.
One of the Holy Spirit’s tasks was to accomplish divine communication from God to men, such as the empowering of the prophets. Another task was an illuminating and teaching ministry which enabled men to understand that which God had revealed in the Scriptures. David, in the psalms, seems to be especially sensitive to this ministry. Thus, when he prays that God would “open his eyes” to behold wondrous things from God’s law (Psalm 119:18), I believe he was praying for the teaching and illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit.
When the people of Israel willfully turned their backs on God and rebelled against His Word, they grieved His Holy Spirit. As a result, as I understand it, the Spirit ceased to illumine them to the meaning of the law, except through the prophets, from time to time. Men ceased to read God’s law in terms of its “spirit” (conveyed by the Spirit), but rather in terms only of its “letter.” It is no wonder that the kinds of interpretation we see the religious leaders holding in the Gospels was the order of the day. The Savior’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was not the overturning of the Law (which He came to fulfill, not to put away), but the interpretation of the Law as God had always intended it—in terms of its spirit, and not just of its letter (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6). Unbelief and disobedience led to a perversion of the written Word of God, because the teaching of the Spirit ceased when He was grieved.
When I consider the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, I am taken aback by the prominence of the third person of the Trinity. While the Spirit of God may not be clearly distinguished from God, so that the doctrine of the Trinity was crystal clear, He is described as being God, and as the agency which God used to accomplish His purposes in the world. The frequency of the references to the Holy Spirit is much greater than I expected and the extent of His ministry much broader. The similarities of His ministry between the Old Testament economy and that of the New Testament times are great. It will be our task to determine at a later time just how the ministry of the Spirit in the New Testament was distinct or different from that which He had in the Old. For now, let us move on to a consideration of the characteristics of those prophecies pertaining to a future work of the Spirit, as found in the Old Testament.
The Future Ministry of the Holy Spirit
The ongoing work of the Holy Spirit throughout the Old Testament provides us with a great deal of information as to what the ministry of the Holy Spirit might be in the future. If God is consistent, which He is, then He can be expected not only to remain the same but to work in similar ways. Thus, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament times and beyond could be expected to be similar to that which we have seen as characteristic of His Old Testament ministry. But we are not left to our own estimation as to what His future role might be. The Old Testament prophets had much to say about the future of the nation Israel. A significant role in Israel’s future was to be played by the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is a great deal of prophetic emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the days to come for the nation Israel, as well as for men and women of every nation. I will seek to summarize some of the characteristics of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in Israel’s future, as it is depicted by the prophets themselves in the texts cited above.
The first thing which becomes clear as one reads the prophets concerning Israel’s future hope is that the Holy Spirit would play a vital role in the “new age” which was yet to come for the people of God. Thus, many of the prophecies concerning Israel’s future hope contained promises pertaining to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Spirit as described by the prophets does not seem to be utterly new and different from that which the Spirit had been doing throughout the Old Testament times, but an expansion of that ministry.
The role of the Holy Spirit in the fulfillment of Israel’s future hope has at least three major areas of involvement, each of which has its own facets. The Holy Spirit’s ministry involves: (1) the nation Israel; (2) the Messiah; and (3) the nations. It should be remembered that in each of these areas a number of elements are described and foretold, but these were not understood by the Israelites as a whole or even by their prophets (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). It is really only in light of the fulfillment of these prophecies that we can see the wisdom of God in precisely carrying out what we cannot even understand. Let us look briefly at each of these three areas.
The Holy Spirit and the Nation Israel
The prophets made it clear that the coming kingdom which God had promised and for which they looked by faith (cf. Hebrews 11) was one that would be inaugurated by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (cf. Isaiah 32;12-20; 44:1-5; 59:20-21; Ezekiel 36:22-32; 37:11-14; 39:29; Joel 2:28-32, etc.). Among the ministries which the Holy Spirit would perform were the following (I will put them in the order in which I understand them to have been fulfilled, or in which they will be fulfilled, although the Old Testament saints were not aware of this order at the time):
First, the Holy Spirit would deal with Israel’s rebellion and sin. The first aspect of the Spirit’s ministry had to do with judgment, not salvation. Thus, Joel (chapter 2) and Zechariah (12:10–13:9) speak of the Spirit’s ministry of bringing Israel to repentance by causing them to understand that they had rejected and crucified God’s Messiah. It is because of this that, “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son” (Zechariah 12:10).
Second, Israel will be cleansed of her sin. This is closely related to the first aspect of the Spirit’s ministry. Before cleansing can be achieved, repentance is necessary, which is the first step. The prophets spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit in close proximity with the cleansing of Israel. Ezekiel 36:25 and Zechariah 13:1 speak very clearly of this cleansing of Israel, although no one knew exactly how this would be accomplished.
Third, the Holy Spirit would renew Israel by giving them a new spirit, a new heart. Ezekiel is the prophet who spoke most of this matter of a “new heart” (cf. Ezekiel 11:18-21; 18:30-32; 36:22-32). The problem with Israel was not the law which they had been given, but their hearts. God promised, through His Spirit, to give His people a new heart, a heart which would dispose His people to love and to keep His laws, and thus to pave the way for the pouring out of His blessings on His people (cf. especially Ezekiel 36:26-32). The new covenant of which God spoke did not set aside the standards of the old, but rather granted men forgiveness of sins, and the enablement to live in accordance with God’s standards, not to earn their salvation but to live it out in a way that honored God.
Fourth, the Holy Spirit’s ministry was very closely linked with a resurrection of the dead, so that God’s promises to Israel might be fulfilled. Ezekiel 37 is a most fascinating text, for it not only speaks of God putting His Spirit in His people so that they would live (verse 14), but this is said immediately after the promise that the “dead bones” of the “whole house of Israel” would be raised. That this was referring to a literal resurrection is clear from the fact that God promised to open their graves and bring His people up from them. Thus, the ministry of the Spirit in Israel’s future is closely linked with the resurrection of dead Israelites.
The Holy Spirit and Israel’s Messiah
Mysteriously intertwined with the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the achieving of Israel’s hope was the ministry of Israel’s Messiah. That which the Messiah did was said to be accomplished in the power of the Spirit. Notice these three aspects of the future ministry of Messiah and how the ministry of the Spirit is associated with them.
First, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to Messiah would empower His life and ministry. Isaiah 61 is especially clear on this matter, because this is the text which our Lord Himself cited at the outset of His public ministry and which He said was fulfilled in the hearing of His audience (cf. Luke 4:14-21). The Lord’s public ministry commenced with His baptism by John, and with His being endued with power from on high by the Holy Spirit, who descended visibly upon Him.
Second, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to Messiah would accomplish the atonement for the sin of the world and thus inaugurate the new covenant, on which the kingdom of God was based. The ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to this is not as clear in the Old Testament, but it is hinted at in texts such as Isaiah 42:1 and 52:13–53:12. The wisdom which Messiah is said to manifest (52:13) is that which comes, as I understand it, from the Spirit (cf. 40:13; 11:1-5). The writer to the Hebrews clearly links the atoning sacrifice of our Lord with the ministry of the Holy Spirit when he wrote,
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:14)
Third, the Holy Spirit will grant the Messiah the wisdom and power necessary to judge the world, to overthrow the wicked, and to reign in justice and righteousness. Isaiah 11:1-5 speaks of the “Spirit of the Lord” who will rest on Messiah, who will be a “Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, and power.” This wisdom and power is that by which Messiah will reign in righteousness and peace.
The Holy Spirit’s Ministry
and the Salvation of the Gentiles
There remains yet one final facet of the Holy Spirit’s ministry with respect to the hope of Israel, and that is the salvation which the Holy Spirit will bring not only to Israelites, but to people of every tongue and nation and tribe. When Jesus first presented Himself to Israel as their Messiah, as recorded in Luke 4, He was quick to point out to these Jews that the blessings He came, in the Spirit, to bring to them, He came to bring to the Gentiles as well. This was most unacceptable to these Jews, as Luke’s account makes very clear, but it was a part of the purpose of God announced long before by the prophets, who spoke of the Spirit of God coming upon people of all nations, and not just the Jews. Of those texts which speak of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Gentiles, Joel 2 (cf. “all people,” verse 28), Haggai 2 (cf. “all nations,” verse 7), and Isaiah 66:18-24 make it clear that God’s salvation and His Spirit will be poured out on the Gentiles, as well as on the Jews.
Conclusion
We have only begun to scratch the surface of these Old Testament texts, but it is enough too see that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in Israel’s history, and the promises of the prophets of Israel pertaining to His future ministry, provide us with a firm foundation for approaching Pentecost in Acts 2, which Peter will explain to the Jewish spectators as a fulfillment of the promise of the Old Testament prophets, and which Jesus spoke of as the “promise of the Father.” Before we proceed to Pentecost, however, we must first consider the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels. This will be the subject of our next lesson.
! Lesson 3:
Putting Pentecost in Perspective
(Part 2)
The Holy Spirit in the Gospels
(Acts 2:1-13)
Introduction
In Acts 1 our Lord promised the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost by indicating three ways in which the event was anticipated:
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4-5).
The first prophecy of the Spirit’s coming was referred to as the “promise of the Father,” which I understand to be the prophecies of the Old Testament pertaining to the coming age of the Spirit. The second line of prophecy came from our Lord, for He spoke quite often of the Spirit and of His future role in the lives of His disciples and of those who believed in Him. The third line of prophecy came from John the Baptist. Almost every time we read of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” we do so in the context of John’s baptism and John’s words.
Our last lesson focused our attention on the ministry of the Holy Spirit as described in the Old Testament and as prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. In this lesson, we will turn our attention to the ministry of the Holy Spirit as depicted in the Gospels. We will concentrate on three aspects of the ministry of the Holy Spirit:
(1) The role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people other than Jesus;
(2) The role of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of John the Baptist; and
(3) The Holy Spirit in the ministry and teaching of the Lord Jesus.
We will thus be prepared for the event of Pentecost as described and explained in Acts chapter 2.
Those Filled with the
Holy Spirit in the Gospels
In a manner very similar to the “filling” of the Old Testament personalities, there were a number of people who were described as being filled with the Holy Spirit:
15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. 16 Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15-17).
80 And the child {John the Baptist} grew and became strong in {the?} spirit {Spirit?}; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel (Luke 1:80).
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed … (Luke 1:41-42).
His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied … (Luke 1:67).
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying …” (Luke 2:25-28).
From the passages above we learn that John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit” while still in his mother’s womb. His “filling” was with the “spirit of Elijah.” I understand this to mean that it was the same Spirit which empowered Elijah, the Holy Spirit, and that it was the same essential ministry and message. As Elijah was sent to call the nation Israel to repentance in preparation for God’s future blessings, which would be prophesied by Elisha, so John was sent to prepare the way for Jesus, the Messiah.
I believe John was “filled with the Spirit” in his mother’s womb for two main reasons. The first reason was that his first inspired (“Spirit filled”) ministry was carried out from the womb—his introduction of Messiah, who was also in the womb of Mary (cf. Luke 1:39-41). Here was a “Spirit-filled” leap, of such proportions that it was recognized as divinely enabled. The second reason was that he would need to grow up, instructed by the Spirit (in seclusion from society in the wilderness), so that his ministry and message was an indictment of the evils of that day, calling his culture to repentance, rather than simply confirming or reiterating their evils (which were a part of the fabric of their society, especially in their religious culture). John, much like Paul in later days (cf. Galatians 1:13-24), would learn the things of God in solitude and isolation and not as a student of the religious leadership of that day.
At the times of the conceptions and births of John and Jesus, there were several “Spirit-filled” utterances spoken, so that they were to be received as a direct word from God. Specifically identified as such were the utterances of Elizabeth (Luke 1:41-45), Zechariah (Luke 1:67-79), and Simeon (Luke 2:25-35). Also implied to be “Spirit-filled” utterances were the “magnificat” of Mary (Luke 1:46-55) and the praise of Anna (Luke 2:36-38).
The Holy Spirit as
Prophesied by John the Baptist
In His ministry, John seemed to speak frequently about the future ministry of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the ministry of Messiah. The “baptizing” ministry of our Lord was closely linked with the baptism of John, both by comparison and contrast. It was indeed by the baptism of Jesus that He was divinely disclosed to be the Messiah:
Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’ (John 1:32-33).
Thus, the “Spirit baptism” of Jesus at the time of His water baptism was a divine designation, a divinely ordained identification of Jesus as the promised Messiah, whom John was to publicly introduce as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).
While John baptized with water, a baptism of repentance, he spoke of Messiah as baptizing men as well, a baptism that was both similar to and different from his own:
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering the wheat into his barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:11-12).
I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8).
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:16-17).
The ministry of John was intertwined with the ministry of Messiah. His message was two-fold: burning or blessing; the outpouring of divine wrath on the disobedient, or the outpouring of divine blessings on those who are faithful. John’s ministry and message were shaped by the final words of the Old Testament, spoken through the prophet Malachi:
“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,” says the Lord Almighty. “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).
In addition to fulfilling Malachi’s prophecy, John’s words reiterated the warnings of other Old Testament prophets:
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:7-9).
Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp a fire will be kindled like a blazing flame. The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers. The splendor of his forests and fertile fields it will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away. And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few that a child could write them down (Isaiah 10:15-19).
“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord; O house of David, this is what the Lord says: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?” I will punish you as your deeds deserve, declares the Lord. I will kindle a fire in your forests that will consume everything around you’” (Jeremiah 21:11-14).
John spoke of the two options of Israel’s destiny as “baptisms” of Messiah, either the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” or the “baptism of fire.” The Old Testament prophets did not use the term “baptism,” however. The Old Testament counterpart for John’s term “baptize” was “pour out.” Note these specific prophecies which speak of the two “outpourings,” the two “baptisms,” of “fire” or of the “Spirit”:
The Baptism of the Fire of Divine Wrath
So he poured out on them his burning anger, the violence of war. It enveloped them in flames, yet they did not understand; it consumed them, but they did not take it to heart (Isaiah 42:25).
“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: My anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground, and it will burn and not be quenched’” (Jeremiah 7:20).
4 Like an enemy he has strung his bow; his right hand is ready. Like a foe he has slain all who were pleasing to the eye; he has poured out his wrath like fire on the tent of the Daughter of Zion.… 11 The Lord has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a fire in Zion that consumed her foundations (Lamentations 2:4, 11).
“I will pour out my wrath upon you and breathe out my fiery anger against you; I will hand you over to brutal men, men skilled in destruction” (Ezekiel 21:31).
“‘As silver is melted in a furnace, so you will be melted inside her, and you will know that I the Lord have poured out my wrath upon you’” (Ezekiel 22:22).
“So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 22:31).
“I will execute judgment upon him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him” (Ezekiel 38:22).
Who can withstand his indignation? Who can endure his fierce anger? His wrath is poured out like fire; the rocks are shattered before him (Nahum 1:6).
“Therefore wait for me,” declares the Lord, “for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them—all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger” (Zephaniah 3:8).
He, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb (Revelation 14:10).
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire (Revelation 16:8).
The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit
Till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest (Isaiah 32:15).
“For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants” (Isaiah 44:3).
“I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord” (Ezekiel 39:29).
“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28-29).
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son (Zechariah 12:10).
“Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles (Acts 10:45).
John the Baptist could not have put the matter more concisely. Summed up in the fewest possible words, the ministry of Israel’s promised Messiah would be either (1) a baptism of the Holy Spirit, on those who believed in God and received Messiah by faith, or (2) the baptism of fire, on all who rejected Him and who had rebelled against God and His word.
John’s ministry and message were similar to that of Jesus in that both were “baptizers.” Theirs was a similar ministry in that both came to the nation Israel, and both spoke with reference to the kingdom which God had promised His people. Their ministries were different in that John’s was an introductory one—he was to prepare the way for Messiah. Jesus’ ministry, on the other hand, was to bring matters to their consummation, either the baptism of the Spirit and times of refreshing (the promised kingdom and its blessings) or the baptism of fire and God’s wrath on sinners. Put differently, John’s ministry terminated the old order, for he was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus’ ministry inaugurated a new order by the enactment of a new covenant, a covenant in His blood.
Incidentally, that “baptism of the Holy Spirit” of which John spoke was only possible because Jesus, the Messiah, personally experienced the “baptism of fire” of which he and the prophets spoke. He bore the penalty of the fire of God’s wrath:
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” (Luke 12:49-50).
The Holy Spirit and Jesus, the Messiah
We have already seen from our study of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament that the Spirit would play a very decisive role in the ministry of the Messiah. This is clearly the case when we come to the Gospel accounts of the birth, life, ministry, and teaching of the Lord Jesus. We first see the Holy Spirit’s role in the conception of the Christ:
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).
It is not until the time immediately preceding the public presentation of Jesus as the Messiah that we again see the Holy Spirit at work in the life of Messiah. At the time of Jesus’ baptism by John, the Spirit came upon Him in a visible form:
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him (Matthew 3:16).
As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove (Mark 1:10).
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:21-22).
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’ (John 1:32-33).
I find it noteworthy that while the descent of the Spirit came in close proximity to the baptism of our Lord by John, it was not at the moment of His baptism but afterwards, thereby distinguishing His water baptism from His “Spirit baptism.” Matthew’s account, along with that of Mark, makes this distinction clear. Luke does also, adding the additional detail that the Spirit came upon Jesus as He was praying, thus associating the descent of the Spirit more closely with our Lord’s prayer than with His baptism. Since Jesus will later promise the gift of the Spirit in response to the disciple’s prayer (Luke 11:11-13), this should come as no surprise.
John’s Gospel supplies us with another important insight. John says that he would not have known the Messiah apart from the visible descent of the Spirit upon Him. It was revealed to him that the One on whom the Spirit descended and remained was the Messiah whom John was to introduce to the nation Israel. Thus, Jesus’ baptism (if we would choose to call it that) was the indication of His identity and of His endowment with power, in a way not unlike what we have seen in the Old Testament. Luke will tell us that from this time on Jesus went forth “full of the Holy Spirit” into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1ff.), and He commenced His public ministry “in the power of the Spirit” (4:14ff.).
At the outset of His public ministry, Jesus claimed to be Messiah and to have the anointing of the Holy Spirit to empower His ministry. He did this by citing Isaiah 61:1-2 and claiming that it was fulfilled in Him that day:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed (Luke 4:18).
This Jesus did in the synagogue at Nazareth, in the village where He had grown up. Nowhere would this power be more evident.
Elsewhere, Jesus maintained that the evidence of the Spirit’s power in His life was proof that He had come down from heaven as Messiah:
“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit” (John 3:31-34).
Repeatedly the presence and power of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus was presented as proof of His identity as Israel’s Messiah:
“Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations (Matthew 12:18).
28 “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).
Thus, to reject Jesus as the Messiah required some explanation as to where His power came from. As no one could deny that His miracles were genuine and that there was the evidence of supernatural power, men who persisted in rejecting Christ as God’s Messiah had to attribute His power to Satan. In so doing, they became guilty of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as I understand it in the Gospels, is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ to Satan.) Since this sin was against the instrument by whom God saved men, those who blasphemed the Spirit were forever doomed.
“And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32).
“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit” (Mark 3:29-30).
“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10).
In His teaching ministry, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Holy Spirit. For example, He taught that David spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, … (Matthew 22:43).
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’ (Mark 12:36).
Somehow I have come to the conclusion that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit only (or at least primarily) to His disciples. He did speak much of the Spirit to them, and we will look into this in a moment. But first let us consider some of what our Lord taught more broadly about the Holy Spirit. The most interesting and crucial text is that found in John’s Gospel:
On the last and greatest day of the Feast {Tabernacles, v.2}, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37-39).
These words of our Lord were spoken in Jerusalem on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. They were not spoken in private to a select group of his disciples, but rather they were cried out publicly to all who would hear. These words are a public promise of the Holy Spirit to all who “thirst.” The words which Jesus spoke are a direct allusion to two Old Testament prophecies pertaining to the Holy Spirit:
“But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the Lord says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. They will spring up like grass in a meadow, like poplar trees by flowing streams. One will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’; another will call himself by the name of Jacob; still another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord’s,’ and will take the name Israel (Isaiah 44:1-5).
“Come, all yo who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!” (Isaiah 55:1)
I have come to the conclusion that one of the symbols used to represent the Holy Spirit is that of water. Jesus’ offer of water to those who thirst is no new use of this symbolism, but rather His use of it as a familiar image. Isaiah’s prophecies contain many allusions to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, the books of the Law, as written by Moses) and to the work of God as recorded there. Thus, in Isaiah, God is often referred to as the Creator, for that He is. He is also spoken of as the One who brought Israel through the Red Sea. In that incident, God caused the sea to part, and the Israelites walked through on dry ground (not muddy ground). Poetically, it is described as God making a desert in the sea. This imagery is frequently found in Isaiah, but it is also reversed so that God is described as the One Who not only made a desert in the sea but Who will make a watered place, an oasis as it were, in the desert—streams in the desert. This imagery is utilized to depict the future outpouring of the Spirit of God on Israel, on dry and thirsty ground, bringing new life and vitality. This is that to which our Lord has made reference in John 7.
This “thirst” imagery is found throughout the Bible, beginning very early in the Old Testament. For example, God caused water to flow from the rock in the wilderness (cf. Exodus 17:1-6; Numbers 20:2-13). Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that that “spiritual rock” was Christ. I am inclined to think that the “water” which came from the smitten rock (Rock = Christ) was the Spirit of Christ. Notice that in our Lord’s offer of “water” to those who “thirst” in John chapter 7, the “water” comes through “Christ,” not apart from Him. He is the source of the water, which we are told, was the Spirit. He sends the Spirit, Who quenches our thirst.
This passage in John 7 opens up a whole new world to me. It informs me that Jesus spoke often and openly of the Spirit, not just to His disciples but to men in general. Thus, when I go to earlier chapters in John’s Gospel, I am not surprised to find references to the Holy Spirit. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, a leading teacher in Israel (John 3:10), He spoke of the Holy Spirit’s role in the new birth, which came as an unknown matter to this teacher. And when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well in the next chapter, He spoke of the “living water” which He would give, which would quench her thirst. This “water,” once again, was the Holy Spirit, I believe. And for this Samaritan woman, who thought of worship in terms of a certain place, Jesus taught that true worship must be enabled and inspired by the Holy Spirit:
“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).
When Jesus was dying on the cross, John reports that He uttered the words, “I thirst” (John 20:28). These words, John tells us, were spoken in order to fulfill the Scripture, apparently the text in Psalm 69:21. I think it may also be true that Jesus’ “thirst” here was very significant. If Jesus bore the wrath of God on the cross, and there He was abandoned, for a time, by God (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46), then would the Spirit not have departed from Him? Would He not have thirsted in a much deeper sense, in the sense of which our Lord spoke in John 7 and elsewhere? I think so.
Little wonder that in the closing words of the Bible the matter of thirst and its satisfaction occur again:
“Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; He will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:16-17).
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life” (Revelation 21:6).
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves were for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:1-2).
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life (Revelation 22:17).
The Holy Spirit is the “water of life” which comes without cost through Christ, and which gives life and satisfaction to all who will take of it.
And so it is that in His teaching, Jesus indicated that men are saved by means of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who communicates and illuminates the truth of God, and who brings men to life:
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit… The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-6, 8).
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).
“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:8-11).
Jesus not only taught men generally about the Holy Spirit; He also taught His disciples a great deal about the Holy Spirit and the ministry which He would play in their lives and ministry to come. Earlier in His ministry He promised the Holy Spirit to those who would ask for Him:
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13).
As the time for His departure approached, Jesus spoke more of the Spirit’s coming, and especially of the ministry which the Spirit would have in manifesting His presence and power to His disciples:
“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you” (John 14:15-18).
The Holy Spirit, Jesus said, would teach and guide them in His absence (perhaps I should better say that He would be present with them, teaching and guiding them through His Spirit):
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26).
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:15).
When the disciples were arrested for proclaiming the gospel, the Holy Spirit would give them the words to speak in their defense, thereby eliminating the need to worry or think about this before hand:
“For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:20).
“Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).
“For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Luke 12:12).
The Great Commission which Jesus gave the disciples just before His ascension, was predicated on the power which He gave them through His Spirit. Thus, they were also commanded to wait for the Spirit to come upon them, enduing them with power:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
“You are witnesses to these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:48-49).
And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22).
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me; but you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:2-27).
Conclusion
The Holy Spirit played a central and crucial role in the life and ministry of our Lord. It was He, the Spirit, Who brought about the miraculous conception of Jesus. It was He Who endued Him with the power by which He conducted His earthly ministry. And it was He, as well, Who would comfort, encourage, and empower in the absence of the Lord Jesus, after His ascension. The Holy Spirit was (and is) the divine solution to the “thirst” which men have for God, and that thirst can only be quenched through the Spirit. Men are seeking to quench it in other ways, but it never satisfy. And the “living water” which the Spirit will give comes only through Christ, the Rock, Who was smitten on the cross of Calvary. Have you had your thirst quenched with this water? The offer of the Book of Revelation still stands, until the day of judgment comes:
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life (Revelation 22:17).
For a more complete outline of the texts referring to the ministry of the Holy Spirit as found in the Gospels, please see Appendix A.
! Lesson 4:
Putting Pentecost in Perspective
(Part 3)
Peter’s Interpretation of Pentecost
(Acts 2:1-40)
Introduction
Joe Bayly is now with the Lord, but he is a man I have always respected. He used to write a regular article in “Eternity” magazine, entitled, “Out of My Mind.” He wrote an excellent book on a topic few wish to consider—that of death and dying. It was first entitled, The View From a Hearse, but has in later printings been entitled, The Last Thing We Talk About. He has taken a stand on some issues which others have avoided. I can well remember one occasion when Mr. Bayly challenged his readers to beware of the logic which tested truth in terms of what it might lead to. Biblical truth in particular needs to be accepted as such, regardless of its implications.
There are some people who will openly acknowledge that the reason they reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior is because they know that to accept Him would mean that He must be Lord of their lives, and they have no intention of giving up their lifestyle. The religious leaders of Jesus’ day put Him to death, to a large degree, because of what allowing Him to live would lead to—the end of their power, prestige, and positions.
While we may be willing to admit the folly of rejecting a particular truth because of its implications, we often repeat the same folly ourselves. For example, when we approach the second chapter of the Book of Acts, we know that this passage is a kind of proof text for some Christians. And we may not be very disposed to give their position or practices any ground whatsoever. I am going to ask you to acknowledge to yourself, before we even look at our text, that you probably have some strong feelings about the interpretation and application of this text. I am going to ask you to momentarily set these aside, as best you can, and to pray that the Spirit of God will open your eyes to the truth that is recorded for us here, whatever that might be, and wherever that might lead us.
For those who come with a charismatic theology and practice, I am going to challenge you to be willing to set this aside, even to reject it, if the text clearly says otherwise. For those who are strongly anti-charismatic, I will ask you to be willing to admit that the charismatics are right if this text teaches that they are. I am enough of a realist to know that few will allow this text (or any combination of passages) to totally reverse their thinking—though it has happened, and hopefully it will continue to do so where needed. I would hope, however, that the gap between charismatics and anti-charismatics (many non-charismatics I know of are also anti-charismatic) would somehow narrow, and that we would be willing to give some ground where it is required, even if we would not take the implications as far as our brother or sister might.
There is another related danger here which we must first recognize and then deal with. There is the danger of “reading back” into Acts from the Epistles, rather than “reading forward” from Acts to the Epistles. Let me illustrate what I mean. We are all waiting for the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” to occur here at Pentecost. But when we look for it, we look for a “baptism” that is defined in the Epistles, rather than to read the Epistles in the light of Acts. We therefore look for a “baptism of the Spirit” by the church at Pentecost, but we will run headlong into several difficulties.
First, we do not find a description of the “church” being baptized here, but only the apostles, and perhaps a few others. The “baptism” which is described here is not of those saved, but the occasion for those who are saved. It is the cause, not the result of the salvation of the 3,000. The message which Peter preached was very Jewish, and the promise was that the kingdom of God might come.
Second, we think of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as being very distinct from the “filling of the Holy Spirit,” but in our text they are not carefully distinguished. In this text, which describes the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (anticipated in Acts 1:4-5 and looked back on in Acts 11:15-16) the term “baptized” is not found. Instead, the text tells us that they were all “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4).
Third, we think of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” in terms of John the Baptist’s baptism and of believer’s baptism, and thus we come to this text thinking in terms of immersion. This is not based upon the origin of the expression “baptized” as John the Baptist used it, but upon later references to “baptism” in the New Testament. Being an immersionist, it troubled me greatly to discover that the term baptism is not found in the Old Testament (in the NIV and NASB concordances at least). Would you like to know the Old Testament term which John speaks of in terms of baptism? It is the expression found several times in our text—“pour out.” It is difficult for an immersionist (I think I still am one, incidentally) to admit that the Old Testament terminology for baptism has a strong kinship to sprinkling or pouring.
This danger of “reading back” into Acts from the Epistles must be acknowledged. Instead of “reading back,” let us look at Acts as giving us a foundation, a historical context for that which will be more formally stated in terms of definitions and doctrines. And let us beware of those definitions or doctrines which ignore or contradict the content of Acts.
The Approach of this Lesson
In this lesson, I will first explore what happened at Pentecost, as described by Luke in verses 1-4. We will consider also who those were who experienced the “outpouring of the Spirit” and who those were who witnessed it. Then we will turn our attention to the meaning of Pentecost as Peter explained it in his first sermon. The meaning of this event and sermon to that generation of Israelites will be summarized along with the response to Peter’s sermon. Finally, we will very briefly consider the broader meaning of this event to Luke’s first readers, as well as to those in our present age. This will be done by emphasizing the placement of this passage in the overall content and context of the Book of Acts.
Observations on the Passage as a Whole
First, the context is clearly “Jewish” in Acts chapter 2. The events take place in Jerusalem. The apostles are all Jews (Galileans, too). Peter’s message is rooted in Old Testament prophecy, prophecies given to Israel. Peter speaks of God’s coming judgment on Israel, and calls on the “men of Israel” to repent, offering not only forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, but the kingdom as well (clearly implied).
Second, Luke’s emphasis is not on the spectacular phenomenon of the sound of a rushing wind, or of tongues, but on the meaning of the phenomenon. We cannot deny the phenomenon which are described here, but these are not the focus or the emphasis. A simple observation of the amount of space (the law of proportion) devoted to these spectacular events shows this to be true. There are but four verses in this long chapter which deal with the phenomenon. There are nearly twice as many verses devoted to the places from which the men witnessing the events have been born. And there is by far the most attention given to the meaning of the event, as explained by Peter in his sermon.
Third, even when the text deals with the spectacular, the focus is not on the individual on whom the Spirit has fallen, but on those who witness it. So often the subject of tongues, for example, is dealt with largely in terms of the tongues-speaker, but here the emphasis is only on the tongues-hearer. The gifts of the Spirit are not primarily for our benefit, but for the edification of others. Self-centeredness can quickly arise in this area, as elsewhere. Was this, in fact, not the problem of the disciples? When they thought of power, they thought of their position and prestige, and of their ranking with others. Jesus talked of power in terms of service. The strong are to minister to the weak, not to themselves.
Fourth, the “Pentecost” of Acts chapter 2 is but the first of four “pentecosts.” There are four “pentecosts” in Acts: Acts 2:1-4; Acts 8:14-25; Acts 10:44-48 (cf. 11:15-18); Acts 19:1-7. It is my conviction that we cannot understand the first “Pentecost” of Acts 2 apart from a study of all of the “pentecosts” of Acts. Thus, our study is but an introduction, and our conclusions must be subject to further information, which Luke will supply.
Fifth, Peter’s explanation of Pentecost here is given to a specific audience, telling them all that they needed to know, but not all that there was to know. Peter has not given a full explanation of the meaning of Pentecost in chapter 2. It is Luke, in this Book of Acts, who will supply much more of an explanation of its long-term meaning. Peter told this group of Jews what they most needed to know. Peter himself does not yet seem to understand the full implications of Pentecost, as can be seen from chapters 10 and 11, and beyond.
The People and the Phenomenon of Pentecost
When Jesus told the disciples to wait until they were endued with power, He only told them that it would not be many days until this took place (Acts 1:5). The actual day was the “day of Pentecost.” Pentecost was one of the three major celebrations of Israel,[6] which every Israelite was to observe:
“The day of Pentecost was so called because it fell on the fiftieth day after the presentation of the first sheaf to be reaped of the barley harvest, that is, the fiftieth day from the first Sunday after Passover (pentekostos being the Greek word for ‘fiftieth’). Among Hebrew- and Aramaic-speaking Jews it was known as ‘the feast of weeks’ (Ex. 34:22a; Deut. 16:10) and also as ‘the day of the firstfruits’ (Num. 28:26; cf. Ex. 23:16a) because on that day ‘the firstfruits of wheat harvest’ (Ex. 34:22a) were presented to God.”[7]
It seems worthy of note that this is the only major feast of Israel which was not directly rooted in some event in Israel’s history. We know from Paul’s words in Colossians that it was, at least, a “mere shadow of what is to come” (Colossians 2:17). While there must be a typological or symbolic deeper meaning in the feast of Pentecost, Luke does not inform us of what this was. Thus, I shall pass on as well, knowing that there is more here than meets the eye.
The phenomenon of Pentecost was spectacular. First, there was a loud sound, like the sound of a mighty, rushing wind, but only “like” it. This perhaps “tornado-like” sound seems to be that which drew the large crowd to the place where the apostles were gathered. The sound of their speaking in tongues was probably not that loud. There was also the sight of the fire-like tongues which divided themselves among those present in that room. This sight was surely seen by those present in the room. It is not so certain whether or not the spectators who were attracted there by the great sound saw it—perhaps so (cf. verse 33).
This loud sound and the accompanying flames which descended[8] may well be a fulfillment of prophecy, or at least have some Old Testament background as a symbol of God’s coming judgment:
“What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can consecrated meat avert your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice.” 16 The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken. The LORD Almighty, who planted you, has decreed disaster for you, because the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done evil and provoked me to anger by burning incense to Baal (Jeremiah 11:15-16).
The Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire (Isaiah 29:6; cf. also 30:27-33).
Most significant was the speaking in tongues. These “tongues” were languages, the native tongues of those who had gathered. Everyone who on whom the Spirit fell seems to have spoken in tongues. No other gifts or manifestations are mentioned. The precise logistics of how this took place is not clear, but every man did hear a Galilean speaking in his own native language. This, of course, would exclude the native Hebrews, who prided themselves for not ever having lived outside of the land of promise, and who would thus have no foreign tongue which he could understand. While the languages differed, the content of the utterances was the same in essence: the “mighty deeds of God” (2:11).
This is, in my estimation, the first instance of “tongues” in the Bible. While the “filling of the Spirit” produced prophecy and other phenomenon in the Old Testament, only now is tongues found. Why? Because I think this was, in and of itself, a sign. It was a sign that the gospel was going to be proclaimed to and received by men of every nation. God was to be praised not only in the nations, but by them. This, incidentally, was something which the apostles did not fully grasp either. Peter will only slowly, and not irreversibly, come to—ala Acts 10-11, Galatians 2.
It is interesting that while these men all heard the “mighty deeds of God”[9] in their native languages, they heard the gospel in Peter’s native tongue. The gospel was not preached in tongues; it was preceded by tongues. The gospel was proclaimed in the native tongue of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, which I assume to be Aramaic.
I wonder if those who were speaking in tongues understood what they were saying. These who were speaking in tongues were all Galileans (2:7). It would seem that they would all be speaking languages they did not know and would not understand apart from the gift of interpretation. We are simply not told what the speakers felt or understood, for the focus of Luke is on the audience.
All of the spectacular phenomenon that are described come about suddenly and take the group by surprise. It is nothing which they particularly expected. It is nothing which they brought about. God sovereignly poured out His Spirit, with the manifestations He chose. The disciples were “sitting” as this took place, indicating their passivity. They were, as it were, at rest as this happened. God works in us, not due to our striving, but due to our resting and abiding in Him.
One of the problems is determining just who is to be included in the “all” that Luke spoke of—”And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues” (verse 4). From the immediate context of chapter one (verse 15 in particular), we might conclude that the number of those on whom the Spirit was poured out was one hundred and twenty, which would have included the apostles. On further study and consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it was only the apostles who experienced the gift of tongues at this moment. I will try to explain why I have come to this conclusion.
The event described in verses 15-26 of chapter 1 takes place during the (approximately) ten days between the ascension of our Lord and Pentecost. There were one hundred and twenty gathered when Matthias was selected as the twelfth apostle. Statements prior to this seem to suggest that those on whom the Spirit fell, or at least who spoke with tongues at Pentecost, were only twelve in number. When Jesus gave the Great Commission to the disciples and promised them power from on high, He did so to the eleven, according to Matthew (28:16ff.), the eleven by themselves, according to Mark (16:14ff). Luke’s Gospel is more ambiguous because all of our Lord’s post-resurrection appearances, as well as His ascension, are lumped together, not distinguishing different times, places, or groups of people.
The account of Acts 1:1-5 also seems to set the apostles apart. Those referred to by “they” or “you” in verses 6-11 is not defined until we get to verses 12 and 13. Take note of who is named as the “they”:
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers (Acts 1:12-14).
The “they” are thus defined as the eleven, shortly to become the twelve, once again, with the addition of Matthias.
It was the apostles who were called to be witnesses to the resurrection of the Lord, and it was they who were to lay down the terms of salvation (cf. Matthew 16:18-19). It was the apostles who were especially given the promise of the Holy Spirit, who would bring Jesus’ words and teaching to their remembrance. All those who spoke in tongues were, according to the witness of those present, Galileans (2:7). Those who rejected the sign of tongues accused those who thus spoke of being drunk. Only Peter and the eleven took their stand and were defended by Peter (2:14). When Peter was finished, those who wanted to be saved looked to Peter and the eleven for the answer to the question, “What must we do to be saved?” (2:37).
As the seventy, who were to carry out much of the work of Moses, were set apart, empowered and accredited by the descent of the Spirit of Moses upon them (Numbers 11:17, 25-29), so here as well the apostles, who were to carry on with the work of the Lord Jesus, who were to speak for Him, with complete authority, were endowed with power from on high and accredited before the nation. Pentecost here is primarily a matter of the apostles. We are not told that the Spirit fell on the newly-born church of 3,000 but that the Spirit fell on the apostles and, as a result, the church was born.
Now let us pause to reflect on those who witnessed Pentecost, those for whom Pentecost was publicly performed. The emphasis of the text falls far more on those who were witnesses to Pentecost, than on those who were participants. The audience at Pentecost was made up, to a large degree at least, of “devout men” (verse 5). These were not only Jews, but devout Jews. I would understand this to mean that they were, like Simeon and Anna, Elizabeth and Zecharias, Mary and Joseph, looking for the kingdom of God and for its Messiah. Many of the spectators had come from all over the world. Some may have come just for this feast, but the great distance and their piety would suggest that they had immigrated to Israel, knowing that the King would manifest Himself here, and that their hopes were to be fulfilled here. It would seem then that they were originally from other parts of the world (and thus their native tongues were those in which the apostles spoke of the mighty deeds of God), but whose faith and hope caused them to move to the promised land.
In verse 14 Peter referred to his audience with these words: “Men of Judea, and all you who live in Jerusalem.” My inclination is to see this as Peter’s recognition of the two major groups present: (1) those who were native Hebrews (“Men of Judea”), and (2) those who had immigrated to Jerusalem and were living there (“Hellenistic Jews”).[10] This two-fold division is evident in Acts chapter 6. Indeed, this distinction seems to have been the basis of discrimination and bitterness:
Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food (Acts 6:1).
It may very well be that the devout Jews, who were largely Hellenistic Jews, were the ones who sincerely wanted to know what Pentecost meant. It may also be that the native Jews were those who not only did not speak any foreign tongues (and thus could not hear the praise of God in these tongues) but were those who accused the apostles of drunkenness. As the power of the Spirit in the life of Jesus was attributed to Satan by those who rejected Him, so the manifestation of the Spirit here was attributed to alcohol. There is always a ready excuse for those determined not to believe.
Peter’s Explanation of Pentecost
(2:14-36)
The question has been asked of Peter and the other apostles: “What does this mean?” (verse 12). Peter will now take his stand, along with the rest of the apostles, and give them the explanation of Pentecost, its meaning, and its implications.
The first thing Peter did was to answer the charge of some that they were drunk. He denies this charge, not on the basis that none of them ever touched wine, but on the fact that it was too early in the morning—the “third hour of the day” (verse 15), or 9 a.m.[11] It was not only untrue (a simple denial probably would not have convinced them), it was unreasonable (this would carry greater weight).
Peter did not hesitate to tell his audience what Pentecost did mean. He quickly turned their attention to the prophecy of Joel and specifically to his words recorded in Joel chapter 2, verses 28-32:
17 ‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; 18 EVEN UPON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT
And they shall prophesy. 19 ‘AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS TO THE SKY ABOVE, AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BENEATH, BLOOD AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE. 20 ‘THE SUN SHALL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
21 ‘AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.’
The phenomenon of Pentecost was not the result of “spirits” (alcohol), but the Spirit. The prophet Joel foretold of the time when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all mankind. If the Spirit of God had been poured out in the Old Testament times, it was on a few people who had specific tasks to perform. In the future, however, the Spirit would be much more widely poured out and not just upon Jews, but upon “ALL MANKIND” (Acts 2:17).
Peter was thus claiming that what these Jews had witnessed was the outpouring of the Spirit which Joel foretold. But there was much more to it than that. The question was not so much the source of this phenomenon, but the meaning of it. Peter would tell them, but it was not all good news. In the context of Joel’s prophecy, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a sign which was to precede the coming “day of the Lord” ( Acts 2:20; cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14). The “day of the Lord” was not only the day when the kingdom of God would be established on the earth and God’s promised blessings would be poured out on His people, Israel. It was to begin with judgment.
It is of this judgment which Joel spoke in his prophecy. It is very evident in that portion of Joel which Peter quoted. He spoke much more of the judgment of God than of His blessings. Israel must first be judged and purged of her sins and then blessings could come. The outpouring of the Spirit was said by Joel to be a warning that the time of judgment was at hand. Fortunately, the last verse cited by Peter was the promise of salvation, to all who called upon the Lord (2:21). Before Peter will tell his audience about this salvation, he will explain the specifics of the judgment which looms large before them, from which they could be saved.
In verses 22-24 Peter lays the charge against the people of this city, the people who stand before him:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—23 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 “And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its powers.
Jesus the Nazarene presented Himself to His people in Jerusalem, even as the prophets had foretold. Jesus came not only with the claim to be the Messiah, but God Himself testified to His identity and authority through the signs and wonders He performed through the Holy Spirit.
In spite of this, Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And not “Israel” in some general sense; those hearing Peter rejected His claim to be Messiah. The One whom God accredited, they rejected. Worse yet, they nailed Him to a cross. This was all within the sovereign plan and purpose of God, but they put Him to death in an evil conspiracy which involved the Gentiles as well. God’s purposes were not overthrown in all of this, for He raised Jesus from the dead.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Peter will first demonstrate the necessity of Christ’s resurrection and then he will spell out its implications. He told this audience that it was impossible for Him not to be raised. As proof, Peter turns to Psalm 16, a psalm of David. He quotes these words from the psalm:
‘I WAS ALWAYS BEHOLDING THE LORD IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, 26 ‘THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL ABIDE IN HOPE; 27 BECAUSE THOU WILT NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. 28 ‘THOU HAST MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; THOU WILT MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH THY PRESENCE.’
In this psalm, David reveled in the inheritance which God had prepared for him and promised to him. The blessings to which David looked forward were largely “heavenly blessings” as I understand his words. Note the words in verse 11 which conclude David’s psalm:
Thou wilt make known to me the path of life; In Thy presence is fullness of joy; In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever (NASB).
What is the basis of David’s confidence in these future blessings? How can he know he will experience them? Will they not be terminated by his own death? David’s answer seems to be this: “My future rests in God, and specifically in my own offspring, the Messiah, whose kingdom will be eternal” (cf. 2 Samuel 7:14). “I know that I will die, but my future rests in God’s Holy One, who cannot be held by death or the grave.” David somehow knows that His Savior will die, but this does not shake his faith, for he also knows that death cannot hold him. His Savior may die, but he will not stay dead. He will die, but His flesh will not see corruption. Since David’s future rests on His Messiah, his future is secure, even after his own death, for God has made known to David the “path of life” (verse 16). David will rise from the dead, to enjoy the blessings God has promised him because His Messiah will rise from the dead.
When David spoke of resurrection in this psalm, Peter pointed out, he was not speaking of his own resurrection but of his Son’s resurrection. David’s tomb was still there, and it was occupied—with David! The empty tomb was that of Jesus, the Nazarene. David was speaking of Jesus in Psalm 16, and the empty tomb was proof of that. The Old Testament taught both the necessity of the death of Messiah and of His resurrection.
If prophecy was one line of evidence, pointing to the resurrection, Pentecost was another. Pentecost was not just a fulfillment of God’s promise, it was the pouring out of the Spirit as proof that Jesus had risen from the dead. John the Baptist had said that Jesus would pour out the Spirit, that He would baptize with fire and with the Holy Spirit. And he was absolutely right! Having been raised from the dead, He was also ascended into heaven. The outpouring of the Spirit was from above, where Jesus now was, at the Father’s right hand. Both prophecy and Pentecost were proof of Jesus’ resurrection.
The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is not only a fact, it is a truth loaded with implications, very distressing implications. If Messiah is now in heaven, at the right hand of the Father, for what is He waiting? The answer was given in Joel chapter two, but it is also to be found in Psalm 110:1, which Peter now cites:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET.”’
Having been raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Christ is now acclaimed Lord. He is given full power and authority, the right to reign. Then what delays the establishment of His kingdom? Psalm 110 tells us: before He can reign, the Father must put all of His enemies under His feet. The delay in the establishment of the kingdom is only until the enemies of the Messiah are put down. To sum it up, God has made this Jesus “both LORD and Christ” (verse 36). This is a very pregnant expression, but at minimum it means that Jesus is not only the Messiah who was rejected and put to death, but He is the LORD who is returning to reign, just as soon as His enemies are put down.
And just who might those enemies be? The answer to this question was all too clear from Peter’s message. They had rejected and crucified the Messiah. God had raised Him from the dead, and He was soon to subdue all of Messiah’s enemies. God was soon to bring judgment upon this generation. Jesus had spoken of this. Joel foretold it. And Psalm 110 spoke of it as well. The outpouring of the Spirit was not good news, but bad news. All except for the last verse of Joel’s prophecy which Peter cited,
“And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved” (verse 21).
No wonder Peter’s audience is cut to the heart (verse 37). They need no prompting, no persuasion, to ask what it is that they must do to be saved and to be delivered from the wrath of God. The answer is short, but profound. They must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Jesus the Christ, the anointed One, the Messiah). Doing so, their sins will be forgiven, they will be saved from God’s wrath, and they will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit, the firstfruits of the kingdom to come.
Verse 40 is a further clarification of Peter’s words of application. What is most important to see in these words is that there are two senses in which the Israelites of that day were saved by their repentance and faith. They were saved, first of all, from the coming wrath of God upon that city and that generation, for rejecting Messiah and putting Him to death. They were also saved from God’s eternal wrath and assured of eternal life and the blessings of His promised kingdom.
Conclusion
The application for Peter’s audience was simple and straight-forward. The day of God’s judgment was near. They were guilty of rejecting Jesus of Nazareth, who had the testimony of God that He was Israel’s Messiah. If they repented, they would be saved from God’s coming wrath, and better yet, they would enter into the promised kingdom. If they did not, judgment was imminent.
It’s simple, but there is no more important decision, no more urgent matter, than this. The application for us is identical, in principle. While God’s wrath was poured out on Jerusalem in 70 A.D., there is a coming day of judgment which will precede the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth. You and I have also learned of Jesus of Nazareth. He is the King who will come to judge and then to reign. He is also the One who bore the penalty for our sins. While we may not have been in that crowd which called for His death, we have just as wickedly rejected Him, and were we given the chance, we would have done just as Peter’s audience had done.
There is a coming day of judgment for us, one way or the other. That day of judgment may come before our death or it may come after, but there is a day of judgment (Hebrews 9:27). To the threat of eternal judgment is God’s offer of salvation, to all who will “call upon the name of the Lord.” By admitting your sin, and by trusting in Jesus of Nazareth as God’s Messiah and your Savior, you will be forgiven, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and look forward to the coming kingdom of God and all of its blessings. Have you, in simple faith, done this? I pray that if you have not, you will, even now.
! Lesson 5:
Putting Pentecost in Perspective
(Part 5)
The Firstfruits of Pentecost
(Acts 2:41-47)
Introduction
Suppose for a moment that you walked into the church foyer, and it was filled with booths. One or more of those were real estate booths where you could list your home for sale without even leaving church. There would also need to be a pawn shop, a used car lot, and so on. If you had not expected to find such things in the church, you might well turn to someone and ask what all these booths were doing there.
The response to your question might be that these businesses had been set up in the church to facilitate Christians who wanted to be obedient to the teaching of Acts chapter 2. In responding to just what this “teaching” was, it could be explained that the early—indeed the oldest—church (isn’t older always better?) was one that sold all of its possessions and gave the money to those in need. Thus, today you could come to church, sell your house and all your goods, give the proceeds to the church, and worship, all at one time.
You need never worry about this kind of thing happening in our church, but it happens all of the time with the cults. There are many cults which require their “converts” to give up all their possessions as the “right of passage” into the group. They may or may not base their requirement on the Bible, but were they to do so, Acts 2:41-47 would probably be one of their proof texts.
(Incidentally, if we were to conclude that the practice of the first church, the church born at Pentecost, were indeed setting a biblical precedent, a biblical pattern for all Christians to follow, I wonder how many of us would be willing to obey? In our materialistic culture, this would probably be the acid test of true faith.)
The Book of Acts does pose a dilemma for anyone who reads it with a heart tuned to the will of God. What should one make of the example of the early churches? Is everything found in Acts chapter 2, for example, a kind of standard? If the Spirit fell on the apostles at Pentecost and on other groups of believers later on in Acts (i.e. chapters 8, 10, and 19), does this mean that we have a right to expect it to happen, in the same way, to us? And if the early saints sold their possessions and gave the money to the poor, is this saying that God expects the same practice of us?
The Bible poses many tensions for the one whose heart is tuned to God, and who seeks to obey not only His direct commands but also to do anything which pleases Him. What commands of the Bible are we to obey today? Are parents to bring their disobedient children before the church to be stoned? Are we to circumcise our children? Should we expect, and even demand, that signs and wonders occur in our church and through us? And when we read in the New Testament that we are to “greet one another with a holy kiss,” are we being disobedient when we do not literally carry out this instruction, found several times in the epistles and by more than one apostle? For those who want to take the instructions of the Bible literally, they will find that they cannot (e.g., stoning their disobedient children) or will not (e.g. selling their possessions and giving to the poor) do so. For those who have a quick and ready excuse for not taking the Scriptures literally, there will always be a logical explanation for our not doing the difficult or the painful. What then is the answer? How do we determine what practices and instructions of the Bible are for us to take literally? And what do we do with the practices and precepts which we do not take in a starkly literal way?
Our text provides us with an excellent opportunity to sharpen our biblical methodology, as well as providing us with a powerful message. If we are to come to grips with our text in a meaningful way, we must first understand what Luke is describing. We must understand what characterized the first church, the church in Jerusalem. Second, we must seek to understand what this means for us. How do we interpret and apply the practices of the first church? In order to do this, there is a third matter of great urgency, and that is to arrive at some set of guidelines, some kind of approach, to the practices and precepts which we find in the Word of God. If we do this, we will be much better able to determine whether, for example, we are all required to sell our possessions as these early saints did.
The Approach of this Lesson
The approach of this lesson will be to attempt to articulate a method by which we can study a passage of the Bible (not just in Acts) and seek to determine both its meaning (interpretation) and its message (application). After doing this, we will take one problem area from our passage and seek to determine its meaning and message. We will next attempt to articulate an approach to the Book of Acts (and other books of the Bible as well). Finally, we will conclude with a look at some of the characteristics of the early church and suggest their meaning and message for us.
A Suggested Approach to the Book of Acts
The Book of Acts is a description, a description of the birth of the church and of the expansion of the gospel as an extension of the Gospel of Luke. To put the matter in words more closely approximating those of the author, it is an account of all the Holy Spirit continued to do and teach through the apostles, which Jesus began to teach and to do in His earthly ministry. The Gospels are an account of Jesus’ teaching and practice. Acts is an account of the teaching and practice of the apostles. While the Gospels and Acts focus on practice, we might say that the epistles focus on principles.
If we are to understand any text in Acts, we must first begin with the text itself. What does the passage say? What is Luke describing? We must seek to understand this in the light of the entire book. We must therefore understand Pentecost in Acts 2 in the light of all of Acts. For example, is the phenomenon described in Acts 2 consistently found elsewhere?[12] Does Luke inform us that what we see in Acts 2 is a general experience or a special one?[13] Having carefully considered the preaching and/or practice of our passage in Acts, we must go back in order to look for a precedent. Jesus commissioned the apostles to “go therefore” not only preaching the gospel and baptizing, but “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20). Thus, we must look for a precedent in the Gospels to the practice of the church in Acts. Is what we see in Acts obedience to what Jesus taught in the Gospels? (We should also look even further back, as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount, to the teaching of the Old Testament. Paul and the other apostles did this also—cf. 1 Corinthians 9:8-10; 14:34.) Finally, we must go to the epistles of the New Testament to find principles and precepts which guide and govern that which is described in Acts.
The following approach to Scripture results in:
(1) A careful examination of the passage we are considering.
(2) A careful examination of the context of that passage, which includes the teaching of the book as a whole.
(3) Seeking biblical precedent in the Old Testament and the Gospels.
(4) Seeking precepts (commands) and principles in the epistles, pertaining to this matter.
A Case Study in Acts:
Having All Things in Common
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need (Acts 2:44-45).
Let us take this one segment of our text, and seek to deal with it using the approach spelled out above. We will first consider the background of our text and then make some overall observations about the passage.
Background
Pentecost began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, resulting in a great noise, tongues of fire, and the apostles speaking the praises of God in the native tongues of those present. Peter’s sermon explained what had taken place in a very forceful way. He told his audience that what they saw and heard was part of the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Their speaking in tongues was an evidence of the outpouring of the Spirit of which Joel foretold. If Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled, it also meant that the “Day of the Lord” was approaching, a day which would end in blessing for Israel but which would commence with judgment. Peter went on to suggest exactly what that judgment would entail (2:22-24). They had rejected the One whom God attested to be the Messiah, through miracles, and wonders and signs. Within the plan and purpose of God, they had put God’s Messiah to death—Jesus of Nazareth. God had raised Him from the dead, however.
The resurrection of Jesus should not be regarded as anything new, for David had spoken of this as a prophet. In his psalm, Psalm 16, he spoke of his hope as being based on the presence of God. His offspring would carry on the Davidic line, and one of His seed would fulfill God’s promise to him (David—2 Samuel 7:14) of an eternal throne. But how could this be if David’s son died, just as he would? His “Son,” David knew, would be his Lord, and thus He would be God in the flesh. As the living God, His flesh would not be allowed to corrupt. Even if He died (or was put to death), He would be raised. David was not speaking of himself, for his grave was nearby. He spoke of Jesus, his Son, whose empty tomb was nearby.
The final punch came from Peter’s reference to Psalm 110. Not only had Jesus been raised from the grave; He had ascended to the right hand of the Father. Psalm 110:1 indicated what was next on the program. God was to put the enemies of His Son under His feet. The next step, indicated by Joel 2 and Psalm 110:1 was the judgment of God’s enemies, and those enemies were those who had rejected His Son.
The impact was incredible. Cut to the heart, they asked Peter and the other apostles what they should do. Peter told them to repent and to be baptized, and thus to be saved from that evil generation and the horrible fate which would someday befall them. Approximately 3,000 did believe and were baptized. It is this group of people who will now be in focus.
Some Initial Observations Concerning our Text
First, Acts 2:41-47 is but the first description of the earliest church. Acts 2 is the beginning of the book, a part of the whole. If we are to understand Luke’s meaning in chapter 2, we must do so in the light of his entire work and not just this first portion.
Second, there is a clear process of development in the Book of Acts. If the doctrine of progressive revelation applies to the whole Bible, so it applies to the whole of any one book of the Bible. Luke is recording the progressive development of the church and even of the apostles’ understanding of the gospel. We cannot come to broad, general, conclusions apart from studying the entire book. We must withhold judgment and comment until we have considered the part in the light of the whole.
Third, it will become increasingly clear that there is a very obvious parallel between the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. If the ministry of the apostles parallels that of their Lord, so does the response of the people of Jerusalem and their leaders to the apostles parallel Israel’s response to her Messiah. There will be other parallels evident later on as well, such as the parallel drawn by Luke between Peter, his preaching and ministry, and Paul.
Fourth, we are still in the first section of Luke’s account of the birth and development of the church, which is the Jewish phase. We are still in Jerusalem. The apostles and the church are daily going to the temple to worship and pray. That will end in chapter 8, but not until then. The Gentiles will be drawn into God’s plan of redemption and into His church, but that is yet to come.
Fifth, the emphasis of these verses is corporate, not private or individual. The focus of these verses is on the church as a whole, not on the individual aspects and outworkings of faith in Christ.
Sixth, the description of the character and conduct of the earliest church, found here in Acts 2, is that of its total life and lifestyle, not just that of its corporate worship. This is, for me, a critically important realization. I thought for a long time that the four elements found in Acts 2:42 were those elements contained in its gathering for worship. But interestingly enough, worship is not one of the four ingredients. I now believe that these four elements are the four fundamentals of Christian life, but they need not be found in the church meeting.
This is very important when it comes to church growth. We have often struggled with the maximum size of the church. Is there a certain optimum size for our church? Is there a size that is best? Can a church get too big? Can one be too small? The Scriptures never tell us of an ideal size. In fact, we find the church is very large in Jerusalem in its earliest days, and yet the churches described in the epistles seem to be “house churches” and thus quite small. How then can we conclude that there is a certain ideal size for a church?
The Jerusalem church met both “in the temple” and “from house to house.” I am now of a mind that some things can be better done in large groups, while other things may best be done in small groups, or even in private. Thus, matters like the teaching of the apostles’ doctrine might just as well be done in a large class as in a small one (granted, interaction will be affected, but there will be much greater efficiency—think of how many times Peter would have had to teach the same lesson if he taught in classes of 5!). Sharing and prayer may be more effective in small groups. I have seen large prayer meetings in India where all prayed at the same time, but this seemed confusing (perhaps this is only my cultural bias).
Seventh, these verses are a description of the conduct of the earliest church, in response to the miracle of Pentecost and to the preaching of the gospel by Peter. This is an account of the first preaching of the gospel and of its results in the lives of those who believed and were saved.
Eighth, this description provided by Luke focuses our attention on three specific groups: (1) the apostles; (2) the church; and, (3) the unbelieving community of people who looked on, but who did not, as yet, come to faith. We will begin our study of this text by looking at each of these three groups and what Pentecost did to them.
Case Study:
The Practice of the Church and its Progress in Acts
One of the biggest problems with understanding the practice of the early church here is rooted in a failure of some translations. For example, the New Jerusalem Bible renders our text,
The faithful all lived together and owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and shared out the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed.
From this rendering, one would conclude that all the saints sold all their possessions, all at one time, and then lived together in some kind of communal dwelling. This is clearly not the case. In their commentary on this text, Carter and Earle point out that the tenses of the verbs, if properly rendered, would produce this translation:
“And from time to time they were selling their possessions and goods, and were parting them to all, according as from time to time any man had need.”[14]
Thus, there was not one great sale, but an on-going process, in which needs which arose were met by the sale of some property. People retained ownership of their goods but sold goods from time to time to meet the pressing needs of others.
Several things characterize the generosity of the early church as described here.
(1) The sale of goods was voluntary. There is no indication of this taking place by compulsion. This will be confirmed in Acts 5.
(2) The sale of goods took place spontaneously and not in some orchestrated way.
(3) We may well conclude that giving was done directly, from the donor to one in need. This is no intermediary mentioned here, no “middle man.”
(4) The emphasis falls on the church caring for its own. Luke informs us that they shared everything in common, and this is explained by the fact that when one was in need, another sold some possessions and met the need. Thus, the church was taking care of its own here.
As the Book of Acts proceeds there is a development, a clear sense of progress evident. In Acts chapter 4 we have a further definition. Here we are told,
… not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common to them (Acts 4:32).
This is a very significant detail. It was not that people gave up possession of all their goods but that they gave up ownership of them. Their things still belonged to them; they had them in their possession, but they did not claim to own them. They regarded themselves as stewards of their possessions, and thus they did not seek to hoard them. When another was in need of their possessions (or the money the sale of them would produce), they put that item up for sale and gave the money to meet the need.
Another development is found in Acts chapter 4. In this case, the meeting of the needs of others in the church was handled more institutionally. The money was not given directly to a needy person, but was “laid at the apostles’ feet” (4:35). Now there seems to be a kind of “needy fund” which is managed and disbursed by the apostles.
The incident with Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5 (verses 1-11) sheds further light on Acts 2:44-45. Peter made it very clear to Ananias that the sale of his property was a “free-will decision” on his part. He was not in any way obliged to act as he did. He neither had to sell his property nor to give any of the proceeds if he did. Further, he could have given any part of the proceeds, rather than all of them (v. 4). His sin was not that of keeping part of the money, but of lying that he had given all of it (v. 4).
In Acts chapter 6 (vss. 1-6) we find even further institutionalization. The care of others becomes more and more organized and structured. The meeting of the needs of others was diverse. Some had occasional, emergency, needs. Others, like the widows, had a daily need. Thus, the widows were cared for consistently. Somehow, however, things were not as orderly as they should have been and some were discriminated against while others seemed to be more favored. Thus, the apostles appointed a group of spiritual men to oversee this task, so that it was done in a more orderly and impartial way.
Two more observations seem justified in the light of several of these texts.
(1) We are not told that everyone sold their possessions.
(2) We are not told that people sold all their possessions
Luke’s description is a general one. He is describing the conduct of the church in general, not the conduct of all the saints, without exception. Thus, Peter could speak to Ananias and Sapphira as he did about their possessions. They did not need to sell them, and they did not need to give all. Barnabas, we are told, “owned a tract of land” and sold it (4:36-37). This does not mean, necessarily, that Barnabas did not own other property. The church in Jerusalem continued to meet “from house to house,” so they surely did not live in one big communal house. It would seem obvious that many retained the possession of their homes and that this is where they met.
Acts chapter 11 provides us with information about a significant expansion in the vision and generosity of the church. Here it is the church at Antioch which, on hearing of a coming famine in Judea, determined to share with the saints in need there (11:27-30). While the church is still caring “for its own”—for fellow believers—it is now demonstrating a much broader definition of the church. The generosity has developed from helping one’s neighbor, one whom a person knew well and to whom he directly gave (Acts 2), to a more collective sharing (Acts 4), and finally to a kind of “international” generosity (Acts 11).
A Precedent for the
Practice of the Church in Acts
Luke has given us a description of the generosity of the early church. We now need to look for a biblical precedent for their conduct. Time does not permit us to search out the Old Testament, but I believe it is clear that God instructed His people to care for the needy, especially the “widows and orphans,” but also the “strangers,” the foreigners, the “Gentiles.”
When we come to the Gospels, we discover that Jesus had much to say about material possessions. Let me list just a few of the texts I believe serve as a precedent to the practice of the early church:
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked. 11 John answered, “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” (Luke 3:10-11).
Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (Luke 12:33).
“In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” 20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth (Matthew 19:17-22).
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount” (Luke 19:8).
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means (Luke 8:1-3).
“As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep” (Matthew 10:7-10).
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied (Luke 22:35-38).
Even before the public appearance of Jesus as Messiah, John was preaching about money and material possessions. As can be seen, he did not call for people to give up the necessities, but he did teach that when one had a spare garment, it should be given to one who had none (Luke 3:10-11).
When Jesus began to preach and teach, He made it clear that material possessions were not the essence of life. Thus, those who were to be His followers were called to turn from materialism and to trust in Him to provide for them. Not all were called to sell all that they had, but some, like the rich young ruler, were. Those who did believe in Him, such as Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8), demonstrated this by their readiness to give to those in need.
When Jesus sent out the disciples, He had them take along only the bare necessities without anything extra. They were to trust in Him to provide, and they were to be supported by those who received their message. Later on in Luke (chapter 22), however, Jesus modified His instructions. The disciples were now told to make provision for their own needs. This was because Jesus’ popularity was waning, and because many who might once have welcomed them may now oppose them. There is then some change in how much the disciples should accumulate and provide for themselves, dictated by the society in which the disciples were to minister.
Put as simply as possible, material possessions were never to be an end in themselves, a goal, or a “god.” They were a means. They could be a means of proclaiming the gospel or a means to ministering to the needs of others. It seems to me that Jesus called on all men who would follow Him to give up material things as a goal, but that those who had possessions as their god, He called upon to sell all they had. This was for the good of those so directed, like the rich young ruler. Men could not serve two masters, and thus if money were the master of a man, Jesus called on him to get rid of it so that He could be his master.
New Testament Precept and Principle
The early church can be seen to have been taking the teaching of Jesus seriously, and in many cases, quite literally. But does this mean that every Christian must do likewise? We have already seen that the practice of the churches in Acts do not provide us with a uniform, consistent practice in this matter. In Acts chapter 20, Paul instructed the Ephesian elders to follow his example in working with his own hands and thus not becoming a burden to others. In addition, he worked with his own hands to support others. It is not just by selling our possessions that we can generate the money needed to help others; it is by rolling up our sleeves and going to work (cf. also Ephesians 4:28).
The New Testament epistles have much to say on the Christian’s attitude toward material things and his responsibility to care for the needs of others. Consider these passages:
Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality (Romans 12:13).
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers (Galatians 6:10).
You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions (Hebrews 10:34).
And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Hebrews 13:16).
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (James 2:14-17).
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (1 John 3:16-17).
There is, as I understand these texts, a priority to be given to those who are members of the household of faith. This is similar to the practice of the church as we have seen it in Acts. We are to help others as well, but especially those within the household of faith (Galatians 6:10). Both James and John make it clear that true, living faith will respond to the needs of a brother, and that those who avoid meeting these needs may only be claiming faith, rather than possessing it.
It would seem to me that Paul’s words, recorded in 1 Corinthians 7, are the most directly applicable to the early church in Jerusalem, as described in Acts 2. In the light of the shortness of the time, and the nearness of our Lord’s return, men ought to live in the present in the light of the future. Those who are married, as though they were not; those who possess, as those who did not. From our Lord’s warnings and from Peter’s message at Pentecost, it was clear that those who dwelt in Jerusalem would soon see the wrath of God coming upon that generation and that city, which had rejected Messiah and put Him to death. They lived as though the time was short, and it was. The nearer we believe the Lord’s return to be, and the more eager we are to see it come, the less we will cling to the things which are seen, looking rather to those things which are not seen but which God has promised those who trust in Him and who wait patiently for His return.
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 5:1 Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. 6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 4:16–5:10).
While I do not see the Bible to be teaching that every Christian should sell all of his or her possessions, I do see it teaching (Old and New Testament) that all that we have has been given by God and that we are merely stewards of it. We are to use what God has given as faithful stewards. When we have more than enough and another has less than enough, we have the obligation to give that which we have in excess to meet the deficiency of another. I think this is the principle which Paul has laid down in 2 Corinthians:
For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. 13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality (2 Corinthians 8:12-14).
While the charity of the church in Acts chapter 2 does not prove to be the “rule” for all churches or for every Christian, it does serve as an excellent example and illustration of the change in values which the gospel brings. God may well prompt some to do likewise today, and it will be their joy to do so, just as it was a joy to the Jerusalem saints. He may not prompt others to do this. But in either case, what we have is what we have received from God, and we are required to be good stewards of it. The strong (the advantaged) are always under obligation to minister to the weak (the disadvantaged):
Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves (Romans 15:1; cf. also Galatians 6:2).
The Fruit of
Pentecost in Three Dimensions
Having looked more carefully at the matter of meeting the material needs of others, let us now look more generally at the character and conduct of the earliest church. Without going into the detailed study we have in the matter of material ministry, let us make some general observations about this infant church and suggest some areas of application to our own church and to our walk with the Lord. I have chosen to approach our text through a consideration of the character of the three groups distinguished and described in the text: (1) the apostles; (2) the general unbelieving population who looked on and who witnessed what was taking place through the apostles and the church; and, (3) the church itself. We will look most carefully at this last group, the church.
The First Dimension: The Apostles
The first group to be affected by Pentecost were the apostles. It was here, at Pentecost, that they were endued with power from on high. Peter, who formerly denied his Lord, now spoke boldly, indicting his audience, squarely placing the guilt for rejecting Christ on them, and speaking of the wrath of God that would fall on them if they failed to repent. So too for the other apostles.
The apostles (by my way of understanding Acts 2:1-13) were those on whom the Spirit fell and those who spoke in tongues. It is they who all stand before this group, with Peter as their spokesman (2:14). It is they who are asked what they should do by the crowd, under conviction (2:37). It is the apostles, as I understand 2:42-43, through whom God worked miracles, signs, and wonders, thus accrediting them as His spokesmen. It was the apostles who proclaimed the way of salvation, and it was the apostles who were regarded as the authoritative source of teaching and doctrine. Pentecost, and the special power which came to the apostles on this occasion, set the apostles apart from the rest. Luke clearly distinguishes the apostles as a group from the church, the rest of the saints.
This is completely consistent with what Jesus had said during His sojourn on the earth and what He taught the apostles then.
And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hades shall not overpower it. It will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-19, NASB).
It is also consistent with the teaching of the epistles. All of Acts confirms this fact as well.
How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard. God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Hebrews 2:3-4; cf. Ephesians 2:20).
It is, I think, of special significance that the author of Hebrews sets the apostles apart from others and from those who would follow, later on. The task of an apostle (at least of this specific task of apostleship) was a temporary one. They laid the foundation. They were the instruments whom God used to inscripturate that which Jesus had spoken and taught while on earth and which He purposed to reveal in His absence, so that the foundation of the church would be laid, once and for all. Apostolic succession is not biblical (in my opinion), and neither is it necessary, since this apostolic task is finished.
The Second Dimension: The People of Jerusalem
The teaching and preaching of the apostles was instrumental in the salvation of many—3,000 thus far. But there were also many who did not, as yet, come to faith and repentance. If the ministry of the apostles did not serve to convert these people, it did seem to have some impact on them nevertheless. The scoffers (2:13), who explained the phenomenon of Pentecost as the result of too much wine, seem to have been silenced, at least for a time. If the signs and wonders performed by the apostles did not convert them, they certainly caused many to stand in awe of them, nevertheless (2:43). If there was not faith, there was at least a measure of fear (this is what the text literally says, cf. the marginal note for verse 43 in the NASB). In verse 47, Luke adds that the saints had “favor” (literally, grace) with the people. Christianity may not have been personally held, but it was held in high regard, for the time being.
The popularity of the church will pass, even as our Lord’s popularity waned. Shortly, many will seek out the apostles, in hope of being healed (cf. 5:12-16). There will be “mixed emotions” it would seem, for apparently as a result of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira there was an even greater fear of the apostles (if not the church), such that at least some unbelievers feared to associate themselves with the church (or is it the apostles?—the text is a little vague here—cf. 5:13). The opposition of some of the leaders of Jerusalem quickly flared up (4:1ff.; 5:17ff.). By Acts 6-8 there are those who are eager and willing to silence the gospel by death.
The Third Dimension: The Church
The third and most important group described here is the emerging church, that body of new believers who repented and placed their faith in Jesus as the Messiah as a result of Pentecost and the preaching of Peter. Let me draw your attention to a few of the characteristics of the church as described here by Luke.
1. Identity
The church in Jerusalem, though it was newly born, had a distinct identity. Those who were in and of the church knew it, and those who were without recognized the difference between the Christians and the rest of the population of the city. Even though many of the Jews were religious and though both believers and unbelievers still went to the temple and participated in the temple worship (cf. Acts 3:1), there was a discernible difference. Those who were saved were baptized, marking themselves out. By this they indicated that it was not by law-keeping or by their good works, but rather by faith in Jesus alone as their Messiah that they were saved.
Sadly, though we hear a fair bit of talk about separation, it is very difficult to tell the saints from the heathen these days. There are some saints (or so they claim) who refuse to identify themselves with the church. And there are all too many unsaved who have entered the formal ranks of the church. The church has become almost indistinguishable from the world, and the world has greatly infiltrated and infected the church. There is not the clear identity of a Christian today as there was then.
2. Commitment and Consistency
One of the most striking characteristics of the newly-born church in Jerusalem was their commitment. They were committed to Jesus, the Christ. They were committed to one another. They were committed to meeting the needs of others. They were committed to gathering together. The key expression here is “continually devoting themselves” (2:42) and the same term rendered “continuing” (2:46, NASB). The other key term or expression is “daily” or “day by day.” Day after day these saints pressed on, committed to the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. Day after day they went to the temple and ate from house to house.
How different the church is today. People hop from church to church, looking for that group which most ministers to them. And when it is not convenient, they stay at home. When the weather permits, they go out to the lake. I am not opposed to good times, but I am saying that we are not marked by the consistency and diligence of the early church. We need little or no excuse for “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25). We need little prompting to do things which are more immediately gratifying.
3. Community
If the first church had a strong sense of identity, they also had a strong sense of community. During our Lord’s early life, the disciples, due to personal ambition, were competitive and even argued among themselves. They argued, for example, over who was considered the greatest of them. But Jesus told them that the badge of discipleship was to be their love one for another. They would, through the Holy Spirit, have a deep unity, which would be expressed by a strong community among them. One of the strongest impressions we gain from Luke’s description of the first church was their sense of community. They were continually together, in the temple, and from house to house. And they also shared everything together. They “had all things in common” (according to the definition given above).
In our culture, community is not a strong emphasis, even in the church. We live in a very individualistic age. We are, by the definition of some, an “independent Bible church.” Unfortunately, this can simply mean that we are a church of independent, autonomous people—a group of rebels. While the early church was to be characterized by diversity, the “Lone Ranger” mindset was not considered a virtue. Community is a desperate need, not only in our church, but in every church which names the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.
4. Spontaneity
I have chosen the term spontaneity, not because I find it the best term to describe the church in Jerusalem, but because I could not think of a better term. What I mean by this characterization is that the church did what it did spontaneously. It did not act out of compulsion or out of a command, but out of desire and joy. People did not begrudgingly give up their possessions and minister to the needs of others. They jumped at the chance. It was an evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
It is interesting to note that while Peter promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who repented and were baptized (2:38), we read nothing in this characterization of the church about “signs and wonders” or even the gift of tongues being spoken by the congregation. I am not suggesting that phenomenon such as tongues may not have happened, but only that Luke does not bother to report that it did.
There is a very good reason, I feel. The gift of tongues was the evidence of the outpouring of power on the apostles, just as Jesus had promised (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). But the power of the Spirit in one’s life is not necessarily proof of piety. Charisma is not the same thing as character. The qualifications which are laid down for elders and deacons in the New Testament do not mention the possession of any particular gift, and certainly not of particularly spectacular charismatic gift. They do require Christian character. Luke’s description of the church here focuses on its conduct and its character, not on its charisma (other than that evidenced through the apostles). I believe this is a clear evidence of what is most important. Samson was a man on whom the Spirit came in power, but he was no example of godly character. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was demonstrated by the miracle of generosity.
5. Celebration
Closely related to the spontaneity of the conduct of the church was its mood and atmosphere of celebration:
Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:46).
It was not a morbid sense of duty or obligation which motivated the conduct of the church but a deep sense of gratitude and of praise. If I struggled with the term “spontaneity,” I find the term “celebration” precisely the term to employ here. Everything the church did, it did as a celebration, including its sacrificial giving. Evangelism was not merely a command, a task, or a ministry; it was the praise of God, the joy of the Lord overflowing, so that men and women could not help but to speak of the Savior.
Here is perhaps the most desperately lacking ingredient of all—celebration. Worship has become a fad, and celebration can be a part of worship, but celebration is not seen only in worship; it is seen in everything we do. Celebration is the fruit of the Spirit of God, perhaps a blend of love, joy, and peace. It is that which comes when we are aware of the grace of God at work in and through us. May God grant us a Spirit of Celebration in our church and in our individual lives.
Conclusion
As I compare our church and my life with that of the first church, I find many shortcomings. These characteristics are not goals to strive for so much as they are fruits. We should not work at celebration so much as we should seek to know Him. We should, in Jesus’ words, abide in Him and in His words. We should pray that we may not grieve the Spirit, but that the fruit of the Spirit might become evident in us. May those attitudes and characteristics of the first church be found in us, by His grace, and through His Spirit.
! Lesson 6:
A Lame Excuse For Preaching the Gospel
(Acts 3:1-26)
Introduction
According to Cornelius a Lapide, Thomas Aquinas once called on Pope Innocent II when the latter was counting out a large sum of money. “You see, Thomas,” said the Pope, “the church can no longer say, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’” “True, holy father,” was the reply; “neither can she now say, ‘Rise and walk.’”[15] This story, it seems, has a somewhat anti-Catholic flavor, so let us even the scales a bit.
We Protestants pride ourselves for not having money, and yet we are seldom heard saying one word which Peter and the apostles frequently used—“give” Peter said, “But what I have I give to you.” I see help offered in the name of Jesus, but for a price. We cannot repeat Peter’s words either, not if we are honest. Observe also the way the church today tries desperately to draw crowds, but not by means of miracles; today it is done with magic shows, pony rides, and circus acts. Just this week I heard a radio commercial for special services at a church, and the drawing card, among other circus acts, was that there would be strong men showing their brute strength by blowing up hot water bottles!
The story of the healing of the lame man in Acts chapter 3 is one of the delightful accounts of the power of the risen Christ at work through the apostles. This miracle will be the second occasion in Acts for the gathering of a large crowd, and this will be the occasion for the second sermon Peter is said to have preached to the people of Jerusalem. Both the miracle and the message of Acts chapter 3 are quite different from those described in Acts chapter 2. And the results will be somewhat different. There will be a number of people saved (we see this from Acts 4:4), but there will not even be time for the people to ask what they must do to be saved. A party will arrive, as recorded in 4:1-3, who will arrest Peter and John, put them in jail, and then bring them up to stand trial the next day. Opposition to the gospel has now begun.
You will notice that there are great similarities between the miracle which we find in our text and the miracles performed by Jesus (Matthew 21) and by Paul (Acts 14). That is because, as I understand it, the Lord Jesus was at work in each case, fulfilling the Messianic promise of healing(s) of the lame, as found in Isaiah 35. Thus, when John the Baptist wavered in his faith as to whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, He pointed to the healing of the lame (for one thing) as evidence to the fact that He was the Messiah (Matthew 11).
The Structure of the Text
The third chapter of Acts falls into two major sections: (1) the miracle of the healing of the lame man, verses 1-10; and, (2) the preaching of Peter in response to the crowds who had gathered, verses 11-26. Chapter four follows immediately on: (3) the results of the miracle and Peter’s preaching, verses 1-4; (4) the trial and threatening of Peter and John, verses 5-22; and, (5) the response of the church to persecution, verses 23-31.
The Approach of this Lesson
In our study of this chapter, we shall first consider the miracle of the healing of the lame man (verses 1-10). Then we will study the message which Peter preached when the crowd gathered in response to this miracle, and the testimony of the man who was not only healed but who was dramatically demonstrating it by his leaping and praising God. We will then consider the contribution of this incident to the developing argument of Acts. Finally, we will attempt to demonstrate the relevance and application of these events to our own lives.
The Miracle
(3:1-10)
1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer, 2 And a certain man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple. 3 And when he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple he began asking to receive alms. 4 And Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze upon him and said, “Look at us!” 5 And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” 7 And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. 8 And with a leap, he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God; 10 and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to beg alms; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
For over forty years (cf. Acts 4:22) a man had suffered from an ailment which made him lame. He was born that way (3:2). He had never known the freedom of going anywhere without petitioning others to carry him there. It would seem that this man had been a beggar for many, if not most, of those forty-plus years (cf. 3:2). It may be that he had staked out a certain “territory” at the temple. At least we know that for some time this man daily was carried to the gate of the temple, a gate identified here as the “Beautiful” gate.[16] It seems the gate was this lame beggar’s station, much as a newspaper boy would find a suitable location and return there day after day.
We are not told what this man had heard about Jesus or whether he had ever tried to reach Him to be healed. It would seem that the man would have given considerable thought to Jesus during those times when He visited Jerusalem and especially that final week of His public ministry, before His death. This was a week characterized not only by daily appearances in the temple for teaching but also to heal:
And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant, and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABES THOU HAST PREPARED PRAISE FOR THYSELF’?” (Matthew 21:14-16)
Is it possible that this man had made efforts to reach Jesus and thus to be healed? The problem was that he was immobilized by his ailment. Men carried him to the temple to beg each day. There they would leave him. Then in the evening (it would seem) they would carry him back home. Perhaps Jesus passed by this lame man, but he was unable to press through the crowds or to call out loudly enough to be heard by the Master. It sounds something like a “Catch 22” problem to me. The man needed to be healed. Jesus could heal him. But he had to get to Jesus to be healed, and his lameness kept him from getting there (not unlike the situation described in John 5:1-9).
It is not altogether clear whose faith it was (primarily) that was instrumental in this man’s healing, but it would seem this man had some measure of faith (cf. 3:16). Could it be this man had hoped Jesus would heal him, but just could not get to Him? How this man’s hopes of healing must have been crushed when Jesus was led outside the city to that cross! And yet, after the death of Jesus, it was Jesus who had healed him. Let us see how it came to pass.
It was the ninth hour (cf. the “third hour” in Acts 2:15), which would have been 3:00 P.M. Peter and John were on their way to the temple to observe a regular time of prayer.[17] As they were heading toward or into the temple, the lame man was being carried to his normal post, at the “Beautiful” gate. He was not, as we so often visualize him, sitting or laying down at the gate, but only on his way. As he is approaching his station, he observes two men nearby about to go into the temple. Beggars generally seem to get attention by calling out to those who would pass by. Almost instinctively, I think, he called out with his usual petition. Here were two prospects. He might as well get right at his task.
I am not certain we can understand this account apart from having experienced a beggar or two. On my two trips to India, I saw a large number of beggars. There were so many beggars there was no way one could respond to all of them. The solution was often not to “see” any of them. But the beggars made this difficult. Those who were mobile would press themselves on you. They would approach your taxi at an intersection, tugging at your sleeve and pleading for help. Those not mobile would call our for charity. The beggar would be aggressive, something like the salesmen as you try to walk through the appliance section at Sears. You would concentrate on not seeing them as they converged on you, and you hurried to get through the section before you were trapped.
In this instance, the roles appear somewhat reversed. The beggar called out all right, but he doesn’t seem to expect anything to happen. After all, he has not yet reached his station, and they are nearly out of his territory. I think the beggar hardly looked up, for he simply expected to be ignored. Had he been directly in front of them, perhaps he would have stood a chance, but not here.
Peter and John[18] did not respond typically, however. It was not the beggar who fixed his eyes on Peter and John, but they who first fixed their eyes[19] on him. He may not have expected anything from them, but they fully intended to do something for him. It is noteworthy that Peter and John had no money to give him. Surely it was not that they were opposed to giving to the poor, but they could not give what they did not possess. They did give what they had. How fortunate for the beggar. The best he hoped for was a little money. He did not get money, but he did receive his health and mobility.
Peter seems to know from the outset (and John too) what he was going to do for this man. Somehow he knew that he had the power to heal this man, and also that it was God’s will for him to do so. There is a deliberateness to everything which Peter and John said and did. They looked intently at him. They instructed him to look at them. They said that they possessed no silver or gold, but they did have that which they would give to him. Immediately Peter commanded the man to stand up and walk in the name[20] of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene. Peter then seized the man by the right hand and raised him up.
The man who had never walked before in his life stood up with a leap, and he didn’t quit leaping.[21] What a sight that must have been. Some men would probably have dealt with such a miracle with great dignity and composure. Here was a man who had, for his whole life, been a spectacle. He earned his living by making a spectacle of himself, by drawing men’s attention to his pitiable state. Now this man would surely care little that everyone was staring at him, for he leaped about, clinging to Peter and John, praising God. It was a sight no one in the vicinity could have avoided. No wonder a crowd was attracted.
God had marvelously prepared this scene. The healed man had spent his life (or a good deal of it, it would seem) around the temple, begging. Everyone knew him—they couldn’t have avoided him. The man, and his condition, were well known by all who frequented the temple (cf. 4:16, 21). And the fact that he had been crippled from his mother’s womb was more than ample evidence that he was hopelessly disabled, and thus the miracle was a spectacular one. The people who witnessed this were understandably filled with wonder and amazement (verse 10).
The Message
(3:11-26)
11 And while he was clinging to Peter and John, all the people ran together to them at the so-called portico of Solomon, full of amazement. 12 But when Peter saw this, he replied to the people, “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this, or why do you gaze at us, as if by our own power or piety we had made him walk? “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. 14 “But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses. 16 And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all. 17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 “But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. 22 “MOSES said, ‘THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 23 “And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24 “And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. 25 “It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’ 26 “For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”
A crowd gathered, filled with wonder, not unlike that which occurred after the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Only here, there were no skeptics as there were before. In fact the problem the healing of this lame man created was that people thought too much of the apostles, Peter and John, not too little. Peter and John were heroes, first to the lame man and then to the crowd. It was they who were given credit for the miracle. Peter’s first words to the people, as at Pentecost, were spoken to correct a misconception. Before, it was the conclusion that they were drunk. Here, it was that they were too “divine,” that is, that the healing was the result of their own power or piety.[22] Peter quickly and flatly denied this. Far from taking credit for the miracle, Peter gave the praise to God, through His Servant, Jesus.
Israel’s Guilt:
A Study in Contrasts
It is most interesting to study Peter’s message in Acts chapter 3 in comparison to his message at Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2. While there are definite similarities between the two sermons, there are these contrasts. Peter’s first sermon, in chapter two, was the result of the phenomenon of Pentecost. The second sermon was the result of a healing (both manifestations of the power of the Holy Spirit, but quite different manifestations). Peter’s first sermon was longer and was complete with specific instructions as to what men must do to be saved, in response to their question. The second sermon is interrupted by the arrest of Peter and John. While a number of people seem to have been saved, they must have been converted “on their own,” because Peter and John were not there (cf. Acts 4:1-4). Furthermore, Acts chapter two tended to focus on the last days, the “day of the Lord” as prophesied by Joel, while the second sermon tends to go back to the early days of Israel’s beginnings, to the days of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 3:13,25) and of Moses (3:22-23). Finally, the primary theme of chapter 2 was judgment (with a secondary theme of blessing), while the primary theme of chapter 3 is blessing (with a secondary theme of judgment.
In spite of (and perhaps because of) the popularity of Peter and John due to the healing of the lame man, Peter came down very strongly on the guilt of his audience for having rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Peter’s words in chapter 3 are even stronger (in my opinion) than they are in chapter 2. It is my opinion that many of those who heard this second message may well have been present at Peter’s first sermon, at Pentecost. If they had heard his first message without repenting, it is no surprise that this second message would come down even harder on his hearers.
The guilt of the people of Jerusalem is described by means of a series of contrasts. Let me point out a few of them.
First, Peter contrasted the glorification of God’s servant in His resurrection and ascension with his audience’s disowning of Him as their Messiah:
“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant[23] Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned … (Acts 3:13a).
Second, Peter contrasted Pilate’s desire to release Jesus because he felt he was innocent, with their insistence that He be put to death, convinced He was guilty, and thus worthy of death:
“… you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him” (Acts 3:13b).
In chapter 2, Peter had spoken of the death of Jesus as a joint-conspiracy of the Jews and the Gentiles (2:23), but here Pilate is represented as wanting to release Jesus but being pressured into putting Him to death, making the guilt of the Jews greater in the sense of their accusation of His guilt and being worthy of death.[24]
Third, Peter contrasted the One whom they wished to crucify with the one they wished to release:
“But you disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Prince of life, …” (Acts 3:14-15a).
Imagine it. They wanted a murderer to be set free, a wicked and violent man—a murderer, a thief, a revolutionary! They wanted the Holy and Righteous Son of God, the Prince of life, to be put to death! What an incredible evil.
Fourth, they dealt with Jesus, who was the promised “prophet like Moses,” as though He were a false prophet. Peter reminded his listeners of these words, found in the Book of Deuteronomy:
22 “MOSES said, ‘THE LORD GOD SHALL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED in everything He says to you. 23 “And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
Let us take a look at the fuller context of these words:
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” 17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).
When God was about to bring the people of Israel into the land of promise, the land of Canaan, He warned them through Moses not to do as those who lived in Canaan before them, those that He was about to expel from this land. They listened to their false gods and idols, something which the Israelites must not do (Deuteronomy 18:9-13). Instead, they must listen to God’s prophets. God would raise up, Moses said, a prophet like him, to whom they must listen (verse 15). This was in accordance with their own request on Mt. Sinai (verse 16), a citation worth reviewing:
When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” 20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.” 21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was (Exodus 20:18-21).
The people of Israel were terrified at the holiness of God, as they beheld the thunder and lightning and smoke on the mountain. They feared any direct contact with God, and they begged Moses to be their intermediary, something which God commended. The prophet, like Moses, would be an intermediary as well. And, like Moses, the carrying out of his mission would cost him His life.[25]
Peter’s use of this quotation from Deuteronomy 18 has a two-pronged impact. It was, in the first place, a reminder of Israel’s guilt. In the context of Deuteronomy 18, Israel was warned not to listen to the gods of the Canaanites. They were to listen to the prophets, particularly the prophet “like Moses.” In the final verses of Deuteronomy 18 the people were told how to discern a false prophet from a true one. That which the true prophet foretold would surely come to pass. If the prophecy of the prophet did not come to pass, that person was a false prophet[26] and should not be heeded. Indeed, that “prophet” should be put to death. Israel’s guilt was to be seen by the fact that they listened to the words of their leaders, rather than to the words of Jesus. They followed their leaders and they put to death the “prophet like Moses.” They had done the exact opposite of what God had commanded the Israelites through Moses in Deuteronomy 18.
In the second place, this quotation served as a strong word of warning. Those who failed to heed the words of Jesus, the “prophet like Moses” were warned that they would bear the consequences for it. Peter spelled it out. Those who failed to heed His words would be “utterly destroyed.” Let those who heard Peter take heed.
Israel’s Glory—Promised Blessings
Very quickly I sense an even stronger indictment in chapter 3 than I did in chapter 2. Peter did not go easy on his audience. And yet, when one looks carefully at this chapter, the dominant theme is not judgment, but blessing. While the phenomenon of Acts 2 was a sign of coming judgment, the healing of the lame man was an evidence of blessing, a foreshadowing of the messianic blessings of the kingdom (cf. Isaiah 35:4-6 above). The suffering which is most prominent in this chapter is that of Christ, not that of Israel. While the resurrection and ascension of Christ was interpreted in terms of His return to judge His enemies, here the glorification of the Lord Jesus was interpreted as a prelude to His return to bless those who have trusted in Him. The coming of the Christ is viewed as for Israel, not against her (verse 20). These blessings are called “times of refreshing” in verse 19, the “restoration of all things” in verse 21, the “blessings” promised in the Abrahamic Covenant in verse 25, and God’s blessing in verse 26.
There is a principle evident here in this emphasis on Israel’s blessings, in spite of her sin and guilt before God. It is that stated by the apostle Paul:
But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20b).
Israel’s guilt was great, but it could never outrun the grace of God. Christ died according to the plan of God, so that the sins of men might be atoned for. All those who would repent of their sins would find them “wiped away,” so that the promised “times of refreshing” might come (Acts 3:19).
Graciously, Peter attributed the sinful actions of his audience to ignorance, and ignorance it was. Where there was ignorance, there was both guilt and grace:
They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts (Ephesians 4:18).
Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13).
He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness (Hebrews 5:2).
But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance (Hebrews 9:7).
Conclusion
At first, I saw the healing of this lame man as only an “excuse” for Peter’s preaching of the gospel. I now see it as far more than this. This miracle did attract a large crowd, to whom Peter preached. But the miracle of the healing of this man also illustrated the salvation of which Peter preached. This lame man typifies man’s helpless state, and the grace of God which reaches out to touch and to save sinners. Let us conclude by giving consideration to the way in which the lame man typifies the state of lost men.
The lame man of our text typifies lost Israel
The lame man was in a hopeless condition. He was helpless, immobilized, broken. He needed to be healed. His only “salvation” was Jesus, and yet his ailment disabled him, it kept him from coming to Jesus. He would never get to Jesus on his own. He looked to the temple and to the goodness of men, but this could not deliver him. The help which the man cried out for was merely monetary—he cried out for money but hardly seemed to expect that. When Jesus was put to death, it appeared that this man’s hope of healing was gone. And yet it was the risen Jesus whose power healed him.
The Israelites, like this man, were in desperate need, and from birth. From birth, the Israelites were sinners. They were enemies of God. Their sin kept them from getting close to God, even from wanting to be near Him. This was seen by the Israelites’ request that Moses serve as a mediator between them and God. They looked to such things as the temple and their rituals. They sought God’s blessings, but these were primarily physical, material. And when Jesus came, their hopes were initially raised, but when He spoke of spiritual salvation and of giving up one’s material goods, they wanted no part of Him. They put Him to death. But through this death, man’s sins were atoned for. It was through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, that Israel’s spiritual healing was made possible.
The lame man of our text typifies all who are lost
It is not just Israelites who are lost, but all men. To play on words for a moment, when it comes to our relationship to God, to our approaching Him, we “don’t have a leg to stand on.” Our sins have separated us from God and keep us from approaching Him. But just as the apostles reached out to the lame man, giving him far more than he hoped for, or asked for, so the Lord Jesus has taken the initiative to come to fallen men, lost and helpless in their sins. While lost men do not seek God, God has sought out the lost, in the coming of Christ. By His death, man’s sins are atoned for. He takes hold of us and draws us to Himself. All those who have faith in His name, who repent of their sins, and who trust in Him, are healed and are made whole.
To all who believe, who “take heed” to the words of Jesus, there is salvation, wholeness. But to all who refuse to heed His words, there is only the expectation of the judgment which will befall all those who refuse to heed the words of the “prophet like Moses.”
The lame man also typifies many Christians
Unfortunately, this lame man also typifies many Christians. We, like him, may be in great need, and in a pitiable state—beggars. The apostles had their eyes fixed on the beggar, but they had to command him to look intently at them. He cried out for help, but of the most meager and material kind. How often do we come to God in prayer for only material things and hardly believing that God cares or that He will provide. We seem to think that our problem is getting God’s attention, when His eyes are fixed on us, to bless us. And what He wants to give us is so much more than anything we might ask or think (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-13).
And we so often attempt to attract a crowd by circus-like antics, rather than by genuine manifestations of divine power. It is not God whose attention we need to attract. It is our attention which needs to be riveted on Him. And we should believe that what He desires to give us is far greater than what we expect to get.
There is a clear evidence of the “supernatural” hand of God in our text. But there is also a clear sense of the “natural.” The disciples were acting naturally; that is, they were on their way to the temple to pray. They did not go out of their way nor did they attempt to attract a crowd. They did not have any money, but they did possess the power of the Holy Spirit, which the Lord Jesus had poured out on them. And so, when they encountered a man in need, they gave what they had; they did what they could. And when a crowd gathered, they shared their faith. A very supernatural thing took place from some very natural actions. That is the way God often works, using vessels of clay through which to manifest His grace and power. May we be faithful as vessels of clay, to be instruments in His hands, to produce marvelous things.
! Lesson 7:
Truth or Consequences
(Acts 4:1-31)
Introduction
I can’t help it. When I read this chapter in the Book of Acts I think of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice—Walt Disney’s version. I see Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer’s apprentice, using magic powers to do his work. And then, when Mickey tries to put an end to it, it only grows and grows. So it is with the gospel. Jesus came to Israel as her Messiah. There was a moment in time when Jesus’ kingdom appeared to be appealing, but it wasn’t long before Israel’s leaders decided they wanted to have nothing to do with Jesus or with His kind of kingdom. Finally, they succeeded in putting Him to death. “That’s that!,” they must have said to one another. But that wasn’t it. First of all; there was the problem of the empty tomb. Then there was the problem of the apostles, transformed by Pentecost. And now, there was the problem of a well-known beggar, crippled for more than forty years, who was healed in the name of Jesus, the One the Jews of Jerusalem rejected and put to death. The harder they tried to “lay to rest” Jesus of Nazareth, His claims and His teachings, the more the matter multiplied.
The story really begins at Pentecost, when the Spirit of God was poured out on at least the apostles, and perhaps other saints too. Filled with the power of the Spirit, Peter and John were on their way to the temple to pray, at 3:00 in the afternoon. As they approached the temple gate, the gate called “Beautiful,” they encountered a man being carried to the gate on a stretcher, a man born lame, over forty years before. This man asked for money, but he received much more. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, Peter instructed the man to get up and walk. The spectacle of this man clinging to Peter and John, following them as they walked, leaping and walking and praising God, caused a large crowd to gather. Peter preached to this crowd, giving the gospel but not fully concluding, when a party of temple guards came up and arrested them. And this is where our story takes up—in chapter 4 of the Book of Acts.
The Structure of the Text
The structure of our text, in its context, can be outlined as follows:
· The healing of the lame man—3:1-10
· The proclamation of the gospel—3:11-26
· The results of Peter’s preaching—4:1-4
· The trial of Peter and John—4:5-22
· The response of the church to persecution—4:23-31
The Approach of this Lesson
Our approach to this text will be to consider the results, positive and negative, of the miracle and of the message of Peter as described in verses 1-4. We will then try to analyze the opposition to Peter and John and the response of these apostles to their accusors. Then we will consider the response of the church (or at least to those who gathered with Peter and John) to this opposition. Finally, we shall seek to determine the meaning and the application of these things to our own Christian experience today.
The Aftermath of
the Miracle and the Message
(4:1-4)
And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed[27] because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
As they[28] were speaking, the captain of the temple police[29] and some of his men[30] arrived[31] and abruptly led Peter and John off to jail for the night. The trial was held the next day. Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin,[32] the highest Jewish civil and religious court in the land. This should signal us to the importance of this incident and to the intensity of the opposition.
Several features of this opposition from the Jewish leaders need to be noted. First, the opposition comes from the highest, most powerful civil and political body of the Jews. That which the Jewish leaders oppose is of such import that they employ the efforts of the Sanhedrin to resist it. Second, it is an opposition focused, for the time being, on the apostles, and specifically on Peter and John. Only these two apostles were arrested[33] and brought to trial the following day. Third, Luke tells us the real reason for the arrest of Peter and John: they were teaching. They were teaching the people, Luke tells us. They were teaching them in the temple. And, they were teaching as their doctrine the resurrection of the dead through the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the One Whom they had rejected and put to death.
Teaching was regarded as the right possessed only by themselves or at least “franchised” by them to those whom they approved, those who had been trained by them and whose teaching would be acceptable to them. Peter and John were not accredited by them, and yet they were teaching in the temple—their turf—and they were teaching the people, the masses. The ability to control men has always been based upon the ability to endoctrinate them.[34] For the people to be taught by someone other than themselves, and to be taught something different from that which they taught, was to lose control of their power over the masses. This was a great threat to them.
And this teaching was surely opposed to their doctrine. They had rejected Jesus as the true Messiah. They had finally convinced the masses that Jesus was a fraud so that the masses cried out for Jesus’ crucifixion. They knew that Jesus had promised He would rise from the dead (cf. Matthew 27:62-64) and that this would be the “sign” which would prove He was who He claimed to be (cf. Matthew 12:39-42). They had been unable to satisfactorily explain the empty tomb of Jesus, and now they could not explain the healing of the lame man in Jesus’ name. For the disciples to teach a resurrection from the dead through Jesus was to teach that the Jewish leaders had been wrong—dead wrong.
The fourth characteristic of the opposition to Peter and John is closely related: those who carried the torch of opposition to the gospel change from the Pharisees in the Gospels to the Sadducees[35] in Acts.[36] If all the Jewish leaders of the nation resisted and rejected the resurrection of Jesus in particular, many of these leaders rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in any form. The Pharisees rejected the resurrection of Jesus, for this would have proven them wrong, but they at least held to this doctrine in principle. The Sadducees rejected the resurrection of the dead in general and in total.
The Pharisees were the “pit bulls,” who were given a long leash by the Jewish leaders so that they persistently attacked, accused, and challenged Jesus at every point. But now the Pharisees become virtually invisible and silent. Now, it is the Sadducees who take up the torch of the opposition. The “marriage” of the Pharisees and the Sadducees was short-lived, lasting only long enough for this coalition to put Jesus to death. But now, after His death (and resurrection!), the Pharisees have a falling out. They seem to have lost heart. They will shortly turn to their former animosity and opposition to the Sadducees, as can be seen later on in Acts:
But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. And there arose a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” (Acts 23:6-9).
Fifth, the opposition of the Jewish leaders was a continuation and extension of their opposition to Jesus, though they may not have immediately recognized it as such. Jesus told His disciples there would persecution and resistance to their proclamation of the gospel:
“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me” (John 15:18-21).
“And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not become anxious about how or what you should say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Luke 12:11-12).
“But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake. It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony. So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute” (Luke 21:12-15).
Because of this, there are, as we might expect, distinct parallels between the response of these leaders to Jesus and their response to the apostles as we find in our text. Note some of these parallels:
(1) Jesus, due to His teaching and miracles, was enthusiastically received by the masses, which quickly led to jealousy and reaction by the Jewish leaders (compare Matthew 5:1ff.; 8:1-17; Mark 1 with Acts 2:43, 47; 3:11; 4:2).
(2) These leaders began to accuse and to attack Jesus, especially pertaining to His authority and teaching (compare Matthew 9:2-3; 21:23 with Acts 4:7).
(3) The Jewish leaders were accused of sin and misleading the people (Matthew chapters 5-7 and 23 with Acts 3:17; 4:11).
(4) The religious leaders were especially indignant and finally took action when Jesus “took possession of the temple,” teaching and healing people there, and thus threatening the position and authority of the leaders (compare Matthew 21:12-17; Luke 19:41-48 with Acts 4:1-22).
(5) These leaders wanted to do away with Jesus, but they feared the crowds and were thus kept from achieving their goal of getting rid of Jesus (compare John 7:32, 45-49; 11:45-57; 12:9-11 with Acts 4:13-22).
Having stated that the opposition of the Sanhedrin to the apostles was really a continuation of their opposition to Jesus, I must also suggest that this fact was only gradually recognized by the Sanhedrin and Jewish leaders, as I understand our text. Luke tells us they …
“… began to recognize them as having been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).
As I understand these words, this means that these leaders only gradually realized that that which they opposed was a continuation of the initial “problem” they had with Jesus.
Initially, I think the apostles’ teaching and ministry was opposed by the Sanhedrin for the same reasons that Jesus was opposed, but without realizing it was the same cause. We marvel at the statement that they were slow to recognize the apostles as having been with Jesus, but this can be explained. Many, perhaps most, of the top leaders of Israel (who were members of the Sanhedrin) did not come into contact with Jesus. A man like Nicodemus, for example, sought out Jesus, but secretly. These leaders did not wish to dignify Jesus by recognizing Him or His authority. They would not be seen in the crowds, listening to Him teach nor asking Him to perform some miracle. This would have indicated their own impotence.
The top leaders of Israel had their ways of infiltrating and even of opposing Jesus, without direct involvement—the Pharisees. These men (more “laymen” than official religious leaders) followed Jesus everywhere, challenging and opposing Him and His ministry. Because of men like the Pharisees and of agents like the “temple police” (Acts 4:1; cf. John 7:32), the religious leaders did not have to “lower themselves” to directly deal with Jesus. This explains why Judas was needed as a “guide” to lead the temple guard and the rest to the place where Jesus could be found and to identify Him with a kiss (cf. Acts 1:16).
If these religious and civil leaders would not have recognized Jesus, how would they have recognized His followers? It was only as the teaching of these men became a matter of public knowledge that they “pieced together” the fact that these men, whom they were now opposing, were the followers of Jesus, and thus they were still fighting the One Whom they thought they had gotten rid of—Jesus of Nazareth.
If the miracle and the message of Acts chapter 3 got the attention of the Sanhedrin, it was not overlooked by the crowds. In spite of the opposition of Israel’s top leaders, many came to faith in the Savior as a result of what happened there at the temple. Luke tells us that there were now 5,000 men who believed. It would appear to be a much larger number than the 3,000 converts mentioned in Acts 2:41, since that number seems to include men and women, whereas the 5,000 figure appears to include only men. Some of this 5,000 may have been saved before the miracle and message in the temple (cf. 2:47), but we are given the distinct impression that while some opposed the gospel in chapter 4, many accepted it. The gospel was spreading, and the church was growing, in spite of (perhaps even because of) the opposition of Israel’s top leaders.
The Apostles on Trial
(4:5-22)
Jesus had promised that it would come, and as always, He was right. Those who opposed Him and who had brought about His execution were now joining forces to do away with these two men who would cause trouble in the temple. It was a veritable “who’s who” gathered against the apostles. The rulers and elders and scribes of Israel[37] were present, along with the high priest and the whole group of those of high-priestly descent. These people made up the Sanhedrin. Most of these we have seen before at the various trials of Jesus.
There is no specific charge made against the apostles. Rather, the “trial” seems to be more of a “fishing expedition” in which the religious leaders seek to find some transgression of the law or of their traditions, giving them a handle on the situation. There is plenty of innuendo and a great deal of intimidation evident here. Perhaps they can at least succeed in scaring these men into giving up their activities. Putting the men in the center, they demand to know, “by what power, or in what name, have you done this?”
The issue is a familiar one—that of the authority of the apostles. How often Jesus was challenged in the same way. As the highest religious body in the land, this group felt they should authorize all teaching and ministry in their midst, especially that which was done in the precints of the temple. Just who did these two “nobody’s” think they were, going into the temple as if they owned the place, doing and teaching whatever they wished? There is a clear indication that any ministry performed required their approval, which was not granted. There may also be the inference that the power by which the miracle was performed (a miracle which they could not deny) was other than the power of God.[38] If they could establish any demonic involvement, they would have a case against these men.
The question, as posed by the Sanhedrin, is an especially informative one for us, for it establishes a very important definition. It links the authority or power of someone with the name by which they perform an act. In other words, to act in the name of Jesus is to act with His power, with His authority. In the Great Commission, Jesus told His disciples that all authority, both in heaven and on earth, was given to Him (Matthew 28:18). Thus, when they ministered in His name, they ministered with His authority. The apostles’ authority was none other than that of Jesus.
Peter’s response to this challenge was incredibly short and to the point. It was a response empowered by the Holy Spirit (v. 8), just as Jesus had promised (Luke 12:12). He begins by pointing out that, far from doing any evil, a sick man has been made well (verse 9). This can hardly be a crime. And as to the power through which this benevolent deed was accomplished, it was that of Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Nazarene, the very One they had rejected and put to death, but whom God had raised from the dead (verse 10). In rejecting Jesus of Nazareth, these leaders fulfilled the prophecy which foretold that the very cornerstone of God’s building would be rejected by the builders (verse 11, cited from Psalm 118:22). This cornerstone must be accepted, and those who rejected Him must repent, if they would be saved, for it was only through this name that one can be saved (verse 12). Jesus was the name by which the man was healed and through which the apostles ministered. Jesus was the only name by which any person could be saved.[39] The resurrection of Jesus proved these men to be wrong and Jesus to be the chief stone. The resurrection made the healing of this man possible, and so too the salvation of all who would believe.
It should be said that this very brief explanation and citation from Psalm 118 had a great deal of impact, for it served to remind these men of an encounter Jesus had with some of His opponents in Jerusalem shortly before His crucifixion. In Matthew chapter 21, we read of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (verses 1-11), followed by His “cleansing of the temple” (verses 12-13) and His healing and teaching there (verse 14). This resulted in the opposition of the chief priests and scribes (verse 15). When later challenged as to the authority by which Jesus acted (verse 23), He responded with a question of His own, pertaining to the authority with which John baptized (Matthew 21:23-32). It was evident that the religious leaders refused to accept John’s authority (but were unwilling to publicly reject it, due to the masses). Jesus told a story of a man with two sons, the first of which promised to obey, but did not, and the second who rebelled, but later repented. The second son, Jesus extracted from His questioners, was the better. The second son, as well, seems to represent the Gentiles, while the first represents the Jews. It was the Gentiles, Jesus said indirectly, who would be given the position of the first.
Jesus then followed up with another parable in verses 33 and following, which depicted the sins of the leaders of Israel (specifically, in the context, of those who were attacking and challenging Him). He told of a vineyard which the landowner (representing God) possessed and which he gave into the care of the vine-growers (the religious leaders of the nation Israel). In his absence, the landowner sent back for the produce of his vineyard, but his servants were all beaten and sent away or put to death. Finally, he sent his son (Jesus), whom they also rejected and put to death. Jesus got these men to say that when the owner of the vineyard returned, he would be expected to punish the evil vine-growers and to replace them with others.
It was at this point that Jesus turned their attention to Psalm 118:22 and to the fact that the “chief corner stone” would be rejected by the “builders,” just as the son of the owner of the vineyard was rejected. Jesus then went on to say to His opponents that the kingdom would be taken from them and would be given to another “nation producing the fruit of it” (21:43). Furthermore, this stone which they had rejected would fall upon them, destroying them (verse 44). The chief priests and scribes understood that Jesus was referring to them, and they wanted to seize Him on the spot, but they were prevented from doing so by the crowds who thought Jesus was a prophet (verses 45-46).
For Peter to have brought up this passage from Psalm 118 was to remind these leaders of that unpleasant confrontation with Jesus. It was to say, in effect, “Jesus told you so.” How this citation must have stung in the ears of the Sanhedrin. The One they thought they had rid themselves of was still speaking to them, through the apostles.
Just as the chief priests and scribes were powerless, at that time in the past, to do away with Jesus, so now the Sanhedrin could not do with the followers of Jesus (Peter and John) as they wished. Their inability to act decisively was, I think, the result of a combination of factors. First, the religious leaders were faced with the unpleasant (to them) fact that no crime had been committed. If anything, a good deed had been accomplished for which Peter and John should have been commended. Second, I believe these leaders were not in very good standing with Rome. They had virtually forced Pilate to put Jesus to death when he wished to release Him (Acts 3:13). If they suggested to the Roman rulers that the death of Jesus would bring peace and quiet to Jerusalem, this had not proven to be the case. They had “gone to the well” with Rome too often. They could not go back, yet another time, this quickly. Third, there was a growing gap between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, which created a lack of unity among those on the Sanhedrin. The marriage between all the various political and religious factions which was formed to do away with Jesus was short-lived. Now the Pharisees were apparently backing off. These leaders did not have the clout to pull off another execution. Fourth, the crowds were still in favor of the apostles, and the leaders knew they could not act without a measure of popular support.
Peter and John, along with the healed man, were sent out of the room. What a special delight to be left in that room, as it were, as a “fly on the wall,” overhearing the frustrated response of the Sanhedrin to the teaching and ministry of the apostles.[40] Notice that not even once did they deliberate as to what “the truth” of the matter might be. They did not ask if they could have been wrong, and Jesus (and now His disciples) could have been right. They did not even discuss the resurrection of Jesus[41] and whether or not it was true. They could not deny the fact that a most significant miracle had been performed. All they did was to consider the “consequences” of letting this movement continue. When the decision came as to whether they would pursue the “truth” or the “consequences” (to play on the name of a one-time television game show of years gone by), they opted to try to suppress the consequences, but not to consider the truth.
The actions of the Sanhedrin can thus be described as “harassment,” for this was all they could do. They could (and did) threaten the apostles. They could attempt to intimidate them. But they could not punish them. They were, at this point in time, only able to hound them which they did to the best of their (well-developed) ability.
The response of Peter and John to this trial is most enlightening. In the first place, they were not intimidated as was expected. Their boldness[42] was disarming to the Sanhedrin, who expected these men to cower and to collapse under pressure. They were particularly impressed because it was not the education, status, or accreditation of these men which made them so bold. The only thing which these men knew about the two apostles was that they had been with Jesus. Their authority was directly tied, once again, to Jesus’ authority.
Peter’s answer is a vitally important one, for it points the way to all who are forced to choose between obeying God or men. The choice between “right” and “wrong” is not left to Israel’s leaders. Peter’s words indicate that the ultimatum given them forced them to choose between obeying their authority or God’s (verse 19). Whether or not their actions were wrong in the sight of God (a crime) was a matter which they must decide. As a religious/political governing body, this was their God-given responsibility, one for which Peter implies (“before God”) they will give account. And the inference of Peter’s words is that regardless of their decision, Peter and John would persist in preaching the gospel. When man’s authority over men contradicts obedience to God, men must disobey men and obey God. The threats of the Sanhedrin are thus swept aside due to a higher authority. No human authority can order another human to disobey God and expect him to obey man, rather than God. As stewards of the gospel, they cannot be silent.
A Biblical Response to Persecution
(4:23-31)
23 And when they had been released, they went to their own companions, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is Thou who DIDST MAKE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say,
‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? 26 THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER, AGAINST THE LORD, AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’
27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. 29 “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence. 30 while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.”
31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness.
After one final and futile attempt to intimidate and silence the apostles, they were released. Peter and John returned to a group referred to (as the NASB renders it) “their own companions.” We do not know who all was included in this number, but surely it was not the entire church now consisting of 5,000 men. The two reported all that had happened to them and all that the chief priests and elders had said to them.
The first response of this group of believers may strike us as being a bit unusual. They immediately turned their attention to Old Testament Scriptures pertaining to God as the Creator of all. The marginal note in the NASB might be understood to imply that the text referred to can be found twice, once in Exodus 20:11 and again in Psalm 146:6. This is far from the case. The truth that God is the
Creator of all is a theme frequently found throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New.[43]
In Deuteronomy chapter 4 God’s promises both to judge His people Israel, and to restore them, are buttressed by the reminder that the God who promises these things is the God who made the heavens and the earth (Deuteronomy 4:32-35). In response to Assyria’s threat to beseige Jerusalem and to take Israel captive, Hezekiah prayed to the Lord for deliverance from the kingdoms of men. His prayer began,
“O LORD, the God of Israel, who art enthroned above the cheribim, Thou art the God, Thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou hast made heaven and earth” (2 Kings 19:15).
The psalmists (and others) contrasted the One True God, Maker of the heavens and the earth, with the gods of the nations made with human hands (cf. Psalm 115). In Psalm 146, men are encouraged to place their trust in God, who made the heaven and the earth (verse 6), and not in princes, who are mere mortals (verses 3-4). Consistently in Isaiah (especially chapters 40 and following), the promise of Israel’s restoration and glorious salvation is guaranteed by the fact that the One who promised to accomplish this was both the Creator of the heavens and the earth, but also Israel’s Creator (cf. Isaiah 44:24).
Jeremiah chapter 32 contains a rather striking parallel to our text. Here Jeremiah is thrown into jail by Zedekiah, king of Judah, for prophesying that Jerusalem and Israel would fall to the Babylonians. The people of Israel were instructed not to resist this (32:1-6). In response to all that happened, Jeremiah prayed, beginning with these words:
“‘Ah Lord God! Behold, Thou hast made the heavens and the earth by Thy great power and by Thine outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for Thee, …’” (Jeremiah 32:17).
The key phrase, based on the fact that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth is this: “Nothing is too difficult for Thee.” To Jeremiah and to the other Old Testament saints who found assurance in the fact that God is the Creator, the bottom line was simply that He who could create all things could also control them. Here he was predicting the downfall of Jerusalem, just as the apostles would do centuries later. And just as the king was persecuting Jeremiah, so the political and religious authorities were persecuting the apostles. And just as Jeremiah prayed to the Creator of the heavens and the earth, so did the early church.
The New Testament follows through with this theme of God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Paul wrote this in his Epistle to the Colossians:
For in Him {Christ} 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 (Colossians 1:16-17).
Here, according to Paul, the Lord Jesus was the Creator, one with God the Creator. Paul represents Christ not only as the Creator of the heavens and the earth but of all things, including thrones and dominions. He is the Creator and the King of all things. He is the Creator of kingdoms. As such, He is greater than all things and creatures, and thus He is in control of all things. All things were created by Him and they were also created for Him. He is also the sustainer of all things. No one is greater than this!
In the final book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, God is worshipped as the Creator of heaven and earth:
And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, “Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created” (Revelation 4:9-11).
What comfort the church could find in the fact that the God to whom they prayed was the Creator of heaven and earth, who was the Sovereign God, totally in control.[44] Would mere men threaten them and seek to stamp out God’s kingdom? It could not be done. They were on the right side, the side of God, the Creator of heaven and earth. What could mere men do to them?
The truth of God as Creator was thus extended by the church to that of the futility of men’s efforts to oppose the Creator and to resist the establishment of His kingdom. Thus, the saints turned their thoughts to a text from Psalm 2:
25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say, ‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? 26 THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER, AGAINST THE LORD, AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’
The apostles understood this psalm, not so much as a specific prophecy fulfilled when Pilate and Herod[45] collaborated in the execution of Christ, but as a principle (or a more general prophecy) which had, as one of its fulfillments, the collaboration of these two rulers. How futile was the effort of the rulers of this world to attempt to resist the establishment of God’s kingdom. The apostles and the early church saw the persecution they were facing as an on-going resistance to Christ and to His kingdom. And in the light of this psalm, they saw such resistance as futile and foolish. The kingdom of God could not be stopped, and thus, they could not be silenced.
One further observation is in order. They saw this passage, a passage which referred to Gentile opposition to the kingdom of God, as applying to the Jewish leaders of their nation. And rightly so. They understood that when the Jews rejected their Messiah, they became, for all intents and purposes, Gentiles. The people who were once known as “my people” (Jews) were now seen to be “not my people” (Gentiles—cf. Hosea 1 and 2).
These saints were undergirded with a deep sense and conviction of the sovereignty of their God. This is evident in the word “Lord” in verse 24 and in the words of verse 28:
“To do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.”
Thus, in verse 29, these saints refer to themselves as God’s “bond-servants.” Whatever these rulers purposed to do would be overthrown. Better than this, their actions would be used by God to achieve His own purposes. Just as the death of the Lord Jesus had made atonement for the sins of the world, so the persecution of the church would further God’s purposes as well. This we shall soon see.
The first response of the church to persecution was praise, praise directed to God as the Sovereign ruler of the universe, whose purposes could not be resisted and whose promised kingdom was sure. Verses 29 and 30 move from praise to petition. Here is what this persecuted group prayed for. Note first of all what they did not ask for. They did not ask to be delivered from persecution. They did not even ask that God judge or punish their opponents (although asking God to “take note of their threats,” verse 29, leaves room for this). They asked, in effect, that the gospel be promoted in the midst of this persecution.
For themselves, they asked that God’s bond-servants[46] be given confidence and boldness to proclaim God’s Word (verse 29). If the kingdom were to be established, the good news of the kingdom must be proclaimed. This should be done with confidence, not with cowardice. These people understood that persecution would not and could not thwart God’s purposes. They understood as well that persecution would naturally incline men to draw back, to soften up on the message which they preached. Thus, the prayer for boldness and confidence was an admission of the fallibility of Christians. How easy it is to draw back and to “lighten up” when the heat is on. They asked God to enable them to do otherwise. Further, these saints asked that God bear witness to His Word with continued manifestations of His power, through healings and signs and wonders (verse 30). In brief, they asked for a clear message, proclaimed on their part with confidence, which was accompanied by a divine “Amen.”
Verse 31 is the inspired record of God’s response. The phenomenon accompanying this subsequent “filling of the Holy Spirit” is different from the previous “filling” at Pentecost, and yet it also has a familiarity to it as well. God made His presence known through the shaking[47] of the building where they were meeting, just as He had manifested His presence before with the sound which was like a mighty, rushing wind, and the appearance of what seemed to be tongues of fire. And the evidence of the filling of the saints with the Spirit here was not speaking in tongues, but their native tongues speaking the message of the gospel with boldness. In other words, the filling of the Spirit was God’s means to answering their prayers for boldness.
Conclusion
The dominant theme of this passage is one that is new to Acts, but not new to the Scriptures—the theme of persection. As we conclude, let me first of all attempt to summarize some of the “principles of persecution” which this text teaches us.
(1) PERSECUTION HAPPENS TO PIOUS PEOPLE. Even when we are “Spirit-filled” and doing the will of God, persecution will come. Any prosperity gospeler’s promise to the contrary flies in the face of the facts of Acts.
(2) PERSECUTION MAY WELL BE CARRIED OUT BY SEEMINLY PIOUS PEOPLE IN THE PRACTICE OF PURE RELIGION. Some of the most cruel and aggressive persecution that this world has seen has been carried out in the name of “religion,” often “orthodox” religion. We are surely taught to endure persection but never are we commanded to inflict it on others.
(3) PERSECUTION FOLLOWS THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL. Men are naturally opposed to Christ and the gospel. When it is proclaimed, unbelieving man’s lifestyle and thinking is challenged. Persecution is often the result.
(4) PERSECUTION TEMPTS US TO PLAY DOWN THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL. The Book of Hebrews, among others, is testimony to the fact that when the “heat is on,” the saints can be tempted to clam up. If persecution follows the proclamation of the gospel, then the saints may be tempted to be silenced.
(5) PERSECUTION MUST BE VIEWED FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE. That perspective will include the sovereignty of God (as evidenced by the fact that He is the Creator of all things). It should also be viewed from the perspective of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who Himself was rejected and persecuted by His own people. In the final analysis, biblical suffering is suffering for His sake (cf. 1 Peter 2;18-25). Thus, experiencing persecution for His sake is a privilege that we can experience (cf. Colossians 1:24; Philippians 2:10).
(6) PERSECUTION IS TO BE FACED VICTORIOUSLY BY THE CHRISTIAN, THROUGH THE MEANS WHICH GOD HIMSELF PROVIDES US. By His grace, and through His Spirit, we can face persecution with boldness and confidence, looking to Him to bear witness to His Word in His own way. Three of the principle means which God has given us to deal with persecution are praise, petition, and proclamation.
(7) PERSECUTION CANNOT AND WILL NOT PREVAIL OVER THE GOSPEL—ULTIMATELY IT WILL ONLY PROMOTE IT. The disciples knew that men cannot resist the promises and purposes of God. Even their rebellion against Him will only further God’s purposes. Thus, we can face persecution with confidence.
For some, like the apostles, persecution was a very typical experience. For others, like the Hebrew saints (to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was written), it was a threat. The writer speaks of some losses (cf. Hebrews 10:32-34), but not of any bloodshed (12:4). But to us, the threat of persecution is merely theoretical. The most we have to fear (in most cases and for the present time) is an uplifted eyebrow. May God give us boldness to proclaim the gospel, even if persecution were a very real possibility. May God give us the kind of boldness which precipitates persecution!
! Lesson 8:
Profession and Possession
(Acts 4:32—5:11)
32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.
36 And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), 37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 And the young men arose and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well. 10 And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.
12 And at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number; 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets, and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16 And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed.[48]
Introduction
A young man was once told by my friend Fred that he had a problem—he did not know the difference between “sin” and “crime.” “There are,” Fred explained, “a number of crimes that are not sins, and a number of sins that are not crimes.” An illustration of Fred’s point can be found in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, recorded at the beginning of Acts chapter 5. This couple had committed no crime, but they had committed a sin. They had not stolen money, nor extorted it, nor embezzled it. They had simply kept a part of that which was theirs. They must have kept back only a small portion of it, but in so doing, they had lied. And for this, they died.
Is lying a capital offense? In our society, most lying is hardly seen to be a sin, let alone viewed as a crime. Why then did God take this sin so seriously? If the punishment for this sin was unusual, the sin surely was not nor is it rare today. Deception has become an accepted way of life. Why was lying a capital offense? That, my friend, is the “tension of our text.”[49] As we study our passage, let us seek to understand why lying is such a serious sin to God.
The Structure of our Text
Our passage is located between two status reports. Verses 32-37 describe the progress of the gospel, through the preaching of the apostles and the lifestyle of the church. The gift of Barnabas (4:36-37) is provided as an example of the gracious spirit which prevailed in the church as a whole. It serves other purposes too, which we shall point out later. Verses 12 through 16 of chapter 5 provide us with yet another status report, describing the condition of the church, the power of God manifested through the apostles, and the response of men to this. And in the middle of these two status reports is the account of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, struck down in divine judgment for their sin of lying (5:1-11).
The Approach of this Lesson
Our approach in this lesson will be to seek to understand the events which are described in the light of the context. We will therefore consider the giving of possessions in general, then in the case of Barnabas, and finally in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. We will then seek to find the answers to the following questions:
(1) To what extent is the practice of the church in selling its possessions a pattern for the church today?
(2) Why was God so severe in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira?
(3) What was wrong with what this couple did?
(4) How does one lie to the Holy Spirit?
(5) What is the relationship between “lying to the Holy Spirit” (5:3) and “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9)?
(6) What is the relationship between the purposes of one’s own heart and the spiritual influences of both Satan and the Holy Spirit?[50]
(7) What are the lessons in this passage for us?
Background
In obedience to the command of the Lord, the disciples waited for the promised Spirit, who would empower their witness of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. They selected the twelfth apostle—to replace Judas (Acts 1). Then the Spirit fell upon them, and they spoke in foreign tongues. This led to the first public proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, the coming day of judgment, and the salvation which God offered to those who repented and put their faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2). On their way to the temple, Peter and John encountered a lame man who asked for alms but received healing from his life-long malady of lameness. Once again, the gospel was preached (Acts 3), but this time Peter and John were interrupted by the temple guard who were sent to arrest them. This led to a trial before the Sanhedrin, with warnings not to continue preaching in the name of Jesus, and threats of future punishment. To this the two apostles calmly responded that they must continue to tell of what they had seen and heard. On returning to their own and giving a report of all that had happened, the assembly rejoiced at suffering for the sake of the Savior, confident of the fact that men could not prevent God’s purposes from coming to pass. In response to their prayers for boldness, the presence of God was manifested by the shaking of the building where they were and a subsequent filling of the whole group by the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:1-31).
Bold With their Possessions
(4:32-37)
32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them.[51] 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.
36 And Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), 37 and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The church had prayed for a boldness in their profession of the gospel, and God graciously granted their request. But the boldness of the church in its profession was also practiced with regard to its possessions.[52] The church had been given the grace to live dangerously (not foolishly). The saints knew all too well that to boldly profess Jesus as the Christ, Israel’s Messiah, risen from the dead, was to incur the wrath and the strong opposition of the Jewish leaders. When they prayed for boldness, they prayed knowing that boldness would lead to painful consequences. But this did not stop them.
It was this same spirit of boldness which permeated not only the profession of the church but its practice with regard to earthly possessions. From a purely human point of view, to sell their possessions to meet the needs of others was folly, certain future economic disaster. Surely one must be financially prepared for the future. With one heart and soul, the saints continued to give of their resources to meet the needs of others.
This was really a continuation of that first described by Luke in Acts chapter 2:
And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:44-46).
There were a couple of differences, however. We are no longer told that all the saints were together. It may still have been the case, but the church had grown considerably, and this might no longer have been possible. In the former days, the saints sold their goods as needs arose and personally met them. But now, with a much larger church and more needs, they sold their possessions and brought the money to the apostles, leaving it to them to administer the funds. Giving had, in one sense, become more institutionalized, out of necessity. In one sense, this was more of a test. It is much easier to be motivated to give to one’s neighbor, whose needs are immediately evident to us, than it is to give to those we do not even know. There had to have been a high level of confidence in the apostles for the money to have been laid at their feet.
One may very well wonder what it was that prompted such generosity. The more I read these passages, the more I am convinced that the saints were not demonstrating generosity as much as they were practicing unity. If a member of my family has a serious need, I do not think long about meeting that need, if I can, and I do not think of myself as being generous for doing so. As Jesus put it,
“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or, if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?” (Luke 11:11-12).
The response of this man to the request made of him is not the response of a generous man; it is the response of a father. Being a part of the family is what makes the difference. The early church looked upon themselves as a family, and they lived like a family. Thus, if one member of the “family” had more than enough possessions and other member had less than enough, it was natural to share these possessions within the family. “Private property” is viewed differently within the family than without.
As Luke makes clear, ownership of property still remained, but the claim to ownership was relinquished. That is, one owned his possessions, but he gave up that ownership the moment it became evident another member of the family required them. It was a simple matter of sharing what you had with those who did not.
My wife and I saw a great deal of this while I was a student in seminary. Very often, it was not those who had the most who shared with those who lacked, but it was those who had just a little more than the one who lacked who shared. How many times I can remember one family sacrificially sharing what little they had with someone who had even less. And what a joy that was to both families. This is what I see taking place in the early church. It was a real community of believers.
There were other factors involved in the spirit of sharing which I find underlying the actions of these early Christians. There was, for example, the words and teaching of our Lord. The early church was, in its sharing, simply taking Jesus literally. For example, Jesus taught,
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Luke 12:32-34).
The actions of these saints were completely consistent with the words of the Lord. They were taking Jesus simply at His word.
Furthermore, one should remember that Jesus and the apostles taught that Jerusalem would be destroyed, in that generation:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!” (Matthew 23:37-39).
And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He answered and said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matthew 24:1-2).
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people, and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 13:20-24).
In no way do I wish to minimize the boldness of the early church regarding the sale of its possessions and its giving to the needy, but I do wish to point out that the early church should have been aware of the coming judgment of God on that city. We should not treasure that which will not last. They knew that their possessions would not last beyond their own generation (cf. Matthew 23:36).[53]
There is at least one more explanation for the conduct of the early church regarding possessions and the poor. The church acted unanimously, as a community, in the way it ministered to the poor among them,[54] and it did so, I believe, because “abundant grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33). I understand “grace” to be a very broad term, but here, as elsewhere (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7,8,14,19), it can refer to grace as manifested in giving to meet the needs of others. Grace is always that abundance poured out on those who are in need, whether it be material or spiritual in form (cf. Hebrews 4:16).
The mention of Barnabas[55] and his donation serves several purposes in the Book of Acts. First, in the immediate context, it serves as an illustration of the kind of benevolence Luke has described in general terms. Barnabas is a concrete illustration of a general statement. Further, this reference to Barnabas is a backdrop, against which the sinful actions of Ananias and Sapphira will be depicted in the next verses of chapter 5. And finally, the mention of Barnabas serves as an introduction of this remarkable man of God, whose ministry of encouragement to Paul and many others will be described later on in the book.[56] It is no wonder that this man who gave generously of his own means would be chosen to carry a generous gift from the saints in Antioch to the needy saints in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 11:27-30).
There is a great deal of discussion (and debate) concerning the practice of the church in giving its possessions to help the poor. Frankly, much of the discussion is an effort to avoid any need for us to follow the example of this church in this matter. It would seem to me that we should strive to retain the simplest, most literal, straightforward interpretation of the text of Scripture as possible, here, and elsewhere. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the practice of the early church here was not a uniform practice of the church so far as the New Testament accounts are concerned. There was to some degree a unique situation here, with the destruction of Jerusalem at hand, in the lifetime of these saints. And it should be pointed out that in the providence of God, letting go of their possessions was a source of great blessing to the saints in Jerusalem. Not only did it free them of the material “pull” of their possessions, which would have hindered them from leaving the city (cf. Acts 8:1ff.), but it saved them from the torture of the Romans, who quickly recognized the affluent when they sacked the city and who tortured them until they told where their possessions were hidden.
Let us recall that the practice of the church here was not binding upon Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:4). They were not required to sell their property or to give any particular portion of it. This was a matter of personal freedom and guidance. Thus, I would take it that we are not bound to do what the members of the first church did either. But I must also say that, in principle, we have precisely the same obligations and opportunities. Jesus’ teaching to sell one’s possessions and to give to charity are just as applicable to us as they were to the early church. And when we have a brother or sister in need, and we have the resources to meet that need, we are obliged to do so.[57]
The Sin of Ananias and Sapphira
(5:1-11)
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 And the young men arose and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him. 7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well. 10 And she fell immediately at his feet, and breathed her last; and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.
We are not specifically informed that Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, were true Christians, but the weight of the inferences (in my judgment) is that they were. This man and his wife had conceived of a plan, a plan which seemed to offer the most benefits. They agreed to sell a piece of land which they owned. They decided that they would give most of the proceeds of that sale to the apostles, to meet the needs of the poor. They also determined to keep back a small amount for themselves. The worst part was that they also agreed that they would lie about the amount which they gave to the apostles, so that their gift would be thought of as being the entire amount they were paid for their property. In other words, they wanted to appear to be giving all the money they received, but they were keeping part of it and pulling it all off by lying about it. It was, in short, a conspiracy of deception.
Sapphira was not with her husband when he presented the money to the apostles, but Luke lets us know from the beginning that she was fully aware of what Ananias was doing and was a party to it (5:2). He presented the portion as though it were the whole. We do not know whether his deception was only by inference (he wanted the apostles and others to draw the conclusion the money he brought was the whole amount of the sale of the land) or whether he made an outright statement. I am inclined to think that he directly lied.
It would not have been difficult for Ananias’s deception to have become public knowledge. The purchase price of the property could easily have been known to others and thus to the apostles. The amount that Ananias presented could also have been a matter of public record. Also, Peter could have discerned that the amount given did not seem to be enough for the property which was sold. In spite of these normal means of discerning the deception of Ananias and Sapphira, one has the impression that Peter’s knowledge was supernaturally revealed to him. In addition, it seems apparent that the Spirit of God moved him to openly rebuke Ananias.
Peter’s indictment of Ananias is most informative. With respect to Ananias, Peter’s words give a clear indication of what this man was guilty, and likewise what was not sin. Peter rebukes the man for his lying, not for keeping back a portion of the money he gained from the sale of his property. Peter’s words to Ananias not only show him to be free to use his property as he chooses, but they also clarify the freedom which all of the saints had in the matter of their possessions.
In the first place, Peter affirmed the right of private property. The practice of the church was not communism, for each individual owned his possessions. Ananias (and all of the other saints, by inference) had complete freedom to use his property any way he chose. He could have kept it, or sold it, without sin. And even when he sold it, he was just as free in the use of the proceeds obtained from the sale. He could have kept it all or any part of it. His sin was not in the amount of money he gave or in the fact that he kept some of it back. His sin was that he lied, so that it would appear that he gave all of the money when he did not.
Peter’s words must have caught Ananias by surprise. He did not ask Ananias if he had lied or if he had kept back some of the price of the land. He did not ask Ananias why, from a human point of view, he was motivated to act as he had.[58] Peter quickly took this matter to its spiritual roots and to its spiritual fruits. The ultimate source of this deception was Satan. That must have been news to Ananias, who thought this was entirely his idea (with the collaboration of Sapphira, of course). But it was Satan whom Peter said had “filled his heart” (verse 3). And the fruit of the matter went far beyond what this man had thought. He had not simply lied to Peter (and to whoever else was present at the time); he had lied to the Holy Spirit. What must have seemed to Ananias and his wife as a trivial offense, a “little white lie,” was revealed to be a matter of great proportions. A simple plan between a man and his wife, carried out in the church, had now involved Satan and the Spirit of God.
Peter did not pronounce the death sentence on Ananias as he did with his wife. He simply exposed the man’s sin for what it was. I do not know that Peter expected Ananias to drop dead, but he did. It was apparent to Peter and to the rest that God had smitten this man, which led him to conclude that his wife would die in the same way, if she were guilty of the same offense. Great fear came upon all who beheld what happened. Here was a “sign and wonder,” performed at the hands of an apostle, which was of a very different kind.
The body of Ananias was quickly removed and buried, without his wife’s knowledge. When she arrived some three hours later, it may have been to look for her husband. But for whatever reason she came, it provided Peter with the opportunity to determine the woman’s role, if any, in this scheme. He asked (according to the record) only one question—did she sell the land for the price which her husband had indicated?[59] When she verified the amount as that which her husband had claimed, Peter quickly pronounced sentence on her. He guilt was quickly summarized. First, she and her husband conspired together. She was as guilty as he was in this matter. She was guilty for taking part (or at least consenting) in this deception. Their conspiracy was one that was against the Holy Spirit, of “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (verse 9). Just as her husband had died for his sin, so she would die for her role in this.[60] Fear was the result, in the church and without (verse 11).[61]
Conclusion
What then are we to make of this text? Let us return to those questions which were stated at the beginning of this lesson which have not yet been answered[62] and seek to answer them now.
(1) Why was God so severe in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira?
(2) What was wrong with what this couple did?
(3) How does one lie to the Holy Spirit?
(4) What is the relationship between “lying to the Holy Spirit” (5:3) and “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (5:9)?
(5) What is the relationship between the purposes of one’s own heart and the spiritual influences of both Satan and the Holy Spirit?[63]
(6) What are the lessons in this passage for us?
Let us consider the first two questions together. God dealt severely with the sin of Ananias and Sapphira because of its seriousness. The sin which was so serious to God was the sin of lying. Now here is a very fascinating thing. God’s values are much different than ours. We can discern the severity of an offense (in the mind of those who impose the penalty for it) by the severity of the punishment. Since God pronounced and performed the death penalty on lying, it must be a most serious offense. And since God did not care about the amount Ananias and his wife gave or kept back (this was a matter of liberty to him, as Peter pointed out), material things were not nearly as important.
How different with men than with God. Men, with the exception of some cases, do not even consider lying a crime and hardly a sin. We speak (or at least think) of deception as a way of life; we call deception a “little white lie.” We almost expect dishonesty. When we don’t want to talk to someone on the phone, we don’t tell them the truth; we may have our secretary tell them we “are not in.” Now when it comes to money and material things, then we start taking these sins seriously, in fact we call them crimes. And the more money or possessions are involved, the more severe the crime and its punishment.
But why is lying such a serious offense to God? Why was this deception, which seems to have hurt no one, so drastically disciplined by God? I think the answer is quite evident: the church is founded upon truth, and it grows by means of truth. The unity of the church is also dependent upon truth. Deception is an attack on the truth, and it is also one of the primary means of attack employed by Satan, the liar and deceiver. To tolerate even a small deception is to open the door to an attack on the truth which would be devastating. Notice just a few of the references to truth[64] which we find in the New Testament:
The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him (John 7:18).
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you (John 14:16-17).
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me (John 15:26).
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come (John 16:13).
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17).
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30).
If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
He is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain (1 Timothy 6:14-15).
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart (1 Peter 1:22).
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood (1 John 4:6).
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth (3 John 1:4).
Almost 80 times in the gospels[65] the Lord is quoted as saying, “I tell you the truth.” If there was anything which characterized Him it was “truth.” Thus, He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). He is also said to be “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of truth” (John 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6). Satan, on the other hand, is a “liar” and the “father of lies” (John 8:44), as well as a “deceiver” (2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9-10). The first temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan involved Satan’s denial of the truth which God had revealed to them. The church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” in the world (1 Timothy 3:15). The saints are built up in their faith as each one “speaks the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:16), and “lays aside falsehood” (4:25). Is it any wonder then that truth is so important and that lying is considered such a serious offense?
Let us move on to our next two questions. How does one “lie to the Holy Spirit,” and in what way does this relate to “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test”? We first must see that “lying to the Holy Spirit” began with lying to men. When Peter said, “You have not lied to men, but to God” (Acts 5:4), he was saying, in effect, “You have not merely lied to men, but you have ultimately lied to God.”[66] From Acts 5:3, we know that their lying to God was to God, the Spirit. I believe that the people lied to the Holy Spirit by lying to the apostles (and to the church as well), because the Spirit of God indwells the church. The church of God and the Spirit of God are intertwined, in the sense that the Spirit dwells in the church (Ephesians 2:22).
If lying to those who are fellow members of the body of Christ is lying to the Holy Spirit, then this seems to be related to “putting the Spirit of the Lord to the test” (Acts 5:9). How does one put God to the test then, and how does this relate to lying to one another and to the Holy Spirit?
The Old Testament defines the meaning of “putting God to the test.” The key Old Testament texts are Exodus 15:25; 16:4; 17:2 and Deuteronomy 16:6. Key New Testament texts are those in the Gospels, which depict the temptation of Jesus by Satan (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12). Significantly, all of these passages deal with times of hunger and/or thirst, including the temptation of our Lord. The nation Israel was delivered from slavery in Egypt by God and led into the wilderness. Only days after crossing the Red Sea, they came to the waters of Marah, where they could not drink because the water there was bitter. Here, the people grumbled, and God put His people to the test to see if they would trust and obey Him. Their task was to obey God, and His promise was that He would take care of their needs.
In Exodus 16 they came to another point of need, and the people began to complain, because they did not believe that they would eat as they had in Egypt. Again, God put them to the test to see if they would obey His commands. In this chapter, it is clearly indicated that Israel’s grumblings against Moses and Aaron were really grumbling against God (16:8). In chapter 17, they came to a place which would be named Massah and Meribah (17:7), where the people quarreled with Moses and thus put God to the test (17:2). They accused Moses of leading them into a place where they would die. They demanded water and seemed to threaten Moses’ life if he did not produce what they demanded.
It is to this incident that God later referred when Israel was about to enter into the promised land:
“You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name. You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth. You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. You should diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies and His statutes which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you and that you may go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore to give your fathers, by driving out all your enemies from before you, as the LORD has spoken” (Deuteronomy 6:13-19).
When our Lord was tempted by Satan, He had been in the wilderness, without food for 40 days (Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:1-2). Satan sought to induce Jesus to act independently, indeed, disobediently, seeking to produce what He wanted His own way, rather than obeying the Father and waiting for Him to produce what He had promised, in His own way and in His time. Specifically, Satan suggested that Jesus leap from the pinnacle of the temple, based upon God’s promise of protection. Jesus refused, based on the fact that this would be to “put God to the test” and thus would be disobedience to God.
Taking all these factors into consideration, it seems to me that men are inclined to put God to the test in the area of God’s provisions—specifically food. God has promised to provide, and He has called upon men to obey His commands and to wait upon Him to provide in His time. Men put God to the test when they doubt His provision and when they act independently, when they act disobediently, seeking to provide for themselves in their own way.
I can see this backdrop as fitting into the situation of Ananias and Sapphira quite directly. Others were selling their possessions and giving all they made from them to the apostles to meet the needs of poor brethren. I assume that people were selling their extra possessions and property, not their own dwellings. The property they were selling was their security, their “nest egg,” that which assured them that there would be provisions for the future. Ananias and Sapphira may well have said to themselves, “If we sell all that we have, we will have nothing to fall back on.” Keeping back a little of the money they obtained from the sale of their property would give them a little security, they must have reasoned. And, so long as they were honest in their dealings, it would have been their right to do so. But in order to carry this off, and to look as “spiritual” as the others, they had to lie, saying they were giving their all when they weren’t. They were, in the process of providing for themselves, not trusting in God, and they were not obeying His commandments, for they were lying. No wonder this could be called “putting the Spirit of God to the test.”
Now to another question which we have posed earlier: “What is the relationship between what we conceive in our hearts, and that which either the Holy Spirit or Satan fills our hearts to purpose and perform?” Peter asked Ananias why Satan had filled his heart to conceive of this sin (5:3). He then asked Ananias why he conceived this deed in his own heart (5:4). There must be a relationship between that which we conceive in our own hearts and that which either God’s Spirit or Satan prompts us to do.
I think we see here that there is a very close link between what we decide (supposedly on our own) and what we are encouraged or prompted to decide. I believe that when we act “in the flesh,” prompted by self-interest and human wisdom and values, we are really doing Satan’s bidding. We are doing “our will,” in one sense, but we are also doing Satan’s bidding. Satan prompted Adam and Eve to act independently of God, theoretically “on their own” and “in their own interests,” but in reality they were doing his bidding. When men act in the flesh, they serve Satan.
You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led (1 Corinthians 12:2).
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among then we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 4:1-3).
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8).[67]
Whether or not we like to admit it, we cannot do anything that is truly independent of some kind of spiritual guidance. When we act “naturally,” according to the flesh, we serve Satan, who utilizes the world and the flesh to influence our behavior. When we act supernaturally, in the Spirit, we are guided and prompted by God’s Spirit, to do His will. Thus, what man decides to do in his own heart is also that which either the Spirit or Satan has prompted as well. While the rest of the church was following the prompting of God’s Spirit, Ananias and Sapphira were following the promptings of Satan, and this led to death as the text indicates.
Lessons to Learn
There are a great many lessons to be learned from our text. Let me conclude by mentioning a few which may provide fuel for further study, meditation, and prayer.
(1) Serious sins often have subtle beginnings. It would be easy to come away from our text with the impression that Ananias and Sapphira sat down one day at the dinner table and said to each other, in effect, “Let’s come up with a plan to sell some property, give some of the money to the needy, keep some of it for ourselves, and lie about it.” This is not what the text tells us or even implies. Neither is it true to life nor to the subtle ways in which Satan works.
Let me suggest a very fictional scenario, but one which is at least believable, which also demonstrates the way in which we find ourselves deep in sin before we even know it. Suppose that Ananias and Sapphira had determined to sell a piece of property, like the rest of the church, and for good reasons. And, let’s suppose, they decided to have the property appraised and learned that a fair asking price was $40,000. Ananias, feeling certain that he can get the asking price of $40,000, mentions to some of his fellow-saints that he is soon to sell a piece of his property and give $40,000 to the apostles. As it turns out, two supermarket chains want to build a store on the same property. The price is bid up, and finally Ananias sells his property for $50,000. Now comes the decision as to what to do with the extra $10,000. Do they give this, too? Or do they consider this windfall a gift from the Lord? Or do they simply decide to hold this money back, saving it for a “rainy day”? Doing so, as Peter pointed out, would have been no problem. The decision is now made to keep the extra money for themselves. But when he gave the money to Peter, Peter asked him pointedly (remember, this is fiction, not fact—although it is clear from the text that Peter knew the exact amount for which Ananias claimed to have sold the property) whether he sold the property for $40,000. Now Ananias had to make a decision. Did he tell Peter what he actually sold the property for and that he and his wife decided to keep the extra money back? If he did this, he would not appear to be as spiritual as others, like Barnabas, who gave all of the money. Or he could lie and make Peter think that he had given all. After all, who would ever know?
Do you see how easy it is for us to start out with pure motives and good deeds, only to have Satan step in, appeal to our fleshly desires, and end up with us committing a very serious sin? Satan is not known as the “deceiver” for nothing. Here is where he does his finest work. And it looks as though he really did a number on Ananias and Sapphira. This is not to minimize their guilt but only to show how subtle the process can be which brings us to a point of blatant disobedience to God’s Word. I am convinced that many terrible sins started out as “good works,” but ended up as sin through Satan’s subtlety and our flesh. Nowhere does our text teach that this sin started out as a genuine act of benevolence, but it could have.
(2) Counterfeit spirituality works best alongside the genuine. Even at this high point in the life of the ancient church, when so many were acting in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and with the promptings of the Spirit, counterfeit spirituality emerged, within the church. Satan often seeks to introduce that which is his work, that which is counterfeit, in the midst of an outpouring of divine grace and power. Thus, whenever a revival breaks out, deviations and distortions appear as well.
(3) Grace is never to be a pretext for sin. This period in the life of the church was characterized by “abundant grace” (4:33). Even so, sin raised its ugly head. This is the way Satan works. But if our text teaches us anything, it is that while God’s grace abounds, God always takes sin seriously. Grace is God’s remedy for sin, not the pretext for sin. Grace was given to put away sin, not to promote it. We should never think that by holding fast to the “grace of God” that there is any diminishing of God’s hatred for sin or of the need for divine discipline. God took the sin of Ananias very seriously. So must we, who have experienced God’s grace, live in it. As Paul said it, we who have died to sin should no longer live in it (cf. Romans 5:20–6:14).
(4) Christian ministry should be performed with simplicity. We are clearly taught in Scripture that giving should be done with “simplicity,” that is, with singleness of purpose and motive:
… he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality {“simplicity,” margin, NASB} … (Romans 12:8).
There is a danger of giving with mixed motives. The motive we have for giving should be a simple one: love for one another. When we add into this a motive of self-gain or self-interest, our giving is corrupted. I believe further study of the Scriptures would bear this out. I further believe that much of the giving of the saints is motivated by some kind of self-serving benefit. For example, how many requests for funds do you hear that also include a “free offer” or some “gift of appreciation” in return? I believe we do people a great disservice when we seek to motivate them to give by offering something in return. I further believe this same principle of “simplicity” applies to all service.
(5) Sin thrives in the soil of deception and error, but godliness only grows in the soil of the truth. Wherever you find sin, you will find error and deception. Wherever you find salvation and sanctification, you will find the truth. There is no place in Christianity for deception.
(6) The manifestation of sin may be more important than its motivation. Situational ethics seems to say that it doesn’t matter so much what we do as why we do it. Immorality (by biblical standards) may be the “right” thing to do, we are told, if it is done out of love. Our text seems to say that whatever our motive might be (little time is spent on the motivation of Ananias and Sapphira) if the act is a violation of God’s Word, then the act is sin. Peter’s emphasis is that Ananias and Sapphira lied, not only to men, but to God. Regardless of why they lied, they lied, and that was a sin worthy of death. From a Christian point of view, one may do “the right thing” for the wrong motive and thereby sin, but one can never do the wrong thing for the right motive and do that which is pleasing to God.
(7) A desire to appear spiritual is often at the root of the sin of deception. It would seem to me that Ananias and Sapphira would never have gotten into the trouble they did unless they wanted to appear, to others, as though they were spiritual. This is a preoccupation with external appearances and man’s approval, not God’s. It was for this that our Lord condemned the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-15). How many times have we acted deceptively because we wanted others to think we were more spiritual than we really were?
Key References to Truth
Listed below are some of the key references to truth in the Bible:
PSA 15:2; PSA 25:5; PSA 26:3; PSA 31:5; PSA 40:10‑11; PSA 43:3; PSA 45:4; PSA 51:6; PSA 86:11; PSA 96:13; PSA 119:30; PSA 119:43; PSA 145:18; ISA 45:19; ISA 65:16; JER 5:3; JER 7:28; JER 9:5; JER 26:15; DAN 8:12; DAN 9:13; DAN 10:21; ZEC 8:3; ZEC 8:16; ZEC 8:19; JOH 1:14; JOH 1:17; JOH 3:21; JOH 4:23‑24; JOH 5:24; JOH 5:33; JOH 6:47; JOH 6:53; JOH 7:18; JOH 8:32; JOH 8:40; JOH 8:44; JOH 14:6; JOH 14:17; JOH 15:26; JOH 16:13; JOH 17:17; JOH 18:37; JOH 19:35; ACT 20:30; ACT 28:25; ROM 1:18; ROM 1:25; ROM 2:2; ROM 2:8; ROM 9:1; ROM 15:8; 1 CO 5:8; 1CO 13:6; 2CO 4:2; 2CO 11:10; 2CO 12:6; 2CO 13:8; GAL 2:5; GAL 2:14; GAL 4:16; GAL 5:7; EPH 1:13; EPH 4:15; EPH 4:21; EPH 5:9; EPH 6:14; COL 1:5‑6; 2TH 2:10; 2TH 2:12‑13; 1TI 2:4; 1TI 2:7; 1TI 3:15; 1TI 4:3; 1TI 6:5; 2TI 2:15; 2TI 2:18; 2TI 2:25; 2TI 3:7‑8; 2TI 4:4 ; TIT 1:1; TIT 1:14; HEB 10:26; JAM 1:18; JAM 3:14; JAM 5:19; 1PE 1:22; 2PE 1:12; 2PE 2:2; 1JO 1:6; 1JO 1:8; 1JO 2:4; 1JO 2:8; 1JO 2:20‑21; 1JO 3:18‑19; 1JO 4:6; 1JO 5:6; 2JO 1:1‑4; 3JO 1:1; 3JO 1:3‑4; 3JO 1:8; 3JO 1:12
! Lesson 9:
The Great Escapes
(Acts 5:12-42)
This passage we are studying has a certain “feel” to it which is hard to pin down—there is an obvious contest going on between the Sanhedrin (the Sadducees in particular) and the apostles—over the issue of authority. The best analogy I can think of is the television series, “The Dukes of Hazard.” The high priest is, unflatteringly, “Boss Hogg.” He is the alleged leader, at least in terms of his position. He is also “the law.” The Duke boys are the apostles—those “country folk” who don’t have the education and the sophistication to be great (or so we suppose), and yet they always end up out-foxing Boss Hogg. True, Boss Hogg may put the Duke boys in jail for a few days, now and then, but his trumped-up charges always fail to hold water and to accomplish his sinister purposes.
The more I read this account of the “great escapes” of the apostles, the more the analogy to this television series seems to fit. There have been many “great escapes” in history, but this escape is one of the most harmless and enjoyable. In reality, there are two escapes and not one. The first escape of our text is the miraculous deliverance of the apostles from prison by the “angel of the Lord.” This will not be the last of this kind of escape, for in chapter 12 of Acts Peter will again be delivered from confinement in prison by an angel. But there is a second “escape” for the apostles in Acts chapter 5. It is an escape from death. The chief priests of the Sadducean party were so angry with the persistent preaching of the apostles that when they refused to stop preaching, and when they persisted in claiming that the religious leaders had murdered the Christ, they wanted to kill them on the spot. From all appearances (especially when viewed in the light of the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7), they would have carried out their intentions, except for the intervention of a rather strange ally, a highly respected teacher of the Pharisees, named Gamaliel. This is the one under whom the apostle Paul was instructed (cf. Acts 22:3). Gamaliel appealed to his brethren on the Council to show restraint and to entertain the possibility that the movement they were trying to suppress was actually ordained and sustained of God.
The key players in this drama are the apostles—all twelve of them—and the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, and the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish governing body (both legislative and judicial) in Israel. The Sanhedrin is actually a coalition group, composed both of those who are Sadducees and those who were Pharisees. The Sadducees were the liberals who did not believe in the supernatural—things like resurrection from the dead and angels. The Pharisees were more conservative and orthodox in their theology, believing in resurrection, angels, and the supernatural in general. The chief priests were all of the Sadducee party. The Pharisee party was well represented by the teacher of the Law, Gamaliel.
The conflict between the apostles and the Jewish leaders started long before this, as you know. It began with the appearance of Jesus and with His teaching and healing. He was quickly challenged as to His authority. For example, when Jesus told the man who was lowered through the roof that his sins were forgiven, the Pharisees immediately recognized Jesus’ claim to deity, and they began to oppose Him (Luke 5:18-26). And when Jesus entered Jerusalem as her Messiah, accepting the praise of men and throwing the merchants out of the temple precincts (Matthew 21:1-17), He was challenged by the chief priests and the elders of the people as to what authority He had to do such things (Matthew 21:23).
This led to a rather comprehensive response from Jesus. He first raised the question of the authority of John the Baptist, whether it was “from God” or “from men” (Matthew 21:24-27). This was to show these leaders that they really were not willing to accept any authority other than their own. But Jesus then went on to tell the story of a man who had two sons, one of whom promised to obey his father, but didn’t, and the other who initially refused to obey, but later repented (Matthew 21:28-32). The first son represented them, the leaders of the nation. The second son represented, Jesus said, the sinners, whom the leaders despised. In the final analysis, Jesus showed them, the “sinners” were better than the “righteous” because they repented and received Him.
The response of Jesus is not yet finished. Jesus pressed on to tell the parable of a man who owned a vineyard and who went away (Matthew 21:33-44). The man left vine-growers in charge. The owner of the vineyard was God, the vineyard was Israel, and the vine-growers were the leaders of the nation—those who opposed Jesus. When the owner of the vineyard sent men to collect that which the vineyard had produced, the vine-growers rejected the owner’s authority and claim to this fruit, and they beat and killed those who were sent (the prophets of Israel). Finally, when the son of the owner was sent, they killed him, thinking that they could gain possession of the vineyard for themselves. Jesus interpreted this story so that they would understand that He was the Son who was rejected, but that He, as the stone whom they rejected, would eventually crush them. He also taught them that their leadership would be taken from them and that another nation would become God’s kingdom. They were thinking of getting rid of Him, Jesus told them, but God would get rid of them. Their authority and leadership was about to end, just as the kingdom in Israel was about to be done away with, at least for a time. These things, which Jesus foretold, are seen to be taking place before our eyes in our text. The authority of the Jewish leaders is rapidly eroding, while the authority of the apostles is increasing.
The whole issue of the authority of the apostles and their conflict with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem is evident in the Book of Acts thus far. When Jesus was about to ascend to His Father, after His resurrection, He gave the apostles the “Great Commission” which was first a statement concerning His authority, and theirs, and then a commission to preach the gospel to all nations in this authority. With the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the preaching of the gospel began with thousands coming to faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 2). When Peter and John were on their way to the temple to pray, they encountered a man who was born lame, and who had suffered from this ailment for over forty years. Healing him in the name of Jesus brought together a large crowd (at Solomon’s portico), where Peter preached the gospel. Here too Peter and John were arrested and taken to stand trial before the Sanhedrin on the following day.
When the leaders challenged Peter and John as to their authority (much as they had challenged Jesus), these two apostles made it clear that this good deed they had done was accomplished through the power of the risen Christ, the Christ they had rejected and crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. Seeing the healed man before them, they could not deny that a great miracle had taken place. All they could do was to threaten the two and command them not to teach or minister in the name of Jesus any longer, an instruction which Peter and John made it clear they could not obey, for in so doing they would fail to be witness of that which they had seen and heard.
On their return to the fellowship of believers, Peter and John shared what had been said and done. The response of the saints, as described in Acts 4:24-30, is most relevant to our text in Acts chapter 5. The saints praised God for His sovereignty. He was the Creator of heaven and earth. He was in charge of that which He made. And they then praised Him from the words of Psalm 2, which spoke of the futility of the efforts of world powers to resist God and His purposes. They then prayed for boldness in their witness and for God’s confirming testimony by signs and wonders through the apostles. The answer to those prayers begins in Acts 4:31, but it is increasingly evident in our text.
I would like in this lesson to approach the account as though we were seeing a movie. There will be several scenes. The first scene will be in the temple area, at the so-called “portico of Solomon,” where the saints met daily, and where multitudes of unbelievers gathered in the hope of a healing. The second scene is in the Council, the meeting of the Sanhedrin. We will be there as the Council convenes, and as they call for the prisoners to be brought forth, only to learn they have escaped. We will then stand by as the apostles are escorted into the Council from the temple area, where they have been preaching. We will hear their accusations and threats and the response of the apostles. We will be present when the courtroom is cleared, and the Council hears the recommendation of Gamaliel. We will witness the threats of the Council and the beating of the apostles. And, in the third scene, we shall see the apostles leaving the Council joyfully, grateful to be found worthy to suffer for the name of Christ.
Scene One:
Solomon’s Portico
(5:12-18)
12 And at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico.[68] 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number; 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets, and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16 And also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits; and they were all being healed. 17 But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy;[69] 18 and they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in a public jail.
Let us look at this first scene at the temple as though it were a movie (as I call it, a “mental movie,” one which we play in our heads as we read the text). We first of all “zoom in” on the large crowd gathered at Solomon’s portico, or porch. This crowd, as I see it, is made up almost entirely of Christians. They have come to a greater appreciation of the holiness of God due to the deaths of two saints, but they do not fear gathering together in the name of Jesus. They come together for a variety of purposes, including prayer and worship and teaching (by the apostles). These are very happy faces, faces which reflect the grace of God and cleansed consciences, through faith in the shed blood of Jesus, the Nazarene, the promised Messiah, whom Israel rejected and put to death but whom God raised from the dead.
As the camera angle begins to widen, we see another crowd gathered. This crowd is composed of those who are not believers, who are reticent to join the Christians in their worship, prayers, or teaching, but who do want to be healed of their infirmities. They would find it difficult to press through the crowds to get to the apostles anyway, but they know, from reports and experience, that the apostles must come to the temple area and depart from it each day. They also hear reports which indicate that one does not even have to ask to be healed, but only to be in close proximity to the apostles. Stories abound of those who have been healed only by falling in the shadow of Peter (5:15). And so, knowing the ingenuity of man, people begin to employ clever means of coming into contact with the apostles and thus receiving divine healing.
I can imagine that all of the routes which Peter and the others took to the temple were known and even any predictable patterns in their goings and comings, which would give an ailing person an edge. People were placed at all of the likely places, where the apostles were likely to pass by. It seems that where the shadow of Peter and the others would fall would be taken into consideration, so that one would change sides of the street as the position of the sun changed. And, amazingly, the efforts of all who were so diligent were rewarded. Luke seems to indicate that all such people who encountered the apostles were healed. This phenomenon was not merely a local one. Word got out, so that people from surrounding towns and villages began to congregate in Jerusalem.
We have focused on three groups of people thus far. First, the apostles, through whom signs and wonders were being performed. Second, the Christians, who congregated at Solomon’s portico. And third, the multitudes who came for healing. But there was yet another group, a group not nearly so enthusiastic about all of the miracles that were taking place—the chief priests and their party, who were all members of the Sadducee party (5:17). They would not have dignified the apostles by being seen in the crowd, but they surely had their spies, watching closely for an infraction of the rules. Finally, the whole situation became untenable for these opponents of the apostles.
If our camera were to catch the facial expressions of the priestly party, we would see, as Luke informs us, that their underlying motivation was jealousy. This, of course, is nothing new. It was out of jealousy that the chief priests delivered up Jesus to be crucified (Mark 15:10). Why should it be any different with His apostles? These priests saw that their power and position were under siege. They had sought to scare the apostles into backing off, but it wasn’t working. Thus, they sent a party to arrest the apostles and to put them in jail. The success (or should we say, the authority) of the apostles, as depicted in verses 12-16 was the cause of the stepped-up opposition of the chief priests.
Scene Two:
The Trial Before the Council
(5:17-40)
17 But the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy; 18 and they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in a public jail. 19 But an angel of the Lord during the night opened the gates of the prison, and taking them out he said, 20 “Go your way, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.” 21 And upon hearing this, they entered into the temple about daybreak, and began to teach. Now when the high priest and his associates had come, they called the Council together, even all the Senate of the sons of Israel, and sent orders to the prison house for them to be brought. 22 But the officers who came did not find them in the prison; and they returned, and reported back, 23 saying, “We found the prison house locked quite securely and the guards standing at the doors; but when we had opened up, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests heard these words, they were greatly perplexed about them as to what would come of this. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain went along with the officers and proceeded to bring them back without violence (for they were afraid of the people, lest they should be stoned).
27 And when they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. And the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”[70]
33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and were intending to slay them. 34 But a certain Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time.[71] 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 “For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 “After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 “And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” 40 And they took his advice, and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them.
The growing numbers of those who joined the apostles in trusting in Jesus as the Messiah, along with the preaching and popularity of the apostles, further aggravated by the crowds who gathered to be healed in the name of Jesus, was simply too much for the Sadducean priests to bear. They arrested the apostles, intending to bring them to trial before the Sanhedrin the following day. They would have no problem here, they were certain, for they had already arrested Peter and John and detained them overnight, without incident.
This brings us to our second scene, which took place in the courtroom of the council. Secret planning sessions must have been held so that the proceedings of the next day, in the courtroom, were already carefully orchestrated. I have the impression that those meetings may have included only the high priests of the Sadducean persuasion. These men must have assumed that the Pharisees on the Council would follow their lead. Very likely, the plan was to intimidate the apostles by letting them spend the night in jail. That would soften them up. And then, on the following day, they would be brought before the highest authority of the Jews—the Sanhedrin, where they would be duly impressed with this august group of men. The apostles would be reprimanded, and if they promised not to preach again in the name of Jesus, they would be released, after a good beating. And if they refused .… Well, then they would simply have to get tough with them. They had faced this situation before. They knew what to do.
There were some surprises in store for these men, however. The members of the Sanhedrin probably entered the courtroom with all of the pomp and circumstance to which they were accustomed and which they enjoyed.[72] With all deliberate dignity, they entered the courtroom. They took their seats. And with a note of authority, they called for the prisoners to be brought in. The seriousness of the situation was sure to be grasped by this unrefined group of Galileans.
But something had happened of which none of the Council (let alone the guards) were aware. During the night, God had “released” the apostles whom the priests had placed in prison. An “angel of the Lord” had let them go in the night, yet without the guards having any knowledge of it. The specifics of this escape are not given, but it could well have been similar to the more detailed account of Peter’s release in Acts 12. In both cases, the prisoners were released by the angel opening the doors of the prison, but the guards were somehow prevented from seeing it happen.[73] Until the doors of the apostles’ cell(s) were opened, no one had a clue that they were no longer in confinement in the prison.
The angel did more than release the apostles. He gave them a specific commission. They were released, not so much for their own safety (for they were yet to stand before the Sanhedrin the next morning), but in order to continue to proclaim the gospel.[74] They were not to “tone down” their preaching as a result of their arrest and imprisonment. They were to return to the temple, not to some place less visible and less dangerous. And they were to proclaim the “whole message of this Life” (5:20). In other words, they were to keep on doing precisely what they had been doing. They were not to be intimidated by the persecution of the Jewish religious leaders.
Meanwhile, “back at the ranch,” the high priest and the other dignitaries of the Sanhedrin were waiting in the courtroom for the appearance of the prisoners. They hoped for a frightened group of men who had lost all of their courage over the course of that night in the prison. The scene must have been a bit like that in the “Sound of Music,” when the Von Trapp family disappeared from the music hall, and the Nazi soldiers came running in to announce that they were gone.[75] How “red faced” the guards must have been. And how puzzled the Council members would have been to hear them affirm that the cell doors were securely locked and that no one had passed them in the night. How could this be? And even more of concern, to what would this lead? Where was this all going? There seemed to be no end.
It is a little difficult to have a trial when the prisoners are missing. There must have been some very uncomfortable moments of silence in that courtroom, with all of these dignitaries shaken by this turn of events. They were not in control, as they so much wanted to convey to the apostles. The apostles were not even present to try to intimidate. Into that courtroom, stunned by these events, came those who reported that the apostles were back in the temple, doing exactly what they had been arrested for doing the previous day.
Very carefully, the temple guards were dispatched to the temple, where they politely and with a cautious eye on the crowd, escorted the apostles to the courtroom where they would be tried. Do you suppose that someone asked them, “How did you guys get away, anyhow?” “Oh, God sent an angel,” the response might have been. How difficult it would have been for the Council members to regain their composure, enough to sound in control and as a force to be taken seriously. It was like the “defendant” had just given the judge a hotfoot, or set his jurors’ robe on fire, watching him run from the courtroom in flames.
Gathering together all of the severity he could muster, and probably revealing a great deal of frustration and anger, the high priest began to badger the apostles. The offenses which he detailed were all “personal.” That is, the charges were not concerning violations of the Law of Moses or of the traditions of the Jews, but rather of disregarding the orders of the Council, and, even worse, of charging them with the murder of Messiah. They had commanded the apostles no longer to teach in the name of Jesus,[76] yet they had filled all of Jerusalem with the same teaching as before. And they further sought to place the responsibility of Jesus’ death squarely on the shoulders of the Sanhedrin. The apostles have disregarded the warnings and instructions of this duly-authorized body and have even accused them of wrong-doing. This was too much.
Peter’s response was brief, to the point, and polite (5:29-31). They had done exactly as they had said previously (4:19-20). They must obey God above men. They had disobeyed the Sanhedrin in obedience to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah. They were obeying the One whom the Sanhedrin had put on the cross and the One whom God had raised from the dead. Their choice of obeying Jesus above the Sanhedrin was based on the facts. Jesus was the key to all of Israel’s hopes. It was He alone who could forgive Israel and grant repentance and the forgiveness of their sins. Their ministry was testimony to this, and to their witness was added the witness of the Holy Spirit, through whom the signs and wonders were accomplished. The Holy Spirit was given, not to the priests or to the members of the Sanhedrin, but to those who obeyed God (5:32).
The response of the priests and others in that courtroom was highly volatile. They were, as Luke tells us, “cut to the quick,” the same expression used only one other time, in chapter 7, to describe the reaction of those who heard the indictment of Stephen (Acts 7:54). This response is quite different from the conviction of sin which led to the conversion of thousands at the first sermon preached by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:37). Here it was an exposure of sin which so angered some members of the Sanhedrin that they could not even see straight. They wanted blood, and they wanted it quickly. These leaders, the highest Jewish authorities in the land, were totally out of control. They lacked impartiality and clarity of thought. It was they who were indicted, not the apostles. How incredible that these leaders had literally lost their grip. They cared little for the law or for “due process”; they only wanted to see these men dead. This was no “cool and calm” decision. It was one made in the heat of the moment. If these jurors were, at the outset of this trial, disarmed by the supernatural release of the apostles from prison, they were now completely rattled by the role reversal taking place before their own eyes. It was not the apostles who were on trial, but the court itself. God, through His apostles had passed judgment on the very court which had condemned Him to die. They were the criminals, not the apostles, whom they had momentarily placed under arrest.
The apostles had not spoken in their own defense, but there was one present who would—Gamaliel. This man was apparently a well-known and highly-regarded teacher, who was a member of the Pharisee party. He was also the teacher of none other than Saul, later to be saved and known as Paul (Acts 22:3). We are not told what his motives were, but only the substance of his message. With a skill and coolness that could only be contrasted with the “hot-headedness of the Sadducees,” Gamaliel first had the courtroom cleared. He did not want the apostles hearing what he had to say. We do not know the source of the report which Luke gives us here, but we do know the substance of it. These are most interesting and unexpected words, from a source that would have seemed most unlikely.
After they had been put out of the room temporarily, Gamaliel pled with his fellow Council members to calm down, to get their wits about them, and to come to a more reasoned decision. Though he was a teacher of the Law, his argument was not really theological nor did he appeal to the Scriptures. He appealed to history instead. His premise was an interesting one:
Movements founded by men die with them, but those founded by God live on, beyond the death of their leader.
From the relatively recent past, Gamaliel drew upon the demise of two movements that momentarily found a following from among the Jews.[77] In each case, the men died. In neither case do we get the impression they died naturally. But in both cases, after the death of these men, their movements died along with them. The followers of these men were scattered. The groups the founders brought together lacked the cohesiveness to continue. The movements disappeared, in time.
Gamaliel appealed to the Council to give this movement which Jesus founded a little time also. If this movement was like the others, it would pass away—it would collapse under its own weight. The more the movement was attacked, the longer the process might take. Why make martyrs of the followers of Jesus? They were already regarded as heroes by the people. To put them to death now would be unwise. If only men were behind this new movement, it would bring on its own demise.
There was another option, however. It was one that Gamaliel, as a Pharisee, was more willing to grant than were his Sadducean colleagues. There was the possibility that God was behind this movement. From a pharisaical point of view, Messiah would come to the earth, and men could rise from the dead. This movement had some of the earmarks of one that had a divine origin. If it was of God, there was nothing they could do to stop it.
In either case—if it were a movement of men, or if it were of God—it would be better for the Sanhedrin to take a “wait and see” stance, rather than to act precipitously. They would not need to oppose a man-made movement, and they would certainly not want to be found opposing a divinely-ordained movement. So let them back off, cool down, and see what would come of it all.
It is, I think, an amazing thing that Gamaliel would even entertain the possibility that the apostles were a divinely-ordained and divinely-empowered group. This was something which no self-respecting Sadducee would ever consider. It was, however, evident that many Pharisees were not so sure, any more, that this Jesus was a fraud, as they had once thought.
Gamaliel was a man who acted like a member of the highest court in the land should act. He seems to manifest a clear head, a measure of impartiality, and good, sound, judgment. Yet, in spite of his objectivity and his good advice,[78] there is no evidence that Gamaliel took the gospel or this movement seriously enough. If the Sadducees were, so to speak, “atheists” with respect to the gospel preached and practiced by the apostles, Gamaliel was an “agnostic.” It may be better to be an agnostic than an atheist, but neither will get to heaven. How sad it is that Gamaliel was willing to consider the hypothetical possibility that God was behind the church, but not willing to take the evidence seriously enough. Many are those who, like Gamaliel, may be willing to grant that God may be speaking through men, but who are not ready to accept and act on the message. Gamaliel is a man who is, on the one hand, a hero here, and yet he is a tragic hero, for he has not repented of his sin and trusted in the Savior.
The Council took the advice of Gamaliel. I am not convinced that it was entirely due to the wisdom of his advice, however. The Sadducees were hopping mad. They wanted to kill the apostles. I doubt that Gamaliel’s words really changed anything, other than the immediate action the Council would take. The Sadducees were both pragmatists and politicians. It may be that they were not convinced at all by this man, who was their opponent, philosophically speaking. They may only have recognized that he spoke for the rest of the Pharisees and that there was no way they could, as a Council, come to a unanimous verdict to execute the twelve. They did take his advice, not to act as they wished, but they may not have agreed with his reasons.
The intensity of their anger and evil intentions can be seen by what they did do to the twelve. On the one hand we are told they took the advice of Gamaliel, yet we are further told that they beat the twelve[79] before releasing them. Imagine what they intended to do, if this was “letting the twelve off the hook easily.” They were still trying to impress the twelve with their authority and with what they could do if their instructions were not followed. Once again, the apostles were commanded to stop preaching in the name of Jesus.
Scene Three:
Back to the Temple
(5:41-42)
41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
Without interruption or modification, the apostles went to the temple day after day, proclaiming the gospel in the courts of the temple and from house to house. This was, we should note, the first instance of physical suffering for the name of Christ, and the apostles were able to rejoice in their sufferings because it was for the name of Christ and for the sake of the gospel. It was the beginning of a course of action that would continue throughout the history of the church. The disciples were, for the first time, able to rejoice in response to suffering and persecution, just as Jesus had taught them:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Mark 5:11-12).
Conclusion
The thrust of our text can best be seen from the vantage point of its context. It is, in the first place, a dramatic illustration of God’s faithfulness in answering the prayers of the saints, as recorded in Acts 4:29-30:
“And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence, while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.”
The church has been bold in its witness. They have all continued to gather in the temple precincts, at the portico of Solomon. Many more have come to faith. And, through the hands of the apostles, the Holy Spirit accomplished many signs and wonders, confirming their message. The manifestation of God’s power through men was at an all-time high.
In addition, the things for which the saints praised God in Acts 4:24-28 are also dramatically illustrated in our text:
And when they had been released, they went to their own companions, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is Thou who DIDST MAKE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say,
‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD, AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.’
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:24-28).
In their prayer, the church understood that God was sovereign, both in the suffering of Jesus and in their own persecution. Seeing in the wording of Psalm 2 a biblical and poetic expression of the futility of man’s efforts to thwart the plans and purposes of God, they referred to this psalm in their prayer of praise. In particular, they realized that even when nations conspire to resist God’s plans and purposes, it is futile.
The conspiracy of the Sanhedrin was equally futile, as our text in Acts chapter 5 makes very clear. The chief priests arrest the apostles, and an angel of God releases them. They forbid the apostles from preaching and ministering in the name of Jesus, and yet, by their own admission, the apostles have filled Jerusalem with their teaching. The Sanhedrin attempts to find the apostles guilty of some offense, so that they can punish them, and yet it is they themselves who are indicted by the apostles.
It is at this point that the account of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, at the beginning of Acts chapter 5, begins to come into focus. The Sanhedrin (at least the Sadducees who were a part of the Sanhedrin) strongly desired to put the apostles to death, and yet they were unable to do so. On the other hand, the apostle Peter, without even trying to do so, rebuked Ananias, and God disciplined him, causing him to die at Peter’s feet. The Sanhedrin is powerless, and yet Peter and the other apostles are used as God’s instruments to heal men and women, even if it is by their shadow falling upon the ailing, so that they are made whole. The Sanhedrin is working hard to regain control, and the apostles are not trying to take charge, but God is working mightily in and through them.
I believe this chapter is a vivid illustration of that which Jesus had warned the Jewish leaders in Matthew chapter 21. In their rejection of God’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus, the leaders of the nation were rejecting God and His authority. Because of this, as Jesus had warned, God was going to reject the nation and was going to replace them with another people, the Gentiles. God was going to reject Israel’s leaders as well, removing them and putting others in charge. If Acts chapter 5 teaches us anything, it is that the leaders of Israel are no longer in charge. They are powerless to stop or resist the apostles, who have been given authority by the risen Messiah, the One the leaders rejected and put to death. They may still retain their position for a short time, but they have already lost their power. The apostles may not have the position or standing of the Sanhedrin, but they have the power and the authority.
This text has a great deal of relevance and application to us. Christians seem to have become secularized in their thinking, supposing that one must have position, or human power, or clout, in order to have authority. The first thing we must say is that it is not our authority that matters; it is Christ’s authority that counts. As we obey Him and faithfully proclaim the gospel with boldness, His Spirit bears witness to that message. His authority is bound up with the message, with the gospel, which Paul says, is the “power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
Christians seem to think they need to “get the power” before they can proclaim the message, but it is in proclaiming the message that the power of God is released. It is true that the power of God through the message and through the apostles was unusually great in these days. It is also evident that later on in the New Testament, the results of preaching the gospel are not as dramatic (cf. Acts 17), but that is because the degree to which His power is evident and manifested is determined by the sovereign will of God, and not by men. It is not our faithfulness which regulates God’s power; it is God’s sovereignty which regulates that. God does not need faithful servants to do great things, as the salvation of the Ninevites by the foot-dragging, rebellious, Jonah aptly illustrates. God’s power is in the message itself. If we proclaim that message, He will, according to His sovereign plan and purpose, use it. And if we refuse to proclaim it, He will arrange for the “rocks to cry out.” Let us faithfully proclaim the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation.
Our text has a great deal to say about persecution. Persecution is often the result of the proclamation of the gospel. Not only may men repent and be saved, but others will likely be angered, react, and resist. That is a part of the price of proclaiming the gospel. But the apostles did not think of their suffering so much as a “price to pay,” but as a privilege. In suffering for the sake of the gospel, the apostles found the privilege of a deeper identification with the One whose suffering had brought salvation to them. To suffer for His name is a privilege. Let us view it this way as well.
I see in our text, and in the on-going proclamation of the gospel to the people of Jerusalem, an illustration of the long-suffering and the grace of God. How patient God was to persist in proclaiming to His people, the Jews, their own sin, and the salvation which He had made possible through the Messiah. It was roughly forty years from the time Jesus was put to death to the time that Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans. During much of that period of time, the gospel was proclaimed. No one who lived in Jerusalem could say that they had never heard the gospel.
Are we not like the Jerusalemites in this regard? Many people in our country have never heard the gospel, but most have heard, or have had the opportunity to hear. And many who will spend eternity in Hell, apart from the Savior, will have heard the gospel many, many times. I pray that you will not be one of those hard-hearted people, like the chief priests, who refused to listen. I pray as well that you will not be open-minded and tolerant, like Gamaliel, but never coming to a personal repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior. I pray that you, like so many in the days of the apostles, will acknowledge your sin and turn to the Savior for life eternal.
! Lesson 10:
Waiting on the Widows
(Acts 6:1-7)
Introduction
We have all had the opportunity recently to watch a problem handled very badly. From one perspective, the problem was a serious one—the Dallas Cowboys were in a slump. Team morale seemed to be at an all-time low. The morale of the fans was no better. Ticket sales and attendance at the games were equally as bad. Team management and coaching were being questioned. The team was up for sale. And then a buyer from another state came along. He came with quick, guaranteed solutions, or so he assured us in a hastily-called press conference. The team’s only coach was summarily and unceremoniously sacked, and another coach was already waiting in the wings. This coach, we were assured, was better than five first-round draft choices. Many Cowboy fans were not so sure. And when the new coach arrived, he spent much of his time apologizing for the man who hired him.
There were many things the press and fans did not like. The buyer was a newcomer to football ownership. He was also a foreigner to Texans. And he was making all the decisions. He tried to put our minds at ease by telling us he would continue to exercise “hands-on leadership,” seemingly not being left out of any decision, even the calling of plays (we feared). While the new coach was born in Texas, he was new to the Cowboys. In time, we who are fans will cool down, but it appears, at this time, that all the wrong moves were made.
This man’s method of solving the “Dallas Cowboys’ problem” serves as an instructive backdrop for our text in which the apostles’ method of solving an even more serious problem arose in the church. On the surface, it appeared to be a simple problem involving some of the widows in the church. But because these widows were all a part of the same group, it became an occasion for the “Hellenistic Jews” to grumble against those who made up the other dominant group, the “native Hebrews.” The outcome could have been disastrous, but the apostles, supported by the church, brought about a decisive remedy which resulted in even greater growth for the church.
While our text is not a large one, it is a vitally important one. The problem which the Jerusalem church faced was unique, and it will certainly not be one which we face in our church. Nevertheless, the cause of the problem is one we have already experienced. And, we will find, neither is the nature of the problem unique. The problem which arose between the “Hellenistic Jews” and the “native Hebrews” originated because of the growth of the church—and the resulting failure of the church to minister to a particular segment of its congregation. We, as a church, have already experienced similar failures, and we have experienced some legitimate criticism in my opinion. A careful study of this text and an understanding of the principles and process by which this problem was solved could save us a great deal of heartache and division. And the lessons to be learned are not merely those which apply to church leaders, so let us all listen and learn what the Spirit of God is saying to us in this passage.
The Problem
(6:1)
Now at this time while the disciples[80] were increasing in number, a complaint[81] arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews,[82] because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving[83] of food.
A Suggested Scenario
It may be difficult at first to understand how a problem such as this could have arisen in the church at Jerusalem. Our text does not tell us how the problem arose, and thus it must not be that vital to understand. Nevertheless, let us consider how such a problem might arise so that we can see how easy it is for things to “fall through the crack,” even in a church which is growing, which is “Spirit-filled,” and in which people love one another.
Suppose you were a devout Jew who had been born in some Gentile nation. You would worship in a synagogue with others of like faith if you lived in a city which had a sizable Jewish population. You could not, however, worship at the temple. You knew that God’s covenants and promises were to be fulfilled in the land of Israel and that the Messiah would sit upon His throne in Jerusalem. Your life’s dream would be to relocate and to live in Israel, to worship in the temple, and to await the kingdom of God.
Years of hard work, sacrifice, and savings had made it possible to go. You and scores of other “Hellenistic Jews,” arrive in the land of promise. Your dream would be to live in the holy city of Jerusalem, so it is there you first go in search of property. Finding a long line at the real estate office, you learn that all of the others who have immigrated to Israel desire to live in or near Jerusalem as well. All the property in and near the holy city is owned by the “native Hebrews,” and they have no desire to sell, regardless of the price. The best you can do is to buy property (or at least a house) somewhere in the suburbs of Jerusalem, a number of miles from the city.[84] A visit to the holy city of Jerusalem would thus require a rather substantial “hike.”
If you were a “Hellenistic widow,” things would likely be even worse. The widows who were “overlooked” must not have had any immediate family, and neither did they have any financial resources. One can hardly expect such people to be living in the heart of the city of Jerusalem. They were very likely living in the suburbs, a good distance from the city. The “native Hebrew widows” would have a much better chance of living “close in,” in the holy city itself. After all, they were there first. And even if the price of land greatly increased, the Law would give them some measure of protection against losing their property.[85]
So the day of Pentecost came, and the church was born. Many of those saved were “Hellenistic Jews,” and the rest were “native Hebrews.” As time went on, more and more were added to the church. The saints immediately began to share their goods with those in need. I understand the texts in Acts to indicate that both “native Hebrews” and “Hellenistic Jews” gave, just as both received charity from their brethren. Eventually, the needs of the widows became so great that some system for feeding the widows came into existence (either by design or by a kind of “evolution”). In any case, Acts 6:1 seems to indicate there was a system in operation intended to provide daily rations for the needy widows.
I would imagine that some central location was secured in the city of Jerusalem, where the daily portions of food were either prepared or brought. Here the widows came for their provisions, either eating them at that place along with other widows, or taking their food home to eat there. Perhaps hundreds of widows were thus provided for in a reasonably efficient way. Who could complain when so many were being helped?
But such a system would favor the “native Hebrew widows,” who lived in or near Jerusalem, while it would not benefit the “Hellenistic widows,” who lived a distance away. If you were an elderly widow, miles removed from Jerusalem, would you attempt a walk of several miles each day for a free meal? I doubt it. And so, I suspect, it began to dawn on the “Hellenistic Jews” that, while many of the “native Hebrew widows” were being cared for (with the help of their funds), their own widows were receiving no help at all. The longer this went on and the more these “Hellenistic Jews” thought of it, the more angry they became. And this led to a growing bitterness on the part of the one group toward the other. The unity and joy which these saints once shared in common, in giving toward the needs of others, began to weaken. Something needed to be done—quickly and decisively.
Again I hasten to remind you that my “scenario” is purely hypothetical, but it does provide an illustration of how the problem in the Jerusalem church could have arisen, without malice or intent on the part of the “native Hebrews” and yet in a way that systematically overlooked the needs of a large group of widows who were “Hellenistic Jews.”
Observations on the Problem in the Jerusalem Church
What I have suggested is a mixture of fact and fiction, a suggestion of how the problem in the church could have come to be. Our text does provide us with a great deal of information that is factual. Let us now turn to those things Luke has told us about the problem which arose in the church so that we can base our interpretation and application on fact and not on fiction. Some of the important facts or inferences which we must keep in mind are:
(1) The Jerusalem church consisted of two major groups: the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews.” The “native Hebrews” were those who were born and raised in the land of Israel. They took great pride in this. As a rule, they would have spoken Aramaic (probably not Hebrew, the language in which the Old Testament was written) and perhaps some Greek (as a commercial language). The “Hellenistic Jews” would be those Jews whose ancestors had been dispersed from the land in Israel’s captivities (primarily Babylonian). These Jews were drawn back to Israel by their Jewish faith and their expectation of the coming of Messiah and the establishment of His kingdom, in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises made to the patriarchs, and the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets. They would likely not have spoken Aramaic but would have spoken as their native tongue the language of the nation from which they had come. It is my understanding that both “native Hebrews” and “Hellenistic Jews” were present at Pentecost:
1 And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were mocking and say, “They are full of sweet wine” (Acts 2:1-13).
It is also my understanding that those identified in chapter 2 as “devout men from every nation” were, by and large, Hellenistic Jews. I would also suspect that those “others” (2:13), who mocked and who concluded that the apostles were drunk, were mainly “native Hebrews,” who did not come from these “foreign lands” and thus did not understand the foreign languages spoken by the apostles, but who heard it only as drunken babbling.
One can very well imagine that while these two groups shared their Jewish lineage and faith in common, as well as the rituals of temple worship, they had many differences which kept them apart. Not sharing the same native tongue, they probably attended different synagogues and had separate teaching services. There was a strong potential for snobbery on the part of the “native Hebrews” and for friction between the two groups.
(2) There is evidence here of a long-standing friction and animosity between these two groups of Jews, the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews.” The discrepancy in the way the widows of these two groups were cared for was, as it were, the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” When relationships between two people or two groups are strained, it does not take much to create an incident.
(3) Initially, however, in its early days the church in Jerusalem was characterized by its unity and oneness in soul and spirit and thus in its generosity to others in need. When Pentecost came and the church was born, it should go without saying that there were men and women converted from both groups. Initially, there was a wonderful spirit of unity and harmony in the church as can be seen from Luke’s repeated references to the “oneness of heart and mind” of all the saints:
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:44-46).
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them (Acts 4:32).
And at the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico (Acts 5:12).
(4) The church in Jerusalem had already organized a program for feeding the needy. This program may have “evolved,” but there had to be some kind of organized program, which Luke referred to as the “daily distribution” (the added explanation, “of food,” is not found in the original text, but the text clearly implies this is the meaning, and thus the translators of the NASB supplied this explanation.) This program was very likely not to be limited to the feeding of widows alone, however. It was probably a program to feed all of the hungry in the church (and perhaps some outside the church).
(5) In spite of the good work this “feeding program” had accomplished, there was one group of people who were not being cared for in the same manner as the other. The Hellenistic widows were, as a group, being neglected. The text does not say that every Hellenistic widow was overlooked, but many of them were—enough so that it appeared to be discriminating against the Hellenistic widows.
(6)The neglect of these Hellenistic widows was apparently not deliberate but merely an oversight. The good news about this oversight or neglect of the Hellenistic widows is that it seems to have been unintentional. Administratively we might say this one group, for one reason or another, “fell through a crack” in the church’s program. The “sin” was not one of commission (a deliberate act), but one of omission (an accidental, unintentional act). There is no indication these widows were purposely neglected. It was a de facto discrimination.
(7) The neglect of the Hellenistic widows seems to have been the result of the rapid growth of the church in Jerusalem. The expression, “while the disciples were increasing in number,” precedes the statement that a complaint arose due to the discrepancy in the care of the two groups of widows. This suggests rather strongly that the growth of the church (and thus the number of widows) was one of the precipitating factors. If the church had not grown so large, the problem may never have occurred. Indeed, the problem did not exist earlier when the church was smaller.
(8) The grumbling of the Hellenistic community is directed against the “native Hebrew” community. The bitterness is not directed toward the other widows nor toward those who may have been in charge (alone), but toward the entire community of “native Hebrews.” This is evidence of a strong “class” feeling, the tip of the iceberg of a long-standing dispute or friction. It has a “cold war” feeling.
(9) We are not told that the widows grumbled but that those in the broader Hellenistic Jewish community grumbled. It is possible, of course, that the grumbling began with the widows, but this is never stated. In my opinion, the widows would not have done so but would have suffered silently. That is the way it usually works with the needy and the powerless. This is why God gave the Israelites (in the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 24:19-22) and Christians (in the New Testament, e.g., James 1:27) the responsibility of caring for the widows and the orphans.
(10) We are not told that the “native Hebrew” portion of the church grumbled against the “Hellenistic Jews.” It was a one-way grievance, and understandably so, if the “native Hebrew widows” were being well-cared-for. What would the “native Hebrews” have to complain about?
(11) The grievance of the “Hellenistic Jews” was based on the fact that what they (or their widows) received back was not up to par with what they gave. They seemed to get back less than they gave. This would be especially distressing if their needs were greater than those of the “native Hebrews.” The mindset here is that of a “taxpayer” in America. We hope to get back from the Federal Government in services or benefits at least as much as we paid in. We do not want what we have paid in to go to someone else.
(12) The grumbling of the “Hellenistic Jews” was not unfounded, but neither was it the proper response. The translation of the term, “complaint” (6:1) of the NASB would be better rendered “grumbling.” Every reference to grumbling in the Bible is looked upon as sin.[86] While there was an evil, and men should rightly be distressed over its existence, the response of the “Hellenistic Jews” was not a proper one.
(13) It is implied that the widows who are in view, both the “native Hebrews” and the “Hellenistic Jews,” are believing widows, those who are a part of the church. I do not mean to say that the needs of unbelieving widows were ignored, but rather to suggest that the principle concern of the church was to care for its own. This, I believe, has been implied all along (cf. Acts 2:41-47; 4:32, 34-35).[87]
(14) The apostles promptly and decisively took action, implying that there was basis for the grievance, and that it was a problem the church needed to solve, a matter in which they needed to exercise leadership.
(15) There is an implied assumption that the apostles should personally take care of the problem. The apostles were financially supported in their ministry as 1 Corinthians 9 makes clear. It would not be surprising for the congregation at Jerusalem to look to the “paid staff” to solve the problem since “they had to work for a living.”
(16) The problem which faced the apostles was one that could potentially turn them from doing what they were commanded to do, to preach the gospel. The response of the apostles was to point out the danger which this problem posed. They did not focus on the disunity which resulted but on the distraction which it presented to them in carrying out their primary task.
(17) The apostles gathered all the church together, which therefore included all sides of the issue.
(18) The apostles called for the men of the church to solve the problem. The men were instructed to select seven men. It was women who were neglected. It was a problem which may have aggravated the women more than the men. Did the women of the church take the lead in the grumbling? It would seem that if women could lead in any task, it might be here. The apostles called for men to take the lead and to solve the problem.
(19) This is not the final apostolic word on the care of widows. James chapter 1 speaks strongly of the Christian’s responsibility to care for widows, and 1 Timothy chapter 5 speaks clearly about who should be cared for and by whom.
The Response of the Apostles
(6:2-4)
2 And the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 But select from among you,[88] brethren, seven men[89] of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,[90] whom we may put in charge of[91] this task.[92] 4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”
The apostles’ response to the problem which had surfaced was, from every indication, a good one. The continued growth of the church, as described in verse 7, is an apparent evidence of the wisdom of the decision which was reached. Let ut pause to consider the response of the apostles, making some observations based on Luke’s report.
Observations Concerning the Response of the Apostles
(1) The apostles led the church. If leadership was ever needed in the church at Jerusalem, it was now. And leadership is precisely what the apostles provided.
(2) The apostles led as a group. In the past Peter has often spoken for the twelve, but not here. I believe Luke wants to emphasize that this was a problem facing the whole church, and it was a problem dealt with by the twelve, together.
(3) The apostles led by involving the whole church in solving the problem. The whole church was called together, appraised of the problem, and given a significant role to play in the solution. The apostles gave clear instructions as to what they required (for example, seven men were to be chosen, and their qualifications were spelled out), but they also appear to have given freedom in other areas (for example, who was to be chosen and how the choice was to be made).
(4) The apostles led with wisdom and skill.
· They quickly recognized the problem and its seriousness.
· They accurately appraised the problem.
· They promptly acted on the problem, to bring about its solution.
· They had a clear grasp of their own responsibilities and priorities.
· They wisely delegated, to avoid over-taxing themselves.
· They clearly communicated their position, their priorities, and the courseof action which was to be taken by the church.
The Basis of the Apostles’ Actions
It is not only important to observe what the apostles did in response to this problem in the church but to discern why they acted as they did. The actions of the apostles were based upon principles, principles which it would be good for us to review.
(1) The care of widows was the responsibility of the church.[93]
(2) The ministry of the church should not discriminate against any group or individual. If it was right for the church to feed its widows, it was wrong for the church to fail to feed a certain group of widows, even if that failure was not deliberate. De facto discrimination was understood to be wrong and was seen to be in need of correction.
(3) The primary responsibility of the apostles was the ministry of the Word of God and prayer. While the widows were in great need of food and the discrimination against this one group needed to be corrected, the disciples must not be distracted from their principle calling—proclaiming the Word of God and prayer. It is most interesting to observe here that this problem in the church could easily have produced the same result as the threats of the Sanhedrin—the cessation of the preaching of the gospel by the apostles. The apostles would not allow this problem in the church to deter them from their God-given task any more than they would allow the threats of their opponents to do so.
(4) The apostles must choose to “neglect” some things in order to “devote” themselves to others.
(5) The choice as to what the apostles should “devote” themselves to should be based on their priorities, and these priorities should be based upon their God-given task.
(6) That which the apostles chose to personally neglect as their personal ministry, they must see to having done by exercising oversight through administration and delegation.
(7) The task required men of high caliber, spiritual men who possessed practical wisdom.
(8) This was a problem affecting the whole church, and thus the whole church needed to be involved in the solution of the problem.
(9) The apostles had faith in the Holy Spirit to guide and empower men other than themselves.
Implications
Before we press on, let us give some thought to the implications of this text and to the actions taken by the apostles and the church.
(1) The greater the size of the church, the more structure is required to facilitate its ministry. Added size requires additional structure. The problem which arose in the church seems to have been a by-product of church growth. As the church got larger, things could not be handled spontaneously or informally. When a church is small, many of its tasks can be handled with little or no structure. But as a church grows, more structure and programming may very well be needed. Church growth thus requires an increase in structure. Church growth consequently requires constant evaluation and change in the way things are done. How often we resist change with the words, “But we’ve always done it that way!” Growth requires change in the way the church goes about its ministry.
(2) The leaders of the church are ultimately responsible for what the church does or does not do. While there is no indication that the apostles[94] were directly responsible for the failure in the feeding of the Hellenistic widows, they assumed responsibility and took charge of the matter in order to rectify this wrong. Church leadership is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the church, so long as it is in their power to deal with it.
(3) The leaders of the church are not obliged to personally do all that for which they are responsible. The apostles were “overseers.” Their job was not to do everything in the church which needed to be done. Their actions and their words in our text underscore their conviction that while they were responsible to see that the widows were all fed (fairly and equitably), they were not responsible to do the feeding themselves. The responsibility of church leaders is often administrative—that is, they are responsible to see to it that the tasks of the church are carried out. They are not responsible to do all the ministry in the church. The expectation of many church members—today, as in the days of the apostles—seems to be that the leaders should be doing what needs to be done but is not being done.
(4) Church leaders, like all others, must chose to do some things to the neglect others. The apostles’ words reveal their understanding of the fact that if they were to take on the task of “waiting tables” they would neglect the “ministry of the word.” Reversed, they knew that in order to minister the Word, they must refrain from waiting on tables. How often we feel guilty for that which needs doing but which we do not take upon ourselves to do. Life is such that there are far more things which need doing than we can ever do ourselves. Leadership is seeing to it that the important and vital things we do not do personally will get done. Delegation is required at this point, and administration sees to this delegation.
(5) In order to know what to do and what to avoid, we must have a clear sense of our calling, from which our priorities are the outflow. The apostles were convinced that their primary calling was to proclaim the Word of God, with its related requirement of prayer. Knowing what they were called to do gave the apostles a clear grasp of what they could not do. Our priorities should govern what we do as well as what we abstain from doing, and these priorities flow out of our particular calling and purpose. Just as the apostles would not allow the threats of the Sanhedrin to keep them from proclaiming the gospel, so they would not allow the feeding of the widows to turn them from their task. But they did take administrative measures to see to it that the widows were cared for.
(6) Levels of leadership or ministry are needed in the church to assure that all vital tasks are carried out, without the neglect of tasks of the highest priority. It is my opinion that the apostles were acting with respect to their “job” responsibilities. The apostles were supported financially. Ministry was their job (1 Corinthians 9:1-18), but not just any ministry. Their task was to “proclaim the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14), as later on teaching elders were paid to “work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17-18). If it would have taken an excessive amount of time for twelve men to “wait tables,” one can safely assume that a great deal of time was required of the seven who were put in charge of this task. In my opinion, these men were very likely paid by the church to administrate the feeding of the widows.
While these seven men were not called “deacons,” their function in the church and in relationship to the apostles was very similar. The apostles had certain priorities as apostles, and taking on the care of the widows would have resulted in the neglect of their primary tasks of the ministry of the Word and prayer. These seven deacon-like men were brought into a leadership position to carry out this ministry but in a way that did not burden the apostles.
The same relationship and function exists in our church today with the elders and the deacons of this body. The elders have a general responsibility for the overall health and functioning of the church and of its members. In this sense, they are responsible for all that takes place in the ministry of the church. But in order to focus their attention on their priority ministries (including the ministry of the Word and prayer), they must appoint deacons and others to be put in charge of many of the ministries of the church. The role of the deacons, then, is to exercise oversight in those areas delegated to them by the elders, enabling the elders to focus their attention and efforts on those ministries which are a priority for them. As I presently understand 1 Timothy chapter 5, not all elders would be gifted as teachers and devoting their full time to this ministry, but some of them would. Thus, the function of all the elders in a church might not be identical to the function of the apostles.
In addition to the need for deacons and other leadership personnel, I believe that our text supports, in principle, the need for what is known today as “church staff”—people who are paid to minister in and for the church. I am inclined to believe that these seven men were paid to minister full-time. Assuming this to be true, these men might not only be thought of as “deacons” (or their prototypes), but also as “church staff.” Church staff becomes necessary as the size of a church increases and as the demands upon those who minister the Word increase as well. I think that I am expressing the view of our elders when I say that we, as elders, are willing to add to the “church staff” when the ministries they perform are vital, when the task they will perform requires the full or undivided attention of people, when the task needs to be done during the daytime (as the feeding of the widows would require), when the addition of staff frees up others to minister more effectively, and when the overall ministry of the church is enhanced, rather than usurped.
(7) The ministry of the Word and prayer were not to be the “private priority” of the apostles alone but are to be a priority for every saint. The Word of God and prayer were not simply the priority of the apostles. These were a high priority for the entire church:
And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2:42).
Other texts in Acts could be understood to imply the same (cf. 4:12).
Luke is quick to tell his readers that two of the seven men who were put in charge of the feeding of the widows (so that the apostles could devote[95] themselves to the ministry of the Word) were powerful preachers of the Word themselves. Thus, at least two of the seven had preaching the Word as a high priority of their own. Giving attention to the Word of God and to prayer should be a high priority in the life of every saint. The only difference between the saints is that a few are to devote themselves to this as their job, while all others are to devote themselves to it as a high calling, but not as their occupation. The difference is that between one’s avocation and another’s vocation.
What is it that keeps us from the Word of God and prayer? I would wish it were a cause so important and so noble as the feeding of widows. Unfortunately, it often is something far less noble, such as watching television, or indulging in some fleshly pleasure, or perhaps even in the upkeep of our body, as good as that might be (1 Timothy 4:7-8). Such “good” pursuits are worthwhile, until and unless they become a priority in our life which cause us to neglect the Word of God and prayer.
(8) The ministry of the Word and prayer were a priority to the apostles because the proclamation of the gospel was a priority. I mention this here for an important reason. Here, the priority of the advancement of the gospel required the apostles to refrain from working and to devote themselves to the “ministry of the word and prayer.” The priority of the apostles was the advancement of the gospel, not just preaching the gospel. Thus, they ceased working to support themselves so that they could devote themselves to preaching and prayer. The advancement of the gospel was Paul’s priority too, and it required the opposite of him. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul made it clear that while he and Barnabas had the right to be supported as apostles, they declined to do so, working with their own hands, supporting themselves, because this was the best way for the gospel to be advanced (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-23). This can be seen from other texts as well (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 1 Thessalonians 2:9-10). How sad it is today that so few think of advancing the gospel by refraining from being supported, while so many wish to be supported to preach the gospel. If the advance of the gospel is our priority, we will determine whether we support ourselves or whether we are supported on the basis of what most adorns and advances the gospel.
(9) The equality and unity which the gospel demands, and the Holy Spirit produces, is not complete until leadership is shared by the various parts of the body of Christ. This inference may not be as clear or as universally accepted, but I believe that it is valid. Before significant evangelization takes place outside Jerusalem, leadership in the church in Jerusalem is expanded to include those who were likely excluded previously. Equality is not really present until it is reflected in leadership.
The Outcome
(6:5-7)
5 And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.[96] 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.[97] 7 And the word of God kept on spreading;[98] and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.[99]
The proposal of the apostles found favor with the entire congregation, and so the church set about its delegated task of selecting the seven men. While there is no indication that the apostles suggested or required that some of these men be Hellenistic Jews, it would appear from their names that they all were Hellenistic Jews, with the exception of Nicolas, who was a proselyte. When these men were brought before the apostles, they prayed and laid their hands on them. I believe this was to indicate that they were acting in the authority of the apostles. The inference is that the problem was solved and that the rift which was threatening the church was healed.
What Luke does tell us is that the church continued to grow. The proximity of this “progress report” to the matter of the feeding of the widows would suggest that growth continued in the church at Jerusalem because the problem was properly handled. If the threats of the Sanhedrin could not deter the apostles from preaching the gospel, neither could the problems in the church. The apostles persisted in preaching, and the Holy Spirit persisted in converting men and women and adding them to the church.
Luke gives us a very interesting detail concerning the added growth of the church. He informs us in verse 7 that “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” At this point in my understanding of Acts, I am not certain what to make of this statement, although I am convinced it is not an idle word. Luke’s words are always well chosen. It is possible, in the light of the next portion of Acts, that Luke is demonstrating that one era is drawing to a close. Initially the Pharisees adamantly opposed the Lord, but they have been silenced, to some degree, by His resurrection. The Sanhedrin too has aggressively opposed the Lord and His apostles, but they have now backed off, taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-40). Finally, many of the priests have actually come to faith in Christ as their Messiah. The religious system of Israel has changed its stance considerably. But now, at a time when the “old guard” has backed off, a new source of opposition is about to emerge—the Hellenistic Jews. The first appearance of these opponents will be in Acts 6:9, where those from the “Synagogue of the Freedman” will oppose Stephen, and will spearhead his stoning. Not only will we find the torch being passed to the Hellenistic Jews (beginning with Stephen and Philip, with Saul close behind) to proclaim the gospel, but the torch will also be passed from the “native Hebrews” to the “Hellenistic Jews” in carrying on the opposition to the gospel.
This brings us to a very significant, and final, observation concerning the outcome of this apostolic action of the feeding of the widows. While the apostles appointed seven men to be in charge of the feeding of the widows so that they could preach, the Spirit of God sovereignly selected and empowered two of these seven to become workers of signs and to be powerful preachers themselves. It should not be overlooked that the action of the apostles was taken so they could continue to preach, but the outcome of their action was that Stephen and Philip became great preachers, whose ministry reached beyond Jerusalem and Judaism. Stephen’s preaching resulted not only in his death, but in the scattering of the church abroad, and the gospel as well (Acts 8:1). It also impacted and involved a Hellenistic Jew named Saul, who was to become God’s instrument to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 8:1; 9:1ff.). And the scattering of the church from Jerusalem also served to launch the ministry of Philip, who proclaimed the gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:4-40).
I love the way the Spirit of God sovereignly works in and through the church. This incident in Acts 6 reminds me of the previous incident in Acts 1, where the apostles acted (again, with the consent of those gathered) to appoint the twelfth apostle. God nowhere condemned this action, but the Book of Acts will reveal that God had other “apostles” to add. This certainly included Paul, but it may also be understood to include Stephen and Philip. All of these men performed “signs and wonders”[100] and preached the gospel with great power.
The plans and purposes of God are always greater than our anticipation or understanding of them. Thus, the apostles acted in such a way as to enable them to be able to preach the gospel. In this, I believe, they acted wisely. But God was still free to raise up two of the seven they selected for ministering food to the task of ministering the Word. The apostles did not plan for this. They did not appoint these two to this task. They did not give them the power to work signs and wonders. They did not “disciple” these men, with the hope that they would take over a part of their task—of preaching the gospel. All of this was the sovereign purpose and work of the Holy Spirit. Men could not take credit for Stephen and Philip, or for the expansion of the gospel beyond Jerusalem, as a result of their ministries. The sovereign God was, once again, evident in the expansion of the gospel to Gentiles, as well as to Jews. What a mighty God we serve! Let us, like the apostles, seek to act in a way that is wise and pleasing to God. And let us, like the apostles, look for God to work in ways that we would never have anticipated, asked for, or acted upon.
Conclusion
As we seek to conclude this message, let me simply recap some areas of application, as stated or implied by our text.
First, there is a very literal application of our text in its stress on the need to care for believing widows. We have been talking about the neglect of a certain group of widows from a historic point of view, but let us not think only in terms of the past. I fear that the widows are a group who have always been neglected, and in some cases abused (cf. Matthew 23:14). Is it not possible for widows to be neglected by us, in our church, today?
The danger of widows, or at least a certain group of them, being overlooked by the church today is even greater now than it was then, in my opinion. Let me explain why. There was but one church in Jerusalem, which encompassed all members, regardless of race, culture, class, or economic level. There was but one church in Jerusalem, but in the city of Dallas, for example, there are virtually hundreds of churches, many of which are evangelical. The division of the church into many churches in one city has masked the problem of “overlooked people” even more today than in those days. The saints in Jerusalem saw the discrepancies in the care of the two groups of widows, because both groups were present as a part of the church. Today, the church in the city of Dallas is divided into geographical (North Dallas, Garland, South Dallas, etc.), racial and cultural (black, white, hispanic, Asian, etc.), socio-economic (middle, upper, lower class), and denominational segments, so that the whole church is never assembled in one place at one time (nor could it). The result is that poor black Christian widows in South Dallas may be doing without food, and yet we white Christians in North Dallas may never even see it or become aware of it. It is my personal opinion that the chance of widows being overlooked in our day is much greater than in the days of the first church in Jerusalem. Here is a text which we need to take very literally, to begin with, and very seriously in its implications.
Beyond our responsibility to feed the widows, let’s assume that there are well-fed believing widows in rest and retirement homes. They are not probably not mobile enough to find their own way to church. They will miss out on worshipping together with us, on worship and communion. And all too often, just as they cannot come to us, we do not go to them. I dare say that we are guilty of neglecting some of the widows today, and we may not even have gotten as far as to recognize it. We may not even have a group of people in our congregation who are, like the Hellenistic Jews, upset about it.
And if we let our concern for widows be expanded to the widows in our city, let us not restrict our vision or compassion to those within our own borders. Some of the greatest needs are those which are to be found in the Third World. In the developing argument of the Book of Acts, the vision of the church for the poor will become evident in Acts 11. We must, therefore, have a concern and a compassion for all widows, especially believing widows, wherever they might live.
There are a number of lessons to be learned from this text in Acts as it relates to its context and to the developing argument of the book as a whole. There is a very obvious transition taking place in chapter 6, a transition from Jerusalem to Samaria, and from “native Hebrews” to “Hellenistic Jews.” The torch of leadership is in the process of being passed. Leadership in the proclamation of the gospel is being passed from the twelve apostles (who will remain in Jerusalem, Acts 8:1), to all the rest, and especially the Hellenistic believers (such as Stephen and Philip, and later, Paul), who will be scattered abroad, preaching the gospel to “Hellenistic Jews” and also to Gentiles (cf. Acts 8:1-4; 8:5-25; 11:19-21). The torch is leadership is also being passed from the religious leaders in Jerusalem to the “Hellenistic Jews.” The stoning of Stephen is initiated by “Hellenistic Jews” from the “Synagogue of the Freedmen.” Others, like Paul, who take up the torch of opposition, are Hellenistic Jews. Thus, we find we are at a point of transition in Acts. We are on our way from Jerusalem to Rome and from the evangelization of the Jews (primarily) to Gentiles (primarily).
Another prominent theme to which this text in Acts contributes is that of the “progress of the gospel.” If the opposition of the Jewish leaders could not keep the apostles from preaching and ministering in the name of Jesus, neither could the problems within the church and the expectation that they personally solve them. The problem of the neglect of some widows, which was the result of the growth of the church, was also the cause of greater growth, by the way in which the church dealt with it. The gospel marches on, in spite of opposition and difficulty, indeed, because of it.
There are many other applications of this text to our lives which are apparent by implication, based upon the principles taught or assumed in our text. We learn from this text that as a church grows, its problems increase, and its structure must change. While the leaders of the church are responsible for seeing to it that problems are handled in a godly way, they are not responsible to personally solve them. Elders (like apostles) must see to it that many problems are handed by dealing with them administratively—by defining the problem, determining biblical principles and priorities, and communicating guidelines and standards for its correction. The elders must see their priority as that of the “ministry of the word and prayer.” Leaders, like deacons, are God’s means for freeing up the elders to focus on their principle tasks.
One of the greatest lessons in this text, in addition to others in Acts, is that of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Men have been given certain tasks and responsibilities by our Lord, who is the head of the church. He has given us His Spirit, who will enable us to perform these tasks. If we fail, it is not because He has failed to provide all that we need. If we fail, His work will go on and His purposes will be accomplished, for He can achieve His purposes through man’s disobedience and failure as easily as through his “successes.” And if we appear to succeed, and to carry out His will, God is not limited to our victories, any more than He is hindered by our failures. When the apostles chose Matthias as the last apostle, God had other apostles (like Paul) in mind, which He added in His way and in His time. When the apostles appointed these seven men to administrate the feeding of widows (and perhaps others), so that they could preach the gospel, God was free and able to take two of these seven and make great preachers of them. God works, in spite of our failures and successes, as well as by means of them.
We are obliged and responsible to undertake every task as unto Him, to do our task according to His principles and His power. If we fail, we will be accountable to Him for our failure, though His work will go on. And if we appear to succeed, it will have been by His grace. It will have been His work. It should be viewed as for the sake of His glory and praise. And even though we should appear to have handled the matter in the best possible way (as the problem of the widows was handled in our text), God may accomplish much more than we would ever have expected and in ways we would never have predicted nor planned. Man is responsible, but the sovereignty of God assures us that His purposes and plans will be achieved, in spite of us, through us, and by means of others than ourselves. What a God we serve!
! Lesson 11:
The Stoning of Stephen
(Acts 6:8–8:1)
Introduction
I have a confession. I feel a little bit like those two nuns in the “Sound of Music.” You remember, when the Von Trapp family was trying to get away from the Nazi’s and the two nuns helped them by stealing the distributor cap and wires from their cars. The nuns said something like, “Mother Superior, we have sinned,” as they held up the wires which they had “borrowed.”
Well I too have a confession. It was with great conviction last week that I taught on the first seven verses of Acts 6. One of the points which I tried to make was the priority of the preaching of the Word of God for the apostles. The apostles informed the church that it was not right that they neglect the Word of God and prayer in order to wait tables. It was a good point. I still believe it—but that is where my confession comes.
You see, for several weeks now I have been trying to complete the demolition of the little white house our church recently purchased. The demolition has all been done by hand, with the help of some of the men. Foul weather, a bad back, and some other problems has greatly hindered our work. This week, one of the men sent out a bulldozer, and a driver, to finish the job. The first part of the week I spent standing nearby, signaling to Oscar, the driver, what I wanted him to do. The last part of the week, I got to do what I really wanted to—drive the dozer myself. It was such great pleasure. If the dozer had not broken down, you would have known it from this message. But the truth of the matter is that I didn’t practice this week what I preached last week. Pushing stumps, for a time, took priority over preaching.
Our text for this week takes up where we left off in chapter 6. Our passage is indeed a large portion of Scripture, but because it is to be understood as a whole, and not merely in parts, I have decided to deal with it in one sermon. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, and so we shall endeavor to work through the text in its entirety. You will, of course, recognize that we are not able to go into great detail. I encourage you to make this text a matter of careful study. You will not be disappointed in the results.
The Structure of our Text
The structure of our text is simple and clear-cut and may be outlined as follows:
· The Setting6:8—7:1
· The Sermon 7:2—7:53
· The Stoning7:54—8:1a
· The Scattering 8:1b - 8:4ff.
Stephen has already been introduced in the first seven verses of chapter 6. The setting for Stephen’s arrest (if one could dignify his being “dragged off” by calling it an arrest), trial, and execution, is given to us in the remaining verses of chapter 6 (6:8-15) and the first verse of chapter 7. Stephen’s sermon is recorded in
7:2-53, with his stoning as the immediate and impassioned response of his audience (7:54—8:1a). The result is the scattering of the church (all but the apostles), in verses 8:1b and following.
Our Approach in the Lesson
Our approach in this lesson will be to first consider the setting of the sermon as we attempt to learn what brought about Stephen’s arrest and trial. Next we will look at Stephen’s sermon as a whole to identify some of its more important characteristics. We will then walk through the sermon noting some of its important points and seek to understand how it answers the accusations made against Stephen. Finally we shall seek to determine what the sermon meant—to the audience of Stephen, to Luke’s initial readers, and to us.
The Setting of Stephen’s Sermon
(6:8–7:1)
8 And Stephen full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. 10 And yet they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. 13 And they put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” 15 And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. 7:1 And the high priest said, “Are these things so?”
The “Hellenistic Jews”—those Jews born outside of Israel who migrated to Israel but who still had a separate language and culture derived from their exile—have already been introduced in Acts. They were those Jews who, at Pentecost, heard the apostles “speaking of the mighty deeds of God” in their own native tongues. It would not be unreasonable to assume that it was some of the “native Hebrews”—those Jews born and raised in Israel who spoke Aramaic or some Semitic language—who thought the sounds they heard (since they could not understand these foreign languages) were the mere mindless babblings of those who had had too much to drink (Acts 2:13).
Not until the neglect of the Hellenistic Jewish widows did this group actually emerge as a distinct entity in Acts. Here, in chapter 6, they had developed strong feelings of resentment toward the native Hebrews whom they held responsible, in some way, for the neglect of those widows from their own (Hellenistic Jewish) group. In the appointing of the seven men who would oversee the feeding of the widows from this point on, Stephen and Philip were selected, and their names were listed first (cf. Acts 6:5) with greater details given about them, especially Stephen.
Stephen was described as a man who was both “full of the Spirit and wisdom” (6:3) and as one who was “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (6:5). His ministry to Hellenistic widows seems to have put him in contact with a great many Hellenistic Jews. Among these people especially, and through Stephen, God accomplished many “great wonders and signs” (6:8). Feeding the widows gave Stephen a much greater exposure and the opportunity to function in a way that was similar to the twelve apostles.
The mention of Stephen’s ability to perform “signs and wonders” is very significant. It seems to imply that Stephen was, or at least functioned similarly to, an apostle. Up to this point, only the apostles were said to have worked signs and wonders. Since the twelve apostles would remain in Jerusalem after the church was scattered (Acts 8:1), it would seem that Stephen (here) and Philip (Acts 8) would serve as apostles to a more diverse group.
We are not told how the power to perform signs and wonders came upon Stephen. Had we been told, we would probably find this viewed as a formula by which saints are to manipulate or persuade God into acting as we would desire. Every indication is that both Stephen and the apostles were surprised by his ability to perform such miracles. It was not because Stephen “prayed through” or went through the right formula that he was empowered by the Spirit as he was. Neither was it because of the apostles, of their training, of discipleship, or ordination that these signs and wonders were performed. The simplest explanation for the mighty power which Stephen possessed was that the sovereign God had purposed to make him an apostle, in His own time, and in His own way.
Characteristics of Stephen’s Sermon
Before we begin to study the sermon of Stephen in greater detail, let us pause to look at the sermon as a whole and note some of its characteristics. Taking note of these will help us to understand its parts.
(1) This sermon is the longest recorded sermon in the Book of Acts. Stephen’s sermon is twice as long as Peter’s sermon delivered at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36).
(2) The sermon is not a defense but a response to the charges against him. If anything, Stephen’s words are an indictment, not a defense. It is Stephen’s answer to the question posed by the chief priest, “Are these things so?” (7:1)? The charges leveled against Stephen had to do with “this holy place”[101] and the “customs handed down by Moses.” These are two of the major themes in Stephen’s sermon.
(3) The sermon is not an evangelistic appeal. This may sound strange, but I believe it is clear, once one looks carefully at the text of the sermon. The content of Stephen’s message is quite different from previous sermons in Acts. There is, for example, less emphasis upon Christ. There is also no reference to Christ’s resurrection. And the conclusion of the sermon is very unique. There is no call to repentance but only a very strong accusation of guilt.
(4) Stephen’s sermon is Scriptural.[102] One cannot imagine how any more Scripture could have been packed into this message. Much of the sermon is a direct quotation of Old Testament texts.[103] Virtually all of the rest of Stephen’s words, as recorded in 7:2-50, are Stephen’s summation of Scripture. Stephen is not like so many contemporary preachers who begin with a Scripture text never again to return to it. All of his message was Scripture. His conclusion was but an application of these Scriptures to his accusers.
(5) Stephen’s sermon is a survey of the Old Testament and of Israel’s history. Stephen begins his message with the call of Abraham, found in Genesis 12. He deals with a number of the major periods in Israel’s history and with several of its prominent figures, including Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, and the prophets.
(6) Stephen’s message has a geographical orientation. Stephen’s preaching seems to have focused to some degree on the coming judgment of God on Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. The charge against him was that he spoke against “this holy place.” Stephen’s message thus has much to say about the places where God dealt with Israel. The sermon is a kind of “walk through the Old Testament,” from Haran, outside the land where Abraham was called, to Egypt, back to Shechem where the patriarchs were buried, to the wilderness where Moses fled, to the holy mount where Moses was called, to Egypt again from which God delivered the enslaved nation of Israelites, to the wilderness, to the promised land, and finally to Babylon.
(7) Stephen’s sermon was Spirit-filled. Stephen was described as a man who was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (6:3) and also as a man “full of faith and the Holy Spirit” (6:5). Finally, he was described as “full of grace and power” (6:8). His opponents were unable to refute the “wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (6:10). His face shown like the face of an angel” (6:15). At the time of his death he was said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” (7:55). Surely no one can doubt that his sermon was Spirit-filled. And though it was Spirit-filled, no one is said to have come to faith as a result of hearing it.[104] Instead, Stephen paid for this sermon with his own life. It would be well for each of us to note that a man who was “full of the Holy Spirit” could find nothing better to say than the words of the Scriptures themselves.
(8) The sermon of Stephen supplies us with some details which the Old Testament does not supply. For example, Stephen tells us that Moses was “a man of power in words and deeds” (7:22). From Moses’ excuses to God, for not serving as His spokesman to Pharaoh, one would have concluded that Moses was a poor public speaker (cf. Exodus 4:10). Furthermore, we are told (by a literal rendering of the text) that when Moses was placed in the basket, he was really “put out to die” (Acts 7:21).[105] Stephen’s sermon is an inspired commentary on certain parts of the Old Testament Scriptures.
(9) In spite of the fact that Stephen’s sermon had a very strong message of divine judgment, it was motivated by a loving and gracious spirit. Stephen was “full of grace,” and the words of Stephen at the time of his death are a testimony to this fact. He was not an “angry young preacher,” a hostile fellow belching forth the fire of hell. He was a man who loved his listeners, who prayed for their forgiveness and salvation. Paul was a delayed answer to this prayer. How the words and actions of Stephen must have stuck with Paul and even encouraged him in his hours of danger as he often brushed with death.
A Closer Look at Stephen’s Sermon
(7:2-53)
The charges against Stephen were false in the sense that they were not completely accurate, and they were based upon accusations of false witnesses (6:11, 13). There must have been some basis for the charges, however, just as there was at least a pretext for the charges against the Lord Jesus. Fundamentally, the charges were two-fold: Stephen was speaking against “the holy place,” and he was advocating an alteration of the customs handed down by Moses.
In one sense, these two charges were absolutely correct, and there were very much intertwined. These Jews, who may have spent their life’s earnings to return to the “holy land” (including, especially, the temple), must have believed that no one could worship God as well from foreign soil as from the sacred soil of Israel and from the sacred temple. This worship, they would have insisted, was rooted in the Law of Moses. But the coming of Jesus did mean that radical changes had come and that since the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, rigid observance to the Law was no longer required in many instances. As a case in point, Jesus told the woman at the well (John 4-42) that worship was no longer a matter of being in the “right place” (whether that were Mt. Gerazim or the temple in Jerusalem) but a matter of the “right person.” Thus, those who were to worship “in spirit and in truth” must worship the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. And so the temple was set aside as the only place of worship, and the customs of Moses were being altered.
Stephen’s sermon is his inspired response to these two primary charges pertaining to Jerusalem and the temple as the “holy place” and to the customs of Moses.[106] As Stephen led his accusers on their trek through the history of Israel, he was seeking to demonstrate two fundamental concepts: (1) The history of Israel bears out the fact that much of the life of the Jews was spent outside of the land; and, (2) that for all their smug self-righteousness, Israel had always shown themselves to be rebels against Moses and against the Law which was given through him. Consequently, as we work our way through Stephen’s sermon, we will cover many generations of Israelites, a number of well-known Old Testament personalities and places, and a good number of years. All of this will demonstrate that the conclusion which Stephen reached and preached was irrefutable and well-documented.
Stephen begins with the forefather of the Jews, Abraham, and he begins in Mesopotamia, the place where God appeared to Abraham and instructed him to leave that place and his family and to go to that (“holy”) place to which He would lead him. God spoke to Abraham in a foreign land (from the Jewish point of view). He promised Abraham the land of Canaan as his possession, and yet Abraham never possessed it in his lifetime, having to purchase even his own burial place. Abraham lived in Canaan as a sojourner, as a pilgrim.
Furthermore, God told Abraham that his offspring, his descendants, would live in an (as yet) unidentified foreign land for four hundred years (7:6). Here, Abraham’s descendants would be misused and persecuted, but afterward they would serve God in “this place” (7:7). The sign of this covenant was circumcision (7:8). Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, had twelve sons, who became the patriarchs of the nation Israel (7:8). The only problem was that they became jealous of Joseph and sold him into slavery in Egypt. No thanks to his twelve brothers, Joseph was sent to Egypt to which they would all be summoned after Joseph’s identity was revealed. It was while in Egypt for these four hundred years that this small party, who were seventy-five in number when they arrived in Egypt, left a mighty people, as the sand of the sea, as the stars of the heavens, just as God had promised. Abraham and Sarah, and later on Joseph, were buried in Shechem in the heart of Samaria, not far from Mt. Gerazim. This was that despised land through which the Jews would not pass (cf. John 4:4; Luke 9:51-55).
Moses, the man whose customs the Jews prided themselves for preserving and practicing, was persistently rejected by the Jews of his day. First, he was rejected by his own family who put him out to die (Acts 7:19-22). This Moses who was educated in Egypt, outside the land of promise, was God’s chosen instrument to lead His people from bondage to freedom and from Egypt to the promised land. His second rejection came from two of his brethren. When he attempted to mediate between two Jews who were fighting with each other, they both rejected his intervention and his leadership. They wanted nothing to do with him, and they wished him to keep out of their business. They could care less about the customs of Moses. They told him to stay out of their lives. They also reminded him that they knew he had killed an Egyptian the day before (Acts 7:27-28).
Moses fled to the land of Midian. It was here that God appeared to Moses and commanded him to return to Egypt, to free His people and to lead them into the land of promise, the “holy land.” Like Joseph, Moses was rejected by his brethren, but it was he whom God had chosen to save his brethren. This Moses told the Israelites that God would raise up another prophet, like him. In which way was this prophet to be like Moses? I believe that He was promised to be like Moses in being rejected by His brethren. As Moses performed “signs and wonders,” so this prophet by doing likewise would be like Moses. This Moses passed on more than mere “customs” to the Jews; he passed on “living oracles” (7:38).
The third rejection of Moses came in his absence from the people. Having given the people clear instructions, Moses went up on the mountain. The people refused to obey and induced Aaron to fashion for them a god which they could see. In their hearts, they had already turned back to Egypt, the place of their bondage. Rather than to worship the true God, whom they could not see, they rejoiced in and worshipped a god they could see, a god that was nothing but the work of their own hands (7:41).
I must pause at this point, when Stephen is speaking of Moses, to remind you of a very interesting comment included by Luke in the last verse of chapter 6:
And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel (Acts 6:15).
One can hardly fail to notice the similarity of this with that which Moses recorded in the Book of Exodus:
And it came about when Moses was coming down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses’ hand as he was coming down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because of his speaking with Him. So when Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him (Exodus 34:29-30).[107]
It was this “glowing of the face of Moses” which bore testimony to the fact that he had communed with God “face to face” (Exodus 33:11) and which caused the people of Israel to fear him. It was the same “glowing” which was on the face of Stephen, but they did not fear him. This one whom they accused of blaspheming against Moses was the one whose face was like that of Moses. Surely his face indicated that Stephen had communed with God and that they should hear him if they would understand Moses. But they would not hear. They saw his face, but they went on with their plan to put him to death. And when they would hear his sermon they would close their ears to it.
Here we reach a turning point, for Stephen turns from the law, that is the history of Israel as recorded in the five books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy), to the prophets. He cites the words of two of the prophets, who by divine inspiration interpreted the events of Israel’s history in the light of the law. They took the way the Israelites behaved and showed how they sinned, according to the law. They also told God’s people how the law was meant to be understood and practiced.[108]
In verses 44-50, Stephen will turn to the temple, comparing it to the tabernacle, the place of God’s presence, the “holy place” for the Israelites. Verses 42 and 43 provide a prophetic interpretation of Israel’s conduct in the wilderness when they had the tabernacle, God’s “holy place,” among them. Did God’s presence among them cause them to be more spiritual, more obedient to His law, as given by Moses? It did not. In fact, we are told by the prophet Amos that they were busily engaged in the worship of heathen deities. It was because of this idolatry, an idolatry that was not given up when they reached the land, the “holy place,” that God sentenced His people to captivity. The dispersion of Israel and the Babylonian captivity were the result of Israel’s sin (Acts 7:43).
Now Stephen turns to the “sacred cow” of the Israelites, the temple (in particular) and Jerusalem (in general) which the Hellenistic Jews revered so highly and for which they had sacrificed much to be able to worship God here. It was this “holy place” which they accused Stephen of blaspheming. Did Stephen, like Christ, warn the people of Jerusalem about the coming wrath of God upon this city and upon this temple (cf. Luke 19:41-44; 21:5-24)? What value was one to place on this city and upon this temple? To the Israelites, these had virtually become their gods. No wonder Stephen’s words seemed like blasphemy!
In verses 44-50, Stephen spoke about the temple, comparing it to the tabernacle. The tabernacle, Stephen reminded them, was that which God designed, which God initiated. It was the special place of His presence among His people. It did not, as previous verses indicate, make anyone obedient to God for they disobeyed God openly, in His presence. The temple was the “inspiration” of David. It was his desire, his conception. God granted David’s request to build a temple, but it was his son, Solomon, who was to build it.
Now Stephen turns to the words of the prophet Isaiah, in the last chapter of his prophecy, to remind his accusers of a very important theological fact: God does not need a building built by human hands in which to dwell. Nothing which man can build would be adequate. Why would the Creator need man to create a dwelling place for Him? Why would the God who inhabits heaven as His throne and who has the earth as His footstool need a temple?
I think I know why the Jews of Stephen’s day (and other days as well) thought so. They knew that the Messiah would come to Jerusalem and would reign as King from His holy temple. They thought that Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple were all necessities for the kingdom to come. No wonder these Hellenistic Jews were willing to give up all that they possessed to reach the “holy place.” How blasphemous it must have seemed to them to hear Jesus (first), the apostles, and now Stephen speaking of the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem. They understood this as a rejection of the kingdom. With the dashing of Jerusalem, all of their messianic hopes were dashed as well.
The problem, however, was that their understanding of the kingdom, and of how it was to be established on earth, was wrong. Indeed, in the context of this quotation of Isaiah 66:1-2, several important truths are revealed. First, God would bring judgment upon Jerusalem and the temple. Second, that God would bring salvation to the Gentiles. Third, when God came to the earth to establish His kingdom, He would create a new Jerusalem and a new temple. Israel’s man-made temple would be destroyed along with the city of Jerusalem. God would create His own Jerusalem and His own temple, which He would bring down from heaven. The destruction of Jerusalem and the demolition of the temple was not a rejection of the kingdom, or a hindrance, but a prerequisite to it. This was a necessary step, clear the ground as it were, so that God’s temple could be brought to the earth. God is not a remodeler. He will destroy the old earth and the old heavens so that the new heavens and earth may come.
Had the people heeded the prophets, they would have known this, and they would have welcomed the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. The problem was the sinfulness of God’s people. And so, Stephen reached the conclusion of his message, recorded in verses 51-53. Israel’s history was one consistent account of God’s grace and of Israel’s sin and rebellion. God had given the Law, and they disobeyed. God sent His prophets, and they rejected them. These prophets spoke of the coming Messiah, and they were killed, just as these people were guilty of the blood of Jesus, the Messiah who had come just as the prophets had promised. The “holy Law,” which they claimed to revere and to defend, was not kept throughout Israel’s history, and it was not kept by Stephen’s accusers either. It was not Stephen who was worthy of death, but his audience.
The Stoning of Stephen
(7:54–8:1a)
54 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. 55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ 57 But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse. 58 And when they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him, and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” 60 And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” And having said this, he fell asleep. 8:1 And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison. 4 Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.
The message was too much to bear. Just as they had done before,[109] they rejected God’s spokesman. They would do away with him in an effort to do away with his message and His Messiah. The description of the crowds is one of near insanity. They were out of their minds. Logic and reason would have agreed with Stephen, for his message was merely a recitation of the Old Testament. But they would have none of it nor of him.
What an illustration we have here of “dying grace.” The death of Stephen can rightly be called, “Spirit-filled dying.” I have heard many speak of being “Spirit-filled,” but few speak of it in the context of death. Stephen’s death, because it was experienced by a “Spirit-filled” man, is a model for all saints to desire to follow in their hour of death.
It was a peaceful death, even though the surroundings and the circumstances were violent and chaotic. It was a time of great intimacy and communion with God. Stephen was enabled to see the heavens opened and to see the Savior standing at God’s right hand, ready to receive him into His presence. The grim scene around Stephen faded away in the light of the glory of God before him. As Stephen spoke of these things, the crowds went wild. All pretense of “due process” and of a legal trial were swept aside. They drug him out of the city and stoned him, with the consent and assistance of Saul. Stephen, like his Savior, called upon God to receive his Spirit. His last words, like those of Jesus, were words of compassion. He prayed for the forgiveness of those who had sinned by taking his life. The salvation of Saul, while it would be at a later time, was, I believe, an answer to this prayer.
Conclusion
We have only seen the “tip of the iceberg” in this message, and so it will be with its interpretation and application. Let me suggest some of the areas of interpretation and application which may be a starting point for your continued study and meditation.
In the developing argument of the Book of Acts, the sermon and the stoning of Stephen is very significant. It is a transition point, as we can see, marking the end of one era and the beginning of another. It is the end of the “Jerusalem phase” and the beginning of the “Samarian phase.” Soon, with the conversion of Saul, the gospel will spread to the “remotest part of the earth.” But for now, God’s dealings with the city of Jerusalem are winding down. The apostles will remain, we are told, but the church is dispersed. The time for the destruction of Jerusalem draws near. The reason for the destruction of Israel is apparent in Stephen’s message and even in his own death. His sermon, much like the ministry of Isaiah the prophet (cf. Isaiah 6), was not intended to turn men to repentance but to seal their doom. The judgment of God on Jerusalem is not far off, and for very good reason. Now that the gospel has been preached to the Jew first, it will go to the Gentiles.
There are some very direct applications of this message to us. First, just as Jerusalem was rushing on to its own destruction, so is our own world, our own nation, and those around us. The judgment of God is soon to fall on our world, and for the same reasons that it fell upon Jerusalem—men reject God’s word.
Second, the “dying grace” that is evident in Stephen’s death can be ours as well. How often we pray that we will not die or that our death would be painless and quick. Stephen’s death should challenge us here. We should pray for grace that our death will be a glimpse of heaven, and our dying thoughts should be for the salvation of men around us. May our death, like Stephen’s, be a glorious event, regardless of the circumstances, for it is our entrance into the glorious presence of our Savior, who is still standing at the right hand of the Father, awaiting us.
Third, there is for us in Stephen’s sermon a lesson in how to use and interpret Scripture. Stephen’s message was drenched in Scripture. There was much of God’s thoughts and none of Stephen’s. Stephen had a grasp of the Scriptures, as a whole, and in large portions. While the scribes and Pharisees “strained the gnats” and focused on the obscure points, on the unknown, Stephen focused on the “camels” (cf. Matthew 23:24). While the Jews leaned heavily on their own traditions (and rejected the interpretation of the prophets), Stephen took his views from the prophets. May we imitate Stephen in his handling of the Word of God!
Stephen’s sermon deals with a number of the themes which Luke has been developing in the book. The sovereignty of God is evidenced in the results of this sermon. In previous sermons in Acts, many have been saved. Here (and for the first time), the preacher is put to death. God prospers some sermons in the salvation of many, but He also uses sermons for other purposes, as here. We also see that there is an evangelistic thrust, resulting from this sermon. This is an evidence of God’s sovereign control. Those who are saved are not the audience of Stephen, but the Samaritans and Gentiles who will be saved because of the persecution resulting from Stephen’s death. Without knowing it, these Jews are propelling the gospel beyond Jerusalem to the very places from which they have come. Many will be saved because of the sermon and the death of Stephen. And the one who was a part of Stephen’s death—Saul—will be God’s chosen instrument to reach the Gentiles. What a God we serve! How His ways are beyond ours (cf. Romans 8:31-39; 11:33-36).
In principle, the problem of the Jews (of Stephen’s day and of those described in his sermon) was one of materialism. That is, they wanted to worship and to obey only what they could see. They made idols which they could see. The minute Moses was “out of sight,” they turned to idols. The temple was a kind of idol. It was something physical, something which they could see. They preferred this temple to that temple which is, as yet, unseen. It is no wonder that Hebrews 11 is devoted to the subject of faith, and that, at the very outset, we find faith described as that which is based upon and which looks forward to the unseen. The kingdom for which the Old Testament saint looked forward was not an earthly one but a heavenly one:
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).
No wonder Stephen, a man who was “full of faith and the Holy Spirit,” did not fear death and did not revere the physical temple in Jerusalem. He was a man who “saw” a better temple and whose hope was not earthly. He was free to die, as were the saints of old, because of His faith in God and the promises which were sure to come. May we be more like this great man of old whose life and ministry were short but significant.
! Lesson 12:
Simon and Simon
(Acts 8:1-25)
Introduction
There are three distressing facts when it comes to cults. The first is that Christians are prime targets for cults. All too many cult members appear to have been genuinely saved, but poorly grounded in the Scriptures, and thus were easy marks for cult leaders who professed to be “in touch” with God. I am told, for example, that Southern Baptists are some of the most likely prospects for Mormonism. The second distressing fact is that a number of cult founders and leaders have had some involvement with evangelical Christianity, but have departed from it. One of our close relatives was involved in a cult, and when she showed us the book written by the cult leader, he openly admitted an evangelical background. A third distressing fact is that some of the cults are so close to Christianity, at least in their professions and in their propaganda, that it is difficult to determine whether they are really Christian or not. I will not name a particular group, but you may easily be able to think of one or more which fall into this category.
Simon the magician was believed by some of the ancients to have been the founder of a very dangerous cult, one which dogged the heels of Christianity for a period of its history.[110] It is difficult to determine with any degree of conviction, whether or not he was even a Christian. From Luke’s words (“even Simon himself believed,” verse 13) we would conclude that he was saved, but from the words and actions of Simon himself, and from the severe warning of Peter, one would surely have some second thoughts on the matter.
Simon is, unfortunately, similar to many of those who are cultists or false prophets and apostles, as described in the Scriptures. Simon was a man who once practiced magic, but who never seemed to fully give it up. He was thus plagues with a “magic mindset” which can be seen in what he says and does, as recorded by Luke. This mindset is not just that of the cultists; it is a mindset which characterizes many Christians today. There is a world of difference between magic and Christianity, as we shall see here, in our text, and later on in the Book of Acts (13:4-12; 19:13-20). Let us look carefully at Simon, then, to see if any of his ways of thinking or of acting are our own, or are characteristic of others, who profess to be Christians. And let us look as well at the ways in which God is bringing about the growth of His church, from Jerusalem and Judea, to Samaria.
The Source of the Samaritan Revival
(8:1-3)
And Saul[111] was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
It was a remarkable chain of events, one which no one would have conceived of in advance. The problem of the neglected Hellenistic widows was solved by the appointment of seven men. Prominent among them in Luke’s account are Stephen and Philip. Stephen’s ministry exploded and expanded beyond overseeing the care of widows to the powerful proclamation of the gospel, accompanied with signs and wonders. This ministry led to opposition, which ultimately led to his execution. And Stephen’s death snowballed into a massive reaction to the entire church in Jerusalem. This intense persecution which broke out against the church caused the saints to scatter. All but the apostles fled, but these men stayed behind.
The result was a massive missionary expansion, without any missions committee, without any “support,” and (remarkably) without the leadership and presence of the apostles. Acts 1:8 was being fulfilled in Acts 8:1, but not in the way we would have expected. The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 was given in the form of a command. Acts 1:8 was given in the form of a promise. In reality, the evangelism of the Samaritans and the Gentiles did not take place because men actively sought to obey the command of our Lord, expressed in the Great Commission, but rather providentially, brought about by the Sovereign Head of the Church, through persecution. The saints went about, sharing the gospel, not so much out of obedience as out of necessity. Persecution brought about proclamation. How God’s ways surpass our own!
According to Luke’s account, the persecution of the church in Jerusalem which brought about the Samaritan revival[112] was, in large measure, the result of one key individual—Saul. No other names are mentioned. And, after the conversion of Saul, the persecution ceases, and a new era of peace commenced (Acts 9:31). I take it that Saul was therefore one of the driving forces behind the persecution of the church in Jerusalem.
The significance of this must not be overlooked. As the ringleader of the opposition to the gospel and the persecution of the church in Jerusalem, Saul was instrumental in the first “missions thrust” of the church. Granted, this was not his intent, but it was the result. God uses the “wrath of men to praise Him” (cf. Psalm 76:10). How often we tend to think of the evangelization of the world of that day as the result of Paul’s “preaching,” rather than as a result of Saul’s “persecution.” Both are true. The sovereign God can just as easily employ the intense opposition of an unbeliever to spread the gospel as He can the faithful preaching of one of His saints. A sovereign God does not need the obedience of men to achieve His purposes, but how blessed it is when men obey, becoming a willing participant in God’s plans and purposes!
Philip’s Samaritan Ministry
(8:4-8)
4 Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. 5 And Philip[113] went down to the city of Samaria[114] and began proclaiming Christ to them. 6 And the multitudes with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing. 7 For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. 8 And there was much rejoicing in that city.
Samaria and the Samaritan people are not new to the gospels. John (chapter 4) recorded a very significant encounter between Jesus and the “woman at the well.” In this account, we are given some very pertinent insight into the views of the Samaritans, as well as their strained relationship with the Jews. When Jesus was passing through Samaria and was given an unfriendly reception, some of Jesus’ disciples asked His permission to “call down fire from heaven” on that village (Luke 9:51-55). Jesus told the story of the “Good Samaritan,” which contrasted the warmth and compassion of this “heathen” with the callused disregard of a Jewish priest and a Levite (Luke 10:30-37). While He forbade His disciples to go to Samaria with the good news of the kingdom initially, this was rescinded in the Great Commission (cf. Matthew 10:5-6; 28:18-20).
Philip’s arrival in the city of Samaria was but a part of a much larger program, whereby the persecution of the church scattered saints. Notice that this scattering occurs in such a way as to exactly follow the order of Acts 1:8:
“… and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
And so the church was born in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), it spread through persecution to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1, in that order), and then abroad (cf. Acts 11:19-21; 13:1ff.).
Those who were scattered may have fled Jerusalem in fear, but the message of the gospel was nevertheless proclaimed. I do not think that the gospel was proclaimed out of duty, but rather spoken as a truth which could not be kept secret. It would not surprise me that some of the saints who fled from Jerusalem purposed to keep quiet about their new faith in Jesus as their Messiah, but when they spoke with others, they could do nothing other than to speak of Him with their new neighbors.
Like Stephen, the hand of God was powerfully evident in the ministry of Philip. Great signs accompanied and underscored his preaching, so that the people gave attention to his message. Among the miracles which occurred were the exorcism of demons and the healing of the paralyzed. As God’s power was demonstrated and the gospel was received, there was great joy in that city (verse 8). The “Samaritan revival” had commenced.
Simon’s Past and His Profession
(8:9-13)
9 Now there was a certain man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city, and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; 10 and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” 11 And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 13 And even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip; and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.
In the previous section, Philip’s overall ministry was summarized, and a general overview of its results was given. Now, in verses 9-13, one man is in view, a magician by the name of Simon. This “Simon” was a man who had once mystified the people of this Samaritan city (verses 9-11). By his magic arts[115] Simon had managed to “pull the wool over the eyes” of the Samaritans for years. He made claims of being someone great, but it seems that he allowed the people to come to their own conclusions. Their conclusion, skillfully suggested and orchestrated by Simon, was that he was “the Great Power of God.” Given the religious views of the Samaritans, and the fact that they shared a messianic hope with their Jewish “half-brothers” (cf. John 4:25), I take it that Simon was claiming to be more than a representative of God, but that he was indeed deity. Was he actually claiming to be the Messiah? Such was not uncommon, and it may well have been Simon’s intent.
When Philip arrived in Samaria, Simon’s magic practice came to a screeching halt. The impression I gain is not that Simon gave it up, as something deceptive, evil, and anti-Christian, but rather that his practice merely died, outclassed by the real power of God manifested through Philip. Even Simon was amazed by the power of God at work through Philip. But because he did not forsake his magic practice, he seems not to have forsaken the “magic mentality” on which it was based. Simon is said to have believed, and to have been baptized (verse 13), but there seems to have been little repentance evident, that change of heart and mind which sees one’s past ways as those which must be rejected and put aside. If Simon was not saved, he surely appears to have come close to faith, and if he was a true believer, he seems not to have taken his faith far enough.
While the people of Samaria witnessed the miracles which God performed through Philip, they focused on his message. When the people of Samaria witnessed the “magic” of Simon, they focused on the man. Simon seems to have been more taken by the ministry and the power of Philip than with his message. Wherever Philip went, Simon tagged along, constantly amazed at the evidences of the hand of God in this man’s life and ministry. The power of Philip seems more fascinating to Simon than the person of Christ and the practical outworkings of the gospel. The magician seems to live on, focusing on a bigger and better power, rather than on a whole new way of life. He seems, still, to be too self-centered, and not Christ-centered.
The Arrival of the Apostles
and an Admonition from Peter
(8:14-24)
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 “You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.” 24 But Simon answered and said, “Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
While the apostles in Jerusalem did not initiate this revival in Samaria, they did sense a responsibility for exercising oversight in the matter. Thus, when they heard of the Samaritan revival, they sent down Peter and John. (Ironically, it was John who was one of the disciples who asked permission to call down fire on the Samaritan village in Luke 9:54. How strange it must have seemed to John, now, to be going down to Samaria to recognize the church which was begotten there. I wonder if Peter and John had to pass through this same village on their way down, or back, and to preach the gospel to these people.)
We are not told that Peter and John were sent to Samaria to lay hands on the Samaritans and to pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. I think that they went on a “fact-finding mission,” not know what God would have them do when they arrived. When they arrived, they must have begun to interview these new saints, and in a way similar to that described in Acts 19:1-7, they must have learned that while these “saints” had believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah, and while they had also been baptized, they had not received the Holy Spirit, as had happened in Jerusalem. Learning this, they must have sensed that God had held back the descent of the Spirit until their arrival. They somehow learned that through the laying on of their hands and their prayers the Spirit would come upon the church.
There is a temptation for us to try to make this text conform to our pre-conceived ideas about the Holy Spirit, rather than to allow it to speak for itself. It would seem to me that the “coming” of the Holy Spirit here upon the Samaritans was very similar to (if not identical with) the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). There is, however, no emphasis on the “ecstasies” of this event, and we are not told exactly what did take place. Surely something unusual and miraculous occurred, for Simon seems to be even more impressed at this event than with what he had seen taking place through Philip. I take it, then, that this is the second of four “pentecosts” in the Book of Acts (the remaining two being found in Acts 10 and 19).
For those who would like to view this event as normative, I would disagree. I do not think that this text suggests that the Holy Spirit comes upon men only after they have had the “laying on of hands.” Indeed, when we look at the four “pentecosts” in Acts, it is only here and in chapter 19 that the Spirit falls upon men through the laying on of hands. In Acts 2 and 10, no one expected the Spirit to descend on men, and nothing was done to prompt it. Elsewhere, the laying on of hands has nothing to do with the reception of the Holy Spirit.[116] The point of the “laying on of hands” is identification, more than impartation. The laying on of hands was an act of identification. In laying their hands on Paul and Barnabas, the church at Antioch identified with them in their God-given task of evangelization (Acts 13:3). When the apostles laid their hands on the 7 (Acts 6:6), they were identifying themselves with these men and their task, thus giving them (their) authority to carry out the oversight of the feeding of the widows. In Acts, the reception of the Holy Spirit (a “pentecost” by my definition, at least) happens to four groups. These incidents are not the norm, but the exception. They occur so that it might be made clear that the gospel has been proclaimed and received by those outside Jerusalem, and by those other than Jews (i. e. Gentiles). In the epistles, the norm is that men receive the Holy Spirit at the time of their salvation (cf. Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2:6-16; 12:13). The fact that Luke has to tell his reader that these Samaritans had not yet received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16) strongly suggests that this case was the exception, and not the rule.
The focus of this account is not to emphasize the reception of the Holy Spirit, but rather the undue attraction which this power to bestow the Holy Spirit has for Simon. Simon was amazed by the power of God at work through Philip, but he did not offer Philip money to have such power.[117] Once the apostles arrived, it would seem that Simon quickly transferred his fixation on them, and on their power, rather than on Philip. To Simon, if their power was not greater than Philip’s, it was at least more desirable.
Simon “reached for his wallet” (at least figuratively), offering Peter and John money for the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit. It is not really surprising that he would do so. After all, would he not have paid to learn his magic arts. No one would be inclined to pass along such valuable knowledge without compensation. Learning to practice magic would be something like buying a franchise. Simon was used to thinking in terms of the buying and selling of abilities. He simply continued to operate as he always had—as a magician. The problem was that Christianity and magic are worlds apart, night and day. This he would learn from the lips of Peter.
Peter’s first words are strong indeed, signaling the seriousness of Simon’s sin. J. B. Phillips catches the flavor in a translation which closely resembles the sense of the original text:
“To hell with you and your money” (Acts 8:20).
It certainly casts some doubt on the salvation of Simon. If this man were truly saved, you would also be eternally secure, but Peter’s words would not give him a false sense of assurance. Let us remember that Peter, himself, heard some very strong words of correction from the lips of his Lord:
“Get behind Me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23).
Just as Peter was called “Satan” by his Lord for expressing his thoughts and desires, so Simon was addressed as a heathen, for he was acting like one at the time.
Peter’s rebuke is stinging, but it is not really what we might have expected. Simon was not admonished for improper motivation, though one can hardly doubt that his motives were impure. Did he not wish to obtain the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit to make money, or at least to gain power and prestige, and to further himself? I suspect so, but this is not what Peter condemned.
Peter’s indictment was not Simon’s motivation, but his mindset. It was not his attitude which was the most serious problem, but his assumptions. The bottom line was that Simon thought he could buy the gift of God:
“May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20).
The ability to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit was a gift, as I understand it, a gift which was restricted to the apostles. This is why Philip could not bestow the Spirit upon the Samaritan saints. When Simon tried to purchase the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit on others, he based his actions on the assumption that the gift of God could be bought and sold.
Why is this such a serious matter? Because it is a misconception, a perversion of grace. There is a direct, one-to-one connection between spiritual gifts and grace. In fact, spiritual gifts are “graces.” The word used for gift is the word for grace. Any spiritual gift is a grace gift. That means that it cannot be earned or secured by man’s efforts. That is why gifts are sovereignly bestowed:
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).
The gifts of the Spirit and the gift of salvation are all gifts in the same sense that they are gifts of grace, they are gracious gifts of God that are not deserved, but which are sovereignly bestowed on men, with no consideration of one’s worthiness of receiving them. No gift of God is ever deserved by its recipient, and thus we must always be grateful to God for them. Thus, too, we can never have pride because of any gift we receive.
This is why Simon’s sin is so serious. It is a sin against grace itself, and thus a sin of the most serious type. Peter’s words are intended to shock Simon, to underscore the evil of his actions and to bring about repentance. As I understand the words of verses 21 and 22, Peter is not speaking so much about Simon’s sinfulness in general, but rather in terms of this specific sin, the sin of trying to purchase God’s gift. It is this sin which is in view, and it is this sin which Simon must repent of and seek God’s forgiveness and restoration.
Peter’s rebuke employs the terminology of Deuteronomy 29:18.[118] Note this text in its broader context:
“Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today (for you know how we lived in the land of Egypt, and how we came through the midst of the nations through which you passed. Moreover, you have seen their abominations and their idols of wood, stone, silver, and gold, which they had with them); lest there shall be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there shall be a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood. And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, ‘I have peace thou I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry.’ The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. Then the LORD will single him out for adversity from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant which are written in this book of the law” (Deuteronomy 28:14-21).
The context of this word of warning is the approaching entrance of Israel into the land of promise. God has made a covenant with His people, a covenant which promises His blessings if they obey His commands, but which promises judgment if they rebel against Him by disregarding His laws. God’s people have been given the law to distinguish them from the nations around them. To act like the other nations is to disregard God’s covenant, and to be a “root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.” It is to incur God’s judgment.
These words are most appropriate when referred to Simon. He was continuing to think and to act like the pagan he had once been. He was not obedient to God, and he was in great danger of divine disciple. No wonder Peter’s words were so severe! These words do not refer to Simon’s disregard of God’s old covenant, however, but to the new covenant, the covenant of grace. By attempting to buy the gift of God, Simon was setting aside the covenant of grace and seeking to influence God by magic, by manipulation, in a way that was like the heathen worship of the pagans. Simon was turning from grace to magic, and was in grave danger by so doing. Peter used the words of Deuteronomy 29 to cause Simon to think very seriously about his sin and the dire consequences which could follow, if repentance were not sincere and speedy.
The text that was cited, along with the words of Peter which were spoken to Simon are said in such a way as to raise serious questions about Simon’s salvation. A man who is truly saved should understand grace. A man who does not grasp the essence of grace is a man whose salvation is in question. I think that the reader is left to ponder Simon’s salvation, just as we wonder about the salvation of men like Balaam, in the Old Testament (Numbers 22-24). Simon is not only like Balaam of the Old Testament, but too much like the false prophets and apostles who are described in the New (cf. 2 Peter 2 & 3; Jude). No wonder Peter is so strong in his rebuke of this man.
Simon’s response is no cause for encouragement, either. His response is not one of deep repentance. He does not seem to express any sense of his sin against God, or his alienation from Him, due to his sin. Nor does he have any desire to go directly to Him for forgiveness. Instead, he is more concerned with the consequences of his sin than of the sin itself. He asks Peter to serve as his mediator. It is a most distressing note on which to end this account.
Conclusion
Our text is the beginning of an exciting new era in the history of the church. It depicts the expansion of the gospel from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria, and from Jews to others—in this case, Samaritans, half-Jews. It is a further testimony to the sovereignty of God in the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the promise of Acts 1:8, which lays out the strategy and the structure of the Book of Acts. God persists at bringing about His plans and purposes in spite of men—like Saul—who oppose the truth and who persecute the church. God’s truth and His church, are marching on, yet in a way that no man would have predicted, and that no man would have believed, if he were told ahead of time.
This passage may have had a very practical application for the saints who first received and read it. Suppose that Simon did depart from the faith and establish a cult. That cult could have existed during the time when the apostles (including Paul) were ministering to the churches. This cult could have caused some of the saints to stumble. If this were so, mention of Simon, of his sin, and of his rebuke by Peter, could very well have served as a warning to any who might be tempted to listen to Simon and to follow his teachings. This is an inspired “reference,” and not a positive one at that.
This text also has a lesson for us in evangelism. Somehow, in Simon’s “profession” there was a lack of repentance, a lack of complete turning around, a failure to reject and forsake the evils of his past. Instead, Simon continued to think and to act as a magician, rather than as a Christian. He was interested in “spiritual power” at a price, not in servanthood as his own expense. He did not seek those gifts which would build up and benefit others, but those which would be a source of gain to himself. He did not think in terms of grace, but in terms of magic and manipulation.
How important it is for us to proclaim a clear gospel, a gospel which identifies men’s past thinking and actions as sin, and which calls upon men to repent and to forsake the past. How often the gospel is presented in a way that suggests that men do not need to radically change to be saved, but that they can simply add a belief in Jesus to their current lifestyle. Salvation, by it very nature, is a radical change. We will see this with Saul, but we do not see it with Simon.
I find it both interesting and informative to compare the “profession” (whether genuine or not) of Simon with the conversion of Saul. In both accounts, we are told a fair bit about the past of these men, but there is one critical difference. Paul renounced and rejected his past, leaving it behind as something which was worthy of death, and he began to live in an entirely different way (cf. Philippians chapter 3). Simon, on the other hand, simply brought his past along, persisting in it as a professing Christian. Christianity teaches that the old man must die, and that the old life must be left behind, and that the new man must be manifest, through God’s Spirit (cf. Romans 6-8).
We have said that Simon was wrong for not repenting of and rejecting his past ways. To be specific, that of which he should have repented was magic. Magic is contrary to Christianity, and yet it is often confused or combined with it. Luke deals with magic in the Book of Acts three times: here, in chapter 13, and once again in chapter 19. In all three instances, the “magic” which is exposed has a religious flavor. Here, the magic of Simon merits him the title, “the Great Power of God” (8:10). In chapter 13, Bar-Jesus, the magician, who attempted to keep the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, from turning to faith in Jesus, was a “false prophet” (13:6). Finally, in chapter 19, the beating which the exorcists (the sons of Sceva) received from the demonized man, caused many to turn to Christ and to renounce their magic practices (19:11-20). In chapters 13 and 19, the magicians were Jews.
The difference between magic and Christianity is simple: MAGIC CLAIMS TO ENABLE MEN TO MANIPULATE GOD, SO THAT HE GIVES THEM THEIR DESIRES; CHRISTIANITY’S GOD MANIPULATES MEN.
In magic, God becomes man’s servant (the magic genie, who does man’s bidding). In Christianity, men become God’s servants. The difference is the sovereignty of God. God is not manipulated by men, for men have no claim on Him, on His grace, or on His power. God owes men nothing, and nothing men do can merit or cause God’s blessings.
Whenever men lose sight of the sovereignty of God, they begin to think and to act according to the rules of magic. And all of this can take on a very pious appearance. We believe that if we follow the right formulas God is obliged to act as we wish. If we pray, using the right formula (e.g. “in Jesus’ name”), or with enough persistence or sincerity, or the agreement of others, we can be assured that God will act in the way we desire. Magic focuses on the “right” methods. Christianity trusts in a God whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and whose ways are beyond our comprehension.
God’s grace and God’s gifts are a matter of His sovereign pleasure, but what a comfort it is to know that God acts independently of men, without being manipulated. What a comfort to know that God’s independence assures us that He will not only act independently of men, but in the best interest of His own. He is not manipulated by His children; He manipulates us, but in a way that is for His glory and for our best interest. His sovereignty will be evident in our next lesson, in the salvation of Saul, the rebel.
May we gratefully bow the knee in worship and obedience to the Sovereign God, who works all things together for our good, and in such a way as to achieve His purposes and plans.
! Lesson 13:
The Ethiopian Eunuch
(Acts 8:26-40)
Introduction
This week I spent a great deal of time working on the church grounds—something I do not usually do. As David Mills and I were standing in front of the church talking, a woman who lives across the street from the church walked up to us and asked, “Do you men attend this church?” We told her we both were members of the church. She seemed satisfied by this and followed up with this request: “My husband and I went out for a walk and accidentally locked ourselves out of the house. Do you suppose that you could help us get back into the house?” David knew that I had some skill in this area, and so he went on back to his work. I told the woman I would be delighted to help her “break in” to her house if she would not tell anybody what I had done. In less than a minute she was back in her house, pleased to be in so easily, but a little distressed to see the ease with which I got past her front door lock.
Later in the day, David called. He asked if I had been successful. I told him that I managed to get in in less than a minute. It only later occurred to me that there might be a connection between this neighbor’s asking if we were from the church and her asking if we could help her break into her own house. She wanted someone to help her break in, but she also wanted some assurance that the person who did so was trustworthy. In effect, she wanted an honest “second story man.” I guess that was me.
It is strange how things like this work out, isn’t it? It reminds me of another time, when I was helping a friend “break into” his truck. It suddenly occurred to me, as I was standing there in the darkness, clothes hanger in hand, that my friend was holding the light, and I was doing the breaking in. That amused me because he had spent a fair bit of time in prison for dealing in stolen car parts.
The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch is similar, as I read this text in the eighth chapter of the Book of Acts. Here was a man who had just been to Jerusalem, to worship the God of Israel there. And yet he was not saved in Jerusalem, but in the desert. And rather than being “led to the Lord” by one of the apostles there in Jerusalem, or even by Peter or John in a Samaritan city, he was converted through Philip, who was divinely directed to him in that remote desert place. One would think that the first Gentile convert (specifically mentioned in Acts) would have been won by an apostle. How strange the ways of God are! The salvation of this Ethiopian eunuch was clearly a matter of divine election and calling, as was the choice of the human instrument (Philip) a part of God’s sovereign will. The reasons for this are important, and we shall seek to discover them as we continue on with our study.
The Return of the Apostles
(8:25)
25 And so, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.
Stephen’s preaching resulted in his own death, and in the persecution of the whole church in Jerusalem, with Saul as a prominent and dominant force behind this. This brought about the exodus of the church, except for the apostles (Acts 8:1-3). Along with Stephen (and five others), Philip was one of those chosen to oversee the feeding of the widows, giving particular attention to the Hellenistic Jewish widows, who had previously been overlooked (Acts 6:1-6). This same Philip had fled from Jerusalem, and had gone to Samaria, where he performed many amazing signs (Acts 8:4-7). As a result of his ministry, many Samaritans were saved, including Simon the magician (8:9-13). When the apostles in Jerusalem learned of the revival which was taking place in Samaria, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. These apostles laid their hands on the Samaritan believers and prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit (8:14-15). When they had finished their task, they departed for Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in the Samaritan villages as they journeyed home (8:25).
The Conversion of the Ethiopian
(8:26-40)
26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship. 28 And he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: “HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. 33”IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO SHALL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”
34 And the eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?” 35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 (See marginal note.) 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus; and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities, until he came to Caesarea.
We are not told how it was that Philip ended up in “the city of Samaria” (Acts 8:5). We can safely assume that Philip left Jerusalem because of the intense persecution that arose in connection with the death of Stephen (8:1). We are not told that Philip was divinely directed to this city. The impression I get is that he simply ended up there. When the power of God was manifested through Philip, both by means of his miracles and his message, many were converted. In the case of the conversion of the Ethiopian, we are very clearly told that Philip was specifically directed to this man, and to the meeting place, in a remote location in the desert.
This divine direction is given through the “angel of the Lord”[119] (8:26) and through the Holy Spirit (8:29, 39). I think it is significant that both the “angel of the Lord” and the Holy Spirit are employed in guiding Philip to the eunuch. The “angel of the Lord” is perhaps God’s primary means of specifically guiding individuals in the Old Testament, while the Holy Spirit is the more dominant instrument of guidance in the New. Used together, the guidance of Philip and the salvation of the Ethiopian is shown to be the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and promises,[120] pertaining to the salvation of Gentiles, as well as a New Testament phenomenon, brought about by means of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Old and New Testaments are demonstrated to be in harmony in this matter of the eunuch’s salvation.
There could be no mistaking it. God intended to save this one individual. He was an Ethiopian, a high government official, and possibly a eunuch.[121] Had this man been saved in Jerusalem, it might have been looked upon as a kind of fluke, an exception. But this man was being sought by God. Here, in the midst of a Samaritan revival, and before the accounts of wide-spread evangelism of Gentiles, this Gentile was sought and saved by God, a kind of “first-fruits” of that which was to come. According to church tradition, this man was to become an evangelist among his own people. There is no mention of this in the Scriptures, however.
Obediently, Philip went to the place he was directed by the “angel of the Lord.” It was at this place that he saw the eunuch. Then, the Holy Spirit directed Philip to join himself with the chariot[122] (8:29), and thus with its rider. While Philip was very precisely guided to the man, he was not told what to say. His message was to be indicated by the passage the eunuch was studying, and the question which he asked.
There is no doubt that Philip was guided to this man, in this remote desert spot. This is clear and it is emphatic in the text. While not so clear, nor so emphatic, it would seem that the eunuch was divinely prepared for Philip’s appearance as well. The man was not on his way to Jerusalem, but from the holy city. He had been there to worship. What could have happened in Jerusalem, which might have prepared the eunuch for his encounter with Philip, and with the gospel?
In the first place, the eunuch may have heard about Jesus. If this were the eunuch’s first pilgrimage to the holy land, he would have many questions. If the eunuch had been in Jerusalem before, he would likely have heard of Jesus, of His claim to be the Messiah, of His ministry, His rejection, His trial, His death and burial, and likely His empty tomb. He may have heard of the apostles, of their radical change after the death of Jesus, and of their ministry and message. At the time of the eunuch’s arrival in Jerusalem, the “headline news” would have had to do with Stephen’s ministry and martyrdom, and of the widespread persecution of the church, led (at least in part) by a Jew named Saul.
It would seem that the eunuch had a strong commitment to Judaism (his pilgrimage to Jerusalem was no small effort), and that he also had a strong sense of messianic expectation. Would he not have asked about Jesus? Would he not wish to look into this matter of Messiah personally, to see for himself what the Old Testament prophets had written? Did the eunuch purchase his copy of the Isaiah scroll (an expensive gesture) so that he could read the prophecies about Messiah? And who told the eunuch about baptism? We all assume that Philip did, but we do not know this to be so. The apostles had preached that Israelites must repent and be baptized, calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Is this why the eunuch was so eager to be baptized, when he saw the water? There may have been a great deal of groundwork already accomplished in the eunuch’s life, so that he was ready to receive the message which Philip would disclose to him, from the Scriptures.
What a thrill it must have been for Philip to hear the eunuch reading aloud from the prophecy of Isaiah. What an evidence of God’s leading. Indeed, this was the right man. When Philip run alongside the eunuch’s chariot and asked if he understood what he was reading, the Ethiopian quickly accepted his help. He needed, as he said, someone to guide him. The Old Testament only went so far as to prophecy concerning things to come. The gospel was the record of these prophecies having been fulfilled. Philip was about to tell this man that the prophecies of Isaiah concerning Messiah were fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Thus, he began with this text, proclaiming Jesus to him.
The prophecy which the eunuch was reading included these words, words which greatly perplexed him:
“HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO SHALL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”
These words come from Isaiah 53:7-8. I would understand that these words were especially perplexing to the eunuch, and thus the focus of his attention and of his question. But I would also assume that the eunuch had read the entire text, and thus was well aware of the overall passage and of its context.
The problem which the eunuch had with this passage was wrapped up in the identity of the one referred to in the text:
“Please tell me of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?” (Isaiah 53:34).
If the prophet was referring to himself, his suffering (and death) would not come as a surprise. After all, the prophets were rejected, despised, and persecuted (cf. Stephen’s words in 7:52). But how could Isaiah be speaking of himself? The immediately preceding verses spoke of the death of this mysterious figure, but a substitutionary death—a death for the benefit of others:
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him (Isaiah 53:4-6).
If Isaiah could not be referring to himself, and he was referring to another, than was this person not Messiah? But if this was the Messiah, He was not the kind of Messiah that Israel was looking for. They looked for a hero, to rid Israel of her oppressors. In fact, this description perfectly portrayed the coming of Jesus, and His rejection by Israel. Jesus’ message, was rejected by Israel, just like the rest of the prophets (Isaiah 53:1). Jesus was not outwardly attractive, and indeed, He was rejected by men, who viewed His suffering and death as deservedly from God. He was, however, from God’s point of view, sinless. His suffering and death were for the sins of others, rather than His own. If these words of Isaiah were a description of Messiah, then Jesus was the Messiah. No wonder the identity of this One was so important to the eunuch.
Philip’s answer was to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, beginning with this text, and then from the rest of the Old Testament (Acts 8:35). The eunuch joyfully accepted Philip’s words. When he saw water (a rare thing in this desert place) he wished to make the best use of it. He wanted to be baptized.[123] Who told him of the need for baptism is not stated, but he was right in seeing it as an important responsibility for a true believer. When the chariot stopped, both got out, and Philip baptized him.[124]
Even more quickly than he appeared on the scene, Philip disappeared. Some may doubt the fact of a miraculous disappearance and transporting of Philip, but the words strongly imply such. Philip was “snatched away”[125] by the Holy Spirit, in a way that is similar to the transporting of Old Testament saints like Elijah, end even of New Testament personalities.[126] Philip found himself at Azotus, some twenty or so miles distant,[127] from which place he passed on to other cities, preaching the gospel as he went on his way to Caesarea (Acts 9:40).
The Ethiopian, on the other hand, proceeded in a more normal way, back to his native land. We are told no more of this man in the New Testament, although some ancients viewed this man as the father of evangelism in Ethiopia.[128] What we are told is that this man went his way rejoicing (8:39). When the gospel comes and is received, there is great joy. Such was the case in the city of Samaria (8:8). It is always the case (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:6). This is, I believe, the “joy of our salvation” (cf. Psalm 51:12). Sin may rob of this joy for a season, but repentance will restore it to us, and us to God. It is difficult to believe that salvation has come when there is no joy.
Conclusion
There are a number of important lessons to be learned from this brief account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. First, let us look at this event in the light of the argument of the Book of Acts. It is a significant event in the transition from Jerusalem to Rome (cf. Acts 1:8) and from the preaching of the gospel to the Jews (only, at first) to the Gentiles. We have been prepared for the evangelization of the Gentiles throughout the Gospel of Luke and in Acts (thus far) as well. In Luke chapter 2, Simeon spoke of the Lord Jesus as a “light to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32; a citation from Isaiah 42:6). In Luke chapter 4, when Jesus was welcomed by His own people at the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus made it clear that the salvation He had come to bring was for Gentiles as well, a disclosure which reversed the attitude of the people, so that they now tried to kill Him (cf. Luke 4:16-30). The account of the good Samaritan (Luke 10), the prodigal son (Luke 15), and the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18) all put the self-righteous Jew in his place, while it elevated the despised “sinner” and gave him hope of God’s salvation, due to his repentance. In Acts chapter 2, speaking in tongues was a sign, a sign of “things to come” in the salvation of those from every nation, just as our Lord had given instructions in the great commission to make disciples of every nation (Matthew 28:18-20).
The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch was a very significant event, recorded in the midst of the great Samaritan revival. The Samaritans were regarded as “half-brothers,” so to speak, but were at least received by the church as saints. This Ethiopian was a kind of “first fruits” of the Gentiles. His race, along with his physical deformity (if, indeed, he was a true eunuch), would have kept him from approaching God, but God approached him, seeking him out in the desert, making it clear that he was a true saint, and the first of many more to come. Later on, Peter would be sent to the house of another Gentile proselyte, a God-fearer, but the Ethiopian was first brought near to God by his faith in Jesus as the Christ. And this man was not saved through the ministry of an apostle (Peter and John were on their way home), but rather through Philip. The sovereignty of God is once more emphasized.
This text is vitally important for it would seem that it is here, for the first time, that Isaiah 53 is clearly indicated as a messianic prophecy. It would not have been received (or welcomed) as such by those within Judaism who wanted a different kind of Messiah. Philip’s identification of the One of whom Isaiah wrote as the Messiah, Jesus, was that which opened the door to much further study, meditation, and apostolic preaching. But here this text is seen in what appears to be a new light.
This text is a key, I believe, to Jewish evangelism. It not only helps us understand why unbelieving Jews would reject Jesus (as Saul did), but also what an unbelieving Jew must do in order to be saved. This passage would require a Jew to repent (to change their mind about Jesus, and about Messiah), so as to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah (something Saul is going to do in chapter 9). They must recognize that their conception of Messiah was wrong, as was their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. They must see that Jesus was the innocent, suffering Savior, who came to be rejected and to die, not for His own sins, but the for sins of the world, so that men could be saved. They must see that it was their perception of Him that was wrong, and that in their sins they had rejected the One whom God had appointed. They must admit that God was utterly right, and that they were wrong in this matter of Messiah (as with all else). Jesus is the bone of contention, and rightly so. It is not that Jesus does not fulfill prophecy perfectly, but that Israel no more accepted Messiah than they did the prophets. To be saved required repentance—the admission that they were wrong—and trust in Jesus as the Messiah of God. Jewish evangelism should lean hard on this passage, for it says all that is needed to be said, and it point to Jesus as the Messiah, the only One who has perfectly fit this divine description and prophecy of the Savior.
I should also add that this text is they key to Gentile evangelism. The fact is that God’s Messiah was a Jewish Messiah. The salvation which we must accept for eternal life is, in a sense, a Jewish salvation. We are saved by trusting in a Jewish Savior, who perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament (Jewish) scriptures. We are not saved (as the Judaizers would insist) by becoming Jewish proselytes, for the Ethiopian was a proselyte. But while he was a religious Jew, he was not saved. People thus are saved by recognizing their sins, just as the Jews must, and by trusting in Jesus as God’s Messiah, just like the Jews. Gentiles must be saved as Jews are (so here), and Jews must be saved as the Gentiles are (so Galatians 2:15-21).
The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch is an interesting commentary on the charges which were leveled against Stephen. He was charged with speaking against the law of Moses and against the “Holy place.” The Jews had an undue attraction and devotion to the “holy city” and to the temple. They attributed an excessive value to these places, not knowing (or refusing to accept the fact that) God was about to destroy them. It was a new “holy city” that would be the headquarters of the kingdom, not this city, which was to be done away with. The “holy place” did little for the eunuch. Instead, he was brought to faith in a remote “desert place,” although he had just been to the temple and to the holy city. Just as Jesus had told the woman at the well in John chapter 4, worship was not a matter of the “right place,” but of the “right person” and of the “right spirit.” We see this evidenced by the conversion of the Ethiopian.
Finally, the process by which God saved the Ethiopian eunuch provides us with an important lesson in divine guidance. Here, Philip is specifically directed to the Ethiopian eunuch, in a remote place, so that God’s election and salvation might become evident, in an undeniable way. And so it was necessary for the “angel of the Lord” and the “Holy Spirit” to direct Philip to the eunuch. But in the salvation of the Samaritans in the “city of Samaria” above (8:4-25), no statement is made that Philip was divinely guided to this place. It is clear that God “led” Philip, in an indirect way, but from all outward appearances, Philip went there out of pure necessity and on the basis of his own judgment.
My point is this: God guides. God guides supernaturally, at times. He specifically and undeniably guides men to do that which they would not have ordinarily have done. Thus, God guided Philip to set aside his Samaritan ministry for a time and to go to this remote place so as to bring about the conversion of an African. This guidance was necessary because Philip would have never chosen to do this on his own, and rightly so. But in many (I would say most) cases, God guides and uses men and women, who act on their own judgment, just as God used Philip to reach this Samaritan city, and many of the others who fled from Jerusalem to avoid the persecution of Saul and perhaps others. It may not seem like a very kind of pious guidance—this flight from persecution—but God succeeded in putting men and women where He wanted them. Why is it that we want the God’s particular direction, but we turn up our nose at His providential guidance? It think it is because we deem direct guidance to be more spiritual than indirect guidance. And this, in my opinion, is why we so often try to sanction our own decisions with the phrase “God led me to…” when, in all truth, this guidance is the indirect kind, and not that of a specific set of instructions given by an angel of the Lord. Let us be assured that God does guide, but that He is under no obligation to guide us as we might prefer, or as we might deem more spiritual. A God who is sovereign, who is completely in control, does not have to tell every Christian every step they are to take. And this is why we must walk by faith, and not by sight. Faith acts, based upon biblical principles, trusting that God is guiding. Faith does not presume to demand that God must give us verbal instructions from an angel or His Spirit, so that we can be sure He is with us. Much that is done in the name of faith is really its opposite—unbelief. Faith trusts God when we have not seen (an angel or a vision), and when we do not need to. Let us be men and women of faith.
One final word—about discipleship. I believe that discipleship is a divinely given duty, as stated, for example, in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Having said this, I must also point out that God sometimes provides for the discipling of men apart from the normal means. Saul, for example, was discipled by God in the wilderness, and not by the apostles, and for a good purpose (as we shall later see). So, too, this Ethiopian is not discipled by Philip or by any other saints, so far as I can tell. In these exceptional cases, God will meet the need. This Ethiopian had the Word of God and the Spirit of God. That was enough. And for those of us who become overly dependent on others (“accountability” is a word that makes me a little nervous—it is not thoroughly biblical), let me remind you that our primary dependence should be upon the Word of God and the Spirit of God as well, rather than upon men, even godly men.
The Ethiopian met God in a deserted place, when he came to realize that his religion was not enough, and that Jesus was the Savior, who died for his sins. Have you met the Savior yet? I pray that if you have not, today might be the day.
! Lesson 14:
The Conversion of Saul
(Acts 9:1-31)
Introduction
Imagine for a moment that this is the week of Saul’s arrival at Damascus.[129] By this time Saul has gained a reputation as the ringleader of the movement to make Christianity extinct. A devout Hellenistic Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, Saul was a member of the Pharisees and was taught by none other than Gamaliel, whom we have already met (Acts 5:34-40). Saul did not agree with his teacher, Gamaliel, on how the Christians should be dealt with, however. Rather, he sought the arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment (with imprisonment the norm and death the ideal, it would seem) of those in Jerusalem. His career as a persecutor of Christians seems to have begun with Stephen, but it quickly spread to all of the Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58–8:3). Saul was not content to punish some and to drive the rest from the “holy city.” He did not want to merely contain Christianity or to drive it from Jerusalem; he wanted to rid the earth of Christianity and its followers. Thus, his opposition to Christ and His church took on a “missionary” spirit. Saul went to other cities where he sought to arrest Christians and to bring them back to Jerusalem for punishment. Damascus, a city some 150 miles to the northeast of Jerusalem, was one such city. Word was out that Saul would soon be arriving.
Suppose you were a Christian who had just arrived in Damascus, and you had been able to learn the whereabouts of a group of believers. Let us suppose further that the church had gathered on this particular evening for a time of prayer, prompted by the news that Saul was soon to arrive, with all the necessary legal machinery (that is, the authorization of the chief priests and the Sanhedrin[130]) to arrest and extradite[131] the saints who were in the city. What do you suppose the saints would have prayed at this special prayer meeting? We are given a little insight from the account in Acts 12 when Peter was imprisoned and it appeared he would soon be executed, as James had already been, and as we would infer Herod purposed to do with Peter (Acts 12:1-4). In this occasion, no one seems to have prayed for Peter’s miraculous escape. At least we can say that no one had enough faith to believe it, even as Peter stood at the door, knocking to get in (12:12-17).
I very much doubt anyone prayed that this Saul might be saved. I can believe someone might have prayed that Saul be waylaid, or “terminated,” in some divine act or providential accident (“act of God”). I can believe the saints who gathered to pray would have prayed for the protection of the church in Damascus and for the safety of individual saints, especially the leaders and the most visible Christians. No one, it would seem, was even thinking of what God was about to do. Ananias is not only surprised by his commission; he is resistant to it, at least initially.
There would likely be another group of people meeting on the evening before Saul arrived in Damascus—those who did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah, and who eagerly sought the eradication of the church in their city. Were these people as eager as Saul to destroy the church? Did they send for Saul? Or did they somewhat dread his arrival, knowing how zealous he was in his opposition to the church. If he were viewed as a reactionary, a trouble-maker, perhaps there were some unbelievers who thought Saul was too much trouble. Nevertheless, there must have been those who intended to use Saul’s coming to oppose the church. They may have been attempting to compile a list of known (and even suspected) Christians, along with addresses, to facilitate Saul’s task.
What a shock Saul’s conversion must have been to both groups! To the church, Saul turned out to be a friend, a fellow-believer, in fact, a flaming evangelist, who proclaimed Christ more clearly and powerfully than anyone had previously done in Damascus. The church did not shrink or suffer for Saul’s arrival, but it grew because of it. And the second group, who were waiting for Saul to come and help them deal with the followers of “the Way,” were about to discover that Saul had joined them, perhaps bringing other members of the opposition along with him. Did they think their task would be a simple one? They found that their cause was literally shut down by Saul’s arrival, and the wind was taken out of their sails by his conversion. What can you say about Christianity when its most outspoken and zealous opponent suddenly claims to have seen the risen Christ, and to have trusted in Him as the Messiah?
The importance of Saul’s conversion can hardly be overestimated. Three times in the Book of Acts it is reported, the first time in the third person (“he”) by Luke (Acts 9:1-31), the second time in the first person (“I”) by the apostle, as he spoke to his Jewish unbelieving brethren in defense of his ministry (Acts 22:1-21), and the third time, again in the first person, as his personal testimony to King Agrippa, Festus, and Bernice (Acts 26:1-23). This three-fold repetition is a clear indication of the importance of this event, especially in the themes Luke is seeking to develop in the Book of Acts.
It is not just in the Book of Acts that the importance of Saul’s conversion is evident. On various occasions in his epistles, Paul made either direct or indirect references to his former life of opposition and his radical conversion.[132] Paul’s theology, his lifestyle, his ministry, and his methodology, all are rooted in his conversion. This text portrays one of the historical landmarks of the church.
Problems in the Passage
If this passage is profoundly important, it also poses its problems. There are differences between the three accounts given to us in Acts. All of these should be expected and can be rather easily explained. But there is a greater discrepancy between the accounts of Saul’s conversion in Acts and that which Paul gave in Galatians 1. I. Howard Marshall summarizes the problem in these words:
“Nevertheless, we obtain a different impression of things from Galatians 1:16-24, according to which (1) Paul did not confer with men after his conversion nor go to the apostles in Jerusalem, but (2) departed to Arabia and then returned to Damascus; then (3) three years later he went to Jerusalem for a visit lasting a fortnight during which he saw only Peter and James, and at this time he was unknown by sight to the churches of Judea; thereafter (4) he went to Syria and Cilicia. This account is accompanied by an asseveration of its truth which suggests that some people were contradicting it.”[133]
As I look at the problem, I believe several conclusions must be drawn. First, there are problems which appear to be serious. Second, we are not given enough information in the biblical text to solve them dogmatically. Third, these discrepancies may well have been evident to the writers, who did not see fit to remove or explain every problem. Fourth, if we had all the facts, there would be no problem. Fifth, faith must take the text on face value, as it is written, and believe it as God’s inspired, inerrant, authoritative word.
The Structure of the Passage
The passage which we are studying can be divided into these major segments:
· Saul’s Arrest—Verses 1-9
· Convincing Ananias—Verses 10-16
· Ananias and Saul—Verses 17-19a
· Saul’s Witness in Damascus—Verses 19b-25
· Saul’s Witness in Jerusalem—Verses 26-30
· Peace Returns to the Land—Verse 31
Our Approach
We will begin this lesson by making some general observations concerning this account of Saul’s conversion,[134] after which we will examine the sequence of events leading up to Saul’s conversion, the events surrounding his conversion, and the consequences of his conversion as depicted by Luke. We will next seek to learn how this description of Saul’s conversion fits into and contributes to the development of Luke’s argument in Acts. We will also attempt to determine to what degree Saul’s conversion was typical and to what degree it was unique. We shall then seek to identify the characteristics of Saul’s conversion which are typical of every conversion. Finally, we shall attempt to focus on the application of this passage to our own lives.
Overall Observations
The first thing we shall do is to make some observations on the passage as a whole to attempt to see the forest before we scrutinize the trees. Note the following impressions gained from a reflection on the passage as a whole.
(1) There is considerable emphasis given to Saul’s conversion in the Book of Acts. To put it differently, the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9 is but the first of three accounts, the other two coming from the lips of Paul himself.
(2) While there is considerable emphasis on the conversion of Saul, there is very little detail given as to the precise time or the details of Saul’s conversion. We do not know the exact time when Saul was saved. It would seem not to be there on the road to Damascus. Here, Saul was only told that it was Jesus whom he saw, who was speaking to him, and whom he was persecuting. The details of what was said and done when Ananias arrived are fuzzy. There is clearly no attempt to establish some kind of pattern or formula for evangelism here, at least as far as methodology is concerned.
(3) Saul’s conversion experience was quick and dramatic in one sense, but it also involved a process, a process of at least three days.[135]
(4) More space is devoted to the process of getting Ananias to Saul than is devoted to getting Saul to Damascus and to the home of Judas. It almost seems harder to convince Ananias that Saul is (or will be) a Christian than it is to convert Saul.
(5) There is a good deal of emphasis on the results of Saul’s conversion. In fact, more is written of what Saul said and did because he was saved than is written of what he said and did resulting in his salvation.
(6) Little emphasis is placed on Saul’s reception of the Holy Spirit, and nothing is said about what happened as Saul received the Spirit. In our text Ananias was instructed to go to Saul and to lay hands on him so that he might receive his sight (9:12). The words which Ananias spoke to Saul indicate he was also to lay hands on him so that he would receive the Holy Spirit (9:17). In spite of this, we are not told here that Saul did receive the Holy Spirit or what happened when he did. I do not question that he did receive the Spirit, but merely observe that this receiving of the Spirit (accompanied by the laying on of hands) was not something Luke wanted to emphasize. If Luke had any “ax to grind” on this issue, here would have been a great place to stress this matter, but he did not do so. This silence is instructive, in my opinion.
(7) Those who were saved by Saul’s ministry were convinced by the power of the gospel message he preached and not by miraculous signs and wonders. Elsewhere in Acts, such as with the apostles, Stephen and Philip, the message of the gospel was underscored by signs and wonders which accompanied the message. Nothing is said in our text about any miracles being performed by Saul, as yet. We are simply told that the message itself was proclaimed powerfully and that people were amazed at the message and its miraculous impact on Saul’s own conduct.
(8) Saul was saved independently of the apostles. Ananias was used as God’s instrument in the conversion of Saul, but even he had to be pushed to go to Saul. There is not so much as a hint that anyone prayed for Saul’s salvation or took the initiative to bring it about. It was God’s initiative all the way. The apostles had nothing to do with Saul’s conversion, and they were reluctant to believe it had happened or to welcome him into their fellowship. Paul would make much more of this point in the first chapter of Galatians.
(9) On the road to Damascus, Saul did far more than to see a bright light and to hear a voice from heaven. Saul saw and heard the resurrected Christ. When one looks at all the references to this event, it was, in fact, a personal appearance of the risen, glorified Jesus to Saul (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:4-11).
(10) Saul’s encounter with Christ was not only a conversion, but it was also a call to a very specific ministry. Saul was told at the time of his conversion that God had chosen him to bear witness to the Gentiles, to kings, and to the Jews (9:15).
(11) Saul’s conversion was a watershed event which greatly affected the history of the church. From the fact that three different accounts of Saul’s conversion are recorded in Acts, we know this event had to play a crucial role in the expansion of the church.
(12) The same Saul who played a role in Stephen’s execution was to become, in large measure, his replacement. Saul, like Stephen, was a Hellenistic Jew. Saul, like Stephen, spoke with such power and authority that his opponents could not refute him. Saul, like Stephen, had a ministry which focused on the Hellenistic Jews. Like Stephen, the enemies of the gospel attempted to kill Saul when they could not silence him by means of debate.
(13) As Stephen’s death, instigated (or at least assisted) by Saul, resulted in an intense and widespread persecution of the churches in Jerusalem and elsewhere, so Saul’s conversion seems to have been directly related to the return of peace (cf. 9:31).
(14) There is an interesting symmetry or parallel between the conversion of Saul and the conversion of Cornelius.
“Conybeare and Howson {The Life and Times of Saint Paul, p. 77 (sic punct.)} remark on the symmetry with which Luke sets forth the two stories: ‘The simultaneous preparation of the hearts of Ananias and of Saul, and the simultaneous preparation of those of Peter and Cornelius,—the questioning and hesitation of Peter and the questioning and hesitation of Ananias,—the one doubting whether he might make friendship with the Gentiles, the other doubting whether he might approach the enemy of the Church,—the unhesitating obedience of each when the Divine will was made known,—the state of mind in which both the Pharisee and the centurion were found,—each waiting to see what the Lord would say to them,—this close analogy will not be forgotten by those who reverently read the two consecutive chapters. . ‘“[136]
Man Proposes—God Disposes
or Saul’s Intentions and God’s Interruption
(9:1-9)
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way,[137] both men and women,[138] he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who art Thou, Lord?”[139] And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do.” 7 And the men who traveled with him[140] stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one.[141] 8 And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus.[142] 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Verses 1 and 2 vividly depict Saul’s intent, his intense desire and determination to rid the world of Christianity by taking active, aggressive, severe action against those saints who had fled from Jerusalem. While Paul may not have brought about the execution of all those whom he arrested, including women as well as men (verse 2), verse 1 strongly suggests that this was his desire and ambition. How true are two of the proverbs, which read:
The mind of a man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps (Proverbs 16:9).
Many are the plans in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD, it will stand (Proverbs 19:21).
God’s promises and purposes would not be stopped by this madman, Saul. Indeed, God would reveal His sovereignty by using Saul to further the gospel, first by his opposition (which scattered the church and spread the gospel), and then by his conversion (which resulted in his powerful proclamation of Jesus as Messiah).
We know from other accounts (22:6; 26:13) that it was “high noon” when Saul was stopped in his tracks by a bright light from heaven. This light would thus have been very bright indeed. It was bright enough to bring about a period of blindness. It was almost as though Saul had looked intently into the beam of an intensely powerful carbon-act light, the kind used as search lights.
This light was more, much more, than just a bright light. It is, in the Bible, the radiance of God’s glory. Frequent biblical texts speak of God in terms of light:
You are resplendent with light, more majestic than mountains rich with game (Psalm 76:4).
He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent (Psalm 104:2).
Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).
“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you (Isaiah 60:1).
He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him (Daniel 2:22).
Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).
In the end, God Himself will provide the illumination so that the sun and the stars will not be needed for this function:
The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the Lord binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted (Isaiah 30:26).
The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory (Isaiah 60:19).
Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end (Isaiah 60:20).
The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world’s great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray (Revelation 18:23).
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it (Revelation 21:23-24).
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5).
Israel was called of God and set apart to proclaim the way of salvation to the Gentiles. They were to be a “light to the Gentiles,” but they failed. They wanted to keep God’s blessings to themselves. They too rebelled against God and forsook His word and persecuted His prophets. What Israel failed to do, Jesus, the Messiah would do. He was to come to the earth as the “great light,” the “light to the Gentiles,” and so He did. In His coming as “the light,” those who come to “the light” become lights to the world themselves:
The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned (Isaiah 9:2).
“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6).
He says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).
“Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations (Isaiah 51:4).
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:11).
Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will rise. Though I sit in darkness, the Lord will be my light. Because I have sinned against him, I will bear the Lord’s wrath, until he pleads my case and establishes my right. He will bring me out into the light; I will see his righteousness (Micah 7:8-9).
“The people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:16).
There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light (Matthew 17:2).
“A light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:32).
In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it .… He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (John 1:4-5, 7-9).
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:19-21).
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:5).
Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them (John 12:35-36).
I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness (John 12:46).
Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard (Isaiah 58:8).
Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn (Isaiah 60:3).
When Saul was confronted on the road to Damascus, he saw the risen, glorified Lord. The light was the “light of His glory.” Saul, as it were, “saw the light,” but in addition, he was to become a light, a light to the Gentiles, as well as to his own people. Saul’s conversion was also his call to ministry, and this conversion experience is strikingly similar to that of one of his predecessors, Ezekiel:
1:4 I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north—an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, … 26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell face down, and I heard the voice of one speaking. 2:1 He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.” 2 As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. 3 He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’ 5 And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6 And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. 7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious (Ezekiel 1:4, 26-28; 2:1-7).[143]
Paul recognized that his ministry was that of bringing “the light” to those who were lost, including the Gentiles, kings, and his fellow-Israelites:
For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’” (Acts 13:47).
“‘… to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me’” (Acts 26:18).
The blindness to which Saul was subject for three days provided him with much time for reflection, meditation, and prayer. But his blindness was symbolic of his condition. Israel was also blind, and Paul’s blindness was but a specific example of this blindness:
The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you (Deuteronomy 28:28-29).
“Hear, you deaf! And look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but my servant {Israel}, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the Lord?” (Isaiah 42:18-19).
“Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf. All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.
Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep” (Isaiah 43:8-10).
Like the blind we grope along the wall, feeling our way like men without eyes. At midday we stumble as if it were twilight; among the strong, we are like the dead (Isaiah 59:10).
Now they grope through the streets like men who are blind. They are so defiled with blood that no one dares to touch their garments (Lamentations 4:14).
Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14; cf. 23:16-17, 19, 24; 23:26).
This blindness was only removed by faith in Christ, a miracle brought about by divine action:
In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see (Isaiah 29:18).
Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped (Isaiah 35:5).
To open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness (Isaiah 42:7).
“I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them” (Isaiah 42:16).
It was just such a miracle which gave Saul his spiritual sight, as he received back his physical sight. One cannot help but wonder if it did not send chills up and down Paul’s spine when he cast the spell of blindness on the Jewish false prophet, Bar-Jesus:
And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, 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. But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, 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? 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. Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord (Acts 13:6-12).
Just as Saul had opposed those who believed, so Bar-Jesus opposed the proconsul’s conversion. Just as Saul was stopped short by his blindness, so was Bar-Jesus. And if Saul’s blindness led to his own conversion, at least the blinding of Bar-Jesus contributed to the conversion of the proconsul (and perhaps too his own conversion—who knows?). If the blinding of Saul was a major turning point in his life, so was the blinding of Bar-Jesus. It is here in Acts, for the first time, that Saul is called Paul. It is here that Paul took the leadership and became the dominant or leading individual, instead of Barnabas. The blinding of Bar-Jesus thus seems to be the second major turning point in the ministry of Paul. The casting of this spell on this false prophet could therefore have been an act of kindness, as God’s blinding of Saul had been, intended to cease his opposition and perhaps even to bring about his conversion.
The light from heaven brought Saul to the ground. It was surely fear (reverence), among other things, which prompted this. Jesus’ words, “Why are you persecuting Me?,” clearly implied that Saul’s persecution of the church was a persecution of the Lord. Did he still not realize who the Lord was? So it would appear. And so, Saul asked the LORD who He was. The LORD identified Himself as the Jesus, whom he had been persecuting. Jesus was alive and not still in the grave! Jesus was LORD and not a false prophet! And Jesus took the persecution of Christians very personally. To persecute them was to persecute Him.
Enough revelation for the moment. It was time for Saul to ponder what he had seen and heard. For now, he was told to proceed on to Damascus, where he would be given his next instructions.[144] His blindness certainly gave Saul the opportunity to dwell on these events. Saul took this most seriously, not eating or drinking until after his confession of faith by means of his baptism.
The Arrival of Ananias
(9:10-16)
10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Behold, here am I, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.”[145] 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
All of this account describes the two complementary divine visions which Ananias and Saul received. Saul’s vision prepared him for the arrival of Ananias, clearly indicating that he was the one God had appointed to reveal His will for him. Ananias’s vision was intended to direct him to the house of Judas and to Saul. There is more space devoted to convincing Ananias than there is to the conversion of Saul. It is difficult to estimate the amount of resistance Ananias would have had to this divine instruction to receive Saul as a brother in the Lord. Perhaps Ananias called a meeting of the church to discuss how they would deal with Saul’s arrival. He was a man of great respect and influence, and thus he realized that his actions would have broad ramifications. The ultimate issue was God’s ability to save—even the most committed unbeliever. How humorous it seems to hear Ananias informing the Lord that Saul was an enemy, one who had caused many Christians great suffering and adversity, as though He was unaware of this! Rather than attempt to pacify Ananias or to alleviate his apprehension, God went on to tell him that Saul would not only be a brother, but he would be His instrument for bringing the gospel to Gentiles too. Now this would have been a very bitter pill to swallow for many Jewish Christians. Nevertheless, Ananias obeyed.
The Meeting of Ananias and Saul
(9:17-19a)
17 And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he arose and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.
The words and actions of Ananias are an evidence of his faith and obedience to the divine commission he was given, as outlined by Luke in the verses above. They are also very significant in what they conveyed to Saul. The words, “Brother Saul” must not have come easily to Ananias. They were based, as I understand it, on what the Lord had revealed to Ananias and not on any confession or actions of Saul, for these seem to follow these initial actions and words of Ananias. Saul was received as a true believer, as a brother.[146] The laying on of Ananias’s hands, however, was a distinct act of identification with Saul. The result was the restoration of Saul’s sight and, it would seem, Saul’s reception of the Holy Spirit. Saul’s baptism followed, accompanied by his profession of faith, his “calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). After this, Saul broke his fast and was strengthened.
The Consequences of Saul’s Conversion
(9:19b-25)
Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding[147] the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
23 And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25 but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.
The remaining verses of this account describe the results of Saul’s conversion, all of which serve as dramatic proof of his radical transformation as a result of his encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. The first evidence of Saul’s conversion was his immediate identification with the church in Damascus. He who had wanted to kill these saints now wanted to fellowship with them. No doubt God had used Ananias to serve as Saul’s “first Barnabas.” Just as Barnabas would vouch for Saul with the apostles in Jerusalem, so Ananias, a highly respected Jewish Christian, would vouch for Saul here.
The second evidence of Saul’s conversion was in his bold proclamation of his newly found faith in Jesus as the Messiah. This man who had formerly cringed at the preaching of the gospel[148] was now proclaiming the same message. The man who, days before, was persecuting Christ was now preaching Christ. Saul proclaimed Jesus to be the “Son of God” (9:20), a designation understood to refer to Israel’s awaited Messiah.[149]
The results of Saul’s preaching were predictable, very much like the response Saul would have had (or did have) to the preaching of the gospel before his conversion. Some were amazed, taking note of the dramatic turn-about in Saul’s faith and practice (9:21). But as Saul grew in strength and as his arguments were irrefutable, just as Stephen’s had been (Acts 6:10), his opponents realized that the only way to silence Saul was to kill him. They could not out-argue him. They could not prove him wrong from the Scriptures. They could only kill him, and this they were determined to do (9:23). When the plot became known to Saul, he made a successful, albeit undignified, escape from the city of Damascus. His disciples[150] lowered him in a basket, from the window of a room which was in the wall of the city (9:25).
Saul’s Journey to Jerusalem
(9:26-30)
26 And when he had come to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
There may well have been a long time between Saul’s conversion and his arrival at Jerusalem. This conclusion could be based upon Paul’s argument in Galatians 1 and 2, along with the expression, “when many days had elapsed” in Acts 9:23. Nevertheless, at some point in time Saul did arrive in Jerusalem. One thing was certain; no matter how much time had passed, the apostles were not yet convinced of Saul’s conversion. They, not unlike Ananias, were very reluctant to have anything to do with this Christian killer. It was due to the intervention of Barnabas, a man who would prove to be a lifetime friend of Paul, that the apostles risked a meeting with him and then granted him the freedom to associate with the saints in Jerusalem.
In Jerusalem, as in Damascus, Saul spoke out boldly proclaiming Jesus to be the Christ, the promised Messiah. Like Stephen, Saul seemed to gravitate toward preaching to the Hellenistic Jews (9:29). Some of the Hellenistic Jews responded to the preaching of Saul as they had to Stephen’s preaching; they wanted to kill him (9:29). He was, indeed, Stephen’s replacement. As at Damascus, Saul eventually had to leave the city of Jerusalem to save his life. The church sent him on his way to Tarsus by way of Caesarea. Those whose lives Saul would gladly have taken in his unsaved days now sought to save his life by sending him away.
Peace Returns When Saul is Removed
(9:31)
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and, going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.
Saul seems to have been the instigator of the persecution of the church, which began at the death of Stephen in Jerusalem and worked outward from there. With the conversion of Saul, persecution of the church did not stop, for now some of the Hellenistic Jews were opposing his preaching (and no doubt, the church at large as well). It was only with the exit of Saul from the Holy Land, back to his native land (Tarsus), that peace once again returned. As persecution was no longer needed to disperse the church and the gospel, peace was restored to the land. There is surely a connection between Saul and persecution, and Saul and peace. In peace, as in persecution, the church was comforted and continued to increase.
Conclusion
The first question which must be asked with regard to the interpretation of this text is this: “What is the meaning of this text in the context of the whole book?” Luke has included this account of Saul’s conversion in order to contribute to the argument which he is seeking to develop. The argument of the Book of Acts is essentially this: The expansion of the gospel through the church as it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. The expansion is three-fold:
(1) The expansion from Christ, to His apostles, to His church
(2) The geographical expansion from Jerusalem to Rome
(3) The racial expansion from the Jews to the Gentiles.
Saul’s conversion was to play a crucial role in the expansion of the gospel. Paul’s opposition resulted in the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem, thus taking the gospel to Judea, Samaria, and beyond (Acts 8:1; 11:19-21). The salvation of Saul was to result in the gospel being preached to distant people and lands, and in the extension of the church to many key cities. In the process, Saul was to greatly extend the outreach of the gospel to the Gentiles. It was his preaching that resulted in the conversion of many Gentiles, and it was his writing (his epistles) to these saints which greatly strengthened them in their faith. Saul’s conversion is a watershed event, catapulting the gospel to the Gentiles and to more distant places.
The conversion of Saul is important in another way. It is one of the few accounts of a conversion which is described with some detail (although this detail is much less than we would prefer). The question must be asked as to whether or not Saul’s conversion has a more general application and relevance. In other words, “Is Saul’s conversion typical and illustrative of the conversion of every saint, or is it unique, the exceptional case, which has little correspondence to most converts?”
The longer I study Saul’s conversion, the more convinced I am that his conversion is typical. Granted, his experience is unique and dramatic. Few Christians will encounter the risen, glorified Lord as Saul did here. We would readily grant that every conversion which is recorded is unique, to some degree. That is because our Lord always confronts, convicts, and converts men and women individually, in the light of their own actions and beliefs. Jesus dealt with Nicodemus (John 3) very differently from the Samaritan woman (John 4). Nevertheless, conversion has certain elements which are vital and which are to be present in any salvation experience. The common characteristics of conversion are those on which I would like to focus in the conversion of Saul.
Characteristics of Conversion
(1) Saul’s salvation was the salvation of a sinner. One of the most dramatic revelations of Saul’s Damascus road experience was that he was not serving God, but he was persecuting Him. The first words spoken to Saul were, “Saul, Saul, Why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4).
What a shock these words must have been to Saul, who up to this point, seems to have prided himself for his faithfulness to Judaism! Up till now, Jesus was the sinner, and Saul was the saint. Now that the Lord had identified Himself as Jesus, Saul recognized that he was the sinner. In fact, as Saul would later write, he realized that he was “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15).
Saul was also blinded, which identified him with the blindness of the nation Israel of which the Old Testament prophets wrote (see above). In Saul’s account of his conversion to His Jewish brethren, he added that when Ananias arrived, he instructed him to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). This expression, “calling on the name of the Lord” seems to be one used consistently in the Old Testament. It is the invitation for sinful Israelites to be saved, by repenting and calling on the name of the Lord for salvation:
Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon (Isaiah 55:6-7; cf. also Psalm 50:15; Joel 2:32; Jeremiah 29:12; 33:3-8).
Later, when Paul looked back on his past “devotion and deeds,” all done in the name of Judaism, he came to view his apparent “righteous deeds” for what they really were—dung:
1 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 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—4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians 3:1-9; cf. also Isaiah 64:6).
What Paul learned about himself, personally, on the road to Damascus he came to understand and to preach concerning all men. Theologically, we know this as the doctrine of man’s total depravity.[151] Paul surely believed that it was essential for men to begin with the understanding of their own sin, for in his Epistle to the Romans, he took the first two and one-half chapters to prove that “… all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
There are no exceptions in this “all” of Romans 3:23, as Paul indicated in these Old Testament words, cited just before:
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE” (Romans 3:10b-12).
What a terrible revelation this is—that all are sinners, even the “best,” the most religious, the most righteous! But the gospel is good news for sinners. It is also bad news for the self-righteous. This is why Jesus was so receptive of sinners and so hard on the self-righteous. The good news of the gospel is that Christ Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Those who think themselves worthy of God’s blessings (as many Jews did in that day) are those who are in trouble. Those who know themselves sinners, and who call upon Jesus for salvation, are saved:
For “WHOSOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED” (Romans 10:13, citing Joel 2:32).
Lest anyone think they are “too sinful” to save, let me remind you that when Paul wrote that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” he quickly added, “among whom I am foremost of all.”
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life (1 Timothy 1:12-16).
If the worst sinner (Saul) was not too sinful to save, then you are not too sinful for God to save. No sinner is beyond the grace and the grasp of God.
(2) Saul’s salvation was exclusively the work of a sovereign God. Our text presents Saul as a man who was not only running from God, but one who was actively opposing Him. Saul was not “seeking God.” Saul was saved in spite of himself. This Paul knew and testified to. God chose Saul and had his destiny planned, before He saved him. When God spoke to Ananias commanding him to go to the house where Saul was staying, he was to receive him as a brother; and he was told that he was called to suffer as God’s chosen vessel to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles, kings, and to his fellow-Israelites. In Galatians 1, Saul wrote that God had called him “while he was still in his mother’s womb” (Galatians 1:15).
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:3-6).
Luke is emphatic in his representation of man’s salvation as having been ordained and orchestrated by God, as a manifestation of His sovereign grace:
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).
And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14).
Those things in which Saul would have formerly trusted for his standing before God, he saw in an entirely different light after God found him and saved him:
4b If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. 7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philippians 1:4-9).
There is a great basis for comfort in the sovereignty of God. We know that the salvation of men rests ultimately with God and not with us—and not even with the one whom we wish to see saved. How much better to petition God to save those whom we are concerned about, a God who desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). And what a comfort to know that God always finishes what He starts:
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).
(3) Saul’s salvation was personal. The election of Saul to salvation was specific and thus, personal. It is evident in the way he was saved. The risen Lord selected Saul out of the group with which he was traveling to hear, to see Him, and to understand His words. Jesus did not address the entire group but said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” The others knew that something unusual was going on, but they did not grasp it (Acts 22:9). The approach the Lord took was one of dealing with Saul in the light of his sin, of his salvation, and of his ministry. The voice from heaven did not call out, “Have you ever heard of the four spiritual laws?”[152] Ananias was sent to Saul only. The message which Saul received was not only a call to salvation, but a divine call to ministry.
There are two very important implications to the personal dimension of Saul’s conversion. The first is this: every saved person must have a personal conversion experience. We may not be able to identify the precise moment or the exact events which brought it about, but salvation does not happen in some kind of group way. Salvation may occur in a large group, such as those saved at the preaching of Peter at Pentecost, but each individual was saved because of a personal encounter with Christ. Have you had such an encounter?
Second, the gospel should be proclaimed in a way that is personal. When I look through the Gospels and the Book of Acts, I never find the gospel presented in the same way to different people. The message of the gospel, to be sure, is always the same, but the approach is not. Let us not fail to respect the individuality of the conversion experience and to deal with people in the light of their individuality. Let us avoid “cookie cutter conversions.”
(4) Saul’s salvation was miraculous. Saul’s conversion was a miracle, short and simple, but not so much the result of the external miracle of the bright light and the voice of the Lord as the internal transformation and illumination which God wrought:
15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man (Galatians 1:15-16).
When Paul spoke of his conversion here in Galatians 1, he did not speak of the light which shone without, but rather of the light which shone within. He did not say that God revealed his Son to him, but that He revealed His Son in him. This divine illumination is that miracle which God performs within a lost, blinded, dead soul, so as to bring about salvation:
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4, 6).
Salvation is the miracle whereby God removes the blindness of sin and of Satan, whereby God replaces death with life. This is a miracle, a miracle which is all of God, and all of grace.
(5) Saul’s salvation was an act of divine grace. Saul recognized that he was a sinner, and that his “righteousness” was but “dung” before God. He realized that it was nothing which he had done—nor ever would do—but only by what Jesus Christ had done that saved him. Thus, whenever he spoke of his conversion and his call to ministry, he always spoke of this incident as an act of divine grace, of God’s unmerited favor, of an act of mercy toward him:
I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:15-16).
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.7 I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord (1 Corinthians 15:8-11).
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 1:12-14).
The same grace which was shown to Saul in his salvation is shown to all whom God calls to Himself:
8 So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day (2 Timothy 1:8-12).
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (Galatians 2:8-9).
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).
Throughout his life and ministry Paul marveled at the grace of God shown to him and to other sinners. He constantly defended the gospel against those who would diminish grace and seek to pollute it with works. The Book of Galatians is but one example of this. He also warned those who would corrupt grace, to make it a pretext for sin (cf. Romans 6).
Grace is not only the basis for one’s salvation, but also for one’s spiritual walk and service:
As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude (Colossians 2:6-7).
Thus, it is grace which sustains the saint, in addition to saving him:
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 13:9).
Grace is also the source and the standard for our service:
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person (Colossians 4:6).
As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).
(6) Saul’s salvation was a conversion, a radical change. Salvation is a revolution, not an evolution. It is not a transition, but a transformation. It is a miraculous, dramatic reversal, first of one’s beliefs, and then of one’s behavior. This is very evident in the conversion of Saul. One moment, Saul was persecuting the church; shortly thereafter he was seeking to fellowship with the saints. One moment, Saul was opposing Jesus, as though He were the sinner; the next, Saul is on his face before this Jesus, calling Him Lord. One moment, Saul is inflicting pain and suffering on others who trust in Jesus as the Messiah, the next, he is enduring suffering for the sake of Jesus, the Messiah. Nothing is more evident in the account of Saul’s conversion than his radical reversal. Here is a graphic illustration of what true repentance is—it is a turning about, beginning with one’s belief and bearing fruit in one’s conduct. The baptism of Saul was his testimony to the change which had taken place. But beyond this, his conversion totally changed the remainder of his life. The life-changing implications of conversion are expressed in these words of Paul to Titus:
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self‑controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. 15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you (Titus 2:11-15).
Perhaps nowhere else is the radical change (of conversion) in Paul’s life[153] more readily evident than in his attitude toward the saints. Saul sought them out to persecute, even kill them, as an unbeliever; but he sought them out to worship and fellowship with them as a Christian. More than that, he had a deep dislike and hostility toward Christians before his conversion. When we look at Paul’s great love and compassion for the saints, we have to remind ourselves of the hate he once had toward them. Only a radical conversion can produce this attitude in the life of a man like Saul:
For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:8).
But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children (1 Thessalonians 2:7).
For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? For you are our glory and joy (1 Thessalonians 2:19-20).
Over and over in his epistles, Paul spoke of salvation in terms of radical change. He spoke of it as the movement from darkness to light (Colossians 1:12-13; Ephesians 4:8-14) in which the new believer should now walk. He spoke of salvation as the change from death to life (Ephesians 2:1-3). He spoke of salvation as dying to the old manner of living and as rising from the dead in order to live an entirely new life (Romans 6). Christianity was described as putting off the old and putting on the new (Colossians 3). No change in life is greater than the change from unbelief to belief in Christ, from being lost and condemned to being saved and eternally secure, from being separated from God and others to being united with Him and with all believers.
The conversion of Saul, as depicted in our text, was not only a divine “call” to salvation, but it was also a “call” to service. At first, I thought this was unique with Saul. I was inclined to think that most of us, experientially, are called to faith in Christ only to gradually learn God’s will for our life, progressively revealed to us as we walk in Him. But as I see the “call of God” referred to in the New Testament, it seems that the “call of salvation” assumes other “callings,” to which Paul and other New Testament writers made frequent reference:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God (Romans 1:1).
6 And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 1:6-7).
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours … 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful (1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 9).
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 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. 20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to (1 Corinthians 7:15, 17-22, 24).[154]
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13).
I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (Ephesians 1:18).
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received (Ephesians 4:1).
I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:14).
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful (Colossians 3:15).
For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life (1 Thessalonians 4:7).
With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith (2 Thessalonians 1:11).
Who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9).
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (1 Peter 2:9).
Just as Saul was “called” to a live of suffering, so Peter tells his readers that they too, like all saints, are called to “suffer for His name”:
To this {suffering} you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:21).
The “call” to salvation is also the “call” to a life of holiness and obedience. The “call” of salvation is a call to change.
(7) The salvation of Saul was Christ-centered. When all is said and done, the miracle which took place on the way to Damascus (and likely in Damascus as well) was that Saul saw Jesus as the Son of God, as the Messiah, and as his Savior and Lord:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? (1 Corinthians 9:1).
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Saul’s salvation was focused on one thing and on one thing alone—Christ. He summed up life in this one word:
For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21).
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to his death (Philippians 3:7-10).
For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 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 (Colossians 1:13-19).
It is no wonder then that this one who was Saul’s all in all would be the focus, the substance, of the gospel which he preached:
“But we preach Christ crucified …” (1 Corinthians 1:23).
“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).
And when the Galatians began to depart from the true gospel, Paul rebuked them for turning from Him:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel (Galatians 6).
Note Paul’s summary of the gospel at the end of Galatians 2:
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me (Galatians 2:20).
Paul’s method was consistent with his message. He sought to preach Christ in simplicity and not in a way that would detract from Him. Thus, he did not use the method of many others, which was man-centered, not Christ-centered:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void. For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:17-18; cf. also 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2).
For Paul, the method of proclaiming the gospel must be consistent with the message itself, and so it was.
(8) The salvation of Saul made him a vital part of Christ’s body, the church. The first words of the Lord Jesus to Saul were intended to teach him the inseparable unity between Christ and His church. Saul could only be persecuting Jesus through the members of His body, the church. Thus, persecuting the church was persecuting Jesus Christ. If the unity of Christ and His body, the church, were a vital truth with respect to Saul’s persecution of the church, it was also a vital truth for him as a Christian. It is no wonder that a fair amount of the text is devoted to a description of Saul’s attempt to associate with the local church, first at Damascus, and then in Jerusalem. And if this was important for Saul to do, it was equally important for the church to accept him into their fellowship, as an expression of their unity in Christ. The laying on of Ananias’ hands was also an expression of unity, as was the later “right hand of fellowship” extended by some of the apostles to Saul (Galatians 2:9).
To Paul, his relationship, by faith, to Jesus Christ was also the beginning of his new relationship to the body of Christ, the church:
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Colossians 1:24-27).
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).
There are all too many “autonomous Christians,” those who feel that coming to faith in Christ does not necessitate identifying with His body, the church. They are “private Christians,” living like islands rather than as a part of His body. They do not understand the gospel well enough.
(9) Finally, I believe that Luke’s portrayal of Saul’s salvation is typical of that of the nation Israel, which is still future. I believe that as Luke portrays Saul in Acts, it is as a prototype, a picture of Israel. The Old Testament passages which I have suggested bear to Saul (“blind,” “light”) are passages which speak of Israel in their original context. Saul, in my opinion, is portrayed by Luke as the first-fruits of these promises. Saul, like Israel, had been blinded as to the meaning of the law because of his rejection of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:14; cf. 5:3-4). Saul, the typical (albeit more zealous) Jew, opposed God in the person of Christ and His body, the church, even while he thought he was serving Him. And yet, even in opposing God, he furthered God’s purposes; he was instrumental in the evangelization of the Gentiles (Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19-21). And yet while God had foretold the rebellion of Israel and their rejection, so He had also foretold of Israel’s restoration (cf. the “light” and “blind” passages above). And thus, in God’s time, Saul was dramatically converted, seeing the Christ whom he had been persecuting, risen from the dead and in His heavenly glory. Israel too will look on Him whom they have pierced and mourn. Israel too will just as surely return to God; and when it happens, it will be all of God, all to His glory and praise:
15 Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm worked salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him. 17 He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak. 18 According to what they have done, so will he repay wrath to his enemies and retribution to his foes; he will repay the islands their due. 19 From the west, men will fear the name of the Lord, and from the rising of the sun, they will revere his glory. For he will come like a pent‑up flood that the breath of the Lord drives along. 20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” declares the Lord. 21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever,” says the Lord. 60:1 “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. 2 See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. 3 Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn” (Isaiah 59:15b–60:13).
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives. 13:1 “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity” (Zechariah 12:10–13:1).
The conversion of Saul is a very crucial event in this book, which spells out from a historical point of view (Romans, from a theological viewpoint) the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the plans and purposes of God. For the time being, God is using the disobedience of Israel to accomplish His purposes, but there is surely a time coming when Israel will be restored to the Lord, by faith in Christ. And when this time comes, God will use their obedience to serve Him:
“For if their rejection be the salvation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15).
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Romans 11:25-32).
There is no more appropriate conclusion to our message than the words of the apostle Paul, which immediately follow those above, and which aptly express the response of the Christian to the wisdom, the grace, and the sovereignty of the God who has saved us, and who works all things together for His glory and for the good of His chosen ones:
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! FOR WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? OR WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).
Amen!
See Appendix B for information on Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans.
! Lesson 15:
Is Cleanliness Next to Godliness?
(Acts 9:32–10:23)
32 Now it came about that as Peter was traveling through all those parts, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.[155] 33 And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years, for he was paralyzed. 34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; arise, and make your bed.” And immediately he arose. 35 And all who lived at Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
36 Now in Joppa[156] there was a certain disciple named Tabitha (which translated in Greek is called Dorcas);[157] this woman was abounding with deeds of kindness and charity, which she continually did. 37 And it came about at that time that she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her body, they laid it in an upper room. 38 And since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him, entreating him, “Do not delay to come to us.” 39 And Peter arose and went with them. And when he had come, they brought him into the upper room; and all the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing all the tunics and garments that Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 40 But Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed, and turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 41 And he gave her his hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. 42 And it became known all over Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. 43 And it came about that he stayed many days in Joppa with a certain tanner, Simon.
Now there was a certain man at Caesarea[158] named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,[159] 2 a devout[160] man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in to him, and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze upon him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 “And now dispatch some men to Joppa, and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter; 6 he is staying with a certain tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea.” 7 And when the angel who was speaking to him had departed, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were in constant attendance upon him, 8 and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. 9 And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Arise, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 And again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, {is not unholy to you}[161].” 16 And this happened three times; and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. 17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon’s house, appeared at the gate; 18 and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. 19 And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 “But arise, go downstairs, and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” 21 And Peter went down to the men and said, “Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?” 22 And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.” 23 And so he invited them in and gave them lodging.
And on the next day he arose and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And on the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 And when it came about that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshipped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he entered, and found many people assembled. 28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. 29 “That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. And so I ask for what reason you have sent for me. 30 And Cornelius said, “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments, and he said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 ‘Send therefore to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.’ 33 “And so I sent to you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” 34 And opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him.”
Introduction
Some years ago, I had the most unusual conversation with a person who professed to be a Christian. The individual had divorced some years before, and was hoping to re-marry another person. I asked what biblical grounds there were for the divorce. The woman responded, “Well, you know the Bible teaches that ‘cleanliness is next to godliness’, and my husband was a very dirty man.” I’ve heard some pretty far out perceptions of what the Bible taught, but this statement caught me off guard.
But before we dismiss this woman’s statement too quickly, let’s think about it. Is cleanliness considered to be next to godliness? It certainly was in the minds of many Jews, not only in Peter’s day, but through much of Israel’s history. The difference between that which was “clean” and that which was “unclean” was vital to the devout Jew. It was obviously vitally important to Peter. In our text, when God Himself commanded Peter to “kill and eat,” Peter quickly responded (in his vision), “No way!” (Acts 10:14).
I would like to suggest to you that the distinctions between “clean” and “unclean,” as the Jews of Peter’s day practiced them, were unbiblical. I do not think, as many seem to feel, that a change in the rules is being made here by God, a “dispensational difference” from the way God had formerly required that things be done. Instead, I believe that Peter, along with his Jewish Christian brethren, had falsely equated “cleanliness” and “godliness,” and that this error was one of the greatest barriers to the expansion of the gospel. A barrier which had to be removed. A barrier which was, indeed, removed here.[162]
The incidents which Luke has chosen to record in the Book of Acts are not necessarily chronological.[163] They tend to be geographical, following the scheme laid out in Acts 1:8. The events which Luke includes in this second volume of his two-volume series are those which serve as critical turning-points. The salvation of the Samaritans, and then of Saul, are two major milestones in the expansion of the church. The conversion of Cornelius is another milestone. Its importance can be seen by the fact that the details of Peter’s divine guidance to this Gentile’s house, along with the divine witness to the conversion of those who were present, are repeated in chapter 11, after already having been told in some detail in chapter 10. This is a very significant event, not only for Peter, but for the Jewish Christians, and for the church of Jesus Christ. We shall see how and why as our study unfolds.
Our Approach
In this lesson, we shall limit ourselves to the portion of the account which is found in 9:32–10:35. We will stop at the point where Peter has arrived at the home of Cornelius, at which time he explains what lessons he has learned in the process of getting this far. We will not look at the “gospel message” he preached in 10:36ff., nor of the response of the people, or of the Holy Spirit—until our next lesson. We shall seek to learn how God arranged for Peter to get to the home of Cornelius, and the lessons which had to be learned in order for Peter to be willing to go. We shall also seek to see of these lessons have any relevance to Christians today. (I will tell you now that they do.)
Jewish Prejudice, Its Precedent,
and its Problem for the Church
The Problem
The attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles was far from a merely condescending mentality. There was a deep rift between Jews and Gentiles. It was one that the gospel would bridge, but not until after the lessons of our text were learned and applied. In the Book of Acts, and in the epistles of the New Testament as well, one of the most persistent and dangerous errors perpetrated against the church, and one of the most insidious errors which continued to find its way into the church was that of the Judaizers, that belief that Christianity must be subordinate to Judaism, that those who became Christians must also become Jews, by the rite of circumcision and by the keeping of the law. This false doctrine first appears in Acts in chapter 15:
And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue (Acts 15:1-2).
The outcome was a “council” held in Jerusalem, which came to be known as the “Jerusalem Council.” In this council, as we shall see in chapter 15, the Judaizers’ doctrine was publicly renounced, but the problem nevertheless persisted, because of those who could not divorce the errors of their Judaism from the truths of the Bible (as Paul did, as seen in Philippians 3).
Peter’s experience, as described in Acts 10, and as repeated in chapter 11, and the lessons which he learned, are the first comments reported by Luke at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-8). The remarks of Paul and Barnabas, and then of James, simply confirmed what Peter said (Acts 15:12-21). These two chapters, then, are foundational to the doctrinal stance taken by the church in the Jerusalem Council. Surely this incident is a “watershed,” a milestone in the expansion of the church.
The Roots of the Problem
The roots of this problem of Jewish separatism[164] go very deep into the Old Testament. They begin in the distinctions which God drew between the “clean” and “unclean” animals which were to be put on the ark, so as to survive the flood (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2-3). Then, in Genesis chapter 12 we are told that God chose Abram, and especially his “seed”[165] to become a source of blessing to “all the nations of the earth” (Genesis 12:1-3). Being God’s chosen was a place of privilege, but also one of great responsibility. To be God’s instrument required one to be separate and distinct from the rest, so as to represent God and to reflect His holiness, His “separateness” from men. But it also required contact with men. Thus, God’s chosen must have contact with those to whom God will bring blessing, and yet must be free from their sins and defilements. In New Testament terms, God’s chosen must be “in the world,” but not “of the world” (cf. John 17:13-17).
Abraham’s separation was to include his removal from his own family, and from his native land (Genesis 12:1). This “separateness” was continually threatened and challenged. Lot was one who endangered himself and his family by his association with the people and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abram’s sin also served as a threat to the purposes of God (from a merely human point of view), for in order to save his own skin, Abram passed off his wife as his sister. If the “seed” of Abram was to be the source of blessing for the world, how lightly he took the need to protect his wife from sexual union with the heathen, such as Pharaoh (Genesis 12:10-20) and Abimelech (Genesis 20). In addition to risking his wife’s impregnation by another man than himself, Abram sought to produce “seed” through Hagar, a woman other than his wife (Genesis 16). In spite of the weakness of Abram and Sarah, God protected them and preserved the purity of his “seed,” so that Isaac was born to the two to fulfill God’s promise to them and to bring about His purposes and promises, given in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3).
The need to separateness was also evident in Jacob and his sons, who were to become, through their offspring, the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob). Joseph is the model for biblical separation.[166] While he lived in a pagan country, far from his family, he refused to have sexual relations with his master’s wife (Genesis 39). His older brother, Judah, however, was willing to have sexual relations with a woman he thought to be a heathen cult prostitute (Genesis 38). It was the 400 years of bondage in Egypt which God used to keep the nation Israel pure, in spite of itself, so that God’s promises to the patriarchs would be fulfilled.
When God led Israel out of Egypt, and was about to take them into the promised land of Canaan, He took steps to insure their separateness, their distinctness, as His people, and as that race through whom Messiah would come. He gave them the Mosaic Covenant, and as a part of this covenant He made distinctions between “clean” and “unclean” things which the Israelites were to carefully observe:
22 ‘You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not spew you out. 23 ‘Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them. 24 ‘Hence I have said to you, “You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 ‘You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 ‘Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine’” (Leviticus 20:22-26).
This is a very important text because it not only emphasizes the necessity for distinguishing between the “clean” and the “unclean,” but it explains the reason for the rule. God had chosen Israel and had set them apart from the other nations of the earth, not because they were so great, or so holy, but simply because He chose them, and because of His promise to the patriarchs (cf. Deuteronomy 7:6-11). Israel’s purpose was to be God’s instrument, through which He would bring His promised blessings to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews. In order to do this, they were to manifest God to men. They were to reflect God, and to “Be holy, even as God is Holy” (Leviticus 11:44, etc.). The laws of the “clean” and the “unclean” were intended to provide one basis for being distinct from the nations, but were also intended to teach the Israelites how to make such distinctions between that which is holy and that which is not—by basing these on the clear statements of God Himself, in His Word.[167]
The sins of the Israelites quickly became evident by taking that “good” which God had given in His law and using it for evil (cf. Romans 7). They began to equate their “separateness” with superiority, in spite of God’s warnings against this (cf. Deuteronomy 7:6-7). And they also came to equate ceremonial “cleanness” with self-effort, with their own works. Rather than manifesting humility and dependence upon God’s grace, which the Law was intended to produce, Israel began to swell with the pride of self-righteousness, based upon external compliance with the letter of God’s law. In time, they added to the law of God, so that they observed the “traditions of Moses”—their own embellishments of the law of Moses—rather than the law itself. Much of the Lord’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was meant to challenge and correct such perversions of the law as God gave it and intended it to be interpreted and applied.
The Old Testament prophets consistently rebuked the people of God for this, stressing that cleanliness and purity were a matter of the heart, and of one’s conduct, not of meticulously keeping ceremonial rituals:
The Mighty One, God, the LORD, has spoken, And summoned the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting. 2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God has shone forth. 3 May our God come and not keep silence; Fire devours before Him, 4 He summons the heavens above, And the earth, to judge His people: 5 “Gather My godly ones to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.” 6 And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge. 7 “Hear, O My people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you; I am God, your God. 8 “I do not reprove you for your sacrifices, And your burnt offerings are continually before Me. 9 “I shall take no young bull out of your house, Nor male goats out of your folds. 10 “For every beast of the forest is mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. 11 “I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. 2 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you; For the world is Mine, and all it contains (Psalm 50:1-12).
Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their whose men shall perish, And the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed” (Isaiah 29:13-14; cf. also Micah 6:6-8).[168]
11 There is a kind of man who curses his father, And does not bless his mother. 12 There is a kind who is pure in his own eyes, Yet is not washed from his filthiness (Proverbs 30:11-12).
When David sinned against God, he turned to Him for cleansing, for only He could wash away his sins:
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Mark me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which Thou hast broken rejoice. Hide Thy face from my sins, And blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me (Psalm 51:7-10).
Through the prophets, God sought to point out to the Jews that they could not attain purity and cleanness. Indeed, God’s standards for cleanness only showed Israel, like all others, to be defiled. And because of this God spoke of Himself as being the One who would cleanse His people from their defilement. The annual day of atonement was an early prototype and picture of the “cleansing” which was to come:
29 “And this shall be a permanent statue for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble your souls, and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you; 30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you shall be clean from all your sins before the LORD. 31 “it is to be a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may humble your souls; it is a permanent statute. 32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did (Leviticus 16:29-34).
The prophets took up this promise of a cleansing to come, accomplished by God for His people, a cleansing which Messiah would make, a cleansing which would ultimately be by the shedding of His blood:
2 In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel. 3 And it will come about that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy—everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem. 4 When the LORD has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, 5 then the LORD will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy. 6 And there will be a shelter to give shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain (Isaiah 4:2-6).
7 “And I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and I will rebuild them as they were at first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity by which they have sinned against Me, and I will pardon all their iniquities by which they have sinned against Me, and by which they have transgressed against Me. 9 And it shall be to me a name of joy, praise, and glory before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear of all the good that I do for them, and they shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the peace that I make for it” (Jeremiah 33:7-9).
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes. 24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel! 33 “‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt. 34 The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass through it. 35 They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” 36 Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the Lord have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it.’ 37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to the plea of the house of Israel and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 36:22-38, NIV).
23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God. 24 “‘My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever’” (Ezekiel 37:23-28, NIV).
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” 3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.” 5 Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by. 6 The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua: 7 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here. 8 “‘Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. 9 See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day. 10 “‘In that day each of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and fig tree,’ declares the Lord Almighty” (Zechariah 3:1-10, NIV).
What a joy the promise of a Savior and of cleansing was to those who recognized their sin, and who looked to God for salvation. But for many Israelites, they thought they were “clean” and needed no cleansing. They prided themselves in abstaining from anything “unclean” and disdained the Gentiles as “unclean,” as “sinners.” This led to the false conclusion that the Gentiles themselves were unclean. This provided them with the opportunity not only to look down on the Gentiles, but to avoid contact with them—all in the name of holiness.
If the Jews of Jesus’ day felt that holiness was measured in terms of the distance one kept from “sinners” (which they did), then you can imagine the impact that Jesus’ words and teaching had on such separatists (which is virtually synonymous with the word Pharisee). These Jews looked for a Messiah who would bless Israel and who would overthrow the Gentiles. Yet Jesus taught that He had come to bring blessings on the Gentiles, too. Indeed, Jesus reminded those in the synagogue of Nazareth that God sometimes blessed Gentiles instead of Jews, something which caused this enthusiastic and supportive crowd to a hostile mob, who tried to kill Him (Luke 4:16-30).
And if this were not enough, Jesus, far from keeping His distance from “sinners” actually sought them out and fellowshipped with them at the meal table, which infuriated the scribes and Pharisees, and brought about their jealous reaction of interrogation (Luke 5:29-39). The hostility continued to build, and when some of Jesus’ disciples ate without ceremonially washing first, it brought about this exchange:
And the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered together around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” 9 He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH.’ 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” 14 And summoning the multitude again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” 16 17 And when leaving the multitude, He had entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, “Are you too so uncomprehending? Do you not see that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts and fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man” (Mark 7:1-13).
Jesus’ disciples did not wash their hands ceremonially, as did the Pharisees. And thus, in the minds of these legalists, the disciples were sinning, breaking the customs of Moses. They were not breaking the Law of God, of course, but only the rules of the religious of that day. Our Lord’s response to these charges of the Pharisees is most informative. His words indicate that there was, on the part of His disciples, no real transgression of the Law of Moses, but only of their petty rules. Further, He indicated that this was a biblical issue in the sense that they were doing that which the prophets foretold: concentrating on the ceremonies and missing the heart of God’s commands. The Law was addressed to the “heart,” and not to outward ritual and ceremony. This is why our Lord’s interpretation of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount differed so greatly from that of the Pharisees and scribes (but which was utterly consistent with the intent of the Law, when God gave it, and as the prophets interpreted and applied it).
Defilement, Jesus taught, was not a ceremonial thing, but a matter of the heart. Sin begins in the heart and works outward. It does not penetrate man from without. Thus, Jesus made it clear that foods cannot defile a person. What one eats does not make one sinful or holy. In teaching this, Jesus declared all foods “clean,” Mark informs his reader.
Now the report of this incident in Mark chapter 7, along with Jesus’ response, was very possibly conveyed to Mark by Peter. One thing is for certain: Peter was there when these words were spoken by the Lord. At some point in time in the Lord’s process of changing Peter’s thinking about “clean” and “unclean” Peter must have remembered this incident and Jesus’ teaching. Jesus had already indicated that the “food laws” of the Old Testament, and the distinctions which they created between “clean” and “unclean” were set aside. In another incident, Jesus Himself “violated the rules” of His legalistic opponents. Here, Jesus made the point that it was what was “inside” a man that mattered, not what was on the outside. He accused the Pharisees of concentrating on the outside:
37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. 39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you (Luke 11:37-41, NIV).
The Lord indicated to His disciples what true cleanness was and how it was to be accomplished by Him. During His last meal with the disciples He the Lord said and did these things:
3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” 9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” 10 Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean (John 13:3-11, NIV).
“You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3, NIV, cf. also John 17:15-17).
The Old Testament food laws, the laws of “clean” and “unclean” foods were set aside, Mark says. So they were. But the evils conjured up in the minds of the legalists and practiced by them were never taught by God in the first place. God wanted His people to be distinct from the world, but not distant and removed from it. They were to be lights to the world, and salt, Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount. All of this requires the presence of the saint and his or her permeation of the world. Light that is hidden and salt that is tasteless has no value. God wants His people to be distinct, so that their presence in the world will be seen, and so that His holiness and salvation may be proclaimed. The Jewish concept of holiness and separation, which Peter held and practiced, was a barrier to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles and to the growth of the church. Thus, God had to bring this apostle to a dramatic change of mind and heart. The conversion of Cornelius is the instrument God used to do this, and by so doing, to impact the whole church as well.[169]
Peter’s Progressive Change of Mind:
Luke Sets the Scene
(9:32-43)
In spite of Peter’s love for the Lord Jesus, his growth in the faith, and the power which God manifested in his life and ministry, he held the same views of his unbelieving Jewish brethren. And so did the rest of the apostles. God set out to change Peter’s thinking, in a way that was nearly as dramatic as the conversion of Saul, as described in the first part of chapter 9.
Peter’s change of mind was progressive, just as Paul’s conversion involved a process. Geographically, the progress is most evident. Peter started in Jerusalem, then went down to Samaria, and to some of the Samaritan towns (8:14, 25). Some time later, Peter was found in Lydda (9:32) and then at Joppa (9:39, 43), and then at Caesarea (10:24). After this, he would return to Jerusalem (11:2).
I believe that these changes in Peter’s place of residence played a very crucial role in preparing him for the invitation to come to the house of Cornelius. I am inclined to doubt that Peter would have gone to Caesarea and to the house of Cornelius if he would have received the invitation to do so while he was staying in Jerusalem. It was here that his devoutly Jewish fellow-apostles and brethren lived. And it was precisely these folks who “called Peter on the carpet” for preaching the gospel in the home of this Gentile, Cornelius. But God took Peter and John to Samaria, where they welcomed many Samaritan saints into the faith and into the church. Then, at some point in time, God led Peter to Lydda, then to Joppa, and finally to Caesarea.
Peter’s arrival in Lydda was the occasion for his encounter with Aeneas, who was healed of his 8 year paralysis, in the name of Jesus Christ (9:32-34). This healing led to the conversion of many, and the broadcasting of Peter’s reputation and presence to the nearby town of Joppa (cf. 9:38). When Dorcas died, some of the disciples in Joppa sent for Peter. We are not told why they sent for him, or what they asked him to do. Was Dorcas still alive when they first sent for Peter? Had she died before these men were sent? Did they dare to think that God might raise her to life through Peter, a miracle such as Peter had not performed before (so far as the account tells us, at least)?
Peter’s method of dealing with this request was not that which we would expect from watching the television “healers.” Peter went to Joppa. There, he sent everyone from the room where the woman’s body was laid. Peter then prayed. We are not told for what he prayed. I know what I would have prayed: “Lord, what am I supposed to do?” Did Peter think of his own experience with the Lord, along with James and John, when He raised the daughter of Jairus (cf. Mark 5)? Somehow, Peter became convinced that he should pray that God would raise this woman from death. Only after she was alive did Peter call in the others, and present her to them, alive.[170] This miracle of life was used of God to bring many to faith, and it also resulted in Peter’s change of location, from Lydda to Joppa, where Peter had an extended stay (9:43).
This sequence of events removed Peter from Jerusalem, and from the legalistic separatism of his Jewish brethren. It put him in contact, no doubt, with a larger number of Gentiles. It resulted in his contact with a woman who had died, as was thus not only ceremonially unclean, but also defiling to Peter. It also put Peter in constant daily contact with a tanner, a man who daily dealt with dead animals. It would seem that some of Peter’s scruples with “unclean” things would have had to have been set aside.
If the change of setting was preparatory in the life of Peter, making him more open to the invitation to go to the house of a Gentile, the miracles which Peter is reported to have performed (by divine enablement) are also significant. The miracle of the healing of the paralytic was not so spectacular, for similar healings had taken place by Peter’s hand previously (cf. Acts 3). But what was spectacular was the raising of a dead woman, something which is not said to have happened previously through Peter.
Would someone attempt to explain Peter’s actions (of going to the house of a Gentile, to preach the gospel to Gentiles) by insisting that he was “not himself,” that he had, perhaps, become carnal or was in a “backslidden state”? The answer would have to be that this man, this “carnal man” had never before (or after) seen the hand of God work so mightily in his life and ministry.
The important changes which took place in Peter were those pertaining to his theology and understanding of the relationship between the “clean” and the “unclean” and the Jews and the Gentile. Notice, with me, the sequence of events which God brought about in Peter’s life, and the progressive realization on his part as to what all this meant.
The Vision of Cornelius
(10:1-8)
There was a certain[171] man in Caesarea, named Cornelius. He was a Gentile, a centurion, and a man who was, for all intents and purposes, an Old Testament believer. He was not, it would seem, a circumcised, “certified” proselyte, but one who had found the God of the Jews to be the one true God. He served God as much as could be expected of any Old Testament believer. No one could have asked any more of this man than that which Luke tells us about him. The only thing about this man which would have raised the objections of a Jew, even a Jewish Christian, was that he was not Jewish, but “merely” a Gentile. The righteous deeds of Cornelius are not reported so that we would draw the conclusion that he was somehow good enough for God to save, but only to show that no Jew should have any objections to Peter going to his house to proclaim the good news of the gospel. It is clear in the text as a whole that this man, though a pious Old Testament saint, though a Gentile God-seeker, was not a New Testament believer. By his own words, Cornelius was told by the angel of God that Peter was to come to his house to “speak words by which he and those gathered would be saved” (Acts 11:14).
The heart of Cornelius had already been opened, so that this Gentile was not longer fleeing from God, but was now seeking to know of Him and of His salvation. In contrast to the Jews, whose ceremonial acts of worship were an offense to God, the deeds of Cornelius went up to God as “a memorial.” God took note of these acts of worship because they were precisely that—acts of worship. To be more precise, they were acts of Old Testament worship. What he still needed was the good news of the coming of the Christ, and of His sacrificial death and resurrection, for the remission of men’s sins. He was thus commanded to send men to a specific place, to a specific home, and to ask for a specific person—Peter, who was to come to his house in Caesarea to bring him and his household a word from God which would bring salvation.
It is interesting to note that the guidance God gave Cornelius is much more specific (at least initially) than that given to Peter. I think I understand why God told Cornelius to send for Peter, to come to his house. Cornelius was apparently a humble man (a soldier, placing himself under the religious system of a subject people would be humbling), and with his close association with Judaism, would have known that the association which his invitation called for was prohibited by Judaism. Peter put it this way:
“You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him…” (Acts 10:28).
This being the case, I believe that apart from the specific instructions which God gave to Cornelius, he would have said something very similar to that which another centurion, and a Gentile, said to Jesus, a Jew, who was on his way to the man’s house:
“Lord, do not trouble Yourself further, for I am not fit for You to come under my roof; for this reason I did not even consider myself worthy to come to You, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed” (Luke 7:6-7).
Jesus commended this centurion’s faith, but we can also see in his words, his attentiveness to the sensitivity in Jew/Gentile relationships. I believe that if God had not commanded Cornelius to send for Peter, he would have gone to Peter, to avoid any problems. But you see, God wanted there to be a problem, so that He could correct Peter’s attitudes and actions, along with those of the other Jewish Christians, especially those from Jerusalem.
Peter’s Vision and Insight
(10:1-35)
God’s timing, as always, was perfect. Just before the three men were to arrive at the home of Simon the tanner, Peter had a corresponding vision[172] to that of Cornelius, in order to prepare him for the arrival of these three,[173] and for the invitation of Cornelius, which they were to extend to him. Peter’s vision, like that of Cornelius, came at a time when he was in prayer.[174] Unlike the vision of Cornelius, Peter did not immediately understand what the vision meant, in principle or in practice. That was to be revealed to him by the Spirit, at the time when the application of this truth was required.[175]
Peter’s vision is one about food, but it is not a vision of a meal, per se. A sheet is lowered from heaven, and later taken back up into heaven. On this sheet, there is not a table set, with all kinds of delicious dishes upon it. There are various kinds of animals. They are all alive, and they must first be killed, and then Peter can fix his own meal. There are various animals, some of which must have been unclean, and some of which must have been clean. Why, then, would Peter have been horrified at the thought of killing one of the animals, in order to eat. He would not have to have killed a pig, and had pork chops for dinner. He could have killed a lamb, and had lamb chops instead. Why would this thought horrify him? Because, I think, the association of the “clean” animals with the “unclean” must have rendered all “unclean” in Peter’s mind. Thus, he could not kill or eat any of them.
This would be consistent with his view of Jewish separation from “unclean” Gentiles. He, like the Pharisees, would avoid contact with the Gentiles because they felt that mere association with them was defiling. This explains the elaborate rituals of cleansing through which a devout Jew went, after being in the market place, and coming into contact with Gentiles. But to God, it was not being near pagans which made one unholy, but in being like pagans which defiled one. Thus, Jesus could come to the earth in human flesh and associate with sinners but remain sinless, because He did not think and act as sinners did. The self-righteous Jews, on the other hand, may have kept themselves separate from the Gentiles and other “sinners” but in their thinking and actions they sinned, for sin comes from within a man, and not from without.
The scene which was played in Peter’s mind was repeated three times, so that it importance and its certainly was underscored. In spite of the certainty of the message, Peter was not so clear on its meaning. He was perplexed and was contemplating what he had experienced when the three men arrived—and right on time. He could hear them, down below, asking for him by name. It was only now that the Holy Spirit told Peter what to do, allowing him to come to the realization that this was the meaning of the message he had just received in his vision. He was to go with these Gentiles, to the home of a Gentile, without agonizing over the “defilement” which such an act had formerly implied to Peter. Both the men and the Spirit testified to the fact that this invitation was ultimately divinely directed. Significantly, Peter invited the men into the house, where they must have shared in the meal and spent the night. Barriers were already being broken down.
The next day, the group went to Caesarea, accompanied by a curious (it would seem) group of Jewish (circumcised, Acts 10:45) disciples from Joppa, who were divinely purposed to serve as witnesses to God’s handiwork in the house of Cornelius, the Gentile. Cornelius was waiting, along with a large group who were assembled in his house. He fell at Peter’s feet, either thinking him to be an angel, or giving him undue reverence—something which Peter corrected quickly. In effect, Peter forbade this act of worship on the basis that these two men were merely men, and thus equals. The full force of his own words was yet to hit Peter.
Peter then explained to his audience the reason for his reticence in coming, and the meaning of his vision in relation to his hesitance (10:27-29). In his explanation, Peter referred to his possible association with Gentiles (as a Jew) was unlawful. There is no Old Testament law prohibiting such association. Peter is therefore referring to something which was viewed as unlawful by Jewish custom and practice. It was this same custom and practice which Jesus and His disciples set aside, much to the displeasure of the scribes and Pharisees. When Peter said that God showed him he should not consider any man unholy or unclean (10:28), it is now clear to Peter that the issue of clean and unclean was not primarily a matter of animals, but of men. Peter, like his Jewish counterparts, had wrongly extended the “clean” and “unclean” distinctions of the Old Testament to men, rather than applying them to that which God had specifically defined as clean or unclean. He now new better. But he still does not fully grasp the lesson God intended him to learn.
After Peter’s words, explaining his reluctance in coming, Cornelius explained to Peter and the others what had prompted him to send for Peter (10:30-33). He was at prayer when he received his vision. In the vision, a man in shining garments (an angel of God, 10:3) appeared to him, informing him of the pleasure God took in his worship, and instructing him to send for Peter, who was dwelling in Joppa, at the house of Simon the tanner. Peter was the right man, the man God had intended to come. And now, Cornelius added, they were all ready to hear what God had to say to them, through Peter (10:33). These words were to be a word from God concerning the way of salvation for him and his household (11:13-14).
Once again, Peter spoke. And once again, Peter said that he now understood what God meant for him to understand:
And opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34-35).
Here was the fundamental problem of the Jews—prejudice. Here, too, was the fundamental theological barrier to the proclamation of the gospel. The Jews felt that they had a “corner” on Christianity. They believed that salvation was not just “of the Jews,” brought to pass by God in accordance with His promises to the Jews, and through a Jew—the Lord Jesus, but that salvation was primarily “for the Jews.” If there were those among the Gentiles who wished to cash in on the benefits of salvation through Messiah, they could do so by becoming a Jew and trusting in Jesus as their Messiah. But the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles as Gentiles was a completely foreign thought, based on the assumption that the Jews were somehow “clean” and that the Gentiles were “unclean,” and that in taking the gospel to the Gentiles would be defiling to them and to the gospel.
I understand Peter’s words as the expression of a general principle, which he has just begun to grasp. It is not only a New Testament principle, introduced with the coming of Christ, but a principle of God’s dealing with men down through the ages, from Old Testament times onward. It was a principle of which the Jews were deliberately ignorant. Most of the Jews thought of themselves as somehow superior to the Gentiles, and thus they thought of themselves as those whom God would bless because of their superiority. They were separate, by God’s calling and choice, but they were not, in and of themselves, superior. But they thought so.
Peter now understands that Jews and Gentiles are equal. They are equally sinful, and worthy of God’s wrath. They are equally lost. They are equally undeserving. The gospel is the good news that cleansing has come, through the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, to all who would believe in His death, burial, and resurrection on their behalf. And when they have trusted in Him, whether Jew or Gentile, they are equal for their cleansing and worth are based upon the work of Christ, not on their own good works. When one’s righteousness is based upon God’s work, through Christ, there is no basis for self-righteousness, and thus no basis for superiority or pride. Peter now claims to understand this essential equality, which forbids him from withholding the gospel from those Gentiles who would hear it and receive it.
Peter still has a good way to go, in my opinion. He is now willing to go to the house of a God-fearing Gentile, to preach the gospel to him, and to receive him as a brother and equal in Christ. But the gospel requires more than this. As illustrated in the salvation of Saul (in chapter 9), the gospel requires that the good news of salvation be proclaimed to all men, even to the heathen who do not fear God. This is a step which is yet to be taken by the church, but Luke is bringing us to this point as he continues in the Book of Acts.
Conclusion
What does Peter’s experience with Cornelius have to do with the argument of the Book of Acts? It is a quantum leap for the gospel, for it sets the precedent that the gospel is for all men, and not just the Jews. It is to become a turning point in the doctrine, if not yet the practice (cf. 11:18-19), of the church. The precedent set by Peter will eventually be followed by the church. And the principle has been established by which the heresy of the Judaisers (Acts 15:1ff.) will be corrected. This is indeed a watershed event, which will shape the history of the church. The door is now swinging open for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. We are beginning to leave Jerusalem and Judea, and even Samaria, and turning toward Rome.
And what does the experience of Cornelius have to do with us? It has a great deal to say to us, I believe. First, it indicates that even the righteous works of a man like Cornelius are not sufficient to save a man. If he were to be saved by his good works, it would not have been necessary for Peter to have gone to his house and to preach the gospel. The “cleansing” which the Jews need is the same cleansing required by any who would be saved from God’s wrath and into His kingdom. That cleansing is the cleansing of the blood of Christ. The cleansing which took place annually on the day of atonement, was but a temporary setting aside of sin. The full and final cleansing, to which the day of atonement looked forward, was the cleansing which Jesus made by the shedding of His blood, on the cross of Calvary, once for all.
11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man‑made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:11-15, NIV).
Have you experienced the cleansing which God promised the Old Testament saint, and which He has provided in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ? All you need do is to acknowledge that you are “unclean,” that your sins have defiled you, that your uncleanness comes from within, not from without. And then you need only look to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s provision of cleansing for you. He died in your place. He bore the penalty for your sins on the cross. And He was raised again, to newness of eternal life. In Him, your sins are paid for and your “cleanness” is provided. I pray that you will, this day, experience the washing of regeneration, the cleansing which comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
The primary lesson in our text for Peter, however. He was not only saved, he was an apostle, a leader in the church. If his lesson was that the gospel must be preached to all men, Jews and Gentiles, what is the lesson in this for us? Surely it is, to begin with, that we must proclaim the gospel to all men.
The fact is, however, that we are just as selective in those to whom we proclaim the gospel as Peter and his Jewish Christian brethren were. Oh, we, like Peter and others, would tell others about salvation in Jesus if they came to us and asked to hear, or if they were willing to become one of us. But the sad truth is that many of those whom we feel are “pagans” are those to whom we will not preach the good news—not consciously, perhaps, but unconsciously. And, the more I think about it, I fear that we refuse to preach to the heathen out of a perverted sense of purity and separation from sin.
My contention is that our doctrine and practice of holiness and separation is the biggest barrier to evangelism today, just as it was for Peter and the Jewish saints in that day. I believe that we, like they, think of separation and holiness in terms of avoiding contact with sinners, rather than in avoiding sin in our own lives. We have a greater fear of contaminating from being around “sinners” than from practicing that sin which comes from within ourselves.
Let me give you a biblical illustration of what I am talking about. It comes from the 5th chapter of the book of 1 Corinthians. Notice who the saints in Corinth avoided, and who they received:
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:1-13, NIV).
The Corinthians had turned things inside-out. They tolerated—even welcomed—a man in their midst that was living in open sin, the kind of sin which shocked the pagans. Not only did the Corinthians tolerate this man, they were proud of themselves for doing so. No doubt they called this “Christian love.” On the other hand, these saints were great advocates of “separation,” the only problem was that they separated themselves from sinners, rather than from a wayward saint. Paul made it clear to them in these verses that they were to excommunicate the professing Christian, who was living in sin, but to freely associate with pagans, who needed to hear of Christ.
How it is to turn things around, and to do precisely the opposite of what God has commanded us! Holiness is living a life which reflects God and which is pleasing to Him. It is a life which avoids sin, but which seeks the salvation of sinners, and which therefore associates with them, just as Jesus did. To put the matter bluntly, folks, were shunning the wrong people. We need to avoid professing Christians who are living like pagans, and we need to seek pagans, so as to win them to Christ.
In our twisted and perverted doctrine and practice of holiness and separation, we are guilty of the same kind of legalism and externalism which Jesus condemned in the scribes and Pharisees. We judge holiness more by what a man or woman does not do, than by what they do. Can you imagine describing the holiness of God in terms like these:
· God doesn’t smoke cigarettes.
· God doesn’t drink wine (but Jesus did).
· God doesn’t associate with known sinners (but Jesus did).
· God doesn’t wear makeup (or whatever).
The holiness of God was demonstrated in Jesus Christ, who came to the earth to associate with sinners, so as to save some. How can we do otherwise?
The problem of falsely judging and practicing separation by the avoidance of certain “unclean” things was not only one that characterized the scribes and Pharisees, and Jewish saints like Peter, it was a problem that persisted in the New Testament. Note these references to an external avoidance kind of holiness, one advocated by false teachers, and not the apostles:
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. 10 We have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 Hence, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For there we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come (Hebrews 13:9-14).
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence (Colossians 2:20-23).
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble (Romans 14:20, NIV).
May God produce true holiness in us, and may we, like Jesus, practice holiness by associating with sinners, to proclaim the good news of God’s cleansing and salvation, while we live pure and blameless lives before them.
! Lesson 16:
The Conversion of Cornelius
(Acts 10:36-48)
Introduction
The way in which the Old Testament law had been twisted and distorted by Judaism, distortions that were held by the apostles as well as unbelieving Jews, was the focus of our last lesson. The revelation which Peter received in the vision from heaven was then a correction of an error in Peter’s theology.
But something changed, too. There was a dispensational difference. The message was short, but it signaled a difference: “What God has cleansed, is not to be unclean to you” (Acts 10:15, my translation). While all of the animals on the sheet which Peter saw may not have been unclean, some of them probably were. What had God cleansed? When and how did this cleansing take place? Let us begin at the beginning (of the Bible), and see how and why God changed the rules as to what men could eat.
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, and a special garden in which He placed Adam and Eve, God gave man permission to eat only that which was from green plants:
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed‑bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so (Genesis 1:29-30, NIV).
When the Lord God placed this couple in the Garden of Eden, He prohibited one fruit, on penalty of death—the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17, NIV).
This one forbidden food (among the things which came from green plants) became the focus of Satan’s temptation. Notice how getting Eve, and then her husband Adam, to eat this forbidden fruit was Satan’s goal. Note too the frequency of the references to “eating” (and food) in Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” 16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” 20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life (Genesis 3:1-24, NIV).
Adam and Eve were given the freedom to eat of every green plant, with the exception of the one forbidden fruit. It would seem as though Eve supposed that the reason God prohibited this fruit was because it was “bad”—poison, perhaps. Satan sought to distort the situation so as to make God look bad for having forbidden it. It was when Eve perceived the fruit to be good—good to look at, good to eat, good to make one wise—that she came to believe Satan’s lie. How could a good God forbid them from what was good? A good God could prohibit a poison fruit, but not a delicious, edible fruit.[176] And so she ate and then gave to her husband. The consequences were a loss of innocence and of fellowship with God. Satan got to “eat dust” and Adam to “eat bread produced by the sweat of his brow.”[177]
And so it was that in the beginning men were not given permission to eat any meat but only fruits and vegetables, with the one initial exception of the forbidden fruit, and then the consequential exception of the fruit of the tree of life, which would have enabled them to live forever.
The fall of this couple in the garden was the beginning of woes.[178] Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4), and then the whole earth became corrupt, necessitating the flood (Genesis 6). When God gave Noah instructions concerning the number of animals to bring into the ark, God commanded that two of every unclean animal be brought “on board,” and that seven of every clean species be taken on:
18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive (Genesis 6:18-20, NIV).
1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” 5 And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him. 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah (Genesis 7:1-9, NIV).
The purpose for the extra clean animals seems to be to provide animals which were to be used for sacrifices to God:
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done (Genesis 8:20-21, NIV).
As God accepted the sacrifice of Noah, He made a covenant with him never again to destroy every living thing (Genesis 8:20-22). Immediately after this, God changed the rules as to what men could eat. Now, man could not only eat that which was produced by green plants, but all animal flesh as well. The only requirement was that its blood must be drained from it:
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it (Genesis 9:3-4, NIV).
It appears as though only the clean animals were acceptable for making a sacrifice to God. This would explain the necessity for more “clean” animals than for the “unclean.” As for men, they could eat “unclean” animals, it seems, until the time of the exodus and the Mosaic Covenant. It was at this time that the “unclean” animals were carefully distinguished from the “clean,” and only the clean were to be eaten by the Israelites:
43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. 44 I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the Lord who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. 46 “‘These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten’” (Leviticus 11:43-47, NIV).
The specific definitions of “clean” and “unclean” animals are provided in the rest of Leviticus 11 and are repeated in Deuteronomy 14. Interestingly enough, while the “clean” and “unclean” distinctions were to be observed by all the Israelites, these did not apply to the “aliens” among them:
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat. 21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Deuteronomy 14:1-21, NIV).
Israel was to distinguish between the “clean” and the “unclean” in the food that they ate, but true cleanness was a matter of the heart and of one’s obedience to the law of God, in spirit and in truth. When the nation Israel refused to obey God, they would be sent out of the land and intermingled with the Gentiles, where they would be forced to eat that which was unclean. This would be an evidence of their sin and of their divine discipline:
“Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.” Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth” (Ezekiel 4:12-14, NIV).
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; you love the wages of a prostitute at every threshing floor. 2 Threshing floors and winepresses will not feed the people; the new wine will fail them. 3 They will not remain in the Lord’s land; Ephraim will return to Egypt and eat unclean food in Assyria. 4 They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord, nor will their sacrifices please him. Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners; all who eat them will be unclean. This food will be for themselves; it will not come into the temple of the Lord. 5 What will you do on the day of your appointed feasts, on the festival days of the Lord? 6 Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them, and Memphis will bury them. Their treasures of silver will be taken over by briers, and thorns will overrun their tents (Hosea 9:1-6, NIV).
As we saw in our last lesson, temporary cleansing was provided for in the sacrificial system. It was not the ceremonial uncleanness which ultimately defiled the people of God, but their own sin:
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear (Isaiah 59:2, NIV).
God provided a temporary solution for both the ceremonial uncleanness and the sins of the Israelites. The annual “day of atonement” (Leviticus 16) provided an annual cleansing of the sins of the nation. But the full and final cleansing was yet to come, that which would be brought about by the Messiah (e.g. Isaiah 4:2-6; Jeremiah 33:7-9; Ezekiel 33:22-38).
When Jesus came to the earth, He thus could be expected to speak with reference to the “clean” and the “unclean.” And so He did:
Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at table. And when the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you” (Luke 11:37-41).
“Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” … And when leaving the multitude, He had entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Are you too so uncomprehending? Do you not see that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14b-15, 17-19).
In both these cases Jesus rebuked the externalism of the Pharisees, which looked to outside appearances and not to the heart (cf. Luke 16:15). And in both, He spoke of uncleanness as something which comes from within a man (from the heart) and which works itself out (external acts). Indeed, the Pharisees were not even so concerned with a man’s actions as with the cleanness of cups and eating utensils and with the ceremonial washing of hands. Jesus, like the prophets before Him, pointed to man’s sin as the source of defilement, not dirt nor that which was ceremonially unclean.
Mark[179] tells us that Jesus did even more than point to the heart as the source of sin and defilement. Mark says, parenthetically (as the translators render it), that Jesus declared all things clean. As I understand this statement, it was made after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. The disciples undoubtedly did not understand that Jesus was pronouncing all things clean at the time Jesus spoke these words. But they did look back on this incident and see that He had pronounced all things clean. The actual cleansing took place at the cross, but the pronouncement was made before the cross (for only afterward would it be understood, and applied, and this incident with Peter in Acts 10 & 11 was probably the key factor in this). The cleansing which Christ accomplished at Calvary not only cleansed the sins of men but potentially all that sin had defiled:
11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man‑made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant … It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence (Hebrews 9:11-15, 23-24 NIV).
Because the blood of Christ accomplished full and final cleansing, for the sins of all who would believe in Christ and for the entire creation, the need for the distinction of “clean” and “unclean” things, as required by the Mosaic Covenant, was no longer required. To this change the New Testament writers consistently bear witness:
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:13-23, NIV).
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 2:16-23, NIV).
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 (Titus 1:15, NIV).
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come (Hebrews 13:9-14, NIV).
This cleansing was not for Jews only; it was to include all whose heart was turned to God and who would proclaim Jesus as God’s Messiah. Indeed, this cleansing was so complete that it would bring near to God those whom the law would have kept at a distance. And to this the prophet Isaiah (and the rest, Peter will tell his audience in Acts 10:43) bore witness:
3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.” And let not any eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” 4 For this is what the Lord says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” 8 The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered” (Isaiah 56:3-8, NIV).
1 “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’ 2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations—3 a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick; 4 who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat; 5 who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me, for I am too sacred for you!’ Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day. 6 “See, it stands written before me: I will not keep silent but will pay back in full; I will pay it back into their laps—7 both your sins and the sins of your fathers,” says the Lord. “Because they burned sacrifices on the mountains and defied me on the hills, I will measure into their laps the full payment for their former deeds” (Isaiah 65:1-7, NIV).
On the basis of the prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 56, is it any wonder that in the Book of Acts we would read in chapter 8 of the conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch, and that in chapter 10 we would hear of the conversion of a Gentile, Cornelius, a man whose worship God had found acceptable (cf. Acts 10:4)? Not at all! Indeed, we should expect to read what is recorded in Acts. And so we do.
The cleansing of which the prophets foretold, which Jesus both announced and accomplished, and of which Peter is forcefully reminded, is that which makes possible the menu of heaven in the eternal state. This is described in the last chapters of the Bible, in the Book of Revelation. It is a description of the new Jerusalem, which descends from heaven:
And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple. And the city has not need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. And on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall serve Him; and they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads (Revelation 20:22–21:4).
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city” (Revelation 22:14).[180]
From the above we may then suggest that the “menu” of what God taught was acceptable to eat was a clue to what God was trying to teach His people. When God put Adam and Eve on the earth, He gave them instructions as to what they could eat, and what they could not eat. When the Noahic Covenant was instituted (in Genesis 9), the rules changed, so that meat could now be eaten. And when the Mosaic Covenant was inaugurated, the distinctions between “clean” and “unclean” meats were defined. It should thus come as no surprise that with the institution of the New Covenant, the food laws should be changed again, to reflect the new covenant which was inaugurated. Indeed, the changing of the rules should cause us to look for a change. Jesus pronounced the change in His earthly ministry. He made provision for the change in His sacrificial death and resurrection. And He instituted the change by means of this incident with Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11.
All of this backdrop helps to explain the biblical and historical context of our passage. Peter was providentially led away from Jerusalem, first to Samaria (8:14-25), and then later to Lydda, and finally to Joppa. His willingness to touch the dead body of Dorcas (Acts 9:36-42) and to stay in the house of Simon the tanner (9:43) was evidence of a change in Peter’s practice, if not in his theology. But a thorough-going change of heart and mind required a divine revelation. Only this would suffice to convince him that he should accompany the three men to Caesarea to the home of Cornelius, a Gentile.
The revelation which Peter received informed him that the Lord Jesus had, in His sacrificial death, accomplished a cleansing, a cleansing which (as Jesus had earlier indicated in Mark 7) made obsolete the ceremonial food laws. If their observance was distorted by the added interpretations and prohibitions of Judaism, even the basic distinctions, as defined by God in the law, were now set aside. True cleansing was internal, a cleansing from sin. True cleansing came through the cross, not through ceremonial cleanness. And so these convictions, which Peter held to so strongly, must be set aside.
But the application of this revelation extended to people and not just to foods. Peter grasped through the revelation of the Holy Spirit (10:19-20) that he was not to call men unclean. And finally he grasped that he was not to let his concern for ceremonial cleanness keep him from association with Gentiles and from proclaiming Christ to them. The full thrust of the lesson is yet to be learned. Peter has been convinced to associate with these Gentiles and so to keep them overnight at Simon’s house. He has also become willing to go to the home of Cornelius. But he is not yet certain what he is to do, once he arrives. All he knows (so far as I can tell) is that he is to go to Caesarea, to the house of Cornelius, without reservations, and there to speak some word.
After the explanation offered by Cornelius (10:30-33), Peter realized that he was brought to this home (with a good sized group gathered) to speak whatever God had commanded him to say. (Only later, in 11:14, do we learn that Cornelius was assured that Peter would speak words by which this Gentile and his household would be saved). Peter realizes now that it was the gospel which he was to preach. This may seem obvious to us, but I believe it was indeed a revelation to Peter. Peter thus proceeded to proclaim the gospel, in its simplest terms. This gospel is recorded in verses 36-43.
The Gospel
(10:36-43)
“Proclaimed by Peter, Accepted by the Gentiles, and Witnessed to by the Spirit”
36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)—37 you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38 “You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. 39 “And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40 “God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 “Of Him all the prophets[181] bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins.”
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed,[182] because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Recently a friend suggested to me that I attempt to summarize the gospel in a paragraph. It is a noble task and well worth the effort. Peter has done just that in the paragraph above. He has distilled the essence of the gospel in but a paragraph. What is it that one needs to know in order to be saved? Well, here it is. Let us look at the gospel as Peter has summed it up.
Characteristics of Peter’s Message
As we pause to consider Peter’s message as a whole, several important characteristics of this sermon should be noted and then kept in mind when interpreting and applying it:
(1) Peter is preaching the gospel. At the beginning of this episode, Peter seemed only to know that he was to go to the house of Cornelius and that he was to speak whatever God commanded him to say. But from Acts 11:14 we know that Cornelius was told that Peter would speak those words which would explain to him how he and those of his household could be saved. Peter’s words, recorded in Acts 10:36-43, are the gospel. We are assured of this because it was immediately after hearing these words that the Spirit fell upon those gathered as proof of their salvation. Peter’s words were the gospel.
(2) Peter is preaching the gospel to Gentiles. These were Gentile “God-fearers,” men and women who recognized that the Messiah and God’s salvation would come through Israel. But they were “uncircumcised men” (Acts 11:3) whom the Jewish believers felt were not an appropriate audience for Peter’s preaching, something which they will be sure to let Peter know about when he returns to Jerusalem.
(3) Much of the gospel Peter preached was material that was not new to his audience. Peter’s words, “you know” in verse 37, supplied again by the translators of the NASB in verse 38, indicate that some, perhaps much, of what Peter was saying was not new. The question which these Gentiles had[183] was, “What must we (as Gentiles) do to be saved?” They had some knowledge of what the Jews in Jerusalem had seen and heard, but the gospel for the Gentiles was an uncertain thing.
(4) The gospel Peter was preaching was exactly the same message which was preached to the Jews. This is not a “Gentile version” of the gospel, but the “Jewish version” of it. Peter is repeating that gospel message which he had been preaching to Jews alone (Samaritans included here, as half-Jews). We shall later learn (in Galatians 2) that there is no separate gospel for Jews or Gentiles, but one gospel, by which all come to Christ. Peter was preaching the same message he had preached everywhere, but especially to the Jews in Jerusalem and to the Samaritans. There were no changes made for the Gentiles.[184]
(5) The gospel Peter preached was received before Peter had any chance to finish his sermon. I have marveled at the brevity of this message of Peter’s. How concise he was, I thought. And then I realized that this was only his introduction. Look at Peter’s words of explanation to his Jewish brethren as recorded in Acts 11:
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).
Peter did not get to finish this sermon! This brief summary of the gospel was merely his introduction, merely his beginning place. He began by summarizing the gospel, much of which his audience knew. He seems to have been planning to go on from here, spelling out and explaining the points he had summarized as he developed his message. He never got that chance. Who knows what Peter would have said had he continued? But what he did say was enough. He summarized his gospel preaching as he had proclaimed the good news to the Jews, and that was all that the Gentiles needed to know and to believe in order to be saved. They heard Peter, they believed the message, they were saved, and thus the Spirit descended upon them.
The Gospel According to Peter (and all other apostles)
Noting the characteristics of Peter’s presentation of the gospel in a more general way, let us briefly look at the particulars of the gospel which Peter outlined.[185]
(1) The gospel is that which was promised to Israel by the Old Testament prophets, which was introduced by John the Baptist. The gospel that Peter preached was the “good news,” but it was not “new news.” It was the news that that which Old Testament personalities (like Joseph, Moses, and David), rituals and ceremonies (like the annual Day of Atonement—Leviticus 16) foreshadowed. It was the good news of which the prophets of old foretold. John the Baptist was, in essence, the “last of the old time prophets,” and thus it was both appropriate and necessary that he be the one to introduce Jesus as God’s promised Messiah. The gospel had its roots in the Old Testament and its fruits in the New Testament.
(2) The gospel is the good news of the person of Jesus, who was the promised Christ (Messiah), and who is Lord of all. Central to the gospel is the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, the man, who was also the Son of God, the Christ. The gospel is the good news of the His coming, earthly ministry, death, burial, and resurrection. Without Christ, there is no gospel. Christ is central in the apostolic gospel.
(3) That Jesus is the Christ has the testimony of the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, the witness of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the apostles. The certainty that Jesus was the Messiah was to be found in the many complimentary sources of testimony to Him and to His identity as Messiah, the Christ. All of the prophecies of the Old Testament pertaining to His first coming were precisely and fully fulfilled in Him (something which is evident in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, as found in Acts 2). John the Baptist also pointed to Him and proclaimed that He was the Son of God, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The deeds which Jesus did were proof of His identity (cf. Luke 4:16-21, citing here Isaiah 61:1-2 and Luke 7:19-23). The apostles too bore witness to His teaching, miracles, death and burial, and His resurrection. They ate and drank with Him after He had been raised from the dead (Acts 10:41). It was on the basis of His work, as well as His commission, that the apostles went out, preaching Christ “to the people” (Acts 10:42).[186]
(4) This same Jesus is coming again, this time to judge the whole world, including the living and those who have died. This Jesus was not only raised from the dead and is now being proclaimed as “Lord of all” by the apostles and the saints, but He is coming again. If Jesus’ first coming was not to judge or to condemn (cf. John 3:17; 8:11), His second coming will be for judgment and condemnation for all who have rejected His salvation:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear shall live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds, to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:25-29).
(5) Everyone, Jew or Gentile, who believes in Him will be forgiven their sins and thus will be saved from divine wrath. If the “bad news” is that judgment has been given to the Lord Jesus, who is “Lord of all,” men need not suffer the wrath of God for their sins because the Judge is also the Savior and the Sacrifice. The “Judge” has been “judged” for our sins. He has died in the sinner’s place, bearing God’s wrath. All who acknowledge their sin and who trust in His sacrifice, His “cleansing” will be saved from the judgment (of unbelievers) which is to come. This was the promise of the Old Testament prophets, as Peter had preached in his first sermon (cf. Acts 2, especially verses 16-21 which refer to Joel 2:28-32).
(6) This salvation, which Jesus has provided, is available to all who would believe and not just to Jews. Peter said,
“… everyone who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).
The full implications of this have not yet hit Peter, and it is yet to impact the apostles and the church in Jerusalem, but Peter said it, and it was true. This is only that which the prophets themselves promised:
“AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERY ONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED” (Acts 2:21, citing Joel 2:32; cf. also Romans 10:13).
(7) The message of the gospel, its orientation and its emphasis, is not the same as the “gospel” which is so often preached today. The gospel which is proclaimed here by Peter is God-centered, not man centered. The emphasis is not on “what God can do for you,” but on who God is and what He will do to sinners who reject Him. It is that He is “Lord of all,” to whom all must bow the knee (cf. Philippians 2:9-10). It is a gospel which focuses on Christ, on man’s sin, and on the day of judgment to come, as well as on the cleansing and forgiveness of sins which He has accomplished at Calvary. It is a gospel which sounds almost “foreign” to the ears of contemporary Christians, who have often adapted the gospel to the point where it is hardly recognizable as a gospel, if indeed it is still the gospel.
(8) The gospel which Peter preached was all that was needed for Cornelius and his household to believe in order to be saved. All of the essentials of the gospel which Peter proclaimed were present, for the moment that Peter’s audience believed, the Spirit of God descended upon them, as proof of their salvation. There was nothing missing in this gospel. Nothing needed to be added. It was sufficient to be saved. Anything which we add to this gospel is not the gospel itself.
(9) The gospel which Peter preached produced exactly the same results as were described as taking place at Pentecost. I believe that those circumcised Jewish saints who accompanied Peter were also present at the first Pentecost, and that they are here giving testimony to the fact that another pentecost has taken place, or, as one writer has said,
“The event was not so much a second Pentecost, standing alongside the first, as the participation of Gentile believers in the experience of the first Pentecost.”[187]
The result was a further dimension of a truth which Peter was beginning to grasp, and that is that the gospel makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles.
(10) The gospel, when received, was followed by baptism and not by circumcision. Just as Peter had called for converts to bear testimony to their renunciation of Judaism (with its works-oriented righteousness) and their identification with Jesus as the Lord and as the Christ of God by baptism, so he ordered these saints to be baptized as soon as the Spirit had borne witness to their conversion. The Judaisers would require circumcision; the gospel requires baptism. One does not need to become identified with Judaism and the Law of Moses, but only to be identified with Christ, and with His death, burial, and resurrection on behalf of sinners.
Conclusion
As we come to the end of this chapter, we must realize that we are not yet at the end of the episode, which concludes in chapter 11. But we can come to some preliminary conclusions. Let me highlight some of these as we close this lesson.
(1) While the conversion which the gospel produces may, in some ways, produce instant changes, other changes come harder and over a longer period of time. When we are saved we move from darkness to light, from judgment to salvation, from death to life. But we must also note that even in the case of the apostles (Peter, in particular), his theology changed gradually, and some of his sins and prejudices lingered on for a long period of time—longer than we would like to admit. Salvation changes our status with God instantly, but it does not instantly eradicate all sin or error or prejudice. Peter is now an apostle, but he is not infallible, nor is he free from all of the errors of his past. So it is with us. God changes some things instantly, and others gradually (through the process of sanctification). Let us reckon with this reality in our own lives and also as we deal with others.
(2) God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles in the church. Jewishness and Gentileness is not an issue in the gospel. Gentiles do not have to become Jews or proselytes to become Christians. The gospel is the same, for Jews and Gentiles. Christians are Christians, and there should be no artificial distinctions such as, “Jewish Christian” and “Gentile Christian.”
(3) One of the great barriers to the proclamation of the gospel today, as in the days of the New Testament church, is racial prejudice. That was the problem with Israel, as personified in the prophet Jonah. That is still the problem today.
(4) If we are to be saved from the wrath of God on sinners, the gospel which Peter preached (along with all the rest of the apostles and the saints of all ages) is the only gospel by which we can and will be saved. This word from Peter to the household of Cornelius is the gospel. Any deviation from it is a deviation from the true gospel. Let us beware if our “gospel” differs from Peter’s gospel.
Have you received the gospel, my friend? Have you acknowledged your sin and the frightening reality that this Jesus whom we find in the gospels is going to return, to judge all who have rejected His gift of salvation? Have you received Him as Israel’s Messiah, and more importantly, as God’s Messiah, predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament, and witnessed to by the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the apostles? Have you come to believe that He died for your sins, and that He was raised from the dead for your justification? If so, God does not distinguish you from any other saint, of any other race or social status. But the one distinction God will make is the distinction between those who have trusted in His Son and those who have not. This is the most important distinction of all. Which are you, a forgiven sinner, who has trusted in Jesus as your Savior, or one who has rejected Jesus and who awaits divine wrath? I pray that you are, like Cornelius, a saint, saved by the blood of Jesus.
! Lesson 17:
Peter is Called on the Carpet
(Acts 11:1-18)
Introduction
Can you just hear these words from the brethren to Peter: “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” Those who regard Peter as a “pope” surely must agree that he does not command a great deal of respect from his “circumcised” brethren in Jerusalem on his return from Caesarea. In our text Luke portrays Peter as a man who is in “hot water,” who is being “called on the carpet” for evangelizing Gentiles. One can almost see these “circumcised saints” (they were believers, weren’t they?) standing at the gates of the city, with fire in their eyes and their hands on their hips, waiting for Peter to arrive. Can you imagine someone looking Peter squarely in the eye and greeting him with the words, “You have a lot of explaining to do!” I do not think many expected Peter to be able to talk his way out of this situation.
Peter himself had referred to his actions as illegal, at least as far as the Jewish interpretation and application of the Old Testament laws of ceremonial cleanness were concerned (Acts 10:28). It was a risky thing for Peter to accompany Gentiles to the house of a Gentile—and then to be their guest for several days.
Peter’s initial refusal to partake of anything “unclean” and his reluctance to have any fellowship with Gentiles is an important clue to the deep rift which existed between Jews and Gentiles, a rift which had a strong impact on the church. Peter’s change of mind and heart becomes a turning point for the church in Jerusalem in its attitudes and actions toward Gentile converts. We come in this lesson to the conclusion of the incident involving Peter and his Jewish companions and Cornelius and his Gentile companions. The Jerusalem saints confront Peter, hear his defense, and reach their conclusions. The importance of the decision reached here can hardly be overemphasized.
The Structure of the Passage
Our text falls rather neatly into three parts. In verses 1-3, Luke records the arrival of Peter in Jerusalem and the charge of misconduct leveled against him by his brethren. Verses 4-17 are Peter’s step-by-step account of how God had not directed him to the house of Cornelius, but how God had saved all those gathered, and had baptized them with His Spirit, concluding that he could do nothing other than to follow God’s lead. Verse 18 records the conclusion which Peter’s brethren reached pertaining to the salvation of the Gentiles. The structure of our text can thus be summarized:
· Verses 1-3 The Charges Against Peter
· Verses 4-17 Peter’s Explanation
· Verse 18 The Church’s Agreement
A Historical Overview of the
Events Leading to this Incident
Before we turn to the confrontation of Peter by his Jewish brethren, let us pause to recall how Luke has brought us to this point in time in the growth of the church and the spread of the gospel. The Old Testament had much to say about the salvation which God was going to bring about, both for the nation Israel and for the “nations,” the Gentiles. The covenants of God, the rituals and ceremonies of Judaism, and the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets all spoke of a coming time of cleansing, of salvation, and of a coming day of wrath, after which God would restore fallen men and a defiled creation, bringing about the “kingdom of God.”
John the Baptist, as the last of the Old Testament prophets, introduced Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” At His baptism, Jesus was endued with the power of the Holy Spirit who descended upon Him, and at this time the Father also bore witness to His identity. Jesus presented Himself to His people as their Messiah, a thought which they immediately welcomed, until they came to realize that His kingdom was not the kind of kingdom they wanted. It was a kingdom for saved sinners. It was a kingdom which included the Gentiles. It was a kingdom of which He was King, in which He was preeminent. It was a kingdom where self-serving people were not going to be present.
Jesus ministered, providing healing and deliverance for many and thereby demonstrating that the power of the Holy Spirit was upon Him. Jesus taught, explaining the Law as the prophets of old had done, showing what God was trying to teach men through it. He also spoke of the coming kingdom of God which He was to establish by means of His two comings—the first to provide forgiveness of sins and to reconcile lost sinners to God, and the second to judge those sinners who have rejected Him and to rule the earth in justice.
Opposition to Jesus and His teaching continued to increase, culminating in His crucifixion, orchestrated by the religious leaders of the nation Israel, and with the consent and collaboration of Rome (the Gentiles). Jesus died, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead. He spent forty days, appearing to His disciples over this time, and even eating with them. He then commanded them to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit, after which they were to go forth to all nations, proclaiming the good news of the gospel and making disciples thereby of all the nations.
On the Day of Pentecost, when all of the apostles and a number of others were gathered together in one place, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, baptizing them and enduing them with power, which was manifested in their speaking in the foreign tongues of those who would gather to hear them. That day, thousands came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, as a result of the preaching of gospel and the outpouring of the Spirit. The gospel continued to be proclaimed, with many more coming to faith in Jesus, but with growing opposition from the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. When the apostles were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, Peter’s refusal to cease proclaiming Jesus as the Christ created a crisis. The advice of Gamaliel seemed to prevail, resulting in a “wait and see” approach on the part of the religious leaders. The emergence of Stephen as a powerful preacher once again brought the opposition to a point of explosion, resulting in the stoning of Stephen. Paul played a role in this execution.
A great persecution broke out against the church, causing the saints to scatter from the city of Jerusalem to the regions of Judea and Samaria (8:1ff.) as well as to more distant lands (11:19ff.). Luke has chosen to deal separately with these two evangelistic thrusts, taking the Judean and Samaritan campaign first. This fits the geographical scheme of the book laid out in Acts 1:8:
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
The apostles responded to word that the Samaritans were being saved by sending Peter and John to Samaria, where they prayed for the new converts to receive the Holy Spirit. After they had finished their task, Peter and John set out for Jerusalem, preaching to many Samaritan villages as they went. Philip, on the other hand, was directed to the desert, where he was used in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. He then went on to Caesarea. Saul’s conversion is then reported, for he will be the driving force behind the evangelization of the Gentiles, just as he was in the persecution of the church and thus of Christ.
In Acts 10 we find Peter in Lydda and then in Joppa, where he stayed with a tanner named Simon who lived by the sea. It may be that Peter never made it back to Jerusalem, or he may have made this trip which brought him to Joppa after a return to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Peter is in Joppa when he receives his vision from God, informing him emphatically and repeatedly (three times) that what God had cleansed he was not to regard as unclean. The meaning and application to this vision soon became clear, as the three emissaries from the house of Cornelius arrived at the door to Peter’s house. The Spirit directed Peter to accompany these Gentiles and not to be “up tight” about doing so.
Upon his arrival, Peter found a large group of Gentiles gathered at the home of Cornelius, all waiting to hear the words which God was promised to speak through him, words which would inform them of what they must believe in order to be saved. Before Peter had even gotten warmed up, the Spirit fell upon all the Gentiles who had gathered. Peter had already given them the simple gospel, and they believed it. The Spirit fell upon them so that a kind of “second Pentecost” occurred. Since these folks were now saints, Peter commanded that those who had been baptized by the Spirit be baptized with water. As God had witness to their salvation (in their baptism of the Spirit) so they must bear witness in water baptism.
After a short stay with these saints, Peter headed home to Jerusalem. But Peter was not nearly as welcome in Jerusalem as he had been in Caesarea. There were a number of circumcised Jews who viewed Peter’s actions as a direct affront to Judaism and a sinful concession to the heathen Gentiles. Thus, when we come to chapter 11 we find this angry group confronting Peter, demanding an explanation for his actions. That is what Peter will give them.
The Charge Against Peter
(11:1-3)
Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”[188]
One can well imagine how word of Peter’s visit to the home of Cornelius must have quickly reached Judea and Jerusalem. There was already much concern on the part of the Hellenistic Jews that Christianity was doing away with some of the “sacred” elements of Judaism, like the Temple and the Law of Moses (Acts 13). How much more would there be protest over the bringing of Gentiles into Judaism, and without circumcision!
But this opposition was not coming from unbelieving Jews who sought to protect Judaism from the influences of Christ and His apostles. This opposition came from none other than the saints.[189] More than this, it appears to have come from the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, including Peter’s colleagues, the apostles.[190] Reports began to reach their ears about what Peter had done and what had happened. Predictably, these reports were fragmentary accounts, for Peter’s full account would satisfy their concerns. The parts of the story which did reach the apostles and brethren must have been those which were of greatest concern. They had heard that the Gentiles had been saved, that they had received the word of God (verse 1). They had heard too that Peter had gone to them, and that he had actually eaten with them. They were shocked. They were amazed. They were angry. They were waiting for Peter, so to speak, with their hands on their hips, ready to scold him the moment of his return. In their minds, Peter had a lot of explaining to do, and there was little chance he could talk his way out of this blunder. He had gone too far.
The rendering of the New Jerusalem Bible aptly catches the tone of this anger and frustration with Peter:
The apostles and the brothers in Judaea heard that the pagans too had accepted the word of God, and when Peter came up to Jerusalem the Jews criticized him and said, “So you have been visiting the uncircumcised and eating with them, have you?” (Acts 11:1-3, New Jerusalem Bible).
Is it not amazing that there was no rejoicing over the salvation of these Gentiles, but only anger? Contrast this response of the apostles on hearing of the salvation of the household of Cornelius with that of Barnabas to the salvation of those at Antioch:
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.
We may also contrast the response of these brethren to the earlier actions of the apostles in response to the report of the salvation of many Samaritans:
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-15).
Why then this strong reaction to the conversion of Cornelius and those Gentiles who were gathered with him in his house? Let us pursue this question by looking closely at the characteristics of the opposition which are evident in our text:
(1) Those who opposed Peter were “circumcised” men, among whom may have been Peter’s fellow-apostles, as well as other believers.
(2) It was the salvation of these Gentiles that really angered the “circumcised saints.” The report that reached them, which made them mad according to verses 1 and 2, was that Gentiles had been saved as a result of Peter’s ministry. The principle concern seems to be that the gospel was preached to the Gentiles by Peter. The secondary matter seems to be that Peter “fellowshipped” with them. Thus, when Luke informs us of the conclusion which the brethren of Peter reached, it was that “God had granted the Gentiles, too, the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18).
(3) The “circumcised saints” are distressed, it seems, because these Gentiles were saved and received as brethren as Gentiles, rather than as proselytes.[191] Judaism had always left room for a few “converts” to the faith by way of becoming a proselyte. But this meant that the “Gentile” was really no longer a “Gentile” at all, but a Jew, for becoming a proselyte meant circumcision and placing oneself under the Law of Moses. Gentiles were only accepted and acceptable to Jews as Jews, but never as Gentiles. Peter did not command that these Gentile believers be circumcised, but that they be baptized. They were received into the faith as Gentiles. Judaism tended to think that salvation came to Israel; but it resisted the fact that salvation was also to come to the world through Israel. God’s salvation was to come both to the Jews and through the Jews. In assuming ownership of God’s blessings, rather than stewardship of them, Israelites (even believing Jews) tended to think that salvation was for Jews alone, rather than “to the Jews first.” What a difference there was between God’s way and Israel’s way in this matter of salvation.
(4) It appears that there is a connection, a link, between the salvation of the Gentiles and the fellowship which Peter and the others had with them. There are two elements involved in the opposition of the “circumcised saints,” as I understand the text. First, that Gentiles were saved as Gentiles. Second, that Peter and the others ate[192] with these Gentiles. What relationship do these two elements have to each other?
I have come to a tentative conclusion which I submit for your consideration. I think the Jewish Christians somehow had assumed ownership of the gospel, as though salvation belonged to the Jews but was not available to the Gentiles.[193] They did not like the Gentiles, and thus they twisted the Old Testament laws concerning “clean” and “unclean” to justify their distance from the Gentiles as those who were unclean. Prejudice was thus practiced in the name of purity—something which still happens today.
The connection between these two elements is that the saints realized one thing, and that was that “what God cleansed, man must not regard as unclean.” The cleansing of which God spoke was the cleansing which Jesus accomplished on the cross of Calvary, the cleansing of sins, through the shedding of His blood. If a Gentile was saved, then a Gentile was also clean. And if a Gentile was clean, one could not refuse to fellowship with him. Salvation required fellowship. No wonder they were angry at the salvation of these Gentiles. They knew that salvation requires fellowship, and they did not want fellowship with Gentiles. The gospel removed any excuse for the Jews to regard themselves as superior to Gentiles and thus to justify their practice of segregation, all neatly explained as the observance of God’s laws pertaining to holiness.
As I understand the sequence of events which took place at the house of Cornelius, it went something like this. First, Peter went to the home of Cornelius and found a large group gathered there. He then talked with Cornelius and heard his account of the way God had led him to invite Peter to his house. Peter then preached the gospel, and the Holy Spirit baptized these new saints. Peter then commanded that they be baptized with water, as a testimony to their faith. Only after this was Peter invited to “stay on,” and thus he stayed with Gentiles and ate with them. But how could he have done otherwise? They were now saved. They had received the Spirit the same way that the apostles had at Pentecost? How then could Peter distinguish these saints from himself and refuse to eat with them? They were saved in the same way, by means of the same gospel, and baptized by the Spirit in the same way. Peter could no longer distinguish what God refused to distinguish.
(5) The apostles seem to be angry that Peter acted independently from them and their approval, and that he did what they would not have allowed, if consulted. Peter was an apostle, and thus his actions set a precedent, one which the “circumcised saints” did not like. Peter committed them to a course of action they thought was wrong.
(6) Peter’s actions were a kind of first-fruits of things of come, of the end of an era for Israel, and the beginning of the times of the Gentiles. This was a hard thing for a Jew to accept. Israel was to be put “on the shelf” for some time, because of her disobedience. It was one thing for the apostles to speak to their Jewish brethren, and to warn them of God’s judgment on Jerusalem and on them, but it was another to welcome the Gentiles as full brothers in the faith. Israel’s replacement was near, and the Jewish apostles were not all that excited about it.
There was a painful reality looking the apostles in the face. Israel’s time was nearly up. The times of the Gentiles (cf. Romans 11) were at hand. And not only was the nation Israel passing from the scene, with their leadership in “being a light to the Gentiles” ending, but the ministry of other men was about to eclipse the apostles as well. The leadership of the church in Jerusalem is moving into the hands of the elders (cf. 11:22, 30; 15:1-4). Men like Paul and Barnabas will be taking the lead in the evangelization of the world. The days of the apostles are numbered, and they seem to sense this, and to resist it (at least initially), to some degree.
(7) If Peter’s actions aroused his own brethren to anger and to action, one can expect that his actions also brought about a strong reaction from the unbelieving Jews, especially those of the Pharisee party. One wonders if Peter’s preaching to the Gentiles and accepting them as Christians, apart from circumcision, did not cause a great uproar among the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. Was this not the same kind of opposition which Paul received in city after city, as he was followed and dogged by the Pharisaical Jews?
(8) The reaction of Peter’s brethren has much the same thrust and theology as the on-going opposition of the Judaizers, who are a part of the church, and who seek to bring it back under the practice of Judaism. Such are those who create the problem described in Acts 15, which resulted in the calling of the Jerusalem Council.
Peter’s Defense
(11:4-17)
4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying, 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me, 6 and when I had fixed my gaze upon it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts[194] and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air. 7 “And I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Arise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 “But I said, ‘By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 “But a voice from heaven answered a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.’ 10 “And this happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky. 11 “And behold, at that moment three men appeared before the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 “And the Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings.[195] And these six brethren[196] also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 “And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’[197] 17 “If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
Peter defended his actions by a detailed personal account of what had happened. Note some of the specifics of Peter’s defense:[198]
(1) Peter’s defense was based upon his experience,[199] a full, sequential accounting of his experience.[200]
(2) Peter’s defense was based, in the final analysis, on what God had done and on the way God perceived the Gentiles.[201] Peter’s conclusion was that he had to change his own point of view to God’s point of view, and to bring his own actions into alignment with God’s actions. He was compelled to see that God thought and acted differently than he, and it was he who must change, so as to bring himself into alignment with God.
(3) These are the essential elements of that which Peter learned from and about God in the incident concerning Cornelius:
· God revealed to Peter that He had accomplished a cleansing, a cleansing which Peter (and the Jews) must also recognize, and thus cease from dealing with what God cleansed as though it were still unclean. The fact that this was repeated three times meant it was emphatic.
· God commanded Cornelius to send for Peter, and Peter to go to the home of Cornelius, without reservation. By a clearly orchestrated, “networked” system of simultaneous guidance, God directed Cornelius to send for Peter, and, at the precise moment necessary, instructed Peter to go to his house without reservations. Peter was at the house of this Gentile, preaching to Gentiles, because God brought both Cornelius (and his guests) and Peter (with his six circumcised companions) together.
· Cornelius and his household were saved, by believing in the same gospel he preached to the Jews.
· The Holy Spirit dramatically bore witness to the salvation of these Gentiles by visibly baptizing them in the sight of Peter and the six Jewish onlookers, in just the same way as He had baptized Peter and the apostles at Pentecost.[202] Peter shared with his brethren that seeing the Spirit fall upon the Gentiles, just as He had fallen upon the apostles at Pentecost, reminded him of the Lord’s promise of the Spirit’s baptism, as recorded by Luke in Acts 1:5.
The events surrounding the salvation of Cornelius and his household were all of God’s doing, to which Peter merely responded in obedience. God promised Cornelius salvation for him and his household, and they were saved. This salvation was the result of the Word of God and the Spirit of God, and not a result of Peter’s persuasion. He was, indeed, interrupted by the descent of the Spirit. He was just beginning, and didn’t even have the chance to tell Cornelius how to be saved. Cornelius knew from what God had already revealed to him that he need only believe the words which Peter was to speak.
Peter ended his defense by pointing out the fact that the salvation of Cornelius and the other Gentiles was God’s doing:
“If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17).
For Peter to have done anything other than what he did would have been for him to stand in God’s way. Peter did not initiate anything, but rather responded to the clear directives and actions of God. Peter simply conformed to God’s way, obeying that which God had clearly revealed he must both think and do.
The Response of Peter’s Brethren
(11:18)
18 And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
I like the way the New Jerusalem Bible catches the tone and the spirit of this matter, rendering verse 18 this way:
This account satisfied them, and they gave glory to God. “God” they said “can evidently grant even the pagans the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18, New Jerusalem Bible).
This one verse is vitally important, for it reveals to us what the real error was in the thinking of the Jews, and of Jewish Christians, too. It reveals to us what Peter’s fellow-apostles were really upset about. Take a look with me at what this one sentence says about the error of the apostles.
(1) The primary issue at stake here was the gospel, the salvation of Gentiles. The apostles’ conclusion does not mention food or eating. This was an important issue, and it would continue to be for the Jewish Christians, but it was not the central issue, for it is not mentioned in this statement.
(2) Fellowship (or food) was a subordinate matter to the gospel, and one’s practice in the matter of food was to be subject to the implications of the gospel. This is a lesson that Peter will forget, as we are told in Galatians chapter 2, but in his rebuke of Peter, Paul emphasizes that Peter’s error is a functional denial of the gospel.
(3) The apostles changed from grumbling to giving glory to God, from protesting against the actions of Peter to praising God. The prejudice of the Jewish saints kept them from rejoicing at the salvation of the Gentiles. Now, the grumbling subsides, and the Jerusalem circumcised saints give God the glory. Salvation is the Lord’s.
(4) The apostles now confessed as God’s purpose and grace the very thing which they had previously rejected: that God had granted salvation to the Gentiles, as Gentiles. This is not to say that they were only praising God that some Gentiles had been saved (something which should have been done, and wasn’t, at least initially), but that they had come to realize that God had purposed the salvation of the Gentiles as a group.[203]
Somehow even the apostles had retained the false conception that salvation belonged solely to the Jews. Salvation was for the Jews, but not for the Jews only. God’s purpose was to save the Jews and through them to reach the whole world. The Jews were not intended to be the “end” of God’s purposes, but the means. Because they failed in this stewardship, God would not only save the Gentiles, but He would use the Gentiles to save the world, and, finally, to bring the Jews back to Himself as well.
Conclusion
Our passage plays a crucial role in the Luke’s developing argument in the Book of Acts. It is now a matter of principle and of precedent that God has purposed to save the Gentiles. The fact that this truth was a frequent theme of Old Testament prophecy serves only to remind us of how “slow of heart” saints can be. Nevertheless, the truth is now out in the open, and in practical terms. The prejudice of the Jerusalem “circumcised saints” with regard to the Gentiles goes a long ways in explaining the refusal of other Jerusalem saints to preach the good news to Gentiles (Acts 11:19). And the precedent of Peter and Cornelius goes a long ways in explaining the response of the church at Jerusalem to news of the salvation of many in Antioch (11:22).
By implication, our text has a great deal to teach us. Allow me to conclude by suggesting some areas of application of this passage to our present day, as well as to these saints of old.
(1) The presence of the Holy Spirit in the church and in the life of the saint does not produce instant maturity, doctrinal accuracy, or spirituality. There are some who think that the “baptism” of the Holy Spirit instantly transforms one from a life of sin and failure to victory and spirituality. The Book of Acts strongly points in a different direction. We can see that the Holy Spirit has come upon the Apostles at Pentecost. Then and there they were endued with power to proclaim the gospel. But they were not immediately delivered from their prejudice toward the Gentiles. They were not immediately in tune with God’s purpose and command that the gospel be preached to men of every nation. The slowness of heart of the saints, including the apostles, informs us that God does not instantly perfect His saints. That is why the process of sanctification is necessary. The Spirit of God works through processes as well as through immediate changes. We do well to remember this.
Going one step further, being “baptized by the Holy Spirit” is something which must happen to every believer, but it does Luke’s descriptions of “Spirit baptisms” in Acts should instruct us that it does not always happen at the same time, or in the same way. The visible baptisms are the exception, and not the rule. This is why Peter and his Jewish brethren were surprised by the Spirit’s falling upon these Gentiles, and why he had to refer back to his own Pentecost experience. The visible baptisms also seem to be more for the benefit of those witnessing the event than for the recipients of the baptism. The visible baptism of the Spirit served as undeniable proof of God’s salvation (cleansing), which the church was obliged to acknowledge and act upon.
Finally, we can see the difference between the “baptism of the Spirit” and “water baptism” from our text. Spirit baptism is the work of God, the proof and consequence (seldom visible) of faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah. “Water baptism” is the believer’s public testimony to others of their faith in Jesus as the Messiah. In some instances, water baptism came first; in others, Spirit baptism was first. Normally, the baptism of the Spirit happens (invisibly) at the point of salvation, and water baptism would shortly follow, as I understand the Scriptures as a whole.
(2) Our text points us to the gospel, its essence, and its necessary expressions. The central issue in the salvation of Cornelius is the gospel. If our text tells us anything it is that the gospel has priority. The gospel also has profound implications. If the gospel is God’s promise and God’s possession, then it is His to give, to whomever He chooses. The gospel was for sinners, Jew or Gentile. The gospel was God’s means of providing salvation for the whole world, and not just for the Jews. God’s salvation was for the Jews, but it was not for them exclusively. It was for them to accept and then to proclaim to the nations. Salvation was through the Jews, principally in that Jesus was a Jew, it was through this “seed of Abraham” (cf. Genesis 12:1-3; Galatians 3:16) that salvation was made available for all mankind. Those who are saved have nothing to boast about, other than in Christ who saved them. And those who obtain salvation are to think of themselves as stewards of the gospel, with the responsibility and duty of sharing it with others. The grace of God which is evident in the gospel, is that grace which should characterize those who have obtained salvation through it. Thus, the saint should rejoice in the salvation of any sinner.
The gospel is not only the means which the Spirit of God uses to change men from sinners to saints, to bring men from darkness to light and from death to life; it is the means by which God changes men’s attitude toward others, removing prejudice and replacing it with genuine love. Said differently, the gospel is not only God’s provision for making peace between sinful men and a holy God, it is God’s means for making peace between hostile races. The gospel which brings peace with God also produces peace with men. This is spelled out by Paul in the second chapter of Ephesians. It is exemplified by Paul in many texts, but dramatically in Philippians chapter 1 and 1 Thessalonians chapter 2.
(3) The reluctance (or refusal) of the Jewish saints to preach the gospel to the Gentiles is strikingly similar to the reticence of saints today to carry the gospel to “sinners.” I think that we are just as selective in our evangelism as the Jewish saints were in their own day. The failure of the Jewish saints to evangelize the Gentiles was due, in part to their dislike of Gentiles, and in their reluctance to have fellowship and intimate contact with them. We are afraid that if we share the gospel with a heathen, we might have to accept that person into our fellowship, and even into the intimacy of our homes. It is a scary thought, isn’t it? To think that a drug addict or a homosexual or a pervert may profess Christ, would mean that we have no reason for keeping them at arm’s length.[204] Those we want to keep away from are those whom the gospel might draw near. Why is it that we, like the disciples, are quick to tell our relative and friends about Jesus, and so slow to share Christ with those whose lifestyles we disdain?
Jesus told His listeners that when they gave a banquet, they should not invite their friends and relatives—those who could reciprocate—but rather the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind (Luke 14:7-24). We should share our banquet, or food with those who are in greatest need, not with those with whom we would most like to associate, and who can best “meet our needs” in return. So, also, with the gospel. We cannot, we dare not discriminate with the gospel. It is not ours to withhold. It is not ours to hoard. It is for sinners, like us.
(4) Because the scope of gospel is universal, there is no biblical basis for categorically excluding any group or groups. I am aware of groups within Christianity who dogmatically believe that homosexuals, as a group, are excluded from the gospel because they have already fallen under God’s wrath. How is it, then, that Paul can refer to this group of sinners as those among other groups of sinners, all of which have had some plucked from their sin by faith in Jesus Christ, and specifically to speak of them as being “cleansed”?
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
(5) Our text has much to say about the nature and the constituency of the church. The Lord chose to establish one church, not two. There must not be a Jewish church and a Gentile church, for this would deny the oneness which the gospel achieves. The divine nature of the church is evidenced by the fact that it is made up of those from all races, all social classes, all socio-economic groups. Sadly, this is not the way the church appears today. Indeed, the church growth movement seems to be suggesting that the most successful churches are those which acknowledge that “birds of a feather flock together,” thus advocating homogeneous congregations, churches made up of people who are alike. This is not consistent with the gospel. This may be a human dynamic, but it is not a biblical one. The gospel is such that it overcomes man’s differences and makes men one in spirit and truth. That which man cannot do, God does. The church is a miracle, for it brings men together as brothers who were born as enemies, and who would naturally continue to be enemies.
(6) In its simplest terms, holiness is being like God. Judaism (and other forms of legalism today) thought of holiness as being physically distant from “sinners.” It tended to think categorically—of Jews as saints and of Gentiles as sinners. Holiness, Peter learned, was not a matter of observing the “clean” and “unclean” distinctions, but of being cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ, and of being like God, in thought and deed. It is no surprise, then, that repentance and confession are fundamental elements of Christianity. Repentance acknowledges that we are sinners, opposed to God, who need forgiveness by God’s grace. And confession is “agreeing with God” in thought and deed.
How fascinating it is to read Peter’s two epistles, in the light of his experience with Cornelius. How much Peter spoke of holiness. How rooted Peter’s concept of holiness was in “being holy because God is holy” (1 Peter 1:16). How clear to Peter it was that Jesus was not only our example of holiness, but our standard of holiness. We are thus exhorted to act and think like Christ in this sinful world, and thus to be separate from sin (1 Peter 2:11-25).
May God apply the message of this text to our hearts and lives, by His grace and to His glory.
! Lesson 18:
One Step Backward and Two Steps Forward
(Acts 11:19-30)
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 prophets[205] 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 scattered[206] 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 group[211] 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 God[214] 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 Barnabas[222] 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 for[224] 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 Jerusalem[227] 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 prophets[230] came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus[231] 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 Saul[233] 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 Agabus[235] 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.
! Lesson 19:
The Death of James
and the Deliverance of Peter
(Acts 12:1-25)
Introduction
The account of Peter’s deliverance, contrasted against the death of James, is to be understood in the light of several earlier incidents. The biblical accounts of these incidents are given below:
Mark 10:35-40
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared” (NIV).
John 21:14-24
14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true (John 21:14-24, NIV).
Acts 5:17-26
17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.” 21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22 But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this. 25 Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them (Acts 5:17-26, NIV).
The first incident pertains to the request of James and John to be given privileged positions, above the other disciples, by allowing them to sit at the right and left hand of the Lord in His kingdom. Jesus told them that giving such status was not His to grant but that such was already foreordained. Instead of talking about these honored positions, Jesus turned the subject to His “baptism,” His suffering and death. He asked Peter and John if they were able to drink the cup which He was to drink. Ignorantly, they assured Jesus that they were able. Jesus responded by telling them that they would indeed drink of that cup, the cup of death. Little did either James or John realize how soon it would be before James would drink of that cup. And little did they realize the privilege and glory in so doing. They wanted status, and Jesus granted them suffering, for in this was glory.
The next incident took place after our Lord’s death and resurrection and is recorded in the last chapter of John’s Gospel (chapter 21). Peter, James, and John, along with some of the other disciples, went fishing, with no success. Jesus gave them instructions to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, and when they did, they made a great catch. Peter jumped into the water and swam to shore, once he realized that it was the Lord who was standing there. Three times Jesus questioned Peter about his love for Him, and three times He commanded Peter in response to feed His sheep. Immediately following this, Jesus told Peter to follow Him. In the context, it is absolutely clear that he was to follow Jesus in death.
Peter then turned the conversation to John, asking Jesus what would become of him. Jesus told Peter that even if He wanted John to remain (alive) until His return, that was not a matter with which he was to concern himself. He was to follow Jesus and not worry about others, such as John. John then goes on to explain that some misunderstood Jesus’ words, thinking He had indicated that John would not die. John corrects this misconception by saying that Jesus was speaking rhetorically and asking a hypothetical question, rather than speaking prophetically. If Peter was concerned that he would die and John would not, he was not correct. John would die later than Peter, but it would be James, and not Peter, who would die first. And so it is in our text that James is put to death while Peter is divinely delivered. This event is surely a divine commentary on John’s words, and John’s words in chapter 21 are a helpful backdrop to our text in Acts.
The third incident is recorded by Luke earlier in the Book of Acts. It is the account of the deliverance of the apostles from their prison cell, where they had been kept in custody for an appearance before the Sanhedrin the following day. We do not know how many of the apostles were arrested or imprisoned, but these men were released during the night by an angel of the Lord and were commanded to return to the temple and to continue to preach there the “whole message of this life.” Their disappearance was the cause of great distress and embarrassment and was but another evidence to the Sanhedrin that they were actually fighting against God. I believe the release of the apostles from their incarceration was a significant factor in the decision of the Sanhedrin to officially “back off” of their opposition to the church and to the apostles, a decision recorded by Luke later in chapter 5 in accordance with the wise counsel of Gamaliel. This divine release of the apostles in Acts 5 provides the backdrop for Peter’s release in chapter 12 and is likely one reason for the intense security measures taken by Herod to assure that Peter does not escape again. He has no intention of being embarrassed by the disappearance of a prisoner, as was the Sanhedrin.
The Structure of the Passage
The structure of our passage may be summarized as outlined below:
· Herod’s Resolve to Kill Peter (vv. 1-5)
· The Rescue of Peter (vv. 6-11)
· Peter’s Reunion and Report (vv. 12-17)
· The Repercussions of Retribution
à For the Soldiers (vv. 18-19)
à For Herod (vv. 20-23)
· Result for the Gospel (v. 24)
· Return to Antioch (v. 25)
The Determination of
Herod to Destroy the Church
(12:1-5)
Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church, in order to mistreat[236] them. 2 And he had James the brother of John put to death[237] with a sword.[238] 3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews,[239] he proceeded to arrest Peter also. Now it was during the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4 And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people. 5 So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.
The time of these events can be fairly tightly determined, because we know that Herod died in AD 44. Luke, however, links the timing of these events to the surrounding context. The arrest and escape of Peter came some time after his visit to the house of Cornelius and his return to Jerusalem, at which point the purpose of God to save the Gentiles was acknowledged by the Jerusalem church (Acts 10-11). His arrest and escape also took place shortly before the first missionary campaign of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1ff.), aimed at reaching both Jews and Gentiles. Specifically, Peter’s brush with Herod came between the time the world-wide famine was prophesied (Acts 11:27-30) and the time Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, after delivering the collection of the saints at Antioch to the church in Judea (Acts 12:25).
The arrest of Peter is but one part of an overall campaign on the part of Herod to destroy the church. For some unstated reason, Herod[240] had it in for the church. His intention quite evidently seems to be to destroy the church—to put it out of commission. His approach was to do away with the church by eliminating the leaders of the church. The same method has been used by totalitarian governments throughout the history of the church and can be seen in recent years in the actions of the Communists, as they seek to overtake a nation.
The death of James at the hand of Herod serves to signal us to two very important changes. First, the actions of Herod reveals a fundamental change in the attitude of this Herod compared to the attitude of his predecessor, under whose authority Jesus was put to death. The gospel accounts of the (political) trials and resulting crucifixion of Jesus consistently describe both Herod and Pilate as unconvinced of Jesus’ guilt and unwilling (even opposed) to putting Him to death. These political powers acted as they did because they were forced, by political pressure, to do as the religious leaders urged. It is different here. No one is pushing Herod. He is acting on his own initiative and for his own purposes. He is delighted to have the support of the people, but he is the active force.
Second, the response of the people to the actions of Herod reveal a change in the attitude of the masses toward the followers of Jesus, the church. Throughout the gospels, the masses generally were enthusiastic about Jesus. It was the leaders of the nation who opposed Him. They had to act very carefully so as not to stir up the people (cf. Luke 22:2, 6). Even at the crucifixion one has the sense that many of the people were not in favor of Jesus’ death. After the resurrection of Christ and the birth of the church, the church (and the apostles) were held in high regard by the masses. Thus, in Acts 4, the Sanhedrin had to take the masses into account when they persecuted the apostles (4:16-17). But here, in Acts 12, there are no religious leaders present or active. It is the people, the masses, the Jews as a whole, who seem to have changed in their attitude toward the church.
What do you suppose brought about this change in the attitude of the masses of Jews toward the apostles and the church? Allow me to offer two suggestions. The first is that the apostles may not have been as present in Jerusalem, due to their traveling to other places (like Samaria), where new congregations of believers were being established. If the apostles were not as present and visible, and their signs and wonders not as frequent, the people may have lost their fear or reverence for them. And secondly, the actions of the apostles in response to the salvation of “non-Jews” may have offended their prejudices and aroused their intense anger and opposition. Hellenistic Jews were gaining prominence and power over the native Hebrews. Samaritans and an Ethiopian eunuch were brought to faith and a church was being established, separate from Judaism. And now, the final straw seems to have been Peter’s visit to the house of a Gentile and all of these folks being converted. And the church in Jerusalem, after hearing Peter’s defense, accepted this as the plan and purpose of God. This was too much to endure! The church had to go!
The resolve of Herod and the Jews to do away with the church, and the risk for Peter, is underscored by Luke’s reference to the death of James, the brother of John (v. 2). Herod had already put him to death. The arrest of Peter was intended to result in a similar execution for Peter. But there was a difference. While it was God’s purpose for James to die, and thus to glorify Himself, it was His will to rescue Peter, and thus to bring glory to Himself.
God providentially delayed the execution of Peter so that his escape could be arranged. These were the “days of the unleavened bread,” and this is mentioned by Luke as the reason for Peter’s imprisonment. He was being held until he could be executed. In Mark 14:1-2 a similar matter is mentioned. The chief priests and scribes wanted to kill Jesus but not during the feast lest the people riot. And so it was with Herod and Peter. The fact that it was the week of the feast of unleavened bread required the postponing of an immediate trial and execution. Thus, in the providence of God, Peter’s execution was delayed, and his “release” was facilitated.
If Peter could not be executed for several days, Herod was intent on keeping him in custody, and thus he placed him in what would have to be called “maximum security.” Having visited in a number of maximum security prisons, I have never seen security measures as strong as those taken with Peter:
“Four soldiers in each quaternion, … two on the inside with the prisoner (chained to him) and two on the outside, in shifts of six hours each, sixteen soldiers in all, the usual Roman custom.”[241]
Did Herod learn of Peter’s previous escape, along with the other apostles, as reported in Acts 5? If so, he did not want to suffer the same measure of embarrassment by losing his prisoner. Thus, the highest level of security was insured. These measures remind me of Elijah’s instructions to “pour on the water” over the sacrifice and the wood, which he would pray that God would ignite. The more intense the efforts to prevent it, the more the evidence of God’s presence and power (cf. 1 Kings 18:32-35).
Peter’s plight is indeed a dangerous one. Herod, encouraged by the Jews, is trying to destroy the church by executing its leaders. James has already been put to death by the sword. Peter is in prison, heavily guarded. It seems to be only a matter of time before he is killed as well. But Luke, the literary genius, uses the art of understatement skillfully, when he sets all of the opposition of the Jews and their king in contrast to the prayers of the church and the power of God:
So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God (Acts 12:5).
We do not know what the church prayed for,[242] but we do know that the church prayed fervently. I believe this was because they saw the church itself as being in grave danger. It was not just Peter’s life or safety which concerned them. Indeed, they should have been able to rejoice (as Paul would speak of his own death later—cf. Philippians 1:18-26) at the death of Peter, knowing that our Lord Himself had spoken of his death as glorifying God (John 21:19). But the church knew that if Herod was successful in carrying out his plans, the church could be eliminated, or at least greatly hurt.
It was an impossible situation. It was one in which the saints had little that they could do. In a sense, they were restricted to prayer. It was all they could do. In our day and time I can believe that there would be phone call campaigns to Washington D.C. and protest marches in front of city hall. I can believe that all kinds of human endeavors would be launched, so much so that there would be little (or no) time for prayer. “All” they could do was to pray. All? In spite of what they may have asked for, or believed would happen, God acted, and Luke would have us know that it was, in part, due to the prayers of His people. Prayer would certainly “change things” on this particular night.
Peter’s Release, Return, and Report
(12:6-17)
6 And on the very night when Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains; and guards in front of the door were watching over the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And his chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Gird yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and continued to follow, and he did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 And when they had passed the first and second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city, which opened for them by itself; and they went out and went along one street; and immediately the angel departed from him. 11 And when Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” 12 And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 And when she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate. 15 And they said to her, “You are out of your mind! But she kept insisting that it was so. And they kept saying, “It is his angel.” 16 But Peter continued knocking; and when they had opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, “Report these things to James[243] and the brethren.”[244] And he departed and went to another place.
Peter may have spent several nights in that jail cell, for the feast of unleavened bread lasted for a week. This was the final night, the “very night when Herod was going to bring him forward” to allow the crowd to call for his death and to further his own purposes by putting him to death. The time was late, very late, and there was no human hope of escape. Two guards were chained to Peter, one on each arm. Two more were stationed outside the door or the gate of his cell.
Let us pause a moment to consider these guards. We know there are four of them on duty. We know that two are chained to Peter. We also know from Luke’s account of the aftermath of Peter’s escape that none of the guards “saw” anything that happened. When Peter was found missing in the morning, no one had any explanation for what had happened. This informs me that throughout this entire escape process not one guard was awake, nor was any guard conscious of what was happening. I do not think the guards were merely asleep, for there was too much happening that night which should have awakened even the sleepiest person. There was a supernatural deadening of the senses or consciousness of these guards which produced something similar to unconsciousness.
Such “unconsciousness” was not always the case. At the cross of our Lord, for example, the centurion standing nearby was fully aware of what had happened, and as a result he exclaimed, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54). So too with our Lord’s resurrection. Those who guarded the tomb of our Lord beheld the earthquake and the angel of the Lord who rolled away the stone, and “they shook for fear of him, and became like dead men” (Matthew 28:2-4). Later, they reported all that had happened to the chief priests and were bribed to keep quiet about what they witnessed (Matthew 28:11-15).
At other times then men actually saw the supernatural hand of God, but not the at the release of Peter. Why not? Why did God not purpose for these men to see His mighty hand and to know that it was He who had delivered His servant Peter from death? I think it is for the same reason He did not instruct Peter to go to the temple and to preach publicly as He had done in Acts 5. It was too late. The time for repentance was past. It was now time for judgment.
And judgment came, first to these guards who would have played a role in the execution of Peter (if only by keeping him confined in his cell until the feast was over), and then to Herod himself. Because God had kept their unbelieving eyes from seeing Peter’s miraculous rescue, they had no explanation to offer,[245] and Herod had but one conclusion to draw. It had to have been an “inside job.” No one, he seemed to reason, could have been loosed from their chains and passed through those doors and gates unless someone on the inside let them out, and the others did nothing to stop it. And so after examining them all and finding no explanation, Herod concluded that all were guilty, and he had all the guards put to death. How amazing! The executioners (so to speak) were executed, and the condemned was set free.
In addition to the blindness of the guards, I want you to notice the boldness of the escape. As a young lad attending summer camp (I would never do this now), I was known to “sneak out” from my cabin and do some silly prank. I can assure you that what I did was sneaky, and not bold. Boldness characterizes (as a rule) the actions of the righteous, while stealth and sneakiness characterizes the one doing what is wrong (Proverbs 28:1). The best that an evil man can do is to pretend to be bold (Proverbs 21:29). This escape is marked by boldness. The angel appears (unseen) boldly, virtually ignoring the guards. There is a bright light. The chains fell from Peter’s wrists (I think not silently, either). They walked past the guards, through the various gates, and out, as it were, the front door. The angel left Peter standing in the street. There is a boldness to this escape which is characteristic of righteousness.
Finally, there is a strong evidence of passivity on the part of Peter. The escape was not Peter’s plan and not his doing. Peter is sound asleep when the angel appears and hardly awake until after the entire incident is over. In considering this, it occurred to me that the deliverance of Peter was very similar to the awakening of one of our “sleepy-headed,” “non-morning person” children. Think about it. How do you awaken one of your slow-to-rise children? About the way the angel did. First, the angel came into the room (cell) and turned on the light—a very bright light. That always works for starters, but it isn’t enough. And so the angel did about what we do—he struck Peter on the side. We may shake our children gently, but the physical stimulation helps the process. And then, just like we do, the angel told Peter what to do—exactly what to do—step by step. Peter was instructed to put on his “foundation garments,” then to put on his sandals (slippers or shoes for us), and then to wrap a cloak around him (we would probably have our child put on his or her bathrobe or put on a coat). I can almost see Peter, at each command, sleepily complying, with but a grunt or a muffled “okay.” Did Peter think the angel was his wife?
The point is made. Peter was not sitting up, awake, with black-saucered eyes, agonizing about the events of the next day. He was sound asleep. He was not trying to pick the lock on his chains or dig a tunnel. He did not scold the angel for coming so late nor did he propose an escape plan. Peter’s deliverance, like the salvation of every saint, was the work of God, and not of man. Peter participated, but he did not plan nor produce the escape.[246]
Not until Peter was outside the gate, some distance from the prison, standing in the street, did he realize that what he had experienced was not a vision, but reality. Can you not see him mumbling to himself all through the experience, “Wow, this vision is even better than the one about the animals coming down from heaven!”? He realized that his escape was God’s deliverance—from the evil intent of Herod and from the expectations of the Jews. Man proposes, but God disposes. It was God’s time for James to die, but it was not yet time for Peter to die. I cannot help but wonder if this experience was instrumental in Peter’s life in removing the fear of death. If Peter was able to sleep those last few hours before his death (and soundly too!), how he could rest in His Lord, even when men wished him dead and were determined to bring it to pass.
Was it the cool night air that suddenly brought him to full consciousness? Regardless, Peter’s first conscious thoughts were not of himself or of completing his escape, but of those who were most concerned about him. He went to Mary’s house,[247] where many had gathered to pray. He may not have known that all would be gathered there, although he may have been present with this group if there was a similar prayer meeting held for James.
The only door which failed to open that night was the door of Mary’s house. This was due to the joy of Rhoda, the servant-girl who answered it, and the unbelief of those who had gathered to pray. They were willing to believe that Peter’s “angel” had appeared after his death, but they were not willing to believe that God’s angel had delivered him from death. Peter reported to these saints that which neither the guards nor Herod ever knew. He wanted them to know that he was safe, thanks to God’s intervention, and that he was going to drop “out of sight” for a time. Until Herod’s plan was somehow terminated, Peter would keep his identity and his address a secret, even, it would seem, from his fellow-saints. This may well have been for their own protection, since Herod would not be above torturing any of them to learn his whereabouts.
Notice one final thing about this group that had gathered for prayer. There were no leaders present, it would seem. James was dead. John was not mentioned. And James, the half-brother of our Lord who was emerging as a key leader in the Jerusalem church, was not present but was to be notified of Peter’s deliverance. The other “brothers” who were to be told may have also been leaders in the church. I believe the church’s leaders were not present because it would have made it easy for Herod to kill off the church’s leaders at one time and in one place. The church leaders, at this point in time, had gone underground.
A Further Answer to Prayer:
The Opposition Removed
(12:18-23)
18 Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what could have become of Peter. 19 And when Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution. And he went down from Judea to Caesarea[248] and was spending time there. 20 Now he was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they were asking for peace because their country was fed by the king’s country. 21 And on an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. 22 And the people kept crying out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.
The prayers of the saints gathered at the home of Mary were answered much more fully than they imagined. Not only was Peter spared execution at the hand of Herod, but the opposition of Herod was nullified by his own death.[249] God removed Herod’s resistance by removing Herod. This too was an answer to the prayers of the saints, another answer far beyond what they asked or thought. Their prayers were answered by saving one man, Peter, from death, and by delivering another, Herod, to death. Preceding the death of Herod was the death of Peter’s guards, by Herod’s orders.
What an understatement we see here in verse 18! “There was no small disturbance among the soldiers.” It was sheer panic. These men recognized not only that Peter was missing, but that Herod was furious. They knew that they were now the endangered species. Their doom was the same as Peter’s a few hours before, but there was no one to deliver them from the wrath of Herod. And what was worse—they did not have the foggiest idea what had actually happened. It is one thing to get caught doing wrong and to have to suffer the consequences. It is another to be condemned and not even know what happened, or what part you had in it all. They were called to give an account of the previous night by Herod, and they suffered from a divinely imposed amnesia. No small disturbance indeed!
Peter could not be found, and no explanation could be found either. Imagine finding the handcuffs fixed to the hands of the soldiers, and yet Peter’s hands somehow extracted, with the cuffs locked. Imagine finding no evidence of a tunnel, and no clue of any typical escape effort. There was only one human explanation: the guards had to have let Peter go, and all of the guards on duty had to play a part in this. And so these men experienced the death by the sword to which Peter was sentenced and which they were to play a part in executing. I wonder how many soldiers would be eager to guard a Christian after this.
Probably more agitated than ever, Herod left Judea and went down to Caesarea, the “seat of government of Judea under the Romans.”[250] Some time seems to have passed before this incident recorded by Luke took place, but Luke makes it very clear that Herod’s death is directly related to the death of James, the deliverance of Peter, the prayers of the saints, and the end of the persecution which kept the apostles in hiding.
Herod not only had a grudge against the church, but he was also embittered against the people of Tyre and Sidon. They were not his subjects, but they were the recipients of government aid, which seems to have been distributed by Herod. The people of Tyre and Sidon were very eager to appease the wrath of this king, for their own benefit. And thus they played the game of politics to the hilt. They got to Herod through his chamberlain, Blastus, and arranged for a meeting with him. Perhaps they invited him to be the speaker of a festive banquet. In one way or another, they arranged with him to speak to them, and as he did so they called out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” Such statements were not unusual in those days, but they were both untrue and damnable. He was no god! He was not, in many ways, much of a king. The words were sheer flattery. As a much wiser king said, A man who flatters his neighbor Is spreading a net for his steps (Proverbs 29:5).
Have you ever heard a politician’s speech which would tempt you to say that the speaker was a god and not a man? Neither have I. If one observes the politicians when they do speak to their peers, they are virtually ignored. There is little chance of such flattery as we see here, but there is a great possibility of boredom. The words were empty and false and failing to recognize them as such killed Herod, from one point of view. Did the pleasure of the Jews at the death of James spur Herod on to try to kill Peter? The crowd which Herod sat before now would kill him with false kindness. Did Herod play politics with the church? Politics would now kill the politician.
Herod died because he did not give God the glory. This crowd had, in Jesus’ words, rendered to Caesar what belonged only to God. Herod must have known better, but he liked hearing these words too well. His failure to reject such adoration and worship was tantamount to accepting this statement as true. His silence was also fatal.
There is a kind of “poetic justice” in the death of Herod. He killed James and sought to kill Peter, and so God took his life. He played the politician, and politics killed him. He dressed in such a way as to project a splendor which was divine, yet he died the ignoble death of being eaten by worms. There could not be a more humiliating way to die. There was great glory in the death of James, but there was no glory in the death of Herod.
The Unceasing Growth of the Church
(12:24)
But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied.
This is surely not a new statement. All through the Book of Acts thus far we have seen periodic reference to the growth of the church. But it is a very fitting conclusion to this incident. It contrasts the results of God’s work against the resistance of men like Herod and the Jews. Herod had commenced an attack on the church at Jerusalem, focusing on the execution of the leaders of the church. God purposed for James to die for the sake of the gospel and to save Peter for the sake of the gospel. He also purposed to remove Herod and some of the prison guards and to bring his opposition to a halt. And so we see the alpha and omega of this story, as it were. We see the beginning contrasted with the end. If all is well that ends well, then all is well here. James may have died, but the church is not dead. Much more, the church is not only alive; it is continuing to grow, even when the masses and their king oppose it, and seek to remove it from the face of the earth. How futile is man’s opposition to God and to His church!
The Return of Barnabas and Saul
(12:25)
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with them John, who was also called Mark.
Luke has set the death of James and the deliverance of Peter in the midst of the offering of the saints of Antioch to the saints in Judea. Just prior to chapter 12 we are told that the offering was sent with Barnabas and Saul (11:30), and the last verse of our chapter (12:25) reports the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, accompanied by John Mark. The death of James and the deliverance of Peter are surely meant to be understood in conjunction with the surrounding context. In our conclusion we shall seek to learn what Luke is telling us.
Conclusion
The first lesson to understand from our passage, and its broader context, is that this is a clear point of transition. Acts 12 is the end of one era, and chapter 13 is the beginning of another. Acts 12 is the account of the passing of Peter. Not that Peter passes from the scene by virtue of his death, but he passes from the scene by virtue of his absence. Chapter 12, in large measure, is a farewell to Peter, as chapter 13 is the commencement of a strong emphasis on Paul’s ministry.
But it is not merely the passing from the scene of one leader (Peter) and the rise to prominence of another (Paul). This change in personalities is but a signal, a pointer, to a much larger change—the transition from the Jews to the Gentiles, and from Jerusalem to Antioch. From here on out, the churches that are founded and that grow are predominantly Gentile in makeup. The Jewish church in Jerusalem and those saints who gathered in synagogues around the world of that day faded away, much like Peter. The reason is explained by Paul in Romans 9-11. The times of the Gentiles have begun, and the time of Israel’s hardening has come as well. Many Gentiles will be saved, but few Jews. Because of this, the church will become predominantly Gentile for centuries to come, until the return of our Lord which is yet future.
The arrest of Peter, and the intent of Herod and the Jews to kill him, is a very significant and final element in the judicial hardening of the Jews by God and in the conversion of many Gentiles. Up to this point in time, the gospel continued to be proclaimed in Israel. God’s arms were opened wide, and the Jews were urged to turn to Jesus as God’s Messiah. But now, virtually all Israel has heard the good news, and all Israel (with the exception of those saved) has rejected the gospel. The final rebellion and rejection of Israel is reported here, in Acts 12, just prior to the sending out of Barnabas and Saul from Antioch. God’s evangelistic thrust to the Gentiles in chapter 13, Luke is saying, is the result of Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the Christ (and of His church).
Think through the Gospels and Acts with me for a moment, and see what I am suggesting here. At the outset of Jesus’ ministry, there was a foreshadowing of the rejection of the masses in the rejection of Jesus by those at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30), after He made it clear that the Gentiles would be blessed by His Messianic ministry, as well as the Jews (indeed, in the context, instead of the Jews). In spite of this one outburst of opposition from the Jews as a group, Jesus was generally highly regarded by the people. It was the leaders of the nation Israel who initially opposed Jesus and who orchestrated His execution.
When Jesus began to associate with “sinners” early in His ministry, this was the source of great offense to the Pharisees, the separatists, who viewed holiness in terms of separation from those (others) who were sinners. Sin was conceived of as breaking their rules, rather than as the violation of God’s Word (although they tended to see their traditions as virtually synonymous with the Law of God). And so by Luke chapter 5 we find the Pharisees hot on Jesus’ trail, seeking to show Him up, jealous because He would associate with sinners, and not exclusively associate with them. The scribes too opposed Jesus and often in league with the Pharisees. These were the scholars and Bible students of the day. Their interpretations of the Old Testament were the basis for much that the Pharisees practiced. When Jesus attacked their teaching of the Law as shallow, inaccurate, or merely their own traditions, they were offended. They frequently opposed Him, seeking to show Him up as a fraud.
Eventually, the scribes and Pharisees were joined by another group, the Sadducees. The Sadducees were the liberals of that day, not believing in miracles, the resurrection of the dead, or angels and demons. The Sadducees were the “establishment” of that day, the pragmatists who got ahead in life by collaborating with the Romans and by cutting corners with God’s Law. Those who ran the money changing concession in the temple precincts were of this group. They were offended by Jesus when they saw that He came to do away with their practices. They saw Jesus as a threat to their position, wealth, and future. The opposition of the Sadducees became most intense once Jesus got to Jerusalem, their “turf.” He had to be gotten rid of, not so much because He was wrong, but because He would do away with them if He could.
The scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees joined forces to do away with Jesus. It was through their pressure that Herod and Pilate were virtually forced to execute Jesus, even though they did not really feel Him to be a threat to society, or even to themselves. The common people were kept under control and some were undoubtedly manipulated into opposition to Jesus, but the masses were a group that favored Jesus and disliked their leaders, even down to the final days of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. The leaders of the nation had to deal with the masses most carefully.
Once Jesus was crucified and had risen from the dead, the nature of the opposition to Him and to His church changed. Now, it was not the Pharisees but the Sadducees who took up the torch of opposition to Jesus. This was, to some degree, the result of the fact that the Pharisees believed (at least in principle) the things which the church did. They believed in the resurrection of the dead and miracles and heaven and hell. They began to lose their zeal to oppose the church. The Sadducees, however, rejected such doctrines as the resurrection of the dead, and thus the preaching of the apostles (that Jesus had been put to death by sinful men, but raised to life by God) was not at all welcomed. And so the Sadducees took the lead in opposing the church after Pentecost.
But in Acts 5, there is another transition in the opposition to the church. After the supernatural release of the apostles in this chapter, the advice of Gamaliel seemed much more appealing. Why should they work so hard to oppose the church, especially since it did no good; the church continued to grow—even faster, and they were made to look like fools? Thus, the decision of the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 seems to stand. The opposition of the Sanhedrin, from this point on, fades away.
In Acts 6 the torch of opposition to the church is taken up by yet another group, those who were Hellenistic Jews. Saul seems to be one of the ringleaders, if not the primary driving force behind the movement. And so these Hellenistic Jews bring about the death of Stephen[251] and bring about with it an intense persecution of the church in Jerusalem and Judea. The unwitting effect is that the church is disbursed, and the gospel is proclaimed abroad. The salvation of Saul takes the wind out of the sails of this movement, however, and the church returns to a season of peace after Saul’s dramatic conversion.
Now, in Acts 12, we see the final opposition movement in Jerusalem and Judea, before the destruction of that city by the Roman armies in 70 AD. It is not the leaders of the Jews who oppose the church here, but Herod and the Jewish people at large. Herod, not due to the pressure of the Jewish religious leaders, but by his own initiative, goes after the apostles and seeks to destroy the church. And the masses of the Jewish people love it, spurring him on. This is the last straw, for now virtually every segment of the society of Jerusalem has rejected Jesus and His church. Will God commence the conversion of Gentiles en masse? It is because Israel, en masse, has rejected the gospel. Now the gospel will go to the Gentiles. Thus, the actions of Herod and of the Jewish people become the basis for God’s turning His back upon this people and this place for many years to come, even to the present day. There will be a remnant saved, but only a small segment of the Jews, during this time of the Gentiles. This is the rejection foreseen by our Lord at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with its subsequent judgment. No wonder our Lord wept over this city and its fate. The day of salvation for Israel as a nation has passed.[252]
The death of James and the deliverance of Peter is another lesson in the sovereignty of God. There are tremendous contrasts present here, and they have profound implications. Peter, James, and John, were a trio of men, to whom Jesus gave privileged access, information, and experience. These three alone (of the twelve) were present on the mount of transfiguration, for example. One would think from the evidence of the gospels that Jesus had a very significant role and ministry for each—and He did, but not as we would have supposed.
How different was the fate of these three men, all of whom had such similar experiences and privileges at the feet of Jesus. James and John were brothers. James died first; John last. James wrote no books; John authored five. Peter and James were both arrested by Herod, who intended to kill both. James was not delivered from death; Peter was. But James was not shortchanged by his death. When Jesus foretold the deaths of James and John in Mark 10 (cf. vv. 38-39), it was a privilege; it was a sharing of the very cup of which Jesus drank. In his early death, James was privileged to be one of the first to “depart, and to be with Christ” which is far better. In this death, he glorified His Lord and shared in His glory. By his death, he went to glory. This was no “raw deal” for James.
What a commentary Acts 12 provides us on the words of John, recorded in the last chapter of his gospel. Peter, James, and John were all present when Jesus appeared to them. Peter was asked the three-fold question (“Do you love Me …”), and was given a three-fold command (“Feed My sheep.”). He was also given the command to follow Christ, with a specific reference to his death. And yet Peter wanted to know about John’s death, about what God had purposed for John. The result was a popular misconception of Jesus’ words, as though He had said that John would not die, and (perhaps) as though Peter would die first. Here were Peter and John, thinking of their deaths, and now we see that in God’s plan and purpose it was neither of them who would be honored by the privilege of dying first. That privilege was saved for James.
There is nothing mechanical about the Christian life. God is not obliged to treat all Christians alike, and the record of Acts (among other books of the Bible) is that God deals differently with each individual. Summed up in one word, God is sovereign. He works all things according to His own good pleasure. Men cannot and do not manipulate God; God manipulates men, for His glory and for their glory and good. How evident this is in the lives of these three men, all of whom experienced such different fates, all of whom served God in such different ways.
There is, in this text (as in Acts as a whole), a strong emphasis on prayer. We are shown that the deliverance of Peter and the death of Herod (and thus, the termination of this period of official, governmental, persecution) is directly related to the prayers of the saints, made in Peter’s behalf. It was not that these prayers were so accurate or that the saints had so much faith, but that these saints acknowledged their dependence upon a sovereign God, who is in control of this world, including its kings. In Acts and in life, the prayers of the saints accomplish much.
Finally, these two incidents recorded in Acts 12 teach us a truth on which we can live or lose our lives in His service. Years later, Peter wrote to those saints who lived dispersed among the heathen, speaking the truths which he had learned from his own experience:[253]
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation,[254] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:4-9).
Do you see what Peter is saying in verse 9? It is the very lesson which is graphically taught and illustrated in Acts 12: GOD IS ABLE TO DELIVER HIS SAINTS FROM EVIL MEN, AND TO DELIVER EVIL MEN TO DIVINE JUDGMENT.
If we were to consistently live our daily lives on this principle, our lives would be radically transformed. We need not fear men, but only God. And those who fear God as a loving Father need not fear His divine wrath, but can be assured that evil men will be judged by God in the end. God will deliver His saints from evil men, and He will deliver evil men to eternal judgment.
May I ask you this question: What is the nature of the deliverance with which God will deliver you? Will God deliver you from the snares of evil men into the blessings of His kingdom, or will He deliver you to judgment? The difference in these two destinies is determined by your response to the person of Jesus Christ. If you receive Him as God’s Savior, as the One who died for your sins, and who gives to you His righteousness, you will be delivered to the blessings of heaven. If you reject Him, you have the fate of Herod awaiting you. May God grant that you make the decision to trust in Jesus and to be delivered from divine wrath.
One final word. In this sense of deliverance, James too was delivered from evil men. He was delivered from their presence by his death. Peter was delivered from Herod by Herod’s death. James was delivered from evil men, to the glory and blessedness of God’s presence. Peter was delivered from death to a further time of earthly service. But both saints were delivered. God always delivers His own!
! Lesson 20:
What a Way to Go
(Acts 13:1-13)
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)
à The Setting Apart of the Gospel from the teaching of Elymas
à 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 church[261] 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 whole[265] 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.
! Lesson 21:
Putting the Past In Perspective
(Acts 13:13-52)
Introduction
During the Second World War one of my college professors had been stationed on a small island in the Pacific, along with a handful of men, when 4,000 Japanese troops landed and took them captive. He spent the rest of the war (and more) in a P.O.W. camp in Japan. With a great deal of free time, they organized a number of classes, one of which was “American History.” The class was taught by a British professor who, naturally, taught from a British point of view. Imagine learning American history from a British point of view!
Our background and resulting perspective does shape our view of things. For example, consider the different views a Jew could have had of the Lord’s story of the “prodigal son” in Luke 15. From Acts 6 we know that there were two major groups of Jews in Jerusalem who tended to see matters differently: (1) the “native Hebrews,” those who were born and raised in Israel, and (2) those Jews born elsewhere, who came to Israel and spoke other languages as their native tongue. The “native Hebrews” could more easily identify with the older brother of the prodigal, for they had not left their native land of Israel. The “Hellenistic Jews,” on the other hand, would have been more sympathetic to the son who lived in the far away place but who returned home to his father. One’s past shapes one’s perspective.
We should not find it difficult to imagine then that the Jews who attended the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, as elsewhere, had a perspective of the past colored by their own experiences. In the days of Paul, synagogues were a kind of “Jewish island” in the midst of a sea of Gentiles. For those Jews scattered abroad living in some heathen Gentile city, the synagogue gave them the opportunity to retain their identity by gathering together with other like-minded Jews to study the Old Testament law and, to some degree, to worship. The synagogue was a kind of substitute for the temple and the temple worship of Jerusalem. It was not all that a Jew might wish for, but it was a lot better than nothing.
For such a Jew living abroad, who had “left his heart in Jerusalem,” the synagogue was very important. But beyond this, the past was even more important. For one living in a heathen land, the hope of Israel must have seemed distant and remote. Would the Messiah make His appearance at Jerusalem someday and restore the kingdom to Israel? Perhaps so, but those for whom the future did not seem so bright appear to have turned their hearts back to the “good old days.” So it was I suspect for many Israelites, especially those who lived abroad who found it necessary to congregate at a synagogue.
Somehow Israel’s past became much more glorious than history could justify. The reading and study of the “Law and the Prophets” must have involved a great deal of the “gilding of the lily.” The kingdom of God would be a return to the glories of the past. And the assurance of the Israelites that this kingdom was bound to come was probably based upon their conviction that they did have a glorious past. But this was simply not true. Before these Jews could come to salvation, they had to recognize the past for what it really was, a closet full of skeletons, a long history of Israel’s sin and rebellion and of God’s faithfulness to His promises. They would have to renounce their law-keeping as hopeless and turn to God’s provision of salvation by faith alone, apart from works. This is what Paul’s message to the people at this synagogue in Pisidian Antioch would call upon his audience to do, and the reactions to it were mixed. But the real opposition to Paul’s ministry was not to his message at all. We shall see what prompted the Jews to bitterly oppose Paul and Barnabas as we study this text.
There is something very special about our text and about the message which Luke has recorded here. This is the first recorded sermon which Paul preached. It is also the only full sermon recorded by Luke of a message delivered by Paul in a synagogue on this first missionary campaign. In the Book of Acts, the other recorded sermon of Paul’s with any detail is his sermon in the marketplace at Athens.[275] The question might be raised, “Why was this sermon saved for posterity while many others were not?” This whole campaign at Pisidian is typical. Paul used his typical method of speaking in the synagogue.[276] His sermon was typical as well. Elsewhere, the same message is referred to and briefly summarized but not in Paul’s own words as we find here. Typical also is the response to Paul’s preaching. This passage gives us a sense of the method and the message which Paul and Barnabas normally employed as well as the response which they frequently received.
The Structure of the Text
· Introduction—the setting (verses 13-15)
· Paul’s message (verses 16-41)
· Immediate response (verses 42-43)
· Delayed response (verses 44-45)
· Apostolic response (verses 46-51)
· Believers’ response (verse 52)
The Setting of Paul’s Sermon
(13:13-15)
13 Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga[277] in Pamphylia;[278] and John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 14 But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch,[279] and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 15 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.”
Barnabas and Paul do not seem to have stayed long at Cyprus, though we are not told why they left nor why they were directed to take the course they did. They had, however, covered the island of Cyprus (13:6) with the gospel and had thus fulfilled their mission. My impression is that these two, not unlike the “two’s” our Lord sent out in Luke 9 and 10, were attempting to cover as large a territory as possible with the gospel and as quickly as possible. Certainly Paul was not letting any grass grow under his feet here.
It was here at Perga that John Mark left Barnabas and Paul and returned home to Jerusalem. We will see later in chapter 15 that Paul regarded this as Mark’s “desertion,” and thus it indicates a failure on his part (cf. Acts 15:38). Luke is very “tight-lipped” (should I say “tight-penned”?), not giving us any details of why Mark left Paul and Barnabas here. In this day of “tell-all” books and interviews, how refreshing Luke’s silence is. How helpful the silence of Luke on Mark’s failure would have been to his restoration and his future role in ministry. We can learn a great deal from Luke’s silence.
And so Paul and Barnabas pressed on, crossing over the mountains to Pisidian Antioch where they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Here they were invited to share a “word of exhortation” with those who had come. It was an excellent opportunity, one which they seemed to anticipate as they went from one synagogue to another in their travels.
The New Testament provides us with two texts which describe in some detail the practice of the synagogue in the days of our Lord and His apostles.[280] Both come from the pen of Luke. The first is in Luke 4 (vv. 16-30), which is the account of our Lord’s ministry at the synagogue in Nazareth at the outset of His public ministry. The second is found here, in Acts 13, in the account of Paul’s preaching at the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch. Both accounts inform us that passages from the Old Testament were read, that a word of explanation was given, and that “guest speakers” were given the opportunity to speak. This provided a most excellent opportunity for both Jesus and the apostles to preach the gospel quickly and broadly by simply attending the synagogue when they met on the Sabbath.
Speaking in the synagogues was an opportunity for both Jewish and Gentile evangelism for both Jews and Gentiles were present as we see from Paul’s references to the Jews, the “men of Israel” or “sons of Abraham,” and the Gentiles, “those who fear God,” in verses 16 and 26. Those who attended the synagogue were usually Paul’s first and primary evangelistic prospects. From his contacts in the synagogues, others may have come to faith as well. It was in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch that Paul delivered this message Luke has recorded for the church, the only recorded “synagogue sermon” of Paul to the Jews. In Acts, the only other sermon of Paul’s is his sermon to the Gentiles at Athens, delivered in the marketplace (Acts 17:16-34). The two occasions on which Paul gave an account of his conversion (Acts 22 and 26) are not so much a proclamation of the gospel as they are a defense of Paul’s calling and ministry.
Paul’s Sermon at the Synagogue in Pisidian Antioch
(13:16-41)
16 And Paul stood up, and motioning with his [281]hand, he said,[282] “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it. 18 “And for a period of about forty years He put up with them in the wilderness. 19 “And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance—all of which took about four hundred and fifty years.[283] 20 “And after these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. 21 “And then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 “And after He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will.’
23 “From the offspring of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, 24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 “And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ 26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the word of this salvation is sent out. 27 “For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. 28 “And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. 29 “And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30 “But God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘THOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE.’ 34 “And as for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no more to return to decay, He has spoken in this way; ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ 35 “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘THOU WILT NOT ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’ 36 “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; 37 but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.
38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
40 “Take heed, therefore, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you:
41’BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH, FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS. A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU.’”[284]
Characteristics of This Sermon
Before studying Paul’s sermon in detail, let us pause to consider some of its overall characteristics. Rather than explain each characteristic, I will simply enumerate them as a basis for further thought and study.
(1) This sermon was one which Paul spoke, by invitation.
(2) This sermon was appropriate, dealing with the “law and the prophets,” which had been read before Paul spoke.
(3) This sermon was a very brief capsule of the gospel and not a full-blown sermon or exposition. Some may feel that Luke merely summarized Paul’s message, abbreviating its length. I am inclined to think otherwise. I do not think Paul was given unlimited time to speak; he was asked to give a “word of exhortation” which seems to imply a briefer word and not a full-blown exposition. This message gave the gospel in a nutshell, and those interested could follow up with Paul and Barnabas personally.
(4) This sermon was addressed to those who were familiar with Judaism and with the Old Testament. This is a message for those who knew about the history and the faith of Israel. It is very different from Paul’s message to “raw pagans” in chapter 17.
(5) This sermon, not surprisingly, has many similarities to those sermons in Acts of Peter and Stephen.
(6) This sermon does not deal with all of Israel’s history but with a very selective part of her history. Only that period of Israel’s history from Abraham to David is covered. These were the years of Israel’s “greatest glory,” at least in the minds of many Jews. The later years of Israel’s monarchy, the divided kingdom, and the captivities of Israel and Judah, are not even mentioned.
(7) This sermon focuses on Christ, as the promised Messiah, the Son of David, who was rejected by men but raised from the dead by God and witnessed to by the Old Testament prophets.
(8) This sermon makes a great deal of use of the Old Testament Scriptures.
(9) This sermon focuses on Israel’s sins of the past and of the failure of the Old Testament Law to save or sanctify men.
(10) This sermon emphasizes the sovereignty of God in salvation.
The Argument of Paul’s Sermon
Verses 16-22
Paul lays a foundation for his sermon by reviewing the history of the nation Israel from the time of its choosing by God—the days of Abraham—to the time of David’s enthronement. The thrust of Paul’s review of this segment of Israel’s history is to underscore God’s sovereignty and Israel’s sin, God’s faithfulness and Israel’s failures. It was God who chose Abraham, and it was God who made this people great while in Egyptian slavery. It was likewise God who led this people out of Egyptian bondage and who brought them into the land of promise. It was He who provided them with judges to rule over them.
Israel’s conduct could be described by but one word: “stiff-necked.” It is not used here, but it is clearly implied. Paul does summarize Israel’s conduct by looking over this period of time and saying that God “put up with” this people. This is surely no compliment. God was not impressed by their lives nor their obedience; rather, He patiently endured their constant grumbling and disobedience. Any aspect of Israel’s past which might be construed as “success” Paul credited to God and to His faithfulness to His purposes and promises.
And now Paul comes to the matter of Israel’s “kings.” The people of Israel were not content with the judges whom God provided. Instead, they asked for a king (like the other nations—1 Samuel 8:5). God gave them a king—Saul. I have always wondered why God gave the people of Israel a king like Saul, a king whom He would later remove. For forty years[285] Saul reigned, finally to be removed by God for his disobedience. I believe God gave Israel Saul as their king because he was exactly the kind of king they wanted. God gave Israel what they wanted and what they asked for, to show them their own sin in asking for a king in the first place. Saul may have been “tall, dark and handsome” (well, tall and handsome, at least—cf. 1 Samuel 9:1-2), but he was not a man after God’s heart.
And so after forty years God removed Saul, replacing him with a very different king, a young man (at least at the time of his choosing), the youngest son of his father and a man who was not at all tall, like Saul, who was Israel’s Goliath. David was not the man the Israelites would have chosen, but he was God’s choice, for his heart was inclined toward God. He would do “all of God’s will.” And yet even this choice young man, we know, was a sinner.
Verses 23-31
Paul passes by centuries of Israel’s history, for his purpose is to show that Jesus is God’s promised King, the Messiah, the Son of David. Thus, he moves directly from David to his “son,” the Lord Jesus. Jesus was the promised King of Israel, the One for whom Israelites looked. He was preceded by John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who like Samuel, introduced God’s King to the nation Israel. John himself denied that he was the Messiah, saying that he was only His forerunner. He spoke of himself as being unworthy to untie the sandals of Messiah’s feet.
The contrast between Saul and David mentioned just before this now comes into focus. Israel wanted a king, but the wrong kind of king—a Saul. God rejected him, installing His own king in his place. And now, when God gave Israel their King, the Lord Jesus, Israel rejected Him. They did not want Jesus to be their King even though He fulfilled all the messianic prophecies of His first coming. His coming fulfilled the very texts which those in Jerusalem read every Sabbath, not to mention those in Paul’s audience who read these same Scriptures in their synagogue every Sabbath.
The rejection of Jesus by the Jews in Jerusalem also fulfilled the prophecies concerning the first coming of Messiah. Having fulfilled them all in His crucifixion, they took His body down from the cross and placed it in a tomb. But God overturned and overruled their rejection of Jesus. He raised Jesus from the dead and installed Him as the King of Israel. For many days, Jesus appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and these apostles bore witness to the fact that He had been raised from the dead. The good news—the gospel—was that God had fulfilled His promise of a Savior and King in the person of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Savior and King.
Verses 32-37
The good news is that Jesus’ death, even though achieved by unbelieving and rebellious men, was God’s provision for the forgiveness of men’s sin. And this salvation fulfilled the promise which God made to the Old Testament “fathers” (v. 32). Paul turns to one sample of these promises as evidence that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to Messiah’s first coming.
The promise Paul shows to be fulfilled is the promise of the resurrection of the Messiah from the dead. Paul first turns to the words of Psalm 2, “THOU ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE.”
One may very well wonder how this statement proves the resurrection of our Lord. This may well have been a part of Paul’s purpose in citing this passage. He does not explain how it proves his point. If they want to pursue this matter further, they will have to listen to Paul at another time and perhaps in another place. Paul is not so much trying to prove all of his points as he putting them out on the table for further discussion. This is just a beginning point.
But while Paul does not explain how this psalm proves his point, I think we can see how it could. The very first part of the psalm speaks of the futile efforts of those men who seek to throw off God’s rule by rebelling against Him and His anointed:
Why are the nations in an uproar, And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed: “Let us tear their fetters apart, And cast away their cords from us!” (Psalm 2:1-3).
This is precisely what happened in Jerusalem. The leaders of the nation Israel conspired together to do away with Jesus who had been introduced to them as Israel’s King. They put Him to death thinking that by so doing they could throw off God’s rule. The rest of the psalm describes God as laughing at His enemies and installing His anointed as King.[286] Now, in the light of the Lord’s crucifixion, if the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans thought they had rid themselves of this “King” by putting Him to death, how could God laugh at them, install His Anointed as King, and commence the overthrow and judgment of His enemies unless the rejected King were raised from the dead? The second Psalm, in the light of Christ’s first coming, would lead us to the conclusion that there must be a resurrection, in order for there to be a coronation and subsequent rule over His enemies. The Psalm does serve as a testimony of the resurrection of our Lord, then, at least by way of inference.
The second text to which Paul referred is found in Isaiah 55:3, and Paul cites it this way: “I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID” (Acts 13:34b).
As I understand this text, God has promised to bless Israel in accordance with an everlasting covenant, a covenant which is in accordance with God’s covenant with David. The Davidic Covenant was the promise of an eternal kingdom, ruled by an eternal King. How, Paul seems to reason, can God raise up an eternal King unless this King is not subject to death. And, since Jesus was raised from the dead, death has no claim upon Him. Thus, He is the eternal King who will reign forever and ever, and thus the blessings of Israel will be eternal too.
In yet another Psalm, there is this clear promise that God’s King, the Messiah, will not be left to decay in a grave: “THOU WILT NOT ALLOW THY HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY” (Acts 13:35, citing Psalm 16:10).
The hope of the Old Testament saint is that of life beyond the grave (cf. Daniel 12:1-2, 13; Hebrews 11:13-40). This psalm expresses that hope. The psalmist expresses the fact that his hope is based upon the certainty of resurrection. But this was a psalm of David. Perhaps David was speaking here of his own resurrection, rather than that of his “son,” the Lord Jesus. David’s hope was a hope based upon the resurrection of his Son. David’s tomb was not empty, but the tomb of Jesus was, Paul reminded his audience. Thus, this promise was especially spoken with regard to the Messiah, and only its implications and hope then extended to all whose trust was in Him.
Paul’s Conclusion (Verses 38-41)
It is now time for the “bottom line” which Peter sets out in a two-pronged conclusion. First, he calls upon his listeners to believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and secondly he warns them from the Old Testament of the grave danger of unbelief and rejection. It is through this Jesus, rejected by the nation Israel, crucified on Calvary and raised from the dead to the right hand of God, that forgiveness of sins is offered.
Notice the complete reversal in Paul’s offer of salvation from that which the typical Israelite believed and in which he trusted for salvation. The Israelite looked at his racial origins as the basis of his salvation. After all, he was a Jew, so surely all Jews will enter into the promises God made to Abraham. And, in addition, if he was a law-abiding Jew, if he faithfully kept the Old Testament law, then surely God would fulfill His promises to such a righteous person. A Jew was assumed to be righteous and to be destined for the coming kingdom.
But Paul’s review of Israel’s history indicates otherwise. Indeed, his sermon points in the opposite direction. Israel’s past is a consistent and emphatic reminder of Israel’s sin and waywardness and of God’s longsuffering and faithfulness to His promises. Every blessing which Israel ever experienced was one of grace, not of deserved blessing. Every blessing was virtually in spite of this people, and not because of their obedience or faith.
Thus, when Paul spoke of the “good news,” of the fulfillment of the promise of God to the “fathers,” he spoke of the forgiveness of sins, not of the reward of the righteous. These Israelites dare not delude themselves that they can somehow rest on the laurels of their past, for there is nothing upon which to rest. Their past does not commend them before God; it condemns them. And the whole system of law keeping is shown by their history to be a failure. The salvation of which Paul spoke was one that could free them from all things, in contrast to the law which could not free them at all.
In order to be saved, these people, who had formerly taken pride in their past and had trusted in their law-keeping, must now face up to things as the Messiah had exposed them. They must renounce their past in terms of any supposed merit or righteousness, and they must renounce any thought of obtaining righteousness and God’s blessings by keeping the law. They needed to renounce any thought of self-righteousness and trust in God’s righteousness, in the person of Jesus. He died so that they might be forgiven of their sins.
Not only must these Jews and “God-fearing” Gentiles renounce the past, they must also renounce the actions taken by the Jews in Jerusalem when they rejected Jesus as Messiah and hung Him on the cross. They must face up to the truth of the past, and then look to the Lord Jesus for salvation from their sins. This is not something which they will be predisposed to do, for the Old Testament prophets warned of the hardness of heart of the Israelites which would incline them to refuse to believe or to trust in the promises of God.
Here Paul cited the warning of the prophet Habakkuk who wrote:
“BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH; FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU” (Habakkuk 1:5).
Habakkuk was speaking of the coming invasion of the nation by the Chaldeans as God’s divine judgment on this rebellious, hard-hearted nation.[287] Even if God had told them of the horrors to come (which He did, in part), they would not believe Him. This was precisely why God had ceased to speak to these people through the prophets and would begin to “speak” to them by the pagans in a way that they would more readily hear—by affliction.
Let these Jews and God-fearers, gathered together to study the Law and the Prophets, not fail to heed the warnings of the Law and the Prophets. Let them trust in the Messiah of whom the Law and the Prophets bore witness.
An Immediate Response
(13:42-43)
42 And as Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Paul’s message had accomplished its purpose. It aroused the interest of some of those who had heard it. Many of those gathered that day at the synagogue wanted to hear more of what Paul was saying. They asked that these two return the next Sabbath, and that he continue with his teaching. Some went even further, it seems, receiving the grace (salvation) of God more readily. They followed after Paul and Barnabas, who were urging them to continue in the grace of God.[288] I would not doubt that some of these folks followed Paul and Barnabas all week, perhaps getting together after work at night to be taught more of this new faith they had received.
A Delayed Reaction
and an Apostolic Response
(13:44-51)
44 And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
47 “For thus the Lord has commanded us, ‘I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU SHOULD BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.’” 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jews aroused the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
I like to think of what happened that next week in familiar terms to me. Imagine that mounted on the front wall of the synagogue was an “Attendance and Offering” display like we sometimes see in churches. Can you see it?
· Attendance One Year Ago = 40
· Attendance Last Sabbath = 39 (one died)
· Attendance This Sabbath = 25,988
Word had definitely spread, and the crowds were lined up outside the synagogue. Old timers who had their own special seats had not bothered to come early. After all, they almost never had visitors, and they had their own seats where they had sat each Sabbath for the past 20 years. Can you imagine how upsetting it would be for such a “pillar” of the synagogue to come and find a Gentile sitting in “his seat”? It was one thing to have a few Gentiles present, those who converted to Judaism and thus who did not threaten the system. But now the place was flooded with raw pagans. This little “Jewish island” situated in the middle of a Gentile sea seemed to be sinking out of sight. These people were threatening the Jews very identity. Why did they come anyway?
They came, I believe, because Paul did not preach salvation by converting to Judaism. Indeed, he preached salvation by renouncing Judaism, in many senses. The Jews who came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah could, like Paul, continue to attend the synagogue and to observe the Jewish holy days if they so chose. But the Gentiles who came to faith were under no obligation to become Jewish or to put themselves under the Old Testament Law. Because Paul’s sermon swung the “door of salvation” wide, much wider than Judaism (indeed, excluding it, in its unbiblical and ungodly forms), the Gentiles flooded in on the next Sabbath eager to hear for themselves the good news of the gospel.
It was not the preaching of Paul, as such, that angered many of the Jews. They had patiently listened to Paul the last Sabbath. And they had not reacted, particularly, to his message. Although they may not have agreed with him, they were willing to sit back and watch. But not any longer. If they could endure Paul’s doctrine, they would not endure the practical outworking of it. When the Gentiles began to flood in, threatening their identity and their control, some of the Jewish members of the synagogue reacted almost violently to the preaching and the presence of Paul and Barnabas. Filled with jealousy (v. 45), they began to openly oppose and contradict Paul. They even blasphemed. I understand this to mean that they spoke disrespectfully of the Lord Jesus. If Paul “lifted Him up,” they degraded and mocked Him.
This triggered an apostolic response from both Paul and Barnabas. Convinced that the Word of God should first be proclaimed to the Jews, they now saw themselves as under no further obligation to speak to the Jews, but as free to go to the Gentiles with the good news of the gospel. The Jews had just shown themselves to be unworthy of the gospel. They found, in the words of Isaiah, a command to go to the Gentiles:
“I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU SHOULD BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH” (Acts 13:47, citing Isaiah 49:6).
Israel had been set apart by God, not just to be saved and receive His blessings by grace, but to proclaim God’s grace to the Gentiles so that they too should be saved. If these Jews would reject the grace of God, then Paul and Barnabas must, as obedient Israelites, do that which God commanded Israel to do—to preach the good news of salvation to the Gentiles. And this they told their audience.
If some of the Jews were distressed with the results of the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, the Gentiles were ecstatic with the news that the gospel was for them, as Gentiles. No more second-class citizenship in the kingdom, as proselytes. No more being under the law. No more working in a futile effort to earn God’s favor. If the Jews were angered by grace, which they were (like Jonah of old), the Gentiles were overjoyed by it. Those whom God had appointed to eternal life believed.[289] And so it was that many believed, and the gospel was spread abroad throughout the region.
The Jews were not willing to let Paul and Barnabas continue to preach this kind of gospel. If Paul’s method of preaching the gospel to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles was typical, so was the method of the Jews in opposing it. They used politics and pressure to achieve their ends. They did not have the support of the masses who flocked to hear the preaching of Paul and Barnabas and who rejoiced at their message. If the Jews were to silence these men and be rid of them, they must gain the support of the political leaders of the city.[290] And they must arouse the prominent Gentile women of the city,[291] who seem to have “hen-pecked” their husbands into taking action against these preachers of the gospel. They instigated a persecution and drove Paul and Barnabas out of the city.
This did not dampen the spirits of Paul and Barnabas, who shook the dust off their feet signifying that these people, including the Jews who were behind this persecution, were acting like heathen and were thus unworthy of further preaching. They left the city of Pisidian Antioch and went on to Iconium.[292]
The new believers were not at all downhearted. They had lost these two preachers, and they were going to continue to suffer persecution. But their sins had been forgiven. They had the truth of God and the Spirit of God. They had the Old Testament Scriptures to guide them in their faith, knowing that their faith was rooted and grounded in the Old Testament promises and prophecies. And, in time, as inspired epistles were circulated about, they would have the Word of God.
Conclusion
In this selected sermon which Luke has chosen to record, we find what appears to be an example of the typical approach taken by Paul and those with him as he sought to evangelize in cities with synagogues. Their method was indeed efficient and effective. It enabled these men to be self-supporting (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:4-6; Philippians 4:15). They could work during the daytime, when everyone else was working, and they could teach at night and on the Sabbath. Going to the synagogue was efficient in that it reached a group of people already familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. It also reached a group of people with a certain level of spiritual interest or commitment (which, in the form of opposition, could also be intense). And, because there were both Jews and God-fearing Gentiles present, it facilitated a two-pronged evangelistic effort: preaching Christ to Jews and to Gentiles.
The message of this sermon is totally consistent with the preaching of the apostles and others such as Peter and Stephen and Philip. The theology underlying Paul’s sermon is found outlined and explained in a more theological fashion in the epistles of Paul.[293] Judaism and law keeping could not save any Israelite, nor were they so intended. The law was a standard of the righteousness which God required, thereby condemning all who fell short of it. This meant that salvation, as promised, must be a matter of grace and not of works. It meant that salvation must begin with and somehow solve the problem of man’s sin. The solution is, of course, faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Men are presented with the facts of the gospel and are called upon to make a decision. This cannot be left in the realm of the theoretical and the abstract. It is a life and death decision which each person must make.
The message has a great deal to say about the past. It puts the past in its proper perspective. The past is not something to be gloried in as though it commended one race, above all others, to God. Israel’s past showed the Jews to be a stiff-necked people, always resisting the Word of God and the Spirit of God. To be saved, Jews and Gentiles must acknowledge their past to be sinful and worthy only of divine wrath, and turn from anything but the shed blood of Jesus (and His resurrection and ascension) for forgiveness of sins.
What Paul has put to this group of people who sought salvation in Judaism is the same thing he himself experienced as he has described in Philippians 3. He formerly took pride in his race, in his tribe, in his zeal and devotion as a Pharisee, as a student of the Old Testament and a “defender” of Judaism. But there came a point when God stopped him short, revealing to him that while he was persecuting the church he was actually persecuting the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. In coming to Christ by faith, Paul counted his own past, his own merits, as “dung,” worthless and even offensive to God. His standing before God became a matter of grace, not law, and of faith, not works. Paul was calling upon his audience to experience salvation by faith just as he had. I pray that you have experienced this salvation as well.
In our society, “feeling good about yourself” has become the rule of the day, even in so-called Christian circles. We seem to be obsessed with our past. Paul’s gospel, as with the gospel throughout the Scriptures, calls upon men to see from the past that man is hopelessly sinful and that he falls under divine wrath. But God, in His mercy and grace, has provided a way of escape through the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sin. Let us deal honestly with our past, and then put it behind us, striving, like Paul, to know Christ (Philippians 3:8ff.).
“I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.”
! Lesson 22:
Mission Accomplished
(Acts 14:1-28)
Introduction
On my first trip to India, I was stranded in my hotel room in Bombay for several hours waiting for a phone call so that I would know where to meet with other Christians. One of the scenes which helped to occupy my time was that which was taking place far below in the parking lot. An Indian “carpenter” was building some shelves. It took virtually the whole day to build some very simple shelves. The quality of the finished product was not that good, something visible even from the distance. I was frustrated to see how long it took this man to build a finished product of limited beauty and quality. One good reason for this man’s limitations was immediately evident to me—his tools.
This man had two tools. He had a short hand saw, with a blade about 18 inches long. His other tool was a hammer. Besides the nails in his pocket, this was his entire tool collection. It was a scene which I saw repeated many times over in India—people who could do very little because they had no tools with which to work. For a man like myself—with a garage full of tools—it was distressing to watch. How hard it would be for me to work with such limitations.
I think there is a very valid principle underlying my observations in India which might be summarized in these words: ONE’S ABILITY TO DO A TASK WELL IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF TOOLS AVAILABLE TO DO THE JOB.
Have you ever noticed how many tools a doctor or a dentist have at their disposal? The reason the doctor sends us to the hospital is because there are even more tools there.
It is my understanding and conviction that God has an infinite number of “tools” at His disposal, so that He is able to accomplish His will in a variety of ways and to achieve the exact result He desires. And yet many Christians resist this, perhaps without even knowing it. Some Christians, for example, insist that God no longer employs miracles, insisting that the signs and wonders of the Bible (Old Testament and New) are banned in this age. I think that for such people, their God is too small (to borrow from the wording of J. B. Phillips). On the other hand, there are some people who seem to think that miraculous intervention is God’s only tool, and thus they expect (and even demand) that miracles be a part of their constant experience. To such people I must also say, your God is too small.
The Book of Acts is, among other things, a dramatic description of the infinite array of tools at God’s disposal, which He sovereignly employs to achieve His predetermined ends. In our lesson, we will see some of the tools God employs in order to achieve His purpose of saving the Gentiles. The Old Testament promised it. God called and commanded Israel to do it (which they refused to do—like Jonah of old). Jesus spoke of it (cf. Luke 4:16-30), and in His final words, He commanded it (Matthew 28:18-20) and promised that it would happen (Acts 1:8). And yet it is not until the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, described by Luke in Acts 13 and 14, that we see an organized effort to save the Gentiles, with multitudes of Gentiles coming to faith in Jesus as Messiah as a result.
Because we must understand the first missionary journey as a whole, we will begin by reviewing the first events of the journey as described in chapter 13, and then we will focus on the conclusion of this mission as described in chapter 14. There is much to be gained by comparing the beginning of this mission with its conclusion.
A Review of Chapter 13
In verses 1-3, Luke reports the divine intervention of God into the affairs of the church at Antioch, instructing this body of believers to send forth Barnabas and Saul to the work to which they were called. This command probably came as an inspired utterance spoken by one or more of the prophets in the church. Thus, after being bathed in prayer and the commissioning of the church, they went forth.
Verses 4-12 describe the first “leg” of their journey—ministry on the island of Cyprus (where Barnabas had been born, Acts 4:36). Their approach was to visit those cities where Jews and synagogues were found and to preach Jesus as the promised Messiah on each occasion (cf. 13:5). Luke chose to select and record one incident in this Cyprian Campaign, the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul. The emphasis of this account falls not on the proconsul as much as on the Jewish false prophet, Elymas (or Bar-Jesus). It was not so much “in spite of” this Jew’s resistance as it was “because of” it that the proconsul came to faith (cf. 13:12). The salvation of Sergius Paulus, resulting from the blinding of Elymas, serves as a prototype of the Gentile evangelism which will follow—because of Jewish resistance, Gentiles will come to faith.
The remainder of chapter 13 (13:13-52) is taken up by Luke’s account of the evangelization of Pisidian Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas preached after leaving Cyprus. They first passed through Perga, where Mark deserted them (13:13) but where evangelization was delayed until the return visit of Paul and Barnabas (cf. 14:25). At Pisidian Antioch, the gospel was proclaimed by Paul, focused toward those who were Jews or Jewish proselytes (cf. 13:16, 26). Paul called upon his audience to accept Jesus as God’s anointed King, the Messiah, and by so doing to reject and renounce the actions taken by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, who rejected Jesus and orchestrated His death. He also warned them about rejecting this gospel, as the Old Testament prophets had foretold.
A number of those who heard were convinced and converted. These and other interested folks wanted to hear more on the following Sabbath. But when, on that next Sabbath, a throng of Gentiles arrived, eager to hear the gospel, the unbelieving Jews became jealous and began to oppose Paul and Barnabas and to blaspheme. The response of Paul and Barnabas seems to indicate a major turning point. They find, from the text of Isaiah 49:6, a command to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and from their experience, a resistance to this by their Jewish opponents. Therefore they decide to change the focus of their ministry toward the Gentiles,[294] which brought about the salvation and rejoicing of the Gentiles, and further, more intense, opposition from their Jewish opponents (13:48-52). Shaking the dust off their feet, they left Pisidian Antioch for ministry in other places, leaving behind a congregation of joyful saints, who were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit (13:52). Paul and Barnabas will see their opponents from this city before they return to visit the saints (14:19).
The Ministry of
Paul and Barnabas at Iconium
(14:1-7)
And it came about that in Iconium[295] they entered the synagogue of the Jews together,[296] and spoke in such a manner that a great multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. 2 But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the minds of the Gentiles, and embittered them against the brethren. 3 Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace,[297] granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.[298] 4 But the multitude of the city was divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.[299] 5 And when an attempt was made by both the Gentiles and the Jews with their rulers, to mistreat and to stone them, 6 they became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe,[300] and the surrounding region; 7 and there they continued to preach the gospel.
Arriving at Iconium, Paul and Barnabas resumed their usual approach to evangelizing cities where a number of Jews (and a synagogue) were to be found. They both spoke the gospel with power, so that a large number were converted, including Jews and (God-fearing) Greeks. There were those who heard who did not believe and who actively began to oppose the ministry of these two apostles. They opposed the gospel by stirring up resentment toward the saints on the part of unbelieving Gentiles, perhaps those of prominence and position (14:2l; cf. 13:50).
Verse 3 seems out of place.[301] Luke tells us that as a result, the apostles stayed on—a long time, no less, preaching the gospel with boldness and with the confirming witness of the Lord, through signs and wonders. Normally in the gospels and in Acts, we are accustomed to the departure of those bearing witness to the gospel when the opposition is aroused. Why, here, does Luke tell us that the two men, Paul and Barnabas, stayed on, for a long time, continuing to proclaim the gospel?
Actually, the solution to this problem is not all that difficult. The Jewish opposition stirred up the souls of the Gentiles against the saints, not against the apostles. It was the new believers who were “taking the heat” of the opposition at first and not the two apostles. If there was ever a time for teaching and encouragement in the church, it was when it was facing hostility and opposition. Furthermore, the extent of the opposition, thus far, was only resentment and bitterness, not outward acts of violence. When the opposition was aroused to the point of plotting to stone Paul and Barnabas, they did leave town, but only then.
Paul and Barnabas were not only preaching with boldness, they were, by God’s enablement, performing “signs and wonders,” attesting miracles (14:3). These signs and wonders may not have convinced and converted men,[302] but they did cause the opponents of the gospel to fear and respect Paul and Barnabas. The opponents of the gospel were not eager to take on men who could perform signs and wonders. (This seems to be the reason why the apostles were able to stay on in Jerusalem when the rest fled, Acts 8:1).
The result of powerful preaching and resulting conversions, as well as strong resistance and opposition, was a divided city. Some sided with the apostles, while others joined the ranks of those who opposed them (14:4). In time this opposition intensified, from mere bitterness and resentment to a violent intention to kill the two apostles. When word of the plot to stone Paul and Barnabas reached the two, they departed—better yet, they fled—moving on to the cities of Lystra and Derbe, as well as their suburbs (14:6). Leaving town did not silence these two, however, for they kept right on preaching the gospel.
The Lame Man of Lystra
(14:8-20)
8 And at Lystra[303] there was sitting a certain man, without strength in his feet, lame from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze upon him, and had seen that he had faith to be made well, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he leaped up and began to walk. 11 And when the multitudes saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us.” 12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes,[304] because he was the chief speaker.[305] 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you in order that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. 16 “And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; 17 and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”[306] 18 And even saying these things, they with difficulty restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. 19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium,[307] and having won over the multitudes, they stoned[308] Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. 20 But while the disciples stood around him, he arose and entered the city. And the next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.
We are not told that Paul and Barnabas went to a synagogue in Lystra and preached there, as was their custom. This may mean that there was no synagogue, but it may simply be that Luke has chosen to focus on this healing, and on the ministry to Gentiles—pure pagans—as opposed to Gentile God-fearers, who would be found at the synagogue. It would seem that Paul and Barnabas were engaged in “street preaching” here, which they may have also done from city to city, especially if they were not welcomed in the synagogue.
A lame man was sitting nearby, who heard the preaching of Paul and whose face must have manifested not only keen interest but faith, a faith sufficient to both save and heal him.[309] Paul, knowing that he had the power of the Spirit to heal the man, and that the man had the faith to be healed, commanded the man to stand up and walk, much as Jesus and Peter had done before.[310] The man leaped up and began to walk. If this man was like his predecessors, he probably went leaping about, following after Paul and Barnabas and testifying to what had happened through their hands.
The response of this pagan crowd was indeed enthusiastic, but it took some time for Barnabas and Saul[311] to recognize exactly what was happening. It took even more time and effort to convince the multitude to cease what they were doing. Paul and Barnabas were truly in heathen territory. Paul was probably preaching in the Greek language, which was not the native tongue of these Lycaonians (v. 11), but it was a language which they would have used commercially. In their excitement, the crowds of Lystra reverted to their native tongue, a language which neither Paul nor Barnabas seem to have understood.
You can imagine the puzzled looks on the faces of these two men, as they heard the excited speech of the people and as they saw that preparations were being made for some kind of ceremony. They did not, however, know what the nature of this ceremony was. Did they ask questions of the crowd, in Greek, to determine what was happening? Probably so, although we are not told. Somehow, they discovered that the were about to be worshipped as an incarnation of the “gods,” Zeus (the principal god) and Hermes (the son of Zeus, and his spokesman). They were horrified at the thought of such worship. It was precisely the opposite of what they hoped would happen. Immediately, they began to fervently convince the crowds to stop.
The response of Barnabas and Paul (note the order in verse 14) was not an evangelistic message, not a proclamation of the gospel, so much as it was an argument intended to stop this heathen worship—of them, no less. The actual argument is very similar to that found in chapter 17, spelled out in more detail. But in its more concise form, the appeal of the apostles was as follows:
(1) Worshipping them was wrong because they were mere men, too.
(2) Worshipping them as gods was opposed to the gospel which they preached.
They were only men. They were not incarnations of the gods. They had come as the representatives of the one true God, not as manifestations of the heathen gods which this crowd sought to worship. Their God was the Creator of the heaven and the earth, the Creator of all things. He gave them rains and seasons, crops and happiness. He was not just the God of the spectacular miracles, such as the healing of this lame man; He was the God of the orderly, the day-to-day blessings of life. If they would see the hand of God, they must look not only for spectacular interventions, but for the constant (and seemingly “natural”) blessings as well. This God was not only the God of the supernatural, but of the natural.
In the past, God had let the heathen go their own ways, but even in this He had not left men without a witness to Himself in nature. There should have been, as well, the witness of Israel, called and commanded by God to be a light to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:47). But now, the gospel was being proclaimed in its full form to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had not come to confirm the heathen worship of these people, but to confront them with the true God and with His good news of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They had come to turn men from their heathen worship, to that which was true. How could they allow these men to worship them? With a sigh of relief, Paul and Barnabas noted that they, finally, were able to convince the crowds to cease their “worship.”
How quickly things reversed. Those who came with a sacrifice and with garlands now press upon Paul[312] with stones. The reason for the sudden change in the sentiments and actions of the crowd seem to be the result of at least two major factors:
(1) The Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who had resisted and opposed Paul and Barnabas in their home towns, now came to Lystra, and instigated this stoning. The Jews at Iconium had wanted to stone Paul and Barnabas, but were thwarted by their escape. They were not about to let Paul get away this time.
(2) The gospel was now clear to them, as that which would do away with their religion. They welcomed (and sought to worship) Paul and Barnabas, because they thought they were the consummation of their heathen religion. Now they knew that they were competition to their religion. When this fact became clear, there were many who would gladly be rid of Paul, rather than to be rid of their religion. The gospel has often been welcomed in history because it was misunderstood, and then resisted when its meaning and implications are made known. So it was in Lystra.
What amazing restraint and simplicity we see in Luke’s account of Paul’s “rising” and departure. He seems to feel no need to have a miracle here, and thus he makes no effort to describe the event as miraculous.[313] Luke, the medical doctor, does not tell us that Paul was dead. He tells us rather that the hostile crowds “supposed him to be dead.” They left him for dead. We are not told that the disciples who gathered around Paul were praying, though they may have been. We are simply told that Paul was left for dead, that the saints gathered about him, and that he got up and went back to town. If there is a miracle here, it is that Paul returned to Lystra, not that he got up. The next day Paul and Barnabas left for Derbe,[314] where they preached the gospel and many came to faith (14:21).
The Return
(14:20b-28)
And the next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.[315] 21 And after they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra[316] and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”[317] 23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. 24 And they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia. 25 And when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia; 26 and from there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. 27 And when they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they spent a long time with the disciples.
How easy it would have been for Paul and Barnabas to simply continue on, not that many miles, to Syrian Antioch, Paul’s home.[318] Instead, they turned back, returning to the cities they had previously evangelized.[319] With the exception of Perga, which does not appear to have been evangelized on the first visit (13:13-14; cf. 14:25), the mission of Paul and Barnabas on their return trip seems to have been the edification of the churches which came into existence through their ministry. And so, on their return, they appointed elders[320] in these churches, commending them to the Lord, and encouraging them to stand fast in the Lord in the midst of persecution, which they taught as an expected part of the Christian experience. These two men, who deeply believed in God’s ability to save, also believed in His ability to keep those whom He saved (Acts 14:23; cf. 20:32). This did not imply passivity on the part of the saints, but rather an active endurance (cf. Acts 11:23).
Finally, Paul and Barnabas returned to the church in Antioch of Syria, from which they had been commended to the grace of God (verse 26). The “work to which they had been appointed” (cf. 13:2), was now much more apparent—it was the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. 14:26-27). It was, I think, with considerable wonder that this report of a systematic and widespread Gentile evangelism was reported and received. Truly it was God who had “opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (verse 27). For some time Paul and Barnabas remained on in this, their home church.
Conclusion
For me, there is a strong sense of accomplishment in the completion of this first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. That which we Gentile Christians now take for granted was a source of wonder, praise, and joy to the early saints (cf. Acts 11:23; 15:3; Philippians 1:3-11, 18).[321] The salvation of the Gentiles was a part of God’s eternal purpose (Ephesians 1, 3). It was contained in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3), and it was promised by the Old Testament prophets. It was also clearly revealed by our Lord Jesus (cf. Luke 4:16-30). The salvation of the Gentiles was in view in the Great Commission (Matthew 18:28-30), and in our Lord’s final words to His disciples (Acts 1:8). Although this purpose to save the Gentiles was centuries old, its fulfillment did not begin in any significant way until the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, in the text which we have been studying.
As we come to the conclusion of this first journey, we must begin by recognizing that the salvation of the Gentiles, as Gentiles, has begun. There is much that will follow, but the program of saving the Gentiles has commenced. This is the essence of the report which Paul and Barnabas brought to the saints at Antioch: He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27b).
A new chapter in the history of Israel has begun, as well as a new chapter in the history of the church.
My focus in this message is not only on the fact that a new chapter in history has begun, but on how it began. In broadest terms, God brought about the salvation of the Gentiles, through men. It is clear in the statement of the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, that it was God who opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. But it is equally clear that God brought about the salvation of the Gentiles through human instruments—through the church at Antioch, and through Paul and Barnabas.
Stepping back, as the Scriptures enable us to do, we can see that the salvation of the Gentiles was purposed and promised by God, centuries before He brought it to pass. The salvation of the Gentiles was first a purpose of God, and then it was a program, one which employed many different people and many different means. God used the apostles, such as Peter, who set a precedent in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles gathered in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10). He used men like Philip, who shared the good news with an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). He used spectacular demonstrations of His power, as in the healing of the lame man at Lystra, and in the other “signs and wonders” which He performed through the hands of the apostles (Acts 14:3). But God also used those apparent failures and defeats as well. He used the opposition of unbelieving Jews to propel the gospel from one city to another. He used the apostles’ escapes (sneaking out of sight and the cities, Acts 9:24-25; 14:6), and even the stoning and misdiagnosed “death” of Paul, outside the gates of Lystra (Acts 14:19-20). God used the rejection and persecution of the unbelieving Jews to spread the gospel abroad. He employed the testimony of some unnamed, non-conformist Jews, to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-20). The longer I study the Book of Acts, the longer the list becomes of those means which God employed to accomplish His purpose of saving the Gentiles.
Observing the creativity and variety of God’s methods of bringing about His purpose of saving the Gentiles is of great importance to Christians today. There are those who would seek to limit God’s freedom and creativity, and who fail to see in this their own unbelief and their own lack of comprehending the power and wisdom of God (cf. Romans 11:33-36). There are some, for example, who would say that God does not and cannot employ “signs and wonders” today, as a means of drawing men to faith. In my estimation, their “God” is too small. But there are others who err in the opposite direction. They seem to insist that God’s only tool for saving men is “signs and wonders.” They, to use their own words, “expect a miracle, and nothing else will do.” They are not free, as Luke was, to look at the “rising of Paul” as an act of God’s providence—they must have a miracle in it, a resurrection. And they are not free to see the hand of God in the mundane, non-miraculous, matters of life. They find it somehow unspiritual to see God’s presence and power in the everyday things, like rain, and seasons, and crops. They want God’s presence and power to be displayed by His disruption and setting aside of the normal. They expect life to be a never-ending sequence of “signs and wonders,” as though their faith depended upon them. Their “God” is too small as well.
Allow me to linger on this matter of “signs and wonders” for it is the source of controversy and debate between believers. There must be a balance in this matter, and that balance is provided by the Book of Acts. There must be a balance between those who reject “signs and wonders” as an option today and those who would see them as a norm. We need to view God’s sovereignty in such a way as to leave Him free to achieve His purposes as He wills, whether that be with “signs and wonders” or without them.
As a rule those who want to deny the possibility of “signs and wonders” today want to turn our attention away from the Book of Acts, as though this book and its events were not normative, but exceptional. On the other hand, those who lean toward “signs and wonders” seem to act as if there were no other book in the Bible than Acts. I would suggest to you that both groups need to take the Book of Acts more seriously, and study it more carefully.
The following observations concerning “signs and wonders” in the Book of Acts should be a point of departure for your own study of this matter.
(1) Signs and wonders in the Book of Acts are not a constant phenomenon; they are intermittent. Signs and wonders come and go in Acts; they are not a steady flow. They are the exception, not the rule.
(2) Signs and wonders in Acts, while granted by God, were given through apostles, who knew that the power of God was available to them at the time. Those who speak of “signs and wonders” today do not restrict this power to apostles, as seems to be the consistent case in Acts, and they will often pray for a miraculous intervention of God without any sense of whether God will grant it or not. In our text, Paul knew that the power of God was, at the time, available for Him to use, and he knew that when he spoke to the lame man he would rise up and walk.
(3) Signs and wonders were not a substitute for the Word of God, but a confirmation of the Word (Acts 14:3).
(4) Signs and wonders did not necessarily produce a greater number of converts, nor did they serve to convince the unbelieving. There seems to be no correlation between signs and wonders and a great revival. The signs and wonders of 14:3 are followed by a “but” in verse 4, which speaks of a divided city. Even in the ministry of our Lord, signs and wonders did not convince or convert anyone. The unbelievers continually asked for more proof, but they were never convinced.
(5) Signs and wonders could also lead men to the wrong conclusion. The healing of the lame man at Lystra came close to concluding with the worship of Barnabas and Paul, as pagan gods.
(6) Signs and wonders are not the only evidence of God’s presence and power. Paul and Barnabas pointed to the routine blessings of God in nature as evidence of His existence and benevolence toward men. They did not want these pagans to see “God” only in the miraculous.
(7) God is not restricted to miraculous, spectacular, interventions into the affairs of this world in order to achieve His purposes. All through history, God had promised the salvation of the Gentiles. We see the first wave of this promised evangelistic thrust in Acts 13 and 14. But we also see that God used a great variety of means to accomplish that which He had purposed and promised. He achieved His purposes in spite of the racial prejudice and hard-heartedness of His people, including His own disciples. He even used the unbelief of the Jews and their resistance and persecution to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. In the next chapter of Acts (15:36ff.), He will use the argument between Paul and Barnabas to further propel the gospel. God’s sovereignty means that He not only has the power to achieve His will, but that He has great freedom in the way He works “all things together for the good” He has purposed. Signs and wonders are but one of the means available to God to achieve His will.
(8) Signs and wonders are not a guaranteed escape from suffering, nor a sure way to prosperity. How often we hear of men speaking of God’s power to achieve “signs and wonders” as a power we can harness and “tap into” so as to achieve our will, to indulge our fleshly desires, to bring us prosperity and a peaceful life. Paul, whom God enabled to perform signs and wonders, was persecuted often, stoned and left for dead (in our text), and imprisoned. Signs and wonders were no escape from suffering for Paul, nor are they for Christians today either. The principle that suffering has a place in God’s plan was taught these new believers (Acts 14:22), and it is the same for saints today (cf. 2 Timothy 3:12).
(9) Signs and wonders are not used as a divine shortcut, to avoid achieving God’s will through a process which takes time. We are an impatient people, who want everything in an instant. As I read through the Book of Acts, I am impressed with God’s patience and the slow progress which He has ordained for the achievement of His program. Look how long it took—centuries—for the evangelization of the Gentiles. Look how long it took for the fact to even be comprehended by the apostles. God is in no hurry. God does not use the spectacular to speed up the processes He has ordained. And so it is with our sanctification. How we would love to have a miracle, so that we would not have to agonize through the process of sanctification which He has ordained.
In no way should we disdain “signs and wonders” or take them lightly, but neither should we think of such miraculous interventions as the norm, and as the only evidence of God’s presence and power, or as the only means which God has to achieve His will. There are those who would claim that “signs and wonders” are ours to claim at any time, if we but have the faith. I would strongly suggest, from the Book of Acts and elsewhere in the Bible, that this is not the case at all. Signs and wonders were granted through the apostles at certain times, but not at all times. And when they were granted, the apostles knew it and could boldly exercise this power. And yet, on many other occasions, God worked through men in seemingly non-miraculous ways, achieving His will. But the fact that men’s actions were orchestrated by God in such a way as to perform His purposes is just as miraculous, but not as spectacular or as immediately evident. Let us realize that God’s sovereignty is His ability to achieve His will, in a great variety of ways, some of which are immediately apparent as miraculous, and others of which will only be seen as miracles in time or in eternity.
I have tried to demonstrate that God, as a sovereign God, has a great many ways at His disposal to achieve His purposes. But how does this intersect our lives? What does this truth teach us?
First, we must believe that God is at work, even when it does not appear to be so, even when life seems to be going on as it always has, with no miraculous interventions. God is no less in control in the normal, predictable events of life than He is when He supernaturally intervenes into the affairs of men.
Second, I believe we should exercise restraint in our prayer lives, praying for those things which God has promised, but leaving the means and the methods to Him. Often, I fear, we seem to instruct God as to how He should answer our prayers, without realizing that His ways are higher than ours, and that He is able to accomplish far more than we could ever imagine or ask for. Let us make our petitions to God in a way that recognizes His sovereignty and His creativity, rather than in a way that restricts (from our human perspective) the way in which He can answer our prayers.
Third, let us beware of those “success schemes and strategies” which are so popular among Christians today. The “church growth” movement has some serious flaws, in my opinion, and one of them is the way it seeks to be successful. The approach works this way. A criteria of success is first established. Generally, those churches are successful that have a significant growth numerically, and who seem to be prospering economically. Then, the “successful” churches are analyzed, to see what practices and programs they have in common. And then, the things which characterize these successful churches is recommended to all other churches who wish to grow, too.
The first problem is that our view of success may not agree with God’s view. The second is that by advocating the imitation of other churches which we think are successful, we limit the creativity of the church, and we limit the ways in which we expect God to work in and through our church. Even if a church was successful and we were able to determine those things which made it so, is no assurance that imitating its practices would make our church successful.
We are, in my opinion, far too “methods oriented.” We spend too much time trying to figure out the best way to do things when we should be looking at other factors, like our motivations. I think I am beginning to understand why so much of God’s instructions are given to us in broad principles, rather than in mechanical programs or steps. God does not want us to go about His work like clones, imitating those who we deem successful. He wants us to act in obedience to His Word, in the way that seems best, and in a way that looks for His modifications. Let us learn from this first missionary journey that God progressively reveals His will and achieves His purposes through an almost infinite variety of ways. That is what makes serving Him so exciting. We find no cookie cutter churches or Christians, but those who walk in the Spirit, seeking to obey, and looking for His direction as we do.
There is one final observation. If we see that the early church was slow to understand that God was going to bring salvation to the Gentiles, we ought to recognize that these Jewish saints and apostles were little different from most Christians today. In principle, we agree that God’s grace is sufficient to save the heathen, but most of our evangelism is focused on the “up and outer,” rather than on the “down and outer.” There are studies which indicate that the great majority of those who are converted to faith in Christ today are those with some kind of Christian heritage or background. Very few “raw pagans” are being reached by the church. Perhaps it is because of ignorance. Perhaps it is because we do not wish to associate with the heathen, or that we don’t want them in our church with us. If the salvation of the Gentiles was a bitter pill for the Jewish saints to swallow, I am convinced that we are not swallowing the pill any easier. Let us consider how we, as a church and as individuals, may reach out to the heathen, the pagans in our society, to the glory of God, and to the good of those who believe.
! Lesson 23:
The Jerusalem Council:
The Gospel Defined and Defended
(Acts 15:1-35)
… 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.[323]Their “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” (Genesis 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 Jerusalem[326] 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 Paul[328] 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.
! Lesson 24:
When Division Becomes Multiplication
(Acts 15:36–16:10)
Introduction
Those who dislike confrontation and conflict will undoubtedly feel a bit uneasy as we work our way through Acts chapter 15. Not only does Luke record the account of the strong contention between Paul and Barnabas and some of those of the circumcision party, resulting in the Jerusalem Council, but he goes on to report a strong disagreement between Paul and Barnabas, resulting in their going their separate ways, rather than traveling together in a second missionary journey.
We would undoubtedly admit that the first confrontation—between Paul and Barnabas and the Judaizers—was necessary, even though unpleasant. But the second disagreement is much more puzzling. Why did Paul and Barnabas differ so strongly? Why didn’t one or the other change their mind? Why was this wonderful team split up? And why did Luke bother to include this very uncomfortable incident in his writings anyway? Why not simply have stated that the two men went on separate journeys and leave the unpleasant details out? What are we to learn from the disagreement of these two noble saints?
The strong disagreement and separation of Paul and Barnabas is more than just interesting reading. It certainly is not the kind of reporting that we see in the “rags” which are placed before our eyes at the checkout stand in the supermarkets. There is a great deal to be learned from the disagreement and separation of these two men, which I will attempt to point out as we proceed with this lesson.
Paul and Barnabas Part Paths
(15:35-41)
36 And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” 37 And Barnabas was desirous of taking John, called Mark, along with them also. 38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
Paul and Barnabas had returned from Jerusalem, with the decree of the apostles and the elders, defining and defending the gospel against the legalism of those who would force Gentiles Christians to become Jews by undergoing circumcision and placing themselves under the Law of Moses. They also returned with Judas and Silas, the two men who had been sent by the church in Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas, and to bear witness to the decision rendered in favor of their two companions. Paul and Barnabas stayed on for some time, teaching in preaching, along with others, probably making sure that the error of the Judaizers was laid to rest in Antioch.
Eventually, Paul approached Barnabas with a proposal that they return to every city where they had preached Christ on their first missionary campaign. Every city was to be re-visited, which, as I understand the proposal, would have included those cities visited in Cyprus, as well as in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. In reality, Paul’s proposal was not that of a second missionary journey at all. It was really just a return trip, a re-run of the first journey. The purpose does not seem to be evangelistic, but edification. It was a trip to strengthen and encourage those who had trusted in Jesus on the first journey, and an opportunity to see how the saints and the churches were doing. Had a disagreement not arisen between Paul and Barnabas, one wonders (humanly speaking) if there would have been a second missionary journey.
Barnabas, as we might expect, was enthusiastic about such a journey, but he was also persistent in his desire to take along John Mark. Paul was adamantly opposed to this proposal, based on Mark’s previous desertion at Perga, and on the fact that he had not gone with then to the work. Barnabas was proposing that Mark retrace his very steps. Paul was opposed for this very reason. He had failed in the same circumstances; why put him back in these a second time, why repeat the same error? Barnabas did not seem to be willing to go without Mark; Paul seemed unwilling to go with him. They had come to an impasse, and neither was willing to change their position. It was, indeed, a “sharp disagreement” (verse 39).
Here is where many of the commentators go too far, in my opinion, making this more than a strong disagreement as to how their ministry should proceed, and thus terminating their partnership and proceeding with two separate ministries. A number seem to feel that this was a personal rift:
“This ‘son of consolation’ loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in Gal. 2:11-21 had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him … Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.”[333]
“Robinson thinks, further, that there may have been other problems involved in the contention, including too ambitious a program for Barnabas; Barnabas’ act of siding with Peter (Gal. 2:11); difference of opinion as to the route to be followed; and Paul’s desire to visit his own Cilician country first.”[334]
I do not believe that the Scriptures give any credence to such a view. A strong disagreement is a vastly different thing, between friends and co-laborers, than a personal falling out.[335] The differences between these two giants of the faith were not rooted in pride, personal ambition, or offended feelings, they were rooted in different spiritual gifts, outlook, and calling. Aside from the loss of on-going fellowship, such as they had known in serving side-by-side, the outcome of their separation was very positive. Consider come of the characteristics of this conflict, and see if the Scriptures do not represent this separation in a positive way.
Characteristics of this Conflict
(1) Paul and Barnabas kept the problem on a personal level. These men had a personal disagreement, which they dealt with personally, face to face. So far as we are told, they did not involve others in the disagreement.
(2) Paul and Barnabas did not take the problem personally—they did not let their disagreement alienate them as friends and as brothers. I do not wish to minimize the intensity of the disagreement, but neither do I wish to read into this incident a personal “falling out.” It is a vastly different thing for two men to agree to dissolve a partnership in ministry than to have a friendship turn sour, developing into some kind of personal animosity. I find absolutely no indication in the New Testament which would indicate a loss of love or respect for each other. I see no signs of bitterness or alienation between these two.
(3) Paul and Barnabas saw the matter through to a resolution. These two men stuck to their convictions, and neither was willing to change, but the did come to a solution to the impasse. The solution was a separation—to go on two separate missions, but it was a solution. The problem did not continue to fester.
(4) Neither Paul nor Barnabas appear to have been acting out of self-interest or self-will. Put differently, it does not seem that these men were acting out of fleshly desires or inclinations. Humanly speaking, it would have been easier for either of the two to have “given in” to the other, or for both to have compromised. For these two men to go their own ways was a personal sacrifice, required by their convictions and calling.
(5) Neither Paul nor Barnabas sought to make this a biblical issue, in which one was “right” and the other was “wrong.” How often, when two Christians differ, they try to sanction their actions with texts of Scripture. Each party in the dispute gathers up a collection of proof texts, and the one with the longest list wins. This was not a biblical issue, in the sense that one of the two was doing the biblical thing and the other was being disobedient. Both Paul and Barnabas were “right” to do what they did, and would have denied their convictions and calling to do what the other felt compelled to do.
(6) Both Paul and Barnabas seem to be acting in accordance with their own spiritual gifts and calling. Who, but Barnabas, would we expect to come alongside Mark, to encourage him and to be used of God to minister to this stumbling saint so as to stand and to serve the Lord? And who, but Paul, would we expect to come down hard on failure to complete a mission?
(7) Both Paul and Barnabas ministered to John Mark by what they did. I see Paul and Barnabas, out of different gifts and ministries, applying this instruction, spelled out by Paul to the Thessalonian church:
And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men (1 Thessalonians 5:14).
Knowing the Paul would not take him along on his next journey surely had an impact on Mark, just as knowing the Barnabas was willing to invest his life and ministry in him, even though he failed, would be an encouragement. Paul’s negative response, combined with Barnabas’ positive action, served to encourage Mark to take his problems seriously and to strive to prove himself a faithful man.
(8) The separation of Paul and Barnabas was a cooperative action, not a competitive one. All too often, when partners in ministry have separated in an unhealthy way, they have both pursued the same ministry, in the same place, requiring the involvement and support of the same people. In short, division or separation has not solved a problem, it has expanded it, resulted in competition, rather than cooperation. Barnabas took Mark, and went to Cyprus. Paul to Silas, and went in the opposite direction. The itinerary which they had planned was, in effect, cut in two, so that their initial purposes were met, but in a way that created no problems for the ministry of either.
(9) The passing of time bears witness to the fact that both Paul and Barnabas acted in a way that was beneficial to them, to Mark, to each other, and to the gospel. Notice that the result of this separation was two missionary ventures, not just one. Others were involved in ministry, including Silas, Timothy, and Luke. The Book of Mark was, to some degree, the result of Barnabas’ actions and ministry, and the birth of many new churches was the result of Paul’s actions and ministry. Neither Paul nor Barnabas later needed to repent of any wrongdoing in the matter of Mark, and Paul could say of Mark that he was now of profit to his own ministry (2 Timothy 4:9).[336]
(10) I believe that the New Testament bears witness to some very positive changes in the outlook and ministries of both Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas backed off from taking Mark into the more dangerous areas, choosing instead to take him to Cyprus, where Mark had successfully served, before his desertion at Perga (cf. Acts 13:5, 13). Barnabas also seems to have taken Mark to a ministry of edification in existing churches, as opposed to a front-line ministry of evangelism in hostile territory.[337] Barnabas may also have been reminded that one must not only consider the individual, but the cause.[338]
Paul, on the other hand, may well have grown a great deal through this experience with Mark and Barnabas, and his ministry seems to have been enriched by it. By reducing the number of churches he had to visit, it opened the door to reaching out to new, unreached cities with the gospel. Paul seems to have learned a lesson in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person, especially one who was not yet proven (cf. 1 Timothy 3:10; 5:22). He may have concluded, as a result of this experience, that in the future he needed to commit himself to faithful, proven men, with gifts similar to his own, so that he could extend and reproduce his own ministry and gift (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2). Paul may have also learned the need to be more sensitive and tender toward those who are not as “thick skinned” as he. I cannot help but see a tenderness and gentleness evidenced in Paul’s letters to Timothy, that does not appear to be present in his dealings with Mark. As I read 1 and 2 Timothy, I see some parallels between Mark’s fears and retreat and Timothy’s uncertainty and hesitancy in ministry, which requires constant encouragement from Paul. Paul seems to have grown in gentleness and understanding, as he deals with Timothy, and I am inclined to think that this experience with Mark was a significant part of his education.[339]
(11) It appears that Barnabas’ ministry to Paul had come to an end, and that Silas was now the better partner in ministry. One of the strongest gifts of Barnabas was his gift of encouragement (cf. Acts 4:36). Barnabas first came alongside Paul at a time when he was a newly born believer, and when none of the apostles would associate with him, fearing him. Barnabas sought Paul to ministry with him in Antioch, too (Acts 11:25-26). As of Acts 13:9 and following, the need for Barnabas seems to be diminishing. Now, in chapter 15, Mark needed Barnabas’ gift of encouragement much more than Paul did. This strong difference of opinion and of approach was the one means by which God could separate these two “inseparable” friends, brothers, and servants.
The separation of Barnabas paved the way for the selection of Silas (and others, like Timothy and Luke). I am convinced that for the second missionary journey, Silas was a better suited partner than Barnabas. For example, Silas, like Paul, was a Roman citizen (or at least appears to be). I do not know whether or not Barnabas was a Roman citizen. How difficult it would have been for Paul to protest against his unfair treatment as a Roman citizen in Philippi if Barnabas were not a Roman as well (cf. Acts 16:37). If Paul and Barnabas had gone about, reading the decree of the Jerusalem Council it would have had less impact than when Paul and Silas informed the churches of this decision.[340] All in all, the gifts and ministries of Silas appear to have been better suited to the second journey than those of Barnabas. And thus God orchestrated a change in personnel, in a most unusual but effective way.
And so we see the hand of God at work once again in Acts, providentially orchestrating and arranging circumstances in such a way that the gospel is advanced and so that the proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles is assured and assisted. The argument of Paul and Barnabas with the Judaizers resulted in the Jerusalem Council, which defined and defended the gospel, preparing the way for even an even greater expansion of the gospel into Gentile territory. The argument between Paul and Barnabas paved the way for the second major thrust of the gospel by a new team.
Luke’s account of the “strong contention” between Paul and Barnabas informs us of several important truths. First, Christians can disagree with each other, and both can be right. Disagreements are not necessarily a sin, and neither are they evidence of some sin on the part of those who differ. Second, disagreements can serve very beneficial purposes. In the case of the two disagreements of Acts 15, both served to advance the gospel. The dispute which was settled at the Jerusalem Council defined the gospel and cut Gentile Christians loose from the fetters of Jewish legalism and Judaism. It also served to distinguish between Christianity and culture, making it possible to “export” the gospel to any culture. And the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas served to pave the way for the second missionary journey.
If there is a prominent theme in the Book of Acts which is emerging it is UNITY IN THE MIDST OF DIVERSITY. The gospel which our Lord made possible and which His apostles proclaimed was one. Jewish believers and Gentile Christians are recognized as different in Acts, but the gospel they believe and the faith they hold is a common one to both. Paul and Barnabas did have different gifts, different perspectives, and even different callings, but they remained, to the end, one in the faith and in the bonds of love. Their parting was a division, but not a divorce.
The church of our Lord Jesus Christ is one church, one body, but composed of many members, each of whom have unique gifts, a unique function, and a unique contribution to the body. If the church is to be consistent with its nature and its duty, it must maintain unity while promoting and practicing diversity. This truth is one that is emphasized by Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, particularly in chapters 12-14.
Unity in diversity is often resisted, even in the church. Too many times, unity is replaced by uniformity. Churches tend toward a denominationalism which tends to put people of the same culture, class, race, gift, and theology together.[341] The more we tend toward uniformity, the less we are likely to practice unity in diversity. As a local church, we have purposed to avoid a denominational label or identification. We have also resolved to welcome Christians who represent a broader spectrum of culture, race, class, gift and theology. As a result of our diversity, we must be all the more diligent to strive for the practice of Christian unity.
Because of the commitment and outlook of our church, we have (to some degree) begun to manifest a greater diversity among our members. And because of our structure, we have an added temptation for those who wish to promote their own identity, and thus push us toward uniformity. In most churches, there is no public forum, where an individual member can stand and address the whole church. In our church, we provide an opportunity to do so weekly.[342] Because of this “open” worship and sharing time, one can easily be tempted to speak in such a way as to promote one’s particular point of view or practice, and to put down those views or practices of others. The results, as suggested in 1 Corinthians, can be chaotic and destructive. How can we, as a church, be on our guard to promote diversity and unity at the same time?
Our text, I believe, is most instructive, for it teaches us how to disagree in such a way that promotes the gospel and preserves unity. We should, in short, deal with one another in the church as Paul and Barnabas dealt with each other, especially in dealing with their differences. I would like to expand upon our text by looking at the broader context of Scripture, to indicate the various kinds of differences, disagreements (or, if you like, arguments) which a Christian can experience. We must first be certain why it is we differ. This will greatly inform us as to how we should go about differing. And then, I would like to summarize some of the principles of differing which are evident in the disagreement between these two men of God.
Categories of Conflict
Conflicts initiated or caused by unbelievers.
There are essentially two kinds of conflict which are caused by unbelievers, which tend to involve believers. The first is that opposition and resistance caused by those who reject the gospel and who resist Christians as a result. The unbelieving Jews, often joined by unbelieving Gentiles, resisted Paul and Barnabas (and later, Silas) and followed them, stirring up trouble wherever they went (cf. Acts 14:2, 5, 19). Unbelieving Gentiles, prompted by economic or other motivations, opposed believers like Paul as well (cf. Acts 16:19-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:14-16; 2 Thessalonians 1:4-8).
Another form of opposition against the saints and the gospel is the opposition of religious unbelievers, who may claim and even appear to be believers, who seek to pervert the gospel from within the church. They teach false doctrine and they advocate practices which are evil (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, 26; Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4; 2 Peter 2 & 3; 2 John 7-11; Jude 3-4).
The first group—those who reject the gospel and persecute the church—are avoided by the apostles and others in the New Testament. They take no aggressive action against them, although they do use (not without exception) their civil rights and expect the government to protect them as the law stipulates (cf. Acts 16:35-40; 18:14; 21:37-40; 23:16-17). The second group—the false teachers—are more aggressively exposed and opposed, because their doctrine is both damnable and destructive (cf. Galatians 1:8-9; 2:4-5; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:6-8, 13; 2 John 7-11; 2 Peter 2:1ff.; Jude 3-4).[343]
Conflicts between Christians.
The second general category of controversy or conflict is that which occurs between two Christians, or at least that which is carried out by one Christian against another, whether the second responds, reacts, or retaliates. I will outline some of the forms which this conflict may take, based upon biblical examples, as found in the New Testament.
(1) There is the strife, opposition, and conflict which arises from those who teach and minister out of the power and inclinations of the flesh, who are self-seeking, self-asserting, and self-indulgent (Acts 20:28-30; 1 Corinthians; Galatians 5:13-21; Philippians 1:15-17; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 6:3-10). Some, to be sure, preach the truth, but out of selfish ambition (cf. Philippians 1:15, 17), while others, out of self-interest, corrupt the truth, adapting their message to the whims of their audiences (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2). The appeal of such teachers and leaders is that they teach in such a way as to appeal to the same evil impulses and desires in others, promising God’s blessings in such a way that men can indulge themselves, basking in sin as though it were God’s generosity and grace (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3ff.; 2 Timothy 3:4-13,[344] 4:1-6; cp. 2 Peter 2:9-22).
(2) There is that painful confrontation which the godly Christian must initiate when a fellow-Christian had erred. There is the obligation of the offended brother to go to the offender (Matthew 18:15-20). And of the stronger brother to seek out the weaker, who is entangled in sin (Galatians 6:1). The unruly must be admonished (1 Thessalonians 5:14). Those who refuse to be corrected and who persist in sin must be shunned (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). There is also the need to confront those, who by teaching or practice, distort or deny the truth (Galatians 2:11ff.; 2 Timothy 2:23-26; Titus 1:13; 3:10-11).
(3) There are those conflicts and divisions, while wrongly motivated and sinful in nature, which nevertheless have the beneficial effect of revealing those who are “approved” (1 Corinthians 11:19).
(4) There are those confrontations which are to be avoided, because they stem from differences which are often God-given, and which are therefore not clear-cut matters of sin. In Corinth, much of the strife and divisions revolved around the different spiritual gifts, either of certain leaders, or of individual members of the body of Christ. There was an inappropriate evaluation of the “better” gifts, and a tendency for the saints to seek these gifts and to shun their own gifts. There are also the differences among Christians based upon maturity levels and upon personal convictions concerning matters like Christian liberties. Since these are private and personal matters, they are not to be preached, argued, or pushed on others, but kept to oneself (Romans 14:5, 22). Another area has to do with the leading of God in one’s life, for which one is personally responsible. Others ought to avoid pressing their opinion of God’s will for another’s life. Paul found it necessary to resist and reject such well-intentioned advice from Christian friends (cf. Acts 21:10-14).
It is in this area, I believe, that Paul and Barnabas differed. They differed in their spiritual gifts, especially in the matter of how to encourage John Mark. They had now come to the point where God was leading these two men in separate directions. It was not something to press for agreement on, or to try to correct on or the other as wrong, but something which each had to decide upon and to act upon as they believed God would have them to do. They did not allow their differences to become a controversy or a source of contention. They went their separate ways, respecting the other, but convinced about their own actions.
Those who find comfort and security in a neatly laid out plan, which indicates just the right response to every conflict, will not like the following range of responses, which I find indicated in the New Testament. Note the many different ways which Paul instructed Timothy and/or others to respond to those in error:
(1) Timothy and Titus were instructed to positively preach, teach, and practice the truth of the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:6-16; 6:17-21; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17; 4:1-2; Titus 2:1, 15).
(2) Paul ignored the attack of other preachers, who proclaimed the gospel out of selfish motives (Philippians 1:15-18). Indeed, Paul could actually rejoice in the fact that the gospel was being proclaimed.
(3) Paul trusted in the Spirit of God to change the attitudes of others, rather than to attempt to do so himself (Philippians 3:15). Indeed, Paul was reluctant to judge the attitudes of others (1 Corinthians 4:1-5). He knew, as well, that only some of men’s sins are apparent to the human eye (1 Timothy 5:24-25).
(4) Those who were in error were sometimes to be directly exhorted and refuted (Titus 1:9). Rebuke was to be gentle, in hopes of repentance (2 Timothy 2:23-26).
(5) At times, however, men had to be severely reproved (Titus 1:13), and even put out of the church (Titus 3:10-11).
Because of our fallenness and also by divine design, there are going to be many differences among and between people in this life. Christian unity does not deny these differences, and neither does it attempt to change all of them. If we are to live in unity, we must, as Christians, agree on those few things which are essential to salvation, and on these we must have agreement. For this reason, the Jerusalem Council gave a full airing of opinions and issues, and then the apostles, elders, and saints came to a unanimous decision. This “unity of the faith” must be preserved in the “bond of peace” and harmony (Ephesians 4:3). The “unity of the faith” is that which will only be attained in our glorified state (Ephesians 4:13).
If we are to preserve the “unity of the Spirit,” we must deal biblically with those differences which arise between us. From the example of Paul and Barnabas, and from other biblical texts as well, let me suggest some of the principles which should guide and govern our differences, in such a way that the “unity of the Spirit” can be preserved.
(1) We must recognize that that are many differences, even between believers.
(2) (We should take note of who it is who differs with us, and why.
(3) We should seek to discern the source of our differences, and the seriousness of the issues involved.
(4) We should seek to discover whether the difference is a matter of the gospel, of a clear biblical teaching or doctrine, or whether it is a matter of interpretation, of personal conviction, or of individual gift, calling, and guidance.
(5) We should seek God’s guidance as to the appropriate response, based upon the nature of the difference, and upon the Scriptures governing our response to it.
I believe that Paul and Barnabas have given us a model here for dealing with differences which are based upon our gifts, calling, and ministry. We should praise God that these two men never parted in spirit and in essential unity, but only in ministry.
The Second
Missionary Journey Commenced
(15:40–16:10)
40 But Paul chose Silas[345] and departed, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41 And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia,[346] strengthening the churches. And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra.[347] And behold, a certain disciple was there,[348] named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium.[349] 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him[350] because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they[351] were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.
Taking Silas, with whom Paul and Barnabas had ministered in the past, Paul departed, going first to his own territory in Syria and Cilicia. While Tarsus, Paul’s home, was in this territory, it is not mentioned. Luke does not choose to emphasize this leg of the journey, but quickly passes it by. He moves on to the return of Paul, with Silas, to the cities of Derbe and Lystra, and to Paul’s choice of Timothy to accompany them.
How often I have heard it said that Paul “discipled” Timothy, and how far that statement departs from the words in our text. If anything, we would be more accurate in saying that Barnabas wanted to take Mark along, in order to “disciple” him, something which Paul refused to do. A difficult missionary journey was no occasion for discipling a new or stumbling believer. Paul chose Timothy because he was a disciple, not in order to make a disciple of him (Acts 16:1). In contrast to Mark, Timothy had already been proven. He was “well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium” (Acts 16:2). And these were not easy cities in which to be a believer. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany them so that he could join in the ministry, as a colleague. As we can see from Paul’s two letters to Timothy, this young man’s ministry was very similar to Paul’s. Paul took Timothy along to expand and to perpetuate his own ministry, just as he later instructed Timothy to do (2 Timothy 2:2).[352]
Paul circumcised[353] Timothy so as to enhance his ministry. It is indeed interesting that Luke would make a point of telling about Timothy’s circumcision by Paul (Acts 16:3) in immediate proximity to his report that they delivered the decree of the Jerusalem Council to the churches there (16:4). In this case, Timothy’s circumcision was not demanded by the Jews, as it was with Titus (Galatians 2:3-5). Titus seems to have been a Gentile, while Timothy was a Jew in Jewish reckoning. Although his father was a Greek, his mother was Jewish, and this made Timothy a Jew in the Jewish way of reckoning it. He was a Jew, but he had not yet been circumcised. Paul thus circumcised him, not because it was demanded by anyone, but simply because Timothy was a Jew. As a circumcised Jew, Timothy, too, could speak in the synagogues. As an uncircumcised Jew his ministry would not be as readily received.
Circumcision was an evil only in the context of those who made it such. I wonder if Luke is not, to some degree, softening or clarifying the position of the Jerusalem Council, so that non-circumcision was not a “law” matter either. It is interesting that the decree, not intended for so distant a place, was delivered there, too, it seems, and thus Paul’s action with Timothy is in juxtaposition with the reading of the decree. I think it is safe to say that “the gospel” is the reason for both Paul’s circumcising (Timothy) and his not circumcising (Titus). In the case of Titus, circumcising him would have been to compromise or corrupt the gospel, but in Timothy’s case, it was to promote the gospel. And so, just as Paul and Barnabas can be right and come to the opposite conclusion, so both circumcision and non-circumcision can be right. There is not a legalistic mindset, with all matters black or white. Notice, too, that it was not Timothy choosing to be circumcised, but rather Paul making the decision for Timothy and having it done. While the Judaisers could not impose circumcision for salvation, Paul could impose it for service. What this says, I think, is that the reasons for doing something or not doing it are all important.
Divinely Directed to Macedonia
(16:6-10)
6 And they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region,[354] having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; 7 and when they had come to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them; 8 and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a certain man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
The Holy Spirit[355] guided this missionary party, soon to include Luke,[356] to Macedonia. Initially, the guidance of the spirit was prohibitive. They were not permitted to speak the Word in Asia (v. 6). We have no clue as to how this “forbidding” took place. It could have been circumstantial, such as a warning from civil officials or a sore throat, or it could have been an inner hesitation. It could also have been in the form of a vision or some prophetic utterance. By whatever means, it was recognized as the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was not yet God’s time for the evangelization of Asia. So, too, with Bithynia. For whatever reason, and by whatever means, they were prevented from entrance into Bithynia.[357]
The need for a more positive guidance was now required. Having arrived at Troas was something like the Israelites reaching the Red Sea: they could not see how they could go back and were not sure they could go forward. In both cases, God did act in a way that made His direction and will evident. Troas was a port city on the Aegean Sea, across from Macedonia. Since they could not preach in Asia or Bithynia, they must either go forward or turn back.
The “Macedonian vision” made the answer clear. Paul alone, it would seem, had the vision of a certain Macedonian man,[358] who plead for him to “come over to Macedonia and help us” (16:9). The meaning of the vision was apparent, and Paul’s report of it was all that was needed for the whole group to conclude that God wanted them to go immediately to Macedonia, and thus they proceeded to travel across the sea from Troas to the island of Samothrace, then on to the port city of Neapolis on the other side, and finally on inland to Philippi, a principal city of Macedonia.
Conclusion
As we close this lesson, we shall take up in our next lesson where Paul and Silas and Timothy and Luke (and, perhaps others) arrive at Philippi. But I wish to conclude this message by noting the many ways in which the guidance of God was accomplished, resulting in the arrival of this party in Philippi. There was, first of all, the proposal of Paul to revisit the cities they had first evangelized. Then, this plan was modified by the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas, so that Barnabas went in one direction, with Mark, while Paul and Silas went in the other. The cities that Paul and Silas visited, and the route taken, seem, in many instances, to be based upon human decisions as to the best course. And yet the guidance of God in more direct ways was also evident. The Holy Spirit was recognized as prohibiting evangelization in Asia and Bithynia. And it was through a vision that the region of Macedonia was identified as the next evangelistic target. The choice of Philippi as the specific city in Macedonia seems to have been Paul’s choice, or that of the entire group.
Several things about the guidance of God should be underscored from our text. First, God’s will is not something about which Christians should worry or agonize, as though it were a mystery, a game of hide and seek, and as though we might miss it if we don’t go through all the right steps to discern it. God’s guidance, on the one hand, seems to be something about which no one worried much. We are not even told they spent time praying for it (though they might have). And God’s will was not something which we are given the impression they might have missed. A God who is sovereign will be sure to make His will known, and who will also be certain that we do not miss it. I think that there is too much emphasis on missing God’s will today, as though it is so vague we might not recognize it. Our text, consistent with the message of Acts, shows that our Lord is still in control, bring to pass those things He commanded and promised.
Second, God’s will is not something one finds out by the use of some formula. His guidance and direction is seen in a number of ways. God does not always guide by supernatural intervention. Indeed, He seldom guides by the spectacular and the miraculous means, unless it is necessary. He guides through men’s choices, by their differences, and by circumstances. We dare not look for divine guidance in but one or a few means or mechanisms, for His ways are higher than our own.
Finally, God’s will is not something we find out in advance, and then carry out. God’s will is progressively revealed, as we need to know. Seldom does God tell us what He wants us to do before the time to do it. So it is here. So it is most often.
! Lesson 25:
Paul in Philippi:
From the Purveyor of Purple to the Purveyor of Pain
Acts 16:11-40
Introduction
An earthquake is an awesome experience, or at least it should be. I can well remember the first major earthquake that I really experienced. I was teaching school in the state of Washington. It was a lovely school, nestled among the fir trees, not far from the Narrows Bridge. The first sign of a quake was a frightened student, who jumped to her feet. I was not impressed, and I responded, “Sit down, sit down.” She did.
For the next few seconds, we all witnessed the wonder of an earthquake. If you have never been through one, you will find my description difficult to believe. The ground began to move in waves, just as though it was water. The tall fir trees swayed in the air as the ground beneath rolled about. One side of my classroom was glass, which also flexed unbelievably. The cement tossed about, like the waves of the sea. The concrete block wall moved in vertical, rather than horizontal, waves. And the steel rods which were tightly suspended between the walls were “twanging,” from loose to tight. It was an incredible sight. As all of these things were taking place, we all watched in wonder, pointing to the different effects of the earthquake.
It stopped after a few seconds and the kids in my class quietly talked about what they saw, still in their seats, as they had been through the whole episode. I decided to take a look across the hall, to see how things were going in the building. I stepped out of my room and across the hall to the fifth grade classroom of a colleague, whose name was Dick. I was not ready for what I was about to see. Dick’s classroom was not in the same mood as mine. My class thoroughly enjoyed the earthquake. I was a kind of performance, which we all watched. This class, along with its teacher, did not see anything. They were all huddled under their desks. I was told that Dick was the first one down, and that he instructed his class, from under his desk, to get under their desks.
Now the truth of the matter is that Dick was much wiser than I. I, in my naively, did not sense the very real danger that an earthquake posed. If windows had shattered or the roof had collapsed, his class would have been much safer under their desks, than mine, sitting in their seats. My point in all this is that this earthquake brought Dick to his knees, and rightly so. Dick had the presence of mind to be frightened by the earthquake, while I was foolishly fascinated by it.
But the Philippian jailer went much farther than Dick. The earthquake did not just bring this man to his knees, it caused him to fall prostrate at the feet of two of his prisoners, Paul and Silas, men who had just been beaten as law-breakers, and whom he had placed in maximum security, with their feet secured in stocks. It was more than just a few of what had happened that brought the jailer to the ground. But what was it? What was it about Paul and Silas, that was different from any of the other prisoners, and which commanded such a gesture of reverence and respect from the jailer? We shall seek to answer this question as we study the evangelization of Philippi, as Luke has described it in our text.
An Overview of the Text
Luke’s description of the conversions of these two households—that of Lydia, and that of the jailer—are but a sampling of the evangelism which took place at Philippi. We know that while Lydia was saved during what seemed to be the first time Paul preached at the place of prayer, they returned there daily (16:16-18). We also are told that when Paul and Silas were released from the Philippian prison, they went first to the house of Lydia, where they saw and encouraged “the brethren” (16:40). It would therefore appear that there were a number of other converts, whose conversion is not described. Much more happened at Philippi than what we are told. What we are told is selective, and it becomes our task to determine Luke’s purpose and point for including the accounts that he does.
In our text, Luke has woven together three separate, but related incidents. The first is the conversion of Lydia (16:13-15). The second is the encounter with the demon-possessed slave-girl, from whom Paul eventually casts out the demon (16:16ff.[359]). The third incident is the conversion of the Philippian jailer and his household. The conversion of Lydia’s household and that of the jailer are the first and last conversions in this city, so far as we are told. And so these two conversions take us from start (Lydia) to finish (the jailer). And in between is the story of the slave-girl, who is really the link, as it were, between the Lydia story and the jailer story. The slave-girl first attached herself to this missionary party on their way to the place of prayer, and every day from that point on until her release from the demon who had empowered (and overpowered?) her. Her deliverance from demonic possession was the occasion for the unjust beating and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, but it also provided the needed “introduction” to the jailer, who would be saved, along with his household.
Down By the Riverside
(16:11-15)
11 Therefore putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace,[360] and on the day following to Neapolis;[361] 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia,[362] a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside,[363] where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics,[364] a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.[365] 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.[366]
Immediately upon receiving the “Macedonian vision,” this missionary band sailed directly to the Island of Samothrace, and then on to Neapolis, the port city of Philippi, some ten miles inland. Finding a place to stay, Paul and the others no doubt looked first for a synagogue, which seems not to have existed. This would suggest that there were either few Jews living in this city, or that they found it unwise to publicly worship the God of Israel. The attitude of the Gentile residents of the city, as revealed shortly in response to the charges brought against Paul and Silas, must have been anti-Jewish, and would explain no mention of a synagogue. The second best option would have been a “place of prayer” located outside of town, beside the river. Such places of prayer were centuries old, as can be seen from this psalm, depicting Israel’s plight while captives in Babylon:
By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down and wept, When we remembered Zion. 2 Upon the willows in the midst of it We hung our harps. 3 For there our captors demanded of us songs, And our tormentors mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion” (Psalm 137:1-3).
It would seem from verse 13 (“supposing that there would be a place of prayer there”) that they were not even sure of finding a place of prayer in Philippi.[367] They did find such a place, however, where only a few women seem to have gathered, among whom was Lydia, the “seller of purple fabrics,” from Thyatira (verse 14). The Lord opened her heart to receive the gospel as spoken by Paul. She, along with the other members of her household believed and were baptized, probably in that river beside which they had gathered. In addition to receiving the gospel, she received these missionaries into her home. It was at her initiative, in fact at her insistence that they accepted her hospitality. Her profession of faith in baptism and her provision of hospitality were outward evidences of the faith God had given her and which she had exercised.
The Fortuneteller’s Loss,
and Her Owners’ Loss of a Fortune
(16:16-18)
16 And it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortunetelling. 17 Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God,[368] who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18 And she continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed,[369] and turned and said to the spirit. “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.
The soothsaying slave girl was absolutely correct about Paul and his party—they were “bond-servants of the Most High God,” who were “proclaiming the way of salvation.” It was not because she was wrong that she was silenced. It does not even seem that it was because she was demon-possessed. Some seem to think that Paul only gradually realized that she was demon-possessed, and that when he was convinced of her condition, he delivered her from her demonic oppression.[370] I think that there was no doubt of her demon-possession. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus never diagnosed a case of demon-possession which was not known as such when the demonized person was brought to Him. He delivered demonized people because those who brought them knew they were demon-possessed. Thus, demon-possession was not something difficult to diagnose.
Paul simply did not feel any compulsion to deliver this young woman. Just because she was possessed did not obligate him to deliver her. And surely we must say that Paul was in no hurry. What was it, then, which prompted Paul to finally act, and to cast the demon from her? Was it some kind of inner guidance? Was it a clear sense of God’s leading? Or was it simply his exasperation and disgust at her incessant speaking, which proved to be annoying and distracting? Frankly, I think it was the latter, and not the former.
To me (and I know this is venturing into the unknown, unrevealed motivation of Paul, to some degree), Paul said something like this to himself, “O for goodness sake; I’ve had enough of this continual interruption. I’m going to take care of this matter once and for all. I’m going straight to the source of this and put a stop to it.” My imagination is not running entirely loose, for the only other time this expression (“greatly annoyed,” verse 18) is found is in Acts chapter 4, of the agitation and consternation of the Jewish religious leaders over the preaching of the apostles, indicting Israel and especially its leaders for killing he Messiah:
And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees, came upon them, being GREATLY DISTURBED because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:1-2).
Why is it that we are so reluctant to accept Luke’s words on face value? Why do we make every effort to avoid the conclusion that Paul cast the demon out of this slave girl because he was “fed up,” “angry”? The reason is that we want “spiritual ministry” to be the result of very pious-appearing attitudes and actions. We do not like to think that God’s will could be done because someone got mad. And yet we have already seen that the division of Paul and Barnabas resulted from an argument (all right, if you feel better for me saying so, a “strong contention”).
An Indictment Without a Conviction
and a Conviction Without An Indictment
(16:19-34)
19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone,[371] they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities, 20 and when they had brought them to the chief magistrates, they said, “These men are throwing our city into confusion, being Jews,[372] 21 and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans.” 22 And the crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them, and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. 23 And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; 24 and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison, and fastened their feet in the stocks. 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26 and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27 And when the jailer had been roused out of sleep and had seen the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!” 29 And he called for lights and rushed in and, trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
It was this act of frustration and aggravation which proved to be a significant turning point in the ministry of Paul and Silas at Philippi. The demon was exorcised from the slave-girl, and it wasn’t long afterward that her owners realized that they had suffered the loss of significant potential income. These owners cared little about the girl, and the fact that she was in bondage to a demon. Her “powers” meant money in the pocket for them. She was a business venture, a source of income, so long as she possessed these powers, or better, so long as some “power” possessed her.
When these owners learned that her income-producing ability to tell the future was gone, they were livid. They had lost much money because of Paul’s actions, and they intended to make him “pay” for it, one way or another. They must have quickly learned that it would have been futile to “sue” this preacher, who had no money, and so they determined to make him suffer in another way. They dragged Paul and Silas off to the authorities, the chief magistrates of the city. The charges which they pressed were vague and unsubstantiated: they accused Paul and Silas of teaching and promoting religious practices which were illegal for Roman citizens. Without a trial, and without any semblance of “due process” of law, these two men were beaten, thrown into prison, and placed in maximum security, which meant placement in the inner portion of the prison (solitary confinement, the “hole”?), and their feet placed in stocks.
How could these owners get away with such fabricated charges, managing to move almost to the punishment stage without so much as a “kangaroo court” trial? I think that the reason is clear in the text. Paul and Silas were Jews, and the people of Philippi were Gentiles. The charges, which were not true of these two preachers, were assumed to be true of virtually any Jew. The charges were believable, and thus there was no need for a trial. The Jews, therefore, were generally believed to be trouble-makers, and those who advocated practices which were illegal.
There is no question in my mind but that these Philippians were racially bigoted, and all to ready to believe bad reports about any Jew. But there may well have been some historical or factual basis for their fears. Throughout their history, the Jews did not take well to foreign dominion, and they frequently sought to overthrow foreign authority. I believe this is at least part of the reason why Claudius commanded the Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2), and why Gallio was not impressed with the accusations of the Jews against Paul, driving them from his “courtroom” (Acts 18:12-17). It is also why the Romans finally sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
An example of the animosity toward the Jews can be found in our own civilized, educated culture. A few years ago, American sentiment toward the Iranians became very negative after the American embassy was stormed and those within it and its protection were taken hostage. It was a great evil, a violation of international law and all decency. But it was also the act of one segment of the Iranian population. Hatred of Iranians immediately was intensified. But even worse, there was an outpouring of animosity toward any “Arab” or olive-skinned immigrant. I saw a very ugly scene at a service station, where an American was abusive to a dark-skinned attendant. No doubt he lumped this young man into a large category of people, whom he viewed as fully in support of the Iranian takeover. Some things never change.
At least a segment of Jewish trouble-makers and a predisposition on the part of the Philippians to believe the worst about any Jew led to an instant “guilty” verdict on the part of the magistrates, a severe beating, and a prison cell for Paul and Silas. Who could have known that the deliverance of a slave-girl from her demon domination would have produced such a backlash? And who would have known that in the sovereign counsels of God, this incident would lead to evangelism in the most unlikely place—in the jail of Philippi, resulting in the conversion of the jailer and his whole household?
We do not know if any of the prisoners trusted in Christ because of the incarceration of Paul and Barnabas; we only know that they listened with great interest. We are told only that the jailer and his whole household believed. Actually, this is, in my way of thinking, the greater miracle. I have spoken in a number of prisons, and I have seen prisoners listen to fellow-prisoners. But it is quite another thing for a guard to be saved through the witness of an inmate. That is a miracle. But what was it that made such an impact on this jailer? What brought him first to his knees, and then to faith, and finally to baptismal waters, all in one day?
What seems to have captured the other prisoners’ attention was the way in which Paul and Silas responded to their cruel treatment. There in that prison, at midnight, sounds were resounding from the innermost prison, the “hole,” to the rest of the prison. This was nothing new. These men had heard many sounds from that inner portion of the prison, but they were sounds which they tried not to hear or to think about. There were undoubtedly the cries of men in pain and agony. There may have been cries for help, as men in there were beaten by guards or abused by other inmates. There may have been, at best, the bawdy sounds of heathen songs. But on this night there were the sounds of joyful singing. One might expect such “spirituals” as “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen,” but hardly a “Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow.” Joy in the midst of suffering and sorrow will always get the attention of those around you. And so it was late that night.
But we have no assurance or clear statement to the fact that the jailer heard these songs of joy. He could have, of course, especially if the jailer’s house were a part of the jail building, as was so often the case in those days. Such, for example, was the prison of Joseph—merely the basement of Potiphar’s mansion (cf. Genesis 40:3, 7). I have a friend whose father was a sheriff in Texas, and who lived in the same building as the jail. And so this jailer may have heard the “joyful sounds” resounding from the innermost part of the jail, but we are not told that he did.
The Standard Scenario
When we come to the jail scene in Acts 16, we come with a “mental movie” already in our heads, which we merely replay as we read these verses. It goes something like this. The jailer hears the gospel because Paul and Silas shared their faith with him sometime during their incarceration, or he overhead the gospel somehow during this time. When the earthquake came, the jailer looked down the long corridor of the jail and saw no one, concluding that all had escaped. He began to take the steps necessary to take his own life. Paul somehow saw what he was about to do and called out to stop him, assuring him that all were still in the prison. The jailer, shaken by all of this, rushed in, fell at the feet of these two, and asked what he must do to be saved. This is only partly true, at best.
An Alternate Account
From the details which Luke has supplied in his account, we may arrive at another scenario, somewhat different from our normal impressions. It was late at night, midnight to be exact. All of the (candle or oil) lights were out, as usual. It was therefore pitch black inside the prison, especially in the innermost part, where Paul and Silas were kept, in maximum security. In that darkness, the other prisoners would find it difficult to do anything but sleep, if they could. But out of the pitch blackness there came the sounds of Paul and Silas’ praises to God. The prisoners did listen. It was, to them, a sweet sound, the sound of hope.
Suddenly, the sounds of the singing were shattered with other sounds—the sounds of an earthquake, not a very comforting event when one is in a prison, with walls of stone. And this was no small tremor, but a “great earthquake” (verse 26). But instead of being buried under tons of stone and rubble, these prisoners were released from their shackles. The earthquake undid their chains and the doors were set ajar. One could easily have simply walked out the door. Escape would never have been easier than at this time.
But God’s purpose was not escape, either for the prisoners, or for Paul and Silas. It may be that the prisoners stayed behind to hear more of what Paul and Silas had to say. But it may also be that in the darkness of that place no one saw that all the doors were opened. It was, I believe, pitch black inside that place. The earthquake must have shaken the jailer out of bed. If he lived in the same building, upstairs, he must have known that the quake was severe, and that the possibility of injuries or of escape was great.
And so he must have rushed to the main gate of the prison, wondering what he might find. He found an open door, and he saw no one around. He could not see inside the prison, because he had not yet gone inside. And he could not go inside because it was dark, and he had no light.[373] He had jumped to the conclusion that the prisoners were gone. He could not see them, nor hear them. They must be gone. What else would a prisoner have done in such a case, but to escape as fast and as far as possible?
I do not think that Paul was able to see the jailer from where he was. It is possible, of course, but if the jailer had to call for lights to see what was going on inside the prison, why would Paul have seen what the jailer was doing outside the gate? And remember too that Paul and Silas were placed in the innermost part of the jail. Now we are told that their chains were loosed, and the cell doors were opened, and so Paul was no longer confined in the stocks or in his cell. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that Paul knew that the man was about to kill himself by divine revelation. Can you imagine the jailer, standing outside the prison, thinking it was empty, seeing absolutely no one, and hearing a loud voice call out, telling him not to harm himself? This would surely have made a great impression on the jailer. And something did make such an impression, for the jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell at the feet of Paul and Silas.
The jailer, one way or another, recognized that these men had authority. When they spoke, men listened. When they praised God, things happened. The prisoners were still in their cells mainly because of the authority which these men had. The jailer ceased to commit suicide, not because he knew that all was well, but because Paul said that all was well. He would only know that all was well after his inspection, a little later on, when lights were brought to him.
Here was an act of reverence, an acknowledgment that these men were greater than he. Why would a jailer bow down at the feet of a prisoner? Because he knew that these men possessed power. He knew that they had come to proclaim the way of salvation. Had he heard this from the lips of the slave-girl? Perhaps. Had he heard it from Paul and Silas, or from one of the prisoners, or even from Lydia or one of the church members? Perhaps. It was not until after the jailer led these two outside the prison that he asked them what he must do to be saved. They told him and his family, and all believed, were saved, and were baptized.
The changes in that jailer, a crusty and cruel man no doubt, began immediately. The one who had at least played a part in the beating of these men now cleansed and dressed their wounds, his cruelty converted to compassion. The man who thrust these men in the darkest hole of that prison now took them into his own house. The one who may have set “prison slop” before them, to eat, now put them at his own table and fed them the best of what he had. The man who would have none of their religion now possessed and professed it. He was baptized, along with his whole house.[374]
No Escape for the Magistrates:
Paul Refuses to Leave Jail
(16:35-40)
35 Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Now therefore come out and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans,[375] and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.” 38 And the policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. And they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, 39 and they came and appealed to them, and when they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city. 40 And they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.
After the wounds of these two men were dressed, they were fed, and perhaps a time of fellowship, prayer and praise, these men seem to have gone back to their cells. This certainly seems to be where they were found the next morning when the orders were sent to the jailer to release them. It would have been an entirely different thing if they had been sitting on the jailer’s couch, eating a leisurely breakfast, reading the morning paper, when the officers arrived. And how could Paul refuse to leave when he was not in the prison? No, the kindness of the jailer was accepted, but Paul did not accept an unofficial release, even if the jailer had offered it.
We do not know why the magistrates decided to order the release of Paul and Silas. Was it their intention to do this all along, only to scare these men into leaving town? Or was it due to pressure brought to bear on the officials by the church and/or people of influence like Lydia? Or was it because the earthquake shook some sense into these men and convinced them they may have been wrong? For whatever reasons, the decision was made, and officers were sent to inform the jailer to release these two men.
Paul’s response was not at all what they expected. They found themselves to be in much greater trouble than these two preachers. They expected Paul to gratefully accept his release by hightailing it out of town, never again to look back or return. Instead, they found Paul refusing to leave his cell, until those responsible for his illegal treatment acknowledged their wrong and made a somewhat public apology.
Why was Paul so insistent about this? Why was he so indignant? Was this a submissive act? Justice had not been done, and the laws of Rome, which Paul had wrongly been accused of breaking, were the very laws which the magistrates had violated. The Christian who looks forward to the coming of Messiah and for the establishment of justice on the earth (cf. Matthew 6:10), is one who also desires to see justice done now. Paul’s submission to the law was such that he expected others to live under it as well. Paul’s continued freedom to preach the gospel was somewhat on the line, as was the freedom of the church in Philippi to conduct its worship and ministry. What Paul did, he did for the cause of justice, and for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
With great chagrin, the magistrates complied with Paul’s demands, and pled with he and Silas to go quietly. They did leave Philippi, but without any promise that they would be gone for good. They first went to the home of Lydia, where the church was summoned, and encouraged. There were a number of others gathered there, too, who Luke calls “brethren,” and so we know that the evangelization of this city included more than the two households of Lydia and the jailer. Then and then only did they depart.[376] Philippi would never be the same.
Conclusion
There are those who would view the Book of Acts as one endless stream of miracles. In one sense, they are right, for every time an unbeliever is saved, or a believer grows toward the likeness of Christ, that is a miracle, brought about by the power of God through His Holy Spirit.
But when you read the Book of Acts through with a mind which does not require or demand constant interventions, signs and wonders, you discover that much of the will of God is revealed or brought about by what seem to be rather “natural” causes. There are those supernatural interventions of God in Acts—the spectacular miracles—but these are relatively few and far between. In Acts the will of God is represented as that sure and certain purpose which will be realized through the miraculous and the mundane, through those things which are clearly the intervening hand of God, and those things which appear to be the normal kinds of activity characteristic of men.
Consider, for instance, the ways in which the will of God was revealed and accomplished in getting this missionary team to Macedonia. It all began with an argument within the church, settled by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35). It then the argument between Paul and Barnabas led to the division of their team into two teams (Acts 15:36-41). Paul seems to have set his course at the beginning, first to Derbe and Lystra, and then through the Phrygian and Galatian region. But God’s will was also revealed through the prohibition of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (16:6), followed by the refusal of the Spirit of Jesus to allow them to enter Bithynia (16:7). The Macedonian vision at Troas was clearly a divine, miraculous intervention of God, directing this party to Macedonia (16:9-10). The choice of going to the city of Philippi seems to be, once again, the human decision made by Paul. God obviously blessed this decision and the faithfulness of those who went along and who proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him and in His atoning death in the sinner’s place.
The decision to go the this place of prayer, outside the city of Philippi, was apparently one made by Paul and perhaps those with him as well. This was becoming a custom with Paul, as a means of reaching the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles with the Gospel. The casting out of the demon from the slave-girl was entirely consistent with Scripture, but Paul seems to have been acting out of frustration and aggravation. Without knowing it, Paul set in motion a sequence of events which would lead to the salvation of a Gentile family, the household of the Philippian jailer. Thus, the will of God was revealed over a period of time, and through a variety of means, some of which were more evidently miraculous than others, but all of which were the outworking of God’s plan and purpose.
Are there miracles in the Book of Acts? There certainly are! But everything God does is not spectacular. God is not limited to only a few means of achieving His will. Because He is a sovereign God, He is free and able to accomplish His will (1) through His own people, as they obey; (2) through His people as they disobey; (3) through His enemies, who not only disobey, but who actively seek to undermine the cause of Christ. The sovereignty of God is a wonderfully comforting truth, and one that can radically transform our thinking and conduct. It means that God cannot be thwarted by men, or even by Satan and his fallen hosts. What God purposes, God produces, through various means, and in such a way as to reveal His power and to enhance His glory.
Why is it, then, that so many Christians insist on seeing some kind of spectacular intervention, some dazzling miracle, to be assured of God’s presence and guidance? Why can we not see God as working today just as He has throughout history, in a variety of ways. And why are we unwilling to recognize that the spectacular miracles are the exception, the unusual means of God’s working, and not the norm. Is God able to intervene in an unusual way at any time? Of course, but He need not do so because His power is so great that He can just as easily use the normal, the natural, and even the evil to achieve His purposes. Let us not limit God, then, to those kinds of activity which we would prefer, and which, in reality betray our own lack of faith and grasp of His sovereign control of history.
One more thing about the miraculous interventions of God. When God does intervene in the affairs of this world in some unusual way, it is almost never in a way that we would have expected or asked for. God does this so that it is always clear that He is God and we are finite men, that His ways are vastly beyond our own. And thus Paul writes,
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him {be} the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).
If some are inclined to equate the presence and power of God with the spectacular and the miraculous, there are those also who would try to equate the gospel with success. How many of those who are asked to give their testimonies are the “successful” people, the athletic heroes and the prosperous business people. The reality of the gospel is that it is linked as much or more with suffering and weakness than with success and human power.
It was not Paul’s success which gained him a hearing from the other prisoners; it was the joy of Paul and Silas in the midst of injustice, cruelty, and suffering which caused them to “listen up.” Suffering was the means by which our Lord accomplished our salvation on the cross of Calvary. Suffering is not only the norm, that which those who follow Christ should expect, it is the means which God often uses in order to win others to himself. Suffering is not a very popular subject today, but then many would prefer a self-centered, self-indulgent lifestyle to that of a disciple. In Acts, however, suffering and salvation are virtually inseparable realities.
Closely related to the subject of suffering is that of praise. What power and joy there is in the praise of God, as Paul and Silas did in the midst of that prison, and in the midst of their own pain. What is it that enables one to rejoice in suffering, and to be able to praise God in it and even for it? The Bible gives us a number of reasons. Let me mention just a few, which I believe enabled Paul and Silas to praise God, and which will enable us to do so as well, even in the midst of great adversity and pain:
Suffering should come as no surprise, for it is a part of the Christian’s calling (Acts 9:16; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; 1 Peter 2:21).
Suffering for the sake of Christ is a privilege, which results in praise (Acts 5:41; Philippians 1:29; 1 Peter 3:14).
We are instructed to glorify and praise God in our sufferings (1 Peter 4:13, 16).
Suffering is a means of sharing in our Lord’s suffering and glory (Romans 8:17-18; 2 Corinthians 4, 5; Philippians 3:10; Revelation 1:9).
Our Lord Himself suffered far more than we ever will, and for our benefit and blessing (Hebrews 2:9-10; 13:12).
Suffering for the sake of Christ, according to His Word, pleases God (1 Peter 2:20). Our suffering is never “out of control,” for He is in control, especially when we suffer (John 16:33).
God takes note of our sufferings (Revelation 2:9).
Suffering is a test of our faith, which proves us faithful and God’s promises sure (2 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:12; 3:11).
Suffering is God’s appointed means of growth and maturity (Romans 5:3; Hebrews 2:10; 5:8; James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 5:10).
Our suffering is shared by our fellow-saints (1 Corinthians 12:26; 1 Peter 5:9).
Suffering is accompanied by the comfort which God gives us (2 Corinthians 1:5).
Our suffering may bring comfort to others (2 Corinthians 5:6-7), and can be for the benefit of others (Ephesians 3:13).
Suffering for Christ, in a Christ-like way, is a means of manifesting Christ to a lost and dying world (2 Corinthians 4:10).
We are sustained in our sufferings by the power and grace of God (2 Timothy 1:8), and the joy of the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 1:6).
Suffering in this life causes us to cling less to this world and its passing pleasures, and to look toward heaven and the joy of being in the presence of God forever (2 Corinthians 4:16–5:10).
Suffering and adversity cannot, in and of itself, separate us from Christ, His love, and His atoning power, but it can draw us nearer to Him (Psalm 73; Romans 8:35).
It is interesting to note that in our text, and in the Bible as a whole, suffering is viewed from the perspective of the sovereignty of God and is experienced joyfully, in fellowship with God and in the context of praise. I do not think that it is possible to praise God in the midst of our suffering and pain until we have come to grips with the goodness and with the sovereignty of God. God’s power and character are that in which we can only find comfort and joy. May God grant us that joy as we experience those sufferings which are an unavoidable and a vital part of our walk with Him.
! Lesson 26:
The Evangelization of Thessalonica and Berea
(Acts 17:1-15)
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 Sabbaths[378] 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 persuaded[379] 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 world[382] 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 jealousy[390] 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”?
! Lesson 27:
The Apostle in Athens, Preaching to Philosophers
(Acts 17:15-34)
Introduction
Don Richardson tells a fascinating story of the “altar to the unknown god,” referred to by Paul in Acts chapter 17. This story is based upon a number of historical documents and sources, which Richardson cites in his book. I highly recommend that you read his fuller account found on pages 9-25.[391]
In short, the story begins sometime in the sixth century before Christ, with the city of Athens was being devastated and decimated by a mysterious plague. When no explanation for the plague could be found, and no cure was in sight, the approach was to assume that one of the city’s many gods had been offended. The leaders of the city sought to determine which of the gods it was and then determine a way of appeasing that god. This was no easy task, since the city of Athens had literally hundreds of gods, which Richardson refers to as the “god capital of the world,” a place so full of gods that the Athenians “must have needed something equivalent to the Yellow Pages just to keep tabs on the many deities already represented in their city.”[392]
When all efforts failed to discern which god had been offended, and which had brought the plague upon the city, an outside “consultant” was brought in from the Island of Cyprus, whose name was Epimenides. Epimenides concluded that it was none of the known gods of Athens which had been offended, but some, as yet, unknown god. He proposed a course of action which, if it worked, would at least provide a possible remedy for the plague. He had a flock of choice sheep, of various colors, kept from food until they were hungry. On the given day, he had these sheep turned loose on Mars Hill, on what was a very succulent pasture. For any sheep not to have eaten his fill would have been unexplainable. He had the sheep turned loose and watched carefully, to see if any sheep would lie down and not eat, even though hungry and in prime grazing. Several sheep, to the amazement of those watching, did lie down. Altars were erected at each spot where a sheep lay down, dedicated to an “unknown god.” On those altars, the sheep which lay in that spot was sacrificed. Almost immediately, we are told, the plague began to subside.
Over a period of time, the altars were forgotten, and began to deteriorate. One altar, it seems, was restored and preserved, in commemoration of the removal of the plague by calling upon the “unknown god.” Who would have thought that centuries later, a foreigner named Paul would refer to this altar as the starting point for his sermon on Mars Hill? And who would have known that it may have been this very poet, Epimenides, whom Paul would later quote in his sermon?
The Unique Contribution of our Text
The text which we are about to study is unique in that it is the only complete synopsis of one of Paul’s sermons to a pagan, Gentile audience. In Acts 13:16-41, we have Paul’s sermon delivered to the Jews in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch. That is the only complete sermon of Paul, which is delivered to a Jewish audience. In Acts 17, we have the only full sermon of Paul to the Gentiles. It is true that Paul spoke a much more abbreviated form of this message to the heathen Gentiles who were trying to worship him and Barnabas at Lystra (Acts 14:14-18), but the purpose of this message was not to evangelize these folks, as it was to convince them to stop trying to worship them as gods. Later on in Acts, some rather lengthy portions of Paul’s words will be recorded, but these are words which Paul spoke in his defense, not a message designed to evangelize his audience.
Our text also begins to prepare the way for the time when Paul’s ministry will be primarily focused upon the Gentiles, rather than upon the Jews. This is still to come, but this evangelistic campaign in Athens is a kind of “first-fruits” of what will come in God’s good time. Paul did not purpose to evangelize these Gentiles, but he could not help but do so when he was deeply stirred in his soul over their rampant idolatry.
The Context of our Text
Paul’s visit to Athens is a part of what is generally referred to as the “second missionary journey” of Paul. This journey began after the Jerusalem Council was held, at which time the Jerusalem elders and the apostles concluded that the Gentile converts did not have to become Jewish to become a Christian. Christianity was, as it were, distinguished from Judaism, even though salvation came through Judaism. This paved the way for even more extensive evangelism among the Gentiles.
When Paul proposed a return visit to those churches they had founded on their first mission, Barnabas was all in favor, except that he insisted they should take John Mark along, while Paul refused to do so. This team was thus divided into two teams, with Barnabas taking John Mark with him back to Cyprus, while Paul chose Silas to go with him, and shortly after, he invited Timothy to accompany them as well.
After visiting the churches which they had founded in Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, this missionary party was strangely forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and also was not permitted by the Spirit of Jesus to enter into Bithynia. When they came to Troas, God revealed the next step in a vision to Paul, the vision we know as the “Macedonian Vision.”
As a result of this vision, Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke (if not others) made their way to Philippi, where Lydia and her household came to faith, along with the Philippian jailer and his household, and a number of others. When they were released from prison and had gathered with the church to encourage the saints at the house of Lydia, Paul and his colleagues went to Thessalonica, where Paul, as usual, went to the synagogue, only to find a somewhat “less than noble-minded” group of Jews. Only a few of these Jews came to faith in Jesus as Messiah, but a number of Gentile “God-fearers” or proselytes of some type professed faith, including a number of the leading women. This provoked the Jews to a jealous rage, resulting in a considerable disturbance (instigated by the Jews, by stirring up an angry crowd), which, in turn led to the arrest of Jason, and the posting of some type of bond. This necessitated the immediate departure of Paul and his party.
And so it was that they came to Berea, a much smaller, quieter, place, where it would seem that no such disturbance would occur. These Jews were indeed “noble-minded.” They eagerly listened to Paul’s teaching of the Scriptures, and then proceeded to check it out for themselves, so that many of these Jews (in contrast to the few in Thessalonica) came to faith, along with a number of Gentile proselytes, including, once again, some prominent Greek men and women.
There was no uprising against Paul from the Bereans. This came from the Thessalonian Jews, who got wind of Paul’s ministry in Berea, and quickly proceeded to stir up another disturbance, just like the one they had instigated at Thessalonica. Once again, Paul had to leave town, but this time he left Silas and Timothy behind. He would wait for them to return to him, as quickly as possible, in Athens.[393]
No Idle Apostle
(17:15-17)
15 Now those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens;[394] and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed. 16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked[395] within him as he was beholding the city full of idols.[396] 17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God‑fearing {Gentiles,} and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
All appearances are that Paul had no plan to evangelize Athens, at least not until he was joined by his companions and colleagues. He had been “escorted” to Athens by some of the saints from Berea, for his own protection. Paul gave instructions to Silas and Timothy through those from Berea who had escorted him to Athens that they were to rejoin him as soon as possible. And so it seems that Paul had some “time to kill” in Athens. He probably felt that his time in that city would have been too short to begin supporting himself by tent-making. As much as anything, Paul was a tourist, going about this city, soaking up its history and culture, and visiting its many magnificent sights and attractions.
Of all the things Paul saw, one seemed to make the greatest impression on him. It was not that this city was beautiful, or one of the great cultural and intellectual centers of the world. It was not that great men, like Plato and Aristotle once walked these streets and taught there. It was that this great city was filled with heathen idols.[397] Like Lot in ancient times, Paul’s “righteous soul was vexed” (compare 2 Peter 2:7) by what he saw about him in this heathen city.
As a Jew, Paul would naturally be offended and incensed by idols, which were an abomination to God and to every devout Jew. But it was the gospel which was at the root of Paul’s stirring of soul. The gospel, as Paul would later write (see Romans, especially chapters 1-3), declared both Gentiles and Jews to be under divine condemnation, hopeless and helpless, and in need of salvation. And, to both Jews and Gentiles, God sent His Son, Jesus, to die in the sinner’s place, and to bear the wrath of God for them, as well as to offer them His righteousness, by faith in Him alone. Paul saw the idolatry of the Athenians as damnable. He was deeply struck by the lostness of this city, and of the judgment of God which each person would someday face. He knew these people needed a Savior, and He knew that the Savior had come for sinners such as these, and thus Paul could do nothing but preach Christ to them.
Paul’s normal routine—of going to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and preaching the Word—continued at Athens, although absolutely nothing is said of the results of this ministry. Luke has left the synagogue behind for the moment, for he is more interested in telling us about Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles (not the Gentile proselytes, who would gather at the synagogue, but the philosophers and others, who were at the market place. To such people as would listen, Paul spoke during the week.
Preaching to the Philosophers
(17:18-31)
18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers[398]. were conversing with him. And some were saying, “What would this idle babbler[399] wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?[400] 20 “For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; we want to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
22 And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus[401] and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
24 “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’ 29 “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. “
Paul seldom passed up an invitation to speak, when it gave him the opportunity to preach the gospel to lost men and women. The opportunity to speak in the synagogue was apparently a matter of custom, but the invitation to preach to pagan philosophers was more rare. He is given that opportunity in Athens. As Paul spoke with those who would listen in the market place, he got the attention of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, although not for reasons which would swell one’s head with pride.
They knew that Paul was preaching Jesus and the resurrection (verse 18), and this had no automatic interest, as it did with the Jews, who were at least looking for Messiah. What appealed to these philosophers about Paul’s preaching was not that Paul was so brilliant, or educated (according to their way of reckoning such matters), but that his teaching was something new, and these people of Athens were always looking for something new (verse 21). The “newness” was, I think, two-fold. First, the preaching of Paul about Jesus and His resurrection was a message never heard by them before. It was a new message. Second, it was a new message in kind. All other religions, being “man made” have a kind of sameness, a commonality, because of their human origins. But the message of Christ and His cross is a message that men would never have conceived of, and even if they had they would never have sought to accept it or to propagate. To put the matter in biblical terms, human religions can all be placed under the heading, “human wisdom,” while the gospel would be categorized by men as “foolish.” Further, the “divine wisdom” of the gospel is not even able to be grasped by the unbelieving human mind.
The motive of these Athenians for giving Paul a hearing, an opportunity to expound his views, were not very noble. But Paul was invited to speak, and that was sufficient for him. It was an opportunity he gladly accepted and utilized for the sake of the gospel.
If the motivation of this group was less than ideal, so was the mood with which they gathered and listened. It was not the eagerness to hear a word from God that characterized the “noble-minded” Bereans. It was a somewhat cynical, skeptical mood, one which had already concluded that the subject matter was not only new, but foreign, not only in origin, but to their taste in religion. Paul was not looked upon with respect. They cared not that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and that he could expound the Old Testament with accuracy and authority. To these arrogant philosophers Paul was a “hick,” a nobody, a collector of religious scraps, from the gutters of the world. It was more out of a lack of something better to do, more out of an idle speculative curiosity that they gathered to hear him. If nothing else, they could heckle him and have a good laugh out of the episode. In short, Paul was a foolish man, advocating a foolish and worthless religion. Nonetheless, they would listen to him, for the sake of curiosity and speculation, not for the sake of truth.
At this point we come to one of the strong contrasts between the Jewish audiences which Paul customarily addressed in their synagogues, and this group of Gentile philosophers, whom Paul had been addressing the streets and the market-place. The Jews already had their minds made up. They knew, they thought, what the truth was. They listened to Paul to see if he taught according to the truth they had already agreed upon. And when he differed, they became indignant, no so much because it was “error” from their point of view as it threatened their position, power, and lifestyle.
With the Gentiles it was a very different matter. They were men who were always on the “trail of truth,” ever in pursuit of it, but not really eager to arrive at the truth. It was the search for truth which was more enjoyable than the acceptance of it. The philosophers of Paul’s day were to the truth what many single couples are to marriage—they want to enjoy its pleasures, but they wish to avoid its commitments and obligations. And so these folks could give Paul a hearing with little uneasiness, because they were always “window shopping” in the marketplace of truth, but never buying.
Paul is not taken back by the realities of why he is speaking. Like a horse, bolting from the gate at the starter’s gun, he is off and running. Paul immediately turned to a point of reference which was well-known to his audience, and gave him a foothold with his message. Somewhere in the city was an alter, dedicated to “an unknown god.” To this altar Paul made reference. The altar was just that—an altar, not an idol. An idol of a “god” required an identification of that god. The name of the god must be known, and the characteristics and attributes must be known as well, if one was going to have an image of it. That’s what an idol is—the representation of a “god” in the form of that god, as an object of worship and devotion. This altar had no idol because neither the name nor the attributes of the god was known. It was like the tomb of the unknown soldier, in this regard—you could not put a name on the headstone, not knowing who it was who was buried there.
Paul was starting with his audience from their own point of reference—that altar dedicated to the “unknown god.” Paul tells this group that the God of whom he is speaking is the “god” who was unknown to them, but to whose existence the altar gave testimony. With all of the “gods” they worshipped, they acknowledged, by the presence of that altar, that their “gods” were insufficient. Like wealth, prestige, and power, the Athenians just couldn’t seem to get enough gods. Thus, they left room for one more, because they saw the need for another.
Here is a vital difference between Christianity and idolatry. Polytheism (the having of many gods) and idolatry (the worship of the images of these gods) never has enough gods. Furthermore, this form of religion is more than willing to add the one true God to its list of “gods.” It is very tolerant of additional “gods.” Christianity, however is that faith in which “on God does all.” With one, true, all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God, no other God is needed, or tolerated. Christianity has a capable God and men who trust in Him find Him fully sufficient.
Paul’s first point, in referring to the “unknown god” of the Athenians is that the religion of these people is obviously not adequate, for they are looking for yet another “god.” One who has a sufficient faith and a sufficient God need not leave room for another. The existence of this altar, dedicated to the “unknown god,” is a telling witness to the inadequacy of their religion. Paul promises to tell them what they do no know—who that God is.
Paul’s second point, seen throughout the entire sermon, is that their system of searching for the one true God is defective and futile. The God who was, to them “unknown” is a God who has made Himself known. God is not trying to hide from men; men are hiding from God, and often by means of their religion. The “unknown god,” whom they have acknowledged exists is the God who caused all things to come into existence—the Creator of all things, including men. And His very creation is that which bears testimony of His existence, as well as His attributes (or characteristics). Thus, if God is unknown to these Athenians, it is not because God has not revealed Himself to men, but because men have closed their eyes to His existence and character.
These Athenians, who pride themselves on their culture, their history, their intelligence and education, are really ignorant. Their worship is that which has resulted from their ignorance, not out of God’s hiding, as a kind of heavenly Howard Hughes. God has not be hiding out, men have turned from Him. How foolish of these men to worship that which they have made with their own hands, gods which they have conjured up in their own minds, rather than the God who created them. They are worshipping their creations, rather than the Creator. If God is unknown to them, it is not because He could not have been known (at least insofar as nature reveals Him—compare Psalm 19:1-6), but because they were ignorant and didn’t want to know Him.
This God is not pleased by the rejection of men. Neither is He a God who gives men the luxury of having Him as a “god” who does man’s bidding, who is there when men need Him, and who can serve other “gods” as well. He is a God who is above men, not under them, who controls men and is not controlled by them.
He is a God who is willing to overlook past sins, but who requires that all men repent of their sin, of their rejection of His self-revelation and of His standards of holiness. And He is a God who does not allow men to be speculative about Him or of religion. He is, in fact, about the judge the world in righteousness, through One whom He has appointed, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Messiah. And as proof of His identity as the Judge of the earth, God raised Him from the dead. The “unknown god” should not have been unknown, and His identity is now made known—Jesus, the Son of God, raised from the dead.
What a blow to the pride of these philosophers, who thought themselves so wise, and who were exposed as fools. What a blow to the religious multi-god system of Athens, to be told that there is but one true God, and in all of their “gods” they had missed Him. What a blow Paul struck at the philosophical, academic approach of these men to their religious pursuits. Did they think they could look for truth from a distance, and from a non-committal point of view? They were wrong. Time was limited, and judgment is imminent. They must decide upon the truth and commit themselves to the truth. It cannot be a mere mental exercise; rather it is a life and death matter, which settles one’s relationship with God and one’s eternal destiny.
The Response of
Philosophers to the Preaching of Paul
(17:32-34)
32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some {began} to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
These Athenian would-be philosophers got more than what they wanted, and less. They got more in the sense that they were informed of their ignorance and sin. They were told of a Savior whose name they had never heard. They were told of a coming day of judgment, and of a Judge who had been raised from the dead. They were called to make the kind of commitment to truth which they had avoided for years.
And, they also heard less than they wanted or expected. They had hoped for a very complex system, a very intricate philosophical approach to life and “god,” that would leave the common (dull) mind gasping for air, and which would make them look to be the scholar. They hoped for a system so complex that it would never be fully grasped, and which could give them years to ponder and probe, without taking any action. Paul gave them a very simple gospel, the same gospel which he preached everywhere, the message of a Savior, of a cross, of a resurrection, of a coming day of judgment, and of a choice which must be made. They wanted Paul to stay on, so they could continue their conversations and begin their cross-examination. Instead, Paul moved on. He moved on because there were other places to go, where they gospel had not been proclaimed. He moved on because the gospel was simple and short, and there really was nothing else they needed to know. He moved on because no amount of debate and argumentation could persuade them, only the Holy Spirit could “open their hearts and minds” to the truths which he had spoken.
There were those who neither wanted nor needed to hear more. The mere mention of such a thing as the “resurrection of the dead” was the kiss of death to any hopes of their acceptance of Paul’s message. This was something which they held to be both foolish and impossible. This one claim was unacceptable to them, and thus they threw out the entire message. And they were right to do so. If they could not accept the resurrection, then the gospel could not stand without it. They were wrong to reject the resurrection, for it was fact and it is a future reality for all men. But they were right in that the gospel could not be accepted without belief in the resurrection (compare Romans 10:9).
There were a few others who did not need to hear any more either, but not because they rejected Paul’s words. These were the few (it would seem) who believed in the gospel and were saved. Only two believers are named, Dionysius the Areopagite and Damaris, an Athenian man and woman. There were others, too, but these are not named. The preaching of the gospel in Athens was not without fruit.
Conclusion
As we come to the conclusion of this message, I want to deal with it from several different perspectives:
The Athenian Encounter in the Developing Argument of Acts
There is a definite progression evident in the book of Acts, which can be seen in Acts 17, concerning the transition from Jerusalem to Rome, and from Jews to Gentiles. There is a clear shift in Paul’s emphasis, from a primarily Jewish focus to a largely Gentile focus. This can be seen in Acts 17, where Paul’s ministry at Thessalonica and Berea centered in the synagogues of these cities and focused on the Jews and Gentile God-fearers present there as well. But in Athens, where there was also a synagogue, and to which Paul went each Sabbath (17:17), Luke chooses to say nothing of the results of that ministry, and to focus instead on the ministry of Paul to the pure heathen in the market-place. While the transition from a Jewish to a Gentile focus in Paul’s ministry will not come fully until later on in Acts, there is the clear indication from Luke that it is coming.
The Gentile thrust was more providential than purposeful, on Paul’s part. I think that he was led to Antioch by some of the Jewish believers of Berea, planning only to be there long enough to await the arrival of Silas and Timothy. He went, as usual, to the synagogue, but when he was “killing time” in the market-place and elsewhere, he was so burdened by the desperate plight of these intellectual pagans, he could do nothing other than to speak with them of the Savior.
Let us not think that the reason why God turned away from the nation Israel (for a time) and to the Gentiles (the “times of the Gentiles,” Romans 11) was that the Jews were unwilling the believe the gospel while the Gentiles were eager and ready to receive it. Acts 17 points otherwise. The “noble-minded” Bereans were Jews, and yet, unlike their Thessalonican counterparts, were eager to hear and to receive the word of Jesus as their Messiah. And so many of the Berean Jews believed, while few Thessalonian Jews did. But Luke’s account of Paul’s evangelistic efforts at Athens is given, in part, to inform us that these heathen Gentiles were no more willing to receive the gospel than were the Jews of Thessalonica. All men are lost, Jew and Gentile, and none seek God. God is seeking men, even when they are not seeking Him. Gentile evangelism is to be traced to the heart of God, not the hearts of men. The only way any unbeliever is convinced and converted is by the divine opening of the heart, which is the work of God through His Holy Spirit.
The Athenian Encounter, Paul, and the Gospel
It was the gospel which compelled Paul to preach to these intellectual snobs and skeptics. Paul preached to them because the gospel declared the Athenians to be lost, destined to eternal torment, without Christ. As the gospel was Paul’s motivation, so it was his message. The message which Paul preached here was a very simple one: Jesus and the resurrection. It is the same message Paul preached to the Jews, except that he had to begin at a more elementary point—that of God’s existence, and of His power and sovereign control over His creation. It was also the gospel which determined his method of proclamation. Paul had done his homework. He knew what these people believed, and thus he began with the altar dedicated to the unknown god. But he refused to flatter his audience. He did not appeal to their pride, nor to their fleshly desires. He told these educated knowledge brokers that they were really ignorant, and that their religion was vain, futile, and fell under the wrath of God. He indicted them, not on the basis of what they did not know, but on the basis of what they were able to know, but refused and rejected—the knowledge which God revealed of Himself in Creation. He told them that their form of religion would have to be rejected, that they must repent, and believe in a foreign Savior and in a doctrine (resurrection) which they rejected. In effect, they had to trade in their wisdom for the foolishness of God. There was nothing easy about the gospel Paul preached, but it was simple.
The Athenian Encounter in the Light of Paul’s Epistles
Luke’s account of Paul’s preaching in Athens is descriptive of what Paul did. Paul’s writings in his epistles supply us with an explanation of what, why, and how he did what he did at Athens. The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, the first chapter of Romans (not to mention later chapters), and the first two chapters of Colossians bear directly on Paul’s ministry at Athens. The third chapter of Philippians is also informative. The following passages are only suggestive, but they are a starting point for further study.
Romans 1:18-23
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it {the} righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous {man} shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four‑footed animals and crawling creatures.
Colossians 1:13-22; 2:1-9
1:13 For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the first‑born of all creation. 16 For by 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 by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 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. 19 For it was the {Father’s} good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 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. 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, {engaged} in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach … 2:1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf, and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and {attaining} to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, {resulting} in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, {that is,} Christ {Himself}, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with persuasive argument. 5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ. 6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, {so} walk in Him, 7 having been firmly rooted {and now} being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, {and} overflowing with gratitude. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
1:18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well‑pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well‑pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well‑pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1 Corinthians 3:18-23
3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “{He is} the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” 21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.
Allow me to attempt to briefly sum up some of the essential truths of these texts, which underlie Paul’s actions at Athens as reported by Luke.
From Romans chapter 1 we learn four critical truths. (1) The gospel is the power of God, and the means by which men are saved. Thus, Paul stuck to a very simple proclamation of the gospel at Athens, even though it was not what these folks really wanted to hear, or were predisposed to accept. (2) The wrath of God is directed toward men who reject God’s self-revelation, and who chose to pervert this or to exchange it for “truth” of their own making. In particular, God’s judgment falls upon those who reject that which can be known about God through His creation, namely His divine power and divine nature. Such was precisely the charge Paul leveled against his Athenian audience. (3) The heathen are not restricted to those who are half-clad natives, running about the jungles of Africa; they are those who are educated, cultured, and intelligent, but who have rejected the revelation of God in nature. Such were the people of Athens. They were heathen, though they saw themselves as enlightened. (4) One sure test of the truth of one’s religion is to be found in his worship. It was the false worship of the Athenians which stirred the soul of Paul, and no wonder in the light of Romans 1. When men turn from the truth of God, as revealed to them, they refuse to worship God for who He is and they begin to worship the “gods” of their own making—created “gods,” idols. Idols are man-like “gods,” “gods” which promise men the things they want, and which conform to men’s preferences. They allow men to control them, rather than to control men. The serve men, rather than to require that men serve them. It is the worship of men, in whatever form that may take, which reveals the real “gods” or God that they serve.
From Colossians 1 and 2 we see the power, preeminence, and the full revelation of God in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, as well as the church. Because of His preeminence, all things are summed up in Him. Our salvation is summed up in Him, and so, too, is all true knowledge. Thus, those who have come to know Christ do not need to venture off track into never-never land of speculation and philosophical seeking for truth, as though it were hidden and had to be found out by human reasoning. Truth is centered and concentrated in Christ, and when men are found by Him, they have the truth and need not seek for it as from some other source. The more they know of Christ, they more they possess of the truth. And so it is that the futility and foolishness of the philosophical approach to truth is evident to the Christian. Paul refused to cater to the philosophers, and he proclaimed only the gospel, for that was the way to finding the truth and thereby being free.
From 1 Corinthians 1-3 we find that there two opposing views of foolishness and wisdom: the view of the world, and the view of the Christian. The unbeliever likes to think of himself as wise, and he finds the gospel foolishness. Those who would be saved must reject their wisdom and trust in the “foolishness” of salvation through a Savior who died and was raised from the dead. Paul’s method was to proclaim the “foolishness of the gospel” in straightforward, simple terms, and not to employ the persuasive techniques of the philosophers and the “wise” of this world. In so doing, the gospel would be central, and not man, and thus men’s faith and trust would be in God and not in man.
What consistency there is between Paul’s belief and his behavior. And no wonder we see Paul preaching as he did at Antioch. It was the gospel message, proclaimed in a way that was consistent with the gospel.
The Athenian Encounter and Contemporary Christianity
The longer I look at the Athenian philosophers, these ancient heathen, the more they look like Americans of today. These Gentile heathen of centuries ago enjoyed the blessings of political freedom in what was one of the earliest democracies. They were cultured, highly intelligent, and educated, and very religious, but they had rejected God and exchanged the worship of the one true God for “gods” of their own. How much like them our non-Christian culture is like. We have more confidence in human reasoning and our search for truth than we do in the one who is the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ. We, as a culture, are always in pursuit of something new and novel.
And worse yet, it would seem to me that much of that which characterizes our heathen culture characterizes the Christian and our Christian culture. How often enlightened Christians look down on those who have a simple answer to life’s problems (Christ, and His shed blood), and who tell us that life’s problems are really much more complex than all this, and that the wisdom which we need is not really that found in the Bible, but is the product of the human pursuit of knowledge. We sanctify such knowledge often by adding the adjective “Christian” in front of it, but all too often it is only some “god” of our own making, an idol of sorts before which we bow the knee, in addition to Christ, and often in place of Him. God does not tolerate competition, we know, but in practice there is much of it anyway. Many of the methods, skills, and techniques which are taught Christians are really the products of human minds and human inquiry, and not of biblical revelation. They are not simple, gospel answers to life’s problems, but complex and drawn out processes. They do not have the stamp, “made in heaven,” but “made by man.” Let us ever be alert to those subtle human elements which creep into our theology and practice, in the name of religion, but not in accordance with the gospel. How much of our religion and of our worship is but our own adaptation of God’s revelation, or our own re-shaping of God, to make Him more to our liking? How much of our worship is God-centered, rather than man-centered, and which focuses on pleasing and serving God, rather than on getting God to serve us, to meet our needs? And how much of our proclamation of the gospel is consistent with Paul’s preaching, the proclamation of a simple, straightforward message of man’s sin and of coming judgment, of Christ’s sacrifice and of salvation for all who would repent and believe? May the gospel shape our worship and our every action, as it did Paul.
Questions for Further Consideration
(1) What is there about this record of Paul’s preaching which is unique or new? So far in Acts? In Acts and the New Testament, period?
(2) Where is the emphasis in this passage? What is obviously passed over? What is stressed?
(3) What are some of the major themes Luke has been stressing in Acts, and how are these further developed in our text? (a) The Gospel; (b) Sovereignty of God in history, in development of church; (c) Inter-twining of divine and human; (d) Jewish to Gentile; (e) Other?
(4) What were the results of Paul’s preaching in Athens, and what does this teach or imply, especially in the light of 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:16; 3:18-23?
(5) Compare the response of the Jews in Thessalonica and that of the Gentiles in Athens to the Gospel as preached by Paul? Compare the noble-mindedness of the Jews at Berea with the Jews at Thessalonica and the Gentiles at Athens.
(6) Why did Paul leave Athens when there were those who still wanted to talk about these things, and when he was not persecuted?
(7) What impact did this episode in Athens have on Paul and his ministry and teaching?
(8) Although there is no emphasis or clear instruction on the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our text, what is implied here, which is clearly taught elsewhere (as in 1 Corinthians 2)?
(9) Trace the flow or the argument of chapter 17, and of the entire 2nd missionary journey, thus far.
(10) What do we learn from Paul about the gospel message itself here?
(11) What do we learn from Paul about the gospel method here?
(12) What are the governing principles or truths which determine what and how we preach to men?
(13) What “idols” have crept into our Christianity, which detract from our dependence upon God and our devotion to Him?
! Lesson 28:
Christianity Comes to Corinth
(Acts 18:1-17)
Introduction
In my seminary days, I found many people who wanted to imitate Paul’s theology as best they could. The one thing I have found few eager to do is to imitate Paul’s practice—of “tent making.” While Paul provides us with the most complete and convincing biblical basis for a man being “supported” by those to whom he ministers, Paul never practiced this right once in his ministry, as far as I can tell from the New Testament evidence.
In the providence of God, this message is being delivered on a Labor Day weekend. On a holiday that honors the laborers, it is appropriate that we should, in some measure, honor Paul and Aquila, along with Priscilla, who labored in a way that would further the gospel. In our text, Paul will labor in the gospel two different ways, the two ways which are evidenced in his ministry. We will seek to learn from our study why Paul set aside self-support for support from others. I believe we will learn some very important lessons and principles from this passage. May God guide us in our study.
The Structure of the Passage
Our text is Acts 18:1-17, which covers Paul’s first visit to the city of Corinth. In Luke’s brief account of this “Corinthian Campaign” we find three major paragraphs:
(1) Prejudice and Providence: A Divine Appointment with Aquila and Priscilla—vv. 1-4. This first paragraph describes the early ministry of Paul in Corinth, living and working with Aquila and Priscilla, and ministering on the Sabbath at the synagogue.
(2) Exchanging One “Tents Situation” for a “Tense Situation”—vv. 5-11. These verses are a description of the second and more intensive phase of Paul’s ministry in Corinth. They contain two major transitions: First, Paul’s transition from part-time preacher to full-time; secondly, the transition of Paul’s ministry from a Jewish to a Gentile focus, moving his place of ministry from the Jewish synagogue to a house next door. The paragraph closes with a night vision in which the Lord appeared to Paul with a word of assurance. This vision is Luke’s “literary link” (the introduction to and key) to the final paragraph.
(3) The “Careless” Decision of Gallio—vv. 12-17. The final and closing paragraph is an account of the accusation of Paul and his trial before Gallio, at which a landmark decision was made, one which set an important precedent, providing not only for Paul’s protection, but also paving the way for the promotion of the gospel.
Prejudice and Providence: A Divine Appointment
(18:1-4)
After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth.[402] 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla,[403] because Claudius[404] had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.[405] He came to them. 3 and because he was of the same trade,[406] he stayed with them and they were working;[407] for by trade they were tentmakers.[408] 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
In spite of the invitation of some Gentiles in Athens to stay longer (Acts 17:32), Paul moved on to Corinth. They had heard enough—all that they needed in order to be saved. Further argumentation would not convince and convert them, since this was the task of the Holy Spirit. We do not know what Paul’s reception was at the synagogue, but it may be that he had done all he could there. Possibly, resistance and opposition may have been growing among the Jews. For whatever reasons, Paul was satisfied that his work in Athens was done, and that it was time to move on. Corinth was his next stop, about forty miles west of Athens.
It seems as though Paul “found” (18:2) Aquila and Priscilla because he was looking. It would seem as though Paul would immediately begin to look for any Jews as he came to a new city, and that he would be especially seeking those who had either come to faith in Jesus as Messiah (as Aquila and Priscilla seem to have done, prior to Paul’s coming), or who were at least looking for Messiah to come. We are told that seating in the synagogues was possibly arranged so that people of like profession sat together. If so, this made it easier for Paul to find this man and his wife. He was, most importantly, a believer, and he was also a man who, like Paul, made tents. And so Paul moved in with them, and worked with Aquila, providing for his needs by working during the week and preaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath.
We will learn that the relationship between Paul and this godly couple, Aquila and Priscilla (also called Priscus, and often named first), was a long-lasting one, so that they will accompany Paul to Ephesus, on his departure from Corinth. They were to play a vital role in Paul’s life, in the proclamation of the gospel, and in the life of the church which would meet in their home (Romans 16:3-5).
The providential meeting of Paul and this couple was clearly a “divine appointment,” shaping the course of the lives of all three, and many others. And because of this, Luke gives us a very significant insight into the way in which God “arranged” for these three to get together. Luke tells us that Aquila was originally from Pontus, but had then somehow migrated to Italy. They were forced to leave Rome because of a decree of Claudius, who order all Jews to leave Rome (18:2). This seems to have been due to the fact that the Jews were the cause of a great deal of trouble and unrest, the very kinds of things of which Paul was falsely accused. Attempts were made to get these radical Jews under control, but it had not worked, and so Claudius finally ordered them all out of Rome. This was the reason for their being in Corinth, where Paul would meet them and join with them in the labor of tentmaking, and the labor of the ministry of the gospel. How interesting it is that these three were brought together, not by some divine revelation (as Peter had been brought together with Cornelius, or Philip had been led to the Ethiopian eunuch), but by problems caused by some Jews, prejudice, and persecution. More of this later.
Paul’s practice of being self-supporting at Corinth is consistent with his lifestyle in many other places, as can be seen from the following texts:
32 “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build {you} up and to give {you} the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. 34 “You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my {own} needs and to the men who were with me. 35 “In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:32-35).
9 For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, {how} working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and {so is} God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; 11 just as you know how we {were} exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father {would} his own children, 12 so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we {kept} working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; 9 not because we do not have the right {to this,} but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies (2 Thessalonians 3:7-11).
For some period of time, Paul continued to live in this way, living and working with Aquila and Priscilla, and ministering each Sabbath at the synagogue, seeking to convince the Jewish and Gentile seekers of God that Jesus is the promised Messiah, through whom one must be saved. It was when Silas and Timothy arrived that several significant changes took place.
From “Tents” to “Tense” or Four Crucial Changes
(18: 5-11)
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word,[409] solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and went to the house of a certain man named Titius Justus,[410] a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. 8 And Crispus,[411] the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 9 And the Lord[412] said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you,[413] and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.”[414] 11 And he settled there a year and six months,[415] teaching the word of God among them.
In this paragraph, there are four very crucial changes, which will greatly affect Paul and those in the city of Corinth. We will look at each of these four changes in our study of this paragraph. The first change is a change of focus and emphasis in Paul’s work.
Change One: From Tentmaker to Preacher
It is generally understood that Paul’s ministry changed here from what some would call a “part-time” ministry to that which was a more “full-time” ministry. This change is somehow related to the arrival of Silas and Timothy. But what is the nature of the change which occurred, and why did it happen here? To many, the answer is very simple—money. They think that when the gift of the Philippian saints came, brought by Silas and/or Timothy, Paul gave up his work for a more significant ministry, because he was provided with the money to do so. I don’t think it is all that simple. Note, for example, that Luke does not tell us that these two brought money with them, nor that the money was the reason for the change. Luke only tells us that they arrived, and that when they did Paul changed the focus of his work and his ministry. We conclude that money was brought to Paul from Philippi from these texts in Philippians and 2 Corinthians:
15 And you yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone; 16 for even in Thessalonica you sent {a gift} more than once for my needs. 17 Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account. 18 But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well‑pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:15-19).
8 I robbed other churches, taking wages {from them} to serve you; 9 and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia, they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so (2 Corinthians 11:8-9).
I want to take a moment to attempt to determine the nature of the change in Paul’s ministry, as well as the basis for the change, for I think it is a most important matter, and one that is not well-understood today. And because ministry and money are so closely related, it is well worth the effort. Further, money has often had a very detrimental effect on ministry, because it was not handled wisely, or with the best interests of the gospel in mind.
To set the stage, I believe that there are essentially three biblical options as to how a person may be supported in their ministry:
(1) A person may be supported by their own means, which usually means that one earns the money required to live on by working at some kind of employment, a “secular job” if you would (see Acts 20, 1 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Thessalonians 3 above).
(2) A person may be supported by those to whom he ministers (see Luke 9 & 10; 1 Corinthians 9).
(3) A person may be supported by others than those to whom they are presently ministering, as Paul was supported by the Macedonians, as he ministered in Corinth (Philippians 4; 2 Corinthians 11:8-9).
Paul used the first and last means of supporting himself in the ministry of the gospel, but to my knowledge he never used the second, although we find in 1 Corinthians chapter 9 a very strong defense of this means as a biblical right. Paul simply refused to use this right. Why? The reason is to be found in 1 Corinthians chapter 9, and I believe that this reason explains why Paul changed his work focus when Silas and Timothy arrived:
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? 8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher {to thresh} in hope of sharing {the crops.} 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the {food} of the temple, {and} those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things that it may be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all {men,} I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:3-23).
Paramount in Paul’s motivation was the advance of the gospel. While there were many means and methods of proclaiming the gospel, Paul set aside those which would hinder the gospel and he used those which would most effectively and efficiently promote it. Thus, Paul refused to exercise his “right” as a minister of the gospel to be supported by those to whom he ministered, not because it was wrong, but because of its associations, which would hinder his ministry. Charlatans and hucksters used the proclamation of religion as an excuse for their own profit, power, and personal gain. They charged for their ministry, and profited much. Paul did not charge for his. He worked, and he supported others by means of his work. No one could ever accuse him of getting rich through his ministry!
It might be correct to suggest that the support of an evangelist and apostle is somewhat of a different matter than is that of a teacher or pastor. Paul’s ministry was generally short-term, and it was most often apologetic and evangelistic. It is one thing for an evangelist to take an offering at a public presentation of the gospel; it is quite another for a pastor-teacher, who labors at ministering the Word of God to Christians to be supported by these saints. And thus Paul can refrain from being supported by those to whom he is preaching, and yet instruct that those who do teach in the church should be well paid (see 1 Timothy 5:17-18).
Having said this, let us seek to see exactly what change occurred when Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth from Macedonia. Our understanding of this change is related to a fairly significant difference in some of the translations of verse 5. Compare this rendering of the King James Version with that of the New American Standard Bible:
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ (Acts 18:5, KJV).
5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:5, NASB).
The difference centers on which of two terms was included in the original (Greek) text, the term for “spirit” (or Spirit), or the term for “word.” Was Paul compelled by the Spirit or by the Word? Knowing that there is a very close relationship between the Word of God and the Spirit of God, it is easy to understand how either of these terms could have been viewed as correct. In one sense, it would matter little which of these two words were selected, since they both point in the same direction. But the translation of the NASB, unfortunately (and quite untypically, in my opinion), renders the verse in a way that dilutes the force of the words.
The NASB renders them, “began devoting himself completely to the word …” The Revised Standard Version comes right to the point, I feel, when it tells us that Paul was “… constrained by the Word.” The issue is whether the Word is the cause or the result of Paul’s change, resulting in part from the arrival of Silas and Timothy. I believe that his change is the result of his sense of being compelled by the Word. It is not very different from Paul’s sense of compulsion while he was in Athens:
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols (Acts 17:16).
I believe that a survey of the use of this term in the New Testament, and especially in Luke and Acts, strongly urges us to conclude that Paul was compelled by the Word, so that he reallocated his time and energy to enable him to concentrate upon the preaching of the Word.[416] What this means is that we need to drop the emphasis on Paul’s devotion to the proclamation of the Word, but that we add Paul’s sense of direction as being dictated by the Word. The Word of God was Paul’s motivation and his message.
While some would think that Paul’s change in occupation, from tentmaker to preacher, was the result of one thing—money, I believe that there were three significant factors in his decision to devote himself to proclaiming the Word of God:
(1) Paul’s change was governed by biblical principle. Paul’s priority was the advance of the gospel. Ceasing his tentmaking and devoting himself to preaching the Word best promoted the gospel. This is the principle which Paul has expounded in 1 Corinthians 9, and it can be seen at work here. Because he was not asking for money from those in Corinth (but was living off of the gift which came from the Macedonians), Paul was not in danger of appearing to be preaching for sordid gain. This matter of principle, I believe, was first and foremost in Paul’s mind, not the availability of funds alone.
(2) Paul’s change was possible because of the provision of others. Put very plainly, Paul changed his course of action because he could afford to do so. I see too many Christians who make choices which they cannot afford, and which force or obligate others to “foot the bill.” Not so with Paul. The money was in hand, and thus he could preach without any imposition on others. How easy it is to make decisions and then hand the bill to others.
(3) Paul’s change was motivated by the “pressure” of divine guidance. I know that this is the most obscure and difficult factor, but it is a real one. We must be very careful about giving God the credit for our desires and decisions, when they are really our own. But on the other hand God does give us some sense of conviction and leading, which we dare not ignore. Paul sensed it in Athens, and thus he preached, and he sensed it here in Corinth as well.
When all three of these elements point in the same direction, there is a good chance that God has indicated His will. It is not a mechanical process, but it is something which gives us guidelines for divine guidance. Surely we will see that this was the will of God for Paul.
Change Two: From Reception to Rebellion
The second major change in our text is not a change made by Paul, but rather a change which occurred among the Jews who attended the synagogue, who had been hearing Paul arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. Their change is typical of the Jews in other synagogues. At first they listened politely, but as the message became clear, a few believed and many rejected and reacted. No doubt Paul’s added intensity and concentration on preaching intensified the reaction to his ministry. It was one thing for him to say a few words in the synagogue each Sabbath. Now, however, he was preaching every day. This was too much, at least for many of the Jews.
Change Three: From the Jews to the Gentiles
The strong opposition of the Jews to Paul’s preaching produced a rather predictable result—Paul turned from ministry to the Jews, to ministry to the Gentiles. The Jews were the first to hear the gospel, but in the wisdom of God, the Gentiles were to hear the same gospel which the Jews rejected. The words which Paul spoke to these Jews were very similar to those spoken to the Jews of Pisidian Antioch:
“It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46).
In both cases, at Pisidian Antioch and here, Paul was speaking of a turning to the Gentiles in this city. He was not announcing that he would no longer preach to the Jews, for in every city he went first to the synagogue, if there was one, or to a place (like the place of prayer along the river at Philippi) where he would find Jews, to whom he would proclaim Jesus as the promised Messiah. Once these Jews began blaspheming, Paul knew it was time to stop “casting his pearls to swine.”
Paul’s words here do contain something new, which he is not said to have spoken before when he turned from the Jews to the Gentiles: “Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean.” These words are not really new at all. They are intended to remind these Jews of the words of the Old Testament prophets. Note the clear reference or allusion Paul is making to these words from the prophet Ezekiel:
1 And the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, speak to the sons of your people, and say to them, ‘If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman; 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land, and he blows on the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his {own} head. 5 ‘He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6 ‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’ 7 “Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth, and give them warning from Me. 8 “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. 9 “But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your life” (Ezekiel 33:1-9).
Paul saw himself as God’s watchman, who was commissioned to “blow the trumpet,” as it were, to warn Israel of the coming wrath on Israel, and to give the nation a final opportunity to turn to Jesus, the Messiah, for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. If they rejected his warning, neither their unbelief nor their judgment was his responsibility. Thus, they were unclean, but he was clean. He had done what God had called him to do, but they had not. They must therefore bear the consequences of their sin and rebellion.
Paul’s turning from the Jews was symbolized by his moving his headquarters, his place of ministry, from the synagogue to the house of Titius Justus, right next door. This move is indeed symbolic in two ways. On the one hand, Paul moved out of the synagogue, carrying out his promised turning from a Jewish focus to a Gentile focus. He disassociated himself from the place of Jewish teaching and worship; he severed himself from unbelieving Judaism, almost as Lot fled Sodom and Gomorrah. But on the other hand, Paul moved but one door away from the synagogue. There were, of course, very practical reasons for this. It made it easy for genuine God-seekers to find him and to learn more of Jesus. It was a location which might attract some, as yet, uninformed Jews. But I think that the move to a place so close was also an indication that while Judaism did not want Paul or his Jesus, the Jesus whom Paul preached was a Jew, and He was the Messiah of the Jews. You may, as it were, “take the gospel out of Judaism,” but you can never “take the Judaism (the Old Testament roots) out of the gospel.”
Luke does not wish us to be left with the impression that the Jews, as a whole, rejected Paul and his preaching. There were a number of Jews who did believe and were saved. Titius Justus, the man from whose house Paul continued to minister, was a God-fearer who came to faith. And even Crispus, the (former) leader of the synagogue, believed, along with his whole household. Paul’s ministry among the Jews at Corinth was not without its fruit, but there was even more fruit to come, and most of this from among the Gentiles.
Change Four: From Fearful to Fearless
In our text, Paul is going to see his third vision. His conversion on the road to Damascus was a vision (see Acts 26:19), one which occurred in broad daylight. His second vision (as Luke reports them) was the so-called “Macedonian vision” which Paul received, guiding them to Macedonia. This is now the third vision of Paul, and his second “night vision.” The Lord appeared to Paul and spoke these words to him:
“Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.”
The vision which Paul received in the night is indeed perplexing, for apart from Luke’s account of this vision, and especially of our Lord’s words, we would never have dreamed that Paul would have been afraid at this point, not unless, we had read some of Paul’s own words on the matter.
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling (1 Corinthians 2:1-3).
For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us, you also joining in helping us through your prayers, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the favor bestowed upon us through the prayers of many (2 Corinthians 1:8-11).
Paul’s fear for his life and safety was no phobia, it was a fear based upon hard facts and upon much previous danger, including numerous attempts on his life. Shortly after his conversion, the Jews in Damascus plotted to kill him (Acts 9:23-24), and so also in Jerusalem (Acts 9;29). The Jews at Pisidian Antioch instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and which resulted in his being driven from the city. At Iconium, the Jews there sought to stone Paul (Acts 14:5), and failing, they later joined forces with the unbelieving Jews from Pisidian Antioch, stoning Paul at Lystra and leaving him for dead (Acts 14:19). The Jews at Thessalonica wanted to harm Paul also, but were only able to drive him from their city (Acts 17:1-9). They then went to Berea, where they were able to create such a disturbance Paul had to leave the truth-loving Berean Jews (Acts 17:13).
Turning to the Gentiles did not in any way reduce Paul’s fear of Jewish opposition, nor did he have much hope of any protection from the Gentiles. After all, in most instances of Jewish persecution (from the time of our Lord until now), the Jews opposed Paul by turning the Roman or civil authorities against them. And in cities like Philippi, the Gentiles opposed Paul and accused him of the very same offenses as did the Jews, but without Jewish instigation. The Gentiles were fully capable and ready to oppose Paul and to do him harm on their own. Up to this point they did not always need Jewish prodding (see Acts 14:5, 8ff.; 16:19ff.; 17:5-9, 13, 16ff.).
Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry in the Book of Acts supplies us with the above reports of the opposition which Paul faced, and of the suffering which both Jews and Gentiles imposed upon him. But there is a great deal of suffering and opposition which is not recorded by Luke in Acts. As I read through Paul’s epistles, especially his two epistles to the Corinthians, I realize how much this man suffered much for the sake of the gospel, far more than Acts would inform us:
10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, {even} until now (1 Corinthians 4:10-13).
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves; 8 {we are} afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you (2 Corinthians 4:7-11).
3 giving no cause for offense in anything, in order that the ministry be not discredited, 4 but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, 5 in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger, 6 in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, 7 in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, 8 by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; {regarded} as deceivers and yet true; 9 as unknown yet well‑known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, 10 as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things (2 Corinthians 6:3-10).
23 Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as if insane) I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty‑nine {lashes.} 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26 {I have been} on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from {my} countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27 {I have been} in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 Apart from {such} external things, there is the daily pressure upon me {of} concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern? 29 Who is weak without my being weak? Who is led into sin without my intense concern? (2 Corinthians 11:23-29).
All too often we look at Paul as though he were not really human, not like us. We therefore find it difficult to believe that this hero of the faith could ever suffer from the same kinds of fear which hinders us. We think of Paul as a kind of “Pit Bull” apostle, one who is never taken back by ridicule, opposition, or persecution. But frankly, we are wrong. Our Lord told Paul, in effect, to “stop being afraid,” not to be afraid any longer.[417] If Jesus said he was afraid, he was afraid.
I think another reason why we are reluctant to admit to ourselves that Paul was afraid is that Paul, in the height of his time of fear, was far more bold in proclaiming Jesus to a lost and unbelieving world than we are. This man, crippled with the kind of fear that necessitated a personal word from the Lord, was far more active and aggressive in proclaiming his faith than we are. How sad.
From the previous record of Paul’s ministry in Acts, from his own words to the Corinthian saints (not to mention his other epistles), and from the inference of Jesus’ words of encouragement, I believe that we can confidently conclude that Paul was afraid of at least two things: rejection of his message and bodily harm done to himself. Jesus’ words assure Paul of His constant presence with him, the same presence promised the disciples in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). He also promised Paul that no one would attack him and succeed, so that they would do bodily harm to him. And finally, our Lord assured Paul that there were many more in this city yet to believe and be saved.
Paul was afraid, because of the past, and an awareness that the Jews who rejected the gospel all wanted to see him dead, at best, and hurt badly, at least. Jesus promised that this would not happen. It did not happen in Corinth, and, by and large, it did not happen anywhere else, from this point in time onward. The Lord was indicating to Paul that there was a very definite and decisive change about to occur. The kind of bodily injury and pain which Paul had often experience before was to be a matter of history. Oh, there would still be rejection, opposition, and persecution. And the Jews and others would still want to see Paul dead, or badly hurt, but it would not happen, not until God’s time. And until then, the gospel would be preached and believed in many more cities around the world of that time. Just how this promise was fulfilled is to be seen in the next paragraph, which gives us and account of the charges leveled against Paul, his trial before Gallio, and the precedent-setting decision which he pronounced.
The “Care Less” Gallio
(18:12-17)
12 But while Gallio[418] was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” 14 But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; 15 but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.” 16 And he drove them away from the judgment seat. 17 And they all took hold of Sosthenes,[419] the leader of the synagogue, and began beating him in front of the judgment seat. And Gallio was not concerned about any of these things.[420]
Paul feared for his life, and rightly so. When he devoted himself to the preaching of the Word to the Jews, he got an intense reaction. Now, turning to the Gentiles would only make the Jews more jealous and hostile. He had every reason to think that the Jews would seek to do him bodily harm. But the Lord had promised Paul that He would be with Paul and that no one would harm him. The instrument through which the promise of the Lord would be fulfilled was none other than a pagan Roman ruler, Gallio.
Up to this point in time, Rome had been no friend to Christianity. Rome had succumbed to Jewish pressure, putting Jesus to death for crimes which Pilate and Herod knew Jesus had not committed. Roman officials had willingly, perhaps even gladly, punished Paul, as was the case at Philippi. But now a great change was about to occur, thanks to the decision rendered by Gallio. Rome was to cease giving in to Jewish pressure, and was to refuse, any longer, to be used by the Jews to hinder the proclamation of the gospel. The very power that had once persecuted Christianity would now become a means of protecting it. Luke, in this paragraph, tells us how this came to be.
The King James Version interestingly gives this paragraph the heading, “The Careless Gallio.” I think it might better be titled, “The ‘Care Less’ Gallio.” This Roman ruler was not at all careless. His insight into the case brought before him is brilliant and crystal clear. His assessment of the situation was right on. And his verdict (or rather his refusal to hear the case) was one which would cause any judge to wish he had done as well. Gallio was in no way careless about the decision he reached, but he could “care less” about these Jews who pressed charges against Paul. I think it is also clear that he could care less about Paul, Christianity, and Christians as well. But it is his disinterest, strangely enough, which enables him to come at this matter with a measure of objectivity.
The Jews at Corinth did nothing new. The Corinthian Jews merely used the time-proven method which their brethren from other cities visited by Paul had used so often before—they accused Paul of anti-Roman activity, which was being carried out under the guise of being Judaism. There really seem to be two charges here. The first is that Paul’s teaching is revolutionary, inciting people to do that which was contrary to Roman rule, and in fact which was intended to overthrow Roman rule. The second was that Paul was claiming to preach a Jewish faith, when in reality it was not Jewish at all. If the Jews could succeed in convincing Gallio that Paul was a revolutionary, and that his religion was distinct from Judaism, even opposed to it, they would have been able to silence him.
Up till this point in time, this ploy had always worked, but it would not work on Gallio. I think that there were three reasons for this. First, God had ordained to protect Paul and the proclamation of the gospel through the decision rendered by Gallio. Second, Gallio was too well aware of what the Jews were like, and that they were the real trouble-makers, not Paul. And third, Gallio did not the Jews, and not only did he care less about their welfare, he may have found some satisfaction in refusing to give in to their demands.
I love the way this trial is reported by Luke. The charges were made against Paul by his Jewish adversaries. In the normal flow of trial procedure, the time has come for Paul to speak in his own defense. Paul was ready and willing to do so. But God wants Paul to see that this is His work. God works this case out so that Paul can not be credited with “a fine job of defending himself.” Paul may have wished to be a kind of ancient Perry Mason, but God would not allow it. Before Paul could open his mouth and utter his first word of defense, Gallio interrupted. He would not dignify this “legal farce” by letting the trial go further. He threw the entire case out of court.
He knew the real issue here, and it was not anti-Roman revolutionary teaching. It was really in-fighting between two factions of Judaism. Paul was preaching Jesus as the Messiah, the One who perfectly fulfilled God’s promises to the patriarchs, and His promises through the prophets. The unbelieving Jews refused to accept this. But it was a dispute within Judaism, among Jews. This was not struggle against Rome, nor did it pose a threat to Roman rule. What was a threat was their attempt to use the Roman rulers to do their fighting for them. And so Gallio threw not only this case out of court, but the Jews who pressed the charges as well. Gallio’s total lack of concern over the beating of Sosthenes is telling. He really cares very little for the well-being of Judaism or the Jews. He, like Claudius, and other Romans as well, has had just about all of the trouble-making Jews he can tolerate. No longer will the Romans let the Jews use them against fellow-Jews.
Gallio intended no favor to Judaism, nor did he decide as he did as some kind of favor to Paul or to Christianity. But in spite of his anti-Jewish motives (perhaps it would be better to say, “because of his anti-Jewish motives”) he ruled in such a way as to set a very important precedent. His ruling rejected the charge of the Jews that the gospel was un-Jewish or anti-Jewish. He ruled that Christianity was Jewish. Thus, Christianity had every right to exist, so long as it did not oppose Rome. This meant that Paul, from this point on, would not be used to persecute Paul, but was there to protect him. Opposition against Paul by the Jews would in no way diminish from this point on, but now instead of standing with the Jews, inflicting punishment of Paul and others, the Roman government would now stand between the Jews and Paul. Paul’s incarceration by Rome was, in fact, a kind of “protective custody,” so that Paul could continue to preach and to write, but protected from Jewish plots of murder (see, for example, Acts 21:27ff.; note especially 22:12-35). Those, like Paul, who proclaimed the gospel would still be persecuted by the Jews, but they would now be protected by Rome. The Lord fulfilled His promise to Paul, without Paul’s help, but by means of a pagan Roman ruler, who acted (in his mind) contrary to the best interests of the Jews, and enjoyed every moment of it.
Conclusion
There are a number of very important lessons to be learned from our text. As I conclude this message I will point out some of the lessons which I believe are vital to Christians today, and in every age.
Man’s Weakness and God’s Strength
It took a while to realize this, but it is noteworthy that Paul’s first significant success evangelizing among the Gentiles came at this point in time, a time when Paul was at his lowest. He was fearful, both of his safety, and of the results of his ministry if he were to stay on. This is exactly what Paul says in his epistles to the Corinthians. The praise and glory must therefore go to God, and not to men. The pronouncement of Gallio, which was of such importance to the propagation of the gospel, was not the result of Paul’s persuasive speech, for he never got so much as a single word out of his mouth. And the evangelization of the Gentiles was not the result of Paul’s abilities, for he came to them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. God does not need our human strength in order to achieve His purposes; God works through human weakness so that He receives the honor and the praise. In Paul’s stronger days, when his confidence ran higher, the results were less than spectacular. In the days of his greatness weakness, when our Lord appeared to him to comfort and encourage him, God’s greatness blessings were poured out.
Man’s Waywardness and God’s Sovereignty
In the case of Paul’s ministry, I have just pointed to the fact that God used Paul most effectively at a time when Paul felt the least confident and able to accomplish anything of eternal consequence. But I must press on to say that not only is God’s sovereignty (control) so great that he can use Christians in their weakness; His sovereignty is such that He may also use unbelievers in their rebellion (see Psalm 76:10). Aquila and Priscilla were “guided” to Corinth, where they would meet Paul and begin a long-term relationship in ministry, not by the words of a prophet, but by the decree of a heathen ruler, Claudius (18:2). Christianity was for some time, from this point on, protected by Rome rather than persecuted by her, because of the decision of a ruler who did not like Jews, believe in Christ, or care about Paul. God’s means of protecting Paul from the harm that would have been done to him by cruel, unbelieving men (often unbelieving Jews) was by means of those who were often cruel, unbelieving men (Roman soldiers).
God’s Ways are Beyond our Imagination
Once again we see that God is not only sovereign, in complete control of this universe, so that His will is always accomplished, but we see as well that the ways in which He accomplishes His will and fulfills His promises are beyond our imagination (see Romans 11:33-36). We must, therefore be careful not to expect, demand, or even pray that God accomplishes His work in a way that fits our expectations. Much of what I pray for is what I want, not what God has promised to do. And much of what I pray for is instructing God as to how He should accomplish what I have set out for Him to do. A recognition of the sovereignty of God should serve to curb our demands, and make then requests, subject to His revision or rejection. A recognition of the sovereignty of God should serve to limit the ways in which I ask or expect Him to bring about that which He has purposed and promised. If Luke had not told us how God had fulfilled His promise of protection to Paul, we would never have predicted it, or believed it.
The Clock is Running Out For Israel
I cannot say that the Jews were often or ever held in high esteem by the Romans, but we do know from the Gospels and Acts that a number of Roman rulers respected the power of the Jewish religious leaders, and were most reluctant to alienate them. Much of the Jewish persecution of the saints (including our Lord) was possible only because of the tolerance or participation of the Roman rulers. The crucifixion of our Lord and the harm done to Paul are but two examples of this.
Things are clearly changing for the Jews, in a way that spells the future destruction of Jerusalem and the end of an era of opportunity for Israel. Jesus came to His people, claiming to be their Messiah. By His death and resurrection, atonement was made, once for all, for all who would believe in Him. By and large, Israel rejected Jesus, even after His resurrection. They have rejected the preaching of His apostles as well. And now, the Jews of the dispersion have heard the gospel and have refused and rejected it, to the point of trying to kill Paul.
The time when the Jews could intimidate the Roman rulers into tolerating or promoting their rejection of the gospel and persecuting those who proclaimed it has come to an end in our chapter. Claudius was fed up with the trouble-making of the Jews in Rome and ordered them out. Gallio was fed up with the efforts of the Jews in Corinth to use Rome to silence the gospel as un-Jewish and anti-Roman. The Jews are losing their “clout.” Rome will now restrain the Jews and protect Paul. It will not be that long (70 A.D.) before Rome is so fed up with the revolutionary Jews in Jerusalem that Titus will be sent to deal with them once and for all, by the sacking of that city and the execution of thousands (or more) of Jews. The times of the Gentiles is near. The days of Israel (until their restoration at the end of the times of the Gentiles) are numbered. This chapter is pointing in that direction.
The Noble Occupation of Tent Making
The usual practice of Paul—tentmaking—is not the ordinary practice today. I find many who wish to be supported in full-time ministry, but few who wish to support themselves, like Paul. The ministry of men and women like Aquila and Priscilla is looked down upon by some as though it were a second class ministry. I would like to suggest that tentmaking is a very noble calling, and one that has great potential for ministry. When I speak of tentmaking, I am speaking of that form of service which ministers at one’s own expense, as one works in the work force, carrying out some “secular” occupation, as a means of support and as a context for credibility and for promoting and practicing the gospel.
Around the world, missionaries are being looked upon, in many instances, as a liability to the country and culture to which they are sent. They are viewed as parasites, not as productive members of the culture. Full-time, supported missionaries will always be needed in some places, and in certain ministries, but they will be fewer and fewer, I am convinced. And this will be especially true of American or Western missionaries. I think it is high time to begin thinking seriously as to how we can reduce the number of people who need to be supported and to increase the number of saints who are supporting ministry. Paul’s example should not be set aside as something entirely novel or unique. His lifestyle should be seriously considered before being set aside.
For those who would seriously contemplate the possibility of a tentmaking ministry, I recommend that you read a book devoted to this approach, entitled, Today’s Tentmakers by J. Christy Wilson, Jr., subtitled, “Self-support: An Alternative
Model for Worldwide Witness.” It is published by Tyndale House. I would also make these general suggestions for your consideration of that trade or skill which would best suit you for a tentmaking ministry. These are not inspired, but are intended to serve as fuel for thought.
(1) Have a skill which is of great value, and in great demand. So much in demand that they will tolerate you and your missionary activity.
(2) Have a skill which will support you, and perhaps others. Seek a skill which takes you off the list of those needing and using the resources of others, and puts you on the list of those who are able to support.
(3) Have a skill which gives you some measure of freedom, if possible—that is, freedom in schedule, freedom in terms of geographic location.
(4) Have a skill which is transportable, which allows you to be and serve in many places, not just one. Don’t be an igloo contractor. You may seek a job which gives you the opportunity to travel, and thus to minister to other Christians, and to facilitate the ministries of other saints. You may, for example, be able to take medical supplies to needy countries, because of your business-related travel.
(5) Consider a job which will allow you to work with, facilitate, or encourage the ministries of other Christians. This is the kind of ministry which Aquila and Priscilla had in conjunction with Paul and his ministry.
(6) Strive for a skill which facilitates and promotes opportunities for presenting the gospel, such as an English teacher.
(7) Strive for a skill or job which contributes positively to the people, not just one that is in demand or which is highly profitable. You might be good at training men to use hand grenades or in laying land mines, but this may cause suffering. A skill in nursing or in controlling disease is of benefit to many. Think of a skill which will overcome any anti-American hostility.
(8) You may wish to seek that employment and skill level which raises the least suspicion, and which most readily gains you entrance into a given place. Some jobs are merely flag-raisers, which create suspicion.
(9) Seek a skill or facility in something at which you are really good, and by the doing of which you may reflect the God-given skills you have. Be a craftsman, whose work honors the Lord, and whose skills put you in great demand. Seek something you are really good at, not just something which has social status. For example, Proverbs tells us that a man who is skilled will stand before kings. A skilled plummer may work with toilets, but he may work on the king’s toilet, because he knows his business (see Proverbs 22:9).
The Antidote to Fear, Which Paralyses the Proclamation of the Gospel
If Paul was fearful, so that the Lord needed to address his fears, surely fear is one of the great hindrances to our proclamation of the gospel as well. We in America seldom fear physical reprisals, but mere social shunning, at worst. But this fear often causes us to draw back and to be silent. We may also fear that boldly proclaiming the gospel, which is foolishness to unbelievers, is useless and hopeless. The promise of our Lord to Paul is surely applicable to us. We can be assured of His presence with us as we go forth with the gospel, for this was a promise given in conjunction with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:20). We can also be assured that God’s Word, applied by and through the Holy Spirit, will not fail to achieve that which God has purposed. Those whom God has appointed to eternal life will come to faith. And even when men reject the gospel which we proclaim, we have the comfort of knowing that we have been a faithful watchman, not guilty of the blood of those who have heard the word of warning and have rejected it.
May God use us to proclaim His Word, to His glory and praise, and to the accomplishment of divinely ordained purposes. And may we see God’s hand at work in this world, not only through obedient saints, but through the actions of those who are heathen and opposed to the gospel.
! Lesson 29:
Filling in the Blank
(Acts 18:18–19:7)
Introduction
In my second year of seminary, I watched a very amusing incident in Greek class. It was second year Greek, and the instructor was doing a “chalk talk” entitled, “How to Fell the Greek Goliath.” The “five stones of David” were the five means of dealing with Greek in such a way as to learn the language (and to survive the course). The second “stone” was the Greek Lexicon (or dictionary). The standard Greek lexicon is known in seminary jargon as Arndt and Gingrich, or more simply, “A and G.” The instructor had referred to “A and G” a couple times when one student, sitting in the front row, interrupted the chalk talk with a question. “Pardon me sir,” the student interjected in a voice strikingly similar to the cartoon character, Huckleberry Hound, “but what is ‘A and G’?”
At first, the instructor thought that this student was putting him on. It had to be a joke. And so he replied with a smile, “‘A and G,’ Arndt and Gingrich. You, know, that lexicon which you use whenever you translate your Greek assignments.” Now I must explain to you that in first year Greek, there comes a time when your vocabulary and grammar skills have developed sufficiently that you can begin to read the Greek text of the New Testament (often it is the Gospel of John). By second year Greek, one is expected to be able to translate even more of the Greek text of the New Testament. In order to do this, it is necessary to use “A and G,” the Greek lexicon, to look up the various shades of meanings of the Greek term, and then to choose the meaning which best fits the context. My fellow-classmate was expected to have been a good ways down this path and thus daily making use of “A and G.”
This student’s response took the instructor totally by surprise when he responded, “I’ve never used ‘A and G’.” The teacher’s expression changed from one of amusement, to shock, and finally to bewilderment. “Well then how do you translate your Greek assignments?,” he asked. “Oh,” the student replied innocently, “I just use my interlinear translation—it’s easy, and fast!” And so it was, but it missed the point of the whole Greek language program of the seminary. Well, from that time on translating the Scriptures was not so easy for my fellow-classmate. He had learned that there was something very vital missing from his study of the Greek New Testament.
In the case of Apollos in Acts chapter 18 and the 12 “disciples” in the first seven verses of chapter 19 there was also something vital missing. Initially I was inclined to handle these passages separately, but then I noted that they have much in common. Both Apollos and the disciples were lacking some very important revelation. Both Apollos and these 12 men were acquainted only with the teaching and baptism of John the Baptist.
The text we are about to study raises a number of questions in my mind as I read it and meditate on it. The first question is, “Why is so much detail omitted by Luke in this account, detail which is of great interest to the reader?” Among these details would be a disclosure of what Paul’s vow consisted of, and more information about the conclusion of the so-called “second missionary journey” and the commencement of the “third missionary journey.” A second question is, “Why did Paul not stay on at Ephesus when he first visited the city, and when he was encouraged to stay on by those in the synagogue there?” A third question is, “Just what was it that Apollos and the 12 disciples lacked?” Finally, “Why does Luke include this account of the filling in of Apollos and the 12 at this point in his book?” These are but some of the questions which this text raises. I believe that we will find the lessons of this passage are not only interesting and informative, but relevant.
The Context of Our Text
As I have considered this text, and the blanks which will be filled in for Apollos and for the 12 disciples, it now appears that there may also have been blanks that were filled in for those seekers of the truth in Berea, and for Aquila and Priscilla as well. The response to Paul’s teaching at the synagogue in Thessalonica was similar to that in other synagogues—some received the gospel, but many Jews rejected it and began to oppose Paul and his preaching. But at Berea it was a different matter. Here, the synagogue worshippers were eager to hear what Paul had to say about Messiah, and were eager to receive Jesus as Messiah, once they searched the Scriptures for themselves and were convinced that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament pertaining to Messiah. Paul’s teaching at Berea thus “filled in the blank” in the understanding and belief of the Bereans—the blank, into which the name of the Messiah was to be filled in, once Messiah appeared, was now filled with the name, Jesus of Nazareth.
Initially I had thought that Aquila and Priscilla were already believers when Paul first met them. Now, I am inclined to doubt this. We are not told that this couple had become believers before meeting Paul. We are not told that their association was rooted in a common faith or in a common ministry. Aquila is introduced to us as “a certain Jew,” and we are then told that Paul lived with them because they had the same trade. When Paul and his colleagues stayed at the home of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the invitation was rooted in the fact that she had now come to possess the same faith as Paul. She wanted her home to be a base of operations for the proclamation of the gospel, as so it was. Nothing of this kind is said of the initial association of Paul and Aquila and Priscilla. I am therefore inclined to think that this man and his wife were looking for the coming of Messiah, like the Bereans, but that they did not yet understand that Jesus was the Messiah. I think that Paul “filled in this blank” for them, and on believing in Jesus, they found their association based on much more than a common occupation.
If I am correct in my conclusion, then we have in chapter 18 and the first part of chapter 19 a thread which links the Bereans, Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, and the 12 disciples, and this thread is that of a “blank” which was filled in, so that Jesus of Nazareth is now recognized and believed in as Israel’s promised Messiah.
Heading Home
(18:18-23)
18 And Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. 19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there.[421] Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 And when they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent, 21 but taking leave of them and saying, “I will return to you again if God wills,” he set sail from Ephesus. 22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch. 23 And having spent some time there, he departed and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
Paul left Corinth, after spending a year and a half there (18:11). Unlike many other occasions, he did not seem to leave Corinth because of Jewish or Gentile opposition. We really do not know why he left. It seems more that Paul was “drawn to” somewhere else more than he was forced out of Corinth. The question is, “What was it that caused Paul to leave Corinth, and to leave Ephesus so quickly as well?”
While we are not told exactly why Paul was drawn away, I do believe that we are told where he was drawn to—Syria (verse 18). Syrian Antioch, you may recall, was the city in which Paul and Barnabas ministered (Acts 11) and it later served as the starting and ending point for the so-called “first missionary journey” (Acts 13:1–14:28). It would therefore seem that Paul felt the need to return to home base in Antioch. Paul’s destination was therefore Syria, and he was determined not to be prevented from reaching there as soon as possible.
Luke’s account of this final “leg” of the second missionary journey, of Paul’s itinerary and ministry on the way and upon his arrival, seems purposefully brief and sketchy. The more I read it, the more I am inclined to the conclude that Luke is really just informing us that Paul directed of God so that he was “out of the way,” set aside for a while, so that the ministry of others might blossom and develop.
If this is true, Luke is only briefly explaining Paul’s absence, and is more intent on describing what took place in his absence through the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, and then of Apollos.
Paul’s “second missionary journey” comes to an end in these verses, and yet Luke makes little of it. The dividing up of Paul’s ministry into three missionary journeys may therefore be more a matter of our doing than it was a part of Luke’s structure or argument in Acts. And if Luke wants us to know that a “third missionary journey” has now commenced, he has surely not made a great point of it. As we read these verses, we have to remind ourselves of the structure of Paul’s three journeys, or we would not even notice that one journey had ended and another had begun.
From Corinth, Paul went on to Cenchrea.[422] Here, Luke tells us only that he cut his hair, terminating a period of time during which he was under a vow. This vow, if not the same as that described in Numbers chapter 6, would at least be a vow which Paul observed as a Jew. We are not told what the vow was, although it is tempting to speculate on such matters. Luke seems only to be informing us that while Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles (see Galatians 2:7), he had not ceased to be a Jew, nor did he need to. He only rejected legalistic Judaism, and its system of works-righteousness which was a perversion of the purpose and intent of the Law. Paul’s practice here is completely consistent with principles which governed Paul’s lifestyle and ministry, such as we find referred to in 1 Corinthians 9:
19 For though I am free from all {men,} I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Paul sailed from Cenchrea in Achaia to Ephesus in Asia, taking along Priscilla and Aquila.[423] He would leave them in Ephesus when he departed. Their ministry was soon to blossom, as our text will indicate, as well as that of others.[424] Paul went to the synagogue at Ephesus, as his custom was, and those who heard him wanted to hear him out, but Paul declined, pressing on for Syria, and promising to return if it was the will of God. This strongly suggests that Paul felt it was God’s will for him to leave, and that he, as yet, had no leading as to his future ministry at Ephesus. We should probably not forget that on Paul’s first journey through Asia, he was forbidden to “speak the word in Asia” by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6). Was Paul reluctant to stay on there until he received clear direction to do so, as he received in Corinth (Acts 18:9-11)? Possibly so.
Paul pressed on to the city of Caesarea in Syria. Luke tells us that when Paul landed he “went up and greeted the church,” and then “went down to Antioch” (verse 22). The question is, “What church did Paul go up to and come down from?” Initially, it would seem that Paul went up to the church at Caesarea. There well may have been a church here. We know that Cornelius and his whole household lived here, for this is where Peter came at the prompting of God to preach the gospel to Cornelius and his whole household (Acts 10:1, 24). But it is also true that when one spoke of “going up” from Caesarea, he often referred to going up to Jerusalem. So, too, when one went to Caesarea from Jerusalem you “went down” (see Acts 25:1, 6).[425] Thus, Paul could have “gone up” to the church at Jerusalem. If this was so, Luke certainly did not make much of this visit.
Paul then went to Antioch, where he spent some time. The length of his stay, and the role which he played in the church is not stated. It, too, was not important to Luke, at least not important enough to his argument to include these details here. Paul then returned to the “Galatian region and Phrygia,” once again visiting the saints in the churches which he had helped to establish, strengthening them in their faith and Christian walk.[426] Follow-up was a very important ministry to Paul, who either personally visited those to whom he had previously ministered, or he sent a representative (like Timothy), or he wrote. Sometimes he may have done all three. The church at Ephesus is one example (see here, Acts 20:16ff.; 1 Timothy 1:3; the Book of Ephesians).
Priscilla and Aquila Enlighten Apollos
(18:24-28)
24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
In Paul’s absence, Priscilla and Aquila will play a very crucial role in the life and ministry of Apollos, a man of great intellect and ability, but also a man with a “blank” which needed filling in. This man was a Jew, born in Alexandria, an Egyptian city located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, a city of great learning and education, a city to which Christians would later migrate. It may have been here that Apollos received much of his training. He was regarded as “an eloquent man,” a man who not only knew his subject matter well, but was skilled in communicating what he knew. He was, in short, both a scholar and a communicator. His abilities were all related to his love for and knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. He was so well versed in the Old Testament that Luke would refer to him as “mighty in the Scriptures.” He was also a man a great intensity—”fervent in spirit.” This may also indicate that he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, not perhaps in the same way as the apostles, who had received a special empowerment by the Spirit at Pentecost, but as was true of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist.
What, then, was this mighty man, Apollos, lacking? In the synagogues, Apollos accurately taught “the things concerning Jesus,” and yet he was “acquainted only with the baptism of John.” How can this be? We must first take note of the fact that while the knowledge of Apollos was limited, he was accurate and correct in that which he did teach. As far as his teaching about Jesus went, it was absolutely right. How, then, did it fall short? It fell short in that it went only as far as John’s baptism.
My greatest difficulty in trying to understand what Luke wrote here is that the two expressions, “the way of the Lord” (verse 25) and “the way of God” (verse 26) seem to be reversed. Apollos was instructed in “the way of the Lord,” and yet Priscilla and Aquila more fully informed him of “the way of God.” It would seem from these expressions that he had already been taught the things pertaining to Jesus, but that he was taught by Priscilla and Aquila in the more general “ways of God.” I would have expected from the context that Apollos already knew the Old Testament revelation well, and that he only lacked specific knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Christ, the promised Messiah.
This is exactly Luke’s point. The problem is that we tend to read into the two expressions (“the way of the Lord” and “the way of God”) meanings opposite to that which they were meant to indicate. A little search in my concordance cleared up the problem for me, in a very informative way. The expression, “the way of the Lord,” is one that is found quite often in the Old Testament, while the expression, “the way of God” is not an Old Testament expression at all. This expression, “the way of God” is found only in the New Testament, on the lips of Jewish leaders, who were seeking to trap the Lord Jesus by asking Him a loaded question pertaining to paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21). The expression, “the way of the Lord,” however, is often used in the Old Testament, in both a general way (Genesis 18:19; 2 Kings 21:22; Proverbs 10:29; Jeremiah 5:4-5; Ezekiel 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20), and in a way which more pointedly referred to the Messiah (Isaiah 40:3).
When this expression, “the way of the Lord,” is used in the New Testament, it is found four times before it occurs in out text in Acts. Note these four instances:
For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight!’” (Matthew 3:3).
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight’ (Mark 1:3).
As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight’” (Luke 3:4).
He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said” (John 1:23).
It is not often that every one of the four Gospels includes an account of the same event. The ministry of John the Baptist is one such event. All four Gospel accounts are parallel, referring to the same event and the same reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3. On the basis of this Old Testament text, John rests his calling and ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.[427] The key to understanding Isaiah’s prophecy is the word “Lord.” The meaning and significance of this term can be seen by this remark, found in the preface of the NASB, which explains the way the word Lord is rendered:
The Proper Name for God: To professing Christians, whether of conservative or liberal persuasion, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus the most common name for deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH. See Exodus 3 and Isaiah 42:8. The name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated LORD.[428]
When the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into the Greek language (in a version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint) the Hebrew word for Yahweh (or Jehovah, as some English versions render it) was rendered by the Greek term KURIOS. This is the same term which all four gospel writers used in their account of John the Baptist’s citation of Isaiah 40:3, cited above. It is also the term which is found in Acts 18:25. Thus, when Luke tells us that Apollos was “instructed in the way of the Lord” he meant that he was instructed in the Old Testament, in those Scriptures pertaining to Yahweh, and in particular the text of Isaiah 40:3, which indicated that the Messiah was not only the “Servant of Yahweh,” but Yahweh in person. Apollos therefore knew about the coming of the LORD, based upon his instruction in and from the Old Testament. His knowledge was confirmed by and consistent with the preaching and ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to prepare the way of Messiah by calling upon the nation Israel to repent.
The early teaching of John the Baptist would not have informed Apollos as to who the Messiah was, but only as to the fact that Messiah was coming, and that repentance was necessary to be prepare for His arrival and kingdom. John himself did not know who the Messiah was until the day that Jesus appeared for His own baptism:
19 And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 And he confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 They said then to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, {but} among you stands One whom you do not know. 27 “{It is} He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
28 These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31 “And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 And John bore witness saying, “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 “And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” 35 Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus (John 1:19-34).
John’s ministry had two phases: (1) that phase during which he announced to the nation Israel that Messiah, as yet unidentified and unknown to him, was soon to appear; and, (2) that phase after Jesus had been designated as Messiah, when John proclaimed Him to be the Messiah, introducing Jesus to the nation as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Until the time that Jesus was designated as the Messiah, when He was baptized by John, John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, and a baptism of anticipation of the One who had not yet been revealed.
Imagine, for a moment, that you were a God-fearing Jew, who eagerly awaited the coming of Messiah. You knew that Messiah would make His appearance at Jerusalem. All your life you had been saving up money so that you could make one trip to the “holy city,” Jerusalem. You, along with thousands of others, would go there for one of the feasts. And when you made your trip, it was during the time when John the Baptist was proclaiming the coming of Messiah. But it was still at a time when John had not yet been informed that Jesus was the Promised One. You would have left Jerusalem with heightened expectation, but without the specific identification of Jesus as Messiah. You might, from that time on, make an intensive study of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah, but these would only tell you a part of what you wanted to know—what Messiah was like, and what would characterize His coming. What you would not (and could not) know is who He was.
Apollos was like this, as I understand Luke’s words in our text. He was limited in his knowledge and preaching of Messiah to the revelation of Him in the Old Testament and, more recently, through John the Baptist. No doubt there were rumors circulating about concerning Jesus, His presentation to the people of Israel as their Messiah, His teaching and ministry, His miracles, His rejection, execution, and even, perhaps, His resurrection and ascension. But none of this had been documented or defended from Scripture. It was only rumor. How was Apollos to know for certain that Messiah had come?
I believe that this is the situation with Apollos, as perhaps also it might have been with the Bereans, Priscilla and Aquila, and the 12 disciples of chapter 19, verses 1-7. For someone who had finally learned of Jesus, and had come to trust in Him as the Messiah, how strange it must have been to hear a man like Apollos preach, a man who was still living in a past era, still looking for Messiah, but not knowing He had come. As Priscilla and Aquila sat in the synagogue and heard Apollos teach, they must have looked at one another in astonishment, and said, “His teaching points to Jesus, and he doesn’t know it.” I believe that what Priscilla and Aquila did was to “fill in the blank” for Apollos, informing him that Jesus of Nazareth was not only Messiah, but that He was Yahweh—God in person, in human flesh.[429]
Once this was known to Apollos, his preaching now filled in the blank for others. I can imagine Apollos trying to recall all the places he had been, and the synagogues he had preached in, so that he could return to tell them what he had just come to know himself—that Jesus was the Christ. From this point on, this was his message, which he proclaimed powerfully in the synagogues. He was, as it were, another Paul:
But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ (Acts 9:22).
And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Filling in the Blanks for Twelve Disciples[430]
(19:1-7)
1 And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples, 2 and he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 And there were in all about twelve men.
It is difficult not to see Luke’s account of these mysterious “12 disciples” as having a very close link with the immediately preceding account of the enlightenment of Apollos. There is a common element in the two accounts. Apollos was acquainted only with the “baptism of John” (18:25), just as these “disciples” had experienced only the “baptism of John” (19:3). I therefore see the two accounts as similar, placed side-by-side to make an impression on the reader, and to further the argument which Luke is striving to develop. Based upon my conclusion (above) that Apollos was an Old Testament saint when found by Priscilla and Aquila, and that he became a New Testament saint due to their ministry, I am likewise inclined to see these 12 “disciples” in the same light. The one difference is that Priscilla and Aquila “filled in the blank” for Apollos, while Paul “filled in the blank” for the 12.
Many would agree that what was missing for these “disciples” is the same as that which was missing for Apollos. Where I would differ with them is on what it was that both lacked. Others say that what both lacked was a “Pentecostal experience,” the second blessing consisting of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” If this is true, why then does Luke not say anything about the Holy Spirit when speaking of the enlightenment of Apollos? I believe that the Holy Spirit fell upon these twelve men because they had just come to a personal faith in Jesus as their Messiah, in addition to (and culmination of) their hope of a Messiah, based upon the Old Testament and the ministry of John the Baptist. Let me seek to demonstrate why I believe this to be true.
(1) The term “disciple” does not always mean a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. In the Gospels and the Book of Acts there are various kinds of disciples, based on the fact that the term disciple may have various shades of meaning, all the way from a mere follower (perhaps out of curiosity) to those deeply committed to Jesus. There are those “disciples” who follow Jesus, but are not committed, are only temporary, and are not even believers in Him (see Matthew 8:21; Luke 6:17; 19:37, 39; John 6:60-61, 66). There are the disciples of John the Baptist (Luke 5:33; 7:18). There are also those who are disciples of men other than Jesus or John the Baptist (Matthew 22:16). In the Book of Acts, the term “disciple” almost always refers to believers (6:1, 2, 7; 9:10, 19, 25-26, 36, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20-22, 28; 15:10; 16:1; 18:23, 27), but not always.
One notable exception to the general rule in Acts that “disciples” are believers is to be found in the near context of our passage:
But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9).
One might think that these “disciples” were true believers in Jesus, but I am not so certain. These were those who had not, like the other Jews, become hardened to Paul’s reasoning, and were still interested and wanted to hear more. But the fact that Luke tells us Paul “reasoned” with them causes me to think that some of them may, as yet, have been unbelievers.[431]
(2) The baptism of this group of 12 disciples by the Holy Spirit argues for their salvation here, in the fullest sense of the word. There are four “pentecosts” recorded in the Book of Acts. The are described in chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19. There are distinct differences between these “pentecosts,” but they share a couple of common features. To begin with, these “pentecosts” are never the experience of but one person, but of a group of individuals. Those who are baptized by the Holy Spirit are all God-fearers, those with a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures and of the prophecies pertaining to the coming Messiah and His kingdom. There are no “raw pagan” Gentiles included in any of the four “pentecosts.” I believe this is because they would have understood what happened as the fulfillment of prophecies which they were aware of and understood. For a Gentile, with no understanding of the Old Testament prophecies, such a spectacular spiritual experience might have had associations with their pagan past, more than with biblical prophecy (see 1 Corinthians 12:1-3, especially verse 2). Finally, I believe that each of these baptisms of the Spirit was directly related to the salvation of those baptized. Peter promised those who were at Pentecost that those who repented and were baptized would “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38-39). I believe that this is what is described in the four “pentecosts.” The baptism of Cornelius and his household and of these 12 disciples came immediately upon their belief in Jesus as Messiah.[432] The delay of the reception of the Holy Spirit at the initial Pentecost (Acts 2) and for the “pentecost” at Samaria was purposeful. In the first instance, the disciples needed to wait and to pray, and leave this to God’s timing. In the second instance, the apostles, Peter and John, needed to arrive, so that they could receive these new believers as fellow-saints and so that they could identify themselves with the work of God among the Samaritans.
(3) I believe that Paul’s question about their reception of the Holy Spirit at the time they believed was intended to determine whether or not they had come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Think about it for a moment. Suppose that you were Paul, and that you met some fellow-Jews, who believed in the Old Testament, and who were waiting for Messiah to come, in fulfillment of the words of the prophets. How could you quickly determine whether or not these folks had come to a completed faith, knowing about Jesus and trusting in Him, or whether they still waited for a Savior with the blank for His name not yet filled in? For Paul, the way to determine whether or not a person had trusted in Jesus for salvation was to discern whether or not they had received the Holy Spirit. Paul’s question to the 12 disciples was based upon his assumption expressed in Romans chapter 8:
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you. 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God (Romans 8:9-14).
For Paul, to be saved was to have received the Holy Spirit, and to have received the Holy Spirit was evidence of one’s salvation. When he asked these twelve men if they had received the Holy Spirit “when they believed” I understand him to be assuming that they believed in Messiah, in general terms, just as Apollos did, based upon Old Testament revelation and the preaching of John the Baptist. But if their belief also included the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth (may I call it the “full gospel”?), the gospel with the blank filled in, then they would have received the Holy Spirit.
These “disciples,” like Apollos and many others, knew only of Messiah from the Old Testament Scriptures and through whatever word they had heard of John the Baptist and his preaching. As Priscilla and Aquila filled in the blank for Apollos, so Paul filled in the blank for these 12 men. And when they believed, they received the Holy Spirit, in the same way as those at the Jerusalem Pentecost (Acts 2), and at the Samaritan (Acts 8) and Caesarean (Acts 10) Pentecosts.
Conclusion
There are a number of important lessons to be learned from our text. I want to begin by looking at how our text contributes to the developing argument of Acts, as Luke seems to have intended it. I see Luke indicating, once again, but in a very different way, the fact that time is running out for Israel and for the Jews to repent and to accept Jesus as the Messiah. I have said previously that Paul’s sense of urgency in preaching the gospel as widely as possible seems to emerge out of his realization that the time of the Gentiles is about to begin and the times of the nation Israel are, for a period of time, to end. Paul hurries from city to city, eager to press on and to preach Christ to everyone who has not yet heard and received Jesus and the Christ, their Messiah.
But there is another side to this coin. Not only does the gospel need to be proclaimed to those who never heard it before, but it also needs to be proclaimed to all those who are, in reality, the last of the Old Testament saints, and who must transfer their faith from a Christ that is to come to the Lord Jesus who has come. If time is running out for the people of God, then time requires that the gospel be proclaimed to all those (like the Bereans, Aquila and Priscilla, and Apollos) who were waiting for Messiah, but did not know that Jesus was the Promised Savior. I look at this paragraph as God’s “cleaning up” all the untidy ends, so that all who have looked for Messiah in truth may find Him.
There is yet another “transition” which Luke is aware of, in addition to the transition from Israel to the church and from a predominantly Jewish orientation to one that is Gentile, and that is the transition which is about to occur in the ministry of Paul. Paul’s ministry has, to this point in time, been a personal one, a direct, “hands-on” ministry, to the churches he has helped establish. But Paul is soon heading toward Jerusalem, and ultimately to Rome (19:21). From this point on, much of Paul’s ministry will be from a distance, and from a prison cell. His pen and his prayers will become God’s powerful instruments in ministry to others.
I think that the Holy Spirit has guided Luke to show us the laying of the groundwork for this new era of ministry in the life of Paul. In our text, we have seen God at work through Paul, in his presence, and we have seen God at work in Paul’s absence (in his return to Syria), through others, such as Priscilla and Aquilla. I further believe that to some degree, Apollos is to Paul what Elisha was to Elijah. Apollos was to serve as Paul’s successor, speaking in the synagogues with great eloquence and power, proving that Jesus is the promised Messiah. And just as Paul was raised up for his work, independent from the 12 apostles, so Apollos was raised up for his work, independent of Paul. God has a new focus, and a new location for Paul’s ministry, but He has already made arrangements for the continuation of the ministry which Paul has been doing. God’s sovereign plans and purposes continue on, without a hitch or hesitation. He does all things well!
There is a sense in which this “transition period” described in Acts is unique. Those people whose lives encompassed the ministry of the last Old Testament prophet—John the Baptist—and the fulfillment of his prophecy—Jesus Christ—were a unique group. We do not have the same situation today, nor will we ever see this dilemma again. The problem for these “Old Testament saints” was that their faith in the Messiah who was to come had to be converted, updated, or revised so as to be a faith in the One who had come—Jesus of Nazareth. That is what we see described in our text.
But there is in this at least an analogy, an illustration which can be made. There was a necessity for these “Old Testament saints” to hear of Jesus and trust in Him personally. That need was met through Priscilla and Aquila, as well as by Paul. My friend, if these “believers” in the “Christ to come” had to be told of Jesus and His coming, and to trust in Him, no one will be saved apart from a personal knowledge and trust in Jesus as the Savior today, either. Unlike these “Old Testament saints,” who had not heard of Jesus, you know all that you will ever need to know about Him. You know that He came as the sinless Son of God, that He lived a perfect life and that He died as a perfect sacrifice, for sinners, and that by faith in His death, burial, and resurrection, you can have the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life. But have you ever really crossed the line, from a knowledge about Jesus to a personal faith and trust in Him? Have you made the transition (known as conversion, or being born again) from knowing about Jesus to knowing Him intimately as Savior and Lord? If not, the hour is late and the need is urgent. Cross that line today!
Finally, I want to say a word about Priscilla and Aquila. What an encouragement this couple should be to every Christian. It was this couple that God used mightily in the “conversion” of Apollos from an “Old Testament saint” to a New Testament Christian. Think of it for a moment. Apollos was a highly trained, highly intelligent, Bible scholar and communicator. Who would you have sent to Apollos, to tell him, in effect, that he was “not far from the kingdom of God”? Who would you have chosen to “fill in the blank” so that this man’s faith was not in the Messiah to come, but in the Jesus who had come, as Messiah?
God chose Priscilla and Aquila. God did not choose Paul—our first choice, for sure. Why? First, because God does not appeal to men’s pride. Humility is the beginning of wisdom, and if Apollos was to be wise in God’s sight, he must be humble enough to believe the truth, regardless of the worldly standing or stature of the instruments through whom he was informed. But more importantly, God did not choose a scholar to inform Apollos because what he needed to know was very simple. He had not overlooked the tense or nuance of some Hebrew verb. He did not need some hidden truth exposed to him. He needed to know that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, that He had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and that He had not only died for sinners, but had risen from the dead.
Think on this for a moment. God can use simple (in the eyes of this world) people to accomplish His great purposes because the gospel is simple, and because it is the power of God unto salvation. What joy there is to know that He uses such simple people as we to achieve His purposes, and what encouragement to us to tell others the simple message of the Savior. May God raise up many more men and women like Priscilla and Aquila.
! Lesson 30:
The Evangelization of Ephesus
(Acts 19:8-41)
Introduction
The story of the evangelization of Ephesus does not begin in chapter 19, or even in chapter 18 of the Book of Acts. It started with the ministry of John the Baptist, whose teaching had produced a number of “converts,” men and women who looked for the Messiah, promised by the Old Testament prophets, who was His forerunner. Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) and the “12 disciples” (Acts 19:1-7) were among those who believed in the Savior to come, and who must have spoken to others of their (Old Testament) faith.
Paul came to Asia on his second missionary journey (so called), but the Holy Spirit forbade them from proclaiming the gospel (Acts 16:6). Paul finally came to Ephesus, but he was intent on reaching Syria (Acts 18:18-21), and so he spent only a short time there. He did, however, leave Priscilla and Aquila behind (18:19), and they must have played a significant part in “plowing the soil” in preparation for Paul’s lengthy stay as recorded in our text. It is here in our text that we will read,
… all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:10).
It was God’s time for the evangelization of Asia, and it all seems to have started from the city of Ephesus.
If the Ephesian church was the launching place for the evangelization of Asia, it is important for several other reasons as well. Let me mention several reasons for the importance of this church.
(1) It was here, in Ephesus, that Paul fought the “wild beasts” (1 Cor. 15:32). Since the context of Paul’s words dealt with death and the resurrection from the dead, it would seem that there was very real danger there. He will later tell the Ephesian elders of his difficulties in that city:
“You yourselves know, form the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews” (Acts 20:18b-19).
(2) Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 16:8). (3) The epistle to the Ephesians was written to the Ephesian church (cf. Ephesians 1:1). (4) The church at Ephesus was one of the “seven churches of Asia” (Revelation 1:4), to which specific words of admonition from the Lord were given (Revelation 1:11; 2:1-7). (5) Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3) was sent there by Paul, and thus 1 Timothy concerns the life and conduct of the church there in Ephesus.
Chapter 19 is not the definitive chapter of Acts when it comes to a description of the ministry of Paul at Ephesus. This chapter focuses on three major events: (1) the meeting of the “12 disciples” and their coming to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, receiving baptism as an evidence of their faith, and being baptized by the Spirit as an evidence of God’s reception of them into His church (verses 1-7). (2) The ministry of Paul in the synagogue and then the school of Tyrannus (verses 8-20). (3) The uprising in Ephesus, as a result of the opposition of Demetrius (verses 23-41). A great deal of information concerning the ministry of Paul at Ephesus will be supplied in chapter 20, when Paul calls for the Ephesian elders and gives them his parting words of instruction and admonition, based upon the fact that he will not see them again.
The Structure of Acts 19
· The “Twelve Disciples”—19:1-7
· The Jewish Evangelist and the Jewish Exorcists—19:8-20
· Paul’s plans—19:21-22
· The Uprising at Ephesus—19:23-41
à The devious deeds of Demetrius—(vv 23-29)
à The attempted addresses of Paul and Alexander—(vv. 30-34)
à The rebuke and benediction of the town clerk—(vv 35-41)
From the Synagogue to the School
(19:8-10)
8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning[433] daily in the school of Tyrannus.[434] 10 And this took place for two years,[435] so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.[436]
After his encounter with the 12 disciples upon his arrival at Ephesus (19:1-7), Paul began to minister in the synagogue at Ephesus. His topic was “the kingdom of God” (verse 8). I would think that Paul began with the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to the kingdom, showing over a period of time how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled these, and then going on to disclose those aspects of the kingdom which were revealed by Jesus, or to the apostles by the Holy Spirit.
The thing which impresses me about Paul’s teaching in the synagogue is how long he taught there before it became necessary to move to another location. It strongly implies that Paul established his case, over a period of time, as opposed to his stating the same case repeatedly. This is consistent with Paul’s approach elsewhere. For example, in Berea, Paul taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and the people had all week to search the Scriptures and to think about it. This is the exact opposite approach to that of brainwashing. Brainwashing attempts to weaken the critical facilities of the audience, wearing them down, physically and mentally, until they just don’t care to think critically any more.
There are a number of cults that employ this methodology. A couple of years ago there was a certain “teacher” who was able to persuade some Christians to believe that which they had firmly rejected previously. He was able to “convince” some by means of a seminar, which bombarded the audience with endless ideas and assumptions, which were not proven, but which, they were told, they would understand later. Some were convinced, not because they were shown the truth from Scripture, and in the calm of their own study and meditation accepted it, but because of a kind of “circuit overload,” which caused them to cease thinking about it. Paul’s teaching was the opposite. He taught in smaller doses, and there was time in-between to think it over. So that when men or women believed his teaching it was because it conformed to the teaching of the Scriptures and the Spirit of God bore witness to its truthfulness.
Over the three month period of time Paul preached at the synagogue in Ephesus some were convinced of the truth of the gospel, while others became more and more opposed to it. There was a sequence to their growing opposition, which Luke indicates in verse 9. They became gradually hardened to Paul’s teaching, and then they became disobedient to it, and finally they began to verbally oppose it in public. It would seem that they began to disrupt Paul’s public ministry, much as “hecklers” disrupt the speeches of political candidates. It became impossible to carry on his teaching in a way that would facilitate good teaching. And so Paul changed his base of operations. He moved from the synagogue to the school house, the school of Tyrannus.
Very little is said of the teaching ministry of Paul in this “school.” The most complete picture of his ministry while at Ephesus is found in chapter 20. For example, we know that he worked with his own hands during his stay in Ephesus, so that he would not be a burden and that he could minister to the material needs of others (Acts 20:33-35). We are told that Paul’s ministry while in Ephesus echoed throughout the land, so that Luke can tell us “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord” (verse 10). Since Paul stayed in Ephesus and did not seem to travel about (20:18), it would seem that much of the preaching which took place outside the city was done by others, some of whom may be named in Acts 20:4. Although the Spirit had once forbidden the preaching of the word in Asia (Acts 16:6), now the word had been proclaimed throughout Asia. In God’s time, the word of God was proclaimed.
Luke does not mean for us to conclude that every single person living in Asia had heard the gospel, but he does mean that the entire area was canvassed with the word. And so it was that Paul could say,
“Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:26-27).
Miracles and the Ministry of Paul
(19:11-12)
11 And God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons[437] were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.
The gospel had been proclaimed in Asia, and not only this but God bore witness to His word through many signs and wonders and miracles, as he worked through the apostle Paul. No one else is said to have worked such miracles, but Paul did, even unintentionally. We are not told of all the miracles accomplished at the hand of Paul, but we are told that some miracles happened in some secondary fashion. Handkerchiefs or aprons which Paul had touched were taken to those who were sick or demon possessed and they were made whole (verse 12). The “aprons” which were taken seem to have been Paul’s work aprons. Can you imagine him coming to work at his tentmaking in the morning, looking about for his apron, and saying to himself, “Now where did I put that apron …?” They were hauling off anything which Paul touched, and when the infirmed came in contact with these items, they were delivered. As usual, these signs and wonders were accomplished to validate and underscore the words which Paul was speaking—the words of the Gospel.[438]
I must admit that the kind of miracles which Luke mentions here sound like a carnival atmosphere. But remember that we are not told this was Paul’s emphasis or purpose. He did not throw his handkerchiefs into the crowds, as some would do today. In a somewhat superstitious way, they people grabbed for any article which he had touched. The fact that people were healed is explained, I think, purely in terms of the grace of God. These people, with their pagan background, knew of only this way of being healed, and they acted in a very simple faith, and God in His grace gave them what they sought by faith—deliverance. And so the word was given the divine stamp of authenticity and authority, and many came to faith.
The Exorcists “Exposed”
(19:13-20)
13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists,[439] who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize[440] Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued both[441] of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. 18 Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices.[442] 19 And many of those who practiced magic[443] brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. 20 So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.
The hand of God was at work through Paul, and there were some who wished to cash in on it. If Paul could accomplish what he did through the name of Jesus, so could they—they thought. There were in Ephesus, as in Israel (see Luke 11:19), Jewish exorcists, who sought to cast out demons through the use of the name of one who had great power. This was a kind of spiritual “name dropping,” whereby the power of the one named was believed to be able to exorcise demons. Such “ministry” was hardly to be performed without a fee, and so it appears to be a business, not altogether unlike that business of Acts 16, the business of fortune-telling. This kind of exorcism must have proven effective at least part of the time, but it would not work this time.
There were a number of exorcists practicing in Ephesus, but Luke draws our attention to one family in particular—a Jewish chief priestly family (verse 14). This man, Sceva, had seven sons who were exorcists. At least two of them were involved in attempting to exorcise a particular man in Ephesus. Luke computer “hackers” who had just learned the password of a giant mainframe computer system, these men had discovered the power of the name of Jesus. This is the Jesus who, as Jews, they refused to accept as Messiah, but they were not reluctant to use His name in order to cast out demons. They did not use the name of Jesus as Paul did, for they did not know Him personally or belong to Him, as Paul did. Thus, they sought to exorcise the man “by the name of the Jesus Paul preached” (verse 13).
This particular demon was not impressed. He indeed recognized and reluctantly surrendered to the power of Jesus, and he also acknowledged the power of Jesus at work in Paul, but he did not know these men. Did these men wish to name drop? Fine. But what was their name? The demon was unwilling to be given orders through anyone who wished to try to use the name of Jesus, as Paul did. For the demon, this attempt was like trying to use a stolen credit card, and he was not about to be ordered about by such hucksters. And so the demon, through the demonized man, attacked these Jewish exorcists and beat the badly, sending them fleeing from the house naked and wounded.
If these Jewish exorcists were attempting to copy the ministry of Paul, they ended up being a very clear contrast to it. And in his rebellion against authority, this demon served the cause of Christ by testifying to the power of the Gospel in contrast to the counterfeit ministry of the sons of Sceva, and others like them. We have already been told that the gospel had gone forth from Ephesus to all of Asia, and now it would seem that this incident was one means which God used to spread the word. News of this incident spread abroad, serving to contrast the power of God at work through Paul with the counterfeit power of the exorcists. All of Ephesus heard of the exposure of the exorcists, and they feared God, so that His name was magnified. He would not be used by men, as though he were subject to the rules of magic.
What a contrast one could see between Paul and the sons of Sceva and all like them. Paul worked with his own hands, and ministered freely to men. These exorcists undoubtedly charged a substantial fee for their services, living off of the misery of those to whom they “ministered.” In the case of Paul, the power of God was at work through him, even when he did not seem to be aware of it. Even things which came into contact with Paul were instruments of deliverance and healing. On the other hand, as hard as these exorcists worked at “using” the names of Jesus and Paul, they were not successful.
The impact of these incidents—the miracles performed at the hand of Paul, and the failure of the sons of Sceva—was even greater on those who had come to faith in Jesus. The response of the saints to these things is described in verses 18 and 19. Some of these believers may have come to faith as a result of these two incidents, but many seem to have already been saved. Although they had come to trust in Jesus as their Savior, they did not see the evil of their magical practices, and they had not yet renounced this as both worthless and evil. As a result of the shaming of the sons of Sceva a great conviction of sin fell upon the saints in Ephesus, causing them to renounce their magical practices and to destroy the magical books which they possessed.
Before we look at this response, however, let us make sure that we understand the connection between the power of God through Paul, the powerless defeat of the sons of Sceva, and the wide-spread turning from magical practices by the Ephesian saints. Nowhere in our text are the sons of Sceva called magicians, nor is their practice described as magical. Previously, we were told that Elymas (also called Bar-Jesus) was Jew, a false prophet, and a magician (Acts 13:6). Simon, of Acts chapter 8, was also a magician (8:9, 11), although he is not identified as a Jew. He was, most likely, a Samaritan, and thus a half-Jew.
The Christians of Ephesus understood, and rightly so, that the practice of the sons of Sceva were, in essence, magical. Magic is the manipulation of “gods” or “powers,” so that the magician gets what he wants. It was no great mental leap to see that the “magic” of the sons of Sceva was like the other forms of “magic” which were so prevalent in Ephesus, and which were so much a part of the lives of Christians. When the power of God prevailed through Paul and the power of magic failed through the sons of Sceva, the Ephesian saints saw their magical practices as anti-Christian, evil, and worthless. They publicly collected their magical books and burned them in the sight of all, as a public testimony of their repentance and obedience. They would not sell these books or give them away because they were evil. Such garbage would only infect others, and so they burned their books, in spite of the fact that they could have brought much money if they were sold.
The city of Ephesus really began to take not of the gospel now. The gospel was being proclaimed by Paul and others. The power of God and the gospel was being demonstrated through the signs and wonders performed by or through Paul. And the power of the gospel was now evident in the lives of the Christians, who renounced their evil deeds and permanently put off their magical practices. The saints were beginning to become “salty,” and the difference was noted. And so it was that “the word of the Lord grew mightily and was prevailing” (19:20).
Paul’s Plans
(19:21-22)
21 Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the spirit[444] to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome[445].” 22 And having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.
Paul’s ministry in Ephesus was a most successful, but these verses indicate to us that Paul was already planning his next movements and ministries. His plans are those which were “purposed in spirit,” raising the question as to whether they were only Paul’s plans, purposed in his spirit, or whether they were God’s plans, directed by His Spirit. The answer is likely “both,” as Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 clearly indicate:
“And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:22-23).
A look at the map would indicate that Macedonia and Achaia were hardly on Paul’s way to Jerusalem. For that matter, Jerusalem was hardly on Paul’s way to Rome. Paul was in Ephesus, and so traveling to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia would require him to go north and then to double back, past Ephesus to Jerusalem. Rome would then require him to go Northwest. There were reasons for this itinerary. Paul was planning to go to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia so that he could take a collection from these churches to the poor saints in Jerusalem. The apostles in Jerusalem had urged Paul to remember the poor, and this was something which he was more than happy to do:
And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do (Galatians 2:9-10).
And so Paul had purposed to minister to the poor in Jerusalem by taking a collection from Macedonia and Achaia to the needy. When Paul gave his defense before Felix, he said,
“Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings” (Acts 24:17).
And as he wrote to the Romans,
25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 Yes, they were pleased {to do so,} and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. 28 Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain (Romans 15:25-28).
Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead, to begin making preparations for the collection. Paul then wrote to the saints in Corinth, encouraging them to make a generous contribution to the needy in Jerusalem:
1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. 3 And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I shall send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me. 5 But I shall come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I shall stay with you, or even spend the winter, that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now {just} in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective {service} has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. 10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid; for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I also am. 11 Let no one therefore despise him. But send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me; for I expect him with the brethren. 12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all {his} desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity (1 Corinthians 16:1-12; see also 2 Corinthians 8:1-15).
These verses are an excellent illustration of the guidance of God. Paul has a plan in mind, which is fully in accordance with biblical principle and the encouragement of the Jerusalem apostles. But God is going to modify the plan, as later developments in Acts will reveal. And with respect to Paul’s visit to Rome, he will surely go there, but in a way very different from that which he might have expected. He will get there by means of a near riot in Jerusalem, legal charges made against him, and an appeal to Caesar. How God’s ways are beyond our thoughts and expectations. Paul will arrive in Rome, under military guard, and that city will never be the same for it. Luke now proceeds to inform us of the events which precipitated Paul’s departure from Ephesus and ultimately his arrival at Rome. Just as Jesus “set His face toward Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51, 53), so Paul has set his face toward Jerusalem, and ultimately Rome.
Demetrius and the Ephesian Uprising
(19:23-32)
23 And about that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, was bringing no little business to the craftsmen; 25 these he gathered together with the workmen of similar trades,[446] and said, “Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. 26 “And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. 27 “And not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis[447] be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship should even be dethroned from her magnificence.” 28 And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 And the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theater,[448] dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia.
If there was a connection between the miracles performed in conjunction with the ministry of Paul, the exposure of the sons of Sceva, and the renouncing of magic by the saints in Ephesus, I believe there is also a connection with the riot instigated by Demetrius. The name-dropping of the sons of Sceva is a form of magic, but so is idolatry. Idols are fashioned by men, in the form which men want them. Idols represent what men value and want most. In essence, idols represent what men choose to worship. Idols are worshipped in such a way that they will produce for men what they want. Thus there are idols for everything men desire … material prosperity, power, victory in war, safety at sea, rain, good crops, and so on. Idolatry is the “worship” of a certain “god” which is intended to result in that which the “god” is designed to control and to provide. Idolatry is but one of many forms of magic. And so, if the people of Ephesus have come to see the futility of magic, they have also come to see the futility of idolatry. It was not just Paul’s preaching, then, that threatened the business of the idol-making industry, it was the practice of the Christians and its impact on the whole city which was threatening their business.
Demetrius was the instigator of the disturbance. He was a silversmith, who not only made silver shrines of Artemis, but who brought much business to the craftsmen. When Demetrius spoke, these craftsmen listened, for their livelihood and prosperity were dependent, to some degree, on this man and on his favor. Demetrius called the craftsmen together, in a kind of union meeting (not that all unions or union meetings are evil), seeking their support in ridding their city (and, indeed, all of Asia) of Paul and his preaching. Notice the argument of Demetrius, as outlined by Luke:
(1) Our prosperity depends upon the business of making idols of Artemis (verse 25).
(2) Paul’s preaching is contrary to the practice of idolatry and is greatly damaging our business (verse 26). Paul preached that there was but one God, and that He alone was the Creator of all things. Idols are but a creation of men, and are not gods at all. This preaching was being widely accepted, and as a result, the idol sales were down, and so were their profits.
(3) Our trade may not only suffer, but it may fall into disrepute. Not unlike the abortionists, who make money off of the sin and sorrow of their clients, and off of the death of the innocent, these idol-makers do not wish to be looked down upon, and their trade to become a matter of ill-repute. Once a part of the upper echelons of Ephesian society, these craftsmen are now looking little different than the Jewish exorcists. If magic falls from favor, and the books which teach the art of magic are burned, then what will people think of the idol-makers?
(4) If Artemis continues to lose favor, then her temple will become worthless, and the role of Ephesus as the guardian of her temple will be worthless.
“The way”—does this not suggest a lifestyle, and is this lifestyle not that which threatened the business of the angry men? It is not money which motivates the murder mongers in the abortion clinics, who cater to the self-indulgence of those who want their services? And they are so incensed when their “rights” are threatened. It was a matter of pride. The pride of these craftsmen would soon be lost, for their trade would be looked down upon. The pride of Ephesus would likewise be lost, for the goddess Artemis and her temple would lose their glory and glamour.
This was all these craftsmen needed to hear. Paul was threatening their livelihood, their trade, and their pride. It was really self-interest that moved these men into action, just as it has so often been the case, whether for the employee or for the employer, whether for the union or for management. But the chant which they took up had to sound more religious, more paganly pious. And so they shouted, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” (verse 28). This was a cry rooted in rage and anger, not in love or devotion. But it was a cry which caught the attention and motivated others to join in. It was like saluting the flag (at least in days gone by) or eating apple pie. It was the civic thing to do in Ephesus.
While there was great confusion among the masses who joined in, not knowing what “cause” they were for or against (verses 29, 32), there was some careful orchestration taking place behind the scenes. It was Paul whom they really wanted to arrest and to run out of town (or worse), but they were only able to seize Gaius and Aristarchus on their way to the theater (verse 29). These men were companions of Paul, and thus they would have to do, at least for the time being.
Attempted Addresses by Paul and Alexander
(19:30-34)
30 And when Paul wanted to go into the assembly, the disciples would not let him. 31 And also some of the Asiarchs[449] who were friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to venture into the theater. 32 So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what cause they had come together. 33 And some of the crowd concluded it was Alexander, since the Jews had put him forward; and having motioned with his hand, Alexander was intending to make a defense to the assembly. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
Paul was a typical preacher in that whenever he could find a crowd he was eager to preach to them. When Paul got word that his companions had been seized, and that the disturbance was really over him and his preaching, Paul wanted to address the mob. The disciples knew better. This was a hostile mob, that was capable of anything at this moment in time. There was no order and thus there was no assurance that he would be heard, or that he would have lived long enough to have delivered his sermon. The disciples would not allow Paul to go there, and neither would some of the “Asiarchs,” who were friends of Paul (verse 32). They repeatedly sent him messages to stay away, and not to enter the theater. For a man who preached the gospel, Paul was well regarded by at least some of those in positions of influence and power.
Luke then includes a somewhat puzzling story of another man who wished to address the crowd, whose name was Alexander. We know from our text that this man was a Jew. Since the Jews wanted to put him forward, it is unlikely that this man was a believer, or that he wished to defend Paul. It is my opinion that this Jew was anti-idols. This was a point of pride with the Jews. No doubt this was a point of irritation with the Ephesians, for they needed only to see that Alexander was a Jew to know they didn’t want to hear him, and to flaunt their idol worship before him. It was like a Southern Baptist preacher standing before a large crowd at a brewers convention. I believe that the Jews hoped Alexander could convince the Ephesian mob that they were not on Paul’s side, but that they were opposed to idols. But in spite of the fact that Alexander was given the platform, he was not given the chance to speak. He was shouted down, for they could tell he was a Jew, and as a Jew he could not have anything good to say about Artemis.
I think that Luke’s accounts of these two men who attempted to address the mob are related. Both men were Jews. Both men rejected idols and idolatry, at least in principle. Paul was not allowed to enter the theater, but Alexander was present. Paul never reached the platform, but Alexander did. But we know that the disciples and the Asiarchs were right in keeping Paul from going to the theater because the one man who tried to speak (beside the city clerk) was not able, based solely on his race. And so I believe Luke is telling us that had Paul stood before that mob, they would never have heard a single word. Going to that theater would not have gained a hearing for the gospel, and it could have cost Paul’s life.
The City Clerk’s Rebuke and Benediction
(19:35-41)
35 And after quieting the multitude, the town clerk[450] said, “Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, and of the image which fell down from heaven? 36 “Since then these are undeniable facts, you ought to keep calm and to do nothing rash. 37 “For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples[451] nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 “So then, if Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint against any man, the courts are in session and proconsuls are available; let them bring charges against one another. 39 “But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly. 40 “For indeed we are in danger of being accused of a riot in connection with today’s affair, since there is no real cause for it; and in this connection we shall be unable to account for this disorderly gathering.” 41 And after saying this he dismissed the assembly.
While neither Alexander nor Paul could get a hearing from the crowd, the city clerk did. Notice that even he did not get an immediate hearing, however. This man seems to have been very wise. I think that in his wisdom he chose to wait for some time to try to address the crowd. He let them shout for two full hours after Alexander was put forward, until the crowd must have worn down. As they were gasping for breath, he move forward and spoke to the mob. His words would prove to be effective, for when he was finished he would have shown them the error of their ways and, having dismissed them, would succeed in sending the crowd home, without further violence. Let us consider the argument of the clerk, especially in comparison to the argument of Alexander, as outlined above. Notice how his argument is almost the exact opposite, in order, to that of Alexander. While the argument of Alexander begins with profits and self-interest, ending with the worship of Artemis, the clerk’s argument begins with the worship of Artemis and ends with economic concerns.
(1) Who can possibly undermine the worship of Artemis in Ephesus, for everyone knows and believes that she fell from heaven, and everyone knows that Ephesus is the guardian of her temple. The clerk gives every appearance of being a worshipper of Artemis. That she is a true god seems to be the premise of his whole argument. Everyone knows and believes that Artemis is the god of Ephesus, and that Ephesus is the guardian of her temple. So what are these people so upset about? Do they really think that some foreigners can come and upset the “faith” of the Ephesians by any teaching they might put forth? In essence, the clerk is telling the craftsmen and the crowds to relax, and to “keep the faith” (of Artemis).
(2) The men who have been brought forward are men of good reputation, who are not guilty of any violations of Ephesian law concerning the worship of Artemis. While they were charged with offenses against the religion of Ephesus, the city clerk knew better. He was aware of the presence and ministry of Paul and others, and they had not broken any laws. While these men did not believe in Artemis or worship her, they did not desecrate her temple or speak blasphemously of her. What a testimony to the circumspect lifestyle of these men and of Paul, who taught against idolatry, but who did not engage in the blasphemy of Artemis (as the Jews blasphemed Jesus, see 18:6).
(3) If anyone had done damage to the business of the silver craftsmen, there were courts to settle these matters. This was, at best, a “kangaroo court.” It really looked more like a lynch mob. There were legal remedies for any grievances. If Demetrius or any of his colleagues had a grievance with anyone, let them take the matter up in the right place and manner. That’s what the courts are for. No mob rule in this city.
(4) If there are any laws being broken, it is Demetrius and this mob who are guilty, and so the sooner everyone goes home, the better for all concerned. Rome would not look favorably on this mob. Things were out of control. This was an illegal assembly. Unless this crowd is eager to have a Roman regiment disperse them, they had better move on, and quickly.
With this argument, the crowd was persuaded and went home. And with this disturbance, Paul was persuaded to move on. After calling the saints together and encouraging them, Paul set out to fulfill his plans. And so the great Ephesian campaign ends, at least so far as Paul’s presence is concerned.
Conclusion
One can hardly view the city clerk’s dismissal of the mob assembled at the theater in Ephesus apart from the story of Gallio’s decision in Acts 18. While our Lord’s promise to Paul was for his safety there in Corinth, it seems that from Corinth on Rome becomes the protector of Paul and of the preaching of the gospel, rather than his persecutor. Here we find a pure pagan, a man who seems to have worshipped Artemis himself, taking a position which defended not only Paul, but also those with him, even though they preached a gospel message that denied the existence of his “god.” Here, as in Corinth, Paul’s safety and protection was not the result of his own defense, for neither in Corinth nor in Ephesus did he have the opportunity to speak in his own defense. In Corinth, he was interrupted by Gallio, before he could offer of word of defense; here, in Corinth, Paul was not even allowed to enter the theater, to speak in his defense. But God provided protection for Paul and for the preaching of the gospel through pagan men who were in positions of political power. The sovereignty of God is once again evident.
I think that it is worthy of note that this pagan politician seems to be aware of what Paul and the other Christians preached, but also that he was confident that they had not broken any laws. The faith of the Christians in the power of God enabled them to live within the laws of the land. If they differed with the worship of the Ephesians, they made their differences clear in a way that was within the law. In Acts the laws of the land are only disobeyed when they directly contradict God’s law (see Acts 5:29).
There is a rather strong movement in our own days to disobey the laws of the land, in the name of Christian “protest.” In the Book of Acts, I do not see “protest,” but I do see “proclamation.” It was through the preaching of the Word of God and through the divine demonstration of the power of God that the business of Demetrius and others was threatened, not by angry Christians, protesting against the temple of Artemis and the worship of idols. I am not saying that protest is always wrong, but when protest involves the violation of the laws of the land, we find ourselves acting in a way that finds no precedent in the Book of Acts, and I am not so sure that we will find it elsewhere, either. To follow the pattern of Acts, I would think that the preaching of the Word of God would so change lives and values that abortion clinics, for example, would find that fewer and fewer women wished to use their services. There is room for some careful thought given to this matter. Is the “mere” proclamation of the gospel not enough? The way that John the Baptist, Jesus, and His apostles preached it, it was enough. In each case, the gospel was proclaimed in a cultural context, exposing the sins and evils of that culture, and presenting the shed blood of Christ as sufficient atonement for all sin.
I want to end this message by focusing your attention on the matter of magic in the Bible. Magic is always that which is contrary to faith in God and which is a part of heathen or apostate religion. The contest between God and “false religion” is often presented in terms of the power of God versus the power of magic. At the exodus, the first great contest between God and magicians can be seen. While the Egyptian magicians could not interpret the dreams of the Pharaoh, Joseph could, by the power of God (Genesis 41:8, 24). When the contest between God and the “gods of Egypt” began through Moses (Exodus 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18-19; 9:11), God’s power was demonstrated to be superior to man-made magic. This was even evident to the magicians (see Exodus 9:19). Later on, Daniel could do through the power of God what the magicians of Babylon could not do (Daniel 1:20; 2:2, 10, 27; 4:7, 9; 5:11).
The sad fact is that magic did not only characterize the heathen. This we could easily understand. Magic began to worm its way into the beliefs and practices of the Israelites:
1 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to those who prophesy from their own inspiration, ‘Listen to the word of the Lord! 3 ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. 4 “O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. 5 “You have not gone up into the breaches, nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. 6 “They see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, ‘The Lord declares,’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they hope for the fulfillment of {their} word. 7 “Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said, ‘The Lord declares,’ but it is not I who have spoken?” ‘“ 8 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Because you have spoken falsehood and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you,” declares the Lord God. 9 “So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel, that you may know that I am the Lord God. 10 “It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 {so} tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 “Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered {it}?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume {it} in wrath. 14 “So I shall tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 “Thus I shall spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I shall say to you, ‘The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 {along with} the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace, ‘declares the Lord God. 17 “Now you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people who are prophesying from their own inspiration. Prophesy against them, 18 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe to the women who sew {magic} bands on all wrists, and make veils for the heads of {persons} of every stature to hunt down lives! Will you hunt down the lives of My people, but preserve the lives {of others} for yourselves? 19 “And for handfuls of barley and fragments of bread, you have profaned Me to My people to put to death some who should not die and to keep others alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies.” ‘“ 20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against your {magic} bands by which you hunt lives there as birds, and I will tear them off your arms; and I will let them go, even those lives whom you hunt as birds. 21 “I will also tear off your veils and deliver My people from your hands, and they will no longer be in your hands to be hunted; and you will know that I am the Lord. 22 “Because you disheartened the righteous with falsehood when I did not cause him grief, but have encouraged the wicked not to turn from his wicked way {and} preserve his life, 23 therefore, you women will no longer see false visions or practice divination, and I will deliver My people out of your hand. Thus you will know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 13:1-23).
There is a world of difference between faith and magic. Faith rests in the character of God, as well as in His promises. Faith also recognizes the sovereignty of God, and His infinite wisdom, which is beyond human expectation or comprehension. Thus, faith does not dictate to God, but trusts in Him, and waits for Him to act, in His own time and way. “Wait upon the Lord” is a guiding principle for those of faith. With magic man manufactures “gods” according to the wants and needs of man. And those who make such “gods” then establish the rules by which this “god” is supposed to act. Getting what one wants becomes of matter of formulas and the skill of the men who call upon the “god.”
Two key ingredients of true religion and magic are (1) worship, and (2) words. Allow me to explain what I mean. Worship establishes or acknowledges the values which underlie one’s religion. As you have probably often heard, worship is really “worthship.” That is, we worship that which we hold to have the greatest worth. The Israelites’ primary obligation was to worship God, to love and serve Him with their whole heart, soul, mind and strength. The first commandment made this worship exclusive—God alone. Idolatry and magic makes something else the object of greatest worth and thus of worship. If men value success, or prosperity, or fertility, or military might, they create a “god” or “goddess” who controls such things. Men then worship that “god” to get what they value so highly.
Second, true religion and magic are dependent upon words. Notice that in magic, you have to have the right words to produce a certain spell or result. And so the sons of Sceva used the words “the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” This was their formula. But God is not controlled by men or by formulas. He is sovereign. The sovereign God has given us words, however, which we are to keep, and by which we are to live. The “words” are the Word of God. Our faith is to be rooted in God’s Word (see Hebrews 11), not in our “words.” When men trust in God, they trust in His Word, but when their trust in God is absent, they begin to trust in other words. How often, in Israel’s history, these were the words of the false prophets, who assured the people of God that they could disobey God and prosper, while God promised prosperity only for those who obeyed His Word (see Deuteronomy chapters 6-8; 28).
Put in the context of the history of Israel, we can say that magic found its way into the life of God’s people when their faith waned. Magic is a man-made replacement for faith, when faith has ceased to exist. Magic is trust in false “gods” and trusting in false “gods” is magic.
In the Book of Acts, magic is most often associated with Judaism. Simon, of Acts 8, was at least a Samaritan, a half-Jew. Bar-Jesus (Acts 13) was a Jewish false prophet. The sons of Sceva, likewise, were Jews, of the high priestly family. Judaism had so turned from faith in God that they had resorted to magic instead. Here was the source of power for many Jews. It was not the Word of God and the worship of God which were primary any longer, but “words” (magic spells and formulas) and the worship of material things. For the Jews, who had forsaken literal idols, their “god” was often money, they money that could be made, for example, by casting out demons. No wonder our Lord taught that men cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24).
In Acts, we find Judaism at it best and at its worst. In the Bereans (Acts 17:10-15) and Apollos (18:24-28), and the “12 disciples of Ephesus” (Acts 19:1-7), we find Judaism at its best. Its faith is in Messiah to come, and in the promises of the Word of God found in the Old Testament. People like these folks needed only to have “the blank filled in,” needed only to be shown that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But in the sons of Sceva and many other Jews we find Judaism at its worst. They have turned from trust in God and in His word to magic, to man-made religion, which promised to “meet their wants and needs.” What a sad departure from that which God had desired and demanded of His people.
In the New Testament epistles the teaching and practice which Paul or others condemns as false is often “Jewish” in nature and in origin. Ephesus will be greatly impacted and troubled by Jewish false teaching. This is very evident in the epistles of Paul to Timothy. The error which Paul refutes is that which is taught by those who wish to be “teachers of the Law” (1 Timothy 1:3-11). These would-be teachers engaged in speculation (1:4), although they spoke with great confidence (1:7). Their theology was really rooted in myths (1:4), not in the revealed Word of God. When these Jews turned from the truth of God they turned to speculation, myth, and conjecture. When they turned from the power of God, they often turned to some form of magic.
The people of Ephesus, and especially the saints, recognized that the practice of the sons of Sceva was really magic, that it was worthless, and that it was evil. And so they learned from the beating of the sons of Sceva and they renounced that form of magic which they had formerly practiced. As a result, the people of Ephesus took note and the gospel was advanced in Ephesus and all of Asia.
I find a principle to be underlying our text in Acts 19, which could be stated something like this: To the extent that the church has power, the unbelieving world will seek to imitate it; to the extent that the church lacks power, it will seek to imitate the world and its power.
The sons of Sceva were Jews, Jews of the high priestly line, but they had forsaken the faith of their fathers, and so they lacked power. The power of God was at work in Ephesus through Paul, and the sons of Sceva sought to imitate this power. Those who lack power seek it elsewhere.
My question for us today is this: “Is the world attempting to imitate the power of God which is evident in the church, or is the church today trying to imitate the power which is in the world?” I fear that the answer is all too evident. If the world is not trying to imitate the power of God in the church, then the church must have lost its power. And if the church is trying to imitate the power which is in the world, it has surely lost its power. The church is imitating the world much more than the world is imitating the church. The church, I fear, has turned from the worship of God and the Word of God to magic.
“What forms of magic are being practiced by Christians today?” There are, of course, those illicit forms of magic which Christians may practice in private, which they know to be wrong. For example, Christians may become involved in Tarot cards, in astrology, or in other occult practices. But these things are clearly forbidden. We recognize these as magic, or at least as evil.
What I am referring to is that form of “magic” which may be passing for Christianity. I am speaking of those practices which have the adjective “Christian” before them, but which are really magic. I will not be very popular for saying so, but these forms of magic have their “books,” too, books which ought to be burned, and which were probably purchased in Christian book stores. Some of them are books on “success” in one form or another, success which can be attained by following the right formulas. This “success” may be in the form of “answered prayer,” prayer which says the right things, which has the right words.
Magic finds its way into Christian thinking and practice to the degree that we turn from God alone as the object of our worship, and when we turn from His Word as the basis for our faith and practice. I have been greatly impressed concerning the relationship of God’s Word to God’s power in the Bible. Satan promised power to Adam and Eve, but to get it they had to disregard and disobey God’s word. Satan offered Jesus power, if He would but act independently of God and His word (Matthew 4; Luke 4). Notice that when Jesus responded to Satan, He always used the Word of God. That is because our Lord knew that the power of God cannot be divorced from the Word of God. To put it differently, we have power when we obey the Word, not when we reject it. Jesus rebuked His Jewish opponents by telling them that they knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29). Notice these texts which directly link the power of God to the Word of God:
For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it {the} righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous {man} shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17).
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).
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).
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (2 Peter 1:2-4).
Christian magic often takes the thoughts, methods, and means of secular, ungodly people, and seeks to sanctify it with Christian labels. How often Freudian psychology or some revised version of it (for example, Transactional Analysis) and pawns it off as Christian psychology. How often the church borrows its fund-raising methodology from the world and then seeks to give God the credit. How seldom the hand of God is evident in such a way that even the unbelievers recognize that it is God who is at work.
How much of our Christianity has magic as the motive and the method? We want God to meet our needs, to give us what we want, and thus we turn to formulas which assure us of His blessings? How much of our doctrine is speculative, rather than authoritative? How much of our knowledge is based upon secular thought, rather than on the Word of God? How many of our terms cannot be found in the Bible or defined by Scripture? How much emphasis is there on the “right method” or formula? How much room is left for God to overrule our desires or plans? How often is “integration” spoken of, in the sense of integrating Bible truth with other “truth,” under the banner, “All truth is God’s truth”?
I say to you that there is a great deal of magic being practiced today, but unlike the Ephesian saints of Paul’s day, we have not come to recognize it yet. Paul’s deliverance was not by magic, but by the sovereign working of God, not so much because of Paul’s efforts (which God disallowed), but in spite of them, through the instrumentality of a pagan politician, whose name is never mentioned—the city clerk of Ephesus. May God’s power be at work in and through us, so that the magic of unbelief is seen to be a fraud, and so that we renounce and reject it, to the glory of God and to the advancement of the gospel.
! Lesson 31:
Paul’s Parting Words
(Acts 20:1-38)
Introduction
When I was in Jr. High School, we had a fellow fall asleep in our class. As I remember, the teacher decided to teach the student a lesson by having the class silently slip out at the end of the period. The next class was also instructed to slip into their seats quietly. The student slept peacefully on—until about half way through the next period. Everyone was waiting and watching for him to wake up, which he did, of course. He opened his eyes, looked around the class, and came to the realization that it was another class, and not his own. He quietly gathered up his books and left class, as inconspicuously as possible.
Sleeping in class has happened for centuries. In our text, we are told of a young man named Eutychus, who fell asleep during Paul’s lengthy sermon, and then fell three stories down to his death. As you know, this young man was raised to life, and so the story is a happy one in the end. I am inclined to entitle the section which describes the death and raising of Eutychus, “Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class.” It is indeed and interesting story, and in time I believe we will see why the story was included in Luke’s account.
It would be an amusing exercise to swap “falling asleep in church” stories this morning. I only wish that there was time. Over the years I have seen a few of you fall asleep. I am frankly tempted to use this account as a proof text for lengthy sermons. A. T. Robertson makes this comment about Paul’s extended sermon:
“Paul’s purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.”[452]
But I am afraid that if I did preach any longer you would insist that I would have to be able to raise the dead, like Paul, or at least promise to leave the following day.
Structure of the Passage
The structure of the text is quite simple. There are four main sections. The first paragraph (verses 1-6) takes us from Ephesus to Troas, the scene of Paul’s ministry to the church there, and the raising of Eutychus, which is described in the second paragraph (verses 7-12). The third paragraph (verses 13-17) takes us from Troas down to Miletus, where Paul calls the Ephesian elders and gives them his parting words of exhortation and admonition, described in the last (and major) section (verses 18-38). The structure of this chapter can thus be summarized this way:
· From Ephesus to Troas vv. 1-6
· Paul’s ministry in Troas vv. 7-12
· From Troas to Miletus vv. 13-17
· Paul’s ministry to the Ephesian elders vv. 18-38
The Selective Nature of this Chapter
The events of chapter 20 cover an indefinite, but family extensive, period of time, and span a broad geographical area, from Ephesus in Asia, across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, Achaia, Greece, then (back) to Macedonia, and (back) across the Aegean Sea to Asia. Many important events occur during the time period encompassed in this chapter, and yet Luke is very brief in his description. There is much we would like to know that we are never told, and there is much that we are told elsewhere (in Paul’s epistles) which Luke does not even allude to here:
“We have valuable commentaries on this journey from Paul’s own pen in 2 Corinthians, which looks forward to the visit which he paid to Corinth, and in Romans, which was written during Paul’s stay at Corinth and throws light on his immediate plans for travel. From these letters we learn of the importance which Paul attached to the collection of money which he was taking from the Gentile churches under his superintendence to help the church in Jerusalem with caring for its poorer members.”[453]
“We have no way of knowing why Luke did not tell of Paul’s stay in Troas (II Cor. 2:12f.) nor of meeting Titus in Macedonia (II Cor. 2:13 to 7:16) nor of Paul’s visit to Illyricum (Rom. 15:19f.) to give time for II Corinthians to do its work (II Cor. 13), one of the most stirring experiences in Paul’s whole career when he opened his heart to the Corinthians and won final victory in the church by the help of Titus who also helped him round up the great collection in Achaia. He wrote II Corinthians during this period after Titus arrived from Corinth. The unity of II Corinthians is here assumed. Paul probably met Luke again in Macedonia, but all this is passed by except by the general phrase: ‘had given them much exhortation’… During this period {the ‘three months’ of verse 3} Paul may have written Galatians as Lightfoot argued and certainly did Romans. We do not have to say that Luke was ignorant of Paul’s work during this period, only that he did not choose to enlarge upon it.”[454]
We must conclude from this that Luke has deliberately chosen to be selective, and that the things he has omitted were not important to the development of his argument in this book. We must also determine what it is that Luke has chosen to emphasize, and how this points to the message which he intends for the reader to understand. We shall thus approach this chapter in the light of what Luke has written, as well as that which he has not written. Herein is the key to the message of this chapter.
From Ephesus to Troas
(20:1-6)
1 And after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he departed to go to Macedonia. 2 And when he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. 3 And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. 4 And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus; and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 5 But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.
Paul had plans as to what he intended to do. We know from Acts 19:21-22 that Paul intended to visit Jerusalem, and then Rome, and that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead into Macedonia. We also read of Paul’s plans as he outlined them in his first letter to the Corinthians:
1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. 3 And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I shall send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me. 5 But I shall come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I shall stay with you, or even spend the winter, that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now {just} in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective {service} has opened to me, and there are many adversaries (1 Corinthians 16:1-9).
Paul was in Ephesus when he wrote this epistle to the Corinthians. He spoke of the great opportunities there, as well as great opposition. It was his intention to stay in Ephesus until after Pentecost, and then to travel to Macedonia and finally on to Corinth, where he intended to spend the winter. Paul’s schedule was changed, however, for the uprising at Ephesus, brought about by Demetrius and his colleagues (Acts 19:23ff.), forced him to move up his departure date, as Luke informs us in verse 1 of Acts 20.
Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry from the time he left Ephesus until he reached Troas is incredibly brief. It is his intention to focus on Paul’s arrival and subsequent arrest in Jerusalem, which will then turn him toward Rome. He will not allow himself to be distracted by the many interesting aspects of Paul’s journeys or ministry because they do not contribute to his argument.
Perhaps the biggest omission is Luke’s refusal to write anything about Paul’s primary purpose for going first to Macedonia and Greece, and then to Jerusalem. If Paul was in Ephesus and he wanted to go to Jerusalem, he would have headed in a southerly direction. Instead, Paul went north and west, in the opposite direction of Jerusalem. Why? The answer to this question is very obvious from Paul’s writings. We see it mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapter 16, above, as well in these passages from the pen of the apostle, texts of which I am confident Luke must have been aware:
22 For this reason I have often been hindered from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while—25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 Yes, they were pleased {to do so,} and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things. 28 Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I will go on by way of you to Spain. 29 And I know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ (Romans 15:22-29).
But thanks be to God, who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. 17 For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord. 18 And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in {the things of} the gospel {has spread} through all the churches; 19 and not only {this,} but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work, which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and {to show} our readiness, 20 taking precaution that no one should discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; 21 for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. 22 And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things, but now even more diligent, because of {his} great confidence in you (2 Corinthians 8:16-22).
When Paul met with James, Peter, and John in Jerusalem, they recognized his calling as an apostle to the Gentiles. The only thing they urged upon Paul was that he remember the poor, which Paul was eager to do (Galatians 2:7-10). Paul had previously been involved in taking gifts to the poor saints in Judea (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25), but he wanted to take up a collection in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece, to take with him when he went to Jerusalem again. Thus Paul gave specific instructions in 1 and 2 Corinthians about the collection. Paul doubled back, going north instead of south, so that he could collect the offerings from these churches in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece, and then go down to Jerusalem.
There were several hitches in the plans Paul made. First, the riot at Ephesus caused Paul to leave Ephesus earlier than he expected. Second, when Paul was about ready to leave from Corinth, he learned of a plot on the part of the Jews, to kill him (Acts 20:3), and so he canceled his boat trip and journey by land back up to Macedonia, and then, after the feast of unleavened bread, across the Aegean Sea to Asia, where he ended up at Troas, the setting for the next incident to be recorded by Luke—Paul’s ministry at Troas, including the death and raising of Eutychus.
But before we press on to this next section, let me ask an important question, “If taking up a collection (for the poor in Jerusalem) in Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece was so important to Paul, as is evident from his epistles, why does Luke not even bother to mention the collection? Why, especially when he does give us the names of those men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, who were representatives of the churches which had given the money?
I believe that there are two reasons, which are somewhat related to each other.
First, Luke’s purpose was to record the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and the offering which Paul took from the Gentile churches did not play a major role in this advance. The money which Paul collected and took to Jerusalem was not for “missions,” but for the poor. Thus, this collection, while an important matter to Paul and to the giving and receiving churches, was not important to the advance of the gospel, other than its being the strong incentive for Paul to go to Jerusalem, even though he knew bonds and afflictions awaited him there (Acts 20:22-23).
Second, as strange as it may sound, money was not essential to the spread of the gospel in the Book of Acts. Think about it for a moment. The Book of Acts is a description of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, and from an almost entirely Jewish church to one that is predominantly Gentile. Putting on your accountant’s mindset and taking in hand your pocket calculator, add up the cost to the church of the advance of the gospel in Acts. What did it cost the church to get the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome? To narrow the field, what did it cost to have the gospel saturate all of Asia, as Luke tells us it did, and in only three years time? The answer: not one thin dime! How can this possibly be?
We would certainly wonder how the gospel could be proclaimed so widely and so many come to faith in such a short time, given our culture and mindset. You see we have come to believe that ministry is not possible without money, and that the degree to which ministry can be achieved is directly proportional to how much money is spent to do so. Is this not why so many of the televangelists spend as much as half of their broadcast time asking for money? Is this not how we excuse ourselves for not doing more? We don’t have the money.
What I am saying even surprises me, but let us pursue this matter of ministry and money a bit farther. When Jesus called His disciple to follow Him, He did not tell them to put their money on deposit with Him. Neither did He instruct His disciples to save up their money, so that they would have the means to minister in the future. Instead, Jesus instructed His disciples to sell their possessions and to give the proceeds to the poor—not to the television budget or the public relations fund. And when the beggar asked Peter and John for alms, they did not say that they would have to write a check. They said that they had no silver and gold, but they did have a healing to give him, along with the gospel.
Much ministry can be achieved without money, and much money can be spent which produces little ministry. Ministry is not proportionate to the amount of money that is spent. This is not to say that all ministry can be done without money, or that all ministry should be carried on without money. It is only saying that much ministry can be done without much money. All of Asia was reached with the gospel, in a period of three years, without radio, television, and the printed media. It was done by Spirit-filled Christians who shared their faith, who proclaimed the gospel in the power of God. If ministry is not proportionate with money, it is proportionate with the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in and through men. That is what the Book of Acts continually informs us.
I am not saying that all ministry is free, and that ministry does not require money. Jesus’ ministry cost money (see Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught that while money is merely temporal and passing, it can be used in such a way as to produce eternal results and eternal blessings (see Luke 16:1-13). Jesus had a great deal to say about money, but He did not teach about money only to pass the plate at the conclusion of His message. Money, therefore can be used in such a way as to perform a ministry in the lives of others, and to the glory of God, just as Paul taught:
Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food, will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service {the gift of the Macedonians to the poor in Jerusalem} is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).
As I understand the Scriptures, the Bible would consistently teach us that if we have money, we should seek to use it in ministry to others, and if we do not have money, we should minister anyway, for God’s working is not dependent upon money.
Allow me a very brief digression, which is but another piece of the whole. It is a secular, humanistic, mindset which equates ministry with money. It is also a humanistic mindset which equates effectiveness with status (position), influence, education, and intelligence. We often pursue and cater to the rich because we think that God’s work needs their money. We likewise pursue and cater to the learned, the educated, the “wise” because we think that the advancement of the gospel is directly proportionate to the wisdom and “clout” of the proclaimer. This is a denial of the Word of God, which teaches that God has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom and the strength of the wise (see 1 Corinthians 1-3). When God’s work is accomplished by those means which “work” for unbelieving men, men tend to take the credit. When God’s work is done through weakness, it is God who is given the glory, as it should be (see 1 Corinthians 1:26-31;l 3:18-23).
Eutychus Drops Out of Paul’s Class
(20:7-12)
7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. 8 And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. 9 And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” 11 And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12 And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.
What a strange feeling it must have been to see this city of Troas across the Aegean Sea, coming into view on the horizon. This was they city where Paul and Silas had arrived, having been denied the opportunity to minister in Bithynia and in Asia (Acts 16:6-8). It was here, in Troas, that Paul received the vision, providing him with the “Macedonian call” (16:9-10). Now, on Paul’s return to this city, there is a church. How it was started and by whom is not said. Somehow, in the wisdom of God, this city was evangelized, but according to God’s timetable, not man’s. It was Paul’s desire to worship with the saints in Troas, and to teach them from the Scriptures, and from the revelation which God had given him.
When the church gathered on the “first day of the week”[455] in order to “break bread”[456] Paul was there. There are two areas of emphasis evident in Luke’s description of Paul’s ministry to the church at Troas on this occasion: (1) the strong desire of Paul to teach these saints, and (2) the miraculous raising of Eutychus from the dead. Let us look at what is said about these two elements, and what is not, for herein we find a key to the message of this incident.
To begin with, let us consider the miracle of the raising of Eutychus. There are many who would cast doubt on whether a miracle really happened here. The liberal mind would like to deal with the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the same way they explain the raising of Jesus from the dead—by insisting that neither died, but that they only swooned, later on to revive. They would have us understand that Eutychus was taken up as though dead, but not really dead. They would suggest that Eutychus was drug off, later to revive and be carried back alive, so that all could be comforted. Luke, Dr. Luke, was there, and he has, as it were, written us a death certificate. This boy did die, and he was raised from the dead.
The reason why a liberal would reject this resurrection is because they do not believe in miracles. The reason why a miracle-accepting Christian might wonder if Eutychus was raised is because so little is made of this event as a miracle. The raising of Eutychus is stated matter-of-factly. There is no hype, no trumpet blowing, only a very brief description of the event. We are not told, for example, that Paul prayed for Eutychus to be raised from the dead, as, for example, Peter seems to have done in Acts 9:36-42). Paul fell over the young man, and he announced that he was alive, but the process of his raising is not spelled out. And after the event, there is no praise gathering for the miracle, even though all were greatly comforted by his raising (verse 12).
Why is so little emphasis put on this miracle? Why is it passed over so quickly? Because this was not Paul’s priority. Paul is instrumental in the raising of the lad, but it was not his main interest. Paul was intent on teaching these folks, so much so that when the boy was raised to life, he quickly went back upstairs to observe communion and to teach more, for the rest of the night (verse 11). It is almost as though Paul looked at his watch and said, “Oh my, we have just lost 20 minutes of teaching time, let’s quickly go upstairs and break bread and then I have some more things which I need to teach you before I leave.”
Why do both Paul and Luke give this miracle “second place” status? Many seem to think that Acts is a book of miracles, and that this book is our basis for assuming that God not only can but will work miracles on a daily basis. When one reads the Book of Acts carefully, you find that the book records fewer miracles than we might expect—fewer miracles than actually occurred.[457] I believe that both Luke and Paul were firmly convinced that while miracles would come and go, but that the Word of God would be eternal. I believe that both were convinced that while miracles will not sustain faith, the Word of God will. This is why Paul and Luke deal briefly with the miracle and deal emphatically with the teaching. Faith is not based upon what is seen (miracles, for example), but on the Word of God (see Hebrews 11). Thus miracles will not sustain our faith, but the Word of God will.
And thus we see the sense of urgency of Paul with regard to the need to teach these saints. Shortly after they began to meet (it would seem) Paul began speaking to them, knowing that his departure was on the following day. He knew he had only a little time, but much to say (see verse 7). Because of the shortness of his time with them, Paul extended his teaching until midnight (verse 7). It was because of Paul’s lengthy teaching and because of the many lamps in that room that Eutychus fell asleep and from the window to his death (verses 8-9). When Eutychus was raised to life, Paul went back upstairs, eager to continue on with his teaching, throughout the night.
Who could argue that Paul was not strongly compelled to teach these saints? And yet, notice that while we have a great deal of emphasis on Paul’s sense of the need to teach, we are not given so much as one word as to what it was that Paul did teach. If what Paul had to teach was so important, why did Luke not preserve the content for us? I think I have the answer. First, Luke’s purpose here is not to outline Paul’s curriculum, but to show the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke does not have the time to spell out Paul’s teaching here, because that is not his point. If Paul was intent of getting the gift from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Greece to Jerusalem, Luke had no problem in passing over this. If Paul was intent on teaching the saints at Troas, Luke had no problem in passing by the content of that teaching. And the reason why Luke could pass by these matters is that Paul has written many epistles, which we have in our Bibles, which not only describe this gift, but which also lay out, in full from, the things which Paul felt were important for the churches. Luke can omit Paul’s teaching because it was in print, in the Bible (or would soon be).
From Troas to Miletus
(20:13-16)
13 But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos,[458] intending from there to take Paul on board; for thus he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. 14 And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. 15 And sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus.[459] 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.
Paul left these saints in Troas, still chomping at the bit to reach Jerusalem before Pentecost. For some unstated reason, Paul went on by land, while the others stayed on board ship. He had arranged to board ship at Assos. It almost seems as though someone forgot to put some of Paul’s baggage on board ship (surely he would not have planned to carry it as he went by land), for he will later write,
When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments (2 Timothy 4:13).
The ship which Paul sailed on seems to have been on a “milk run,” stopping at various ports along its way toward Caesarea (Acts 21:8). One may well wonder why Paul would have taken a ship which had so many delays if he were in such a hurry to reach Jerusalem. The only reasonable answer to this is that all such ships would have had delays for onloading and offloading cargo, for supplies, repairs, and seamen. The ship which Paul took must have had the shortest travel time, and thus Paul endured the delays because they were minimum.
The ship passed by Ephesus, which seems to have been at least part of the reason why Paul took it. When it made port at Miletus, it was to have a one week layover, and so Paul sent word to Ephesus, for the elders to come to him at Miletus, some thirty miles distant. It was at Miletus that Paul met for what he thought was the last time with these church leaders. He message to these men was of great importance to them, and it is vitally important to us as well. The remainder of our lesson will focus on the farewell address of Paul to the Ephesian elders.
Paul’s Final Words to the Ephesian Elders
(20:17-38)
17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,
“You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 “And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. 24 “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. 25 “And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. 26 “Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 “For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 32 “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. 34 “You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. 35 “In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” 36 And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37 And they began to weep aloud and embraced Paul, and repeatedly kissed him, 38 grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship.
General Observations
Our passage is one of the outstanding texts in Acts,[460] conveying the impassioned final words of Paul to the leaders of the Ephesian church. We shall not in any way exhaust its study or fathom its depths in this lesson. I would like to begin, however, with some general observations.
Notice, first of all, that Paul’s words look backward and forward in time. Paul looks back over the years which he has spend with these men, drawing upon his conduct and teaching and the work of God in their midst. And then Paul looks forward, to his own fate and the dangers which lie ahead, which seem to spell his death, or at least imprisonment, and thus his “farewell” to these leaders. Paul also looks forward to the dangers which lie ahead of this church and to these men in particular. He therefore warns them of these dangers and spells out God’s resources for them.
Second, these words of Paul are those of man who has a deep affection for these elders, and they are received by these men with the same love and affection for Paul. These are words that are tearfully delivered and which are tearfully received. Paul can talk to these men as he does because they know him well, just as he knows them intimately. He speaks to them frankly, out of love, as they listen with hearts of love for him, through whose ministry (no doubt) they have come to faith. The message and the man are very much inter-twined. Paul’s conduct and his content are inseparable, and thus he moves from his practice to his preaching, back and forth. He also wishes for his teaching to work itself out in very practical terms, and so he moves from his teaching to the lifestyle which it requires.
With these general observations, let us look at each section of Paul’s final words, noting some of its particulars, and then I will attempt to draw the material together in such a way as to characterize Paul’s ministry, as a pattern for the Ephesian elders and for us.
Paul’s Practice in the Past (Verses 18-21)
Paul begins his exhortation by pointing to his practice while with the Ephesians for those nearly three years among them. It is evident that he was not distant from these saints, but that he had an intimate association with them, and that his life had a transparency to it, so that they could know him well. Over this extended period of time they could see Paul’s consistency in lifestyle. He was putting on no show for them. He served the Lord among them, with humility, with great love and concern (tears) and with much opposition from the Jews.[461] Paul evangelized, proclaiming the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike, always calling men to repent of their sins and to have faith in the Lord Jesus as their Savior. In addition to his ministry of evangelism, he taught those who believed, both in public and in private (house to house, verse 20). Paul did not hold back (shrink) from telling men what they needed to hear. He did not selectively proclaim what men wanted to hear. All that was profitable, he proclaimed, to the saved and to the unsaved. Opposition neither silenced Paul, nor did it cause him to be selective in what he said, so as to avoid opposition or reaction.
Paul’s Practice in the Light of His Future (Verses 22-27)
Paul was pressing on toward Jerusalem, in a hurry to get there as soon as he could (Acts 19:21; 20:16). And yet what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem was far from pleasant. He was “bound in spirit” (verse 22) and informed by the Holy Spirit (verse 23) concerning his future plans. He did not know all the details, but he was informed wherever he went[462] that bonds and afflictions (note the plural, “afflictions”) awaited him in Jerusalem. Saving his life was not the goal however, but spending his life in fulfilling his calling—the proclamation of the gospel. The warnings of his future bonds and afflictions were but further clarification of what he had been informed at the time of his conversion:
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” (Acts 9:15-16).
Paul’s goal was to “finish his course,” to accomplish that which God had given him to do. So far as Ephesus and Asia were concerned, Paul was content that he had fulfilled his mission there, and thus he could leave, never to return again, if that were the will of God. He was innocent of the blood of all men there because he had not held back from proclaiming the gospel, nor had he failed to teach the saints the whole counsel of God (verses 26-27). He could leave them because he knew his work there was completed. There was still work to be done elsewhere, and thus he must press on, even though suffering awaited him.
The Dangers Ahead for the Ephesian Elders (Verses 28-32)
It was not just Paul who was in for trials and tests. There were dangers ahead for the church at Ephesus, and even for these elders themselves. Paul’s words of encouragement must also include words of admonition and warning. These men must be on guard, not just for the flock, but also for themselves. These men were appointed as elders by the Holy Spirit, and as such they were to shepherd the flock of God, among which God had placed them. This flock was threatened by “wolves,” and these “shepherds” were to guard the flock and protect them from such individuals, who would seek to do them harm.
Notice the “sheep” symbolism which Paul used here. The flock were the “sheep,” and the elders were the “shepherds” of the flock, who were appointed by the Holy Spirit to protect and to feed the sheep. The danger was to come from the “wolves” who would savagely seek to destroy the flock and to devour some of the sheep. If this were not bad enough, some of the wolves were present there with Paul. There would be some of them who would assert themselves and who would seek to create a following of their own. In so doing, they would teach perverse things, things which would appeal to some and which would draw them to these false teachers. These teachers would no longer be shepherds of the flock, feeding, guiding and protecting the flock, but would feed themselves off of the flock, teaching what was perverse to attract and to mislead them. The would not seek to make disciples of our Lord, but to make disciples of their own, much like the Pharisees (Matthew 23:15). The dangers for these men were great, which is why Paul persistently admonished them while he was with them (verse 31). They, like he, must be vigilant, on the alert for such falling away.
The “wolves” of whom Paul warned these elders were those who were self-seeking and self-serving, who would prey upon the flock, bringing destruction as they savagely devoured the sheep. The shocking part of Paul’s warning was not that false teachers would arise, and that the flock of God would be attacked from without; the shocking news was that some of those who would prove to be “savage wolves” were among them. Some of these elders would actually cease to be shepherds, who fed the sheep and protected them from danger, and become wolves, preying upon the flock, and speaking perverse things to achieve their destructive ends. They would cease to think and act like shepherds (and especially like the “Good Shepherd”), caring for the flock and laying down their lives to protect the flock.
How could such a terrible thing happen? How could a true shepherd of the flock become a wolf? It seems to me that the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New, provide us with some very direct evidence as to how things go wrong. Ezekiel 34 is a divine rebuke of the “shepherds of Israel,” who have forsaken their task and calling as shepherds, and have begun to feed themselves from the flock, rather than feeding the flock. In John chapter 10 our Lord speaks of Himself as the “Good Shepherd” and He contrasts Himself with those who are thieves and robbers, and also with the hirelings, who have no real love nor care for the sheep, and who look out for themselves first.
From these texts and from the context of Paul’s words of warning, I think that the first step in the fall from a shepherd to a wolf is that one ceases to think and act like a servant and begins to expect to be served. The “good shepherd” (not our Lord, but the faithful shepherd or elder) is one who gives of his life, who sacrifices personally for the benefit of the sheep. The “wolf” becomes willing to sacrifice the sheep so that he may benefit. He expects to gain from the sheep, even at the expense of the sheep. He may first become a mere “hireling,” looking out for himself and not really caring for the sheep. When there is danger or demands, he is not present to care for the sheep. But eventually he becomes the wolf, who actually devours the sheep.
Paul may have had some specific revelation on this matter of the Ephesian elders, but then again he may have merely been convinced of the effects of the fall and of the sinfulness of the heart and of the power of sin through the flesh. He may also have already seen such transformations from shepherds to savage wolves. History has borne out Paul’s warnings, time and time again.
No longer would Paul be present with them, to continue to warn them of these dangers, or to point out those who would rise up as devouring wolves. He did not despair, however, for it was no he on whom the church in Ephesus was dependent, but upon the Lord. And so it is that Paul can leave, commending this body of saints to the Lord, and to the “word of His grace.”[463] It was God, through His Word and through His Spirit, who would build men up, keep them from falling, and bring them into the inheritance which He had promised. Jude, in the same context of false teachers, would give a similar benediction:
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24-25)
When you look through the New Testament to read the final, parting words of the apostles, you will discover that all of them turn the focus of their readers to the Word of God, not that they have not always done so, but that they do so especially in the light of their absence (see 2 Peter 1; 2 Timothy 3 & 4; 1 John 2:18-29).
Paul’s Example and the Shepherd’s Spirit
(20:33-35)
In addition to the “word of God’s grace” and the direct involvement of God in the lives of these elders, they also had the example of Paul to draw upon as an illustration of the kind of motivation and lifestyle which should characterize them—a motivation and lifestyle directly opposite to that of the “savage wolves” mentioned above. The savage wolves prey upon the sheep, while the shepherd cares for the sheep, even a great personal sacrifice. These wolves were savage wolves, with ravenous appetites. They wanted more—more from the sheep—more money, more power, more status and honor. In exchange they “fed” the sheep perverse teaching, which appealed to the lower natures and desires of the sheep. These men facilitated the self-indulgence of the sheep, only to fatten them for the kill, so that they could indulge themselves on the sheep.
Paul, on the other hand, had a ministry which was marked by a servant’s spirit. He did not gain from his ministry among them, even though he could legitimately have done so (see 1 Corinthians chapter 9). He worked with his own hands, supporting not only himself but those who traveled with him. His ministry came at great cost, not to the sheep, but to himself. He was free from lust for their money or possessions. His ministry did not require money from others, and so he was free from the time-consuming process of raising funds, and from the temptation to misuse them so as to personally gain from his ministry. His ministry was characterized by giving, not by getting. His strength was not used to prey upon the weak, to take advantage of their weaknesses, but to support the weak. His life was lived on the principle taught by our Lord Himself: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (verse 35).[464]
A Tearful Parting
(20:36-38)
At the end of Paul’s exhortation, Paul knelt in prayer with these men. From the beginning of Acts to the present, there was nothing more important than “the ministry of the Word and prayer” (see Acts 6:4). Paul had ministered the word to these men, and now they must pray. Once again, Paul’s dependence and that of these elders, was upon God. And so they called upon Him for grace.
The parting of these men was indeed painful, with many tears shed. Not only was Paul leaving them, but so far as they knew it was for the last time. They were convinced that they would never see his face again. The one who had played such a vital role in their salvation and spiritual growth was now leaving them. What they did not know was that there would be further contact with Paul, through his writing (the epistle to the Ephesians) and through those whom Paul would send their way, such as Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3) and others (2 Timothy 4:12). God would minister to these saints by other means as well, as we can see in the first two chapters of the Book of Revelation. But what we see here is the heart of the apostle toward these saints, and their deep love and affection for him. The man who had once brought tears to the eyes of the saints by his persecution now brought tears to the eyes of the saints because of his coming persecution.
Conclusion
As we conclude this lesson, I want to focus your attention on several areas, which are directly applicable to our own lives.
First, I want to call your attention to those Scriptures which pertain to Ephesus after Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20. Some time later, after Paul’s arrest and during his imprisonment, Paul wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians. In this epistle, he does not seek to address any specific problems in the church, but to declare the whole counsel of God and its practical implications in the lives of those who believe. In a word, this epistle surely is a “word of His grace.”
As time went on, problems did arise in the Ephesian church, the very problems which Paul predicted in his farewell address. These problems were the reason why Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and why he wrote the his first epistle to Timothy. Just as Paul warned that false teachers would arise, so Paul spoke of those “would-be teachers of the Law” who turned aside to fruitless, speculative discussions, spoken with great confidence, but having no profit so far as godly living are concerned (1 Timothy 1:3-11). In chapter 3, Paul laid down the qualifications for elders. The church at Ephesus already had elders, those who may have been appointed by Paul. But in light of the falling away of some, new elders may have been needed. Some of the existing elders, if they had wandered from the truth, may have needed to be re-evaluated in terms of these qualifications. In chapter 4 Paul spoke against those who, out of a defiled conscience (contrast 1:5) were forbidding those things which were God-given blessings, in the name of righteous living. Finally, in chapter 6 Paul spoke of those whose doctrine was speculative and corrupt, and based upon the premise that godliness was a means of getting rich. Paul’s words of warning to the Ephesian elders had indeed come to pass.
The last reference to the Ephesian church in the New Testament is found in the Book of Revelation (see 1:11). One of the seven churches of Asia to which the Lord gave a word of rebuke and encouragement was the church at Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7). From this text it would appear that the church had finally come to grips with its need to reject false teachers, but in the process they had gone overboard. In their zeal to remain doctrinally pure they had become cold, loveless (see 1 Timothy 1:5). They were therefore exhorted to repent and to return to their first deeds. From some reports of this church later in history, it appears that they took this admonition to heart.
From this “track record” of the church at Ephesus, I think we can see that the temptations and dangers which a church faces may change, but that there will always be some threat to its purity, practices, or devotion. This church which, at first, was threatened by doctrinal deviation, later corrected this problem but swung to the other extreme of devotional coldness. From one direction or another, the church of our Lord will always be under satanic attack, and fighting some form of evil. The moment we deal with such evil and begin to pride ourselves on this, we are threatened by another evil, as deadly as the first. Let us look for those things which threaten our doctrinal purity and or devotion to Christ and to one another. No church is without these dangers.
Second, I would like to briefly summarize some of the characteristics of Paul’s mindset and ministry, which should also characterize us. I will only briefly summarize the characteristics which I see in Paul’s ministry, but hope that these will stimulate further thought and study on your part.
(1) Paul had a strong sense of mission and a clear conception of his calling. Paul had no doubt as to what he was called to do, and he purposed to complete his calling, even if this meant suffering or death.
(2) Paul had a strong sense of his priorities. Because Paul knew what he was called to do, he also had a strong sense of his priorities. First, he served God, and then he served others, and this he did even if it meant losing his own life. Paul’s priorities are the exact reverse of our culture. Our generation serves ourselves first, others second, and God hardly at all.
(3) Paul’s life and ministry is marked by consistency and stability. He can refer to his conduct among the Ephesians as that which he consistently lived out among them—”how I was with you the whole time” (verse 18; see also 1 Corinthians 4:16-17). He was persistent even in the face of opposition or disagreement. He did not “shrink” from his duty (verse 20, 27). He was consistent in the gospel which he preached, a gospel of repentance and faith (verse 21).
(4) Paul’s life and ministry were characterized by balance.
· Balance between doctrine and lifestyle, between theory and practice
· Balance between edification of the saints and evangelization of the lost
· Balance between public and private ministry (“publicly and from house to house,” verse 20).
· Doctrinal balance (no hobby horses)—”the whole counsel of God,” v. 27
· Balance in his ministry to the Jews and to the Gentiles
· Balance between tenderness (tears) and toughness (admonishing night and day)
(5) Paul’s ministry reflected a profound grasp of the relationship between strength and weakness. He knew that his strength came from God, ministered through his weakness (see 2 Corinthians 12:1-10) and that from the strength God supplied, he was to serve the weak. Unlike the “wolves” who used their strength to prey upon the weak, Paul’s strength was employed in serving the weak.
(6) Paul’s ministry is characterized by a profound sense of freedom. Paul’s ministry was marked by a freedom from guilt. While much of Christian ministry today is motivated by guilt (often guilt imposed by church leadership), Paul was free from a sense of guilt, free because he knew that he had been obedient and had fulfilled his ministry and calling at Ephesus. Thus he was free to leave, free from the blood of all men. He was also free to live or die, based upon his hope of eternal life (see Philippians 1:19-26). Finally, he was free from the bondage of greed, self-seeking, and self-interest, the very things which would be the downfall of some of the Ephesian elders and many others.
(7) Paul’s ministry was marked by a profound grasp of the fallibility of men and of the faithfulness of God. Paul knew the fallibility of men, and thus he predicted the downfall of some of these elders, not to mention the rising up of other “wolves” who would prey upon the flock. And yet in spite of Paul’s realistic view of man’s fallenness, he was convinced of God’s faithfulness, and on this he could have absolute confidence. On this basis he could leave Ephesus, commending these saints to God and to the word of His grace.
Third, there is in this passage, once again, the undercurrent of the sovereignty of God, working out His plan and purpose, through men. While Paul’s sense of urgency had to do with the offerings of the churches of Macedonia, Achaia, and Greece to the poor in Jerusalem, God was intent only to get this man to Jerusalem, where by a very different means, he would get Paul and the gospel to Rome. Paul purposed to go to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 19:21-22), and God would get him there, but in ways that even Paul did not comprehend at the time. His ways and His thoughts are always higher than ours.
Finally, this passage reflects the primary role of the Word of God and the secondary role of money and miracles. In Troas and at Miletus, Paul’s ministry was one of “preaching the Word.” That was Paul’s priority. He saw the need for teaching the saints at Troas to be so great that he taught them all night. And even when his teaching was interrupted by the death of Eutychus, immediately after his miraculous raising, Paul went back to worship and teaching. When Paul ministered to these Ephesian elders, he ministered the word and he commended them to God and to His word. While money and miracles played a role in the events of our text, they were clearly secondary, not primary. Why is it today that miracles and money seem to be primary, while the ministry of the Word is secondary?
May God continue to use this great chapter to renew our minds and lives, for His glory and for our good.
! Lesson 32:
The Giving and Taking of Advice
(Acts 21:1-40)
Introduction
Advice can be a wonderful thing … or a disaster. I remember once advising my sister, as she was making ginger snaps. I told her that she should sift the flour and the molasses together into the bowl. I’m sure that a moment or two of thought on your part could bring back memories of bad advice you have heeded in your life, and hopefully some good advice as well.
In our text Paul is given advice by two groups, each of which had considerable influence. The first group was a fairly large group of those who knew Paul, who cared deeply about him, and who urged him not to go to Jerusalem, where bonds and affliction awaited him. Paul rejected this advice, even though it was apparently given by those who traveled with him—men like Luke (see 21:12). The second time Paul was advised in chapter 21 it was by the elders of the church in Jerusalem, who urged Paul to do as they suggested, so that it would convince the Jewish saints in their city that Paul had not utterly renounced his Judaism personally, nor was he advocating that other Jews who had come to faith in Messiah do so. This advice Paul followed.
First impressions might incline us to conclude that Paul made the wrong choice in both cases. In going on to Jerusalem, that which had been prophesied about his being bound and handed over to the Gentiles came to pass. And, from a human point of view, it happened because Paul took the advice of the elders in Jerusalem, worshipped in the temple as they suggested, and was mistakenly accused of wrong-doing in the process.
There is yet one more “mistake” which Paul will appear to make in these final chapters of the Book of Acts: He will appeal his case to Caesar, and thus require that he be held in custody and taken to Rome.
All of these apparent mistakes are simply that—apparent mistakes. The bonds and afflictions which awaited Paul at Jerusalem, along with his subsequent appeal to Caesar, were God’s means of proclaiming the gospel to “Gentiles and kings,” just as God had purposed and foretold (Acts 9:15). In a similar way, the advice given Paul by the elders at Jerusalem was intended to enhance the gospel in one way, but God used it in a very different way to propel Paul and the gospel to the very court of Caesar, in Rome. It is, in fact, fitting that the gospel which, in Acts, was first proclaimed in Jerusalem (Acts 2) and last proclaimed in Rome (Acts 28) should find its way to Rome via Jerusalem (Acts 21-22).
Christians are just as inclined to give advice today as they were in Paul’s. Unfortunately, much (if not most) of the advice which is given by Christians is like that which the saints along the way to Jerusalem give to Paul—well-intentioned, but wrong. In our study, we will take note of the two very different forms of advice given to Paul in this chapter—that given by the saints in the cities on the way to Jerusalem, and that given by the elders in Jerusalem. We will characterize each of these, and then compare and contrast them. Finally, we will seek to identify some principles governing advice which may guide us in the advice we give as well as in the advice we choose to follow.
The Structure of the Text
The structure of chapter 21 is geographical in nature. Verses 1-6 take us from Miletus, where Paul met with the Ephesian elders, to Tyre, where Paul and his party will look up the saints and stay with them for seven days. Verses 7-14 take us from Tyre to Caesarea, where Paul and the others will stay at the home of Philip the Evangelist. And verses 15 through 40 are the description of the arrival of Paul and the others in Jerusalem, where they will meet with the elders, where Paul will worship, and finally where he will be taken into custody, accused of a “crime” which never occurred. The last verse of the chapter takes us to the beginning of an address by Paul to the Jews who had gathered. The address is recorded in chapter 22.
The chapter can be outlined as follows:
· From Miletus to Tyre—verses 1-6
· From Tyre to Caesarea—verses 7-14
· From Caesarea to Jerusalem—verses 15-40
à Paul’s reception and report to the elders—verses 14-19
à The elders’ response and recommendation—verses 20-25
à Paul’s compliance, the Jews’ charges, and the consent of the commander—verses 26-40
The Importance of our Passage
Our text is a very important one in Acts for it tells us how it was, in the plan and the purpose of God, that the gospel made its way to Rome. It was a way that no one would have expected, and many of the saints were trying (unwittingly) to prevent. But it was God’s way. The very thing which God was going to do, and which Paul was committed to do, the saints were seeking to turn around, to do the very opposite. Our text has a great deal to say about suffering, and about the will of God, about the giving and receiving of “advice” and “council,” and about standing alone. Let us listen well to Luke’s words, for they contain the inspired instruction of the Holy Spirit, and let us look to Him to make the message and meaning clear to us, as it relates to our daily walk of faith.
From Miletus to Tyre
(21:1-6)
With tears in their eyes, Paul and his companions “tore themselves away”[465] from the Ephesian elders at Miletus and set sail for Jerusalem, where Paul knew that suffering and bondage awaited him (see 21:22-23). Luke’s account quickly moves about, informing us of their making port at Cos, and then Rhodes, and next Patara,[466] where they found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia.[467] As they headed for Syria, they sighted the island of Cyprus on their left, and landed at Tyre,[468] where they ship had to unload its cargo.
One incident at Tyre is reported by Luke, which was typical of what took place in every city Paul met with the saints (20:23). He tells the reader, in very brief terms, of the prophecy concerning Paul’s fate in Jerusalem, and the response of the saints to this revelation. Looking up the saints at Tyre, Paul and the rest spent the week with them. During this time, the Holy Spirit revealed Paul’s bondage and suffering in Jerusalem. The result was that the saints persisted in urging Paul not to continue with his journey to Jerusalem.
It would appear, from the words of verse 4 alone, that the Holy Spirit not only revealed through one or more prophets that Paul was to suffer in Jerusalem, but that it was not God’s will for him to do so. Luke’s terse report, “they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem” (verse 4), seems not only to allow for such a conclusion, but to require it. Later revelation in this chapter makes this impossible. We are apparently faced with choosing one of these three explanations of Luke’s words:
(1) These saints not only understood Paul’s future, if he pressed on to Jerusalem, but the Spirit revealed to them that Paul should not go. Thus, Paul was “out of God’s will” in pressing on to Jerusalem.
(2) The Holy Spirit not only informed the saints at Tyre of Paul’s fait in Jerusalem, but “led them” to advise against it, so as to test or demonstrate Paul’s obedience and faith in pressing on anyway, in spite of the dangers and warnings.
(3)These saints were correct in understanding that Paul would be bound in Jerusalem, but they were wrong in their conclusion that Paul should not go. Paul, on the other hand, was correct in pressing on to Jerusalem.
I find only the third option acceptable. I believe we must conclude that the Holy Spirit revealed only the fact of Paul’s fate, and that the conclusions drawn from this were not those which came from the Spirit, and were not the will of God for Paul.[469] The expression “speaking in the Spirit” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “speaking through the Spirit” (NASB) must refer to the fact that the words spoken “through the Spirit” were the words pertaining to Paul’s bondage, while the words spoken urging Paul not to go were not spoken “through the Spirit” but were spoken out of the loving and well-intentioned hearts of these mistaken saints.
Paul did not take their advice, for when the ship was ready to sail, he was on it. Sadly, no doubt, these saints and their families escorted Paul to the ship, where they knelt down on the beach and prayed with these travelers before they departed. The party then boarded ship and set sail for Ptolemais, while the saints at Tyre returned to their homes, probably thinking that they would not see Paul again (see 20:25).
From Tyre to Caesarea
(21:7-14)
From Tyre, the party sailed to Ptolemais,[470] a distance of some twenty miles.[471] They spend a day with these saints, the following day departing for Caesarea, some forty miles away.[472] Here, they stayed in the home of Philip the Evangelist, one of the “seven” deacons appointed to supervise the feeding of the widows (Acts 6:1-6). He later played a significant role in the evangelization of Samaria and was God’s instrument in the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:5-8; 26-39). He also evangelized the coastal cities between Gaza and Caesarea (Acts 8:40).[473] He seems to have settled in Caesarea and lived there for a number of years. He married and had four daughters, all of whom were virgins and had the gift of prophecy.[474]
It was not through these daughters that God spoke to the church at Caesarea, but through a prophet from Judea—Agabus (verse 10). This is the same Agabus who came to Antioch, to inform the saints in this church that a world-wide famine was to come upon the whole earth (Acts 11:27-29). In a dramatic fashion, similar to that of some of the Old Testament prophets,[475] Agabus took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands.[476] He told the church[477] that Paul would be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem and would be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. What Agabus said was new to the Caesarean saints, but not to Paul or those with him.
It is what Agabus did not say which is of greatest interest to us. Agabus, through the Holy Spirit, told only of Paul’s bonds and affliction, which awaited him in Jerusalem; he gave no inspired instructions to Paul about turning back or avoiding Jerusalem. The Caesarean saints did so, along with all those in Paul’s traveling party, including Luke it would seem (21:12), just as the saints of Tyre had just done previously. The saints from both cities came to the conclusion on their own that Paul should stay away from Jerusalem, a conclusion based upon the prophecy of Paul’s treatment in Jerusalem, but not because the prophecy specifically indicated that Paul should turn away from Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit indicated to Paul and to the rest what was going to happen to Paul in Jerusalem; the saints concluded, on their own, what Paul should do about the Spirit’s revelation. And these saints were wrong, even though they were unanimous in their conclusion! Paul’s response to their advice will convince these well-meaning saints that he was right and that going to Jerusalem was the will of God. They respond to Paul’s insistence that he is going to Jerusalem by saying, “The will of the Lord be done!”
Let us consider why the majority felt that Paul should turn back, and afterwards we shall consider Paul’s reasons for refusing to do so.
Reasons for Trying to Turn Paul Back
The following reasons seem to emerge from our text as the basis for seeking to turn Paul back from pressing on to Jerusalem:
(1) These Christians cared much for Paul and did not wish for him to have to suffer. I am convinced that the motive was that of genuine love and concern. Who wants someone they love to suffer?
(2) These friends of Paul probably concluded that imprisonment might not only lead to suffering, and perhaps death for the apostle, but would also spell the end of his ministry. How could the apostle minister from prison? How, indeed!
(3) These seem to have understood that the prophecy of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem was revealed to them, and thus they were obliged to do something about this. Mistakenly, they concluded that it was their calling to turn Paul from his course.
(4) These saints may well have thought that this prophecy was not a revelation of what God had destined to happen, but of what He threatened would happen, unless Paul’s course changed. There were different types of prophecy in the Old Testament. If we were to divide prophecy into two categories, it would be (a) that which God had purposed, and was going to happen, regardless of men’s actions; and (b) that which God promised on a conditional basis, unless men’s conduct changed. An example of the first type would be Pharaoh’s dream of seven years of feast, followed by the seven years of famine (Genesis 41:32). An example of the second would be Jonah’s threat, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), based upon God’s words in texts such as Jeremiah 18:5-10. No doubt, these well-meaning saints saw this prophecy as the second kind, and thus they set out to change Paul’s actions, in order to change his fate.
Paul’s Reasons for Pressing on to Jerusalem
Paul was not about to change his mind. He was convinced that he was to go to Jerusalem. I believe that his reasons can be seen from this text, as well as from the account of his life and ministry as outlined by Luke in the Book of Acts. Consider the following reasons for Paul’s determination to press on to Jerusalem.
(1) Paul was given a very clear understanding of the will of God for his life, including his calling to go to Jerusalem to suffer for the sake of the gospel.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake” Acts 9:15-16).
“And a certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, {and} well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear an utterance from His mouth. ‘For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard’” (Acts 22:12-15).
“‘But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the {Jewish} people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’ “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 26:16-20).
(2) Paul’s ministry was characterized by suffering, and the threat of death, from the very outset. Luke’s account of the conversion of Saul informs us that Paul was immediately opposed and persecuted by the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah, so that Paul had to secretly leave Damascus, lowered from a wall in a basket (Acts 9:23-25). So, too, in Jerusalem, Paul was in great danger and had to leave (Acts 9:29-30). In Lystra, Paul was stoned and left for dead (Acts 13:19). In his epistles, Paul referred to a number of other incidents of his sufferings which were not recorded in Acts (see Romans 15:31; 1 Corinthians 4:9-13; 2 Corinthians 4:7-15; 6:3-10). Paul was no stranger to suffering. Would they seek to turn him from suffering in Jerusalem, as though this would be some new experience? Paul’s whole ministry had been marked by suffering.
(3) Paul was not only willing to suffer; he was ready to die for the sake of the gospel. Paul rebuked those who tried to turn him away from Jerusalem, assuring them that he knew well that he would be bound and would suffer when he arrived there. But even more than this, Paul was ready to die there, if necessary. Having dealt with the greater issue of his death, suffering was really of little concern to him. Over and over we see Paul’s willingness to die, if need be. For him who could say, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21), suffering was not a problem, but a privilege. He, like the saints in the “hall of fame” of Hebrews 11, was looking for a city that was not of this world. Death would not keep Paul from his reward, but would hasten him to it.
(4) In short, Paul saw suffering more as a privilege than as a problem, and as an inseparable part of his calling to proclaim Jesus as the Savior. In the Book of Philippians, Paul spoke of suffering as that which God graciously granted, along with believing in Christ (Philippians 1:29). He also understood that his suffering, in a special way, drew him into a more intimate understanding knowledge of his Lord (Philippians 3:10), as God’s way of encouraging the spiritual walk of other Christians, and of promoting the proclamation of the gospel (Philippians 1:12-18).
(5 ) While it is not stated, I believe that Paul understood that the prophecy of his being bound in Jerusalem was more for the benefit of the saints than for him. He knew that God was telling these people something important. Just what it was that God was doing is our next concern.
God’s Reasons For the Prophecies of Paul’s Bondage in Jerusalem
The more one reads Luke’s account of the Holy Spirit’s revelation of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem, in virtually every city where he stopped along the way to Jerusalem, the more obvious it becomes that the Spirit was not informing Paul of his fate so much as He was informing the saints. But to what end? If the Spirit did not want the saints to try to stop Paul (as they mistakenly concluded), then what was the Spirit seeking to do? What were the saints to learn? What was the reason for these revelations? I believe that the following statements help us to clarify the purpose of the Holy Spirit in giving the repeated revelation of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem to the saints in those cities along the way.
(1) The revelation was not given “to Paul” but to all. The prophecies were given publicly, to the saints and churches where Paul stopped on his way.
(2) The prophecies were not given to change Paul’s course or direction.
(3) The prophecies did reveal the differences in Paul’s attitude toward suffering and that of many of the saints.
(4) The advice of these saints is contrasted with the advice of the Jerusalem elders, later in the chapter. The first advice was bad; the second was good. We will consider the differences later in this message.
(5) The prophecies did reveal Paul’s commitment and dedication to his calling.
(6) The prophecies would reveal that Paul’s suffering was to be for the advancement of the gospel, and due to his obedience, not his sin. How many saints do you know who think that we suffer for making the wrong choices?
(7) The prophecies are the occasion for listening well to Paul, whose face they might not see again. Paul’s words to them would be viewed as his final words, and would have greater weight.
(8) The prophecies will incite these saints to prayer and care for Paul while in prison.
(9) These prophecies will result in Paul’s “prison writings” having much greater impact. This, in my opinion, may be the most important reason of all for the revelation of Paul’s bonds and afflictions which were awaiting him in Jerusalem. The prophecy of these things showed that Paul was a hero of faith, willing to suffer and to die for the sake of the gospel. A man who is sent to prison for a crime, or for his foolishness is not a man whose “prison epistles” would be sought, read, and preserved down through the ages. But a man who, like Paul, was imprisoned for his faith and his obedience to the command of Christ, was a man worth listening to. These prophecies along the way to Jerusalem were both publicity and a divine commendation, which paved the way for an even greater ministry from behind the bars of a prison.
(10) The prophecy of Paul’s bonds would be a further evidence of the sovereignty of God, who would use this bondage to proclaim the gospel even more broadly, to kings, as far away as Rome. Did some saints think that the gospel would be kept behind bars? Did they think that Paul could work most effectively outside prison walls? Then they were wrong. God’s ways are always higher than our ways. God’s work is often done in a way that defies our understanding, and thus brings Him the praise and the glory.
From Caesarea to Jerusalem,
and From Jerusalem to Jail
(21:15-40)
Paul was not turned from the course which God had appointed for him, a path which led to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Mnason, a Cyprian disciple of long standing (had he been saved at Pentecost?), put Paul’s party up in his home, either at Jerusalem or (as seems more likely) on the way there.
Paul and the others received a warm welcome. No mention is made of the gift from the Gentile churches to the poor in Judea,[478] but this was certainly delivered at some point in time. Such a gift must have helped greatly to create a bond of love and unity between the Gentile churches and the church in Jerusalem.
The following day, a meeting was arranged between Paul and others (“us,” verse 18) and James and all of the elders of the Jerusalem church. Paul reported to them in detail how his ministry had resulted in the salvation of many Gentile believers. They responded to this report with great joy, glorifying God for the salvation of these Gentiles saints.
Having done so, there was a matter of considerable concern to them which they shared with Paul, along with a specific recommendation. While there were many new Gentile converts, living in far away places, Jerusalem had thousands of Jewish believers, who were still “zealous for the law.” These saints had been distressed by (false) reports that Paul had been teaching Jewish converts to turn from the law and from all of their Jewish practices and rituals, as though this was not profitable, and perhaps even wrong.
It was apparently of no concern to the elders or to these “zealous for the law” Jewish Jerusalem saints that the Gentiles would not observe the law. After all, this was what the church had decided, some time ago, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). The only requirement placed on the Gentile believers was that they “abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (verse 25). The problem seems to be in what the Jerusalem Council did not say about Jewish practice. The Jerusalem elders probably clarified the fact that Jewish Christians could continue to keep the law, not as a means to salvation, but as an expression of love and obedience. They could delight in the law, not because it gave them any merit or standing before God, but because it had been fulfilled in Christ, and because they were now righteous in God’s sight. The standards of righteousness which the law upheld were now no longer a cause of fear, but the basis for rejoicing and worship. They once were frustrated by their own failure to fulfill the laws demands, but now they rejoiced because Christ had fulfilled the entire law and they were not under the curse. And the kingdom to which the Old Testament saint looked forward was a certainty, which Jewish and Gentile saints would receive together (see Hebrews 11:39-40).
The question which remained was now what the Jewish Christian was free, as a believing Jew, to observe, but how Paul stood on this matter. Did Paul agree with the position taken by the Jerusalem elders, or did he reject this position, teaching Jewish Christians to discard the law and Old Testament Jewish rituals, as thought they were worthless, perhaps even evil, as some rumors had it? Paul could settle this matter once and for all, by publicly worshipping in the Temple, as a Jew, and as the Jerusalem Jewish Christians did. This is what James and the elders proposed, and what Paul did. This is also what got Paul into trouble, so that he was placed under arrest. This is what would eventually take Paul to Rome.
The main question for us is this? Were these elders wrong for asking Paul to do as he did, and was Paul wrong for doing it? I think that the answer must be a categorical “NO!.” The elders were not wrong in asking this of Paul, nor was he wrong in doing so. Paul’s very strong words in the Book of Galatians were addressed to those who would impose the law and law-keeping on Gentile believers, not toward those who were true believers and who wished, as Jewish Christians, to continue to live in accordance with the law and to observe Old Testament rituals. It was one (damnable) thing for Judaisers to insist that Gentile saints must keep the law in order to be saved, and quite another for Jewish Christians to keep the law because they were saved. Even Gentiles were not turned away from the law, but were enabled to fulfill its requirements:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4).
Paul was not asked by these elders to do something against his doctrinal beliefs or his convictions. In fact, Paul was only encouraged to practice publicly that which he already did. In what seemed at the time to be a most parenthetical and unnecessary comment, Luke said this of Paul: “In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow” (Acts 18:18).
Would they ask Paul to participate in worship with some of his Jewish brethren from Jerusalem, pertaining to a vow? This was something which Paul could gladly do, for he had done so himself as a Christian. Paul elsewhere indicated his desire to continue in some of those practices and rituals which he had observed (ignorantly) as a Jew (see Acts 20:16; 1 Corinthians 16:8). Paul did not need to do this reluctantly, but he could do so gladly, with conviction and with joy. Paul was only being urged to practice what he (along with these elders) believed, and what he (along with the Jerusalem Jewish saints) practiced.
It was not because this was the wrong thing to do (any more than going to Jerusalem was wrong) that everything seems to have fallen apart when Paul did it. Even when Paul attempted to demonstrate his continued commitment to (true) Judaism, his unbelieving brethren would have no part of him, of his teaching, or of his practice. Note however that it was not the Jerusalem Jewish believers, nor even the unbelieving Jerusalem Jews, who caused this trouble for Paul. It was the “Asian Jews” (verse 27) who created the uproar, and all because of their own hasty and inaccurate conclusion—that Paul had brought a Gentile into the Temple, so as to defile it. Their conclusion was wrong, but it did not take a great deal of evidence to convince these folks, who were predisposed to believe such a thing of Paul, that he was guilty.
Paul took the four men who were “under a vow” and participated with them in temple worship. I am not clear as to the precise ritual, though it at least resembles that described in Numbers 6.[479] When the seven days of this ritual were nearly completed, some of the Asian Jews, who were familiar with Paul and with Trophimus, and who recognized them both, falsely concluded that Paul had brought him into the temple. This was a horrifying thought to them, and one which stirred them to act, dragging Paul out of the temple and closing the doors behind him.
Removing Paul from the temple was not nearly enough. For this supposed evil he should die. They were on their way to achieving this goal—of putting Paul to death—when the Roman commander and his cohort came on the scene. He had heard a report of this confusion and was intent on quickly bringing the situation under control. It was not that he knew anything of Paul, or that he came to save his life. But it did work out that way. When the Jews saw the troops arriving, they quickly ceased their brutal beating of Paul, pretending to be good, law-abiding citizens.
The commander quickly sized up the situation, or so it seemed. He realized that Paul was in the middle of the chaos, and so he ordered him to be bound with chains, and started to interrogate him, assuming that it must have been his fault for all this trouble to have resulted. There was no way of unraveling the situation by listening to the crowd, for few seemed to know what was going on. Various charges and explanations seemed to have been shouted out by those in the crowd. The commander wanted to get this man away from the crowd, and in a more calm and quiet atmosphere, get the truth out of him. The conduct and the words of the crowd (“Away with him!”) are reminiscent of the words of the crowd when Jesus was put to death (compare 21:36; Luke 23:18; John 19:15).
On the way to the barracks, Paul spoke to the commander in Greek, asking if he could speak to him. This caught the commander off guard. He had come to the conclusion that Paul was an Egyptian revolutionary, who had previously led a revolt and then led 4,000 men into the wilderness. Paul convinced him that he was a Jew, not an Egyptian, and that he was from the “north” (Cilicia) and not the “south” (Egypt). This caught the commander off guard, so much so that when Paul asked to address this hostile crowd, the man gave him permission. Here was Paul, standing before his Jewish brethren, under the protection of the Roman army as he gave them his testimony and shared the gospel with them one last time. In the sovereign purposes of God, Paul was being handed over to the Romans by the Jews, but in doing so the gospel was not silenced, it was proclaimed to an ever increasing audience. The content of Paul’s speech will be the subject of our next lesson.
Conclusion
The geographical sequence of the proclamation of the gospel was given to us in the first chapter of this book. Let us refresh our memories as to where the gospel was to be proclaimed:
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
As the Book of Acts has unfolded through the pen of Luke, the historian, the gospel has been proclaimed in just this order. As the book begins in Jerusalem, so it will end in Rome. The chapters which we are currently studying make it very clear that the unbelief of Jews who were in Jerusalem was directly linked with the proclamation of the gospel in Rome. The charges which are to be leveled against Paul in Jerusalem will lead Paul to appeal to Caesar, and thus to go to Rome, care of the Roman army. In the sovereign will and purposes of God, things are working out just as He planned and promised (Acts 1:8). It surely has not worked out the way which we would have expected, or the saints of that day either, for it was they who urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem.
If our text serves to illustrate, once again, the sovereignty of God in the outworking of His plans and purposes, it also serves to clarify the role of the law in the life of the Christian. There are many who would think that Paul did teach that of which he was falsely accused—the utter rejection of the law by the Jews and everyone else. This is simply not true. Paul fought hart against legalism and against the use of the law which made law-keeping a means of earning God’s favor. But Paul loved the law (as did David, see Psalm 19; 119, etc.), and he found great joy in observing its commands and rituals, as an expression of worship, not as a means of earning favor with God. We would do well to re-think our view of the law if it does not conform to the view of the elders of the church of Jerusalem, and of Paul.
In this message I have chosen to focus on the advice which was given to Paul, that which was given by the saints in the various cities—not to go to Jerusalem—which he rejected, and that which he accepted from the elders of the church at Jerusalem—to worship in a way that showed he was still zealous for the law. As I conclude, I would like to contrast the “advice” of the saints in the churches along Paul’s way to Jerusalem with that of the elders in Jerusalem. I believe that the text indicates the first advice is wrong, while the second it right. What makes bad advice bad and good advice good? Let’s take a look, and see if the text, viewed in the light of the Bible as a whole, does not tell us what makes for good advice.
(1) Good advice is not lightly or hastily given. It is an inference from the text, I admit, but it seems that the problem the elders were addressing was one which had gone on for some time. These men did not give Paul this advice without having given it much thought in advance, and even when he arrived in Jerusalem, they gave him time to give a detailed report of his activities among the Gentiles, before they made their recommendation. The saints in the churches, on the other hand, gave their advice immediately upon hearing of Paul’s future. They seem to have spoken immediately after the prophet spoke, and before Paul was consulted. Paul had to interrupt them, it would seem, in order to give them his perspective. They were too quick to speak, and not very slow to hear.
(2) The advice of the elders was based upon principle, while that of the saints was based more on their subjective feelings. The counsel of the saints was very emotionally oriented—they cared for Paul, and they did not wish to see him suffer. The advice of the elders was rooted in truth. They saw a problem, and they based their advice on the principles laid down at the Jerusalem Council. How easy it is to let our well-intentioned concern carry us to ill-conceived advice.[480] If doctors are reluctant to perform surgery on those who are close to them, we need to be cautious about giving advice to those close to us, for our advice may be colored by our desire not to see them suffer, more than on our desire to see them do the will of God.
(3) The advice of the saints sought to avoid suffering, while the advice of the elders sought to urge Paul on to doing what was right.
(4) The advice of the saints urged Paul to look out for himself, to avoid personal pain and adversity, while the advice of the elders urged Paul to act in a way that would benefit others. There is a world of difference between advice which puts self first, and that which puts others first. Few seek the path of suffering for the sake of self-interest.
(5) The advice of the saints sought to turn Paul away from a course of action which he believed was the will of God; the advice of the elders urged Paul to do that which he was already convinced of and committed to doing. The elders’ advice was encouragement; the saints’ advice was discouragement.
(6) The elders’ advice was for Paul to do that which would promote the gospel; while the saints’ advice (unknowingly) was that which would hinder the gospel.
(7) The elders’ advice was that which, in the sovereignty and power of God, caused the gospel to be promoted and Paul’s ministry to be expanded, while the advice of the saints would have greatly limited the gospel and Paul’s ministry.
(8) The elders’ advice required faith in God, while the saints’ advice betrayed a lack of faith in God’s ability to work through opposition and suffering, and even limitations such as imprisonment.
Advice on Giving Advice
I think that my first “advice” (forgive me), based upon our text, would be that Christians should give much less advice than they do. My second exhortation would be that we advise people only to the degree that we have a clear biblical principle underlying our advice, and that our counsel does not encourage others to act in a way that is contrary to principle, but rather on preference and self-interest.
Advice on Taking Advice
(1) Each individual must decide for himself what the will of God is for his or her life. Even when others are inspired of the Spirit to speak of our future, it may well be in more general terms than in the specific.
Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14).
(2) The Christian may have to reject the advice of others, even when they present a majority view. Here, Paul must reject the advice all the rest, including Luke (21:12).
(3) The advice of others may be given to us with the full conviction (at the time) that the Holy Spirit has directed them to so advise us, even when it may not be so. We may be given the distinct impression that God has spoken to us through others, when He has not. How easy it is when we give advice to think God is on our side.
(4) The bad advice of other Christians is often occasioned by suffering in the life of the saint.
(5) The bad advice of other Christians is often well-intentioned and based in their love for us, and for their desire for us not to suffer. It would be hard to overestimate the number of times Christians have been counseled by other Christians, based upon the assumption that God does not want us to suffer.
(6)This passage is not teaching that Christians should live autonomously, independently of others and of their counsel, only that we alone are responsible to determine God’s will for our lives, and that not all advice is good advice. Good advice will stand on Scripture, and not apart from it.
! Lesson 33:
Paul’s Defense to the Jews in Jerusalem
(Acts 21:26—22:29)
Introduction
There are times in life when we simply wish we could disappear or “fall through the cracks,” or at least make an exit, even if not a dignified one. This was one of those times in Paul’s life. If Paul were like most men or like many of us, he would have gladly accepted being carried off by the soldiers as his exit. Instead, Paul spoke to the commander, asking if he could speak to this crowd. Amazingly, the commander gave him permission to do so, resulting in yet another riot.
This text poses us with several questions, the answers to which will significantly help us to understand what is taking place, and what Luke wishes his reader to learn from these events. The first area of investigation is this: “Why would Paul wish to delay his exit, and to speak to this crowd, who had just tried to kill him, and who would still do so if given the opportunity?” The second avenue of inquiry is: “Why did Paul speak to this crowd in the Hebrew language, when only a part of this crowd could understand this language, and all others would have no idea what was said?” A third line of investigation is: “Why does Luke record three accounts of Paul’s conversion?” Is this not repetitious? What is unique about Paul’s account in chapter 22, which is not given elsewhere? A final crucial question is: “What was it about what Paul said which caused the crowd to explode, as described in verse 22?”
Our Approach
In this lesson, we will seek to answer these questions, in order to learn what took place and the message which Luke and the Holy Spirit intended the reader to learn from these events. We will begin by reviewing the events which occur here in chapter 22 in the broader context of Acts. We will then compare (really contrasting) Paul’s defense here with that of Stephen in Acts chapters 6 and 7. We will next focus on those unique or emphatic elements of Paul’s defense, to determine what is given emphasis in this account. We will then attempt to determine Luke’s argument in this passage, and explore its implications for us.
Outline of the Structure of the Text
· The Uprising in the Temple (21:26-30)
· The Intervention of the Army and Paul’s Arrest (21:31-36)
· Paul’s Identification, Petition, and Permission to Speak (21:37-39)
· Paul’s Defense (21:40—22:21)
· Another Riot, Further Identification, and Paul’s Release (22:22-30 )
An Overview of the Events
Surrounding Paul’s Arrest and Trials
God’s plans for the apostle Paul were formulated in eternity past (see Galatians 1:15-17; Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-3), but they began to unfold in the Book of Acts at the end of chapter 7, where Saul was included among those who took part in the execution of Stephen. At the time of his conversion, God made it clear that Paul had been saved for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel, not only to his fellow-Israelites, but to Gentiles and to kings (see Acts 9:15).
After some twenty years or more of service, in the church and as a missionary, Paul began to sense the necessity of visiting Jerusalem, and then Rome (Acts 19:21). When Paul met with the Ephesian elders at Miletus, he told them that while he did not know the details of what was to happen to him in Jerusalem, he did know that “bonds and afflictions” awaited him (Acts 20:22-24). In every city, as Paul made his way to Jerusalem, prophetic indications of his fate in Jerusalem were revealed to the churches, and these well-meaning saints urged Paul to change his plans, something which he strongly refused to do (see Acts 21:1-14).
When Paul and his party arrived in Jerusalem, they were warmly greeted by the church. James and the elders met with Paul and the others, and rejoiced at Paul’s detailed report of the way that God had saved many Gentiles through his ministry (Acts 21:17-20). They also informed Paul of some reports which had come to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, which caused them to wonder about Paul’s doctrinal position, and to look at his ministry with some concern. They were told that Paul instructed Jewish Christians to forsake the law and their Jewish rituals altogether, and to become (in effect) Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, the elders reminded Paul, they had determined that Gentiles did not need to become Jews in order to be saved. The opposite was also true: Jews do not need to forsake their Jewish heritage and practices altogether—becoming Gentiles, in essence—in order to be saved. They recommended to Paul that he worship publicly in the temple in such a way as to demonstrate his agreement with the position of the Jerusalem church leaders, and this Paul did (see Acts 21:20-26).
As Paul’s time of worship in the temple was coming to an end, some Asian Jews saw Paul with Trophimus (a Gentile from Ephesus, whom they knew associated with Paul) and incorrectly concluded that Paul had taken him into the temple, which, if true, would have defiled the temple (in their minds) and was worthy of death. Immediately these Asian Hellenistic Jews, there in Jerusalem only for a time, called upon their “native Hebrew” brethren (“men of Israel,” verse 28) to come to their aid. A riot ensued, and Paul was severely beaten.
Had the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem not arrived quickly, Paul would have been killed. He hurried to the scene, not to save Paul’s life, but hoping to capture an Egyptian revolutionary, who had led 4,000 Assassins into the wilderness (21:38). When the commander arrived on the scene, the Jews stopped beating Paul, and pretended to be law-abiding citizens. The commander was not able to get any consistent accusations against Paul, and was about to take him into the barracks for questioning. Paul had been chained, and was being carried up the steps to the barracks when he turned to the commander, speaking to him in Greek. He asked him for permission to address the crowd. The commander was taken back, first, by the fact that Paul spoke to him in Greek, second, in learning that Paul was not the Egyptian revolutionary he thought him to be, and third, in learning that he was a Cilician Jew. Amazing though it may seem, he granted Paul permission to speak to the crowd.
Paul’s speech will not convince the crowds that they were mistaken. Instead, Paul’s words will send the crowds into an even greater frenzy, throwing dust into the air and yelling for his blood. The commander now proceeds take Paul into the barracks, where he intends to “examine” him by flogging. He will then learn that Paul is not only a Jew, but that he is a natural-born Roman citizen. This forces him to release Paul, and to arrange for his trial on the following day, before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30—23:10).
Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin is another disaster, at least from a Roman and Jewish point of view. Paul knew that he was to be tried by a group of men who strongly differed in several areas, one of which was the resurrection of the dead. When Paul identified himself as a Pharisee, believing in the resurrection of the dead, the Sanhedrin was irreversibly divided. The whole trial became chaotic, and the commander had to intervene again, taking Paul into a kind of protective custody, lest he would have been torn limb from limb by the two groups.
The Lord appeared to Paul in the night, assuring him that he would speak of His cause in Rome, just as he had done in Jerusalem (23:11). Having failed to put Paul to death legally, a conspiracy was formed by 40 Jews, who informed the Sanhedrin, and asked them to help in their plot to assassinate Paul (23:12-15). Paul heard of the plot through his nephew, and had the commander informed of this scheme. The commander therefore mustered an armed escort and sent Paul to Caesarea, where he was to stand trial before Festus, once the Jewish leaders arrived there to press their charges (23:16-30).
This “trial” before Felix was also a fiasco, from a legal point of view. The high priest, Ananias, along with some of the elders from Jerusalem, went down to Caesarea, bringing charges against Paul, but without any of the “witnesses” who claimed Paul had taken a Gentile into the forbidden temple area. The outcome was inconclusive, and Felix “sat on the fence” for two years, failing to either convict Paul or to release him, but keeping him in custody with some measure of freedom (24:23, 27). As Herod was both drawn to the teaching of John the Baptist, and frightened by it (Mark 6:20), so Felix was both drawn to Paul and frightened by him (24:24-27). He also had hopes of Paul bribing him to be released (24:26). By keeping Paul in confinement, he also won some measure of favor from the Jews (24:27).
Felix was pathetically “wishy-washy” and never settled the issue of Paul’s guilt or innocence. Finally, after two years, he was succeeded by Festus. At first, the Jews tried to get Paul sent back to Jerusalem for trial, so they could kill him as they had plotted earlier. Failing in this effort, another trial was held at Caesarea, at which the Jews could not make a case. Festus, too, played to the crowd, and sought to convince Paul to go back to Jerusalem for trial. Knowing that this would only lead to his death, Paul appealed to Caesar (25:11).
Festus found himself with a problem. He could not convict Paul, and he was afraid to release him. And now that Paul had appealed to Caesar, he would have to send Paul to Rome to stand trial there. The problem was that he did not have any charges that would stick. He would look the fool to send Paul to trial with such shoddy evidence. Happily, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived before Paul was sent to Rome (25:13ff.). Festus told them his problem, and thus they agreed to help out by listening to Paul, with a view to formulating charges against him. With great pomp and ceremony, Agrippa, along with Bernice came into the courtroom, and then Paul was brought in (23:23). When it came time for Paul to speak in his defense, Paul gave his testimony of his conversion and calling once again (26:2-23). Seeing and hearing Paul’s intensity, they accused him of being mad, and of coming nigh unto converting them (26:24-29). They concluded that there were no charges serious enough to send Paul to Caesar, but since he had appealed, he would go. In their minds, Paul was a fool for having ever made such an appeal (see 26:32).
The final two chapters of Acts are a description of Paul’s journey to Rome, his arrival there, and his ministry while awaiting his trial. The actual trial is not described, or its outcome, for Luke’s purpose was not to focus on Paul’s personal fate so much as to emphasize the proclamation of the gospel to Gentiles, kings, and Jews. The gospel had spread from Jerusalem to Rome, just as the Lord had promised (Acts 1:8).
The Nature of Paul’s Defense
Paul’s speech, made from the steps leading upward to the Roman barracks, is not the first—nor is it the last—account of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. But Paul’s account of his conversion here is unique in several ways. First, this is the first time in Acts that Paul has given an account of his conversion. This account in chapter 22 is a “first person” (“I”) account. Luke’s account in chapter 9 was a “third person” (“he”) account. Several things stand out in this report of his conversion. We shall see these by comparing this account with that of the defense of Stephen in Acts 6 and 7, and by comparing Paul’s words here in chapter 22 with the other two accounts of his conversion in Acts (chapters 9 and 26).
First, then, let us compare Paul’s defense here with that of Stephen in Acts 6 and 7. Look at the early verses in Luke’s account of Stephen’s arrest, of the charges against him, and of his line of defense:
6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 9 But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, {including} both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. 10 And {yet} they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly induced men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and {against} God.” 12 And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. 13 And they put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us. “ 15 And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. 7:1 And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” 2 And he said, “Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you.’ 4 “Then he departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and settled in Haran. And from there, after his father died, {God} removed him into this country in which you are now living” … (Acts 6:8–7:4).
The accusations made here against Stephen by some of the Hellenistic Jews are very similar to those charges made against Paul:
27 And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, {began} to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people, and the Law, and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place” (Acts 21:27-28).
While the stoning of Stephen took place nearly 25 years earlier, the charges against Paul and Stephen were remarkably similar. The charge that Paul defiled the temple is but one of many charges. Paul, like Stephen, was accused of speaking against the Jews, the Law, and the temple. (Paul, of course, was present at the trial and execution of Stephen.)
The “defenses” of Stephen and Paul were very different, even if the charges were the same. Stephen immediately turned to the Old Testament; Paul turned back to his experience on the road to Damascus. Stephen emphasized the great gap between himself and the Jews of his day, and between Israel and her God, as being identical to the gap between the Israelites and God, and between Israel and the prophets, all through her history. Paul’s defense sought to establish the strong similarity between his beliefs and practices as an unbeliever, and that of his opponents, the zealous Pharisees, who persecuted Christians. Paul’s defense, as recorded in Acts 22, is just that—a defense. Stephen’s “defense,” as recorded in Acts 6 and 7 is not a defense at all, but an indictment of these Jews as being rebellious and “stiff-necked,” just as their forefathers had been.
There is very little duplication in these two accounts: the accusations against Stephen, and his defense; and the accusations against Paul and his defense. The strong similarity comes in the charges and conduct of the Jews who oppose both, who would falsely accuse these saints, and try to make their executions look legal (as they had done with Jesus before this), and if they could not make their case, to illegally kill these men anyway.
Second, let us compare Paul’s account of his conversion here, with the other accounts recorded in Acts chapters 9 and 26, especially with an eye to those elements in this account which are emphatic or unique.[481]
The first point of emphasis in this account is the language which Paul chose to communicate his defense. When Paul spoke to the Roman commander, he surprise him by speaking in Greek (21:37). This not only served to impress the commander, but to convince him that Paul was no Egyptian (21:38). But when Paul spoke in his own defense to the howling Jewish mob, he did not speak to them in Greek, but rather in Hebrew. Doing this significantly reduced the number of those who could understand what he was saying.
In the first place, this kept the Roman commander and his troops from knowing what Paul was saying. How distressed he must have been at this! At the time the first disturbance broke out, the commander was not present, and he was completely foiled in his attempt to piece together what had happened. Perhaps he reasoned that if he allowed Paul to speak to the crowd he would understand what the problem was, and thus he could deal more effectively with this crowd and with Paul. What a shock it must have been to grant Paul permission to speak in this very delicate and explosive situation, and then to discover that he was addressing the crowd in Hebrew—a language he could not understand. I can see him turning to one of his men and asking, “Do you know what he is saying?” How he must have watched Paul, his “body language,” and the response of the crowd, in an attempt to monitor the situation. How shocked he must have been to see this crowd, initially silenced by Paul’s speaking, and then suddenly exploding into an even more violent mood.
More importantly, speaking to this crowd in Hebrew excluded the Hellenistic Jews, the very ones who had taken the initiative in the arrest and stoning of Stephen years before, and who had also taken the initiative in Paul’s arrest now. The ability to read and speak in Hebrew (or Aramaic) set the “native Hebrew” apart from the “Hellenistic Jew.” If you asked a “native Hebrew” about this (and he were honest) he would tell you this set him above the “Hellenistic Jew.”[482] When Paul spoke to this crowd, then, he spoke only to the native Jerusalemite, but he excluded the Hellenistic Jews. The question we should seek to answer is, “Why?” Why address only one part of this crowd, when speaking to them in Greek would have enabled virtually all present to hear Paul’s testimony? Would it not be better for more to hear the gospel than few?
I believe that Paul wanted to specifically address the “native Hebrew” Jews of Jerusalem because he had a special understanding of them, and because his past beliefs and behavior was virtually identical with their belief and actions toward him. He could understand them because he was just like them. And his conversion should be pertinent to them because they are like he was, before Jesus saved him. If God could convert Saul, as He had done years before and as Paul would describe here, then He could also change these men. Furthermore, this was perhaps Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, perhaps his last opportunity to present these Jews (for whom he had such a heart) the gospel, the way of salvation. And if Paul could convince these Jews, who were the dominant religious leaders in this city, the opposition of the Hellenistic Jews would fizzle and fad away. The Hellenistic Jews had called upon these men, these, “men of Israel” for their aid. Without their aid, Hellenistic opposition would not have enough strength to do away with Paul.
When Paul gestured (did the chains hinder him?), indicating his intention to address the crowd, a hush fell over them. When they realized that he was speaking in Hebrew, an even greater hush resulted (22:2). Those who were Hellenistic Jews were perhaps silenced by their lack of knowing this language, which, in the eyes of some, would be a shame and reproach. Those who were native Hebrews must have realized that this message was just for them, and so they listened more intently.
To sum up the first significant emphasis here in this account, Paul’s defense was one that was directed to the “native Hebrews” and kept from the Romans and the “Hellenistic Jews.” This was a selective message for a select group.
Second, as pointed out earlier, Paul’s defense here is vastly different than Stephen’s earlier defense. Stephen spoke from the Old Testament Scriptures and the history of Israel; Paul spoke from his own conversion experience. Stephen placed himself among the prophets, and distinct from the “stiff-necked” Jews of his day; Paul identified himself with the Pharisaical Jews,[483] showing that he was just like them. Stephen did not defend himself, but indict his accusers; Paul defended himself as being a faithful Jew, and as true to the Scriptures and his calling.
Third, the most unique part of Paul’s account of his conversion is to be found in verses 17-21, which is found nowhere else in the Scriptures. Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion in chapter 9 is similar to Paul’s version in many ways, but when it comes to Paul’s temple “vision,” recorded only in 22:17-21, this is truly unique. Luke tells us of Paul’s witness in Damascus, of the plot of the Hellenistic Jews to kill him, and of Paul’s escape by being lowered through an opening in the wall of the city, in a basket (9:19-25). Luke then goes on to describe the difficulty (not unlike the difficulty he described with Ananias above) which Paul had in associating with the apostles in Jerusalem, of the intervention of Barnabas, of Paul’s acceptance, and ministry in the synagogues. And then we are told of the plot of the Jerusalem Jews to kill him, and of Paul’s escape with the help of the brethren (9:26-30).
Nothing is said in Acts 9, however, of Paul’s temple vision, of which he speaks here in chapter 22, before this crowd. Some would no doubt think of it as a contradiction to what was said in chapter 9. How could Luke say that the brethren learned of a plot to kill Paul and helped him escape, while Paul speaks of a temple vision? The answer is really quite simple: It took a vision from God to make Paul responsive to the appeal of his brethren to leave Jerusalem. He was convinced that the people would listen to him, since he was “one of them” before, but the Lord told him this was not to be the case. Thus, when divinely instructed of the futility of evangelizing his peers, Paul left Jerusalem, knowing that he was being sent to the Gentiles.
Paul’s report of this vision is the last thing which he spoke before the crowd erupted, and his words here are obviously the cause of the explosive reaction. What was it that he said here, which was so offensive, so provocative? These words, in verse 22, provide us with they key:
And they listened to him up to this statement, and {then} they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!”
What, then, is the statement which proved to be so upsetting? For a long time, I have been of the opinion that it was this: “‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (Acts 22:21).
This is partly true, but it is only a partial statement. In verses 17-21, Paul speaks of his vision as a dialogue, not a monologue. The first words are spoken by the Lord, interrupted, as it were by a protest from Paul. Then, after Paul’s interruption, the Lord speaks again. If we are to understand fully what it is that upset the Jews so badly, we must see the entire statement which the Lord made to Paul. So allow me to edit out Paul’s rebuttal:
“‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me … Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”
It was not just the fact that God had commanded Paul to go to the Gentiles with the gospel. That was bad enough. It is what made the Jews of Nazareth so upset with Jesus—mad enough to kill Him (Luke 4:23-30). But the words of the Lord to Paul went beyond this. The command to “go to the Gentiles” was linked with a parallel command to “forsake the Jews in Jerusalem, who would not believe the gospel.” It was distressing enough for a Jew to think of God’s blessings being shared with the Gentiles (Jonah, for example, illustrates this), but this statement, quoted by Paul and made by the Lord, goes to the limit, by saying that God’s blessings will be taken from Jerusalem and sent to he Gentiles.
This, of course, is exactly what Paul describes in Romans 9-11, but it was the most horrifying thought a Jew could ever entertain. And this was the match which ignited the gasoline fumes of mob anger there in Jerusalem. Paul was telling his peers that the time of their blessings was coming to an end, due to their unbelief, and that times of blessings were coming to the Gentiles. If the nation Israel would not believe and obey and take the “light to the Gentiles” God would use their unbelief as an instrument to proclaim the “light to the Gentiles.” God’s purposes would not be frustrated by Jewish unbelief and disobedience. But the times of refreshing for which every devout Jew looked forward were to be postponed to a later time, a time after the Gentiles had heard the good news of the Gospel.
The Riot and the Roman Troops
(22:22-30)
This was no straw here, breaking the proverbial “camel’s back.” This was a ton of bricks! The crowd began to cry out, throwing dust into the air. They called for Paul’s death. The Roman commander was not having a good day. He thought the situation was under control. He hoped hearing Paul’s speech would clarify some issues. It only made matters worse, from a peace-keeping perspective. I think that the commander was exasperated by Paul by this time. One could see how Paul might have been blamed for all of this.
Now he really was going to get to the bottom of this matter. He had Paul taken to the barracks, where he was being prepared for interrogation—by scourging. Now, he must have reasons, Paul would tell him what he wanted to know, and in Greek! But the commander was still not really in control of things. He had learned that Paul was not an Egyptian revolutionary, and that he was a Jew from Cilicia, but he had not yet learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, and that as such he could not be treated this way.
As preparations were being made for his interrogation, Paul turned to the centurion who was nearby and asked if this were the way Roman citizens were to be treated, without yet having been tried or convicted. The centurion was stopped short, and he quickly went to the commander to inform him of this new development. He gently rebuked the commander and urged him to stop the scourging. The commander then approached Paul to verify the fact that he was, indeed, a Roman. He learned that Paul, unlike himself (who had to buy his citizenship at a high price), was born a Roman citizen. The centurions who were nearby almost automatically let go of Paul, fearful of what might befall them for treating a Roman harshly. If the commander was angry with Paul before, he was now fearful. Paul could make a lot of trouble for him if he wanted to do so. He was eager to make things right, and to appease Paul.
Instead of beating Paul, and holding him in custody, the commander released him, and set a hearing on the following day, so that Paul could stand trial before the Sanhedrin. It was through this legal means that he hoped the truth would become known. Such was not to be the case, as we will see in the next lesson.
Conclusion
Several truths emerge from our text. Allow me to highlight some of these as we conclude.
(1) The Sovereignty of God is evident as Paul, the Roman army, and the unbelieving and opposing Jews all are used to promote the gospel. We were told by our Lord, early in the Book of Acts (1:8) that the gospel would be proclaimed abroad, beginning at Jerusalem and extending to the remotest part of the earth. And so it is happening, but not only through faithful men and women, trusting in Jesus and committed to doing His will. It is being accomplished through the mistakes of a Roman commander, who probably should never have allowed Paul to speak, through the Hellenistic Jews who accused and opposed Paul, and through the “native Hebrew” Jewish leaders of Jerusalem. The gospel is going to Rome. The harder the Jews work to resist and overcome it, the more the proclamation of the gospel expands.
(2) One also sees the handwriting on the wall, the coming day when Jerusalem will not only be abandoned by God but devastated by Rome, while the gospel is also spread to the Gentiles with the unwitting help of Rome. Rome becomes the tool of God, not only to chasten His disobedient people, Israel, but also to protect Paul and to promote the gospel which he preached. One cannot help but sense that the days of these unbelieving Jews are numbered, and that Jerusalem will soon be sacked, just as Jesus warned (see Luke 21:20ff.).
(3) We see in Paul the heart of a man who loves his own people so much that he cannot be silenced from sharing his faith with them, even when they have nearly killed him. In passages like this, we read of Paul’s great love for his people, and his intense desire that they be saved:
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, {separated} from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the {temple} service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen (Romans 9:1-5).
In our text in Acts 22, we see that Paul’s words in Romans 9 are no mere “lip service.” He does love these people, and desire that they come to faith in Jesus as Messiah. He loves them so much that even when they have nearly beaten him to death, even when they would still put him to death, he will not pass up an opportunity to tell them of the salvation he has found. If you and I had this kind of compassion and concern for the lost, we would not need evangelism methods classes, for we would find more than enough opportunities to share our faith, even as Paul did.
(4) Finally, we find the power of a testimony. We do not know that any were saved immediately, as a result of this testimony, but we do know that some might have been. The power of Paul’s testimony here is found (in part) in the fact that he was like them, in the similarity of Paul in his lost state to those whom he is addressing. When people know what we use to be, and see what God has done to change us, the power of the gospel is evident. The power of one’s testimony is proportionate (humanly speaking) to the similarity of one’s experience to that of those to whom we are speaking, coupled to the degree to which our lives have changed. Only a dramatically changed life justifies a personal testimony.
! Lesson 34:
Paul’s Trial Before the Sanhedrin
(Acts 22:30—23:35)
Introduction
I can’t help feeling sorry for the commander of the Roman troops, who just can’t seem to rid himself of the responsibility for Paul and his protection. It is amusing to see this man, who would surely be viewed as being “in charge” and “in control” in Jerusalem as being “out of control” with regard to Paul. I wonder if this man did not initially see “Paul” as the means to a big promotion, and fearing, as time went on, that Paul would be the cause of his professional demise. Think through the events which brought Paul and the commander together, and the agony which Paul brought into this Roman commander’s life.
Hearing of a disturbance in the city of Jerusalem, the commander rushed to the scene, hoping that he would find and capture an Egyptian revolutionary. What a feather in his cap it would have been if he had captured one of the most wanted men in the Roman Empire. Now here was a promotion in the making, if he could only get there fast enough to catch this criminal before he slipped away, as he had done before. But instead of finding this Egyptian rebel the commander found Paul, who would have been beaten to death by the Jews, except that they drew back from their victim when they saw the commander and his troops arriving. Paul’s life was thereby spared, not because the commander had wanted to save him, but because he appeared too quickly, hastened by the mistaken thought that Paul was someone else.
The commander was now faced with a disturbance of major proportions—greater than he yet understood—as well as with a “prisoner.” The problem was that he did not know what the charges against Paul were. The shouting mob was no help. Accusations were either contradictory or confused, with many people not even knowing why they were assembled. The commander was willing to listen to Paul, and was surprised to find that he spoke Greek. He now realized that Paul was not the criminal he originally thought he might have been. Paul was a Jew from Cilicia, not an Egyptian. The significance of this would only sink in later, if ever, for this Roman soldier, who may not have been well informed about the various factions within Judaism.
When Paul asked the commander if he could address the crowd, I think that he may have given permission for a couple of reasons. First, he was rattled by the situation, and by the fact that Paul was not who he thought. Whatever Paul was guilty of, he seemed not to be a criminal or a revolutionary. Second, the commander was still trying to find out what charges to make against Paul. If he were to try Paul, there must be charges, and so far he had no idea what these might be (a situation that others would later face as well, see chapters 24-26). In allowing Paul to speak to this crowd, the commander expected to hear from Paul something that would tell him what all this commotion was about. There was one thing he had not counted on, however, and that was that Paul would speak to this crowd in Hebrew, not in Greek, and thus he did not understand of thing which was said.
How irritated the commander must have been when the crowd exploded, once again, and he had no idea why. He would get to the bottom of this! Enough was enough. And so he had Paul taken to the barracks, where he would “interrogate” him, which was an examination by scourging. The centurions who assisted were preparing Paul for his lashing when Paul caught all of them off guard with a further revelation about himself. Not only was he a Jew from Cilicia, he was a Roman citizen. As a Roman citizen, he was not to beaten without first having been charged, tried, and found guilty. The commander was about to have Paul beaten in order to determine what charges should be made against Paul, if any. To have beaten Paul as a Roman citizen would have been a mistake that could have cost the commander his career. Even to have gotten to this point was enough to jeopardize his future. If the commander was a “career man” his career would not have looked very promising at this point.
The centurions could not stop what they were doing fast enough. The let go of Paul as though he were something hot out of the oven. No one wanted to be guilty of treating this man as they were doing. The commander was even more frightened, for he had ordered Paul’s “interrogation.” No matter how upset he might have been with Paul, he very courteously and kindly inquired of Paul, to be certain that he was a Roman citizen. He learned that Paul’s citizenship was superior to his own, for Paul had been born a Roman, while the commander had to purchase his citizenship, at considerable cost.
When the commander verified, to his satisfaction, that Paul indeed was a Roman citizen, he began to take the necessary steps to “back out” of the problem he had created, by detaining Paul unlawfully, and by nearly beating him illegally. He released Paul, pending the outcome of his “trial” which was to be conducted by the Sanhedrin. He arranged for the trial on the following day. I can almost hear the sigh of relief which the commander breathed. “Now,” he said to himself, we will get to the bottom of this. I am off the hook, because I have tossed the ball back into the court of the Jews. They can try Paul and punish him, and I can be rid of this problem.”
If this man only knew what the future held. Paul does go to trial, as our text records, but there is no solution to the problem. Indeed, there is yet another uprising, this time within the Sanhedrin itself. Paul would have been torn limb from limb if the commander had not intervened—again. There are still no formal charges, and there seems to be no way of dealing with this problem. The solution to the commander’s problem seems to be provided by yet another crisis: forty Jews conspire to kill Paul if and when he is brought, once again, before the Sanhedrin. Now the commander is “forced” to send Paul to Caesarea, to be dealt with by someone else. Is it finally over for the commander? Is his life finally free of Paul? Time will tell. One thing is certain, the career of the commander was almost as much endangered as was Paul’s well-being. The difference is that God had purposed to save Paul’s life, and to arrange for his transportation to Rome, so that in the process “kings and Gentiles” would hear the gospel through his proclamation of the gospel.
Our Approach
Our approach in this lesson will be to give attention to the fate of the apostle, comparing and contrasting his treatment by the Roman commander (as a representative of the Roman government) and by the Sanhedrin (as representatives of the Jews). We will find that Paul fares much better at the hand of the heathen than he does at the hand of his own countrymen. We will then note how all of this affects both the apostle and the gospel. In conclusion, we will seek to identify those principles which underlie God’s work, through the ages, through Israel, and through the church, and then explore their implications for our lives.
The Structure of the Text
Chapter 23 is but a continuation of Luke’s account of Paul’s journey to Rome via Jerusalem. In this chapter, Paul will stand trial before the Sanhedrin. At the very beginning of the trial Paul will “lock horns” with Ananias, the high priest. Knowing that there is no hope for a fair trial, Paul raises the theological issue of the resurrection of the dead, which divides and deadlocks the Sanhedrin, forcing the Roman commander to intervene, and to take Paul back into custody. The Lord will appear to Paul to encourage him concerning the certainty of his arrival in Rome and his witness there. Unable to execute Paul legally, some of the Jews form a conspiracy, vowing to kill Paul. This conspiracy includes at least part of the Sanhedrin. Paul providentially learns of this conspiracy and sends word to the commander, who acts quickly and decisively to get him out of danger, sending him with an armed escort to Caesarea, where he will stand trial.
The structure of our text may be outlined as follows:
· Off to a Bad Start 22:30—23:5
· Chaos in the Council23:6-10
· Divine Encouragement23:11
· A Jewish Conspiracy and Roman Corrective Measures23:12-35
Off To A Bad Start
(20:30—23:5)
The commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem was “between a rock and a hard place.” If Paul was left alone with the unbelieving Jews, disorder was certain to break out. The commander did not know how or why. He had tried to learn what the issues were, and to determine whether or not Paul had broken any Roman laws. He was convinced that the Jews were dogmatic about the fact that he had broken their laws. And so he turned Paul over to the Sanhedrin for trial. It was not going to work out as the commander had hoped.
During the past 25 or more years the Sanhedrin[484] had been confronted by the gospel at least five times. It deliberated anxiously over the growing popularity of Jesus after the raising of Lazarus, and determined He must die (John 11:47-53). In a hasty and illegal meeting, it determined that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and must die (Luke 22:66-71). After the resurrection of our Lord, it arrested Peter and John and warned them not to preach in the name of Jesus any longer, wishing that they had some legal grounds to deal more severely with them (Acts 4:1-22). They shortly after arrested a larger group of the apostles, this time beating them to underscore their threats and warnings if they preached in the name of Jesus any more (Acts 5:17-42). Under pressure from the Hellenistic Jews, Stephen was tried, on charges very similar to those made against Paul (Acts 6:8—7:60). The Council hardly seems to have reached a verdict, when the mob drug Stephen out and stoned him. Now, more than 20 years later, Paul stands before the Council. The issues have hardly changed through the years. The charges against Paul are virtually the same as those against Stephen, and not unlike those against our Lord.[485]
The Council assembled and Paul was brought before them to stand trial. Claudius Lysias was eagerly standing by, not so much to keep order (though this would soon be required), as to hear the precise charges against Paul, so that he could then have some basis for dealing with Paul under Roman law, or allowing his case to be handled by the Sanhedrin.
Paul “looked intently at the Council” (23:1) when he spoke to them. This added the strong sense of conviction which he held. He “looked them eyeball to eyeball” and said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day” (23:2). This was too much for the high priest, who ordered those standing by to strike Paul on the mouth. Why did the high priest find this statement so offensive? What was it about these words which set him off?
Before we seek to answer these questions, pertaining to the reaction of this ungodly unbeliever, let us seek to answer it to our own satisfaction. How could Paul say that he had lived his life with a pure conscience? Did he not write, referring to himself as “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15)? Had he not often spoken, with much regret, of the suffering which he had caused many saints, before his conversion (for example, Acts 22:4, 19)? How could his conscience be clear when he had done so much that was wrong? There are at least two reasons why Paul could say what he did:
First, Paul’s exact wording here refers primarily to his conduct as a citizen, to his civil obedience, living his life in a way that kept the laws of the land, and thus gave him no qualms of conscience. The marginal note in the NASB at verse 1 indicates that the expression, “lived my life” is more precisely rendered “conducted myself as a citizen.” This expression is a rare one, used elsewhere only by Paul in Philippians 1:27 (here rendered “conduct yourselves” in the NASB). Its specific reference is to one’s life as a citizen. And so when Paul here claims to have lived with a clear conscience to this very day, he is specifically referring to a clear conscience with regard to his civil conduct. If their charges were that he was conducting himself contrary to Jewish and Roman civil laws, Paul had no pangs of conscience on such matters in the least. Any such charges must therefore be false.[486]
Second, Paul could have a clear conscience with regard to his past sins because of the cross of Jesus Christ, the cross which he proclaimed. Paul possessed a clear conscience, and he offered this same cleansed conscience to all who would believe in Jesus as Messiah. Paul could possess a clear conscience due to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but because these Jews (and Ananias in particular) rejected Him and His atoning work on Calvary, they could not claim to have a clear conscience. Paul claimed to have that which they could not claim, and under the law they could never hope to attain:
1 Now even the first {covenant} had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which {were} the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which {was} a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it {were} the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest {enters}, once a year, not without {taking} blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit {is} signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which {is} a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they {relate} only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. 11 But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:1-14).
Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled {clean} from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22).
A devout Jew’s highest efforts at law-keeping might enable him to claim, as Paul did, that he was, as pertains to law-righteousness “blameless” (Philippians 3:6), but he could never stop “looking over his shoulder” with respect to God’s holiness. The Old Testament law never gave men the ability to claim a clear conscience, but grace did, in the Old Testament and the New. This was that which Paul had experienced, which he proclaimed, and which the high priest and his associates rejected.
No wonder the high priest was so upset! Paul was claiming a cleansing which the legalist could not even imagine. Did this “Paul,” this “law-breaker,” really dare to think of himself as so clean, so righteous? How dare he speak this way, or so Ananias seems to have reasoned (or, rather, reacted).
This high priest would have had a difficult time coming to any sense of a clean conscience. He was one of the most wicked men who ever held this position, and he was guilty of many of those things of which he accused Paul:
The high priest at this time was Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, who received the office from Herod of Chalcis (younger brother of Herod Agrippa I) in A.D. 47 and held it for eleven or twelve years. He brought no credit to the sacred office. Josephus tells how his servants went to the threshing floors to seize the tithes that ought to have gone to the common priests, while the Talmud preserves a parody of Ps. 24:7 in which his greed was lampooned:
“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; that Yohanan ben Narbai, the disciple of Pinqai, may go in and fill his belly with the divine sacrifices! Some five years before this time he had been sent to Rome by the legate of Syria on suspicion of complicity in a sanguinary conflict between Judaeans and Samaritans, but was cleared and restored to the high priesthood by the Emperor Claudius, thanks to the advocacy of the younger Agrippa. His great wealth made him a man to be reckoned with even after his deposition from office; and he did not scruple to use violence and assassination to further his interests. His pro-Roman policy, however, made him an object of intense hostility to the militant nationalists in Judaea, and when the war against Rome broke out in A.D. 66 he was dragged by insurgents from an aqueduct in which he had tried to hide, and put to death along with his brother Hezekiah. His son Eleazar, captain of the temple, took fierce reprisals on his assassins.[487]
Ananias was a bold, insolent, violent-tempered member of the Sadducean party, noted for its stern and exacting judgment on others. Josephus depicts his infamy. He made himself exceedingly wealthy on the ill-gotten gain of his office, forcibly took the tithes that belonged to the priests, thus leaving some to starve, sheltered a wicked brood of henchmen, and collaborated with the sicarii or Assassins of the country. He convened the Sanhedrin in the interim between the governorship of Festus and Albinus and condemned to death by stoning James, the brother of Jesus and pastor of the Jerusalem church, with other Christians, plus innumerable other wicked deeds, according to Josephus.[488]
Ananias was a hypocrite indeed. Here he was, a wicked man, misusing his office for his own gain, at the expense of others. He was a man who associated with and made use of the services of assassins. He stirred up political strife. And yet he was sitting there in his place of authority, acting so offended at Paul’s alleged offenses, which he knew to be unfounded. What distressed Paul was that he was sitting in judgment of him, trying him for violations of the law—seemingly to uphold the law—while he was, in the very process of “carrying out the law” disdaining and disobeying it. He was accusing Paul as a law-breaker, but he, the judge just broke the law, by ordering him struck (cf. John 7:51; 18:21-23).
Paul hotly retorted to this flagrant disregard of the law, calling Ananias a “whited wall” and indicating that God would strike him in due time. The expression “whited wall” may have come to Paul’s mind from the words of Ezekiel the prophet:
10 “It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 {so} tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 “Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, ‘Where is the plaster with which you plastered {it}?’” 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, “I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume {it} in wrath. 14 “So I shall tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord. 15 “Thus I shall spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I shall say to you, ‘The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 {along with} the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace, ‘declares the Lord God” (Ezekiel 13:10-16).
Paul’s words were prophetic, when he said that God would strike this “whited wall,” for he was to be violently killed a few years later.
The question for us, however, is “How could Paul speak this way to the high priest?”[489] Was this a quick-tempered act, which was sinful? Paul acknowledged his sin in speaking thus, but he also claimed it was a sin of ignorance. He did not know this man was the high priest. There are some who would doubt Paul’s words. I have no doubt that Paul was both sincere and honest in his claim of ignorance. I do not know why he did not know who the man was, but there are many possible reasons. (1) Paul had not been in Jerusalem for a long time, nor had he been there long this time. Why would he know who was the high priest, or, better yet, why would he know what he looked like? (2) This seems to have been a hastily called meeting, and may not have been nearly as orderly and formal. Was Ananias dressed casually or sitting in some seat other than his normal place? (3) Some think Paul had bad eyesight. Whatever the reason, Paul did not know who he was speaking to, and thus sinned in ignorance.
It does seem to be sin, and this Paul seems to have readily acknowledged.[490] Much has been written about Paul’s response to the high priest here, either condemning him for a brash act of temper, or defending him. Luke does not really indicate the goodness or badness of the act, nor need he do so. Are any of our actions carried out with entirely pure motivation? Is there anything which we do that is not tainted by our own sin? Nothing we do, including our acts of obedience and worship, are entirely pure. Our purity comes from our identification with Him. Regardless of all the factors entering into Paul’s words, he did acknowledge error on his part, a violation of the law. But this was all a part of the divine plan. God’s will is not accomplished because we do the right thing, for all the right reasons. God’s will can be accomplished by evil men, acting out of evil motives, or by good men, acting out of mixed motives (see Philippians 1:15-18).
Though the high priest had no regard for the law, Paul did. He knew the words and the intent of Exodus 22:28, and he cited them to those nearby. For all of Paul’s freedom from the law, Paul was still a man who endeavored to live in accordance with the precepts and standards set by the law, and thus he knew he was obliged to show respect to this man, Ananias, not for his personal piety, but due to his position. The Paul who would teach the saints to live in submission to God-given authorities, even the wicked rulers (see Romans 13:1-7), would do so himself, even with regard to this evil and hypocritical high priest.
If Paul’s regard for the Jewish law serves to show up the disregard of Ananias for the law (Roman and Jewish), so does the commander of the Roman troops in Jerusalem, Claudius Lysias. Claudius Lysias was careful to conduct the legal proceedings in a way that was prescribed by (Roman) law. It is true that he nearly mistreated Paul, in violation of the Law, but this was due to his ignorance of the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen. Once he was aware of Paul’s citizenship, he made certain that Paul’s rights, guaranteed by Roman law, were protected. But as for Ananias, he only pretended to carry out the law and to uphold it, and yet in his own practice and in the proceedings of Paul’s trial he disdained and disregarded the law, illegally ordering Paul to be struck. Claudius Lysias, the Gentile, was “more righteous” than Ananias, the Jewish high priest.
Chaos in the Council
(23:6-10)
The hot interchange between Paul and Ananias made one thing clear to Paul, as it should be clear to us as well—that Paul would not receive a fair trial before the Sanhedrin. I believe that Paul came to Jerusalem with high hopes, for he deeply yearned for the salvation of his own people, the Jews (Romans 9:1-5). The day before, standing on the steps to the barracks, Paul had spoken to those with whom he could easily identify, having once believed and behaved just as they were now. But when he spoke of his conversion experience, they would not listen. Indeed, they exploded violently, demanding that he be killed. That experience, along with this interchange with Ananias made it clear that these Jews had nothing in mind for him but death. All they sought was the legalization of his execution. Anything which Paul said would be used against him, if possible, or ignored. The words of our Lord, spoken to Paul in his “temple vision” many years before (Acts 22:18, 21), were even more relevant to Paul now. He must leave Jerusalem or be killed, and he must go to the Gentiles.
What was Paul to do now? No divine instructions seem to have been given. Paul was left to act in accordance with his knowledge of God’s will, and in accordance with the wisdom God gives at such times. If the decision of the Council would most certainly be unfavorable, then he must seek to prevent a decision from being reached. And so he chose to turn one part of this Council against the other, to set the Pharisees against the Sadducees. He did this by crying out, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees;[491] I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” (Acts 23:6).
The Pharisees, as Luke informs us in verse 8, strongly held to some beliefs that the Sadducees scorned and rejected. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, in angels and spirits, while the Sadducees reject all of these. At the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, He was immediately opposed by the Pharisees, based upon some of His teachings and practices. The main “bone of contention” was that Jesus was willing and eager to associate with sinners, and even spoke of taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This was too much for these separatistic Pharisees to endure. But in spite of their many differences with Jesus, many of their theological presuppositions were in agreement.
The Sadducees were not only more “liberal” theologically and doctrinally, but they were more “the establishment.” They were more willing to cooperate with the Roman government and to accommodate them, for their own gain. They held many of the positions of power and of prestige, and did not wish to lose them. Thus, the Sadducees not only disagreed with Jesus more than the Pharisees on theological issues, but they strongly opposed Jesus because of the threat He posed to their position, power, and privileges. As Jesus took a public role in Jerusalem, the Sadducees took a more aggressive role in opposing Him, finally joining forces with the Pharisees to put Him to death.
After the resurrection of our Lord, and especially after Pentecost and the preaching of the apostles commenced, the Sadducees took the leading role in opposing the apostles and Christianity. After all, the gospel was based upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. They could not allow such teaching to go unchallenged, especially when they were accused of instigating the death of Jesus. On the other hand, the Pharisees seemed to gradually become less aggressive in their opposition to the apostles. This stance can be seen in the speech of Gamaliel to the Council (Acts 5:33-39).
In this session of the Council or Sanhedrin, we see the fragile alliance between the Sadducees and the Pharisees disintegrating, and turning, once again, to open disagreement and debate. In Paul’s outcry he identified himself with the Pharisees in their belief in the resurrection from the dead and in the hope which stems from this belief. The Pharisees found themselves in a most interesting position: they found that they had more in common with Paul than they did with the Sadducees.[492] And so a number of the Pharisees had to acknowledge, at least in principle, that what Paul claimed and taught was, by their own system of belief, believable. The Sadducees, on the other hand, found Paul’s experience and teaching totally unacceptable and unbelievable. And thus the resulting “chaos in the courtroom.”
There is something to be learned here, I think, about presuppositions. Presuppositions either open the door to other revelation, or they close the door to it. The presuppositions of the Pharisees (with which Paul agreed) inclined them to at least acknowledge the possibility of what Paul claimed. The presuppositions of the Sadducees closed the door to any consideration of anything Paul said, for they did not believe these things were in the realm of possibility. It is not that such people cannot be saved, but that their presuppositional foundations must first be shaken. The rug must be first pulled out from under them, and a new foundation be shown as needed. This can only be done by the Holy Spirit.
Divine Encouragement
(23:11)
The evening of that ill-fated “trial” before the Sanhedrin, the Lord Himself appeared to Paul, with a very simple statement, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.” While we are not told a great deal about this appearance of the Lord to Paul, it must have had a profound impact upon his attitude and outlook. Let us consider some of the lessons which are implied in this incident.
(1) Even the most faithful servants of God can suffer from discouragement and despair. Some might wish to argue the point, but it is hard to imagine that Paul was not discouraged at this point in time. How intent he had been on getting to Jerusalem (see Acts 21:1-14), and how strong was his desire to see Israel saved (Romans 9:1-5). Did he, like Elijah of old, hope that his ministry might turn this nation around, only to realize that his efforts “failed”? Does he now see that his ministry is much like that of Isaiah (see Isaiah 6:9-10)?[493] Even Paul can be discouraged. He seems to be tempted to doubt here, as John the Baptist did in his imprisonment (see Luke 7:19).
(2) Encouragement ultimately comes from the Lord. God often uses people to encourage us, but it is God who is the source of all comfort and encouragement. It is in His character, His power, His promises and purposes, that we find our hope and comfort (see Romans 5:1-11; 8:18-39; 2 Corinthians 4:16—5:10; 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-17; 3:16; Hebrews 13:5; 1 Peter 5:10).
(3) Encouragement and assurance is often given by being reminded of something which we already know, but have either forgotten or doubted. Paul was not told anything new by the Lord, but only assured that what he had already been told was still going to take place. Encouragement often is the result of being reminded of God’s promises, and being reassured that He always keeps His promises. The promise which God made to Abram in Genesis 12, He repeated on numerous other (later) occasions, and especially at points in time when Abraham needed to be reminded and reassured (for example, Genesis 13:14-17; 14:19-20; 15:12-21).
(4) Encouragement need not be based upon one’s success, but on one’s faithfulness, on one’s obedience to the task God has given. Paul’s testimony in Jerusalem had not been successful, but the Lord told him that he had completed his task of “solemnly witnessing to His cause” in that city. His task was done, and in this Paul could find comfort and encouragement.
(5) There is encouragement in the fact that God yet has a task for us to fulfill, and they we are to be used in fulfilling His purposes. Paul’s task was completed in Jerusalem, but he is yet to witness in Rome. There is more work to be done. What joy one can have in knowing God, in his grace, has chosen to use us (see 1 Timothy 1;12-17).
A Conspiracy and Counter-Measures
(23:12-35)
It may very well be that Paul’s treatment by his fellow-Israelites was the source of great discouragement. Thus, the appearance of our Lord to Paul on the night of his trial before the Sanhedrin would have been an encouragement to him in the light of what had happened. But the appearance of our Lord to Paul may also have been an encouragement to him in the light of what was yet to happen. If you were Paul, and you had been rejected by your own people, God’s chosen people, the Jews, and you had risked your life to witness to them, only to be beaten, and now imprisoned, there would be much cause for despair. But things were still to get worse. While the Lord was speaking with Paul, some of the Jews were speaking with each other, and the result was a conspiracy to kill Paul. More than forty Jews bound themselves to a solemn oath.[494] They covenanted together that they would neither eat nor drink anything until they had put Paul to death.[495] They had enough of trying to do away with Paul through the legal means. If they could not kill him due to Roman intervention, and due to the chaos in the council, they would kill him through intrigue.
The conspiracy was not merely the evil plot of a handful of evil men; it was a plan which won the approval and the participation of the leaders of the Sanhedrin.[496] In order for this scheme to work, the leaders of the Sanhedrin would have to cooperate, convincing the commander of the Roman troops to release Paul for yet another trial before the Council. On the way to the Council, the forty or more men would see to it that he never made it alive. They would thus finally be rid of Paul. There is now little effort to retain the appearance of righteousness or legality. They would kill Paul any way they could.
The “Watergate mentality” has been with us since the beginning of time. It reasons that the cause is so important, and the danger so great, that any means is acceptable to rid the cause of that which threatens it. The cause, was not the law of God, nor justice, but the preservation of the power and position of these leaders. They were tired of the threat which the gospel posed to them, especially as boldly proclaimed by Paul.
On the surface, it would appear that Paul was really in danger now. Things seems to be going from bad to worse. But this is only the appearance of things. In reality this conspiracy is Paul’s ticket for a safe departure out of Jerusalem. It is also his next step toward Rome, although some time will yet pass before he arrives there.
It was no “coincidence” that Paul’s nephew just “happened” to be there when these conspirators met, and to overhear their plans. Providentially, this young man was given access to Paul, and then was received and taken seriously by the commander. How kind and gentle this Roman commander was.[497] How cruel and cunning were these Jews. The chosen people of God were about to commit murder, while this pagan was about to take strong measures to protect the life of the apostle, and to indirectly help to promote the gospel!
The commander was not about to lose a prisoner to the Jews. He would take strong measures to assure Paul’s safe exodus from Jerusalem. He was intent on Paul having a fair trial. If the Jews had cast aside justice and the Old Testament law, this Roman soldier was following Roman law to the letter, giving Paul every benefit of the doubt and every privilege that was due a Roman citizen. And so he ordered two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to escort Paul safely to Caesarea, where he was to be handed over to the custody of Felix the governor,[498] to stand trial there. The left shortly, traveling in the darkness to Antipatris, a city about half way (about 35 or 40 miles) to Caesarea.
The letter which Claudius Lysias wrote to Felix was a brief account, not altogether complete, accurate, or in the proper sequence of events. It was written in a way that reports usually are, so that the one writing the report is viewed in the best light. Nevertheless, the letter was reasonably accurate. Of particular interest is the fact that the commander indicated in very clear language, Paul’s innocence: “I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment” (verse 29). Why, then, did the commander not release Paul, if he knew him to be virtually innocent? Because he knew that the Jews would kill Paul, and that Paul’s rights, as a Roman citizen, would thus be violated. He felt obligated to keep Paul alive. On the other hand, if he turned Paul loose, there was a strong likelihood of another civil disturbance. Every time Paul and these Jews met the sparks flew and a riot inevitably seemed to commence.
What a sigh of relief the commander must have breathed, to have Paul a fair distance from Jerusalem and his area of responsibility. Felix, on the other hand, summoned Paul and discerned that he was in his jurisdiction, and so he summoned the Jews and prepared to conduct yet another trial when they arrived. This was not to be the last trial, either.
Conclusion
There are several very important lessons taught by our text. Let me point out some of these as we conclude.
(1) There is a very clear contrast in our text between the kindness and attention to the law of the Roman commander, Claudius Lysias, and the cruel disregard for the law of the Jews, and especially of the Sanhedrin. We would have hoped to have seen the Jews portrayed as eager to preserve, promote, and practice the law, and have expected the Romans to have a disregard for law, and to evidence a lack of compassion. Such is exactly the reverse of the matter, as Luke’s account describes the treatment of Paul.
Here is Paul, a Jew on the one hand, and a Roman citizen on the other. The Jews hate Paul, and want to kill him, which they are willing to go to any extreme to accomplish. The crowd tried to kill Paul by beating him to death, stopped only by the arrival of the Roman troops (21:31-32). Then, when the Sanhedrin was trying Paul, they must have hoped for a “guilty” verdict, which they hoped would have allowed them to execute Paul, as Jesus had been put to death. This, too, failed, because the Council was divided and the trial never was completed (22:6-10). Once their hopes of legally putting Paul to death were terminated, the Council agreed to take part in an illegal conspiracy to kill Paul (22:13-15). Justice and the practice of the Old Testament Law were thereby cast aside for the pragmatic issue of silencing Paul.
Contrast the cruelty, violence, and disregard of the Law by the Jews, especially the Sanhedrin (something like our Supreme Court), with the kindness, peace-keeping, and law-abiding of the Romans, and especially of the commander. As a Jew, the Jews deprived Paul of his rights under the Old Testament Law, but as a Roman, the commander gave Paul every consideration, going to great extremes to protect him from mistreatment, by his own people, by the Jews!
This contrast, between the Jews and the Roman commander, is similar to that found in the Old Testament Book of Jonah. There, Jonah had no compassion on the sailors, while they risked their lives to save him, even when they knew that he had greatly endangered them (Jonah 1). There, Jonah had no compassion on the Ninevites, even though the children and the cattle were innocent. Jonah wanted all of them to die a torturous death.
We see in these two instances (Paul, in our text, and Jonah, in the Old Testament Book of Jonah) that Israel’s judgment is both near and well-deserved. We see, as well, good reason for God’s compassion on the heathen, who in both instances were far more compassionate than their Jewish counterparts.
The more one reflects on Paul’s treatment in Jerusalem by his fellow-Israelites, the more one sees that the situation in Paul’s day is very similar to that which occurred all too often in the Old Testament (see Jeremiah 6:1-8, 13-19, 27-30; 7:1-11ff.; 8:8-12; 22:3, 16-17; 23:1-40; Ezekiel 13; 16; 34:1-10). And, as one looks ahead to the last days, one realizes that the same essential features found both here and in Israel’s past, are present in the future as well. The people of God cease to be grateful for God’s grace, and the privileges He has bestowed on them. They become self-righteous and even cruel. They disregard the Law of God. And those who are Israel’s leaders, the “shepherds” abuse their position. Rather than protecting the weak and the vulnerable, they prey upon them. Rather than to feed the flock of God, they feed upon the flock. This is a continual theme in the Old Testament, and the treatment of Paul in Jerusalem has all the same earmarks. It is happening again. And just as before, it will soon be the time for God’s judgment to fall on the city of Jerusalem once again. The treatment of Paul in Jerusalem (not to mention the earlier treatment of Jesus, the apostles, and Stephen) is more than sufficient cause for God’s wrath to fall upon the disobedient Israelites, and especially their leaders.
(2) In the Book of Acts in general, and in our text in particular, we see not only how the gospel was proclaimed to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles, but also why. The gospel was first preached to the Jews, but as a nation they rejected the gospel, even as they had rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Paul went to Jerusalem and then to Rome because the gospel was to be rejected one last time in Jerusalem, and then it would go, with Paul, to Rome. As Paul would teach in his epistle to the Romans (chapters 9-11), the gospel went to the Gentiles because it was rejected by the Jews. If the Jews would not be a “light to the Gentiles” by believing in Jesus and by proclaiming salvation in Him, it would go to the Gentiles through their unbelief, by men like Paul and others, who would proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. This rejection of Paul and his gospel in Jerusalem, by the people and their leaders, was the last straw. Now, the gospel was soon to make its way to Rome with Paul. It is with sadness that we find Paul coming to grips with the rejection of Jesus by his people, Israel, and with his turning from Jerusalem toward Rome. Here, not only is God about to turn His back on Jerusalem and the Jews, but Luke (and Paul) are leaving Jerusalem for the last time in this book.
(3) This chapter, like the rest of the Book of Acts, underscores the sovereign control of God over history, in such a way as to allow men freedom of choice, and yet to insure that God’s program will be carried out exactly as purposed in eternity past. In Acts 1:8 the divine program for the proclamation of the gospel was spelled out by our Lord. The gospel would be proclaimed in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest part of the earth. This is precisely how it happened, as Luke describes it in Acts. But it did not happen only due to faithful saints, who were careful to carry out God’s plan to the letter. Even the apostles and the early church seemed to misunderstand and to drag their feet. God used not only his saints, but the opposition of unbelieving Jews (see Acts 8:1; 11:19ff.) to propel the gospel outward. He also used the Roman government, its laws, and its officials in furthering the gospel (see Acts 18:1-2, 12-17; 21:30ff.).
It seems to me that too many Christians think that God’s will can be thwarted or hindered by man’s lack of faith or obedience, but the Book of Acts (not the mention the rest of the Bible) shows this to be untrue. God’s purposes always come to pass in Acts, and just as God planned and promised, although often in a way very different from the way we would have expected or planned. The more I study Acts, the more I find that we are not told whether certain decisions and actions were “rightly motivated” or “prompted by the Spirit”; they were just done. For example, were the eleven apostles “right” in choosing Mathias as the twelfth apostle (see Acts 1:15-26)? Some would say that they were, and others would differ, especially in the light of God’s appointment of Paul as an apostle, something none of the apostles decided to do, or were even eager to accept, when God did it (see Acts 9:26ff.). Were the apostles and elders “right” in appointing the seven “deacons,” so that they would be free to minister the word and pray? Why, then, were two of these seven men raised up by the Lord as great preachers, with seemingly more successful preaching ministries than most of the apostles? Was Paul “led of the Spirit” to cast the demon out of the fortune-teller, or just “fed up” with her constantly annoying him (Acts 16:16ff.)? Was Paul perfectly motivated in his determination to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21ff.)?
The more I study the Book of Acts, the more I am inclined to conclude that it didn’t matter whether or not men were perfectly correct in their actions, decisions, or motives. After all, who could ever claim such, except our Lord? But a sovereign God does not need perfect followers in order to achieve His will. He does not even need saints, to carry out His purposes. And so God used the apostles, Paul, the elders in Jerusalem, Roman officials, and unbelieving Jews, to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, and as far as Rome (in the Book of Acts). We need not spend long hours agonizing over the fact that our understanding of God’s will and our obedience to it were imperfect. We must press on, seeking to do that which is pleasing in His sight and according to His word, yet knowing that even when we fail, His purposes, promises, and program will not. What comfort there is in serving a sovereign God, whose purposes will never be frustrated by sinful men or seemingly unfavorable circumstances.
(4) Paul’s words to the Sanhedrin remind us that a “clean conscience” is available to even the worst sinner, who trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing of conscience. Paul was once just like these members of the Sanhedrin—an arch enemy of the gospel and a persecutor of the saints. He spoke of himself not only as the one who was formerly “chief of sinners,” but as one who was presently holding the same position (1 Timothy 1:13-15). How is it possible for such a sinner to have a clear conscience? The writer to the Hebrews made that very clear—it is not through one’s own works or righteousness, but through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and through His sacrificial and substitutionary death, in the sinner’s place (Hebrews 9).
Do you have a clear conscience before God? You can, just as Paul did, by personally trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s provision for the cleansing of your sin. This cleansing is not due to any good you have done or will do, but only due to that which Jesus Christ has done:
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).
I hear so much psychological jargon today, about “being in touch with your feelings” or “dealing with your past” or “having a good self-image.” What God offers is far better—a clear conscience, the assurance that the guilt of our sins has been washed away, so that God can accept us through Christ, and so that we can live our lives free from the guilt and self-condemnation of a defiled conscience. If your conscience has never been cleansed, I pray that you will be cleansed in conscience today, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, on your behalf.
! Lesson 35:
Paul Stands Before Felix:
The Preacher and the Politician
(Acts 24:1-27)
Introduction
As a husband and especially as the father of five daughters, I have spent a fair amount of my life waiting. Waiting has become an accepted part of life. There are “waiting lines” at the bank. We wait for traffic jams to clear, or to muddle on, or for the light to change. We wait at the checkout stand in the grocery store. We wait in the doctor’s office. Some of you may be waiting for this message to end. Waiting is an accepted (though not without complaint) part of everyday life.
Have you ever stopped to think how much of our time, as Christians, is spent waiting on God? As I read through the Old Testament, I see many “divine delays,” requiring saints to be constantly waiting. I find Abraham and Sarah, waiting for the promised son, and the blessings which God promised him and his seed. I see Joseph waiting for his dreams to be fulfilled. I see Moses, waiting for 40 years, to become the deliverer of Israel, and then another forty years before Israel could enter the promised land. Indeed, Moses still waits to enter into God’s rest, because he sinned in the wilderness. David had to wait to take the throne of Israel. Israel had to wait for her restoration, and for the Messiah to come. When I read Hebrews 11, I must come to the conclusion that all of the Old Testament saints waited on God, and are still waiting, for the full and final fulfillment of His promises.
In the New Testament, it is no different. Waiting is one of the duties of every saint. We, like the apostles and the early church, wait for the Lord’s return, for our complete sanctification, and for the perfection of heaven. In our chapter, Paul will find himself waiting for a decision from Felix. In this case, Paul will wait for two years, and still not have a verdict pronounced by this politician. In Paul’s situation, there was no good reason for a delay. An immediate “not guilty” verdict could and should have been pronounced, but this would not have been politically advantageous, so far as Felix was concerned.
The two years which Paul spent in his Caesarean cell would have been a source of great irritation and frustration to some of us. We can imagine all sorts of places that Paul could have traveled, and ministries he could have been performing. But God “waylaid” him in a prison cell, on charges which were totally unfounded, and all because of a politician who would not risk offending some of his constituency. The delay was a part of God’s divine design. Many good things must have resulted from this two year period, but Luke chose to tell us only of one of Paul’s ministries. In our lesson, we will seek to learn why Paul’s imprisonment was prolonged, and how God used this in accomplishing His purposes. For those of us who find waiting a frustrating experience, there is much to learn from this passage.
The Setting
For some time, Paul has had his sights set toward Jerusalem, and then toward Rome (see 19:21). As Paul began to approach Jerusalem, he was warned in every city that his arrival would result in “bonds and afflictions” (20:22-24). This did not deter him, however. When he finally reached Jerusalem, he met with James and the elders of the church, who gladly received his report of God’s work through the Gospel in the lives of the Gentiles (21:17-20a). They further urged Paul to correct some misconceptions about his ministry and message by demonstrating that in coming to faith in Christ he had not completely rejected Judaism, and especially its ceremonial worship. In other words, they asked Paul to prove that he was still, as a Christian, “zealous for the law” (21:17b-25).
Paul took their advice and went to the temple, along with the four men whom the elders had recommended, to purify himself and to make sacrifices, paying their expenses, and thus identifying himself with all that they did. At the end of seven days, some Asian Jews spotted Paul in the temple, and also Trophimus, a Gentile from Ephesus. They jumped to the conclusion that Paul had brought him into the temple to defile it. These Asian Jews called upon the Jerusalem Jews to help them be rid of Paul once for all. It was their intention to put Paul to death. A riot broke out as men gathered in the frenzy of the moment, many of whom did not know what was going on.
News of this riot reached the ears of Claudius Lysias, the Roman commander who was in charge. He wrongly concluded that a dangerous revolutionary had returned to Jerusalem and had started this riot, thinking Paul to be this man. His prompt arrival cut short the Jew’s efforts to kill Paul. When the commander learned that Paul was not the Egyptian revolutionary, and when he was unable to determine the cause of this riot from the crowd, he allowed Paul to address the crowd, hoping (it seems) to learn what the underlying cause of the riot was. Paul spoke to the crowd in Hebrew, preventing the commander from learning anything, and eventually leading to another outbreak, the result of Paul’s words which told of his vision, in which the Lord commanded him to flee Jerusalem and go to the Gentiles (22:17-21ff.).
The commander was greatly upset by this turn of events, and planned to learn the truth by examining Paul by scourging. In the course of preparing him for this “interrogation” Paul indicated to the centurions that he was a Roman citizen, which quickly changed the commander’s mind about beating him without a trial. The commander released Paul and arranged for his trial by the Sanhedrin the following day. After offending the high priest, Ananias, Paul turned the Council into a chaotic free for all by taking his stand with the Pharisees in believing in the resurrection of the dead (23:1-10). The commander, once again, had to intervene, to save Paul. He placed him in custody once again.
The Jewish opponents of Paul concluded that there was no legal way of disposing of him, and so they became party to a conspiracy in which Paul was to be assassinated (23:12-15). When Paul learned of this plot through his nephew, he sent the young lad to the commander, who took prompt and decisive action, sending Paul to Felix in Caesarea that night, under heavy guard. With Paul Claudius Lysias sent a letter which explained the situation:
26 “Claudius Lysias, to the most excellent governor Felix, greetings. 27 “When this man was arrested by the Jews and was about to be slain by them, I came upon them with the troops and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. 28 “And wanting to ascertain the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their Council; 29 and I found him to be accused over questions about their Law, but under no accusation deserving death or imprisonment. 30 “And when I was informed that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, also instructing his accusers to bring charges against him before you.”
While Claudius Lysias’ account to Felix may not be completely accurate, we shall see that the account of the situation which was given by the Jews accusing Paul was completely fabricated, virtually inferring that Claudius Lysias was a liar. The story of the “Preacher and the Politician,” of Paul and Felix, takes up at this point.
The Structure of the Text
The structure of our text is simple and straightforward. The first nine verses are Luke’s account of the accusations made against Paul by the Jews, as represented by Tertullus, the lawyer. Verses 10-21 are Luke’s account of Paul’s defense. Verses 22 and 23 describe Felix’s decision (or indecision). And the final verses (24-27) are an epilogue, describing the dialogues which took place between Felix (and Drusilla, his wife, at times) and Paul, over the two year period of his incarceration in Caesarea. We may summarize the structure of this chapter this way:
· The charges against Paul—verses 1-9
· Paul’s defense—verses 10-21
· Felix’s (in)decision—verses 22-23
· Felix’s dialogues with Paul—verses 24-27
The Charges Against Paul
(24:1-9)
Five days later, Paul was brought before Felix to stand trial. Felix was a very colorful personality, as others point out:
“Marcus Antonius Felix (as his full name is usually taken to have been) was a man of servile birth, who owed his unprecedented advancement to a post of honor usually reserved for the equestrian order to the influence which his brother Pallas exercised at the imperial court under Claudius. Pallas was a freedman of Claudius’s mother Antonia, and was for a number of years head of the imperial civil service. Felix succeeded Ventidius Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in A.D. 52, but before that he may have occupied a subordinate post in Samaria under Cumanus. His term of office as procurator was marked by increasing insurgency throughout the province, and by the emergence of the sicarii. The ruthlessness with which he put down these risings alienated many of the more moderate Jews, and led to further risings. Tacitus sums up his character and career in one of his biting epigrams: “he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” Despite his lowly origins, he was remarkably successful in marriage (from a social point of view, that is); his three successive wives were all of royal birth, according to Suetonius. The first of the three was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who figures in the following narrative.”[499]
A. T. Robertson adds,
“He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that “with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave.”[500]
It was an interesting group which arrived from Jerusalem to prosecute the case against Paul. Noticeably absent were the Asian Jews, who had mistakenly assumed that Paul was seeking to defile the temple. Had these Jews come only for the religious holidays, and returned to Asia? Or, had they (or the Jerusalem Jewish leaders) discovered that they had jumped to the wrong conclusion? Were they reluctant to be cross examined in front of Felix? Also absent was Claudius Lysias, the commander of the Roman troops, who had rescued Paul and sent him to Caesarea for trial.
I am not sure how many of the Pharisees were present, for none are specifically mentioned.[501] If there are any Pharisees present, I do not think that their heart is in this attack on Paul nearly to the degree that the Sadducees were pursuing this matter. Ever since the resurrection of our Lord the Pharisees have taken a more retiring position in Jewish effort to oppose the gospel. It was Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who (in Acts chapter 5) advised his colleagues on the Council to “back off” and leave the Christians alone, for if this were of God, they could not be stopped, and if it were only of men, it would die of itself. When Paul cried out in the Council (Acts 23), affirming his belief in the resurrection of the dead, the Pharisees came to Paul’s defense. I do not think that the Pharisees were a party to the conspiracy to assassinate Paul, nor do I think they were enthusiastic about prosecuting him before Felix.
This put the Sadducees (that is, the high priest and the other elders who came to Caesarea) in a very awkward position. They were summoned to come and to press charges against Paul. They, if closely questioned, could be charged with responsibility for the disorder in Jerusalem. And they were now without any great support from the Pharisees, not to mention the fact that the Asian Jews were absent. They were indeed in a precarious position. Little wonder that they hired a Roman lawyer,[502] Tertullus,[503] to represent them, and to prosecute Paul on their behalf. As weak as their position was, they needed a “Perry Mason,” who was familiar with Roman jurisprudence and who could make their case look stronger than it really was.
Before we look at the case which Tertullus presented against Paul, let us give a moment to consider just what verdict it was that the Jews were seeking. It is my opinion that the Jews do not expect, or even want, a verdict pronounced which would find Paul guilty of a minor offense. They did not want Paul imprisoned; they wanted Paul dead (see Acts 22:22; 23:12, 27; 25:3). They knew that Rome, to this point in time, was trying to save Paul’s life. While the Jews who opposed Paul would have delighted in having a verdict which found Paul guilty of treason and a death penalty imposed, they knew better than to expect this. Consequently, they really did not want Felix to try Paul at all, but to hand him back over to them for trial in Jerusalem, so that the conspiracy to kill Paul could be carried out.
Tertullus did the best he could with what he had to work with, but it was not enough to convince Felix, who was too well informed to be taken in by the arguments of the prosecution. Tertullus began with a very flowery and flattering introduction. He spoke of Felix as a very wise and benevolent leader, who skillfully had brought peace and progress to the Jewish nation. Even without a knowledge of secular history, the words of Tertullus are too smooth and too flattering. But with a knowledge of secular history, we know that these statements were hypocritical and dishonest. Felix was no man of peace, and the Jews did not have a high regard for him. It was due to a Jewish protest that Felix was recalled by the emperor.[504]
Whether or not Felix was a “man of peace,” his duty was to “keep the peace” in that region, for which he was accountable to Rome. If Paul was a trouble-maker and a disturber of the peace, Felix would find his job to be much easier without Paul’s presence. Thus, the Jewish leaders seem to be suggesting to Felix (through Tertullus) that if he simply turns Paul over to them, they will take care of him and thus rid Felix of a serious problem. Felix does not need to find Paul guilty of treason or of revolutionary activity, he need only find that Paul should be turned over to the Jews for trial in Jerusalem. “Leave Paul to us,” they seem to be saying, “and we will remove a major administrative problem for you.” It was, indeed, a tempting thought, for where Paul went there was often disorder, for whatever reason.
The case which Tertullus presented against Paul was a truly shoddy one. In the first place, there were no eye-witnesses. There were only general allegations, and mostly of misconduct elsewhere. The best that they can do is to point to what they considered an imminent threat of the temple being desecrated, for the offense had not actually taken place. And they have the audacity to suggest to this Roman official that he will find sufficient evidence from Paul’s testimony.[505] In Roman law and in Jewish law, Paul is not required to testify against himself. We know of this legal protection as the “fifth amendment.”
The charges against Paul were:
(1) He was, in the eyes of the Jews, a ‘real pest’ (verse 5).
(2) He stirred up unrest among the Jews world-wide (verse 5).
(3) He was the ringleader of a non-Jewish sect (verse 5).
(4) He tried to desecrate the temple (verse 6).
The account which Tertullus gave of the riot which took place in Jerusalem was very different, both from that which Luke tells us really happened (chapters 21-23) and from the account which Claudius Lysias wrote in his explanatory letter to Felix (23:26-30). We know from Luke’s account that Paul had done nothing wrong in Jerusalem, and that the Asian Jews had jumped to a wrong conclusion, which precipitated their efforts to kill Paul with the aid of the native Jerusalemites. They would have killed Paul had not Claudius Lysias arrived on the scene. On more than one occasion, Paul was rescued from being put to death by this Roman commander. They had been unsuccessful in their efforts to try Paul in the Sanhedrin, because the issue of the resurrection of the dead divided the two major parties represented in this council.
The account which they Jews wanted Felix to believe, implied by the words of Tertullus, was very different from what actually happened. Their story would go something like this:
“We knew that Paul was a trouble-maker, and so we kept our eyes on him. We saw him attempting to desecrate the temple, and, fortunately, were able to stop him before he succeeded in this horrible task. {Incidentally, Paul seeks Roman protection, not only claiming to be a Roman citizen, but claiming to be a Jew. In reality, he does not hold to the Judaism of our nation or of our fathers, and thus he should not be protected in the conduct and propagation of his cultic religion.} We wanted to bring Paul to trial and to justice, but Claudius Lysias, your commanding officer in Jerusalem, violently intervened. Using excessive force, he kept us from bringing Paul to justice by seizing him from us (injuring some in the process).[506] We are here, not because we think that you need to try Paul’s case, but because we believe you will agree with us that we should be given jurisdiction in this case. If you will turn Paul over to us, we assure you that we will bring this man to justice, and at the same time rid you of a major problem. We know you will be ever grateful to us for this.”
Paul’s Defense
(24:10-21)
Paul’s defense is recorded in verses 10-21. Paul began with an introductory statement, reported in verses 10b-13. In verses 14-16, Paul spoke about his relationship to Judaism, and its bearing on his conduct. He concluded (as least so far as Luke’s account of his defense is concerned) by specifically answering some of the charges which were made against him (verses 17-21).
Paul’s introduction is very different from that of Tertullus. Tertullus’ introduction was longer, contained much more flattery, and was essentially untrue. Paul’s introduction was short and truthful: he was grateful to stand trail before Felix because he was a man with considerable experience in dealing with this nation. Felix was no “wet behind the ears” novice, who would be taken in by the fancy words of Tertullus, or by the impassioned words of his opponents. Felix knew these Jews and the issues which were really at stake. Thus, Paul could gladly state his case before this official.
In his defense, Paul very carefully sticks to the issue at hand—his conduct in Jerusalem. He does not seek to bring up or to defend himself on any matters outside Jerusalem. Would Tertullus allude to him as a world-wide trouble-maker? Paul would not speak to such allegations. In the first place, there were no specific charges made, but only general, unsupported accusations. Tertullus did not even mention specific places or incidents. Second, Paul was not on trial concerning his conduct elsewhere, only for his conduct in Jerusalem. And so Paul spoke only to those charges which were pertinent.
Paul’s Introductory Comments
(24:10b-13)
After a very brief statement about his cheerful defense to Felix, based upon his years of experience in dealing with the Jews, Paul went right to the essence of the matter. He could not possibly be guilty of the charges, for he had only arrived in Jerusalem 12 days before. He had not been to Jerusalem for several years, and he could hardly have had the time required to do all the evil things which his opponents alleged. Throughout the short time of his stay, he had only engaged in private matters, and had not made any public appearances or statements. The charges which were leveled against Paul, he said, were without any basis. We know this to be true, and this was also exactly what Claudius Lysias had stated in his letter to Felix. There was no substance to the case against Paul. It should be thrown out of court.
Paul’s Relationship to Judaism
(24:14-16)
A very serious allegation, the most serious one to Paul and to the gospel, was that he practiced a form of religion that was contrary to Judaism. The Jews seemed to suggest that the reason why Paul’s ministry was so volatile and led to such violence was that he was not a true Jew and opposed Judaism. This charge was made in Corinth, before Gallio, and was rejected by Gallio, who knew better (see Acts 18:12-17). But the Jews continued to try to disown Christianity and Paul as anti-Jewish.
Paul now turns his attention to the allegation of Tertullus that Paul was a cult-leader, the ringleader of a “sect” called the “Nazarines” (verse 5). The Jews would like Felix to believe that Paul was not a true Jew at all, but one who opposed the Jews, and whose alleged attempt to desecrate the temple was the outgrowth of his “faith.” He openly professes his association with “the Way,” which the Jews call a sect, but he strongly protests the charge that it is a sect. Paul insists that his faith and practice is not only consistent with Judaism, but it is, in fact, the only true Judaism. His wording is carefully chosen so that instead of reflecting a “we/they” polarization, he refers to an “our/us” commonality in many areas, thus affirming his close ties with Judaism.[507]
Paul served “the God of our fathers,” not some other “god” (verse 14). Paul’s faith and practice was based upon the revelation of God to Israel in the “Law and the Prophets” (verse 14). His “hope” was like that of those who stood before him, opposing him. His hope was in God and in the resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked. It was this hope and this certainty that he would give account for his every deed that motivated him to “maintain a clear conscience, both before men and before God” (verses 15-16). Paul counters the implied charge that he held to a deviant religious faith, which prompted him to desecrate the temple, with his profession to hold to the same hope as his opponents, and which thus prompted him to live righteously before God and before men.
There is a “tension in the text” here, at least in my mind. In his reference to a common faith, Paul specifically mentions a belief in the “Law and the Prophets” and in the resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked. He indicates that his hope is based upon these beliefs, which he shares with those Jews who are present and who are opposing him. Now if there were any Pharisees present (none have been specifically identified as such), then Paul could simply be saying that his belief in these truths was the same as that of the Pharisees. We know this to be true from Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin, when the Pharisees sided with Paul on the issue of the resurrection (see 23:6-10). But it cannot be said that the Sadducees believed in these things, as Paul did. There must have been Pharisees present, then, and Paul must have identified only with these Pharisees. By implication, Paul was claiming to be orthodox, while these Sadducees were the heretics. If there was a “sect,” it was the Sadducees who were to be seen as in this camp, not Paul, and not Jewish Christians.
A similar statement, shouted out by Paul, was made during his trial before the Council, the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). To this incident Paul will draw attention in verse 21. It was such a statement that divided the Sanhedrin. They would not make the same mistake here, it seems, for that would prove Paul’s point, that whatever the differences between he and the Jewish leaders were, they were differences between Jews, differences within Judaism. I can imagine how irritated the Sadducees were when Paul spoke of his hope as the only true Judaism, thereby indicating that they were the heretics. How they must have wanted to debate this point, or even to kill Paul for what he said, but they could not, lest they lose this case.
Paul’s Answers to Specific Charges
(24:17-21)
Paul’s conduct while in Jerusalem was completely consistent with all that he had said up to this point. In order to refute the charges against him, Paul walked through the events of those few days in Jerusalem, explaining exactly what he did, and what happened as a result.
Having been away from Jerusalem for several years, Paul returned to his people and nation. He came there, not to stir up trouble nor to attack Judaism, but to “bring alms” to his own people and to present offerings (verse 17). These were not the actions of a revolutionary, an anti-Jew, but were the very things which a true Jew would do on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Paul’s time was spent in the temple, not in seeking to desecrate it, but involved in a cleansing and purifying ritual for himself and other (Jerusalem) Jews.
The uprising was not to be seen as the result of anything Paul did, but rather as the result of the activity of some Asian Jews, who were in Jerusalem at the time. These Asian Jews, who allegedly witnessed some violation of the Jewish law, and who started the riot which occurred, were not even present before Felix. Their absence spoke loudly in Paul’s defense, Paul implied. Why were they not here, since they were the only one’s who claimed to have witnessed his allegedly illegal activities? Paul’s case should have been thrown out of court, simply on the basis of this absence of any direct testimony.
Paul pressed on. Let those who stood before Paul and Felix, as Paul’s accusers, tell what laws Paul had broken (verses 20-21). They were seeking to have Paul turned over to them, so that they could try him. But they had already attempted to try Paul. And what was the result? Another disturbance, and it was they who were disorderly in this uprising, not Paul. And the cause of all this was Paul’s statement, identifying himself with the belief of the Pharisees, in the belief that there is a resurrection of the dead. The fact that the Pharisees sided with Paul in this debate was evidence that whatever Paul’s differences were with some of the Jews, there were other prominent Jewish leaders who agreed with him. If the trial of Paul before the Sanhedrin had resulted in a kind of mistrial, and one that caused a small riot, why should he them go back to be tried there again?
Felix’s (In)Decision
(24:22-23)
Paul was right in his statement to Felix that he was a man of experience, a man who understood the Jews and the issues which divided them. But Felix was also a man with considerable knowledge concerning Christianity, or “the Way” (see verse 22). Through sources which are not revealed, Felix understood Christianity and Judaism. The opposition of these Jews to Paul and to the gospel he preached came as no new thing to Felix. It was just a replay of the same old hassles. Because of this, Felix could have quickly pronounced judgment, finding for Paul, and setting him free. But this was not to be the case, for at least two reasons: (1) God, in His sovereignty, had ordained that Paul go to Rome and that he preach the gospel to kings (see Acts 1:8; 9:15; 23:11). God had ordained, as we shall see in the remaining chapters of Acts, that His plans and purposes for Paul would be achieved through the unbelief and opposition of the Jews, and through the good and evil actions of Roman rulers. (2) Felix was a politician, who hoped to use this situation for his own advantage. If he were fortunate, he might not only obtain a bribe from Paul, but he might also curry the favor of the Jews. In the concluding verses of this chapter we see Felix as the cunning politician and Paul and the consistent, faithful preacher of the gospel.
Felix could hardly find Paul guilty of any Roman offense, and he did have to concern himself with the protection of Paul’s rights, since he was a Roman citizen. He was not able to turn Paul over to the Jews or to the Sanhedrin, but he could postpone the verdict, thereby pacifying (if not pleasing) the Jews, and providing at least an opportunity for him to obtain a bribe from Paul. Since the Jews had (in my view) challenged the actions of Claudius Lysias, Felix could delay a verdict until this commander could be summoned and his testimony heard (but remember, he had written to Felix that Paul was not guilty of any crime worthy of death or imprisonment). And so Felix put off the decision, knowing that it would not gain him the favor of anyone. At the same time, he attempted to pacify Paul by instructing that he be given a measure of freedom while incarcerated, so that visitors could come and go freely, to minister to Paul. With considerable skill, Felix avoided coming to a decision and pronouncing a verdict for his remaining two years in office. He managed to leave this problem with his successor, Festus.
Felix Dialogues With Paul
(24:24-27)
I am convinced that many good things took place during the two years that Paul waited to go to Rome,[508] but Luke chooses not to mention most of these. The one thing he does include in his account is the frequent discussions which took place between the politician (and, at least one meeting which included his wife, Drusilla) and the preacher.
Drusilla, the wife of Felix, was a Jewess, Luke tells us. She was a woman with an interesting heritage and past:
“Drusilla was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and at this time was not yet twenty years old. As a small girl she had been betrothed to the crown prince of Commangene, in eastern Asia Minor, but the marriage did not take place because the prospective bride-groom refused to become a proselyte to Judaism. Then her brother Agrippa II gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa (modern Homs), a petty state in Syria. But when she was still only sixteen, Felix, with the help (it is said) of a Cypriot magician called Atomos, persuaded her to leave her husband and come to be his wife, promising her (with a play on his name) every ‘felicity’ if she did so. Accordingly, she joined Felix as his third wife, and bore him a son named Agrippa, who met his death in the eruption of Vesuvius in A. D. 79.”[509]
“She was one of three daughters of Herod Agrippa I (Drusilla, Mariamne, Bernice). Her father murdered James, her great-uncle Herod Antipas slew John the Baptist, her great-grandfather (Herod the Great) killed the babes of Bethlehem.”[510]
Felix must have told his wife, Drusilla, about the trial, and she seems to have expressed interest in hearing the message which Paul was proclaiming. At any rate, Luke tells us that after some days passed, Felix returned to Caesarea with his wife, and Paul was summoned. At first, it may have been with the guise of gaining more information from Paul. But there were obviously other reasons: (1) Drusilla, a Jewess, seems to have been at least curious about Paul’s preaching; (2) Felix himself seems to have had some interest in the gospel; (3) Felix also hoped that Paul might offer him money (a bribe) to speed up the wheels of justice.
If you were Paul, and you were summoned to Felix, a Roman governor, and his wife, a Jewess, and were asked about your message, what would you have said? What a temptation there would have been for Paul to “tone down” his message, to focus his attention on the “glad texts”[511] of the Old Testament. If this would have been the course taken by others, it was not what Paul did. He spoke instead about the gospel, about “righteousness, about self-control, and about the judgment to come” (verse 25).[512] Such topics hardly put the minds of these two people at ease, although they would have done so, if they had repented and come to faith in Jesus as Savior and Messiah.
When Paul got around to the judgment to come, Felix became frightened, as sent Paul away. He would talk with Paul more about this later. And so he did, but there is no indication that he or Drusilla came to faith. Many other times Paul was called before Felix. It was with incredibly mixed motives that Felix sent for him. He had some interest in the gospel, but he also felt the pressure of the Jews. He feared, to some degree, a judgment to come, and yet he also hoped for a bribe from Paul. His ambivalence and wavering never ended. And so, for two years, Paul’s imprisonment lingered on, and the discussions continued. Finally, Festus, his replacement, was left with the sticky matter of Paul’s case.[513] It seems that Felix was “off the hook.”
Conclusion
This text has much to say to us. Let me conclude by pointing out some important lessons.
(1) Our text underscores the grace of God to Felix and his wife. Most of us are probably inclined to view this two year delay from Paul’s point of view. It would seem that this was a needless waste of time, for Paul’s arrival in Rome is put off two years. But from another perspective, it is a manifestation of the marvelous grace of God. Paul’s two year incarceration in Caesarea was, as verses 24-26 underscore, a time for the gospel to be repeatedly proclaimed to this governor and his wife. What amazing grace we see! God had purposed and promised that Paul would be His instrument to proclaim the gospel to Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15), and this is exactly what happened at Caesarea.
It is true that Felix and Drusilla seem to have rejected this gospel, and thus they will experience the judgment about which Paul spoke. But think of it. God not only ordained that this Roman ruler and his wife hear the gospel, but that they hear it for two years. They are surely without excuse.
This text, when viewed in the light of other Scripture, illustrates the fact that delays are by divine design, and are manifestations of divine grace:
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with {their} mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For {ever} since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God {the} heavens existed long ago and {the} earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one {fact} escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up (2 Peter 3:3-10).
This two year delay was a manifestation of God’s grace to Felix and Drusilla. But this grace was rejected, and so this couple must face the eternal wrath of God, rather than to eternally enjoy His glorious salvation. How sad it is to see the procrastination of Felix. He thought that he was shrewd to put off the decision of Paul’s guilt or innocence, and along with this he put off the matter of his own guilt (through his sins) or innocence (in Christ). There is a coming day of judgment, and the matter of eternal salvation should be dealt with 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 ACCEPTED TIME,” behold now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION” (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).
Let Felix and his wife be a warning to you, not to put of the matter of your eternal destiny. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the offer of the Gospel to you, which produces self-control, and which keeps you from the coming judgment on unbelievers. Be saved today.
(2) The power of the gospel is inseparably linked with the purity of the gospel. Paul was surely given the opportunity to modify the gospel in such a way as to be less offensive to this ruler and his wife. Righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come were some of the most uncomfortable topics that Paul could have raised, but these are precisely the issues of the gospel, and a key to its power, for the Lord Himself promised that the Holy Spirit would “convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8-11). Are we as concerned for the purity of the gospel as Paul was? If not, the power of the gospel is at issue. While it is true that we are drawn to Christ by His love, and by the promise of the good things of gospel, it is just as true that we are driven to the gospel by the fear of sin and its eternal consequences. It is the false teachers who appeal to the self-indulgence of sinful men, and who represent God as one who condones sin (see 2 Peter). Let us never minimize the essential elements of the gospel, whether men wish to hear them or not.
(3) The power of God is inseparably linked to the purity of our lifestyle. From Luke’s words it would seem that a bribe from Paul might have secured Paul’s release. It is implied by our text that Paul not only refused to pay this bribe, but that he refused to consider this as an option. Paul believed in the sovereignty of God. God could achieve His purposes through unsaved, wicked, men, just as He could work through men and women of faith. If Paul was to be released, it would not be due to a bribe. Paul wanted a verdict which would protect and promote the preaching of the gospel. He left his fate in God’s hands. If he could not be released legally and honestly, he would not be released. Paul’s purity of lifestyle was directly linked, I believed, to his grasp of the power of God. A Christian need not “bend the rules” or “play the world’s games” in order to live godly lives and to promote the gospel. Are we really convinced of this? I fear that we are far more influenced by pragmatism here than we are by the power of God.
(4) The sovereignty of God assures us that His promises will be fulfilled, whether by means of faithful, obedient servants, or by self-serving government officials, or by those who are religious and who oppose the gospel. The Book of Acts is a constant reminder of the fallibility of men and of the faithfulness of God. Those things which God had promised in the Old Testament, and which our Lord had promised His disciples and the church, are recorded as being fulfilled in Acts. The fulfillment of God’s promises is not dependent upon men, nor can men successfully oppose God’s purposes. In our text alone, God’s purposes for Paul and for the gospel are achieved through the stubborn unbelief and opposition of the Sadducees, through the self-serving efforts of Felix, and through the obedience of Paul. God’s purposes and promises are sure, because God is sovereign. He works all things for the good which He has purposed and promised. We may rest in Him and in His promises, because of His power.
(5) God’s purposes are often achieved in ways we would never expect, and at times when His power seems least visible. From a purely human point of view, things could hardly have looked more bleak and less promising, for Paul or for the gospel. The Jews of Jerusalem wanted Paul killed, and seemed capable of doing so. Paul’s ministry in Jerusalem was cut short, and his future ministry in Rome seemed unlikely. At a time when Paul would have wanted his freedom, he was deprived of it—for two years, no less—and his future ministry looked far from promising. Faith never walks by sight, but always in the assurance of God’s person and promises.
(6) Ministry often occurs in ways that look incidental or accidental. Christians seem to have a “stained glass” concept of ministry. We think of ministry in very formal, structured, and planned terms. And yet the Book of Acts speaks of much ministry as though it were incidental, unplanned, and even unexpected. When we look at the events described in Acts 24, they look chaotic, out of control. Paul’s ministry seems terminated, and his life endangered, but in the midst of a maze of wrong motives and sinful actions (on the part of Felix and the Jews), God arranged for the gospel to be preached to this ruler and his wife. God was in control, although it did not appear to be this way. Ministry is doing the right thing when everything around us seems to be going wrong. Ministry is living in obedience to God’s commands, in the midst of sin, opposition, and confusion, out of faith in the person of God and in the certainty of His promises.
God is in control when the world seems to be out of control. What a message this has for us today, as we seek to live godly lives in a chaotic world. May He find us faithful, trusting in Him and in His promises, and living according to His Word, faithfully proclaiming His salvation to a lost and dying world.
! Lesson 36:
Paul’s Appeal
(Acts 25:1-27)
Introduction
At the end of my first year of seminary, my family and I returned to the Northwest to rekindle some relationships and to hopefully find a summer job. The Lord actually had two jobs for me so that I was able to work the entire summer. The first job was filling in for a teacher whose class had gotten out of control, forcing her to take a leave of absence. Bringing this very unruly fourth grade class under control seemed to qualify me for my second job of teaching high school classes in a medium security prison. There I taught under my high school principal and alongside some of my former teachers. Because I was returning to my seminary studies in the fall, a permanent teacher was hired to take my place at the end of the summer. He was a nice enough fellow but straight out of college with no teaching experience.
I doubt if I would want my first days of teaching to be in a prison high school but such was the case for my replacement. While I was still teaching, he came to class to be introduced to his future students and to get a feel for the situation. Had this fellow known what adventures lay ahead of him, he would have been apprehensive about the future. He probably was insecure and apprehensive, but if this was the case, he made the mistake of trying to act a little too confident and “in control.” He took over the class somewhat highhandedly, informing the prison high school students about the class, about its curriculum, and especially about its discipline. I felt he overplayed his role. Having been the supreme test for some of my teachers, I thought I knew how these men felt. At least I know how I felt about this fellow.
When that class period ended, the men all filed out to their next class. One of the men lingered a bit. He slipped up beside me and having an inkling about my impression of the “show” that had just been put on for us all, he quietly mumbled so that I could hear him, “We’ll see.” The worst part of it was that I found myself emotionally identifying with this inmate, and not with the teacher. I rather hoped that this novice teacher would be humbled a bit, and that he would not “teach down” to these men, as it seemed he was inclined to do.
Inexperience and its outcome can prove to be a humbling thing. How many of us has had the uncomfortable experience of beginning a new job one about which we know very little. Beginning a new job is a most insecure feeling. When I read in our text of Festus, the new governor of Judea before whom Paul will stand, I think of that “wet behind the ears” college graduate who had little understanding or experience in that which he was about to attempt. I see this whole scenario which Luke has depicted for us in Acts chapter 25 as the result of the inexperience and insecurity of Festus, the new governor, the man who replaced Felix, his predecessor.
We know that Festus was a Roman governor, and therefore a man of considerable power. But he was also a novice, at least when it came to dealing with the Jews. His inexperience and insecurity plays a major role in the outcome of Paul’s two-year imprisonment, and is the cause for Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Felix was an “old pro,” a seasoned politician. He knew the political ropes, he knew the Jews, and he was well informed about Christianity, “the way” (24:22). He was also a corrupt man, whose corrupt administration created many problems for Festus, his replacement. He must have congratulated himself on the way he skillfully used Paul’s arrest to make some political gains. In addition to putting off a very delicate decision—on Paul’s guilt or innocence—he had gained some favor with the Jews (or at least not lost too much favor) by leaving Paul in prison. He had also hoped to obtain a bribe from Paul, failing to comprehend Paul’s deep sense of principle and confidence in the sovereignty of God. In any case, Felix would have been inclined to congratulate himself for “making the best of a bad situation” and not having his career destroyed by getting caught between Paul and his Jewish opponents.
When Felix left the scene, he was replaced by Festus. This man was new, “green,” inexperienced. He had some very hard lessons to learn. What appears to have been his first case was also one of the worst problems he would face in his short stay in office. He was persuaded to complete what Felix had started, but had not finished—Paul’s trial. It looked quite simple at first, cut and dried, but it proved to be a nightmare to Festus. This case would cause him many sleepless nights (in my opinion). It was a very touchy, almost explosive situation, and one which seemed to be very detrimental to his popularity and to his career.
If, in these final chapters of Acts, God is using the unbelief and opposition of the Jews to accomplish His purposes, He is also using the Roman political officials. He has used Claudius Lysias to save Paul’s life and to remove Paul from Jerusalem, where there was a conspiracy to kill him. He also used the politically shrewd Felix to keep Paul out of circulation (in what proved to be a kind of protective custody, out of Jewish hands) for two years. And now God will use this neophyte, Festus, to point Paul toward Rome, where he must proclaim the gospel (see Acts 23:11). Let us take note of how God sovereignly guides Paul toward Rome as we study our text, and let us look for those principles which will guide us as well.
Background
It is a mystery that Paul’s case ever got this far in the Roman judicial system. It is an even greater mystery that his case will go even farther—all the way to the Roman emperor, Caesar. The whole episode began with a hasty and inaccurate conclusion, drawn by men who were looking for an excuse to be rid of Paul. Paul had gone to the temple, along with four other Jews, at the suggestion of the elders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 21:17-26). As Paul was concluding his worship, he was seen in the temple by some Asian Jews (21:27). Previously these men had seen Paul in the city of Jerusalem with Trophimus, an Ephesian Gentile, and so they jumped to the conclusion that Trophimus was still with Paul, and thus that Paul had desecrated the temple by taking Gentiles along. At the very least, in their minds, he was about to do so, if he had not already done so (21:29). They charged Paul with this horrid crime of desecrating the temple, not before the religious officials or before the Roman officials, but before a mob which they assembled. Their intention was not to bring Paul to trial, but to kill him. The managed to quickly gather an angry crowd who were in the process of putting Paul to death (21:30-31). Had the Roman commander not gotten wind of this riot and quickly arrived on the scene, they would have succeeded and Paul would have been killed.
Because Paul was innocent of any crime, against the Jewish law, the Roman law or the temple, there was no charge that could be made against him that would hold up under scrutiny. From the very outset of Rome’s involvement in this case, the officials kept trying to identify some charge against Paul, so that he could be fairly tried. Claudius Lysias allowed Paul to address the crowd of Jews who had gathered to kill him, but since he did not understand Hebrew he missed the key points which Paul made (21:37—22:21). He could not fail to grasp the intensity of the riot that followed, due to Paul’s reference to the divine command to forsake Jerusalem and to go to the Gentiles with the gospel (22:22-23).
Frustrated by his inability to get a handle on this volatile situation, he was about to interrogate Paul by scourging until he learned that he was a Roman citizen (22:24-29). When Paul was brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin the following day, another riot broke out, and nothing more was learned about Paul’s alleged offense (23:1-11). When word of a conspiracy to kill Paul reached the commander’s ears, he sent Paul to Caesarea under heavy guard, to stand trial before Felix, who successfully avoided rendering a verdict for two years. Both Claudius Lysias (23:26-30) and Felix (implied in chapter 24) knew that Paul was not guilty of any serious offense. Nevertheless, he was held in custody for two years in Caesarea. Felix had hoped that this inaction would gain him some measure of favor among the Jews and that it might also enable him to obtain a bribe from Paul (24:26-27).
A Change in Administration:
From Felix to Festus
The events described in Acts chapter 25 are the result, in great measure, of the change in administration from the governorship of Felix to that of Festus. From what historical information is available, it would appear that Felix was an apple that was rotten to the core, while Festus seems to have been a significant improvement.
Felix was originally a slave, who, for some unknown reason, was given his freedom by the emperor Claudius Caesar. Suetonius referred to his military honors, as well as his governorship of Judea, bestowed upon him by the emperor. He also referred to Felix as the “husband of three queens or royal ladies,” far from a compliment. “Tacitus, in his History, declares that during his governorship in Judea he indulged in all kinds of cruelty and lust, exercising regal power with the disposition of a slave; and in his Annals (xi, 54) he represents Felix as considering himself licensed to commit any crime, relying on the influence which he possessed at court.”[514]
As an example of his “leadership” we are told that Felix had a grudge against Jonathan, the high priest, who spoke out against this wicked governor’s methods and administration. Felix managed to have Jonathan killed with the help of one of the priest’s intimate friends, who arranged for a group of assassins to murder him. “While in office he became enamored of Drusilla, a daughter of King Herod Agrippa, who was married to Azizus, king of Emesa, and through the influence of Simon, a magician, prevailed upon her to consent to a union with him. With this adulteress Felix was seated when Paul reasoned before him (Acts 24:25).”[515]
Relations between Felix and the Jews were rapidly deteriorating, and would be the reason for his recall by the emperor and the loss of his office which was filled by Festus. Had it not been for the influence of his brother Pallas in the court of the emperor, Felix would have faced even more severe punishment for his misdeeds. We should not wonder, then, that when Paul’s case came to him, Felix left Paul in prison to gain some favor with the Jews. He badly needed to gain some ground with them, though whatever gains he made were short-lived.
In comparison to the corrupt rule of Felix, Festus was a breath of fresh air:
Josephus’ writing picture Festus as a prudent and honorable governor. Felix’s maladministration bequeathed to Festus the impossible task of restoring order to a province embroiled in political strife and overrun by robbers. The Sicarii,… as the robbers were called on account of the small swords they carried, would come upon a village, plunder it, set it on fire, and murder whomever they wished. Through the use of an impostor, Festus succeeded in ridding the province of many of these criminals (Ant. xx.8.10 {185-88}). But his procuratorship was too short to undo the legacy of his predecessor, and under his successor, Albinus, the situation rapidly deteriorated once again (BJ ii.14.1 {272-76}).”[516]
Unfortunately for Festus, he not only inherited a corrupt administration, but he also inherited the unresolved problem of posed by Paul, who was still being held prisoner in Caesarea, thanks to the indecision of his predecessor, Felix. It will now become the task of Festus to identify some charge against Paul so that he can be tried and this long-standing problem can be put behind him. The events of our chapter are really the result of the absence of any specific and demonstrable charges against Paul. Festus will do his best to isolate Paul’s offense, but he will not succeed. But in his search for the truth, the gospel will be proclaimed to many people of position and power, thus fulfilling the plan and promise of God (Acts 9:15).
The Setting:
Festus Gets a Promotion and a Problem
(24:27—25:5)
Felix was lucky, or so it seemed. He was able to put off the “problem of Paul” until he left office. Festus[517] was not so fortunate. The moment Festus took office, the issue of Paul’s trial was raised by the Jerusalem Jewish leaders, who urged the governor to send Paul to Jerusalem. Two years had in no way cooled their intense animosity toward Paul, nor their determination to be rid of his preaching. Their intention, as Luke makes clear in verse 3, was not to try Paul, but only to get him within reach of those who had vowed to assassinate him.
Festus was new at his task, unfamiliar with Judaism, and ignorant of the intensifying conflict between Christianity and unbelieving Judaism in Israel, and especially in Jerusalem. At this point in time, Paul was the most prominent Jewish Christian, and thus he was the focus of the unbelieving Jewish attack on the gospel. When Festus arrived in Jerusalem, he had unknowingly walked into the “lion’s den.” It would be several days before he would begin to grasp the gravity of the problem which was to be put before him in Jerusalem on his first official visit.
Festus wanted to start out his new administration on the right foot, so almost immediately upon assuming his position as the governor of Judea,[518] he made an appearance at Jerusalem. His headquarters were in Caesarea, but the headquarters of the Jews, over whom he ruled, were in Jerusalem. And so within a few days of taking office, Festus arrived in Jerusalem, where he spent several days. It was at this time that the Jewish leaders began to press Felix to send Paul to Jerusalem for trial. Whether this was represented as a trial before Felix, a trial before the Sanhedrin, or a combination of both is not entirely clear. It didn’t really matter, for the Jews had no intention of going through the motions of another trial. They only wanted Paul brought to Jerusalem where the plot to assassinate him could be carried out (25:3).
Festus quickly grasped the political implications of doing what the Jews requested. It would give the appearance that they were “in control,” that they were “calling the shots.” Festus declined, not because he was seeking to spare Paul from the danger of assassination (which dangers he either was ignorant of, or he did not take seriously), but because of the political “loss of face” that would result for him personally. No. If there was to be a trial, it would not be in Jerusalem. Paul was a Roman citizen, and Festus was a representative of the Roman government. He would try the case, and he would do so at his headquarters. If they wished to press charges, let them make the journey to Caesarea.
It was a brilliant move on the part of Festus. He intended to gain the upper hand, right from the beginning. He would not begin by having these Jews tell him what to do. He was going to “call the shots.” If they were so eager to have this dangerous criminal tried, he would try him in Caesarea, he would there be seated on his tribunal, from which he could pronounce a verdict as a representative of Rome and of the emperor. How quickly Festus will change his tune and seek to win the favor of these Jews.
The Trial, Festus’ Verdict, and Paul’s Appeal
(25:6-12)
Festus did not rush back to Caesarea. With a kind of calculated deliberateness, Festus stayed on in Jerusalem for another week and a half, before he returned to Caesarea. Then, promptly upon his return, he set the date for Paul’s trial to be conducted on the following day. The scene is now set for yet another trial, and yet another instance of indecision.
Festus was shocked to hear the charges of which the Jews accused Paul. They were nothing like those which he had expected, based upon his earlier conversation with these leaders in Jerusalem, only a few days earlier (see 25:18-19). Luke briefly describes the scene and the indictments against Paul:
And after he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove (Acts 25:7).[519]
Like a pack of angry dogs, the circled Paul, unleashing their anger and hostility.
I think I can imagine how it all fell apart. The real disagreement with Paul was the gospel. The fundamental issue was over the person of Jesus. Paul insisted that He was the Messiah, the Christ, in fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. One aspect of this fulfilled prophecy was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The Jews adamantly rejected these claims and resisted Paul and any who would seek to propagate them. The “official” grievances against Paul were some “Romanized” charges, which the Jews hoped would give at least the appearance of legality to the execution of this troublemaker. The Jewish leaders were calm and cool and business-like when they met with Festus in Jerusalem. But when they came face-to-face with Paul in the courtroom, the “official” charges quickly gave way to the real dispute. Thus, they circled about Paul, screaming out their charges. It was, I believe, a chaotic, unruly proceeding. The intensity of the opposition, along with its apparent unanimity, caused Festus to back off and to try to appease these zealous opponents of Paul.
Paul’s defense, like the allegations of the Jews, is very briefly summarized. Paul’s defense refers to three alleged offenses, none of which were true:
… Paul said in his own defense, “ I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar” (Acts 25:8).
Festus quickly began to change his way of dealing with these Jews and with Paul. Luke explains his actions by telling us that he was “wishing to do the Jews a favor” (25:9). He was, after all, a politician. Granted, he was not an elected official, but an appointed one. Nevertheless, he had to keep the peace and also to maintain a certain level of acceptance with the Jewish leaders or his position could be in jeopardy. Remember that it was the protest of these Jews against the corruption of Felix which resulted in his removal from office. Even dictators have to maintain a certain level of popular support or at least toleration. Paul was but one man (albeit a Roman citizen), and these Jews seemed to represent the masses (a conclusion which was not altogether accurate). As Festus weighed the political implications of the case before him, he realized that protecting Paul against these folks could be a very costly move. And so he began to seek to appease them, and to win their favor, by failing to carry out his task. So far as dealing fairly with Paul, Festus would prove to be no better than Felix.
There was at least one other reason for the compromise which Festus was about to offer Paul,[520] a reason which Luke saves until later in this story, but which we will take note of here: since the charges brought against Paul were really religious and theological in nature, and not matters concerning Roman Law, Festus was incompetent to deal with them. He did not have the foggiest idea what these Jews were arguing about. He knew that they considered their differences very serious, but he was not like Felix or Agrippa, for he did not understand Judaism. How much more competent the Sanhedrin would be to judge such matters. Thus, he will explain to Agrippa:
“And when the accusers stood up, they began bringing charges against him not of such crimes as I was expecting, but they simply had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a certain dead man, Jesus, whom Paul asserted to be alive. And being at a loss how to investigate such matters, I asked whether he was willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these matters” (Acts 25:18-20).
And so Festus proposed a compromise, which, in his mind should have been acceptable to all. He proposed that Paul go to Jerusalem, where he would stand trial, and at which he (Festus) would preside. On the surface, it did not seem like such a bad suggestion. The Jews would get what they wanted—Paul would be brought to trial in Jerusalem. And, if things did not change, Paul might very well be found innocent there. How could Paul possibly refuse?
It seems to me that Festus either failed to have all the facts before him, or he closed his eyes to these facts. Did he have a copy of the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix? Was he aware of the riots in Jerusalem, and of the abortive attempt of Claudius Lysias to have Paul tried before the Sanhedrin? And was he aware of the plot to assassinate Paul? These records might have been lost in the change of administration, or Festus might not have come to this trial adequately prepared. Or, Festus may have chosen not to believe the reports. For whatever reason, he was asking Paul to go back to Jerusalem, where these Jewish leaders planned to have Paul assassinated. It is no wonder Paul refused the offer, much to the surprise (I think) of Festus.
Paul’s response to Festus is a courteous rebuke, and it is also a very important commentary on his teaching on the role of government and its God-given responsibilities (see Romans 13:1-5; also Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17). If government is a God-ordained institution, assigned with the task of rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do evil, then it has an obligation to protect those who are not guilty. Paul has been tried, and the charges against him have not been proven. It is the duty of Festus to pronounce him innocent. In seeking to please the Jews, he is failing to carry out his divinely ordained duty. It is not because Festus has failed to be convinced of Paul’s innocence, either (see 25:24-25). In fact, he has not yet been able to even identify the charges. Festus is failing to carry out his duty.
Paul therefore uses his rights as a Roman citizen to the full. If Festus will not do the right thing and pronounce him innocent, then Paul will exercise his right of appeal to Caesar.
The right of appeal (prouocatio) to the emperor arose out of the earlier right of appeal to the sovereign people (the populus Romanus), one of the most ancient rights of a Roman citizen, traditionally going back to the foundation of the republic in 509 B.C. It was usually exercised by appealing against a magistrate’s verdict, but might be exercised at any earlier stage of proceedings, claiming “that the investigation be carried out in Rome and judgment passed by the emperor himself.” At an early stage in his principate, Augustus was granted the right to judge on appeal; not many years later, the Julian law on public disorder safeguarded Roman citizens not only against degrading forms of coercion or punishment but also against being sentenced after an appeal had been voiced or being prevented from going to Rome to have the appeal heard there within a reasonable time.[521]
For Paul, making this appeal must have been a major turning point. Paul was still a devout Jew, one who saw that the hopes of Judaism had been fulfilled in the person of Jesus, the Christ. How he loved his own people and yearned for their salvation. How he looked forward to the time when all Israel would turn to the Lord in faith, and when the kingdom of God would be established on the earth. His appeal to Caesar may well have been the final straw for Paul, indicating that Israel would not turn, and that God’s judgment was soon to come upon this nation, and particularly on the city of Jerusalem. With this appeal, I believe that all hope of Israel’s repentance and turning to the Lord was lost for the near future, and would only occur in the more distant future.[522]
If Paul’s appeal was a deeply painful experience for him, it was perhaps even more traumatic event for Festus. It may have taken Festus a little time to realize this, however. From Luke’s account, I get the impression that when Paul appealed to Caesar, Festus turned to his counselors and said something like this: “Can he do that?” They assured him that he could, and so he indicated to Paul that his appeal would be honored.
Initially, Festus may have breathed a sigh of relief. He may very well have thought, “Well, now takes a load off my mind. Now I don’t have to take the heat for protecting Paul. Let Caesar get all the credit for this verdict.” Eventually, however, Festus had to realize that he had one very serious problem, a problem that was even greater than the one that had originally confronted him. At first, he was caught between Paul and the Jews who wanted him dead. Now, he was caught between Paul and Caesar.
The implications of Paul’s appeal to Caesar began to sink in, as Festus considered his plight. In the first place, Festus was required not only to send Paul to Caesar, but he was also required to send a full report with Paul of the circumstances leading to his appeal. Let’s suppose, for the moment, that he had a government form to fill out, in triplicate—for 2301 B. Paul could not be sent without the form, and the first thing that would be required on this form would be a listing of the charges against Paul. That was the problem every Roman official had faced since Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. No Roman official was able to identify any charges! How could Festus send Paul to Caesar with no charges filed against him? Second, the absence of these charges was not only embarrassing, but the whole episode would be certain to reflect badly on Festus and his administration. Here he was, a new governor, seeking to establish himself with the Jews, and eager to prove himself to Caesar, who had appointed him. And his first case results in an appeal. His first case has not even gotten to the point of identifying the exact nature of the alleged defense! He was in a bunch of trouble.
If Paul’s light was on, late that night, it was probably because he was reading the Scriptures or meeting with some saints, or writing an epistle, or praying. But one thing is for sure, the light of Festus was on late that night, and for many nights thereafter. He was sitting up, staring off into space, sweating profusely, wondering what he could possibly write to Caesar which would explain the presence of Paul and of his appeal.
A Helping Hand:
The Arrival of Agrippa and Bernice
(25:13-22)
Seemingly, it was just a coincidence, but it was one that Festus welcomed. Herod Agrippa and Bernice happened to arrive in Caesarea, for a lengthy visit, and they stopped by to pay their respects to Festus, probably to congratulate him on his appointment to his new position as governor. These two visitors are very interesting characters, and knowing a little about them sheds much light on the next chapter of Acts.
“Herod Agrippa II, ruler of a client kingdom to the northeast of Festus’s province, arrived in Caesarea on a complimentary visit, to congratulate the new procurator on his appointment. This man was reputed to be an expert in Jewish religious questions, and Festus hoped he might give him some unofficial help in drafting his report.
Marcus Julius Agrippa, as he calls himself on his coins (using his name as a Roman citizen), was the son of Herod Agrippa I. He was in Rome when his father died in A.D. 44, and the Emperor Claudius was disposed to make him king of the Jews in succession to his father; but because of the younger Agrippa’s youth (he was seventeen years old at the time) he was dissuaded from this plan, and Judaea was once more administered by Roman governors. In A.D. 50, however, Claudius gave him the kingdom of Chalcis (in Lebanon), in succession to his father’s brother Herod, together with the right of appointing the Jewish high priests. In 53 he gave up this kingdom in exchange for a larger one consisting of the former tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias. This territory was augmented three years later by Nero, who added to it the regions of Tiberias and Tarichaea, west of the lake of Galilee, together with Julias in Peraea and fourteen neighboring villages. In token of gratitude to Nero, Agrippa changed the name of his capital, Caesarea Philippi (modern Banyas), to Neronias.”[523]
“On this visit Agrippa was accompanied by his sister, Julia Bernice. She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, born in A.D. 28. She was given by her father in marriage to his brother Herod, king of Chalcis. When Herod died in 48, she lived in the house of her brother Agrippa. Later she married Polemon, king of Cilicia, but soon left him and returned to Agrippa. On inscriptions she is entitled “queen” and even “great queen.”[524]
There is an on-going interface throughout the gospels and Acts between the Herods and the gospel. Here, in Acts 24 and 25 we meet three members of the family. They are all the children of Herod Agrippa I, who had James killed, and who died shortly after (Acts 12). Drusilla, the wife of Felix (24:24), and Bernice (25:13) are sisters, and their brother is Agrippa (24:13ff.). Unfortunately, Agrippa and Bernice were more than brother and sister. Their relationship was scandalous. Later, she had an affair with Titus, but her past immorality was so wicked, the Roman people would not tolerate her marriage to this emperor.[525]
In spite of their immoral lifestyle, I think that Festus was happy to see them in this social context. I think he was even happier when the occasion arose for him to speak with Agrippa about his dilemma concerning Paul and his appeal. (I wonder if Festus didn’t work to bring this subject up.) Festus shared his predicament with Agrippa, as reported in verses 14-21). From his words to Agrippa, we learn some important factors in his decision to seek to persuade Paul to go to Jerusalem for trial. We learn, for example, that the charges which Festus heard (or assumed) from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were not the same charges which became the major issues in the trial he conducted. We also learn that Festus now understood the hostility of the Jews toward Paul was based upon religious and theological issues (upon the gospel), and not on any infraction of any law, Jewish or Roman. We finally learn that Festus realized he was totally incompetent to judge this matter, and thus sought help from the Sanhedrin. His honest is refreshing, as well as revealing.
The problem which Festus shared seemed to arouse the curiosity of Agrippa. His family, after all, had frequently come into contact with the gospel, beginning with John the Baptist, and then Jesus, followed by the apostles, and now Paul. He was probably fascinated both by Paul himself, and also by the perplexing issues of the case. If he was an expert in Jewish affairs and Festus was a novice, here was a chance to “show his stuff.” For whatever reason(s), Agrippa indicated that he would like to hear Paul personally. This was an offer quickly accepted by Festus, and so a meeting was arranged for the following day.
The Stage is Set For
Paul’s Proclamation of the Gospel
(25:23-27)
As I understand the argument of the Book of Acts and this chapter (25) in particular, it is to show how God arranged an opportunity and an audience for the proclamation of the gospel by Paul, as is recorded in the following chapter (26). The events of chapter 25 set the scene for the preaching of Paul in chapter 26.
From a purely human point of view, things look bad for Paul and for the gospel. The Jews want to kill him, and the Roman rulers want to avoid ruling in Paul’s favor, even though all the evidence would demand it. Paul’s circumstances here in chapter 25 appear to be the result of sin, incompetence, and bureaucratic bungling. But such a conclusion would be both hasty and incorrect. If the divinely ordained goal were for Paul to be given the opportunity to preach the gospel to the greatest number of people, from the highest political and social strata of society, and in the most effective manner, what would we expect to find at this point in the Book of Acts? I believe that the human mind could not conceive of a plan that would be more effective than that which God brought to pass in our text.
The preceding section (25:13-22), along with the final segment of the chapter (25:23-27), informs us of several important facts. First, Paul’s words, recorded in chapter 26, are not his defense, so much as they are his proclamation of the gospel. Paul is not on trial here. No verdict is to be rendered. Nothing can be changed, because of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. This is an unofficial gathering, an unofficial proceeding.
Second, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to a large group of very prominent people. Due to the divine plan which we see being worked out in Acts, Paul will be given the opportunity to speak in his defense, but we know that he will respond by boldly proclaiming the gospel. His audience is much larger than just the governor, Festus. In addition to the governor, those present will include Agrippa and Bernice, Roman military commanders, and a large number of the prominent men of the city of Caesarea (25:23). These all entered an auditorium, to hear Paul. This is a far bigger collection of “shakers and movers” than a preacher could ever have hoped to have assembled in one place and at one time. But it was not Paul who “called this meeting,” it was God who did so. Paul therefore has the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to a large number of powerful people.
Third, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim the gospel, to a large number of powerful people, without the hindrance and the interruptions of the Jews who opposed him. Since Paul’s speech from the stairs in the city of Jerusalem, Paul was not allowed to speak unhindered and uninterrupted. His “trial” before Festus seems to have been chaotic, hardly the occasion for a clear, concise presentation of the gospel. But here, in this auditorium, Paul was given the chance to speak for himself, but without the Jewish audience who continually harassed him and who wanted to debate every point he tried to make. Here, Paul could preach the gospel, to many influential people, without interruption.
Conclusion
I understand chapter 25 as preparatory and explanatory to Paul’s preaching of the gospel in chapter 26. Our text (along with those which precede it) explains to us just how it was that Paul had this opportunity to preach to this many leaders and influential people. Not only did God give Paul the message, the gospel, but He also gave him the audience and this opportunity. Let us consider how this applies to us.
(1) We are reminded, once again in Acts, that God always keeps His promises, in ways that leave us amazed at His wisdom and power. In theological terms, we are speaking of the sovereignty of God. Over and over again in the Scriptures we find men and women of God marveling not only at what God has done, but also at how He has done it. For example, Paul elsewhere has written:
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him {be} the glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:30-36).
At the time of Paul’s conversion, God revealed that he would bear testimony of the gospel “before the Gentiles and kings” (Romans 9:15). Paul has already stood before Claudius Lysias, and Felix, and now Festus, and in the next chapter of Acts (26) he will stand before “king” Agrippa and Bernice. Before very long, he will stand before Caesar. God always keeps His promises.
But notice how the promise of God pertaining to Paul’s mission and ministry is being fulfilled. It is not through one event alone, or through one person. It is by means of God’s orchestration of a host of people and events. God has used Paul’s love for his people and his desire to bring a gift from the Gentile churches to get Paul to Jerusalem, even when he knew that his arrival would result in “bonds and afflictions.” He also used the counsel of the Jerusalem church leaders, who loved Paul and who shared his faith, along with the opposition of the Jerusalem Jewish leaders, who hated Paul and the gospel. He has used Claudius Lysias, and his meticulous care in protecting Paul’s rights as a Roman citizen, as well as the self-seeking efforts of Felix, who sought to use Paul to further his own interests. And now, He has used the inexperience and indecision of Festus. By means of all of these elements, God has given Paul a platform, an occasion to speak, without opposition from the Jews, and before the leading men of Rome who are in Caesarea, including Festus, King Agrippa, and Bernice. How marvelous are His ways!
The experience of Paul has a great deal to say to each of us. God has given us His precious promises, too. Some are promises which include all the saints, while others may be only for certain saints. But we can be assured that just as God fulfilled all of His purposes and promises pertaining to Paul, so He will do and in through us. And, just as He accomplished these in ways we would never have predicted, so He will do through us.
From a human standpoint, one could look at the events of Paul’s arrest and numerous trials as a “comedy of errors.” These things have taken place out of sheer ignorance or prejudice (the accusation that Paul sought to desecrate the temple), out of desire to do one’s job well (Claudius Lysias), out of sinful self-interest (Felix, and also the Jewish leaders), and out of ignorance (Festus). But as our chapter unfolds, Paul is given the opportunity to proclaim his faith, apart from the constraints of a courtroom, where one’s testimony is always limited to what the court desires, and where the opposition of the Jews is absent. And while Paul’s audience begins with only Festus, it continues to grow throughout the chapter (by what seems to be a coincidental dropping in of Agrippa and Bernice) until an auditorium of celebrities is gathered to hear the gospel.
The point I am trying to make is simply this: THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINISTRY OFTEN COME DRESSED IN THE FORM OF FAILURE OR OF FRUSTRATING CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE WE SEEM TO BE LIMITED. It is not until the end of chapter 26 that we begin to see how the hand of God has been behind all of the frustrating events of Paul’s life over the past two years, in order to give him the opportunity of a lifetime, to proclaim the gospel to people who he would never have encountered in the normal course of events, or even as a result of his finest efforts. Paul did not plan these events, nor was his the prime mover in bringing them to pass. Neither was any other person. God was a work here, causing all things to work together for good (Romans 8:28), for the proclamation and advancement of the gospel.
Does your life lack the typical indicators of “success” and “significance”? So did Paul’s. Do you sometimes feel like you have been taken out of the action, and that you life is “on hold”? Does it seem that you have been hemmed in by your circumstances? Well then consider Paul. His life seems to have been put “on hold” for two years. Two years he has been confined in prison. Two years he has been kept from traveling about those churches which he helped to establish. Two years were seemingly wasted because of the self-seeking, greedy, gutless actions of men. But look at the fruit which God will bring out of these frustrations and seeming failures. Paul could have worked for two years to get an appointment with but a few of those gathered in this auditorium. Who would have thought that being falsely accused, beaten, arrested, and then wrongly detained would have been the means to gaining this audience?
I think when time has passed and we look back upon our lives from the vantage point of eternity, we will see that many of the most significant ways God has been able to use us for His glory are very much like the way in which He has used Paul in Acts. God will not only fulfill His promises in and through us, but He will do so in such a way that He gets the glory and the praise, and that we will fall before Him in wonder and in worship. The disasters of your life, like those which befell Paul and other biblical saints, are the materials with which God builds His program, and by which He promotes His gospel. While we need not pursue disaster and difficulty as though such were pleasant, we need not dread them when God brings them our way, for He will cause “all things to work together for good, to those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). What a comfort to those who live in a fallen, chaotic world, which seems to be unguided, unguarded, and uncontrolled. My friend, behind the chaos is a sovereign God, who is able to use man’s best efforts as well as his worst to achieve His purposes.
(2) Our text provides us with insight into the way God guides men. If God’s ways are beyond our own ways—and they are (Isaiah 55:9)—then man would never be able to anticipate or predict what God was going to do. This is the case, and thus the will of God must be revealed to men, which is done through the Word of God and the Spirit of God (see also 1 Corinthians 2). Many Christians think that God’s will is spelled out, both in great detail and in advance. What we see in Luke and in Acts (not to mention elsewhere in the Bible) is considerably different. God did reveal some of what He was planning to do, but He most often did not reveal the timing of the event, or the means by which it was to be accomplished. For example, in the gospels Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God and of the salvation which He was to accomplish, but the timing and the means were not at all clear. At the time of our Lord’s ascension (Acts 1), the disciples are still pressing Jesus for the details, which things Jesus said were not for them to know.
In Paul’s case, we see, once again, that Paul was called to be a witness to the Jews, to the Gentiles and to kings, but the timing and the means were not indicated. In His appearance to Paul in prison, the Lord told Paul that he would bear witness of the gospel in Rome, just as he had in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). He was not told that he must be detained for two years in a Caesarean prison cell, however, or that all of the things which Luke has reported to us would be the means to attaining this end.
Seldom, if ever, in the life of the apostle Paul, was the guidance of God like that which most Christians seem to want and to demand today. Seldom, if ever, was Paul told precisely what to do, when and how to do it, and what the precise results would be. Most often, Paul was merely assured that a certain thing would happen. This is the case in Acts 23:11. Let me seek to summarize what I am trying to say in one general principle:
IN PAUL’S LIFE AND MINISTRY, AS IN OUR OWN, THE GUIDANCE OF GOD HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE GOALS OR OUTCOME, THAN WITH THE MEANS, AND WAS PROGRESSIVELY AND PARTIALLY REVEALED IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO EMPLOY BOTH FAITH AND REASON.
Let me state this differently:
IN NO CASE, WAS GOD’S WILL GIVEN IN TOTAL, WITH ALL THE DETAILS, AND ONLY TO BE METICULOUSLY AND MECHANICALLY FOLLOWED.[526]
The will of God is a matter of partial and progressive divine revelation, of human reasoning (enabled by the Holy Spirit), of action based upon faith, and of unexpected providential intervention. As someone once put it, “The will of God is a compass, not a map.”
Why is it, then, that Christians seem to expect God to tell them every step they are to take, or to think that God will spell out His will for them, from the beginning to the end, before He asks them to believe and to act in faith and obedience? Why do we look for God to speak to us directly on every matter that concerns us, and to think that this is the way He guided men of the Bible? It simply isn’t true. It surely is not true of Paul’s life and ministry.
When God guided Barnabas and Paul so as to commence the “first missionary journey,” He did so through the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch. But this guidance only informed to “Set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work to which He had called them” (Acts 13:2). The church had to discern what the work was, to which Barnabas and Paul were called. Barnabas and Paul had to discern where they were to go, which was not told them in the beginning, but was progressively revealed or determined. They did not know, at the beginning, that Paul would take prominence over Barnabas (so that the order of their names would be reversed).
In the “second missionary journey,” impetus to make this journey came first from the hearts of these two missionaries, Paul and Barnabas, to visit those churches which had been founded on their first journey (Acts 15:36). The missionary team was divided by an argument between Paul and Barnabas, and the team was reformed over a period of time (15:40—16:3). The journey went far beyond that which was first envisioned, and the places to which they were to go, or to avoid, were indicated over time and in different (sometimes unexplained) ways (16:4-8). The so-called “Macedonian vision” was not as specific in its guidance as some seem to think. Paul was not told to go to Macedonia, no was he told to go to Philippi. He simply had a vision of a Macedonian, who pleaded for help. Paul and the others had to think and pray about this vision, to conclude that it was God’s guidance to go to Macedonia (16:10—note the word “concluding”). The decision to go to Philippi seems to have been made apart from any specific revelation.
God’s guidance is such that we are told all that we need to know. We are told, for example, what God purposes to do in us and, to some degree, through us. We are assured of God’s ends, and we must often reason our part in these things. We are given divine principles as guidelines, governing how God’s work is to be done. But very often we are given situations in which we must decide to do, apart from a voice from God, based upon His Word and the wisdom which the Spirit provides.
How did Paul know that he was to appeal to Caesar? I believe that he “reasoned by faith” that this was the thing to do. He knew from his vision in Jerusalem that his work in Jerusalem was ending, and that he had a work to do in Rome. He knew the Jews were trying to kill him, and that they wanted him in Jerusalem to do so. He knew now that Festus wanted to appease the Jews by persuading him to go to Jerusalem. Paul knew of his rights as a Roman citizen and appealed to Caesar, which would take him to Rome. It was a decision, based partly upon divine revelation, and partly on human reasoning (aided, I believe, by the Holy Spirit).
Abraham discerned God’s will in the same way. God gave Abraham a number of promises, pertaining to the goal or the outcome of what He was going to do for him and through Him (see Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6, 12-21). The timing and the means were not revealed. Abraham was told to leave his homeland and his relatives, to go to the place where God would lead him, but he was not told, initially, where this would be (Genesis 12:1). It became more and more clear that some of God’s promises could only be fulfilled through a son, whom we know (in time) would be Isaac. When God later commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, this caused a real dilemma for Abraham, for he was to kill the means by which many of God’s promises (and his hopes) were to be fulfilled. In the New Testament, we learn that Abraham came to grips with this matter by reasoning and by faith, or, should I say, by “faith reasoning”:
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type (Hebrews 11:17-19).
God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son, telling him at the same time that He would spare this son by providing an animal in his place. He did not assure him of His ability to raise the dead. His ability to raise the dead was taught Abraham by the way in which Isaac was born (see Romans 4:18-21). If God could give Abraham and Sarah (who were as good as dead when it came to child-bearing), then He could also bring this dead child to life, if he were sacrificed. The obedience of Abraham was based upon partial revelation of God’s will, and upon a reasoning of faith, based upon what God had already said and done in the life of Abraham.
I believe that this is the way that God generally guides men, as He did in the Old Testament, as He did in the New, and as He continues to do today. Let us not wait for a divine voice from heaven. Let us not demand a full revelation of God’s plan, including the timing and the means. Let us act in faith, on the basis of what God has told us He will do, on the basis of those principles which should govern how we act, and on the basis of “faith reasoning,” enabled by His Spirit, confident that we cannot thwart his purposes, and that we will not ever be able to predict His means, but that He will use us as He wills, to further the gospel.
(3) Finally, let us be reminded of the gospel which confronts us, which demands a decision of us, and of the judgment of God which awaits all who reject the gospel. In the minds of Festus, Agrippa, Bernice, and those dignitaries, it was Paul who was on trial, but this was not really true. Paul was a preacher of the gospel. Paul was not the one who needed to fear judgment, but those who heard him in that auditorium. They were on trial, and the gospel was to be their judge. Would they believe in Jesus? This was Paul’s concern, and not his own defense. There will come a time when the “pomp and circumstance” of that event will be overshadowed by the majesty and glory of God’s throne, when men must stand before him. Those who trust in Jesus as the Savior, the Messiah, need not fear this judgment. But those who reject Him, will one day give account for their unbelief and sin. May none of you, my reader friend, be among that number who reject the gospel, to your own eternal doom. May we all, like Paul, be willing to lay down our lives for the gospel, knowing that we have been forgiven, and that heaven awaits us.
! Lesson 37:
Paul’s Appeal to Agrippa
(Acts 26:1-32)
Introduction
What a scene it must have been, with Paul standing before this august gathering of celebrities and leaders. They, having arrived and seating themselves, with all due dignity and solemnity; he, in his chains, accompanied, no doubt, by one or more guards. It was not to be as dramatic as in days yet to come, when the Romans would watch the Christians be devoured by the lions, but some of this same spirit may have prevailed. After all, this gathering was, at best, an informal hearing, a favor to Festus, and probably a matter of curiosity to those who attended. So it seems to have been for Agrippa. Paul was hardly to be taken seriously, nor did anyone come hoping or expecting to be converted. But perhaps hearing Paul would at least help them to understand the mindset of Judaism, and thus some of the cause for all the uprisings and disorder they were constantly fomenting.
For some men, this hearing would have dazzled them, standing before such a large gathering of “shakers and movers” of that day. Some might have entered into this occasion with apprehension, perhaps contemplating how to make the gospel more tolerable to such pagans as were gathered. For Paul, it was just one more of a long sequence of hearings, where his conduct, his ministry, and his gospel were scrutinized by public officials for some sign of wrong-doing.
It all began when Paul arrived in Jerusalem, and was engaged in worship in the temple. He was mistakenly accused of desecrating the temple, and a mob of Jews was quickly assembled, who were about to kill him. He would have been killed except for the prompt arrival of Claudius Lysias, who not only saved Paul’s life and sought (when informed) to protect his rights as a Roman citizen, but who also tried through various means to determine what Paul was being accused of, so that a trial could be conducted and Paul’s guilt or innocence could be pronounced. A plot to kill Paul let to his transfer to Caesarea, and to his unfinished trial under Felix. Festus, his successor, also attempted to decide the matter, but this only resulted in Paul’s appeal to Caesar. Now, in order to identify some charges against Paul, to include in a letter to Caesar, this group has assembled to hear from Paul and to give their advice to Festus.
While Paul always proclaimed Christ with “fear and trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5), knowing that the gospel was a “stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), he must also have rejoiced at the opportunity to proclaim Christ before this audience of Caesarean dignitaries. It did not matter that they were powerful or influential, but only that they were lost. The gospel will be preached this day, and with great enthusiasm (see Acts 26:24-29).
We will endeavor to look carefully at this defense of Paul’s, especially in comparison to Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, and also to Paul’s previous account of his conversion in chapter 22. We will seek to identify what is unique about this defense, and what point Luke is seeking to make by including it. We will attempt to identify and follow Paul’s argument here, and then to discover its meaning and application to us. I believe that we will find this record has a great deal to say to those who live in our own day and time.
The Structure of the Text
· The Setting (25:23—26:1)
· Paul’s Introduction (26:2-3)
· Paul’s Judaism (26:4-8)
· Paul’s Judaism and Jesus (26:9-11)
· Paul’s Conversion and Commission (26:12-18)
· Consequences of Paul’s Obedience to His Commission (26:19-23)
· The Conversation of Paul with Festus and Agrippa (26:24-29)
· The Conversation between Festus and Agrippa (26:30-31)
Characteristics of Paul’s Defense
Before we begin to look at our text in detail, following Paul’s argument verse by verse, let us begin by looking at some of the characteristics of Paul’s defense as a whole.
This is the third account of Paul’s “conversion” in Acts. Acts chapter 9 is an historical account, written by Luke; the second account occurs in chapter 22 and is Paul’s personal testimony, spoken to his Jewish opponents in Jerusalem. The third occurs here in chapter 26. There are both similarities and differences in the accounts. These differences will help us identify the unique emphasis of this account in chapter 26.
This is an eye-witness account of Paul’s defense. The account is undoubtedly an abbreviated one, with only selected details included, but the wording is such that we are informed that it is written by one who was there. How else could Luke write, “Then Paul stretched out his hand and proceeded …” (Acts 26:1)?
This is Paul’s defense of the gospel and of his ministry, more than a personal defense.[527] This was not a trial, but an unofficial hearing, to help Festus determine what charges he should include on his report to Caesar. Paul is not trying to prove his innocence, to much as he is trying to explain the reasons for the opposition of the Jews to him and his ministry.
There is a strong “Jewish” emphasis here. Paul begins by indicating his pleasure that Agrippa is well versed in Jewish affairs. Throughout the emphasis falls upon Paul’s conduct as a Jew, and his opposition from the Jews. In all of this, Paul is asserting that Christianity is Jewish.
Paul’s Jewish opponents do not speak and appear not even to be present. How providential that his Jewish opponents are absent. Paul is not interrupted, and he is able to give his defense without hindrance. The only interruption will come from Festus.
Paul’s message is directed toward Agrippa. From beginning to end, it is evident that Paul’s words are addressed particularly to Agrippa. Luke tells us that this hearing was the result of Agrippa’s interest. It was Agrippa who was named in Paul’s introduction, and in his conclusion. It was also Agrippa (“O King,” verses 7 & 13) who was addressed in the middle of the defense.
Paul’s argument hinges on the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and particularly on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The resurrection has been central in the teaching of Jesus, in the preaching of the apostles (in Acts) and in the opposition of the Jews. It is not the substitutionary atonement which Paul chooses to emphasis here, but the resurrection. We shall seek to see why later in the message.
Paul’s account is not really an account of his conversion at all. Only seven of seventeen verses describe the “Damascus road experience” of Paul. Of these seven verses, none of them really describes Paul’s conversion. A study of Acts 9 and 22 will indicate that Paul’s conversion took place over three days. To be more accurate, it seems incorrect to refer to Paul as being “saved” until the end of the three days, as a result Paul’s repentance and belief, based upon the words of Ananias. Ananias is not mentioned in Acts 26, nor is anything but Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. The account of Paul’s experience on the Damascus road is that of his confrontation and correction (Jesus is alive; Paul has been persecuting Jesus by persecuting His church), and of his divine commission. His conversion is not even mentioned, as such.
This account is not only one of Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road, but is an account covering Paul’s whole life. The other accounts place more emphasis on Paul’s conversion experience (proportionately) than does Paul’s account here, which stresses the entire span of his life, up to this moment.
The Setting
(25:23—26:1)
It was a befuddled Festus who came away from the trial of Paul at Caesarea. It was perhaps the first trial at which Festus had presided. But this trial ended without a verdict, mainly because Festus did not want to offend the Jews. When Festus tried to persuade Paul to return to Jerusalem for yet another trial, he appealed Caesar. This left Festus in a tight spot. He did not have an acceptable explanation for the appearance of Paul. He knew Paul was innocent, and he had no charges to file against him. If Festus was caught off guard by the issues which surfaced during the trial of Paul before him at Caesarea, he was even more shocked when Paul appealed his case to Caesar. He was in more trouble than Paul. This would not look good on his record. He must think of something to put in his report to Caesar. He could hardly send Paul to Rome without an acceptable explanation.
It was a happy day when Herod Agrippa arrived in Caesarea, along with his sister Bernice. And when Agrippa expressed interest in hearing Paul personally, Festus leaped at the offer, arranging for a hearing on the following day. Along with Agrippa and Bernice, Festus invited the commanders and all of the influential citizens of Caesarea to help him determine the charges against Paul which should be reported to Caesar. It was with great pomp and circumstance that they all gathered in the auditorium. Paul was then brought in and Festus explained the purpose of the gathering to those present. Then, Festus turned to Paul and indicated that it was his opportunity to speak in his defense.
Paul’s Introduction
(26:2-3)
Paul began his defense by laying a foundation with King Agrippa, whom Paul understood to be in charge of the proceedings. Paul could hardly express his admiration and respect for a man like Agrippa,[528] but there was good reason for Paul to be pleased that Agrippa was the one to whom he was speaking. Agrippa was a man with much experience and knowledge pertaining to Judaism. Paul believed him to be a Jew who, himself, believed in the Law and the Prophets (verse 27).
The issue at hand, in Paul’s mind, was not so much his own beliefs or conduct, nor even his alleged crime of attempting to desecrate the temple. The issue was the gospel. The issue was whether or not the gospel was legitimately to be considered a part of Judaism, or whether, as the Jews charged, it was a cult, distinct from Judaism and opposed to it (see the charge of Tertullus in Acts 24:5). Paul was setting out to show that the gospel he proclaimed was the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, as promised by God through Moses and the Prophets. Christianity, Paul asserted, is Jewish. Thus, at the outset of his defense, he expresses his delight that Agrippa understands such matters (unlike Festus). He also draws Agrippa’s attention to the “Jewishness” of his case, so that this factor will be prominent in his mind, and that he will be attentive to the Jewish issues Paul will raise. In the next verses, Paul will turn to his own involvement in and commitment to Judaism, from a very early age.
Paul’s Judaism
(26:4-8)
The Jews consistently attempted to disown Christianity in general, and Paul’s preaching in particular, as a “counterfeit Judaism,” as a sect which did not have their sanction and which was diametrically opposed to their faith. Paul chose to deal with the issues through his own example, because his life explained and illustrated the animosity between Judaism and the gospel. Would his Jewish opponents represent Paul as some out-of-town foreigner, who came to Jerusalem to stir up trouble for the Jews? Paul was a Jew, not born in Jerusalem, but a Jew who was brought up there, trained in the strictest order of Judaism. He was no stranger to Judaism or Jerusalem, but was, from his early days as a child, an active, dynamic, leader. And so Paul began his defense by starting at the beginning, with his own faith and practice as a Jew, in Jerusalem.
Those who represented Paul as a newcomer were willfully forgetful or dishonest about their acquaintance with him, his personal religious life, and his involvement with them in Judaism. Paul was a very public figure as a Christian, but he was also well known before his conversion. If Paul was now a viewed as the enemy of Judaism and as a traitor, it was not always so. He was once their national hero. They would have delighted to have him for a son-in-law. For a long time Paul was known to these Jews as a devout Jew, a Pharisee, no less. More than this, he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (see Philippians 3:5). He was one of the outstanding young men of Judaism.
Verses 6-8 are somewhat parenthetical. Was Paul a devout Jew, once, and now he is guilty of forsaking it all? Far from it! Paul, in his remarks in verses 6-8, muses that it is on account of his Jewish hope that he is now on trial. He is not really on trial for opposing Judaism, but rather for adhering to it. It is his opponents who have forsaken Judaism. Paul therefore claimed that he was standing trial “for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers,” his and theirs (verse 6). Paul is guilty of hoping and believing in the promise which God gave to the twelve tribes of Israel, and which they think they are still looking for, as they go about their religious rituals of worship.[529] It is for the same kind of hope and expectation—a hope which includes as a vital part the resurrection of the dead—that Paul is now being accused. Paul’s crime, for which he is being attacked by the Jews, if for being too Jewish.[530]
Paul now turns to Agrippa, a ruler, but also a Jew, and asks, “Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?” (verse 8). If belief in the resurrection of the dead is a fundamental premise of Judaism, how is it that the Jews condemn Paul for believing in the resurrection of Jesus? Why do they find believing in an actual instance of resurrection (namely, Jesus) so incredibly difficult? Judaism was not consistent with itself in its response to Paul’s proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Here is the key issue, the watershed, the bone of contention between Paul and his Jewish opponents—the doctrine of the resurrection, and especially the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is the fuel which fires the opposition of the Jews against Paul and Christianity. This is reason for the uprisings over Paul which the Roman rulers were trying to discover. Paul let Agrippa know, at the outset, what the issue was. Paul will now follow this matter through, showing how he, as an unbelieving Jew, opposed Christianity because of the same failure, and how, through a confrontation with the resurrected Christ, he was converted, from an opponent of the gospel to one of its most renowned proponents.
Paul’s Judaism and Jesus
(26:9-11)
The failure of the Jews to be consistent with their own faith was not foreign to Paul. As an unbelieving Jew, Paul found Christianity and the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, an abhorrent thing, something to be violently and rigorously opposed. Could Paul understand and explain the opposition of his Jewish peers? Of course. He had done the same thing himself, before he was saved, and as a high calling thrust upon him by his own Judaism.
Paul felt obliged to attack and to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth, who was worshipped and followed by Christians as the risen Messiah of Israel (verse 9). He practiced his opposition in Jerusalem and far beyond, even to foreign cities (verse 11). With a vengeance, he sought to force Christians to renounce their faith in Jesus as Messiah, by blaspheming.[531] Many, he cast into prison, and others he enthusiastically voted for their execution, as heretics. In his opposition to Jesus, he worked closely with the Sanhedrin[532] and with the cooperation and support of the chief priests, the very ones who now took the lead in opposing him.
Paul understood his opponents well, and well he should. He understood them well because what they were to him, he once was to many other saints. His opposition to Christianity, to the gospel, was the result of his own misguided Judaism. This error was only to be exposed and corrected by a direct encounter with the risen Jesus, which Paul now goes on to describe as the turning point in his life and in his understanding and practice of Judaism.
Paul’s Conversion and Commission
(26:12-18)
Paul’s conversion is but one part of his defense. Seven verses describe his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, while his entire defense is contained in 17 verses. His conversion is not the only aspect of Paul’s life which is described in his defense, but this experience of being confronted by the risen, glorified, Jesus was the turning point of his life. The change from what he once was, a violent persecutor of the church, to what he had become, a powerful proclaimer of the gospel, is the result of his “conversion” and his “commission,” which took place as Paul was on his way to Damascus, to persecute the church there.[533]
Paul did not describe his conversion as some kind of evolution, but rather as a radical transformation, a change from darkness to light, from death to life, a change from persecuting Christianity to practicing and promoting it. He was actively opposing the church when Jesus stopped him dead in his tracks and turned him around. He was not seeking the truth; he was convinced that he knew the truth, and that Christianity was a lie. He was not acting independently in his persecution of the Christian community; he had the full consent and authority of the chief priests.[534]
At midday, when the sun would be at its brightest, Paul and those with him were smitten with a heavenly light, far brighter than the sun (verse 13). All fell to the ground, but only Paul heard the voice from heaven, spoken to him in the Hebrew dialect, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads”[535] (verse 14). The light alone should have been terrifying to Saul, but the words which were spoken to him from heaven must have been even more troubling. The voice was a heavenly one, and Saul therefore rightly recognized the speaker as “Lord.” God was talking to Saul. And, God was somehow being persecuted by Saul. How could this be? Saul was persecuting Christians, followers of Jesus. The next words, “It is hard for you to kick against the goads,” are found only in this account, and not in the other two. These words seem to indicate that while Saul was strongly opposing Christianity, and at the same time persecuting the “Lord,” he was doing so in a futile effort, to his own loss. In our own vernacular, Paul was “shooting himself in the foot.”
Paul asked the inevitable and ultimate question, to make certain of the identity of the “Lord” who was speaking to him from heaven, “Who art Thou, Lord?”[536] If Paul had not already figured it out, the voice supplied the answer: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” Paul never argued this matter, not now, not ever. It was Jesus. He had been dead wrong. Jesus was alive! Therefore, Jesus was the promised Messiah, and the hope of Israel! And in persecuting the church, Paul was persecuting Jesus. In seeking to serve God according to his understanding of Judaism, he was actually opposing Him. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was now no longer a mere theory, but a reality. Jesus is alive. Jesus rose from the dead!
Paul is not concerned with reporting all of the details of his actions over the next three days, and of his conversion. For his purposes, the appearance of the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus was the cause of his conversion. It was the truth of the resurrection of Jesus which was the turning point in his life. No wonder the resurrection was such a crucial matter with Paul. And little wonder that the proclamation of the gospel (including the vital element of the resurrection of Jesus) was such a touchy point with the unbelieving Jews. To admit that Jesus was risen from the dead would not save one, in and of itself, but it would logically point to the fact that Jesus was who He claimed to be—Messiah—and that the Jews (as well as the Gentiles) were wrong to have rejected and crucified Him.
Paul now moves on to the “divine commission” which was given to him at the time of his conversion. Like every believer, Paul was saved for a reason, and that reason is expressed in the song which goes, “We’re saved, saved to tell others …” Paul was commanded to stand up, and was told that his commission was the purpose for which the Lord had appeared to him (verse 16). He was appointed to be both a minister and a witness, not only to the things which he had just seen, but also to those things which were yet to be revealed to him in subsequent appearances.
With this call to be a witness, was the promise of divine protection, both from the Jews, and from the Gentiles, for he was being sent as a witness to both groups (verse 17). He was called to be God’s instrument of salvation to men and women of both groups. The nature of this “salvation” is described in verse 18. His calling was to “open the eyes” of those who were blinded by their sin, so that they might “turn from darkness to light,” and “from the dominion of Satan to the kingdom of God.” The goal of this was the “forgiveness of sins” and the reception of “an inheritance,” by all who have been sanctified by faith in Jesus.[537] What volumes of truth and encouragement are found in these few words, which only summarize that which occurs when one is saved. Books have been written on these matters. Paul, in his epistles, will have much more to say about these things himself.
What is important for us, here, is that the Lord has commissioned Paul to proclaim the gospel, so that what he has come to experience, may be the experience of countless others. His eyes have just been opened, to “see the light.” He has just been plucked from the clutches and control of Satan, and now is under the dominion of God. He has received the forgiveness of sins, and has the sure hope of an eternal inheritance. And he now has the privilege of introducing others to the same salvation.
The Consequences of Paul’s Obedience to His Commission
(26:19-23)
Paul now presses on to show the consequences of his conversion and commission. His encounter with the resurrected Jesus radically changed his life. He no longer persecuted the church but preached Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ. His conversion and commission was the basis for the life which he now lived. He would not disobey his heavenly calling. His desire was to fulfill his calling.
It was the pursuit of this calling which brought about his persecution by the Jews. If Paul’s conversion and commission radically changed Paul, it also changed Paul’s status with the Jews. Was he once a “Hebrew of Hebrews”? Was he once a Pharisee of the strictest order? Was he once the hero, the bright and shining star of Judaism? No longer. His conversion made him a traitor to Judaism. Just as he once pursued Christians to the death, he was now pursued by the Jews to the death. They wanted him dead, and simply for believing in Jesus as the Messiah, raised from the dead. He now believed in Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, and thus he became their “public enemy number one.” Would the Roman rulers wish to understand what all this intense anger and opposition was all about? Here is the reason.
It is because of this that Paul was seized in the temple, and the Jews sought to put him to death. It was not because he had desecrated the temple, but because he had believed in Jesus, and was now proclaiming Him as the Messiah. And, his deliverance from the Jews, while through the instrumentality of Roman officials, was ultimately the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to protect him from the Jews and the Gentiles. Neither the Jews nor the Gentiles could prevent Paul from fulfilling his commission.
This is why Paul is now standing before this group of prominent leaders, because he is still endeavoring to fulfill his calling, “testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (verses 22 and 23).
To this group of “great” people, Paul had nothing different to say than to the “small,” that the salvation of the world comes only through the “hope of Israel,” the Lord Jesus Christ, who was coming, death, and resurrection was foretold by the Prophets and Moses. These promises were fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Jesus was put to death by the Jews and Gentiles (with the help of Roman rulers), and by virtue of His resurrection from the dead, he was (on the road to Damascus) the first to proclaim “light” to the Jews and the Gentiles. And what Jesus first did, Paul and the church continued to do.
Paul’s message was a declaration of the gospel. This group, who thought they were judging Paul, and making some decision about his ministry, must make a decision about his message. They must repent and must believe that which the Jews rejected, that which Paul himself rejected, until he had seen the risen Lord himself. No report is given of any having come to faith that day, though some may have believed. But there is at least no question but what they heard the gospel, perhaps for the first and only time. Paul had fulfilled his commission this day.
The Conversation of Paul with Festus and Agrippa
(26:24-29)
The gospel controlled Paul, it dominated his life. The text does not tell us this in so many words, but I get the feeling at this point that Paul was getting excited about his presentation of the gospel. He was no longer talking about Christianity as some academic theory, or even as the topic of great debate and intense opposition. He was presenting the gospel as the means by which this audience could be saved. Paul was actually calling on this group to repent and to believe. He was not only trying to convert the Jews and the heathen, but him. He was not pleading with this crowd for understanding or sympathy; he was calling on them to believe and be saved. He was trying to convert them!
Festus could not stand it any longer. I can almost hear him mumbling to himself, “What next? Will this Paul give an invitation? Will he have an altar call? This is no defense, it is a crusade!” Festus broke in. He could stand it no longer. He accused Paul of being out of his mind. Was Paul a scholar? Festus would grant this. Was Paul correct in his understanding and interpretation of the “Jewish Scriptures”? Festus might even grant this. But leave off this invitation. Forget the altar call. Festus protests, “This is insane!”[538]
Paul defended his presentation. His message was nothing less than solemn truth. The words of an insane man cannot be taken seriously; the words which Paul spoke must be taken as a matter of eternal life or death. The gospel is both truth and reality.[539] Paul quickly turned his attention to Agrippa, a Jew, whom Paul believed was convinced that the Old Testament revelation was the Word of God. Agrippa also knew from his own experience that Paul was speaking truthfully and accurately. These were not mad ramblings, the product of a confused mind. Paul’s words, Agrippa must know, were consistent both with Old Testament revelation and with events as they had taken place in Israel. And so, turning his attention to Agrippa, Paul pressed him for a commitment. Does he believe? Will he believe? Paul’s case is no longer in view, but Agrippa’s salvation. Where does he stand? What will he do? Even if Festus rejects Paul’s words as insanity, Agrippa has much more knowledge. Paul urges him to cross the line, to make the commitment, to see the light, to be saved.
Agrippa knows he is on the spot, and appears to be uncomfortable. He seems unwilling to believe, and yet unable to deny what has been said. His response to Paul has been understood in various ways.[540] One thing we can all agree upon, however, Agrippa did not come to faith in that hour. He makes no confession of faith. Whether he speaks with “tongue in cheek” or with some sincerity, he does not profess faith in Jesus.
Paul is not taken back. He picks up the conversation where Agrippa left off. Would Agrippa accuse Paul of trying to convert him? Paul did wish to do so. It was Paul’s desire that Agrippa and all the others might be just as he was—saved by grace, through faith in Jesus as the risen Lord—except he would not wish his chains on anyone else. This seems to be said with a “twinkle in his eye.” And with this final statement (at least as reported by Luke) the interview is over. Things are getting uncomfortable, not for Paul, but for his audience. It was they, after all, who were on trial, not Paul.
The Conversation Between Festus and Agrippa
(26:30-31)
The reason for this meeting was not (in the minds of that crowd) to give Paul a chance to preach to them and to seek to convert them, but to hear Paul’s case so as to give Festus something to report to Caesar. And so as Paul left, those gathered together for this occasion turned to one another, expressing their unanimous conclusion: this man was not guilty of any crime. Agrippa had come to the same conclusion, when he expressed privately to Festus. There really were no charges against Paul that would hold up in court. Paul should never have been brought to trial in the first place.
This must have been an unsettling thing for Festus to hear. It was no compliment to his handling of the matter. The reason why Festus had a problem on his hands was because there were no valid charges against Paul. The Jews were wrong. Had Festus dealt with Paul justly, he would not have the problem which he now faces.
But Agrippa not only thinks that Festus was mistaken; he also indicates that Paul was foolish to have appealed to Caesar. Had Paul not made this appeal, Agrippa reasoned, Paul would now be a free man. Agrippa must not have been aware of the plot against Paul in Jerusalem, for he would have realized that to be free in Jerusalem (or even to be in Jerusalem under Roman guard) was to be in danger of assassination. It may have seemed foolish for Paul to go to Rome, but then Agrippa was not aware of the divine plan, which included Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, and then Rome.
Conclusion
As we conclude our study of Paul’s “appeal” to Agrippa, let me point out several important elements:
(1) Paul’s “appeal” to Agrippa was not an “appeal to be pronounced innocent” but an “appeal for him to be saved.” The conclusion of Paul’s address informs us of the fact that Paul did not care so much about his own condition as he was about the condition of those who stood before him. Paul may have been a prisoner, in chains, doomed to die, but he was saved, with the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins and the inheritance that awaited him in heaven. It was not Paul who was “in trouble,” but his audience. While all outward appearances were that they “had it made,” they were lost, headed for an eternity of separation from God and the agonies of hell. No wonder Paul was more concerned about his audience than himself.
(2) Paul’s best defense was his own life story. There is a sense, of course, in which Paul is giving his defense. I find it most interesting that the most powerful and convincing explanation Paul can offer his audience is the story of his own life. By describing what he once was and did, and the changes which took place at his conversion, Paul can prove not only his own innocence, but the power of the gospel to save and to change men. It also reveals the power of unbelief, to oppose and resist the gospel and those who proclaim it. Would that each of us who name the name of Christ could claim our own life story to be so powerful a defense for the transforming power of the gospel.
(3) Christianity is Jewish. Paul’s argument in this chapter is based upon a very important truth: Christianity is Jewish. Paul was once a religious Jew, a Pharisee, but as a Christian he is now a true Jew, enjoying and looking forward to the hope of Israel. If Paul’s defense proves anything, it is that the gospel which Paul proclaims and practices is the fulfillment of all that Judaism hoped for. Indeed, the gospel continues to be all that Israel still hopes for, even in its unbelief. Judaism desperately wanted to disown Christianity, as a cult or sect. This would have meant that it would not have received the protection of Rome which unbelieving Judaism enjoyed. Paul has, once again, shown that his faith is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the enemy of it.
(4) Paul’s defense explains the intensity of Israel’s unbelief, and the dramatic means which will be required to turn this nation to faith in Jesus. In spite of the fact that the Jews should recognize Jesus (and the gospel) to be the fulfillment of the promise of God through Moses and the Prophets, they vigorously oppose it. They do this contrary to the Scriptures, history, and logic. They do so because of the “hardness of their hearts.” Paul was just like them in this regard, before his conversion. I believe that our text strongly implies what other Scriptures teach—that all Israel will only come to faith in Jesus when He appears to them in His resurrected, glorified form. Then, they too will believe and be saved.
The conversion of the Gentiles is not really any different. Men do not evolve toward faith. They are predisposed to hate God and to oppose the gospel. Men cannot be logically convinced and converted, any more than Paul. In order for men to be converted, God must radically and powerfully intervene into their lives, convincing them that Jesus is alive, and that He is the Messiah. Our text is but one which reveals the deep-seated unbelief and hard-core opposition of men toward God, and of the dramatic, divine intervention required to save lost men.
(5) Paul’s defense here in Acts 26 reminds us of the crucial role which the resurrection of Jesus plays in the gospel and in the conversion of men. Note that in his defense of the gospel Paul places little emphasis on the death of Christ, or the substitutionary atonement, but rather the crucial issue is the resurrection. Why? Is it because the doctrine of the atonement is not true or not important? Certainly not! It is because the issue with the Jews and with men of that day was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. No one in that day argued about the fact of Jesus’ death. The Jews believed in substitutionary atonement because of the fact that is was woven into the fabric of the Old Testament sacrificial system. What Judaism rejected was the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead, and thus had to be the Messiah.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was the crucial issue, the key to conversion, his own and that of others. The apostles, from the outset proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, raised from the dead. To grant the resurrection of Jesus was tantamount to granting His claim to be Messiah, and this was just as Jesus intended it (see Matthew 12:38-40). Thus, the resurrection of Jesus was emphasized by Paul because it was the watershed issue, the turning point, even as it had been for him in his conversion.
(6) The problem with Judaism then, and with Christian today, is that the things we believe in principle, we refuse to believe in practice and in particular. Paul claimed that his hope was a Jewish hope, a hope which required a belief in the resurrection of the dead, and which required, in particular, the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead. Any true Jew (this excluded a Sadducee) believed in the resurrection of the dead (see Hebrews 11:13-40). The Pharisees thus found themselves more in harmony with Paul over the resurrection than with the Sadducees (see Acts 23:6-9).
The failure for such Jews, who believed in the resurrection of the dead in principle, was that they refused to believe in it when it came to the resurrection of Jesus. Even though they could find no other explanation for the disappearance of His body, they would not grant His resurrection. To do so would require believing in Him, and admitting their sin and guilt in rejecting Jesus. But when the fact of Jesus’ resurrection is powerfully attested, whether by the personal appearance of Jesus to Paul, or by the power of Jesus manifested through the apostles, or by the illumination and conviction of the Holy Spirit through the preached Word, men are converted, and their lives turned around.
I would like to suggest that the same failure exists today, in Christianity. There are many truths, many doctrines, of which professing Christians are firmly convinced, in principle, but which they refuse to practice in particular. We say we believe in the goodness of God, in His omniscience (knowing all), and in His omnipotence (having all power), but when the chips are down, and when life seems to challenge these truths, we are not so willing to act upon these truths which we claim we believe.
Let’s take the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, for example. We profess to believe that because Jesus was raised from the dead, we, too, shall be raised. But what happens when the doctor tells us we have a malignancy? What happens when we are required to take a stand which puts our life in danger? Where, then, is our faith in the resurrection of the dead?
If we fail to believe in practice what we claim to believe in principle, what is the solution? What is the cure? How can we develop a practical faith, a faith which not only believes, but which acts on this belief? I believe that the answer is much more simple than we would wish. We develop a living faith by living in accordance with the Word of God, and in obedience to the commands of our Lord (whether given personally by Jesus or through His apostles in the epistles of the New Testament).
I would encourage you to read through the entire New Testament, making note of all the commands that are given, either by our Lord in the gospels, or by the apostles in the epistles. Then, do them. I submit to you that it will be very difficult to obey these commands apart from believing in the doctrines on which they are based. I think that our practical faith is proportionate to our practice of our faith by our obedience to the commands of Scripture. Would we have a practical faith, and not merely a theoretical one? Then let us practice our faith, by obeying God’s commands.
One further thought on this matter. I would recommend a study in the gospels of those who recognized Jesus as the Messiah, in contrast to those who refused to recognize Him as such. What was it about those who recognized Jesus as Messiah which set them apart from the rest? The answer to this is the key to having a practical faith, rather than a theoretical one. The scribes knew (theoretically) that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, for example (Matthew 2:3-6), but they would not believe that Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem, was the King. Why not? The answers to this question will be fruitful.
(7) For Paul, every opportunity to speak to men was the opportunity to speak of Christ, and to seek to win men and women to Him by faith in Jesus. Even this hearing, which was Paul’s opportunity to convince his audience of his innocence, was, for him a greater opportunity—the chance to tell men of Christ. Oh that we would use our opportunities as well. Paul was faithful to his commission. May we be as well.
Afterthought
There is one thought that has occurred to me as I have been studying this chapter. I was reminded, once again, of the overall purpose of this book, indeed of both volumes which Luke has penned, Luke and Acts. It occurred to me that Luke wrote these two books to an unknown Gentile—Theophilus. Could it be that these books were written to answer the very questions for which the Roman rulers had been seeking the answers? Could it be that Luke/Acts was the “answer to the prayers” (so to speak) of Festus? What better background to Paul’s case before Caesar could be penned? And is it not interesting that Acts ends before Paul’s trial before Caesar? I am somewhat tempted to theorize (pure speculation, of course) that Luke may have been motivated to write these two books to answer the very questions for which the Roman rulers sought answers, so as to rightly inform Caesar of the issues involved in Paul’s case. Regardless of the purpose Luke had in mind, wouldn’t it be interesting if Luke finished his manuscripts before Paul’s trial, and submitted them into the court records as evidence in Paul’s support? Just a far-fetched thought.
! Lesson 38:
A Biblical Look at Leadership
(Acts 27:1-44)
Introduction
When I come to Acts chapter 27, it is like a breath of fresh air to me. I have always looked upon the Apostle Paul as a godly man, a zealous servant of Jesus Christ, and a powerful preacher of the gospel. But it is here, in our text, that I see Paul as a very wise man in practical matters, a man who is a leader of men, and whose counsel is taken seriously because he knows what he is doing.
Paul’s leadership emerges on board the ship, on which he was headed toward Rome. As time went on, as Paul was better known, and as the crises on board the ship became more pronounced, Paul stepped forward, giving both direction and hope to all the others on ship. Paul accomplishes all this without any formal leadership position or authority. He was not the captain of the ship, nor one of the soldiers. He was not a sailor; in fact he was not even a paying passenger. Paul was a prisoner, on his way to stand trial before Caesar in Rome.
What was it about Paul that made him a leader among men, even in matters pertaining to sailing and storms? What kind of leadership did Paul exercise, and how did this impact the gospel? What is the relationship between “spiritual leadership” and “secular leadership”? What can we learn about leadership, which can benefit others, and can promote the gospel? These are questions that we shall seek to answer in our study of Acts chapter 27.
Overview of the Passage
and the Structure of the Text
The first 8 verses of the chapter take Paul from Caesarea to a harbor named Fair Havens, not far from the city of Lasea. This journey began on an Adramyttian ship, which took them as far as Myra, where they boarded an Alexandrian ship, headed for Italy. The journey was delayed by unfavorable winds. Verses 9-13 describe a crucial decision that was made. It was too late in the sailing season to travel on to Rome by sea. The question was where the ship would make port for the winter. Paul strongly urged them to stay where they were, at Fair Havens. Since this was not an ideal place to spend the winter, and sailing conditions looked favorable at the moment, they decided to press on to a more accommodating port. Verses 14-20 describe the sudden onslaught of the storm, the steadily deteriorating conditions, and the complete loss of hope of those on board. A late night visitation by an angel of God and Paul’s words of encouragement to his shipmates is reported in verses 21-26. In verses 27-29, Luke describes the ship’s approach to some body of land. Verses 30-32 describe the sailors’ attempt to abandon ship, which they aborted, due to the action taken by the soldiers, who heeded Paul’s words of warning. Verses 33-41 report Paul’s encouragement, in words and deeds, and the grounding and breaking up of the ship. The final verses (42-44) tell of the plan of the soldiers to kill the prisoners, of the intervention of the centurion, and the safe arrival on land of all 276 passengers.
The chapter may therefore be outlined in this way:
· Verses 1-8: From Caesarea to Fair Havens
· Verses 9-13: A Critical Decision
· Verses 14-20: A Sudden Storm and Lost Hope
· Verses 21-26: Paul’s Night Visitation and Words of Encouragement
· Verses 27-29: Nearing Land
· Verses 30-32: Sailors Stopped From Abandoning Ship
· Verses 33-41: Paul’s Encouragement and the Ship’s Grounding
· Verses 42-44: Prisoners and Passengers Spared From Death
From Caesarea to Fair Havens[541]
(27:1-8)
One way or the other, Festus must have found some way to explain Paul’s appearance before Caesar. Paul and a number of other prisoners were put aboard an Adramyttian ship,[542] which was setting sail for ports along the coast of Asia. A centurion of the Augustan cohort by the name of Julius[543] was placed in charge of the prisoners. This centurion was to develop a deep respect for Paul, so that he would extend considerable liberties to him, take seriously his advice, and make every effort to protect him. Accompanying Paul were Luke[544] and Aristarchus, who was from Thessalonica.[545]
They made port in Sidon, a city about 70 miles north of Caesarea. Here, Julius, the centurion in charge of Paul and the other prisoners, allowed Paul to go to his friends and be cared for by them (verse 3). From here on, sailing will not be smooth. When the ship set sail, they began to encounter unfavorable winds. This necessitated sailing close to the coast of Cyprus, which, to some degree, sheltered them from the contrary winds (verse 4). Sailing past Cilicia and Pamphylia, they landed at Myra in Lycia (verse 5).[546] It was here that they had to change ships.
The centurion found an Alexandrian ship,[547] laden with wheat that was headed for Italy. They boarded this ship and set sail. Progress was slow, due to wind conditions. With difficulty, they finally arrived off Cnidus, but were then forced by the winds to sail under the shelter of Crete, off Salmone. Passing it with considerable difficulty, and apparently not being able to make port there, they finally were able to make port at a place known as Fair Havens,[548] which was not far from the city of Lasea, where they could have spent the winter. Their arrival had not been without difficulty, but things were only to go from bad to worse. Their troubles to this point would seem insignificant compared to what was soon to come.
A Crucial Decision
(27:9-13)
A crucial decision had to be made at Fair Havens.[549] Sailing was not safe in the winter, due to wind conditions and seasonal storms. The time which had been lost, due to unfavorable winds, made it evident that they would not be able to reach Rome, not without wintering at some port, and finishing the journey in the Spring.[550] The only question now was where they would winter, and whether or not they would press on to some more favorable port.
The decision that faced these sailors is not an uncommon one, even in our day. Airline pilots must constantly monitor weather conditions, and make decisions as to the route they will take, their altitude, and even their destination. I read in the paper the other day that when faced with the decision as to whether he should change to an alternate airport or press on to the original destination, the pilot of a commercial airliner left the choice with his passengers. Some things don’t change.
Apparently Paul discerned that those in charge were predisposed to sailing a little further. Paul had a fair bit of experience with sea travel. He had already survived one shipwreck, and he knew the dangers of sea travel:
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. {I have been} on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from {my} countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:25-26).
Paul spoke up, cautioning them about sailing on any further, and warning them that if they pressed on this would result in the loss of lives and property. Paul did not seek to “sanctify” his words by giving them any spiritual flavor. He did not claim to have a certain (prophetic) knowledge of what was going to happen. Indeed, the fate of the ship was not exactly as Paul had warned, for there was no loss of life.[551] He simply spoke as a seasoned traveler, an astute observer, and one who had experienced dangers at sea. Simply put, Paul warned those making the decision about whether or not to press on that continuing on was not wise. They were not going to get to Rome until after winter was over anyway, and they could stay right where they were, with no real problems. They had little to gain and much to lose. Time would prove Paul right.
The centurion respected and trusted Paul a great deal, as can be seen by his previous dealings with him (see verse 3). He took Paul’s warnings seriously here, too. It is not surprising, though, that he would take the advice of the ship’s captain and its pilot as being more expert. After all, the ship’s captain and the pilot had more experience, and they also had more to lose.
Paul’s caution is rather interesting. I would think that Paul would have more reason to be reckless than these seasoned seamen and the centurion, because he was a Christian. He had “God on his side.” His God was in control of all things, including the sea. But more than this, God had already assured Paul that he would reach Rome. Paul was as secure as any man could be. But Paul’s concern here was not for himself, but for others. Paul knew that he would reach Rome, but he also strongly sensed that the ship and some of its passengers would not. After all, a number of the passengers could not even swim (see verses 43-44). It was needlessly endangering others that Paul was trying to avoid.
Furthermore, Paul was an apostle, a man through whom God had worked many signs and wonders. As the journey to Rome continues, there are yet to be more signs and wonders accomplished through the hands of Paul (see 28:3-10). But Paul did not presume to have “God on tap” and thus to be able to perform some miracle any time his wished. To Paul (in my opinion) this would be akin to “jumping off the pinnacle of the temple,” and thus “putting God to the test” (Luke 4:9-12). God’s power and His sovereign control are no pretext for carelessness or recklessness. To sail on, therefore, was a foolish decision in Paul’s opinion, and thus he discouraged it as strongly as he could, but to no avail.
Paul was overruled. In fact, it seems that virtually everyone voted against him when the decision was made. Several factors contributed to the decision to sail on. First, those who were considered the experts favored doing so. Second, the majority of those who voted on this issue favored going further. Third, the port where they were anchored was not as ideal for wintering as some other ports, which were not that far away. Fourth, a moderate south wind had come up,[552] which seemed to promise fair sailing to a better port. Given all these factors, the ship set sail from Fair Havens. How this decision would be regretted, and soon!
A Sudden Storm and All Hope Lost
(27:14-20)
The ship’s crew tried to “hug the shore” of Crete, until they could reach Phoenix, a harbor not all that distant. It did not take long at this time of year for a storm to brew at sea. The storm caught the ship in its force, and so they could do nothing but allow the ship to be driven along by it. The winds seem to have blown the ship away from the island of Crete. They would hardly wish to be close to shore in the storm anyway, for there was more danger of the ship breaking up on the rocks than of it breaking up in the open sea. Even running under the shelter of a small island (Clauda, verse 16), they could hardly get the ships dingy on board. It seems as thought they had left it in the sea, towed along behind, when the storm suddenly came upon them and swamped it.
With great difficulty, the dinghy was hoisted on board, and then supporting cables were used to undergird the bottom of the ship, so that it might not break up under the weight of its cargo and the stresses of the storm. Fearing that they might drift into shallow and dangerous waters some distance to the south,[553] they put out a sea anchor of some kind, perhaps something like a parachute, which filled with water and slowed the ship down.[554]
The storm continued through the night, and the next day things looked even worse. Until now, they had been trying to save the ship’s cargo, but now some of it[555] was thrown overboard, lightening the ship and reducing the stress on the hull. On the third day, some of the unnecessary tackle on board the ship was thrown overboard. It seems as though the passengers, including Luke and Paul, were needed to help carry out this operation (see verse 19).[556]
Three days have already passed, and Luke provides us with the description of some incident for each day. Luke now passes over the details of a number of the days that followed, indicating only that many days passed, and that the storm continued to abuse the ship and to terrify its passengers. By the end of this time, all hope had been lost, either of the storm abating, or of any rescue. Except for Paul, they had all reached the conclusion that the situation was hopeless and that they were doomed.
Paul’s Encouragement
(27:21-26)
It is only when all hope is lost that Paul addresses his fellow shipmates.[557] Much time had passed, the storm had not diminished, the ship was being constantly mauled by the storm, and the passengers had gone a long time without food. This was probably due to seasickness, and perhaps to the difficulty of cooking under such circumstances. Food supplies may have been washed overboard or ruined by moisture.
Paul reminded his shipmates that they should have listened to him sooner. The danger in which they found themselves was unnecessary. Had they heeded his warnings, this would not have happened. I do not think that Paul’s words were meant as a typical “I told you so” so much as they were spoken to motivate his peers to listen to him now. If Paul had been right before, and his words had come to pass, he had even more important words to speak now, not from his own perception or judgment, but from the God whom he served.
During the night, an angel of God had appeared to Paul, with a sure and certain word about the future, a word that would bring encouragement to all on board ship. If Paul was completely right in his previous warning, then many were about to die. The encouraging news that Paul was about to tell them was that he was both right and wrong when he had warned them not to sail. He was right in that a great storm had swept down on this ship, and that both the ship and its cargo would be lost. But he was wrong about the loss of passengers. His previous warning did not take into account the intervention of God, resulting in the escape of every person on board the ship.
The “God” who was to rescue them was Paul’s God, the God whom he served, and to whom he would bear testimony before Caesar. Paul was told by the angel not to be afraid, because he was going to stand before Caesar. He was going to survive. But in addition to his surviving this storm, God promised to spare all the other passengers on board as well, not for their sakes alone, but for Paul’s sake. Imagine this, they would have Paul to thank for their deliverance. Because of one prisoner on board that ship, all the other passengers were spared.
The passengers were not to lose hope, but to keep up their courage. Paul encouragement the passengers to trust God to do all that He promised. The ship would be lost, but not one of the passengers would perish. One more detail about the future was revealed by Paul: the ship must run aground on a certain, but unnamed, island. Looking back on these words would demonstrate that this was indeed prophecy. The “God whom Paul served” was a God who was (and is) in control.
Allow me to make one last observation here. While Paul had not lost hope, as had his shipmates, he must have been afraid. The angel of God told Paul not to be afraid, which would indicate that he was afraid. And who would not be afraid in such a storm. There is nothing wrong with a healthy fear of danger. But we can still have hope, even when we are afraid. Paul need no longer fear, because he knew the outcome of this storm. When the outcome is known, and the One who determines it is both faithful and sovereign (in control), the danger of harm is removed, along with the need for fear. By the way, Paul may not have been frightened so much for himself as for the others.
Nearing Land
(27:27-29)
Fourteen days have passed since they left Fair Havens and the storm first struck the ship.[558] The sailors now have little idea as to where they were, or how far they might be from land. Nearing land in a storm is a very dangerous thing. A ship can be tossed about in the sea and survive much better than it can survive being dashed upon the rocks. In a storm, control of the ship is limited, and so navigating a narrow entrance to a port would be almost impossible. All in all, it would be best to wait out the storm at sea. But there was a problem. They were not in control of the ship. It was drifting wherever the storm carried it. Because of their very limited visibility, they might not see the land until it was too late. Thus, the sailors continually took soundings, measuring the depth below them, so that they could discern, far in advance, their approach to land (which would be indicated by progressively diminishing depths).
About midnight on the fourteenth day, the sailors determined that land was nearing because the depth of the sea below had diminished from twenty fathoms to fifteen. As it was the middle of the night and the storm was still fierce, the sailors put out anchors, to drag along the bottom, to slow down their drifting. They hoped that daybreak would come so that they could visually navigate the ship, rather than to attempt to make port (or even to ground the ship) in the dark. The approaching land brought a new temptation to the sailors, who better than anyone else knew they were coming upon land.[559]
The Sailors Stopped From Abandoning Ship
(27:30-32)
When the ship was far out at sea, and no one knowing how far they might be from land, abandoning ship was no temptation. Doing so would be certain death, for the larger vessel offered more protection, so long as it held together. But once the sailors discerned that land was nearby, staying on board ship became increasingly dangerous. They could not handle the ship in the stormy waters. Because of its size and cargo, it required deeper water. The smaller boat, was much more easily handled, and would have been the logical choice when trying to make shore, especially in such circumstances.
In so doing, the sailors would not only be abandoning ship, they would be abandoning all the passengers on board ship, leaving them helpless. There would be no one left who was an experienced sailor, who could help land the crippled ship. Handling the ship in this storm was almost impossible, and any attempt would require an expert crew. (This also required a small boat, which was going to be taken by those abandoning the ship.) What the ship’s crew intended to do was a cowardly thing. They planned to slip away, on the pretext of laying out anchors, but they were going to take the “lifeboat” (as it were) and leave the people to fend for themselves in the ravaging storm, in a ship drifting ever near the rocks of the approaching shore. Their actions revealed that they did not believe Paul’s words of assurance, that all would be saved, though the ship would be grounded and destroyed.
Whether by divine revelation, intuition, or by learning of their plans from some human source, Paul became aware of their intentions. He turned to the centurion and the soldiers and gave them what were really orders: “Unless these men remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved” (verse 31). If this was all that Paul said to these soldiers, he did not tell them that these men were attempting to abandon ship. He only said that their remaining on ship was necessary if these soldiers wanted to survive. The soldiers were thus acting to save themselves, as well as the rest on board. The soldiers were acting, as it were, on Paul’s orders. If the sailors didn’t believe Paul, the soldiers did. It seems that there was no protest from the sailors when the ropes to the lifeboat were cut. Now, no one had the use of this boat.
Paul’s Encouragement and the Ship’s Grounding
(27:33-41)
It was still late at night, too dark to try to make shore until it was light. They all waited for the morning light. No doubt there were some anxious thoughts racing through the minds of the passengers. It was time for another word of encouragement. Paul once again stepped forward, speaking out to all aboard, so as to assure and encourage them, as well as to persuade them to prepare themselves for the rigors and physical demands of the hours that were to follow.
Several days before, Paul had told the passengers, who had lost all hope, that they would all be saved, although the ship would run aground (verses 21-26). Up to this point in time, they had gone a long while without food. In spite of Paul’s words of encouragement, the passengers had still not eaten. It would seem that they had “fasted’ nearly two weeks—throughout the entire time the storm was raging. If they were to have the strength necessary to make it to shore, they would need to “start the day with a good meal.” I know it sounds more like mother or a TV commercial, but Paul was dealing with a very practical necessity.
Had people ceased eating, in part perhaps, because they thought they were going to die anyway? Paul assured them that “not a hair from their head would perish” (verse 34). If their safety was assured then let them do what they could to help themselves—let them eat. To reinforce his words, Paul now did what he urged each of them to do—he ate. Paul took bread, and giving thanks to God before all, he began to eat. Did Paul pray for their meal, as well as his own? I suspect so. I would like to have heard that prayer, but Luke’s silence here requires us to wait till heaven to find out what was said.
Paul’s faith and his courage were contagious. The others—two hundred and seventy-six in all—followed his example. And so they were strengthened, both in spirit and in body. Now they were ready for the day’s activities. With renewed strength, the passengers set about lightening the ship by throwing the remainder of the cargo – the cargo of wheat – overboard. This was, I think, to cause the ship to draw less water, and thus to float higher in the water, so that it would not as easily drag bottom.[560] The ship would therefore be closer to shore when it struck bottom, making it a shorter swim (or float).
They did not know exactly where they were and they could not recognize anything familiar about the land, but they did resolve to run the ship aground in a bay which they could see ahead. Then the passengers would have a better chance to reach shore. They cut loose the anchors, which set the ship free, as wind and waves propelled it toward land. They also loosened the ropes which lashed down the rudders and hoisted the sail.[561] They were on their way toward land.
As Paul had already informed them, neither the ship nor its cargo would survive, only the passengers. The ship did not make it all the way to that beach toward which they were steering it. The ship ran aground on a reef, where it would be broken up by the action of the still raging waves. They just happened to run aground at the place where two seas met.[562] It seems that the action of the water created some kind of sandbar or shallows, on which the ship stuck fast. The stern of the ship began to break up. They had to move quickly now to get off the ship and to swim to shore.
Prisoners Spared and All Ashore
(27:42-44)
All must abandon ship now. This created a serious problem. The prisoners (at least the dangerous or violent ones) may have been in chains. If the prisoners were to make it to land, the soldiers would have to release them. The soldiers who were guarding them were not as concerned about their survival as much as the possibility of an escape. They intended to put all the prisoners to death,[563] thus eliminating the risk of an escape.
The centurion did not seem to be concerned with any of the prisoners, except one – Paul. He wanted to spare him, and so he forbade them from killing any of the prisoners.[564] All of the prisoners were spared, on account of one person—Paul, just as all of the passengers were spared for Paul’s sake. These prisoners were (pardon me for this) “twice pardoned.”
The centurion commanded that all should make it to land if they could. Those who could swim should jump first, and make their way to shore. The non-swimmers could wait a little longer, perhaps for the ship to further break up, and then clinging to some piece of floating wreckage, paddle their way to shore.
Every passenger made it safely to shore. All 276 passengers were saved. Not one soul was lost. God’s promise was fulfilled, just as Paul had said He would.
Conclusion
(1) A look at leadership. I do not believe that Luke’s central purpose in Acts 27 is to teach us about leadership, but I do think that Paul’s leadership is very apparent in our text. Think of it. Paul is one of a number of prisoners, on his way to Rome to stand trial before Caesar. The death penalty is certainly one possibility. Paul’s circumstances certainly do no give him any status, any “clout,” with anyone on board that ship. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul is the object, the one who is acted upon. Others decided Paul and the other prisoners should set sail, and so Paul and they were turned over to Julius. But by the end of this chapter, it is Paul who is active, Paul who is leading, and the others are following him. Paul tells the soldiers that the sailors must remain on board ship, if they themselves are to be saved. The soldiers heed Paul’s words and cut the ropes to the lifeboat, letting it fall away. Paul encourages all on board to eat, and they do.
What has happened over the course of these events, so that a lowly prisoner, a man at the bottom of the ladder, so far as position and influence are concerned, is now the outstanding leader? What are we to make of this dramatic change in Paul’s standing before his fellow-shipmates? What did Paul do to bring about such a change? Did he do anything? The broad issue is that of leadership. How can Paul, a prisoner, emerge as the leader on board a ship, while in the midst of a storm? Let me suggest a few characteristics of Paul’s leadership in this crisis, which may provide fuel for future thought.
Paul was not striving to be a leader here, but simply trying to be of help. Too often, I hear leadership spoken of as a place of status, rather than a place of service. I see leadership held out to men and women as a prize, rather than as a humbling responsibility. I see people working for a place a leadership, rather than working to serve others, and letting leadership develop or not on its own.
Paul’s leadership was not viewed as “spiritual leadership” by those on board the ship. No one followed Paul because he was a “man of God,” or even because they concluded the God was with him. They followed Paul because he knew where he was going and inspired confidence in others to follow him. Julius and the others did not seem to look upon Paul in religious or spiritual terms, but only in terms of practical and proven ability and knowledge.
Paul did not have a formal position as “leader,” but was rather a functional leader. Paul was a leader here because people followed him. I am not certain that anyone ever thought of Paul as the leader, but he did lead and they followed.
Paul’s leadership emerged in a time of crisis, in an hour of need, when no one else seemed to have any answers.[565] Functional leadership (as opposed to formal leadership) emerges in times of need. We live in a time of great crisis. Our world, like that ship of Paul’s, was headed for destruction. If there was ever a time for Christians to emerge as leaders, it is now. The need is great. The hour is hopeless. Unsaved men do not have the answers. God’s Word gives us those answers. Let us, like Paul, have a word from God for such needy times as ours.
Paul’s leadership emerged in a “democratic society.” We are told that “the majority reached the decision” to sail on, rather than to winter in Fair Havens. I take it that this was a form of democratic rule. In spite of this fact, one man, Paul, emerged as the leader. When he spoke, there was no vote taken.
Paul’s influence was not the result of his political maneuverings, but men’s response to his personal competence. I confess, I am distressed at the ways in which Christians are trying to “take control” of the political and governmental positions of authority. They want to use numbers and influence decisions based upon voting power. The great leaders of the Bible, men like Joseph, Moses, David, and Daniel, were men who had an impact because they were men of God, men of great skill and ability, and men who God raised up. They were not men who manipulated people or their circumstances in order to further their own power or position.
Paul’s leadership enhanced the preaching of the gospel. If Paul had been incompetent and impotent in this time of crisis, who would have wanted to hear him tell about faith in Jesus as the Messiah? Paul’s skillfulness and leadership gave the gospel a credibility it would not have otherwise have had in the eyes of these people.
(2) The Sovereignty of God and Man’s Safety. There is no place safer than the place of obedience to the Word of God. Humanly viewed, Paul was constantly in grave danger, but he was never more safe or secure than when he was on his way to Rome. God’s mission for Paul was to go to Rome and there to preach the gospel. The angry mob, which the Asian Jews had incited in Jerusalem, were trying to kill Paul, but God used Claudius Lysias and his soldiers to save his life. Paul’s execution was sought by the Sanhedrin, which first tried to execute him legally (like Stephen) and then by assassination, but God used Roman soldiers once again to spare His servant. The assassination conspiracy was still the main hope of the Sanhedrin as Paul was imprisoned for two years by Felix, but God kept Paul from Jerusalem. God used this two-year delay of Felix and the bungling of Festus to bring Paul to the point where he would appeal to Caesar. In all of this God protected Paul.
Now, in our text, Paul is again in great danger. The storm threatens not only the life of Paul, but also the lives of all on board his ship. When the ship is grounded and the passengers must swim for their lives, the soldiers plan to kill Paul, along with the other prisoners, to prevent any from escaping. God used the centurion, who had come to deeply respect and admire Paul, to spare him, along with the rest. The grounding of the ship, some distance from shore, and then its breaking up poses another threat, which all survive. Finally, in the following chapter, there will be the snake bite, from which Paul will be spared as well. Paul lived dangerously, in one respect, but no one could have been any safer.
Paul’s safety and deliverance was so certain that it was sufficient for others as well. For Paul’s sake, all the passengers on board his ship were spared from the storm. And also for Paul’s sake, all of the prisoners were spared from execution by the soldiers. How often, I wonder, are others benefited by the presence of a believer? Such would have been the case in Sodom and Gomorrah. If there were but ten righteous in the city of Sodom, God would have spared the city for the sake of those righteous (Genesis 18:22-33). Is this principle of extended “deliverance” perhaps an explanation of Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 7, that the unbeliever is sanctified on account of the believer?
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:13-14).
How does Paul’s safety relate to you? If you are a Christian, the same safety is yours, when you are walking in obedience to His commands, and within His purposes. Whatever God has promised to do, He will do. When you are walking in accordance with God’s purposes, whatever obstacles to the accomplishing of His will are encountered, He will overcome. Whatever dangers might arise, He will protect His people, in accordance with His purposes and promises. But what are some of these purposes and promises? Let us consider just a few:
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath {of God} through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:8-10).
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first‑born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God {is} for us, who {is} against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:28-39).
{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).
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to {obtain} an inheritance {which is} imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7 that the proof of your faith, {being} more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls (1 Peter 1:3-9).
As the song goes, “More secure is no one ever, than the loved ones of the Savior…”
(3) The Sovereignty of God and the Ultimate Peril of the Lost. Paul was kept safe, and as a result, all of those with him were saved as well. Their safety was relative, however. Their safety was contingent on the presence of Paul and the patience of God. There will come a time, however, when God will take His own to the full and final safety of heaven. When this happens, there will be no protection for the lost. The sovereignty of God will then result in the overthrow of His enemies and in the judgment of the wicked. If God’s sovereignty is the source of comfort to the Christian, it is the source of terror for the unbeliever, for God has warned of His coming judgment. It is as certain as the salvation of His own. Flee to safety today. That safety is only in Christ. If the relative safety of the passengers was in being on board ship, with Paul, our certain safety is in being “in Christ.” He has weathered the storm of God’s wrath on the sinner. He has been beaten by the storm of God’s anger toward sin. And He has come forth from death and the grave, to give us new life. If we are not in Christ, who has weathered the storm, then we must endure the storm ourselves, to our eternal destruction.
(4) The Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility. The sovereignty of God is the basis for our safety and security, but it is not an excuse for our sloppiness. It was the crew of the ship who lived dangerously, foolishly risking the ship, the cargo, and the lives of all on board, just to “get ahead” a little. The potential gains were minimal, while the potential loss was great. Nevertheless, they decided to press on to a better harbor.
Is there not a kind of parable here? Isn’t it true that men do those things which they know to be risky, partly for the love of the risk, and often due to some small gain they wish, prompted by a false sense of assurance, and by the hope for some small gain? Take aids, or drugs, for example. All one needs is a “clean needle” or a “condom” or possibility an abortion and they’re off and running, seeking a little pleasure, at the cost of the loss of their life, and of their soul.
The one whose fate was sure and certain, was the most cautious; those whose ultimate fate was most uncertain were those who lived most dangerously. It was Paul who showed caution, warning those in charge of the dangers ahead. Here is a man whose personal safety was assured, and yet who lived with care and caution. The sovereignty of God is no excuse for careless or reckless living.
Some Christians are inclined to live their lives sloppily, believing that because God is sovereign He will, on demand, produce a miracle to deliver us from the fruits of our own foolishness. Paul believed in the power of God and in His infinite control over all things, in heaven and on the earth. Paul was frequently the instrument through which God’s power was manifested. He spoke prophetically of the fate of the ship and its passengers. He would later, on the island, work signs and wonders. Nevertheless, he did not presume that God would intervene in this instance.
The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is multi-faceted, something which careless and thoughtless Christians often forget or set aside. The sovereignty of God means not only that God is able to intervene supernaturally, but that He is also able to work naturally, through human instruments (like the Roman soldiers, and in our story, like the centurion, in Paul’s behalf). Beyond this, God is free to act or not to act in any way that He chooses. The sovereignty of God means that He is not at our disposal, to carry out our whims or wishes, but that we are at His disposal. The sovereignty of God means that we dare not presume that God will work a miracle for us, at the time and in the way we choose, due to our foolishness, carelessness, or sin. God does not “jump through our hoops” and thus Paul never presumed that he had God’s power “on tap” to use when and how he chose. Thus, he did not expect a miracle, nor did he even ask for one. He left this to God. Because it was a part of God’s sovereign plan, God did purpose to spare Paul and the ship’s passengers, but in a way that would to some seem only like “good luck.” The miraculous aspect is seen in Paul’s prediction of what happened in complete agreement with all that did happen, even to the minute details.
To Paul, the sovereignty of God was not an excuse to avoid his human obligations or his personal responsibility; it was the motivation for him to live responsibly. Thus, the safety of the ship, according to Paul’s words, required the presence of the crew. The safety of the passengers, involved their actions, in eating a good meal, in lightening the ship, and in swimming to shore or in clinging to some wreckage and floating to shore. The sovereignty of God is no excuse for us not to work, but the assurance that our work is not in vain, in the Lord.
(5) The storm, and the gospel which leads to salvation. It was, I believe, for the sake of the gospel that Paul and these passengers were saved. Paul was spared so that he could go to Rome, and there proclaim the gospel. These passengers were spared, I suspect, so that they could not only hear the gospel, but experience the hope which the gospel gives, and the power by which the gospel saves unworthy sinners. These people saw first hand the hope of the gospel in Paul, when all hope was lost. Christianity is not a “fair weather” religion. The gospel sustains men in the greatest storms of life. Would any have heeded Paul or the gospel as seriously as they did, had the trip to Rome gone quickly and smoothly? I think not. But the storm brought men and women face to face with death, and with the truth of the gospel. What grace was made evident in this storm! The storms of your life may not have been sent your way to destroy you, but to turn you to God’s salvation.
! Lesson 39:
Paul in Rome
(Acts 28:1-31)
Introduction
When my wife, Jeannette, and I were in college years ago, we worked for a man who ran a business on an island, off shore from Seattle. On the weekends, we would work on the island, preparing and serving fresh salmon, cooked “Indian style.” It was the best salmon I have ever eaten. One weekend, a boat capsized near the island, and after the two men on board had spent several minutes in the chilly waters of Puget Sound they were rescued and brought to the island. They were chilled to the bone. To help them warm up, the two men were put beside the fire where the salmon were cooked. They were covered with blankets and hot rocks were placed around them. One of the men was out of his head. When this fellow came to, he looked into the fire and thought he was in hell.
I cannot help but think of this incident when I read Luke’s account of the landing of Paul’s shipmates on the island of Malta. Although Luke has omitted many of the particulars, we can probably reconstruct the events of that fateful day when the ship’s passengers all landed safely on shore. It seems that the swimmers first set out for shore. As they began to come on shore, some of those on the island must have seen them and rushed down to the shore to help. Those who had made shore would have been very cold. Their wet clothing and the wind must have made them miserable. It did not take long for some of the islanders to build a fire.
The second wave of survivors next began washing up on shore. These were the non-swimmers, who came floating in on pieces of wreckage. They would have needed help much more than the swimmers, but when they arrived, they would have been greeted with the warmth of the fire, already kindled and beginning to blaze. With 276 shivering passengers trying to get warm, this must have been a very good sized fire.
What was about to happen was, once again, to give Paul prominence among the passengers. Just as Paul had gained prominence on board the ship, now he would become prominent in the eyes of those who lived on this island. The sequence of events which led to this prominence is outlined for us by Luke in the first 10 verses of Acts chapter 28. Then, in the next verses (11-15), Luke will describe how Paul and the rest of those on board that ill-fated ship reached Rome safely. Finally, in the closing words of this great book (verses 16-31), Luke will tell of Paul’s meeting with the Jewish leaders in Rome, of the outcome of this meeting, and of Paul’s ministry in Rome for the next two full years.
The structure of this chapter can probably best be summarized in terms of its geography. Viewed from this perspective, there are three major divisions:
· Paul’s ministry on the island of Malta (28:1-10)
· Paul’s voyage to Rome (28:11-15)
· Paul’s ministry at Rome (28:16-31)
To some, the Book of Acts ends very abruptly. There are a number of explanations for this apparent abruptness. I will endeavor to explain Luke’s ending in the light of his purpose in writing this work, and explore some of the implications which are vitally important to Christians of any age. Let us now turn our attention to the events of our text.
Ministry on Malta
(28:1-10)
Paul’s ministry on the island of Malta is the focus of the first ten verses of chapter 28. His ministry appears to be the result of two events: (1) Paul’s supernatural survival from a deadly snake bite; and, (2) the healing of Publius’ father. We will therefore look at these two miraculous events, and then consider Paul’s ministry among those living on the island of Malta.
From the sea, no one on board ship seemed to recognize where they had come to land (see 27:39), but once on shore they learned that they were on the island of Malta (28:1). The natives of the island quickly gathered on shore to assist the passengers as they made it to the beach. I would imagine that some of these natives went into the water, helping those who were exhausted, and especially those who were non-swimmers, to the beach. Here, they had kindled a large fire, to warm the shivering survivors. Not only were the passengers chilled from the cold waters of the sea, but it was raining as well. Beyond an initial warming, dry clothes, a roof over their heads, and a hearty meal were needed by all. Publius would provide these shortly.
But before turning his attention to Publius, Luke highlights one incident which occurred on the beach, an incident which brought Paul to prominence, and which may have had much to do with his ministry on Malta. This large fire may have been fueled by smaller materials, such as brush, roots, and twigs, as well as driftwood which had floated ashore. The may have required frequent refueling. One would not expect any of the passengers, cold, tired, and weakened from their two-week ordeal at sea, to have gone for more sticks. The natives had kindled the fire, and they were no doubt content to keep it going, but Paul nevertheless went for more sticks. This was typical of Paul, and of his lifestyle. He was a servant, and so he would be when the fire began to burn low. He neither wanted nor used any excuses for letting others do all the work.
When he gathered up the sticks and twigs, he ended up with more than wood. A viper was apparently lying dormant among the sticks, and did not come to life until the heat of the fire roused it. The viper fastened itself to Paul’s hand. Paul’s reaction was simple and decisive: he shook the creature into the fire. It is what Paul did not do that is most interesting to me. (1) He did not, in a moment of panic, fling the creature from himself, endangering others. This is what many people would have done. (2) neither did Paul (at least according to Luke’s report here) do anything “spiritual,” like kneel down to pray, or say some pious last words, preach a sermon, or call for a prayer meeting. He seems to have simply gone on with what he was doing. I must admit that it would not surprise me if Paul went back to gather up another arm load of sticks. Paul did not panic. He carried on as usual. He does not seem to act as though he was about to die, even though this was the norm for those thus bitten by this kind of viper.
Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that this viper was not venomous at all, based upon the fact that such snakes no longer are found on Malta—no great surprise for a small island, quite well populated. They would have us believe that both these “primitives” and Luke were in error. This is incredible, on both counts. First, Luke was writing under inspiration, in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. He could not have erred. In addition, Luke was a doctor, who may well have treated a number of snake bite wounds already. Doctors are not careless about the identification of snakes which might have a fatal bite.
These “primitives” (as some would refer to them) were far more knowledgeable about snakes than those “experts” who would tell us that the creature that bit Paul was non a poisonous snake. The natives who live and work in an area which has poisonous snakes know their snakes well. They don’t make mistakes about such matters. Their life depends upon it. In India and Africa, as well as in rural areas in the Southwest, the “natives” know their snakes. So, too, with the natives on Malta. The snake fastened itself on Paul’s hand. It did not strike, as a rattler would do. It clung, something like a coral snake. They knew what kind of snake the creature was, and what happened when it bit someone. They waited for a sequence of events they had seen too many times before. They waited for Paul’s hand to swell up, and then for him to die. This is what would have happened, without divine intervention.
God did intervene. Paul seemed to go on as usual, and time passed. It eventually became clear that Paul was not going to die, or even to be affected in any way by the snake bite. This should come as no surprise to the Christian, for Jesus had promised as much:
“And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly {poison,} it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:17-18).
And the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you. “Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:17-20).
If Paul’s miraculous deliverance from death is no surprise to the believer, it was a surprise to the natives, so much so that they concluded Paul must be a god. This was quite a change of mind, for only minutes before they had determined that Paul must be a horrible criminal, one whom “justice” would not allow to go unpunished. And so, even though he had escaped from death by the sea and the storm, “justice” was being administered through the bite of the deadly serpent (verse 4). Now, however, they concluded just the opposite. This man’s deliverance from death convinced those who witnessed this incident that he was divine.
Luke does not follow up on this incident in his record here. This does not mean that nothing happened. It means, I believe, that Luke chose not to report all that happened. He seems only to wish to show us the high regard in which Paul was now held, and the fact that signs and wonders were again in evidence. This prepares the way to the healing of the father of Publius, followed by the healings of many other ailing islanders.
Just because Luke does not describe what happened as a result of the snake incident does not mean that nothing of consequence occurred. I believe that Luke expects his reader to “fill in some of the blanks,” based upon what he has already written. For example, in the light of earlier material in Acts it is inconceivable that Paul allowed these natives to regard him as a “god.” In Acts chapter 12:21-23 Luke reported that Herod died for allowing the people to address him as a god. And later on in chapter 14 (see verses 8-18) Paul and Barnabas were appalled to learn that some of the people of Lystra were attempting to worship them as gods, going to great efforts to end this misconception and its resulting “worship.” The occasion was used as an opportunity to proclaim the gospel to these natives. So, too, in Acts 28 I believe that Paul refuted the natives’ claim that he was a god, and I would be greatly surprised if he did not proclaim the way of salvation to these people.
Incidentally, this serpent incident was the perfect entre, the perfect lead in to the gospel. When Paul spoke to some of the Jews of Rome, later on in this chapter, he based his proclamation on the Old Testament, on the Law of Moses and the Prophets (verse 23). This was where they were coming from. This was the basis of their belief. But to have spoken to these pagans from the Law and the Prophets would, at this point in time, have been meaningless to them, since they were unfamiliar with the Old Testament revelation.
By means of the serpent incident, God opened the door for witness and proclamation to these Gentiles. Their theology is reflected in their explanations for Paul’s snake bite and for his miraculous preservation. They did not believe in a personal God, but in a more impersonal force or divine being, here spoken of as “justice.” If they had a kind of “natural religion” then God accommodated them by revealing His power through His prophet and apostle, Paul. Had this man escaped “justice,” the sting of death? So they to could escape the sting of sin—death—through faith in Jesus Christ. In a very “natural” (excuse the pun) way, God opened the door to evangelism by revealing something of Himself and of His gospel. I have little doubt that Paul capitalized on this opportunity, even though Luke chose not to give us the details. We know enough about Paul to predict with a fair degree of confidence, how Paul would have responded.
The incident with the serpent seemed to pave the way for an expanded ministry and prominence for Paul. Publius seems to have offered these 276 stranded, shivering souls meals and a place to stay for three days. This is genuine hospitality. After the three days, it seems that the people found winter accommodations elsewhere on the island. But during their three days at the home of Publius, Paul not only learned of the illness of Publius’ father, but determined that God’s power was available to heal him. Paul first went in to see the ailing gentleman, then prayed, then laid hands on him so as to heal him. Much as in the ministry of Jesus and of His apostles, this ministry was multiplied by the healing of many others who were brought for healing also.
It is important to see that Paul did not presume that God would heal through him, any more than He would deliver those on board ship, as though Paul could turn God’s power on and off, like a water faucet. Paul only acted when he was assured of God’s will in these matters. It was not until the angel of the Lord appeared to Paul that he assured the passengers of their safe landing, even though this ship was to be destroyed (27:21-26). I believe that Paul only laid hands on the father of Publius after he was convinced that God willed his miraculous healing.
The order of Paul’s actions is significant, in my opinion. He first went in to the man, then prayed, and then laid his hands on the man to heal him. I believe that his prayer was for the purpose of discerning God’s will with regard to the man’s healing. Only after he was assured that it was God’s will did Paul lay his hands on the ailing man to heal him. Paul’s God was a sovereign God, not under the control of Paul. As such, God was (and still is) always able to heal and to perform miracles; but He is not always willing to do so. Paul waited for God to give him the signal to go ahead, rather than to attempt to prompt God. Would that Christians today would do likewise, rather than claiming to have constant power, which they employ at their discretion.
Paul’s actions in this regard are consistent with those of our Lord, of other apostles, and with his own prior actions. Jesus Himself seems to have been attentive to whether or not it was God’s will and time for Him to heal and perform miracles:
And it came about one day that He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing (Luke 5:17).
The inference of this verse is that there were times when the power of the Lord was not present for performing healings, and that Jesus was sensitive and attentive to such times. Jesus healed and performed miracles when He was certain it was God’s time for doing so. He would not act independently of the Father, or seek to force Him to act in accordance with His own will (see Luke 4:1-11; John 7:1-9; 8:28-30). Paul also seems to have performed miracles, signs and wonders, only when it was apparent that it was God’s will to do so (see Acts 14:3). In addition to Paul’s sensitivity to God’s sovereign leading, Paul also took other related factors into account, such as the faith of those who would be healed (see Acts 14:9-10). God’s sovereignty therefore means that He is always able to heal and perform miracles, but that He is not always willing to do so. We do not manipulate God; He manipulates us!
And so it was that Paul concluded it was God’s will to heal the father of Publius, which opened the door for many other healings. Once again, Paul had come to the forefront; he had gained prominence. This took place through the sovereign workings of God, and it likely resulted in the proclamation of the gospel and the salvation of some souls. Luke does not tell us that Paul preached, or how he did so. Neither does he give us a “head count” of the “souls won.” Such statistics are unnecessary and often inaccurate. God was at work here. This is evident. And where God is at work the results are assured. As a matter of fact, an accurate understanding of the sovereignty of God assures us that for the Christian, God is always at work, for his or her ultimate good and most importantly for the advance of the gospel and of God’s purposes.
The islanders, grateful to God and grateful for Paul’s presence, showed their gratitude in a very tangible way—they gave all the passengers provisions for the final days of their journey to Rome. Once again, the presence of but one man—Paul (not to mention the other saints with him)—was a source of blessing for the entire gathering of those on board this ship. How the presence of but a few saints can be a blessing to the rest (see 1 Corinthians 7:12-14).
We are about to leave these islanders behind, as Paul and his fellow-passengers will board ship, headed for Rome. But let us leave these Maltese natives with a final thought. They rushed to the shore, thinking that they could be of help to these shivering passengers. What they were to learn shortly was that God had sent Paul and the gospel to help them. It was not long before those who rushed to the shore to help Paul were rushing to Paul for help from God. How marvelous are His ways!
Paul’s Voyage To Rome
(28:11-15)
Much ministry must have taken place in those three months that Paul and the other stranded passengers wintered on the island of Malta. When the seas were again open for sea travel, the passengers obtained passage on an Alexandrian ship, which had wintered there on Malta, and which was sailing for Rome. Luke not only tells us that this was an Alexandrian ship (undoubtedly a grain ship), but that it had “the Twin Brothers” for its figurehead. These “twin brothers” were the heathen gods who were believed to provide safety and success on the sea. In the shadow of God’s mighty hand in delivering Paul and all on board his ship, how paltry these two gods must have seemed to Luke. How futile such religion. The One True God is in charge of all, while the heathen make their “gods” to bolster their hopes for safety and success.[566]
In contrast to the detail with which Luke described the journey which ended in shipwreck (chapter 27), very little is said about the journey from Malta to Rome. Their route took them from Malta to Syracuse, Sicily’s major port city, on its southeastern coast. Here, they stayed for three days, before sailing on to Rhegium, a port on the very “toe” of the “boot” of Italy. When a south wind sprang up on the following day, they sailed on to the prominent Italian port city of Puteoli, where some brethren were found, and where Paul stayed for seven days (verse 14). This one week delay was apparently due to business which the Roman centurion had in this city. It allowed Paul time to enjoy the fellowship of previously unknown saints.
Paul’s Arrival and Ministry in Rome
(28:16-31)
Leaving Puteoli, Paul, his companions, his fellow-prisoners and the Roman guards traveled by land until they came to the famous Appian Way,[567] which they followed to Rome. Brethren from Rome heard of Paul’s coming and came as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to met him and his party. Paul had written a very important epistle to these believers some time before, known to us as the Book of Romans. In this epistle, Paul spoke of his earnest desire to come to them, for ministry to them and from them (Romans 1:7-15). This must have been a joyous time of fellowship, but, once again, Luke passes by this “human interest” story, pressing on to a more important matter from the standpoint of his purpose in writing this account.
Luke has almost nothing to say about Paul’s relationship to the church in Rome. In fact, Luke has very little to say, in particular, about Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles in Rome. Instead, the chapter and the book ends with an account of Paul’s meeting with the leading Jews of Rome. Let us turn our attention to this meeting with the Jews, and with its immediate and longer-term outcome.
Although Paul had arrived in Rome, his appearance before Caesar would be delayed by the normal “red tape” paperwork and processes of government. Paul was kept in custody during this time of waiting, allowed to stay in a house, under guard by one soldier. This freedom appears to be the result of one or more factors. First, Paul was not yet a convicted criminal. The Romans had great difficulty even deciding upon what charges to press against Paul, let alone succeeding in convicting him. Second, Paul had won the confidence of at least Julius, the centurion commander of the Augustan cohort (27:1ff.). Paul was therefore granted a fair measure of freedom, being under a kind of “house arrest.”
This freedom did not allow Paul to travel about on his own, but it did give him the opportunity to minister to any who would come to him. Three days passed before Paul called for visitors. We do not know what happened in these three days, or why Paul waited to invite the Jews to his house. My best guess is that Paul wanted to meditate and pray about this matter, to be able to come to some conviction as to what he should do.
Paul determined to invite the Jewish leaders, so that he could explain the reason for his presence in Rome, and to open the door to proclaim the gospel to the unbelieving Jews there. Paul had at least two meetings with these Jews. On their first visit, Paul is not said to have presented the gospel to them. His first order of business was to explain his presence in Rome and to assure the Jews of his innocence and sincerity.
If Paul was to have a hearing with these Jews, he must first of all overcome the impressions which the Jews would have of him as a prisoner of Rome. Clearly in the New Testament one’s “walk” is to conform to his “talk,” so that the gospel was to be backed up by a godly life. You can well imagine how seriously Paul would be taken as a prisoner. With the pagans on Malta, God overcame Paul’s status as a prisoner by sparing him from certain death (by the snake bite) and by working signs and wonders through him (as a result of the healing of Publius’ father).
Here, Paul sought to vindicate himself by explaining the cause of his arrest, and the reason for his presence in Rome, before Caesar. Paul claimed that he had not violated any of the customs of the Jews, nor had he done the Jews any wrong. He informed these Jews that the Gentiles had, indeed, purposed to release him, and except for the protest of some Jews, he would have been set free (28:18-19).
The relationship between the Jews and the Romans seems to have been rapidly deteriorating. We know from Luke’s words in Acts 18:1-2 that Claudius had, for a period of time, expelled the Jews from Rome. The final rebellion of the Jews in Jerusalem would soon bring about the sacking of that city by Rome. The Jews of Rome were no doubt very sensitive about the presence of any Jew who might stir up trouble with the Romans. Paul therefore assured the Jews who assembled at his house that he was not in Rome to bring any charges against the Jews (28:19).[568]
The Jews dealt with Paul in what appeared to be an open-minded fashion. They responded by telling Paul that they had heard nothing specific about his case. They were honest in informing Paul that while they heard nothing against him, they were aware that the Jewish response to the gospel was uniformly unfavorable:
“But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere” (Acts 28:22).
They were, they insisted, open-minded and willing to listen to what Paul had to say to them about his views, in spite of his presence in Rome as a prisoner. And so a time was agreed upon when they would return, and when Paul could expound and explain his views on the kingdom of God (28:23).
And so they arrived on that appointed day, and from morning till night Paul proclaimed the gospel, in Jewish terms, based upon the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures, as found in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and as fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth (28:23).
Their response to Paul and to his gospel was, as usual, mixed. Some were persuaded by what Paul taught and believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah. Others did not. This, as usual, created another dynamic in the group. Rather than telling us that the unbelieving Jews polarized against Paul, Luke informs us that their was a polarization between the believing and unbelieving Jews. This group had come in unity. They were all willing to hear what Paul had to say. But when the gospel was proclaimed, it immediately began to divide these men. The believers and the unbelievers began to disagree with each other, to the point where is was senseless to continue on. This division is typical of the response of men to each other, when some believe the gospel and others reject it:
“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five {members} in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother‑in‑law against daughter‑in‑law, and daughter‑in‑law against mother‑in‑law” (Luke 12:51-53).
“Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him. And some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him (John 7:42-44).
Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them (John 9:16).
There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon‑possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” (John 10:19-21).
Therefore they spent a long time {there} speaking boldly {with reliance} upon the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles (Acts 14:3-4).
And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided (Acts 23:7).
The day had come to a close. It was time for all to leave. But before the group left Paul had one more thing to say to them. These were, for those who refused to believe the Scriptures and to accept Jesus as their Messiah, Paul’s final words. Just as Paul turned to the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, so he found in the Old Testament Scriptures an explanation for the rejection of these Jews. He turned to the words found in Isaiah chapter 6:
25 And when they did not agree with one another, they {began} leaving after Paul had spoken one {parting} word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say, “You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; 27 For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes; Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I should heal them. “‘ 28 “Let it be known to you therefore, that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.”
There was a distinct parallel, a clear similarity, between Paul’s ministry to the Jews of his day, and Isaiah’s ministry to Judah and Jerusalem centuries earlier. Paul could therefore find in God’s instructions to Isaiah an explanation for the rejection of these Jews of his day, and also a corresponding word of warning to them, as well as comfort in his ministry, which did not produce the results he wanted.
You will remember in the context of Isaiah that the northern kingdom of Israel has already fallen to the Assyrians. In the light of this judgment, the southern kingdom of Judah is called to repentance and warned of a similar judgment. The people of Judah and Jerusalem have not listened to God’s admonition. The time for her divine discipline has drawn near. After seeing a vision of he glory of God, Isaiah is commissioned to preach to this disobedient nation, but in his commission God made it clear that his task was not to bring about repentance, but rather to bring about greater guilt, to fatten these rebellious people for judgment. Indeed, though he was to speak the Word of God to the Jews, the Word of God would only serve to dull their senses, rather than to quicken and convict them for their sin.
Paul saw the parallels between his ministry and that of Isaiah, and between the circumstances in Judah and Jerusalem in his day and in that of the prophet of old. He knew that God had spoken once and for all in Jesus, and that the Jews had rejected Him. He knew that his ministry would not be one of ushering in the kingdom of God, but one of preceding the coming day of God’s indignation and discipline. And so he pointed back to God’s words to Isaiah, as being also words to his own generation of Jews. Let them listen well to this ancient warning, for just as Judah and Jerusalem of Isaiah’s day were soon to go into a period of captivity at the hand of the Babylonians, so the Israel and Jerusalem of his day were to go into captivity at the hands of the Romans.
These words of Paul were the last words most of the unbelieving Jews would hear from him. But for the other Jews who believed in Jesus, Paul’s words on this day were only the beginning. Luke tells us that two full years would pass, with Paul continually ministering to all who came to him. This seems to have included both Jews and Gentiles.
Conclusion
The concluding words of the Book of Acts are sad, indeed, with regard to the fate of the nation Israel. In the first chapters of the Book of Luke, Jesus was introduced as the promised Savior who came to save His people, Israel, as well as to be a blessing to the Gentiles. But, as the gospel of Luke reveals, “His people” did not receive Him, but rejected Him. This was especially true of the Jewish leaders, and generally true of many other Israelites. There were those, of course, who did believe in Him.
As the Book of Acts begins, the Lord is described as departing from this earth, commissioning His apostles to carry on the work which He began. But once again, the Jews reject the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles, in spite of the evidences of God’s power at work through them. As Jesus was killed, so were Stephen and many others. Graciously, Saul was converted, from a persecutor of Christianity, to a proclaimer of Christ.
The Book of Acts is a description of the expansion of the gospel, from Jerusalem to the “uttermost part of the earth,” and from primarily Jewish listeners to many Gentiles as well. But as the gospel went forth from Jerusalem, the Jews persistently rejected the good news, and persecuted those who proclaimed the gospel. Now, at Rome, the majority of the Jews there reject the word of the gospel. The Jews have heard, and most have rejected the truth that Jesus was the Messiah, who came to the earth, took on human flesh, was rejected, crucified, and raised from the dead. Now, after nearly 40 years of grace, the time of God’s judgment draws nigh. The Book of Acts ends, not with the salvation of Israel, and with the establishment of the kingdom, but with the rejection of Israel, and with the ever nearing time of Israel’s captivity and suffering. There is, in this sense, a deep sense of sorrow as the Book of Acts draws to a close.
While Israel’s days are numbered, and we see this with great sadness, we also find the Book of Acts hardly ending at all, but rather it seems to be only a beginning. If the gospel has been rejected by the Jews, it is still being proclaimed and believed by the Gentiles. We who are Gentiles, who live some twenty centuries after the ending of Acts, find that what Jesus continued to do through the apostles, He is still doing today. If the Book of Acts ends one chapter in the history of Israel, it begins a whole new chapter in the history of the church. If the Lord Jesus was at work in and through the apostles in Acts, He is still at work in and through His church to this very day. It does not appear to be long before “the times of the Gentiles” will come to a close, and the return of the Lord Jesus to establish His kingdom will take place. Let each one who reads these words from the pen of Paul take heed. The day of judgment for all mankind draws near. Let each individual repent of his sin and trust in the solution for sin which God has provided in Jesus, who died in the sinner’s place, and who offers to all who would believe, the righteousness which God requires and the certainty of eternal life.
One final word about the supposedly “sudden and abrupt” ending of the Book of Acts. Many have noted the unusual ending of Acts. Some have explained this ending by suggesting that Luke intended to write yet another volume. I think that the ending of Acts is both beautiful, and enlightening. Consider with me the way that Luke ends this work as we conclude this message.
There are some very obvious facts that are not given to us in Acts before the book ends. We are not told of Paul’s fate, or of the outcome of his trial. We are not told of the fall of Jerusalem. We are left without any word on these matters, matters which we would very much like to know more about.
I am not inclined to believe that Luke omitted these things because they had not yet happened, though this may be the case. If they had not yet happened, they would take place very soon after the Book of Acts came to a close. Regardless of the reasons why more information is not included, it was not included, and this must be in accordance with the purposes of God, and especially His purposes for this book.
Luke does tell us that “two full years” passed, during which Paul was free to proclaim the gospel and to minister to all who came to him (28:30-31). The expression “two full years” suggests to me that Luke may have known the outcome of Paul’s trial, and also of the fate of Israel and Jerusalem. If so, he did not include them in his book. Why not?
I think I know the answer, an answer which should prove to be very enlightening to each and every Christian today. Luke’s purpose was not to provide us with a book that has a “happily ever after” ending. Much of our uneasiness with the ending of Acts is that we don’t have a fairy tale conclusion. What Luke does tell us, however, is that the gospel was proclaimed to the “remotest part of the earth” just as Jesus had said (see Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:6-8). It is the progress of the proclamation of the gospel which is foremost in Luke’s mind, and the Book of Acts makes this progress very clear.
What is not so clear is the fate of people. We are not told of the fall of Israel and Jerusalem. We are not told of the outcome of Paul’s trial. We are not told of the deaths of most of the apostles.[569] Acts is not a biblical version of a “book of martyrs.” Acts is the account of the word of God through the Lord Jesus and through the church. It is the account of the progress of the gospel, and not a series of “human interest stories” on the lives of the apostles or other saints.
Our dissatisfaction (and that’s what it really is, in my opinion) with the ending of the Book of Acts is a reflection of our own distorted thinking and priorities. We are more “people-centered” than we are “gospel-centered.” To put it more bluntly, we are more “self-centered” than we are “gospel-centered.” The reason why we are so interested in Paul’s outcome is because we are so interested in our own safety and comfort. Paul was a gospel-centered man, and so were the apostles. They were not interested in their own comfort, security, or preservation from pain and suffering. They were eager for the gospel to be proclaimed, whether this meant life or death for them, and whether it meant pain or prosperity for them. Look at the following texts and take note of the “gospel-centeredness” of them, in contrast to the thinking and feelings of our own day and age.
When Paul thinks of his own future, he thinks not of safety, security, or of comfort, but of the progress of the gospel in terms of the salvation of the lost and the spiritual growth of believers:
What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be put to shame in anything, but {that} with all boldness, Christ shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if {I am} to live {on} in the flesh, this {will mean} fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard‑pressed from both {directions,} having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for {that} is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. And convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again (Philippians 1:18-26).
In speaking of his deliverance, Paul thought much more of his final deliverance, into the kingdom of God, rather than of any deliverance from suffering and pain in this life:
But the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the lion’s mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him {be} the glory forever and ever. Amen (2 Timothy 4:17-18).
When Paul spoke to Christians concerning their conduct, he spoke with reference to the impact which their conduct would have on the gospel:
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, {to be} sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, {with} purity in doctrine, dignified, sound {in} speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. {Urge} bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well‑pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:3-14).
Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and {our} doctrine may not be spoken against. And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these {principles.} (1 Timothy 6:1-2).
Today, we seek to motivate Christians to obey Christian principles so that they can live happier, more successful lives. But Paul urged Christians to live in obedience to the Word of God so that the gospel would not be hindered.
And when Paul prayed or asked for prayer, it most often pertained to his boldness and clarity in proclaiming the gospel, not in his deliverance from suffering and difficulties:
Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as {it did} also with you; and that we may be delivered from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith. But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil {one.} (2 Thessalonians 3:1-3).
With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and {pray} on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in {proclaiming} it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak (Ephesians 6:18-20).
May the sake of the gospel become our great desire, overthrowing the fleshly desires of self-interest and self-protection. May we, like Paul, see the salvation of the lost and the spiritual growth of believers as the task worthy of our suffering, pain, and even of death.
! Appendix A:
The Holy Spirit in the Gospels
The following is a more complete outline of the texts referring to the ministry of the Holy Spirit as found in the Gospels. This has been arranged topically, along with some of the Old Testament parallel texts:
The Holy Spirit and the Birth of John the Baptist
15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. 16 Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15-17).
5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).
80 And the child grew and became strong in {the?} spirit {Spirit?}; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel (Luke 1:80).
Inspired Utterances at the time of John’s Birth
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed … (Luke 1:41-42).
His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied … (Luke 1:67).
{Does the utterance of Mary in 1:46-55 not also qualify as a “spirit-filled” utterance, even though not stated specifically?}
The Holy Spirit and the Birth of Jesus
The Conception of the Christ Child
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).
Inspiring the Praises of God at the Sight of the Christ
Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying …” (Luke 2:25-28).
{Would Anna, too, not be included, although not specifically stated to be “filled with the Holy Spirit”?—Cf. Luke 2:36-38}
John’s Baptism and Jesus
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering the wheat into his barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:11-12).
I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Mark 1:8).
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:16-17).
Malachi
4:1 “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. 3 Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,” says the Lord Almighty. 4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. 5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse” (Malachi 4:1-6).
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:7-9).
Jeremiah
“What is my beloved doing in my temple as she works out her evil schemes with many? Can consecrated meat avery your punishment? When you engage in your wickedness, then you rejoice.” The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken. The LORD Almighty, who planted you, has decreed disaster for you, because the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done evil and provoked me to anger by burning incense to Baal (Jeremiah 11:15-16).
“Moreover, say to the royal house of Judah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord; O house of David, this is what the Lord says: “‘Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it. I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord—you who say, “Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?” I will punish you as your deeds deserve, declares the Lord. I will kindle a fire in your forests that will consume everything around you’” (Jeremiah 21:11-14).
Isaiah
In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!” In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. Then the Lord will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain (Isaiah 4:1-6).
Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp a fire will be kindled like a blazing flame. The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briers. The splendor of his forests and fertile fields it will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away. And the remaining trees of his forests will be so few that a child could write them down (Isaiah 10:15-19).
The Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest and flames of a devouring fire (Isaiah 29:6).
See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire. His breath is like a rushing torrent, rising up to the neck. He shakes the nations in the sieve of destruction; he places in the jaws of the peoples a bit that leads them astray. And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. The Lord will cause men to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail. The voice of the Lord will shatter Assyria; with his scepter he will strike them down. Every stroke the Lord lays on them with his punishing rod will be to the music of tambourines and harps, as he fights them in battle with the blows of his arm. Topheth has long been prepared; it has been made ready for the king. Its fire pit has been made deep and wide, with an abundance of fire and wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze (Isaiah 30:27-33).
Luke
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” (Luke 12:49-50).
The Holy Spirit and the Baptism of Jesus
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him (Matthew 3:16).
As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove (Mark 1:10).
And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22).
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’ (John 1:32-33).
The Holy Spirit and the Temptation of Christ
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1).
At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert (Mark 1:12).
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert (Luke 4:1).
The Holy Spirit as the Source of our Lord’s Joy
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure (Luke 10:21).
The Holy Spirit and the Ministry of Jesus
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside (Luke 4:14).
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed (Luke 4:18).
“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit” (John 3:31-34).
The Power of the Spirit in Jesus Was a Fulfillment of Prophecy
“Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations (Matthew 12:18).
“But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed (Luke 4:18).
The Rejection of Jesus and Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit
“And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32).
“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit” (Mark 3:29-30).
“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10).
Jesus’ Teaching on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit spoke through David in the Old Testament:
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, … (Matthew 22:43).
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’ (Mark 12:36).
Men are Saved by Means of the Ministry of the Holy Spirit:
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit … The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-6, 8).
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).
“When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:8-11).
The Holy Spirit Would be Given to the Disciples and to all Those Who Believe:
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13).
On the last and greatest day of the Feast {Tabernacles, v.2}, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37-39).
“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17).
The Holy Spirit Would Facilitate True Worship:
“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).
The Holy Spirit Would Teach and Guide Believers:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26).
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:15).
The Holy Spirit Would Give the Disciples the Words to Say When Put on Trial for Their Faith:
“For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matthew 10:20).
“Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).
“For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say” (Luke 12:12).
The Holy Spirit Would Represent and Manifest Christ to His Disciples After His Ascension:
“If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you” (John 14:15-18).
“In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (John 16:16).
The Power of the Spirit Was to Play a Vital Part in the Fulfillment of the Great Commission:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
“You are witnesses to these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:48-49).
And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22).
“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me; but you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:2-27).
! Appendix B:
Saul’s Conversion and
Saul’s Theology in the Book of Romans
In the foregoing, I have attempted to show how Paul’s conversion is evident in his writings and how this is consistent with not only his writings, but with the “gospel” as described by any or all of the gospel writers.[570] As I was thinking through the writings of Paul, it occurred to me that Romans, a book which Paul penned, is a theology of the gospel. Romans does, from a theologian’s perspective, what Acts does from a historian’s perspective. And so I tried to think through the Book of Romans with the conversion of Saul in mind. Below is a summary of the results. I believe this is an excellent opportunity for further study, meditation, and development.
An Outline of
the Book of Romans
I. Introduction/Preface—1:1-18
· The priority and the power of the gospel
II. Man’s Sin and His Need of Salvation—1:19 - 3:20
· The guilt of the ignorant heathen
· The guilt of the informed
· The guilt of the Jew
· Conclusion: All are Guilty
III. Christ: God’s Provision for Man’s Salvation—3:21 - 5:21
· Christ’s gift to sinful men, who trust in Him by faith (3:21-31)
· Old Testament confirmation—Abraham’s salvation by faith (4)
· A salvation that does more than save, and through one Man (5)
IV. Sanctification—6:1 - 8:39
· The necessity of sanctification (6)
· The human impossibility of sanctification (7)
· The divine means for our sanctification (8:1-27)
· The certainty of our sanctification (8:27-39)
V. The Gospel, Israel, and the Gentiles—9:1 - 11:36
· Divine election (9)
· Human responsibility (10)
· Israel’s final deliverance (11:1-32)
· Praise (11:33-36)
VI. The Gospel and the Christians Obligation to Others—12:1 - 15:33
· Spiritual gifts and living by love (12:1-21)
· Submission and separation
· Christian unity: The strong serving the weak (14:1 - 15:13)
· Paul and the church at Rome (15:14-33)
VII. Personal Instructions and a Benediction—16:1-27
The study of the Book of Romans is a lifetime undertaking, but it is helpful to gain an overview of the entire book. It is my conviction that the Book of Romans is Paul’s theology of salvation.[571] I am further persuaded that the Book of Romans, in large measure, is a reflection of Paul’s own conversion. The salvation of which Paul speaks in very general terms is the same salvation which he has experienced in a very personal and dramatic way, the conversion described in Acts 9.
Romans 1:1-18
Paul’s introduction, found in chapter one, verses 1-18, is a reflection of his strong convictions concerning the gospel, based upon his own conversion and upon his own growth in grace and the truths revealed to him by God directly and through others. Paul is a man convinced of his mission. He is a “called apostle” (verse 1), which is an indirect reference to his conversion as recorded in Acts 9. The gospel is represented by Paul as the priority in his own life and also in the lives of those to whom he was writing (verse 8).
Paul was a man who was convinced that the gospel was to be his priority and the priority of all who believe in Christ. He was also convinced of the power of the gospel. A declaration of that power is to be found in our Lord’s resurrection (verse 4). But the gospel itself, the simple message of the crucified Christ, was viewed by Paul as “the power of God unto salvation.” No wonder he was content to preach Christ only, Christ simply, whether to Jews or to Gentiles. It was to the proclamation of this simple gospel that Paul devoted his life. Thus Paul’s preface introduced the subject of his work—the gospel—and also indicated its primary importance.
Romans 1:19 - 3:20
The Lord’s first words to Saul focused on his sin—of his persecution of the church. So too the premise on which Paul’s treatise begins is the sinfulness of man. One of the fundamental truths of the gospel is that men—all men, without exception—are sinners, not only undeserving of God’s favor but deserving of His eternal wrath. Paul begins with the ignorant, the heathen, in chapter 1, and then moves to the more enlightened, and finally to the Jew. In each case, however, the sin is the same in principle. God has revealed something of Himself to men, which they have chosen to reject and to replace with some “god” of their own. Paul’s conclusion is expressed in 3:9-20, using the words of several Old Testament texts. All men are sinners, who have resisted God and rejected His revelation. From head to toe (from their mouths to their feet), they practice this sin. The conclusion is that men cannot save themselves by their works, but can only condemn themselves. The law was not given as a means of salvation, but as a standard—a standard which all men fail to meet. Apart from divine intervention, man is hopelessly lost.
Romans 3:21 - 5:21
The righteousness of God, which is revealed in the wrath of God (cf. 1:18), is also revealed in the Son of God, who came to do for men what they could not do for themselves—obtain God’s salvation and blessings. The righteousness of God has been made available to men through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. He did meet the standards which were established by the law. He died, but not for His own sins. He died for the sins of men. In His death, the wrath of God has been satisfied. All men must do is to trust in His death for their sins. This salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.
Abraham (chapter 4) is proof that this principle of salvation by faith in God’s provision is the way in which God has saved men through the ages. While many Judaizers advocated salvation by law-keeping, Paul shows that Abraham’s salvation was both before the law (it came with Moses, much later on) and apart from his doing any work to merit it. Abraham simply believed God’s promise of a son, and this was reckoned as righteousness. This was years before the child was born and before he was circumcised. Abraham was saved by faith in that which God promised.
Chapter 5 turns our attention from the past to the future. Salvation is not a one-time experience, but it is a beginning of a whole new way of life. Thus, Paul reasons that if God saved us while we were still sinners, how much more will He do for those who are His children? The work of Christ not only procures our salvation; it also promises our sanctification. It not only saves us; it keeps us, so that we can be assured we will stand before God as righteous through His Son.
The question which might arise is this: “How is it that faith in one person (even Jesus) can save all who believe?” How can what one person does affect so many? Paul’s answer, in the second half of chapter five is this: “It was by one man—Adam—that all men became sinners; it is by one man (the second and last Adam[572] that the effects of the first “Adam’s” sins were overthrown. Indeed, the works of the second Adam were greater than those of the first. Thus, it is by one man, Jesus Christ, and by one alone, that men are saved.
How well Paul knew these truths experientially. When God exposed his sin, Paul recognized that he was hopeless, apart from some divine provision, a provision based upon the principle of grace, not works. He was confronted by Christ, by Christ alone, and it was in Him (alone) that Paul trusted for salvation. Paul came to see (as Philippians 3 indicates) that his works did not commend him before God, but rather served to condemn him. It was by grace and through faith in Christ that Paul was saved. It was a salvation by grace and through faith which Paul preached. And this he showed to be consistent with the Old Testament revelation.
Romans 6-8
In chapter 5, Paul has already alluded to the on-going implications and application of the gospel. It not only saves a man; it keeps him. It not only provides forgiveness of past sins; it gives power over sin in one’s life. If in chapter 4 Paul protects “grace” from the legalism of those who would introduce “works” into the gospel, in these chapters Paul seeks to protect the gospel from license. There were (and are still) those who would suggest that God’s grace, manifested in Christ, allows the “saved sinner” to continue to live in sin. God’s provision for sin is used as a promotion for sin.
Paul shows in chapter 6 that salvation requires a change in one’s practice. The gospel is that men enter into the work of Christ by faith. In Christ, we who believe have died to our sin, free from its guilt and condemnation. God’s wrath on this sin has been appeased (propitiated). But we also enter into the resurrection of our Lord, who was raised into newness of life. Just as Jesus was transformed in His resurrection, we must be transformed in the way we live. We who profess to have died to sin cannot (from a logical point of view) continue to live in sin. Sanctification (on-going growth and movement toward holiness) is an integral part of salvation. Sanctification is an imperative for the Christian, not an option. We cannot accept the gospel and reject its implications.
In chapter 7 Paul moves on to show that the sanctification which is necessary is also humanly impossible. The problem is not with the law. It establishes a standard with which Paul’s inner man agrees, a righteousness in which he delights, and to which he aspires. The problem is with the flesh. Sin is more powerful than the flesh, and thus what the new man aspires to do, it does not accomplish, and that which it seeks to avoid, it does. The dilemma is a distressing one. Who will deliver us from this body that is dominated by sin and by death?[573]
The solution to sin’s domination of our weak flesh is the gospel. Just as men are powerless to save themselves, so they are powerless to live in a way that pleases God. What men could not do for themselves, God has done. The solution is not death, but resurrection. Who can deliver us from these bodies of death? The same Spirit who delivered our Lord’s body from death (Romans 8:11). It is by walking in the Spirit that God’s standards can be met.
While the Christian has the power to live a life free from the dominion of sin, that freedom will not be complete until sin (and its founder and promoter, Satan) is removed from this earth, and the universe is made new—until the kingdom of God is established on the earth. Until this time, the saint will experience suffering and groaning, due to the effects of sin. The earth likewise groans. But in this time of groaning, the Holy Spirit helps us, interceding for us, expressing to God those unutterable things which cannot be put in words (Romans 8:18-27).
But if our salvation is, to some degree, incomplete, awaiting its full manifestation in the kingdom of God, it is nonetheless certain. The final verses of chapter 8 focus on the sovereignty of God and thus the certainty of our salvation. Those whom God has chosen[574] have their destiny laid out, and they will be saved, and all these will reach that goal for which God has destined them.[575] God has already made all the plans and the provisions, and thus the realization of His promises are sure. The completion of the salvation for which we still await is sure. When God is for us, there is nothing to prevent us from the full and final experience of His promises. With this confidence, there is nothing left to fear (Romans 8:28-39).
Chapters 9-11 deal with the relationship of the gospel to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Why is it that so many Jews reject Christ and oppose the gospel? And why is it that the Old Testament promises of salvation through a Jewish Messiah are being welcomed by the Gentiles in greater numbers than the Jews? This is the problem which Paul seeks to explain in Romans 9-11.
The first thing Paul wants to emphasize is that God is in control (sovereign). These things are not happening by chance or through some failure of the plan, but rather they are the outworking of God’s sovereign election. God chooses to save some, and not others. That may be hard to swallow, but it is surely clear. The very objections which Paul raises in chapter 9 are those which would be raised if election were being taught—which it is! God owes no one salvation. If He gave men what they deserved, all would perish. But in His grace, He has chosen to save some. Those who are saved are tokens of His grace. Those who perish are tokens of His wrath. At this point in time, God has chosen to save many more Gentiles and fewer Jews. In His sovereignty, this is His prerogative. It is His purpose. It is all going according to plan.
This is not to say that because God is sovereign, men have no responsibility, no role in the salvation of others. Neither is it to say that the gospel should only be preached to the “elect.” The gospel is a universal offer of salvation to all who believe. And the gospel must be proclaimed in order for men to receive it. Thus, it is the responsibility of men to proclaim the gospel and of the church to send some (like Paul), forth with the gospel. The things which are taking place should come as no surprise, for God foretold Israel’s disobedience and rejection, as well as the salvation of the Gentiles.
God is not finished with Israel, however. He has, for a time, blinded Israel, as a judgment for their rebellion and sin. How Paul must have identified with this blindness. Nevertheless, their “fall” is not final nor fatal, for God’s calling of the nation Israel is irrevocable (11:29). He will finish what He promised and what He has purposed. When God has accomplished His purposes through the Gentiles, He will give sight to this blind people, and they will be saved and serve the purpose for which God called them. Israel’s future is still a bright one, as dim as it might look at present. God will finish what He started with Israel too.
How Paul could identify with this! As previously said, Paul was a kind of personification of this truth. He was a kind of first-fruits of this promise. His salvation was promise of things to come.
Romans 12-16
The final chapters of the Book of Romans have to do with the Christian’s duty to others. All Christians, like Saul, were saved to serve God, as “living sacrifices.” God has given each their own gifts, which they are to use for the edification of others. The principle which should govern our relationships is that of love. God has given the saints specific strengths. These strengths are not to be the occasion for our looking down on those who are weaker but to enable us to minister to the weaknesses of others.
There is much to say about these last chapters, but the point is that Paul believed salvation was to be more than just an individualistic experience; it was to be one which brought men into a proper relationship with God (first) and then with their fellow men. Paul’s relationship with others was radically transformed by his conversion, and so should our own be. The gospel establishes a relationship with God, with His body, the church, and with the world.
How much Paul’s conversion, his own salvation, is reflected in his theology of salvation, as laid down in the Book of Romans. No wonder the conversion of this rebel is given so much attention in the Book of Acts. It is the foundation for many of the epistles—particularly those of Paul.
----
[1] It is a little difficult to be exact here. Pentecost occurred fifty days after the first Sabbath after Passover. It would seem that this would have been fifty days after the resurrection of our Lord, which was on Sunday, the first day of the week.
[2] The disciples asked Jesus about His “restoring the kingdom to Israel.” Jesus had, for forty days now, been speaking of the kingdom. Obviously, He had not dealt with timing. That was the disciples’ preoccupation. But it was also their preoccupation with Israel; it was a Jewish preoccupation. What a surprise they were in for. And no wonder Jesus reiterated the Great Commission in response. While they had thoughts of Israel’s restoration (where their glory was vested), Jesus purposed to save the world and thus the need to proclaim the good news to all nations. How little they grasped it. How slowly, in Acts, they actively pursued it (not until chapter 13), and then by a front-runner like Paul, who was persecuted for doing so (cf. Jerusalem church’s reticence throughout--Acts 11, Acts 21:17ff.). Peter had to be virtually “booted out” to evangelize Gentiles, and he would eventually backslide (cf. Galatians 2:11ff.).
[3] Below are the texts affirming Paul’s apostleship in the New Testament:
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 1:1).
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:1-5).
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? (1 Corinthians 12:28-29).
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them‑‑yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me (1 Corinthians 15:7-10).
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia (2 Corinthians 1:1).
The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance (2 Corinthians 12:12).
Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1)
Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me. 2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:17--2:1, 8).
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:1).
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11).
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother (Colossians 1:1).
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope (1 Timothy 1:1).
And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles (1 Timothy 2:7).
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus, . . . 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher (2 Timothy 1:1,11).
[4] Allow me to make a suggestion for your personal study of the Holy Spirit in both the Old and New Testaments. Look up all the references to the Holy Spirit, and then seek to categorize in each the work which He is said to perform. Mark a chart with two columns, the left being for those categories of work which are described in the Old Testament; the right being those categories described in the New. See if there is not a great similarity between the two columns.
[5] There is an interesting reversal here. Here, God bestowed the Spirit on Saul but commanded him to wait for seven days, until He instructed him as to what to do. After His resurrection, our Lord told the disciples what they were to do (e.g. the Great Commission), but instructed them to wait for the Holy Spirit to empower them. I conclude, therefore, that there are times when we have the “plan,” but must wait for the “power,” and there are other times when we might have the “power,” but we must wait for the “plan.”
[6] “It was the second of the three great annual feasts which every male Israelite was required to attend (Deut. 16:16).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 28.
[7] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 49-50.
[8] Jesus was described in chapter one as being taken up, into heaven. Now, in this verse the phenomenon is described as “coming down” from heaven. The connection is deliberate and necessary. The one who was taken up has sent down the Spirit.
[9] I would imagine that the “wonders of God” which were proclaimed in these foreign tongues were seemingly similar to those praises of Mary, Elizabeth, Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna.
[10] I take it, then, that these Hellenistic Jews would not leave Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost, taking with them the good news of the gospel. They would probably stay in Jerusalem, for they were still expecting the kingdom to come at any moment. In fact, their expectation and hope would have been enhanced by Peter’s promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit. It would not have been until the persecution resulting from the stoning of Stephen that these saints would have fled, now taking the good news along with them (or at least some may have done so. Cf. Acts 11:19-21).
[11] It is, of course, possible that the group had carried on an all-night prayer vigil. We might have expected the Spirit to fall on them after a long day of fervent prayer. The impression I get is that the Spirit fell upon them before they even got started that day. This would be just like God, answering before we have even called to Him.
[12] In 1 Corinthians 4:16-17 Paul argues on the basis of his consistent teaching and practice, not on some exceptional basis. We should seek, then, to determine what is consistently taught and practiced, and then follow that example.
[13] In Acts 2:41-47 we find the church meeting daily. But this is not the consistent practice of the churches in Acts. It would seem, from Acts 20:7, that the established pattern of the church was to meet once a week, on the first day of the week, to break bread and for instruction.
[14] Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 40.
[15] Cited by F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 77-78.
[16] There is no clear identification of this gate, but many have concluded that it was the gate commonly known as the “Nicanor Gate”:
“This may be identical with the Nicanor Gate, as it is called in the Mishnah, leading into the Court of the Women; the name here given to it may be more readily understood if it is further identified with the gate of Corinthian bronze described by Josephus, of such exquisite workmanship that it ‘far exceeded in value those gates that were plated with silver and set in gold.’”
F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 77, citing Josephus, BJ 5. 201. Bruce further comments in his footnote: “Josephus, BJ 5.184-247, and the Mishnaic tractate Middot are our principal sources of information about the temple before its destruction in A.D. 70.” (p. 77, fn. 10).
“Josephus says, concerning this gate: ‘its height was fifty cubits, and its doors were forty cubits, and it was adorned after a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker plates of silver and gold upon them than the others.’”
Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 49-50.
[17] It was the “time of the evening sacrifice”. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 41. “There were three hours of prayer (third, sixth, ninth).” Ibid, p. 41.
The apostles (and the rest, it would seem) continued to observe Jewish ceremonies at the temple. This is evidence of continuity between that which the church was doing here and that which God began in the Old Testament. The reason the apostles and the rest ceased to attend the temple is because they were thrown out, not only of the temple, but of Jerusalem. Coming to faith in Christ (Christianity) did not necessitate the Jews’ throwing off all of the rituals, all of the practices, of Judaism. Put in different terms, the coming of the Spirit on the apostles did not replace the normal routines and disciplines of life with pure spontaneity.
[18] Peter and John seem to become “partners” of sorts. One would expect these two men, both of whom had brother/disciples (Peter and Andrew, Matthew 4:18; James and John, Matthew 4:21) to be with their brothers, but they were not. Peter and John were sent out together by our Lord in Luke 22:8 to prepare for the Passover meal. Could they possibly have been paired together when the twelve were sent out two by two? The two are listed together in Acts 1:13, for what that is worth. They were arrested together in chapter 4 (cf. vv. 13, 19), and they were the two sent down to Samaria by the Apostles.
[19] This expression, “fixed his gaze” (verse 4), or something similar, is found also in Luke 4;20, and in Acts 1:10; 10:4 and 13:9. If it tells us anything it is that Peter and John riveted their attention on this man, fully intent on his healing. They were much more attentive to him than he was to them. Thus, they commanded him to look at them. They did not wish him to miss any of what was to happen. I think, in particular, they did not wish him to miss the statement that it was Jesus who was healing him.
[20] There is a strong emphasis in Acts on the name of Jesus. Below is a list of references to the name of Jesus in Acts: 2:21; 4:17-18; 9:21; 19:5; 2:38; 4:30; 9:27-28; 19:13; 3:6; 5:28; 10:43; 19:17; 3:16; 5:40-41; 10:48; 21:13; 4:7; 8:12; 15:17; 22:16; 4:10; 8:16; 15:26; 26:9; 4:12; 9:14-16; 16:18;
[21] “Leaping up repeatedly” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, III, p. 42.
[22] How often those who are the instruments through whom the power of God is manifested begin to lay claim to that power, as though it were their own. How quick God’s servants are to deny this (cf. Paul in Acts 14:8-18). How often, too, power and piety are associated. That is, men are quick to conclude that if God’s power has been manifested through a human instrument, it must be the result of his or her piety. This is not necessarily so. Spiritual gifts and spiritual power do not equate to a person’s piety. The Corinthians had all the gifts and many manifestations of God’s power, but they were also a carnal lot in many ways. Nowhere is the power of God working in men viewed as the result of man’s piety. Look at men like Samson and Jonah, for example.
[23] The statement of Peter that God had glorified His Servant is a very significant one, for these two terms seemed contradictory to the Israelites. The “suffering” and the “glory” themes of the Old Testament seemed to be so inconsistent that they could not be applied to the same person, Messiah. Thus, Peter wrote,
As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow (1 Peter 1:10-11).
When it came to “the Christ,” the Messiah, the two themes of “suffering” and “glory” did not seem to fit, not together anyway.
When Peter, in Acts 3:13, said that God had glorified His Servant Jesus, he said a great deal. He identified Jesus as the Messiah, who was the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 52 and 53 (and elsewhere), as well as the glorious King, who would reign in power and in glory. The reason why “glory” and “suffering” were combined in one person, Jesus, the Messiah, was because he first suffered, and then was glorified; He first was rejected and put to death on the cross, and He then was glorified by His resurrection and ascension. Here was the answer to the mystery which baffled even the prophets who wrote of Messiah’s suffering and glory.
[24] One might argue, with some force, that Pilate’s guilt was just as great, for he allowed an innocent man (by his judgment) to be put to death wrongly.
[25] God promised Moses that he would serve Him on the mountain where he encountered him, from whence his call originated (Exodus 3:12). In the exercise of his duties as a mediator, Moses became angry at the people of Israel and smote the rock. This cost Moses his life and the opportunity of leading the people of God into the promised land (Numbers 20; Deuteronomy 32:48-52). In this sense, Moses died in the exercise of his duties. His task cost him his life. The difference is, of course, that Moses sinned and thus died, whereas Jesus was sinless and died.
[26] When a prophet’s words failed to come to pass, one would definitely know that he was a false prophet. But if one’s words did come to pass, it was no sure sign that he was a true prophet. This matter was taken care of in Deuteronomy chapter 13, where the ultimate test of a prophet was given. A true prophet was one whose prophecies came to pass, and whose words were in accordance with what God had revealed (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
[27] “The verb diaponeo means ‘worked up, indignant.’ It is rendered ‘annoyed’ in the Revised Standard Version. Moulton and Milligan translate it ‘upset’ in a papyrus.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 56. A. T. Robertson also points out that this term is found only here and in 16:8. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 49.
[28] Note the “they” here, rather than “he,” indicating that while Luke chose to record only the words of Peter, both Peter and John spoke.
[29] “The captain . . . of the temple is referred to in rabbinical literature as the sagan, or sometimes as . . . (‘the man of the temple mount’). He belonged to one of the chief-priestly families, and in the temple he ranked next to the high priest. The temple guard which he commanded was a picked body of Levites. Cf. 5:24, 26.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988) revised edition, p. 88, fn. 4.
[30] “Twenty-four bands of Levitees guarded the temple, on guard at a time. They watched the gaates. The commander of each band was called captain (strategos). Jesephus names this captain of the temple police next to the high priest (War. VI. 5, 3).” A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 49.
[31] “Burst upon them suddenly or stood by them in a hostile attitude here (Luke 20:1; 24:4; Acts 6:12; 17:5; 22:20; 23:11).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 49.
[32] “‘The Jerusalem Sanhedrin administered Jewish law covering civil, criminal, moral, and religious questions. Its civil authority was limited to Judea. It could make arrests and its authority over Jews, provided they did not possess Roman citizenship, was practically unlimited except in the matter of capital punishment, which reuired the procurator’s approval. However, the Jews did have the right to kill on the spot any gentile who entered the sacred courts of the temple beyond the Court of the Gentiles. The Jerusalem Sanhedrin consisted of seventy members. The high priest was its head. Apparently it was a self-perpetuating body, filling its own vacancies by members chosen from the ranks of the high-priestly families, the scribes, and the elders. The religious prestige of this body extended wherever there were Jews.’” Elmer W. K. Mould, Essentials of Bible History (New York: Ronald Press Co., rev. ed. 1951), pp. 467, 468, as cited by Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 59.
[33] It may very well be that the man who was healed was also arrested. The charge might have been something like “disturbing the peace.” He was reticent to leave Peter and John, and was certainly a significant force in drawing the attention of the crowds to them. He probably would not be silenced as to what had been done for him as well. If this man were arrested, it was a most serious blunder. (The Jews could have killed the man, thus removing the proof that a great miracle had been performed, as they planned to kill Lazarus and “deaden” the effect of his raising--cf. John 12:9-10.) How could they deny that a great miracle had been performed when the miracle was standing there in front of them? Arresting the man only assured his being there at the trial of Peter and John, and proved to be most embarrassing.
[34] No wonder so many movements begin in the universities or in an academic setting.
[35] “The Sadducees held by tradition the high-priestly office. Collaborators with the Roman order, rationalists in doctrine, they were sensitive of everything likely to disturb the comfortable status they had won (cf. Jn. xi. 47-50), and especially saw danger in popular excitement arising from such Pharisaic teaching as that of the resurrection. (Note the lead they assumed over the Pharisees in persecuting Christ, when the question of Lazarus arose (Jn. xii. 10).)” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 64.
[36] “The Sadducees are mentioned only fourteen times in the New Testament -- seven times in Matthew, once each in Mark and Luke, and five times in Acts. In contrast, the Pharisees are named 100 times.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 56.
[37] “Rulers is evidently equivalent to ‘chief priests’ (cf. Mark 14:53). They are named first, since they were the leading members of the Sanhedrin. . . Elders (presbyteroi) is a general word for members of the Sanhedrin, which is sometimes designated as the presbyterion (cf. 22:5; Luke 22:66). They ‘owed their position not to office but to blood or wealth or religious prestige.’. . . The scribes (grammateis) were ‘a class of learned Jews who devoted themselves to a scientific study of the Law, and made its expostion their professional occupation.’ They were mainly, but not exclusively, Pharisees.” Carter and Earle, p. 57.
[38] “. . . the prosecutors use dunamis, not exousia, which contains the notion of authority. The implication is that the apostles had acted by illegal incantation and the processes of magic.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 67.
[39] F. F. Bruce renders this term “saving health.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 91. The Greek term used here is one with a wide range of meanings, as indicated by Carter and Earle: “The same verb, sozo, is translated ‘saved’ in verse 12. Occurring some 111 times in the New Testament, it is translated ‘save’ 94 times in the King James Version. It is found some 56 times in the Gospels and 14 times in Acts. In the Gospels it usually carries the idea of physical healing. In Acts the dominant emphasis is on spiritual salvation.” Carter and Earle, p. 60.
[40] The information given here by Luke could have been received by direct revelation. My suspicion is that it was provided by one of those present at this session. For example, Gamaliel seems to have been present (he was present in 5:34), and he could have reported this private session to Paul, his student (Acts 22:3).
[41] “It is particularly striking that neither on this nor on any subsequent occasion did the authorities take any serious action to disprove the apostles’ central affirmation--the resurrection of Jesus. Had it seemed possible to refute them on this point, how eagerly would the opportunity have been seized! Had their refutation on this point been achieved, how quickly and completely the new movement would have collapsed! It is plain that the apostles spoke of a bodily resurrection when they said that Jesus had been raised from the dead; it is equally plain that the authorities understood them in this sense. The body of Jesus had vanished so completely that all the resources at their command could not produce it. The disappearance of his body, to be sure, was far fromproving his resurrection, but the production of his body would have effectively disproved it. Now the apostles’ claim that Jesus was alive had received public confirmation by the miracle of healing performed in his name.” Bruce, p. 96.
[42] “Normally prisoners before the Sanhedrin were very submissive. Josephus quotes a member of that court as saying that a defendant usually appeared ‘with his hair dishevelled, and in a black and mourning garment (Ant., XIV. 9, 4).” Cited by Carter and Earle, p. 59.
“The word for bodlness, parresia, means ‘freedom of speech, plainness, openness.’ . . . The first adjective, agrammatoi, literally means ‘unlettered.’” But this does not indicate that the apostles were illiterate. Rather, they were ‘without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools.’” Carter and Earle, p. 61.
[43] There are many, many references to God as the Creator, some of which are listed below, for your consideration and study: Genesis 1:26; 2:4; 5:1-2; 6:6; 7:4; 14:19,22; Exodus 20:11; 30:17 Deuteronomy 4:32-40; 5:8; 32:6 ; 2 Kings 19:45; 2 Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 74:17; 89; 104:14, 24, 30; 115:15; 124:8; 134:3; 135:7; 139:13, 15; 146:6; 148:5; Proverbs 8:26; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Isaiah 13:13; 27:11; 37:16; 40:18-31; 41:20; 42:5-13; 43:1-7, 15; 44:24; 45:4-18; 48:7; 54:5, 16; 57:16, 19; 65:17-18; 66:22; Jeremiah 10:11-12; 27:5; 31:22; 32:2, 17; 51:15; Ezekiel 28:15; Amos 4:13; Habakkuk 3:6; Malachi 2:10; Acts 14:15; 17:24, 26; Revelation 4:11; 14:7;
[44] “Lord is despota. It is the opposite of doulos, ‘slave’ (cf. Luke 2:29). Thayer says that despotes ‘denoted absolute ownership and uncontrolled power.’ ((p. 130).” Cited by Carter and Earle, p. 64.
[45] “The reference to Herod harks back to the account in Luke 23:7-12, where Pilate, learning that Jesus is a Galilaean, performs a diplomatic courtesy by referring him to Herod. Luke is the only one of the four evengelists who gives Herod a role in the passion narrative.”
[46] It is possible that here that the term “bond-servants” refers specifically to the apostles, but since we are told in verse 31 that “they all were filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word of God with boldness,” it would seem that the reference is to the whole church.
[47] “This {shaking of the house} was one of the signs which indicated a theophany in the Old Testament (Ex. 19:18; Is. 6:4), and it would have been regarded as indicating a divine response to prayer.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 107.
[48] This last section, verses 12-16, will be dealt with in greater detail in our next lesson. I include it here because it describes the “fear” that this incident (and perhaps others) brought upon the church and upon those outside as well.
[49] There are two more tensions, as I understand this text. The first is this: How did Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Holy Spirit, and how did their actions put Him to the test? More generally stated, how and when does lying to men constitute lying to the Holy Spirit? The second tension is: How can Peter say that Satan filled the heart of Ananias, and yet, at the same time speak of Ananias as conceiving this sin in his own heart? Simply put, how can the purposes of a man’s heart be both his own and those of Satan? These, I believe, are worthwhile questions to ponder, although the answers may not be easy ones.
[50] This question arises from the fact that Peter attributes the source of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira both to what they have conceived in their own hearts (5:4) and to the work of Satan in their hearts (5:3). In addition, one would think that had they acted in a godly way, the Spirit would have filled their hearts. Thus, the issue of the relationship of one’s own heart to the influences of the Spirit of God and Satan.
[51] Here is a good place to point out a very crucial difference between communism and Christianity. Communism would say, “What’s yours is mine.” Christianity says, quite differently, “What’s mine is yours.”
[52] As I have studied the boldness of the church in its profession, as well as in its use of its possessions, I have discovered that one’s profession, persecution, and the use of one’s possessions are often found in close proximity. Cf. Luke 12:1-12, and verses 13ff.; Hebrews 10:32-39; James 2; 1 John 3:13-24.
[53] The same principle, of course, applies to us. While we do not know for certain that the return of the Lord will come in our generation, we do know that when He comes, material possessions will be destroyed. This should greatly impact the way in which we live and the value which we attach to things (cf. 2 Peter 3:8-12).
[54] I think it can be demonstrated that the poor who were being cared for were primarily poor believers. The church cared for its own. This was taught as a priority (cf. Galatians 6:10). If we grant the fact that there were many poor and needy in the church (cf. also Acts 6:1), then we must admit that even when the church was at its spiritual high-water mark, there were those who were not prosperous. The “gospel of the good life” or the “prosperity gospel,” the teaching that if men are spiritual, they will materially prosper, simply does not stand up under scrutiny nor does it conform to biblical revelation.
[55] It is interesting that Barnabas is described as a Levite. The Levites had no portion or inheritance in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 12:12).
[56] Luke seems to have a habit of introducing men early with some brief comment and then to pick these characters up later on in his writing. Thus, he introduced Paul first in Acts 8:1-3, only to wait until chapter 9 to describe his conversion, and then wait until chapter 13 to give him prominence.
[57] My understanding of the practice of the church, as described in Act 2 and 4 is that people sold those possessions which were above and beyond their immediate needs. As the person who has two coats is obliged to give one to a brother who has none, so a person with a home in the city and a summer place on the lake may be obliged to give up one residence if a brother in need has nowhere to live. I do not think that Luke is telling us that a person who owned only one house (assuming it was not excessively large or luxurious) sold that house, to help others, only to make himself homeless. The goal was not to create additional poverty but to minister to the poor.
[58] I find Peter’s avoidance of the motivation of this man and his wife most interesting. It seems in our own day that motivation has become an obsession. We want to pursue why people act as they do. We seem almost to excuse some actions on the basis of motivation. This is precisely the basis of situational ethics. An act is right or wrong, based on its motivation, the situationalist will say. But Peter differs with this. Regardless of the motives of Ananias and his wife, they consciously purposed to lie. They knowingly sinned. It was a pre-meditated sin. While Peter could surely have been supernaturally informed as to their motivation, it is never mentioned. Perhaps we should learn from this.
[59] This indicates, to my satisfaction, that Ananias said much more than Luke recorded. He must have told Peter that the amount he was contributing was the purchase price of his land. Peter then used this figure to get a direct statement from Sapphira.
[60] There is a lesson here, by inference, on submission, one which flows from the previous chapter. The Sanhedrin had great authority in Israel, but when this body commanded the apostles to cease preaching in the name of Jesus, they had to reject this order as being one that was outside of this body’s realm of authority. They (as Peter will soon say in chapter 5) had to obey God rather than men. This woman was to be in submission to her husband’s authority, but that authority ended when it came to lying. Her guilt was not minimized because she was a wife, in submission to her husband. So was equally guilty with her husband, because she acted in accord with him, when she should have refused to do so. Peter’s dealings with this woman show that submission to authority ends when such submission would lead to sinning against God. Thus, her guilt and her fate is precisely the same as her husband’s.
[61] This is a repetition of what Luke has already written in 5:5. One can safely conclude that the first “fear” was reinforced and underscored by the “second.” One can also conclude that one of God’s purposes in this instance of divine discipline was His intent to produce such fear, as a healthy ingredient in the life of the church.
[62] The first question: “To what extent is the practice of the church in selling its possessions a pattern for the church today?” has already been answered on page 7.
[63] This question arises from the fact that Peter attributes the source of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira both to what they have conceived in their own hearts (5:4) and to the work of Satan in their hearts (5:3). In addition, one would think that had they acted in a godly way, the Spirit would have filled their hearts. Thus, the issue of the relationship of one’s own heart to the influences of the Spirit of God and Satan.
[64] At the end of this lesson there is a more extensive list of verses that emphasize the importance of truth to our faith. I encourage you to look these up and study them in more detail.
[65] A number of these instances would be parallel passages and thus the same statement may be found in two or three Gospels.
[66] A similar situation can be found in Exodus 16:6-8 and 17:1-7. Israel’s grumblings against Moses and Aaron are exposed as grumbling against God.
[67] This text may not precisely substantiate my point, and the thrust of this passage is to show Christians that they are not in the flesh any longer, but in the Spirit (8:9). It is possible, however, to revert back to the impulses and guidance of the flesh. It is not necessary, but it is possible.
[68] Solomon’s portico is the same place mentioned in 3:11, where the people gathered in response to the healing of the lame man, where Peter preached, and where he and John were arrested.
[69] Cf. Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10; Acts 7:9; 13:45; 17:5.
[70] This statement greatly aggravated the chief priests in particular. They listened very carefully to what Peter and the apostles said in reply. When Peter responded, “We must obey God rather than men,” the inference was clear that to obey the orders of the Sanhedrin (not to preach) was to disobey God. They had gotten accustomed to giving orders to men as though God was speaking through them, but Peter’s words shocked them into reality. Their orders were not from God, but from mere men. Peter’s final words, which referred to the witness of the Holy Spirit through the signs and wonders God accomplished through them, was another painful point. Their power (which they had been challenged about by this group) came from the Holy Spirit, who was given to those who obey God. Thus, if the apostles had the Holy Spirit, then they were obeying God and the Sanhedrin (who lacked power) was acting in disobedience to God. This Council, intent on indicting the apostles, was instead indicted by them. They were the guilty ones. No wonder they were so angry.
[71] The apostles (at least Peter and John) were getting used to “leaving the room” (cf. Acts 4:15). I can almost hear Peter saying to his fellow-apostles (fictionally speaking, of course), “You might as well bring a sack lunch. We’ll eat it when they send us out of the room--which they always do.”
[72] I like this proverb, which seems apt: “There are three things which are stately in their march, Even four which are stately when they walk: The lion which is mighty among beasts And does not retreat before any, The strutting cock, the male goat also, And a king when his army is with him” (Proverbs 30:29-31).
[73] This scene must have been humorous as well. Prison doors never open and close quietly. Metal against metal is the cause of much noise. There is the clang of doors shutting and of locks being secured. There is also the squeaking of rusty hinges. If this were the first experience of the apostles inside a prison and if they walked past the guards, somehow miraculously asleep or unaware of their departure, the noise of doors opening and closing must have been distressing. Can’t you see Peter whispering to John, “I wish I had brought my can of WD-40?”
[74] Paul spoke of his “deliverance” from prison in Philippians 1:19-26, and when he did it was not of deliverance from suffering, but deliverance for the purpose of service. So it should be for us as well.
[75] If I were casting this scene, I would have chosen Don Knotts to be the soldier to announce the disappearance of the prisoners during the night. His big bugging eyes and frazzled look would have been perfect.
[76] Notice that they do not use the name “Jesus,” but instead they refer to Jesus indirectly, speaking of “this name.”
[77] There is a considerable amount of discussion in the commentaries about these two men. Some say that Luke has his facts confused, based upon statements by Josephus or others. The fact is we do not know that the two men Gamaliel referred to are men whose movements are a matter of historical record, or, if they are, that the record is accurate. Luke has shown himself to be a meticulous historian. There is no reason to doubt that from the text, and, based upon the inspiration of this author and his work, there is every reason to believe him to be completely accurate here and elsewhere.
[78] His advice is “good” from the standpoint of preserving the life of the apostles so that the gospel could continue to be proclaimed by them in Jerusalem. I am not sure that his premise is correct, however. Many movements, such as communism, have survived for a long time after the death of the founder. Indeed, a number of movements have grown greatly after their deaths. And so I am not so sure that his premise was correct, even though his advice may have been, in this instance.
[79] Notice how little emphasis is placed on this flogging. It was undoubtedly a serious beating, and the pain and injuries sustained would have been substantial. No “slap on the wrist” would have been sufficient for the Sadducees here. And yet, as bad as their beating was, very little emphasis is put on it. That is because it was a privilege to the apostles, not a “cross to bear.” How much we make of pain today, and how little we make of the privilege of suffering for the sake of His name.
[80] “The name disciples occurs here for the first time in Acts. The Greek mathetes literally means ‘learner’ (from the second aorist stem math of manthano, ‘learn’). It is the most common designation in the Gospels for the followers of Jesus, occurring 74 times in Matthew, 45 in Mark, 38 in Luke, and 81 in John. Outside the Gospels it is found only in Acts, where it appears 28 times, making a total of 266 times in the New Testament. It is always translated ‘disciples.’ It is ‘perhaps the most characteristic name for the Christians in Acts.’ Other names in Acts are ‘the saved’ (2:47), ‘saints’ (9:13, 32, 41; 26:10), ‘brethren’ (e.g., 1:15), ‘believers’ (10:45), ‘Nazarenes’ (24:5).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 85.
[81] There is considerable discussion in the commentaries over the precise makeup of each of these groups. The description which is given above is an attempt to focus on the main features of the groups, and to show how friction could easily arise between the two.
[82] The term used for “Hebrews” is found only here and 2 Corinthians 11:22 and Philippians 3:5. In each case, at least the last two, there is an aura of superiority attached or implied. The bitterness and grumbling against the “native Hebrews” would have included, as a matter of course, the apostles. Notice that they did not react negatively or defensively to this, as they could have done.
“The terms Hebrews and Hellenists (9:29; 11:20 mg.) are obviously to be defined as contrasts. After much discussion there is a growing consensus that the Hebrews were Jews who spoke a Semitic language but also knew some Greek. It can be safely assumed that nearly every Jew knew at least a little Greek, since it was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean world. The Semitic language which they spoke was probably Aramaic rather than Hebrew itself. But contrast, the Hellenists were Jews who spoke Greek and knew little or no Aramaic. These groups would tend to worship as Jews in their own languages, and this practice would carry over when they became Christians. The former group would be principally of Palestinian origin, while the latter would be principally Jews of the Dispersion who had come to settle in Jerusalem. The latter group were more open to syncretistic influences than the former, but it should be emphasized that they had a strong sense of their Jewishness; Hellenistic Jews were strongly attached to the temple. The complaint which the Hellenists made concerned the lack of attention to their widows in the provision made by the church for the poor; it has been noted that many widows came from the Dispersion to end their days in Jerusalem. They would not be able to work to keep themselves, and, if they had exhausted or given away their capital, they could be in real want.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 125-126.
“The Grecians were Hellenists, or Jews who had imbibed the Greek culture, including language, of the countries in which they were born in the dispersion. They were considered inferior by the Hebrews, or Palestinian Jews, who were in a majority in the church.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 86-87
[83] The “daily distribution of food” was not necessarily restricted to widows.
[84] This does not seem to be altogether hypothetical. Not only does this seem to fit the facts as we perceive them, but to fit in with the inferences of Scripture. For example, Simon of Cyrene (a Hellenistic Jew?), on whom the cross of our Lord was placed, was said to be “coming in from the country” (Luke 23:26). Did he, like many others, find that he was forced to live some distance from Jerusalem, and to make a trek to this city? So, also, we find the two “disciples” to whom our Lord appeared, on their way to a village, named Emmaus, about seven miles distant from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13). I suspect that many who wanted to live as close as possible to Jerusalem found it necessary to live a number of miles distant.
[85] It is this fact which makes the indictment of our Lord against the scribes and Pharisees even more forceful, for they were taking advantage of these widows, and gaining possession of their houses, while they were duty bound to protect them (cf. Matthew 23:14).
[86] The references to grumbling in the NIV are: Exodus 15:24; 16:2, 7-9, 12; 17:3; Numbers 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:11, 41; 17:5, 10; Deuteronomy 1:27; Joshua 9:18; Psalm 106:25; Matthew 20:11; John 6:41, 43, 61; 1 Corinthians 10:10; James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:9; Jude 1:16.
[87] The priority of meeting the needs of believers is stated in Galatians 6:10, in a general way. In 1 Timothy 5:3-16 the widows who were to be permanently cared for by the church had to be elderly, godly, and without other means of support. Thus, it is only believing widows to whom Paul is referring in this text.
[88] We are not told the precise process by which this decision was reached by the apostles. It seems that there was no one “correct” process, one “formula” for determining the “will of God” here, as elsewhere. It would seem, however, that the “will of God for the church” is evident when the decision is consistent with biblical principles and practices, unanimous with the leaders of the church, and which is found acceptable by the congregation.
[89] There is a masculine element here, which should probably not be overlooked. It was the men “brothers” (v. 3) who were instructed to choose the seven, and it was men who were to be chosen. Here, one might think, would be a legitimate place for feminine leadership, but it was, in fact, prohibited.
[90] The apostles did not require or even recommend that the men who were “put in charge” of this ministry be Hellenistic. The fact that they were (or seem to be) must be credited to the church who chose them. I take it that there was a broadmindedness evidenced by the church in this.
“Full of the Spirit and wisdom.” There are several ways to take this. One could understand that being full of the Spirit was to have wisdom. I am inclined to see that one could be full of the Spirit and yet not wise. There are many people who may be, at the moment, “spiritual,” but who do not have the maturity and wisdom of years behind them. There was the need for spiritual sensitivity and practical wisdom (as Solomon possessed and practiced, for example, cf. 1 Kings 3).
[91] The 7 men are not said to be given the task of waiting tables. The apostles not only declined to personally “wait on tables” (verse 2), but they did not delegate this task to the seven men, either. They were rather “put in charge of” this matter. The is a difference between doing a job and seeing to it that a job is done. It may well be that the whole church needed to be involved in this, and that the administration of it was to assure that it was well done.
[92] I must admit that I am not sure whether “this task” was the overall responsibility for the “daily distribution of food” or whether it was the daily distribution of food to the Hellenistic widows.
[93] We know from 1 Timothy chapter 5 that only certain widows qualified for permanent care by the church. There were age and character qualifications, in addition to the fact that these widows were “widows indeed,” without a family to care for them (cf. 1 Timothy 5:3-16). It is interesting to note that the church’s responsibility to its widows is dealt with in the same chapter as the church’s responsibility to its teaching elders (5:17-20).
[94] The apostles are the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. Elders do not appear in Acts until 11:30, followed by 15:4. It would seem that the apostles functioned, for all intents and purposes, as the first elders of the church, just as the seven men functioned as deacons.
[95] The key word here may be “devote,” which in Acts 2:42 seems to imply spending most of one’s time to something.
[96] “All seven appear to have been Hellenists (this conclusion does not rest merely on the fact that they all have Greek names); indeed, they were probably the recognized leaders of the Hellenists in the church.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 121.
The last of the seven was not a Jew by birth, but a Gentile proselyte.
“Prochorus is pictured in Byzantine art as the scribe to whom John dictated his Gospel.” Carter and Earle, p. 88.
[97] “The rite indicated a conferring of authority, and the accompanying prayer was for the power of the Spirit to fill the recipients (cf. Dt. 34:9). A similar rite was used in the appointment of rabbis, but there is some uncertainty whether this goes back to the first century. Se further 8:17; 9:17; 13:3; 19:6.” Marshall, p. 127.
[98] Marshall (p. 127) refers to the phrase, “the word of God increased,” as “a favorite phrase (12:24; 19:20).”
[99] “The priests were presumably those attached to the temple in Jerusalem, of whom there was a great number (estimated at 18,000 priests and Levites; they were on duty for a fortnight each year according to a rota; Lk. 1:8).” Marshall, pp. 127-128.
“Josephus claims that there were 20,000 priests in his day (Against Apion, II 8). So mention of a great company of the priests is not preposterous, as some have held.” Carter and Earle, p. 89.
[100] We are told that Stephen performed “great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). We are only told that Philip performed “signs” (Acts 8:6). Up to this point, these are the only two men to do so, other than the 12.
[101] It is my understanding that the expressions “this holy place” (Acts 6:13) and “this place” (6:14) refers to the temple, but is not restricted to it. I believe that the city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel (to a lesser extent) are also included.
[102] Notice that Stephen began at the beginning, with the patriarchs, and then turned to the interpretation of these events in the early days of Israel’s history, as given by the Old Testament prophets. Finally, Stephen relates the Old Testament events and their interpretation to the present, to the response of those who had opposed him and brought him to trial, showing how it was consistent with the actions Israelites in the past.
[103] In the NASB this is indicated by quotations in caps.
[104] Paul, of course, was saved later on, but it was never said to be because of this message. The message of Stephen, along with his death, had a great impact on Paul, I believe, but his sermon was not the immediate means of his conversion. It was, instead, his divine encounter with the risen Christ which brought about his repentance.
[105] The term, rendered “exposed” by the NASB in Acts 7:19 is literally rendered “put out to die” in the margin. It is this same term which is found, in reference to Moses, in verse 21, with the same marginal note that the literal meaning was “put out to die.” Thus, just as all the other Israelites were putting their infants out to die, so Moses’ parents were putting him out to die, for all intents and purposes.
[106] From the background we have been provided in the gospels, I would understand the phrase, “the customs which Moses handed down to us,” as not referring to the Law of Moses, but rather to the traditions of the Jews, which were added to the Law, and indeed were held above the Law in practice.
[107] We should remember that Paul was present, and must have seen the face of Stephen. This must have later been understood as being a repetition of that which took place with Moses, for in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Paul referred to this event in the life of Moses (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). Paul used it to illustrate the greater glory of the new covenant over that of the old, the very thing which Stephen’s opponents refused to accept.
[108] In the same way Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5-7).
[109] Notice that Stephen’s words in 7:52 indicate not only that his accusers were guilty of the same kind of sins and their fathers, but that they were actually guilty of the sins of their fathers. Jesus taught the same thing in Matthew 23:34-36. To reject the Messiah and His messengers is to become guilty of the sins of rejection of those who have gone before us. When we reject Christ, we reject all those who have spoken of him. When we reject the gospels, we reject the Old Testament prophets.
[110] “Simon Magus plays an extraordinary role in early Christian literature. The word ‘magus’ originally denoted a member of the Median priestly tribe, but it came to be used in an extended sense of a practitioner of various kinds of sorcery and even quackery, like Elymas, the sorcerer of Paphos in Cyprus, whom we meet later in the narrative of Acts (13:6-11). The ‘magi’ or ‘wise men’ from the east (Matt. 2:1), who saw the rising star of the newborn king of the Jews, were evidently astrologers. This Simon is depicted in postapostolic writings as the father of all Gnostic heresies. Justin Martyr tells how he secured a following of devotees not only in Samaria but in Rome, to which he went in the time of Claudius. In the apocryphal Acts of Peter (4-32) he is said to have corrupted the Christians in Rome by his false teaching and made the authorities ill-disposed toward them, but to have been worsted at last in a magical contest with Peter. But it is in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies that the Simon legend is most curiously elaborated: in them he not only appears as the untiring adversary of Peter but seems, to some extent at least, to serve as a camouflage for Paul, reflecting anti-Pauline sentiments among some of the Ebionites and similar Jewish-Christian groups.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 166.
“. . . Simon Magus (the magician, or sorcerer) -- is the subject of many legends in the Early Church. The most striking tradition is that he was the founder of Gnosticism.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 114.
[111] “Saul, a native of the Cilician city of Tarsus, as we learn later (9:11), may have attended the synagogue in Jerusalem where Stephen engaged in disputation with the spokesmen for the old order (6:9).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 161.
[112] The persecution which sent men and women to Samaria, where the gospel was proclaimed, also sent others to more distant places, where the gospel was proclaimed not only to Jews, but to Gentiles as well. This resulted in the birth of the church at Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). Luke indicates that the same persecution results in both “waves” of evangelism, but saves the more “Gentile” phase until later in the book, to keep his account consistent with the geographical outline of the gospel’s expansion, given in Acts 1:8.
[113] Of Philip: “The deacon (6:5) and evangelist (21:8), not the apostle of the same name (Mark 3:18).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 102.
[114] “The city of Samaria” is rendered “a city” in some translations. There was in Samaria, a city whose name was Samaria. Thus, one could have spoken of Samaria (city), Samaria (country), just as one can presently speak of New York, New York. Of the city of Samaria, Bruce writes, “The ancient city called Samaria had been refounded by Herod the Great and renamed Sebaste, in honor of the Roman emperor, but it was a Hellenistic city, and the impression given by our narrative is that the people to whom Philip preached were genuine Samaritans.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 165. If the rendering, “a city” is correct, a number of cities could be proposed as the particular city.
[115] I take it that Simon had no real supernatural powers. Some, such as the demon-possessed girl who pestered Paul and Silas (Acts 16:16-18), did have supernatural abilities, but it seems that this man had only tricks, deceptions, the slight of hand appearances of magical powers. His amazement at the power of God at work through Philip gives me the impression that he had no real power.
[116] Ananias did “lay his hands on” Saul (Acts 9:12, 17), and this seems to be in conjunction with his receiving the Holy Spirit, but once again we are not told what phenomenon accompanied his reception of the Spirit, if any.
[117] It is my opinion that Simon had little interest in this power to heal and cast out demons, because he was not as interested in ministering to others and he was in promoting himself. Thus, the “razzle dazzle” ability to bestow the Holy Spirit had more appeal to Simon than the less spectacular ability to heal and deliver others from Satan’s bondage.
[118] Cf. also Deuteronomy 32:32; Lamentations 3:15; Job 16:14; Isaiah 58:6; Hebrews 12:15.
[119] For a study of the “angel of the Lord” consult these texts: Gen 16:7,9,11; 22:11, 15; Exo 3:2; Num 22:22-27, 31-32, 34-35; Jud 2:1,3; 5:23; 6:11-12, 21-22; 13:3,13, 15-17, 20-21; 2Sa 24:16; 1Ki 19:7; 2Ki 1:3,15; 19:35; 1Ch 21:12,15-16,18,30; Psa 34:7; 35:5-6; Isa 37:36; Zec 1:11-12; 3:1, 5-6; 12:8; Mat 1:20,24; 2:13, 19; 28:2; Luk 1:11, 2:9; Act 5:19; 8:26; 12:7,23.
[120] Cf. Deuteronomy 23:1; Isaiah 56:3-5; 66:18-21.
[121] The title “eunuch” can be used of a government official who is literally a eunuch, but also for an official who is not. Thus, we cannot know for certain whether or not this man was literally a eunuch. If he was, indeed, a eunuch, he would have been forbidden to enter the “assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:1).
[122] Unromantic as it may be, this could also have been a mere ox cart.
[123] Verse 37 is omitted in some texts. I am inclined to accept it as genuine. It may not add a great deal to the passage, nor would its absence do great damage to it. It may be that the words of verse 37, which stress the importance of the eunuch “believing with all his heart that Jesus is the Christ” are, to some degree, a result of Philip’s disappointing experience with Simon the magician, whose sincerity seemed a bit doubtful under close apostolic scrutiny.
[124] I am an immersionist, by conviction, but the fact that both men are said to go down into the water does not necessarily prove that this man was immersed. They could have “gone down” into a creek or (more likely) an oasis, which was but a few inches deep. The “going down” need not refer to the depth of the water, but to the elevation of the water, with respect to the two men. And even though the water were deep enough to immerse the Ethiopian, this does not, in and of itself, prove that he was immersed. That is an inference derived from a number of lines of evidence. This text does not add much to these lines of evidence. After all, a man could have been sprinkled in a pool six feet deep.
[125] Paul employs this same term for being his being “caught up” into the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 2:2, 4, and for the rapture of the living saints in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (cf. also Revelation 12:5).
[126] We see something similar happening elsewhere in the Bible. Notice the marginal notes in the NASB here, referring to 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16; Ezekiel 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5; 2 Corinthians 12:2.
[127] Cf. Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 122.
[128] “. . . tradition has assigned to this man the early evangelization of Ethiopia.” Carter and Earle, p. 122.
[129] “The history of Damascus goes back to remote antiquity. It was a city in the days of Abraham, and at the time of the Israelite monarchy it was the capital of the most important Aramaean kingdom. Later it was the seat of administration of an Assyrian province. In Hellenistic times it was completely replanned on the Hippodamian grid-system. From 64 B.C. on it belonged to the Roman province of Syria, but had a measure of municipal autonomy in the loose federation of cities called the Decapolis.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 181.
“Damascus was an important town, about 150 miles (242 km) from Jerusalem, with a considerable Jewish population. It lay within the jurisdiction of the Roman province of Syria, and it formed part of the Decapolis, a league of self-governing cities. In 2 Corinthians 11:32 Paul speaks of an ethnarch of Aretas, the king of the Nabataean Arabs, who guarded the city to prevent him escaping from it. It is not clear whether this official was a representative of the king resident in Damascus to look after the interests of the Arabs there, or whether Damascus at this time was under the control of Nabataea.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 168.
“This old city is the most enduring in the history of the world (Knowling). It is some 150 miles Northeast from Jerusalem and watered by the river Abana from Anti-Lebanon. Here the Jews were strong in numbers (10,000 butchered by Nero later) and here some disciples had found refuge from Saul’s persecution in Judea and still worshipped in the synagogues. Paul’s language in Acts 26:11 seems to mean that Damascus is merely one of other `foreign cities’ to which he carried the persecution.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 114.
[130] In our text, we are told the Saul “went to the high priest” to ask for letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus (9:1-2), but in Acts 22:5-6 Paul indicates that the “Council” (the Sanhedrin) was also involved in providing him with letters of authorization to arrest Christians in Damascus. Furthermore, in Acts 26:10 Paul testifies that he received letters from the chief priests, not just the chief priest alone.
[131] “. . . the Romans . . . required neighboring states to grant it the privileges of a sovereign state, including the right of extradition. A letter delivered at that time by a Roman ambassador to Ptolemy VIII of Egypt concludes with the demand: ‘If any pestilent men have fled to you from their own country {Judaea}, hand them over to Simon the high priest, so that he may punish them according to their law’ (1 Macc. 15:21). In 47 B.C. Julius Caesar confirmed those rights and privileges anew to the Jewish nation (although Judaea was no longer a sovereign state), and more particularly to the high-priesthood.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 180-181.
[132] The impact of Saul’s conversion on his message and his ministry is testified to by A. T. Robertson:
“Luke evidently attached great importance to the story of Saul’s conversion as the turning point not simply in the career of the man, but an epoch in the history of apostolic Christianity. . . It is impossible to overestimate the worth to the student of Christianity of this event from every angle because we have in Paul’s Epistles his own emphasis on the actual appearance of Jesus to him as the fact that changed his whole life (1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:16f.).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 115.
Acts 9, 22, 26; Romans 15:15-21; cf. also Romans 1:1-7, 13-17; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:3-11; cf. also 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; cf. also 2:14-17; 3:12-18; 4:1-18; 5:17-21; 6:13--7:1; Galatians 1:13-17; cf. 1:11--2:10; Ephesians 3:1-13; cf. 1:11--2:10; Philippians 3:1-14; Colossians 1:24-29; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; 6:13-16; 2 Timothy 1:8-12; Titus 2:11-15; 3:1-7.
[133] I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 173.
[134] Blaiklock comes to this conclusion concerning the time of Saul’s conversion:
“Probably the earliest acceptable date for the conversion on the Damascus road is AD 33. This would leave AD 33-46 for the visit to Arabia (Gal. 1. 17) and the restoration of the man after the shattering experience he had known, and for the early ministry in Tarsus, Syria, Cilicia, and Antioch, which prepared mind and method for the major assault on the pagan world. The splendid deliberateness with which God forged His human tool is the great lesson of these years. Impatient men forget that God is not bound by time. His conversion was by far the most vital influence in Paul’s life. Ancestry, Pharisaic training, Hellenistic education, were fused by it into the character which the Holy Spirit formed and fashioned over the fourteen years of training. At length, in God’s good time, the door opened, and the events of half a lifetime assumed final and complete significance.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photo-lithoprinted}, 1966), p. 90.
[135] There are those who describe Saul as a “tormented man” after the stoning of Stephen. I am not at all sure how this can be determined from the text. I see a man who is confident, aggressive, and zealous, rather than a man troubled by inner doubts. The conclusion of many of the commentators is that Saul’s conversion was a much longer process than I see reflected in this account, or in any other. Blaiklock, for example (pp. 87-89), plays out the two views of Saul’s conversion, the first (and seldom held the view of Ramsay), that Saul was suddenly and radically converted; second, that there was a considerable process involved.
[136] E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 91.
[137] “‘The Way’ is a designation for the new movement used several times in Acts 9:19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22; cf. also 16:17; 18:25-26). It was evidently a term used by the early followers of Jesus to denote their movement as the way of life or the way of salvation.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 181.
[138] “Three times (8:3; 9:2; 22:4) this fact of persecuting women is mentioned as a special blot in Paul’s cruelty (the third time by Paul himself) and one of the items in his being chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 114.
[139] A. T. Robertson writes, “It is open to question if kurie should not here be translated ‘Sir’ as in 16:30 and in Matt. 21:29 (30); John 5:7; 12:21; 20:15; and should be so in John 9:36. It is hardly likely that at this stage Saul recognized Jesus as Lord, though he does so greet him in 22:10 `What shall I do, Lord?’” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 116-117.
This can hardly be possible. If there is one thing of which Saul is now convinced (by what he has so far seen and heard on the road) it is that whoever he is talking to is LORD. The only question is who is the LORD? The answer is: Jesus. Saul was not aware, until after our Lord’s words, that the One who had interrupted his journey was Jesus, and that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah, the LORD, but he was certain, at this point, that whoever this One was, He was the LORD.
[140] “They are called his sunodeuontes, `those who were in the caravan with Him’ (cf. sunodia, Luke 2:44).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), fn. 28, p. 185.
[141] Compare this voice with that in John 12:29.
[142] “His companions therefore took him by the hand and led him through the gate of Damascus to the place where, presumably, arrangements had been made for him to stay.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 185.
Presumably this is the case, however I still wonder a bit about this. Could Judas have been a Christian? Could it be that God had also appointed someone to meet Saul as he entered the city, with specific instructions as to where he was to stay? There is a great deal of information we are not given, and thus we cannot be dogmatic about our conclusions.
[143] “. . . a conversion of will, intellect, and emotion, which dictated the abiding purpose and direction of his subsequent life and activity. . . . There are affinities between his conversion experience and Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, in which the prophet saw the ‘likeness’ of the heavenly throne and above it ‘a likeness as it were of a human form’ (Ezek. 1:26); but for Saul the one who bore a human form identified himself as a historical person: `I am Jesus.’ Few of Saul’s distinctive insights into the significance of the gospel cannot be traced back to the Damascus-road event, or to the outworking of that event in his life and thought. “ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 113.
[144] Was Ananias the one who “told him what he must do”? Perhaps so, but I am not as confident of this as I once was. Who told Saul to go to the house of Judas on Straight Street? It was, of course, Ananias who instructed Saul to be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).
[145] “We may note incidentally the two new descriptions of the Christians used here. The saints (9:32, 41; 26:10; cf. 20:32; 26:18) is a common term in Paul’s writings and describes Christians as people who have been set apart for God’s service and must show an appropriate character. Those who call upon your name echoes 2:21 (Joel 2:32) and recurs in 22:16 in a command to Paul himself to be baptized . . . .” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 171.
[146] It is possible, however, to understand the expression, “Brother,” as referring to Saul only as a fellow Jew. Paul would later use this expression (in the plural) to address his unbelieving Jewish opponents, as in Acts 22:1.
[147] “The more Saul preached, the more the Jews were confused. Proving (sunbibazon). Present active participle of sunbubazo, old verb to make go together, to coalesce, to knit together. It is the very word that Luke will use in 16:10 of the conclusion reached at Troas concerning the vision of Paul. Here Saul took the various items in the life of Jesus of Nazareth and found in them the proof that he was in reality ‘the Messiah’ (ho Christos). This method of argument Paul continued to use with the Jews (Acts 17:3). It was irresistible argument and spread consternation among the Jews. It was the most powerful piece of artillery in the Jewish camp that was suddenly turned round upon them.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 123.
[148] I would assume that Saul was one of those who covered his ears so as not to hear the praise of Stephen, as reported in Acts 7:57. Even if he were not one of these men, he would surely have hated to hear the gospel. And now, he is preaching the same message.
[149] “It is more significant than might be supposed at first glance that the only occurrence of the title `Son of God’ in Acts should be in this report of Saul’s early preaching. It was as the Son of God that Christ was revealed to him on the Damascus road (Gal. 1:16; cf. 2 Cor. 1:19; Rom. 1:4).” F. F. Bruce, p. 190.
“That our Lord’s contemporaries believed the Messiah to be in some special sense the son of God is rendered probable by the wording of the high priest’s question to him at his trial: `Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ (Mark 14:61 par. Matt. 26:63; Luke 22:67, 70). As applied to our Lord, then, the title `Son of God’ marks him out as the true representative of the Israel of God and as God’s anointed king; but it is no merely official title. As he himself understood the heavenly voice which said to him at his baptism, ‘You are my Son’ (Mark 1:11 par. Luke 3:22), it expressed his unique relationship and fellowship with the Father.” Ibid.
[150] It is interesting to ponder the identity of these “disciples” of Saul. Were they some of those converted to Christ through his preaching? But why would they be called “his disciples”? Would the church not have undertaken the task of discipling these folks? Or could it be that these “disciples of Saul” were Saul’s disciples before his conversion, who accompanied him as he sought to capture Christians. It may be that Saul’s conversion was the instrument God used to convert these followers of Saul, so that they really were “his disciples,” in a two-fold sense.
[151] The doctrine of total depravity is that every person, every man, woman, and child, has been affected (infected?) by the sin of Adam. Everyone is born in sin, and every part of their being is affected by sin (intellect, emotions, and will). This doctrine does not hold that men are as bad as they could be in each area of their life, but that sin has permeated every dimension of a person’s life.
[152] I do not mean to criticize the four laws of Campus Crusade, which have been used of God to bring many to faith in Christ. But these laws, which seek to summarize the gospel in a concise way, should always be applied individually. The Lord seeks and saves individuals, and thus our methods should be personal.
[153] Saul’s conversion did not bring instant maturity or spirituality, but was the point where growth commenced. We know from Romans 7, for example, that Paul had struggles in his spiritual walk. We know that Paul was not instantly a biblical scholar or a seasoned apostle. His conversion was the beginning of a life-long process of maturing and growth in the Lord.
[154] What is both interesting and important about this text is that the “call of salvation” does not necessarily require a change of career. Some would like the excuse to make some “changes” to make their life more comfortable. The “call” of salvation is a call to holiness, and to obedience, and to fellowship, with God and with our fellow-believers. It may well be a call to live transformed lives in the same circumstances in which we were found. Indeed, this seems to be the rule. Let us be careful to discern what changes the gospel requires and what changes it does not.
[155] “Lydda (Old Testament Lod) lay on the route from Jerusalem to the coast, about 25 miles . . . distant.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 178.
[156] “Joppa (modern Jaffa) lay some 12 miles . . . from Lydda on the coast.” Marshall, p. 179.
[157] Tabitha is Aramaic. “Luke tells us that this name had the same meaning as Greek Dorcas, and RSV indicates that both names mean gazelle.” Marshall, p. 179.
[158] “. . . a ‘new town’ built by Herod the Great which had become the centre of government for the Roman administration of Judea.” Marshall, p. 183.
[159] “A legion had ten cohorts or ‘bands’ and sixty centuries. . . In the provinces were stationed cohorts of Italic citizens (volunteers) as an inscription at Carnuntum on the Danube (Ramsay) has shown (epitaph of an officer in the second Italic cohort). . . The soldiers could, of course, be Roman citizens who lived in Caesarea. But the Italian cohorts were sent to any part of the empire as needed. The procurator at Caesarea would need a cohort whose loyalty he could trust, for the Jews were restless.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 133.
[160] Of this term “devout” A. T. Robertson comments,
“It might refer to a worshipful pagan (Acts 17:23, sebasmata, object of worship), but connected with ‘one that feared God’ . . . Luke describes ‘a God-fearing proselyte’ as in 10:22, 35. This is his usual term for the Gentile seekers after God (13:16, 26; 17:4, 17, etc.), who had come into the worship of the synagogue without circumcision, and were not strictly proselytes, though some call such men ‘proselytes of the gate’ (cf. Acts 13:43); but clearly Cornelius and his family were still regarded as outside the pale of Judaism (10:28, 34; 11:1, 8; 15:7). They had seats in the synagogue, but were not Jews.” A. T. Robertson, III, pp. 133-134.
[161] The text is from the NASB, with the exception of the bracketed expression, “is not unholy to you.” This is probably the most literal rendering of the original text. The rendering of the NASB, “no longer consider unholy,” is really unacceptable. It suggests a dispensational change, which, in my opinion, is not being taught here. I like the sense of the rendering of the New Jerusalem Bible’s translation here, “What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.” One could (rightly) understand the supplied expression, “no longer,” to mean that Peter’s wrong thinking, up to this point, must change. It is interesting that in Acts 11:9, the exact expression in the original text is rendered the same as it is in 10:15, except that the word “longer” is not italicized, though it should have been.
[162] We must remember, though, that while the truth Peter learned here was one that he defended in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, it was also one that he deserted in the incident reported by Paul in Galatians chapter 2. Those lessons which we learn can quickly be forgotten.
[163] For example, in chapter 8 Luke wrote of the “Samaritan revival” as the result of the proclamation of the gospel by those who were scattered from Jerusalem, due to the persecution which arose on account of the stoning of Stephen (8:1-4ff.), and then tells of the cessation of this persecution and of a time of peace (9:31). Then, in chapter 11, he goes back to those who were scattered from Jerusalem by the same persecution, but who went beyond Judea and Samaria, and beyond the Samaritans, so as to preach the gospel to Gentiles, even as far away as Antioch (11:19-22).
[164] One may initially react to this term “separatism,” but it is, I think, a valid use of the term. The Judaizers were truly separatists, for they insisted that the only way a Gentile could have fellowship with them was to become one of them, to become a Jew. If the Gentiles were not circumcised, and did not put themselves under the customs of Moses, then the Judaizers would not fellowship with them, as we see happening, for example, in Galatians 2:11-13.
[165] It becomes apparent much later that the “seed” is not the nation Israel collectively, but the “Seed” (singular), the Messiah. Paul makes a special point of this in Galatians 3:15-16. What Israel would not do, and could not do, because of sin, Messiah would do.
[166] Another Old Testament model for separation is Daniel. Daniel refused to eat the king’s food, which was probably associated with heathen worship and sacrifices, but he did not refuse to be educated in Babylonian schools or to become an active and integral part of the government. In so doing, Daniel’s testimony and his faith in the God of Israel was greatly expanded and influential.
[167] There are those who would say that the distinctions God made between the “clean” and the “unclean” were based upon pragmatic factors. They hold that there was a good reason behind every distinction. I think that there was a good reason behind every prohibition: God said so. God does not have to have a good reason (from our point of view) for what He commands. The obedience of faith lives in accordance with God’s commands, whether we understand the reasons of not. And the more that His commands seem unreasonable, the more we must act by faith and not by sight. I do not think that Abraham found God’s command to sacrifice his son reasonable. But God did command it, and so he, by faith, obeyed.
[168] This is the text cited by our Lord against the ceremonialism of the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-7, in the context of “cleanness.”
[169] Remember that Peter would not have had to go to Caesarea to preach the good news to Cornelius, because Philip was going there himself (Acts 8:40). But it was Peter who had to be sent to the house of Cornelius because he was an apostle, and would thus serve to set the precedent if preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in a more dramatic and influential way.
[170] Why did God raise this woman, who might even have been a widow, when He did not raise a man life Stephen? The answer must be that God is sovereign, and that He has the right to do as He chooses. Later on, in chapter 12, we will learn that while God did not prevent Herod from putting James to death, He did supernaturally deliver Peter. In both cases, with James and with Peter, God’s will was done and God was glorified. God’s ways are higher than our own, and may only be understood from the vantage point of eternity and the infinite wisdom of His purposes.
[171] The word “certain” is found here in Acts 10:1, referring to Cornelius, and again in 10:6, referring to Simon the tanner. It is also found above in chapter 9 with reference to Aeneas (9:33) and Dorcas (9:36). God’s leading is very specific. There are certain people whom God is “putting in place” at just the right time. Once again the sovereignty of God and the specific details of His plan are underscored by Luke.
[172] Peter’s vision is an interesting inter-twining of the divine and the human. The vision is from God, and it relates to a very earthy problem--of prejudice. And while the message is a deeply spiritual one, it is done through a vision pertaining to food. And all of this happening to Peter at a time when he was hungry, and when his meal was being prepared. At the same time his stomach growled or at least his mouth watered, God gave Peter a vision about food, one that almost nauseated him. God is a Master at blending the human and the divine, because He is able to cause “all things to work together for good, in accordance with His purposes.” A sovereign God can use any and every means to get His message to men.
[173] Luke troubled himself to tell us that the soldier who was sent with the two servants was “devout” (10:7). We are also informed that Cornelius “explained everything to them” before sending them to Joppa (10:8). It would seem that they may have shared the same faith with Cornelius. The least we can say is that Cornelius was careful to share the details of his faith and walk with God with those who served him. No wonder when Peter arrived there was a house full of those waiting to hear what Peter had to say.
[174] Compare Acts 10:3, 9, 30. I highly recommend a study of prayer in the Book of Acts. The following passages are suggested for this study: Luke 1:10, 13; 2:37; 3:21; 5:16, 33; 6:12,28; 9:18, 28-29; 11:1-2; 18:1, 10-11; 19:46; 20:47; 21:36; 22:32, 40-41, 44-46; Acts 1:14, 24; 2:42; 3:1; 4:24, 31; 6:4,6; 5:59; 8:15,22,24; 9:11,40; 10:2,4,9,30-31; 11:5; 12:5,12; 13:3; 14:23; 16:13,16,25; 20:36; 21:5; 22:17; 26:29; 27:29; 28:8.
[175] I wonder if there is not a principle, or some kind of pattern evident here. Today, people want the Bible taught in such a way that they know exactly what it means in principle, and what it means in terms of application--now! God progressively revealed this lesson to Peter, even though the truth of it was clearly revealed in the Old Testament and by Jesus. And after Peter is taught the principle (“What God has cleansed, you must not look upon as unclean.”), the application of this principle is revealed to him only at the time when it is required. Is there not a need to teach the truth and to leave, to some degree, the application of that truth to the Holy Spirit? I do not think it wrong to suggest ways in which the truth may apply, but let us beware of leaving the impression that we know how people may need to apply the truth in their circumstances. And let us beware of going another step beyond this, in giving them a precise formula for “how” they are to achieve the conduct which we have determined is the application. I am not so sure that we need as much instruction in methods as we do in a biblical mindset and in a biblical motivation.
[176] This same reasoning is still being applied to some of God’s prohibitions. It is applied to the “unclean” foods of the Mosaic Law. God forbade the “unclean” foods because they were bad for man, we are told by some. I think not. If they were bad for man, why would God later, in Genesis 9, allow man to eat all animals?
Another instance, in the New Testament, is God’s prohibition of women taking the leadership, in asking questions, in public speaking, in leading and teaching (1 Corinthians 14:34-36; 1 Timothy 2:9-15). “Why,” we are asked, “would God prohibit a woman from blessing the church with her teaching or leadership?” It is not that women have little to contribute. They have much to contribute, if they were allowed to speak and lead publicly. But there is no real test of a woman’s obedience to God unless what is prohibited is of value, just as the forbidden fruit was.
I can imagine Eve thinking something like this: “Just imagine, here is a wonderful tree, producing a delicious and nutritious fruit, but God has said that it must not be eaten. What a waste! It isn’t right for God to withhold from us that which would be such a blessing.” This logic is repeated day after day. Sex is a wonderful gift, but God restricts its use to the bounds of marriage. Some would say that if it is really a delight, it would be wrong to withhold it. But here is the test of obedience--doing what God says, at personal cost or loss, only because He has said so.
[177] God cursed the ground on account of the sin of Adam and Eve. Is this one reason why the offering of Cain was rejected, because it was the fruit of the ground, the cursed ground. That which men could not eat, that which had not been given for man’s food, was fit for offering to God, and in the process provided clothing to cover man’s nakedness. Should Cain have reasoned thus, and so offered God an animal (blood) sacrifice? Perhaps so.
[178] It is interesting to note that even in the beginning, sin is described as something coming forth from the heart, and not something merely external. Cf. Genesis 6:5-6; 8:21.
[179] It is generally held that the source of Mark’s gospel account was Peter.
[180] Notice that in heaven Jews and Gentiles are both present, but they are simply viewed as those whose robes have been washed, those who serve God. No emphasis is made on “Jews” per se, but there is emphasis on the fact that Gentiles are present, though without discrimination or distinction. And while the Gentiles are present in heaven, there is no unclean thing or person present. There is no longer any need to distinguish between “clean” and “unclean” in heaven, for the unclean is excluded from heaven.
[181] “We cannot be certain what prophecies Peter may have had in mind, but possible texts include Isaiah 33:24; 53:4-6, 11; Jeremiah 31:34; Daniel 9:24).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 193.
[182] “The amazement of the Jewish-Christian believers present with Peter at this Gentile Pentecost is due to the fact that the Jews held that the Divine Spirit could not be communicated to any Gentile, or be bestowed upon anyone who dwelt beyond the promised land.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 149.
[183] Note that in 10:4 it is the “prayers” of Cornelius which are referred to as being acceptable to God, but in 10:31 the angel told Cornelius that his “prayer” (singular) had been heard. I believe Cornelius was aware of the coming of Jesus and of some of the gospel. I believe his prayer was a petition, asking God what he needed to know and to do to be saved. Peter’s coming to Cornelius was, to a great extent, for Peter’s benefit (and for the apostles as a whole), but it was also to inform Cornelius that the “gospel” which the Jews must believe to be saved was exactly the same “gospel” which he must believe to be saved. As a Gentile, he was not sure what differences there might be. There were, in fact, none.
[184] With one exception. The Jews were accused of rejecting Jesus and of putting Him to death (with the collaboration of the Romans). The Gentiles are not accused of putting Jesus to death, though we know that they would have done so, if they had been in the sandals of those Jews who lived in Jerusalem.
[185] “The main body of Peter’s speech (vss. 36-43) is strikingly parallel to the outline of Mark’s Gospel.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 146.
[186] Up to this point, “the people” must almost exclusively be the “Jews,” including the Samaritans in this category.
[187] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 216.
[188] The rebuke of Peter by the his circumcised brethren (11:3) is likely based on the same “law” (or interpretation of it) as that to which Peter referred in Acts 10:28.
[189] It seems reasonably clear that these “circumcised” opponents of Peter are true believers. This is based upon the assumption that the “circumcised” in verse 2 are the same group (or a smaller part of the group) mentioned in verse 1, the apostles and “the brethren who were throughout Judea.” It is this group of “circumcised brethren” who will conclude, in verse 18, that God has granted salvation also (in addition to themselves, as Jews) to the Gentiles.
[190] Carter and Earle contend that the opposition to Peter’s actions came from a “circumcision party”:
“Upon his return to Jerusalem, Peter was met by a delegation of the anti-Gentile Jewish Christians. This was likely the Judaising party (Acts 15:1-5), which soon charged him with illegal association with Gentiles (vs. 3). These Jewish-Christian legalists did not attack the baptism of the Gentiles, perhaps because of the Lord’s command and God’s evident visitation of these Gentiles, but they made an acute issue of Peter’s breach of Jewish ceremonial law and custom . . .” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 153.
I think that it is just too early for this to be true. My question has to do with the apostles. The “apostles and brethren” heard that Cornelius and his household had come to faith. Where were they when Peter was accosted by this group, identified only as those who were “circumcised”? Were the apostles a part of this group? Were they somehow unaware of the accusations made against Peter? Or, were they standing by, keeping quiet, shuffling their feet? Or, worse yet, were they letting this group of the “circumcised” voice their own concerns and objections?
[191] “It is clear that Christianity was accepted as a reformed Judaism, and not Judaism’s successor. . . Probably, too, as A. W. F. Blunt suggests, ‘such is human nature, they may have thought that such cases as that of Cornelius were likely to be few and exceptional, before the Return of Jesus took place, and that a minority of Gentiles on the circumference of the Church might be tolerated, especially as they might possibly in time go on to be circumcised through the influence of the Jewish majority.’ It required, indeed, a major readjustment of all thinking for a people, fiercely conscious of racial privilege and stirred anew by the thought that the Messiah of promise had appeared and spoken, readily to abandon the thought that a unique national destiny approached fulfillment.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 97.
[192] The matter of food did have a direct link to Gentile evangelism. Peter’s vision was about food. The levitical laws of clean and unclean had much to say about food. The decision reached at the Jerusalem Council had to do with food (cf. Acts 15:29, where three out of four prohibitions are food-related). So also in Galatians 2 Peter’s separation from the Gentile believers was related to food and eating with Gentiles.
[193] In my opinion, this was one of the fundamental errors evident in the life and ministry of Jonah. Jonah was a picture of Israel, who thought that salvation belonged to the Jews, by virtue of the fact that they were Jews, and that salvation was inappropriate for Gentiles. No wonder Jonah was so mad at the salvation of this entire Gentile city! When, in Jonah 2:9, Jonah confessed, “salvation is of the Lord,” he meant (as the text should be understood), “salvation belongs to the Lord,” and thus it was God’s to give, and not Jonah’s to restrict. Jonah still didn’t like it, but at least he acknowledged that he was merely a steward of God’s grace, and not the possessor of it. It was not his to decide those on whom the grace of God should be poured out. And he was just as much the recipient of grace as they.
[194] “Wild beasts . . . is an added item, not mentioned in 10:12 (except KJV).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 153.
[195] There is a textual question here, as pointed out by A. T. Robertson:
“Making no distinction (meden diakrinanta). So Westcott and Hort (first aorist participle) instead of meden diakrinomenon ‘nothing doubting’ (present middle participle) like 10:20. The difference in voice shows the distinction in meaning.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 153.
[196] This is a detail added here, but not specified in chapter 10. There we were only told that “some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.”
[197] Notice that Peter sees a connection between “Spirit baptism” (as took place first for the household of Cornelius) and “water baptism” (which Peter saw as a logical necessity, after it was evident these folks were saved). It is also evident that they were saved before they were baptized. This certainly puts Acts 2:38 into perspective, showing that water baptism was not a requirement for salvation, but a necessary result of salvation. Speaking in tongues was God’s exceptional way of bearing witness to His salvation of certain people. Water baptism is viewed as the normal means by which men bear witness to their identification with Christ by faith.
[198] Below is the evidence supporting the rightness of Peter’s actions, as outlined by Peter and summarized by Carter and Earle:
“First, no sooner had the trance of divine origin been withdrawn than three men appeared from Caesarea inquiring for him in behalf of Cornelius, who had been instructed of God in a vision to send for him (vs. 11). Second, the Holy Spirit spoke directly to him, prompting him to accompany the messengers to Caesarea, and that without misgivings (vs. 12). Third, six Jewish Christian men accompanied Peter to Caesarea to testify to the divine leadings and approval in all the events (vs. 12). Fourth, by comparing notes with Cornelius, after arriving at Caesarea, Peter found that all the circumstances of the divine directions, both on his part and with Cornelius, perfectly corresponded. And fifth, he stated the object of the mission as being the salvation of Cornelius and his household (vs. 14), a most worthy mission indeed.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 154.
[199] Note that Peter’s account begins with his experience, and not Cornelius’s, as in chapter 10.
[200] Peter’s defense did not include a repetition of the gospel which he preached, for it was the same gospel that the apostles consistently preached, along with the others who bore witness to their faith. Notice that in the gospel presented by Peter in chapter 10, no mention was made of receiving the Holy Spirit or of Pentecost. Thus, one must conclude that a pentecostal experience was not seen as a requirement of salvation. How, then, can some insist that to be saved, one must have the experience of speaking in tongues?
[201] A. T. Robertson aptly notes:
“It is noteworthy that Peter does not here repeat his sermon. ‘He rests his defence, not on what he said, but on what God did’ (Furneaux).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 154.
[202] There is a great deal of disagreement and debate over the phenomenon of tongues, as seen in our text, and its meaning. I would strongly differ with any who would attempt to argue that speaking in tongues is the normal and expected result of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. All who are saved have been baptized by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), but not all speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30). I understand that speaking in tongues is both a spiritual gift (which may occur in an on-going way), and an unusual visible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in a very few, exceptional, cases in the Book of Acts, more for the benefit of those witnessing the event, perhaps, than for those experiencing it. This experience is a one-time event, which is not repetitive, for one is baptized with the Spirit but once (“one baptism,” 1 Corinthians 12:13). The fact that Peter and the others were amazed to see this baptism of the Spirit, and that they had to relate it back to the words of the Lord Jesus and their experience at Pentecost, is evidence to the fact that it was not the norm, but the exception. My grievance with some Pentecostals and Charismatics is that they attempt to make the exception the rule. My grievance with some non or anti-charismatics is that they seem hardly willing to accept the exceptions. For most Christians, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is unseen, but it is no less real. It is therefore a matter of faith (cf. Hebrews 11:1).
[203] I do not know whether or not the apostles had gotten word of the salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch. I do think that they could have tolerated this conversion because it was but the conversion of one man. But it was not just Cornelius who heard the gospel from Peter’s lips, and it was not just this Gentile who was saved. A whole group of Gentiles heard the gospel, and all of them were saved. Here was reason for concern, the apostles reasoned. This was going too far.
[204] I work in prison ministry, and I know that there are dangers which cannot be ignored. I know that there must be caution and wisdom. Nevertheless, there is also some element of risk. That is the very nature of faith. Faith in Christ is not free of danger, but it is freedom from fear.
[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.
[236] To “mistreat” is to deliberately do evil to someone, and thus it would seem that Herod sought to do evil against the church. This expression “mistreat” is only found elsewhere in Acts 7:6, 19, of Pharaoh’s mistreatment of Israel, and in 1 Peter 3:13.
[237] “Eusebius (HE 2.9.2-3) preserves the tradition from the seventh book of Clement of Alexandria’s Hypotyposes that the officer who guarded James was so impressed by his witness the he professed himself a Christian and was beheaded along with him.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 234, fn. 7.
[238] The “sword” is the instrument of government, which is divinely charged with rewarding those who do good and with punishing those who do evil (cf. Romans 13:1-4). It was with the “sword” that John the Baptist was executed by Herod Antipas. Both in John’s case, and now with James, the “sword” was misused by men in a position of power, to achieve their own purposes.
[239] The tendency of some commentators is to explain the actions of Herod here as his seeking the favor of the Jews. This is evidently true, but it was not Herod’s initial reason or motivation for putting James to death. Herod executed James to do away with him and thus to cripple the church. (It would seem to me that he was after the inner three: Peter, James, and John. Perhaps John was out of town, as he and Peter were gone from Jerusalem to go down to Samaria in Acts 8:14ff.) To Herod’s delight, the majority of the Jews were pleased at the execution of James. This only served to intensify his efforts, but this does not seem to be the cause for his actions in the first place. Pleasing the Jews may have been Herod’s motivation to kill Peter, but it was not his motivation for killing James, as I read Luke’s account of it.
[240] “Herod in this context is Herod Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, who after a somewhat tempestuous youth was granted ever-increasing areas to rule by the Emperors Gaius and Claudius; by AD 41 he had acceded to a kingdom of similar extent to that of his grandfather. He did his best to win the favour of the Jews and especially cultivated the Pharisees.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 207.
[241] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 165.
[242] One does indeed wonder if they even prayed for his release, in the light of their response to his release and appearance to them at the door of Mary’s house. Did they pray for a quick and painless death? It is at least possible.
[243] “The James mentioned here is the brother of Jesus (Mk. 6:3) who later figured as the leader of the church in Jerusalem (15:13; 21:18); Paul regarded him, along with Peter and John, as one of the three ‘pillars’ of the church (Gal. 2:9). He had been a witness of a resurrection appearance of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7), and hence Paul recognized him as an apostle (Gal. 1:19). It seems probable that from an early stage he was one of the leaders in the church, and at some point he took Peter’s place as the recognized leader.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 210-211.
[244] “The brethren can simply mean the other members of the church, but it is just possible that the word has here the technical sense of the leaders in the church.” Marshall, p. 211.
[245] In find in their failure to explain Peter’s disappearance a parallel to the rapture of the saints. Like Peter, we who are alive at the time of the rapture, will suddenly disappear. Those who are left behind, who have refused to believe in the Lord Jesus or in His word, will have no excuse at all.
[246] I am often involved in prison ministry, and so let me say a word or two about “escapes.” This text does not sanction escapes. This escape is right because God planned and executed it. If an angel suddenly appears in your cell, your shackles fall from your hands, and the doors of the prison swing open, while the guards are not conscious of a thing, then by all means walk away from that prison. But don’t make this text an excuse for an escape. Even those wrongly arrested and confined are not given such license. Remember James!
[247] Luke includes the detail that this Mary was also the mother of John Mark, who was also a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), and who would accompany Barnabas and Saul back to Antioch (Acts 12:25), and then go with them on their first missionary journey (13:5). He was later to leave them in Perga of Pamphylia (13:13). Disagreement between Barnabas and Paul over whether or not he should accompany them on their next journey brought about the separation of Barnabas and Paul as a missionary team, resulting in two teams (Acts 15:36-41). Eventually Paul spoke highly of Mark and urged that he be sent to him (2 Timothy 4:11).
[248] “Soon afterward, Agrippa left Jerusalem for Caesarea, the seat of government of Judaea under the Romans. When it is said that he ‘went down from Judaea,’ Judaea is used in its narrower sense of the territory of the Jews. Caesarea, although it belonged politically to Judaea, was not in strictly Jewish territory: from its foundation by Herod the Great it was a predominantly Gentile city.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 240.
[249] It would seem that Herod’s departure (followed by his death, and thus, no return) insured Peter’s future safety, for surely Herod would have made every effort to find Peter, no matter how long it took.
[250] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 240.
[251] It is true that Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin, but they never pronounced sentence, so far as I can tell. It turned into a mob situation, with Stephen being drug from the meeting place and stoned. It was not the Sanhedrin that was in charge here, in my opinion.
[252] This helps to explain one of the key differences between the deliverance of the apostles from prison in Acts 5 and the deliverance of Peter in Acts 12. In Acts 5, the deliverance of the apostles is done very publicly. They are sent right back to the temple, to continue preaching the good news. The public nature of the apostles’ escape was intended to be a witness to the people of the nation Israel that Jesus was their Messiah. But in Acts 12, no one but the disciples knew what had happened to Peter, or how. This is because God was no longer calling this nation to repentance, but was commencing the time of their divine discipline.
[253] The more I read and study the gospels, Acts, and the epistles, I am convinced that our Lord gave the authors of Scripture experiences which became the basis of their later writings. Having studied the lives of Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts, I come to their epistles with a whole new outlook. I come to see that these men wrote about the very things which the gospels and Acts say they experienced. In our day and culture in which we emphasize “head knowledge” and minimize experience, let me remind you that Jesus taught His disciples less in the classroom or by means of a textbook than He did by means of experiences. Truth that is not experienced is hypothetical. Those who have not experienced God’s truth, at least in some measure, are handicapped in their ability to communicate. Our most powerful witness is that which comes from the truth which we have experienced. Let us keep a proper balance of intellectual knowledge and practical experience. Indeed, the “knowledge” of which the Bible often speaks is an “experiential knowledge,” not just an academic understanding.
[254] I do not like the rendering “temptation” here. The marginal note in the NASB suggests the better rendering, I believe, “trial.” God knows how to deliver His saints from the afflictions imposed by evil men, and how to deliver evil men to judgment.
[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.
[275] The other recorded “messages” of Paul in Acts are recorded in chapters 22 (vv. 1-21), 24 (vv. 10-21), and 26 (vv. 1-23). In each of these cases, Paul’s “message” was his defense against charges leveled against him. His focus was on his personal conversion, his calling, and his ministry. These messages were not delivered to Jews and God-fearers in a synagogue but were spoken before rulers while under arrest or on trial. In chapter 22, Paul was speaking to his Jewish brethren, but by the permission of the commander in whose custody he was being kept.
[276] Note Acts 17:2-3, where Luke informs the reader that this practice of Paul, described in detail in Acts 13, was Paul’s “custom,” so far as his practice of preaching in the synagogues. Because Luke has given the reader a full-blown sermon as an example in chapter 13, he need only briefly refer to the message and method of Paul later on, such as in chapter 17.
When we come to Acts 17:16-32, which describes Paul’s method and message at Athens, more detail is given as this is a different audience, a different forum, and thus his method changes. We might say that his message changes, in that it is not the same sermon as given to Jews and God-fearers in the synagogues, but the fundamental elements of the gospel are present, as always.
[277] “Perga stood near the river Cestrus (modern Aksu); one could reach it from the sea, Strabo tells us, by sailing some seven miles up the river. The city (the impressive ruins of which are a tourist attraction today) stands on a flat-topped hill about three miles from the nearest point on the Cestrus, where it presumably had a landing stage and port facilities. Perga, as its name indicates, was a pre-Greek foundation, but it was colonized by Greeks from the late Mycenaean age on, and after the conquests of Alexander the Great it became thoroughly hellenized.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 250.
It interesting to note that Pamphylia seems to have been evangelized on the return trip of Paul and Barnabas (14:25) but not on this initial visit to the city. The only other thing we know is that it was here, in Perga, where John Mark left them. Are these two incidents somehow related? If so, Luke does not tell us how. There are other explanations for why this city and country were not evangelized on the first trip through, but these are highly speculative--too speculative for me to spend much time thinking about them.
[278] “Pamphylia lay between the Taurus range and the Mediterranean; it was bordered on the west by Lycia and on the east by Cilicia. At this time (between A.D. 43 and 68) it formed part of the Roman province Pamphylia-Lycia.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 250.
[279]“Pisidian Antioch, or Antioch of Pisidia, was so called because it was situated near Pisidia, or over against it, as Strabo points out. It actually lay in Phrygia, in that part which had belonged to the kingdom of Galatia and was incorporated in the province of Galatia, established by Augustus in 25 B.C. At that time Augustus made it a Roman colony (with the name Colonia Caesarea); it was the civil and military center of that part of Galatia.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 251.
“This city was the chief town of the Roman province of South Galatia.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 105.
“It may seem surprising that Paul and his companions then made their way to the somewhat out-of-the way towns in the centre of Asia Minor. In fact they lay on an important line of communication.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 220.
“. . . it is not difficult to imagine the perils of this climb over the rough mountain way from Perga to Pisidian Antioch to which Paul apparently refers in II Cor. 11:26.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 185.
[280] There is other background information on the synagogue and its practices available as well. Bruce, for example, tells us,
“After the call to worship and the recitation of the appropriate prayers the scripture lessons were read--one from the Pentateuch and one from the Prophets. (The Pentateuch was read in sequence according to a triennial lectionary; the lesson from the Prophets was normally selected because of some relation to the Pentateuchal lesson.) Then an address was usually delivered by some suitable member of the congregation. It was part of the duties of the ruler or rulers of the synagogue to appoint someone to deliver the address. In the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch there was more than one such official. They sent an attendant to approach the two visitors and invite them to speak a ‘word of exhortation’ to the gathering.
“The standing posture seems to have been the normal one for synagogue preachers in the dispersion. Jesus, on the other hand, stood up to read the lesson but sat down to expound it. This may reflect a difference in practice between Palestinian synagogues and those of the dispersion; it has also been suggested that a word of exhortation was delivered by a standing preacher, whereas one sat to expound the scriptures.”
F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 253.
[281] Why the mention of the beckoning of the hand? It is not new here, for Peter did so in the house of Mary (Acts 12:17). It may well be that Paul’s hand gestured first to the Jews (seated separately?), and then to the Gentile God-fearers.” But why does Luke, so efficient in his use of words, tell us this detail? It may imply or refer to Paul’s confidence and skill as a speaker. I am inclined to put this together with Paul’s words to the Corinthians about his coming to them with “fear and trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3). While Paul had a fair bit of competence and confidence as a public speaker, his spirit was not one of arrogant, self-sufficiency. As well as he might be able to speak, Paul knew it would not be enough to convince or to convert anyone. That required the sovereign working of God’s Spirit, which is testified to in Acts 13:48 as well as in 16:14.
[282] Marshall compares this message of Paul’s to those of Stephen and Peter:
“To a certain extent the speech is complementary to that of Stephen; the earlier speech rehearses the history of Israel from the patriarchs to Solomon, with particular emphasis on the first part, while the present speech concentrates on the period of the monarchy and culminates in the presentation of Jesus which is missing from Stephen’s speech. This careful avoidance of repetition between the two speeches in their broad sweep of Old Testament history may be due to Luke’s literary skill, but it is also dictated by the entirely different purposes of the speeches given by two different speakers, the former dealing with Moses and Jesus in a warning manner, while the latter deals with David and Jesus in terms of promise.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 221.
[283] “The 450 years seem to cover the period of sojourning in Egypt (four hundred years, according to Gen. 15:13; cf. Acts 7:6), together with the forty years of wandering in the wilderness and the interval that elapsed between the crossing of the Jordan and the distribution of the land recorded in Josh. 14:1-5.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 255.
[284] Paragraph divisions are my own, based upon my understanding of the flow of Paul’s argument.
[285] Forty years is a rather common period of time in the Old Testament, and it is often spoken of with a negative connotation. For example, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, until they all died off, due to their unbelief. Moses too spent forty years in the wilderness, due to his murder of an Egyptian. So too in our text, Saul’s reign of forty years is not spoken of favorably.
[286] The expression, “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee,” is a technical one, designating a man as king. It is the commencement of a special relationship with God (Father and son). This can be seen in the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7.
[287] “The address ends on a note of warning. The prophet Habakkuk, on the eve of the Chaldean rise to world power, called on the nations, in the name of God, to look with astonishment on the impending invasion . . . . As these words of Habakkuk were reminiscent of warnings uttered earlier by Isaiah in the days of the Assyrian peril (Isa. 28:21-22; 29:14), so Paul now takes them up (in the Septuagint version, which makes the application more pointed) and applies them to the new situation in which God is offering deliverance through the greatest of all his mighty works.” Bruce, p. 263.
[288] This sounds a great deal like Acts 11:23.
[289] The sovereignty of God and the grace of God result in and require what is known as divine election, that doctrine which holds that men choose God because He has first chosen them. This same truth is reiterated by Luke in Acts 16:14 with reference to the salvation of Lydia. If the grace of God is truly grace, then men do not get it because they have earned it. If men cannot earn grace, then it must be a free gift. And if it is a free gift, then it must be God who chooses to give it to some, but not to others. This truth should not be a source of difficulty for us, but one of joy and rejoicing, and praise. With whom would we rather leave the destiny of a lost person’s soul? With man, blinded by his sin, unable to comprehend the gospel, and unwilling to receive it if he could (cf. verses 40-41), or with a sovereign God, who does not delight in the eternal torment of men, but delights in saving men? There is no more comforting truth than that of God’s sovereign election of men.
[290] The evils of the holocaust are unthinkable and utterly wicked. Nevertheless, Germany’s treatment of the Jews is little different, in principle, than the Jews treatment of the Lord Jesus and the apostles. The Jews were masters at manipulating the political system to oppose and persecute their enemies.
[291] This is one of the few times Luke writes something less than the commending of women. But these were the facts. Later on, however, we will see that such women of wealth and position did come to faith as well (cf. Acts 17:4).
[292] “Iconium (modern Konya), lay about ninety miles east-southeast of Pisidian Antioch. It was the easternmost city of Phrygia. For two and a half centuries it had been ruled by Seleucit, Galatian, and Pontic kings. It passed into the Roman sphere of influence in 65 B.C., and became part of the empire in 25 B.C., when the former kingdom of Galatia was incorporated as the province of Galatia. From Claudius it received the honorific imperial prefix and became known for a time as Claudiconium.” Bruce, pp. 268-269.
A. T. Robertson adds: “It was at the meeting place of several Roman roads and on the highway from east to west. It is still a large town Konieh with 30,000 population.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 203.
[293] “The climax is at the close and gives us the heart of Paul’s teaching about Christ. ‘We have here the germ of all that is most characteristic in Paul’s later teaching. It is the argument of the Epistle to the Galatians and Romans in a sentence’ (Furneaus).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 194.
[294] I am inclined to see the action of Paul and Barnabas as being broader than simply the decision to turn from a Jewish to a Gentile focus at Pisidian Antioch. I think this change of emphasis is for the entire missionary journey, which seems to be borne out by the remainder of their mission, as Luke records it.
[295] “This distance of 60 miles southeastward they traversed by the Roman highway that followed the ancient Alexandrian route eastward to a verdant and fruitful plateau watered by Pisidian mountain streams. . . . A modern Turkish city of 47,000 people, bearing the name of Konia, is located at the site of ancient Iconium.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 193.
“Iconium, modern Konya, lay on the Roman road about 90 miles (145 km) east of Antioch in the same area of the province of Galatia (the old district of Phrygia).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 233.
“. . . it seems clear the apostles spent some time in the second city . . . and the success of this longer mission is reflected in later history. Iconium became a major centre for the diffusion of the gospel, and geographical convenience is probably not the only reason for this influence.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 106.
[296]“Together is better rendered ‘after the same manner,’ or ‘in the same way’ . . . Ramsay translates it, ‘after the same fashion.’” Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 107, as cited by Carter and Earle, p. 193. The NIV renders it, At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue (emphasis mine).
[297] “The phrase word of his grace as a description of the gospel message recurs in 20:32 in Paul’s address at Miletus (see also Lk. 4:22), and Luke’s use of it here may deliberately reflect the prominence of grace in Paul’s message (cf. 13:43; 20:24). The whole of verse 3 is reminiscent of Hebrews 2:3f. where the activity of God in confirming the message by miraculous signs is also described.” Marshall, p. 233.
The word of His grace was, to be sure, the preaching of the gospel which was a matter of grace. I believe the fact that grace was preached, and not “law” or “works” was the reason the Jews so strongly opposed the preaching of the gospel. They not only rejected grace; they despised it. They not only refused it for themselves; they strongly resisted its being offered to the Gentiles. I see a replay of what is evident in the Book of Jonah here. Jonah, as a typical Israelite, rejected grace for himself because of his self-righteousness; and he resisted it for the Gentiles because they were unworthy of it. Grace, believe it or not, is repulsive to the self-righteous. Only sinners love grace. This is at the root of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews of Jesus’ day, especially those with “standing” (they thought) before the people and God.
[298] Bruce writes, “The preaching was attended by miraculous signs, of a kind which confirmed its truth in the minds of the people.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 271.
I disagree with the conclusion of Bruce. It seems the opposite to me. Indeed, the next verse begins with a “but,” and goes on to describe an ever-increasing opposition, and not a revival.
[299] “This is the only passage where Luke refers to Paul as an apostle, a fact which is somewhat surprising in view of the emphasis that Paul himself lays on his status as an apostle. . . . More probably, however, the explanation lies in the fact that by apostles Luke thinks primarily of the Twelve appointed by Jesus during his earthly life (Lk. 6:13; 9:1f.; 22:28-30) with a particular mission to the Jews. But Luke was well aware of Paul’s apostleship, as is seen in the present passage and in the use of the cognate verb ‘to send’ (Greek apostello) in 22:21 and 26:16f. Thus he recognizes that there was a group of apostles, commissioned by Jesus, wider than the Twelve, and he does not deny that Paul and Barnabas belong to this group.” Marshall, pp. 233-234.
[300] “They departed from the area of Phrygia into Lycaonia, and made their way to Lystra, some 18 miles (29 km) distant, and then to Derbe, some 55 miles (89 km) further.” Marshall, p. 234.
[301] It seems so much out of place that some alleged “scholars” have attempted to solve the tension of this text by rearranging the order of the verses.
[302] I am inclined to view the abruptness of verse 3 as deliberate, perhaps used by Luke to underscore the fact that it was not the “signs and wonders” which were instrumental in converting the lost as it was the Word of God preached with power. Thus, the report of the conversion of many is found in verse 2, tied to powerful preaching, while the signs and wonders are followed by the report of further opposition. I see no indication in Acts (or anywhere else in Scripture) that signs and wonders increased the number of converts, when compared to those accounts where simple preaching took place, without the signs and wonders. In our Lord’s ministry, signs and wonders convinced and converted no one. Those who believed in Jesus, believed in His teaching. At best, signs and wonders serves to point to the spoken or preached word, and to attest to its veracity and power.
[303] “Lystra lay 18 miles (29 km) south-southwest of Iconium; it was an insignificant village which had been made into a Roman colony in 6 BC, as part of a scheme for defence against local warlike tribes.” Marshall, p. 236.
“. . . the elevation of this city {Lystra} was approximately 3,800 feet.” Carter and Earle, p. 196.
[304] “Local legend told of earlier occasions when the gods came down to them in the likeness of human beings--in particular, the two gods known to the Greeks as Zeus (father of gods and men) and Hermes (his son by Maia, and messenger of the gods). We cannot be sure if the crowds used these two names or (since they were speaking Lycaonian) the names of two Anatolian divinities identified with Zeus and Hermes.” Bruce, p. 274.
“In the neighborhood of Lystra two Greek inscriptions have been found, one of which mentions priests of Zeus, and the other of which is on a statue of Hermes with a sundial dedicated to Zeus.” Carter and Earle, p. 197, citing Cadbury and Lake, Beginnings, IV, p. 164.
[305] “Ramsay says the reason the people called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury was that ‘the Oriental mind considers the leader to be the person who sits still and does nothing, while his subordinates speak and work for him.’ Hence in Oriental religions ‘the chief god sits apart from the world, communicating with it through his messenger and subordinate. The more statuesque figure of Barnabas was therefore taken by the Orientals as the chief god, and the active orator, Paul, as his messenger.’”” Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 84f., as cited by Carter and Earle, p. 197.
[306] “The providence of God in giving human beings rainfall and harvest is an Old Testament theme (cf. Gen. 8:22), and the conjunction of ‘food and rejoicing’ (cf. 2:46) is a feature of Old Testament language (cf. Ps. 4:7; Isa. 25:6; Eccl. 9:7).” Bruce, p. 277.
I find it noteworthy that God is said to have been the source, not only of the material needs of the Gentiles, but also as the giver of gladness. Have you ever heard it said or implied that no one but a Christian can be happy? That is not what Paul and Barnabas seem to be saying. There is a happiness, an enjoyment of life, which God gives to the Gentiles. At times it seems that the heathen seem to have found a larger piece of this enjoyment of life than we who are truly saved. God is not the giver of gloom, but of gladness.
[307] “Luke does not say if there was a Jewish community and synagogue at Lystra. Probably there was, however; this would more readily explain how Jews from Pisidian Antioch and Iconium were able to incite the Lystrans against Paul and Barnabas. This would not have been so easy had those Jews been complete strangers, lacking any point of contact with the populace of Lystra, but they could achieve their purpose more conveniently through a Jewish community in Lystra.” Bruce, p. 278.
[308] “When, some years later, he recalled the hardships he had endured for the gospel’s sake, he says, ‘once I was stoned’ (2 Cor. 11:25), referring necessarily to this occasion. And when, writing to Christians in the cities which figure in the present narrative, he says, ‘I bear on my body the marks of Jesus’ (Gal. 6:17), those marks or stigmata certainly included the indelible scars left by the stones at Lystra.” Bruce, p. 279.
[309] Bruce, p. 274, cites Ramsay, who points out that the word for the lame man’s healing is the word often rendered “save,” as is indicated also in the marginal note of the NASB. The word which Luke employs can be used for a physical healing (Luke 8:50), the preservation of physical life (Luke 9:24), a deliverance from demonic possession (Luke 8:36), and spiritual salvation (Luke 8:12; 18:15-26; 19:10). In a number of cases, the use of this word seems to suggest a blending of its meanings, as in Luke 7:50 (and its context). It would seem, Bruce (and Ramsay) feels, and so do I, that the faith which this man had to be healed was the same faith he had to be saved. I think he had heard Paul speak of Jesus, of His miraculous works of healing, as well as His atoning sacrifice. The lame man believed, and thus he was both saved and made well.
[310] “The various episodes in the story differ in form--a healing miracle (which has parallels with Lk. 5:18-26; Acts 3:1-10; 9:32-35, showing that Paul has the same powers as Jesus and Peter). . . .” Marshall, p. 235.
[311] The order of the names is reversed here. Initially, the order in Acts was Barnabas . . . and Saul (e.g. Acts 13:1, 7), but after Saul’s confrontation of Elymas (Bar-Jesus) the Jewish false-prophet, it became “Paul and Barnabas” (e.g. 13:13, 42, 43, 46). Why then is it reversed here? Because, as Luke points out, the crowds assumed that Barnabas was Zeus, the chief God, while Paul was thought to be Hermes, the spokesman of Zeus--his press agent. Thus, the order of the names of these two is a reflection of the thinking of the crowds, as I understand the text.
[312] Barnabas is not mentioned here. Was he somewhere else, preaching or ministering? It could well be. Or was Paul, as the more prominent speaker, selected as the example? We are not told.
[313] Even if we understand this stoning and “rising” to be that which Paul described in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, there is no statement that he was “raised from the dead.” At most, it would appear that some kind of “life after death” glimpse into the glories of heaven was his, only to pass when life returned. It may have been a divinely provided experience, for Paul’s edification and encouragement, but it need not have been a miraculous rising from the dead. Even if it were a miracle, Luke has chosen to veil it. God is not in need of man’s public relations efforts as we might think. We often seek to find miracles where they are not. Luke does not.
“. . . the historicity of the incident is beyond question; we need not doubt that this is the event to which Paul himself referred in 2 Corinthians 11:24f., and further references to it are probably to be found in Galatians 6:17 and 2 Timothy 3:11. The story does not suggest that Paul actually died and came to life again, although some have been attracted to this inference, but Luke’s manner of expression, supposing that he was dead, and his failure to provide any positive indications to the contrary, indicate that there is no question of a miraculous resurrection here.” Marshall, pp. 239-240.
“Ramsay concludes: ‘A writer who tried to find marvels would have found one here, and said so.’” Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 51, as cited by Blaiklock, p. 108.
[314] “The lack of opposition in this city is a bit surprising, in view of the missionaries’ fortunes in the other three cities of Galatia. There is a striking coincidence in II Timothy 3:11, where Paul mentions his persecutions ‘at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra,’ but omits Derbe.” Carter and Earle, p. 202.
[315] From Acts 20:4, we see that Gaius, from Derbe, became attached to Paul.
“The site of Derbe, formerly identified as Gudelisin about 60 miles (97 km) south of Konya (Iconium), has now been identified as Kerti Huyuk, about 60 miles (97 km) south-east of Konya; inscriptional evidence found on the site establishes the identity. . . . Derbe marked the easternmost extremity of the missionary tour, lying as it did on the east border of Galatia.” Marshall, p. 240.
[316] Lystra was the home of Timothy, who would accompany Paul from the second missionary journey onward (Acts 16:1-3). It would seem that Timothy had been converted on this first journey, though it is not stated (cf. 2 Timothy 1:2-5).
[317] “The kingdom of God (1:3, 6; 8:12) is thought of here as the future realm to be established by God into which men may enter by death or by living until the parousia of Jesus (2 Tim. 4:18). Those who set out on this road can expect to be persecuted (1 Thes. 3:2-4; 2 Thes. 1:5; 2 Tim. 3:11-13), but they stand under the protection of the Lord into whose care they were committed by the missionaries (cf. 20:32; 1 Pet. 4:19).” Marshall, p. 241.
[318] “Notice . . . that Tarsus, Paul’s hometown, was only 160 miles away from Derbe, by way of the Cilician Gates.” Irving L. Jensen, Acts: An Independent Study (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), p. 181.
“. . . in the face of their former opposition and persecution, and in full consideration of the fact that they could easily have crossed the Taurus Mountains through the Cilician Gates and returned via Tarsus, Paul’s home. This indicates the extent of their devotion to the Christian cause.” Carter and Earle, p. 202.
[319] They did not, however, return to Cyprus. It is my opinion that they did not feel the need to return to Cyprus because there was, with the conversion of Sergius Paulus, a different political mood there; there was no persecution mentioned, and there seemed to be others ministering there as well (cf. Acts 11:19-20).
[320] “This is the first reference to elders outside the church at Jerusalem; elsewhere we hear of them in the church at Ephesus (20:17), in the church order described in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5), and in James (Jas. 5:14) and 1 Peter (1 Pet. 5:1, 5). Marshall, p. 241.
Let us remember too that Paul gave clear instructions concerning the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Since Timothy was probably present in Lystra when elders were appointed, he would have had a greater experiential knowledge of the process Paul used (in Lystra) to appoint elders and thus helpful insight into how elders could have also been appointed in Ephesus. This is not to say, however, that there is but one inspired method for appointing elders, since the New Testament never records any specific method of appointing them. There must, therefore, be freedom in the way the principles provided can be carried out.
[321] Even as the salvation was, on the other hand, the source of great anger and hostility on the part of some Jews (cf. Luke 4:28; Acts 11:1-3; 13:45; 22:21-22).
[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[327] 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.
[333] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 241.
[334] Cited by, Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 223. Happily, Carter and Earle do not agree, as will be shown later on.
[335] “Clarke argues with learning and force that there is nothing in the expression, sharp contention (vs. 39a), to justify the conclusion that ill will characterized either of them. That they were both perfectly sincere in their positions may well be granted. That they were both right from their respective points of view is possible.”
“Let us sum up the resultant facts: first, there appears to have been no breach of fellowship between Paul and Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6); second, Barnabas was evidently right in giving Mark another chance, as his history reveals and as Paul later recognizes (see Col. 4:10; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11); third, two missionary parties went forth, each of which had special qualifications for its respective fields of service; fourth, the division appears to have had no ill effects on the church at Antioch, nor to have created any problems on the fields visited; fifth and finally, the incident apparently opened the door of opportunity for Silas to accompany Paul on his Second Missionary Journey, and thus to gain experience that developed him into one of Paul’s closest companions and most useful co-workers in the gospel ministry.”
“Thus we are taught the lesson from first-century Christianity that even great men may forcefully disagree on what they regard as principles and still maintain Christian grace and charity while proceeding on their respective courses, and that out of such vigorous disagreements of energetic men may come greater good than from apathetic acquiescence (Rom. 8:28).” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 223-224.
[336] This is, in no way, an admission of failure or wrong judgment on Paul’s part. It is, however, Paul’s recognition that the problems in Mark’s life which had once made him unprofitable and unfit for ministry to and with Paul were a part of the forgotten past. Mark was profitable and so, too, was the ministry of Barnabas in his life at a time of great need.
[337] For example, how would Mark have handled the arrest and beating which Paul and Silas underwent in Philippi (Acts 16:19-24)?
[338] From the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas it would seem that Barnabas was thinking primarily in terms of Mark, while Paul was thinking primarily of the ministry.
[339] I would encourage you to read through Paul’s epistles in the light of his experiences in Acts. I do think that much of what Paul has written in his epistles has been shaped by his experiences, as described in Acts.
[340] The Jerusalem Council was precipitated by the preaching of Paul and Barnabas. The council vindicated these two men, and renounced the authority and teaching of those who contradicted them. Silas was one of two men sent back to Antioch, to testify on behalf of the Jerusalem church that Paul and Barnabas were vindicated by the council. Silas was a much more forceful witness than Barnabas, who was a party in the dispute.
[341] The church growth movement, in the name of homogeneity, even tends to promote this uniformity.
[342] Due to our understanding of the teaching of Scripture, we grant this opportunity to exercise leadership in the church only to men, in order to obey the precepts of Scripture and the demonstrate the principle of headship (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; 14:34-36; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Peter 3:1-6).
[343] There is a category of false teachers, a rather large category so far as the New Testament is concerned, of those whose spiritual condition--saved or unsaved--is unclear. Many of these false teachers could well be unsaved, although it is not clearly stated. The Old Testament counterpart would be men like Balaam, whose salvation is at least dubious. These New Testament false teachers are frequently referred to, but in a way that leaves their salvation in question, which may be deliberate. The following texts are illustrative of this “cloudy category” of false teachers: Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-14; Philippians 3:17-19; Colossians 2:8-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:14-19; 4:3-4, 15; Titus 1:10-16; 2 Peter 3:3-4, 16.
[344] Note the contrast between the pleasure-seeking, pleasure promising false teachers, with the godly preaching of Paul and others, which leads to and requires steadfastness in the face of opposition and persecution. Godly preaching does not lead to prosperity, but to persecution. To this the Old Testament prophets would say a hearty “amen.”
[345] “Silas had influence in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22) and was apparently a Roman citizen (16:37) also. He is the Silas or Silvanus of the epistles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Peter 5:12).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 242.
[346] This was, of course, Paul’s home and “stomping grounds,” where he was raised, but also where he seemed to serve, prior to Barnabas coming to look for him (cf. Acts 9:11, 30; 11:25; Galatians 1:21).
Robertson writes, “Paul would go ‘by the Gulf of Issus through the Syrian Gates, a narrow road between steep rocks and the sea, and then inland, probably past Tarsus and over Mt. Taurus by the Cilician gates’ (Page).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 242.
[347] “Derbe and Lystra are named in the reverse order from 14:6, since Paul approached them from the east on this occasion.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 259.
[348] “It is not stated positively in which city Timothy lived. . . The natural inference is that Paul found Timothy at Lystra.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 225.
[349] “That the brothers in Lystra and Iconium should have known him better than those in Lystra and Derbe is quite natural: Lystra was much nearer to Iconium than to Derbe, although Lystra and Derbe were Lycaonian cities and Iconium was in Phrygia.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 304.
[350] “It was Timothy’s mixed parentage that made Paul decide to circumcise him before taking him along as his junior colleague. By Jewish law Timothy was a Jew, because he was the son of a Jewish mother, but because he was uncircumcised he was technically an apostate Jew. If Paul wished to maintain his links with the synagogue, he could not be seen to countenance apostasy. He set his face implacably against any move to circumcise Gentile believers like Titus (Gal. 2:3-5), but Timothy was in a different situation.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 304.
[351] “Now the plural is used: ‘they handed over the decrees.’ This was Silas’s duty, not Paul’s. . . . Paul himself, as we have seen, never invokes the Jerusalem ‘decrees’ when he deals with the practices which they forbid.” Bruce, p. 305.
“Paul’s silence about them in Corinth and elsewhere, although he could insist on acting in accord with the general practice of the churches (1 Cor. 11:16; 14:33f.), suggests that he preferred to argue a case from basic principles rather than in the first instance by an appeal to authority.” Marshall, p. 261.
[352] I am amazed at the way this text is cited as a “discipleship” text. It is not a discipleship text. Discipleship is for all who come to the faith. Paul speaks here of selecting only those who are faithful men, those who are disciples. Paul is teaching Timothy to perpetuate his gift and ministry through faithful men who have the gift and the calling to do as he is doing--teaching. Men who are gifted should seek those who are faithful and who are similarly gifted, and pour their lives into them, thus perpetuating the ministry of their own gift through others.
[353] I think that Paul not only “had Timothy circumcised” but that he, in fact, circumcised Timothy himself.
[354] This expression, “the Phrygian and Galatian region,” is the center of much discussion and debate. The issue centers about the “North/South Galatian Theories.” The basic question is whether the first missionary journey included “Galatia” (South Galatia--Galatia in a more generic sense) and thus the Book of Galatians is written to the saints in these cities, or whether “Galatia” is “North Galatia” (the more technical use of Galatia), visited later by Paul. Since this burning issue does not change the meaning or relevance of our text, I will pass by this matter. For further discussion on this question, cf. Marshall, pp. 261-262, or one of the commentaries on Galatians.
[355] Notice that the Holy Spirit is also called the “Spirit of Jesus,” linking the ministry of Paul and Silas and the others directly with that of our Lord. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is directly related to that of the Lord Jesus.
[356] Note the “we” of verse 10. Luke will come and go in Acts, as indicated by the presence or absence of the pronoun “we.”
[357] It is interesting to note in 1 Peter 1:1 that Bithynia is one place where the gospel did reach, as indicated by Peter’s reference to saints in that place. What God prohibited Paul and Silas from doing, He did lead someone else to do.
[358] Some have speculated that this “certain man” was, in fact, Luke, but this is highly speculative, and, in my mind, unlikely, since Luke includes himself (“we”) among those who, after the dream was reported by Paul, concluded that they should immediately proceed to Macedonia.
[359] It is difficult to give a termination verse, for the account of the exorcism of the slave girl merges into the account of the charges against Paul and Silas, their unjust beating, and their imprisonment, which leads to the conversion of the jailer and his household.
[360] “. . . a mountainous island rising to 5,000 feet . . .” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 309.
[361] “The wind was favorable for the voyage across the North Aegean, and they finished it in two days. (The reverse journey from Philippi to Troas, recorded in 20:6, took five days.) Bruce, p. 309.
“Neapolis, the modern Kavalla, was the port of Philippi, which lay some ten miles inland. At Neapolis the great Egnatian Way, a Roman road linking the Adriatic with the Aegean, reached its eastern terminus.” Bruce, p. 309.
The distance from Troas to Neapolis was, according to Marshall, about 125 miles. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 266.
[362] “The Greek text is confused, the manuscripts offering several different versions of a phrase that had evidently been garbled at an early stage, but the rendering in GNB and TNT, ‘a city of the first district of Macedonia’, probably represents the intended sense.” Marshall, p. 266.
Marshall previously has written, “Macedonia was unusual as a Roman province in being divided into four subprovinces, of which Philippi belonged to the first, although its capital city was Amphipolis.” Marshall, p. 266.
[363] The river Gangites or the stream, Crenides. Cf. Marshall, p. 267. Compare Psalm 137 for a description of the prayers and worship of the Israelites in Babylon, while captives.
[364] “The people of that area were famed for their skill in the manufacture of purple dye, extracted from the juice of the madder root. This was still in use there for the dyeing of carpets at the end of the nineteenth century, before it was superseded by chemical dyes.” Bruce, p. 311.
“. . . Lydia represented some firm engaged in marketing cloth dyed ‘turkey-red’, from the juice of the madder-root. The dye was a cheaper rival for the crimson expensively extracted from the murex shell.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 126.
[365] “Women in Macedonia were noted for their independence; moreover, under Roman law (which governed life in the colony) freeborn women with three children and freedwomen with four children were at this time granted a number of privileges, including the right to undertake legal transactions on their own initiative.” Bruce, p. 311.
On the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men, compare John 1:13; 6:37, 44, 65; 10:26-29; Acts 13:48; Romans 9:14-18; Revelation 17:8. On the responsibility of man to believe for salvation, compare John 1:12; 3:16-18; 10:9; Romans 10:9-15; Revelation 22:17.
[366] “The conversion of Lydia was immediately followed by her offer of hospitality to Paul and his party; she was thus quick not merely to follow the early Christian practice of being hospitable (Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:2; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 Jn. 5-8), but also to share material goods with those who teach the Word (Gal. 6:6; cf. 1 Cor. 9:14).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 268.
[367] The fact that the acted on information they “supposed” to be so indicates that they had no clear guidance, but were acting out of their best information and judgment.
[368] Cf. Mark 5:7 and Acts 7:48.
[369] The New Jerusalem Bible renders verses 18 and 19 this way: “She did this every day afterward until Paul lost his temper one day and turned round and said to the spirit, ‘I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to leave that woman.’ The spirit went out of her then and there” (emphasis mine).
[370] For example, Marshall writes: “The girl’s cries may not have seemed dangerous at first; indeed there is no suggestion that she was hostile to the missionaries. But it became clear to Paul that she was in the grip of an evil spirit, and he proceeded to exorcise the spirit by means of the name of Jesus.” Marshall, p. 269.
[371] Compare Acts 19:23-27.
[372] For a clue as to the Roman attitude toward the Jews, cf. Acts 18:2, 12-17.
[373] The text says that he “called for lights” (plural), indicating that the lights were out, and that a number of lights were needed to illuminate the place well enough to survey the damage, and to determine who might have escaped.
[374] Some wish to prove from this text that when the head of a family comes to faith, he can be assured that his whole family will follow him in faith. There is no such promise here. If you read these verses carefully you will see that the offer of salvation by faith in Jesus was offered to the jailer, and to his whole household. The message of salvation was proclaimed to the jailer, and his whole household. The message of salvation was believed by the jailer, and his whole household. And as the jailer professed his faith by being baptized, so did the others in his household. The offer was to the jailer and all of his household. The acceptance of this offer was by the jailer and his whole household, but there is no guarantee that this will always be so.
[375] “By a series of Valerian and Porcian laws enacted between the beginning of the Roman Republic and the early second century B. C. Roman citizens were exempted from degrading forms of punishment and had certain valued rights established for them in relation to the law. These privileges had been more recently reaffirmed under the empire by a Julian law dealing with public disorder.” Bruce, p. 319.
“In a speech for the prosecution against Verres, the tyrant governor of Sicily, Cicero speaks with horror of a Roman citizen who was scourged while protesting ‘in the midst of his pain and the noise of the blows, ““I am a Roman citizen.”” It was regarded as a most serious offence to make such a claim untruthfully, or to disregard it if truthfully made.” Blaiklock, p. 127.
[376] The “we” references of Luke end at Philippi, and do not begin again until Acts 20:5, suggesting that Luke stayed on at Philippi, joining Paul later at Troas.
[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).
[391] Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, California: Venture Books, Revised edition, 1984), pp. 9-25.
[392] Richardson, p. 20.
[393] We know from 1 Thessalonians 3:1 that when Timothy came to Paul, Paul sent him to Thessalonica, to learn how these saints were getting along, in the midst of their persecution. In Acts 18:5 we are told that Silas and Timothy returned to Paul while he was in Corinth. It would seem, then, that when Silas and Timothy were left behind in Berea, Timothy was sent on ahead by Silas, who remained on at Berea for a time. When Timothy reached Paul in Athens, Paul must have sent him back to Thessalonica, to learn of their faith and endurance. Then, Timothy and Silas seem to have returned, together, to Paul in Corinth.
[394] “Arriving at Athens, Paul found himself in one of the most famous centers of philosophy, religion, art, and architecture the ancient world had ever known. . . While not the political capital of Achaia or Greece, a position held by Corinth, it was the cultural capital of the whole ancient world. It was located five miles northeast of the Saronic Gulf between two streams, Caphessus and Ilissus. Long walls connected the city with its two seaports, and the Peraeus and Phaleric Gulfs.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 252.
“Athens was the famed city and center of philosophy. The four famous historic schools had been founded and had flourished here. They were the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, and the Garden of Epicurus. However, only the Stoics and the Epicureans remained in Athens until Paul’s day.” Carter and Earle, p. 254.
[395] The term is found only elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 13:5, ‘not provoked’.
[396] New Jerusalem Bible: “his whole soul was revolted at the sight of a city given over to idolatry.”
[397] “Paul must have felt as Quartilla is made to say of Athens in Petronius’ Satyr (Cap. XVIII): ‘Our region is full of deities that you may more frequently meet with a god than a man.’” Carter and Earle, p. 253.
[398] “The Epicurean school was founded by Epicurus (341-270 B.C.). The Stoic philosophers claimed Zeno (340-265 B.C.) as their founder. Their name was derived from the Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch), where he taught.” Carter and Earle, p. 254.
Of the Stoics, Bruce writes, “Their system aimed a living consistently with nature, and in practice they laid great emphasis on the primacy of the rational faculty in humanity, and on individual self-sufficiency. In theology they were essentially pantheistic, God being regarded as the world-soul. Their belief in a cosmopolis or world-state, in which all truly free souls had equal citizen rights, helped to break down national and class distinctions. Stoicism at its best was marked by great moral earnestness and a high sense of duty. It commended suicide as an honorable means of escape from a life that could no longer be sustained with dignity.”
F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 330.
Of the Epicureans he says, “The Epicurean school . . . based its ethical theory on the atomic physics of Democritus and presented pleasure as being the chief end in life, the pleasure most worth enjoying being a life of tranquillity (ataraxia), free from pain, disturbing passions, and superstitious fears (including in particular the fear of death). It did not deny the existence of gods, but maintained that they took no interest in the life of men and women.” Bruce, p. 330-331.
[399] “Babbler is spermologos, ‘seed-picker.’ It was used first of birds, then ‘in Attic slang, of an idler who lives on scraps picked up in the agora.’ It therefore suggests ‘a parasite,’ ‘a hanger-on.’ Eustathius in his comments on Homer’s Odyssey uses it in the sense of ‘ignorant plagiarist,’ and that is the way Ramsay renders it.” Carter and Earle, p. 254.
[400] Some are inclined to think that the “taking hold” of Paul and bringing him to the Areopagus, was a kind of arrest and trial, based on the assumption that preaching an unauthorized god (a god without Athens’ Good Housekeeping seal of approval) was illegal. In such a case, we are told, Paul’s defense was stunning, for it proved that he was proclaiming an authorized god--the unknown god of their own altar. For a more complete discussion on this view, see Carter and Earle, p. 256.
I have difficulty with such a view, for at least two reasons. First, this kind of accusation is made against Paul in Corinth, and it is clearly such (see Acts 18:12-17). The taking hold of Paul in chapter 17 doesn’t seem to be the same. And secondly, the parenthetical explanation of verse 21 seems to give us Luke’s explanation of what they were doing, and why. They were not putting Paul on trial, they were seeking to hear something new, and they recognized Paul’s teaching as this, if nothing else. It was “different.” On this all those gathered at the Areopagus seemed to agree.
[401] “Whether Paul appeared before the Court of the Areopagus in the Agora or was led to the top of Mars’ Hill is a topic of perennial dispute.” Carter and Earle, p. 257.
[402]. “Following his Mars’ Hill address at Athens, Paul traversed the forty miles westward to Corinth, the political capital of Achaia, which was situated on the isthmus between Hellas and Peloponnesus. Corinth was in Paul’s day both the political and commercial metropolis of Greece and was the residence of the Roman Proconsul.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 265.
“The worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, identified by the Romans with Venus, the worship of whom was cleverly designed to excite lust, was the distinctive cult of Corinth from ages past. The temple of Aphrodite was situated on the summit of Acro Corinth, a mountain 1,500 feet in elevation above the city and 1,886 feet above the sea. North of the market place on a low hill stood the temple of Apollo.” Carter and Earle, p. 266.
“Her presiding deity, from the pagan pantheon, was Poseidon, god of the seas, under whose protection, in the days when Greek fought Greek before the Romans came, Corinth’s fleets had sailed against the ships of Athens, and Corinth’s merchantmen had sallied forth to compete with the Phoenicians for the trade of the inland seas. The great Isthmian games were held in Poseidon’s honour, and have left a mark of metaphor on the ninth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church. Above the ruins of the older city towered the 2,000-foot bulk of the Acrocorinthus, and here Aphrodite had her shrine, served by a host of priestess courtesans, who helped to give Corinth her rank flavour of immorality. . . So notorious was the city for its debauchery that the phrase ‘to play the Corinthian’ found its place in Greek to express the lowest of loose living, . . . .” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 147.
[403]. “We hear more of this Jewish-Christian couple, who accompanied Paul to Ephesus (vs. 18), and later returned to Rome where they likely prepared for the coming of Paul and also established a Christian church in their house, as at Ephesus (cf. I Cor. 16:19 and Rom. 16:3-5). They are last seen in the Biblical record at Ephesus where they returned following Paul’s trial at Rome (II Tim. 4:19). Only eternity will reveal the credit due such faithful, sacrificing, occupational missionaries who have contributed so much to the spread of the Gospel and the establishment of Christianity, both in Paul’s day and throughout subsequent centuries. Often have evangelist reapers been credited with the fruit of their labors. The self-support of Paul and his companions in the Gospel at Corinth, as well as with Paul at Thessalonica and elsewhere, enabled them to introduce the Gospel among a new people without laying themselves liable to the charge that they were preaching for material gain, as was the custom with the wandering philosopher-teachers of that day and formerly.” Carter and Earle, p. 267.
“Aquila and Priscilla, we are told, had come to Corinth because the Emperor Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. This was not the only occasion on which the authorities at Rome saw fit to clean up the city by expelling undesirable groups of oriental incomers. Claudius’s edict is usually connected with a statement by Suetonius, that he banished the Jews from Rome because they were “indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus.” This Chrestus may have been an otherwise unknown trouble-maker who was active in Jewish circles in Rome about the middle of the first century, but in that case Suetonius would probably have called him “a certain Chrestus.” Most probably he had the Founder of Christianity in mind but, writing some seventy years after these events, he mistakenly supposed that “Chrestus,” who was mentioned in one of his sources of information as the leader of one of the parties involved, was actually in Rome at the time, taking a prominent part in the contention. Suetonius’s statement, in fact, points to dissension and disorder within the Jewish community of Rome resulting from the introduction of Christianity into one or more of the synagogues of the city.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 347.
[404]. “Claudius was an odd person, a sort of Roman James the First, who would have been much happier with his books than on the seat of imperial authority. Ancient historians persist in calling him mad, but the more Claudius’ actual achievements are studied, the clearer becomes the impression that he was a man of learning, and of no mean ability.” Blaiklock, p. 149.
[405]. “Life of Claudius 25.4. The question arises of the relation between this action and that recorded by Dio Cassius (History 60.6): “As the Jews had again increased in numbers, but could with difficulty be banished from the capital without a tumult because of their number, he {Claudius} did not actually expel them, but forbade them to meet in accordance with their ancestral customs.” The action recorded by Dio is dated at the beginning of Claudius’s principate. E.M. Smallwood rightly distinguishes two actions--the earlier one, when Claudius imposed limited restrictions on the Jews of Rome, and the later one, when (the limited restrictions having proved ineffective) he expelled them (The Jews under Roman Rule {Leiden, 1976}, pp. 210-16). The expulsion order is most probably to be dated in A.D. 49--a date which has the doubtful authority of Orosius (History 7.6.15-16), but fits in well with other chronological data.” Bruce, p. 347, fn. 9.
[406]. “If it is true that the seating in the synagogue was arranged according to trades and callings, Paul may have found his friends Aquila and Priscilla (2) because he had been trained in a craft indigenous to Cilicia, the manufacture of goat-hair cloth and tents.” Blaiklock, p. 150.
“Rabbi Judah says: ‘He that teacheth not his son a trade, doth the same as if he taught him to be a thief.’ So it was easy for Paul to find a home with these ‘tentmakers by trade’. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 295.
[407]. “Hillel is credited with the observation: “He who makes a profit from the crown of the Torah shall waste away” (Pirqe Abot 4.7)--i.e., one should not give religious instruction for money. At a later date, Gamaliel III commended the study of the Torah in combination with some “secular” occupation: “All study of the Torah which is not combined with work will ultimately be futile and lead to sin” (Pirqe Abot 2.2). Greek culture, on the other hand, tended to despise manual labor; an exception is provided by scientific writers, who speak respectfully of craftsmen. In their attitude L. C. A. Alexander finds a possible background for Luke’s totally matter-of-fact reference to Paul’s practice here” (“Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” NovT 28 {1986}, p. 70). Bruce, p. 346, fn. 7.
[408]. This trade was closely connected with the principal product of Paul’s native province, a cloth of goats’ hair called cilicium, used for cloaks, curtains, and other fabrics designed to give protection against wet. In Judaism it was not considered proper for a scribe or rabbi to receive payment for his teaching, so many of them practiced a trade in addition to their study and teaching of the law. Paul, as a matter of policy, earned his living in this way during his missionary career (cf. 20:34; 1 Cor. 9:3-18; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8). Bruce, p. 346.
“Paul’s occupation was as a tentmaker. Tents were made out of the goat’s hair cloth, known as cilicium and manufactured in Paul’s native province, or else out of leather; hence the word ‘tentmaker’ could refer more generally to a ‘leather-worker’, and this seems to be the meaning here.” Marshall, p. 293.
[409]. The King James Version renders this, “Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.” Of this discrepancy in texts and translations Carter and Earle comment:
“Syneicheto, was constrained, is literally ‘was held together.’ By the word is the reading of the oldest manuscripts, instead of ‘in spirit’ (KJV). Ramsay takes the passage as meaning, ‘wholly possessed by and engrossed in the word,’ and translates it, ‘wholly absorbed in preaching.’ Diamartyromenos, testifying, is a strong compound, meaning ‘solemnly protesting.’ Moulton and Milligan say it suggests ‘solemn and emphatic utterance.’ Jesus was the Christ is ‘the Messiah was Jesus.’” Carter and Earle, p. 268.
[410]. “This man now placed his house at Paul’s disposal, and people who had been accustomed to attend the synagogue did not have to leave their habitual route if they wished to go on hearing Paul; they made their way toward the synagogue, as usual, but turned in next door.” Bruce, p. 350.
“The most probable form of this God-fearer’s name, as given by Luke, is Titius Justus--a Roman nomen and cognomen suggesting that he was a Roman citizen, perhaps a member of one of the families settled in Corinth by Julius Caesar when he made it a Roman colony. But what was his praenomen? There is much to be said for the view, favored by W. M. Ramsay and E. J. Goodspeed, that it was Gaius--that this man is the Gaius named by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:14 as one of the few converts in Corinth whom he baptized with his own hands. If so, he is almost certainly to be identified also with “Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church,” as Paul puts it in Rom. 16:23. A man whose house was large enough to accommodate Paul’s voluntary congregation and (later) the whole church of Corinth (if the identification is well founded) would have been a fairly well-to-do citizen.” Bruce, p. 350.
[411]. “In 1 Cor. 1:14 Paul mentions another Corinthian convert who was baptized by him personally, Crispus by name. Luke shows us who this Crispus was--no less than the ruler of the synagogue. He and his family evidently followed Paul on his departure from the synagogue, and joined the new Christian community in Corinth.” Bruce, p. 350.
[412]. “Paul’s vision came from the Lord, i.e. from Jesus. It is significant that the message is couched in the language used by God himself in the Old Testament when addressing his servants (Stahlin, p. 245, compares 7:9; Ex. 3:12; Dt. 31:6; Jos. 1:5,9; Is. 41:10; 43:5; Je. 1:8). The New testament assigns to Jesus a function and status equal to those of God the Father himself. The formula Do not be afraid is regularly used in Old Testament theophanies in order to calm the fears of the recipient of the vision at being addressed by God. Here, however, the words are directed rather at Paul’s fears concerning his own position over against his opponents in Corinth. Instead of fearing what they may do to him, Paul is to proclaim the Word fearlessly. The Greek tenses used may suggest that Paul is to go on preaching as he has already been doing.” Marshall, p. 296.
[413]. “The command is backed up by the promise that the Lord will be with Paul (Is. 43:5). This type of promise was a form of assurance to those called by God to serve him that they would be able to fulfill his command (Jdg. 6:12; Ru. 2:14; Lk. 1:28). As a result of God’s protection of Paul nobody would be able to lay hands on him and harm him. Furthermore, God has many people in the city. The connection of thought would appear to be that since God has many people to be won for the gospel in Corinth Paul will not be prevented by hostile action from continuing his missionary work until God’s purpose is complete.” Marshall, p. 296.
[414]. A few of the converts, some indeed ‘wise men after the flesh’ and ‘noble’ (I Cor. i. 26), are known to us by name--Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom. xvi. 23; and perhaps Acts xix. 22 and 2 Tim. iv. 20), Stephanas and Gaius, who seem to have been in a position to exercise generous hospitality, and the lady Chloe, who had a large household. Also mentioned are Fortunatus, Achaicus, Quartus, and Tertius who acted as amanuensis for the Epistle to the Romans. Blaiklock, p. 148.
[415]. “The time spent in Corinth probably stretched from the fall of A.D. 50 to the spring of A.D. 52; we are able to date this period of Paul’s career with considerable accuracy from the following mention of Gallio as proconsul of Achaia.” Bruce, p. 351.
[416] This word is found in the following texts: Matthew 4:24; Luke 4:38; 8:37, 45; 12:50; 19:43; 22:63; Acts 7:57; 18:5; 28:8; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Philippians 1:23.
[417] The Greek tense of this expression indicates this, and so the editors of the NASB supply “any longer” in italics, indicating to us that this in inferred or implied, if not clearly stated.
[418]. “Gallio was a son of the elder Seneca, the rhetorician (c. 50 B.C.-c. A.D. 40), and brother of the younger Seneca, the Stoic philosopher (c. 3 B.C.-A.D. 65). His name was originally Marcus Annaeus Novatus; but after his father brought him to Rome from his native Cordova in the principate of Tiberius, he was adopted by the rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, and thereafter bore the same name as his adoptive father. His contemporaries speak of him as a man of great personal charm--”no mortal,” said his brother Seneca, “is so pleasant to any one person as Gallio is to everybody.” After holding the praetorship in Rome, he was appointed proconsul of Achaia. From an inscription at Delphi in Central Greece, recording a directive from the Emperor Claudius, it can be inferred rather precisely that he entered on his proconsulship in the summer of A.D. 51. He left Achaia because of a fever (perhaps before his year of office had expired) and went on a cruise for his health. At a later date, after his consulship (A.D. 55), he took a cruise from Rome to Egypt because of threatened phthisis. In A.D. 65, like other members of his family, he fell victim to Nero’s suspicions.” Bruce, pp. 352-353.
“Marcus Annaeus Novatus was a brother of the famous Stoic philosopher Seneca; he was the son of a Spanish orator, and on coming to Rome he was adopted into the family of Lucius Junius Gallio and took the name of his adoptive father. Since Achaia was a second-rank province, it was governed by someone who had not yet attained the rank of consul (the senior Roman magistracy). Gallio accordingly came to Achaia after being praetor and before being consul. He had a pleasant character, but suffered from ill-health. He died as a result of Nero’s suspicions against the family. The date of his proconsulship can be fixed fairly accurately from an inscription found at Delphi, and it probably commenced in July, AD 51.” Marshall, p. 297.
[419]. “Sosthenes succeeded Crispus (verse 8) when he went over to Paul. The beating did Sosthenes good for he too finally is a Christian (I Cor. I:I), a co-worker with Paul whom he had sought to persecute.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 302.
[420]. “Gallio’s ruling meant in effect that Paul and his associates, so long as they committed no breach of public order, continued to share the protection which Roman law granted to the practice of Judaism. It probably served as a precedent for other Roman judges, especially as it proceeded from a man whose brother (Seneca) occupied a position of influence at the imperial court. It meant that for the next ten or twelve years, until imperial policy toward Christians underwent a complete reversal, the gospel could be proclaimed in the provinces of the empire without fear of coming into conflict with Roman law. The next charges brought against Paul before a Roman judge were personal to himself.” Bruce, p. 354.
[421] It is difficult to discern how strong Paul’s influence had a bearing on their decision to stay on at Ephesus. Did Paul recommend that they stay on, knowing the ministry they could play here, or was this entirely their decision?
[422] Phoebe lived here and served the church in this city. See Romans 16:1-2.
[423] Note that the order here and in verse 26 is reversed from 18:2.
[424] See Romans 16:3-5 and 2 Timothy 4:19.
[425] “Went up--went down”--See Luke 2:42; 18:10; Acts 11:2; 18:22; 21:15; 24:1, 10; 25:1, 6.
[426] It seems that Paul did not try, on this occasion, to evangelize in this region. Why? I suspect it was because there was now a church there, and this was their task. His task now was to edify and build up the body of believers.
[427] It is interesting to note that while in each gospel John is quoting from Isaiah 40:3, the rendering of the Isaiah text is slightly different in the NASB, “Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness,” but the sense is the same. The King James version does render it, “Prepare ye the way of the LORD.”
[428] The New American Standard Bible (La Habra, California, 1973), p. ix.
[429] There were two things about Messiah that perplexed the Old Testament saint. The first was that He was prophesied to be a mighty, conquering King, who would subdue His enemies and establish justice, while at the same time He was spoken of elsewhere as a suffering Savior (compare Psalm 2, 110 with Isaiah 52-53). Peter spoke of this tension in 1 Peter 1:10-12. The second tension was that the Messiah would be a man, a human being, the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), and of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-6; 17:15-21; 2 Samuel 7:13-14), and yet He was God (Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 5:2). He was to be the Son of Man and the Son of God. John’s reference to Isaiah 40:3 was, therefore, a clear reference to the deity of the Messiah, in the minds of those who knew and understood this text as referring to the Messiah as LORD (Yahweh). The teaching of Priscilla thus linked together the complete revelation of the Old Testament (that Jesus was the Suffering Savior and the Triumphant King, and that He was both divine and human) with the events of Jesus’ first coming and His on-going ministry through His church. The very things of which Priscilla and Aquila informed Apollos are, in my opinion, the things of which Luke wrote in his first (Luke) and second (Acts) volumes, addressed to Gentiles.
[430] I must confess, the appearance of “twelve (Gentile) disciples” seems just a bit coincidental. Is there any possibility that Luke is somehow drawing some kind of analogy to the “twelve (Jewish) disciples”?
[431] Every other time the term “reasoned” is used of Paul’s ministry in Acts, it has a definite apologetic sense, and he does not appear to be teaching primarily believers, but rather trying to convince unbelievers. See Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9.
[432] Note, however, that the order of events differs, for Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before their water baptism, while the 12 disciples were baptized with water first.
[433] “Reasoning” in Acts usually implies a kind of apologetic ministry, addressed to unbelievers. See Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 24:25
[434] “According to the Western text, Paul had the use of the building from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Whatever the textual basis of this reading may be, it probably represents what actually happened. Tyrannus (if he was the lecturer) no doubt delivered his lectures in the early morning. At 11 a.m. public activity came to a stop in the cities of Ionia (as in many other parts of the Mediterranean world), and Lake and Cadbury are no doubt right in saying that more people would be asleep at 1 p.m. than at 1 a.m. But Paul, after spending the early hours at his tentmaking (cf. 20:34, devoted the burden and heat of the day to his more important and more exhausting business, and must have conveyed something of his own energy and zeal to his hearers, who had followed him from the synagogue to this lecture hall, for they were prepared to forgo their own siesta in order to listen to Paul.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 366, fn 22, citing Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings, I.4, p. 239
[435] The total time Paul spent in Ephesus, according to Paul’s words in Acts 20:31, was three years.
[436] “Forty years after this Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan from Bithynia will say of Christianity: ‘For the contagion of this superstition has not only spread through cities, but also through villages and country places.’” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 315.
“For two full years this work went on. While Paul stayed in Ephesus, a number of his colleagues carried out missionary activity in neighboring cities. During those years his colleague Epaphras appears to have evangelized the cities of the Lycus valley, Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis--cities which Paul evidently did not visit in person (Col. 1:7-8; 2:1; 4:12-13). Perhaps all seven of the churches of Asia addressed in the Revelation of John were also founded about this time. The province was intensively evangelized, and remained one of the leading centers of Christianity for many centuries.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 366.
[437] “Linen aprons used by servants or artisans (Martial XIV. 153). Paul did manual work at Ephesus (20:34) and so wore these aprons.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 317.
[438] The phenomenon of miracles, signs, and wonders were almost always manifested through apostles (though see Philip in Acts 8:6, 13) to accredit the messenger and his message--the gospel. See Acts 7:36; 8:6, 13; 14:3; 15:12, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:22; 14:22; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Hebrews 2:4.
[439] See Luke 11:14-26, especially verse 19.
“The closest parallel to the Ephesian exorcists’ misuse of the name of Jesus appears in a magical papyrus belonging to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, which contains the adjuration: ‘I adjure you by Jesus, the God of the Hebrews.’ F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 368, fn 32, citing K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I (Leipzig, 1928), Pap. Bibl. Nat. Suppl. gr. 574, lines 3018-19.
[440] “The first know is ginosko, the second, epistamai. Page comments: ‘It is easy, but unsafe, to say that ginosko = ‘acknowledge,’ i.e., as recognizing His power, whereas epistamai = ‘know’ merely expresses acquaintance with a fact.” The variation seems strange, and the reason for it is not clear. Gloag translates it: “Jesus I know, and with Paul I am acquainted.’ In the closing question ye (hymeis) is put first for contemptuous emphasis: ‘But you, who are you?’” Carter and Earle, page 289, citing Page, p. 206, fn 49.
[441] There is a slight problem here, because Luke has told us that there were 7 sons, and yet he says here that “both” (which seems to imply 2 sons) were attacked by the demonized man. There seem to be two solutions. (1) Only two of the seven sons were involved with this man. (2) The term “both” includes all seven. This second view is held by A. T. Robertson, who writes, “Papyri examples exist where amphoteroi means ‘all’ or more than ‘two’. . . . So here amphoteroi includes all seven. ‘Both’ in old English was used for more than two.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 318.
[442] “Of praxeis, deeds, Lake and Cadbury say: ‘The noun also has the technical meaning of ‘magic spell,’ so that the probable meaning here is that the former exorcists now disclosed the secret formulae they had used.’” Carter and Earle, page 290, citing Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings IV, p. 242, fn. 52.
[443] “Perierga, magical arts, is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Timothy 5:13 (‘busybodies’). But it is also ‘a technical term for magic.’ Books is biblous, the Greek word ‘for papyrus. These would be parchment or papyrus scrolls with magical charms written on them. Deissmann gives numerous examples of these. Moulton and Milligan assert that biblos always has ‘the connotation of sacredness and veneration.’ Gloag notes that the term ‘Ephesian Letters’ was commonly used for magical charms or amulets worn by the Ephesians and widely prescribed by the magicians of that day. So this scene is especially appropriate to Ephesus.” Carter and Earle, p. 290, fn. 55, citing Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 250-260, 304-309; Moulton and Milligan fn 56 VGT p. 111; Gloag fn 57 Op. Cit., II, p. 206.
[444] Paul says in Acts 20:22: “And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.” This is surely a commentary on Luke’s statement in Acts 19:21.
[445] See also Acts 23:11; 28:14, 16.
“This was the way that he actually went, but originally he had planned to go to Achaia (Corinth) and then to Macedonia, as he says in II Cor. 1:15f., but he had now changed that purpose, perhaps because of the bad news from Corinth. Already when he wrote I Corinthians he proposed to go first to Macedonia (I Cor. 16:5-7). He even hoped to spend the winter in Corinth ‘if the Lord permit’ and to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, neither of which things he did.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, pp. 320-321.
[446] “The guilds, and the problem they presented to the non-conforming Christian, haunt the background of the New Testament. They were societies not trade unions, primarily social, and multitudinous in ancient society. Records exist of guilds of bankers, doctors, architects, producers of woollen and linen goods, dyers, workers in metal, stone or clay, builders, carpenters, pastry cooks, barbers, embalmers and transport workers. ‘No other age’, writes S. Dill, ‘felt a deeper craving for some form of social life, greater than the family, but narrower than the state.’ Formed under this gregarious urge, the trade guilds satisfied the need of the people at large for social intercourse and self-expression. On the other hand, the tumult at Ephesus shows that the social club, under adroit leadership such as it found in Demetrius, could be used as a sharp political weapon. Hence the sensitiveness of the Roman administration on the whole subject, and the severe laws about illegal association.” Blaiklock, pp. 158-159.
[447] “The cult of Ephesian Artemis was of earlier date than the Greek settlement at Ephesus; the name Artemis is non-Greek. Artemis was traditionally venerated as the protector of wild creatures. This association with wild creatures survives, in an altered form, in her worship on the Greek mainland as the “queen and huntress, chaste and fair” of Ben Jonson’s poem; Ephesian Artemis, on the other hand, seems to have acquired some of the features of the great mother-goddess venerated from time immemorial in Asia Minor. Her temple, replacing an earlier one which was destroyed by fire in 356 B.C., was reckoned one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It covered an area four times as large as that of the Parthenon in Athens; it was supported by 127 pillars, each of them sixty feet high, and was adorned by Praxiteles and other great sculptors of antiquity. It stood about a mile and a half northeast of the city which Paul knew. All knowledge of its whereabouts had been forgotten for centuries, when its foundations were discovered on the last day of 1869. The great altar, west of the main building, was discovered in 1965.” Bruce, pp. 373-374.
[448] “When the excitement spread to the crowd, the theater was the natural place for them to stage a demonstration. The theater of Ephesus, cut out of the western slope of Mount Pion (modern Panayirdag), could accommodate nearly 25,000 people. It was the regular meeting place of the civic assembly, which was held three times a month; on this occasion the demonstrating populace appears to have constituted itself as a meeting of the assembly, but a highly irregular one.” Bruce, p. 376.
[449] “Lily Ross Taylor writes: ‘The Asiarchs were the foremost men of the province of Asia, chosen from the wealthiest and the most aristocratic inhabitants of the province.’ They held office for one year, and several were appointed each year.” Carter and Earle, p. 296.
[450] “This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the strategoi, had charge of the city’s money, was the power in control of the assembly, and communicated directly with the proconsul. Inscriptions at Ephesus give frequently this very title for their chief officer and the papyri have it also. The precise function varied in different cities. His name appeared on the coin at Ephesus issued in his year of office.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 330.
“This was the town clerk, the executive officer of the civic assembly, who took part in drafting the decrees to be laid before it, and had them engraved when they were passed. He acted also as liaison officer between the civic government and the Roman provincial administration, which had its headquarters in Ephesus. The Roman authorities would hold him responsible for the riotous assembly, and might impose severe penalties on the city. He therefore did his best to calm the assembly, and when at last he succeeded, he addressed them.” Bruce, p. 378.
[451] “But Lake and Cadbury say that the term ‘came to mean “‘sacrilege’” as being the real crime involved in robbing a temple.’ So they translate the adjective ‘sacrilegious’ (cf. RSV). Josephus quotes the Egyptian historian Manetho as declaring that the Jews ‘had been guilty of sacrilege {hierosylia} and destroyed the images of the gods.’ He also quotes Moses as telling the Israelites before they crossed the Jordan: ‘Let no one blaspheme those gods which other cities esteem such; nor may one steal what belongs to strange temples, nor take away the gifts that are dedicated to any god.’ It is obvious that these two accusations, of blasphemy and temple-robbing, were leveled against the Jews.” Carter and Earle, p. 299.
[452] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 340.
[453] I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 322.
[454] A. T. Robertson, III, pp. 335-336.
[455] There is some discussion as to whether this was on a Saturday evening or a Sunday evening. The difference is really of no consequence, and does not change the thrust of this text.
[456] There is likewise a great deal of discussion as to whether this “breaking of bread” is the celebration of a common meal, as a part of the celebration of the Lord’s table, or whether it was merely the eating of a meal. From the use of this term in Acts 2:42 and the description of the love feast in 1 Corinthians 11 as a part of a meal, I am strongly inclined to view this as the celebration of a meal as a part of the remembrance of the Lord in communion.
[457] For example, in Luke’s description of Paul’s rather lengthy ministry in Corinth, no miracles are mentioned, but the emphasis is on Paul’s teaching (see Acts 18:11). But in 2 Corinthians 12:11-13, Paul speaks of “signs and wonders and miracles” being performed by him among them, as evidence and proof of his apostleship. There is a similar reference in Romans 15:19, but speaking of a broader group than just those in Corinth.
[458] “Assos (modern Behram-kale) was a well-fortified city standing on a volcanic cone about 750 feet high. Its harbor, on the shore below, was protected by a mole, which is still to be seen.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 386.
[459] “Miletus stood on the south shore of the Latmian Gulf. Even then the gulf was being constantly silted up by the river Maeander, which entered it from the north. Today the Latmian Gulf survives as an inland lake (Lake Bafa), which is connected with the Maeander by an outlet on the north. The island of Lade, which then stood off the coast to the west of Miletus, has for long been part of the mainland. Miletus was a city of high antiquity; it is mentioned in Hittite and Mycenaean texts. Homer knew it as a Carian city, before the Ionians settled there; it was in fact the most southerly of the Ionian settlements in Asia Minor.” Bruce, pp. 386-387.
[460] “This speech is quite distinctive among all the speeches reported in Acts. It is the only Pauline speech delivered to Christians which Luke has recorded, and it is not surprising to discover how rich it is in parallels to the Pauline letters (especially, in fact, to the later ones).” Bruce, p. 387.
[461] It would be some of these very Jewish opponents who would create the disturbance which would get Paul arrested in Jerusalem, and which would lead him ultimately to Rome (see Acts 21:27-29).
[462] In “every city” (verse 23) Paul was informed of the bonds which awaited him in Jerusalem. Thus there were prophets in each city. It seems that this revelation may have been as much for the sake of the saints as it was for Paul. Such revelation did not deter Paul, for he continued to press on to Jerusalem, much like his Master.
[463] I understand the expression “word of His grace” to refer to more than just the Old Testament Scriptures, but to refer to the message of the gospel, to the inspired words of the New Testament prophets, and especially to the inspired Word of God that would be revealed in the New Testament epistles.
[464] While there is no reference to these words of our Lord in the Gospels, there is no reason to doubt that they were our Lord’s words.
[465] Such is the sense of the expression, and this is the way it is rendered in the NIV.
[466] “From Miletus they sailed to Cos, one of the islands of the Dodecanese, famed as the home of the medical school founded by Hippocrates in the fifth century B.C. The following day they put in at the harbor of Rhodes. ‘Rhodes’ is here the city rather than the island of the same name (the largest island of the Dodecanese). . . . From Rhodes they turned east (formerly the port of Xanthus, capital of the kingdom of Lycia, and now the headquarters of the Roman governor of the province).” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 397-398.
[467] “Paul was still in a hurry with the limited time available (20:16) and therefore chose a ship which would sail direct across the open sea, a journey of some 400 miles (644 km).” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 388.
[468] “According to Chrysostom, the voyage from Patara to Tyre took five days.” Bruce, p. 398.
[469] In the Book of Acts, Luke speaks several times of prophecy being revealed, which tells of a future event, but which does not include any inspired application. This will be the case later on in Acts 21, as it was also the case in Acts 11:27-29.
[470] “Ptolemais was perhaps the last port at which their ship was due to put in; it is not clear whether they took another ship to Caesarea or went there by road.” Bruce, p. 399.
[471] Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 318.
[472] “The following day they departed for Caesarea, a distance of some forty miles, which probably occupied about two days’ travel time. . . . Thus the long voyage “that may have begun about April 15 . . . finally terminated about May 14, two weeks before the Pentecost festival that Paul wanted to spend at Jerusalem.” Carter and Earle, p. 318.
[473] See Carter and Earle, pp. 318-319.
[474] It is not without significance that it was through Agabus, and not these daughters, that the prophecy of Paul’s fate in Jerusalem was revealed to Paul and to the others at Caesarea. It would seem that such a revelation, coming through these women, to Paul and to the other men present, would have violated the Scriptures which prohibit women from taking a leadership role over men (see 1 Corinthians 14:26-40; 1 Timothy 2:8-15).
[475] “The mode of his prophecy is reminiscent of much Old Testament prophecy; it is conveyed in action as well as in word. As Ahijah the Shilonite tore his new cloak to show how Solomon’s kingdom would be disrupted (1 Kings 11:29-39), as Isaiah went about naked and barefoot to show how the Egyptians would be led into captivity by the Assyrians (Isa. 20:2-4), as Ezekiel mimicked the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem by laying siege himself to a replica of the city (Ezek. 4:1-3), so Agabus foretold the binding of Paul by tying himself up with Paul’s girdle. The action was as much part of the prophecy as the spoken word; both together communicated the effective and self-fulfilling word of God (cf. Isa. 55:11).” Bruce, p. 401.
[476] How ironic, indeed, that Paul was bound, the one who, in Acts 9:2, bound saints, to carry them away to punishment for naming Jesus as Messiah.
[477] The language of Agabus, recorded in Acts 21:11, makes it quite clear that the Holy Spirit was not speaking to Paul, who knew all too well of his coming bondage in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23), but to the church, who were not yet aware of what was to befall him when he arrived there.
[478] “Paul was accompanied by the representatives of the churches who had come up to Jerusalem with him. We may assume that the presence of the latter was connected with the presentation of the collection to the Jerusalem church, although Luke lets this motive for Paul’s visit appear only later in an incidental comment (24:17) addressed to Felix.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 342-342.
[479] “The termination of their vow would be accompanied by the offering of a sacrifice at the temple, and it was proposed that Paul should pay the expenses of the sacrifice on their behalf. This was an accepted act of Jewish piety; Josephus relates that Herod Agrippa I directed many Nazarites to have their heads shaved, the implication being (according to Bruce, Acts, p. 393 n.) that he paid their expenses. The problem is that Paul is directed to purify himself along with them. The circumstances are far from clear.
Paul’s action would make it clear that he lived in observance of the law, but many scholars have doubted whether the historical Paul would have agreed to this proposal. A. Hausrath put the objection most vividly by saying that it would be more credible that the dying Calvin would have bequeathed a golden dress to the mother of God than that Paul should have entered upon this action. Luke, it is claimed, has invented the incident to show that Paul was a law-abiding Jew.” Marshall, pp. 345-346.
[480] “How often has human sentiment and solicitation, growing out of personal friendships or relationships, served to deter God’s servants from His higher will.” Carter and Earle, p. 320.
[481] See the three accounts comparatively displayed at the end of this message.
[482] This same superior attitude can sometimes be detected in students or preachers who tout their ability to read the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible.
[483] In the providence of God, Paul was a hybrid Jew, a mixture of both “Hellenistic Judaism” and of “native Judaism.” By birth, (the Greek) language, and travel, he was a Hellenistic Jew. But by his (Hebrew) language, upbringing and training in Jerusalem, he was a “native Jew.” Thus, he could speak with authority to both groups. This is hardly a coincidence.
[484] “The Sanhedrin (a Hebrew and Aramaic loanword from . . . the word translated ‘court’ in v. 15 . . .) was the senate and supreme court of the Jewish nation. In the NT it is also called the . . . ‘body of elders’ (22:5; Luke 22:66) and . . . ‘senate’ (5:21); Josephus also refers to it as the . . . ‘council’. . . The Mishnah calls it the Sanhedrin, the great Sanhedrin, and Sanhedrin of the seventy-one, the great law-court. It comprised the high priest, who presided over it by virtue of his office, and seventy other members. It first appears in history in the Hellenistic period (c. 200 B.C.) as the body which regulated the internal affairs of the nation (Josephus, Ant. 12.142); it maintained this role until the revolt of A.D. 66 . . . The Sanhedrin at this time included a majority of members from the Sadducean party, supporting the chief-priestly interests, and a powerful minority from the Pharisaic party, to which most of the scribes or professional exponents of the law of Moses belonged. The body is frequently referred to in the NT by some or all of its component groups; . . . ‘their rulers, elders, and scribes’ . . .” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 91, fn. 12.
[485] Consider the following similarities: (1) The issue with the Jews was always the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah. (2) The opponents were never able to win when they attempted to debate. (3) When accusations were made before the political authorities, there was never any consistency, but only conflicting charges and allegations, and thus there was no charge made that would stand up under scrutiny and investigation. (4) The general allegations had to do with disloyalty toward Rome, and worse yet, revolutionary activity, which was intended to turn the masses against Rome. (5) If a guilty verdict was rendered, it was done because of pressure being brought to bear on the Roman officials, and of their fear of losing control.
[486] “It is a pointed disclaimer against the charge that he is a renegade Jew, an opposer of the law, the people, the temple. Paul addresses the Sanhedrin as an equal and has no “apologies” (in our sense) to make for his career as a whole. The golden thread of consistency runs through, as a good citizen in God’s commonwealth.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 398.
[487] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 425.
[488] Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 342.
[489] “Paul’s reaction has been contrasted with that of Jesus, “who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return” (1 Pet. 1:23). But when Jesus himself was struck during his interrogation before Anna, he too protested against the illegality of the action. There is no need to join the chorus of disapproval voiced by older commentators, who felt free to condemn Paul for his righteous protest in a situation which they themselves were unlikely to face. The warm impetuousness of a man of like passions with ourselves is vividly portrayed in this trial scene, and there is no doubt who presents the more dignified bearing--Paul or the high priest. The metaphor of the “whitewashed wall” suggests a tottering wall whose precarious condition has been disguised by a generous coat of whitewash: in spite of appearances, a man who behaved as Ananias did was bound to come to grief. His was the “haughty spirit” of Prov. 16:18, which “goes before a fall.” Paul’s words were more prophetic than he realized; had he known the man intimately, he could not have spoken more aptly.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 425-426.
[490] Note these words of Marshall: “What is more surprising is Paul’s reply. Some commentators note how Paul’s swift reply goes against the spirit of Matthew 5:39 and his own words in 1 Corinthians 4:12. We should not dismiss out of hand the simple explanation that Paul lost his temper, with verse 5 giving something of an apology; Paul was both human and sinful, and we do not need to credit him with a sinless perfection that he himself never claimed.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 363.
Even if Marshall has gone too far, in explaining this outburst from Paul as a manifestation of his temper, we must never forget that neither Paul, nor any of the apostles, nor any other saint, was perfect. Only our Lord was without sin, and thus we should not be surprised at the fact that one so great as Paul would have acted in anger or in haste. But if Paul was quick to rebuke Ananias, he was also quick to acknowledge his sin.
[491] Let us seek to square Paul’s words here, with those in Philippians or Galatians. Why would Paul claim to be a Pharisee here, and reject it elsewhere? For one thing, Paul was a “Pharisee” in many regards. He certainly was a Pharisee in terms of his basis belief in miracles, heaven and hell, eternal judgment, and the spirit world, including angels. He was in agreement with the Pharisees in terms of his belief in the resurrection of the dead, and probably in many tenants pertaining to Messiah. Paul’s point in Philippians and Galatians is not that Pharisaism is all bad, and entirely to be rejected, but that the self-righteous, works-oriented view of righteousness was wrong, damnable. All of Paul’s righteous deeds were but dung, so far as making him righteous before God and saving him from God’s wrath. One could easily, like Saul, be a lost Pharisee. But a Pharisee would still be able to retain much of his beliefs when he came to faith in Jesus as Messiah. Much more Sadducean theology would have to go in order to be saved.
[492] “A Sadducee could not become a Christian without abandoning a distinctive theological tenant of his party; a Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee--in the apostolic age, at least.” F. F. Bruce, p. 428.
[493] Note that Paul cites this text from Isaiah 6 in the final chapter of Acts (28:26-27).
[494] There is a touch of irony here, for it was in conjunction with the taking of a vow that Paul worshipped in the temple, and as a result was arrested. Did Paul take a vow? So did these men, but a very different kind of vow. Yet both “vows” were taken in a religious context. How far from true religion the vow of these 40 men was.
[495] I seriously doubt that any of these men starved to death, or even lost any weight. These “gnat strainers” laid heavy burdens on the shoulders of their followers, but had ingenious ways of avoiding the laws themselves. Without a doubt they found a way out of their vows. As Bruce notes, “The Mishnah makes provision for relief from such vows as could not be fulfilled ‘by reason of constraint’” (Ne darim 3.1,3). F. F. Bruce, p. 431, fn. 37.
[496] Luke does not tell us that all of the members of the Sanhedrin were included in this conspiracy, but only that the “chief priests and elders” were (23:14).
[497] “Paul, as an unconvicted Roman citizen, was kept in honorable custody in the Antonia fortress: he was allowed to receive visitors, and centurions promptly saw to it that his commissions were carried out. So, when his nephew came to the fortress and reported the plot to Paul, Paul immediately told a centurion to take the young man to the tribune, so that he might hear for himself what was afoot. The tribune received the young man kindly. “Never was a tribune more amiable,” comments Alfred Loisy, perhaps in irony--but Luke presents all his Roman officers in an “amiable” light. Having listened to what the young man had to say, the tribune treated his report seriously, made up his mind at once what ought to be done, and dismissed his informant with a warning to tell nobody that he had reported this plot to him.” F. F. Bruce, pp. 432-433.
[498] “Marcus Antonius Felix (as his full name is usually taken to have been) was a man of servile birth, who owed his unprecedented advancement to a post of honor usually reserved for the equestrian order to the influence which his brother Pallas exercised at the imperial court under Claudius. Pallas was a freedman of Claudius’s mother Antonia, and was for a number of years head of the imperial civil service. Felix succeeded Ventidius Cumanus as procurator of Judaea in A.D. 52, but before that he may have occupied a subordinate post in Samaria under Cumanus. His term of office as procurator was marked by increasing insurgency throughout the province, and by the emergence of the sicarii. The ruthlessness with which he put down these risings alienated many of the more moderate Jews, and led to further risings. Tacitus sums up his character and career in one of his biting epigrams: “he exercised the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” Despite his lowly origins, he was remarkably successful in marriage (from a social point of view, that is); his three successive wives were all of royal birth, according to Suetonius. The first of the three was a grand-daughter of Antony and Cleopatra; the third was Drusilla, youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I, who figures in the following narrative.” Bruce, pp. 436-437.
A. T. Robertson adds, “He was one of the most depraved men of his time. Tacitus says of him that “with all cruelty and lust he exercised the power of a king with the spirit of a slave.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 408.
[499] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 436-437.
[500] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 408.
[501] Although Paul’s words in verses 14 and 15 seem, on the surface, to assume that some Pharisees are present.
[502] “The employment of a Roman lawyer (Latin orator) was necessary since the Jews were not familiar with Roman legal procedure and it was the custom in the provinces (Cicero pro Cael. 30). The speech was probably in Latin which Paul may have understood also.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 412.
[503] I think most commentators would agree that Tertullus was, indeed, a Roman. Bruce thinks he was a Hellenistic Jew. This is hard to square with verse 9, which seems to state that when Tertullus, the Roman lawyer, presented his case the Jews present attested to what he said. The fact that Tertullus spoke as though he was a Jew (for example, “we arrested him,” verse 6) is to be expected, for he represented them and spoke on their behalf.
[504] “Felix had suppressed a riot, but Tacitus (Ann. XII. 54) declares that Felix secretly encouraged banditti and shared the plunder for which the Jews finally made complaint to Nero who recalled him. But it sounded well to praise Felix for keeping peace in his province, especially as Tertullus was going to accuse Paul of being a disturber of the peace.” A. T. Robertson, III, pp. 412-413.
“Obviously Felix had certain accounts to his credit in his Judean administration. In addition to the dispersing of the Egyptian Sicarii’s insurrection (Acts 21:38), he had quelled uprisings and banditry under the leadership of one Eliezer and a serious disturbance between the Syrians and the Caesarean Jews. But the other side of the ledger was seriously overbalanced with discredits. He was reprehensible for both bad character and maladministration. His lustful, mercenary, oppressive, unjust, and cruel conduct was all too well known by his Jewish subjects . . .” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 356.
[505] There is some discussion as to just who is referred to by “him” in verse 8. The shortened version would require that it be Paul who should be questioned. The longer version (including verses 6b-8a) would allow for “him” to be Claudius Lysias.
[506] Bruce reminds us that the words set apart in verses 6b-8a are “. . . added in the Western text, and were taken over into TR {Textus Receptus, the text from which the King James Version was translated}. They are not found in the Byzantine witnesses, and are therefore not included in The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. Z. C. Hodges and A. L. Farstad (Nashville, TN, 1982).” Bruce, p. 438, fn. 3.
It is my personal opinion that the words are a genuine part of the text, and that they are not only consistent with the argument of the Jews, but supportive of this argument. I believe that these words also provided Festus with his excuse, so that he refused to give his verdict until Claudius Lysias (whose conduct was questioned by Tertullus and the Jews present) was able to testify. So long as Claudius did not appear, a decision could be postponed, indeed, must be postponed.
[507] It is interesting to recall that Paul’s purpose for going to Jerusalem (the convey the gift from the Gentile churches) and his worship in the temple was for the purpose of narrowing the growing gap between Judaism and Christianity.
[508] “In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke 1:1-4).” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 424.
“Some have conjectured that he wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews during this period (if indeed it was written by Paul); others that the Ephesian, Colossian and Philippian epistles, with perhaps Philemon, were written here. However, evidence is lacking for any of these hypotheses.” Carter and Earle, 366.
[509] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), pp. 447-448.
[510] A. T. Robertson, III, p. 422.
[511] You will recall that in the movie, “Polyanna,” this little girl is shown to get the preacher (who preached “hell and brimstone messages” prior to her counsel) to preach on “glad texts,” the positive, upbeat, texts of the Bible, and to set aside the others.
[512] “‘Righteousness, self-control, and judgment to come’ (25) were, however, the last themes calculated to soothe either the governor or his wife. Righteousness had small part in Felix’ administration; self-control was not prominent in the court-favorite who had persuaded the young Jewess at his side to abandon her husband, Azizus, King of Emesa. And judgment to come was too direct a reminder, even to a man who took little thought of the hereafter, of that summons to Rome and a last accounting, which ultimately befell him. Felix was tangled in a web of evil circumstance of his own weaving, and the time was not convenient to cut himself boldly free (25).” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 182.
[513] “The occasion of Felix’s recall from his office was an outbreak of civil strife between the Jewish and Gentile inhabitants of Caesarea, in which Felix intervened with troops in such a way as to cause much bloodshed among the leaders of the Jewish faction. On his return to Rome he would have faced a severe penalty, Josephus informs us, had it not been for the advocacy of his brother Pallas. Pallas had been removed from his post as head of the imperial civil service in A.D. 55, but (largely on account of his colossal wealth) he retained great influence for several years after that.” F. F. Bruce, pp. 448-449.
“Luke does not tell why Felix ‘received’ a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead.” A. T. Robertson, III, p. 424.
[514] “Felix,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 348.
[515] “Felix,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 348.
[516] “FESTUS PORCIUS,” C. M. Kerr, and Nola J. Opperwall, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), Vol. 2, p. 299.
[517] “In the year of Felix’s recall by Nero (or possibly a little later), Porcius Festus came into the office of procurator of Judea where he lived but two years and then died in office. Little is known concerning the life or character of this man, apart from a brief account by Josephus. He appears to have been an honorable and prudent man, for the most part. Had the circumstances of his reign been more favorable, his success might have been greater. However, the impossibility of his situation was brought about by the corruption and maladministration of his predecessor, Felix. Violence, intrigue, sedition, and extreme loyalist bigotry made of the Jews an impossible people for this Roman procurator. Josephus describes the beginning of his rule thus: “Festus succeeded Felix as a procurator, and made it his business to correct those that made disturbances in the country. So he caught the greatest part of the robbers, and destroyed a great many of them.” Josephus describes somewhat in detail the nature of these disorders and the measures employed by Festus to correct them. Withal his task proved impossible and the situation grew worse, a condition which may have contributed to his early death.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 369.
[518] Previous governors included King Agrippa and Pontius Pilot.
[519] Let’s face it. By this time, the Jew’s case against Paul, which could never hold water, is virtually a dead horse. The Asian Jews who started this whole thing were wrong in the first place and long gone in the second. In sheer desperation, the Jews were throwing everything at Paul, including the kitchen sink. The fact of the matter is that they didn’t care about a conviction, only about getting Paul to Jerusalem, where they could kill him.
[520] How often our actions are prompted by a combination of motives, some of which are more noble than others.
[521] F. F. Bruce, p. 453.
“Appellatio, to which process Paul thus resorted, was the act by which a litigant disputes a judgment, and the effect was that the case was brought before a higher magistrate, normally the one who had originally appointed the magistrate of the lower court. The litigant either pronounced the word appello, as Paul did here (11), or submitted his appeal in writing to the court of the magistrate whose judgment was impugned. That magistrate in either case was under obligation to transmit the file together with a personal report (littarae dimissoriae) to the competent higher magistrate. Hence, probably, there was some measure of embarrassment for Festus when, after consultation with his board of assessors (12), he accepted the appeal. He had virtually acquitted the prisoner, and, as a newcomer, had no exact knowledge of the religious situation out of which the charge had arisen. He must have been at a loss how to phrase the letter which was to accompany the appellant to the imperial court, and the terms of the communication to a tribunal so exalted as Caesar’s were a matter of some importance, if only to the reputation of the magistrate concerned.” Blaiklock, p. 183.
[522] Rackham seems to agree, at least in part: “Rackham further states: . . . it was with great reluctance that S. Paul made his appeal. It was the final and complete assertion of his Roman citizenship and acceptance of Caesar as his king; to the Jews it meant repudiation of the theocracy and apostasy from Moses. But the apostle in the past two years must have thoroughly weighed the question. The Lord himself in the vision at Jerusalem (XIII, 11) might almost be said to have suggested it; for it seemed at the time the only possible method of reaching Rome.” Carter and Earle p. 373.
[523] Bruce, p. 456.
[524] Bruce p. 457.
[525] “Like her brother, she tried hard to avert the war which broke out in A.D. 66. In spring of that year she performed a Nazirite vow in Jerusalem, and attempted, but in vain (and not without considerable personal risk), to prevent a massacre of Jews by the procurator Gessius Florus. Later, however, when her house (together with Agrippa’s) was burned down by insurgent extremists, she became an ardent pro-Flavian. She attracted the attention of Titus during the war, and lived with him on the Palatine when she came to Rome with her brother in 75. Titus would have married her, had it not been for strong expressions of disapproval among the citizens of Rome, which made him sever his connection with her. See Josephus, BJ 2.217, 220-21, 310-14, 333-34, 405, 426, 595; Ant. 19.276-77, 354; 20:104, 143, 145-146; Life 48.119, 180-81, 343, 355; Juvenal, Satire 6.156-60; Tacitus, Histories 2.2; Suetonius, Titus 7.1; Dio Cassius, History 65.15; 66.18; also G.H. Macurdy, ‘Julia Berenice,’ AJP 56 (1933), pp. 246-53.” Bruce, p. 457, fn. 26.
[526] As an Old Testament illustration of these principles, think of Joseph, who was informed by God through two dreams that he would rule over his family. In no way did he ever fully fathom how God was to accomplish this, until much later in his life (see Genesis 37:5-11; 42:7-9; 50:15-21).
[527] “If his speech is called his “defense,” it is so called in no forensic sense; it is rather a defense of the gospel which he preached and of his way of life in conformity with it.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 461.
[528] “. . . he now made bold, even before Agrippa whose father had beheaded James and sought to execute Peter (Acts 12:1-6). Carter and Earle, p. 383.
[529] You will notice that in the expression, “as they earnestly serve God night and day” (verse 7), the term “God” is in italics in the NASB. This is because the word has been supplied--I believe wrongly so. The term is used for the worship of God, but it is also used of worship which could include false worship. I do not think that Paul is here saying that they earnestly worship God, but that they earnestly go about their religious observances. The Amplified Version seems to agree, for it renders the text this way:
“Which hope {of the Messiah and the resurrection} our twelve tribes confidently expect to realize, as they fervently worship (without ceasing) night and day.” The New Jerusalem Bible renders it likewise. Other versions supply the word “God,” but with italics.
[530] “In fact, it would appear that Paul was implying that the real controversy was one of the liberal Sadducean Jewish party against the orthodox Pharisaic party, rather than the Jews against him personally.” Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), p. 382.
[531] “The best parallel to Paul’s activity is provided at a later date by Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, who tells us that he brought people suspected of being Christians before his court: ‘Those who denied they were, or ever had been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered invocation, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ--none of which acts, it is said, those who are really Christians can be forced into performing--these I thought it proper to discharge’ (Epistles 10:96). This account is written, of course, with reference to a pagan court, but a similar kind of procedure will have taken place in a Jewish setting.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), p. 394.
[532] Some believe that Paul was actually a member of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin:
“However, Conybeare and Howson state: ‘There are strong grounds for believing that if he was not a member of the Sanhedrin at the time of St. Stephen’s death, he was elected into that powerful senate soon after; possibly as a reward for the zeal he had shown against the heretics. He himself says that in Jerusalem he not only exercised the power of imprisonment by commission from the High Priests, but also, when the Christians were put to death, gave his vote against them. From this expression it is natural to infer that he was a member of the supreme court of judicature.’
The foregoing authority notes that membership in the Sanhedrin was restricted to fathers with children, since such would dispose them to mercy. Since it was customary for Jews to marry young, Paul may well have qualified, though it is not known what became of his wife and family. Dummelow is specific when he says, “The Gk. means ‘the vote of a judge’ and establishes the fact that at the time of the death of Stephen, Paul, though so young a man, was a member of the Sanhedrin. Thus we must be content to conclude that Paul was either a member of the Sanhedrin, or if he was not, then he was invested with very special authority by that body, before his conversion.” Carter and Earle (quoting Conybeare and Howson, op. cit., p. 12 and Dummelow op. cit., p. 851.), p. 384.
[533] Technically, Paul’s conversion and commission were spread out over three days, as a reading of all the accounts will indicate.
[534] This Saul, was commissioned by the chief priests, but he is about to be converted and commissioned by the risen Savior. It seems that Luke contrasts these two “commissionings.”
[535] “A proverbial saying, found both in Greek and Latin, usually with reference to fighting against the will of the gods, but not yet paralleled from any Semitic source. The word . . . means, in this context, not “difficult” but “painful,” hence RSV, It hurts you . . .” Carter and Earle (quoting from The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, 326), p. 385.
“Another remarks of the expression: ‘It supplies an apt figure for resistance to God; and here it conveys an important intimation that Saul’s zeal for Judaism had not been according to knowledge, but rather against the driving of the divine will.’” Carter and Earle (quoting Rackham, op. cit., p. 468) p. 385.
[536] Paul also asked the Lord, “What shall I do, Lord” (Acts 22:10), but this question is not repeated here. What Paul must do will be indicated--not his immediate actions, such as going into Damascus, but his life-long tasks, his calling, his divine “commission.”
[537] “In summary it may be noted that Paul’s commission implies a series of spiritual transferences for the converted man: (1) from blindness to sight (2) from darkness to light; (3) from the kingdom and dominion of Satan to the kingdom and dominion of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:18-32); (4) from condemnation unto death to remission of sins unto eternal life; and (5) from spiritual poverty and moral pollution to a heavenly inheritance and moral purity.” Carter and Earle, p. 387.
“His task is defined more closely in language based on the description of the Servant’s commission in Isaiah 42:6f. He is to open eyes that are blinded by sin, to convert people and bring them out of the realm of darkness into that of light, i.e. from the power of Satan into the area where God reigns (cf. Is. 42:16 and especially Col. 1:13f. which gives a remarkably close parallel to the wording here.” I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint, 1987), pp. 396-397.
[538] “Maine, thou art mad, meant first ‘to rage, be furious,’ then ‘to rave, be mad.’ It was often connected with demonic influence (cf. John 10:20). Here it perhaps means that Paul’s ‘enthusiasm seems to have overcome his better judgment.’ Carter and Earle, quoting Abbott-Smith, op. cit., p. 275 and Arndt and Gingrich, op cit. p. 487, p. 389.
[539] “The word soberness answers Festus’ petulant accusation of insanity. The Greek word has no reliable English equivalent. It is sophrosune. To translate it, as the New Testament does, by ‘soberness,’ ‘moderation,’ ‘self-control,’ ‘temperance’ is to touch its meaning from various angles, but not to cover it. The word has two roots, an adjective root meaning ‘safe’ and a noun root meaning ‘mind.’ It meant in Greek that ideal balance of thought which never flew to extremes. It is implicit in Paul’s survey of Christian virtue in Romans xii where it may be rendered ‘Christian sanity.’ Notice, for example, verse 3: ‘For as God in his grace has enabled me, I charge every one of you not to think more of himself than he ought to think, but to cultivate Christian sanity, according as God has given to every man faith as a measure.’” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company {photolithoprinted}, 1966), p. 188.
[540] “Alford takes a somewhat more negative view of Agrippa’s seriousness. He declares: ‘Most of the ancient commentators take the words as implying some effect on Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest: but this I think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically.’ Brown supposes that Agrippa’s reply was ‘a high compliment to the persuasiveness of the speaker.’
It does not appear that the question as to whether Agrippa was serious or sarcastic can be settled on the basis of the Greek text. The best that can be said is that the Greek of this verse seems to favor an insincere or cynical attitude on his part. Carter and Earle (quoting Henry Alford, op. cit., II, 283 and JFB, VI, 175), p. 390.
[541] “Luke’s narrative of the voyage and shipwreck of Paul on his way to Italy is a small classic in its own right, as graphic a piece of descriptive writing as anything in the Bible. It has long been acknowledged as ‘one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship.’” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 474.
[542] “The ship in which they embarked belonged to Adramyttium (modern Edremit), a seaport of Mysia in northwest Asia Minor, opposite the island of Lesbos. It was a coasting vessel, which was to call at various ports of the province of Asia; at one of these Julius knew he would find a ship, preferably a grain ship, bound for Italy.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 477.
[543] “The centurion Julius, into whose custody he was delivered, belonged (we are told) to the Augustan Cohort. (The term “Augustan,” i.e., “His Imperial Majesty’s,” was a title of honor bestowed on several cohorts of auxiliary troops.) The precise status of Julius is difficult to determine: from the authority which he assumed when once (from Myra onward) he found himself on board a ship of the Alexandrian grain fleet, it might be inferred that he was a frumentarius, an officer charged with supervising the transport of grain (frumentum) to Rome.” Bruce p. 477.
[544] We know that Luke was on board ship because of the “we” references, and because of the great detail that he includes, as an eyewitness of the journey, the storm, and the safe landing of the passengers.
[545] This seems to be the same Aristarchus mentioned in Acts 19:29; 20:4; Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24.
[546] “‘With the westerly winds which prevail in those seas,’ says James Smith, ‘ships, particularly those of the ancients, unprovided with a compass and ill calculated to work to windward, would naturally stand to the north till they made the land of Asia Minor, which is peculiarly favourable for navigation by such vessels, because the coast is bold and safe, and the elevation of the mountains makes it visible at a great distance; it abounds in harbours, and the sinuosities of its shores and the westerly current would enable them, if the wind was at all off the land, to work to windward, at least as far as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased. Myra lies due north from Alexandria, and its bay is well calculated to shelter a windbound ship.’” Bruce quoting J. Smith, Voyage, pp. 72-73, p. 480.
[547] “Ramsay is of the opinion that the ship was a government vessel of which the centurion, as senior officer, was properly in charge. This may have been the case, and if so the calculations upon which the shipmaster (not owner as AV and RV, according to Ramsay) based his rash advice are less apparent.” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [photolithoprinted], 1966), p. 191, quoting Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 319.
[548] “This harbour is named Kalus Limeonas, a small bay two miles east of Cape Matala. It opens to the East and Southeast, but is not fit to winter in. This harbour would protect them for a time from the winds. . . . Neither Lasea nor Fair Havens is mentioned by any ancient writer, two of the hundred cities of Crete.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), III, p. 460.
[549] “Smith observes ‘that Fair Havens is so well protected by islands, that though not equal to Lutro [Loutron, a port some 40 miles farther west along the coast], it must be a very fair winter harbour; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprang up in the passage from Fair Havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by St. Paul may probably be supported even on nautical grounds.’” Bruce, pp. 482-483.
[550] “As they waited for a change of wind at Fair Havens, it soon became clear that they could not complete the voyage to Italy before the onset of winter. The dangerous season for sailing began about September 14 and lasted until November 11; after the latter date all navigation on the open sea came to an end until winter was over. They were now well into the dangerous season; as Luke notes, even the Fast had now gone by. The Fast is the day of atonement (Yom Kippur), which falls on Tishri 10. Luke’s remark has point only if it fell rather late in the solar calendar that year. In A.D. 59 it fell on October 5, but in all the neighboring years from 57 to 62 it fell earlier. A late date for the day of atonement is required also by the time notes of the subsequent journey to Italy. When they set sail from Fair Havens, fifty or sixty miles brought them under the lee of Cauda (v. 16); on the fourteenth night from Cauda they drew near the coast of Malta (v. 27), and the next day (v. 39) they landed on that island, where they spent three months (28:11). The seas were closed to sailing until the beginning of February at the earliest; the three months spent in Malta must therefore have corresponded roughly to November, December, and January, so they must have left Fair Havens not much before mid-October. The solar date of the day of atonement in A.D. 59 thus accords well with Luke’s implication that the Fast took place while they waited at Fair Havens.” Bruce, p. 481.
[551] Although there almost certainly would have been some loss of life, apart from divine intervention. The lives which Paul warned would be lost were those lives which were spared by God, for Paul’s sake (see verses 22-24). And so Paul was correct, though not speaking at the moment with prophetic inspiration, authority, or inerrancy. There is no “thus saith the Lord” here, but Paul’s words were worth heeding.
[552] “‘A south wind having blown gently,’ in marked contrast to the violent northwest wind that they had faced so long. They were so sure of the wisdom of their decision that they did not even draw up the small boat attached by a rope to the vessel’s stern (verse 16). It was only some forty miles to Lutro.” Robertson, p. 461.
[553] “The storm was now heavy upon the lumbering vessel, as it came roaring out of the north-east. Far to the south, off the African coast, lay the notorious Syrtes (17), the graveyard of many ships, as underwater archaeology has vividly revealed in recent years. Hence the battle to maintain a westerly course, aided, it appears, by a veering of the wind to the east, as the cyclonic disturbance shifted its centre.” Blaiklock p. 190.
[554] The wind would tend to blow the ship much more quickly than the current, and so a sea anchor would reduce the force of the wind on the ship by using the sea as a brake. Bruce writes,
“The Greater Syrtis was still a great distance away, but the wind might continue to blow for many days, and that was the direction in which it was blowing them. So, says Luke, they ‘lowered the instrument,’ not being more specific perhaps because he did not know, or did not remember, the technical name for whatever it was that was lowered. The most probable account is that they dropped a floating anchor or drift anchor, which was dragged astern at the end of a rope of suitable length so as to offer the maximum resistance every time the ship plunged down from the crest of a wave.” Bruce, p. 486.
[555] From verse 38 we know that all the cargo was not thrown overboard at this time.
[556] “The following day, a more drastic measure was necessary: the spare gear had to go if the ship was to have any chance of surviving. Smith suggests that ‘the mainyard is meant; an immense spar, probably as long as the ship, which would require the united efforts of passengers and crews to launch overboard.’” Bruce p. 486.
[557] This is not to suggest that Paul now emerged because he knew that this was the low-point of his fellow-passengers, but because the night before the angel of God had appeared to him. He arose, then, for two reasons: (1) his shipmates were in desperate need of encouragement, and (2) he now had a word from God for them.
[558] “The fourteenth night is reckoned from the time they left Fair Havens. In the sea of Adria (en toi Hadriai). Not the Adriatic Sea as we now call the sea between Italy and the mainland of Illyricum, but all the lower Mediterranean between Italy and Greece.” Robertson, p. 469.
[559] If the soundings were made at midnight, and if the passengers were at least inside the ship, rather than on deck, only the sailors would have known that land was approaching. This “inside information” was, I think, a factor in their plan to abandon ship.
[560] The higher the ship floated in the water, the closer to shore they could get before the ship grounded.
[561] Before, adrift in the sea, they made no effort to guide the ship. They could not see the sun nor the stars (verse 20) and so they were unable to navigate. They took down the sail, which would have been ripped to shreds by the winds, and lashed down the rudders, which would have been broken up as they were smashed against the ship by the waves. Now, when they knew where they wanted to go, they again began to rig the ship for sailing, to whatever degree this could be done in such a storm.
[562] “St. Paul’s Bay is sheltered on the northwest by the island of Salmonetta, which is separated from the Maltese mainland by a narrow channel about a hundred yards wide. This channel is the place ‘between two seas.’ Here the ship, in Smith’s words, ‘would strike a bottom of mud graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, whilst the stern was exposed to the worst of the waves.’ After the long battering which the ship had endured for the past two weeks, its exposed part could not take this further punishment, and it quickly disintegrated.” Bruce, p. 494.
[563] This seems to suggest that the charges against these prisoners were serious. There were no petty thieves on board this ship.
[564] Would he not have dared to command the soldiers not to kill Paul, but to have allowed the others to be put to death? It was simpler, it seems, to forbid them from killing any of them.
[565] “In particular, much may be learned from Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s character and behavior in circumstances in which the real man is most likely to be revealed. He portrays Paul in many roles throughout Acts, but here he shows him standing out as the practical man in a critical emergency--keeping his head when all about him are losing theirs. Not once or twice the world has had to thank the great saints and mystics for providing timely help in moments of crisis when realistic, practical men of affairs were unable to supply it.” Bruce, p. 475.
[566] “Ships, like inns, took their names from their figureheads. The ‘Heavenly Twins’ who formed the figurehead of this ship were Castor and Pollux, patrons of navigation and favorite objects of sailors’ devotion.” F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 501.
[567] “A few miles’ journey from Puteoli brought them on to the Appian Way, one of the great Roman roads of south Italy, named after Appius Claudius, in whose censorship it was planned (312 B.C.).” Bruce, p. 502.
[568] Paul did have accusations or charges against the Jews, just as Stephen did (Acts 7), but these were not legal charges, made under Roman law; they were spiritual charges, based upon the Old Testament revelation and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, the Christ. Paul’s charges against the Jews, as seen in 28:25-28, are for their hard-nosed unbelief and rebellion against God. The penalty of which he warns is not the wrath of Rome, but the coming wrath of God (albeit, expressed, in part, through the Roman’s destruction of Jerusalem).
[569] We are told of the death of James for a very practical reason: the death of James, the brother of John, as reported in Acts 12:2, was reported to indicate the seriousness of Peter’s arrest. If Herod would have had his way, he would have killed Peter. But God intervened, arranged for Peter’s miraculous escape, and in fact also arranged for the death of Herod instead.
[570] It is worthy to note that in the Book of Acts, while there are many different “preachers” and a number of accounts of conversions, the gospel is always the same. While Saul’s conversion (and subsequent growth and ministry) was indeed independent of the apostles, his message was the same as theirs. There is but one gospel, that which is consistently preached by all true apostles: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Israel’s Messiah. He came to the earth as man and God, in one Person, manifested God to men, was rejected by them, was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. He died for man’s sins, and all who trust in Him as God’s provision for salvation will be saved.
[571]This assumes, correctly in my opinion, that salvation is viewed by Paul and others as something far bigger than merely an initial experience of salvation; it is an introduction to a new life. This is consistent with the invitation of Jesus, which was not only to “believe in Him” (which, of course, is a very important element -- cf. John 6:29), but to “follow Him.”
[572] Remember that the word “Adam” means “man” (cf. Genesis 2:20, NASB, marginal note).
[573] Incidentally, this text helps to put the account of Luke in Acts into perspective. Once Paul was saved, the struggle of the Christian life was not instantly over. This struggle (Romans 7), with its solution (Romans 8), is depicted in Romans.
[574] The word here is “foreknown,” which here does not mean, “to know about ahead of time,” but rather “to choose or determine ahead of time.” In Romans 11:2 Paul spoke of Israel as those whom God had “foreknown,” a reference to their election (cf. Romans 9). Of course God knew “about” Israel, but the point is that He knew (= chose, cf. Genesis 18:19) Israel. God would not give up on the people He had chosen. This same sense is found in 1 Peter 1:20, where Christ is said to have been “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Christ was not “known about” by God; He was chosen by God to be the Savior. The word “foreknown” is a reference to God’s sovereignty. What a comfort that is! If our eternal fate rested in our hands (a denial of God’s sovereignty), we would be in desperate straits. But since our fate rests with God, we are secure, for our salvation is secure. That which God began, God will finish (Philippians 1:6).
[575] A word of clarification here about the terms which are found in Romans 8:28-29. Foreknow refers to God’s choice of those whom He will save, whom He will rescue from their sins. Predestined refers to the plan which God lays out for those whom He has chosen. It is like selecting someone to be given a free trip to Hawaii. Foreknowledge would be the selection process. Predestination would be the planning of the trip and the making of the accommodations. The calling is the carrying out of the choice and the plan, the execution of the process. Justification is the payment, the provision for the plan. Glorification is the culmination and the completion of the plan.