Commentary on the
Book of Acts

Delving Deeper

A venerable tradition concerning Simon Niger

To merge the identities of Simeon Niger and Simon the crossbearer is a very old idea winning from some modern commentators either an endorsement or at least a concession that it might be true.⁴ The evidence that they were the same man is circumstantial but compelling.

1. Since the name Simon is a variant of the name Simeon,⁵ the two men have the same name. The name is Jewish, an allusion to one of the twelve tribes, but a non-Jew may have acquired it if he began life as a slave in a Jewish home or if, as an adult, he became a Jewish proselyte.
2. The Gospels say that the man who carried the cross came from Cyrene. In Acts, we learn that preachers from Cyprus and Cyrene founded the church in Antioch. We learn also that a few years later, the prominent leaders of that church included a certain Lucius, said to be a Cyrenian. Thus, he was probably one of the founders. Since another may have been his associate Simeon, we infer that Simeon may also have been a Cyrenian.
3. Mark names Rufus and Alexander as two sons of Simon the crossbearer. For what reason does he name them? They must have been well-known figures in the early church. Thus, we may presume that their father was a convert to Christ.⁶
4. Some scholars have, at least tentatively, identified the Rufus mentioned by Mark with the Rufus mentioned by Paul in his greetings to the Roman church (Rom. 16:13).⁷ Strengthening this hypothesis is the probability that Mark’s Gospel was written in Rome for the Romans.⁸ If the two Rufuses are the same man, his standing as a church leader in Rome demonstrates that Simon the crossbearer’s family indeed had a prominent role in the early Christian community. It is possible that Rufus went to Rome as a missionary sent out by Antioch.
5. Rufus was apparently accompanied by his mother, also mentioned in Paul’s greeting. Paul identifies her as both "his [Rufus’s] mother and mine." The wording is a bit peculiar if she was Paul’s own mother in the flesh. Then he would not have thought it necessary to identify her by first speaking of her relationship to Rufus. He would have said, "Greet Rufus and my mother." If our case so far has followed the right track, she was actually Simon the crossbearer’s wife. Why would Paul think of her as motherlike? When Barnabas brought Saul back to Antioch, he was a young bachelor with no family nearby. Simeon Niger’s wife may have taken a motherly interest in him, making sure he was well-provided with food and fellowship.

Consider the ramifications if Simeon Niger was Simon the crossbearer. We understand better why he was such a fruitful evangelist. Imagine hearing the man preach who not only witnessed the Crucifixion, but also walked with Jesus along the road to Calvary! When coming from his lips, the gospel must have had an especially powerful impact.

Getting Practical

Social diversity within a church

What stands out as an unusual feature of the church in Antioch is the heterogeneity of its leaders. We see the sharpest contrast between, of course, Manaen and Simeon. One was white, the other black. One was an aristocrat, the other perhaps even a former slave. One was a Jew, the other a gentile. Yet the whole group was a variety of men. They differed in their places of origin: Barnabas from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), Saul from Tarsus, Lucius and Simeon from Cyrene, and Manaen from Palestine, probably Jerusalem.⁹ They also came from diverse religious backgrounds. Simeon had perhaps been brought up in paganism. The others were Jews, but their roads to Antioch converged from places far apart. In relation to the church in its early days, Barnabas was a strong supporter and Saul was a persecutor.

In all respects, the church in Antioch should serve as our example. God is pleased when the church is a melting pot, giving a correct picture of the heavenly congregation of saints, who will merge all races, nations, tongues, and peoples into one glorious, harmonious body (Rev. 7:9).

Getting Practical

Heroes for the young

Young people today idolize figures made famous by the media, even though few, if any, picture a godly Christian life. The men Luke lists in this verse are the right models for young people. Each was a true hero, a spiritual giant, who dedicated his life to the glory of God. By comparison, most entertainers and sports stars are not heroes at all, because they seek their own glory. Some are nothing but scoundrels flaunting every manner of wickedness.

Getting Practical

New Testament view of fasting

Many people imagine that fasting was an Old Testament practice which we may safely neglect today. They forget that Jesus Himself recommended it (Matt. 6:16–18; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35). Likewise did Paul (1 Cor. 7:5). They forget also that both Jesus (Matt. 4:2; Luke 4:2) and Paul (Acts 14:23; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27) fasted, setting an example for us. Here in Acts 13 we learn that the church in Antioch used fasting as a tool for determining God’s will.

There is no merit in abstaining from food. The purpose in fasting is to withdraw from the world of physical sensations, so that we can concentrate better on communion with God.

Getting Practical

God’s call to missionary service

The events leading to Saul's first missionary journey established a pattern that would generally be repeated whenever God put new missionaries on the field.

1. God impressed on Barnabas and Saul His desire that they serve Him as missionaries.
2. He confirmed to the church that He had indeed called these men into His service.
3. The church prayed for God's blessing on their work.
4. The church laid their hands on the missionaries.

Pondering a Question

What did the laying on of hands signify?

The ceremony pictured the church as the sender and the apostles as those sent. The hands of the sender resting on the heads of the sent was a vivid expression of at least five thoughts.

1. The church bestowed on the apostles its approval and blessing.
2. The church affirmed that they were going out as its representatives.
3. The church acknowledged its responsibility to support them with prayer and perhaps with material resources.
4. The church certified that as they went out to do the work of God, they would possess authority to found and guide new churches.
5. The church testified that the same power of the Spirit which the church in Antioch was privileged to exercise would now be available to the apostles.

While primarily a statement about the first missionary journey, the ceremony was also a reminder that the chief responsibility of any local church is to send out laborers who will build new churches, and a reminder too that a Christian worker receives the necessary support, authority, and power only because he is an instrument for accomplishing this task.

Pondering a Question

Does a missionary remain under the authority of the sending church?

Certainly not. He may conduct his ministry in any manner he feels is according to the leading of God. Nor is any church he establishes under the authority of the sending church. The new church is as independent and autonomous as any other local body of Christ. Yet if the missionary accepts support from churches and individuals, he is accountable to them for his use of it. He must verify that he has exercised good stewardship, both by avoiding waste and by pursuing objectives they would approve.

Delving Deeper

The strategy in going to synagogues first

Not only in this first missionary journey, but also throughout his evangelistic travels, Paul, whenever he entered a new city, targeted the Jews first if possible. If the city held a synagogue, he went there on the Sabbath and proclaimed to the largely Jewish audience that their long-awaited Messiah was Jesus. The strategy of giving Jews priority had a threefold basis.

1. Before His ascension, Jesus told the disciples that they should be witnesses to the whole world, starting in Judea (Acts 1:8). He implied that Jews should be the first to hear the gospel.
2. Paul's goal in every city was to establish a church, and from its inception, every church needed leaders. If local converts included Jewish men, they were the best qualified to step into leadership roles, because they were already well-grounded in the Scriptures and, if they had been devout in their religious faith, they were already well-acquainted with godly living. A group of Jewish fathers and their families therefore provided the nucleus of a church that could survive and grow after Paul moved on to other places.
3. In many synagogues, Paul found some God-fearers—gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel. Of all gentiles, these were by far the most receptive to the good news of salvation in Christ. Witnessing to them brought quick results, which were essential if Paul was to fulfill God's plan for his ministry. He was called by God to build new churches throughout whole regions and nations.

Delving Still Deeper

Interpretation of the sorcerer's name

Luke introduces the sorcerer as "a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus." Nowhere else in the Book of Acts do we find someone called a false prophet. The term refers of course to a deceiver posing as a true prophet—as a spokesman for the real God of heaven. Being a Jew, Bar-Jesus no doubt advertised himself as a man capable of doing magic because he was a pious follower of the Jewish God, Creator and Master of all the forces in nature. His name Son of Joshua supported his pretensions by suggesting that he followed in the footsteps of that great leader who led Israel into the Promised Land.

Yet it is also possible that he adopted the specific name Bar-Jesus because he wanted to picture himself as a disciple of the preeminently famous miracle worker, Jesus of Nazareth. He was then able to claim Jesus as the source of his own magical powers.

In Roman times, many magicians looked upon Jewish names as powerful tools useful in incantations and other occult practices.¹⁹ A surviving papyrus written by a practitioner of magic shows that one name they exploited was the name of Jesus.²⁰ His ability to heal the sick was so well-known that both the Tosephta and the Talmud, voluminous ancient writings which preserve the rulings of the Pharisees on how Mosaic law should be interpreted, strongly forbid Jews to borrow His name for that purpose.²¹ Perhaps some Jewish magicians had emphasized their connection with Jesus to the extent of calling themselves sons of Jesus. Therefore, in Luke's eyes, Elymas deserved the title of false prophet not only for the general sin of false teaching, but more so for the even more damnable sin of claiming to exemplify Christ.

It is significant that Luke is not content to give us the man's name, but adds an interpretation. That is seldom his practice elsewhere. The one exception is when he introduces Barnabas (Acts 4:36). The name conferred on Barnabas by the apostles was appropriate because it truly described him. He was a "son of consolation." But having affirmed that in one man's case we can trust his name as a window to his character, Luke could not name the sorcerer as Bar-Jesus without cautioning us that the meaning intended by the man himself is spurious.

Delving Still Deeper

Historical confirmation of details

The account of the team's encounter with Sergius Paulus includes several details supported by historical records.

1. The Romans used a multitude of administrative titles, but, as we will demonstrate repeatedly throughout this commentary, any title stated by Luke can be relied on for accuracy. "Deputy" is a translation of anthupatos, Greek for the Roman title of proconsul,²⁴ held by the ruler of a senatorial province as distinguished from an imperial province.²⁵ The basic difference between them was that in the latter, troops were required to maintain order. As a province well-integrated into the empire, Cyprus was a senatorial province, where the ruler was, as Luke affirms, a proconsul.²⁶
2. The name Paulus (generally spelled "Paullus") appears in many ancient writings with reference to a prominent figure in Roman affairs.
   1. One inscription found in Rome identifies a L(ucius) Sergius Paullus and four others as curators of the Tiber River during the reign of Claudius Caesar, which spanned AD 41 to 54.²⁷ Although it is impossible to be sure that he was the man we find in Acts 13, the office of curator was reserved for a member of the Roman senate, as the governorship of Cyprus was also, and the probability that two members of the senate bore the same fairly unusual name is extremely slight.²⁸
   2. At Soloi on the north coast of Cyprus, an inscription by a certain Apollonius was found on a block of marble presumably from a family tomb.²⁹ The writer celebrates his own career, giving as one of his chief accomplishments something he did "in the proconsulship of Paullus."³⁰ The date inscribed on the engraving is the emperor's tenth year.³¹ If the unnamed emperor is Claudius, the date would be AD 50,³² consistent with identifying the proconsul as the Sergius Paulus who held this office a few years earlier (see Appendix 1). But T. B. Mitford, the scholar whose analysis of the inscription has been most influential, argued that its date must be long after the reign of Claudius.³³ Today, the accepted date is a century later.³⁴ But Mitford's conclusion does not have a strong basis. His case depends mainly on the inscription’s use of a squarish alphabet, typical of a later time. Yet he admits that the same style was "in common use at Jerash [in modern Jordan] in the first century" as well as at other places.³⁵ His case depends secondarily on the civic office that the writer boasts as his own. Mitford claims that it did not generally exist in the region until the time of the emperor Hadrian (AD 117–138). Yet he acknowledges evidence that by AD 60, it already existed in Jerash.³⁶ The most inviting interpretation of the known facts is that Soloi had somehow come under the influence of cultural trends at Jerash, a city about two hundred miles to the southeast.
   3. In his Natural History (an encyclopedia of the natural world), Pliny the Elder devotes book 1 to listing all the topics he would cover and all the sources he would employ in the remaining books. He credits Sergius Paullus as one source for books 2 and 18.³⁷ As J. B. Lightfoot pointed out, it so happens that these books offer curious, little-known facts and fables about Cyprus.³⁸ According to book 2, for example, the people of Paphos imagine that rain never falls on the open court holding a famous shrine of Venus.³⁹ Paphos was, of course, the governor's seat.
   4. An inscription found at Kythraia in north Cyprus mentions a Quintus Sergius Paullus who was also a proconsul of Cyprus. Its date is uncertain, perhaps during the reign of Caligula (AD 37-41).⁴⁰ Although strictly a matter of speculation, he was possibly a brother of Lucius.⁴¹
   5. In Pisidian Antioch (a city visited later by Paul during his first missionary journey), a wall stone was found with an inscription honoring Lucius Sergius Paullus the younger, son of Lucius.⁴² In a script characteristic of the late first century, it recognizes this son as a high official in the province. The nod to a father also named Lucius strongly suggests that he was a man of some reputation. Sir William Ramsay (1851–1939), the archaeologist whose pioneering work in Asia Minor did much to establish the authenticity of the Book of Acts, identified the elder Lucius as the Sergius Paulus we find in Acts 13, a reading of evidence endorsed by some recent scholars.⁴³
   6. Another inscription in the same region speaks of a Sergia Paulla, daughter of Lucius, who was married to C. Caristanius Fronto, then, in AD 74, an imperial legate to the surrounding province.⁴⁴ He was doubtless the man by the same name who rose quickly under the smile of the emperor to the highest public office in Rome, the office of consul (to be distinguished from the office of proconsul).⁴⁵ To be exact, in AD 90 he became "suffect consul," the title given someone who replaced another man unable to finish the consular term of one year.⁴⁶ If the younger Sergius Paullus was son of the Cypriot proconsul, Sergia Paulla was probably his sister.⁴⁷ In other words, two children of the proconsul became prominent citizens of the empire.
   7. From a second-century inscription in the same region, we learn that another woman in the Paullus family, a Sergia Paullina, may also have married a man elevated to consulship.⁴⁸ On a tombstone in memory of a Gnaeus Cornelius Severus, who was a freedman of her husband, she identifies herself as the wife of Cornelius Severus. Very likely this was the Cn. (Gnaeus) Cornelius Severus who served as consul in AD 112.⁴⁹ It was not uncommon for a nobleman to bestow his name on freed slaves.⁵⁰ Some scholars conjecture that this woman was a daughter of Sergius Paullus the younger.⁵¹
   8. Yet two more inscriptions from the same region and period imply that the Paullus family were influential landholders in the region of Antioch and north Galatia.⁵²
   9. A Lucius Sergius Paullus II held the consulship in AD 168.⁵³ Some scholars propose that he was the grandson of the younger Lucius Sergius Paullus.⁵⁴
3. Pliny the Elder attested in his Natural History that in Cyprus, sorcery was prevalent. "There is yet another branch of magic, derived from Moses, Jannes, Lotapes [a corruption of Yahweh, the name of God⁵⁵] and the Jews, but living many thousand years after Zoroaster. So much more recent is the branch in Cyprus."⁵⁶ Pliny's meaning is a bit cloudy, but he may be implying that the branch in Cyprus was an extension of the Jewish branch.

Pondering a Question

Of all the ways that Saul might have used to counter the sorcerer's opposition, why did he choose to strike the man with blindness?

The motive behind Saul's harsh treatment of Elymas was not anger or spite. Saul was controlled not by the flesh, but by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, he was acting for the good of Elymas. He remembered from his own experience on the road to Damascus that blindness is very useful for humbling a proud man. He inflicted physical blindness on Elymas in the hope that it would open his spiritual eyes.⁵⁷

Moreover, Saul's way of dealing with Elymas was a quick and easy demonstration that any power the sorcerer claimed was no match for the power in Saul.

Delving Deeper

The true savior

Every human religion exalts man, making him his own savior through works, rituals, or occult practices. Only Christianity identifies God as the Savior.

Delving Deeper

Further evidence the proconsul accepted Christ

Evidence has come to light that besides Sergius Paul(l)us the proconsul, some members of his family in the next several generations were also Christians. No less than twenty-three inscriptions in Rome refer to a collegium (that is, "association") that met in the house of Sergia Paullina.⁵⁸ The founder was L. Sergius L. f[ilius]. With no other reasonable explanation offering itself, some scholars have concluded that the collegium must be a house church.⁵⁹ They identify the founder as the younger Sergius Paullus and the lady host as his daughter, the one who married the future consul Cornelius Severus.

Further evidence has emerged suggesting that a daughter of Sergia Paullina married M'. [Manius] Acilius Glabrio,⁶⁰ who served as consul in AD 124.⁶¹ Glabrio's father was his namesake M'. [Manius] Acilius Glabrio, who established a precedent for his son by serving as consul in AD 91.⁶² The elder Glabrio was executed by the emperor Domitian (AD 81–96). The account of his death in Dio Cassius's Roman History clearly implies that he was one victim of Domitian's ruthless persecution of Christians.⁶³

Delving Deeper

Roman names

The Roman fashion then was to give a child three names.⁶⁴ The first, in Paul's day rapidly fading from use, was the praenomen, a personal name. The second was the nomen, a family or tribal name. Last was the cognomen, often an inherited name giving some notable feature of the individual who first received or adopted it. Originally it was used to distinguish individuals with the same first two names. Paul was probably the apostle's cognomen, certainly not his praenomen, although some scholars have suggested that it was none of the usual three but only a signum, or supernomen—that is, a Latinate name that his family received neither by inheritance nor by the favor of someone in the family of true Pauls. Rather, one of Paul’s forefathers simply adopted it.⁶⁵ He decided that besides their usual nomen and cognomen, the family would go by the name of Paul.

Scripture does not furnish any of the apostle's other Roman names. To deepen the mystery, it refrains from telling us even this name until Acts 13. Its sudden appearance when Paul is standing before another man named Paul has baffled commentators. The strange coincidence demands an explanation.⁶⁶ Some church fathers suggested that Paul was not a birth name of the apostle, but a name he adopted only after his victory at the palace of the governor.⁶⁷ The Romans indeed felt less bound to given names than we do. They felt much freer to name themselves. But the great difficulty in this explanation is the timing of the new name's appearance. Luke uses it for the apostle while the battle with the magician is still raging and before the proconsul is converted to Christ. It therefore does not seem like a name taken after the victory was won.

Delving Deeper

Overlapping names

We still have another mystery to resolve. How did it happen that on Paul's first missionary journey, the first person of significance in his path was another Paul? Did the Jewish Paul deliberately go to Paphos because he knew the governor was a personal relative? No, Paul boasted that he came from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1). Therefore, none of his forefathers was a Roman proselyte to Judaism who bequeathed Roman names and citizenship to his descendants. And it is virtually certain that a member of the Roman senate was not the offspring of a Jew.

The answer hinges on Paul's own background. How did he become a Roman citizen? He had not obtained citizenship by any effort or stratagem of his own, but had received it at birth, a standing possible only because his father was also a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25–28). How had Paul's family come to this place of privilege? The church father Jerome said that Paul’s father, a resident of Giscalis (Gischala) in Galilee, was taken captive and enslaved when Galilee was overrun by the Romans.⁶⁸ The closest match in actual history is Pompey’s conquest of Galilee in about 65 BC.⁶⁹ But Paul did not come from a family of slaves. So, if Jerome’s account is true, the soldier holding Paul’s ancestor must have subsequently liberated him. This reconstruction of Paul’s family history does not tread into the realm of the extraordinary. The Jewish writer Philo reports that many Jews living in Rome had been brought there as captives and later set free.⁷⁰ Some scholars maintain that with manumission (release from slavery), a person formerly held by a Roman citizen might also acquire citizenship.⁷¹ We conclude that manumission and perhaps citizenship came to Paul’s family more than a century before his encounter with Sergius Paulus. Therefore, the ancestor who was a freedman was not Paul’s father, but likely his grandfather.⁷² As we affirmed in our discussion of the Paullus family, a slave granted freedom also acquired his benefactor’s name.⁷³

We come to the fascinating possibility that the Roman officer who enslaved and then released Paul's (grand)father was a member of the distinguished Roman family with the cognomen Paullus.⁷⁴ If correct, the mystery we have been probing suddenly evaporates. It is obvious why Sergius Paulus appears at this early moment in Paul's career. Paul, knowing who was proconsul in Cyprus, chose to make him a first target of evangelistic outreach. Why? Not because he was a relative, but as a gesture of gratitude for what another member of the proconsul's family had done for Paul's family. In return for the gift of citizenship in Rome, Paul offered the proconsul citizenship in heaven.

Pondering a Question

How did the change in leadership come about?

Barnabas, the proper leader beforehand, must have initiated the change. Throughout his years of ministry, Barnabas devoted himself to building up others as servants of the Lord. He is especially remembered for assisting Saul in making the transition from church enemy to church leader. When Saul came to Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas was the one who lowered the barriers to his acceptance by the apostles and the community of believers (Acts 9:26–28). He was also the one who brought Saul out of obscurity in Tarsus to prominence in Antioch (Acts 11:25–26). He then shepherded Saul in his new responsibilities until he was ready to join Barnabas in a groundbreaking missionary journey. Later, he let Saul be the principal decision maker in their work together.

Why would a mature saint surrender leadership to a protégé? Barnabas must have known that when the Lord met Saul on the road to Damascus, He assigned him to the task of evangelizing the gentiles (Acts 26:16–18), and the Spirit must have instructed Barnabas that the leader in this task should be Saul. Therefore in due time, as soon as Barnabas felt that Saul was ready, he put Saul in first place. The move showed that he was selfless enough to set the good of others above personal glory.

Just as Barnabas was an encourager to Paul, so he was also to Mark. He took Mark on the first missionary journey, obviously hoping to make him fruitful in the Lord’s work. We will see that at a later point in Mark’s life, Barnabas again sought to engage him in ministry (Acts 15:36–39).

The story of Barnabas teaches us the essence of godly leadership. Instead of always striving for power, it is always seeking to help.

Pondering a Question

Why did Mark go back home?

One common explanation is that he resented Paul supplanting Barnabas as team leader.⁷⁹ Yet Mark agreed to join a second missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas, even though the leader would certainly be Paul (Acts 15:36–39). If this new willingness to serve Paul represented a change of heart, Paul would probably have agreed to his participation. But instead he vetoed it.

Another explanation sometimes given for Mark’s departure is that he learned of Paul's intent to offer the gospel freely to gentiles, whereas he sided with the Judaizers, a church faction opposing any direct outreach to gentiles unless they were required to live like Jews.⁸⁰ These Judaizers first enter the Book of Acts in chapter 15. But it is unlikely that Mark’s philosophy of ministry would have differed much from his elder cousin’s. Also, if Mark during the first missionary journey indeed shared the outlook of Judaizers, he would not have made himself available for the second unless he and Paul had come to agreement on this matter. But then, as in the scenario imagined by the first explanation, it is unlikely that Paul would have refused his help.

The most convincing explanation is that he saw further involvement as either too dangerous or too strenuous.⁸¹ In the down-to-earth language of Matthew Henry, "he wanted to go and see his mother."⁸²

Perhaps it seemed too dangerous after he saw that Paul was heading inland to places on the fringes of the empire where there might be little or no Jewish presence. In Cyprus, the ministry centered on synagogues, but now they were going to preach in marketplaces if necessary. Mark might have been overwhelmed by fear of confronting a hostile gentile world.

Perhaps further involvement seemed too strenuous once he realized exactly what Paul proposed to do. In Cyprus, Mark had hiked well over a hundred miles, but here he faced a much worse prospect. Before returning to where they now stood in Perga, he would have to climb a mountain and trudge many hundreds of miles (it would prove to be about 780⁸³) over rugged, seesawing roads.

As he heard more of Paul's plans for evangelism, and as he surveyed the northern horizon serving as gateway to an unpleasant world, he decided that the coming journey was more than he bargained for, and he went home. It follows that Paul rejected him as an assistant in later work because he had, in Paul's view, proved too cowardly or too weak for missionary adventures.

Getting Practical

Virtue in perseverance

In any hard task for God, it is easy to find very convincing reasons to give up and go home. Perseverance regardless of the difficulties is a mark of great spiritual maturity.

One reason an increasing percentage of missionaries are not remaining on the field is that many who are going out are too immature. They are not ready to man the front lines in God's war against the powers of darkness. Mark was likewise unready for the work. By his departure from Paul he damaged his reputation for years to come.

Delving Deeper

Mark’s later remorse

In his Gospel, Mark speaks of a young man who deserted Christ on the night of His arrest (Mark 14:50–52). It has long been widely believed that the young man was the author himself.⁸⁴ So far as we can tell, he brings himself into the narrative at no other place. His single appearance, showing that the same man who forsook Paul and Barnabas had also forsaken Jesus, suggests that being a quitter was a long-lasting burden on Mark’s conscience. He understood with a heart full of regret that fearfulness was a deep flaw in his character.

His confession of panic in the garden therefore strengthens the case that fear of some kind drove him from the ministry team after it came to Perga.

Delving Deeper

Location of Antioch

The Antioch they reached after their climb was one of sixteen Antiochs in the ancient world.⁸⁹ Its name was therefore prefaced by "Pisidian" to distinguish it from the others, but this attempt to be exact introduced a slight inaccuracy. Although the city overlooked the region known as Pisidia, it was an outpost of Phrygia, another region to the northwest.⁹⁰ Nevertheless, people called it Pisidian Antioch to distinguish it from a Phrygian Antioch much farther from the border.⁹¹ Although actually beyond Pisidia, the Antioch visited by Paul's party was still within southern Galatia.⁹²

Delving Still Deeper

Possible reasons for haste

Many readers are puzzled that Luke makes no mention of Paul and Barnabas attempting to start a church in Perga. The easy explanation is that they refrained from preaching there because it contained no synagogue to serve as springboard for reaching both Jews and gentiles. Yet it appears that on their way north they also made no stop to witness for Christ at any of the other towns or cities lying along their road. The account is silent about evangelism until they reach Antioch.

The question as to why Paul went straight from Paphos in Cyprus to Antioch near Pisidia has provoked much discussion. One popular explanation takes its cue from an interesting coincidence. After winning Sergius Paulus to faith in Christ, Paul went directly to the city where, according to several inscriptions, the proconsul’s family were influential landholders at a slightly later time—during the latter portion of the first century and the early portion of the second. Some students of Acts have decided that the coincidence must be more than mere chance. They have therefore proposed what they feel is a reasonable scenario, as follows.⁹³ The Paullus family were already established in the same Galatian area at the time of Paul's visit to Cyprus. After the proconsul found salvation, his fervent desire was to send the gospel to his own family not far away, and he extracted from Paul a promise to go next to Antioch. So, Paul's immediate journey to that city was to fulfill an obligation. Yet he went gladly, by his own preference, because he expected an unusually fruitful outreach, for he carried with him the endorsement of a powerful man, no less than a Roman senator and proconsul, and a man that the people of Antioch knew and respected. Against this explanation is the total absence of evidence that Paul, after coming to Antioch, actually exploited his ties with Sergius Paulus. He went first to the Jews, as we will see, and the elite in the city did not prove receptive to this message.

Some are convinced that Paul's epistle to the Galatians provides the true explanation for his journey bypassing other cities so that he might come more quickly to Antioch: "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first" (Gal. 4:13). Ramsay's interpretation of this text is that Paul went to the mountainous region of Galatia in the hope of finding escape from the hotter climate along the coast, where he suffered more acutely from bouts of chronic malarial fever.⁹⁴ The difficulty in this conjecture is that a long hike into the mountains seems a strange choice for a sick man looking for relief.

A better explanation of this text considers what Paul says further on in the same epistle. "For I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me" (Gal. 4:13, 15). Later he says, "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand" (Gal. 6:11). The medical doctor A. Rendle Short drew the most plausible inference. "A simple explanation of all these passages is that Paul had some disease of the eyes which from time to time flared up, was repulsive to look at, and interfered with his sight. Trachoma, a chronic and intractable form of conjunctivitis exceedingly common in Palestine, would correspond exactly."⁹⁵ Trachoma arises from a bacterial infection that has virtually disappeared from the developed world, but has always been prevalent in countries lacking good sanitation.⁹⁶ We may speculate that Paul's trachoma started or became much worse just before coming to Perga, perhaps as a result of exposure to bacteria while on board ship. Risk of this disease is correlated with "lack of water, absence of latrines or toilets, poverty in general, flies, close proximity to cattle, crowding."⁹⁷

Yet it would be straining probability to conclude that eye disease sent Paul from Perga to southern Galatia. Paul was not so unrealistic as to imagine that a hard walk northward would make his eyes feel better. Using health reasons to explain why he went to Antioch starts with a misunderstanding of Galatians 4:13. He says that he first preached to them "through infirmity of the flesh." A more literal rendering is this: "In weakness of the flesh I announced the glad tidings to you at the first."⁹⁸ He is not saying why he went to them. Rather, he is merely reminding them that throughout his visit, he was struggling with a serious malady, which later in the epistle we discover was an affliction of his eyes. We conclude that despite the trachoma that assaulted him after sailing on the Mediterranean, he did not shrink from further missionary work, but plodded forward over hundreds of miles to reach the lost with life-saving truth.

Getting Practical

A sound missions strategy

The probable reason Paul delayed evangelistic efforts until he reached Antioch is that Antioch was the most important city in southern Galatia.⁹⁹ In relation to the surrounding region, it was a stronghold of Roman interests, a military capital, a commercial and cultural center, and the site of a pagan temple drawing worshipers from distant places. With a population estimated at 10,000, it was also larger than other cities nearby. It affirmed its importance by means of its outward appearance. Visitors could not help but admire its well-designed walls and streets and public buildings, all laid out so that at their focal point, in the place of greatest prominence, was a splendid imperial temple dedicated to Augustus.¹⁰⁰

Restricting evangelism to regional centers was a deliberate strategy that Paul and Barnabas had already used in Cyprus. They focused their efforts on Salamis and Paphos, the two leading cities on the island. It was a strategy that Paul followed throughout his career. He targeted the hubs of civilization—Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus—while giving little attention to minor cities along the way. The reason is obvious. Once the gospel is established in a regional center, the new believers will, in obedience to Jesus' command (Acts 1:8), take it to their own Judea and Samaria—their immediate neighbors—thus finishing the job of evangelizing the region as a whole.

A sound missions strategy implements the same principle that guides good decisions in many practical realms of life. The quickest way to burn down a field of weedy growth is to scatter some large brush piles throughout the area and set them ablaze

Delving Deeper

An apparent contradiction

According to the KJV, Paul measured the period of the judges as 450 years. Yet according to 1 Kings 6:1, the time span from the exodus (an earlier starting point by at least fifty years) to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (a later terminal point by more than eighty years; see 2 Sam. 5:4 and Acts 13:21) was only 480 years. Many critics have complained that Paul has fallen into gross inaccuracy. But his true meaning appears in a better translation. He says, literally, "About 450 years after these things he gave judges."¹⁰⁶ In other words, the Lord gave judges about 450 years after Jacob’s family migrated to Egypt.¹⁰⁷ Israel’s sojourn in Pharaoh’s land lasted about 400 years (Acts 7:6), forty years elapsed during their wilderness wanderings (Deut. 29:5), and the nation’s conquest of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership took perhaps another ten years, giving a sum of 450 years. Paul inserts "about" before the number to inform us that it is approximate.

Pondering a Question

Where does the Old Testament prophesy the Davidic lineage of Christ?

The first great king of Israel was David, who reigned about 1000 BC. When David asked the Lord for permission to build Him a temple, the Lord refused, but rewarded his devotion by making an everlasting covenant with him and his descendants. "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:16). The psalmist’s elaboration of this covenant is more explicit. "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me" (Ps. 89:36). "His seed [singular¹⁰⁸]" who would possess an eternal kingdom is Christ.

Many prophecies of the Old Testament concur that the future king of the world—that is, the Messiah—will be David’s descendant (1 Chron. 17:11-14; Ps. 89; 132; Isa. 9:6-7). Jeremiah called the Messiah a branch of David (Jer. 23:5). Similarly, Isaiah spoke of the Messiah as a branch from the root of Jesse, David’s father (Isa. 11:1). Later prophets simplified the image and called Him just the Branch (Jer. 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Ps. 132:17, where "bud" is a verb form of the word "Branch" in Jer. 23:5¹⁰⁹).

Delving Deeper

General knowledge of Jesus’ descent

Jews today still revere the Babylonian Talmud, a vast collection of rabbinical teachings and traditions reduced to writing in about AD 600. This ancient document preserves several traditions concerning Jesus.

One of the oldest of these, originating between AD 70 and 200,¹¹⁰ declares, "On the eve of Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover."¹¹¹ The Talmud preserves how Ulla, a third-century rabbi, commented on this tradition: "Would you believe that any defence would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: 'You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him.' It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship."¹¹²

The claim that the Sanhedrin gave Jesus special treatment because He was "near to the kingship" is not true. It is merely an effort to sidestep the accusation that the Sanhedrin treated Jesus unjustly. But it is significant as proof that the Davidic descent of Jesus was widely known and was never disputed even by His enemies.

Delving Deeper

Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s death

Many Old Testament texts foresee that the Jews would heap abuse upon their Messiah, but the most famous and the one most likely on Paul’s mind when he preached in Antioch is Isaiah 53, which we discussed at some length in our commentary on Acts 8. Isaiah gives a vivid picture of the Messiah’s self-sacrifice for our sake.

1. He would bear our sins. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (v. 6).
2. He would take the punishment for our sins upon Himself. "He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (v. 5).
3. He would be condemned by a court of law. He was "numbered with the transgressors" (v. 12).
4. The verdict of death by execution would fall upon Him despite His complete innocence. He had "done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth" (v. 9).
5. At the end of His suffering He would die. He "made his grave with the wicked" (v. 9).

Delving Deeper

Strong proof of Jesus’ resurrection

The Resurrection is the best-attested event in antiquity. We have affirmations of it in the writings of no less than five eyewitnesses: Matthew (Matt. 28), Mark (Mark 16:9–19), John (John 20–21), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8). James and Jude, two more eyewitnesses (both were in the Upper Room at Pentecost, and Paul in First Corinthians 15:7 specifically names James as an eyewitness), do not in their epistles refer to the Resurrection, yet in speaking of Jesus as the living Lord (Jas. 2:1; 5:7–9; Jude 4, 21), they are surely expressing certainty that He rose from the dead. So, the number of eyewitnesses that can be called upon to validate the Resurrection as a historical fact is seven, the perfect number.

By comparison, any ancient event ignored by Scripture has meager confirmation in surviving records. These are not altogether void of eyewitness testimony. Josephus, who served as Roman spokesman during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, furnishes a lengthy story of the holocaust in his Wars of the Jews. Julius Caesar gives a detailed account of his ruthless bloodletting among the Gauls in his Gallic Wars. But what we know otherwise about the Greek and Roman world generally depends on secondhand information relayed to us by one of the major historians, such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, or Plutarch. Occasionally, they agree with each other or with some surviving inscription or official document. But rarely in our study of antiquity, if we exclude Scripture as a source, do we find an event attested by two eyewitnesses. To find an event attested by three would be a challenge. I myself know of none. But an event attested by five—actually seven—eyewitnesses? We can say with confidence that none exists. The strong evidential foundation underlying our belief in the Resurrection has no parallel in extrabiblical records of man’s history in the era of Christ, or indeed in all the millennia before modern times.

Getting Practical

The sinner’s hope

Jesus’ resurrection explains how a sinner can become a beneficiary of the Davidic covenant. By repentance together with faith in Christ, he too can be sure of victory over death. He will be either raised from the dead or raptured. Thus, he will be able to live forever as a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.

Delving Deeper

Blood of the everlasting covenant

Zechariah furnishes a very enlightening commentary on God’s covenant with David. In chapter 9 of his prophetic book, he foresees Jesus’ triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem (Zech. 9:9). That was the moment when Jesus made a dramatic public announcement to the nation that He was David's seed who would rule the world forever. As Zechariah said, "Behold, thy king cometh unto thee."

Yet consider the two verses following verse 9. "And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water." God is evidently speaking to the future king and declaring how men in bondage to sin can become beneficiaries of the Davidic covenant. Their deliverance will be made possible by the blood sacrifice of Christ’s own body.

We observed earlier that the author of Hebrews was probably Barnabas, who was present on the occasion of Paul’s address in Antioch. At the close of Hebrews, we find the benediction, "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through [or ‘in the power of’] the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen" (Heb. 13:20–21). Several everlasting covenants appear in the Old Testament (Gen. 17:13; 1 Chron. 16:13–19), but the one intended here anticipated the resurrection of Christ. This text therefore joins Isaiah 55 in speaking of the Davidic covenant. It follows that the "the blood of thy covenant" in Isaiah must be the same as "blood of the everlasting covenant" in Hebrews. From the author of Hebrews we learn that the covenantal blood refers to the blood Jesus shed on the cross. We learn also that His shed blood made possible His resurrection. The probable meaning is that His obedience unto death qualified Him to assume His prophesied role as everlasting king over God’s people.

Getting Practical

A complete message

Paul's final warning to unbelievers is an example for us. If we encounter resistance when witnessing for Christ, we should, with gentleness and evident compassion, warn of the consequences in rejecting Him.

Delving Still Deeper

Gobbledygook in the guise of Scripture

A literal rendering of verse 33 in TR yields, "For in the psalm the second it has been written." In CT, rather than this clear and literate statement, we find, "For in the psalm it has been written the second."¹¹⁴ Did TR’s nice wording here derive from an editor trying to improve on Luke’s awkward wording? But also in this verse, CT gives, "God hath fulfilled the same unto our children," in place of, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children."¹¹⁵ The difference reflects a missing word in CT. Bruce concedes that CT’s version "does not suit the context."¹¹⁶ Peter is telling his hearers that they, not their children, are among those privileged to see God’s promises fulfilled. An error in one portion of the verse justifies our presumption that the other difference is also an error, both being noise proceeding from a faulty transmitter; that is, a lackadaisical scribe.

Delving Still Deeper

A change in the story

CT rewrites verse 42 as follows: "As they went out, they besought them that these words might be spoken to them on the next Sabbath."¹¹⁷ The evident meaning is that the apostles were surrounded as they left the synagogue by those in attendance and were asked to speak again. The most natural inference allowed by this rendering is that the invitation came primarily or exclusively from Jews. There is no mention of Gentiles. In contrast, TR clearly represents the petitioners as Gentiles left behind in the synagogue after the Jews had departed. In light of verse 33, we understand that Paul and Barnabas encountered Jews interested in hearing more preaching only after they had left the synagogue. Which account is correct?

It is hard to imagine why any scribe would have invented a scene inside a synagogue after a service where the apostles conversed solely with gentiles. We can, however, think of reasons why a scribe might have doctored the original account by omitting this scene. Perhaps he thought that in this verse, an error must have crept into the text. He may not have known that it was customary for gentiles visiting a synagogue to leave last.¹¹⁸ Or perhaps he doubted that Jews would have kept their distance from the apostles until they were all outside. But Jews may have considered the central chamber of a synagogue an improper place for informal conversation.¹¹⁹ Or perhaps they did not wish to express an interest in the apostle’s message until they talked to other Jews and found them interested as well.

Some scholars otherwise favorable to CT nevertheless acknowledge that TR’s version of verse 42 may be correct.¹²⁰

Pondering a Question

How could "almost the whole city" fit in the synagogue?

Since the gathering crowd would have been much larger than the synagogue could hold, many commentators accuse Luke of exaggeration when he says "almost the whole city." Some view his words as an inexcusable lie intended to boost the reader's admiration of Paul, others as excusable hyperbole—that is, as an overstatement which expresses how amazing the number was, but which we are expected to recognize as not literally true.¹²¹

The simple answer is that as people were arriving at the synagogue, it soon became obvious that the space inside would be inadequate, and a decision was made to transfer the service elsewhere, probably to a venue outside. Schnabel, with his characteristically good judgment, suggests several possible sites, one being the open space in front of the synagogue itself.¹²²

If Luke were descending into lie or hyperbole, he would not have bothered to attach "almost" to "the whole city."¹²³

Delving Deeper

Reasons for resistance

Other factors may have been involved as well. Perhaps the Jewish leaders were simply distrustful of anything new. That is, they were content with their traditions, and they jumped to rejection of the gospel without investigating all the facts supporting it.

Perhaps also their reaction revealed prejudice against the gentiles. They liked having the gentiles sit in the back and listen to Jewish teachers. But maybe they sensed that Paul brought a leveling message, proposing to create a new body of believers that would bring gentiles into equality with Jews, whereas the Jews liked to be superior.

Pondering a Question

What was the meaning in shaking the dust off their shoes?

Shaking off the dust was a gesture that Jesus told His disciples to perform whenever they left a city resistant to the truth (Matt. 10:14). It signified that they were departing clean from all the dirt of unbelief found in that city. It therefore served both as a reminder to the disciples to shake off the city’s influence and as a public testimony to all the watching unbelievers that they had not deterred the disciples from their mission.

Getting Practical

Signs of the Spirit

Many people today are interested in religion if it relieves their boredom and adds excitement to their lives. Especially attractive is the false religion we might call emotionalism, which replaces true worship with dramatic experiences falsely attributed to the Holy Spirit. These include laughing or sobbing uncontrollably, jumping with hysterical joy or falling down as if slain, speaking gibberish or becoming dead silent, as well as many other childish and disreputable forms of behavior. But the first and primary evidence of the real Spirit is the quiet virtues listed in Galatians 5:22.

Getting Practical

Normal Christianity

In the conversions recorded in Acts, the result was a dramatic change from living for self to living for God. We should view the Christianity of the early church as normal Christianity, not as exceptional Christianity. In our churches today, we do not see many dramatic turnarounds after decisions for Christ. Why? One reason is that many people who come forward for salvation in postmodern America view religion not as truth, but as something to try. They have a consumer mentality. To counter this trend, the church should always keep truth claims in the forefront. It should always clearly recommend Christianity on the grounds that it is true, not on the grounds that it works in the sense of adding some nice touches to their lives here and now. It does work as a producer of godly joy and virtue in this world and as a recipe for eternal life, but it works only because it is true.