Overseas Mission
The seventh in a series of talks on the Acts of the Apostles at Nedlands Anglican Church 22 April 2024
In our exploration of Acts we have seen how Luke carefully arranges his story to explain how God led his apostles step by step to the realization that his salvation plan included non-Jewish people of all nations. Having settled this, he reported the establishment of a mixed-race church in Syrian Antioch. He names no founder. The Jerusalem church sends Barnabas to investigate, and he is convinced it is a work of God. “He saw the grace of God …” Barnabas fetches Saul from Tarsus, and together they teach the church for a year.
We are not told when this prophet, Agabus, arrived from Jerusalem, and in a church meeting prophesied the coming of a great famine. Luke tells us the famine took place in the time Claudius was emperor: A.D 42–54. There was a serious famine about A.D. 45; Barnabas and Saul carry a gift of money to the disciples in Jerusalem. Queen Helena of Adiabene also brought gifts.
It is always of interest when a biblical document crosses paths with secular history; we are able to question how the two line up. Secular history is mostly accounts of rulers and their struggles; the growth of a new philosophical movement in Jerusalem was of no interest. It may have been this meeting of Christianity with the king (Herod Agrippa I) which caused Luke to include the story (chapter 12). Unlikely as the story sounds, Josephus confirms most of its details.
The envoys returned to Antioch, and in a congregational meeting the Holy Spirit instructs them to set apart Barnabas and Saul for wider missionary work.
Luke appears to emphasize the seniority of Barnabas, the legate from Jerusalem, and probably an older man. Saul comes last in the list, which includes a man of colour from North Africa, and a former court official of Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee—not to be confused with Herod Agrippa I, King of the Jewish and Samaritan lands. The laying on of hands indicates the partnership of the Antioch church with the men they are sending out; this is a commissioning. Luke insists that this mission was not the brainchild of Barnabas or Saul, nor of the Antioch church, but a command of the Holy Spirit. There is one other time in Acts a direct command of the Holy Spirit is recorded. It was no doubt relayed by one of the prophets.
Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew; his knowledge of the island and its synagogues made it an obvious first port of call.
Synagogues were easy places to start; the mission was not to end there, though Luke does not tell us about a wider mission, except for their meeting with the proconsul. This does not mean there was no preaching to pagans; it may simply be that Luke is more interested to relate what happened with the Jews.
Directly after reporting that they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of Salamis, Luke notes that they had John as hyperetes. This is the John whose mother hosted the Jerusalem believers in her home.[1] We know him better as Mark. Since he later wrote the Gospel that bears his his name, it is worth considering his role. A hyperetes was more than a bag-carrier. Though originally it referred to the under-rower on a galley, it came to mean a particular kind of servant. An army officer might have an ADC; he would be called a hyperetes. A hyperetes was the servant of someone important, and therefore important themselves. Luke uses it of the synagogue official who looked after the scrolls. Also, in the introduction of the Gospel he speaks of those who were “eyewitnesses and servants (hyperetai) of the word.” This suggests John Mark may have had an important role in relation to “the word.” This would explain why his withdrawal from the missionary party so distressed Paul.
What could his role have been? One of the “problems” scholars note about early Christian history is the radical difference between the Epistles and the Gospels. The Gospels tell stories; the Epistles expound theology and ethics. Some have suggested there were two forms of Christianity, the story-telling type, and the theological type. The problem with this suggestion is that both Mark and Luke are closely associated with the Pauline and Petrine missions. Consider, however, that Paul had no close contact with Jesus’ earthly ministry, and nor did Barnabas. Both could explain God’s coming amongst us in the person of Jesus, and what it meant, but neither could say much about Jesus’ actual ministry. Mark, on the other hand, was close to Peter. Papias says he was Peter’s interpreter, meaning his private secretary/assistant. He could tell you what Peter taught, and probably repeat his stories. Both kinds of ministry were needed when preaching to those with no knowledge of Jesus actions and words. We may venture that what Mark was doing was backing up Barnabas and Paul by telling stories very like those he would later record in his Gospel.
The party works its way westwards across the island (a week by walking) and comes to the capital, where they are summoned by the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. Evidently their ministry stirred some publicity.
Romans were big on omens, and it is not surprising that a provincial governor would have a magus as an advisor. Luke has already noted a clash between Christianity and magic (Simon the Magus), and will do so again when he comes to Ephesus. His antipathy to magic may be connected with his profession (physician), and the power of the gospel over the realm of magic will have meant much to him and his hearers.
There is something of a puzzle here. Elymas does not mean Bar-Jesus (Bariesou – Son of Jesus) and it is not a Greek name. Could it be his real name, and Bar-Jesus a title he has adopted, likening himself to the Jesus we know? Jesus is a common Hebrew name, but Jesus of Nazareth became known within and beyond the Holy Land as a miracle worker. Perhaps a magic man might want to make use of his name and claim to have the same miracle-working power. This would make sense of Paul calling him “Son of the Devil” (Bar-Satannan), and a twister of the straight paths of the Lord. Paul—no longer Saul—declares God’s judgement on him and he becomes temporarily blind.
Why does Luke switch to the name, Paulus, at this point in the story? It must be coincidental that it is also the name of the proconsul, but it could well have piqued the proconsul’s interest in a fellow Paulii. A Sergius Paulus is mentioned in an inscription in Rome. It may be that this is the first time in Luke’s account where Paul’s Roman citizenship became important. It may have been a factor in the proconsul wanting to speak to him. Paul would certainly have used his Roman name in the encounter, and possibly after. We do not know Paul’s other two Roman names. Every citizen had a nomen, a praenomen, and a cognomen.
It may also be coincidence, but perhaps not, that the missionary party with Paul very much in command made for Antioch in Pisidia, where the presence of the Sergius Paulus family is attested. Paul Barnett suggests the proconsul may have provided an introduction.
Luke takes us straight to the synagogue. This was no doubt his strategy of entry into a new community. It brought him into contact with the local Jews he hoped to convince about Jesus, but also Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism’s monotheism and morality, who attended synagogue but drew up short of circumcision. They would provide an obvious bridge into pagan society. It is here that Luke presents his first major Pauline speech. It is often said (without evidence) that Luke made up his speeches, but one has to wonder why if that were so, he would wait until this occasion. Surely, Damascus would have been the obvious place for a first speech—or the capital of Cyprus with the Proconsul present! More likely he knows what was said on this occasion, not because he was there, but because he has a source of information, and it was a model evangelistic address. We should also register a curious thing. Paul has been appointed as missionary to the Gentiles, but this is a speech primarily for Jews. So far, we have Peter’s two major evangelistic speeches, Stephen’s defense, and now this, all of them to Jews. Only Peter has once addressed Gentiles. If Luke writes with Jews much in mind, it makes sense that he will address them with such a speech, but if his mind is mostly towards Gentiles, it does not make sense that his first major recorded speech, given in a Gentiles city, should be to Jews. It has been suggested—plausibly—that Luke records this speech because it is typical, either a model of Paul’s evangelistic preaching to Jews, or of how Jews were addressed in Luke’s day. Since this is the only evangelistic speech to Jews which Luke records, it is likely a model, but, given its context, hardly Luke’s creation.
Like Stephen, he starts with a précis of Old Testament history. His reason will be to establish common ground with his audience. He is every bit a Jew who believes in the faith of Israel. However, unlike Stephen, who delivers an indictment of Israel for its faithlessness, Paul comes directly to David, and God’s promise to set one of his sons on his throne; this is Jesus, Paul declares. Here we have a classic piece of what we call biblical theology: the whole Old Testament leads to Jesus, the Messiah.
Note in passing that all the Gospels, and Peter’s speech to Cornelius, begin with John the Baptist. He is the link between Old Testament and New.
There is more to think about here that we have time for. First, we must ask what Paul and Luke meant by salvation. For Jews it meant national liberation; it is what they expected from the Messiah—a renewed world, no less. Luke agrees with this. “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel,” the disciples ask of the resurrected Jesus. “It is not for you to know times and seasons which the Father has fixed …” Jesus replies The expectation is that such a time will come. However, as Jesus launches his ministry it is freedom from sickness and Satanic oppression and reconciliation with God that are at the forefront. Luke knows that the salient present manifestation of salvation is forgiveness of sin and peace with God, leading ultimately to membership in the new world. We will discuss what salvation meant for pagans later. For the moment we should note that the “word” (Jesus) equates with the word of salvation.
It is something of a mystery that the Jewish leaders are charged with the crime of Jesus’ execution, but also partly excused on the ground of ignorance; they did not understand their own Scriptures. In opposing God, they carried out the plan of God. This is the mystery of providence. God’s plan uses human wickedness, but humans are still responsible for what they do. Jesus himself was innocent. It was necessary to assert this, given the judgement against him and the appearance of criminality of his death. Notice again that they took him down from “the tree,” an allusion to Deuteronomy and a pointer to the vicarious nature of his death. And then God raised him, the ultimate vindication, and the heart of the gospel. The gospel is God’s announcement of Jesus as his saving king, an announcement in word and deed. The resurrection is God’s great “yes” to Jesus. It is this first and foremost that people will believe or reject. “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”[2]
In verse 32, Paul says, “we evangelize you what God promised to the fathers”; that is, we announce, declare, proclaim as a matter of ultimate political importance and joy. Surprisingly, Paul now brings in Psalm 2: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” This promise is fulfilled not eternally (eternally-begotten – Origen), nor in the incarnation, true as these both are, but in the resurrection; God presented Jesus to the world as his Son by raising him from the dead. It is though metaphorically he was born as Messiah by rising from the dead.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul will remind them of the gospel he preached to them in these terms: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures …” in Pisidian Antioch we hear him doing just this; it was paramount for Jews to know that Jesus died and rose according to the Scriptures. Paul uses one of the same scriptures and arguments Peter uses at Pentecost; it must have been a standard Christian argument.
The gospel always carries with it an offer of amnesty. Humans have rebelled against their Creator, and accrued a horrible debt of guilt, but God has acted in our king to cancel that debt and offer to all who believe forgiveness of sins and acquittal for all our transgressions against the law. Moses law could not offer this; it could only declare guilt and demand punishment. Note that the language of justification, so characteristic of Paul, appears here in his first recorded sermon.
In Paul’s concluding speech to the Jewish elders in Jerusalem in Acts 28 he will warn them against unbelief in the words where Isaiah foretells the unbelief of the Israelites. This is sometimes taken as a final rejection of the Jews; the gospel now belongs to the Gentiles. But here in Antioch we see his purpose. Paul is not wanting to write them off, but to stir them to faith and show that, even should they reject Christ, it would only further fulfil the Scriptures. Jewish unbelief cannot be used as an argument against Christ!
The gospel is the ultimate manifestation of the kindness (grace) of God.
Luke attributes the rejection of the missionaries to jealousy, as does Paul in Romans 11. The Jews were upset at the great interest shown by Gentiles, and also at the idea that their exclusive place in the plan of God has changed. Since the Jews here no longer wish to listen, Paul turns to the pagans. God has commanded his Servant, Jesus, to carry his name to the end of the earth. The Gentiles who hear this are filled with joy. Presumably for the rest of their time in Antioch Paul and Barnabas work amongst the pagans, until the Jews stir the authorities to banish them from the city. However, Luke gives no description of this phase of their ministry; his main interest is to show what happened among the Jews. Next time we will see something of his work amongst pagans.
[1] Acts 12.42.
[2] Romans 10.9.