THE MESSAGE OF ACTS

A Commentary by John Stott

(Study 20)

Acts 12:19b-24    c) Herod's death
Acts 12:25-14:28.  The Apostle to the Gentiles - The first missionary journey
Acts 12:25-13:4a.  1). Barnabas and Saul are sent out from Antioch
 Acts 13:4b-12.  2). Barnabas and Saul in Cyprus

Although Herod's victim had escaped his clutches, Herod himself was still at large. So Luke ends this part of his chronicle by describing the tyrant's death. He *went from Judea to Caesarea*, the provincial capital, *and stayed there a while* (19b). Luke then sketches the history behind the incident he is about to relate. Herod *had been quarrelling with the people of Tyre and Sidon* on the Phoenician coast, or was `furiously angry (NEB) with them. So *they now joined together and sought an audience with him*. For this they needed an intermediary. *So having secured the support  (perhaps by a bribe) of Blastus*, who is identified as *a trusted personal servant of the king* or `the royal chamberlain' (NEB), *they asked for peace*. It was urgent for them to be restored to Herod's favour, *because they depended on the king's country for their food supply*, especially Galilean corn.  That was the background. Now *on the appointed day*, on which Blastus was to present their case to him, *Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people* or `harangued them' (NEB, 21). The crowd shouted, `*This is the voice of a god, not of a man*' (22). And *immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God*, and had in fact `usurped the honour due to God' (NEB), *an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died* (23).  Josephus also described in graphic detail the circumstances surrounding Herod's death. His account and Luke's differ from one another in a few details, which shows that they are independent.  But their general outline is the same. Both agree that Herod was in Caesarea at the time, although Josephus said he had gone there to participate in a festival in honour of Caesar, which was attended by a large crowd of leading citizens. Both mention the royal robes he was wearing, while Josephus adds the detail that his garment was `made wholly of silver and of a contexture truly wonderful', which shone so brightly in the morning sun that the people hailed him as a god. `Upon this', Josephus continued, `the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery.'  Luke and Josephus agree therefore, that God's judgment fell upon him because he glorified himself instead of God. Although Luke says `he was eaten by worms', Josephus is content with the more general statement that `a severe pain...arose in his belly', which became so violent that he was carried into his palace, where five days later he died. Their description is reminiscent of the last days of that arch-persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes who in his arrogance `had thought to grasp the stars of heaven', but `was seized with an incurable pain in his bowels and with excruciating internal torture', until he died.  Dr. A. Rendle Short, who was professor of surgery at Bristol University and wrote a book entitled *The Bible and Modern Medicine*, stated that a great many people in Asia `harbour intestinal worms', which can form a tight ball and cause `acute intestinal obstruction'. This may have been the cause of Herod's death.

It is in striking contrast to the death of the tyrant, that Luke adds one of his summary verses: *But the word of God continued to increase and spread* (24, cf. 6:7; 9:31). Indeed, one cannot fail to admire the artistry with which Luke depicts the complete reversal of the church's situation. At the beginning of the chapter Herod is on the rampage - arresting and persecuting church leaders; at the end he is himself struck down and dies. The chapter opens with James dead, Peter in prison and Herod triumphing; it closes with Herod dead, Peter free, and the word of God triumphing. Such is the power of God to overthrow hostile human plans and to establish his own in their place. Tyrants may be permitted for a time to boast and bluster, oppressing the church and hindering the spread of the gospel, but they will not last. In the end, their empire will be broken and their pride abased.

Acts 12:25-14:28.  The first missionary journey.

Luke has reached a decisive turning point in his narrative.  In keeping with the risen Lord's prophecy (1:8), witness has been borne to him `in Jerusalem' and `in all Judea and Samaria': now the horizon broadens to `the ends of the earth'. The two deacon-evangelists have prepared the way - Stephen by his teaching and his martyrdom. Philip by his bold evangelization of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian. So have the two major conversions which Luke has documented, that of Saul, who was also commissioned as the apostle to the Gentiles, and that of Cornelius through the instrumentality of the apostle Peter. Unnamed evangelists have also preached  the gospel to `Hellenists' in Antioch. But all the time the action has been limited to the Palestinian and Syrian mainland. Nobody has yet caught the vision of taking the good news to the nations overseas, although indeed Cyprus has been mentioned in 11:19. Now at last, however, that momentous step is to be taken.

1). Barnabas and Saul are sent out from Antioch (12:25-13:4a)  These two men have been south in Jerusalem, in order to hand over the famine relief money contributed by the church of Antioch (11:30). Now that they *had finished this mission, they returned from Jerusalem* (12:25). It is true that the better reading is `to Jerusalem', in which case the verse would have to read that `they returned after they had fulfilled at Jerusalem their mission'. But this is clumsy, and the textual evidence needs to be overridden by the demands of the context, namely that Barnabas and Saul, who had travelled *to* Jerusalem from Antioch with their gift (11:30), now returned *from* Jerusalem to Antioch after they had delivered it (12:25). Moreover, they took *with them John, also called Mark*, who will accompany them when they set out on the first missionary expedition.

The cosmopolitan population of Antioch was reflected in the membership of its church, and indeed in its leadership, which consisted of five resident *prophets and teachers*. Luke explains neither how he understood the distinction between these ministries, nor whether all five men exercised both or (as some have suggested) the first three were prophets and the last two teachers. What he does tell us is their names. The first was Barnabas, whom he has earlier describes as `a Levite from Cyprus' (4:36). Secondly, there was Simeon (a Hebrew name) called Niger (`black') who was presumably a black African, and just conceivably none other than Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross for Jesus (Lk.23:26), and who must have become a believer, since his sons Alexander and Rufus were known to the Christian community (Mk.15:21 and perhaps Rom.16:13). The third leader, Lucius of Cyrene, definitely came from North Africa, but the conjecture of some early church fathers that Luke was referring to himself is extremely improbable, since he carefully preserves his anonymity throughout the book. Fourthly, there was Manaen, who is called in the Greek the *syntrophos of Herod the tetrarch*, that is, of Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. The word may mean that Manaen was `brought up with' him in a general way, or more particularly that he was his `foster-brother' or `intimate friend'. In either case, since Luke knew a lot about Herod's court and family, Manaen may well have been his informant. The fifth church leader was Saul, who of course came from Tarsus in Cilicia.  These five men, therefore, symbolized the ethnic and cultural diversity of Antioch.

Acts 12:25-13:4a.  1). Barnabas and Saul are sent out from Antioch

It was *while they were worshipping the Lord and fasting* that *the Holy Spirit said* to them, *'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'* (2). So important was this occasion, that it may be helpful to ask some questions about it.  First, to whom did the Holy Spirit reveal His will? Who is the `they' who were worshipping and fasting, and to whom he spoke?  It seems unlikely that we are meant to restrict them to the small group of five leaders, for that would entail three of them being instructed about the other two. It is more probable that the  church members as a whole are in mind, since both they and the leaders are mentioned together in verse 1, and on the not dissimilar occasion when the seven were to be chosen, it was the local church as a whole who acted (6:2-6). Moreover, when Paul and Barnabas returned, `they gathered the church together'. They reported to the church because they has been commissioned by the church (14:26-27). Further, if the Holy Spirit disclosed his purpose to the church, there is no need to except Barnabas and Saul themselves. Rather the reverse. Does not the Holy Spirit's instruction to set them apart `for the work to which I have called them' imply that he had already called them before he made it known to the church?

Secondly, what was it that the Holy Spirit revealed to the church? It was very vague. The nature of the work to which he had called Barnabas and Saul was not specified. It was not unlike the call of Abram. To him God had said, `Go to the land I will show you.' (Gen.12:1). To the Antiochene church God said, `Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' In both cases the call to go was clear, while the land and
the work were not. So in both cases the response to God's call required an adventurous step of faith. Thirdly, how was God's call disclosed. We are not told. The most likely guess is that God spoke to the church through one of the prophets. But his call could have been inward rather than outward, that is, through the Spirit's witness in their hearts and minds. However it came to them, their first reaction was to fast and pray, partly (it seems) to test God's call and partly to
intercede for the two who were to be sent out. We notice that in neither reference to fasting does it occur alone. It is linked with worship in verse 2 and with prayer in verse 3. For seldom if ever is fasting an end in itself. It is a negative action (abstention from food and other distractions) for the sake of a positive one (worshipping or praying). Then, *after they had
fasted and prayed*, and so assured themselves of God's call and prepared themselves to obey it, *they placed their hands on them and sent them off* (3). This was not an ordination to an office, still less an appointment to apostleship (since Paul insists that this was `not from men nor by man', Gal.1:1), but rather a  valedictory commissioning to missionary service.

Who, then, commissioned the missionaries? That is our fourth question. According to verse 4, Barnabas and Saul were *sent on their way by the Holy Sprit*, who had previously instructed the church to set them apart for him (2). But according to verse 3 it was the church which, after the laying-on of hands, *sent them off*. It is true that the latter verb could be translated `let
them go' (NEB), discharging them from their teaching responsibilities in the church at Antioch, in order to make them available for a wider ministry. For Luke sometimes uses the verb *apoluo* in the sense of `release' (E.g. Acts 3:13; 5:40; 16:35-36). But he also uses it for `dismiss' (E.g. Acts 15:30, 33; 19:40). So, in our anxiety to do justice to the Holy Spirit's initiative, we should not depict the church's role as having been entirely passive. Would it not be true to say both that the Spirit
sent them out, by instructing the church to do so, and that the church sent them out, having been directed by the Spirit to do so? This balance will be a healthy corrective to opposite extremes.
The first is the tendency to individualism, by which a Christian claims direct personal guidance by the Spirit without any reference to the church. The second is the tendency to institutionalism, by which all decision-making is done by the church without any reference to the Spirit. Although we have no  liberty to deny the validity of personal choice, it is safe and  healthy only in relation to the Spirit and the church. There is no evidence that Barnabas and Saul `volunteered' for missionary service; they were `sent' by the Spirit through the church. Still today it is the responsibility of every local church (especially of its leaders) to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit, in order to discover whom he may be gifting and calling.

Acts 13:4b-12.  2). Barnabas and Saul in Cyprus.

*The two of them*, missionaries from the church of Antioch *sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia*, the port near the mouth of the River Orontes, about fifteen miles away
*and sailed from there to Cyprus* (4). We are not told why Cyprus was chosen as their first destination, although we know that Barnabas was Cypriot (4:36). In what follows Luke is inevitably
selective. To begin with, he concentrates on Paul's exploits to the west and north, with his eyes on Rome, and says nothing about the church's expansion east and south, or about the missionary 
adventures of other apostles, for example of Thomas who, according to the Syrian Orthodox and Mar Thoma churches of Kerala, travelled from Syria to India. Even in Paul's travels Luke is selective, according to both his available sources and to his editorial purposes. Thus in the first missionary journey, although he sketches the whole itinerary, he focuses on three main incidents.
He portrays Paul evangelizing the proconsul and confronting the sorcerer in Paphos, the provincial capital of Cyprus, preaching the gospel in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch in South Galatia,
and addressing a pagan crowd in the open air in Lystra. They illustrate the extraordinary versatility of the apostle in adapting himself to different situations; he appeared to be equally at ease with individuals and crowds, Jews and Gentiles, the religious and the irreligious, the educated and the
uneducated, the friendly and the hostile. *When they arrived in Salamis*, a commercial city on the
east coast of Cyprus, *they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues* there. But Luke tells us no more than this, except that *John (i.e. Mark, 12:25) was with them as a helper* (5). We would like to know what kind of help he gave them, and whether we are correct in supposing that, whereas Barnabas and Saul had been specially chosen and sent by the Holy Spirit, John Mark had been chosen by them, without a similar direct divine call. All we can say is that the word *hyperetes* was used of a servant or assistant of doctors, army officers, priests and politicians, and does not tell us whether Mark's service was pastoral (e.g. instructing enquirers and nurturing converts) or practical (e.g. cooking and cleaning).

On leaving Salamis, *they travelled through the whole island until they came to Paphos* (6a). This took them from the east coast to the west coast, a journey of about ninety miles, which Ramsay argued from Luke's use of the verb *dierchomai* was `a preaching tour through the whole island'. *There*, in Paphos, *they met* a man whom Luke immediately charactorizes as *a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus*, `son of salvation' (6). By profession he was an attendant of (literally just `with') the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, that is, a kind of court wizard.
*The proconsul*, whom Luke describes as *an intelligent man*, in spite of his evident fascination for superstitious and occult practices, *sent for Barnabas and Saul because* in his intellectual and spiritual hunger *he wanted to hear the word of God* (7). Without doubt the missionaries responded to his summons, and we are free to imagine Paul the Christian apostle sharing with
Paul the Roman proconsul the good news of Jesus Christ.  *But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them*. Luke now refers to him by a different name, and the
words in parenthesis have perplexed the commentators. JB may be right to translate them simply `Elymas Magos - as he was called in Greek'. Alternatively, if Luke is explaining the meaning of the
word `Elymas', it may have been originally an Arabic word for somebody `skilful' or `expert', in other words a *magos* or wise man. At all events, Elymas saw in the Christian missionaries a
threat to his prestige and livelihood. So he *tried to turn the proconsul from the faith* (8). This attempt the apostle saw as an extremely serious attack by the evil one, so that he now confronted Elymas Magus as Peter had confronted Simon Magus in Samaria (8:20ff.). Luke chooses this moment to inform us that *Saul...was also called Paul*. It was common for Jews to take a
Greek or Roman second name, like Joseph Barsabbas (1:23) and John Mark (12:12, 25), and it was appropriate for Luke to mention Saul's now as he moves into increasingly non-Jewish contexts. He
does not call Paul `Saul' again. Next, he tells us that Paul was freshly *filled with the Holy Spirit*, to show that his boldness, outspokenness and power in condemning Elymas were all from God.
Thus endowed, he *looked straight at Elymas*, fixing him with his eye, *and said (9): `You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and
trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind, and for a time you will be unable to see the light of the
sun'* (10-11a).

Paul's condemnation of Elymas was that he belied his name.  `Bar-Jesus', being rather a child of the devil than of salvation, and that he was the enemy of both goodness and truth, being an
`utter impostor and charlatan' (NEB, 1961 edition). In keeping with his character, he made crooked the straight paths of the Lord, and was guilty of causing `perversion' (*diastrepho*, 8,10),
instead of `conversion' (*epistrepho*, e.g. 9:35; 11;21; 14:15).  God's judgment of him was fitting. For those `who put darkness for light and light for darkness' (Is.5:20) forfeit the light they originally had. *Immediately*, therefore, *mist and darkness (Dr Luke uses two contemporary medical terms) came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand*
(11b). Paul must have remembered the day not many years previously when he himself had been blinded, albeit by the glory of the Lord, and been led by the hand into Damascus.  *When the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, for he was amazed* (`deeply impressed', NEB; `shaken to the core', JBP) *at the teaching about the Lord* (12). What astonished him was the combination of word and sign, of the apostle's teaching and the sorcerer's defeat. There is no need to argue, as some have done, that because no baptism is mentioned the proconsul was not
truly converted, or that the missionaries `may have mistaken courtesy for conversion'. The statement that *he believed* is plain enough and is in keeping with Like's general usage elsewhere
(e.g. 14:1; 17:34; 19:18). He gives no indication, as he did in relation to Simon Magus (8:13, 18ff), that the proconsul's faith was profession without reality. No, he brings before his readers a
dramatic power encounter, in which the Holy Spirit overthrew the evil one, the apostle confounded the sorcerer, and the gospel triumphed over the occult. More than that, Luke surely intends us 
to view Sergius Paulus as the first totally Gentile convert, who had no religious background in Judaism. Paul's direct approach to Gentiles was `the great innovative development of this firstmissionary journey'.

Next: Acts 13:13-52. 3). Paul and Barnabas in  Pisidian Antioch.