# comment

text:
<p><em>And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: Then to the Gentiles also has God granted repentance to life</em>- And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying- This initial joy and humble acceptance of Gentile conversion didn't last. Natural prejudices soon arose, as soon happened later in this chapter. Men can come to a peak of spirituality which isn't maintained. We think of David forgiving Shimei, but then on his deathbed, asking Solomon to murder Shimei for what he had said against David. Corinth enthusiastically undertook to support the welfare fund- but didn't then come up with the cash. As emphasized in Jn. 15, the Lord Jesus seeks fruit that will abide- and not the flash peaks of emotional devotion which never carry through into permanent reality.
Then to the Gentiles also has God granted repentance to life- This shows that He is active in developing our desire to repent; "the goodness of God leads you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4). The same words were used by the apostles when teaching that God had "granted repentance to Israel" (Acts 5:31). That statement was not untrue, but now they recognized that they had only seen and preached a partial picture; for the gift of repentance was now rightly perceived as being to the Gentiles too. "Granted" means that repentance is a gift, and it clearly parallels the 'gift' of the Spirit in :17, which I suggest refers to the gift of God working by His Spirit within the human spirit, i.e. the gift of the Holy Spirit. 2 Tim. 2:25 makes it clear that there still has to be some human volition in the matter of salvation; but all the same, repentance is a gift from God: "In meekness correcting those that contradict themselves, so that God may give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth". This is not to say that repentance is unnecessary because it is a gift from God. True repentance is critical in the salvation process. But true repentance in human strength is not easy. It cannot be like Saul, who had genuine emotions of self hate, sorrow and tears at his behaviour against David- but continued in it (1 Sam. 24:16-22; 26:21). God wants penitence, not penance. Repentance must be "toward God" and not man, and it must be totally free from fear of human consequences. And so, true repentance is a gift from God. By grace. By His working on the human heart.
God clearly works, potentially, on the hearts of people. In our moments of repentance, both at baptism and on the many subsequent occasions, it is hard to believe that in prospect God's enormous Spirit power has really prepared a way for us to be totally spiritual. Israel on Carmel with Elijah were in a similar position; thus Elijah prayed "Hear me, O Lord... that this people may know... that You have turned their heart back again" (1 Kings 18:37). He meant: 'They don't realize that you are so willing for them to repent, that in prospect you have touched their hearts and made them do it; answering my prayer dramatically may motivate them to make the necessary freewill response in repenting, so that the spiritual help you have made available in prospect, can be theirs in reality'. Even the frankest comparison of ourselves with that motley crew of hardened apostates should inspire afresh the belief within us that God is willing that all His people should continually come to repentance. The road to eternal life involves repentance. Recognition of personal sin is utterly fundamental to salvation. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now those who were scattered</em>- The use of <em>diaspeiro</em> suggests that the scattered Christians were now the Israelite <em>diaspora</em>; they were the true Israel of God. The Greek literally means 'to be sown widely'; and indeed the seed of the Gospel was spread through this enforced migration.</p><p><em>Because of the persecution that arose over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Speaking the word to no one except Jews-</em> They clearly assumed that the command to take the Gospel into all the world and to "every creature" referred to Jewish people worldwide. We too can read in an ellipsis into a section of God’s word, so confident are we that our subconscious assumptions are the correct interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em>But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they reached</em> <em>Antioch, spoke to the Gentiles also, preaching the Lord Jesus</em>- Why was it specifically here that the persecuted Jewish believers began to share the word with the Gentiles? The term used for "Gentiles" here can also mean 'Hellenists', i:e. Greek speaking Jews. Perhaps it was initially to them that they preached, but the ethnicity of these people in Antioch was unclear, and so it became impossible to divide full Gentiles from Greek speaking Jews- and thus the Gospel was spoken to the Gentiles. According to Plumptre, "It was a centre of vice, featuring the harlot-priestesses of Daphne and Apollo who on occasions engaged in public ceremonies "stripped of clothing":&nbsp;Heathenism in its most vulgar and debasing forms dominated the life of the people". One can assume therefore that there would have been Jews there who had intermarried with Gentiles; and yet in this immoral city, the Gospel took off. Antioch became as it were the Jerusalem of the Gentile church. But it's rather like a church being founded in some deeply immoral area of a modern city; again, the Lord's choice is strange at first blush. It would've been so hard for the Jewish conservative Christians to accept that there had been mass conversions of Gentiles in such a place.</p><p> Antioch was clearly set up as the model of an urban, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, immigrant and refugee / asylum seeker based church. The elders we know of —Barnabas [from Cyprus], Simeon "called Niger" [a Falasha Jew probably from North Africa], Lucius [from Cyrene in North Africa], Manaen [raised in Galilee with Herod Antipas], and Paul [from Tarsus]—were all from different cultures. None were locals from Antioch. At least one was known as a black man, and possibly Lucius was also. They possibly faced the same scpeticism as Africans face today when they do missionary work in Europe. Those elders would likely have all spoken different first languages. And they had been flooded with Christian Jewish refugees from Jerusalem after they had fled from there. They came to Antioch exactly because Judaism in that city was famed for being very liberal. Those refugees themselves had only come to dwell in Jerusalem "from every nation under heaven", according to the record of their conversion in Acts 2. And the population of Antioch [reckoned at 500,000] was itself multicultural and multiethnic. So it was all arranged by the Lord that they would become the first church to engage in missionary work to the Gentiles. Their experiences and environment were used by Him to help them make the break from the idea of a Jewish-only form of Christianity. The multiethnic ministry team produced a multiethnic church in a multiethnic city- that was clearly the Lord's intention. And it worked. Despite all the prejudices they all felt, as Jews of varying degrees of orthodoxy. And it is no surprise that the Antioch church became the departure point for three great missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-3; 14:35,36; 18:22,23).
Peter too was gently led to the challenge of preaching to Cornelius, through his experiences in Acts 9- healing a half Jewish woman [Dorcas-Tabitha], living with Simon the non-observant tanner, by the Joppa seaside exactly where Jonah had resisted the call to preach to the Gentiles. The [uninspired] AntiMarcionite Prologue to Luke claims that Luke was a Gentile from Antioch- which would explain his interest in Antioch and knowledge of the situation there. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed</em>- The Lord's hand, His activity, resulted in people believing. Again we see that His outreach and grace towards men means that we are not left unaided as we face the choice between faith and unbelief. The Lord's hand works on the hearts of men, to give them faith and repentance (:18). Just as faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8); and as the Lord opened Lydia's heart so that she believed (Acts 16:14).  </p><p><em>Believed and turned to the Lord</em>- In response to their belief, they were turned to the Lord. These are two separate things. The equivalent is maybe&nbsp;"The Corinthians believed and were baptized" (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>). The turning to the Lord would then refer to water baptism. Or the reference may be to the psychological activity of the Lord in turning hearts and minds to Himself. The same word is used in 3:19: "Repent... and be <em>converted</em>". After belief and baptism, there comes the process of conversion. It is something done to us by the Lord, as much as us seeking to make concrete changes ourselves. It is the duty of the preacher to turn people to the Lord (s:w. 26:18), and yet we must ever be aware that this is also His desire; and His spirit is at work seeking to turn our audience to Himself. "The hand of the Lord" seeks to do this; and any who remain unconverted, not turned to Him, have therefore resisted His hand, His operation in their lives and hearts. Only by wilfully closing the eyes and heart can someone disallow the Lord from converting / turning their heart to Him (28:27 s:w:). We must remember this when struggling with the problem of those who do not believe. Their unbelief is multifactorial, but one element of the equation is that the Lord has worked to try to win them.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:1'>Act 8:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem</em>- The metaphor of the body is used for the local church, rather than the global body of Christ. It seems Paul's extended usage of the metaphor has the same reference.</p><p><em>And they sent Barnabas as far as Antioch- </em>The Jerusalem ecclesia told Barnabus to go only as far as Antioch; he didn’t tell them how wrong they were to boss him around. He went beyond Antioch to Tarsus, took Paul, and then went down to Antioch (:22,25). In the end, whilst we must respect those who deserve it, we are personal servants of the Lord who died for us, and we must follow Him according to our personal conscience. The lesson from this is that we should seek to be as positive as possible in the midst of this tension between right and left- especially in the way we write or speak about the problems. We should seek to move the Gospel forward, whatever unhappy disagreements there are between those already baptized.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who, when he had arrived and had seen the grace of God</em>- The idea is not simply that Barnabas saw how kind God had been in accepting the Gentiles. The gift [<em>charis</em>, s:w. "grace"] of God would have referred to the gift of the Spirit. With Cornelius, the receipt of the Spirit gifts by him was proof enough to the Jewish brethren that his conversion was <em>bona fide</em>. And so it was the same in Antioch- when Barnabas saw the evidence of the <em>charis</em> of God, the work of the Spirit, then he was assured that the conversions were valid. </p><p><em>Was glad</em>- There is a play on words here. <em>Chairo</em>, "glad", is similar to <em>charis</em>, "grace" or "gift". The joy of Barnabas was exactly because the Gentile converts had been given the gift of the Spirit, which was the proof of their legitimacy as converts. When those who have formally held a privileged position open the doors to others, it's a hard thing to be truly glad that you have lost your position of privilege. The joy of Barnabas and other Jewish brethren therefore indicates their utter humility and genuineness.</p><p><em>And he encouraged them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord</em>- The Spirit gift of cleansing the heart must be responded to; 'use it or lose it' would be the appropriate slogan. Having seen evidence that they had received the gift of God, Barnabas urged them to do their part in maintaining that way of thinking / spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em>For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit</em>- He was the right person to exhort the new converts to retain the gift of the Spirit, because he had done so himself, and was full of it. We also see that being full of the Spirit involved some personal effort- his 'goodness' was related to his being full of the Spirit. The gift is given by grace- but must be retained by our wilful decision to abide with the Lord.</p><p><em>And many people were added to the Lord</em>- Luke likes to use this word "added". In 2:41,47 we read of converts being added to the church; here, they are added to the Lord. He is His church. The word <em>prostithemi</em> means literally to lay beside; it is used in describing how David was buried, being laid beside his fathers (13:36). For a convert to be laid beside the Lord suggests baptism, with all its symbolism of death and burial together with the Lord. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he went to Tarsus to seek out Saul</em>- The implication is that Saul / Paul had retreated within himself, returning to obscurity in his home town. Barnabas knew that Saul had the potential to do far more than that, and went to try to find him. We too need to make such efforts to encourage others to live up to their callings. Perhaps Barnabas was motivated by the fact that the amazing spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles had arisen as a result of Saul's persecution of the Christians (:19). Perhaps Saul was consumed with "over much sorrow" for his sins, and Barnabas wanted him to understand how wonderfully God had worked through them. </p><p>Or perhaps Paul had been disappointed by the rejection by the Jerusalem church, who clearly scorned the mission to the Gentiles he had been given by the Lord. He felt that without human approval, he couldn't do his mission. Despite being "sent to the Gentiles", he simply went home and possibly sulked in disillusion and introvertion. But he had earlier done missionary journeys to bring Gentiles to Judaism- that is one reading of his reference to his earlier 'preaching circumcision' (Gal. 5:11).  That life experience still had to be used by the Lord, and Barnabas was perceptive enough to realize that he had to do the human part and encourage Paul to respond to the opportunity. It could be that Paul would not have fulfilled his ministry to the Gentiles had not Barnabas encouraged him. And we need to be like Barnabas in considering how we can help others realize their callings.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had found him</em>- Luke describes the work of Barnabas in terms of seeking (:25) and finding. It is Luke who records the parables of seeking and finding (<em><a href='B:490 15:8'>Luk 15:8</a></em>). In those parables, it is the Lord Jesus who seeks and finds. But He works through His body on earth; in this case, Barnabas. Yet Barnabas used his own initiative in order to seek and find Saul.  The allusion to the lost sheep parable ['seeking out' in :25, 'finding' and 'bringing' in :26] could imply that Paul's return home to Tarsus was a point of spiritual failure for him. And yet that prepared him for the great missionary work he was to begin in Antioch.</p><p><em>He brought him to Antioch</em>- This suggests Saul's relative passivity, implying that it was the initiative of Barnabas which resulted in Saul coming to Antioch. </p><p><em>And it came to pass, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the church and taught many people</em>- The "they" grammatically appears to refer to Saul and Barnabas, hence the GNB: "the two met with the people of the church and taught a large group". This establishment of the Gentile mission centre in Antioch was due to Barnabas taking the initiative and going to search out Saul and bring him to Antioch. "The church" and the "many people" appear to have been two separate groups- the two brethren engaged in both pastoral and outreach work. This would have been in response to the call of the great commission, to teach the simple Gospel, baptize people, and then teach them all the Lord had commanded.</p><p><em>And there in Antioch the disciples- </em>All Christians are disciples, ‘learners’; the twelve men who followed the Lamb of God around Galilee, with all their misunderstandings and lack of faith, were and are symbols of us all. The focus was upon Him, not each other. We are all learners of Christ, taught by He Himself (<em><a href='B:560 4:20-21'>Eph 4:20-21</a></em>). And we are to make all men into disciples (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> RV); to make them learners of Jesus too. </p><p><em>Were first called Christians</em>- It has been suggested that this was initially a term of insult and mockery. They were Christ-centred, and so were mocked as being 'the Christ-folk'. However, the term is used as a self-designation of the community by Peter (<em><a href='B:670 4:16'>1Pe 4:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>). Or it could be that we can read this as meaning that they first gave themselves this name of 'the Christ folk'. In this case, yet again we see that the early community was centred around Jesus as the Christ, around a living person, rather than around a set of theories and abstract interpretations. Another option is that it was Paul and Barnabas who first coined the term. The Codex Bezae reads: "And hearing that Saul was at Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the Church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first called the disciples at Antioch Christians". "Called" translates a word which usually refers to a Divine call; so another option would be that there was direct Holy Spirit revelation that the believers should brand themselves with the term 'Christian'. This needs to be given due weight by those who name the name of Christ but refuse to be called Christians. "Christian" is from the Greek word "Christ" and the Latin ending -ianus. It is significant that an initially Jewish church should coin a term which has no Hebrew in it. They had becoming so mission minded that they perceived that the future of Christianity was going to largely [although not exclusively] be with Gentile converts.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch</em>- One of them predicted a famine which would affect "all the world" (:28); yet the Antioch brethren gathered funds to send to Jerusalem to relieve "the believers that lived in Judea" (:29). Inevitably one wonders whether these prophets asked for material support in view of the predicted famine. And yet if they were predicting a world-wide famine, which would affect Antioch as much as Jerusalem, why was support only sent for the brethren in Judea / Jerusalem? Perhaps it was in order to demonstrate unity with different brethren of a different culture and ethnicity, and was therefore done in absolute selflessness, seeing that Antioch was presumably going to suffer as well. </p>


text:
<p><em>And one of them, named Agabus, stood up</em>- The Greek form of the Hebrew 'Hagab', meaning 'locust'. Locusts were understood as bringers of famine; so certain was the prophetic word, that the person bringing it was seen as the fulfilment of it.</p><p><em>And foretold</em>- Gk. 'signified'. It could be that Agabus didn’t simply predict a famine, but gave a symbolic vision which was interpreted as meaning that a famine would come. One manuscript adds: "When we came together", implying that Luke was then in Antioch. As discussed on Col. 4:14, it seems Luke was a Gentile from Antioch.</p><p><em>By the Spirit that there would be a great famine</em>- We have here a powerful example of what it means to believe the prophetic word. These brethren were so convinced that the prophecy would come true that they decided there and then, ahead of the predicted famine, to gather welfare for those who would be affected by it. There appears to be an allusion to Joseph, who so believed the dreams he interpreted about the seven years of famine that he arranged the gathering of welfare in order to cope with it. The coming of 'great famine' was a sign of the end of the age in the Olivet Prophecy (<em><a href='B:490 21:11'>Luk 21:11</a></em>). We see how the stage was set for the Lord's coming in the first century; it was Israel's lack of repentance, and a paucity of evangelical zeal amongst the believers, which meant that His return was delayed. Until we learn the lesson.</p><p><em>Over all the world. This took place in the days of Claudius</em>- This only came true in a limited sense. Perhaps the massive wider reference was to flag attention to the way that this famine could fulfil the prophetic requirement of famine in many strange places (<em><a href='B:470 24:7'>Mat 24:7</a></em>). I suggest that the extent of this famine wasn't effected, because the human conditions weren't right to allow the Lord to return.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the disciples, every man according to his ability- </em>Paul uses the same words in appealing to the Corinthians to likewise contribute for the brethren in Judea "every man according to" his opportunity (<em><a href='B:540 9:7'>2Co 9:7</a></em>). He was thereby appealing to Corinth to follow the pattern of the Antioch ecclesia. Patterns of generosity are to be observed and imitated; for we take strength and patterns in giving from the example of others. There is also a reference to the parable of the talents- each were given according to their ability, and were to trade them. Here, the talents given is applied to whatever material resources we have.</p><p>"Every man" may suggest every convert contributed. We must remember that ethnic groups never gave charitable help to other ethnic groups. What was done here was radically counter cultural, and a triumph for the spirit of unity which there is in Christ. The allusion is clearly to the Lord's parable of how "every man... according to his ability" was given talents with which to trade. We have each been given something- and are to trade this by giving away what we have for others. And "every man" was to do this, not reasoning that he had only one talent and therefore wasn't called to do anything. It is the "one talent" category who are perhaps at greatest risk of failing to enter into the ministry intended for them. In the same context of the temple and Jerusalem, there is surely also an allusion to Dt. 16:16,17: "Three times in a year must all your males appear before Yahweh your God in the place which He shall choose... They must not appear before Yahweh empty: every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which He has given you". The equivalent under the New Covenant was giving to the poor Christian believers in Jerusalem. Again we notice the stress upon "all your makes... every man shall give".    The Mosaic Law countered the idea that only the rich can be generous. The purification after childbirth and the cleansing of the leper allowed a lower grade of offering to be made by the very poor- to underline that <em>no one</em> is exempted from giving to the Lord, no matter how poor they are. Consider the emphasis: "Every man shall give <em>as he is able</em>... he shall offer <em>even such as he is able to get</em>... then the disciples (consciously motivated by these principles?) <em>every man according to his ability</em>, determined to send relief [one gets the picture of a convoy of brethren going to Jerusalem, carrying a little bit of meal from Sister Dorcas, a few coins from brother Titus…] ... let <em>every one of you</em> lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:30-31'>Lev 14:30-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:29'>Act 11:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:2'>1Co 16:2</a></em>). </p><p><em>Decided to send relief to the believers that lived in Judea</em>- First century people were relatively passive to disasters compared to Western people today. A famine was an act of God, of nature, and it had to be accepted; the idea of one ethnic group taking up a collection for another one in another place who were suffering from famine was a real paradigm breaker. And that's just what Paul engineered, in arranging for the Gentile converts to take up such a collection for the Jewish believers in Palestine who were suffering famine. Historians claim that Antioch was a wealthy city, and archaeological remains support that. It would be fair to assume that they not only funded the welfare for the Palestinian Christians, but also the following missionary journeys to the Gentiles which each began from Antioch.</p>


text:
<p><em>Which also they did- </em>This may appear redundant, until we realize that it is a common human tendency to 'decide' to be generous, but not actually do it. These brethren decided and also did it. And that is noted in the inspired record.</p><p><em>Sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul</em>- This seems a wise pattern to follow in providing welfare relief.</p>


text:
<p><em>About that time</em>- The time of chapter 11, when the brotherhood in Judea were threatened with famine, and the Gospel was spreading to the Gentiles. It seems the persecution of the Jerusalem leadership was used by the Lord to encourage the Gentiles to take responsibility- for the Jewish leadership of the early church was then straight away put under pressure. This is how intricately the Lord coordinates situations in our lives and collective experiences.</p><p><em>Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church</em>- This Greek phrase is often used about the leadership laying hands on the Lord Jesus. The church were fellowshipping the sufferings of their Lord, just as we do in essence; hence the same language is used. This is also the phrase which is used in the Olivet prophecy, only in Luke's account of it, about how in the last days, hands would be laid on the believers (<em><a href='B:490 21:12'>Luk 21:12</a></em>). Luke clearly saw this action of Herod as fulfilling that prophecy. All was set up for the Lord's coming in glory; the signs which depended upon God for fulfilment all came true. But Israel's lack of repentance and the lack of evangelical zeal to take the Gospel world-wide meant that the human preconditions weren't met, and so His coming has been delayed until our last days.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he killed James the brother of John with the sword</em>- Several commentators claim that the phrase 'to kill with the sword' means beheading. James was the first recorded martyr for the faith; and again (see on :1), Luke is recording this framed to show that the Olivet prophecy was coming true. The Lord had predicted that James would drink of His cup (<em><a href='B:470 20:22-23'>Mat 20:22-23</a></em>), and so it happened. It's worth noting that there is no record of anyone being raised up to replace James and to thereby maintain the number of the 12. This gives the lie to Catholic claims of an apostolic succession.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread</em>- Luke uses the same word in recording how the Lord was 'seized', and "Peter followed afar off" (<em><a href='B:490 22:54'>Luk 22:54</a></em>). Now, the implication is, after a period of following the Lord, it was Peter's turn to experience His sufferings more directly. There are many similarities with the Lord's sufferings- e.g. it was to "please the Jews" (:2). Hence the comment: "And those were the days of unleavened bread". It was Passover time- the very time of the Lord's sufferings. We too are led to fellowship with the Lord's sufferings, and our familiarity with the records of them will help us to perceive this more quickly.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had taken him</em>- A word repeatedly used about the Lord's being 'taken' by the Jewish opposition (<em><a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:32'>Joh 7:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:44'>Joh 7:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:20'>Joh 8:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a></em>). Again, we see the development of the theme that the Lord's final sufferings were being replicated in Peter.</p><p><em>He put him in prison</em>- Surely to test Peter's confident claim that he was ready to go to prison and death for his Lord (only recorded by Luke- <em><a href='B:490 22:33'>Luk 22:33</a></em>). The Lord likewise has a way of testing our confident claims about our loyalty to Him. It's worth noting that Herod had earlier arrested John the Baptist and 'put him into prison' (the same words are used; <em><a href='B:470 14:3'>Mat 14:3</a></em>), again in order to please another party- in that case, Herodias. That similarity would have led Peter to suspect that Herod would likewise behead him in prison as he had John. Our sufferings are so often in terms and tones similar to those of others, and this is because we are to take strength from them and to see that we are not alone.</p><p><em>And delivered him</em>- A word so often used about the handing over of the Lord to death.</p><p><em>To four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover</em>- The Greek for 'squad' refers to a group of four soldiers; four such squads meant 16 in all.</p><p><em>To bring him out to the people</em>- The Greek word Luke uses about what was done to the Lord (<em><a href='B:490 22:66'>Luk 22:66</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore Peter was kept in the prison; but earnest prayer was offered to God</em>- The guarding of Peter in prison is placed in opposition to earnest prayer being offered; as if worldly forces were in struggle with spiritual ones, and the spiritual prevailed. "Earnest" is literally 'unceasing', and the word is only used elsewhere by Peter, in appealing for unceasing love within the church (<em><a href='B:670 4:8'>1Pe 4:8</a></em>). He would have recalled how unceasing prayer had been offered for him- and he urged the church to show such love to others.</p><p><em>For him by the church</em>- <em>Huper</em>, translated "for", is what Dorothee Sölle called “the preposition of representation” (Dorothee Sölle,&nbsp;<em>Christ The Representative</em>&nbsp;(London: S:C:M:, 1967) p. 69). Our prayer for others is effectively our representation of them before the throne of Heaven and the Divine court. And this of course is exactly what the Lord Jesus has done and continues to do for us; mediating <em>huper</em> us, as our representative. What He has done for us, we are not to merely lamely accept; we are to do the same in essence for others. And the clearest way we reflect it is through prayer <em>huper</em> others, feeling with them and for them, and bringing those feelings before the Father in prayer for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Herod was about to bring him out, that same night</em>- This reflects how the Jewish day began at sunset. That night was the day in which Herod intended to 'bring him out' to death. In this kind of careful congruence we see evidence of inspiration and every verisimilitude. The language of 'bringing him out' naturally recalls the trial of the Lord Jesus before His death. </p><p><em>Peter was sleeping</em>- A great essay in faith and the peace which comes from it. For it seemed obvious that that night would be his last, and death awaited him in the morning.</p><p><em>Between two soldiers</em>- Recalling the Lord's death between two thieves.</p><p><em>Bound with two chains</em>- The record gives much detail about Peter's binding and guarding by the soldiers. We learn there were four squads of four soldiers guarding him (:4), there is the apparently unnecessary repetition of the fact he was guarded (:5), and now we learn that he slept with a separate chain connecting him to a separate soldier. All that was humanly possible had been done, to ensure there was no escape. All this sets the scene for the amazing deliverance wrought by the Lord that night. Significantly, the Lord overruled it that Paul was later likewise bound with two chains (<em><a href='B:510 21:33'>Act 21:33</a></em>); encouraging Paul to see his ministry as parallel to that of Peter. However, as I have elsewhere suggested, Paul seems to have pretended to Peter's ministry to the Jews, rather than accepting that his ministry was to be parallel to Peter's, but not identical with it. See on 12:7 <em>And an angel of the Lord stood by him</em>. It's also noteworthy that Peter later chose to describe the essence of condemnation as being in chains, in darkness, awaiting judgment (<em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>). He surely wrote that with recollection of how he had been left in exactly the same position that night in prison- and been saved out of it.</p><p><em>And guards before the door were guarding the prison</em>- Another example of apparently excessive detail about the guarding. See on <em>Bound with two chains</em>. It also recalls the guards guarding the Lord's tomb. This is the second time in Acts that the "guards before the door" have been rendered powerless (<em><a href='B:510 5:23'>Act 5:23</a></em> uses the same Greek words).</p>


text:
<p><em>And an angel of the Lord stood by him</em>- Exactly as happened to Paul (<em><a href='B:510 27:23'>Act 27:23</a></em>); see on 12:6 <em>Bound with two chains</em>. Luke uses the same language as in <em><a href='B:490 2:9'>Luk 2:9</a></em>, where the Angel of the Lord stands by the shepherds and again, the light shines. It's unclear what exact point Luke is trying to make by demonstrating the similarity. Perhaps it was that the Lord was demonstrating to Peter that the events of His life were being replicated in Peter's; just as they are in the experiences of all who are in Christ. </p><p><em>And a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying: Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands</em>- Yet another similarity with the Lord's crucifixion. The Greek verb translated 'strike' is usually used in the New Testament with the sense of striking with a fatal wound. This makes the next phrase so significant: "... and woke him", AV "raised him up". The similarities with the keepers / guards being stricken helpless at the resurrection and the glory of the Lord shining... all this was to help Peter to understand that the essence of the Lord's death and resurrection was being worked out in him. We note the subsequent disbelief of the male disciples as they fearfully prayed in a locked room, contrasted with the faith of a woman [Rhoda]; this was clearly looking back to the situation at the Lord's resurrection. His death and resurrection are being continually lived out in our experience too; baptism is a signal that we are prepared for that ongoing participation in His death and resurrection. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the angel said to him:</em> <em>Dress yourself and put on your sandals</em>- When the Angel told Peter this, he was alluding back to the Lord's words to Peter, that when he would be old, others would gird him and carry him to his death (<em><a href='B:500 21:18'>Joh 21:18</a></em>). The Angel was therefore saying that the time of Peter's death had not yet come. The lesson is, that the amount of comfort and reassurance Peter took from the Angels' words would have been proportionate to the degree to which he had meditated on his Lord's prophecy. And so with us. See on :10 for another example.</p><p><em>And he did so. And he said to him: Wrap your cloak around you and follow me</em>- “Follow me” is a phrase used 18 times elsewhere, and always about following the Lord Jesus. Peter struggled with this- he was told to stop trying to persuade the Lord against death on the cross, and instead to follow Him; and at the end of John's Gospel, Peter again has to be reminded of the need to follow his Lord. So here we are surely to perceive the Lord Jesus speaking through the Angel at this point; the call to follow Him comes to us in the most unusual circumstances.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went out and followed</em>- This might imply that the following and the going out were separate things. Peter's willingness to get dressed and leave the cell was a test of his faith. The commands to dress were likewise not simply the Angel's thoughtfulness because of the cold of the night which Peter would experience. Rather was it all a test and development of Peter's faith and obedience.</p><p><em>And he did not perceive that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he was seeing a vision</em>- This was precisely the position of the prayerful believers that same night (:15); and again, it was only after the opening of a door that they believed (:16). Peter was weak in believing that his prayers that night were being answered right before his eyes; and his awareness of his failure surely helped him to be patient with the failure of his own brethren that night. For at a prayer meeting, they received the answer to their prayers- and dismissed it as 'madness', as a mad woman seeing a vision. Which was precisely what Peter had done. So often, human weakness repeats between believers; and this is also under the hand of providence. It is intended, surely, to enable us to achieve patient forgiveness and fellowship with each other.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they were past the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city</em>- There is huge variation in the amount of detail in the Biblical records. Many years of the lives of men like Peter aren't recorded; but here we have the finest details of a few moments of his life. This is to help us play Bible television with the material; so that we can attempt to reconstruct and relive this wonderful scene.</p><p>"The iron gate that leads into the city" was likely what was known as "the prison gate", and this gate is mentioned only one other time in the Bible. <em><a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a></em> records that it was at this gate that the celebrating Israelites met and sung praise to God when Jerusalem was finally revived under Nehemiah. As noted under 12:8 <em>Dress yourself and put on your sandals</em>, Peter would have taken encouragement from this, as he doubtless felt full of praise himself, according to whether or not he picked up the allusion to the Nehemiah record. So many things in our lives likewise are nudges and hints towards Biblical accounts- but if we fail to perceive them, then those things remain in the large mass of apparently irrelevant and unexplained furniture in our lives. </p><p><em>This opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and passed on through one street; and immediately the angel departed from him</em>- Whilst walking with the Angel, Peter must have thought that nothing possibly could go wrong for him; but the Angel continued with him, it was just not visible. The 'leaving' was therefore just from his earthly perspective. </p><p>"Passed on" implies literally 'to follow'; the situation is replete with reference to the Angel opening the iron gates of Egypt at Passover time and leading Israel out. Further, the idea in :11 that "the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all that the Jews were expecting" alludes clearly to the Lord sending an Angel to deliver Israel from Pharaoh [= Herod] and the Egyptians [= the Jews]. This all gives the impression that this was yet another level of conversion for Peter; again he was being 'converted', brought out of Egypt to light, just as we too have various levels of conversion, and the essence of baptism becomes an ongoing daily experience.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Peter came to himself, he said:</em> <em>Now I know of a truth-</em> This Greek phrase, and the idea of 'knowing of a truth', is quite common in the Bible (<em><a href='B:470 27:54'>Mat 27:54</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:39'>Mar 15:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:42'>Joh 4:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:14'>Joh 6:14</a></em>). The idea is that there are things we know, but experience brings us to know them of a truth. Job heard by the hearing of the ear, and then through his sufferings came to see it all for real as personal truth. This is why the knowledge of the Gospel learnt before baptism is merely knowledge; it is through the Lord's personal program for us in subsequent life, that that knowledge is known by us in truth. And we must be patient as others are led along that same path of converting mere ideas, theology, lines in a statement of faith, into personal truth. See on 12:12 <em>Considered</em>. </p><p><em>Now I know of a truth, that the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all that the Jews were expecting-</em> Peter was delivered from prison as a result of the Angel being “sent forth”- from the court of Heaven, by the prayers of the other believers at their prayer meeting (<em><a href='B:510 12:11'>Act 12:11</a></em> RV). When those same believers commented: “It is his Angel” (:15) they were perhaps not mocking Rhoda; rather they were thanking God that Peter’s guardian Angel had indeed been sent forth due to their prayers:&nbsp;See on :10 "Passed on".</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had considered the thing</em>- The Greek doesn't mean this, but rather means 'to know'. We can pass through an experience, but now 'know' it until we have processed it with faith. See on 12:11 <em>Now I know of a truth</em>. </p><p><em>He came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark</em>- Peter later refers to John Mark as his [spiritual] son (<em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em>). We sense here therefore the deep family relationships forged by our experience in Christ. </p><p><em>There many were gathered together and were praying</em>- Do we hold such all night prayer meetings? To pray all night requires quite some psychological stamina. However, note the difference between "gathered together" and "praying". They came together to be together in their thoughts about Peter, "and were praying" at that gathering, but not necessarily every minute of the night. The powerful lesson is that even these highly committed believers were of limited faith- for when the answer to their night of prayer knocked at the door, they laughed at anyone who thought such an answer was possible. We too must ask whether we pray in the real hope of answer; or whether our praying is more for our benefit.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer</em>- Probably a Gentile name, perhaps reflecting her origin from Rhodes. We have a hint here of how Gentiles were already amongst the inner circle of the early church; and how they had more faith than their senior Jewish brethren. In any case, we find another similarity with the Lord's resurrection- that it was a woman who first believed in His deliverance from the iron gates of death, whilst the senior apostles didn't believe and mocked her as mad, just as they did Mary Magdalene. In :15 we will read that "she confidently affirmed that it was so". The only other time this Greek word occurs is again in Luke's writing, when describing how the girl in the courtyard confidently affirmed that Peter was Peter (Lk. 22:59). For me, this clinches the identity of that girl with Rhoda. Her perception is contrasted with the lack of perception of the church elders. Rhoda appears here "at the door of the gate"; and the very same Greek term is used in Mt. 26:71 of how the servant girl "in the porch" recognized Peter. She knew Peter's voice, and although she hadn't seen him [because she didn't open the gate], on the strength of that recognition of his voice, she told the others that Peter had arrived. Yet at the time of Peter's denials, it was his distinctive voice with his Galilean accent which betrayed him. So again she recognizes his voice. And she "told everyone" that it was Peter- both times.   
The connection is clear with Acts 10:17: "While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men that had been sent by Cornelius, having made enquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate". The language of the men of Cornelius 'standing before the gate' and earnestly knocking is precisely the same language as we find in the account of Peter knocking at the "door of the gate" after his release from prison: "He came to the house of Mary... there many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid named Rhoda came to answer. And when she recognised Peter's voice, she did not open the gate, but in joy ran inside and told everyone that Peter stood before the gate" (Acts 12:12-14). As he stood there, Peter was being put into the shoes of those men who had stood before his gate and knocked. Providence does this in our lives many times, as the Spirit seeks to bind us together in one close-knit body. When the Jewish disciples initially wouldn't let Peter in... he must have seen the similarity with how things could have worked out, had he likewise left those Gentiles outside, holding to the Jewish tradition of not having Gentiles into your home.
The theme of gates is apparent, each with a courtyard behind them. The gates of the prison swung open by the Lord's power. But soon Peter was standing outside another gate, that of the church. And those gates didn't open so quickly, despite a Gentile servant woman [Rhoda, 'the girl from Rhodes'] begging them to open. The contrast is intentional. The church within Mary's house were praying for Peter's release but were blind to the obvious- that he had been released and their prayers had been heard. Just like the disciples in Jerusalem, possibly also in Mary's house, refusing to believe the woman who testified that the Lord had risen. Likewise Gentiles had knocked at the door of Peter's house in Acts 10, and only with difficulty had he opened to them.  
The Lord had told Peter that upon this rock, and Peter means 'rock', the church would be built- a clear reference to the mass conversions achieved by Peter at the start of Christianity. And, He had added, the gates of the grave would not overcome it- they would not succeed in keeping the "church" out, the gates of the grave would open before the church. Peter must have wondered what that meant. And the opening of huge iron gates must have reminded him of that. The opening of the gates in life encourages us that the great and final gate shall be opened, the city of death shall surrender to the church. That is the idea of the gates of the grave not prevailing against the church. But the church had to open its gates to Gentiles, and they were slow to do that. We note that standing before the gates is the place of the beggar (Lk. 16:20 Lazarus at the gate of the rich man; Acts 3:10 the beggar at the Beautiful gate, and often in classical literature). Cornelius stood begging, as it were, before Peter's gate- and he responded. Peter then stands himself before the gate of the church- and eventually, he in turn is allowed in. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when she recognised Peter's voice</em>- The similarities with Peter's betrayal of the Lord are clear. Again, he is standing at a gate; and again, a servant girl recognizes his voice without clearly seeing him. And she "told everyone" that it was Peter. The parallels are such that we wonder whether Rhoda was in fact the servant girl who recognized Peter by his voice in the High Priest's courtyard. In this case, we have yet another wonderful example of how the Lord works through human weakness and betrayal of His Son; for through that whole shameful incident, that young woman was brought to faith in Christ, as she witnessed the amazing repentance of Peter. It was his weakness and the way he dealt with it which persuaded thousands on the day of Pentecost; and perhaps amongst them was a young Gentile servant girl called Rhoda. There is clearly allusion to the parable of Jn. 10, where the Lord presents Himself as the good shepherd whose voice is recognized by the gatekeeper, who then opens the gate. Their acceptance of Peter was therefore reflecting their acceptance of the Lord Jesus. For Peter's smiting on the side, 'resurrection' and exit from the gates of death accompanied by Angels all looks ahead to the Lord's resurrection. Peter was representing the Lord Jesus.  </p><p><em>She did not open the gate, but in joy ran inside</em>- Another connection with how 'mad' Mary ran to the same disciples with joy that the Lord had been delivered. The similarities are such that we can conclude that this repetition of circumstance was in order to test the disciples; and again they failed, as we do so often.</p><p><em>And told everyone</em>- The language of the great commission, about telling everyone the good news of the Lord's deliverance from the gates of death.</p><p><em>That Peter stood before the gate</em>- The language of the risen Lord standing before the door, about to return, if His followers believed in Him enough (<em><a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said to her: You are mad- </em>The believers gathered together to hold a prayer meeting for Peter’s release. Their prayers were answered; he stood outside, knocking on the door. But they simply didn’t believe it. They couldn’t conceive their prayer was answered. They mocked poor Rhoda and told her to go back and watch the door and not disturb them any more while they prayed for Peter’s release. And having mocked her, they got back on their knees and asked again for his release. We can pray, in faith apparently, but with no very deep faith that the answer in actual reality will happen or may already have been granted. </p><p><em>But she confidently affirmed that it was so</em>- The only other time this Greek word occurs is again in Luke's writing, when describing how the girl in the courtyard confidently affirmed that Peter was Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:59'>Luk 22:59</a></em>). For me, this clinches the identity of that girl with Rhoda; see on :13 <em>Rhoda</em>.</p><p><em>And they said: It is his angel</em>- The early church clearly believed in the [Biblical] concept of guardian Angels who represent us and can therefore be understood to appear as us before the court of Heaven.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Peter continued knocking</em>- Strikingly similar to the appeal to keep on knocking so that the door will be opened (<em><a href='B:490 11:9-10'>Luk 11:9-10</a></em>). The figure of knocking is also used about the Lord Jesus knocking on the door of His church (<em><a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). And thus faithful Peter was to be understood as representative of the risen Lord Jesus, as we have pointed out earlier in this exposition.</p><p><em>And when they had opened, they saw him and were amazed</em>- The strength of the Greek word reflects upon their lack of faith in the prayers they had just been offering. The word is translated "mad" in <em><a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 5:13'>2Co 5:13</a></em>. The obvious inversion of ideas is in the fact that they had just accused Rhoda of being mad (:15). It was they who were, as it were, mad. This so often happens. We are made to realize how it actually feels to be what we accuse others of. There is an African proverb, often told to warn children not to call each other bad names: "If you call another a cripple, you will become a cripple". This is not simply a case of what goes around coming around. Rather does God want us to enter into relationship with the person we thought badly of, to understand them, and to understand the real import of the words we use and think.  And again, Luke is bringing out the similarities with the Lord's resurrection; for the same group of male disciples were "amazed" (s:w:) by the testimony of the women who had met the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:490 24:22'>Luk 24:22</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>But he, motioning with the hand to hold their peace, declared to them how</em> <em>- </em>Paul is twice recorded as doing the same (<em><a href='B:510 13:16'>Act 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:40'>Act 21:40</a></em>). Was this a reflection of how he had unconsciously absorbed the example of fisherman Peter and so sought to emulate it? Or was he consciously pretending to Peter's ministry to the Jews- rather than focusing upon being himself and focusing on the very different ministry the Lord had given him?</p><p><em>The Lord had brought him out of the prison- </em>When the Angel ‘brought Peter forth out of the prison’, this is recorded as “the Lord” (Jesus) doing so. He worked through [one specific?] Angel.</p><p><em>And he said: Tell these things</em>- The women were told by the risen Lord to “tell My brothers…”. Here in <em><a href='B:510 12:17'>Act 12:17</a></em> the same Greek words are used by Peter: “Tell these things… to the brothers”. Peter felt that his deliverance from prison was like the Lord’s resurrection, and perhaps consciously he used the Lord’s words to Mary Magdalene. Peter then went “to another place” just as the Lord did on saying those words. He saw that his life was a living out of fellowship with the Lord’s mortal experiences, every bit as much as our lives are too:&nbsp;Peter specifically said: "Tell these things to James and to the brothers"- just as the Lord had told the women to go and tell <em>Peter</em>, and the brothers. Peter perhaps saw James in the same position as he had been in. From our own experience of faithlessness and weakness, we are able to appear to others.</p><p><em>To James and to the brothers</em>- There seem to be a number of unconscious allusions by Peter back to his own failures- and this is an example. It was an allusion to the women being told to go and shew the news of the resurrection to the brethren <em>and Peter</em>, who was then in spiritual crisis. Those words, that fact, was ingrained upon Peter to the point that he unconsciously builds it in to his own words. Here the same Greek words are used by Peter as by the Lord: “Go shew these things… to the brothers”. Peter felt that his deliverance from prison was like the Lord’s resurrection.</p><p><em>And he departed and went to another place</em>- The way Peter beckons to the disciples to hold their peace, declares how the Lord had brought him out of the prison and death, tells them to go and shew these things to the brethren and then goes “unto another place” is a reflection of the Lord’s behaviour after His resurrection (cp. <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). Consciously and unconsciously, confirmed by providence, Peter was living out the fact he was in Christ; he was showing the risen Lord to men and women by his words and actions.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now as soon as it was day, there was no small anxiety among the soldiers about what had become of Peter</em>- Again, a similarity with the Lord's resurrection. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when Herod had searched for him and not found him</em>- This sounds as if Herod personally searched, presumably going to the prison personally. </p><p><em>He examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death</em>- This has echoes of the punishment of those entrusted with the murder of Daniel. </p><p><em>And he went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there</em>- Herod had intended to kill Peter because he wanted to please the Jews (:3). But he invested so much in what originally was just a political move, that he became obsessed with it. And now it backfired, he took it so personally that he moved his residence out of Judaea to Caesarea. This is how our human minds degenerate; an insincere decision or policy adopted becomes a personal obsession, and then when we are shown to be fighting against the Lord's way, there is hurt pride which results in destruction.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Herod was highly displeased with those at Tyre and Sidon- </em>"highly displeased" translates a Greek term which seems to mean 'to prepare war'. Hence they "asked for peace". The incident naturally recalls the Lord's parable of the mighty King who must be asked for peace, referring to how we must make peace with Him; and again we note that it is Luke who records this (<em><a href='B:490 14:31'>Luk 14:31</a></em>). The connection may be to demonstrate that Herod was acting as God; and this is stated in so many words in :22. The way Blastus serves to reconcile Herod and these people would then look forward to the Lord's work between God and man.</p><p><em>They came with one accord to him and having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, they asked for peace- </em>Throughout Scripture, the opposition between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God is highlighted. After the establishment of the first ecclesia in Jerusalem, the Acts record seems to emphasize the pointed conflict between the ecclesia and the world. Being "of one accord" was a hallmark of the early brethren (<em><a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:1'>Act 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:24'>Act 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:12'>Act 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:25'>Act 15:25</a></em>); but the world were in "one accord" in their opposition to that united ecclesia (<em><a href='B:510 7:57'>Act 7:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 12:20'>Act 12:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:29'>Act 19:29</a></em>). The two women of Proverbs both have surface similarities; folly parodies wisdom. Thus the words of the adulteress drip honey and oil (<em><a href='B:240 5:3'>Pro 5:3</a></em>), just as those of wisdom do (<em><a href='B:240 16:24'>Pro 16:24</a></em>). Rabshakeh promised the Jews an Assyrian Kingdom where everyone sat under their own vine and fig tree- consciously parodying Micah’s contemporary prophecies of God’s future Kingdom (<em><a href='B:290 36:16'>Isa 36:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a></em>). The Assyrian Kingdom was set up as a parody of Solomon’s, which was the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:110 4:25'>1Ki 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a></em>). A glance through the descriptions of the beasts- the Kingdoms of this world- reveals that they are all set up in terms of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom.</p><p><em>Because their country was fed from the king's country</em>- Tyre and Sidon were city states belonging to Syria, with no agricultural land. They were therefore dependent upon food supplies from Herod's territory. Perhaps the famine of <em><a href='B:510 11:28'>Act 11:28</a></em>, or at least, the famines associated with the last days of AD70, led to tensions over food supplies.</p>


text:
<p><em>And upon a set day</em>- Perhaps a Jewish feast day, or a day of religious significance, upon which Herod wished to present himself as a Divine figure. <em></em></p><p>Herod dressed himself in <em>Royal apparel</em>- Literally, 'the clothing of the Kingdom'. He was wilfully playing God.</p><p><em>And sat on the throne and delivered an oration to them</em>- In imitation of the Lord sitting on His judgment throne [<em>bema</em>] specifically refers to a judgment throne, and giving his verdict as if it were the Lord's.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the people shouted: The voice of a god and not of a man</em>- They clearly perceived that Herod wished himself to be perceived as Divine, and so they went along with his wish; for they desired peace with him. Roman emperors and leaders frequently presented themselves as Divine figures; and Revelation brings out the tension between accepting Jesus as Lord, and being part of the Roman empire with its cult of emperor worship. We may never go this far in brazen blasphemy, but we are all tempted to 'play God'. And we are also all in situations where at times, folks glorify<em> us</em> when the glory needs to go to God; and it is imperative that we remind others of our humanity. Paul and Peter were several times in such situations, and their eagerness to assure others of their humanity was perhaps partly in order to avoid the kind of condemnation which came upon Herod.</p>


text:
<p><em>And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory</em>- It would appear that he did not die immediately, because his death is described as through being "eaten by worms", presumably a reference to some kind of cancer. Perhaps this method of death was chosen rather than instant death in order to give him a chance of repentance.</p><p><em>And he was eaten by worms and breathed his last- </em>Not literally. Rather is this the language of the day being used to describe illnesses such as cancer which were not then understood. There should be no surprise, therefore, that the language of the day for mental illness is also used in the Bible. This explains the usage of 'demon possession' in the Gospels. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the word of God grew and multiplied</em>- The number of converts to the word multiplied- for the same word is repeatedly used in this sense (<em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 9:31'>Act 9:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:20'>Act 19:20</a></em>). Thus “the word of God” is put by metonymy for ‘the response to the word of God’, as if the word will inevitably bring forth response. We must believe, really and truly, that the word will not return void, but it will accomplish what it is intended to achieve. We are not scattering seed with the vague hope that something might sprout up; we are planting, fully expecting to see a harvest. It's also possible to speculate that the multiplication of God’s word might refer to a growth in the availability of the written, inspired word of God in the form of the Gospel records, which were likely starting to appear in written form about this time.</p><p>The contrast is surely with how the people had claimed that Herod's voice was the word of God and not of man (:22). Here we see God’s extreme sensitivity to attitudes to His word. The point is being made that the mimic of God’s word soon fell silent, whereas God’s true word grew. Our attitude to God’s word in the Bible should reflect His understandable sensitivity to His word; just as we too are sensitive if others pay no attention to what we are saying or our efforts to communicate with them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had completed their service</em>- The AV says that Paul 'fulfilled his ministry'; and he can use the same two words in telling Archippus to ensure that he too fulfils <em>his</em> ministry (<em><a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a></em>). Surely Paul is setting himself up as a pattern, and inviting his brother to follow it. The specific "service" in view was the taking of donations from Antioch to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:510 11:30'>Act 11:30</a></em>). Having done this once, it became Paul's desire to do it again, when he attempted to gather donations from Asia for a Jerusalem Poor Fund. The record may be making the point that Paul was in Jerusalem at the time of Peter's deliverance from prison; this experience was intended to cultivate his faith, ready for the times when he would be imprisoned.</p><p><em>Taking with them John whose surname was Mark</em>- The cousin of Barnabas (<em><a href='B:580 4:10'>Col 4:10</a></em>). Some changed their Hebrew names into the Latin forms when they went on mission work into the Roman world: Silas became Silvanus, Saul became Paulus, Joseph Barsabbas became Justus (<em><a href='B:510 1:23'>Act 1:23</a></em>); and hence we read of “John, whose other [Latin] name was Mark” (:12,25). We have here an example of becoming all things to all men in our witness to the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers- </em>The prophets 'spoke forth' God’s word under inspiration, and the teachers relayed, distributed and interpreted this. </p><p><em>Symeon that was called Niger</em>- Perhaps the same person as Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>). Simon is listed here next to Lucius, who was also from Cyrene. The thief and the centurion were likewise converted, and the faith of Joseph, Nicodemus and probably others was brought out into the open by the cross. Like Samson, the Lord won victories even in His death. The spiritual turn-around in Simon is a type of what is experienced by all whom the Lord compels to carry His cross. He was passing by, going somewhere else, full of his own plans, going about to establish his own righteousness... and then, out of the blue, he was called to what he much later realized was the greatest honour a man could be called to: to accompany the Son of God and carry His cross, right to the end. We are left to imagine him plonking it down, as if to say to Jesus 'Now you've got to do the rest', and then slipping off into the crowd. Cyrene was where there was a strongly orthodox Jewish community (cp. <em><a href='B:510 6:9'>Act 6:9</a></em>). Simon was probably dark skinned, "called Niger", a countryman, a simple man, who had perhaps come up to Jerusalem in his zeal to keep Passover. What a comfort it was to the Lord to see a black man carrying His cross; for He had earlier said that all His true followers would carry the cross behind Him (<em><a href='B:470 10:38'>Mat 10:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:24'>Mat 16:24</a></em>). The Hebrew writer seemed to see Simon as typical of us all when writing of how we must go out of the city with the Lord, "bearing his reproach" (<em><a href='B:650 13:12-13'>Heb 13:12-13</a></em>, probably using 'reproach' as a parallel to 'the cross'). He would have seen in Simon a prototype of all His future, suffering, humiliated followers; "impressed" by the predestined calling, almost against our will, to carry His cross (<em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em> RV mg:). And was it accident that this prototype was almost certainly a black man, when perhaps ultimately it may appear that a large proportion of the faithful body of the Lord Jesus will have been black people? If indeed Simon was a black Jew (cp. modern Falashas) who had come up to keep the Passover, it would have been annoying beyond words for him to be made unclean by the blood of the Lord, which was inevitably on the stake after His first attempt at bearing it after His flogging. Not to mention the shame for a zealous Jew in having to carry the cross of this Jesus of Nazareth. Yet it would seem that he was later converted, and he in turn converted his wife and son (<em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). Mark rarely records proper nouns, but he makes a special effort to mention that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It would therefore seem that these men were well known in the early church.</p><p><em>And Lucius of Cyrene</em>- Perhaps one of the men of Cyrene converted at Pentecost (<em><a href='B:510 2:10'>Act 2:10</a></em>) who fled to Antioch from the persecution in Jerusalem.</p><p><em>And Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul</em>- The mention of Herod's title was perhaps to demonstrate how the Gospel had spread amongst the elite, and also within the circles of those who had been so bitterly opposed to it. This is a tacit reference to the immense power of the message.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.<br/><em>And as they ministered to the Lord</em>- All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was <em>as</em> Barnabus and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a missionary journey (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>). Likewise it was <em>as</em> the Levites were in process of collecting funds for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll (<em><a href='B:140 34:14'>2Ch 34:14</a></em>). </p><p><em>And fasted</em>- Perhaps for guidance as to how to further progress the Lord's work. For the response to this fasting was to call Barnabas and Saul to go forth. Have you fasted for such guidance in your own ministry?</p><p><em>The Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul</em>- Paul uses the same word to describe how he had been 'set apart' for his missionary work from before creation (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>). Now the time had come for that ancient plan to be realized. But Paul had the freewill not to respond to it. He was not bound to go forth in his missionary work just because it had been planned from the beginning. There are for each of us good works prepared for us to execute in our lives (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>), but we do them by our own freewill. There are many such works, and many individuals, who do not respond. And in this must be the tragedy of God; that He has arranged the potential for us to perform or achieve much for Him, which is not performed because of our dysfunction or unbelief. We are never better than when we are fluently responding, open to God’s intentions for us, and sensing His willing us forward in the service He intended for us.</p><p><em>For the work-</em> Paul appropriates the words of <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> LXX to his work of preaching: “I <em>work a work </em>in your days, which ye will in no wise believe though <em>a man</em> declare it unto you”. And so when we read of the <em>men</em> Barnabas and Saul being sent out on the <em>work</em> of the first missionary journey, we are to see an allusion back to <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> (<em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:26'>Act 14:26</a></em>). And yet that passage went on to say that the work would not be believed. Yet hoping against hope, they embarked on the missionary journey. Cyprus didn’t respond, initially- as they had expected. But soon their positive spirit was rewarded, and converts were made, against all odds. </p><p><em>Unto which I have called them</em>- In <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>, the same word is used of how Paul proved or concluded that he had been called to preach the Gospel to Gentiles. The implication could be that he somehow doubted his calling- he would far rather have been the apostle to the Jews. Later in this exposition I seek to demonstrate that Paul struggled with his calling as the apostle to the Gentiles, preferring rather to fill Peter's role. The parable of the talents suggests the Lord has specific hopes and callings for each of us, and man is never better than when he is working at those callings with the Lord's every support and blessing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then, when they had fasted and prayed</em>- It was as they did those things that the Lord opened the way for Barnabas and Saul to depart on their missionary journey. Yet the process continued. This is the spirit in which we should live life in His service.</p><p><em>And laid their hands on them, they sent them away</em>- The next verse says that they were "sent forth by the Holy Spirit" (:4), thus drawing a parallel between the "prophets and teachers" in Antioch and the Holy Spirit. Whilst we do not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, it is also so that we are to walk in step with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 5:25'>Gal 5:25</a></em>), following the Lord's leading in His service. The laying hands upon the missionaries may therefore have been more than simply expressing unity with them, but could have been a granting of Holy Spirit to them, empowering them for the task ahead of them. In the Old Testament, hands were laid upon the sacrificial animals as a sign of identity, and we should not think that every 'laying on of hands' was in order to impart a blessing of Holy Spirit power; it was also simply an act of identity with the person. </p>


text:
<p><em>So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit</em></p><p>- see on :3. </p><p><em>Went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus</em>- Judaism spoke of going up to Jerusalem and going down from it. But that concept is now transferred to Antioch, the centre of the early Christian mission at this time. This is another hint that Jerusalem was no longer the 'mecca' of God’s people.</p><p>From Seleucia, Cyprus would have been visible from there on a clear day. So far as we know, the Holy Spirit had stated that there was a specific work for Barnabas, Saul and John Mark to do; but it's unclear to what extent they had to work out the plans and itinerary on their own initiative. Seeing that Cyprus was visible from Seleucia, it might have seemed the obvious first destination in an attempt to take the Gospel over the seas. And Barnabas was from there; perhaps they concluded that this was the logical overseas destination for the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 4:24-30'>Act 4:24-30</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God</em>- Literally, the <em>logos</em> of God, which is the Lord Jesus. "The word of God" was a common Old Testament term for the prophetic word spoken through the prophets, but that had now come to a climax in the word about Jesus. </p><p><em>In the synagogues of the Jews</em>- The movement of the Spirit was clearly for Saul to go "far hence unto the Gentiles", but he immediately begins his missionary work on arrival at the capital, Salamis, as he sadly continued it- with a stubborn obsession with preaching to the Jews, when this was Peter's work.</p><p><em>They had also John to assist them</em>- Gk. 'to be their minister'. There was typically a minister or assistant attached to the synagogues, and so the impression may be that Saul and Barnabas were effectively taking over as the rabbis of the synagogues, and John Mark was their minister. Or perhaps the idea is that Saul preached as a Rabbi, and John Mark was his minister.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had gone through the whole island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a</em> <em>false prophet</em>- Perhaps to point out that the predictions of Luke 21 about the scenario in the last days was being fulfilled. He claimed to be "Bar Jesus", literally 'son of Jesus'; perhaps he actually purported to be the returned Jesus. Such a false Christ and false prophet surely met the terms of the Olivet Prophecy; again we see that the conditions were ripe for the Lord's return, but He didn’t come because the human factors failed. Israel didn’t repent, and the church became divided and lacking the Spirit. We must ask whether our last days will be different.</p><p><em>A Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus</em>- Again we sense the focus, if not obsession, with engaging with Jews; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding</em></p><p>- see on 13:12 <em>The proconsul... believed</em>.</p><p><em>The same summoned Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God</em>- We can speculate that through Sergius Paulus trying to get the preachers into trouble with the proconsul, the Gospel was preached on a high level and with success. For Elymas was "with" Sergius Paulus, as if he had influence over him; and therefore under this influence, Sergius Paulus summoned the missionaries. But the plan of Elymas badly backfired; encouragement that no weapon formed against the work of the Gospel will ultimately succeed.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) opposed</em> <em>them</em>- The scene is reminiscent of Satan, the Arabic adversary of the Jews, standing before the Angel with Joshua-Jesus the priest standing on the other (<em><a href='B:450 3:1-2'>Zec 3:1-2</a></em>). The impression is given of the proconsul being preached to by Paul, whilst Elymas tried to persuade him otherwise. The similarity is appropriate because "Elymas" appears to be an Arabic word, from the Arabic <em>elim</em>, 'the wise', and he was likely an Arab. The scene also recalls the Egyptian magicians 'opposing' Moses before Pharaoh. </p><p><em>Seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith</em>- The same Greek word is found in :10, where Elymas is accused of 'perverting' the "right ways of the Lord". The word seems to specifically mean to misinterpret; we have the impression that as Paul preached to the proconsul, Elymas stood there eagerly saying 'Ah, but what they really mean by that is <em>this.</em>::'. These two verses state that both the listener [Sergius Paulus] and the message were 'perverted'. The listener is thus identified with the message; as in the parable of the sower, the Gospel takes lodgement within a person, and they become identified with it.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him</em>- It can be no accident that Saul appears to have changed his name to ‘Paul’, “the little one”, at the time of his first missionary journey. His preaching of the Gospel was thus related to his own realization of sinfulness, as reflected in his name change. And so it has ever been. Saul becomes Paul in so many lives. True self-abnegation, recognition of our moral bankruptcy, our desperation, and the extent of the grace we have received… these two paradoxical aspects, fused together within the very texture of human personality, are what will arrest the attention of others in this world and lead them to the Truth we can offer them.</p><p>Saul and Paul<br/>Various expositors have noticed the links between Saul and Paul. "Is Saul also among the prophets?" was directly matched by 'Is Saul of Tarsus also among the Christians?'. The way Paul was let down through a window to escape persecution was surely to remind him of what King Saul had done to David (<em><a href='B:90 19:12'>1Sa 19:12</a></em>). They were both Benjamites, and perhaps his parents saw him as following in Saul's footsteps. And it seems Paul was aware of this. The implication is that by <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em> Paul consciously changed his name from Saul to Paul ('the little one'). It is difficult to avoid seeing the link with <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em>: " When thou wast little (Heb. 'the littlest one') in thine own sight", God anointed Saul and made him the <em>rosh</em>, the chief, over Israel. Maybe Paul's parents intended him to be the <em>rosh</em> over Israel; and it seems he would have made it had he not been converted. I suggest that <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em> rung in Paul's mind. He saw how he had persecuted Christ, as Saul had David. He saw the self-will within him as it was in Saul. Yet he went on to see the tragedy, the utter tragedy, of that man. He saw how pride had destroyed a man who could have achieved so much for God. And he determined that he would learn the lesson from Saul's failure (as he determined to learn the lessons from those of John the Baptist and Peter). So he changed his name to Paul, the little one. What influence his sustained meditation on one Old Testament verse had upon him! It affected some basic decisions in his life; e.g. the decision to change his name. There was a time, according to the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em>, when Saul felt he was 'the littlest one' (as demonstrated in <em><a href='B:90 9:21'>1Sa 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 10:22'>1Sa 10:22</a></em>). This was so, so pleasing to God. Saul at that moment, captured as it were in a snapshot, as the obvious, anointed King of Israel hid among the baggage, knowing in his heart he was no way suited to be the leader of God’s Israel, was Paul's hero. And Paul alludes to it when he says he is less than the <em>least </em>of all saints, <em>least </em>of the apostles, chief of sinners (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a></em> - note the progressive realisation of his sinfulness over time). He earnestly resolved to be like Saul was at the beginning. When he describes himself as "anointed" (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em>) he surely had his eye on <em><a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a></em> again; when Saul was little in his own eyes, he was anointed. Paul tried to learn the lessons from Saul, and re-apply Saul's characteristics in a righteous context. Thus Saul was jealous (<em><a href='B:90 18:8'>1Sa 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 19:1'>1Sa 19:1</a></em>), and Paul perhaps had his eye on this when he describes himself as jealous for the purity of the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>). "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (<em><a href='B:510 26:19'>Act 26:19</a></em>) is surely a reference back to Saul's <em>dis</em>obedience (<em><a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a></em>). </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>And said, You son of the devil</em>- The Jewish religious leaders were “of your father the Devil” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>). This would explain the Lord’s description of Judas as a Devil (<em><a href='B:500 6:70'>Joh 6:70</a></em>) because the Jewish Devil had entered him and conceived, making him a ‘Devil’ also. In the space of a few verses, we read the Lord Jesus saying that “the Devil” is a “liar” – and then stating that His Jewish opponents were “liars” (<em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 8:55'>Joh 8:55</a></em>). These are the only places where the Lord uses the word “liar” – clearly enough He identified those Jews with “the Devil”. If the Jews’ father was the Devil, then ‘the Devil’ was a fitting description of them too. They were a “generation of (gendered by) vipers”, alluding back to the serpent in Eden, which epitomized “the Devil”; “that old serpent, called (i:e. being similar to) the Devil and Satan” (<em><a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>). In the same way as Judas became a Devil, the “false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus” is called a “son of the Devil” (<em><a href='B:510 13:6'>Act 13:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>), which description makes him an embodiment of the Jewish opposition to the Gospel.</p><p>"You son of the Devil" is implying he was a tare sown among the wheat (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>).</p><p><em>You enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and all villainy, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?</em>- Just as the preaching of the Gospel was to make straight paths for the Messiah to come (<em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>), so we are to make&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;paths straight (<em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em>)- as if somehow we are the Lord Jesus; His revelation to this world at the second coming will in a sense be our revelation. Hence the final visions of Revelation speak of the Lord's second coming in terms which are applicable to the community of those in Him [e.g. a city of people coming down from Heaven to earth]. John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a></em>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <em><a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a></em> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways. Thus <em><a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a></em>, which is being quoted in <em><a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a></em>, speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the Lord</em>”, whereas <em><a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a></em> speaks of “Prepare ye the way&nbsp;<em>of the people</em>”. Yet tragically, the way / path of Israel was not the way / path of the Lord (<em><a href='B:330 18:25'>Eze 18:25</a></em>).</p><p>"The right ways" is literally, the straight streets. The same word is used of the street called "Straight" where Paul was baptized (<em><a href='B:510 9:11'>Act 9:11</a></em>). That street was chosen in order to demonstrate to Paul how his new life was to be walked along a straight way or street, towards the Kingdom; remembering how John the Baptist's mission had been to make straight [s:w:] the Lord's paths or roads (<em><a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And now, the hand of the Lord is upon you and you shall be blind- </em>This foreshadowed how the rejected will be sent to a mist of darkness (<em><a href='B:680 2:17'>2Pe 2:17</a></em>). Thick darkness is associated with God’s judgment (<em><a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:2'>Joe 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 1:15'>Zep 1:15</a></em>)- and recall how the judgment of darkness upon Egypt was so severe that human movement required 'groping' (<em><a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a></em>). Perhaps there will be a literal element to this in the experience of the rejected. Be that as it may, the utter&nbsp;<em>pointlessness&nbsp;</em>of life without God will be so bitterly apparent. And yet they would not face up to it in their day of opportunity.</p><p><em>Not seeing the sun for a time. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness, and he went about seeking someone to lead him by the hand</em>- It is possible that this was so that he had to be led by the hand (<em><a href='B:510 13:11'>Act 13:11</a></em>); it is all so reminiscent of Paul’s own experience in 9:8 that it would seem he was consciously seeking to replicate his own conversion in the life of another man. And this is, indeed, the very essence of preaching from a grateful heart. He saw the power that worked in Him as working in all of us (<em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). Paul wishes that the Colossians would be “filled with the knowledge of his will” (<em><a href='B:580 1:9'>Col 1:9</a></em>), just as at his conversion he had been chosen so “that you should know his will” (<em><a href='B:510 22:14'>Act 22:14</a></em>). He wanted them to share the radical nature of conversion which he had gone through; the sense of life turned around; of new direction.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord- </em>Paul's name change from Saul to Paul&nbsp;occurred whilst in Cyprus- where he met Sergius Paulus and preached the Gospel to him (<em><a href='B:510 13:7'>Act 13:7</a></em>). It would seem that Paul took the name of this Gentile to represent how his work with the Gentiles had become so fundamentally a part of him. From there, Paul went to Antioch and preached there. Why did he do that? Bruce Chilton has pointed out that there is archaeological evidence in Antioch that Sergius Paulus of Cyprus was in fact from there and there are plaques and inscriptions recording how he had funded things in the town (Bruce Chilton, <em>Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography</em> (New York: Random House, 2005) p. 117). The guess is that this man became Paul's patron for a while, and sent him to preach the Gospel to his family in Antioch; hence, as the custom was, Saul of Tarsus took the name of his patron. And perhaps reflecting upon how this was all so providential in spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles, Saul kept that name. The providence of the situation becomes the more interesting when we reflect that as a Roman Governor, bound to perform pagan rituals and be loyal to Caesar, Sergius Paulus may never himself have accepted the faith. The way John Mark returned to Jerusalem at this point (<em><a href='B:510 13:13'>Act 13:13</a></em>) may simply be because he considered that all this was too much- following what appeared to be a whim of chance and calling it God’s hand. For Antioch [not Antioch on the Orontes] was in the backwoods of Asia Minor, and it would've seemed crazy to go into such a distant and insignificant area all because of a 'chance' meeting with a generous Roman Governor.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>.<em><br/>Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John left them and returned to Jerusalem- </em>John Mark was an example of one 'brought up in it' (almost) who made it real for himself in the very end. His mother Mary owned the home where the first ecclesia met in Jerusalem- he would have known all the leading lights, the doubts, the joys, the fears, the debates of the early church. Barnabas was his kindly uncle, who took him on the first missionary journey with Paul. Cyprus was OK, but once they landed at Perga, Paul insisted on leaving the coast road and going up the dangerous road to preach on the uplands; and Mark quit, scared perhaps to risk his life that far. And so he went back to his mum in Jerusalem, and the safety of the home ecclesia. And no doubt he was warmly welcomed home, as the Jerusalem ecclesia by then were beginning to consider Paul as apostate. But over the months, things changed. John Mark wanted to go again, and his uncle Barnabas encouraged him. But Paul would have none of it. That rejection must have sorely hurt Mark; and we hear nothing more of him for about 15 years. Then, when Paul was in prison, he starts to get mentioned. He is called there Paul's "fellow-prisoner" (<em><a href='B:580 4:10'>Col 4:10</a></em>), as if he too had been imprisoned for his bold preaching. To Philemon, Paul writes that Mark is his "fellow-worker”; and in his last days, he begs Mark to come and see him (<em><a href='B:620 4:9-11'>2Ti 4:9-11</a></em>). Peter also, probably writing likewise from Rome ["Babylon"] mentions Mark as his "son" (<em><a href='B:670 5:13'>1Pe 5:13</a></em>), and tradition has it that Mark wrote down Peter's Gospel. So the young brother who possibly had been made flabby by the nice background, eventually made it real for himself in the end. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia; and they went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day- </em>This again sounds as if this focus upon the Jews was customary for Paul. And yet the work to which he had been called by the Holy Spirit was specifically to the Gentiles (:2). But in tension with that, Paul's obsession with Israel comes out repeatedly. Maybe this has something to do with how this verse opens with "But...". </p><p><em>And sat down</em>- The cameraman is as it were zoomed up close upon them. Or perhaps the significance of their 'sitting down' was that they sat down as if they were members of Judaism, exercising their rights. </p>


text:
<p><em>And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent for them, saying</em>-&nbsp; The synagogues read the Law and prophets according to a reading planner, rather like <em>The Bible Companion. </em>Paul's opening words refer to <em><a href='B:50 1:31'>Deu 1:31</a></em> LXX, which was the lesson for the 44th Sabbath in the year, around July / August; the corresponding second lesson from "the prophets" for that Sabbath was from <em><a href='B:290 1:1-27'>Isa 1:1-27</a></em>, from which Paul also quotes when he alludes to <em><a href='B:290 1:2'>Isa 1:2</a></em> LXX. </p><p><em>Brothers</em>- They treat Paul as if he is one of them. The invitation to give such a major discourse could have been because Paul purposefully gave the impression that he was still an orthodox thinking Jewish rabbi</p><p>- see on <em>And sat down</em> (:14). Much of the Jewish anger with Paul was because he later turned out to not be Judaist any longer, despite giving that impression in order to get an audience with them. If he had focused on his Divinely given mission to the Gentiles, he wouldn't have got into all these kinds of problems.</p><p><em>If you have any word of encouragement for the people, speak</em>- 'Barnabas' meant 'Son of encouragement', so it would seem likely that the synagogue elders knew of his presence and were kindly alluding to it. One wonders if [contrary to what I have just suggested above] these elders were in fact Messianic believers in Jesus, or at least sympathetic to that Way. That would explain the rather odd description of them 'sending' <em>[apostello]</em> to Paul and Barnabas to give a word of encouragement to the congregation. Perhaps there was a veiled allusion to the Lord Jesus being the consolation [s:w. 'encouragement'] of Israel (<em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul stood up and beckoning with the hand, said</em>- The same words used about Peter (<em><a href='B:510 12:17'>Act 12:17</a></em>). Luke seems to be developing the parallels between Paul and Peter; but it is also possible that Paul is emulating Peter.</p><p><em>You men of Israel and you that fear God</em>- Referring to the 'God fearers', the Gentile proselytes. Paul's sensitivity to this group may be reflected in his opening reference to "this people" rather than 'our people'; we can imagine Paul saying this whilst looking at the benches where the Gentile proselytes were sitting. Paul also directs his words to the Jews, by speaking of "our fathers"; thus modelling for us an inclusive approach in our witness and teaching.</p><p><em>Listen- </em>The idea of the Greek is an appeal to understand, to 'get it'. The early brethren preached looking for a response. They were preaching toward decision, for conversion. The Lord taught us that He will make His followers fishers of men; and fishers catch something, they aren’t fishermen if they just offer a bait indifferently. Paul taught that his hearers should repent and turn to God and do works meet for repentance (<em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>). The address in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia has three parts, each marked by an appeal to the listeners. Clearly it has been planned in advance, and was an appeal for response (<em><a href='B:510 13:16'>Act 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:26'>Act 13:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>). These preachers weren’t shy in asking men and women to decide for or against the love of God in Jesus. They challenged men to do something about the message they had heard. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>The God of this people Israel chose our fathers</em>- Paul's entire speech is based upon Stephen's in Acts 7 [see commentary there]. It was that witness from Stephen which had converted Saul / Paul; and he reflects that fact by likewise witnessing to others.</p><p><em>And exalted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm He led them out of it</em>- The prophets are clear that Israel worshipped idols in Egypt, and were not very responsive to God’s salvation plans for them. The reference to exalting them therefore draws attention to God’s grace towards Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>For about the time of forty years</em></p><p>- see on :19 <em>About four hundred and fifty years.</em></p><p><em>As a nursing father He carried them in the wilderness</em>- Another reading is 'He suffered their manners in the wilderness' [as AV]. This would again be drawing attention to God’s patient grace towards His people. But the allusion to <em><a href='B:50 1:31'>Deu 1:31</a></em> LXX encourages us to follow the 'As a nursing father' option. The idea of a father carrying and feeding his baby child is one which creates sympathy for the father; and Paul may have this in mind. For he was going on to appeal to Israel to consider that they had slain God’s only begotten Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan- </em>There were ten nations in the land (<em><a href='B:10 15:19-21'>Gen 15:19-21</a></em>), but seven of them were destroyed (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>). This combination of ten and seven is repeated throughout the descriptions of the latter day beast dominating the land of Israel with seven heads and ten horns (<em><a href='B:730 12:3'>Rev 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 13:1'>Rev 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:3'>Rev 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 17:7'>Rev 17:7</a></em>). I suggest that this means that not all of the ten horns will conflict with Israel; perhaps only seven of the ten nation confederacy dominating latter day Israel will be destroyed.</p><p><em>He gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years</em>- There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about four hundred and fifty years", <em><a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a></em>, which gives four hundred and eighty years, although the LXX there says 440- hence "about 450 years"). Sometimes the Bible is not precise. Under inspiration, the Hebrew writer seems to have forgotten the exact quotation, or to have been deliberately vague, when he speaks of "one in a certain place testified" (<em><a href='B:650 2:6'>Heb 2:6</a></em>). The reference to "seventy" in <em><a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a></em> also doesn't seem exact. Seven and a half years (<em><a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a></em>) becomes "seven years" (<em><a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a></em>); three months and ten days (<em><a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a></em>) becomes "three months" (<em><a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a></em>). And <em><a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a></em> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”. Surely this is to show that God is God, not man. His word is not contradictory, but in ensuring this, God does not sink down to the level of a man who wanted to produce an apparently faultless book, carefully ensuring that every figure exactly tallied. He has a spiritual culture much higher than this. And this is behind the many Bible paradoxes which we meet. The reading of the AV suggests judges were given for a period of about 450 years. Other readings are as in the NEV. Significantly, the period from the call of Abraham to the death of Joshua was likewise 450 years, suggesting that God works according to a plan and structures 'ages' according to a masterplan which climaxed in His Son (<em><a href='B:650 1:1-2'>Heb 1:1-2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And after these things He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet</em>- The judges all made the deliverances they did because they themselves made the effort to deliver Israel. But their freewill was worked through by God, who raised up or "gave them" these judges. Here again we see the perfect synthesis between Divine will and human freewill. </p>


text:
<p><em>And afterwards they asked for a king; and God gave to them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin</em>- God responds to human desire, even if the desire is wrong. He gives us our heart's desire. And all the desire of Israel was upon Saul (<em><a href='B:90 9:20'>1Sa 9:20</a></em>). This is something more than a deep respect for human freewill on God’s part. The fact is that we are confirmed in our desires; those who love the things of God’s Kingdom above all else shall surely be there. If a place in the Kingdom is truly "all our hope and desire", it shall be granted. "All them that love His appearing" and in their hearts long and wait for Him- shall not be disappointed. This feature of God’s dealings with men means that spiritual mindedness is of uppermost importance. What we really desire in our heart of hearts, our dominant desire, shall be granted. And God gave them a King whom He foreknew and told Israel would be bad for them. But He respected their desire.</p>&nbsp;<p><em>For the space of forty years- </em>The OT doesn't mention how long Saul reigned. Paul inserts this detail perhaps to demonstrate how God had given Israel various periods of testing and opportunity- for in :18 he mentions that they were 40 years in the wilderness. The period is realistic because Saul's son was 40 when he was placed on the throne when Saul died (<em><a href='B:100 2:10'>2Sa 2:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And when He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, to whom also He bare witness and said: I have found David the son of Jesse</em>- The 'removal' was when God 'raised up' David. But that point was some time before Saul's death. God makes a plan, decrees a course of action, but there is often a gap until it is fulfilled. He thus describes Himself as both planning and fulfilling His plans. That gap is perhaps to enable repentance even at an apparently late stage.</p><p><em>A man after My own heart, who shall do all My will</em>- Perhaps David was only after God’s own heart at the time Samuel anointed him? David was, in God’s opinion, a man after His own heart, who fulfilled all His will. Yet this is the God whose ways are not, and cannot be, ours. Yet this is how humble He is, and how positive His view of a faithful servant. We also note that not all men do [or "fulfil"] God’s will. He searches for and 'finds' men who will. God’s will is revealed in His word- which is why attention to the Bible is so important. The Lord Jesus is often described as the one who did the Father's will (the same Greek words are used- <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Of this man's seed</em>- The false doctrine of the physical ‘pre-existence’ of Christ before birth makes a nonsense of the repeated promises that he would be the <em>descendant</em> of Eve, Abraham and David. The early preachers emphasized that Jesus was “of David’s posterity” [Gk. s<em>permatos</em>- <em><a href='B:510 2:29-31'>Act 2:29-31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:23'>Act 13:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:3'>Rom 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a></em>]. If He were already existing up in heaven at the time of these promises, God would have been incorrect in promising these people a descendant who <em>would be</em> Messiah.</p><p><em>Has God according to His promise</em>- The promise to David is not specifically cited here. What has just been quoted is God’s comment upon David, that he would fulfil all His will, seeing he would have the mind of God. Perhaps Paul took this as meaning that as David was imperfect, therefore that comment was effectively a promise that a seed of David would fulfil the requirements of having the mind of God [which Paul says the Lord Jesus did, in Philippians 2] and fulfilling God’s will- which the Lord did to an ultimate extent&nbsp; (the same Greek words are used about Him- <em><a href='B:500 4:34'>Joh 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:30'>Joh 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:38'>Joh 6:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 9:31'>Joh 9:31</a></em>). Ezekiel's prophecies about "David" ruling over God’s people at the restoration clearly mean 'one of the seed of David', and Paul may be reasoning in the same way here.</p><p><em>Raised up to Israel a Saviour, Jesus</em>- This 'raising up' of Jesus began at the end of John's ministry (:24) and therefore doesn't specifically refer to the Lord's resurrection, although there is clearly the hint of that too.</p>


text:
<p><em>After John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance</em>- Paul's mention of John in <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> apparently adds nothing to his argument; it seems out of context. But it surely indicates the degree to which John was never far below the surface in Paul's thinking. Having been raised in Jerusalem, surely Paul as a young man would have heard John's preaching. It was the source of the goads against which he later kicked. Paul alluded to some parts of the Gospels much more than others, and an example of this is the way in which he alluded so extensively to the passages related to John the Baptist. I would suggest that the reason for this is that he saw John as somehow his hero, one for whom he had a deep respect. In doing so he was sharing the estimation of his Lord, who also saw John as one of the greatest believers. There are many 'unconscious' links between Paul's writings and the records of John, indicating how deeply the example and words of John were in Paul's mind (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 3:7'>Mat 3:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:9'>1Th 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:31'>Joh 3:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 15:47'>1Co 15:47</a></em>). Or consider how John said that wicked Jewry would be "hewn down" (<em><a href='B:470 3:10'>Mat 3:10</a></em>); Paul uses the very same word to describe how the Jewish branches had now been "cut off" (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:24'>Rom 11:24</a></em>). Paul saw himself as being like the best man, who had betrothed the believers to Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>)- just as John had described himself as the friend of the bridegroom (<em><a href='B:500 3:28'>Joh 3:28</a></em>).</p><p><em>To all the people of Israel</em>- This usage of "all" is hardly literal. If John's witness was counted as reaching "all Israel", we can understand the fulfilment of the great commission as likewise meaning that the Gospel must go to <em>people from</em> all nations, rather than to every individual:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>&nbsp;<p>As John preached repentance with a deep sense of his own unworthiness, so did Paul, with exactly that same sense (<em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 17:3'>Act 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:21'>Act 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:20'>Act 26:20</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And as John was fulfilling his ministry, he said: Who do you suppose I am? I am not he! But look, there comes one after me</em>- It could be argued that John's ministry failed, in that people did not widely accept Jesus as Messiah but crucified Him. John's ministry was as children sitting in the marketplace appealing for Israel to mourn, but they would not. And yet John played the part he was called to play, and in this sense he fulfilled his ministry. Many ministries or lives may appear to have failed, but actually the believer played their part and fulfilled their ministry. The response of others, or success or failure of response to our message, doesn't of itself indicate whether we fulfilled our ministry or not.</p><p><em>The shoes of whose feet I am not worthy to untie- </em>To untie another's sandals was an idiom for being his forerunner or herald. So John is not denying that he was the one who untied the Lord's sandals- but he is saying that he was not worthy to do the work he did. This is exactly the kind of humility to be associated with all witness work.</p>


text:
<p><em>Brothers, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us</em>- Here, and several times in this sermon, Paul seems to be repeating Peter's style of 3:17. He was deeply impressed by Peter; the question is whether he followed his example out of humble deference, or partly because he pretended to Peter's chosen role as the apostle to the Jews.</p><p><em>Is the word of this salvation sent</em>- 'The <em>logos</em> of this Jesus'. That the Lord Jesus personally is in view here is confirmed by the next verse talking of how the Jews "knew Him not" and 'condemned Him' (:27). The personal pronoun is usually used after the person has been defined. The 'he' in verse 27 clearly refers to Jesus; and so the reference to Him is surely here in :26 in the phrase "the word of this salvation". <em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em> speaks of the Lord Jesus as the word sent from God. </p>


text:
<p>Consider the intensity of allusion to the records of Christ's death and resurrection in <em><a href='B:510 13:27-38'>Act 13:27-38</a></em>: <br/>Acts&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Gospels <br/><em><a href='B:510 13:27'>Act 13:27</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 24:27'>Luk 24:27</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 13:28'>Act 13:28</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:480 15:13'>Mar 15:13</a></em> <br/><em><a href='B:510 13:29'>Act 13:29</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 27:59'>Mat 27:59</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 13:30'>Act 13:30</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:470 28:6'>Mat 28:6</a></em><br/><em><a href='B:510 13:38'>Act 13:38</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a></em></p><p>Thus Paul's early recorded preaching was basically a commentary on the Gospel records of Christ's death and resurrection (as was Peter's). </p><p><em>For they that dwell in Jerusalem and their rulers- </em>This phrase is used in Acts about those responsible for the Lord's death who then repented (<em><a href='B:510 1:19'>Act 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:5'>Act 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:14'>Act 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:16'>Act 4:16</a></em>). This group are therefore being held up as an example to the Jews in the synagogue where Paul was preaching. </p><p><em>Because they knew Him not, nor the voices of the prophets</em>- Jesus personally is paralleled with the word of the prophets; for as explained under :26 <em>The word of this salvation, </em>Jesus is being presented as the word of the Jewish prophets made flesh. Paul was preaching just after the reading of the prophets- and he was seeking to persuade his audience that the words just read had become flesh in the person of Jesus. He speaks of their "voices" rather than merely their words. They had heard the words, but not felt and perceived that these were the actual voices of men who being dead yet speak. They didn’t <em>feel</em> the wonder of inspiration in their attitude to Bible study- even though they would have devoutly upheld the position that the Bible texts were inspired. And here we have a lesson for ourselves. See <em><a href='B:520 9:27'>Rom 9:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a></em>. </p><p><em>Which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him</em>- Paul was preaching at a time when the voices of the prophets had just been read in the synagogue- he was appealing to his audience to be different from the respected Jerusalem Jews, who had heard the same readings read, and yet condemned God’s Son to death. Paul was ever quick to press home the similarities between his present audience and previous precedents.</p>


text:
<p><em>And though they found no cause of death in Him- </em>Saul / Paul would have taken intense legal interest in the trial. He was fully aware that in fact they did claim that there was a cause for death; He was "guilty of death" for blasphemy (<em><a href='B:470 26:66'>Mat 26:66</a></em>), and on this legal basis they asked Pilate to execute Him: "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die" (<em><a href='B:500 19:7'>Joh 19:7</a></em>). Paul says the opposite- that they found no cause of death in Him. Paul is not making any mistake here- rather is he correctly reading the hearts of the Jews. They knew there was no cause of death in Jesus- although they said that there was. Paul is seeking to demonstrate that the voice of inner knowledge and conscience is so easily overridden by group think, by psychological obsession rooted in jealousy, by the power of conservatism, the terror of realizing we have been seriously wrong, the desperate clinging to pride... And he realized that the same subconscious psychological battle was going on in the minds of those listening to him. And he warns them through drawing attention to those who had likewise refused to accept Jesus as Messiah.</p><p><em>They asked Pilate to have him slain</em>- The Greek means to earnestly beg. The only other three occurrences of this idea of 'begging Pilate' are all about Joseph begging Pilate for the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:470 27:58'>Mat 27:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:43'>Mar 15:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:52'>Luk 23:52</a></em>). Yet Joseph was a Sanhedrin counsellor, one of those who had condemned the Lord to death- for although he didn’t agree with it, the Sanhedrin decision was unanimous (<em><a href='B:480 14:64'>Mar 14:64</a></em>). So Joseph was one of those who on face value begged Pilate to crucify the Lord; and yet also begged Pilate for His body, something only done by closest family, and a sign of Joseph's public identification with Jesus and His cause. This continues the theme developed in commentary on the first half of this verse :28. A person can say or do something when in fact their inner convictions are otherwise. Both Joseph and the Jerusalem leadership knew in their hearts that Jesus was innocent and actually the Messiah. But they acted otherwise. Paul is speaking here to Jews assembled in synagogue. He knew there were many similarly struggling hearts before him in the audience, and his use of psychology and history in making his appeal is masterful.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had fulfilled all things that were written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb- </em>The "they" who did this amounts to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, whom I have argued in commentary on :28 were in Paul's mind in his flow of thought at this point. </p>


text:
<p><em>But God raised him from the dead</em>- This is a bald statement of fact. Paul gives no evidence; and he is not recorded here as mentioning the obvious fact that he himself had met the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. This would be another example of where evidence is not required for faith; the simple facts of the Gospel are powerful of themselves to persuade the hearers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he was seen for many days by those that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people</em>- It is worth putting together two passages, both from Luke: “The women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after…” (<em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>); and <em><a href='B:510 13:30-31'>Act 13:30-31</a></em>: “God raised him from the dead and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses”. Surely Paul and Luke have in mind here the ministering women. They had followed from Galilee to Jerusalem, the risen Lord had appeared to a woman first of all, and now those women were witnessing to the people. Perhaps <em><a href='B:530 15:3-7'>1Co 15:3-7</a></em> is relevant here, where we read that the Lord appeared after His resurrection to the twelve, and yet on another occasion to “all the apostles”- perhaps referring to the group that included the women. An empty tomb was no proof that Jesus of Nazareth had risen- unless there were witnesses there present at that empty tomb who could testify also that it was in that very tomb that Jesus had been laid. And only women, not men, were witnesses of this. The Greek world placed great emphasis upon sight- “Eyes are surer witnesses than ears”, Heraclitus said. They related to the past visually; for a group of people to be eyewitnesses was considered conclusive. Hence the enormous significance of the way in which the Gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing (<em><a href='B:470 27:55'>Mat 27:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:49'>Luk 23:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>). They were the eyewitnesses.</p>


text:
<p><em>We bring you good news</em>- The Gospel is stated to be in the promises made to the Jewish fathers, just as Paul states in <em><a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a></em>. The good news, or Gospel, was strictly speaking in the fulfilment of the promises, through the resurrection of Christ. It is a knowledge of that reality, rather than of the wording of the ancient promises of it, which is the essence of the Gospel.</p><p><em>Of the promise made to the fathers</em>- Paul saw a singular promise as having been made to all the Jewish fathers; and it had its fulfilment in the Lord's resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em>That God has fulfilled the same- </em>There was a degree to which the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in the Lord's resurrection. This is not to say that they have no fuller realization in the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth in the future. But their fulfilment in the Lord's resurrection was surely in that the promised "blessing" to all peoples was actualized through that event; for the "blessing" is interpreted in <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em> and Galatians 3 as the spiritual blessing of forgiveness and grace. And here in :34 we have an explicit connection made between the Lord's resurrection and "blessings".</p><p><em>To our children</em>- AV "To us their children". If the other textual reading is correct, are we to suppose that Paul had children?</p><p><em>In that He resurrected Jesus. As also it is written in the second Psalm: You are My Son, this day have I begotten you</em>- This text has multiple fulfilments in the New Testament; proof enough that prophetic fulfilments are not singular. Bible prophecy can have multiple fulfilments. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as for the fact that He raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken in this way: I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David</em></p><p>- see on 13:33 <em>God has fulfilled the same. </em>The blessings associated with David are surely the blessings of grace and forgiveness; for he speaks of himself in reflecting "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity" (<em><a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a></em>), and this is applied to all who believe in Christ in Romans 4. The quotation is from <em><a href='B:290 55:3'>Isa 55:3</a></em>, which offers the returning exiles a new covenant of forgiveness and radical, gracious acceptance- described as "the sure blessings [LXX] of David". That new covenant was spurned by Judah, and yet can be accepted by us today. It could be that Paul and Isaiah are using "David" in the way it is used in the restoration prophecies of Ezekiel and in <em><a href='B:300 30:9'>Jer 30:9</a></em>, where it refers to David’s promised Son, the Messiah. Or it could be that the blessings of David refer to the promise made to him of Messiah, whose eternal Kingdom on earth would only be possible through the extension of grace and mercy to those who would inhabit it. The 'setting up' of David’s seed in resurrection was part of the blessings of David, and so these blessings can be said to have come true on account of the Lord's resurrection. </p><p>Not seeing corruption was humanly achieved by the huge amount of spices used in the burial of the Lord Jesus. Some have complained that the weight of spices was more than even used to bury the Caesars. This extravagant freewill outpouring of love and respect for the crucified Lord was therefore the way the Father used to fulfil His prophetic word. </p>


text:
<p><em>Because He said also in another Psalm: You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption</em>- Paul's reasoning and usage of Psalms 16 is identical to that of Peter in his Pentecost address in <em><a href='B:510 2:29-31'>Act 2:29-31</a></em>. There is good reason to think that Paul heard that speech live; and it was one of the goads in his conscience which the Lord asked him to stop going against. Paul's humility is seen in the way that he learned from fisherman Peter, and had clearly reflected upon Peter's line of argument. </p>


text:
<p><em>For David, after he had in his own generation served the will of God, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption</em>- The AV suggests that David served his own generation, according to God’s will. We wonder why Paul mentioned this. Perhaps the idea is as expressed in Hebrews- that the Lord Jesus serves not only one generation because of his mortality; rather, His resurrection to immortality makes Him the eternal "servant" of all generations. The Lord had had to remind the Jews that David was inferior to Messiah, because Judaism had a tendency to reason that Moses and David were in any case greater than the Messiah figure (<em><a href='B:490 20:44'>Luk 20:44</a></em>). Paul does the same here, pointing out the inferiority of David to Messiah. </p>


text:
<p><em>But he whom God raised up saw no corruption</em>- As noted on :36, the superiority of Messiah over David had to be emphasized to a Jewish audience. The 'not seeing corruption' does not have to refer to the Lord's physical body being somehow preserved from corruption by embalming. He saw / experienced no corruption after His resurrection because He was immortalized. Psalms 16 expresses David’s personal hope of resurrection out of the grave, where he envisaged "my flesh shall rest in hope" (<em><a href='B:230 16:9'>Psa 16:9</a></em>). But he understands this as being possible because of what he writes in <em><a href='B:230 16:10'>Psa 16:10</a></em>: "For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, neither will You allow Your holy one to see corruption". "My soul" and the Messianic "holy one" are related, paralleled, but not identical. David would not remain in the grave because Yahweh's Holy One, Messiah, would not see corruption. David did "see corruption", as Paul and Peter state clearly. But David perceived that through identity with his great son, Messiah, he would be resurrected on account of Messiah's salvation from death. And we make that association through baptism into His death and resurrection. We too, as well as David, can therefore have remission of sins and resurrection proclaimed to us in the Gospel (:38).</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, be it known to you, brothers, that through this man is proclaimed to you the remission of sins</em>- The preaching of the man Paul was in effect the preaching of the man Christ Jesus. Because the Lord’s resurrection enabled forgiveness of sins (<em><a href='B:530 15:17'>1Co 15:17</a></em>), Peter therefore on this basis makes an appeal for repentance and appropriation of the Lord’s work for men through baptism into His death and resurrection (<em><a href='B:510 2:31-38'>Act 2:31-38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:15'>Act 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 3:19'>Act 3:19</a></em> “therefore"). And Paul here likewise: “He, whom God raised again... through [on account of] this man [and His resurrection] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins" (<em><a href='B:510 13:37-38'>Act 13:37-38</a></em>). Because of the Name the Lord has been given, salvation has been enabled (<em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:570 2:9'>Phi 2:9</a></em>). “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>); “the God of our fathers raised up Jesus… exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give (i:e. inspire) repentance to Israel, and forgiveness" (<em><a href='B:510 5:30-31'>Act 5:30-31</a></em>). The fact of the Lord’s resurrection has obtained forgiveness of sins for all who will identify themselves with it through baptism into Him; and this is why it is thereby an imperative to preach it, if we believe in it. The disciples were told to go and preach of the resurrection of Christ, and <em>therefore </em>of the required responses this entails: repentance, acceptance of forgiveness and baptism (<em><a href='B:490 24:46'>Luk 24:46</a></em>). Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>). Baptism saves us "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And through him, everyone that believes is declared righteous in all things in which the law of Moses could not declare you righteous</em>- Better, "in Him". This is exactly what Paul expounds at such depth to the Romans; in Christ we are counted as Him, His righteousness is imputed to us, and this covers all our sins and disobediences to any Divine law, including that given through Moses. This justification, counting as righteous by grace through faith, was not on offer within the Mosaic structure. The force of "everyone..." is that it included Gentiles, which is what attracted them to this message (:42). </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore beware, lest that which is spoken in the prophets comes upon you</em>- Prophecies of judgment can come true at any time if there is the required ‘condition’ of disbelief and disobedience. The prophecy didn’t <em>have</em> to come true for them; but they should “beware” lest it did.</p>


text:
<p><em>Behold you despisers, wonder and perish. For I work a work in your days, a work which you shall in no way believe, even if someone declares it to you</em>- By rejecting justification by faith through grace, they were in effect despising God’s grace, considering their own works were better, rather like the man in the parable who thought he didn’t need the wedding garment provided because his own clothing was better. This prophecy stated that even when the Gospel was declared to some, they would not believe it. And yet Paul still declares it; knowing that God’s purpose is open insofar as every person who hears the Gospel has genuine freewill.</p><p>The Hebrew text reads to the effect "Behold you Gentiles"; but this is quoted by Paul about the orthodox Jews. Paul is doing just what Stephen did in the speech of Acts 7 which so convicted Paul in his conscience; he demonstrates that the most nationalistic Hebrews were spiritually no better than the Gentiles whom they despised. The original context of the <em><a href='B:420 1:5'>Hab 1:5</a></em> quotation is the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians. Paul saw the parallels with the coming destruction of the temple by the Romans. But just as the threatened destruction of the temple could have been averted by Jewish repentance in the past, so it could have been in the first century. Hence :40 "Beware therefore lest...". Jewish repentance could have brought on the second coming; but they did not. Paul has asked them to repent in :38, and here he is implying that if they do not, then the Jewish system and temple cult were going to be permanently destroyed. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they went out, they pleaded that these words might be spoken to them the next Sabbath</em>- The "words" included the stark warning of condemnation with which Paul concluded in :41. The harder side of God attracts; the reality of the issues before us, of eternal life and eternal death, attract attention in a way which a 'softer' approach cannot. And the Gentiles were attracted by the logic of the idea of righteousness imputed by grace through the faith of literally any human; see on :39. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now when the meeting of the synagogue was dismissed, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them- </em>The apostles weren’t interested in just giving good advice, but rather good news. They were pressed in their spirit, that they <em>had </em>to appeal to men (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:13'>Act 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:28'>Act 26:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23'>Act 28:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>). They persuaded men, convinced and confounded the Jews, reasoned, testified and exhorted, disputed and converted (<em><a href='B:510 8:25'>Act 8:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:13'>Act 18:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:19'>Act 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:28'>Act 18:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>). In short, they <em>so</em> spake that multitudes believed .</p><p><em>To continue in the grace of God</em>- Paul and Barnabas realized that the idea of grace is attractive at first encounter, but to continue believing it is demanding, and has to be consciously continued in. For if by grace we are indeed counted righteous and shall surely be saved- this demands every fibre of our being in response. And the later New Testament letters are full of examples of how believers failed to continue under grace but turned to various forms of legalism. We have to continue in His kindness / gentleness (<em><a href='B:520 11:22'>Rom 11:22</a></em> s:w:). And that is harder than it might seem, because to abide in that constant sense of sin forgiven and certain salvation demands so much of us, in that we cannot be passive to it, nor treat these things as a mere part of our religious hobby. The <em>charis</em>, grace / gift of God, often refers to the gift of the Spirit given to believers after baptism. The Corinthians received it, but were "not spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); it could be received in vain if the believer denied the Spirit or refused to be led by it. So it could be that those who heard in the synagogue were baptized, and received the gift of God- and had to be encouraged to continue in it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the next Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God- </em>This huge attendance was not because of miracles, carrots offered or the hope of personal benefit. It was because of the immense power of the ideas presented- justification, total righteousness, by grace through faith; for everyone, literally everyone. The Gentiles enthused about this to others, and it is by personal witness that people come along to meetings and are converted.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy</em>- The success of other preachers can elicit the most powerful jealousy, as it does to this day. "The Jews" here refers surely to the Jewish leadership, as the term often does in Luke-Acts. The experience of such jealousy places us in the direct fellowship of the Lord Jesus. For it was jealousy about "the crowds" which led to His persecution unto death.</p><p><em>And contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul and blasphemed- </em>Gk. 'cursed'. The Jews of Antioch in Pisidia cursed Paul and his message, drove him out of the city, and then travelled 180 km. to Lystra to oppose his preaching there. This is the behaviour of bad conscience, rather than secular people just irritated with religious evangelism. Not only did the Jews crucify God’s Son, but the book of Acts makes it clear that it was Jewish opposition which was the main adversary to Paul’s spreading of the Gospel and establishment of the early church (<em><a href='B:510 13:50-51'>Act 13:50-51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:2'>Act 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:5-6'>Act 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:19'>Act 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:5-9'>Act 17:5-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:13-14'>Act 17:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:12-17'>Act 18:12-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:27-36'>Act 21:27-36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:12-25'>Act 23:12-25</a></em>). Paul speaks of the Jewish opposition as having “killed both the Lord Jesus and the [first century Christian] prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins” (<em><a href='B:590 2:13-16'>1Th 2:13-16</a></em>). These are strong words, and must be given their full weight in our assessment of the degree to which the Jews were indeed a great ‘Satan’ to the cause of Christ in the first century.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said: It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing you thrust it from you</em></p><p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em> <em>Thrust him away</em>. One phrase of Paul's in <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em> combines allusions to two verses in Matthew (<em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>). Those verses are close to each other. As Paul thought about <em><a href='B:470 21:41'>Mat 21:41</a></em>, he would have gone on to <em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>, and then brought them both together in his allusion- ultimately controlled by the Spirit, of course.</p><p><em>And judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the gentiles</em>- Not only are we living out <em>our</em> judgment by how we preach; by presenting the Gospel to people we are effectively bringing the judgment to them. Paul commented how those who rejected his preaching judged / condemned themselves to be unworthy. The Jews by their attitude to the word "judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life"; and we too can anticipate the judgment seat by the same mistake. The preacher stands in the ‘highways’ (<em><a href='B:470 22:9'>Mat 22:9</a></em>)- ‘the place of two roads’, the Greek means, i:e. the place where two roads divide. This is what our taking of the Gospel to people means. They are given their choice. We bring the crisis of the judgment seat right in front of them, and they make their choice. </p>


text:
<p><em>For so has the Lord commanded us: I have set you for a light of the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the uttermost part of the earth</em>- Isaiah's prophecies of Christ being a light to the Gentiles in the Kingdom were fulfilled in Paul (<em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; and is <em><a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</a></em> also a prophecy of Paul's thoughts? "I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought... yet surely my judgment is with the Lord"). Paul noticed the prophecy that Christ was to be the light of the whole world and saw in this a commandment to him to go and preach Christ world-wide. &nbsp;He read “…for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider” (<em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em>) as a prophecy which required him to fulfil it, by taking Christ to those who had not heard (<em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>). All that is prophesied of Christ is an imperative to us as His body to action. Paul was to bring others to the light just as John had (<em><a href='B:490 1:77'>Luk 1:77</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:79'>Luk 1:79</a></em> =&nbsp; <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:18'>Act 26:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:23'>Act 26:23</a></em>). Paul takes a prophecy concerning how Christ personally would be the light of the whole world (<em><a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a></em>), and applies it to himself in explanation of why he was devoted to being a light to the whole world <em>himself </em>(<em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em> - although 26:23 applies it to Jesus personally). Paul even says that this prophecy of Christ as the light of the world was a <em>commandment</em> to him; all that is true of the Lord Jesus likewise becomes binding upon us, because we are <em>in</em> Him. Note that Paul says that God has commanded <em>us</em> to witness; it wasn’t that Paul was a special case, and God especially applied Isaiah’s words concerning Christ as light of the Gentiles to Paul. They apply to <em>us</em>, to all who are in Christ. Because everything said about Christ is a commandment to all of us who are in Him. What would Jesus do, who would He be, if He lived in your street, did your job, was married to your partner, mixed with the guys <em>you</em> mix with? The answer to that is our mission. In this sense He has in this world no arms or legs or face than us. </p><p>Believers worked for the fulfilment of their prophecies. Thus Mary was blessed for believing, because therefore and thereby there would be a fulfilment of the things spoken to her (<em><a href='B:490 1:45'>Luk 1:45</a></em> RV). Without her faith, would those things have been fulfilled? She had to do her bit. And this is why she was called blessed. The Lord basically told the disciples to go into the world and preach in order that the prophesies of repentance being preached among all nations would come true (<em><a href='B:490 24:48'>Luk 24:48</a></em>). Paul’s preaching to the whole world was likewise driven by a desire to fulfil the prophecy that Christ would be a light to the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God- </em>The Gentiles may refer specifically to those Gentiles who had been attending the synagogue (:43). To be taught that the Jewish Messiah was the light of all people, and justification was possible in Him and not through legal obedience, triggered real joy amongst them. Paul prayed for the word of the Lord to be glorified (<em><a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a></em> same phrase), and those prayers were heard here. We glorify God’s word or <em>logos</em>, His essential purpose in Christ, by believing it. </p><p><em>And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed</em>- This phrase was that used by Judaism regarding how all the faithful people of natural Israel were those "ordained to eternal life", comprising "everyone that is written to eternal life, in the book of life". But the phrase is as it were subverted here to refer to Gentiles who believed in the Lord Jesus. It is meant to be read as the opposition to the statement that the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (:46). But whilst there is freewill as to whether we believe or abide in the Lord Jesus or reject Him as the Jews did, there is also an element of predestination, of having been "ordained" to believe. For "all men have not faith" (<em><a href='B:600 3:2'>2Th 3:2</a></em>); faith "is the gift of God" and thereby a proof of how His grace saves us rather than our works (<em><a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And the word of the Lord was spread about throughout all the region</em>- The joyful response and wide publication of the Gospel is strongly emphasized in these verses. But we hear nothing more of the church in Pisidian Antioch; perhaps we are left to conclude that they were an exemplification of the parable of the sower, where there was zealous, joyful response initially which then quickly withered when persecution arose (<em><a href='B:490 8:13'>Luk 8:13</a></em>). The reference to persecution in :50 suggests that Luke may be making a conscious allusion to his record of the sower parable. The converts here were in the category of the seed sown upon the rock. This would explain why they were given especial warning to "continue" in their faith (:43).</p>


text:
<p><em>But the Jews incited the religious women of high standing and the leading men of the city- </em>These women may have been Jews, or at least Jewish proselytes. Josephus claims (<em>The Jewish War</em> 2:20:2) that "In large towns and cities in which Jews abounded, the wives of the men in high position among the heathen were much inclined to the Jewish religion"; this would explain the connection between them and the leading males of the city.</p><p><em>And stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district</em>- This persecution was apparently successful in withering the faith of the once joyful believers who had responded so quickly and enthusiastically to the Gospel; see on :49. The collaboration here between the Jewish leaders and powerful Roman leaders was typical of how the 'satan' / adversary operated against the early Christians, just as it was such a joining of the forces of evil which led to the Lord's death. The expulsion from the district may refer to some formal ban on Paul ever re-entering, similar to what seems to have happened at Thessalonica (see on <em><a href='B:590 2:18'>1Th 2:18</a></em>). </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>But they shook off the dust of their feet against them and came to Iconium</em>- The way Paul shook off the dust of his feet against those who rejected his preaching was surely an almost unconscious reflection of the attitude which the Lord had enjoined upon his men; but there is no evidence that Paul was given the same commission (<em><a href='B:510 13:51'>Act 13:51</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:470 10:14'>Mat 10:14</a></em>). Jews were supposed to shake off Gentile dust from their feet on returning to the promised land; again, Paul is treating these orthodox Jews as if they are Gentiles. The idiom of shaking out is used in <em><a href='B:160 5:13'>Neh 5:13</a></em> to mean a shaking out of covenant relationship with God; by refusing the new covenant, those Jews were effectively ending their relationship with God, despite their zeal to keep the old covenant.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 8:8'>Act 8:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit</em>- The Ethiopic text reads "the apostles", as if Paul and Barnabas are in view. To be filled with implies external agency; the Lord filled them with joy, through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore here refers to an internal psychological power, which in this case gave joy. The Spirit gift is given to each believer at baptism, but there are clearly specific moments when believers are filled with it further. The allusion here is clearly to the Lord's command to rejoice under persecution (<em><a href='B:470 5:12'>Mat 5:12</a></em>); that is an attitude and action which has to be consciously adopted. But this is confirmed and encouraged by the action of the Spirit within us to give joy. The spirit is effectively our mind and attitude; the Spirit /mind of the Lord Jesus is therefore being replicated in our minds. As "Jesus was filled with joy by the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:490 10:21'>Luk 10:21</a></em>), so are we "fill[ed]with all joy and peace by means of... the power of the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>). This is "the joy that comes from the Holy Spirit" (<em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>); "For God’s Kingdom is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of the righteousness, peace, and joy which the Holy Spirit gives" (<em><a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue</em></p><p>- see on 17:1,2.</p><p><em>And spoke in such a way</em>- Paul <em>so </em>spoke that men believed. Presentation <em>is</em> important. Yet, his speech was “rude… contemptible… not with wisdom of speech” (<em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:6'>2Co 11:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> AVmg:). Yet it was because Paul <em>so </em>spoke that men believed:&nbsp; He spoke God’s Truth in his own words, with no pretensions, with no attention to a smooth presentation; and the more real, the more credible. Because he spoke things as they are, right between the eyes, without posing as anyone apart from the real, human guy Paul… therefore men believed. He came over as credible and convinced, and he inspired others to this end.</p><p><em>That a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed</em>- This occurred within the synagogue, so presumably the "Greeks" were Gentile proselytes or Hellenic, Greek speaking Jews. </p><p>The record gives the impression that after just one synagogue address, many Jews and Gentiles who were present "believed", and belief and baptism are presented in Acts as part of the same process. This happened it seems after just one address. For there is no hint that there was any period of extended instruction here. This is the power and simplicity of the Gospel. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the unbelieving Jews</em>- Yet these Jews would have been far from atheists. But their unbelief in Jesus as Lord leaves them classified as unbelievers. Here we see proof enough that all religions, even Judaic ones, do not lead to salvation. We also see here a classic pattern in Paul's work- he immediately goes to the synagogue, irritates the Jews, although converting some of them, and those Jews then make trouble which damages his work with the Gentiles. Chapter 17 records the same pattern almost word for word. I suggest that if Paul had instead followed the Lord's command and left the Jewish ministry to Peter, and focused solely on the Gentiles- then his life would've been much easier, and his intended ministry to the Gentiles would have been far more fruitful. But this is how it so often is when we do not follow the path the Lord intends for us; even though He will work with us in the other, less ideal paths we choose.</p><p><em>Stirred up the Gentiles</em>- The Greek word only occurs a few verses earlier, in the same context (<em><a href='B:510 13:50'>Act 13:50</a></em>). As noted above, the impression is being created of a pattern of behaviour. Paul immediately targets the Jews in the synagogue on his arrival in a town, and those Jews there who reject his message stir up the Gentiles against Paul's mission, thus making his intended mission to the Gentiles so much harder to operate.</p><p><em>And poisoned their minds against the brothers</em>- Gk. <em>kakoo psuche</em>, literally they evil spirited- providing proof enough that evil spirits are not radically free entities swanning around the cosmos, but refer to the internal human spirit.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore they stayed there for a long time speaking boldly in the Lord</em>- Boldness is a repeated characteristic of the early preachers, but their boldness was "in the Lord", it was a true sense of being brethren-in-Christ which gave them that boldness.</p><p><em>Who bore witness to the word of his grace</em>- This was the purpose of the miraculous gifts in the first century- to back up the verbal preaching of the Gospel at a time when there was no written New Testament available.</p><p><em>Granting</em>- Implying they asked for the miracles to be done? The gifts were not possessed continuously by the apostles, they were for specific things at specific times.</p><p><em>Signs and wonders to be done by their hands</em>- The Lord Jesus was the doer of the works, but He worked through the hands of those in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>But the crowd of the city was divided; part held with the Jews and part with the apostles</em>- This reflects how widespread was the Jewish slander campaign. Nobody in the town was left untouched by it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when there was an attempt by the Gentiles and the Jews, with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and to stone them</em>- This clearly alludes to the parable of the wicked husbandmen; the same word is used (<em><a href='B:470 22:6'>Mat 22:6</a></em>). And Luke uses the word about what was done to the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 18:32'>Luk 18:32</a></em>). In the work of witness, we are as Christ to the world and share in His sufferings, that we might share in His life. There is nothing glamorous about missionary or evangelistic work; it is on one hand a sharing in the Lord's sufferings, seeing that the cross was itself the greatest preaching of all time. <em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em> speaks of the preaching which is the cross (Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em>They became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding region</em>- Carefully following the Lord's instruction to flee persecution rather than wilfully be martyred (<em><a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a></em>). Several times, Paul has to be bundled away from such persecution by the disciples; he had the Semitic fanaticism when it comes to religion, and was not against violent death for the Christian cause. But the Lord didn’t want His followers to serve and die for Him from such impulses of religious fanaticism. The wisdom of the Lord's command is here demonstrated in that the Gospel now spread as a result of their 'fleeing'- to "the surrounding region".</p>


text:
<p><em>And there they preached the gospel</em>- The Acts record notes so often that after persecution, Paul continued preaching in fresh areas. This is no small testament to the spirit of 'keeping on keeping on' which is to characterize all Christian endeavour. But it also reflects another theme of Acts- that persecution only led to the geographical spread of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled since birth and had never walked</em>- Again Luke is alluding to the Lord's words he has recorded in his volume 1, the Gospel according to Luke. This time, to <em><a href='B:490 18:27'>Luk 18:27</a></em>: "The things which are impossible [s:w. "could not use"] with men are possible with God". The Lord's ministry in Palestine was being continued by those in Him, just as it is today. We too need to daily read the Gospels and perceive how in essence, the spirit of those incidents and teachings are continuing in our experience daily.</p>


text:
<p><em>The same listened to Paul speaking. Paul looked at him intently- </em>Why is this detail mentioned? Are we intended to think that Paul was seeking to emulate how Peter had done just the same before healing a man in a similar condition (<em><a href='B:510 3:4'>Act 3:4</a></em> s:w:):? Both men were lame from their mother's womb. Both stood up and leaped (<em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>). Both cases include Paul / Peter looking intently at the man to be healed (Acts 3:4). Paul and Barnabas's denial that they themselves were anything special clearly follows Peter's humble example: "You Israelites... why do you stare at us, as if by our own power and piety we had made him walk?" (Acts 3:12). They had also learnt Peter's example of humility before Cornelius: "Stand up, I am only a mortal man" (Acts 10:26). When addressed by the Philippian jailor "Sirs (kurion), what must I do to be saved?'", Paul answers "Believe in the Lord (kurion) Jesus" (Acts 16:29,30). In this case, we have another piece of incidental evidence for thinking that Paul was trying to copy Peter, and this led to his obsession to get to Jerusalem for a Pentecost feast in order to preach to the Jews assembled there, hoping he would repeat Peter's conversion of 3000 people in one day. It was this desire to emulate Peter's ministry which somewhat derailed Paul from the focus the Lord wished him to have on the Gentiles rather than the Jews. The similarities set up by Luke in his record intentionally set us up to expect that Paul will now make a huge number of converts, as Peter did after such a healing. But that didn't happen; perhaps out of all the drama, "only" the healed man, Timothy and his mum and grandma and a few others... came to faith. Paul was being led to understand that his desire to emulate Peter's mass conversions was not to be because it was wrongly motivated. </p><p><em>And perceiving that he had faith to be made whole</em>- Faith was not always required for miracles to be done. We think of the healing of Malchus' ear and other examples. But in this case Paul required faith, because he realized he was continuing the Lord's principle spoken of in <em><a href='B:490 18:27'>Luk 18:27</a></em> (see on :8). There, the Lord had taught that with faith, what is impossible, impotent, unable to be used by man- can be used. "Made whole" is the word for "saved". Paul saw the man had faith to be saved- and therefore he performs a healing miracle upon the man. This was not done for the simple sake of alleviating human suffering; but rather to make up what was lacking in the man's faith. Having experienced it, the man's faith would be strengthened to the point that he could be saved. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 3:8'>Act 3:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>Said with a loud voice: Stand upright on your feet! And he leaped up and walked</em></p><p>- see on 14:9 <em>Paul looked at him intently.</em> The leaping and walking of the lame is expressed in terms of the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em>. The preaching of the Gospel was demonstrated to be a foretaste of the Kingdom of God which is to come upon earth; and our witness also has something of that about it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when the crowd saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the language of Lycaonia: The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!- </em>The meaning is surely that Paul and Barnabas didn’t understand this, but when they saw the garlands and sacrifices bring brought to them, then they realized- this is the force of the "but" in :14. The gift of languages was therefore not continually available to the apostles; indeed it could be argued that that gift enabled them to speak in those languages, or for the listeners to understand; but not necessarily for them to understand what was spoken to them. Hence in speaking of the practical usage of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that the gift of interpreting tongues was also required. In any case, that was not available here, and so the point is established that the gifts were for highly specific purposes at specific times, and were not continually available for the usage of believers.</p><p>Note that the idea of gods coming to earth as men is a classic pagan belief; and yet it is seen mixed in to Trinitarian theology, with their belief in a pre-existent Christ and a literal 'coming down' of the Lord from Heaven to earth. Indeed, so common was the idea, and so close to it is the language of 'coming down' in John's Gospel, that it could be argued that the NT language is consciously alluding to this wrong idea and showing that this is not the case with the Lord Jesus, but rather His 'coming down' from Heaven was in terms of His manifestation of God rather than anything more literal, as the pagans believed. Standard Christian belief in a physically pre-existent Jesus has therefore missed the point, and taken on board the very pagan ideas which the NT is arguing against.</p><p></p>


text:
<p><em>And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker</em>- This would suggest that Barnabas was the more personally imposing in appearance than Paul (cp. <em><a href='B:540 10:1'>2Co 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>). For this is how they (along with their Greek equivalents Zeus and Hermes) are presented. Hermes / Mercury was the mere messenger of the gods, and so Paul was called this. And here we have again how the Lord loves to work- to make His speaker, His messenger, the one who is not imposing in appearance, and for the imposing one to stand there silent and as it were, unused. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the priest of Jupiter, whose temple was before the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and would have done sacrifice with the crowds</em>- We see in this incident the basic human desire to worship and to turn men into gods. We see it theologically, in the desire to turn the human Jesus into "very God of very Gods" as the Trinity incorrectly states. We see it in secular folk idolizing sports stars and musicians as their gods. The correct channel for this religious instinct is through the Lord Jesus to the Father, guided by His word. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes and ran in among the crowd, crying out and saying</em>- A set of clothes was one of the most valuable things a person possessed at that time. To tear them was a sign of real and genuine grief and passion. This was how strongly Barnabas and Paul felt about any glory being given to them rather than to the Father and Son; and their strong position should be reflected in our attitudes. We are not to glorify ourselves.</p>


text:
<p><em>Sirs, why do you these things? We also are men of like passions with you</em>- Literally, of the same sufferings, as James 5:17, Elijah was of like passions to us. This is the basis of our appeal to men, and it is the basis of the Lord's appeal to us through having our nature.  If Paul was indeed deformed in some way (as tradition claims), then the point would have been that they too were not of perfect health, they also suffered. We note the emphasis on how similar they were to their audience; they ran in <em>amongst the crowd</em>, and were of the same sufferings "with you". This is the basis of all preaching work- that we are one with our audience and not above them. Exactly because they were ‘one of us’, they could make the appeal of the Gospel. As the Lord Jesus was and is our representative, so we are His representative to men, whilst being ‘one of them’, ‘one of us’. This is why we shouldn’t be afraid to show chinks in our armour, to admit our humanity, and on that basis make appeal to men: that I, as one of us, with all your humanity, your doubts and fears, am appealing to you to grasp that better way:&nbsp; When Paul wrote that if anyone was weak, he was weak, he seems to be saying that they could match their spiritual weakness by his own. This is why personal contact <em>&nbsp; must be</em> the intended way to witness.</p><p><em>And bring you good news, 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</em>- Literally, we evangelize to convert you. The aim of our preaching should be to convert, not simply to half-heartedly, lamely inform the public of the particular set of convictions held by our denomination or local church. Having a clear and defined aim is critical in interaction with others in order to evangelize them. The idea is the same as in 17:30; in the past, the Gentiles were [for the most part] allowed to do as they wish. But now, all the world is commanded to be obedient and repent, through the fulfilment of the great commission by the church. </p><p>We note the frequent contrast between the idols, the vain things, and a God who is real and alive. All else in life is relatively dead and vain. Paul here quotes Ex. 20:11 LXX "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and the sea and all things in them". Peter had led the early church in praying these words in Acts 4:24: "O Lord, you that made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that are in them". We see here the influence of fisherman Peter upon rabbi Paul- it is to the credit of Paul's humility.</p>


text:
<p><em>Who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways</em>- This is another angle on God dealing mainly with the Jewish people during those past generations. Rather than seeing this as unfair, one could take the view that in fact God "allowed" the other nations to do what they wanted- which if asked, would have been their preferred option. They got what they would've wanted if asked by God. The question of 'Why didn’t God call nations other than the Jews in Old Testament times?' was obviously going to arise with the Gentiles. Paul addresses this same issue in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, saying that "the times of this ignorance God winked at". He seems to be taking the approach that the Old Testament Gentiles generally need not fear judgment. The same approach may be helpful when we are asked concerning the fate of those who did not know the Gospel. </p>


text:
<p><em>And yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave you rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness</em>- AV “gave <em>us </em>rain…”. I suggest that the "us" refers to Paul and Barnabas and faithful Israel. Paul is saying that <em>you</em> are in a position of worshipping idols, but <em>we</em> (Paul and Barnabas) are appealing to you to change, and believe in the true God- not in ourselves. What was God’s witness to the Gentile world? An obedient Israel. That, at least, was His intention. That obedient Israel should have blessing of fruitful seasons, food and gladness. These are all terms taken from the Old Testament descriptions of how God would bless <em>Israel</em> (not the Gentile world) if <em>they</em> were obedient. Jupiter was the god of the air and responsible for rain; Mercury was responsible for food. But Lycaonia (14:6) was famous for droughts and famine- the references can be found in standard commentaries (Vine, Matthew Henry etc:). Jupiter and Mercury had <em>not</em> given those Gentiles these blessings. But Yahweh, the one true God, had given these things to faithful Israel. Thereby He was a witness to those Gentiles, that they should accept the God of Israel. Paul is saying 'God let you Gentiles live as you wished. But obedient Israel were intended to be His witness to you- <em>they</em> received rain, fruitful seasons, food and gladness from their God, Yahweh. But <em>you</em> didn’t- your Jupiter and Mercury were unable to give those blessings to you. So don't treat <em>us</em> as gods, quit your idols, and turn to the one true God of Israel'.</p><p>This naturally raises the question: To what purpose then was that witness, seeing at that time His plan was with the Jews and not the Gentiles? Perhaps we can infer from this that if anyone really thought about creation, they would have perceived God’s witness and come to Him. <em><a href='B:230 19:1-4'>Psa 19:1-4</a></em> appears to say the same: "The heavens declare the glory of God, the expanse above shows His handiwork. Day after day they pour forth speech, and night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world". This last verse is quoted in <em><a href='B:520 10:18'>Rom 10:18</a></em> in order to prove that "Whoever believes in him shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile" (<em><a href='B:520 10:11-12'>Rom 10:11-12</a></em>). Paul interprets the "whoever" as meaning that both Jew and Gentile were witnessed to even in Old Testament times, and therefore there ought to be no barrier at all to taking the Gospel to Gentiles. Without access to the Bible or the witness of Israel and their religion, we can only conclude that God’s level of acceptance of Old Testament Gentiles was quite low in terms of detailed knowledge. Admittedly there are few if any examples recorded of such Gentiles in Old Testament times coming to perceive the witness of creation and respond to it. But it would be a weak argument from silence to say there were no such cases. For the Old Testament is the history of God’s old testament or covenant, which was with Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Even with these words the people were scarcely restrained from offering sacrifice to them</em>- The implication is that the people cut short Paul's sermon. He doesn't even get on to telling them about Jesus. They wanted to believe these men were gods, they wanted to worship them, they were impressed by the miracle to the extent that they merely said they agreed with the new message- without actually listening to that message in any detail. The words "crowd" and "people" are repeated; their position was a group position rather than an individual conviction. And so their new faith was very quickly swayed. This is typical of what happens in some forms of Christianity today. </p><p>We see here the immense strength of the human urge to sacrifice. We see it in the success of the televangelists who appeal for donations- and get them- on the flimsiest of foundations. God’s insistence that all sacrifice be offered <em>to Him</em> is not Him as it were seeking to dominate us humans. Rather is He explaining how to channel that propensity to sacrifice which we have. In the modern world, it seems that the willingness to sacrifice has been submerged somewhat beneath the chronic egoism and hedonism of our age. Suicide bombers and the like are seen by many Westerners as utterly inexplicable beings; but the desire to sacrifice is in fact a strong part of us, and is more logically and comfortably accepted by other cultures. Our knowledge of the Father and Son provides us with the ultimate way to channel and express it; although we may well need to get in touch with this self-sacrificial part of ourselves first. </p>


text:
<p><em>But there came Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds</em>- The same words used of how the Jews "persuaded the crowds" to crucify the Lord (<em><a href='B:470 27:20'>Mat 27:20</a></em>). Again, we see circumstances being arranged so that Paul entered into the crucifixion sufferings of the Lord. The same goes on in the lives of all who have committed themselves to identity with Him. And we naturally wonder what Saul / Paul was doing at the Lord's crucifixion; seeing he was then living in Jerusalem as a student of Gamaliel, he very likely was one of the Jews involved in 'persuading the crowds'. The same word for "persuaded" has just been used about Paul's preaching (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>), and continues to be used about it. We are given the impression that Paul persuaded the crowds one way, and then the Jews persuaded them another way. Paul must have bitterly lamented the fickleness of the crowds; but in so doing he was sharing the experience of the Lord Jesus. For the crowd who shouted "Hosanna!" and wanted Him as their Messianic King were soon shouting "crucify Him!", due to their persuasion by the Jews.  We likewise recall how the people of Malta flipped from thinking Paul was an evil criminal whom vengeance didn't suffer to live- to thinking he was a god (Acts 28:6). Clearly the people were so impressed by the miracle that they ignored the doctrinal teaching- that idols were "vain things" etc.. The miracles both of the Lord and Paul clearly had no lasting power in persuading the crowds. The ministry of miracles never really achieved much, and Pentecostalism ought to take due note of that. How Paul must have wished for mass literacy amongst the people, and for some written record of the Gospel readily available to his audience, which could be their abiding source of persuasion. And in our days we have just that, although human fickleness is no less.</p><p><em>They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead</em>- Supposing is Gk. nomizo. "This word, which occurs fifteen times, always means to conclude from custom, law, or evidence, never to imagine". We conclude that they were certain that he was dead and had checked this. Paul had been nearly stoned in the previous town but had escaped to Lystra. Now he is actually stoned, probably to death. But he was prepared for this by the near stoning experience in Iconium.  They stoned Paul and then dragged him out of the city, implying they were disposing of his corpse. He was either really dead (and was resurrected), or extremely damaged and apparently lifeless. The Mosaic principles about the guilt of death within a city come to mind; they had blood on their hands before both God and the men of the Roman authorities. But Paul never seeks to prosecute them for their behaviour. Paul was stoned and dragged out of Lystra as dead- presumably they didn’t want him to die within the city limits as they were under Roman jurisdiction. Yet, hobbling and bleeding, he returned into the city to witness. And it was here in Lystra that he made one of his greatest converts, Timothy (<em><a href='B:510 16:1'>Act 16:1</a></em>). And when Paul asks us to follow him, he is speaking in the context of his life’s work and preaching. He is our pattern, to be lived out in spirit within the confines within which God has placed us.</p><p>Paul's suffering outside the city gate is surely alluded to by him when he writes to the Hebrews that the Lord suffered "without the camp". In everything he saw bridges between his life experience and that of the Lord. And we can do the same. But in this lies the need to be familiar with the Gospel records of the Lord's life and words. Read them daily. We also note that this experience was one of the closest to death Paul ever came, indeed he may well have died and resurrected (:20). But he made few converts out of it all, seeing the "crowds" of converts soon turned away. There was  possibly the healed man "who had faith" and the disciples who stood around him after he was left for dead- and Timothy who was from Lystra and is called a "disciple" (Acts 16:1) when Paul revisited Lystra. Timothy is written to by Paul as if he was still a young man, some 15 years later. So it's quite likely that Timothy at this point in Acts 14 was not much more than a child and it was his grandmother and mother who were converted at the time. But he was impressed by Paul even at that time. The "crowds" who had apparently believed were very soon turned away from faith. So it was the greatest suffering for the least visible result, if numbers of converts were the metric. And so it often is- but the point of it all is to bring us closer to the Lord Jesus. And the wonderful convert Timothy came out of all this.</p>


text:
<p><em>But as the disciples stood around him, he rose up- Anistemi</em> can be used of resurrection. The way he rises up and walks off, when he had been considered a lifeless corpse just minutes before, rather suggests that this was indeed a resurrection. The disciples stood around about him, rather than seeking to minister to his wounds or resuscitate him. This sounds like trying to hold some kind of funeral service. If indeed Paul died and was resurrected, then it is a reflection of his humility that he never seems to specifically refer to this in any later passages of self-justification. </p><p><em>And entered into the city, and the next day he went with Barnabas to Derbe</em>- If indeed Paul had been dragged out of the town to the rubbish dump where corpses were burnt, and then he returned alive and well into the city and spent a day there- this would have been a powerful witness to resurrection. And the Jews would have feared to touch him. He would clearly have been seen as "in Christ", whose death at the hands of the Jews and subsequent resurrection he had been preaching. His return into the city (rather than departing immediately) may have been for similar reasons as to why he did the same after release from prison at Philippi. The community he was leaving behind would have at least some mystique and respect attached to them which would save them from future persecution, at least for some time. We see here Paul's utter selflessness and constant concern for his converts. The way Paul returned to Lystra to confirm the disciples (:21), despite having been stoned and maybe killed there, speaks volumes about him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch- </em>This word is that used in <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em> about the making of disciples in response to the great commission. Paul clearly saw the commission as applying to himself; this surely disproves the contention that the great commission was only given to the eleven disciples to whom it was originally spoken. For <em>Lystra</em></p><p>- see on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em>Confirming the souls of the disciples</em>- 'Confirming' might seem an activity more relevant to the spirit of disciples, to their minds, rather than their 'souls'. But often the words soul and spirit, <em>psuche </em>and <em>pneuma,</em> are used almost interchangeably. It is too simplistic to argue that the spirit refers to the human mind or spirit, and 'soul' refers to the material person or body. That distinction is at times valid, but not always. "Confirming" occurs only four times in the NT and always in Acts. Such follow up pastoral visits were clearly part of Paul's missionary strategy as they should be of ours.</p><p><em>Exhorting them</em>- <em>Parakleo</em> means to beg, to strongly ask. But it also has the sense of 'comfort', although this is not the most common sense in which it is used in the 108 occurrences in the NT. The challenge, the asking to continue in the faith is actually a comfort; the height of the calling, the focus on the ideal, is itself a comfort.</p><p><em>To continue in the faith</em>- Paul was a Jew, thinking in Hebrew terms, and steeped in the Old Testament language. And many of his converts were either Jews or Proselytes. The other two NT occurrences of the word likewise reflect the Old Testament idea of continuing in the covenant. Israel did not continue in that covenant (<em><a href='B:650 8:9'>Heb 8:9</a></em>), and that covenant cursed all who did not continue in all things written in the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:550 3:10'>Gal 3:10</a></em> - written by Paul to converts in this very area where he was urging them to continue "in the faith"):&nbsp; The contrast is therefore between continuing [or trying to continue] in obedience to Mosaic law, and continuing in the faith in God’s saving grace in Christ.</p><p><em>And that through many tribulations</em>- Paul is fond of allusion to the parable of the sower, and he clearly has in mind the need to continue as good soil, and not to be in the category of those who fall away from faith because of tribulations (<em><a href='B:470 13:21'>Mat 13:21</a></em>). Those tribulations <em>must</em> come, he is saying. Christianity is no insurance policy against tribulation, but rather a way of attaching meaning to it. Perhaps he also had in mind the Lord's simple statement that "in the world you shall have tribulation" (<em><a href='B:500 16:33'>Joh 16:33</a></em>); it is inevitable. Stephen had twice used the word in his speech (<em><a href='B:510 7:10-11'>Act 7:10-11</a></em>), and consciously or unconsciously Paul was maybe recalling that. Paul himself had brought tribulation upon Christians (<em><a href='B:510 11:19'>Act 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:33'>Heb 10:33</a></em>, so again he was experiencing what he had done to others (the word is also used of Paul's sufferings in <em><a href='B:510 20:23'>Act 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:8'>2Co 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:4'>2Co 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>)- just as we do. Paul may also have in mind the predictions in the Olivet prophecy that there was to be great tribulation just before entry into the Kingdom of God at the Lord's return. In this case, we have another hint that he expected the Lord's return imminently, and spoke and reasoned accordingly, as we should do.</p><p>We must have tribulation, either in the condemnation of the judgment (<em><a href='B:520 2:9'>Rom 2:9</a></em>), or now- in order that we will enter the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>). We must bear the burden either of our sins (<em><a href='B:370 2:13'>Amo 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 58:6'>Isa 58:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a></em>) or of the Lord's cross (<em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em> etc:). We will experience either the spiritual warfare of the striving saint (<em><a href='B:520 7:15-25'>Rom 7:15-25</a></em>), or the lusts of the flesh warring in our members, eating us up with the insatiability of sin (<em><a href='B:660 4:1'>Jas 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 16:28-29'>Eze 16:28-29</a></em>). </p><p><em>We must enter into the kingdom of God- </em>The sense is that we are now entering into the Kingdom, but through tribulation. The Lord had spoken of entering the Kingdom through the narrow gate, and Paul is putting meaning into those words, explaining that the narrow gate means tribulation. His own experience of stoning and perhaps death at Lystra exemplified what he was getting at.</p>


text:
<p><em>So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting- </em>The Greek means literally to stretch the hand upon. It is only elsewhere used in <em><a href='B:540 8:19'>2Co 8:19</a></em> of how the church chose Timothy to travel with Paul. Some argue that the hand stretching refers to voting, but this seems to me to be reading in modern principles of democracy; there is no evidence that democracy in the form of voting was what God ever used. Probably it means that they simply chose some elders, and there is no evidence that the Spirit guided them in this in any supernatural sense. But the point is that they didn’t leave the new churches with no leadership structure- they created one. "Elders" literally means an older person; but all the believers were relatively young in the faith. Like many modern missionary situations, they did the best they could in terms of choosing wisely. But they didn’t tell the new congregations that they were to just take everything in turns and muddle along; they appointed elders. Because like it or not, people need leadership. Given that they probably didn’t know the candidates that well, and most were at the same stage of immaturity in faith, we can understand why they "prayed with fasting" about this. They took most seriously the future wellbeing of these groups; they didn’t just baptize them and leave them.</p><p><em>They committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed</em>- Given the difficulties in choosing elders, we can understand why they just gave them over to the Lord Jesus as their good shepherd. For as passing missionaries there was little else practically they could do. Paul uses the same word in committing the elders to the Lord in <em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>. Paul saw the lord Jesus as a very real entity and personage to whom he could hand over [Gk:] these new converts. We might infer that Paul felt he had personal responsibility for them, but now he had to leave, he handed them over to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they passed through Pisidia and came to Pamphylia</em>- Perhaps the idea is that they travelled through Pisidia, spreading the message. They had visited the area before (13:13), so perhaps they were following up with contacts there.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had spoken the word in Perga- </em>They had passed through Perga before, but without apparently preaching there. We get the sense that Paul was eager to cover ground missed out in his previous pass, so driven was he by the idea of geographically distributing the word to all.</p><p><em>They went down to Attalia</em>- Perga was a port, but up the river from Attalia, from where longer distance vessels would be departing. These details all add credibility to the record. If Acts is a forgery from an uninspired person, it would've had to be created early on in the 2nd century at least. And the chances of not making a major geographical or historical bloomer would be almost zero. Such small incidental true-to-reality local details confirm us in confidently accepting the Bible as Divinely inspired and therefore true.</p>


text:
<p><em> And from there they sailed to Antioch, from where they had been committed to the grace of God</em>- Paul "committed" the elders to the Lord in :23, but he himself had been committed by elders. All pastoral and preaching work is some reflection of our own experiences; it cannot therefore be solely prepared for by missionary training courses and the like. The Lord works to prepare people, and they are to reflect their own experiences in their work for Him. The same phrase "committed to the grace of God" is used about the sending of Paul and Silas on their later missionary journey (<em><a href='B:510 15:40'>Act 15:40</a></em>). Perhaps as noted on :23 about the idea of 'committing', the brethren felt (as we often do) that we can do nothing more materially for others in a given situation; we pray for them and commit them to God’s grace. As the missionaries sailed away on a dangerous mission, this sense of commitment of brethren to God’s grace would have been natural. It's hard to specifically, neatly define what was understood by "the grace of God". We can only be guided here by how Luke used the term in his volume 1, the gospel according to Luke. "The grace of God" was upon Mary (<em><a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a></em>) and John (<em><a href='B:490 2:40'>Luk 2:40</a></em>), although he did no miracles. The term is used as if it means 'the general operation of God' in <em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>, God’s grace worked through Paul's working (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:7'>Eph 3:7</a></em>), and it was <em>epi</em> the Corinthians, it worked around them (<em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>). We can frustrate God’s grace by not going the way He leads us (<em><a href='B:550 2:21'>Gal 2:21</a></em>). God’s grace appears to all men in that the sphere of His operation somehow affects all (<em><a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a></em>). The Lord Jesus died by God’s grace, i:e. according to His plan (<em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em> in context). It is indeed true that 'grace' refers to undeserved favour / gift and often refers to forgiveness and salvation; and the word meaning essentially a gift it is at times used in the context of specific gifts of God’s Spirit. But it would seem that the term has a wider sense of simply the realm of God’s activity, which is of course motivated by His grace.</p><p><em>For the work which they had fulfilled</em>- We read in <em><a href='B:510 12:25'>Act 12:25</a></em> likewise of Paul fulfilling a ministry; of John the Baptist fulfilling his race (<em><a href='B:510 13:25'>Act 13:25</a></em>). The sense is that God gives a specific task to be done, and we are to fulfil it. The Lord Jesus ascended so that He might fill all things of the church here on earth (<em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). The parable of the talents likewise teaches that each believer has been given specific things to do. We need to pray that we will perceive what these things are; because man is never better than when he has a distinctly defined aim and has the wind of the Spirit at his back helping him to fulfil them. Paul felt that his preaching work was a stewardship he had been given and by achieving it, he was fulfilling the word of God (<em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>). The "word of God" in view there would then refer to a specific word of command from God to Paul to preach the Gospel to the Colossians. Hence the specific command to Archippus to take seriously his ministry and fulfil it (<em><a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had come and had gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done through them</em>- This is the consistent and commendable emphasis of Paul; that he was not working in his own strength but God was working through him. The language is identical to that in <em><a href='B:510 15:4'>Act 15:4</a></em>; the apostles reported back on their activities rather than being free radicals in the world.</p><p><em>And that he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles</em>- The language of God opening doors was familiar to Christians, as the Lord had taught that God opens doors to those who knock. But is there any reason to think that there were believers begging for the Gentiles to be included in the hope of the Gospel, and God responded to their prayers? There is hardly any. Peter and the other early brethren were shocked even at the idea of eating with Gentiles, let alone baptizing them. So we are to conclude that God by grace gave an answer to a prayer that had not been prayed. Or, as I prefer to think, the Father perceives our unspoken, unverbalized, not formalized desires, even our unconscious ones- as prayers. And responds to them. </p><p>Paul uses the metaphor of a door being opened in writing that a great door had been opened to him personally at Ephesus and Troas (<em><a href='B:530 16:9'>1Co 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12'>2Co 2:12</a></em>); and he prayed for doors to be opened so that he could preach to people (<em><a href='B:580 4:3'>Col 4:3</a></em>). So, to continue the metaphor, the door had been opened to the Gentiles, but Paul (the Jewish rabbi) felt so identified with his Gentile audience that he felt as if the door had been opened <em>to him</em> personally. This is what evangelism is all about- identity with our audience, and leading them in essence along the same path of faith which we have been led down by grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they stayed no little time with the disciples</em>- According to some chronologies, there was a five-year period between this time and the council of Jerusalem of chapter 15. Truly we only get a few incidents from the life of all Bible characters.</p>


text:
<p><em>But some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers: Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses</em>- “Custom” is Gk. <em>ethos</em>. This is a major problem in missionary work: the existing believers tend to expect that converts will not only accept the Gospel but also the ethos and culture of their existing community. And this is where this ancient argument about circumcision has so much to teach modern missions.</p><p><em>You cannot be saved</em>- The very same Greek phrase is used by Paul when he calls out in urgency during the storm: “Except these abide in the ship, <em>you</em> cannot be saved” (<em><a href='B:510 27:31'>Act 27:31</a></em>). Surely Luke’s record is making a connection; the legalists taught that it was time to quit the rest of the community unless they got their way, for the sake of their eternal future; and Paul responds by teaching that our salvation depends upon us pulling together against the desperate situation we find ourselves in. It’s as if the salvation of Christ’s body depends upon it staying together. As time went on in the first century, the gap between the Jewish and Gentile elements, the right and the left wing, the legalists and the libertines, got ever wider. The tension got stronger. But nobody won. The Jewish element returned to the Law, and forgot all about the saving grace of Jesus. The Gentile element mixed even more with the world and its philosophies, and forgot the&nbsp;Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They ended up formulating blasphemous doctrines like the trinity, which nobody with any awareness of the Jewish foundation of the Father and Son could possibly have entertained. And so the faith was lost, until it was revived again in those groups who again interpreted Christianity in terms of “the hope of Israel”.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas argued and debated with them; consequently Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders to resolve this question</em>- “Argued” is far too mild a translation. The word is always used elsewhere about major riot, specifically of rioting caused by the Jews. This is how deeply held is the belief that converts must conform to the pre-existing ethos and culture of the existing Christian community. From our perspective and distance, the argument seems so unnecessary, and the Biblical evidence clear as daylight that circumcision is not required for entry to the new covenant. Many of our fiercely debated divisive issues are looked at in the same way by converts living far removed from our place and culture; and believers of other ages would look at them likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the believers</em>- Given our notes on :1, this is a true sign of spiritual maturity: to rejoice in the accession of others to our community of faith, when the newcomers are of a radically different ethos and culture to our own. "Great joy" is a phrase used four times by Luke; it was a characteristic of the early church.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all things that God had done through them</em>- This is intentionally similar to the report about their arrival at the Antioch ecclesia in 14:27: "And when they had come and had gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done through them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles". The careful repetition of event and report in Acts 10, 11 gives the impression that Peter likewise carefully reported to the elders. They were all under the deep sense that God was working through them; no preacher is to be praised for themselves. We are all instruments and being used by the Father. We are absolutely nothing of ourselves.</p><p>In Acts 15 the representatives of the ecclesias reported to the whole church at Jerusalem, not just the elders. There seems to have been a series of meetings: initially, the group from Antioch who raised the problems being discussed met with the elders, who met together in a second meeting to consider it all, involving “the whole assembly… the whole church” (:6,12,22). Then there was perhaps a third meeting where “the whole assembly” was also present. And this is why “the apostles and elders <em>with the whole church</em>” (<em><a href='B:510 15:22'>Act 15:22</a></em>) agreed a solution. It wasn’t a top down decision imposed upon the congregation. They all participated. This parallel between elders and the assembly is even found in the Old Testament- e.g. “Let them exalt him also in the assembly of the people, And praise him in the assembly of the elders” (<em><a href='B:230 107:32'>Psa 107:32</a></em>):&nbsp; The “assembly of the people” and that of the elders is paralleled.</p><p>15:5</p><p><em>But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying: It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses</em>- One of the major themes of Acts is how right from the beginning, there was a struggle within the body of believers. And Paul’s letters repeatedly address the problem. The Jewish believers polarised around the Jerusalem ecclesia, and tended towards a keeping of the Law of Moses. They couldn’t really accept that Gentiles could be saved, and saw themselves as a sect of Judaism (“the sect of the Nazarenes”). They were called “the circumcision party” (<em><a href='B:510 11:2'>Act 11:2</a></em>), and “the sect of the Pharisees-who-believe-in-Jesus” (15:5). The Lord had foretold that His true people would soon be thrown out of the synagogues and persecuted by the Jews, just as they had persecuted Him. But these brethren so accommodated themselves to Jewish thinking that this didn’t happen. However we cannot but be impressed that some amongst the Lord's sworn enemies, the Pharisees, came to believe in Him. His hopefulness for them therefore paid off [we recall his hope that the cured leper could make a witness to the priests, <em><a href='B:490 5:14'>Luk 5:14</a></em>]; whereas we would likely have given up with them as hopeless cases. There were very few Pharisees, relatively speaking; 5000 at the most and maybe as few as 1000. That a significant number became Christians therefore shows the power of the Lord's example, and reflects quite some humility amongst these men. So let's not think that their legalism about circumcision reflects total unspirituality amongst them.</p><p>Ironically, the Greek word for ‘heresy’ is the very word used to describe those divisions&nbsp; / ‘sects’ which should not be amongst us (see its usage in <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 24:5'>Act 24:5</a></em>). To divide the Lord’s body is itself a heresy; and yet it is so often done in order to protect His body, supposedly, from heresy. Yet the difference between the heresy and the heretic is often fudged. The person gets attacked rather than their beliefs. So often we’ve seen this happened. A brother may, e.g., have views of the interpretation of prophecy which are found obnoxious by some. Yet the criticism of him will tend to get personal; his character is besmirched, because it’s felt that this is justified because he [supposedly] has ‘heretical’ views. </p><p>Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (John the Baptist’s followers) were all converted into Christianity (<em><a href='B:510 6:7'>Act 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>). There is no specific statement that they dropped all their previous understandings; indeed <em><a href='B:510 15:5'>Act 15:5</a></em> shows that there were Christians who still called themselves “Pharisees”. The uniting and defining feature was their common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, baptism into Him and commitment to Him. The “one faith” referred to the believers’ faith in one and the same person- the one Lord, Jesus (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>), rather than only one set of doctrinal propositions about Jesus being “the faith” and all else being apostate. Given the breadth of doctrinal belief within the synagogue system, it’s highly significant that the Lord assumed His followers would remain within that system until they were cast out. He established no principle of leaving a community because one disagrees with some of their theological tenets. He in fact taught the opposite; that there is no guilt by association by such things, and His emphasis was on the heart and human behaviour being transformed. &nbsp;It seems to me a romanticizing of the New Testament evidence to suggest that the early church was totally doctrinally united, but was soon fractured by doctrinal declension from a specific set of doctrines and interpretations which were set in stone by the apostles. Rather the amazing unity of the church was and is remarkable in that it was achieved <em>despite and in the face of </em>those differences. What split the church was fleshly behaviour, which in turn utilized doctrinal differences to justify the various divisions. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'>And the apostles and the elders gathered together to consider this matter- There is a distinction made between &quot;the whole church&quot; and &quot;the apostles and the elders&quot; (<a href='B:510 15:22'>:22</a>). The issues were of such a nature that they required mature discussion and decision making, but the outcome of the deliberations was shared with and agreed by &quot;the whole church&quot;. There are some spiritual issues which it is not appropriate to as it were put to the decision of mass democracy. The resulting letter was signed by &quot;the apostles and elders and brethren&quot; (<a href='B:510 15:23'>:23</a>). The idea of a private meeting of the apostles and elders may fit Paul's account of the meeting in <a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal. 2:2</a>, where he says he put the matters &quot;privately to them that were of reputation&quot;, and not publicly.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when there had been much debate</em>- Peter impetuously would have wanted to state his highly significant personal experience in this matter; but he wisely and humbly curbed himself. Although Peter had clearly been the leader of the very early church, he seems now to be eclipsed by James; and although he was "chosen" by God out of all the other apostles to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles, yet those same 'senior brethren' are described as 'choosing' [the same Greek word] brethren other than Peter to be involved in this work of incorporating the Gentiles (:22,25). A lesser man than Peter would not have taken well to losing the leadership; he spent the rest of his life as a humble pastor, perhaps of a very small group, and according to the Lord's own prediction, died a violent death.</p><p><em>Peter rose up and said to them: Brothers, you know that a good while ago</em>- But it was not so long ago. Perhaps he was trying to give the impression that the Gentile circumcision question had been settled far back in time and there was no need to be raising it. But that is a typical political tactic- and it's not the only example here. This is why the Council of Jerusalem ultimately failed, with Paul later writing advice quite contrary to the agreements reached. There simply wasn't total honesty about the positions held, and whilst on one hand the factions were united by a common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, the issues added to that by the legalists were such that true unity was never going to be possible. And the same scenario has been worked out multiple times, even if the exact issues and contexts differ.</p><p><em>God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe</em>- Again, the "by" reflects how Peter saw himself as merely an agent, an instrument in God’s hands.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>And God, who knows the heart</em>- The only other time these words occur is on the Lord's lips in <em><a href='B:490 16:15'>Luk 16:15</a></em>, warning the Pharisees that God knows their hearts. And Peter is saying these words to Pharisees who now had believed in Jesus (15:5). He's reminding them, perhaps, of who they had been, of what corrupt hearts they had once had. The Lord had known all about that, but worked to accept them and draw them in to His fellowship. And the same Lord knew the hearts of sincere Gentiles, and was seeking to save them too. </p><p><em>Did bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did to us</em>- This is legal language. It's as if God is being called as a witness, and the exhibit provided is the fact that He gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentile converts as a sign of their acceptance- before they were even baptized, and without requiring their circumcision. But who, then, was the judge? The brethren there present at that meeting. And the whole question was therefore wisely presented by Peter as effectively judging God. And in fact that is what any of us are doing by questioning which believers in Christ are acceptable with God. We are relegating Him to a witness, and placing ourselves in His place as judges. This idea is continued in :10: "Why do you now put God to the test?", the Greek meaning to examine or scrutinize. This would then continue the legal metaphor- with the suggestion that it is quite inappropriate to examine the exhibit of God’s acceptance of Gentiles in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he made no distinction between us and them</em>- The same word was used when Peter was told to go with the Gentile visitors "without doubting" (10:20; 11:12), i:e. making no distinction between Jew and Gentile. </p><p><em>Cleansing their hearts by faith</em>- This may be a comment upon their receipt of the Holy Spirit (:8). Whilst their speaking in languages was an outward sign of the Spirit's operation, the essence of the gift of the Holy Spirit refers to internal cleansing (see on 2:38). Their hearts were cleansed by the gift of the Spirit- on the basis of their <em>faith</em>, not their circumcision. Peter had been told that he was not to make any difference between clean and unclean as defined by Moses, because God had now cleansed the unclean (s:w. 10:15; 11:9). Clearly the unclean animals he had seen represented the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, why do you now put God to the test- </em>There is the possible suggestion in <em><a href='B:510 15:10'>Act 15:10</a></em> that God was ‘tempted’ to re-enstate the law of Moses, or parts of it, in the first century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians desired to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great encouragement. Or the Greek can mean that they were testing or scrutinizing God inappropriately. See on :8 <em>Bare them witness</em>.</p><p><em>Putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?</em>- The Lord Jesus came to place a light yoke upon His followers. Not only were the Judaist brethren acting in the place of the Lord Jesus by putting a yoke on others, rather than bearing it themselves; but the yoke they were placing was heavy and unbearable. A yoke makes the burden lighter by sharing it with others who are under the yoke. The fellowship requirement [in this case, circumcision] was therefore a yoke. The Lord's yoke was light in that His fellowship is and was open, and not based upon meeting legalistic requirements.</p>


text:
<p><em>But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as them</em>- Note that Peter cried out “<em>Lord</em>, save me!” when most men in that situation would have simply cried out “Save me!”. But his grasp of the Lordship of the One he followed inspired faith. If He was truly Lord, He was capable of all things. “Lord, save me!” was a call uttered in a moment of weakness. His “sinking” (<em><a href='B:470 14:30'>Mat 14:30</a></em>) is described with the same word used about condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:470 18:6'>Mat 18:6</a></em>), and yet Peter in his preaching persuades condemned men to do just the same: to&nbsp;<em>call</em>&nbsp;on the&nbsp;<em>Lord</em>&nbsp;in order to be&nbsp;<em>saved</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:510 2:21'>Act 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:40'>Act 2:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 4:12'>Act 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>). He invited all men to enter into the weakness and desperation which he had known on the water of Galilee, and receive a like unmerited salvation. And when he tells his sheep that the righteous are “scarcely saved” (<em><a href='B:670 4:18'>1Pe 4:18</a></em>) he surely writes with memories of that same gracious deliverance. And so now here in discussing ecclesial problems he points out that all of us have had a similar salvation, and should act with an appropriate inclusiveness of our brethren:&nbsp;</p><p>Grace, <em>charis</em>, basically means a gift. The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles was the means of their salvation. The reference is not therefore to the visual manifestations of that gift in miraculous terms; for those died out. But the gift / grace of the Lord was the basis of salvation. It is therefore not only available today, but deeply necessary for salvation; for without the spirit of Christ "we are none of His". </p>


text:
<p><em>And all the crowd kept silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them</em>- This could mean that the crowd were not so silent when listening to Peter. The miracles performed by the Lord through Barnabas and Paul were also "signs"- of His acceptance of the Gentiles. It is a common theme in Acts that the Spirit worked miracles in order to demonstrate the acceptance of the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after they finished speaking</em>- God seems to have recognized with pleasure the degree to which Paul modelled his life on John, in that Paul's experiences of life were over-ruled to have connections with those of John. These connections simply could not have been engineered by Paul; e.g. the way in which they both died in prison at the behest of a crazy, woman-influenced despot. The Spirit also seems to make connections between John and Paul in the manner in which it describes them (e.g. <em><a href='B:490 1:14'>Luk 1:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:15'>Luk 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 9:17'>Act 9:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:9'>Act 13:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 3:18'>Luk 3:18</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 13:15-19'>Act 13:15-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:7-8'>Joh 1:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:22'>Act 26:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:27'>Joh 3:27</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:8-16'>1Co 2:8-16</a></em>). And the Spirit in <em><a href='B:510 19:18'>Act 19:18</a></em> seems to portray Paul in the language of John: "they came (to Paul) and confessed, and shewed their deeds"- just as men had to John.</p><p><em>James replied, saying</em>- A good case can be made that James was written as a follow up to the Council of Jerusalem- there are some marked similarities [<em><a href='B:660 2:5'>Jas 2:5</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:13'>Act 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 2:7'>Jas 2:7</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:27'>Jas 1:27</a></em> = <em><a href='B:510 15:29'>Act 15:29</a></em>]. See on 15:23 <em>Greeting</em>.</p><p><em>Brothers, listen to me</em>- The AV and some manuscripts add "Men and brethren". This could refer to the addressing of both the entire church ("men"), and the elders ("brethren"). Throughout Acts 15 we are reminded that the decisions reached were taken by the church congregation <em>and </em>the elders- rather than elders imposing a position upon the congregation.</p>


text:
<p><em>Simeon has related how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name</em>- The conversion of Cornelius was certainly understood as the sign that the Gentiles were to be accepted. This would imply that Cornelius was the first public Gentile conversion by the apostles, which would mean that the Ethiopian eunuch was either a Jew or a proselyte effectively counted as a Jew. After all, he was reading Isaiah in Hebrew, having visited Jerusalem on pilgrimage, when Philip preached Christ to him. It is Luke who three times records that the ministry of the Lord Jesus had been God visiting His people Israel (<em><a href='B:490 1:68'>Luk 1:68</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:78'>Luk 1:78</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 7:16'>Luk 7:16</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 7:23'>Act 7:23</a></em> - God visited Israel to redeem them through Moses). No other evangelist records this. Now he is making the point that God was visiting the Gentiles. This did not remain with Paul as some mere theological nicety. The same word is used of how straight away, he decided to go and visit the Gentile converts (15:36). God’s visitation of man in Christ quite simply means that we literally go visit others, in pastoral and preaching work. We have mentioned how the letter of James appears to be on one hand an extended commentary upon the Acts 15 decisions, which James had a major part in. His comment on 'visiting' is that we should "visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep unspotted from the world" (<em><a href='B:660 1:27'>Jas 1:27</a></em>). The "unspotted from the world" would then be his form of the agreement made that Gentiles could be accepted but they must keep "unspotted from the world" by avoiding the fornication and idolatry of the world. James would therefore specifically have in mind 'visiting' <em>Gentile </em>widows; and we recall that the issue of discriminating against Greek speaking widows was one of the issues his church had faced in <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>. Again, God’s visitation of men, seeking to take out a people for His Name, must be reflected in our reaching out to others in practice, both materially and spiritually.</p>


text:
<p><em>And to this agree the words of the prophets</em>- There was a 'symphony' [Gk:] between Biblical revelation and the position they were being led to adopt; and there is nothing more comforting and beautiful than to know that a position is solidly underpinned in Bible teaching and Biblical precedent.</p><p><em>As it is written- </em>In <em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em> LXX. </p>


text:
<p><em>After this things I will return</em>- This is hard to interpret; the idea seems to be that after the crucifixion, God 'departed' for a time but now was returning to men in calling the Gentiles.</p><p><em>And I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen</em>- Not the temple of Solomon, although the language of rebuilding is relevant to a temple rather than to a tent. "In that day (of the future Kingdom- v:14) will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen" (<em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em>)- a clear future Kingdom prophecy, but quoted about the building up of the first century church in <em><a href='B:510 15:14-16'>Act 15:14-16</a></em>. </p><p><em>And I will build again the ruins of it</em>- He is surely saying that because the house of David has been rebuilt, therefore it is now O:K. to help the Gentiles “seek after the Lord”. James perceived that firstly the Gospel must go to the house of David, the Jews, and once they had responded, then it would go to the Gentiles. Perhaps the Lord had the same principle in mind when He bad His preachers to not [then] preach to Gentiles but instead [at that stage] concentrate on preaching to the house of Israel (<em><a href='B:470 10:5'>Mat 10:5</a></em>). Yet the primary fulfilment of Amos 9 is clearly in the last days- then, after Israel have been sifted in the sieve of persecution amongst the Gentiles in the latter day holocaust, the tabernacle of David will again be ‘rebuilt’, the Gentiles will turn to the Lord, and then “the ploughman shall overtake the reaper… the mountains shall drop sweet wine… and I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel… and I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land” (<em><a href='B:370 9:13-15'>Amo 9:13-15</a></em>). Surely what we are being told is that there must be a repeat of what happened in the first century. What happened then, in the repentance of a minority in Israel, the spread of the Gospel to the world and then the Lord’s ‘coming’ in AD70… this must all be repeated on a far greater scale. Thus some in Israel must repent in the last days, after the pattern of the 1st century. This will bring about the great latter day gathering in of the Gentiles at the establishment of the Kingdom, when the whole Gentile world will seek to come up to Zion (<em><a href='B:290 2:3'>Isa 2:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:23'>Isa 19:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:4-5'>Isa 51:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:11'>Isa 60:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:20'>Isa 66:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 8:21'>Zec 8:21</a></em>).</p><p><em>And I will raise it up</em>- An apparent reference to the resurrection of Jesus. He had spoken of His resurrection as a rebuilding of the temple (<em><a href='B:500 2:19-20'>Joh 2:19-20</a></em>). </p><p>A note is perhaps necessary about <em>how</em> the NT writers quoted from the LXX. Because often it appears they don’t quote exactly from the LXX text. The classic example would be the way <em><a href='B:370 9:11'>Amo 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a></em> is quoted in <em><a href='B:510 15:16-18'>Act 15:16-18</a></em>. The argument of James actually hinges on the LXX reading as opposed to the Hebrew [Masoretic] text reading. ‘All the nations’ were to have God’s Name called upon them, whereas <em><a href='B:290 63:19'>Isa 63:19</a></em> describes the Gentiles as people upon whom God’s Name had not [then] been called. Yet this ‘quotation’ is actually a merger of the Amos passage with several others (<em><a href='B:290 45:21'>Isa 45:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:15'>Jer 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 3:5'>Hos 3:5</a></em>). That’s why James introduces the quotation with the comment that he is quoting “the prophets” (plural). The quotation is more like an interpretation of the text- which was how the Jews were used to interpreting the OT texts. Their principle of exposition, called <em>gezera shawa</em>, linked together Bible texts which used the same language. One of the texts which James incorporates into his ‘quotation’ is <em><a href='B:300 12:16'>Jer 12:16</a></em> LXX, which speaks of how converted Gentiles will be “in the midst of my people”. Yet this very phrase occurs several times in Leviticus 17, 18, where we have the commands for how the Gentiles who lived amongst Israel should behave (<em><a href='B:30 17:8'>Lev 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:12-13'>Lev 17:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 18:26'>Lev 18:26</a></em>). They were told that there were four areas where their lifestyle had to conform to Jewish practice. And these are the very four areas, in the same order, which James asks the Gentile Christians to obey! Clearly, then, the decree of Acts 15, commanding the Gentile Christians to e.g. not eat blood, had as its context how Gentile Christians should live ‘in the midst of’ a Jewish Christian ecclesia. This is the limitation of the context. From this little exercise in exposition we learn how carefully and intricately the early brethren expounded the OT. Yes, they used the LXX, but they used it in such a way as to bring out practical points, searching always for Bible precedents for the situations they found themselves in. They set us quite some example, especially considering that James, the Lord’s brother, would have been a manual worker and artisan as the Lord was; perhaps he was scarcely literate. And yet he reached such heights of exposition and wisdom purely from a simple love of God’s word and attention to its detail. See on <em><a href='B:500 13:18'>Joh 13:18</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>So that the residue of mankind may seek after the Lord</em>- The remnant of men, a reference to the remnant of Israel who would accept Jesus. This group are distinguished from "And all the Gentiles".</p><p><em>And all the Gentiles who are called by My name</em>- Those who called upon themselves His Name by baptism into it. The tense is chosen to maybe reflect how God already knows His people and had already called the Gentile converts by His Name. This was encouragement to the preachers to go out and fulfil His work with the Gentiles which He had already potentially enabled. This sense is confirmed by the comment in :18 that "[God] makes these things known from of old". He is now making them known ["makes"], but they had already been long planned. This encourages us to preach to the Gentiles “upon whom my name is [Amos says ‘has already been’] called”. The Name is called upon us by baptism; yet in prospect, in potential, the Name has already been called upon the whole world. But it is for us to go and convert them. This explains why Paul is spoken of as having been a convert before he actually was. Paul was as an ox bound to a yoke, kicking against the goads. But it was as if he was already bound into Christ’s light yoke. He wrote that he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. He seems to be alluding to the practice of branding runaway slaves who had been caught with the letter F in their forehead, for <em>fugitivus</em>. His whole thinking was dominated by this awareness that like Jonah he had sought to run, and yet had by grace been received into his Master’s service. But the figure implies that he already was a slave of Jesus at the time of his ‘capture’ in conversion.</p>


text:
<p><em>Said the Lord, who makes these things known from of old</em></p><p>- see on :17. "Of old" is literally "From the beginning of the age". The idea was that God’s plan for the Gentiles was evident, reading between the lines, right from the beginning of His "age" of work with Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore my judgment is that</em>- The legal language of a judge arising to give a verdict. This is in line with Peter's earlier warning not to have God as the provider of witness and to judge Him wrongly; see on :8.</p><p><em>We do not trouble</em>- But the Judaizer brethren did 'trouble' the Gentile believers (:24). Later references in the NT to the converts being "troubled" may well refer to the activities of these Judaizers (<em><a href='B:510 17:8'>Act 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:8'>2Co 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:5'>2Co 7:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 1:7'>2Th 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:2'>2Th 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:14'>1Pe 3:14</a></em>). </p><p><em>Those from among the Gentiles that turn to God</em>- Seeing there were few atheists in the first century, we wonder why he doesn't say 'turn to Christ'. He was speaking to Jews, and was using Judaism's language of a Gentile becoming a proselyte and 'turning to [Israel's] God'. But he is saying that becoming a proselyte now meant baptism into Christ, rather than attempting to keep Mosaic laws and visiting the temple in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p><em>But that we write to them, that they abstain</em>- The word is elsewhere used, probably in allusion to this agreement, about abstaining from idolatry, fleshly lusts and immorality (<em><a href='B:590 4:3'>1Th 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:22'>1Th 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:11'>1Pe 2:11</a></em>). I suggest therefore that all the prohibitions were of a moral nature. To eat non-kosher food is not an issue of immorality; so my sense is that this must be understood as part of a prohibition here against involvement in idol worship. It's not right for a young unmarried couple to sleep with each other before marriage, but I don't think "fornication" as used here has that in view. Rather are all these things part of idol rituals- fornication would specifically referred to the use of temple prostitutes as part of the worship rituals. Fornication and the blood laws were therefore elaborations upon "the pollutions of idols". So we could read it as meaning: "Abstain from the pollutions of idols: [i:e:] from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood". </p><p><em>From the pollutions of idols</em>- Only used in the LXX in <em><a href='B:340 1:8'>Dan 1:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em> about ritually unclean food.</p><p><em>From fornication, from what is strangled and from blood</em>- The Mosaic law required that animals be killed by their blood being poured out.</p>


text:
<p><em>For Moses from generations of old has in every city those that preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath</em>- At first blush this may seem rather a disconnected reason for the previous arrangements. The key is in the phrase "in every city". The Gentile converts were foreseen as coming from "every city". James foresaw that there would be Jews living in every place where Gentiles were baptized; and he sought not to give them any reason for stumbling. Note that the synagogue system is described as preaching Moses. They were creating a cult following around a man, rather than acting as a conduit to bring people to God and His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers</em>- The Bible doesn't teach the total equality of role amongst all believers. There are leaders- but they are still among their brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and the elders, brothers, to the brothers</em>- Although writing from a position of authority, they emphasized that they were brothers writing to brothers.</p><p><em>Who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia</em>- The scope of the agreement was local to these areas. Judea is not mentioned, neither is there any general clause governing Gentile converts everywhere. This is maybe why Paul advised the Corinthians differently about issues relating to blood. It's also a reason why we should not seek to obey the letter of the legislation here about blood. This agreement was for a limited time and geographical scope. </p><p><em>Greeting</em></p><p>- see on :13 <em>James</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Forasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from us have disturbed you with words, subverting you, to whom we gave no commandment</em>- The phrase "who went out from us" is exactly that used by John concerning the Judaists in his context, and he uses the term to imply that by going out from the body of Christ they had left Christ (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em>); and the allusion is to Judas going out from the disciples into the darkness and off to the Jewish leaders to betray the Lord. They "disturbed" the believers, and Paul uses the same word about "some that trouble you [s:w:] and would pervert the Gospel of Christ" (<em><a href='B:550 1:7'>Gal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 5:10'>Gal 5:10</a></em>). This is all strong language. This is the severe danger of legalism. It seems that these brethren had falsely claimed the authority of the Jerusalem church, and their aim was to 'subvert you', to carry them away- back to the Jerusalem temple cult.</p>


text:
<p><em>It seemed good to us, having come to one accord</em>- The idea is that they were unanimous. It seems unlikely that they were, and subsequent NT history shows that the Judaizer group continued their work of 'troubling' the Gentiles with their demands. So this would seem another example of where the Council of Jerusalem is recorded very positively, differences were papered over, an impression of unanimity was given, and therefore the Council ultimately failed to solve the underlying issues.</p><p><em>To select men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul</em>- Luke always mentions Paul first. But here Luke is recording the letter sent by the Jerusalem brethren, who would have known and respected Barnabas longer than Paul; and so I see here an incidental evidence that the Divinely inspired Luke is indeed accurately recording real events and written words.</p>


text:
<p><em>Men that have risked their lives</em>- The Greek can equally mean that they had handed over their lives. </p><p><em>For the name of our Lord Jesus Christ</em>- Bearing the name of Christ is in itself an imperative to witness it. Thus “the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” is used as a metonymy for ‘the preaching of Christ’ (<em><a href='B:510 15:26'>Act 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 24:9'>Mat 24:9</a></em> cp. 14). We are baptized into that Name and thereby it is axiomatic that we become witnesses to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth</em>- Appropriate because many were illiterate and there may have been concerns as to whether what was being read from a scroll was in fact accurate.</p>


text:
<p><em>For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things</em>- There is such a thing as compromise in spiritual life. The compromise of Acts 15 about the demands placed upon the Gentile believers was an example. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that the Mosaic food laws had no binding at all upon Christian converts; and yet "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit" to endorse the compromise reached in <em><a href='B:510 15:28'>Act 15:28</a></em>. The laws agreed there as binding upon the Gentile converts in <em><a href='B:510 15:29'>Act 15:29</a></em> are in fact the so-called Noachic or Primeval Laws, considered by some orthodox Jews to be binding upon all the sons of Noah. That interpretation of what God said to Noah is itself stretched and hardly on a solid Biblical foundation- but God was willing to go along with it in order to make concessions required so that there would at least be some human chance of unity in the early church. </p><p>“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit” suggests that their conclusions were somehow confirmed by the Spirit. How exactly this happened isn't stated. But we note that in :32, Judas and Silas used the Spirit gift of prophecy to tell the Gentile converts the same message. It could be of course that as with Nathan initially assuming that his message to David about the temple was inspired from God when it wasn't, so these brethren may have assumed their conclusions were supported by the Holy Spirit. The way that Paul later contradicts the ruling about food offered to idols might suggest that in fact, they were simply assuming [as too many folk do today] that their own process of reasoning was correct and was therefore confirmed by the Holy Spirit. At best we can observe that no mechanism for that confirmation is recorded here.</p>


text:
<p><em>That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols- </em>Out of the four forbidden things, this is the one which differs from what was originally agreed. In :20 they had agreed to write forbidding the Gentile converts "pollution of idols". But this changed to "thing sacrificed to idols" (although the word is only used in the LXX in <em><a href='B:340 1:8'>Dan 1:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em> about ritually unclean food). What they agreed to write was not written- an interpretation of it was written. And it is exactly at this point that Paul's advice to the Corinthians differs appears to differ from that of the Jerusalem Council as here recorded. For he writes that there is nothing wrong of itself with eating things sacrificed to idols. Perhaps he considered that the decree of Jerusalem only affected limited geographical areas and wasn't binding on his mission [see on :23]; or that he considered the whole agreement to have failed to such an extent that it was null and void; or he perhaps considered that it was all dirty church politics and he was giving inspired advice which contradicted it.</p><p><em>From blood, from things strangled and from fornication. From which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Farewell- </em>Note that the Western Text [<em>Codex Bezae</em>] of Acts omits "things strangled", leaving us with three basic laws about idolatry, fornication and bloodshed. In this case we would see an allusion to an uninspired passage in the Mishnah (<em>Aboth</em> 5) which taught that the captivity in Babylon came about "on account of idolatry, fornication and bloodshed". In this case we would see God willing to compromise and accept the terms which were familiar to the orthodox Jewish minds, rather than merely telling them that their Mishnah was uninspired and so often hopelessly incorrect. </p>


text:
<p><em>So they, when they were sent off- </em>This alludes to the custom of accompanying a person on the first stage of their journey as a sign of solidarity and acceptance of them. The delegation had the full support of the Jerusalem church.</p><p><em>Went to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter</em>- There is a need for transparency in these things; and so the letter was delivered and read in front of everyone. Remember that many would have been illiterate. They did not "deliver the letter" until the congregation had been gathered together, in order to stop any chance of gossip after some had read the letter and others hadn't. These are the kinds of basic wisdom that are needed in pastoral and mission work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the encouragement</em>- The Judaist visitors had obviously worried the believers with the possibility that their salvation could be in question and actually impossible. Hence their joy when they learned that they were acceptable with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets</em></p><p>- see on :28 <em>It seemed good to the Holy Spirit</em>. </p><p><em>Encouraged and strengthened the believers with many words</em>- The idea is of confirmation. The context is confirming them that as Gentiles they really were OK with the Lord without circumcision. When we read of Paul and Silas going throughout Syria and Cilicia "strengthening the churches" (:41), the same word is used; and presumably the confirmation provided was again about this issue of Gentile acceptability. We note that Syria and Cilicia are the two specific regions to whom the letter from Jerusalem was addressed (:23).</p>


text:
<p><em>And after they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers back to those that had sent them</em>- The 'sending off' was a custom demonstrating acceptance and blessing of the mission; see on :30. </p>


text:
<p><em>It seemed good to Silas to stay there</em>- Again we see the human element in the preaching decisions of the early brethren. Despite Holy Spirit guidance, they made decisions which "seemed good" to them. The same word is used in :22,25 and :28. This is a fair emphasis all within the same chapter. There could be the hint that the decisions of the Council were simply what seemed right to them at the time, although they claimed some unspecified Holy Spirit confirmation of their thinking. This would again explain why Paul's inspired guidance to the Corinthians about meat offered to idols seems to contradict the position of the Jerusalem elders. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also</em>- "Teaching" may refer to teaching the converts; and "preaching" to evangelism. "The Lord" in Luke-Acts usually refers to the Lord Jesus; the Gospel records would not have been widely distributed, and many people were illiterate. So the teaching and preaching of the Lord's word as recorded in the Gospels would have been vital.</p>


text:
<p><em>And after some days Paul said to Barnabas: Let us return now</em>- The Greek word used here is that usually translated 'to convert'. It could be that Paul was suggesting that they go and 'convert' their converts, understanding that there are levels of conversion, as the Lord had taught and exemplified in Peter (<em><a href='B:490 22:32'>Luk 22:32</a></em>).</p><p><em>And visit the believers in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare</em></p><p>- see on :14.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Barnabas wanted to take with them John also, who was called Mark</em>- The Greek really means 'to advise'. And Paul got mad and had a division about even the suggestion! This is not Paul at his best, but the incident is so typical of many divisions in the church.</p>


text:
<p><em>- see on</em> <em><a href='B:510 6:1'>Act 6:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia</em>- The Greek word and position in the clause suggests '<em>that </em>one', reflecting Paul's contemptuous attitude. The Greek idea is of apostasy. But Paul speaks of apostasy from <em>him</em>, rather than from the Lord. This is not Paul at his best. Like many of his brethren to this day, he considered a personal departure from him as being apostasy. Likewise he laments how all in Asia had turned away <em>from him</em>; whereas the Lord Jesus wrote letters to those in Asia, clearly acceptant of them as His beloved brethren. Personal differences don't thereby declare a divided-from brother to be therefore and thereby no longer a brother of the Lord. It could be, however, that John Mark had separated from them for spiritual reasons, perhaps falling under the influence of the Judaizers. Mark may have left them in Pamphylia for a number of reasons. We note that it was at that point in Acts 13 that Saul changes his name to Paul. The shift from a Hebrew to Roman name, and the increased emphasis on preaching to Gentiles, may have been too much for Mark. And we note that from that time on, we no longer read of "Barnabas and Paul" but rather "Paul and Barnabas", and we find phrases like "Paul and his company". Paul had been the protege of Barnabas, and whilst Barnabas coped with being clearly outshone by his own protege, perhaps his nephew felt that he ought to have been the protege. And he was being outshone by Paul.  In addition to all this, it is quite possible that Saul / Paul had persecuted the family of John Mark, and he found that hard to forgive. We note from Acts 12:12 that the church in Jerusalem met "in the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark". But this sounds very similar to the scenario of Acts 8:3: “Paul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison”. We simply conclude that interpersonal fallout occurs for a variety of reasons.</p><p><em>And had not gone with them to the work</em>- Paul's dislike of Mark was for deeper reasons than just surface irritation. This is quoting the Septuagint of <em><a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a></em>, where "all the wicked men and men of Belial, of those that went with David, said, Because they <em>went not with us</em>, we will not give them ought of the spoil". <em>Why</em> does the Spirit make this connection? Is it not suggesting that Paul, zealous soldier of David / Jesus as he was, was in those early days in some sense a man of Belial, bent on achieving his own glory in preaching, and unwilling to share it with anyone who wasn't spiritually or physically strong enough to do it as he was (cp. the weaker followers of David)? If this is the case, then this is a far, far cry from the Paul who wrote his letters some years later, begging Timothy to come to encourage him, and letters in which the care of all the churches weighs down his soul daily, coming upon him as he woke up each morning (<em><a href='B:540 11:28'>2Co 11:28</a></em>); the Paul who repeatedly encourages the weak, treating weak and strong as all the same in many ways, until he eventually attains a level of selfless devotion to his weak brethren that is only surpassed by the Lord Himself. Col. 4:11 could suggest that John Mark ended up in prison with Paul: "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)". Philemon 24 describes Mark as Paul's fellow worker in prison- working together for the Gospel, when Paul had earlier said that Mark did not go with him to the work. This would explain Barnabas wanting to take John Mark, as he was his nephew. Paul was expecting that Mark would be released from prison, and he urges others to accept him upon release- perhaps implying that Mark had sinned or fallen away, or Paul had signalled his disagreement with Mark. But prison together for the Lord had united them. So much so that after Mark was released, Paul was so close to him that he asked Timothy to bring him back to Rome to be with him in his final days (2 Tim. 4:11). In this case we see a total reconcilliation between Paul and Mark; but not with Barnabas. As often happens, the collateral damage of interpersonal conflict can cause more damage than the actual conflict, and may never be resolved, even after the initial cause of conflict is resolved. </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 13:12-13'>Act 13:12-13</a></em>.<br/><em>They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus- </em>The "contention" between Paul and Barnabas is described in a word which occurs only thrice elsewhere. In <em><a href='B:650 10:24'>Heb 10:24</a></em>, a more mature Paul speaks of how we should consider one another to "<em>provoke</em> unto love and good works". Surely he wrote this with a sideways glance back at his earlier example of provoking unto bitterness and division. Likewise he told the Corinthians that he personally had stopped using the miraculous Spirit gifts so much, but instead concentrated on developing a character dominated by love, which was <em>not</em> easily provoked (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>). The Spirit seems to have recognized Paul's change, when <em><a href='B:510 17:16'>Act 17:16</a></em>&nbsp; records how Paul's spirit was "stirred" at the spiritual need of the masses, and thereby he was provoked to preach to them; rather, by implication, than being provoked by the irritations of weaker brethren. This whole incident is so true to life, human nature and church experience. There had just been an apparently succesful conference about church unity- and then Paul and Barnabas divide. Personality factors will still in reality dictate division between persons, and only the spirit of Christ unites. We see that unity is never achieved by conferences and on-paper agreements. According to Gal. 2:13, Paul felt gutted that Barnabas had caved in to the pressure from Judaist brethren and had refused to break bread with Gentile brethren. Paul clearly felt Barnabas was wrong in that, and we sense his deep hurt and shock when he writes that "even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy". The incident described in Gal. 2 was after the first missionary journey, but before the events of Acts 15. And so Paul was sensitive to any whif of a repeated caving in to right wing conservative brethren. He was in no mood to give John Mark a second chance. And this is so true to life- giving others a second chance, falling out over attitudes to third parties... this is to this day the stuff of Christian division.
John Mark had "withdrawn from them" and returned to Jerusalem, home of the conservative brethren. Paul sensed in this a disagreement with himself personally and his policy of accepting the Gentiles, which the Jerusalem conservatives disagreed with. And so when Barnabas suggested taking John Mark, the associations in Paul's mind quickly led him to snap. This is so absolutely true to human nature and experience.
Barnabas was probably just trying to accept John Mark, just as he had accepted Saul. Saul had radically changed, and Barnabas had accepted that. But Paul, it seems, was not willing to accept that John Mark might have changed. He didn't reflect the same grace which Barnabas had shown to him.  And yet Gal. 2:13 is clear that Barnabas had failed in going too far to accommodate the conservative Jewish brethren. As you analyze the situation, you can see legitimate and correct points in the position of each of those involved. Paul was right to stand up against the conservative brethren, and Barnabas was in the wrong in Gal. 2:13 in Antioch. But Barnabas was right to try to involve John Mark; and Paul was wrong to just allow associations of events and possible outcomes to lead him to divide from Barnabas. And so it is in the messy complex of human life and relationships within the church. There are elements of right and wrong, truth and error, flesh and spirit in all of us, and in all divisions and failures. 
</p><p>1</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches</em></p><p>- see on :32 <em>strengthened the believers</em>. The Greek for "strengthening" is from the root for 'establishing'; the word is used both of the Lord establishing His people, and of the preachers and pastors establishing them. Any work we do to build up others has the Lord working through and with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he went also to Derbe and to Lystra; and a certain disciple was there, named Timothy</em>- Being half Jewish and having a Gentile name, this was a typical case which would have been hard to legislate over given the legalistic mindset of the Judaizers which has just been brought before us in chapter 15. And 'Timothy' means 'Dear to God'; the Gentiles were equally beloved. </p><p><em>The son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek-</em> Her name was Eunice, and his grandmother Lois also had believed before her (<em><a href='B:620 1:5'>2Ti 1:5</a></em>). Lois and Eunice are Gentile names, so we might conclude that they were not very observant Jews, indeed Eunice had married a Gentile which would have severed her from orthodox Judaism, neither had she circumcised her son; and yet from a child they had taught him the Old Testament Scriptures (<em><a href='B:620 3:15'>2Ti 3:15</a></em>). They loved the word of God but were not seen as having made the grade in terms of their religion. So many of the Lord's people are like that.<em></em></p>


text:
<p><em>Well reported of by the believers that were at Lystra and Iconium</em>- This would imply Timothy was from Lystra (:1 is unclear whether he was from Derbe or Lystra).</p>


text:
<p><em>Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him</em>- Literally 'to go forth', the word used about missionary endeavour in fulfilment of the great commission to 'go forth' (<em><a href='B:490 9:6'>Luk 9:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:710 1:7'>3Jn 1:7</a></em>).</p><p><em>And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek</em>- Remember that this follows hard on the decision made in chapter 15 not to demand circumcision. But an agreed position can still not be followed because of the higher principles of not causing others to stumble. There are several examples in the NT of where Paul could have taken a certain course of action, or insisted on acceptance of a certain doctrinal position, knowing that Truth was on his side. But he didn’t. Thus the council of Jerusalem established that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised, but straight afterwards Paul circumcised Timothy in Lystra out of consideration to the feelings of the Jewish believers (<em><a href='B:510 16:1-3'>Act 16:1-3</a></em>). He could have stood on his rights, and on the clear spiritual principles involved. But he stepped down to the lower level of other believers (e.g. by keeping some of the redundant Jewish feasts), he made himself all things to all men that he might try to save some, and by so doing stepped up to the higher level in his own spirituality.</p><p>Timothy was from a non-standard background, as we will see both Lydia and the prison keeper were. His mother was a Jewess who had married out of the faith and not circumcised her child. But she and her mother had raised him reading the OT scriptures, as Paul reminds him in his letter to him. And they had become Christians. So like Lydia [see later] he was from a black sheep background. Just the type the Lord uses. </p>


text:
<p><em>And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which had been determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem</em>- Presumably just the four forbidden things related to idol worship. Or were there more?</p>


text:
<p><em>So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily</em>- Implying baptisms were being done daily, immediately a candidate was ready (not left to the weekend for convenience!). The same reference to daily increase is to be found earlier in Acts. The increase in number was related to the [temporary] resolution of the tensions within the community over the question of the Gentiles. Schism between believers is the greatest disadvertisment for the Gospel, and contrariwise, as the Lord laboured in His prayer of John 17, our unity should be enough to convert the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia- </em>Paul writes to the Corinthians of how he had been given areas in which it was potentially possible for him to preach in (<em><a href='B:540 10:13'>2Co 10:13</a></em>), and he didn’t enter into those areas which had either already been preached in, or which were another brother’s responsibility. This seems to suggest that God does indeed look down from Heaven and as it were divide up the world amongst those who could preach in it. This is why Paul perceived that he had been ‘forbidden’ from preaching in some areas [e.g. Macedonia] and yet a door was opened to him in Achaia. Likewise he felt he had been forbidden [s:w:] to preach to Rome until the time of <em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em>. This language is allusive to the way in which the Lord forbad Israel to conquer certain areas on their way to the promised land (<em><a href='B:50 2:37'>Deu 2:37</a></em>). The point is, between us, our preaching is a war of conquest for Jesus, pulling down strong holds and fortresses as Paul put it; or, as Jesus expressed it, taking the Kingdom by force, as stormtroopers. How the Spirit achieved this 'forbidding' isn't clear, although the same word is used in <em><a href='B:590 2:16'>1Th 2:16</a></em> about how Jewish opposition 'forbad' Paul preaching to Gentiles. But even this, for which the Jews were culpable, was used by the Spirit in the bigger picture of God’s purpose.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they came to the border of Mysia, they attempted</em> <em>to go into Bithynia- </em>The Greek really means to put to the test. Having been forbidden or hindered from preaching in Asia, they realized they were being led to some areas but not others. And so when they thought of preaching in Bithynia, they set up various tests to see if their way was to be made prosperous there or not. The spirit of Jesus, perhaps their own spiritual mindedness, didn’t permit them to go there. Perhaps they learnt the lesson and therefore likewise purposefully didn’t preach in Mysia (see on :8).</p><p><em>But the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them</em>- Living according to the spirit / mind / example of Jesus will mean that we naturally find the answers to some of the practical dilemmas which may arise in our lives. Could it not be that the spirit of Jesus, a life lived after His pattern, compelled them to (let’s imagine) go to visit a sick child and this meant they missed the transport leaving for Bithynia? </p>


text:
<p><em>So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas</em>- They could not have avoided it, seeing it was impossible to get to Troas without passing through Mysia. Presumably the idea is that they did not preach there. Perhaps the Spirit forbad them, as in Bithynia (see on <em><a href='B:510 16:7'>Act 16:7</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. There was a man of Macedonia standing</em>- Having been led away from two areas and realizing they should learn the lesson and leave a third one alone (see on :8), they were now directed to where the Lord wished them to work. He could have sent them there immediately, but He wanted them to work out and reflect upon His will and processes (see on :7 <em>attempted</em>); and once they had got through that, He gave them clear direction. This would explain the immediacy of their response once they finally received clear direction (:10). The same sort of thing happens in our lives if we allow ourselves to be led by Him and be in relationship with Him. Men of Macedonia were stereotypically associated with mighty warriors, following on from all the images associated with Alexander of Macedon and his military descendants. But this warrior asks Paul to "Come... and help". Literally, 'come to my side'. "Come and help" was a term associated in classical Greece with a call for military help. Polybius (The Histories 10.41.1–6) uses the term several times in describing Philip V calling for military help, supplies and men, during the First Macedonian War- and then going on to victory. If these were indeed the associations which Paul would have picked up, then he had the impression of a mighty warrior [the Lord Jesus] 'needing' human boots on the ground in order to achieve a great victory. And Paul ran to Him with all speed. On one hand, "God requires not help from man". But He structures His purpose so that God is in a sense, in need of man. And men are criticized for not 'coming to help of the Lord' (Jud. 5:23). ‘Come up and help [me]' is quoting the LXX of Josh. 10:3,4. where Adonibezek asks other kings to come and help him in a miliatry sense against Joshua.</p><p><em>Urging him</em> <em>and saying: Come into Macedonia and help us!</em>- <em>Parakleo</em> is literally 'to call near', AV 'praying him'. The man was standing- the position of begging and pleading in intercession (as the Lord Jesus for Stephen). "Help" is the same word used in <em><a href='B:650 2:18'>Heb 2:18</a></em> for the help provided by the Lord Jesus in prayer as our intercessor. The language is of prayer- and it's as if Paul and Timothy are in God’s place being prayed to and begged by the Lord Jesus. In a sense, we manifest God in our preaching; we are Him to this world. And the need is the call; we too encounter such calls, if we are sensitive to them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had seen the vision, immediately- </em>Paul and the apostles were urgent in their preaching. When Paul received the go ahead to preach in Macedonia, he “immediately endeavoured” to go there, even not waiting for Titus to join him, such was his urgency (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:12-13'>2Co 2:12-13</a></em>). And the response of people to these urgent preachers was therefore quick too. Men who began doubting and cynical were pricked in their heart, they realized their need, and were baptized within hours (<em><a href='B:510 2:12'>Act 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:37'>Act 2:37</a></em>).</p><p><em>We sought to go into Macedonia</em>- This could mean that Luke was now present with Paul; or it could be that he is including here the inspired diary of another companion of Paul.</p><p><em>Concluding that- </em>The idea is of proving, putting together (s:w. <em><a href='B:510 9:22'>Act 9:22</a></em>). By assessment of evidence and testing situations and hypotheses, Paul drew a conclusion. And we are likewise required to interpret God’s actions in our lives, rather than expecting a bolt of revelation or specific calling. Although at times Paul did have this kind of thing, in his preaching work he was clearly left to join the dots himself in many ways. See on :7 <em>attempted</em> and :9 <em>A vision</em>. </p><p><em>God had called us to preach the gospel to them</em>- Paul 'assuredly gathered' that "the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them" (<em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em> AV). The Lord calling is usually used concerning His calling of men to understand and obey the Gospel. Perhaps Paul is saying that the reason why we are called is to preach, and in this context he realised that the people <em>he</em> was to preach to, were the Macedonians. He later reminisced: "As we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak (i:e. preach)" (<em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>).</p><p>If we don't shine forth the light, both in the world and in the household, we are not fulfilling the purpose for which we were called. Perhaps this is the meaning of <em><a href='B:510 16:10'>Act 16:10</a></em>, where Luke says that they preached in Macedonia because they perceived that "the Lord had called us <em>for</em> (in order that) to preach the gospel (in this case) unto (the Macedonians)". Whether such an interpretation appeals or not, there are many passages which teach that our salvation will be related to the extent to which we have held forth the word&nbsp;both to the world and to the household (<em><a href='B:240 11:3'>Pro 11:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 24:11-12'>Pro 24:11-12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 8:38'>Mar 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:8'>Luk 12:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 9:22'>Joh 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:42'>Joh 12:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:20'>Joh 1:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:6'>1Pe 4:6</a></em>&nbsp; Gk:).</p><p> We noted above the military allusions in the call to "Come and help us!". The military allusions continue. "To preach the Gospel" is literally 'to declare the good news', and is a term used of declaring a victory. Paul was to go to the Roman colony and declare the good news of victory and defeat of all that Rome stood for. It was a radical message. Plutarch (Pompey 66.3) uses the term about ‘bringing news of victory’ or ‘declaring a victory’ in battle, e.g. “many... sailed to Cornelia in Lesbos with the glad tidings that the war was ended”. </p>


text:
<p><em>Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a straight course to Samothrace and the day following to Neapolis</em>- A nautical term for sailing before the wind. But wind is the same Hebrew idea as 'spirit'. They were as it were led directly by the Spirit on their journey, confirming the process of 'concluding' we discussed on :10. Recall too how they had been forbidden to preach in two or three places before this; now, everything is going so directly and clearly under the Lord's direction by the Spirit. The allusion may be to the way the cherubim of Ezekiel's vision moved in a straight manner. And the account of Saul's conversion is replete with reference to the commissioning of Ezekiel. The Spirit, working through Angels, cherubim and all manner of means, confirmed Paul in the direction he had worked out as being necessary to take.</p>


text:
<p><em>And from there to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a Roman colony; and we stayed in this city for some days</em>- The teaching, conversion and baptism of the Philippians took only "some days"; the jailer would have at best only had a brief exposure to Paul's message before meeting him in prison. Likewise Paul was only in Thessalonica "two Sabbath days" and in that time he had to work night and day to support himself and his team. The impression is that the pre-baptismal teaching was brief. Colonies were "another Rome transferred to the soil of another country" (Vine). This explains some of the language in the letter to the Philippians, emphasizing that our citizenship is a heavenly one (<em><a href='B:570 3:20'>Phi 3:20</a></em>), when Philippi had been established as a "colony" for Roman citizens. </p>


text:
<p><em>And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate by a river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women that had gathered- </em>When Paul is described as going “forth without the gate” to preach in Philippi (RV), this is the very language of <em><a href='B:650 13:12'>Heb 13:12</a></em> about the Lord going forth without the gate, carrying the cross, and bidding us follow Him. For Paul, to preach was to carry the cross of Christ, and so it must be for us. A river was an attractive place for Jews to worship because of their need to perform ritual washing. Paul's message of baptism was therefore particularly appropriate.</p>


text:
<p><em>And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God</em>- Or, a Lydian. Perhaps she was a Jewess from Lydia, or a Gentile from Lydia who had become attracted to Judaism. Archaeological remains indicate a guild of dyers and purple traders there. She would have been accustomed to the use of <em>baptizo</em> in her work.</p><p><em>Heard us</em>- The imperfect, 'was hearing', could suggest she overheard the preaching rather than sat attentively purposefully listening to it. Otherwise we would expect the Greek word for 'listening' to be used here; but it isn't. The image of Lydia as the pious proselyte who had gone out to pray by the river with Jewish women is therefore probably incorrect. Rather she was by the riverside, as a small time trader woman attending to her purple cloth business, who "worshipped God" in her own way but separate to the other Jewish women. And she overheard Paul preaching to the Jewish women who were praying there. And she believed. This is typical of how the Lord works- through indirect means. Indeed some early Christian commentators claimed that Lydia was involved with producing purple garments for immoral pagan practices, as this was the common use of purple cloth. We recall how the whores of the Old Testament prophets and Revelation are dressed in purple. If "Lydia" means 'woman from Lydia', then we have to give due weight to the associations of 'women from Lydia' with prostitution. "Lydia" was not her personal name; she was from Thyatira, which was located in the province of Lydia, so she was just known as 'the Lydian'. Strabo claims that slaves often bore the names of their nations of origin (Geography 7.3.12). So she may have been a freed slavewoman, and again this connects with aspersions that slave women only became free because of involvement in sexual scandal. She presents as not immoral, but with many shady associations. And she is strongly associated with her city of origin; although the record says she worshipped God, perhaps a would be proselyte not accepted by the other Jewish women who were praying at the river, and in any case without a synagogue to be attached to. The description of her as a "seller", "hawker" or "merchant" likewise had shady associations; a woman from another city and province selling anything was seen askance.  She is also an independent head of household, able to on her initiative invite Paul and his group to stay with her. We feel all this rather hinted at when she asks Paul to judge whether she is in fact "faithful to the Lord", as if she accepts she may not appear like that. Another stereotype is that Lydia was wealthy. That may not at all have been the case. Because Phil. 4:14-18 and 2 Cor. 8:1-5 are insistent that the church at Philippi was very poor. So we may well imagine her living in cheap accommodation, although head of that poor household. </p><p><em>Whose heart the Lord opened to give heed to the things which were spoken by Paul</em>-This is clear enough evidence that the Lord works directly on the human heart / perception, quite above the power of His written word itself. The Old Testament has several similar examples of God 'opening eyes' of perception (Gen. 21:19; Num. 22:31; 2 Kings 6:17,20; Is. 42:7; 50:5), and David asks for his eyes to be open to behold wonderful things in God's word (Ps. 119:18). There would be no need for that prayer, nor for God to open eyes, if intellectual effort alone is required. This is why in our times, the Holy Spirit is provided to 'enlighten the eyes of your understanding' (Eph. 1:18). Her 'giving heed' to the Gospel was because the Lord had opened her heart. It's not as if the Lord faces off against man over an open Bible, leaving us the choice of responding to what we read / hear or not. He goes further than that, reaching across the table, and compelling some to have open hearts to His word. Luke has spoken earlier of how the Lord opened the hearts of the disciples / apostles to understand the word of God (Lk. 24:31,32,45). Indeed the parallels between the Emmaus disciples and Lydia are strong. All had their hearts opened by the Lord, and responded by opening their homes to the Lord or His people. That again is evidence enough that God's word is not simply self-explanatory; the eunuch rightly observed that he couldn't understand it unless a man guided him, and the Spirit operated by sending Philip to do this; the disciples had their hearts opened by the Lord to understand the Scriptures, and Lydia's heart was opened to give heed to the Gospel. This 'extra' factor is reflective of God's grace; without it, salvation would simply be for those intellectually astute enough to correctly interpret the theology of the Bible. But the presence of that 'extra' factor (in the Lord opening hearts to the Gospel) is the mechanism by which He calls. And as Romans demonstrates, the fact He calls one but not another is a parade example of His grace, and how salvation is by grace and now by theological prowess.</p><p>The same word for “to give heed” is in Acts 8:6 about how people gave heed to the Gospel which Philip preached. Presumably it would be fair enough to conclude that the Lord likewise assisted their hearts to this end.</p><p> The language of opening and closing needs to be put together. The Lord Jesus knocks at the door, and if any man open, He enters and fellowships with that man (Rev. 3:20). But here the Lord as it were goes a stage further, and opens the heart, just as in the Song of Solomon, the lover seeks to open the door from the outside when the beloved delays to open. It is He who opens the door of faith (Acts 14:27), by giving repentance [not just forgiveness] (Acts 11:18). This huge initiative from the Divine side is strange for us. We are all used to a man reaping what he sows, what goes around comes around, quid pro quo, crime and punishment... and that is all more or less true to observed reality in this world. But God takes huge initiatives and seeks to almost force through His plan to save. And yet those who refuse these initiatives will themselves knock on His door at the last day, and find He refuses to open (Mt. 25:11). This is in contrast to the faithful, for whom the Lord's coming is again likened to a knock on the door which they open immediately (Lk. 12:36). Our response to His knocking now, in the events of daily life and our regular encounter with Him in the Gospels, will prepare us to perceive His knock when He returns. And our response now prepares us for our response then.  </p><p>
It is not therefore incidental that the 'opening' of Lydia's heart is described with the same word used twice of the amazing, dramatic 'opening' of the prison doors (Acts 16:26,27)- "and every one's bands were loosed", language appropriate to Luke's opening description of the Lord's mission as being to release the bands of the prisoners. That theme of Jubilee, of release, continues throughout Luke-Acts. This earthquake in human hearts is clearly from God. This is how much further He goes than simply knocking on a human heart. This is what love does- it takes the initiative, and keeps on pushing that initiative until it is clear that the person is refusing it. But it is for us to respond to it. And in reflecting that love, it is for us to likewise take the initiative in offering human salvation. Her response to her heart being opened was to open her home to Paul and the Christian preachers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when she was baptized- </em>The conversion of Lydia is spoken of in a sub clause: “And when she was baptized…”. There is no statement that she believed what Paul had spoken; merely that she listened with interest and was baptized. The implication is that belief and baptism are part and parcel of the same thing. There is certainly the impression that the period of Lydia’s teaching was quick. To argue that she may have been instructed for several days is an argument from silence. The impression given by all the accounts of baptism is that it was the initial response made by people once they believed a basic outline of the Gospel. </p><p><em>And her household- </em>The way of the world was that the whole household converted to the religion of the head of the house. And yet the call of Christ was to individuals. Therefore when we read of whole households converting (<em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:31-34'>Act 16:31-34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em> <em><a href='B:520 16:10'>Rom 16:10</a></em>) we must assume that they had resisted the temptation to mass convert, and that Masters had the humility to <em>not</em> demand of their slaves and family members that they just blindly follow them. This request would have been axiomatic to their preaching of the Gospel; and yet it would have been a radical departure from how family heads around them behaved.  We note from :40 that the faith of her family members is spoken of as legitimate: "they entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the believers, they comforted them".</p><p><em>She urged us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay. So she persuaded us</em>- Entering houses and eating together was seen as having a religious dimension to it, as Peter mentioned when accepting Cornelius' invitation. There were present at least Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke, as this is a 'we' passage. For a woman to invite a group of previously unknown men into her house was scandalous and would have begged all kinds of gossip. But the culture in Christ was and is at radical variance with that of the surrounding world.</p><p> Hospitality is pretty much presented as a fruit of the Spirit in the New Testament. It is a qualification for being an elder. To be hospitable to those of other ethnic groups, to welcome them into your home, was a radical thing to do. Strangers were considered sceptically and negatively in their society. And only those moved by the gift of the Spirit would act otherwise. This barrier breaking hospitality was of course a reflection of God's similar generous outreach to us, across all that separates God from man. We learn from the Peter and Cornelius story how freighted was the whole question of whom you showed hospitality to, entering someone's home, let alone staying there, was of huge social sigificance. </p><p> As noted above, Lydia had shady connections and would have appeared an unfaithful woman. But she was faithful to the Lord in her heart, and begged Paul to perceive that- which he did. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, as we were going to the place of prayer, that a certain slave girl met us</em></p><p>- see on 16:15. We can imagine the gossip this provoked as Lydia, her family and the foreign men walked to the river. Note that after baptism, she continued to attend the religious meeting place she had attended previously. The Lord spoke of how the time would come when His followers would be cast out of the synagogues, but following Him did not immediately require ceasing attendance at synagogue, despite the terribly wrong theologies preached there.</p><p><em>Who had a spirit by which she predicted the future and who brought her masters much gain by fortune-telling- </em><em><a href='B:510 16:16-18'>Act 16:16-18</a></em> are the words of Luke, under inspiration: “a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of Python met us” (Gk:). As explained in the footnote in the Diaglott version, Python was the name of a false god believed in during the first century, possibly the same as the god Apollo. It was believed that the ‘spirit’ of Python took over the ‘immortal soul’ of the person being possessed. Seeing that the Bible strongly opposes the idea of an immortal soul, there is no way that a spirit of Python can possess anyone. So Python definitely did not exist, but Luke does not say the girl was ‘possessed with a spirit of Python, who by the way, is a false god who does not really exist…’. In the same way the Gospels do not say that Jesus ‘cast out demons which, by the way, do not really exist, it is just the language of the day for illnesses’. The demons cast out of Legion went “into the abyss” (<em><a href='B:490 8:31'>Luk 8:31</a></em> Gk:); the pagan concept of the abyss is a nonsense, yet if we believe that the record of Legion’s cure teaches the existence of demons, then we must logically believe in ‘the abyss’ too.</p><p>Another take is that Python was thought to be the agent of Zeus "the most high god", responsible for communication to men. But the girl starts redefining the most high God, through the Holy Spirit, not Python. We can take it that this girl, along with Lydia and the jailor, were all converted by the initial work of the Holy Spirit upon them- which they responded to.</p>


text:
<p><em>The same following after Paul and us was crying out, saying: These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation!</em>- There was clearly a literal element to this, because Paul turns and addresses the girl (:18). But the language of following Paul is elsewhere used to mean that people accepted his teaching (<em><a href='B:510 13:43'>Act 13:43</a></em>). It may be that we are intended to understand that the accepted the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em>And this she did for many days. But Paul, being greatly disturbed by it, turned and said to the spirit: I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out that very moment</em>- Paul didn’t allow himself to be irritated. The tragedy of mental illness grieved him; the tragedy of the way in which some people have an all too <em>partial</em> knowledge of Gods truth. And his grieving for her didn’t merely result in him preaching the Gospel to her; he did something concrete to help cure her. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they laid hold of Paul and Silas</em>- Circumstances repeat within our lives, as they did for Paul. Because exactly the same complaint was made at Ephesus, with the same persecution; and the same Greek words are used to describe it (19:24,25). Paul was intended to learn from the events at Philippi so he could cope with those at Ephesus.</p><p><em>And dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers</em>- Paul was likewise 'dragged' in Jerusalem (21:30). Yet he had himself 'dragged' Christians out of their house churches, along the streets and into prison (8:3). He would have been enabled to feel for those he had thus treated. We too are brought to realize how others felt as a result of our actions, not so much as a punishment for us, but in order to lead us closer to the spirit of Christ and to His Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said: These men, being Jews, are disturbing our city</em>- This disrespect was rooted in the fact that these Jews had probably only recently arrived, as a result of Jews being cast out of Rome (<em><a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And advocate customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans</em>- In both Thessalonica and Philippi, strong opposition arose to the preaching of the Gospel because it was held that it was preaching another King, Jesus, in opposition to Caesar, and that the obligations of this new religion were at variance with the Imperial Cult (<em><a href='B:510 16:21'>Act 16:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:7'>Act 17:7</a></em>). In a sense, these allegations were true:&nbsp; Christianity taught that the convert became a member of a new, spiritual Israel. It was irrelevant whether he or she was a Jew, Roman or Gentile. And the convert had to act inclusively rather than exclusively towards other converts. It must have been hard for a Roman citizen to willingly become as it were a ‘citizen’ of ‘spiritual Israel’, a ‘member’ of the despised and captive Jewish race. To not participate in the cult of emperor worship was serious indeed; Roman citizenship could be lost over this matter. Pliny wrote that Christians were therefore “unable by temperament or unwilling by conviction to participate in the common activities of a group or community”. They were seen as any true living Christian is: a bit weird, unsociable, aloof from worldly pleasure, and thereby a silent critic of those who indulge. “The Christian would not attend gladiatorial shows or games or plays. He would not read pagan literature. He would not enlist as a soldier, for then he would come under orders that might conflict with his standards and with his loyalty to Jesus Christ. He would not be a painter or sculptor, for that would be to acquiesce to idolatry. Nor would he be a schoolmaster, for then he would inevitably have to tell the immoral stories of the pagan gods. The Christian had better steer clear of business contracts, because they required the taking of oaths, which the Christian abjured. They had better keep out of administrative office because of the idolatry involved… and so on”. The Romans considered anyone outside the Roman world or who rejected Roman manners and laws as being a barbarian; and yet the Gospel appealed to Roman citizens to reject these very manners and laws. Thus Ramsay comments: “To the Romans <em>genus humanum</em> meant not the human race in general but the Roman world, men who lived according to Roman manners and laws; the rest were enemies and barbarians. The Christians, then, were enemies to civilised man, and to the customs and laws which regulated civilised society… they introduced divisions into families and set children against their parents”. &nbsp;</p><p>Jews were allowed to make proselytes of other nations, but not Roman citizens, who were not to be religiously preached to by any other group within the empire. Therefore the command to take the Gospel to literally all men, including Roman citizens, was hard to obey. This explains the double complaint that the Roman citizens were being asked to both receive <em>and</em> obey the message of Christ. Receiving them, being preached to, was also a matter of offence, as well as the content of the message.</p><p><em>For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me</em>- The "cause" was that they had been called upon to repent, and their refusal to do so was leading them to try to kill Paul. This is how conscience works. We seek to eliminate the persons or issues causing our guilt, and which summon us to repentance. The opposition to Christian preaching is exactly because it is [or should be] a call to repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the crowd rose up together against them; and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten</em>- The obvious question is why Paul didn’t reveal his Roman citizenship at this stage in order to avoid the flogging. He does reveal if afterwards, but seeing flogging could be fatal, there must have been a major reason why Paul went through with it when he didn’t need to. One can only speculate: he wanted to show solidarity with Silas; he wanted to put the authorities in a position where they were in his debt and would allow the fledgling ecclesia to meet unhindered; he was simply stubborn and angry and wished to embarrass his enemies. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had laid many stripes upon them- </em>This doesn't mean that they personally flogged them. They 'laid' in the sense of laying a penalty upon them. The actual flogging was likely done by the jailor; hence his desire to wash their damaged bodies after his conversion, and his deep sense of fear before them afterwards. When we read that the jailor "having received this order" (:24) put them into the inner prison, the "order" was the sentence of flogging which he was ordered to inflict, and he may well have carried it out in the inner prison.</p><p><em>They threw them into prison- </em>Exactly what Paul had done to Christians, after flogging them (26:10). </p><p><em>Ordering the jailor to guard them carefully</em>- Especially securely. There seemed to be a fear that Paul would seek to escape; hence having received such a charge, the jailor put them in the inner prison, the most secure zone, probably underground with no access to the outside. Or it could be that the magistrates wanted these men to die in custody, and 'guard them extra carefully' could have been a nod to abuse them. See on :24 <em>Shackles</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in shackles</em>- The Greek is literally "the wood". This was an instrument of torture having five holes, four for the wrists and ankles and one for the neck. The same word is used for the cross (<em><a href='B:510 5:30'>Act 5:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 10:39'>Act 10:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>). Again we see how the experiences of believers in Acts, and Paul especially, were a sharing in the sufferings of their Lord. Just as ours are. Perhaps it was perceiving that connection with the crucified Jesus which led them to burst into praise. "The inner prison" was commonly known as 'the underworld'; dark, with no windows, no sense of day or night, filled with the smell of decaying humanity. It was as if they were sharing the Lord's death. </p><p>"The holes being pierced at different distances, the legs might be separated or divaricated to a great extent, which must produce extreme pain".</p>


text:
<p><em>But about midnight</em>- The stocks were an instrument of torture which would have made sleeping impossible. It could have been that they might have died that night in that dark cave... if the earthquake had not happened.</p><p><em>Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God</em>- Literally, they were praying in singing hymns. Let's not forget that hymns are prayers being sung. The musical issues surrounding them can so easily distract from this realization.</p><p><em>And the prisoners were listening to them</em>- The fact no prisoners ran away (:28) may mean that they were converted by that evening of witness. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p><em>And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all</em> <em>the doors were opened and everyone's bonds were unfastened</em>- The work of the Lord Jesus is described in exactly these terms, of opening the prisons and releasing those who are bound (<em><a href='B:490 13:16'>Luk 13:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 49:9'>Isa 49:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 9:11'>Zec 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:19'>1Pe 3:19</a></em>). The fact all the prisoners had their bonds unfastened would maybe suggest they were all converted, at least potentially they were given freedom in Christ; see on :25 <em>The prisoners</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>And the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing the prison doors open</em>- More language appropriate to the saving work of Jesus in opening the prison doors. The 'opening' of Lydia's heart is described with the same word used twice of the amazing, dramatic 'opening' of the prison doors (Acts 16:26,27)- "and every one's bands were loosed", language appropriate to Luke's opening description of the Lord's mission as being to release the bands of the prisoners. That theme of Jubilee, of release, continues throughout Luke-Acts. This earthquake in human hearts is clearly from God. This is how much further He goes than simply knocking on a human heart. This is what love does- it takes the initiative, and keeps on pushing that initiative until it is clear that the person is refusing it. But it is for us to respond to it. And in reflecting that love, it is for us to likewise take the initiative in offering human salvation. Her response to her heart being opened was to open her home to Paul and the Christian preachers. Lydia and the jailor are clearly paralleled- after the 'opening' experience they and their families were immediately baptized, and they then entertained Paul in their homes.</p><p><em>Drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped</em>- If prisoners escaped during an earthquake, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the jailor would therefore be executed for negligence of duty. He had a fair chance of survival. We are therefore left with the impression that this man was perhaps very proud, or committed to his job to the point that he was his career and his career was him, with his family meaning little to him; or perhaps just overly emotional; or maybe new to the job and reacting poorly in a crisis. We meet all these types of people in life, and tend to assume they would not be good candidates for the Gospel. But this man was.</p>


text:
<p><em>But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying: Do not harm yourself! For we are all here!</em>- Every other usage of the phrase 'to do harm' is always in a moral sense, of sinning (<em><a href='B:520 7:19'>Rom 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:10'>2Co 5:10</a></em>). We can therefore in this case conclude that suicide would have been a sin; although God’s forgiveness of that sin is another issue. We naturally enquire why the prisoners didn't flee, grasping the apparent offer of salvation from their prison life. The answer is surely that they had become believers and experienced the spiritual freedom from prison and darkness, and so all other human possibilities in life became of less importance. Isaiah and the Psalms spoke of men in the darkest prison house and sitting in chains... being spiritually liberated. Surely Paul and Silas had sung these words; and those prisoners had been converted. They didn't run to physical freedom because they were so in awe of their experience- that they had spiritually liberated from their prison house chains. I find no other credible reason as to why they didn't run for it.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas</em>- He had now no fear of judgment by his superiors nor by society. The prisoners hadn't escaped. So this was fear of Divine judgment. Just as "Felix trembled" when he considered judgment to come. Fear of his fate before God for having tortured His servants, and having all the same been shown such grace in that his prisoners hadn't run away. </p>


text:
<p><em>And brought them out and said:</em> <em>Sirs, what must I do to be saved?</em>- He doesn't ask for baptism, suggesting he was unaware of the need for it. This was a highly emotional situation; anyone at the very point of suicide is in a very unstable position. Many today would have told the man to calm down and consider the issue of baptism once things were a bit calmer in his life, urging him not to take such a decision on the cusp of emotion and perceived desperation. Let alone to baptize all his family when he himself was taking the decision under such psychological and circumstantial pressure. But the Biblical example here is quite the opposite to how many would judge today. "What must I do?" is a common phrase recorded by Luke [Acts 2:37; and the crowd ask John "What then shall we do", Lk. 3:10]. All encounter with the Lord Jesus and His message provokes this sense, that we can no longer be passive, but must <em>do</em> something in response. "Sirs" translates <em>kurios</em>, and maybe we are to perceive that Paul and Silas were manifesting the Lord Jesus to the jailor.</p><p>There is no record of his apology or desire for forgiveness from them for what he had done to them (see on :23). He rightly perceived that the essence of his sin was against God and he needed to be right before Him, knowing that what he had done required judgment, which he now realized he needed to be 'saved' from.</p><p>The jailer had feared for his physical life had the prisoners escaped. Being assured that he was now saved from that loss of life, it is psychologically credible that he thought of his eternal life. For faced with physical death, every man thinks of what happens after. And he had heard of the slave girl shouting in :17 "these men are the servants of the Most High God who have come to show a way of salvation!". God had nudged him with those words, then through the singing of Paul and Silas, then the earthquake and the prisoners not escaping. He would have been struck by the claim of a "Most High God", seeing the Greco-Roman world was full of gods for various things and there was no concept of a single "Most High God", even if the term was at times used of Zeus who supposedly spoke through Python. The girl was thought to have the spirit of Python. But she is now proclaiming through the Holy Spirit the news of salvation from the true "Most High God". We note that the Lord speaking through the girl didn't seek to immediately debunk all their gods, but to present the one true God as "the most high". There was no god who saved from earthquakes [which were seen as Divine judgment] nor who saved eternally. But the Most High God could save from His own judgment. The man's need, which is every man's need, was met alone in Him. Perhaps his emphasis was upon the word "I". Paul, Silas and the prisoners had been saved- but how could "I" be saved? His joy is understandable- he had been freed from fear of death, from fear of the wrath of the gods. </p><p>
Truly this is a case of a very hard, brutalized man being reached by the simple offer of salvation by grace. Philo said of jailers, who were effectively torturers, infamous for cruelty and therefore often alcoholics: "Everyone knows well how jailers are filled with inhumanity and savagery. For by nature they are unmerciful, and by practice they are trained daily toward fierceness, as to become wild beasts. They see, say, and do nothing good, not even by change, but instead the most violent and cruel things... Jailers, therefore, spend time with robbers, thieves, burglars, the wanton, the violent, corrupters, murderers, adulterers, and the sacrilegious. From each of these they draw and collect depravity, producing from that diverse blend a single mixture of thoroughly abominable evil” (Joseph. 81,84). He the man once in power now collapses at the feet of the Lord and His people whom he has abused. His tender washing of their stripes would be an image unheard of in the Greco-Roman world. This hard man had been humbled by the earthquake, the token of Divine wrath. And then by the grace shown him in that the prisoners didn't escape, he was talked out of suicide by a man he had tortured, and felt that salvation was being offered to him. This was no long term Bible student edging towards understanding the fullness of Christ, it was a desperate sinner and bad man brought to his knees by God's grace and converted in a flash. And his family likewise.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they said: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved- </em>We note the humility. When addressed by the Philippian jailor "Sirs (kurion), what must I do to be saved?'", Paul answers "Believe in the Lord (kurion) Jesus". In :34, he believed in God. A theme of Acts is that the work of the Father and Son are paralleled (e.g. 16:31 cp. 34; 15:12; 26:17 cp. 22). They are working <em>together</em> to achieve our final redemption. The concept is wondrous. The man asked what he must do and he is told to believe. As the Lord Himself explained, the work of God is to believe on Him.</p><p><em>You and your household</em>- This focus on his family may have been to psychologically assist him to get over his suicidal thoughts. Although :32 is clear that the household heard the word of the Lord and were then baptized, the implication here is clearly that his faith could save his family. The salvation of others for the sake of a third party is clearly established in Mk. 2:5, where a man was forgiven because of the faith of his friends. In the OT we think of Rahab and Abigail saving their families by their faith. Healing was definitely given for the sake of the faith of third parties; the Centurion's servant and Jairus' daughter come to mind, and James' exhortation to pray for the sick that they may be both healed and forgiven.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his household</em>- The "household" would have included children, slaves and distant relatives. The man was wealthy. "The word of the Lord" was the message of the Lord Jesus; the kind of material eventually transcribed and published as the Gospels of the Lord Jesus. Paul clearly had in mind that his "household" could respond; for he commands the jailer that if <em>he</em> believed, then he <em>and</em> his household could be saved. This makes us wonder whether this man and his household had been known to Paul previously. Or it could be that Paul perceived that because of the faith of one individual, a whole family could be saved- although they too had to respond to the Gospel. Hence he preached it to them.  There is no indication the jailer had been a Bible student. Unlike the other prisoners, he hadn't been listening to Paul and Silas singing hymns. He had been fast asleep. His conversion shows the sheer transforming power of the Gospel when encountered after becoming aware of Divine judgment and grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>And at that hour of the night he took them-</em> The earthquake occurred at “midnight” (<em><a href='B:510 16:25'>Act 16:25</a></em>); Paul and Silas spoke “the word of the Lord” to the jailer, and “that same hour” (<em><a href='B:510 16:33'>Act 16:33</a></em> AV) he washed their stripes and he and his family were baptized. The exact referent of “that same hour” is difficult to determine, but the grammar would seem to imply that within one hour the jailer heard the word of the Lord from Paul and Silas, washed them, and he and his family were baptized. All in the midst of the aftermath of a major earthquake. The record seems to be using “that same hour” to highlight the urgency of baptism [it should be done even in the midst of an earthquake, at night]; and the speed at which it could occur [“that same hour”]. After this, the jailer took Paul and Silas into his home and prepared a celebratory meal; and then day broke, the magistrates sent an urgent message requiring Paul and Silas to be released (<em><a href='B:510 16:34-35'>Act 16:34-35</a></em>). </p><p>There is reason to think that the meal afterwards was effectively a "breaking of bread" communion meal. So from this very apparently shaky start, with faith apparently based on a very brief and slim experience, there grew the church at Philippi. Soon afterwards, Paul was to write to them and mention they had "bishops and deacons". A strong church, according to Paul's letter to them, began on this apparently slim basis. But that is the power of confrontation with Divine judgment and humble repentance and immediate baptism.</p><p><em>And washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized</em>- The Greek <em>louo</em> specifically refers to complete washing of the body, rather than anointing just some parts of the body, for which the NT uses a different word. Literally, he washed them from their wounds, i:e. the blood and damage from the stripes was over their entire bodies. Their baptizing of him after this is another example in Acts of deep connection and mutuality between the convert and the converter. The hardened torturer now presents as tender and caring- a psychological transformation overnight, and one which was not just on the cusp of emotion but [it seems from the letter to the Philippians] continued. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he brought them into his house</em>- Therefore the teaching of the Gospel to his family in :32,33 was done outside the house; presumably in the ruins of their house and yard. The house they entered would have been severely damaged. </p><p><em>Set food before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his family- </em>Literally, 'set a table'. As if there is a hint of it being a breaking of bread communion meal. From this slender beginning would develop a church with bishops and deacons, to whom Paul wrote so positively. The theme of "great joy" in the later letter to the Philippians shows that this joy was not merely on the cusp of circumstance, but was to be an abiding experience. Whole households were converted (<em><a href='B:510 10:2'>Act 10:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:34'>Act 16:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>), and the earliest Christian meeting places unearthed were rooms in the homes of rich believers. And with us too, the success of our community depends upon God’s Truth first and foremost being the centre of family life, with the joy of faith permeating it. Household conversions were a major feature of the first century spread of the Gospel (e.g. Lydia- <em><a href='B:510 16:15'>Act 16:15</a></em>; Crispus- <em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; Priscilla and Aquila- <em><a href='B:520 16:3-5'>Rom 16:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; Nymphas- <em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>; Onesiphorus- <em><a href='B:620 1:16'>2Ti 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 4:19'>2Ti 4:19</a></em>; Philemon- <em><a href='B:640 1:2'>Phm 1:2</a></em>; “the elect lady”, <em><a href='B:700 1:10'>2Jn 1:10</a></em>; the home at Troas- <em><a href='B:510 20:6-8'>Act 20:6-8</a></em>). Clearly ‘house’ was used in the first century as a kind of shorthand for ‘house church’. They knew no other pattern of gathering. There was almost an assumption that if a man converted to Christ, his ‘house’ also would. Hence we read that Cornelius would be told words “whereby thou and thy house shalt be saved” (<em><a href='B:510 11:14'>Act 11:14</a></em>). The same phrase was repeated to the jailor at Philippi (<em><a href='B:510 16:31'>Act 16:31</a></em>). It’s emphasized four times in three verses that the Gospel was preached to his house, and his whole house responded (<em><a href='B:510 16:31-34'>Act 16:31-34</a></em>). The Lord likewise rejoiced in Zacchaeus’ conversion, that salvation had come to that man’s house (<em><a href='B:490 19:9'>Luk 19:9</a></em>). He assumed that Zacchaeus would quite naturally persuade his ‘house’.</p><p><em>Having believed in God</em>- He was unlikely to have been an atheist [atheism wasn't very common in the 1st century]. But he grasped for the first time the real import of a real and relevant faith in the one true God as a personal being. See on <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>. We probably need to read in an ellipsis here: He believed in God’s grace and salvation, which is in His Son Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when it was day, the magistrates sent their officers, saying: Let those men go</em>- Word may have got to them from Lydia or other converts, that Paul was a Roman citizen. But note :38 " they feared when they heard that they were Romans". So perhaps news of the strange security of the prisoners and conversion of the jailor had already reached them and they didn’t wish to as it were get in trouble with God.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the jailor reported the words to Paul, saying: The magistrates have sent word to let you go. Therefore come out and go in peace</em>- After baptizing the jailor and eating at his home, Paul and Silas had returned to jail. The temptation to flee must have been very great, and in the aftermath of the earthquake they could well have got away. The fact they returned to the jail indicates Paul had another agenda here, and he doggedly stuck to it. His subsequent usage of the situation would confirm this- he allowed himself to suffer so much in order that the ecclesia there could get off to a good start in terms of being shielded from legal persecution. Our efforts for the newly converted are made in this same spirit.</p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 22:25'>Act 22:25</a></em>.</p><p><em>But Paul said to them: They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned men that are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison, and now they want to throw us out secretly? No!</em>- Silas also was a Roman citizen, and so we must note too his willing submission to suffering he could otherwise have avoided. We note too the absence of Timothy and Luke, who were apparently also in the area at the time; perhaps Paul allowed them to slip away, fully intending to uses his citizenship to establish a situation in which the new converts would be left alone by the authorities. We may learn from that that needless suffering was avoided in such a case.</p><p>Being beaten uncondemned made them sharers in the Lord's crucifixion sufferings. One of multiple examples of how His people share the essence of His cross, and how He there shared the essence of all our experiences. </p><p><em>Let them come themselves and bring us out</em>- This may have been said with a fleck of pride and annoyance; and yet the evidence provided above indicates that this was exactly according to Paul's game plan. He wanted to be flogged so that he could then pull out the card of his Roman citizenship. He almost did the same in <em><a href='B:510 22:29'>Act 22:29</a></em>. And God confirmed him in that plan by bringing about the earthquake that very night, something which Paul in no way could have contrived. Likewise the conversion of the jailor was all a strengthening of that plan- to get the authorities relatively onside with the Christian movement. Or perhaps the jailor had earlier expressed interest in the Gospel and Paul was by all means seeking to witness to him, and again his plans were confirmed by the sending of the earthquake. In these things we learn how God operates with men to this day- we make plans in His service, and He confirms and enables them by sending situations [like the earthquake] which are well beyond any human contrivance.</p>


text:
<p><em>And the officers reported these words to the magistrates</em>- As the jailor reported words in :36. All this sending of verbal messages by the hand of messengers would mean that in accordance with Paul's intention, the word about the situation was spreading around.</p><p><em>And they feared when they heard that they were Romans</em></p><p>- see on 16:35 <em>Let those men go.</em></p>


text:
<p>16:39<em></em></p><p>And they came and pleaded with them, and when they had brought them out, they asked them to go away from the city- Paul doesn't obey immediately; he goes to Lydia's house. This could be read as his native argumentative, awkward temperament shining through; or additionally, as also part of his game plan to demonstrate that the house church at Lydia's home was to be openly connected with the Christian movement, and now to be left well alone by the authorities, in case they made a formal complaint about the treatment of the men whom they had lodged.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they went out of the prison</em>- Luke, or the inspired companion, was not in the prison with them and may have bravely remained in Philippi to provide support to the fledgling ecclesia.</p><p><em>And entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the believers- </em>The New Testament speaks of households run by women: Mary (<em><a href='B:510 12:12'>Act 12:12</a></em>), Lydia (<em><a href='B:510 16:14'>Act 16:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 16:40'>Act 16:40</a></em>); Nympha (<em><a href='B:580 4:15'>Col 4:15</a></em>) and Chloe (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>). These women were presumably wealthy widows or divorcees who hadn't remarried. We are left to speculate whether they were in some way the 'leaders' of the house churches which met in their homes. Women are described as ruling households in <em><a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:4-5'>Tit 2:4-5</a></em>. The woman of Proverbs 31 clearly had autonomy within the private sphere of the household, even though the husband was the public leader. Seeing Christianity was initially a house-church, household religion, we are left to wonder how much women actually led house churches, especially seeing that the majority of early Christian members appear to have been women. The wall paintings [frescoes] found in the Christian catacombs around Rome are highly significant for our present study. The significant ones for our purposes are the catacombs of Priscilla on the Salaria Nuova, Callixtus on the via Appia Antica, and that of Domitilla on the via Ardeatine. They feature in places scenes of female Christians raising cups, with the inscription&nbsp;agape&nbsp;over them. Some show a woman occupying the central place in the meal, with a large cup in her hand, with the other women looking at it intently. Some of the frescoes [there are many of them] show women dressed as slaves doing this in what appears to be a wealthy home. These frescoes seem to me indicative of how groups of slave women formed house churches, and faithfully kept the breaking of bread. Some frescoes show the women sharing the bread and wine with children around the table; one shows a woman holding a scroll, as if she is reading Scripture to the others. One fresco features a woman holding a cup of wine inscribed <em>nobis</em>- 'for us':&nbsp;Some frescoes show men in the group, but the woman in the centre, as if she is leading the meeting, or as the host of the household.</p><p><em>They comforted them and departed- </em>We naturally think that it was Paul and Silas who were in need of comfort, with their lacerated backs and aching muscles after hours in the "stocks". But here we see Paul's spiritual greatness; <em>he</em> comforted <em>them</em>, probably not least over the material losses they had suffered as a result of the earthquake.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica</em>- Having been seriously abused in Philippi, Paul continued. He recognizes this when later writing to the Thessalonians, commenting that despite the shame suffered there, he continued boldly preaching, and thus arose the ecclesia at Thessalonica (<em><a href='B:590 2:2'>1Th 2:2</a></em>). Keeping on keeping on is a hallmark of not only the true preacher but of all spiritual endeavour.</p><p>Apollonia was in Illyricum, and Paul later comments that he preached there (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>), so we can assume he didn’t merely pass through but witnessed to the Gospel there too. </p><p><em>Where there was a synagogue of the Jews</em>- Gk. <em>the</em> synagogue. It has been claimed that there was no other synagogue in Macedonia, although there may have been smaller Jewish prayer houses or meeting places (as in <em><a href='B:510 16:13'>Act 16:13</a></em>). It has also been conjectured that there were no Jewish communities in Amphipolis and Apollonia. The impression is therefore given of Paul focusing upon preaching to the Jews, making a specific focus upon the largest concentration of Jews in Macedonia. Amphipolis was the capital of Macedonia, and Paul had been beckoned to preach in Macedonia; the city was the most strategic in Greece and would've been the logical place to concentrate upon in order to fulfil a mission to Gentile Macedonia. But he is presented as passing through this capital city, where the largest concentration of population was, and homing in on Thessalonica. See on <em><a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a></em> <em>As his custom was.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul, as his custom was</em>- Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles, and yet he repeatedly focused upon the Jews. Many of his sufferings were as a result of this; if he had served as the Lord intended, many of these issues would likely have been avoided. But the Lord still worked with Paul; and that is a lesson for us. I have noted elsewhere that the travel details provided by Luke are not incidental; the wind / spirit was so often against Paul as he travelled to Jerusalem, and so often with him when he travelled towards the Gentiles. </p><p><em>Went in to them</em>- Paul uses the same word in telling the Thessalonians that the testimony of other converts showed "what manner of entering in we had unto you" (<em><a href='B:590 1:9'>1Th 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:1'>1Th 2:1</a></em> AV). Clearly the 'going in' to the Thessalonian synagogue has more than some literal descriptive reference to Paul passing in through the doors of the building. The word is used several times in Acts of Paul's 'entering in' to various homes, towns and synagogues. The Lord Himself 'entered in' to synagogues and taught (emphasized by Luke in his first volume, e.g. <em><a href='B:490 6:6'>Luk 6:6</a></em>). Thus Paul was manifesting the person of the Lord Jesus in his preaching, just as we likewise are Him to this world; for the Lord Jesus 'enters in' to His people (<em><a href='B:500 10:1-2'>Joh 10:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em> s:w:). Our entering in to people and communities with the Gospel is a reflection of God’s outgoing entering in to our lives in Christ. This is why there must be a sense of proactive, outgoing entering in to others in our witness, rather than a passive 'witness by example' alone. </p><p><em>For three Sabbath days and reasoned with them from the Scriptures- </em>The simplicity of what Paul preached can be seen from reflecting how he was only three weekends in Thessalonica (<em><a href='B:510 17:1-9'>Act 17:1-9</a></em>), but in that time he converted and baptized pagans and turned them into an ecclesia. Given the long hours worked by people, his number of contact hours with the people would've been quite small. He then had to write to them in 1 Thessalonians, addressing basic questions which they had subsequently asked, such as 'What will happen to dead believers when Christ returns?', 'When will Christ return?'. The level of their instruction before baptism must have been <em>very</em> basic. It is rare today to see such focus upon the urgency of baptism. Yet I submit that if we have the spirit of the early church, we will be pushing baptism up front to all we meet. And this was one of the first century keys to success.</p><p>So Paul stayed a few weeks or months in cities like Lystra and Thessalonica, returning, in the case of Lystra, after 18 months, and then again a few years later. Here in <em><a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a></em>, he spent three consecutive Sabbaths in Thessalonica, baptized the converts, and then didn’t come back to see them for about five and a half years (<em><a href='B:510 20:1-2'>Act 20:1-2</a></em>). How were they kept strong? By the good shepherd, by the grace of God, by the Father and Son working with Paul. He seems to have drilled them with the basics of the Gospel and the life they needed to live, ordained immature elders who were literate and able to teach the word, and then left them what he repeatedly calls “the tradition”, a document or set of teachings relating to practical life in Christ (<em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:5'>2Th 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:6'>2Th 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:13'>2Ti 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:2'>2Ti 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:14'>2Ti 3:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:9'>Tit 1:9</a></em>). It was perhaps the simplicity and brevity of the message that was its strength in the lives of the early converts. Their lives were based directly upon reflection upon the implications of the basic elements of the Gospel. It is today amazing how simple men and women remember and reflect upon the things taught them even verbally, and show an impressive appreciation of them when they are visited again after some months or years. Interestingly, Corinth had the most evident problems and immaturity, even though Paul spent 18 months there, whereas ecclesias like Philippi which he established far quicker seem to have been far sounder. It therefore follows that length of pastoral work is not necessarily related to spiritual strength</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 13:24-25'>Act 13:24-25</a></em>.</p><p><em>Explaining and proving that it was necessary that the Christ suffer and rise from the dead</em>- The idea of a suffering, murdered Messiah is hard for Jews to accept to this day. Paul sought to persuade them from the Old Testament that this was indeed a requirement for the true Messiah. Once that is established, it becomes easier to connect Jesus of Nazareth with the Biblical picture of Messiah. Jesus thus becomes the Christ.</p><p><em>Saying, This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ</em>- Paul could describe his own preaching as “this Jesus, whom I proclaim to you…”, as if Jesus was right there before their eyes, witnessed through Paul. As the Lord was Paul’s representative, so Paul was Christ’s. The idea of representation works both ways: we see in the Gospel records how the Lord experienced some things which only we have; and we show aspects of His character to the world which nobody else can manifest. Likewise Paul could tell the Galatians that in him they had seen Jesus Christ placarded forth, crucified before their own eyes (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>). Paul knew that when people looked at his life, they saw something of the crucifixion of the Lord. The Galatians therefore accepted him "even as Christ Jesus" (<em><a href='B:550 4:14'>Gal 4:14</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas, as did many of the devout Greeks- </em>First of all there must be an intellectual understanding if there is to be conversion. Men were “persuaded”, not just emotionally bullied (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:4'>Act 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:26'>Act 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 28:23-24'>Act 28:23-24</a></em>). The intellectual basis of appeal is made clear in the way we read of accepting ‘truth’ as well as accepting the person of Jesus. Thus converts believe the truth (<em><a href='B:600 2:10-13'>2Th 2:10-13</a></em>), acknowledge truth (<em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 1:1'>Tit 1:1</a></em>), obey truth (<em><a href='B:520 2:8'>Rom 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:22'>1Pe 1:22</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:550 5:7'>Gal 5:7</a></em>), and ‘come to know the truth’ (<em><a href='B:500 8:32'>Joh 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 4:3'>1Ti 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:21'>1Jn 2:21</a></em>). Preaching itself is ‘the open statement of the truth’ (<em><a href='B:540 4:2'>2Co 4:2</a></em>). And so it is perfectly in order to seek to intellectually persuade our contacts.</p><p><em>And not a few of the chief women- </em>Paul had to later remind the Thessalonians that he isn't preaching because he wants to take money and have relationships with women (<em><a href='B:590 2:3-12'>1Th 2:3-12</a></em>). There were some wealthy women in Thessalonica who accepted the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em> Western Text), and no doubt gossip spread from this. </p>


text:
<p><em>But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, taking along some wicked men from the market place and having assembled a mob, set the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people</em>- Jealousy was the leading reason for the Jewish crucifixion of the Lord, and also of their persecution of Paul. The surrounding of a house by an inflamed mob and wanting to "bring them out to the people" recalls the situation of the Angels in Lot's house in Sodom. Isaiah described the Jerusalem cult as Sodom, as does <em><a href='B:730 11:8'>Rev 11:8</a></em>. The Jews were acting in a similar way. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brothers before the rulers of the city, crying: These that have turned the world upside down have come here also</em>- This is a tacit recognition of the extent and power of Paul's ministry; he and his team had "turned the world upside down". They had hardly done so the Roman world, but they had indeed done so to the Jewish world. And in that observation we have a basic insight into human psychology; we tend to assume that 'our' world is the entire world. Time and again, the Roman authorities responded to the Jewish accusations that they could see no wrong in Paul. But for these bitter minded opponents, their immediate world was the whole world. The "rulers of the city" are called the <em>politarchs</em>; exactly the correct word, in comparison to the word used for the governors of Philippi which was a colony, whereas Thessalonica was a "free city". </p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 16:21'>Act 16:21</a></em>.<br/><em>Jason has received them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus</em>- Paul in the face of every discouragement could preach that “there <em>is</em> another king, Jesus". This was the core of his message; not so much that there <em>will be</em> a coming King in Jerusalem, but that there <em>is</em> right now a King at God’s right hand, who demands our total allegiance. The Acts record associates the height of Jesus with a call to repentance too. This is the message of <em><a href='B:290 55:6-9'>Isa 55:6-9</a></em> - <em>because</em> God’s thoughts are so far higher than ours, <em>therefore</em> call upon the Lord whilst He is near, and let the wicked forsake his way. Because the Father and Son who are so high above us morally and physically are willing to deal with us, <em>therefore</em> we ought to seize upon their grace and repent. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they agitated the crowd and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things</em>- The rulers were agitated when they heard that this was a question of the destabilization of the Roman empire; Pilate was likewise agitated by the crowd in handing the Lord over to death. Time and again, Luke is emphasizing that the sufferings of the Lord are replicated in spirit in all who are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go</em>- Jason and the others had to pay a bond, guaranteeing their keeping of the peace. This is another indication that not all the early Christians were dirt poor. We recall how Felix often summoned Paull, hoping to get a bribe out of him (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>). Jason had presumably also bound himself in his bond to not accommodate Paul and to get him to leave the city- hence the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away (:10).</p>


text:
<p><em>And the brothers immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night to Berea; who when they arrived there, went into the synagogue of the Jews</em>- The immediate sending away may have been a condition of the bail paid in :9. There were several times when brethren sent Paul away from danger- as if he himself would have remained. The way situations repeat in our lives is all evidence that the Lord's hand is at work with us, and nothing is random event in our experiences. We note that Paul immediately enters the synagogue and preaches, when many would have been suffering post-traumatic stress and would have felt unable to face Jews in a synagogue let alone preach to them. But Paul's love was greater than that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so</em>- The "examining" probably speaks of daily visits to the synagogue where the Old Testament scrolls were kept, asking to examine them. Paul would have been preaching from the Old Testament, quoting from memory. And they would have wanted to check out his quotations and their context in the actual scrolls. It was "therefore" that they believed (:12), for faith comes by hearing the word of God. It was their attitude to God’s word which meant that they received the word with such <em>prothumia</em>, "predisposition", to believe. Paul's message of Jesus as Christ meshed perfectly with the scriptures which they so respected. But it is also the case that the message of Christ crucified is in fact the truth which uniquely fills the hole in every human heart- if people are humble enough to accept it. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, many of them believed, including Greek women of high standing and many Greek men</em>- Lydia in Philippi was a wealthy woman, trading in luxury garments (“purple”), and a female head of household. The attraction of the Gospel for wealthy women has been often commented upon in the historical literature. We are left to imagine wealthy sisters marrying poorer brethren, or remaining single, with all the scandal attached to it in the first century world, pining for children, comforted only by each other and the surpassing knowledge of Jesus their Lord:&nbsp;</p><p>It is worth noting that the NT does reflect the fact that a number of wealthy individuals came to the Truth too; and that these were bound together in fellowship with the poor. There were wealthy women amongst the earliest followers of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>); and James and John came from a family who owned their own fishing boat and could employ servants (<em><a href='B:480 1:19-20'>Mar 1:19-20</a></em>). Zacchaeus was wealthy- and note that he wasn't commanded to divest himself&nbsp;of all that wealth (<em><a href='B:490 19:1-10'>Luk 19:1-10</a></em>). Consider the Philippi ecclesia- the wealthy lady from Lydia, the homeless slave girl, the middle class, respectable jailer, and the slaves of his and Lydia’s household. There was nowhere else in the ancient world that all these classes could come together in such unity. Paul himself was not poor- “to be a citizen of Tarsus one had to pass the means test of owning property worth at least 500 drachmae”. He was thought wealthy enough to be able to give a bribe (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>). He assured Philemon that he personally would meet any debts arising from the situation with Onesimus. Consider the other wealthy converts: the Proconsul of Cyprus (<em><a href='B:510 13:12'>Act 13:12</a></em>), Lydia, Jason who was wealthy enough to put down security for Paul, assisted by prominent women (<em><a href='B:510 17:4'>Act 17:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:9'>Act 17:9</a></em>), Greek women of high standing at Berea (<em><a href='B:510 17:12'>Act 17:12</a></em>), Dionysius and Damaris in Athens (<em><a href='B:510 17:16-34'>Act 17:16-34</a></em>), Crispus the ruler of the Corinth synagogue (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>), Erastus the city treasurer (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). Marta Sordi quotes evidence for there being Christians amongst the Roman aristocracy even during the first half of the first century. These few wealthy converts would have bonded together with the mass of poor and slaves who had also come to Christ. It was a unique unity.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there, likewise stirring up and inciting the crowds</em>- This is another indication of the organized Jewish opposition to Paul's mission. Paul's proclamation was of the Messiah according to the Old Testament scriptures- for the Bereans compared his message against the Old Testament scrolls (see on :11). If he had been teaching some Eastern philosophy, they wouldn't have bothered. But it was his supposed subversion of their sacred documents which was so infuriating to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there</em>- This is exactly what happened in :10. This desire to send Paul away was not for his personal safety as much as for their own safety. And so there was only a very short period of contact time with Paul; and again, belief and the baptism which goes with New Testament belief all occurred after a very brief encounter with the message. Paul it seems would have stayed longer, so eager was he to proclaim the Gospel further and strengthen the converts. If he had done so, their faith may have become stronger; for we read nothing further of any ecclesia in Berea. Silas and Timothy therefore risked their lives by remaining, so important did they perceive the work of strengthening converts to be. And we also should give and risk all for the sake of strengthening such babes in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em>But they that escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving instructions for Silas and Timothy (that they should came to him with all speed), they departed</em>- The escort was not only for Paul's safety, but perhaps to ensure that he really did leave Berea. "Escorted" is literally 'to bring to the spot'. We sense here the fear of the new converts. It seems that Paul only gave instruction for Silas and Timothy to join him after he had arrived in Athens. We could read this :15 as a summary of events, and then :16 explains why this situation came about. Paul was immediately struck by the idolatry, made a witness, which had some response- and he needed help. He was a man alone in Athens. And so he asked for Silas and Timothy to immediately come to him:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>- see on <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw the city full of idols</em>- God can work directly within the mind of men, psychologically provoking them. He stirred up the spirit of Cyrus and the Jewish leadership to enable the restoration, and there are many other Old Testament examples (<em><a href='B:130 5:26'>1Ch 5:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 21:16'>2Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 51:11'>Jer 51:11</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:440 1:14'>Hag 1:14</a></em>). Some of these involve the&nbsp;provoking of the spirit of total unbelievers. How much more will God provoke the spirit of those who are open to His leading. Paul's own spirit was provoked by all the idol worship, for he had a heart that bled for human salvation. And God’s Spirit works with our spirit, time and again.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he reasoned in the synagogue with Jews and the religious persons, and in the marketplace every day with those that met him</em>- Paul says himself that he was not an eloquent speaker; and the Corinthians were acutely aware of this. And yet it was through his public speaking that many were converted in places like Athens. The lesson is clear- God uses us in our weaker points in order to witness powerfully for Him. Uneducated Peter was used as the vehicle with which to reach the intelligentsia of Jerusalem- and you and I likewise in and through our very points of weakness are likewise used to reach people.</p>


text:
<p><em>And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also encountered him. And some said: What will this babbler say? Others: He seems to be a preacher of strange gods! Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection</em>- “A preacher” is Gk. 'a setter forth'. It is clear that we are to seek to relate to our audience in a way they can relate to. Using their terms, shewing our common binds with them. Paul did this when he was faced with the rather mocking comment that he was a “setter forth” of a strange God. He replied that he ‘set forth’ to them the One whom they ignorantly worshipped (<em><a href='B:510 17:18'>Act 17:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:23'>Act 17:23</a></em> RV). He seized upon something they all knew- the altar to the unknown God- and made his point to them from that. And he picked up the noun they used for him and turned it back to them as a verb.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they took hold of him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by you?</em>- There were many passing preachers who turned up in Athens and tried to get a hearing. But the audience physically dragged Paul off to the Areopagus to ensure he had the widest audience for his message. There was therefore something in his message, probably reflected in him as a person too, which was unique and powerfully compelling. Our message too must be fearlessly presented as the unique thing it is, rather than ever seeking to soften the edges so that it appears more acceptable to secular hearers. It is the baldness of the message which attracts, rather than any sophisticated packaging. </p>


text:
<p><em>For you bring certain strange things to our ears. Therefore, we would like to know what these things mean</em>- As noted on :19, there was about every possible philosophy and religion being pedalled in Athens. But there was something startlingly new and "strange" in Paul's message about the crucified, resurrected Jesus who now demands our total commitment, far beyond the realms of religious curiosity or hobby level theology. There is no hint that Paul used miracles to grab attention here; it was the power and nature of the Gospel message which struck such a deep chord with the hearts of the hearers.</p>


text:
<p><em>(Now all the Athenians and the strangers living there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing)</em>- As noted on :19 and :20, there was something radically gripping in the message of this Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and resurrected. The hearers were used to a diet of new things, they were not conservatives, they were wide open minded. Therefore the fact they were so gripped by this new message is all the more a testament to its power.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said: You men of Athens, I perceive you are very religious in all things</em>- Although as mentioned on :19-21, Paul's message was a stark presentation of the Gospel in Christ, he still tried to bridge build with his audience. He appealed to their sense of being religious. He commends them for what they themselves were proud of- their religious interest. But his message then sought to take them on from that common starting point, in explaining that the dead and now living Lord Jesus required a following far beyond such religious curiosity. </p>


text:
<p><em>For as I walked along, I observed the objects of your worship; and I found an altar with this inscription: To the unknown god. Whom you worship in ignorance, Him I proclaim to you</em>- Paul’s positivism is a wonderful thing to study. When he met people believing in “the unknown [Gk. <em>agnosto</em>] God”, he didn’t mock their agnosticism. He rejoiced that they were as it were half way there, and sought to take them further. His position regarding the Sabbath and observance of the Law is a prime example of his patient seeking to bring men onward. </p>


text:
<p><em>The God that made the world and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands</em>- Solomon's frequent emphasis on the fact that&nbsp;<em>he&nbsp;</em>built the house makes a telling connection with the principle that God does not live in houses&nbsp;<em>built</em>&nbsp;by men. </p>


text:
<p><em>Neither is He served by men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He gives to all life and breath and all things</em>- That God needs nothing is something very hard for the standard religious mindset to grasp. The whole psychology of works, of legalism rather than acceptance of grace, is rooted in this assumption that God is in need. Instead, He is a giver, a gifter, the very core idea of <em>charis, </em>"grace"; and He dearly wishes us to receive that gift. The reasoning used here was absolutely relevant to the Judaist mentality too. Note that God gives life and breath to all things- every breath taken by every organism is consciously out given by Him, rather than the assumption that somehow God wound the world up on clockwork and leaves it running without any conscious input from Him. </p>


text:
<p><em>And He has made from one, every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times set for them and the bounds of their habitation</em>- "One blood", according to some manuscripts. This surely invites us to accept Adam as the first man, and Eve was the mother of all living human beings. </p>


text:
<p><em>That they should seek God; so that they might feel after Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us</em>- How does geographical distribution etc. lead to men seeking the Lord? We must draw near to Him (<em><a href='B:230 73:28'>Psa 73:28</a></em>); and yet He is already near, not far from every one of us (<em><a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a></em>). David often speaks of drawing near to God, and yet he invites God to draw near to him (<em><a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a></em>). Yet David also recognizes that God “is” near already (<em><a href='B:230 75:1'>Psa 75:1</a></em>). I take all this to mean that like us, David recognized that God “is” near, and yet wished God to make His presence real to him. Truly can we pray David’s prayers. So often, prayer is described as coming near to God (<em><a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a></em> etc:)- and yet God “is” near already. Prayer, therefore, is a way of making us realize the presence of the God who is always present. </p>


text:
<p><em>For in Him we live and move and have our being- as some even of your own poets have said: For we are also his offspring- </em>Many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament- many of those in the early chapters of Matthew, for example- are picking up words and phrases from one context and applying them to another, often slightly changing them in order to fit the new context. Paul himself did this when he quoted the words of the poet Aratus “We are all the offspring of Zeus” about our all being the offspring of the one true God. &nbsp;</p><p>Paul quoted from Greek poets, famous for the amount of unbiblical nonsense they churned out, in order to confound those who believed what the poets taught (<em><a href='B:630 1:12'>Tit 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>). What we are suggesting is epitomized by Paul’s response to finding an altar dedicated to the worship of “The Unknown God”, i:e. any pagan deity which might exist, but which the people of Athens had overlooked. Instead of rebuking them for their folly in believing in this, Paul took them from where they were to understand the one true God, who they did not know (<em><a href='B:510 17:22-23'>Act 17:22-23</a></em>).</p><p>Paul sought by all means to close the gap which there inevitably is between the preacher and his audience. Thus in Athens and Lystra he mixes quotes from the Greek poets with clear allusions to God’s word. His speeches in those places quote from Epimenides and Aratus, allude to the Epicurean belief that God needs nothing from men, refer to the Stoic belief that God is the source of all life… and also allude to a whole catena of OT passages: <em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:22'>Gen 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 9:7'>Ecc 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 5:24'>Jer 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 23:23'>Jer 23:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 50:12'>Psa 50:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 145:18'>Psa 145:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:8'>Psa 147:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:8'>Deu 32:8</a></em>. This was all very skilfully done; surely Paul had sat down and planned what he was going to say. He tries to have as much common ground as possible with his audience whilst at the same time undermining their position. He wasn’t baldly telling them their errors and insisting on his own possession of truth; even though this was the case. He didn’t remove the essential scandal of the Gospel; instead Paul selected terms with which to present it which enabled his hearers to realize and face the challenges which the scandal of the Gospel presented. And Paul’s sensitive approach to the Jews is just the same. <em>If we are out to convert men and women, we will be ever making our message relevant. If we tell the world, both explicitly and implicitly, that we don’t want to convert them, then we won’t. If we want to convert them, if we earnestly seek to persuade them and vary our language and presentation accordingly, then we will.</em>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Being then the offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine is like gold, or silver, or stone, something crafted by art and the imagination of man</em>- If we truly realize that we are made in God’s image, then we will not worship any idol. Thinking this through, there is the implication not that humanity alone is made in God’s image; <em>nothing</em> else is His image. Yet idolatry, in all its forms and guises throughout history, is based around the supposition that those idols are in fact an image of God and as such demand worship. God has revealed Himself through <em>people</em>, not through things which they have created. </p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore, the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands men that they should all everywhere repent</em>- Paul seems to have seen in Christ's prophecy that the Gospel would be fully known world-wide in the last as being a specific, personal command to him (<em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>):&nbsp;He saw prophecy as command more than solely prediction; and this is why prophecy has a degree of variation in how and when it is fulfilled. The words of <em><a href='B:480 16:15-16'>Mar 16:15-16</a></em> are clear: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Commands to repent, all men, the Lord’s resurrection... these ideas all recur in <em><a href='B:510 17:30'>Act 17:30</a></em>, proving they are not solely relevant to those who first heard them; God now commands all men to repent, through our words. These words clearly don't apply to the first century only, for they are intended to be linked with <em><a href='B:470 24:14'>Mat 24:14</a></em>, which uses the same language about the preaching work of the very last days (even though the context may imply that as a community we will only be obedient to this command once egged on by major persecution). What all this means is that the great commission will be fulfilled in the last days. The connection with the great commission means that the Lord sent out the disciples in order to fulfil this aspect of the Olivet prophecy; but their failure to do the job fully meant that the prophecy had to be delayed and rescheduled in fulfilment. On account of the Lord’s resurrection, God has commanded all men everywhere to repent (<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em>)- again, a reference to the great commission. But God’s command of men to repent is only through our preaching of that message. Matthew and Mark record how the apostles were <em>sent </em>to preach the Gospel and baptize, for the <em>forgiveness</em> of sins (cp. <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>). Luke records the Lord stating that the apostles knew that <em>forgiveness of sins</em> was to be preached from Jerusalem, and therefore they should be witnesses to this.</p>


text:
<p><em>Inasmuch as He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained; of which He has given assurance</em> <em>to all men, in that He has raised him from the dead</em>- Preaching is motivated by His resurrection (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>). Baptism saves us “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:670 3:21'>1Pe 3:21</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a></em>). We who were dead in sins were “quickened together with Christ" (<em><a href='B:560 2:5'>Eph 2:5</a></em>). If we believe in Christ’s resurrection, we will therefore repent, confess our sins and know His forgiveness. Thus believing in His raising and making confession of sin are bracketed together in <em><a href='B:520 10:9-10'>Rom 10:9-10</a></em>, as both being essential in gaining salvation. Because He rose, <em>therefore </em>we stop committing sin (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em>). We can’t wilfully sin if we believe in the forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because judgment day is coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered / inspired faith in His forgiveness <em>by the resurrection of Christ </em>(<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em> AV mg:). The empty tomb and all the Lord’s glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as well as of itself being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing for them to repent and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them by the resurrection. Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own. We are therefore born again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identification with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:670 1:3'>1Pe 1:3</a></em>).</p><p>The very fact that judgment day will surely come is therefore in itself a <em>command</em> to all men to repent (<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em>)- and therefore it is a command to preach repentance. The resurrection of Jesus was to give assurance “to all men”. But how? They hadn’t seen Him. There was no Euclidean reason for them to believe in His resurrection. How is it an assurance to all men? Surely in that we are the risen Lord’s representatives “to all men”, and through us they see the evidence of Christ risen, and thereby have assurance of God’s plan for them. In the same way, the wicked and adulterous generation to whom the Lord witnessed were given the sign of the prophet Jonah- that after three days, the Lord would re-appear. But that sign was only given to them through the preaching of the apostles- that generation didn’t see the risen Lord Himself (<em><a href='B:470 16:4'>Mat 16:4</a></em>). But the witness of the disciples was as good as- for in their witness, they represented the Lord.</p><br/><p><em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em> reasons that the very existence of the future judgment seat and the Lord ordained as judge of living and dead is a command to repent. At the Lord's resurrection, a day was appointed for human judgment, and therefore a knowledge of the Lord's resurrection means we are accountable to that day, and must therefore repent and prepare. It is by this logic that Paul argues that the Lord's resurrection is a guarantee that judgment day will come. "For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be Lord... [which involves that] we shall all [therefore] stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written... Every knee shall bow to me [as Lord and judge]..." (<em><a href='B:520 14:9-10'>Rom 14:9-10</a></em>).</p><p>We will be judged by or in the man Christ Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em> R:V. Mg:). This means that the very fact Jesus didn’t pre-exist and was human makes Him our constant and insistent judge of all our human behaviour. And exactly because of this, Paul argues, we should right now repent. He is judge exactly because He is the Son of man.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said: We will hear you concerning this yet again</em>- It was particularly the message of future resurrection and judgment which put an end to their religious fascination with Paul's message. The Lord's resurrection can be ours; He wishes to live in and through us, through His Spirit. And no man can have stood before the cross of the Lord and then walk away with a shrug, assuming he shall not have to stand judgment with eternal consequence for his response to the Man who hung there for him. When the audience started to get a whiff of the reality of these things, they pulled out of the dialogue, and didn’t want to hear any more. Rather like Israel begging not to hear any more of God’s words, as they were too demanding for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus Paul went out from among them</em>- Paul's initial message had been so provocative that men had literally dragged him to the Areopagus in order to explain himself at more length and to a greater audience (:19). The comment that he "went out from among them" may mean that he was as it were released, once they were challenged with the personal implications of believing in and committing to a resurrected Jesus, whose Spirit living in His people demanded all of their living and thinking.</p>


text:
<p><em>But some people joined him and believed, among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them</em>- Men heard Paul’s preaching and joined or ‘clave’ unto <em>him</em>, as they did to other preachers (<em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:13'>Act 5:13</a></em>); but conversion is a cleaving unto <em>the Lord Jesus </em>(<em><a href='B:510 11:23'>Act 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em> Gk:). Thus Paul “spoke boldly in the Lord [Jesus], which gave testimony unto the word of his grace” (<em><a href='B:510 14:3'>Act 14:3</a></em>). To this extent does the preacher manifest his Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>After these things he departed from Athens</em> <em>and went to Corinth-</em> He had become involved in Athens with intellectual and philosophical arguments, and now Paul turns away from that and goes to pagan, working class Corinth- the very opposite ground for the Gospel. Several times he asks the Corinthians to recall the way he first arrived in Corinth and determined to only preach Christ, the raw, crucified Christ, without philosophy and intellectual argumentation. He was led to that attitude by his experiences of long philosophical debates in Athens which produced relatively few converts. </p><p>The "these things" may refer to some unrecorded trauma Paul suffered. Because <em><a href='B:530 2:1-3'>1Co 2:1-3</a></em> is clear: "I brothers, when I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling". The "trembling" may refer to the shakes of malaria. But it more likely refers to his trembling with fear. His "weakness" uses a word which refers usually to physical illness; he uses it of how his co-workers were "weak" or sick, and he had to work to support not only himself but them too (<em><a href='B:510 20:34-35'>Act 20:34-35</a></em>). He did that perhaps recalling how he too had been weak when he came to Corinth. Perhaps he left Athens because of illness and the climate at Corinth was more conducive. See on :9 <em>Fear not.</em></p>


text:
<p><em>And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla</em>- “A Jewish guild always keeps together, whether in street or synagogue. In Alexandria the different trades sat in the synagogue arranged into guilds; and St. Paul could have no difficulty in meeting, in the bazaar of his trade, with the like-minded Aquila and Priscilla” (Edersheim, <em>Jewish Social Life</em>).</p><p><em>Because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome; and he went to them</em>- The 'Babylon' of Revelation in its first century reference had relevance to Rome and also to Judaism, as I have argued elsewhere. If we accept an early date for Revelation, then the command to come out from Babylon would have meant leaving Rome (<em><a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>); and the emperor's decree would have encouraged obedience to this. The situation was analogous to the historical command for Jews to leave Babylon; the decree of Cyrus encouraged their obedience. God can manipulate geopolitics to help His people to conform to His wishes for them.</p>


text:
<p><em>And because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they worked together</em>- The rabbis all had a trade. Hillel was a wood-cutter, and Shammai was a carpenter. That Paul had such a trade shows how he was indeed a rabbi before conversion. Paul reminded the Corinthians that as he had been amongst them, so he was at the time he wrote 1Corinthians: "Even to this present hour we [as before when present with you in Corinth] both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no certain dwelling-place; we toil, working with our own hands" (<em><a href='B:530 4:11-12'>1Co 4:11-12</a></em>). Accommodation for manual workers who are refugees has never been very stable; he continued then as when he was in Corinth to have no stable living place.</p><p><em>For by trade they were tentmakers-</em> Reputed as a low paying and not respected trade. The way Paul used it to pay for his own expenses plus those of his companions (20:34) means he would have worked very long hours. The trade was despised amongst Jews because the tents were often made of goats hair, involving work with unclean animals. This would have prepared Paul for understanding that the Jewish laws of unclean animals were condemning him as unclean. Peter was prepared the same way, when he stayed for a while with Simon the tanner, who also worked with blood and unclean animal skins. Further, when a tent pole was lifted up and the canvass spread upon it, it was spoken of as a 'crucifixion'. So the Lord's hand was preparing Paul for his Christian conversion and work amongst the Gentiles; this would have been one of the prods of the goads in his conscience before accepting Christ in Damascus. And the same would have been true for Aquila and Priscilla. All this is a great encouragement for those in low paying and despised employment- the Lord works even through that in preparing us for His service.</p><p>Paul at times seems to have had money, enough for Felix to try to get him to pay a bribe, and to rent a house in Rome large enough to receive a large number of Jews. But at other times it seems he was living on the limits, needing to work to pay his way, and here he was driven to flat sharing with manual workers who were refugees / asylum seekers.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Gentiles- </em>According to the Western text of <em><a href='B:510 18:4'>Act 18:4</a></em>, Paul "inserted the name of the Lord Jesus" at the appropriate points in his public reading of the Old Testament prophecies. This was after the pattern of some of the Jewish targums (commentaries) on the prophets, which inserted the word "Messiah" at appropriate points in Isaiah's prophecies of the suffering servant (e.g. the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets). </p><p><em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em> implies that when Paul first came to Corinth, he concentrated on his tent making business, and confined his preaching to arguing with the Jews at synagogue on the Sabbath. But when Silas and Timothy came, their presence made him "pressed in the spirit" to launch an all-out campaign. No longer was he the self-motivated maverick. He needed the presence of others to stir up his mind and prod him onwards. He admitted to those he converted in Corinth as a result of this campaign that such preaching was against his will, he had had to consciously make himself do it (<em><a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a></em>). Indeed, the Lord Jesus Himself had had to appear to Paul in a vision and encourage him not to suppress his preaching on account of his fear of persecution (<em><a href='B:510 18:9'>Act 18:9</a></em>). Therefore he later told the Corinthians that he feared condemnation if he gave in to his temptation not to preach (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:510 27:21'>Act 27:21</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ</em>- Other manuscripts read "pressed in the spirit". The ambiguity may be because it was Paul's meditation on the word which pressed his spirit to realize that Bible study cannot just continue as a passive activity; it leads to the conviction that we must witness that word to others. And the arrival of his fellow workers emboldened him in this conviction.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they opposed-</em> The same word used by Stephen, Paul's great exemplar and hero whom he so often alludes to, when he said that the Jews, including Paul at the time, were resisting the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:510 7:51'>Act 7:51</a></em>) insofar as they were resisting the otherwise irresistible spirit of Stephen (<em><a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a></em>). Again, Paul was being made to enter into the feelings and situations of those he had earlier persecuted; not as punishment, but more in order to help his own spiritual growth, and to prepare him for eternal fellowship with them in the Kingdom. For now <em>he</em> knew what it felt like to have your audience resisting the Spirit through which one speaks.</p><p><em>And reviled him</em>- This is the word otherwise translated 'to blaspheme'. Paul had made the Christians blaspheme the name of the Lord Jesus under torture; and now he was being taught what it feels like to be blasphemed / reviled, for it happened to him.</p><p><em>He shook out his garments</em>- This is the language of Ezekiel doing the same to the apostate Jews of his day (<em><a href='B:330 5:3'>Eze 5:3</a></em>), and sets up the allusion to Ezekiel as a watchman in the next phrase. But it is also precisely the language of Nehemiah in <em><a href='B:160 5:13'>Neh 5:13</a></em>: "I shook out my lap and said, So may God shake out every man from His house and from His work". This action here symbolized God’s breaking of covenant with Judah; to have them under the wings / skirts of His garments spoke of acceptance into covenant relationship, and to shake them out of His garments spoke of the ending of that relationship. But we ask whether Paul had the right to declare the breach of God’s covenant relationship with Israel, or at least, with those Jews in Corinth. I veer towards the thought that Paul took too much upon himself in making this allusion; it seems very much a hot blooded response, and he did not take seriously his vow at this time to turn away from the Jews in favour of his Gentile mission. </p><p><em>And said to them: Your blood is on your own heads! I am innocent</em>- Blood being on their own heads rather than Paul's is straight out of <em><a href='B:330 33:4'>Eze 33:4</a></em>, and his shaking of his garments was an allusion to what Ezekiel did in <em><a href='B:330 5:3'>Eze 5:3</a></em>. The idea of being a watchman seems to have fired his preaching zeal, <em><a href='B:330 3:18'>Eze 3:18</a></em>; Ezekiel 1 <em><a href='B:330 8:13'>Eze 8:13</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 20:26'>Act 20:26</a></em>. And yet this outburst seems to also be a flash of unspirituality. For later, Paul realizes that he may be condemned if he doesn't preach the Gospel; he realized that he perhaps <em>wasn't</em> free of his duty of preaching. Yet for all his "from henceforth I go unto the Gentiles" , Paul <em>still</em> preached to the Jews (<em><a href='B:510 18:8'>Act 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em>); which would suggest these words were said in temper and perhaps unwisdom. He himself seems to recognize this when he wrote to Timothy at the very end of his life of how we must with meekness instruct those who oppose themselves (<em><a href='B:620 2:25'>2Ti 2:25</a></em>), whereas his own response to those who “opposed themselves” (<em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>) had been to say, without meekness, that he was never going to ‘instruct’ Jews ever again.</p><p><em>From now on I will go to the Gentiles</em>- But this was precisely what Paul had been commanded at the time of his conversion (<em><a href='B:510 22:21'>Act 22:21</a></em> "I will send you... unto the Gentiles"; see too <em><a href='B:510 26:17'>Act 26:17</a></em>). Yet Paul doggedly insisted on going to the Jews, and I will argue in commentary throughout Acts 20 that Paul's refusal to fully accept his commission, and his dissatisfaction at leaving the Jewish ministry to Peter, resulted in much hardship for him. The Lord still worked through Paul's insistence on a different path to that the Lord intended, he remained within the Lord's game plan, but on as it were a plan B. Paul had earlier had another such moment, when he declared that now he turned to the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:510 13:46-47'>Act 13:46-47</a></em>). And yet these were just temporary realizations of his intended mission and his mistake in focusing on the Jews; like us so often, in the moment of failure and having our plans exasperated, we realize our true calling; and yet like Paul, we slip back into our own preferred path rather than that ideally chosen for us by our Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he departed from there, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus, one that worshiped God, whose house was attached to the synagogue-</em> Paul's desire was clearly to still preach to the Jews, despite his outburst, and his temporary realization that indeed he had been sent not to Jews but to Gentiles. And yet the Lord worked through Paul's misplaced zeal; and He has much experience of doing that with His people to this day. Because straight after Paul's turning away from the Jews, he goes to stay in the house of Justus, presumably because he had fallen out with his previous place of accommodation because of his outburst; and previously he had been staying with Jewish Christians Aquilla and Priscilla. Maybe we can infer that they didn’t agree with his outburst, and so he upped and left (although :18 notes they later were together again). But the lodging he found was with a man called Justus, who just happened to live in the house next door to the synagogue. And this meant him talking to the guy next door- who happened to be the ruler of the synagogue. And he was persuaded of Christ, which tied Paul in again to the work of ministering to the Jews. But this happened right after Paul's indignant declaration that he was quitting working with the Jews. He surely knew Crispus, the synagogue ruler, because Paul had been arguing in the synagogue every Sabbath for some time (:4). But the ruler of the synagogue turned the corner and came to faith in Jesus as Christ- right after Paul's outburst against working with the Jews. This was obviously intentional within the workings of the Spirit [or providence, as some prefer to say]. I have explained in commentary on chapter 20 that Paul was wrong to focus on the Jews, when he was intended to work with the Gentiles. But because he subconsciously wanted to continue this focus, despite his emotional outburst here to the contrary, therefore the Lord confirmed him in the ministry he himself chose, although that was very much the Lord's plan B for Paul. Each day, therefore, it's really a case of 'Where do you want to go today in My service?'; and we will be confirmed in the path chosen. The important thing is that quite simply we love God and want His glory and desire to serve Him with all we have all we are, with no self-seeking or jealousy issues. We will then come to the right paths of service and be propelled along them; but if in our weakness we choose less than ideal paths of service, we will all the same be confirmed in them. For man is not alone, neither are we ever rejected from the Lord's game plan with us for so long as we are alive in this world.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Crispus</em></p><p>- see on :7 <em>He departed from there</em>...</p><p><em>The ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his family</em>- It was common for the household to follow the religion of the head of the family. But the call of Christ was to individuals, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 speaks to situations where a marriage was divided between believer and unbeliever. So the records of whole household baptisms, all at the same time, every member of the household, with not even one remaining in the previous religion, are hard to square with the idea of individual calling and each responding at their own time. Especially when there was a culture of a household following the religion of the family head. My conclusion would be that there was no compulsion or conscious pressure placed on the household members to be baptized into Christ; but they all chose to be. That said, their motives would inevitably have been mixed, and they would have been under psychological pressure to follow the rest of the group. Despite this, there is no evidence that the early preachers sought to investigate the detailed knowledge or motivation of baptismal candidates; they simply baptized anyone who desired it in such missionary contexts. It is true that there is reason to think that one of the Gospel records was learnt by some of the candidates, but this would not have been universally the case.</p><p><em>And many of the Corinthians</em>,<em> hearing, believed and were baptized</em>- An exemplification of how faith came by hearing the word of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). It seems strongly likely that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, so he would have had this example in mind when he wrote those words in Romans 10. But "the word of God" refers therefore not to the entire Bible but to the message of God in the Gospel of His Son.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em>.</p><p><em>And during the night in a vision, the Lord said to Paul: Do not be afraid</em>- Quoting the very words of the Lord Jesus to the disciples: "Fear not... you shall catch men" (<em><a href='B:490 5:10'>Luk 5:10</a></em>). What the disciples feared was their inadequacy as preachers; and the same context is here with Paul. We see here a humility in Paul which his argumentative and emotional temperament may otherwise hide. His fear was also of physical harm, for the corresponding comfort was that nobody was going to hurt him (:10). Paul's fear of physical harm is again comforted by the Lord during the shipwreck (<em><a href='B:510 27:24'>Act 27:24</a></em>). This fearful side of Paul makes the more impressive his continuation to Jerusalem, knowing that prison, beating and maybe death awaited him; it means his willing enduring beating at Philippi when he could have avoided it was the more gracious. He was not some macho fanatic who was genuinely fearless of death. In fact, it seems, quite the opposite. Paul spoke of his arrival in Corinth at this time as being "In weakness and in fear and in much trembling" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>). The trembling may have been connected to the "fear". </p><p>Paul says that he preached to Corinth in the first place in (spiritual) "weakness" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>)-&nbsp; because it seems that when he first got to Corinth, he wasn't spiritually strong enough to grasp the nettle of witnessing to the city as he should have done (<em><a href='B:510 18:9-10'>Act 18:9-10</a></em>). Having admitted to Corinth that he himself was weak, he can say that whenever one of them is weak, he feels weak too; in other words he's saying that he can totally empathize (not just sympathize) with a weak brother's feelings (<em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p><em>But speak out and do not keep silent</em>- Gk. 'be dumb'. We have noted so many conscious connections between the gospel of Luke, and this 'Volume 2' in Acts. Here, the connection is clearly with Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, whom Luke records as being told not to be afraid; and is then told that he will be dumb [s:w. "keep silent"] and not be able to "speak" [s:w. "speak out"] (<em><a href='B:490 1:20'>Luk 1:20</a></em>). Paul's mind was soaked with the Gospel records; he alludes to them at least once in every three verses of his letters. So he would have grasped the point the Lord was making: If he would not preach, then he would be effectively faithless in the Lord's promise, as Zacharias had been. </p>


text:
<p><em>For I am with you</em>- A word for word quotation from the assurance given in the great commission (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). The specific promise made in the commission that the preachers would take up snakes and remain unharmed was fulfilled in Paul on Malta beach. We see here that the Lord intended the great commission for Paul- and not merely, as some still claim, for the eleven apostles to whom He first addressed it. And we too are to see it as binding on us all. This is also one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures [here <em><a href='B:290 43:5'>Isa 43:5</a></em>] are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p><p><em>And no one shall attack or harm you</em>- But we must square this with the fact that 18 months later, "the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat" (:12). Maybe the Lord meant that there would be no such behaviour until Paul had reached the Lord's "many people" in the city; perhaps that rising up against Paul was the sign for him to leave, and yet he stubbornly remained there after that "for many days" (:18). "No one shall attack" sounds like God’s promise to Israel, that whilst they were busy in His service keeping the feasts, they would not be attacked (<em><a href='B:20 34:24'>Exo 34:24</a></em>); it was for as long as Paul was doing the Lord's work with His people that the protection would last. So the attack on Paul and beating of Sosthenes (:17), who had become a Christian (<em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>), clearly was "harm"- and a sign, therefore, to leave. Yet just as Paul refused to accept Spirit direction in warning him not to go to Jerusalem, so it seems that here too he would not follow the Spirit's leading.</p><p><em>For I have many people in this city</em>- This was only potentially true. If Paul had run away because of the opposition, they would not have become the Lord's people. Exactly because of this, the Lord tells him to endure. Likewise if the harvest is not gathered, it spoils- because the labourers have not done their work.</p>


text:
<p><em>And he lived there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them</em>- The <em>logos</em> of God is the Lord Jesus. This information comes after the accounts in the previous two chapters of Paul being quickly hounded out of towns by the Jewish opposition. Perhaps Paul assumed this would happen, hence the Lord's special encouragement to him that that history was not quite going to repeat itself so quickly (:12):&nbsp;The Corinthian letters indicate that there was indeed Judaist undermining of Paul's work there, but they failed to close him down immediately as they had in the other towns.</p>


text:
<p>See on :10 <em>no one shall attack...</em></p><p><em>But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat</em></p><p>- see on :11. The "one accord" of Jewish opposition is presented by Luke as the opposite of the "one accord" which characterized the early Christian community. There is in fact no in between position; we are either united with the world, or with the Lord and His people. Gallio is mentioned in inscriptions as the brother of the famous philosopher Seneca, tutor of Nero. Luke's history is flawless, as we would expect from an inspired record:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Saying:</em> <em>This man persuades men to worship God- </em>Time and again we see that what irked the Jews most of all was that Paul was successful in persuading others of his beliefs. The Jews were missionaries, eager to make proselytes and to gain followers amongst the Jews. Jealousy at another's apparent success in evangelizing their positions remains to this day an envy unto death. I have argued at times, especially in commentary upon chapter 20, that Paul too was partly driven by a jealousy complex against Peter's conversion of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost. And as it were in response to that, the Jews are envious of Paul's successes and persecute and kill him because of it. This was not so much a punishment of Paul, but rather a method through which Paul was intended to come to understand himself, to be more purely motivated in his witness, and to not envy Peter.</p><p><em>Contrary to the law</em>- The law they had in mind was the law of Moses; for Gallio throws their case out of court because there is no question of infringement of Roman law, and tells them that they are arguing about infringement of "your own law" (:15). Paul was being treated as he and the Jews had treated the Christians- by seeking to get the Romans to judge and punish others for breaking their perception of the law of Moses. </p>


text:
<p><em>But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of criminal villainy, O you Jews, it would be logical that I should bear with you- </em>Gallio's judgment here that Paul had done nothing legally wrong was repeated by him later, especially when he first talks with the Jews in Rome. Paul spent some years in prison and was finally killed- when he had done nothing legally wrong. And that had been established in court cases such as these. Given Paul's logical mindset and tendency to legalism, this would have been so painful for him to come to terms with. The rules of justice and logic were not being followed- and he was being condemned wrongly. He uses many of these concepts in writing to the Romans, arguing that we are sinners who <em>have</em> done wrong and who therefore should rightly die, but the rules of justice, ethics and logic have all been turned upside down by God’s grace in Christ- and we have been pardoned and blessed with the hope of eternity. Paul was therefore writing all this partly to himself. He likely developed those thoughts initially as a way to cope with his deep sense of injustice about how his case was treated. And the Holy Spirit developed his thinking further and led him to express those thoughts in written form under Spirit guidance.</p>


text:
<p><em>But if they are questions about words and names</em>- The disagreement with Paul was about "names", and surely the Name in view was that of the Lord Jesus, whose Name the apostles preached, baptized into and emphasized. But 'name' effectively means 'authority', and in whose authority they were preaching was a big item for the Jews. And it is with legalistic minds to this day. For some, it's a monstrosity to think that an individual on his own initiative can preach in the name of the Lord Jesus. But that is the spirit of individual response to the great commission.</p><p><em>And your own law, look to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these matters</em>- The Old Testament frequently speaks of the law as God’s law, and the feasts as His feasts. But in the New Testament we read of the feasts and law of the Jews. They had hijacked God’s way on this earth and made it effectively their own petty religion; and the church has largely done the same today.</p>


text:
<p><em>He drove them from the judgment seat</em>- The account of Gallio driving the Jews away from his judgment seat is maybe to enable to us to imagine the scene at the last day. "Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark (cp. the rejected cast to outer darkness) and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute them" (<em><a href='B:230 35:5-6'>Psa 35:5-6</a></em>). "The ungodly are like the chaff which the wind (spirit- the Angels made spirits) driveth away" (<em><a href='B:230 1:4'>Psa 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 21:18'>Job 21:18</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>And they all laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things</em>- Perhaps another name for Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue whom Paul had recently converted (:8). Or perhaps Crispus had been forced to resign, and had been replaced by Sosthenes; or maybe there was more than one ruler of the synagogue in office at the same time. To do this job whilst being a Christian would have been very difficult if not impossible. Cornelius, Daniel and his friends, the soldiers John baptized and others found themselves in positions of employment or authority which were hard to maintain in view of their spiritual beliefs. We do not read of them resigning, nor of resignation being demanded before accepting them as believers; but we simply notice that in due course, Daniel and his friends faded from the scene of authority, and Crispus likewise. This is surely a pattern for our pastoral response to folks who find themselves in these situations upon conversion. Sosthenes was a co-author of the later letter to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>), so he too converted; and even at this stage, was beaten for his identity with the Christian movement.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul, having stayed after this for many days, took his leave of the believers</em></p><p>- see on 18:10 <em>No one shall attack...</em></p><p><em>And with Priscilla and Aquila</em>- Mentioned because they appear to have had a temporary parting of the ways; see on 18:7 <em>He departed from there</em>. But see too on :19. Such things happened and still happen.</p><p><em>Sailed to Syria, having shorn his head in Cenchrea.</em> <em>For he had made a vow</em>- Such vows were usually made in thankfulness for deliverance; or it could have been a Nazirite vow. These vows were typically ended in Jerusalem on a feast day. In commentary on chapter 20 I develop the idea that Paul was obsessed with going to Jerusalem because he dreamt of converting mass numbers of Jews there as Peter had done on Pentecost. I suggest that his obsession was misplaced, in that it was partly fuelled by jealousy of Peter, and was in disregard of the Lord's will that Paul focus on Gentiles and leave the Jews to Peter. So his voluntary vow, requiring a trip to Jerusalem at the end of it, may have been a device he developed to give him an excuse to be in Jerusalem at a feast. See on :21. </p><p>I suggest that the vow may well have been of Naziriteship. Paul was called to be a preacher of the Gospel, and yet he speaks of his work as a preacher as if it were a Nazarite vow- which was a totally voluntary commitment. Consider not only the reference to him shaving his head because of his vow (<em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 21:24'>Act 21:24</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:40 6:9-18'>Num 6:9-18</a></em>), but also the many descriptions of his preaching work in terms of Naziriteship: Separated unto the Gospel’s work (<em><a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a></em>); “I am not yet consecrated / perfected” (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>)- he’d not yet finished his ‘course’, i:e. his preaching commission. He speaks of it here as if it were a Nazarite vow not yet ended. Note the reference to his ‘consecration’ in <em><a href='B:510 20:24'>Act 20:24</a></em>. &nbsp;His undertaking not to drink wine lest he offend others (<em><a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a></em>) is framed in the very words of <em><a href='B:40 6:3'>Num 6:3</a></em> LXX about the Nazarite. &nbsp;Likewise his being ‘joined unto the Lord’ (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:6'>Rom 14:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em>) is the language of <em><a href='B:40 6:6'>Num 6:6</a></em> about the Nazarite being separated unto the Lord. The reference to having power / authority on the head (<em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em>) is definitely some reference back to the LXX of <em><a href='B:40 6:7'>Num 6:7</a></em> about the Nazarite. What are we to make of all this? The point is perhaps that commitment to active missionary work is indeed a voluntary matter, as was the Nazarite vow. And that even although Paul was called to this, yet he responded to it by voluntarily binding himself to ‘get the job done’. And the same is in essence true for us today in our various callings in the Lord’s service. </p>


text:
<p><em>And they came to Ephesus; and he left them there, but he entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews</em>- I suggested on 18:7 and 18:18 that Aquilla and Priscilla had some tensions with Paul after his outburst against the Jews; he left living with them and went elsewhere to lodge. But they reconciled to the extent that they travelled together now towards Jerusalem. But now in Ephesus they again appear to differ. And the difference was over Paul's going into the synagogue and arguing with the Jews. Paul was slipping back from his vow to focus on the Gentile mission and once again giving way to his obsession with the Jews. Perhaps they felt that he was wrong in this, and so despite being Jews themselves, they didn’t go to the synagogue with Paul. I have suggested elsewhere that the Holy Spirit kept prodding Paul to focus on the Gentiles, and leave the Jewish mission to Peter; and he was wrong to insist on making the Jews a priority. Perhaps Aquilla and Priscilla had had Spirit revelation about this and were therefore in disagreement with the way Paul insisted on going against it.</p><p>I say this based on the force of the "but" or "for" in the next clause; he left them because he went into the synagogue. It can hardly mean that he left them in Ephesus and moved on elsewhere, because he left them and then went into the synagogue in the same town and preached. This tension between Paul and Aquilla and Priscilla is sadly typical of him; someone of Paul's temperament would have been "a difficult bloke" to get along with when he encountered those of his own level of ability. His closest and most loyal friends are described by him as the "weak" whom he had to work to support (<em><a href='B:510 20:34-35'>Act 20:34-35</a></em>). This rather makes sense; those types would have found in him a tower of strength, and if he funded them then this would have reinforced their loyalty to him.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when they asked him to stay a longer time, he did not consent</em>- "Asked" translates a Greek word meaning to beg. He turned them down because of his obsession with getting to Jerusalem for Pentecost. I have elsewhere suggested that this was rooted in a fantasy to repeat Peter's mass conversion of Jews at that feast. Yet the situation is analogous to the time when the Lord was begged to remain longer in an area, but would not agree because He had to preach the word to other cities (<em><a href='B:490 4:42-43'>Luk 4:42-43</a></em>). We note again that it is Luke who records this in volume 1 of his work. The experiences of Paul, like our own, were modelled around those of the historical Jesus. But we also see here the hint that Paul's desire to get to Jerusalem was in order to preach; and he had been specifically told that Jerusalem would not accept his preaching (<em><a href='B:510 22:18'>Act 22:18</a></em>). He had been sent to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews; but still he insisted on going his way.</p>


text:
<p><em>But took his leave of them, saying: I will return again to you if God wills</em>. <em>He then set sail from Ephesus</em>- Some texts add: "Saying, I must by all means keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem". We sense here his obsession with getting to Jerusalem; see on :18. There is no evidence that Paul did in fact go up to Jerusalem as he planned at this stage. See on :22. His plans to go there were frustrated; it was the Lord's intention that Paul preach to the Gentiles and leave the Jews to Peter. And yet Paul still didn’t get it; for he again pushes to go up to Jerusalem to keep a feast, Pentecost (19:21). The Holy Spirit warned him not to do this, but he still pushed ahead. The way his plans were frustrated at this earlier stage was surely a lesson he failed to heed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch- </em>We read of how Paul went on from Ephesus to Caesarea, and then "he went [up] and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch". It could be argued that going up and coming down is how visits to Jerusalem are spoken of; but why the ambiguity? Why is not his arrival in Jerusalem mentioned? The more comfortable reading would be that he travelled nearly 1000 km. from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coasts of Palestine, only 120 km. from Jerusalem; but then some unspecified situation arose which frustrated his plans, and he turned north and headed to Antioch up the coast road; or even sailed there. The silence about any visit to Jerusalem is significant, especially seeing that he refused to stay longer in Ephesus despite the need to- because he was so set on getting to Jerusalem for the feast. Some versions paraphrase as 'Went up to Jerusalem' but that is not in the original. It's hard for interpreters to understand that Paul could have come all the way to Caesarea and not 'gone up' to Jerusalem as he planned. But I have explained that it was not the Lord's will that he went to Jerusalem to preach, and so the plan was frustrated. <em>Anabaino</em>, 'went [up]', doesn't have to mean 'to Jerusalem', although it is sometimes used like that. It is used of Joseph 'going up' to Bethlehem (<em><a href='B:490 2:4'>Luk 2:4</a></em>), going up to a housetop, a tree or mountain (<em><a href='B:490 5:19'>Luk 5:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 19:4'>Luk 19:4</a></em>). Likewise <em>katabaino</em>, "went down", doesn't have to refer to a leaving Jerusalem. It is used about going down from other towns (<em><a href='B:500 2:12'>Joh 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 4:51'>Joh 4:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:15'>Act 7:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 8:15'>Act 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 14:25'>Act 14:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>And having spent some time there, he departed and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, in that order, strengthening all the disciples</em>- Perhaps the frustration of Paul's plans to visit Jerusalem at feast time (see on :22) led him to realize that indeed, the Lord had sent him to the Gentiles and not to the Jews. And so in repentance, Paul spent time strengthening the Gentile converts he had already made. There is no reference to him going into the synagogue in each town and arguing with the Jews, as was the pattern on his missionary trips. We just read that he did pastoral work with the converts. Paul twice 'turned to the Gentiles', which is what he was intended to have focused upon in his ministry; but each time we see him fall back into his obsession with Jerusalem and witnessing to the Jews. This weakness came to its full term in the way he refused repeated Spirit warnings against going up to Jerusalem, and suffers the consequences.</p><p>Paul is recorded as having passed through Galatia and Phrygia in <em><a href='B:510 16:6'>Act 16:6</a></em>; presumably he made converts and established churches there. The fact this isn't recorded indicates how very abbreviated are the records we have. The incidents which are recorded are clearly for our learning. According to the note in the AV at the end of 1 Timothy, Paul wrote that letter from Laodicea in Phrygia. The converts in Phrygia may have been originally a result of Peter's work, for there were Jews from Phrygia baptized by him at the time of <em><a href='B:510 2:10'>Act 2:10</a></em>. Given my comments elsewhere about Paul's feelings towards Peter's work, this would have been all intentionally arranged by the Spirit in an effort to re-direct Paul's focus towards the Gentiles. He was being made to understand that if he insisted on ministry to the Jews, then he was treading on Peter's ground and at best playing second fiddle to his ministry, rather than developing his own intended ministry with the Gentiles.</p><p>We read this word “strengthening” four times in the NT, all in Acts (<em><a href='B:510 14:22'>Act 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:32'>Act 15:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:41'>Act 15:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 18:23'>Act 18:23</a></em>). Conscious programs of pastoral strengthening of the converts were an essential part of the church's missionary strategy, and it must be so today too.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures</em>- The Greek suggests 'an orator'. Perhaps this was why some in Corinth preferred him to Paul, whom they found relatively unrefined in his style (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>). The Acts of the Apostles focuses largely on Paul and Peter, and after chapter 15, exclusively on Paul. This brief mention of the work of Aquilla and Priscilla with Apollos is the only example of the focus moving away from Paul. I have argued that Paul's obsession with preaching to Jews, especially at Jerusalem, was not in line with the Lord's ideal intention for him- which was that he should preach to the Gentiles. He ought to have remained at Ephesus, given the level of interest there and the request for him to remain there. But he goes off towards Jerusalem; and then, Apollos comes on the scene. And it is Aquilla who converts him. We may imagine that Paul would have been on the same level as Apollos, fluent in the Scriptures and eloquent in dialogue. But Paul was being taught that although he maybe appeared on paper the ideal person to convert Apollos- that was not the Lord's way. He uses human weakness rather than our ability. I suggest that Paul considered that he was far better qualified to operate the ministry to the Jews than illiterate Peter. He, surely, was more suited to the Gentiles, being from half Gentile Galilee, and mocked by the Jerusalem Jews as being without grammar when he spoke. But the Lord knew what He was doing when He directed Peter to go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. And through the conversion of the eloquent Apollos by Aquilla rather than Paul, He was seeking to teach Paul this. This kind of thing happens in our lives many times, and we likely also fail to perceive the teaching process or accept the lessons. </p>


text:
<p><em>This man had been instructed</em>- Literally, 'catechized'. Luke's community were instructed or learned by rote the Gospel of Luke (<em><a href='B:490 1:4'>Luk 1:4</a></em>). This was how the Gospel was spread in the 1st century especially amongst the illiterate. The Gospel records were memorized. Perhaps the form of the Gospel record which Apollos had was incomplete, an early version; for "he knew only the baptism of John". That could mean however that he only recognized John's baptism and did not consider baptism into the Lord Jesus and receipt of His spirit to be necessary (see a similar case in 19:1-5).</p><p><em>In the way of the Lord</em>- A nice description of the Gospel. It is all about the way of the Lord Jesus, the way He took and the way we are to follow in. This is also reflected in how the early Christian community is called "the way". </p><p><em>And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John</em>- Although his knowledge was lacking, he is commended for acting with integrity according to the knowledge he had. Cornelius would be another example. These cases show that God does indeed take notice of those who love but misunderstand His Son; but He rewards their diligence and integrity by revealing His fuller truth to them. The principle of <em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em> is important: "Let us therefore, as many as are mature, be thus decided; and if in anything you are otherwise decided, this also shall God reveal to you". Spiritual maturity involves tolerance of others whilst they too are on the same journey we were earlier on, and continue upon.</p><p>“Being fervent in spirit” is Gk. <em>the </em>Spirit. The idea of being fervent in the Spirit suggests a degree of freewill control on his part, rather than the Holy Spirit just as it were zapping Apollos. So the reference to <em>the </em>Spirit suggests the Holy Spirit, but his 'fervency' suggests his own human spirit; but God’s Spirit confirms the human spirit. He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>). The only other time this phrase "fervent in spirit" occurs is in <em><a href='B:520 12:11'>Rom 12:11</a></em>, where Paul exhorts us all to be like this. Paul may mean: 'Emulate Apollos!'. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue</em>- It is surely intentional that we read of Paul doing this in that same synagogue in Ephesus, soon afterwards- "he [Paul] entered into the synagogue and spoke boldly" (<em><a href='B:510 19:8'>Act 19:8</a></em> s:w:). Was not Paul here consciously emulating Apollos, as he bid the Romans do (see on :25 <em>Being fervent</em>)? Apollos was an erudite Jew who knew the Scriptures well and could use them powerfully- just like Paul. But I wonder whether just as Paul sought to emulate Peter's mass conversion of Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost, so he seeks to copy Apollos. Apollos was a convert of John the Baptist, and soon afterwards, at the time of <em><a href='B:510 19:1-5'>Act 19:1-5</a></em>, Paul meets others in Ephesus who likewise were Jews converted by John but needed teaching the complete Christian message; and he baptizes them. Those men were most likely associates of Apollos; Apollos had planted, and Paul just did the last stage in baptizing them. But always, when it comes to preaching to the Jews, Paul is left playing second fiddle and building on another man's foundation. And he would have resented that. The point was, he should have concentrated on the mission which the Lord had for him, which was to the Gentiles. We too can mis-focus our lives by seeking to emulate others in their ministries, rather than perceiving and focusing upon our own unique ministry. </p><p><em>But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately</em>- Appropriate language to use, seeing the preparing of the Lord's way was a major part of John the Baptist's message.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when he decided to go into Achaia-</em> Where Corinth was. Apollos is mentioned as being at Corinth in <em><a href='B:510 19:1'>Act 19:1</a></em>. </p><p><em>The brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he helped them who through grace had believed</em>- He helped / inspired the other believers in that he publicly converted others; thus an upward spiral of converting was initiated. "Who through grace had believed" suggests that faith is a gift, for <em>charis</em>, grace, essentially means a gift, and is often associated with the work of the Holy Spirit. Likewise Lydia's heart was opened to believe the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 16:14'>Act 16:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>For he powerfully refuted the Jews publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ</em>- Part of the 'help' which he gave the believers was by publicly vindicating their faith before those who opposed them. </p>


text:
<p><em>And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found some disciples</em>- <em><a href='B:500 1:41'>Joh 1:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:43'>Joh 1:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:45'>Joh 1:45</a></em> use the same words for how the Lord Jesus at the start of His ministry 'found disciples', who were likewise students of John the Baptist. We note that despite their misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, they are still referred to as 'disciples'; they were committed to learning, which is the essence of the word 'disciple'. We also observe that Paul, like us, was manifesting the style and actions of the Lord's ministry in his own. The connection with the Lord's calling of the first disciples on the shores / coasts of the lake is strengthened by considering how Paul is described as having passed along the <em>meros</em>, translated "coasts" in the AV ["upper country"] to find those disciples.</p>


text:
<p><em>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</em>- The aorist implies 'we did not hear', i:e. at the point of baptism. The connection with Apollos in :1 could hint that these people had been converted by Apollos, who knew only baptism of John (Acts 18:25). </p><p><em>That there is a Holy Spirit</em>- As followers of Moses and John the Baptist, they were surely aware of the concept of Holy Spirit. We must fill in the ellipses surely required by the context- "there is [gift of] the Holy Spirit", remembering that the Spirit was not poured out until the Lord's glorification. <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> likewise says that "the Holy Spirit was not yet", i:e. the [outpouring of] Holy Spirit. Perhaps what they meant was that they were aware that John had spoken of an outpouring of the Spirit as a result of the Lord's work, but they had not heard whether this had yet happened. After all, they had encountered John some years ago in Palestine and were now in Ephesus, maybe cut off from news of the progress of Christianity. The Western text here has: "We have not even heard that anyone is receiving the Holy Spirit".</p>


text:
<p><em>And he said: Into what then were you baptized? And they said: Into John's baptism</em>?- The Acts record presupposes that baptism is part and parcel of belief. Paul has spoken of "When you believed" (:2) as if this was a one time specific event in the past, rather than a drift of interest towards Christianity. That one time point of "belief" was their baptism. </p>


text:
<p><em>And Paul said: John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people</em>- How could Paul so confidently quote John's words? Admittedly it could have been the result of a flash of Spirit inspiration. Or it could also have been that he had heard John preaching, which would have been the source of the goads sticking into his conscience... and he constantly alludes to John's words and personality throughout his letters. </p><p><em>That they should believe in him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus</em>- On hearing this, they were baptized (:5); again we see baptism as being part and parcel of belief. Faith was not and is not a position we drift into; God in His wisdom introduced the rite of baptism so that there is a conscious, specific moment of accepting that faith as our own. </p>


text:
<p><em>And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus</em>- </p><p>These men had not been baptized with Christian baptism, which is into the death and resurrection of Christ. The command for baptism into His death and resurrection was given after Christ had risen from the dead. It could be argued therefore that this is not an example of adults once baptized [by immersion] into the Lord’s death and resurrection being rebaptized. That approach would appear to be the correct line of interpretation once due weight is given to the fact that they had not received the Holy Spirit; surely there is an intended allusion to <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>: “He spoke of the Spirit, which they that believed in him were to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, as Jesus had not yet been glorified”. The Greek idea behind “not yet been given” is similar to the men’s words in the Greek of <em><a href='B:510 19:2'>Act 19:2</a></em>, where “We did not hear whether there <em>be </em>any Holy Spirit” carries the idea ‘We didn’t hear that the Holy Spirit is present / has been given’. The men had surely heard of “Holy Spirit”, but they were unaware it had been given. The connection with <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em> could suggest they were actually ignorant of the death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus- hence their need for Christian baptism. Their ignorance of the coming of the Spirit is painted, according to the connection with <em><a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a></em>, as ignorance of the fact Christ had been glorified. If these men had been baptized by John but were now in Ephesus, it’s quite possible they had left Palestine soon after their baptisms and were ignorant of what had subsequently happened to Jesus until Apollos had now told them. “Into [Gk. <em>ek</em>] what were you baptized?” (<em><a href='B:510 19:3'>Act 19:3</a></em>) would therefore carry the implication that they had not been baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ; their answer comes across rather lamely: “Into John’s baptism”. The necessary answer was “Into Christ’s death and resurrection”, but they are forced to reply somewhat ungrammatically- that they had not been baptized <em>into </em>&nbsp;anything much at all, apart from into John. There could even be the implication that they had not been baptized by John himself, but “into John’s baptism” by some disciple of John. <em><a href='B:510 19:5-6'>Act 19:5-6</a></em> sounds as if they were unaware that John had taught the people that they must believe [and be baptized] “into Christ”; and when they understood that this had been his message, then they were baptized into Christ. They had had the idea in their minds that they must make a change, but it would seem they were ignorant of what John had actually taught about Jesus.</p><p>Again and again it must be remembered here that John’s baptism wasn’t Christian baptism; it was to prepare the way for Christ and baptism into Him. Paul explains that John’s teaching was intended to lead men to believe “in” or “into” Christ [Gk. <em>ek </em>again- he stresses this twice in <em><a href='B:510 19:4'>Act 19:4</a></em>]. When the men understood that, they were “baptized into [Gk. <em>ek</em>] the name of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 19:5'>Act 19:5</a></em>). Baptism <em>into</em> Christ is here presented as part and parcel of belief <em>in</em> Him. Baptism is assumed in the New Testament as being part of belief. This incident leaves us with the clear impression from the use of the term <em>ek</em>, into, that they had been baptized into John and had been ignorant of Christ’s death and glorification. Their immersion “into John’s baptism” had not therefore been Christian baptism at all. </p><p>The connection between baptism and receipt of the Spirit also cries out to be understood within the context of Acts to the great opening example of baptism in <em><a href='B:510 2:38'>Act 2:38</a></em>: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. I have elsewhere suggested that the “gift” in view there was that of forgiveness and spiritual blessing in Christ. The baptism [or, rebaptism] of Acts 19 did not of itself give the Holy Spirit gifts; these came as a result of Paul laying his hands upon the newly baptized people. This would’ve been a situation analogous to that in Acts 10, where the Gentiles who were baptized exercised miraculous Spirit gifts straight afterwards in order to demonstrate that the decision to baptize them had in fact been correct.</p>


text:
<p><em>And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied</em>- What foreign language did they speak? I have mentioned previously the possibility that the gift of languages was in order to cement unity between Jews and Gentiles by enabling them to speak in each other’s languages. One therefore wonders if these men were in fact all full Jews, or whether the gift of languages in this case was the ability to converse in pure Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p><em>And they were in all about twelve men</em>- Being twelve of them, and called disciples, they could be presented as a kind of parallel brotherhood to the community of Christian disciples.</p>


text:
<p> see on <em><a href='B:510 18:6'>Act 18:6</a></em>. </p><p><em>And he entered into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months-</em>“Boldly” is a common word in the New Testament. We are to be bold before the throne of grace, and our confident assurance of salvation means that we are bold in our witness to others about that good news.</p><p><em>Reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God</em>- We wonder why there is no mention of the things concerning the Lord Jesus, as these two elements seem to go together in the Acts account. Perhaps this group were already persuaded that Jesus was Messiah, but were ignorant of the things of the Kingdom. Those "things" were surely the same "things concerning the Kingdom" which the Lord Himself had taught; and those things were found in His parables of the Kingdom, which were about life now under God’s kingship, rather than information about the physicalities of the Messianic Kingdom to be established on earth at His return.</p>


text:
<p>The Western text here adds that Paul preached in Ephesus from 11a:m. to 4 p:m:- the siesta period. Whilst working with his own hands to support himself, he somehow persuaded men and women to break their usual sleep pattern to come and hear him. F:F. Bruce has commented that more Ephesians were awake at 1a:m. than 1 p:m. </p><p><em>But when some were hardened and disobedient</em>- Paul maybe recalled this case when he wrote to the Romans of how some Jews were hardened when they rejected the message of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:520 9:18'>Rom 9:18</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:650 3:8'>Heb 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 3:15'>Heb 3:15</a></em>). </p><p><em>Speaking evil of the Way before the crowd, he departed from them</em>- This is typical of how when men cannot answer the truth of Christ presented to them, they then attack the messengers on a personal level. Paul's way of dealing with this slander campaign was to just remove the converts as far as he could from exposure to it.</p><p><em>And separated the disciples</em>- The same ones as in :1?</p><p><em>Reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus- </em>First century preaching wasn’t merely bald statement of facts nor a pouty presentation of propositional Truth. A very wide range of words is used to describe the preaching of the Gospel. It included able intellectual argument, skilful, thoughtful use and study of the Scriptures by the public speakers, careful, closely reasoned and patient argument. Their preaching is recorded through words like <em>diamarturesthai</em>, to testify strenuously, elegcho, to show to be wrong, <em>peitho</em>, to win by words,<em> ekithemi</em>, to set forth, <em>diamar</em>, to bear full witness, <em>dianoigo</em>, to open what was previously closed, <em>parrhesia</em>, to speak with fearless candour, <em>katagellein</em>, to proclaim forcefully, <em>dialegesthai, </em>to argue, <em>diakatelenchein</em>, to confute powerfully. The intellectual energy of Paul powers through the narrative in passages like Acts 19 : “Disputing and persuading… disputing daily… Paul purposed in the spirit… this Paul has persuaded and turned away much people”. </p>


