Deeper Commentary
14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue-
see on 17:1,2.
And spoke in such a way- Paul so spoke that men
believed. Presentation is important. Yet, his speech was “rude…
contemptible… not with wisdom of speech” (2 Cor. 10:10; 11:6; 1 Cor. 1:17
AVmg.). Yet it was because Paul so spoke that men believed.
He spoke God’s Truth in his own words, with no pretensions, with no
attention to a smooth presentation; and the more real, the more credible.
Because he spoke things as they are, right between the eyes, without
posing as anyone apart from the real, human guy Paul… therefore men
believed. He came over as credible and convinced, and he inspired others
to this end.
That a great number of both Jews and Greeks
believed- This occurred within the synagogue, so presumably the
"Greeks" were Gentile proselytes or Hellenic, Greek speaking Jews.
The record gives the impression that after just one synagogue address,
many Jews and Gentiles who were present "believed", and belief and baptism
are presented in Acts as part of the same process. This happened it seems
after just one address. For there is no hint that there was any period of
extended instruction here. This is the power and simplicity of the Gospel.
14:2 But the unbelieving Jews-
Yet these Jews would have been far from atheists. But their unbelief in
Jesus as Lord leaves them classified as unbelievers. Here we see proof
enough that all religions, even Judaic ones, do not lead to salvation. We
also see here a classic pattern in Paul's work- he immediately goes to the
synagogue, irritates the Jews, although converting some of them, and those
Jews then make trouble which damages his work with the Gentiles. Chapter
17 records the same pattern almost word for word. I suggest that if Paul
had instead followed the Lord's command and left the Jewish ministry to
Peter, and focused solely on the Gentiles- then his life would've been
much easier, and his intended ministry to the Gentiles would have been far
more fruitful. But this is how it so often is when we do not follow the
path the Lord intends for us; even though He will work with us in the
other, less ideal paths we choose.
Stirred up the Gentiles- The Greek word only occurs a few verses
earlier, in the same context (Acts 13:50). As noted above, the impression
is being created of a pattern of behaviour. Paul immediately targets the
Jews in the synagogue on his arrival in a town, and those Jews there who
reject his message stir up the Gentiles against Paul's mission, thus
making his intended mission to the Gentiles so much harder to operate.
And poisoned their minds against the brothers- Gk. kakoo
psuche, literally they evil spirited- providing proof enough that
evil spirits are not radically free entities swanning around the cosmos,
but refer to the internal human spirit.
14:3- see on Acts 17:34.
Therefore they stayed there for a long time
speaking boldly in the Lord- Boldness is a repeated
characteristic of the early preachers, but their boldness was "in the
Lord", it was a true sense of being brethren-in-Christ which gave them
that boldness.
Who bore witness to the word of his grace- This was the
purpose of the miraculous gifts in the first century- to back up the
verbal preaching of the Gospel at a time when there was no written New
Testament available.
Granting- Implying they asked for the miracles to be done? The
gifts were not possessed continuously by the apostles, they were for
specific things at specific times.
Signs and wonders to be done by their hands- The Lord Jesus was
the doer of the works, but He worked through the hands of those in Him.
14:4
But the crowd of the city was divided; part held
with the Jews and part with the apostles- This reflects how
widespread was the Jewish slander campaign. Nobody in the town was left
untouched by it.
14:5
And when there was an attempt by the Gentiles and
the Jews, with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and to stone them-
This clearly alludes to the parable of the wicked husbandmen; the same
word is used (Mt. 22:6). And Luke uses the word about what was done to the
Lord Jesus (Lk. 18:32). In the work of witness, we are as Christ to the
world and share in His sufferings, that we might share in His life. There
is nothing glamorous about missionary or evangelistic work; it is on one
hand a sharing in the Lord's sufferings, seeing that the cross was itself
the greatest preaching of all time. 1 Cor. 1:18 speaks of the preaching
which is the cross (Gk.).
14:6 They
became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe
and the surrounding region- Carefully following the Lord's
instruction to flee persecution rather than willfully be martyred (Mt.
10:23). Several times, Paul has to be bundled away from such persecution
by the disciples; he had the Semitic fanaticism when it comes to religion,
and was not against violent death for the Christian cause. But the Lord
didn't want His followers to serve and die for Him from such impulses of
religious fanaticism. The wisdom of the Lord's command is here
demonstrated in that the Gospel now spread as a result of their 'fleeing'-
to "the surrounding region".
14:7 And there they preached the gospel- The Acts record notes
so often that after persecution, Paul continued preaching in fresh areas.
This is no small testament to the spirit of 'keeping on keeping on' which
is to characterize all Christian endeavour. But it also reflects another
theme of Acts- that persecution only led to the geographical spread of the
Gospel.
14:8
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could
not use his feet. He was crippled since birth and had never walked-
Again Luke is alluding to the Lord's words he has recorded in his volume
1, the Gospel according to Luke. This time, to Lk. 18:27: "The things
which are impossible [s.w. "could not use"] with men are possible with
God". The Lord's ministry in Palestine was being continued by those in
Him, just as it is today. We too need to daily read the Gospels and
perceive how in essence, the spirit of those incidents and teachings are
continuing in our experience daily.
14:9
The same listened to Paul speaking. Paul looked at
him intently- Why is this detail mentioned? Are we
intended to think that Paul was seeking to emulate how Peter had done just
the same before healing a man in a similar condition (Acts 3:4 s.w.).?
Both men were lame from their mother's womb. Both stood up and leaped
(Acts 3:8). Both cases include Paul / Peter looking intently at
the man to be healed (Acts 3:4). Paul and Barnabas's denial that they
themselves were anything special clearly follows Peter's humble example:
"You Israelites... why do you stare at us, as if by our own power and
piety we had made him walk?" (Acts 3:12). They had also learnt Peter's
example of humility before Cornelius: "Stand up, I am only a mortal man"
(Acts 10:26). When addressed by the Philippian jailor "Sirs (kurion), what
must I do to be saved?'", Paul answers "Believe in the Lord (kurion)
Jesus" (Acts 16:29,30). In this case, we have another piece of incidental evidence for
thinking that Paul was trying to copy Peter, and this led to his obsession
to get to Jerusalem for a Pentecost feast in order to preach to the Jews
assembled there, hoping he would repeat Peter's conversion of 3000 people
in one day. It was this desire to emulate Peter's ministry which somewhat
derailed Paul from the focus the Lord wished him to have on the Gentiles
rather than the Jews. The similarities set up by Luke in his
record intentionally set us up to expect that Paul will now make a huge
number of converts, as Peter did after such a healing. But that didn't
happen; perhaps out of all the drama, "only" the healed man, Timothy and
his mum and grandma and a few others... came to faith. Paul was being led
to understand that his desire to emulate Peter's mass conversions was not
to be because it was wrongly motivated.
And perceiving that he had faith to be made whole- Faith was not
always required for miracles to be done. We think of the healing of
Malchus' ear and other examples. But in this case Paul required faith,
because he realized he was continuing the Lord's principle spoken of in
Lk. 18:27 (see on :8). There, the Lord had taught that with faith, what is
impossible, impotent, unable to be used by man- can be used. "Made
whole" is the word for "saved". Paul saw the man had faith to be saved-
and therefore he performs a healing miracle upon the man. This was not
done for the simple sake of alleviating human suffering; but rather to
make up what was lacking in the man's faith. Having experienced it, the
man's faith would be strengthened to the point that he could be saved.
14:10- see on Acts 3:8.
Said with a loud voice: Stand upright on your
feet! And he leaped up and walked- See on 14:9 Paul looked
at him intently. The leaping and walking of the lame is expressed in
terms of the Kingdom prophecy of Is. 35:6. The preaching of the Gospel was
demonstrated to be a foretaste of the Kingdom of God which is to come upon
earth; and our witness also has something of that about it.
14:11 And when
the crowd saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in
the language of Lycaonia: The gods have come down to us in the likeness of
men!- The meaning is surely that
Paul and Barnabas didn't understand this, but when they saw the garlands
and sacrifices bring brought to them, then they realized- this is the
force of the "but" in :14. The gift of languages was therefore not
continually available to the apostles; indeed it could be argued that that
gift enabled them to speak in those languages, or for the listeners to
understand; but not necessarily for them to understand what was spoken to
them. Hence in speaking of the practical usage of the gift of tongues in 1
Cor. 14, Paul says that the gift of interpreting tongues was also
required. In any case, that was not available here, and so the point is
established that the gifts were for highly specific purposes at specific
times, and were not continually available for the usage of believers.
Note that the idea of gods coming to earth as men is a classic pagan
belief; and yet it is seen mixed in to Trinitarian theology, with their
belief in a pre-existent Christ and a literal 'coming down' of the Lord
from Heaven to earth. Indeed, so common was the idea, and so close to it
is the language of 'coming down' in John's Gospel, that it could be argued
that the NT language is consciously alluding to this wrong idea and
showing that this is not the case with the Lord Jesus, but rather His
'coming down' from Heaven was in terms of His manifestation of God rather
than anything more literal, as the pagans believed. Standard Christian
belief in a physically pre-existent Jesus has therefore missed the point,
and taken on board the very pagan ideas which the NT is arguing against.
There is an intended irony here, in that
"atheist!" was the term for those like Jews and Christians who denied the
existence of the gods. But now the people consider Paul and Barnabas to be
gods. And perhaps the same point is made by Paul's comment that "you
turned... from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Thess. 1:9).
Although we see here man's penchant to believe in 'gods' coming out. Total
atheism is unnatural and forced, man wants to believe; and we need to
remember this when witnessing to those who appear hardened in their
atheism. Underneath, they want to believe.
14:12
And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul,
Mercury, because he was the chief speaker- This would suggest
that Barnabas was the more personally imposing in appearance than Paul
(cp. 2 Cor. 10:1,10). For this is how they (along with their Greek
equivalents Zeus and Hermes) are presented.
14:13 And the priest of Jupiter, whose temple was before the city,
brought oxen and garlands to the gates and would have done sacrifice with
the crowds- We see in this incident the basic human desire to worship
and to turn men into gods. We see it theologically, in the desire to turn
the human Jesus into "very God of very Gods" as the Trinity incorrectly
states. We see it in secular folk idolizing sports stars and musicians as
their gods. The correct channel for this religious instinct is through the
Lord Jesus to the Father, guided by His word.
14:14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore
their clothes and ran in among the crowd, crying out and saying- A
set of clothes was one of the most valuable things a person possessed at
that time. To tear them was a sign of real and genuine grief and passion.
This was how strongly Barnabas and Paul felt about any glory being given
to them rather than to the Father and Son; and their strong position
should be reflected in our attitudes. We are not to glorify ourselves.
14:15
Sirs, why do you these things? We also are men of
like passions with you- Literally, of the same sufferings,
as James 5:17, Elijah was of like passions to us. This is the basis of our
appeal to men, and it is the basis of the Lord's appeal to us through
having our nature. If
Paul was indeed deformed in some way (as tradition claims), then the point
would have been that they too were not of perfect health, they also
suffered. We note the emphasis on how similar they were to their audience;
they ran in amongst the crowd, and were of the same sufferings
"with you". This is the basis of all preaching work- that we are one with
our audience and not above them. Exactly because they were ‘one of us’,
they could make the appeal of the Gospel. As the Lord Jesus was and is our
representative, so we are His representative to men, whilst being ‘one of
them’, ‘one of us’. This is why we shouldn’t be afraid to show chinks in
our armour, to admit our humanity, and on that basis make appeal to men:
that I, as one of us, with all your humanity, your doubts and fears, am
appealing to you to grasp that better way. When Paul wrote that if
anyone was weak, he was weak, he seems to be saying that they could match
their spiritual weakness by his own. This is why personal contact
must be the intended way to witness.
And bring you good news, that you should turn from
these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and
the sea and all that is in them- Literally, we evangelize to
convert you. The aim of our preaching should be to convert, not simply to
half-heartedly, lamely inform the public of the particular set of
convictions held by our denomination or local church. Having a clear and
defined aim is critical in interaction with others in order to evangelize
them. The idea is the same as in 17:30; in the past, the Gentiles were
[for the most part] allowed to do as they wish. But now, all the world is
commanded to be obedient and repent, through the fulfilment of the great
commission by the church.
14:16 Who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to
walk in their own ways- This is another angle on God dealing mainly
with the Jewish people during those past generations. Rather than seeing
this as unfair, one could take the view that in fact God "allowed" the
other nations to do what they wanted- which if asked, would have been
their preferred option. They got what they would've wanted if asked by
God. The question of 'Why didn't God call nations other than the Jews in
Old Testament times?' was obviously going to arise with the Gentiles. Paul
addresses this same issue in Acts 17:30, saying that "the times of this
ignorance God winked at". He seems to be taking the approach that the Old
Testament Gentiles generally need not fear judgment. The same approach may
be helpful when we are asked concerning the fate of those who did not know
the Gospel.
14:17 And
yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, and
gave you rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with
food and gladness- AV “gave us rain…”.
I suggest that the "us" refers to Paul and Barnabas and faithful Israel.
Paul is saying that you are in a position of worshipping idols,
but we (Paul and Barnabas) are appealing to you to change, and
believe in the true God- not in ourselves. What was God's witness to the
Gentile world? An obedient Israel. That, at least, was His intention. That
obedient Israel should have blessing of fruitful seasons, food and
gladness. These are all terms taken from the Old Testament descriptions of
how God would bless Israel (not the Gentile world) if they
were obedient. Jupiter was the god of the air and responsible for rain;
Mercury was responsible for food. But Lycaonia (14:6) was famous for
droughts and famine- the references can be found in standard commentaries
(Vine, Matthew Henry etc.). Jupiter and Mercury had not given
those Gentiles these blessings. But Yahweh, the one true God, had given
these things to faithful Israel. Thereby He was a witness to those
Gentiles, that they should accept the God of Israel. Paul is saying 'God
let you Gentiles live as you wished. But obedient Israel were intended to
be His witness to you- they received rain, fruitful seasons, food
and gladness from their God, Yahweh. But you didn't- your Jupiter
and Mercury were unable to give those blessings to you. So don't treat
us as gods, quit your idols, and turn to the one true God of Israel'.
This naturally raises the question: To what purpose then was that
witness, seeing at that time His plan was with the Jews and not the
Gentiles? Perhaps we can infer from this that if anyone really thought
about creation, they would have perceived God's witness and come to Him.
Ps. 19:1-4 appears to say the same: "The heavens declare the glory of God,
the expanse above shows His handiwork. Day after day they pour forth
speech, and night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech
nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out
through all the earth, their words to the end of the world". This last
verse is quoted in Rom. 10:18 in order to prove that "Whoever believes in
him shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and
Gentile" (Rom. 10:11,12). Paul interprets the "whoever" as meaning that
both Jew and Gentile were witnessed to even in Old Testament times, and
therefore there ought to be no barrier at all to taking the Gospel to
Gentiles. Without access to the Bible or the witness of Israel and their
religion, we can only conclude that God's level of acceptance of Old
Testament Gentiles was quite low in terms of detailed knowledge.
Admittedly there are few if any examples recorded of such Gentiles in Old
Testament times coming to perceive the witness of creation and respond to
it. But it would be a weak argument from silence to say there were no such
cases. For the Old Testament is the history of God's old testament or
covenant, which was with Israel.
14:18 Even with these words the people were scarcely restrained from offering sacrifice to them- The implication is that the people cut short Paul's sermon. He doesn't even get on to telling them about Jesus. They wanted to believe these men were gods, they wanted to worship them, they were impressed by the miracle to the extent that they merely said they agreed with the new message- without actually listening to that message in any detail. The words "crowd" and "people" are repeated; their position was a group position rather than an individual conviction. And so their new faith was very quickly swayed. This is typical of what happens in some forms of Christianity today.
We see here
the immense strength of the human urge to sacrifice. We see it in the
success of the televangelists who appeal for donations- and get them- on
the flimsiest of foundations. God's insistence that all sacrifice be
offered to Him is not Him as it were seeking to dominate us
humans. Rather is He explaining how to channel that propensity to
sacrifice which we have. In the modern world, it seems that the
willingness to sacrifice has been submerged somewhat beneath the chronic
egoism and hedonism of our age. Suicide bombers and the like are seen by
many Westerners as utterly inexplicable beings; but the desire to
sacrifice is in fact a strong part of us, and is more logically and
comfortably accepted by other cultures. Our knowledge of the Father and
Son provides us with the ultimate way to channel and express it; although
we may well need to get in touch with this self-sacrificial part of
ourselves first.
14:19
But there came Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and
having persuaded the crowds- The same words used of how the
Jews "persuaded the crowds" to crucify the Lord (Mt. 27:20). Again, we see
circumstances being arranged so that Paul entered into the crucifixion
sufferings of the Lord. The same goes on in the lives of all who have
committed themselves to identity with Him. And we naturally wonder what
Saul / Paul was doing at the Lord's crucifixion; seeing he was then living
in Jerusalem as a student of Gamaliel, he very likely was one of the Jews
involved in 'persuading the crowds'. The same word for "persuaded" has
just been used about Paul's preaching (Acts 13:43), and continues to be
used about it. We are given the impression that Paul persuaded the crowds
one way, and then the Jews persuaded them another way. Paul must have
bitterly lamented the fickleness of the crowds; but in so doing he was
sharing the experience of the Lord Jesus. For the crowd who shouted
"Hosanna!" and wanted Him as their Messianic King were soon shouting
"crucify Him!", due to their persuasion by the Jews. We likewise
recall how the people of Malta flipped from thinking Paul was an evil
criminal whom vengeance didn't suffer to live- to thinking he was a god
(Acts 28:6). Clearly the people were so impressed by the miracle that they
ignored the doctrinal teaching- that idols were "vain things" etc..
The miracles both of
the Lord and Paul clearly had no lasting power in persuading the crowds.
The ministry of miracles never really achieved much, and Pentecostalism
ought to take due note of that. How Paul must have wished for mass
literacy amongst the people, and for some written record of the Gospel
readily available to his audience, which could be their abiding source of
persuasion. And in our days we have just that, although human fickleness
is no less.
They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he
was dead- Supposing is Gk. nomizo. "This word, which occurs
fifteen times, always means to conclude from custom, law, or evidence,
never to imagine". We conclude that they were certain that he was dead and
had checked this. Paul had been nearly stoned in the previous town but had
escaped to Lystra. Now he is actually stoned, probably to death. But he
was prepared for this by the near stoning experience in Iconium. They stoned Paul and then dragged him out of the city,
implying they were disposing of his corpse. He was either really dead (and
was resurrected), or extremely damaged and apparently lifeless. The Mosaic
principles about the guilt of death within a city come to mind; they had
blood on their hands before both God and the men of the Roman authorities.
But Paul never seeks to prosecute them for their behaviour. Paul was
stoned and dragged out of Lystra as dead- presumably they didn’t want him
to die within the city limits as they were under Roman jurisdiction. Yet,
hobbling and bleeding, he returned into the city to witness. And it was
here in Lystra that he made one of his greatest converts, Timothy (Acts
16:1). And when Paul asks us to follow him, he is speaking in the context
of his life’s work and preaching. He is our pattern, to be lived out in
spirit within the confines within which God has placed us.
14:20
But as the disciples stood around him, he rose up-
Anistemi can be used of resurrection. The way he rises up and
walks off, when he had been considered a lifeless corpse just minutes
before, rather suggests that this was indeed a resurrection. The disciples
stood around about him, rather than seeking to minister to his wounds or
resuscitate him. This sounds like trying to hold some kind of funeral
service. If indeed Paul died and was resurrected, then it is a reflection
of his humility that he never seems to specifically refer to this in any
later passages of self-justification. However it is the same word
just used in :10 of the healed man rising or standing up. What Paul had
done to that man, he now experienced himself. One dimension of all this
was so that Paul could enter into the feelings of that man, and that is
how we are often brought to feel through the Divinely designed experiences
we have.
And entered into the city, and the next day he went with Barnabas to
Derbe- If indeed Paul had been dragged out of the town to the
rubbish dump where corpses were burnt, and then he returned alive and well
into the city and spent a day there- this would have been a powerful
witness to resurrection. And the Jews would have feared to touch him. He
would clearly have been seen as "in Christ", whose death at the hands of
the Jews and subsequent resurrection he had been preaching. His return
into the city (rather than departing immediately) may have been for
similar reasons as to why he did the same after release from prison at
Philippi. The community he was leaving behind would have at least some
mystique and respect attached to them which would save them from future
persecution, at least for some time. We see here Paul's utter selflessness
and constant concern for his converts. The way Paul returned to Lystra to
confirm the disciples (:21), despite having been stoned and maybe killed
there, speaks volumes about him.
14:21
And when they had preached the gospel to that city
and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to
Antioch- This word is that used in Mt. 28:19 about the
making of disciples in response to the great commission. Paul clearly saw
the commission as applying to himself; this surely disproves the
contention that the great commission was only given to the eleven
disciples to whom it was originally spoken. For Lystra- see on
:20.
14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples- 'Confirming'
might seem an activity more relevant to the spirit of disciples, to their
minds, rather than their 'souls'. But often the words soul and spirit,
psuche and pneuma, are used almost interchangeably. It is
too simplistic to argue that the spirit refers to the human mind or
spirit, and 'soul' refers to the material person or body. That distinction
is at times valid, but not always. "Confirming" occurs only four times in
the NT and always in Acts. Such follow up pastoral visits were clearly
part of Paul's missionary strategy as they should be of ours. But
it is a similar word to that used by the Lord in telling Peter to
strengthen his brethren once he was converted. Again we see Paul being
asked to see Peter as his model, rather than wanting to compete with him
in achieving mass conversions.
Exhorting them- Parakleo means to beg, to strongly ask.
But it also has the sense of 'comfort', although this is not the most
common sense in which it is used in the 108 occurrences in the NT. The
challenge, the asking to continue in the faith is actually a comfort; the
height of the calling, the focus on the ideal, is itself a comfort.
To continue in the faith- Paul was a Jew, thinking in Hebrew
terms, and steeped in the Old Testament language. And many of his converts
were either Jews or Proselytes. The other two NT occurrences of the word
likewise reflect the Old Testament idea of continuing in the covenant.
Israel did not continue in that covenant (Heb. 8:9), and that covenant
cursed all who did not continue in all things written in the Mosaic law
(Gal. 3:10- written by Paul to converts in this very area where he was
urging them to continue "in the faith"). The contrast is therefore
between continuing [or trying to continue] in obedience to Mosaic law, and
continuing in the faith in God's saving grace in Christ.
And that through many tribulations- Paul is fond of allusion to
the parable of the sower, and he clearly has in mind the need to continue
as good soil, and not to be in the category of those who fall away from
faith because of tribulations (Mt. 13:21). Those tribulations must
come, he is saying. Christianity is no insurance policy against
tribulation, but rather a way of attaching meaning to it. Perhaps he also
had in mind the Lord's simple statement that "in the world you shall have
tribulation" (Jn. 16:33); it is inevitable. Stephen had twice used the
word in his speech (Acts 7:10,11), and consciously or unconsciously Paul
was maybe recalling that. Paul himself had brought tribulation upon
Christians (Acts 11:19; Heb. 10:33), so again he was experiencing what he
had done to others (the word is also used of Paul's sufferings in Acts
20:23; 2 Cor. 1:8; 6:4; Col. 1:24)- just as we do. Paul may also have in
mind the predictions in the Olivet prophecy that there was to be great
tribulation just before entry into the Kingdom of God at the Lord's
return. In this case, we have another hint that he expected the Lord's
return imminently, and spoke and reasoned accordingly, as we should do.
We must have tribulation, either in the condemnation of the judgment
(Rom. 2:9), or now- in order that we will enter the Kingdom (Acts 14:22).
We must bear the burden either of our sins (Am. 2:13; Is. 58:6; Ps. 38:4)
or of the Lord's cross (Gal. 6:4 etc.). We will experience either the
spiritual warfare of the striving saint (Rom. 7:15-25), or the lusts of
the flesh warring in our members, eating us up with the insatiability of
sin (James 4:1; Ez. 16:28,29).
We must enter into the kingdom of God- The sense is that we
are now entering into the Kingdom, but through tribulation. The Lord had
spoken of entering the Kingdom through the narrow gate, and Paul is
putting meaning into those words, explaining that the narrow gate means
tribulation. His own experience of stoning and perhaps death at Lystra
exemplified what he was getting at.
14:23
So when they had appointed elders in every church,
and prayed with fasting- The Greek means literally to
stretch the hand upon. It is only elsewhere used in 2 Cor. 8:19 of how the
church chose Timothy to travel with Paul. Some argue that the hand
stretching refers to voting, but this seems to me to be reading in modern
principles of democracy; there is no evidence that democracy in the form
of voting was what God ever used. Probably it means that they simply chose
some elders, and there is no evidence that the Spirit guided them in this
in any supernatural sense. But the point is that they didn't leave the new
churches with no leadership structure- they created one. "Elders"
literally means an older person; but all the believers were relatively
young in the faith. Like many modern missionary situations, they did the
best they could in terms of choosing wisely. But they didn't tell the new
congregations that they were to just take everything in turns and muddle
along; they appointed elders. Because like it or not, people need
leadership. Given that they probably didn't know the candidates that well,
and most were at the same stage of immaturity in faith, we can understand
why they "prayed with fasting" about this. They took most seriously the
future wellbeing of these groups; they didn't just baptize them and leave
them.
They committed them to the Lord
in whom they had believed- Given the difficulties in choosing
elders, we can understand why they just gave them over to the Lord Jesus
as their good shepherd. For as passing missionaries there was little else
practically they could do. Paul uses the same word in committing the
elders to the Lord in Acts 20:32. Paul saw the lord Jesus as a very real
entity and personage to whom he could hand over [Gk.] these new converts.
We might infer that Paul felt he had personal responsibility for them, but
now he had to leave, he handed them over to the Lord Jesus.
14:24 And they passed through Pisidia and came to Pamphylia-
Perhaps the idea is that they travelled through Pisidia, spreading the
message. They had visited the area before (13:13), so perhaps they were
following up with contacts there.
14:25 And when they had
spoken the word in Perga- They had passed through Perga before,
but without apparently preaching there. We get the sense that Paul was
eager to cover ground missed out in his previous pass, so driven was he by
the idea of geographically distributing the word to all.
They went down to Attalia- Perga was a port, but up the river
from Attalia, from where longer distance vessels would be departing. These
details all add credibility to the record. If Acts is a forgery from an
uninspired person, it would've had to be created early on in the 2nd
century at least. And the chances of not making a major geographical or
historical bloomer would be almost zero. Such small incidental
true-to-reality local details confirm us in confidently accepting the
Bible as Divinely inspired and therefore true.
14:26
And from there they
sailed to Antioch, from where they had been committed to the grace of God-
Paul "committed" the elders to the Lord in :23, but he himself had been
committed by elders. All pastoral and preaching work is some reflection of
our own experiences; it cannot therefore be solely prepared for by
missionary training courses and the like. The Lord works to prepare
people, and they are to reflect their own experiences in their work for
Him. The same phrase "committed to the grace of God" is used about the
sending of Paul and Silas on their later missionary journey (Acts 15:40).
Perhaps as noted on :23 about the idea of 'committing', the brethren felt
(as we often do) that we can do nothing more materially for others in a
given situation; we pray for them and commit them to God's grace. As the
missionaries sailed away on a dangerous mission, this sense of commitment
of brethren to God's grace would have been natural. It's hard to
specifically, neatly define what was understood by "the grace of God". We
can only be guided here by how Luke used the term in his volume 1, the
gospel according to Luke. "The grace of God" was upon Mary (Lk. 1:30) and
John (Lk. 2:40), although he did no miracles. The term is used as if it
means 'the general operation of God' in Acts 11:23, God's grace worked
through Paul's working (1 Cor. 15:10; Eph. 3:7), and it was epi
the Corinthians, it worked around them (2 Cor. 9:14). We can frustrate
God's grace by not going the way He leads us (Gal. 2:21). God's grace
appears to all men in that the sphere of His operation somehow affects all
(Tit. 2:11). The Lord Jesus died by God's grace, i.e. according to His
plan (Heb. 2:9 in context). It is indeed true that 'grace' refers to
undeserved favour / gift and often refers to forgiveness and salvation;
and the word meaning essentially a gift it is at times used in the context
of specific gifts of God's Spirit. But it would seem that the term has a
wider sense of simply the realm of God's activity, which is of course
motivated by His grace.
For the work which they had fulfilled- We read in Acts 12:25
likewise of Paul fulfilling a ministry; of John the Baptist fulfilling his
race (Acts 13:25). The sense is that God gives a specific task to be done,
and we are to fulfil it. The Lord Jesus ascended so that He might fill all
things of the church here on earth (Eph. 4:10). The parable of the talents
likewise teaches that each believer has been given specific things to do.
We need to pray that we will perceive what these things are; because man
is never better than when he has a distinctly defined aim and has the wind
of the Spirit at his back helping him to fulfil them. Paul felt that his
preaching work was a stewardship he had been given and by achieving it, he
was fulfilling the word of God (Col. 1:25). The "word of God" in view
there would then refer to a specific word of command from God to Paul to
preach the Gospel to the Colossians. Hence the specific command to
Archippus to take seriously his ministry and fulfil it (Col. 4:17).
14:27
And when they had come and had gathered the church
together, they reported all that God had done through them-
This is the consistent and commendable emphasis of Paul; that he was not
working in his own strength but God was working through him. The language
is identical to that in Acts 15:4; the apostles reported back on their
activities rather than being free radicals in the world.
And that he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles- The
language of God opening doors was familiar to Christians, as the Lord had
taught that God opens doors to those who knock. But is there any reason to
think that there were believers begging for the Gentiles to be included in
the hope of the Gospel, and God responded to their prayers? There is
hardly any. Peter and the other early brethren were shocked even at the
idea of eating with Gentiles, let alone baptizing them. So we are to
conclude that God by grace gave an answer to a prayer that had not been
prayed. Or, as I prefer to think, the Father perceives our unspoken,
unverbalized, not formalized desires, even our unconscious ones- as
prayers. And responds to them.
Paul uses the metaphor of a door being opened in writing that a great
door had been opened to him personally at Ephesus and Troas (1 Cor. 16:9;
2 Cor. 2:12); and he prayed for doors to be opened so that he could preach
to people (Col. 4:3). So, to continue the metaphor, the door had been
opened to the Gentiles, but Paul (the Jewish rabbi) felt so identified
with his Gentile audience that he felt as if the door had been opened
to him personally. This is what evangelism is all about- identity
with our audience, and leading them in essence along the same path of
faith which we have been led down by grace.
14:28
And they stayed no little time with the disciples-
According to some chronologies, there was a five-year period between this
time and the council of Jerusalem of chapter 15. Truly we only get a few
incidents from the life of all Bible characters.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
