THE MESSAGE OF ACTS
A Commentary by John Stott
(Study 25)
THE MESSAGE OF ACTS
A Commentary by John Stott
(Study 25)
|
In
spite of having `suffered and been insulted in Philippi', Paul and Silas
received strength from God to preach the gospel in Thessalonica. That is
what they wrote in their first Thessalonican letter (1 Thess. 2:2).
Calvin referred to Paul's `unconquerable mental courage and
indefatigable endurance of the cross'. It was a one-hundred-mile journey
from Philippi to Thessalonica, following the *Via Egnatia* all the way
in a south-westerly direction. They *passed through Amphipolis and
Apollonia* (1a), not stopping in either town except perhaps to rest for
the night, for their destination was *Thessalonica*, the capital of the
province of Macedonia. It was a harbour town, situated at the head of
the Thermaic
Gulf. Commanding trade by sea across the Aegean and by land along the
east-west *Via Egnatia*, it was a flourishing commercial centre, and was
proud of having been made a free city in 42 BC. Here too *there was a
Jewish synagogue* (1b). So Paul followed *his custom* (even after
deciding to `turn to the Gentiles', 13:46), *and went into the synagogue
first, where on three Sabbath days* running he preached the gospel (2a). Although
Paul and his friends must have stayed in Thessalonica for several
months, as is clear from his two Thessalonian
letters, and although most of the converts must have been Gentiles, even
pagan idolaters (1 Thess. 1:9-10), Luke concentrates on his Jewish
mission, which lasted only three weeks, and tells us how his argument
developed. First,
Paul *reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving
that the Christ* (i.e. the expected Messiah) *had to suffer and rise
from the dead* (2b-3a). This was the standard Christian apologetic
towards Jewish people. The precedent for it was set by Jesus, as Luke
himself has recorded. During his public ministry he kept predicting that
the Son of Man must suffer, die and be raised (E.g. Lk. 9:22). Then
after his resurrection he first rebuked his Emmaus disciples for their
slowness to believe the prophetic witness, which he traced through `all
the Scriptures', that the Christ had to suffer before entering his glory
(Lk. 24:25-27), and secondly he re-emphasized the teaching of the Old
Testament and his earlier ministry that the Christ must suffer and rise
(Lk. 24:44-46). Naturally, therefore, this became the heart of the
apostolic *kerygma*, which Peter had unfolded already on the Day of
Pentecost (2:22ff) and which Paul summarized later (13:26ff; cf.1 Cor.
15:3-4). There can be little doubt that in the Thessalonica synagogue
the Scriptures to which Paul turned were those already quoted by the
apostle' earlier sermons, especially Psalms 2:1-7; 16:8-11; 110:1;
118:22; Isaiah 52-53, and probably also Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Secondly
Paul engaged in *proclaiming...Jesus* (3b). That is to say, he told the
story of Jesus of Nazareth: his birth, life and ministry, his death and
resurrection, his exaltation and gift of the Spirit, his present reign
and future return, his offer of salvation and warning of judgement.
There is no reason to doubt that Paul gave a through account of the
saving career of Jesus from beginning to end. Luke
goes on to describe the divided response which Paul's ministry received.
On the one hand, because the gospel was preached `not simply with words,
but also with power' (1 Thess. 1:5), many believed. For example, *some
of the Jews were persuaded*, convinced by Paul's careful arguments, *and
joined Paul and Silas*, perhaps withdrawing from the synagogue to become
members of a Christian house church, *as did a large number of
God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women* (4). Because
`God-fearing Greeks' seems tautologous (all `God-fearers' being
Gentiles), Luke may be referring to two groups (God-fearers and Greeks)
rather than one, as the Western text indicates and William Ramsay
argued. In this case the converts were drawn from four sections of the
community - Jews, Greeks, God-fearers and well-known women. Among them
were Aristarchus and Secundus, who later became Paul's fellow-travellers,
and even, in the case of Aristarchus,
his fellow-prisoner (20:4; 27:2; Col. 4:10). On
the other hand, the unbelieving *Jews were jealous; so they rounded up
some bad characters from the market-place* (louts or layabouts), *formed
a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason's house in
search of Paul and Silas*, Jason being their host or landlord (see verse
7), *in order to bring them out to the crowd* (5). `Crowd' here
translates *demos*, which may refer to `the People's Assembly' (JB) or citizens' council, of which
Thessalonica as a free city was justly proud. *But when they did not
find them*, that is, the missionaries they were looking for, *they
dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials (politarchas)*
instead (6a). Luke's accuracy in calling the city magistrates `politarchs'
has been confirmed by a number of contemporary Macedonian inscriptions.
`From five inscriptions referring to Thessalonica, it appears that a
body of five politarchs
ruled the city during the first century AD'.
The charge against Paul and Silas was very serious: `*These men
who have caused trouble all over the world* [*oikoumene*, the known
inhabited earth, in practice the Roman Empire] *have now come here (6b),
and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying
Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus'
(7). When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown
into turmoil* (8). The general accusation levelled
against the missionaries was that they had *caused trouble* (6). This
means not (in the familiar and appealing AV expression) that they had
`turned the world upside down', but that they were causing a radical
social upheaval. The verb *anastatoo* has revolutionary overtones and is
used in 21:38 of an Egyptian terrorist who `started a revolt'. In
particular, Paul and Silas were charged with high treason. It is hard to
exaggerate the danger to which this exposed them, for `the very
suggestion of treason against the Emperors often proved fatal to the
accused'. Just
as Jesus had been accused before Pilate of sedition, of `subverting' the
nation by claiming himself to be `Christ, a King', (Lk. 23:2),
so Paul's teaching about the kingdom of God (14:22) and about
Christ's *parousia* (the official term for an imperial visit), which we
know from the letters to the Thessalonians he had emphasized when he was
with them, were misinterpreted. Since the emperor was sometimes called *basileus*
(`king'), as well as *kaisar* (`emperor'), how could the attribution of
*basileus* to Jesus (7) not be a treasonable offence? The ambiguity of
Christian teaching in this
area remains. On the one hand, as Christian people, we are called to be
conscientious and law-abiding citizens, not revolutionaries. On the
other hand, the kingship of Jesus has unavoidable political implications
since, as his loyal subjects, we must refuse to give any other ruler or
ideology the supreme homage and total obedience which are due to him
alone. on
bail* and then *let them go* (9). The magistrates' action was probably
more than to release the accused on bail. Luke's expression refers to
`the offering and giving of security, in civil and criminal procedures'.
`They bound over Jason and the others' (NEB), in the sense of extracting
an undertaking from them that Paul and Silas would leave town and not
return, with severe penalties if the agreement were broken. It was
probably this legal ban which Paul saw as Satan preventing him from
returning to Thessalonica (1 Thess.2:18); `this ingenious device put an
impassable chasm between Paul and the Thessalonians'. Acts.
17:10-15. The mission in Berea *As
soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea*,
smuggling them out of Thessalonica under cover of darkness, in order to
ensure no further public disturbance. *On arriving there*, following a
fifty-mile journey in a south-westerly direction, though no longer on
the Egnatian Way, the missionaries again *went first to the Jewish
synagogue* (10), in order to share with its members the good news of
Jesus. Now these Jews whom Luke calls *the Bereans, were of more noble
character* (more `open-minded', JB, BAGD) *than the
Thessalonians*,
that is, their co-religionists in Thessalonica, *for they received the
message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day*,
meeting Paul for a daily dialogue and not just a weekly one on the
Sabbath, *to see if what Paul said was true* (11). Luke obviously
admires their enthusiasm for Paul's preaching, together with their
industry and unprejudiced openness in studying the Scriptures. They
combined receptivity with critical questioning. The verb for `examine'
(*anakrino*) is used of judicial investigations, as of Herod examining
Jesus (Lk.23:14-15), the Sanhedrin Peter and John (4:9), and Felix Paul
(24:8). It implies integrity and absence of bias. Even since then, the
adjective `Berean' has been applied to people who study the Scriptures
with impartiality and care. The
Bereans' listening and studying did not result, however, in a unanimous
acceptance of the gospel. As in Thessalonica, there was a division.
*Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek
women and many Greek men* (12), who probably included Sopater son of
Pyrrhus (although he is not named until 20:4). At the same time, *when
the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God
in Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them
up* (13). This time *the brothers* did not wait and risk another public
furore, but *immediately sent Paul to the coast, while Silas and Timothy
stayed at Berea* (14) for the time being. *The men who escorted Paul
brought him to Athens*, presumably by sea, a voyage of more than 300
miles, *and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join
him as soon as possible* (15). 4).
Some concluding reflections Luke
chronicles the Thessalonian and Berean missions with surprising brevity.
Yet one important aspect of them, to which he seems to be drawing the
readers' attention, is the attitude to the Scriptures adopted by both
speakers and hearers, as evidenced by the verbs he uses. In Thessalonica
Paul `reasoned', `explained', `proved', `proclaimed' and `persuaded',
while in Berea the Jews eagerly `received' the message and diligently
`examined' the Scriptures. It was inevitable in Jewish evangelism that
the Old Testament Scriptures should be both the textbook and the court
of appeal. What is impressive is that neither speaker nor hearers used
Scripture in a superficial unintelligent or proof-texting way. On the
contrary, Paul `argued' out of the Scriptures and the Bereans `examined'
them to see if his arguments were cogent. And we may be sure that Paul
welcomed and encouraged this thoughtful response, he believed in
doctrine (his message had theological content), but not in
indoctrination (tyrannical instruction demanding uncritical acceptance).
As Bengal wrote about verse 11, `a characteristic of the true religion
is that it suffers itself to be examined into, and its claims to be so
decided upon'. Thus Paul's arguments and hearers' studies went hand in
hand. I do not doubt that he also bathed both in prayer, asking the Holy
Spirit of truth to open his mouth to explain, and his hearers' minds to
grasp, the good news of salvation in Christ. There
is something enthralling about Paul in Athens, the great Christian
apostle amid the glories of ancient Greece. Of course he had known about
Athens since his boyhood. Everybody knew about Athens. Athens had been
the foremost Greek city-state since the fifth century BC. Even after its
incorporation into the Roman Empire, it retained a proud intellectual
independence and also became a free city. It boasted of its rich
philosophical tradition inherited from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, of
its literature and art, and of its notable achievements in the cause of
human liberty. Even if in Paul's day it `lived on its great past', and
was a comparatively small town by modern criteria, it still had an
unrivalled reputation as the empire's intellectual metropolis. Now
for the first time Paul visited the Athens of which he had heard so
much, arriving by sea from the north. His friends, who had given him a
safe escort from Berea, had gone. He had asked them to send Silas and
Timothy to join him as soon as possible (17:15). He was hoping to be
able to return to Macedonia, for it was to Macedonia that he had been
called (16:10). Meanwhile, as he waited for their arrival, he found
himself alone in the cultural capital of the world. What was his
reaction? What should be the reaction of a Christian who visits or lives
in a city which is dominated by a non-Christian ideology or religion, a
city which may be aesthetically magnificent and culturally
sophisticated, but morally decadent and spiritually deceived or dead?
There were four parts to Paul's reaction. Luke tells us what he saw,
felt, did and said. 1).
What Paul saw. *While
Paul was waiting for them in Athens*, that is, for Silas and Timothy,
*he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols* (16)
or `given over to idolatry' (JB). Of course he could have walked round
Athens as a tourist, as we would probably have done, in order to see the
sights of the town. He could have been determined, now that at last he
had the opportunity, to `do' Athens thoroughly and tick its spectacles
one by one. For the buildings and monuments of Athens were unrivalled.
The acropolis, the town's ancient citadel, which was elevated enough to
be seen from miles around, has been described as `one vast composition
of architecture and sculpture dedicated to the national glory and to the
worship of the gods'. Even today, although now a partial ruin, the
Parthenon has a unique grandeur. Or Paul could have lingered in the
*agora*, with its many porticoes painted by famous artists, in
order to listen to the debates of its contemporary statesmen and
philosophers, for Athens was well know for its democracy. And Paul was
no uncultured philistine, In our terms he was a graduate of the
universities of Tarsus and Jerusalem, and God had endowed him with a
massive intellect. So he might have been spellbound by the sheer
splendour of the city's architecture, history and wisdom. Yet
it was none of these things that struck him. First, and foremost what he
saw was neither the beauty nor the brilliance of the city, but its
idolatry. The adjective Luke uses (*kateidolos*) occurs nowhere else in
the New Testament, and has not been found in any other Greek literature.
Although most English versions render it `full of idols', the idea
conveyed seems to be that the city was `under' them. We might say that
it was `smothered with idols' or `swamped' by them. Alternatively, since
*kata* words often express luxurious growth, what Paul saw was a
`veritable forest of idols'. As he was later to say, the Athenians were
`very religious' (22). Xenophon referred to Athens as `one great altar,
one great sacrifice'. In consequence, `there were more gods in Athens
than in all the rest of the country, and the Roman satirist hardly
exaggerates when he says that it was easier to find a god there than a
man'. There were innumerable temples, shrines, statues and alters. In
the Parthenon stood a huge gold and ivory statue of Athena, `whose
gleaming spear-point was visible forty miles away'. Elsewhere there were
images of Apollo, the city's patron, of Jupiter, Venus, Mercury,
Bacchus, Neptune, Diana and Aesculapius. The whole Greek pantheon was
there, all the gods of Olympus. And they were beautiful. They were made
not only of stone and brass, but of gold, silver, ivory and marble, and
they had been elegantly fashioned by the finest Greek sculptors. There
is no need to suppose that Paul was blind to their beauty. But beauty
did not impress him if it did not honour God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ. Instead, he was oppressed by the idolatrous use to which
the God-given artistic creativity of the Athenians was being put. This
is what Paul saw: a city submerged in its idols. What Paul felt *He
was greatly distressed* (16). The Greek verb *paroxyno*, from which
`paroxysm' comes, originally had medical associations and was used of a
seizure or epileptic fit. It also meant to `stimulate', especially to
irritate, provoke, rouse to anger' (GT). Its only other occurrence in
the New Testament is in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church,
where he describes love as `not easily angered' (1 Cor. 13:5). Did Paul
then not practice in Athens what he preached in Corinth? Was he roused
to sinful anger by the city's idolatry? Is it right to say that he was
`irritated' (Moffatt), and even `exasperated' (NEB), JBP)? No, I think
not. To begin with, the verb is in the imperfect tense, which expresses
not a sudden loss of temper but rather a continuous, settled reaction to
what Paul saw. Besides, he was alone. Nobody witnessed his paroxysm. So
this must have been the word he himself used when later describing his
feelings to Luke; evidently he was not ashamed of them. The
clue to interpreting the nature of Paul's emotion is that *paroxyno* is
the verb which is regularly used in the LXX of the Holy One of Israel,
and in particular (such is the consistency of Scripture) of his reaction
to idolatry. Thus, when the Israelites made the golden calf at Mount
Sinai, when later they were guilty of gross idolatry and immorality is
relation to Baal of Peor, and when the Northern Kingdom made another
calf to worship in Samaria, they `provoked' the Lord God to anger.
Indeed, he described Israel as an `obstinate people...who continually
provoke me to my very face'(Is.65:2-3; see Dt. 9:7, 18, 22; Ps.
106:28-29; Hos. 8:5). So Paul was `provoked (RSV) by idolatry and
provoked to anger, grief and indignation, just as God is himself, and
for the same reason, namely, for the honour and glory of his name.
Scripture sometimes calls this emotion `jealousy'. For example, it is
written of Yahweh, `whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God' (Ex.34:14).
Now jealousy is the resentment of rivals, and whether it is good or evil
depends on whether the rival has any business to be there. To be jealous
of someone who threatens to outshine us in beauty, brains or sport is
sinful, because we cannot claim a monopoly of talent in those areas. If,
on the other had, a third party enters a marriage, the jealousy of the
injured person, who is being displaced, is righteous, because the
intruder has no right to be there. It is the same with God, who says `I
am the Lord, that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my
praise to idols (Is. 42:8). Our Creator and Redeemer has a right to our
exclusive allegiance, and is `jealous' if we transfer it to anyone or
anything else. Moreover, the people of God, who love God's name, should
share in his `jealousy' for it. For example, Elijah at the time of
national apostasy said, `I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God
of hosts', (1 Kings 19:10, RSV), so distressed was he that God's honour
was being profaned. Similarly, Paul wrote to the backsliding
Corinthians. `I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy' (2 Cor.
11:2ff.); he longed for them to remain loyal to Jesus, to whom he had
betrothed them. What Paul did
|
