Today’s passage is one of the outstanding texts in Acts, recording the impassioned final words of Paul to the leaders of the Ephesian church. In this message Paul looked at his past and his future. He had spent a great deal of time with the Ephesians and he reminded them of his conduct and teaching and of the work of God in their midst. He also addressed his own fate and the dangers awaiting the Ephesian church and its leaders. In deep affection, speaking to those who care greatly for him, Paul felt comfortable in speaking intimately, frankly and out of love. Throughout the message, he buoyed the strength of his teaching with the affirmation of his conduct while he lived among them. In this, I think his ministry should be a pattern for all churches and Christians.

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:17-21

Paul began his message by reminding them of his practice during his three years in Ephesus. With intimacy and transparency over an extended period of time, they had seen his consistency in lifestyle. Without pretention and in complete humility, he had served Jesus among them with great love and concern (as evidenced by tears) against much opposition from the Jews. Paul evangelized, proclaiming the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike, always calling men to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus as their Savior. Additionally, he taught those who already believed, both in public and in private.  Paul did not avoid telling men what they needed to hear nor did he selectively proclaim what men wanted to hear. He sought all that was profitable to the saved and the unsaved and did not allow opposition to silence him or limit what he had to say.

“And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.” Acts 20:22-27

Paul was pressing on toward Jerusalem, in a hurry to get there as soon as he could (Acts 19:21; 20:16), to face an unpleasant fate. He was “bound in spirit” (verse 22) and informed by the Holy Spirit (verse 23) concerning his future plans. The details were unimportant, but he was informed wherever he went that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem. He did not desire to save his life, however, but meant to spend it in fulfilling his calling—the proclamation of the gospel. Warnings of his future imprisonment were merely clarification of what he had been informed at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:15-16).  Paul’s goal was to “finish his course,” to accomplish that which God had given him to do. Content that he had fulfilled his mission in Ephesus and Asia, Paul could leave, never to return again, if that were the Lord’s will. There was still work to be done elsewhere, and thus he must press on, even though suffering awaited him.

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” Acts 20:28-32

Paul warned that there were dangers ahead for the church at Ephesus and these elders. He encouraged them to remain on guard for the flock and themselves. Holy Spirit-appointed, these elders were shepherds of God’s flock, which was threatened by “wolves,” who sought to harm the church.

The “wolves” of whom Paul warned already hid among the elders. Self-seeking and self-serving, they prepared to prey upon the flock, bringing destruction as they savagely devoured the sheep. It is not shocking that false teachers would rise. History tells us that false teachers did and continue to rise. The shock comes with the recognition that the false teachers were already in the church. How could such a terrible thing happen? How could a true shepherd of the flock become a wolf? Both Old Testament and New provide us with some very direct evidence as to how things go wrong. Ezekiel 34 rebuked the “shepherds of Israel,” who had forsaken their task and calling as shepherds, and begun to feed themselves from the flock, rather than feeding the flock. In John chapter 10 Jesus spoke of Himself as the “Good Shepherd” and contrasted Himself with those who were thieves and robbers, and hirelings, who had no real love nor care for the sheep. All these look out for themselves first.

The shepherd ceases to think and act like a servant and begins to expect to be served. Yet a good shepherd is one who gives his life for the benefit of the sheep. The “wolf” comes willing to sacrifice the sheep so that he might benefit. He may first become a mere “hireling,” looking out for himself and not really caring for the sheep. When there is danger or demands, he is not present to care for the sheep. Eventually he becomes the wolf, who actually devours the sheep.

I would note that Paul knew that he would no longer be present with them, yet he did not despair, for he was not the foundation of the Ephesian church. They were dependent upon Jesus Christ. Paul could leave, commending this body of saints to the Lord and the “word of His grace. “ God, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, could build up men, keep them from falling, and bring them into the inheritance which He had promised. Throughout the New Testament, you find the apostles all focused their readers on the Word of God as they neared the end of their ministries (2 Peter 1; 2 Timothy 3 & 4; 1 John 2:18-29).

“I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And they began to weep aloud and embraced Paul, and repeatedly kissed him, grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship.” Acts 20:33-35

Additional to the “word of God’s grace” and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the Ephesians also had Paul’s example as an illustration of the kind of motivation and lifestyle they should seek to follow.  Unlike the “wolves” who would always demand more of the flock, Paul’s ministry had been characterized by a servant’s spirit. He gained nothing monetarily from his ministry among them (though he could legitimately have asked for support-- 1 Corinthians chapter 9). Working with his own hands, supporting himself and those who traveled with him, his ministry came at great cost to himself, but not to the sheep. Free from lust for their money or possessions, Paul’s ministry did not require money from others, thus freeing him from the time-consuming process of raising funds and the temptation to misuse them to personally gain from his ministry. His ministry was characterized by giving, not by getting. His strength was not used to prey upon the weak, taking advantage of their weaknesses, but to support the weak. His life was lived on the principle taught by Jesus Himself: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (verse 35).

At the end of Paul’s exhortation, Paul knelt in prayer with these men. From the beginning of Acts to the present, there was nothing more important than “the ministry of the Word and prayer” (Acts 6:4). Paul had ministered the word to these men; now they prayed. Paul and the elders all placed their dependence upon God, calling on His grace.

They parted with many tears. Paul was leaving them, they suspected, for the last time. They were convinced they would never see this one who had played such a vital role in their salvation and spiritual growth, not knowing that Paul, through his writing and through those he sent their way, such as Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3), would continue his contact with them. God would minister to these saints by other means (Revelation Chapters 1 and 2). What we see here is Paul’s heart for the saints and their deep love and affection for him.

Some time later, after Paul’s arrest and during his imprisonment, Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians. In this epistle, he did not seek to address any specific problems in the church, but to declare the whole counsel of God and its practical implications in the lives of those who believe. In a word, this epistle surely is a “word of His grace.” As time went on, problems did arise in the Ephesian church, the very problems which Paul predicted in his farewell address. These problems were the reason why Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and why he wrote his first epistle to Timothy. Just as Paul warned that false teachers would arise, so Paul spoke of those “would-be teachers of the Law” who turned aside to fruitless, speculative discussions, spoken with great confidence, but having no profit so far as godly living are concerned (1 Timothy 1:3-11). In chapter 3, Paul laid down the qualifications for elders. The church at Ephesus already had elders, those who may have been appointed by Paul. Perhaps in light of the falling away of some, new elders appear to have been needed. Some of the existing elders, if they had wandered from the truth, may required reevaluation in terms of these qualifications. In chapter 4. Paul spoke against those who, out of a defiled conscience were forbidding those things which were God-given blessings, in the name of righteous living. Finally, in chapter 6 Paul spoke of those whose doctrine was speculative and corrupt, based upon the premise that godliness was a means of getting rich. Paul’s words of warning to the Ephesian elders had indeed come to pass.

Again, we see a strong undercurrent of God’s sovereignty working out His plans and purposes through men. Paul felt an urgency to return to Jerusalem to deliver the offerings from the Gentile churches. God was intent only on getting the man to Jerusalem for a very different reason. God had in mind that Jerusalem was Paul’s ticket to Rome. Paul knew God wanted him to go to Rome, but he never would have imagined how God would accomplish that. God’s ways are always higher than ours.

Note also that the primary power in Acts, particularly in Chapter 20, is the Word of God. Money and miracles play second fiddle. Paul preached in Troas and Miletus because preaching was his priority. In Troas, he was so consumed with the import of his message that he taught them all night and when his teaching was interrupted by the death of Eutychus, immediately after his miraculous raising, Paul went back to worship and teaching. Paul ministered to the Ephesian elders through the word and he commended them to God and to His word. Money and miracles played a role in the events of Chapter 20, but they were clearly secondary.

Why is it today that miracles and money seem to be primary, while the ministry of the Word is often secondary?

A couple of years ago I was in a meeting with a featured speaker. The first half of the meeting was taken up by our then-executive director, an erudite and extremely pompous lecturer who could sell tapes of his all-staff meeting presentations to insomniacs and made a cool million. The featured speaker, who had been on an airplane all the night before, dozed off, which quite a few of us noticed. Eventually, the ED droned to a halt and the speaker woke with a start. The look of terror in his eyes was quickly erased by our heart-felt giggles. He’s now a program director for the agency!

Sleeping in class or during sermons is a centuries-old problem. A young man named Eutychus experienced sleepiness while listening to Paul preach and it was the death of him. He fell three stories from a window. There’s no need to mourn, because Paul restored his life. While the former ED of the agency I work for had little excuse for droning on and on beyond liking the sound of his own voice, I believe Paul had much more urgent things to convey to the believers in Troas.

“And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.” Acts 20:7-12

What a strange feeling it must have been to see this city of Troas across the Aegean Sea, coming into view on the horizon. This was where Paul received the “Macedonia call” (16:9-10), after having been denied the opportunity to minister in Bithynia and Asia.  Now, on Paul’s return to this city, there was already an established church. We don’t know who started it or when. Somehow, this city was evangelized, but according to God’s timetable, not man’s. It was Paul’s desire to worship with the saints in Troas, teach them from the Scriptures and the revelation which God had given him; thus, he met with the church when it gathered on the “first day of the week” to “break bread”.

To get it out of the way, I’m going to first look at the miracle of the raising of Eutychus. I’m not going to call it a resurrection. Eutychus, like Lazarus, eventually died as do all living. This is not at all like the resurrection of Jesus and we should acknowledge that at the outset. Still, the unbelieving mind would like to deal with the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the same way they explain the resurrection of Jesus —by insisting that neither died, but that they only swooned, later on to revive. I can imagine some scene in a movie where they suppose Eutychus dead and drag him away, but he revives and is carried back alive, to which his mother cries “Praise God, a miracle!”

Okay, let’s get real! The kid fell three stories and a doctor, Luke, says he was dead. I’m going to guess that, with a physician present, Luke was invited to examine the body and see if there was anything he could do to revive the boy. A three-story fall being a three-story fall, there was nothing to heal. The boy was dead!

The reason why a non-believer would reject this raising from the dead is because they do not believe in miracles. On the other hand, a miracle-accepting Christian might wonder if it was indeed a miracle because so little is made of this event as a miracle. The raising of Eutychus is stated matter-of-factly, without hype or trumpets. We are not told, for example, that Paul prayed for Eutychus to be raised from the dead (as Peter did in Acts 9:36-42). Paul fell across the young man and announced that he was alive, but Luke left the details to our imaginations. After the event, there is no praise gathering for the miracle, even though all were greatly comforted by his raising (verse 12). Everybody returned to the teaching room.

Why is there so little emphasis on this miracle? I think it was because it was not Paul’s priority. Paul raised the boy back to life, but it was not his main interest. Paul was only there for the day. Intent upon teaching the Christians of Troas, Paul returned back upstairs to observe communion and teach more. It’s almost as though he raised the boy to avoid the inevitable delay of teaching that mourning might require.

Many think that Acts is a book of miracles; it is our basis for assuming that God can and will work miracles on a daily basis. Read the Book of Acts carefully, and you find that the book records fewer miracles than we might expect—fewer miracles than actually occurred. I think Luke and Paul were firmly convinced that miracles would come and go, but the Word of God would be eternal. Thus both Paul and Luke dealt briefly with the miracle and dealt emphatically with the teaching. Faith is not based upon what is seen (miracles), but on the Word of God (Hebrews 11). Thus miracles will not sustain our faith, but the Word of God will.

Why was Paul so strongly compelled to teach these saints? Somehow, he knew time was short and he would maybe never pass this way again. Note that Luke didn’t record what was taught. If it was so important, why did Luke neglect to record it?

Remember that Luke was demonstrating the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Things like the collection from the Gentile saints didn’t serve Luke’s overall purpose, so he didn’t record them. If Paul was intent on teaching the saints at Troas, Luke had no problem in passing by the content. By the time Luke wrote this section of Acts, Paul had written many epistles and Luke may not have felt he needed to repeat their content here. Luke could omit Paul’s teaching in Troas because it was already in print and available to his readers.

“But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for thus he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. And sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts 20:13-16

Paul left Troas, still intent on reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. For some unstated reason, Paul went on by land, while the others stayed on board ship. The ship Paul sailed on put in at various ports along its ways to Caesarea and it passed by Ephesus. When it made port in Miletus (about 30 miles from Ephesus), it laid over for one week, so Paul arranged to meet with the Ephesian elders. It is clear that Paul sensed this would be his last meeting with the elders, so I will deal with that message in a separate lesson.

The events of chapter 20 cover an indefinite, but fairly extensive, period of time, and span a broad geographical area, from Ephesus in Asia, across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, Achaia, Greece, then (back) to Macedonia, and (back) across the Aegean Sea to Asia. Many important events occur during the time period encompassed in this chapter; Luke (contrary to some modern historical writers) was very brief in his description. I’m sure there are folks who would like to know all the details, but Luke didn’t share them, though some are found in Paul’s letters. Thus, we know that Luke was deliberately selective in what he included in Chapter 20, emphasizing what pointed to his message and to the intended reader, Theophilus (let us remember that Acts may well have been a court-brief intended to sway Theophilus into helping Paul escape execution).

I am, however, going to focus on Paul’s roundabout journey to Jerusalem because I think there is an important lesson there. One does not usually travel from Ephesus to Jerusalem by way of Greece.

“And after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he departed to go to Macedonia. And when he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus; and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.” Acts 20:1-6

Paul had plans as to what he intended to do. We know from Acts 19:21-22 that Paul intended to visit Jerusalem, then Rome, and that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead into Macedonia. We also read of Paul’s plans as he outlined them in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1-9).

Writing from Ephesus to the Corinthians, Paul spoke of the great opportunities and opposition there. He intended to remain in Ephesus until after Pentecost, then to travel to Macedonia and on to Corinth, where he intended to winter. Paul’s schedule changed, however; the uprising at Ephesus forced him to move up his departure date.

Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry from the time he left Ephesus until he reached Troas is incredibly brief. His focus at this point was to bring Theophilus to the point of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and he would not be distracted by the many interesting aspects of Paul’s journeys or ministry because they did not contribute to his argument.  Clearly, taking up the collection, which Paul had promised Peter and James he would do, was important to Paul. He traveled quite out of his way to do it.  Yet, we must note that Luke didn’t even mention the collection, though he names the men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, who were representatives of the churches which had given money. Why was Luke silent on this?

Luke’s purpose in writing Acts was to record the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. The offering which Paul took from the Gentile church did not play a major role in that advance. The money was not for “missions”, but for the poor. It was important to Paul, but not important to the advance of the gospel. Strange as it may seem to our modern ears, money was not essential to the gospel in the 1^st Century. The gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome, from an almost entirely Jewish church to a predominately Gentile one, on a shoe-string budget. Paul’s missionary journeys don’t seem to have cost Jerusalem a red cent. In fact, the Gentile churches sent them money.

In our modern day, we think money is essential to conduct ministry and that is often our primary excuse for not doing more missions – money is limited. Jesus asked His disciples to follow Him without asking for their money. He didn’t tell them to save up their money so they would have the means to minister in the future. Instead, He instructed them to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor – not to the television budget or the public relations fund. When the beggar asked Peter and John for coin, they didn’t write him a check. They said they didn’t have silver or gold, but what they had was immensely more valuable – healing and salvation.

Ministry can be achieved without money and what is achieved is not proportionate to the amount spent. No, all ministry cannot be done without money and I am not saying that all ministry should be carried on without money. I am only noting that much ministry can be done without much money. Asia Minor was reached with the gospel, in a period of three years, without radio, television, and print media. Spirit-filled Christians shared their faith and proclaimed the gospel in the power of God. Ministry is not proportionate with money; it is proportionate with the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in and through men. That is the central message of Acts.

Of course ministry costs money. Jesus’ ministry cost money (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught that while money is merely temporal and passing, it can be used in such a way as to produce eternal results and eternal blessings (Luke 16:1-13). Jesus had a great deal to say about money, but He did not teach about money only to pass the plate at the conclusion of His message. Money can be used in such a way as to perform ministry in the lives of others, and to the glory of God, just as Paul taught (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).  The Bible consistently teaches us that if we have money, we should seek to use it in ministry to others, and if we do not have money, we should minister anyway, for God’s working is not dependent upon money.

It is a secular, humanistic, mindset which equates ministry with money. This is the same humanistic mindset which equates effectiveness with status (position), influence, education, and intelligence. We often pursue and cater to the rich because we think that God’s work needs their money. Similarly we pursue and cater to the learned, educated, and “wise” because we think that the advancement of the gospel is directly proportionate to the wisdom and “clout” of the proclaimer. This is a denial of the Word of God, which teaches that God has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom and the strength of the wise (1 Corinthians 1-3). When God’s work is accomplished by what unbelievers consider effective means, men tend to take credit. When God’s work is done through weakness, it is God Who is given the glory (1 Corinthians 1:26-31; l 3:18-23).

I am not opposed to Christian churches having a lot of money, but far too often, the money churches receive is spent not on ministry, but on buildings (or worse, rent!), sound systems, bands, and promotional campaigns. Yes, that brings the interested in the door, but what about the people who cannot afford to eat, let alone the bus fare to travel across town to attend that beautiful Protestant cathedral? What about those who cannot afford the TV to view that well-designed commercial? When a church has money, I’d rather see it spent on feeding the poor, clothing the naked, finding housing for the homeless, providing support for pregnant teens, helping addicts get off their drugs of choice, providing a van to transport people to service, than on a kicking sound system and a media campaign. Will fewer well-dressed people with nice cars visit the church? Maybe, but I would submit that they can find their own way to church if they are desirous to come.

The Christian churches of the 21^st Century need to stop emulating the world and start taking a look at how the greatest growth period for the Christian church was conducted. Maybe then we’ll stop shifting membership from one Christian church to another and start once more reaching out to unbelievers and actually growing the universal church instead of our individual congregations to the detriment of other individual congregations. That is, after all, what we were commissioned to do by Jesus. Paul understood this.

Why don’t we?

Most of what I am writing here is from a sermon one of my pastor gave when a church member lost a child in the womb. Although the parents of “Marie” felt assured of the final destination of their baby’s spirit, they had some relatives who were not so comforted, so they asked PW to preach on the topic at the funeral.

Let’s be honest. Despite the mass media, there are still people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ and so have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in order to receive or reject it. Even in supposedly media-soaked culture (example, England) the gospel is not reaching much of the population anymore to the extent that people there have not heard enough about Jesus and the gospel in order to consider it one way or the other. Are those people condemned to hell for their ignorance?

From the first chapter of Romans we learn that everyone has seen a glimmer of God through His creation. By rejecting this revelation of God through nature (think idolatry) they are choosing divine condemnation. However, because they have not heard the gospel, their condemnation is not as great as those who have heard and rejected the truth of the gospel (Matthew 12:38-45; Luke 12:47-48).

There are, then, at least two categories of condemned people: (1) those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and refused it; and, (2) those that have not heard the gospel, but have received revelation about God from nature and rejected (or distorted) it. I would suggest there are also two categories of saved people. The first are those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and received Him as Savior. They believe they are sinners, condemned to eternal death, and have accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God’s only means of salvation. The second category is all those who have not yet reached the point of being able to grasp the gospel (some would call this the “age of accountability”), and thus to choose whether to receive or reject it. I believe such “little ones” to be recipients of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically, I am referring to the unborn and to very young children.

The Book of Jonah shows that God distinguishes between those children who are not yet accountable for sin from those people who are accountable. Sent to the sinful city of Nineveh to proclaim that God’s judgment was soon to come upon this wicked city, Jonah very much wanted the Ninevites (the enemies of his people, the Israelites) to be destroyed. When the Ninevites heard the warning of God’s impending judgment they repented of their sin, and God withheld His judgment on this city for a time. Jonah was furious! He not only wanted the whole city to be destroyed, he wanted to watch it and all of its inhabitant burn! God rebuked Jonah for his hatred while Jonah was having a temper tantrum over a shade plant that died, leaving him in the hot sun.

Then the LORD said, "You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight. Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:9-11, emphasis mine).

Jonah was rebuked for wanting to see these ignorant people die painfully. Surely this number included children who are so young they do not yet have the capacity to understand the revelation of God in nature or in the gospel. Jonah wanted every Ninevite to die, regardless of age or accountability, but God does not condemn those who are innocent by virtue of ignorance. Jonah was wrong for failing to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

In Romans, the apostle Paul sought to show that all men are sinners, rightly under divine condemnation and the sentence of death, and desperately in need of salvation. Still, whether the heathen in some dark land who has only the revelation of God in nature (Romans 1:18-32) or the Jews who know God’s law very well (Romans 2:1-29), men are condemned for rejecting the revelation about God which He has made known to them. What of the unborn and the very young, who have never heard or grasped God’s revelation, in Scripture or in nature? Do they know the difference between their right and left hands? (Jonah 4:11).

Are innocent children condemned to eternal hell only because they are ignorant of their sin and of God’s salvation in Christ? I think not. This is why David found comfort in the death of his first child by Bathsheba.

“But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead." So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:19-23).

As a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba, the first child of their union became gravely ill. David petitioned God to spare the child, but when the child died, David was comforted. His servants were amazed, and asked him how this could be. David informed them that while the child could not return to him (by coming back to life), David would join the child (by spending eternity in heaven with him). David found comfort in his assurance that he would join the child in heaven.

How can anyone be saved without hearing the gospel and accepting it? The only way that this can be is if the blood of Jesus Christ reverses the curse Adam has brought upon his offspring, all mankind. Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is that which saves these little ones. Because they are too young to know about their sin and about God and His salvation, they are not held accountable for responding to the gospel. The saving work of Jesus Christ saves them, before they are even able to know it. Such children who die go to heaven. This is what comforted David.

The theological basis for David’s comfort and hope was described by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter 5: “How can men be saved by believing in one person, Jesus Christ?” Paul’s answer was that it was one man, Adam, who brought sin and condemnation upon the entire human race. It is therefore through one man, Jesus Christ (called the “last Adam” by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45), that God has made salvation possible for lost men. Paul’s entire argument was based upon the premise that Christ in His righteousness has outdone Adam in his sin. Whatever Adam had done to bring condemnation upon the human race, Jesus Christ had outdone, making salvation available to the human race. If God were to condemn an unborn child to suffer eternally in hell, it could not be for the willful sins that child has committed. The condemnation of such a child would have to be the penalty for Adam’s sin, not the child’s. But if Christ has outdone Adam, then the death and resurrection of Christ has rescued all mankind from the penalty for Adam’s sin. Any man who comes under divine condemnation is condemned for his own sins, not for Adam’s sin. Therefore, I believe that Paul taught that the unborn child and the infant are saved by the work of Christ. Just as the world involuntarily became participants in the sin of Adam, so the unborn and young child becomes the beneficiary of Christ’s saving work at Calvary.

Obviously, there comes a time when we are held accountable for our own sins. Paul talks about it in Romans, that as he learned the law, he became a slave to sin. Thus, theologians talk about an “age of accountability.” It’s not a term found explicitly in Scripture, but it is an implicit and abstract concept that is Biblical. Passages like Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12 indicate we will be required to give an account for our sin. Yet study in the Bible suggests that young children are not held accountable for sin, yet. Like the doctrine of the triunity of God, the Bible doesn’t explicitly spell it out, but it does leave hints that lead us to arrive at the conclusion that there is some age of accountability, but it would seem to vary with the individual.

Some believe the age of accountability could have been around 20 years old because this was the age when young men in Israel became accountable to serve in the army of Israel. I think that’s a bit legalistic. Others believe the age of accountability is around 12 or 13 due to this being the age when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents and was found in the temple discussing the Law and asking questions. This was also the normal age for being received into Judaism as a “son of the law,” which would make him a full member of the religious community. Again, kind of legalistic for me.

All of this is conjecture since Scripture does not deal with the topic directly. In my inexpert opinion, a person becomes personally accountable when he or she reaches a point where they have the spiritual and mental facility to grasp the issues. This does not mean they are not sinful, but only that they have not reached a place where they can understand the consequence of and cure for their sin.

Of course all men are born spiritually dead (without the natural ability to respond) and under the condemnation of sin, but Christ seeks to draw all men to Himself through the ministry of the Spirit. He bore the condemnation for man by His death on the cross. The accountability issue then is turning from self-trust in good works or from apathy and a denial of accountability to God to trust in Christ (John 16:8). The Spirit’s ministry of convicting and giving demonstrable proof to men relates to their trust or rejection of Christ .

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; (emphasis mine).  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 16:8-9

So when is the age of accountability? The primary issue seems to be response to the revelation God has given. Personal accountability would vary according to one’s ability to understand the most fundamental issues. That would happen for some when they are quite young, while others may be much older. My daughter was perhaps four years old (we realized in retrospect) while an FAS kid adopted by some friends of ours is just now becoming aware of sin at age 16. The issue boils down to that point in time when one has the intellectual capacity to understand and respond to the convicting work of the Spirit as described in John 16. Christ died for the world and paid the penalty for sin (1 John 2:2); the issue is one of response to the revelation of God in creation (God consciousness) and in Christ. Young children are not responsible for their sin because Christ loves them and protects them, but at some point, they will be responsible. This is why witnessing to our children is of great importance.

So why not baptize infants? If it is merely a symbol, what difference does it make if it is done before or after salvation? Well, first, I don’t think we’re at liberty to play fast and loose with God’ symbols. He’s given them to us for a reason. We should reverence them for no other reason than that He gave them to us. Second, while it doesn’t convey grace leading to salvation that is the impression that is given. I think that can set up a stumbling block for many because they think the outward symbol is what saves them when they have not yet experienced the inward change that is salvation. I have found in conversations with people who were baptized as infants and are now living lifestyles of sin that often they feel they have their “fire insurance” because they were baptized as infants. In college I had a Lutheran minister, head of the Lutheran Campus Ministry, tell me that a separate act of faith was not necessary because baptism indicated that faith had already taken place.  I remember standing in the Student Union and asking, loud enough for people to hear me, how he knew what was in the mind of an infant he had baptized. It’s telling that he flipped me off (oh, yes, and oh, my!) and walked away. I was a smart-aleck, but he couldn’t answer me from the Bible.

I think baptism regeneration is an example of presuppositions causing the cart to somehow come before the horse. The symbol of regeneration became, somehow, the means of regeneration in the minds of people who, unlike little Marie’s parents, were not so confident in where their children’s souls were going after death. They wanted assurances and baptism of infants gave them that. In employing that method, churchmen sent an unintended message that baptism is what saves you. If you think you’re already saved, why contemplate the consequences of sin and the need for repentance, those actions that are truly necessary for salvation? Moreover, it robbed people who did contemplate sin and repentance of a beautiful first step of obedience in their new life of faith. My church has baptized several adults from denominations that will not re-baptize adults who feel they have the need of this first step. They choose our church because we separate baptism from membership (we are mavericks in Baptist circles for this), thus allowing them to remain Lutheran or Catholic but take part in believer’s baptism as all Christians were meant to do.

And, therein is the primary issue! The Bible shows us examples of believer’s baptism and now overt examples of infant baptism. From the perspective of a Bible-believing Christian, where our doctrines are derived not from tradition but from what we find within the pages of God’s Word, baptism is always a believer’s activity. You can jump through all the mental and theological hoops you find necessary to arrive at some other conclusion, but the Bible always shows believer’s baptism of those old enough to be believers. And, that should be, and is, enough for me.

A Roman Catholic reader asked a couple of questions that require some response. As a Catholic, of course, he belongs to a church that practices infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. The second term refers to the belief that baptism is a part of salvation and that it confers grace on the baptized, sort of sealing them for later salvation. Part and parcel with this is the idea of original sin, the idea that we are all born under the penalty of Adam and Eve’s sin and that if we die before we are saved, we go to Hell, whether we are an 80-year-old reprobate or an 8-hour-old infant.

First, I want to look at baptism from a Biblical point of view. Baptism is probably the most controversial issue in the Christian church. Christians have killed and persecuted other Christians over the issue of baptism. Questions abound about it. What does baptism mean, how should it be performed, who should receive it?

Of course, the first place to look for Biblical doctrine is the Bible.  The word “baptism” occurs 116 times in the New Testament, often describing John the Baptist, so we won’t look at all of them. The definition of the Greek word baptizo (baptism is a transliteration because the KJV translators didn’t want to open this kettle of worms) is “to dip or to immerse or to destroy.” That third definition caused me some deep thought when I first encountered it in Strongs. I finally came to the conclusion that certain things, when put under water and left there, are destroyed. I don’t know if there is any thing more to say about that.

The word or the root of baptizo occurs 69 times in the Gospels, 27 times in the book of Acts; 16 in Paul’s writings, twice in the Book of Hebrews (both dealing with ritual washings as in ceremonial purification), once in 1 Peter, and one time in the book of Revelation.

I believe the Bible teaches about two types of baptism.  There is a physical baptism in water and a spiritual baptism. In  Mark 10:37-38, James and John came to Jesus and asked a favor, but Jesus told He could not grant their request because they could not be baptized with the baptism He would experience. Yet, this was long after Jesus’ water baptism, so clearly was not referring to water baptism in Mark 10. We later come to understand that He meant His own destruction, His death. Clearly, He spoke of baptism in a non-physical sense. Similarly Luke 12:50 recorded Jesus saying He had a baptism to undergo and would be distressed until He had completed it. The context demands that Jesus was talking about His death hanging on the cross and receiving the sentence of the world’s sin. In Mark 1:8, John the Baptist said, “’I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” John the Baptist’s ministry was baptizing with water, but Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit. A Spirit baptism is clearly set apart from a water baptism in this passage, a notion repeated in all of the synoptic Gospels as well as in Acts 1:5, right before the Spirit of God came on Pentecost and the community of believers was baptized by the Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit; He was poured out on them.

For any Bible-believing church 1 Corinthians 12 is central to the doctrine of Spirit baptism. Verse 13 says “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” The Spirit has baptized all believers into one body, which is Spirit baptism. This is apart from water baptism.

My church, indeed all Baptist churches, believe in full-immersion water baptism. We look to Jesus’ baptism for this model. The mode of Jesus’ baptism was clearly water and clearly a lot of it, because John selected that particular place because water was plentiful there (John 3:23). Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:36 both depict baptisms involving the baptized going down into the water. Logically speaking, sprinkling or pouring would not require wading into the water, so why did they go down into the water and why would they need a lot of it? Immersion is the only thing that would require plentiful water and going down into it. There is also the symbolism of baptism which is supported by immersion. Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 all provide word pictures that suggest salvation is dying in Christ to be raised anew.  What better symbolism than immersion baptism for that?

Truthfully, the Bible is not clear on the mode of baptism. Water, absolutely. It appears as though the proper New Testament means of baptism involved immersion or dipping, not sprinkling or pouring. But we cannot be entirely dogmatic about that. It is never completely spelled out for us, so we encourage immersion baptism as a church, but we also understand that there are extenuating circumstances where a person might have to be baptized in a different way. I can imagine places where water is scarce and immersion baptism is not feasible. Alaskan Native villages usually have rivers so cold you can get hypothermia in them in July. Pouring or sprinkling as an alternative to immersion would, I think be acceptable in some extenuating circumstances. My church is firm on immersion baptism, but our constitution allows for an alternative means due to medical necessity. The earliest church teachings outside the New Testament were the Didache and Tertullian, both written less than a century after the close of the New Testament. Both talked about immersion. The Didache said it is also permissible to pour on the new believer. Both of them, incidentally, talk about immersing three times -- in the name of Father, the name of the Son, the name of the Holy Spirit.

I believe in believers’ baptism. My church does not practice paedobaptism, or infant baptism and we do not embrace baptismal regeneration. We do not believe that baptism is part of the gospel, or a means to salvation.

Again, we turn to the Bible for our doctrine. Were infants baptized in the New Testament? My husband was raised Catholic and was baptized as an 8-day-old infant. He was baptized again about 21 years later after trusting Christ as his Savior and Lord. I want to show you the passages that certain denominations use to support infant baptism. You can draw your own conclusions about the strength of their argument based on the evidence. Acts 16:14-15 records that a woman named Lydia heard the gospel, believed what Paul was preaching and she and her whole household were baptized. I did not see any infants in this passage. I saw “household.” “Household” could mean a lot of things. It could mean her and her husband and some servants, maybe some parents and siblings, potentially some cousins, grown children, teenagers, children or infants, but it does not necessarily mean infants. It is only possible that infants were involved in that baptism.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jail asked Paul and Silas what was required for him to be saved. Paul told him to believe in the Lord Jesus and he would be saved along with his household. In order to understand the passage though, you can’t stop reading there. They then spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. First, Paul didn’t mention baptism at all here, which seems strange if it is required for salvation. Second, the gospel was preached to the entire household, which may or may not have included infants and, then, they were baptized.  You find that specific order throughout Acts – preaching, belief, then baptism.

Acts 18:8 records how Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.” This is talking about household salvation, not necessarily household baptism, but I have heard this passage used to support infant baptism. The Bible says he and his whole family believed, which tells me there were no infants there if they in fact believed, which is something infants cannot do.

In I Corinthians 1:16 Paul wrote “I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.” My points from above apply here also.

Four passages talk about household salvation or household baptism. Infants are not mentioned explicitly in any of them. These are the only passages that even imply the doctrine of infant baptism. If infants were meant to be baptized, you’d think God would have seen to it that it was put somewhere in His Scriptures. I think this is a case of presuppositions being applied to the Bible rather than the Bible informing church practice.

Some denominations practice infant baptism, principally the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and the Presbyterian. We need to draw a distinction between them before we go further. The Roman Catholic Church believes in baptismal regeneration of infants. Baptism is one of their seven sacraments or ordinances. When you receive baptism in the Roman Catholic Church, they believe that you are receiving grace that will assist you in your journey toward salvation. Baptism is considered one of the necessary steps toward salvation. They baptize infants and believe in baptismal regeneration because they believe that through baptism a person receives grace toward salvation.

The Lutheran church holds a similar view. The Lutheran church has taught baptismal regeneration from the time of Martin Luther. Remember Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, but he held onto certain of their doctrines. The Lutheran church embraces baptismal regeneration, but they also teach that we are saved by faith alone. How do you reconcile those two? Luther came up with an idea that Lutheran theologians have maintained ever since, that infants have a mysterious ability to exercise unconscious faith. Infants can actually trust Jesus Christ unconsciously, so therefore they are saved and can be baptized.

The Presbyterians also practice infant baptism, but they do not teach baptismal regeneration. The Presbyterian church views present-day infant baptism as being similar to Old Testament infant circumcision. In the Old Testament, when an infant was eight days old, he went for circumcision as a sign of the covenant, thus bringing the infant into the covenant community. Was that infant saved by circumcision? No, circumcision does not save. It just meant that he became a member of the community through this outward sign of the covenant. Presbyterians believe baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament and that baptism of infants is a way of entering them into the covenant community. Are they saved because of baptism? A biblically literate Presbyterian today would say no, baptism of that infant does not save them.

The difference between believer’s baptism and baptismal regeneration is enormous. Believer’s baptism follows a sequence: a person believes, trusts Christ, is saved and then is baptized. In baptismal regeneration, baptism is a part of salvation. You are baptized and that temporarily washes away original sin and imparts grace that will assist you toward salvation, which will happen at some point when you understand the gospel.

Which is right? Again, we must turn to the Bible for our answers, laying aside any presuppositions we might have.

Those who advocate baptism regeneration lean heavily on Acts 2:38. Having preached the first Christian sermon at Pentecost, Peter was asked by some in the crowd what they must do to be saved. “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Then in verse 41, we learn “So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added.”  The question is was Peter teaching/preaching repentance plus baptism equals salvation or was he emphasizing the need to be baptized in Jesus’ name?

There’s a big difference. Either Peter was highlighting repentance and faith as necessary for salvation with baptism as an immediate outward symbol of this beautiful regeneration or he was teaching that baptism is a necessary part of the salvation equation. Of course, we must take the whole of the Bible together in context.  It’s important to know what else Peter had to say about baptism if we want to know what role baptism played in the gospel Peter preached. In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, Peter said “’Therefore, repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out ….’” He did not say, “Repent and be baptized and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out.” If baptism were a necessary part of salvation, you would think he would have mentioned it there, but he didn’t.

I think he cleared up the difficulty for us in I Peter 3:21. He wrote about Noah and the ark -- the ark’s saving them through the flood. “And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you -- not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ….” Now I know some who will say this shows that baptism saves you, but lay aside your presuppositions for just a moment and read a little further. Peter immediately turned around and clarified -- and I am thankful for this parenthesis, “not the washing off of … dirt.” Baptism is not what saves us. Baptism represents a pledge toward God of a good conscience “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. It is that pledge, not the symbol, that saves us. This verse brings clarity to Peter’s theology, for he clearly did not believe or teach that being dipped, immersed, sprinkled, or poured (all the actions involving water) saves us. It is merely the beautiful representation of our salvation in Jesus Christ.

In Acts 22:16 Paul recounted his testimony, quoting Ananias “’And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’” Some people lean on this verse also to support baptismal regeneration. However, Paul’s statement here must be linked with Acts 9:17-18, which was the actual event that Paul was recounting. “So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, ‘Brother Saul ….’” That’s our first hint. Paul had already met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Now Ananias, a Christian, called him “Brother Saul”.  “’… The Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from his eyes and he could see again,” which often in scripture is a picture of redemption. Whereas I was blind, now I can see. Now you can see clearly. It is an image of having been saved. In the very next clause, “He got up and was baptized ….”

Did Paul believe that you were a believer first and then you followed Jesus in obedience through baptism or did he believe you were baptized as a part of salvation? Fortunately, with Paul, we have lots of other resources for his teachings. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul wrote “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ….” Isn’t that an awesome passage, the way he divorces those two? If baptism were necessary for salvation, that would be part of the gospel. Paul says that is not the case. The gospel stands alone. It’s by faith alone, by grace alone, that we are saved. That is why Paul was been sent; not to baptize.

Think about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Note that it says “Go and make disciples” -- believers, converts, followers of Jesus Christ. Then baptize them. Baptize whom? Baptize seekers? The unsaved? No! Baptize disciples -- people who are already followers of Jesus Christ. If baptismal regeneration is what the Bible teaches, then why didn’t the text say, “Go and baptize people in order to make them disciples”? It doesn’t say that. The assumption is that you become a disciple (a follower of Jesus Christ), and then you are baptized.

Some other passages to consider in this discussion are John 1:12, John 3:16, Romans 10:9, and Ephesians 2:8-9. Probably the clearest example of believer’s baptism is Acts 10. Cornelius heard Peter’s words, he trusted Christ and the spirit of God indwelt him. He even spoke in tongues as evidence that he had received the Spirit of God. Then, he was baptized.

Few Christian practices are as misunderstood as baptism. Few doctrines within the Christian church universal are more controversial. Yet the Bible’s teachings are really quite clear on the subject, provided you don’t force it to dance to the tune of your presuppositions. Baptism is a symbol of the transforming belief that Jesus is Savior. It is therefore something to be done by believers and not infants because infants are incapable of belief.

But, what about small children who die and go to heaven without salvation? Well, that will be another post.

Paul had been teaching at Ephesus for three years and had seen the successful evangelization of the city and hinterland. The word of God had been magnified and, thanks to a foolish attempt by unbelieving Jewish magicians to usurp the authority of Jesus as demonstrated through Paul, Christ had been well-shown to be supreme. Success breeds jealousy, which Paul had experienced before.

“And about that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, was bringing no little business to the craftsmen; these he gathered together with the workmen of similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that our prosperity depends upon this business. And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. And not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship should even be dethroned from her magnificence.” And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ And the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theater, dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia.” Acts 19:23-32

Paul was a victim of his own success. In convincing people to turn aside from their idol worship, he cut into the idol-makers’ profits and, as they say, it’s all about the benjamines. Ephesus was known for its large temple to Diana (Artemis) and probably a good deal of the city made its living off making little statues of Artemis for people to carry home for private worship. When the people of Ephesus came to see the futility of magic, they have also come to see the futility of idolatry. Paul’s preaching was a threat, but the practices of the Christians had a huge impact on the entire city – an impact that demanded a response. Demetrius, a silversmith, called the craftsmen together in a guild meeting and told them: 1) our prosperity depends upon the business of making idols of Artemis; 2) Paul’s preaching is endangering our business; and, 3) people are going to quit coming to the temple of Artemis and the city will be left destitute.

Upon hearing this, they, like all good trade unions, rioted. The masses who joined in seem to have been confused about the “cause”, but the desired effect of social disruption was achieved, though in the end, they arrested Gaius and Aristarchus – two local Christians -- rather than Paul. Hey, having someone to stone is necessary if you’re going to hold a stoning! You can’t have a stoning without a victim!

“And when Paul wanted to go into the assembly, the disciples would not let him. And also some of the Asiarchs who were friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to venture into the theater. So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and the majority did not know for what cause they had come together. And some of the crowd concluded it was Alexander, since the Jews had put him forward; and having motioned with his hand, Alexander was intending to make a defense to the assembly. But when they recognized that he was a Jew, a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Acts 19:30-34

I’m not sure what Alexander’s purpose was here, but his Jewishness seems to have further aggravated the Ephesians and sent them into a chant. I’m personally having visions of Ramadan here. Paul wanted to address the crowd, but the disciples refused to allow it, probably fearing for his safety. I think the crowd’s response to Alexander shows how little effect Paul would have had on this angry mob.

I think there are some modern lessons we can learn here. These people, in their pagan city, felt what was precious to them being attacked and they sought to protect it. What Paul taught had a keen double edge. The religious nature of Ephesus was changing from pagan to Christian – eventually it would be a major seat of Christianity and Demetrius would be proved right. The temple of Diana would be abandoned. The commercial nature of Ephesus was also changing, because it relied on the religion of Diana for so much of its trade. If Diana was no longer being worshipped, what were the tradesmen going to do for a living? Nobody had come up with bumper decals yet. We see this in communities today when some groups protest the building of churches or place stringent regulations upon such buildings, designed to prevent their building. Often, if you research the history of such efforts you find out that someone feels their business will be threatened. Several years ago, when our church wanted to pave a field we were already using as a parking lot the liquor store owner down the street launched a bunch of environmental challenges that drove up the expense of paving by so much that the field is still a dust bowl. Why would the owner of a liquor store not want a Baptist church (that has been in the same location for 60 years to his 20 and was three blocks away from his business) to have the ability to expand? Well, I think he thinks we might seek to close him down for license violations and the more of us who are able to sign petitions (a larger less-dusty parking lot might encourage more people to attend, maybe), the less safe he feels in his business practices (btw, we have never sought to do so, though we do pray for bad business decisions on his part to be discovered by the alcohol board).

“And after quieting the multitude, the town clerk said, “Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, and of the image which fell down from heaven? Since then these are undeniable facts, you ought to keep calm and to do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess. So then, if Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint against any man, the courts are in session and proconsuls are available; let them bring charges against one another. But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly. For indeed we are in danger of being accused of a riot in connection with today’s affair, since there is no real cause for it; and in this connection we shall be unable to account for this disorderly gathering.” And after saying this he dismissed the assembly.” Acts 19:35-41

Paul and Alexander would not be heard by the crowd, but the city clerk, who was a politician after all, bided his time and allowed the crowd to calm a bit before he spoke. Demetrius emphasized profits and self-interest ending with the worship of Artemis, while the clerk emphasized the worship of Artemis and the related economic benefits. The clerk pointed out that if Artemis is real, which they all believed she was, they didn’t need to worry about some foreigner coming in and upsetting the “faith. The clerk was apparently familiar with Paul’s teachings and knew Paul and his colleagues had not broken any laws. They hadn’t desecrated Artemis’ temple or spoke blasphemy concerning her. They taught against idolatry, but not by attacking the idols. There were courts to handle things if laws were broken and they’d likely find the mob guilty of causing upheaval, so “go home and relax, people!” Persuaded, the crowd went home and Paul, seeing the effects of his presence, moved on.

The city clerk reminds me of Gallio, the Corinthian official who defended Paul’s right to preach even though he himself didn’t believe. God used pure heathens in both instances to advance His gospel.  While Gallio seems to have just wanted to return to whatever pressing business occupied a Roman proconsul and seemed annoyed by the Jews’ rabble-rousing, the city clerk was aware of what Paul preached and confident that he hadn’t violated any laws. The faith of the Christians in the power of God enabled them to live within the laws of the land. If they differed with the worship of the Ephesians, they made their differences clear in a way that was within the law. In Acts the laws of the land are only disobeyed when they directly contradict God’s law (Acts 5:29). That’s another subject that I might address sometime other than this.

Paul’s deliverance was not wrought by him, by having the right method or a clever argument. He was never allowed to speak. God used a pagan politician to rescue Paul. That should speak volumes to us on God’s ability to work sovereignly to carry out His plans. Does He really need us or is He giving us the privilege of working for Him? I think the latter rather than the former.

So why do we continually turn to the world for answers that only God can give? Why do we seek worldly solutions to worldly problems when God has demonstrated that He is more than capable to dealing with worldly problems in ways that will surprise us? Humans are always and will ever be enamored of our own intelligence. We still believe the lie that the serpent told Eve – “You can be as gods.”  We honestly believe that we possess the ability to reason with the world and make them understand our position. This is folly! Paul understood that every breath he took belonged to God and therefore, he dedicated every word he taught to God as well. If he achieved any success in preaching the gospel at the school of Tyrannus, it was the Lord’s doing, not Paul’s. In Ephesus, he was not given an opportunity to speak, but God spoke volumes through the words of a pagan politician. What does that tell us about our reliance upon God?

Most of Paul’s ministry was spent in traveling. He stayed the longest in Corinth and Ephesus – and, well, Roman imprisonment in both Caesarea and Rome. Paul’s ministry in Ephesus shows Paul in his element, doing what he had been trained to do under Gamaliel, expound from the Scriptures. In Ephesus, around AD 52-57, Paul was a seminary teacher with the ability to spend time teaching the Word in depth, as it is best taught. The evangelization of Ephesus took a long time. God first denied Paul to preach the gospel as he passed through Asia during the second missionary journey and we see no attempt on Paul’s part of preach the gospel there as he returned to Jerusalem several years later. He did leave Priscilla and Aquila there, perhaps with the idea that they would “plow the field” before he started there. We don’t know why God delayed the evangelization of Asia or why He later allowed Paul to remain in Ephesus for about 3½ years.

We do know that Paul’s sojourn in Ephesus was of great importance. It served as a springboard for the evangelization of all of Asia, which would someday be a major seat of Christianity. We know that Paul faced struggles in Ephesus that he described as akin to fighting “wild beasts.” He wrote 1Corinthians from Ephesus and, of course, the Letter to the Ephesians was written back to this church. Timothy would be sent by Paul to pastor there. Clearly, this was a pivotal mission to both Paul and God.

“And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” Acts 19:8-10

After his encounter with the 12 disciples upon his arrival at Ephesus (19:1-7), Paul began to minister in the synagogue at Ephesus. His topic was “the kingdom of God” (verse 8), probably beginning with the Old Testament prophesies pertaining to the kingdom and how Jesus fulfilled these.

I am impressed with how long Paul was able to teach at the Ephesian synagogue before it became necessary to relocate. Paul seems to have established his case over a period of time rather than having to state the same thing repeatedly. Three months of reasoning and persuading in the synagogue was something of a record for Paul, who often saw stones being collected on his second or third visit. I think God was allowing an establishment of a pattern for evangelization and study of the Bible.

Sometimes people who don’t know Christianity charge us with “brainwashing” our children, ourselves, the postal carrier we give a Christian thank you care to, etc. The Biblical pattern shows something entirely different. Paul taught in the synagogues on Sabbath and the people had all week to search the Scriptures and think about what Paul had taught. And, there’s every evidence that he allowed them to dispute with him on every point of what he taught. This is the exact opposite approach from brainwashing, which attempts to weaken the critical faculties of the audience, wearing them down physically and mentally, until they just don’t care to think critically any more. Paul’s teaching was the opposite. He taught in smaller doses, and there was time in-between to think it over, giving the men and women who believed his teaching time to check the teaching of the Scriptures against what he was teaching, to assure his truthfulness. Paul was using reason, not brain-washing.

Paul preached at the synagogue in Ephesus for about three months. As always, some were convinced of the truth of the gospel while others grew increasingly opposed to it. Gradually becoming hardened to Paul’s teaching, they became disobedient to it, and finally began to verbally oppose it in public. They then began to disrupt his public ministry, heckling him, to the point where it became impossible to provide good instruction. Paul changed his base of operations, moving to the school of Tyrannus. Very little is said of the teaching ministry of Paul in this “school.” Such schools were not uncommon in the ancient world. Paul’s ministry while in Ephesus echoed throughout the land, so that Luke can tell us “all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord” (verse 10). Since Paul stayed in Ephesus and did not seem to travel about (20:18), it seems much of the preaching took place outside the city by others, some of whom may be named in Acts 20:4. Although the Spirit had once forbidden the preaching of the word in Asia (Acts 16:6), now the word had been proclaimed throughout Asia. In God’s time, the word of God was proclaimed.

“And God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.” Acts 19:11

Paul’s ministry of preaching the gospel was affirmed by signs and wonders. A friend of mine with a wry sense of humor wondered just how many work aprons Paul “misplaced” during that period of ministry. Apparently, God well-established Paul’s divine ordination. Of course, power like that will make some people jealous.

“But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”  And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.” Acts 19:13-20

Some who saw the attention Paul’s ministry was attracting wanted to cash in on his success. If Paul could cast out demons and heal people even through his aprons, why couldn’t they? Jewish exorcists had been operating for years using powerful “name dropping” to cast out demons – for a fee. They must have been somewhat effective in the past, but this time, God would not allow them to succeed. Hearing Paul cast out demons in Jesus’ name, the sons of Sceva thought they’d give it a try. This particular demon was unimpressed. Yes, he had to surrender to the power of Jesus even when wielded by a mere mortal like Paul, but he didn’t know these men. He essentially called them identity thieves, then attacked and humiliated them. In his rebellion against authority, the demon served the cause of Christ by testifying to the power of the gospel in contrast to the counterfeit ministry of the sons of Sceva and others like them. This was one way God spread the gospel throughout Asia. Hearing of the exposure of the exorcists, the people of Ephesus feared God and magnified His name, recognizing that He would not be used by men like some magic genie. As a result of this clear contrast, many turned from magical practices to the worship of Jesus.

“Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” And having sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.” Acts 19:21-22

Despite a successful ministry in Ephesus, Paul was already being drawn onward by the Lord. Macedonia and Achaia were hardly on Paul’s way to Jerusalem. For that matter, Jerusalem was not exactly on the way to Rome. Ephesus was in present day Turkey, Macedonia and Achaia were in present-day Greece and Jerusalem is where it has always been. Ditto Rome. Paul was taking a roundabout way in order to collect aid for the Jerusalem saints, who were struggling with hard times. Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead, to begin making preparations for the collection. Paul then wrote to the saints in Corinth, encouraging them to make a generous contribution to the needy in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 16:1-12; 2 Corinthians 8:1-15).

Following God’s guidance, Paul developed a plan for the next leg of his ministry. God would modify that, as we shall see, but in the end, accomplished what Paul had planned all along.

Ephesus was greatly impacted and troubled by Jewish false teaching, not the least of which was magic. Evident in the epistles of Paul to Timothy, the error Paul refuted was taught by those who wish to be “teachers of the Law” (1 Timothy 1:3-11). These would-be teachers engaged in speculation, even as they spoke with great confidence. Their theology was rooted in myths, not in the revealed Word of God. When these Jews turned from the truth of God they turned to speculation, myth, and conjecture. When they turned from the power of God, they often turned to some form of magic.

To the extent that the church has power, the unbelieving world will seek to imitate it; to the extent that the church lacks power, the church will seek to imitate the world and its power.

Looking at the church today – is the world attempting to imitate the power of God which is evident in the church or is the church trying to imitate the power which is in the world? If the world is not trying to imitate God’s power as seen in the church, does this not suggest the church has lost its power? The church is imitating the world much more than the world is imitating the church. Have we turned from the worship of God and the Word of God to worship of the world?

Some churches have practices that precede themselves with the adjective “Christian” but are really just reworked worldly systems dressed up in church words. Christian practice often takes the thoughts, methods, and means of secular, ungodly people, and seeks to sanctify it with Christian labels. A lot of what purports to be Christian psychology is really Freudian analysis without the phallic symbols. How often do churches borrow their fund-raising methodology from the world and then seek to give God the credit? The hand is God is rarely evident to the extent that even unbelievers recognize that it is God’s work and not man’s.

How much of our Christianity has magic as the motive and the method? We want God to meet our needs, give us what we want, and so we turn to formulae which assure us of His blessings. Our doctrine is speculative rather than authoritative. Our knowledge is based upon secular thought rather than on the Word of God. How many of our terms cannot be found in the Bible or defined by Scripture? We emphasize “right method” over divine guidance. Often we don’t even leave God room to overrule our desires and plans.

One of the largest and most impressive cities in the ancient world, Ephesus was a political, religious, and commercial center in Asia Minor. It was located in western Asia Minor at the mouth of the Cayster River and was an important seaport. Situated between the Maeander River to the south and the Hermus River to the north, the city had excellent access to both river valleys which allowed it to flourish as a commercial port. Due to silt accumulation by the river, the present city is approximately 5-6 miles inland. The original inhabitants of the Ephesus area were driven out around 1000 BC by Ionian Greek settlers who promptly assimilated the native religion and worship of a fertility goddess whom they identified with Artemis, the virgin huntress (also called Diana by the Romans). Around 560 BC a magnificent temple was built to Artemis. In 547 BC, control of the area passed to Persia and disaster struck the city in 356 BC when fire destroyed the Temple.  Alexander the Great took control of the area in 334 BC and offered to reconstruct the temple. This was declined. The temple was rebuilt, completed in 250 BC and became known as one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Control of the area passed to one of Alexander’s generals from 301 to 281 BC. City walls were built and a new harbor was constructed.  The Seleucids gained control from 281 to 189 BC, when the Romans defeated them and the city was given to the king of nearby Pergamum as a reward for his military assistance. When the last Pergamum king died in 133 BC, the city came under direct Roman control, under which it thrived, reaching its pinnacle of greatness during the 1^st and 2^nd centuries AD. When Paul wrote this letter, Ephesus was probably the fourth largest city in the world with a population of about 250,000. Its grandeur is evident in the archeological remains, including the ruins of the temple to Artemis, the civic agora, the temple of Domitian, gymnasiums, public baths, a theater with seating for 24,000, a library and the commercial agora. There was also found a partial statue of a colossus of the emperor Domitian. Today, the Turkish town of Seljuk occupies the ancient site of Ephesus.

I thought about moving on to Ephesus as Acts does, but Corinth is, I think, an extremely important church in the history of the early Church, so we need to pause a moment to consider it more closely.

Paul spent about 18 months in Corinth on his second missionary journey. He had time to develop relationships while he was there. He wrote both the letters to the Thessalonians and probably Romans during this time. In other words, Corinth is where most of our theology was penned. What was special about Corinth?

First, it was a thoroughly pagan city, though it did have a synagogue where Paul ministered for about three months before opposition caused him to move next door. It had an agora – a marketplace, where Paul could support himself as a tentmaker. We know that this was Priscilla and Aquila’s trade as well. We don’t know what Timothy and Silas were trained to do beyond preach the gospel, but all young men in Grecian Jewish society were trained in some sort of trade, so it is reasonable to assume that they were able to make a living. This allowed them to support Paul in full time ministry.

Corinth, though it had an ancient past, was a relatively new city because the ancient city had been destroyed and abandoned, then rebuilt by the Romans only about 100 years before. I suspect it was like many American cities, unbound from tradition that Paul had encountered in many other cities. The individuals in Corinth were less likely to fall back on “this is how we’ve done it for generations” because nothing in their lives was how they had done it for generations.

Because Corinth was a port city at a major four-way crossroads, it was an ideal location for a gospel headquarters. Paul didn’t have to travel to spread the gospel from here. He only had to meet people in Corinth, win them to the Lord and they would become missionaries to wherever.

On the flip side, Corinth was a thoroughly pagan city, known for its licentiousness. Its residents made a lot of money off the shipping trade that rolled (quite literally) through the city from the two ports on either side of the isthmus. Like sailors in every part of the world and in every time, the mariners who passed through Corinth were looking for a bit of debauchery. Corinth was more than willing to supply. In addition to a temple to Athena that would have employed full time sex workers, the merchants probably also ran several brothels. And, as merchants in everywhere and every time are wont to do in cities where the customers are just passing through, we can be assured there was a fair amount of business cheating going on – improperly weighted scales, for example. Moreover, Corinth was a Roman city with its party politics and “rule of law” which led to division and law suits.

We know a great deal about the Corinthian church because of Paul’s letters back to this troubled church. Having an apostle spend more than a year of his life establishing your church is no guarantee that the church will stay a steady course. The Corinthian Christians brought their baggage with them – the sexually loose standards of their society, their political divisions, their social clichés and their lawsuits. Corinth had all the potential of other churches to be strong and healthy and certainly the wealth to surpass other localities, but the members failure to rid themselves of their past lifestyle choices hindered the church.

That was indeed tragic for the individuals within the Corinthian church. Make no mistake, they have to stand before the Lord someday to account for their sins. However, for the modern church, the unfortunate tendency of the Corinthians to resist sanctification provides us with a rich treasure of Christian life application. We can, through Paul’s letters (and Clement’s later one) see a church that continued to grow and learn from its mistakes, while making new ones and revisiting some old ones. Is that not so much like our own life course as Christians?

We should not seek to emulate the Corinthian Christians, but we can certainly learn from them. Although I am not going to revisit the Corinth letters here, I think it would be a good idea to keep them in mind. The Corinth church was an ancient Las Vegas, with all the problems in its membership that such a community will face. As modern Christians, we should look closely at how Paul advised these Christians to grow closer to Jesus, because we are, to a large measure, Corinth Christians.

Every so often, I feel the need to rant about the balky mule some scribe was riding when he broke the New Testament up into chapters and verses. Yeah, it makes it easier to find stuff in the Bible, but for heaven sakes, did he not read the passages before he decided where the breaks should be?

Acts Chapter 18 and the first seven verses of Chapter 19 should probably be together because both passages deal with the same issue – disciples who lacked some very important revelation.

“And Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. And when they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent, but taking leave of them and saying, “I will return to you again if God wills,” he set sail from Ephesus. And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch. And having spent some time there, he departed and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.” Acts 18:18-23

After spending a year and a half in Corinth, Paul felt drawn toward Antioch. We aren’t told why, just as his vow is not explained. The second missionary journey was drawing to a close and we see for the first time his ministry team standing on its own in new mission fields. I think this is important because it shows us that God was already moving sovereignly, preparing for a time when Paul, like the other apostles, would pass from the scene to be succeeded by those he had trained. For this reason, I’m going to focus on Priscilla and Aquila and their interaction with Apollos.

“Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” Acts 18:24-28

Priscilla and Aquila, itinerate tentmakers, played a very crucial role in the life and ministry of Apollos, a man of great intellect and ability who lacked complete information. A Jew born in Alexandria, an Egyptian city of great learning and education located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, Apollos was eloquent and not only knew his subject matter well, but was skilled in communicating what he knew. Both a scholar and a communicator, his abilities all related to his love for and knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. Well-versed in the Old Testament, Luke described him as a man of great intensity, perhaps indicating he was empowered by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist, were.  In the synagogues, Apollos accurately taught “the things concerning Jesus,” and yet he was “acquainted only with the baptism of John.”

What?!!

First note that while Apollos’ knowledge was limited, he was accurate in that which he did teach. What he taught about Jesus was correct. Where he fell short was that he only knew about the baptism of John.

This is an easily confused passage. Basically, you have to note that Apollos had been instructed in the “way of the Lord” (verse 25) and then recognize that Priscilla and Aquila more fully informed him of the “way of God.” Most of us think a Jew would understand God better than the Lord Jesus, but this speaks to the very nature of God. John the Baptist’s early teachings would not have informed Apollos as to Who the Messiah was. John pointed to the Messiah’s coming and preached that repentance was necessary to prepare for His arrival, but John didn’t know Who the Messiah was until Jesus’ baptism (John 1:19-34). Apollos, perhaps in a singular visit to the Holy Land, had heard John’s teachings, but he apparently wasn’t around by the time Jesus came on the scene. He was preaching the Messiah, but he didn’t yet know Who the Messiah was. Priscilla and Aquila recognized his lack of specific knowledge and explained what he was missing. Jesus of Nazareth was not only Messiah, but Yahweh – God in person, in human flesh.

It seems Apollos accepted this update and immediately felt called to correct his previous error and return to the synagogues where he had preached so that he could provide this corrected information to those he had unintentionally misled. Crossing to Achaia, he was recognized for his teaching by the Gentiles, who reported to other churches that he was a powerful preacher. You might also notice in the next section, that Apollos went to Corinth where Paul, Priscilla and Aquila had recently been.

“And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples, and he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. And there were in all about twelve men.” Acts 19:1-7

Immediately Luke recorded the account of the mysterious “12 disciples”. Clearly, these two incidents were linked in some way. Apollos was acquainted with only the “baptism of John” as were these disciples. Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos, but Paul instructed the second group.  What they shared in common was something unique for their time, something we will probably never see again. They expected the Messiah, but they did not know that He had already come and that He was not a mere messenger of God, but God Himself. This speaks volumes about those who think it is enough to know “about” Jesus, but reject the requirement to come to faith in Him. Head knowledge was not enough for these Old Testament saints. They required faith in order to become New Testament Christians.

We are at another transition point in Acts. Up to this point, Paul’s ministry has been a personal ministry – a direct, hands-on ministry. Paul will soon enter another phase of ministry when his pen and prayers will become God’s powerful instruments of ministry while the hands-and-feet work will pass to others. There is no indication that Apollos discipled under Paul. Similar to how God raised Paul up independently of the Apostles, God called Apollos independently of Paul, through the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila.

Christians should be greatly encouraged by Priscilla and Aquila. Apollos was a highly trained, highly intelligent, Bible scholar and communicator. Who would you have sent to Apollos, to tell him, in effect, that he was “not far from the kingdom of God”? Who would you have chosen to fill in the blanks so that this man’s faith was not in the Messiah to come, but in Jesus Who had already come as Messiah?

We would have chosen Paul for his own great intellect and Biblical training, but God chose Priscilla and Aquila. Why? Perhaps because God does not appeal to men’s pride. Humility is the beginning of wisdom; if Apollos was to be wise in God’s sight, he must be humble enough to believe the truth, regardless of the worldly standing or stature of those who brought him instruction. What Apollos needed to know was also very simple. It didn’t require a scholar. Apollos hadn’t overlooked some obscure point in the Hebrew text or somehow missed some hidden truth. He simply needed to know that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, died for our sins and raised from the dead.

God can use simple (by worldly comparison) people to accomplish His great purposes because the gospel is simple; it is the power of God unto salvation. I personally am encouraged in knowing that God can use two tradespeople to tell others the simple message of the Savior. Scholarship is a cool thing, but the example of Priscilla and Aquila shows that God has more tools at His disposal than we might recognize. It’s not always the shiny flashy tools that God uses best. And, doesn’t that comfort those of us who seek to minister for the Lord who have not been to seminary or garnered fancy degrees? Two tentmakers obeying God were well used because they obeyed.

My pastor is a bi-vocational pastor. Our church is a smallish mission-oriented church that for many years had a NAMB-supported missionary for pastor. When we asked the last missionary to leave because he was damaging key mission components, NAMB chose not to fund another missionary and we became responsible for our next pastor’s salary. We do pay him, but not all that much, so in addition to his military retirement, Ramon works as a long-term substitute teacher in the winter and at whatever he can find in the summer. He claims he’s often done more proclamation of the gospel while working at the local mega-mart than he has through “church” circles.

I know a lot of preachers who admire the apostle Paul’s theology, but would avoid his ministry practice of “tent-making”. Paul provided us with wonderful theology concerning churches supporting those who minister among them, but he did not practice this right in his own ministry – at least as far as the New Testament records. Paul set aside self-support for support of others and he drew in a ministry team to make this possible.

“After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them. And because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working; for by trade they were tentmakers. And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” Acts 18:1-4

Paul was invited to remain longer in Athens, but decided to move on to Corinth, about 40 miles west of Athens. It appears that Paul was looking for Aquila and Priscilla. He obviously sought out fellow Jews whenever he came to a new city and it is likely by this time that he was seeking those who had already come to the faith in Jesus as Messiah. It seems Priscilla and Aquila had already become Christians, possibly as part of the ministry of some Pentecostal convert who had returned to Rome, where they had been living.  History records that seating in the synagogues was possibly arranged so people of like professions sat together, so this might also have been how Paul met this couple. Finding so much in common, Paul moved in with them and worked with them making tents. The relationship between Paul and this godly couple, Aquila and Priscilla, was a long-lasting one; they accompanied Paul to Ephesus upon his departure from Corinth. They played a vital role in Paul’s life, in the proclamation of the gospel, and in the life of the church which would meet in their home (Romans 16:3-5).

Again, we’re looking at sovereignty, as the meeting of Paul and this couple clearly shaped the lives of all three and many others. This explains Luke’s focus on the history of this couple. Aquila was originally from Pontus, but had somehow migrated to Rome. They were forced to leave Rome because Caesar Claudius ordered all Jews to leave Rome (18:2) because Jews were causing trouble and unrest. The circumstances brought them to Corinth where they would meet Paul.

“But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. And when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads! I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles.” And he departed from there and went to the house of a certain man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.” Acts 18:5-11

Paul’s ministry changed here from what some would call a “part-time” ministry to that which was a more “full-time” ministry. Luke does not tell us why Paul changed his ministry focus. Some readers will claim it was because he received a gift of money from the Philippians and this allowed him to set aside his bivocational status, but the letter to the Philippians was written while Paul was in prison, some years after his sojourn in Corinth, so this is probably not a sufficient explanation. While some would think that Paul’s change in occupation, from tentmaker to preacher, was the result of money, I believe that there were other significant factors involved in his decision to devote himself to proclaiming the Word of God.

Paul’s priority was the advance of the gospel. There is no better place to meet a lot of people quickly than in a busy marketplace and no better reason for being there than working. Thus, working may have served an evangelical purpose when Paul arrived in Corinth. Once his ministry team arrived from Macedonia, ceasing his tentmaking to devote himself to preaching the Word best promoted the gospel. Paul’s change was possible because of the provision of others. However he had come by the money – a donation from Macedonia or the paid labors of his ministry team – he was able to preach without imposing upon those whom he was ministering among. Paul also clearly felt divine guidance in his decision. Sometimes we make decisions and blame God for our desires, but God does also give us conviction which we should never ignore. Paul sensed the conviction to move on in Athens and now he felt a conviction to change his focus in Corinth.

When Paul was working as a tentmaker and preaching in the synagogue on Sabbath, the local Jews listened politely, but when the message became more clear, perhaps buoyed by Paul’s added intensity, their reaction to his ministry intensified. Paul was now preaching every day which became too much for some Jews. Rejected at the synagogue, Paul turned his ministry to the Gentiles. He did not stop preaching to the Jews. He simply spent more time in Gentile ministry now. He thus moved his site of ministry from the synagogue to the house of Titus Justus, who lived right next door. He disassociated himself from the place of Jewish teaching and worship, severing himself from unbelieving Judaism. On the other hand, Paul moved right next door. Practically speaking, it made it easy for genuine God-seekers to find him and learn more of Jesus. It was a location which might attract some, as yet, uninformed Jews.  Jews might have rejected Jesus and His gospel, but Paul sent a clear message that Christianity was still very close to Judaism.

There were a number of Jews who did believe and were saved. Titius Justus, the man from whose house Paul continued to minister, was a God-fearer who came to faith. Crispus, the (former) leader of the synagogue, believed, along with his whole household. Paul’s ministry among the Jews at Corinth was not without its fruit, but there was even more Gentile fruit to come.

I, for one, would never have thought Paul would be afraid at this point, if it were not for his words on the matter (1 Corinthians 2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 1:8-11). If one does not read Paul’s epistles, it’s easy to skip over some of what Luke covers. Paul’s fear for his life and safety were based upon numerous attempts on his life. Turning to the Gentiles did not reduce Paul’s fear of Jewish opposition. In the past, his Gentile friends had been unable to protect him much from the Roman authorities, and in some cities, the Gentiles has opposed him as well. Paul was a human being as well as a hero of the faith. He suffered a great deal for the gospel – stoning, banishment, imprisonment. We should not be surprised that he needed to hear a personal word from God occasionally to keep from packing it in and heading home to Antioch. So, in the dark of the night, Jesus spoke to him.

I think another reason why we are reluctant to admit to ourselves that Paul was afraid is that Paul, in his fear, was far bolder in proclaiming Jesus to a lost and unbelieving world than we typically are. It makes us nervous to see such boldness in a man who had ever reason to be afraid and was indeed afraid. How often do we decide not to witness to someone because we’re afraid they’ll tell us to get lost? Paul was afraid they’d stone him. What is our frame of comparison?

“But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.” And he drove them away from the judgment seat. And they all took hold of Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and began beating him in front of the judgment seat. And Gallio was not concerned about any of these things.” Acts 18:12-17

Up to this point in time, Rome had been no friend to Christianity. Rome had succumbed to Jewish pressure, putting Jesus to death for crimes which Pilate and Herod knew Jesus had not committed. Roman officials had willingly, gladly, punished Paul at Philippi. Now a great change was afoot, thanks to the decision rendered by Gallio. Rome was to cease giving in to Jewish pressure, and refuse to be used by the Jews to hinder the proclamation of the gospel. The very power that had once persecuted Christianity would now become a means of protecting it. Luke, in this paragraph, tells us how this came to be.

Gallio was disinterested in the whole Jewish/Christian debate. From his detached view, he exercised a degree of objectivity that allowed him to come to a brilliant insight about the matter. This had nothing to do with Rome. It was a Jewish/Christian matter. No Roman laws had been broken. Perhaps Gallio had noticed that Christians seemed less inclined to engage in violence than their Jewish counterparts. So, let the Jews handle it so he could get back to whatever other government business a Roman proconsul had to do.

The Jews at Corinth did nothing new. They attempted to convince the Roman government that Paul was a revolutionary and needed to be silenced. Other Jewish congregations had used this ploy often, but this time, it didn’t work. Gallio didn’t appear to like Jews, seemed to think they were trouble-makers and found some satisfaction in refusing to give into their demands. He didn’t even allow Paul to mount a defense. It is as if God is saying, “Hey, Paul, I’ve got this one!”

I had to have this pointed out to me, but Paul’s first significant success evangelizing among the Gentiles came here in Corinth, when he was at his most fearful of the consequences of his ministry if he remained in Corinth. The praise and glory must go to God, not to Paul. Paul did not persuade Gallio to rule as he did – Gallio didn’t allow him to speak. God had already intervened through the wisdom of a heathen. The evangelization of the Gentiles was not the result of Paul’s abilities, for he came to them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. God does not need our human strength in order to achieve His purposes; God works through human weakness so that He receives the honor and the praise. God used Paul most effectively at a time when Paul felt the least confident to accomplish anything of eternal consequence. Not only is God’s sovereignty (control) so great that he can use Christians in their weakness; His sovereignty is such that He may also use unbelievers in their rebellion. Aquila and Priscilla were “guided” to Corinth, where they would meet Paul and begin a long-term relationship in ministry, not by the words of a prophet, but by the decree of a heathen ruler, Claudius (18:2). Christianity was for some time more or less protected by Rome rather than persecuted by it, because of the decision of a ruler who did not like Jews, believe in Christ, or care about Paul. God’s means of protecting Paul from the harm that would have been done to him by cruel, unbelieving Jews was through use of cruel, unbelieving Roman soldiers.

God is not only sovereign, in complete control of the universe, so that His will is always accomplished, but the ways He uses to accomplish His will and fulfill His promises are beyond our imagination (Romans 11:33-36). We must be careful not to expect, demand, or even pray that God accomplishes His work in a way that fits our expectations. Much of what I pray for is what I want, not what God has promised to do. Often I pray instructing God as to how He should accomplish what I have set out for Him to do. Recognition of the sovereignty of God should curb our demands, and make then requests subject to His revision or rejection. Recognition of the sovereignty of God should serve to limit the ways in which I ask or expect Him to bring about that which He has purposed and promised.

There’s not a whole lot of tentmaking going on in today’s world. We’re not talking about tents really, so much as about self-funded ministries. There are many who wish to be supported in full-time ministry, but few who wish to support themselves as Paul did. The ministry of men and women like Aquila and Priscilla is looked down upon by some as though it were a second-class ministry. I would like to suggest that tentmaking is a very noble calling, and one that has great potential for ministry. When I speak of tentmaking, I am speaking of service which ministers at one’s own expense, laboring in the work force, carrying out some “secular” occupation, as a means of support and as a context for credibility in the promotion and practice of the gospel.

Around the world, missionaries are being looked upon, in many instances, as a liability to the country and culture to which they are sent. They are viewed as parasites, not as productive members of the culture. This is even when fully supported by a missionary board and not requiring support from the native population Full-time, supported missionaries will always be needed in some places, and in certain ministries, but they are becoming fewer and fewer, especially in countries where Christianity is a crime. It’s past time to begin thinking seriously about how to reduce the number of people who need to be supported and increase the number of saints who are supporting ministry. Paul’s example should not be set aside as something entirely novel or unique. His lifestyle should be seriously considered.

Many countries that would never allow a supported Christian missionary into their country need highly skilled workers. When your occupational skills are highly valued and in demand, friendly missionary activity is often tolerated. I have a couple of friends who are “tentmaker” oilfield workers in Muslim states where missionaries are not allowed. They are finding they can share their faith with their Muslims coworkers and neighbors simply because the country needs their skills enough to ignore their beliefs. And, they are netting results for Christ.

May God use us to proclaim His Word, to His glory and praise, and to accomplish His purposes. May we see God’s hand at work in this world, not only through obedient saints, but through the actions of those who are heathen and opposed to the gospel.

I’m pausing here for a moment because Paul is about to go to Corinth, which is such an important city in the New Testament that it is almost a character in the history of the church.

There were four prominent centers in the New Testament account of the early church – Jerusalem, Antioch of Syria, Ephesus of Asia Minor and Corinth of Greece. Paul’s first extended ministry in one city was at Corinth, where he remained for at least 18 months during his first visit (which we are coming to in the second missionary journey). Corinth was where Paul (probably) wrote 1 and 2Thessalonians and Galatians his first stay there (which we are about to study), and his letter to the Romans during the 3^rd missionary journey. Besides Paul, several prominent Christian leaders passed through and worked in Corinth – Timothy, Priscilla and Aquila, Silas, Apollos and Titus. It was a very important city to early Christianity.

Situated on the southwest end of the isthmus that joins the southern and northern parts of Greece, the city was sited on an elevated plain at the foot of a rugged, nearly 2000-foot mountain. A maritime city located between two important seaports, it was an important city long before becoming a Roman colony in 44 BC.  It was the subject of many ancient historians and modern archeology has told us a great deal about this city that dates back to the Late Stone Age. Because of the natural benefits of its location, Corinth was easy to defend and controlled the east-west trade across the isthmus as well as trade from north to south.  It grew so rapidly that it colonized part of Sicily and from about 350 to 250 BC it was the largest and most prosperous city on mainland Greece. The city was destroyed in 146 BC during clashes with Rome, resulting in the death or the enslavement of most of the population. The city stood desolate for about a century until Julius Caesar rebuilt it in 44 BC.  An overland ship-road (like a precursor of the Panama Canal) connected the ports of Lechaion and Cenchreae across the isthmus. Small ships were moved across on a system of rollers while larger ships off-loaded their cargo for transport. Ships were thus able to avoid 200 miles of treacherous sea travel (a modern ship canal was constructed in 1881). 

When Paul lived there, around AD 51-52, it was a pretty new city, but already an important metropolitan center. Protected by a large mountain (Acroscorinth) for the most part, it was also surrounded by a wall. Corinth was known for its generous roadways and even the equivalent of sidewalks. Paul would have approached from the north, where the road from Lechaion passed through the beautiful gate called Propylaea, which marked the entrance into the agora (market). Paul would have worked as a tentmaker here and this is probably where he was brought before Gallio  (Acts 18:12-17).

Although the restored city of Paul’s day was a Roman city, the inhabitants were Greeks and they continued to worship Greek gods. North of the agora stood the ruined temple of Apollo, which is still in evidence today. There was also shrines to Apollo, Hermes, Heracles, Athena, and Poseidon, as well as a famous temple to Asclepius, the god of healing, which was surrounded by a hospital complex.

The most significant pagan cult in Corinth was dedicated to Aphrodite. The historian Strabo described worship at the temple of Aphrodite on the Acropolis to be debauched and wanton, which certainly agrees with the lifestyle reflected in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. There were also Jews living in Corinth and they had a large synagogue there.

Like all port towns at major crossroads, Corinth was a cosmopolitan city composed of people with varying cultural backgrounds. It benefitted from the Isthmian games held nearby every two years, complete with the pleasures and money that the visitors brought to the city. Sailors spent their coin in the city as their cargo was being transported overland and we all know what sailors at like. The 1^st Century Roman culture was known for its sexual immorality, but even among heathens, Corinth was known for its licentious lifestyle.

So, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is about to spend 18 months living, working and preaching in the ancient equivalent of Las Vegas. No city in the ancient world needed more to hear what Paul had to preach.

Sometime in the 6^th century BC the city of Athens was being devastated by a mysterious plague. No explanation for the plague could be found and no cure was in sight. The conventional wisdom of the time was to assume that one of the city’s many gods had been offended. The leaders of the city sought to determine which of the gods it was and then determine how to appease that god. As Athens had literally hundreds of gods (some scholars have referred to it as the “god capital of the world”), this was no easy task. When all efforts failed to discern which god had been offended (while the plague was still ongoing), an outside “consultant” named Epimenides was brought in from the island of Cyprus. Epimenides concluded that it was none of the known gods of Athens which had been offended, but some, as-yet unknown god. He proposed a course of action to provide a possible remedy for the plague. He had a flock of choice sheep of various colors, kept from food until they were hungry. On the given day, he had these sheep turned loose in a succulent pasture on Mars Hill. For any sheep not to have eaten his fill would have been unexplainable. He had the sheep turned loose and watched carefully, to see if any sheep would lie down and not eat, even though hungry and in prime grazing. Several sheep, to the amazement of those watching, did lie down. Altars were erected at each spot where a sheep lay down, dedicated to an “unknown god.” On those altars, the sheep which lay in that spot was sacrificed. Almost immediately, history records, the plague began to subside.

Over a period of time, the altars were forgotten and began to deteriorate. One altar, apparently, was restored and preserved, in commemoration of the removal of the plague by calling upon the “unknown god.” Who would have thought that centuries later, a foreigner named Paul would refer to this altar as the starting point for his sermon on Mars Hill and that this foreigner would later quote Epimenides in his sermon?

Paul had just left Berea, where the local Jews had eagerly listened to Paul’s teaching of the Scriptures, then proceeded to check it out for themselves, so that many of these Jews (in contrast to the few in Thessalonica) came to faith, along with a number of Gentile proselytes, including, once again, some prominent Greek men and women.

“Now those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed. Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols. So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing {Gentiles,} and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.” Acts 17:15-17

It doesn’t appear that Paul had plans to evangelize Athens, at least not until he was joined by his colleagues. Paul gave instructions to his Berean escorts for Silas and Timothy to rejoin him as soon as possible. Maybe he got bored while loitering in the city. Paul doesn’t seem like the tourist type. Of all the things Paul saw, one seemed to make the greatest impression on him. It was not that this city was beautiful or one of the great cultural and intellectual centers of the world. It was not that great men, like Plato and Aristotle once walked these streets and taught there. It was that this great city was filled with heathen idols. Like Lot in ancient times, Paul’s “righteous soul was vexed” (2 Peter 2:7) by what he saw about him in this heathen city.

As a Jew, Paul was naturally offended and incensed by idols, which were an abomination to God and every devout Jew.  The gospel, as Paul would later write in Romans 1-3 declared both Gentiles and Jews to be under divine condemnation, hopeless and helpless, and in need of salvation. God sent His Son Jesus to die in the sinner’s place, both Jews and Gentiles. He offered them His righteousness, by faith in Him alone. Paul saw the idolatry of the Athenians as damnable. Deeply struck by the lostness of this city and the judgment of God which each person would someday face, he knew these people needed a Savior and He knew that the Savior had come for sinners such as these. Thus Paul could do nothing but preach Christ to them.

Paul’s normal routine—of going to the synagogue on the Sabbath, and preaching the Word—continued at Athens, although absolutely nothing is said of the results of this ministry. Luke has left the synagogue behind for the moment, for he is more interested in telling us about Paul’s ministry to the heathen Gentiles (not the Gentile proselytes in the synagogues) but the philosophers and others, who were at the market place. To such people as would listen, Paul spoke during the week.

“And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. were conversing with him. And some were saying, “What would this idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; we want to know therefore what these things mean.” (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)” Acts 17:18-21

Paul seldom passed up an invitation to preach the gospel to lost men and women. Preaching in the synagogue was apparently a matter of custom, but the invitation to preach to pagan philosophers was more rare. Given opportunity in Athens, Paul spoke with those who would listen in the market place; he got the attention of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, although not for reasons which would swell one’s head with pride.

They knew that Paul was preaching Jesus and the resurrection (verse 18), and this had no automatic interest, as it did with the Jews, who were at least looking for Messiah. What appealed to these philosophers about Paul’s preaching was not that Paul was so brilliantly educated (as they reckoned such things), but that his teaching was something new. Athenian philosophers were always looking for something new (verse 21) and Paul’s message about Jesus and His resurrection was one they hadn’t heard before -- a new kind of message for this philosophically-minded crowd. All other religions, being “man made” have a kind of sameness, a commonality, because of their human origins. The message of Christ and His cross is a message that men would never have conceived, nor sought to accept or to propagate. In Biblical terms, human religions can all be placed under the heading, “human wisdom,” while the gospel would be categorized by men as “foolish.” The “divine wisdom” of the gospel is not even able to be grasped by the unbelieving human mind. The motive of these Athenians for giving Paul a hearing, an opportunity to expound his views, were not very noble, but their invitation was sufficient for Paul, who gladly utilized all opportunities for the sake of the gospel.

The philosophers proved skeptical of novel and foreign subjects, especially if they contradicted their taste in religion. They cared not that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ who could expound the Old Testament with accuracy and authority. To these arrogant philosophers Paul was a “hick,” a nobody, a collector of religious scraps from the gutters of the world. They were just filling their idle time, heckling. To them, Paul was a fool, advocating a foolish and worthless religion, but for the sake of curiosity and speculation, they would listen to him.

“And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.  “For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’ “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. “ Acts 17:21-31

Paul did not falter before this disdainful crowd. He immediately turned to a point of reference well-known to his audience, which gave him a foothold with his message. Somewhere in the city was an alter, dedicated to “an unknown god.” Starting with a point of reference known to his audience, Paul told the group that the God of Whom he spoke is the unknown “god” to whose existence the altar gave testimony. With all of the “gods” Athenians worshipped, the presence of that altar acknowledged that their “gods” were insufficient. They left room for one more, because they saw the need for another.

This illustrates a vital difference between Christianity and idolatry. Polytheism (having of many gods) and idolatry (the worship of the images of these gods) never has enough gods. Furthermore, this form of religion is more than willing to add the one true God to its list of “gods.” It is very tolerant of additional “gods.” Christianity, however, is that faith with one, true, all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God. No other God is needed or tolerated. Christianity has a capable God and men who trust in Him find Him fully sufficient.

Clearly, Paul inferred, their religion, though it possessed many gods, was not sufficient, since they were looking for yet another god. One who has a sufficient faith and a sufficient God need not leave room for another. The existence of this altar, dedicated to the “unknown god,” is a telling witness to the inadequacy of their religion. Paul promises to tell them what they do no know—who that God is.

Paul allowed that their system of searching for the one true God was defective and futile. The God who was, to them “unknown” is a God who has made Himself known. God is not trying to hide from men; men are hiding from God, and often by means of their religion. The “unknown god,” whom they had acknowledged exists is the God who caused all things to come into existence—the Creator of all things, including men. And His very creation is that which bears testimony of His existence. If God is unknown to the Athenians, it is not because God has not revealed Himself to men, but because men have closed their eyes to His existence and character.

The Athenians, who prided themselves on their culture, their history, their intelligence and education, were really ignorant as evidenced by their worship. God is not hiding; men have turned from Him. These men who thought themselves so wise worshipped their own creations (idols) rather than the Creator.

God is not pleased by the rejection of men and He does not give men the luxury of having Him as a “god” who does man’s bidding, who is there when men need Him, and who can serve other “gods” as well. He is a God who is above men, not under them, who controls men and is not controlled by them. He is a God who is willing to overlook past sins, but who requires that all men repent of their sin and rejection of His self-revelation and standards of holiness. He is a God who does not allow men to be speculative about Him or religion. He is about to judge the world in righteousness, through Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Messiah. As proof of His identity as the Judge of the earth, God raised Him from the dead. The “unknown god” should not have been unknown, and His identity is now made known—Jesus, the Son of God, raised from the dead.

These self-important philosophers were exposed as fools! What a blow to the religious multi-god system of Athens; for all their gods they had missed the one true God. The philosophical, academic approach of these men had failed them because it made it seem you could look at truth from a distant non-committal viewpoint. They were wrong! Time was limited and judgment imminent. They must decide upon the truth and commit themselves to it, not through a mere mental exercise, but as a matter of life and death, for this decision bears on one’s eternal destiny.

“Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some {began} to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” So Paul went out of their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.” Acts 17:32-34

The Athenian philosophers got more than what they wanted and less. They got more in the sense that they were informed of their ignorance and sin. They were told of a Savior Whose name they had never heard, of a coming day of judgment, and of a Judge Who had been raised from the dead. They were called to make the kind of commitment to truth which they had avoided for years. 

They also heard less than they wanted or expected. They had hoped for a very complex system, a very intricate philosophical approach to life and “god,” that would leave the common (dull) mind gasping for air, thus making them seem very intelligent. A system so complex that it could never fully be grasped would give them years to ponder and probe without taking action. Paul gave them a very simple gospel, the same as he preached everywhere, the message of a Savior, of a cross, of a resurrection, of a coming day of judgment, and of a choice which must be made. They wanted Paul to stay on, so they could continue their conversations and begin their cross-examination. Instead, Paul moved on because there were other places to go, where the gospel had not been proclaimed. His gospel was simple and short; there really was nothing else they needed to know and no amount of debate and argumentation could persuade them. Only the Holy Spirit could “open their hearts and minds” to the truths which he had spoken, as He did with Dionysius the Areopogite and Damaris.

Luke’s account of Paul’s preaching in Athens is descriptive of what Paul did. Paul’s writings in his epistles supply us with an explanation of what, why, and how he did what he did at Athens. The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, the first chapter of Romans, and the first two chapters of Colossians bear directly on Paul’s ministry at Athens. The third chapter of Philippians is also informative. The following passages are only suggestive, but they are a starting point for further study:  Romans 1:18-23; Colossians 1:13-22; 2:1-9; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 1 Corinthians 2:1-5; 1 Corinthians 3:18-23. I suggest study of these passages.

Don’t these Athenian philosophers remind you of Americans today? Gentile heathens in ancient times enjoyed the blessings of political freedom in what was one of the earliest democracies. Cultured, highly intelligent, well-educated and very religious, they rejected God and exchanged the worship of the one true God for “gods” of their own. Very similar to our secular culture today. We have more confidence in human reasoning and our search for truth than we do in the one Who is the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ. We, as a culture, are always in pursuit of something new and novel.

How often enlightened Christians look down on those who have a simple answer to life’s problems (Christ, and His shed blood)! They tell us that life’s problems are really much more complex than salvation and that the wisdom which we need is not really that found in the Bible, but only product of the human pursuit of knowledge. We sanctify such knowledge often by adding the adjective “Christian” in front of it, but all too often it is only some “god” of our own making, an idol of sorts before which we bow the knee, in addition to Christ, and often in place of Him. God does not tolerate competition. We know this in our hearts, in practice we set up idols anyway. Many of the methods, skills, and techniques which are taught Christians are really the products of human minds and inquiry, not Biblical revelation. They are not simple, gospel answers to life’s problems, but complex drawn-out processes. We should alert to those subtle human elements which creep into our theology and practice, in the name of religion, but not in accordance with the gospel. We should examine to see how much of our religion and worship is our own adaptation of God’s revelation, or our own re-shaping of God, to make Him more to our liking.  Is our worship is God-centered or man-centered, focused on pleasing and serving God or getting God to serve us and our perceived needs? How much of our proclamation of the gospel is consistent with Paul’s preaching -- a simple, straightforward message of man’s sin and coming judgment, Christ’s sacrifice and salvation for all who would repent and believe?

The gospel should shape our worship and our every action!

Although Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, he actually preached quite often in the synagogues. Some people wonder why a missionary tasked with reaching Gentiles would go to Jews in almost every city, inevitably rousing their ire and making the evangelism process more difficult, but I think Paul had good reason. Although he was called to evangelize primarily Gentiles, he was not called to ignore Jews in evangelism. Following the pattern of Jesus and the other apostles, Paul took the gospel to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. Preaching in the synagogues was an effective means for reaching Gentiles as almost every synagogue had proselytes, Gentile “God-seekers”. Sergius Paulus and Lydia were such. These Gentile “God-seekers” were already looking for salvation from a Jewish Messiah and had some knowledge of the Old Testament. They needed less instruction than raw pagans, so they were potential church leaders after their conversion. However, Paul’s ministry to the synagogues would come to a gradual slow-down due to growing Jewish opposition.

“Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a great multitude of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” And they stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these things. And when they had received a pledge from Jason and the others, they released them. And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.” Acts 17:1-10a

Paul and the others were invited to speak in the Thessalonian synagogue and Paul’s message was Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, spoken of by the Old Testament prophets, rejected by His people and put to death for the sins of men, crucified and risen from the dead. To receive Him was to obtain forgiveness of sins and the assurance of eternal life. Of course, Paul’s message netted mixed results. Some believed, especially among the Gentiles. Some of the Jews were deeply angered by the Gentile reception of this gospel message. They sought to “overpower” Paul and the other missionaries, manipulating the crowds and the political system. The “peace” was deliberately “disturbed,” with the city being set into an uproar. The angry mob stormed the house of Jason (verse 5), who apparently was a believer providing food and lodging for the missionary party, arresting Jason, though they were unable to find Paul and his party.

These Jewish opponents of Paul and the gospel accused them of upsetting the world, of inciting men to acts of violence and insurrection by advocating a King other than Caesar. Jason was guilty of “aiding and abetting” these men and their revolutionary movement. Their arguments worked. Jason was apparently forced to agree to send Paul out of town and Paul and Silas left that night for Berea. From a human standpoint, the ministry at Thessalonica was cut short, forcing Paul to minister by letter. Here we see the sovereign hand of God once more because the first and second letters to Thessalonica were probably the first letters Paul wrote in the ministry. Their impact has been profound, stretching far beyond Thessalonica in the 1^st Century.

“And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there likewise, agitating and stirring up the crowds. And then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. Now those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.” Acts 16:10b-15

Luke seems to want us to contrast rather than compare Berea to Thessalonica. There were differences in size. Thessalonica was a large, major city; Berea, apparently, was a small, “sleepy town,” an “out of the way place”. Amphipolis and Apollonia, also mentioned in the text, but Paul didn’t stop there, seem to have had no synagogue (explaining, perhaps, why Paul didn’t stop); Berea did. Luke also contrasted between the “more noble-mindedness” of the Jews in Berea than those in Thessalonica.

Luke really emphasized the noble-mindedness of these Berean Jews, so what in particular set them apart? What made these people “noble-minded”? It appears to have been a community trait that the Bereans possessed as unbelievers. They were the exception among Jews, not the rule, but they approached the ideal for Jews. They were looking for the Messiah and didn’t need a lot of convincing that they had found Him in Jesus.

The Thessalonian Jews were reluctant to be stirred by Paul’s preaching – it took them three Sabbaths to respond and then they primarily responded to the influx of heathen Gentiles, not Paul’s message. I would submit they were disinterested in spiritual matters before Paul arrived. The Bereans were Jews waiting for the Messiah and delighted to hear He had come. It appears the Bereans were Bible readers. Many Hellenistic Jews had the Septuagint available to them through their synagogue libraries and all Jewish males were taught to read, at least Hebrew, so they could study the Scriptures. The Bereans didn’t act upon men’s words, but upon God’s revealed Word. Paul spoke from Scripture and this delighted them. They didn’t let Paul do their thinking for them. They held themselves individually responsible to search out Paul’s teachings in Scripture and to check it for consistency with Biblical revelation. These were people of the Word, who eagerly received what was consistent with the Word once they confirmed it from the Word for themselves. This predisposed them to Paul’s teachings which aligned with Scripture.

This passage from Acts challenges us to be “Berean” Christians. Yes, this is an ideal that few will ever attain, but we could learn a lot from the characteristics of the Bereans.

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

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

An earthquake will play prominently in today’s lesson. If you’ve never been in one, you’ve missed out. Alaskans are sort of connoisseurs of earthquakes. We try to guess what they were on the Richter scale. Some of us are pretty accurate. Some of us have been known to make bets with one another while the ground was still shaking. Don’t we sound blasé?

I’ve been in a lot of earthquakes. Our homes and buildings are built for it, so after a while, we get used to them. Most of the ones in Interior Alaska are somewhere less than 7 on the Richter scale and I can just barely remember the 9.2 that hit Anchorage and rocked the Interior as well, so normally, I don’t get really excited. The last earthquake I was in, however, was a 7.9 on the Denali fault, which is just a couple hundred miles south of my home.  I was making lunch, frying burgers on the stove when I heard all the dogs in the neighborhood suddenly start howling. Then our Lab-Husky mix, who usually has little to say even during a major howl-fest, began yodeling, so I looked out the kitchen window to see what Black Dog was singing about. No sooner than I looked, she cut off her serenade to dive into her dog house. Then the ground began to shake. Most quakes last a few seconds; barely enough time to even notice it. This one just felt like a train coming down the track, getting closer. I actually had time to react. I turned off the stove – no, I don’t know why (it’s electric)– and I walked to the doorway between the kitchen and the living room to shout to the family room, “Hey, kids, get in the doorway. I think this one’s a rattler.” About the time, the house began to buck like a fast-moving train.

We had just moved into that house a few months before, so I wasn’t absolutely sure how well it might hold up against another Anchorage quake and it hadn’t been built back in 1964, so was untested. My daughter was playing a video game that features a moon that falls and a rumble pack that shakes, so she hadn’t even realized we were having a quake. My son had been sitting beside her thinking “this game is so awesome it’s making the room shake!”, but now he came tearing up the stairs to join me, just as I realized that our hurricane lanterns (full of flammable lamp oil) were walking off the fireplace mantle. I peeled him off me to put them down on the hearth, then realized I was now in the fall zone for the masonry block chimney. I stepped back into the doorway as my daughter came tearing up the stairs to join us, screaming “Is it ever going to stop?!” Then abruptly, it did!

A minute and a half of actual fault movement and another half-minute of reactionary jiggling. It wasn’t the biggest quake I’d ever been in, but it was the longest and the one I will remember my whole life. There was no damage in our house and almost none in my town (we build for quakes), but the village of Mentasta which sits right on the fault line experienced houses slipping off their foundations and a trucker friend of mine blew two tires and jackknifed his rig trying to keep it on the pavement outside of Delta, where the fault line crosses the road. My brother was under his car at the time and just barely rolled free before the car slipped off the jack stands. My husband felt the quake in Washington State and saw a mini-tidal wave in Lake Union. Had this quake happened anywhere but the state devastated by the largest recorded earthquake in the northern hemisphere (Anchorage, 1964) there would have been widespread destruction. So now you know what an earthquake is like.

Two missionary teams departed Antioch for two missionary fields. Barnabas took Mark along, giving him a chance to grow in the Lord and get his feet wet in ministry, apparently eventually redeeming his earlier failure. They went to previously established churches, to work in edifying and encouraging these growing ventures.

Paul took Silas, already a mature Christian, to the more dangerous Asia Minor. While in Lystra, where Paul had previously been stoned, Paul made the decision to take Timothy with for the remainder of the journey.

I don’t think we should think of this as Paul “discipling” Timothy as Barnabas was discipling Mark. Timothy was already a disciple and he had already been proven. He was well-respected by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium (Acts 16:2). Timothy was ready to join the missionary team as a colleague, exercising similar gifts to his mentor.

Traveling north and being stalled in preaching the word at several venues, the missionaries weren’t sure of their next move, but the “Macedonian vision” made the answer clear. Paul alone, apparently, had the vision of a Macedonian man, pleading for him to “come over to Macedonia and help us” (16:9). The meaning of the vision was apparent; God wanted them to go immediately to Macedonia.

“Therefore putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis; and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.” Acts 16:11-15

Philippi was a Roman outpost (it’s where Caesar Augustus fought the battle that secured his empire) and fairly good-sized city that did not have a synagogue. The missionary group preached the gospel down by the riverside where the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles met for worship and a small group of people were saved. Lydia, a well-to-do merchant, accepted Christ along with her entire family and hosted the missionaries in her own home. While preaching, a demon-possessed slave-girl with a talent for fortune-telling annoyed Paul into binding the spirits from her. The loss of her profit-potential angered her owners, who had Paul and Silas thrown in jail.

“But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities, and when they had brought them to the chief magistrates, they said, “These men are throwing our city into confusion, being Jews, and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans.” And the crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them, and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison, and fastened their feet in the stocks. But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s chains were unfastened. And when the jailer had been roused out of sleep and had seen the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!” And he called for lights and rushed in and, trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” Acts 16:19-34

While in jail, rather than protesting that they were Roman citizens and shouldn’t be treated this way, Paul and Silas began to sing hymns of praise. We don’t know if the jailer heard the songs, but Paul’s fellow prisoners did. There is no Biblical evidence that the jailer had spoken to Paul or Silas about their beliefs or that he had overheard the gospel in any fashion. It was late at night and all the lamps were out, but Paul and Silas were singing of hope in a dark place. The song was shattered by an earthquake. As the building rocked and the stone walls groaned and bucked, the prisoners were released from their shackled and the doors were set ajar. Escape had never been easier.

But God’s purpose was not escape. It may be that the prisoners stayed behind to hear more of what Paul and Silas had to say or the darkness of that place hid that the doors were open. The earthquake shook the jailer out of bed, so he rushed to the main gate of the prison (his house was probably on the grounds) and, seeing an open door, assumed the prisoners had escape.

I don’t know how Paul knew that the jailer was about to kill himself. I suspect it was divine revelation, although this was also a Roman garrison town, so the jailer and Paul may well have known the penalty the Romans exacted for allowing prisoners to escape. Death by one’s own hand might have been quicker. Loosing an entire prison population is a grave professional error for a jailer. When Paul called out to him, the jailer recognized that he had authority beyond the usual. When they spoke, men listened. When they praised God, things happened. The prisoners were still in their cells mainly because of the authority which these men had. The jailer trusted Paul when he said all was well, even before he inspected the building by lamp light.

In an act of reverence, the jailer fell at the feet of the missionaries. He knew that these men possessed power and that they had come to proclaim the way of salvation. We don’t know where he heard this from. I suspect a lot of people heard the slave-girl babbling on about it. Nevertheless, the jailer led these two outside the prison and asked them what he must do to be saved. They told him and his family, and all believed, were saved, and were baptized.

The changes in that jailer, a crusty and cruel man no doubt, began immediately. The one who had at least played a part in the beating of these men now cleansed and dressed their wounds, his cruelty converted to compassion. From the darkest hole of that prison, he took them into his own home and fed them a good meal. 

“Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Now therefore come out and go in peace.” But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.” And the policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. And they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, and they came and appealed to them, and when they had brought them out, they kept begging them to leave the city. And they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.” Acts 16:35-40

Dressed, doctored and fed, with perhaps some time of fellowship and prayer with their new brothers, it would appear Paul and Silas returned to the jail. Why? As well ask why the magistrates decided to order the release of Paul and Silas. Maybe Lydia pressured them. Maybe the earthquake scared them. Paul’s response wasn’t what they expected. Instead of gratefully accepting his release and slipping out of town never to return, Paul refused to leave his cell until those responsible for his illegal treatment acknowledged their wrong and made a somewhat public apology.

Why was Paul so indignant? The laws of Rome, which Paul had wrongly been accused of breaking, were the very laws which the magistrates had violated. The Christian who looks forward to the coming of Messiah and for the establishment of justice on the earth (Matthew 6:10), is one who also desires to see justice done now. Paul’s continued freedom to preach the gospel was somewhat on the line, as was the freedom of the church in Philippi to conduct its worship and ministry. What Paul did, he did for the cause of justice, and for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ. By demanding justice from the magistrates, he was also providing some protection for the new Philippian church. It would be a while before they risked Paul’s report of their actions by persecuting Christians in their town.

With great chagrin, the magistrates complied with Paul’s demands, and pled with he and Silas to go quietly. They did leave Philippi, though they first visited at Lydia’s home and encouraged the church. Apparently there had been a good number of people saved in addition to the jailer and Lydia. Philippi would never be the same and it goes down in history as one of the great Christian centers.

God can speak through a myriad of ways. Was it a still small voice that told Paul he couldn’t share the gospel in Asia? He had a vision in Troas. The natural occurrence of an earthquake certainly spoke to the jailer.  God moves in many ways and His messages are available for Christians to understand with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We should be open for God to speak as much through mundane activities as miraculous events because He is everywhere and can speak to us at anytime. Knowing this, do we have our ears open for His guidance?