This is posted as a resource for anyone wanting to learn about our Church and the Christian Faith. Do not plagiarize.
Acts 17:1-15
The Gospel goes to Thessalonica & Berea
Paul has just been flogged and imprisoned for preaching Jesus in Philippi; and then he makes the 100-mile journey to another city, only to run into trouble again as a result of his preaching about Jesus –
and despite what happened in Philippi, and despite what would happen again and again in his journeys, we see here and over and over:
Calvin: “We see how courageous he was to keep the course of his calling, and how bold he was ever now and then to enter into new dangers.”
And what carried Paul on in his missionary journeys full of new dangers again and again – and what can carry us along in our Christian walk and journey and battle – is (Calvin) “that he was furnished with the heavenly power of the Spirit”.
The heavenly power of the Spirit of God sustained him – equipped him – and that power is in us, there for us to make use of and rely upon and find the strength that we need which on our own we lack – but is abundant through Jesus who lives in us by his Spirit.
Paul doesn’t give in, doesn’t give up, but continues on unswayed to live for Jesus and to preach Jesus.
And on this next stage of his 2nd journey he preaches Jesus in Thessalonica and Berea.
And in Thessalonica – we see a focus on the preaching of Paul;
And in Berea, we see a focus on the Bereans’ receiving of that preaching.
3 things about his preaching:
Reasoned from the scriptures; Explained from the scriptures; Proved from the Scriptures; and Proclaimed Jesus.
He reasoned: or, discussed, debated, argued – although argued tends to have a more negative connotation of “argumentative” – but those things aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Someone can be argumentative without actually engaging in any kind of argument; and someone can engage in a real and meaningful argument without being argumentative; and if fact, the less argumentativeness present, the more likely a real and meaningful argument can take place.
Argumentativeness is on one end simply trying to win your point without understanding the objections of the other side; and on the other end simply trying to defend your point without listening to the point of the other side.
You see this all the times in politics: plenty of arguing, with very little substantive debate over the actual issues involved.
You see this in interpersonal conflict: where things devolve into name-calling or blame-throwing without working through any of the actual reasons for disagreement or discontent.
But, Paul’s arguing had to be different from that; because it had the result that is rarely accomplished by argumentativeness: v4 – they were persuaded.
And probably what this refers to is that Paul was engaged in Christian apologetics: where he considered the beliefs of his audience and while respecting them, sought to deconstruct them according to the truth; and where he considered the possible objections that his audience would have to what he was claiming, and he sought to understand those objections accurately, take them seriously, and deal with them honestly – by dealing with the actual objections – not just a caricature-ized false-representation of them.
Being argumentative rarely has the effect of actually persuading the person on the other side – in fact, normally it has the effect of each side being further entrenched in their stance before the argument began!
But the result of Paul’s reasoning with them is that they’re actually persuaded. And, I have to confess that this is amazing to me; and certainly it’s not the result of human wisdom and ability; it’s the result of the Holy Spirit, opening hearts to the gospel. But it’s amazing to me, because it’s a reminder that people can actually change their minds about something as the result of a discussion.
That doesn’t seem possible in our world, and so we give up before we try – but it is, if we remember that the Gospel is the truth of God – the power of God for salvation, and that the Holy Spirit like we saw last week can change a heart and bring into light those who were once in darkness – it did it for us – and so it can do it for others.
And we shouldn’t be surprised, that people need persuading: it’s always been the case that the gospel isn’t easy to believe – but goes against a prevailing worldview and challenges a present lifestyle.
And so we shouldn’t just expect people to believe it; and we should be patient with people who have questions and doubts; and we should to a degree be prepared to answer those questions and doubts.
He reasoned; he explained
Explained:
literally, this means, he “opened up” the scriptures. And this is the same word that the author Luke uses in Luke 24 – the road to Emmaus when the disciples talk about how Jesus had “opened the Scriptures to us.”
And, that’s what preaching essentially is: opening up what is in God’s word; because if it is setting aside what is in God’s word; or if it is inserting something else into God’s word: then it isn’t preaching, because it isn’t explaining God’s word.
Preaching isn’t human innovation, wisdom, or opinion; it is opening up the truth of God’s Word.
And, why would anyone want to replace the very words of God with human opinions?
Unfortunately, more and more, so-called “preaching” is increasingly disconnected from God’s word; it opens up cultural worldly wisdom more than God’s word.
Unfortunately, even in the so-called church, Christians and ministers think that the Bible is merely human opinions, and so you can take it or leave it and preaching may as well be just another human opinion.
And, when preaching is, and in-so-far as it lines up with God’s word, and truly and faithfully explains the meaning of God’s Word, then we ought to receive it as such.
And that’s why, in our tradition, the sermon is kind of important. It’s not the only thing we do in worship, it’s not the only thing of importance we do in worship; but in a time when sermons are less popular, when sermons are shorter, when sermons involve less scriptural truth; it’s important to remember that this is important; because we all – myself included – are being confronted with God’s truth.
And that’s why I don’t just throw a sermon together with little study and little preparation – and that is why I try to be very careful to make sure I understand each passage I preach on – and try to be very careful to not take away from God’s word; not add to it; but be faithful to it.
(reasoned; explained) Proved from the scriptures & proclaimed Jesus:
Proved:
Specifically, that the Messiah promised in the OT must suffer, die, and rise from the dead.
& he proclaimed – that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah.
In other words, he showed this Jewish & Gentile God-fearing audience that the OT taught that there would be a Messiah who’s life would look quite a lot like Jesus; that the life of Jesus fulfilled the promises of the coming Messiah
That what he came to do was no novel thing but what God’s plan promised and foretold all along in the OT Scriptures:
that the Messiah was not going to be a triumphalist-ic worldly political deliverer who only conquered earthly enemies and only delivered in terms of worldly circumstances; but conquered spiritual enemies and conquered in terms of eternal spiritual victory over sin and death and bringing about forgiveness and reconciliation to God and newness of life – all because he had to suffer and die, and rise from the dead.
These are the basic and essential facts of the gospel: that Jesus suffered and died for our sins, and was raised from the dead;
And these are things which “had to happen”.
“Had to” – this is language of absolute necessity; and it is the same language that Jesus himself used – again on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:26 – to interpret the events that had just occurred:
Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”
“have to”; “must” – it is necessary; not optional; not tangential; not a take-it-or-leave it because everything he came to do and accomplish hangs on that; and every aspect of our salvation depends upon it.
If you’ve ever watched an Easter-time TV special on Jesus; if you haven’t, don’t; if you have, you can see just from this very verse that they aren’t interested in teaching what Jesus himself taught about himself, or what the apostles themselves believed and taught about him:
that he actually did suffer and die for our sins and rise from the dead; and that without those things, Christianity is nothing, means nothing, accomplished nothing, benefits you nothing.
And they try to say otherwise: “Jesus didn’t suffer and die for our sins – (because we don’t like to talk about sin or wrath or needing salvation as a gift given rather than as something we earn for ourselves)” – they don’t say that part; “And Jesus didn’t rise from the dead (because we don’t believe he was God and we don’t even believe in the God of the Bible who could raise the dead)”; but it’s ok – those things weren’t really necessary.
Because, without those things, we can still look at the Jesus of our own imagination – who we like better than the Jesus preached by the Apostles – and we can still find some example of love, some good ethical teaching; some ray of hope.
But this is complete nonsense; it certainly isn’t the Christian message. The message of Christianity isn’t wishful thinking; it isn’t empty hope; and it isn’t merely or primarily something we do; but it’s primarily something God did in history through Jesus Christ;
Proclaimed Jesus.
Didn’t proclaim himself; but all his preaching, all his teaching, all his ministry, pointed people towards Jesus and his glory and grace.
2 Cor 4:5 “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants fro Jesus’ sake.”
Paul wasn’t their for his own agenda, for his platform, but as a pointer towards Jesus; and a servant to those whom he preached.
And so, I imagine, everything Paul preached went through this grid: will it point people to Jesus?
Not: will this impress people and make them think I’m a superstar preacher? Smart? Cool?
Not: will this entertain people and keep them coming back?
Not: will this grow my church?
But: Will this hold up Jesus so that people can find him?
Because Jesus is what people really need – not me, not anyone else, Jesus.
What we see as a result is that many people receive Paul’s teaching as they are persuaded by it; but some are jealous – probably referring to bitter anger and resentment that Paul is winning Jews over to this – from their perspective – blasphemous movement.
The same gospel can create a transformed life of love and commitment to Christ; that same gospel can provoke intense opposition and anger.
And they hire a rent-a-mob against the missionaries – and bring these false charges and half-truths against them, v6:
First charge: “they have caused trouble all over the world, and now have come here – to cause trouble here too is the implication”
social order was important to Roman rule, and the antagonistic Jews knew that and used it against them – the only one causing social unrest was them – hiring a mob to cause a ruckus. And the missionaries only caused trouble in so far as their preaching is what occasioned the anger of those who rejected the message;
but of course there is a half-truth, because the gospel of Jesus will upset and challenge the status quo by bringing radical transformation in the lives of people who embrace it; but the gospel never encouraged them to be bad citizens – unless the requirements of citizenship required them to dishonor their true king to whom they gave ultimate allegiance.
Clavin: not us who rebel against kings but kings who rebel against God
second charge: “they are all defying caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.”
This is again a false-charge half-truth: it implies they were breaking ceasar’s decree to predict or advocate for a change in the political ruler and authority – to advocate for a king other than Ceasar.
And, in one sense, they weren’t doing that. They were not advocating Jesus as a political ruler who would challenge Ceasar’s earthly throne; they were not inciting people to rebel against the Roman empire.
But in another sense, there is a half-truth to the charge: because they were teaching that Jesus was the true King – not the king of one earthly region but the king of heaven and earth; not the king of politics but the king over all; not the king to whom they owed allegiance as citizens, but the king to whom all people everywhere owed ultimate allegiance; and especially those who had been redeemed by his blood.
But due to the fear of social unrest, the city officials make Jason – whose house they had been staying at – post bond – probably making him responsible for the behavior of the missionaries, or with the understanding that they would make them leave;
and so they move on to Berea – but we see later on that they don’t fully leave Thessalonica behind – and we see the extent of the jealousy and persistence of their opponents from Thessalonica as they take the trouble to travel a distance of 45 miles to Berea – in order to stir up trouble again for them.
But before that happens, we see that they have a time of undisturbed ministry among the Bereans that is very fruitful:
And, whereas in Thessalonica the focus was on how Paul explained the Scriptures; here in Berea the focus is on how his hearers v11 – how they received the message
First: They received it with eagerness. They were ready to hear. They listened actively.
Have you ever considered, that listening to a sermon involves as active and crucial a role as preaching a sermon?
Many people wrongly think of listening to a sermon as a passive thing; but the degree to which the sermon can benefit you as God desires it to, depends upon you listening to it actively, as much as it depends on the preacher, preaching well.
And instead of blaming the preacher or the sermon for our failure to listen; we ought to take more ownership for our responsibility to listen.
We can have a great amount of eagerness for a great number of things; but are we eager to hear God speaking to us? – the thing that we ought to be most eager about most often we aren’t.
Second: They received it with noble character (v11).
because they respond in a “noble” way to the word of God. This could mean that they were of “noble” social status, but probably in this context it means that they were open-minded.
That they actually listened to, and considered, the substance of Paul’s message.
Open-minded listening to the substance of what is being said is in rare supply these days.
There’s a danger of rejecting someone’s message before they’ve even said anything because of a prejudice against the person such that we already have our minds made up, and nothing they say comes into consideration.
But they weren’t like this. They didn’t only agree with things that they already agreed with. Clearly, Paul was saying things that they didn’t already agree with – in fact, Paul was saying things that cut against their deeply held beliefs in ways that we’ve seen aroused great anger and jealousy in offense in other Jews who heard it; but they still listened despite that.
It’s tempting that – once we are aware that someone else doesn’t agree with us – to no longer listen to what they have to say; such that often we don’t even know what we’re not agreeing with and haven’t even listened to what we’re rejecting.
They were willing to suspend their own previously held beliefs – but to suspend them just enough to give fair hearing to those things which challenged their beliefs.
Third: They evaluated what he said against the Scriptures
They were open; but they weren’t gullible and naive; in their open-ness, they were still critical.
We talked about open-mindedness before – and while I believe that open-mindedness is a virtue – there is a counterfeit open-mindedness that naively accepts everything it hears as true; and that fails to hold a conviction about anything.
And Paul seemingly welcomes this response: because (Stott): “though Paul believed in doctrine, he didn’t believe in indoctrination”
Hughes: “He didn’t demand that people accept what he say simply because he said it; he sough to persuade, but at the same time, he gave them space, to move and think and respond, so that the response would truly be their response.”
And many people think that the proper response to teaching in the name of Christ or the Bible is just to unquestioningly accept it – because the person who said it was standing up front; or had a “reverend” attached to his name; or had a degree; or claimed to know what he was talking about or sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
This is the single-most important aspect of the responsibility to listen actively: to weigh and evaluate what is said against the scriptures;
And we see that they didn’t just blindly accept Paul’s message because Paul preached it; but v11 they tested what he said against the Scriptures to see if it was true.
Listened with their bibles open. And they did the thing that preacher’s love to see the most: the bible nose-dive. Not the falling asleep nose-dive.
They were open-minded, but that didn’t mean they were naive; they were discerning about what they heard.
the greatest insult someone could give a preacher: “I believe that because you said it”
And the best compliment you can give a preacher is to thank them for giving you God’s Word.
But in order to do that, they had to know their bibles:
General, basic bible knowledge is not at an all-time high. In fact, it’s probably safe to say it’s at an all-time low; even though we probably have more access to the bible than ever before, we have the least – not just knowledge of it – but the least familiarity with it than ever before.
As we read earlier, Paul commended the Thessalonians for receiving the word “not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God which is indeed at work in those who believe”); let’s learn from that example.
And we see both in Thessalonica and Berea, a similar description of the diversity of the church that was left behind as a result of Paul’s preaching:
v 4 – Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women;
v12 – As a result, many of them (the Jews) believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
And if you remember last week there were two conversions of women, and a conversion of a Gentile in Philippi – and Acts emphasizes how not only the gospel attracted a diverse audience – including women; but that a diverse group – including women – played a significant role in the life of the church.
And it’s a reflection of the reality in which Paul describes the church as the “body of Christ” – where a diversity of people join together to give their unique contribution, serving for the good of the body.