That Word Above All Earthly Powers: The Book of ActsGrace Community Church Sunday SchoolActs 13

Paul and Barnabas chosen for missions (13:1-3).

The first twelve chapters of Acts recount the first 10-15 years of the Church’s history, and it’s rather remarkable. She grew from 120 men and women several thousand in a day, and then to tens of thousands in short order thereafter. Beginning in Jerusalem, Christian churches were gathering in Judea, throughout Samaria, in Cyprus, in Damascus, and in Antioch—just to name a few major cities.

What’s even more remarkable is that this growth didn’t happen strategically—at least from the human perspective. Up to this point, the Church’s growth happening because of scattering by necessity: persecution forced them to flee, and they took the Gospel with them as they went. There has not been intentional, planned, strategic missions in the Church yet. Now, that changes.1

Acts 12 ends with Saul and Barnabas returning from their journey to Jerusalem to deliver the relief funds collected for the upcoming famine. There is some dispute about whether the text should read “to” or “from” Jerusalem; in any case, they traveled to Jerusalem and returned to Antioch at some point prior to chapter 13.

The Church in Antioch—especially the leadership—reflected the cosmopolitan blend of peoples in that great city. The five leaders mentioned in 13:1 cross racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographic bounds in a wonderful way.2

We have met Barnabas and Saul already; along with them is Simeon—a Jewish name—who is also a black man (“Niger”). It is possible that Simeon is from Cyrene as well (being grouped together with Lucius), and we are expected to recognize him as Jesus’ cross-bearer and the father of his well-known (to the Roman church, anyway) sons, Alexander and Rufus.

Manaen is said to be a “close friend”—possibly some kind of relative or boyhood companion—of Herod “the tetrarch,” that is, Herod Antipas (the recently deceased Agrippa’s uncle). This is most likely Luke’s inside source for Herod’s court and family.3

While the Church in Antioch was gathered for worship and fasting, the Spirit singled out Saul and Barnabas for a special work. These two were to be “set apart”: dedicated to this new thing the Spirit was doing. Luke tells us they “fasted and prayed” (13:3) before laying hands on the two and sending them off.

There are a few important points to note about the commissioning of Saul and Barnabas for the work of missions.

First of all, “Luke’s main point is to emphasize that mission is inaugurated by God himself (Marshall, 216).” Notice that missions was the Holy Spirit’s idea first, not anyone in the Church’s. It was the Holy Spirit who chose His men, called them to the work, and made that known to the Church.

1 The importance of the present narrative is that it describes the first piece of planned ‘overseas mission’ carried out by representatives of a particular church, rather than by solitary individuals, and begun by a deliberate church decision, inspired by the Spirit, rather than somewhat more casually as a result of persecution (Marshall, 214).2 The cosmopolitan population of Antioch was reflected in the membership of its church, and indeed in its leadership, which consisted of five resident prophets and teachers…These five men, therefore, symbolized the ethnic and cultural diversity of Antioch (Stott, KL 3822-3823).3 In either case, since Luke knew a lot about Herod’s court and family, Manaen may well have been his informant (Stott, KL 3832-3833). [I]t could be that Manaen was Luke’s source of information for material about Herod Antipas which is not found in the other Gospels (Marshall, 215).

Second, it was the Church who also sent Saul and Barnabas.4 The Spirit chose them, called them, and sent them (see 13:4), but the Church did as well. The Spirit used the Church to accomplish the will and purposes of God; the Church submitted to the Spirit’s leading and sent the two on mission.

This is very similar to the call of the deacons in Acts 6. There, it was the Church as a whole who called the Seven, and here, it is the Church as a whole who lays hands on Saul and Barnabas.5

Third, Luke does not tell us exactly how the Spirit spoke to the Antiochene Church; it would be reasonable to assume He did so via the “prophets” in their leadership. In any case, someone had to say out loud, “These two are set apart by the Holy Spirit for the work He has for them.” The Church’s response was to fast and pray, and only then did they lay hands on them and send them off.

The voice of the Spirit is the voice of Jesus, and He had already declared that His sheep know His voice. It was the Church who searched out the will of God by prayer and confirmed that this was indeed the Spirit’s leading. The Church as a whole has the Spirit and can recognize the Shepherd’s voice; the Church as a whole has a role and a responsibility to be involved in the ministry of the Church. It was not enough for Simeon or Lucius or Manaen to speak up; the Church prayed and fasted to know the will of the Lord.

Finally, notice the faith that is called for by both Saul and Barnabas and the Church: the Spirit does not give details about where, how long, how, or any other reasonable questions. Without a doubt, these matters were prayed about and discussed and planned (they at least had decided to head to the port at Seleucia and sail to Cyprus), but the decision to go and the decision to send was an act of obedient faith.

It was not unlike the call of Abram. To him God had said, ‘Go to the land I will show you.’ To the Antiochene church God said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ In both cases the call to go was clear, while the land and the work were not. So in both cases the response to God’s call required an adventurous step of faith (Stott, KL 3845-3848).

Paul and Barnabas challenged by darkness (13:4-12).

However it factored into the decision, Cyprus was a natural starting point for the missionary journey. Barnabas was a native of the island, and possibly John Mark who accompanied them (13:5) had family connections or other familiarity there as well. Evangelism had already begun on the island by the intrepid souls who fled Saul’s persecution (11:19), but not on any strategic or large-scale level.

Sailing from Seleucia to Salamis, a port city on the east coast of Cyprus, Saul and Barnabas attend the synagogues first. This becomes their regular pattern of missions: synagogues first (if any), then on to Gentile evangelism once the Jews have heard the Gospel.6

4 So, in our anxiety to do justice to the Holy Spirit’s initiative, we should not depict the church’s role as having been entirely passive. Would it not be true to say both that the Spirit sent them out, by instructing the church to do so, and that the church sent them out, having been directed by the Spirit to do so? (Stott, KL 3862-3864).5 It is more probable that the church members as a whole are in mind, since both they and the leaders are mentioned together in verse 1, and on the not dissimilar occasion when the seven were to be chosen, it was the local church as a whole who acted (6:2–6) (Stott, KL 3839-3840).6 There had already been some evangelism in Cyprus (11:19) and some members of the church in Antioch had family ties with the island, including Barnabas himself (4:36). From a human point of view, therefore, it was natural for the mission to start there, but the missionaries felt guided by the Spirit to do so. A pattern of establishing contact with the synagogues was followed, but the main interest of the story is centred on Paul’s audience with the Roman governor and his confrontation with a magician who opposed the preaching of the gospel (Marshall, 216). Barnabas came from that island himself and it was a natural first port of call. There seem to have been Christian missionaries at work there already (see 11.19), but we should never imagine that a few quick visits and a few early converts meant that a whole town, still less an entire island, had been ‘evangelized’. There was still plenty to do, and Barnabas

They make their way west across the island (which, like Tennessee, is far broader east-west than north-south), preaching all along,7 until they come to the capital city of Paphos. There, the Roman governor or proconsul, Sergius Paulus, has heard of them and gives them an audience to hear more.8

Part of Sergius Paulus’ retinue was a sorcerer, Elymas Bar-Jesus. Elymas means “magician” or “sorcerer,” and “Bar-Jesus” means “son of salvation”; Luke intends to show how much of a morbid pun his name truly was. Luke reassures us that Sergius Paulus actually has some sense (“an intelligent man”), either because he normally didn’t lend Elymas much credence, or because he was now willing to ignore him in favor of Saul and Barnabas.9

I. Howard Marshall points out an interesting parallel to the Gospels here: “[A]re we intended to see a parallel with the equipping of Jesus with the Spirit at the outset of his ministry followed by his conflict with Satan (Luke 3:22; 4:1f., 4:14)? (Marshall, 217).

We have already seen definite parallels with the life and ministry of Jesus already in Acts (cf. Peter’s healings of Aeneas and Tabitha in 9:32-43). Whether the parallel is intentional or not, it is the case that just as Jesus was opposed by the forces of darkness, so too are His people. This is especially true for Saul and Barnabas.

Elymas listens as Saul and Barnabas share the Gospel with Sergius Paulus, and he immediately recognizes them as a threat. If the proconsul accepts this teaching and way of life, then he will lose his status as a part of the retinue and the income associated with it.10 So he vehemently “opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith” (13:8 CSB).

Saul, filled with the Holy Spirit, stares Elymas down and denounces his evil publicly. He shows how the name Bar-Jesus is a misnomer: he is not a son of salvation, but a son of the devil! Rather than advising with wisdom and righteousness, he is “full of all kinds of deceit and trickery…perverting the straight paths of the Lord?” (13:10-11 CSB). You can easily envision Elymas as a Grima Wormtongue whispering evil into the ears of the proconsul.

In a flourish of both irony and power, the sorcerer leaves cursed that day: “Now, look, the Lord’s hand is against you. You are going to be blind, and you will not see the sun for a time” (13:11 CSB).11 Whether Elymas was a trickster and a charlatan or a genuine sorcerer wielding demonic power (like Simon Magus in Samaria),12 we don’t know, but what Paul makes clear is that the power of the Holy Spirit and His Gospel is stronger, regardless.

Paul’s exercise of power here is not a capricious outburst of frustration; he is motivated by zeal for the Lord and His gospel, and a protectiveness of those who might not hear it for the lies of Elymas. Paul

and Saul were not simply going to try to persuade one or two people. They were going to take the message to the heart of the Jewish community on the island, and then to the heart of its Gentile community (Wright, 4). Barnabas and Paul began their mission work by preaching in the synagogues; this was a pattern that was to be frequently followed... Not only did it follow the principle of ‘to the Jew first’ but also it made practical sense in establishing a point of contact for the gospel (Marshall, 217-218, italics original).7 This took them from the east coast to the west coast, a journey of about ninety miles, which Ramsay argued from Luke’s use of the verb dierchomai was ‘a preaching tour through the whole island’ (Stott, KL 3888-3890).8 In this case, the fact that Sergius Paulus had heard about Barnabas and Saul indicates well enough the kind of impact they had been making in his territory. The fact that he wanted to give them a fair hearing – and ended up apparently believing their message – is a wonderful start for their work (Wright, 5).9 He is described as a man of understanding, the implication being that he was not taken in by the magician but was open to hearing the gospel (Marshall, 219).10 At all events, Elymas saw in the Christian missionaries a threat to his prestige and livelihood (Stott, KL 3900).11 The story of Paul’s miraculous powers is also calculated to arouse scepticism, but it would be quite credible in a first-century context, in which Christians believed that their faith was superior to the powers of darkness and evil (Marshall, 217).12 There are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamed of in modern Western philosophies, and some of those things are very dangerous (Wright, 5).

wants Sergius Paulus and Elymas to believe the gospel, and he wields the power of the Spirit to that effect.

One way he shows this is by the word he uses for “perverting” the ways of the Lord, as John Stott points out:

Paul’s condemnation of Elymas was that the belied his name, ‘Bar-Jesus’, being rather a child of the devil than of salvation, and that he was the enemy of both goodness and truth, being an ‘utter impostor and charlatan’ (NEB, 1961 edition). In keeping with his character, he made crooked the straight paths of the Lord, and was guilty of causing ‘perversion’ (diastrepho, 8, 10), instead of ‘conversion’ (epistrepho, e.g. 9:35; 11:21; 14:15) (Stott, KL 3909-3913).

Another way we see Paul’s heart in this is in the language he uses to describe Elymas’ blindness: it is the language used to describe his own blindness outside Damascus. Paul was blinded and had to be “led by the hand” (9:8); Elymas was blinded and “went around looking for someone to lead him by the hand” (13:11). Perhaps Paul’s hope and prayer was for an Ananias there is Paphos to be used to open Elymas’ eyes so that he might truly be Bar-Jesus—a son of salvation.13

This accomplished the intended effect: Sergius Paulus believed, being “astonished at the teaching of the Lord” (13:12 CSB).14 This is the first explicit account of a fully Gentile convert; every other account of Gentile conversion thus far has been a God-fearer (like Cornelius).15 The Gospel is powerful enough to reach a Roman proconsul! Gandalf has freed Theoden from the entanglements of Wormtongue—and the evil lord behind him.

The other major feature of this account is the change from Saul to Paul. It is not the case, as is commonly believed, that “Saul” refers to the unconverted murderer and “Paul” is the name of the changed man. There are plenty of saints whose names changed at significant points in history, but this is not one of them.

This is the first time the name “Paul” has been used, and it will be used exclusively hence.16 The significance of the change is not his conversion (since Luke has been referring to him as “Saul” up until this point), but the increasingly Gentile context he will live and minister in from now on.

13 And what Paul saw was ugly indeed, though not (alas) uncommon: a deep-rooted opposition to truth and goodness, a heart-level commitment to deceit and villainy and, as a result, an implacable opposition to the good news about Jesus. Paul reacts sharply, declaring God’s judgment on him in the form of temporary blindness (which he himself had suffered, of course, in chapter 9; did Paul hope that in Elymas’s case, as in his own, this would lead to repentance and to embracing the gospel?). The result is that the governor believed the gospel. Luke says that he was astonished at the ‘teaching of the Lord’; this clearly doesn’t just mean the theological content of what was being said, but the power which it conveyed. One obvious lesson from all this is that when a new work of God is going ahead, you can expect opposition, difficulty, problems and confrontation. That is normal. How God will help you through (and how long he will take about it!) is another matter. That he will, if we continue in prayer, faith and trust, is a given (Wright, 6). The magician, fearful lest he should lose his position, did his best to oppose what they said. His open opposition to the gospel led Paul to take strong action against him. He addressed him not as a ‘son of Jesus’ but as a son of the devil, a man full of trickery and evil, who was thwarting the ways of God (for the phraseology see Jer. 5:27; Gen. 32:11; Prov. 10:9; Hos. 14:10), and pronounced the judgment of God upon him in the form of an attack of blindness. The character of the judgment suggests an analogy with what had earlier happened to Paul himself, and the phrase for a time suggests that it was meant to be merely temporary; hence the judgment was probably meant to be a warning and intended to act as a stimulus to conversion, although we do not know whether it achieved this result. The unfortunate magician was afflicted with a mistiness of the eyes and his consequent blindness was evident from his need of somebody to lead him by the hand (Marshall, 219, italics original). Immediately, therefore, mist and darkness (Dr Luke uses two contemporary medical terms) came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand (11b). Paul must have remembered the day not many years previously when he himself had been blinded, albeit by the glory of the Lord, and been led by the hand into Damascus (Stott, KL 3914-3917, italics original).14 No, he brings before his readers a dramatic power encounter, in which the Holy Spirit overthrew the evil one, the apostle confounded the sorcerer, and the gospel triumphed over the occult (Stott, KL 3923-3924).15 Paul. It was common for Jews to take a Greek or Roman second name, like Joseph Barsabbas (1: 23) and John Mark (12: 12, 25), and it was appropriate for Luke to mention Saul’s now as he moves into increasingly non-Jewish contexts. He does not call Paul ‘Saul’ again (Stott, KL 3902-3904).16 It was common for Jews to take a Greek or Roman second name, like Joseph Barsabbas (1:23) and John Mark (12:12, 25), and it was appropriate for Luke to mention Saul’s now as he moves into increasingly non-Jewish contexts. He does not call Paul ‘Saul’ again (Stott, KL 3903-3904).

As a Roman citizen, Paul would have had at least two, probably three names. Saul was his Hebrew name used in Jewish contexts; Paul(us) was his cognomen, the third of a Roman’s names (and the one we typically use when referring to a Roman; cf. Marcus Junius Brutus or Marcus Tullius Cicero or Gaius Julius Caesar). Now that he is moving in predominantly Gentile areas, he uses his Greek name instead of his Hebrew name in order to better reach the lost with the Gospel.17 This is one of the simple ways in which Paul can “become all things to all people, so that [he] may by every possible means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22 CSB).

Paul and Barnabas champion the Gospel (13:13-52).

The Journeys of John Mark (13:5, 13)

There are more questions than answers when it comes to John Mark, but the answers we do have that span the New Testament show a picture of grace, growth, and restoration.

The Holy Spirit specifically designated Saul and Barnabas as His men, and no mention was made of John Mark. It’s not necessarily the case that John Mark wasn’t welcome; since he came along as an “assistant,” perhaps the decision was made to include him when they decided to go to Cyprus. Family connections and possible familiarity with Cyprus as a result made him a reasonable choice as companion.18

The exact nature of John Mark’s “assistant” role is unknown. The word itself had uses in medical, military, political, and religious contexts, so we can’t know exactly what he did.

All we can say is that the word hyperetes was used of a servant or assistant of doctors, army officers, priests and politicians, and does not tell us whether Mark’s service was pastoral (e.g. instructing enquirers and nurturing converts) or practical (e.g. cooking and cleaning) (Stott, KL 3885-3887).

The group left Paphos and sailed back to Asia Minor, landing at Perga in the regions of Pamphylia and Galatia (the same Galatia whose churches would receive a rather scathing letter from Paul in a few months’ time). At this point, John Mark “left them and went back to Jerusalem” (13:13 CSB). No indication is given here why this happened, but Luke does give some clues at the end of chapter 15:

Barnabas wanted to take along John Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take along this man who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed off to Cyprus” (15:37-39 CSB).

Here, Luke is fairly obviously presenting Paul’s side of the story—which is not to say it’s wrong, but Paul’s side.19 John Mark had “deserted” them, in Paul’s view, and had no business being a part of the work. Barnabas defends his cousin, either out of familial loyalty, a sense of John Mark’s value in the

17 As a Roman citizen Paul would have borne three names, the third of which (his cognomen) would have been the Latin ‘Paullus’; what his first two names were, we do not know. A Roman citizen could have a fourth name (his signum or supernomen) given at birth and used as a familiar name; in Paul’s case this could have been his Jewish name ‘Saul’, which he would use in a Jewish environment. The change in name here to the form which Paul uses in his letters corresponds to his entry into a mainly Gentile environment (Marshall, 220). So, like many Jews going out into the Greek world, Paul used a regular Greek name, whether because it was another name he had had all along, which is quite possible, or because it was close to his own real name, just as some immigrants change their names into something more recognizable in the new country. One thing was certain. Paul was serious about getting the message out to the wider world. When you even change your own name, you show that you really mean business, even if it will lead you into confrontation (Wright, 7).18 [I]t was Paul’s practice to take young men with him as his assistants in the work, and there is no good reason to doubt that this particular appointment was made in good faith. Since Barnabas belonged to Cyprus, and later took John back there with him, it is possible that John himself had family links with the island and that this was why he was chosen to accompany the other missionaries. It may be this family link with Cyprus that led to his being named at this particular point in the story (Marshall, 218).

contribution he could make, or both. They do not resolve their disagreement other than to separate, Barnabas taking Mark to Cyprus and Paul taking Silas to Syria and Cilicia.

This is the last we hear of John Mark in Acts, and we would be left with the conclusion that the Gospel that had unified so many believers across so many barriers could not (or at least did not) unify these brothers who once so deeply loved one another.

Thankfully, this is not the last mention of John Mark in the New Testament (not least of which being the fact that he wrote the Second Gospel):

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my coworkers (Philemon 24 CSB).

Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you greetings, as does Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (concerning whom you have received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him) (Colossians 4:10 CSB).

Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you, for he is useful to me in ministry (2 Timothy 4:11 CSB).

All these texts occur much later in life—2 Timothy is the last extant letter before Paul was murdered by Nero. In each of these, Mark is a “coworker” with Paul who is “useful…in ministry.” Further, Paul specifically gives instructions to the Colossians to “welcome him.”

The Colossians passage in particular is fascinating. Perhaps the Colossians had heard of the rift with Mark and persisted in their skepticism toward him. Paul uses the force of his own personality and apostolic authority to reassure them and command them to welcome him—just as he himself had done.

Putting the pieces together from both the New Testament and history, we can see that Mark returned to Jerusalem and came under the discipleship of Peter. It was under this discipleship that Mark wrote the Second Gospel; Peter’s influence on Mark is great, as we saw when we went through the Second Gospel. Under Peter’s wing, Mark grew, matured, and was eventually reconciled to Paul and joined him in the work of ministry.

It seems that everybody shared in the blame in Acts 13-15. John Mark deserted them, and Paul reacted too harshly to him. Barnabas’ instincts to teach and direct were good, but he presumably put family before Paul’s concerns. Everybody got heated and everybody was wrong in a way.

We don’t have the account of the reconciliation, because we’re not supposed to. It’s not our business. What is our business is the fact that reconciliation did occur, and even in this the Gospel prevails.

Paul and Barnabas go to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (northwest of Syrian Antioch, where they started). The synagogue service consisted of a reading from the Pentateuch, a reading from the Prophets, and an exposition from a qualified rabbi present. Perhaps Paul was still dressed as a rabbi or had met the ruler of the synagogue prior to the service. In either case, the synagogue ruler opened the floor for Paul and Barnabas to speak: “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, you can speak” (13:15 CSB).

Luke now provides his first full summary of one of Paul’s sermons…Luke is evidently anxious to demonstrate that Paul’s message to the Jews was substantially the same as Peter’s; that Paul did not

19 Luke announces the fact in a matter-of-fact manner and appears to apportion no blame. But it becomes clear in 15:38 that he sees Mark as having ‘deserted them’. Later, however, he recovered and again became ‘helpful’ to Paul in his ministry (Stott, KL 3931-3933).

turn to the Gentiles until after he had offered the gospel to the Jews and been rebuffed; and that, far from being an innovator, Paul was declaring only what God had promised in Scripture and had now fulfilled in Jesus (Stott, KL 3959, 3963-3965).

Paul’s Sermon (13:16-41)

Paul’s sermon is an excellent complement and companion to that of Stephen’s in Acts 7, perhaps revealing Stephen’s influence on Paul’s thinking and understanding of the Old Testament. The approach to both is the same: both men masterfully demonstrate how the Old Testament culminates in God keeping His promises to Israel in and through Jesus. Stephen focused upon the Exodus: Moses and the Tabernacle; Paul moves to David and the Prophets. Between these two sermons, we have an authoritative summary and exposition of the entire Old Testament.

As we study this sermon and recall Stephen’s, we’re reminded why we as Christians—and Gentile Christians at that—desperately need the Old Testament. N.T. Wright gets straight to the point: “It is fatally easy for the church to tell the story of Jesus while simply ignoring the entire story of Israel. That is the way to produce a shallow, sub-biblical and ultimately dangerous theology” (Wright, 11).

As we saw in Romans 11, the story of Israel and the Old Testament is our story by adoption and in-grafting. We have no claims to it; we were, as Paul said in Ephesians, “excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12 CSB).

But because of Jesus, there is now “one new man from the two, resulting in peace” (Ephesians 2:15 CSB). Our story as Gentile Christians is inseparable from the story of Israel in the Old Testament, precisely because we have been brought into New (and True) Israel by grace.

We can see the seeds of Paul’s theology here in many ways, not least of which is the focus upon God’s glorious sovereignty. That there is a salvation to even contemplate, much less hope in, is the fruit of God’s incredible grace: nearly every verb in this summary has God as its subject.20

The focus of Paul’s sermon is to show how God chooses His people and the man from His people who is to be their King.21 God chose Israel (13:17a), blessed them (13:17b), was patience with their nonsense (13:18), destroyed their enemies (13:19a), and gave them the Promised Land as their inheritance (13:19b). He further gave them judges to rule and deliver them, including the final judge, Samuel (13:20). The people rejected Samuel, wanting a king; so God gave them the man after their heart, Saul ben-Kish of Benjamin. After Saul was removed, God established the man after His heart, David (13:21-22).

The promise of God to David and Israel was that David’s greater Son would “carry out all my will” (13:22); God’s will was the salvation of the world by way of Israel.22 Paul declares the keeping of God’s promises by sending Jesus the Savior to Israel. (This is a key focus in Luke’s beginning chapters.)

20 In this brief recapitulation of the history of Israel from the patriarchs to the monarchy, Paul’s emphasis is on God’s initiative of grace. For he is the subject of nearly all the verbs (Stott, KL 3966-3967).21 God’s method of operation is to choose his people, to prepare them, to lead them through one stage after another, and then, finally, to give them ‘the man after my own heart’ as king (Wright, 10).22 But the point is not that the story stopped at David, but that in working with Israel for several hundred years to produce the king who would establish the pattern of someone ruling over God’s people with justice and truth (that seems to be what ‘after God’s own heart’ is getting at), God was establishing a further pattern as well: the notion of waiting for the true king, the ultimate king, ‘great David’s greater son… Paul believes, of course, that what God has done in Jesus he has done for the whole world, but he makes it very clear, throughout this address, that the first stage is always to see Jesus in relation to Israel itself… What God promised to our ancestors he has now fulfilled’ (Wright, 10-11).

From David’s descendants God brought to Israel the very Man He promised: “the Savior, Jesus” (13:23 CSB).23 This Jesus is the one that the greatest Prophet himself, John the Baptist, would defer to as far greater than himself.

One of the specific reasons why all Christians need the Old Testament is because the Old Testament is as historical as Luke’s writings. God made particular promises to actual people, and God’s plan for saving the world was to be accomplished through a specific Person.24 It was through Seth’s line, through Abraham’s line, through Israel’s line, through Judah’s line, through David’s line that the promised One would come. Without the Old Testament, we have fulfillment without expectation; the keeping of unknown and unknowable promises, and a wealth of background and context for why Jesus, why then, why that way that would forever be beyond us.

It’s also important to note the historical significance of this: under Hitler’s chancellorship in Germany, it was a dangerous thing to preach the Old Testament or to preach that Jesus was a Jew. Hitler and Goebbels were more than content to get rid of Jesus altogether (Hitler was the Third Reich’s Messiah), but they had to pave the way for how to get rid of Jesus first. Denying the Old Testament generally and Jesus’ Jewish lineage specifically was a key part of that plan.

Paul says that “the word of this salvation” has been sent “to us,” that is, to the “children of Abraham’s race, and those among you who fear God” (13:26 CSB). The privilege of Israel’s election was that she was the first to have the opportunity to receive God’s Messiah and reap the blessings of doing so. “To the Jew first and also to the Greek” was God’s strategy long before it was Paul’s.

This [rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah] is a twist in the story which takes us down, deep down, to the mystery of God’s call of Israel in the first place: when God wanted to save the world, he called a people whom he knew to be part of the problem, as well as being, from then on, the bearers of the solution. This is one of the hardest things Paul has to say, but it can’t be avoided. All, Jew and Gentile alike, must be humbled before God if they are to receive his rescue and new creation as what it is, a gift of grace and not a favour automatically reserved for a special few (Wright, 16).

Sadly, “the residents of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him [Jesus] or the sayings of the prophets that are read every Sabbath” (13:27 CSB). This is an astounding statement, and yet one that echoes Jesus Himself on multiple occasions.

This means that reading the Old Testament correctly inexorably leads you to Jesus. If you read the Old Testament and end up anywhere but Jesus, you’ve read it wrong. Paul has equated recognizing Jesus with understanding “the sayings of the prophets that are read every Sabbath.” As Jesus said, those who have been given much also have much responsibility; there’s no excuse for anyone not to believe, but especially no excuse for Jews not to believe.

This is why it is so important for us to be constantly exposed to and soaking in the Scriptures. Otherwise, we can’t recognize Jesus when He’s right in front of our face; we end up making a Jesus that we want to follow and obey, rather than the one He really is. The Scriptures are faithful to challenge us, refusing to let us off the hook.

The mystery of God’s providence and sovereignty is shown in that Jesus’ rejection was a) part of the very plan of God, and b) confirmed the promises, predictions, and pictures made about Him: “they have fulfilled their words by condemning him” (13:27 CSB).23 It was thus from David’s descendants that God could be expected to fulfil his promises to the people. The promises in question are those made to David that he would have offspring who would rule after him for ever (2 Sam. 7:12–16; cf. 22:51; Pss. 89:29, 36f.; 132:11f., 17). This offspring is identified as Jesus, and his function is described as that of a Saviour (Marshall, 224).24 Paul is setting up a system of signposts, from David a thousand years before to John a mere 15 or so years earlier. And all the signposts point to one person: Jesus the Messiah, the Rescuer. Paul’s strategy is a challenge to us all, to understand our audience well enough to know how to tell them the story in a way they will find compelling, how to set up signposts in a language they can read (Wright, 12).

It’s interesting to compare and contrast Peter and Paul at this point. Both men emphasize the injustice of Jesus’ condemnation and execution, both men emphasize the real, bodily death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and both emphasize the multiple, corroborating witnesses to all of this that are available.25

Peter at Pentecost and before the Sanhedrin uses the second person: “you condemned Him, you killed Him”; Paul uses the third person: “they condemned Him, they killed Him.” These Jews in Pisidian Antioch were not present for the events of the Passion, but they are related by blood and faith to those who were. This presents Paul with the opportunity to put the offer of salvation before them: will you be like those who refused God and His Word, or will you listen to God and His Word, as I’ll show you next?26

Paul explicitly separates himself from the Twelve as the original witnesses of the resurrection (“he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now witnesses to the people” [13:31 CSB]), but he includes himself in the number of those proclaiming the news (“we ourselves proclaim to you the good news of the promise that was made to our ancestors” [13:32 CSB]).27

The Holy Spirit in our hearts and an open Bible (either physically or mentally) are the only requirements for faithful ministry. There’s no requirement for expertise or experience that we don’t have. Paul can’t speak as a witness of the resurrection, because he isn’t one. He can speak as a recipient of the goodness of God keeping His promises.

The man born blind in John 9 has a powerful testimony, and the core of it is “I don’t know.” The Pharisees are trying to condemn Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, so they press the healed man into admitting that Jesus was a sinner. His response is beautiful:

He answered, “Whether or not he’s a sinner, I don’t know. One thing I do know: I was blind, and now I can see!” (John 9:25 CSB).

He wasn’t in a position to argue theology or logic or formally debate these scholars. He didn’t have to. He couldn’t speak to their (corrupt) understanding of the law; he could only speak to what he himself had experienced: the goodness of Jesus.

Paul then quotes Psalms and Isaiah to support his case.Psalm 2 was widely accepted as a Messianic Psalm; Jesus is the Son of Psalm 2, and the reign of the Davidic King that God promised in 2 Samuel comes through One who has been raised from the dead.28

Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16 (a staple of Peter’s preaching as well) reinforce the truth that David himself was not the promised King, but the forerunner thereof. David was disqualified by the fact that he had suffered decay; Jesus, though dead and buried, was raised from the dead by God and therefore was qualified to be that promised King.

25 Paul tells the story of Jesus, as he has told the story of Israel. In doing so, he concentrates on the two great saving events, his death and his resurrection, and demonstrates that both were fulfilments of what God had foretold in Scripture (Stott, Kl 3977-3979).26 Paul regards his hearers as in a separate category from those who had already heard of Jesus and rejected him, and the rest of the speech is in effect an appeal to them not to throw away their opportunity of salvation by following the example of the people in Jerusalem and their rulers who had rejected Jesus and condemned him to death (Marshall, 225, italics original).27 Paul says ‘they’ not ‘we’, because he was not one of the Twelve who could bear witness to him from what they had seen and heard during his public ministry. Yet now he moves from ‘they’ to ‘we’ including himself: We tell you the good news, that in the resurrection (as in the cross) God has fulfilled for us what he promised to our fathers (32–33) (Stott, KL 3985-3987).28 [I]t was because he was known to be God’s Son that Psalm 2 could be applied to him and then seen as foreshadowing the resurrection. The thought is close to that in 2 Samuel 7:14–16 and may imply the universal and eternal reign of the One whom God thus honours as his Son (Marshall, 226-227).

“Therefore,” Paul says, “we’re preaching forgiveness of sins” (13:38). It is because all the promises of God find their yes and amen in Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:20), and especially the promise of resurrection, that forgiveness of sins is possible and available.29 In fact, “everyone who believes is justified through him from everything that you could not be justified from through the law of Moses” (13:39 CSB).

Paul will later say that the mystery of the gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles. The promises of God kept in Jesus—including resurrection—open wide the doors to everyone who believes, not just the genetic descendants of Abraham.30

The new world which God is creating through the death and resurrection of Jesus is all about ‘forgiveness of sins’. At every level. Your sins and mine. The wickedness, the folly, the failing, the rebellion; the shameful, dirty, lying, cheating, glittering, sophisticated, flashy, corporate, international, global, local, personal, individual sins – the whole lot. All dealt with (Wright, 16).

In fact, Paul makes the bold—but justified (pun intended)—claim that Jesus is greater than Moses, because Jesus’ redemption is greater than what Moses mediated.

Through the law of Moses there is no justification for anybody, since we all break the law and the law condemns law-breakers; through Jesus, however, there is justification for everybody who believes, that is, trusts in him (39). We need to remember that Paul is addressing Galatians. Only a few months or so later he will be writing his Letter to the Galatians. It is very striking, therefore, that he brings together here at the conclusion of his sermon five of the great words which will be foundation stones of his gospel as he expounds it in his Letter. Having referred to Jesus’ death on the tree (29), he goes on to speak of sin (38), faith, justification, law (39) and grace (43) (Stott, KL 4005-4010).

Since Jesus fulfills all the Old Testament’s hopes, expectations, and promises, and since forgiveness of sins is available to sundry and all, it would be utter foolishness to refuse Him. Paul concludes his sermon by quoting Habakkuk 1:5 to this effect.

Above all, one should not miss the significance of ‘every one that believes’ (10:43; Rom. 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 10:4, 11): this offer is implicitly for Gentiles as well as Jews. Since this is God’s universal way of salvation, Paul warns his hearers of the danger of despising God’s offer and so fulfilling the prophecy of Habakkuk 1:5 which speaks of the danger of failing to recognize what is happening as being truly an action of God. In its original context the prophecy referred to failure to recognize the Chaldean invasion as a divine judgment; Paul applies it to the danger of failing to recognize Jesus as the Saviour sent by God (Marshall, 228-229, italics original).

29 As we look back over the three parts of Paul’s sermon, we cannot fail to note its similarity to the outline of the apostolic kerygma which appears in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. Here, as there, we find the same four events: he died, was buried, was raised and was seen—together with the same insistence that both the major ones, his death and resurrection, were ‘according to the Scriptures’. The structure is also practically identical with that of Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, in which we detected the gospel events (the cross and the resurrection), the gospel witnesses (Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles), the gospel promises (the new life of salvation in Christ, through the Spirit) and the gospel conditions (repentance and faith) (Stott, KL 4018-4023).Forgiveness was an important term for the blessings offered through Jesus in the sermons of Peter (2:38; 10:43)… Paul preferred the idea of justification, the legal sentence of acquittal which expresses essentially the same thought, and he used this idea especially to claim that nobody could be declared to be in a right relationship with God on the basis of his attempts to keep God’s law, as given to Moses (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20–22). Only through believing in Jesus can a person be put in the right with God (Marshall, 228).30 And the point about the fulfilment of the promises to David in Isaiah 55.3 is that the promise is now being thrown open to all and sundry. No longer just for one man, or one family, but for all people. There is no contradiction here. As Paul would insist, it is because God has been faithful to his promise in and through Jesus that the message can now go out to all the world (Wright, 15, italics original).

Pisidian Antioch’s Reaction (13:42-52)

The initial reaction to Paul and Barnabas’ message was positive: the synagogue attenders “urged them to speak about these matters the following Sabbath” (13:42 CSB). In fact, some already believed in Jesus and spent time with Paul and Barnabas, who were “urging them to continue in the grace of God” (13:43 CSB).31

At this point, it is a Jewish audience only—the synagogue held both Jews and God-fearers (“Fellow Israelites and you who fear God,” 13:16 CSB). The next Sabbath would include both Jews and Gentiles, and these Gentiles would come to faith in droves.32

Word of this incredible message got around town in a week’s time, because “almost the whole town assembled to hear the word of the Lord” (13:44 CSB). The synagogue didn’t have sufficient capacity for this many people, and providentially, this change in venue gave Gentiles the chance to hear as well.

Luke gave no indication of any opposition to the previous week’s message, choosing to focus on those who did believe and those who wanted to hear more. Here, we see a sizeable faction of the Jews who were furious and desperately afraid of the Gospel message. They very quickly realized that airing out the message of Paul wouldn’t reveal it for the nonsense they wanted it to be; doing so would give him more converts!

The Jews are “filled with jealousy” at the large crowds Paul is able to draw in just a week’s time; presumably, the Jews themselves have never come close to such a crowd before, hence their jealousy.33 Their last-ditch effort to retain some semblance of authority and standing is to “contradict what Paul was saying, insulting him” (13:45 CSB).

This is precisely what happened to Jesus: the Jews saw the crowds who were so enamored with Him, saw the miracles He was performing, heard His scathing rebukes of their hard-heartedness, and when they could not refute Him theologically or disqualify Him morally, they resorted to nastiness and insults.

The Jews are not able to shout down Paul and Barnabas, nor can they force them to cow to pressure. Not only is the crowd on their side (which was never a consideration for Paul, since he starts as many riots as churches!), but more importantly, the Spirit of Jesus who suffered likewise is on their side.

The effect of the crowds, however, was to make the Jews envious of the missionaries; presumably their own missionary efforts had been much less successful. At the same time, they probably disagreed with the message that was being preached, and so they argued against the missionaries, and defamed (RSV reviled) them. It was no doubt only a section of the Jews who adopted this attitude, in view of verse 43. Nevertheless, it was plain that official Judaism, as represented by the synagogue, was rejecting the gospel (Marshall, 229-230, italics original).

Paul and Barnabas are undaunted, and Luke tells us they “boldly” replied. “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first” (13:46 CSB). This necessity comes from the promises of God to Abraham and the

31 At least some of them had actually believed and received God’s grace, for Paul and Barnabas urged them to continue in the grace of God (43b) (Stott, KL 4029-4030). Once the synagogue meeting had been concluded, many of the Jews and proselytes who had been present joined Paul and Barnabas, and were encouraged by them to remain faithful to the grace of God. This phraseology (cf. 11:23) suggests that these people already trusted in the grace of God, as they had come to know of it through the Old Testament, and were now being urged to continue in that basic attitude by believing in Jesus as the one through whom God’s promises were being brought to fulfilment (Marshall, 229, italics original).32 At this stage only Jews and those fully recognized as proselytes were converted; the climax of the story, the conversion of Gentiles, followed a week later (Marshall, 229).33 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, or ‘with jealous resentment’ (NEB), that the visitors could draw a huge congregation which they could never muster, and they talked abusively against, in fact ‘contradicted’ (RSV), what Paul was saying (45) (Stott, KL 4032-4035).

privilege that his physical descendants possessed by grace. The sense here is, “God is being faithful and gracious to you.”34

God is not obligated to show grace to anyone, other than the obligation He places on Himself. As soon as external obligation enters the picture, it’s no longer grace.

The priority of the Jews was a way of highlighting this grace: out of all the unworthy peoples of the world, this particularly unworthy one gets first call to redemption. The other peoples are called, too, but God doubles down on the unworthiness of His grace’s beneficiaries by giving precedence to Israel.

These Jews are acting just like Esau—refusing their birthright out of sheer stupidity and stubbornness. The blessing then passes to Jacob—the Gentiles. Paul says that going to the Gentiles is built into the very mission to which they’ve been called by quoting Isaiah 49.

What’s fascinating is Luke has already alluded to this passage in his Gospel: Simeon’s Nunc dimittis makes clear reference to this passage. Jesus is the light for the Gentiles to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, yet Paul says that he and Barnabas are the light(s) to the Gentiles.

This is no contradiction, because Jesus is doing and teaching through Paul and Barnabas (and every other saint speaking and living the Gospel). Both are true.35

From the beginning the missionaries had seen their task as including the Gentiles since the Old Testament had clearly stated that the task of God’s Servant was to act as a light to the nations and to be a means of salvation throughout the world (Marshall, 230).

Unlike the jealous, furious Jews, the Gentiles are overjoyed at this news. No longer are they outcasts, dogs, unclean, unwelcome, “without hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2). They praise God because of His word that has welcomed them in grace.

The response of the Gentiles who heard the message was immediate and wholehearted. They rejoiced at the good news and praised the word of the Lord. The latter phrase is paralleled in 2 Thessalonians 3:1 and means that glory is given to the Lord when people accept his word and believe it (Marshall, 230-231).

This echoes the refrain of Psalm 56: “In God, whose word I praise, in the LORD, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mere humans do to me?” (56:10-11 CSB).

Verse 48 is also a beautiful summary of sovereign grace freely accepted: “When the Gentiles heard this [word of God], they rejoiced and honored the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed” (CSB).

While the Jews “judge [them]selves unworthy of eternal life”—because they refused to humble themselves to submit to Jesus—the Gentiles whom God had appointed to eternal life believed and rejoiced at such wonderful love shown to them.36

34 Paul and Barnabas were clear that ‘it was necessary’ (RSV, NEB) that the word of God should be declared to you (i.e. you Jews) first (Stott, KL 4042-4043).35 Luke has already recorded how this verse was applied to Jesus by Simeon and will soon record Jesus applying it to Paul (Acts 26:17–18). This is not a contradiction, however, for the Lord’s suffering servant is the Messiah, who gathers round him a Messianic Community to share in his ministry to the nations (Stott, KL 4048-4050). Thus the task of Israel, which she failed to carry out, has passed to Jesus and then to his people as the new Israel; it is the task of bringing the light of revelation and salvation to all the peoples of the world (cf. the clear allusion to Isa. 49:6 in Luke 2:29–32) (Marshall, 230).36 But the Greek verb tasso means to ‘ordain’ (AV, RSV), sometimes in the sense of to ‘assign someone to a (certain) classification’ (BAGD). F. F. Bruce refers to the papyrus evidence that it can mean ‘inscribe’ or ‘enrol’, in which case it is a reference to the ‘Book of Life’. Certainly those who have believed in Jesus and received eternal life from him all ascribe the credit to God’s grace, not to their own merit. The converse is not so, however. It is significant that in this very passage those who rejected the gospel are regarded as having done so deliberately, because they did not ‘consider [themselves] worthy of eternal life’ (46) (Stott, KL 4052-4058).

Notice how both sides of salvation are seen in action here. God has already appointed—past perfect tense—those who would receive eternal life, and His Spirit by His Word gives them that eternal life. They do not earn or achieve it, it is gift. It is grace.

At the same time, the Gentiles themselves come to hear Paul and Barnabas. They hear the Word of God themselves, and each genuinely chooses to believe this word that they then honor in their joy. Marshall—himself not a predestinarian—makes the important point: “Whatever be the precise nuance of the words, there is no suggestion that they received eternal life independently of their own act of conscious faith” (Marshall, 231).

As a result of this initial harvest of Gentile believers, “the word of the Lord spread through the whole region” (13:49 CSB). With the growth of believers came increased persecution from these jealous Jews.37 These Galatian believers would not be free from Jewish opposition and conflict for some time; Paul’s letter to them would remind them that they began in the Spirit and would not therefore benefit from a return to works—Jewish or otherwise.

Part of the persecution was to evict Paul and Barnabas from the region. These two responded by shaking the dust off their feet as they left for nearby Iconium. This was a particularly pointed sign against these hostile Jews38:

It was customary for Jews to shake off the dust of a pagan town from their feet when they returned to their own land, as a symbol of cleansing themselves from the impurity of sinners who did not worship God. For Jews to do this to their fellow Jews was tantamount to regarding the latter as pagan Gentiles. The Christians were demonstrating in a particularly vigorous manner that Jews who rejected the gospel and drove out the missionaries were no longer truly part of Israel but were no better than unbelievers (cf. Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 18:6; 22:22f.) (Marshall, 231).

Despite the hostility, persecution, and loss of Paul and Barnabas, the “disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit” (13:52 CSB). Only a work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit can accomplish such a feat, and it testifies to the invincibility of the Gospel even more powerfully.

At the end of this first major missionary visit, we have three distinct groups: the angry and aggressive people who don’t want to know; the joyful, spirit-filled local people who had believed the message; and the two apostles, escaping persecution and scurrying on to the next town. Oh, and the word of God (Acts 13.48), which, though ‘attacked by voices of temptation’, is doing its own work as usual (Wright, 22).

37 Nothing could stop the spread of the Lord’s word; the whole region heard it (49). Yet at the same time persecution increased (Stott, KL 4064-4065).38 The missionaries for their part shook the dust from their feet, a public protest against those who rejected the gospel, in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. Notwithstanding the opposition, the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit, for, as Paul was soon to write to the Galatians, ‘the fruit of the Spirit is … joy’ (Stott, KL 4067-4070).