stott on 11:19-30 gentile mission

Luke ended his previous section with the words `then to the
Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life' (18), RSV). It
was an epoch-making declaration by the conservative Jewish leaders
of the Jerusalem church. As Peter had become convinced by
circumstantial evidence that God intended Gentiles to be welcomed
into the redeemed community, so Peter's critics had been convinced
by his rehearsal of the evidence. God himself had put the matter
beyond dispute by bestowing his Spirit on a Gentile household.
The inclusion of the Gentiles is to be Luke's main theme in
the remainder of Acts, and with chapter 13 he begins to chronicle
Paul's missionary exploits. Before this, however, he gives his
readers two vignettes, which form a transition between the
conversion of the first Gentile (through Peter) and the systematic
evangelization of the Gentiles (by Paul).

The first (11:19-30) depicts the expansion of the church northwards, as a result of
evangelistic activity by anonymous missionaries. The scene is
Antioch, and Paul figures in the story, although Barnabas is more
prominent.

The second (12:1-25) depicts opposition to the church by King Herod Agrippa 1,
who concentrates his attack on members of
the apostolic circle. The scene is Jerusalem, and Peter occupies
the centre of the stage. In fact, this is Luke's final Peter-story
before his leadership role is taken over by Paul, and Jerusalem is
eclipsed by the goal of Rome.

1). Expansion: the church in Antioch (11:19-30).
The key expression at the end of the last paragraph was `to
the Gentiles also' (18, RSV); the key expression of this paragraph
is `to the Greeks also' (20, RSV) The addition in both verses of
`also' (*kai*) is important. It is not that the evangelization of
the Jews must stop, but that the evangelization of the Gentiles
must begin. As Paul was later to write (it was almost a refrain in
the early chapters of Romans, the gospel was intended `first for
the Jew, then for the Gentile' (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-10; cf. 3:29; 9:24;
10:12; 1Cor.1:24; Col.3:11.).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow. Acts 11:19-21. a). The Greek mission is initiated by
unnamed evangelists. =
February 8th,2000

THE MESSAGE OF ACTS.

A Commentary by John Stott.

Acts 11:19-21.

a). The Greek mission is initiated by unnamed evangelists.
Luke has written in 8:1 that, as a result of the persecution
which broke out after Stephen's martyrdom, `all except the
apostles were scattered [*diesparesan*] throughout Judea and
Samaria'. He now resumes his narrative: *Now those who had been
scattered (diasparentes) by the persecution in connection with
Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch* (19a).
In both cases he represents this fanning out of believers as a
Christian `diaspora' or dispersion. In both cases the result was
the same, namely that `those who had been scattered preached the
word wherever they went' (8:4), *telling the message* (19b). And
in both cases he leaves the evangelists unnamed, except for
stating that they were not apostles (8:1) and mentioning Philip
(8:5ff).
Luke now shows how the outward movement of the gospel
expanded in two ways, geographical and cultural. Geographically,
the mission spread north beyond `Judea and Samaria' (8:1b) *as far
as Phoenicia*, corresponding to Lebanon today, the island of
*Cyprus* and the city of Syrian *Antioch* (19). Culturally, the
mission spread beyond Jews to Gentiles. Most of the missionaries
were *telling the message only to Jews*, `to Jews only and to no
others' (19c,NEB). *Some of them, however, men* who came *from
Cyprus* (which incidentally was Barnabas's home, 4:36) *and
Cyrene* on the North African coast (did they perhaps include
`Lucius of Cyrene' mentioned in 13:1)? *went to Antioch and began
to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord
Jesus* (20), proclaiming Jesus, that is, not now as `the Christ',
but as `the Lord'. Moreover their bold innovation was richly
blessed by God, for *the Lord's hand was with them* (his power
confirming his word), so that *a great number of people believed
and turned to the Lord* (21) in that combination of repentance
and faith which is commonly called `conversion'. Some speculate
that Luke himself was one of these converts, because the Western
text introduces verse 28 with the words `when *we* were gathered
together', indicating that Luke was present, and because a
tradition can be traced back to the end of the second century that
Luke was a native of Antioch.
Is it certain, however, that these `daring spirits, did
evangelize Greeks in Antioch, and not just Hellenists, that is,
Greek-speaking Jews? This question has long occupied scholars. The
slightly better attested reading of verse 20 is not *Hellenas*,
`Greeks, but *Hellenistas*, `Hellenists'.
So who were they? The word itself (*Hellenistes*) does not
tell us, for it `is found nowhere in previous Greek literature or
in Hellenistic-Jewish literature', writes Dr Bruce Metzger, and
`in the New Testament it occurs only here and in 6:1 and 9:29'.
All that can be affirmed with confidence is that it `appears to be
a new formation from *hellenizein*, "to speak Greek" or "to
practise Greek ways"'; it thus indicates the culture of the people
in question, but not their nationality.
If, then, the meaning of the word is in itself uncertain,
the context must decide. Yet even this is to a degree ambiguous.
Some argue that the contrast between `only to Jews' (19) and `to
Greeks also' (20) settles the matter. There would have been
nothing remarkable about preaching to Greek-speaking Jews, for it
had been going on from the beginning. It would not have called for
a special investigation from Jerusalem. So, they conclude, the
context requires us (like most of the church fathers) to take
*Hellenistas* as a synonym for *Hellenas* and to translate it
`Greeks', `Gentiles', or (NEB, 1961 edition) `pagans'.
Others point out, however, that, even if the narrower
context is clear (the contrast in verses 18-20 between `only Jews'
and `also Greeks'), the wider context is not. There would, in
fact, be an anachronism in representing the full-scale Gentile
mission as having been pioneered by anonymous evangelists in
Antioch, since Luke reserves this innovation to Paul on his first
missionary journey (Acts 13). He could hardly have intended to
anticipate it here (Acts 11).
Since there is ambiguity in both word and context, it seems
wise to look for a compromise solution between Greek-speaking Jews
on the one hand and complete pagans on the other. Linguistically,
we can be sure only that *Hellenistas* denotes people whose
language and culture are Greek; the word does not indicate their
ethnic origin, whether `the person be a Jew or a Roman or any
other non-Greek'. It certainly does not require that the person is
a Jew. Contextually, Richard Longenecker suggests that the
*Hellenistas* were indeed Gentiles, but Gentiles `who had some
kind of relationship with Judaism', perhaps `God-fearers'. His
conclusion is `that Luke did not look on the Greeks in verse 20 as
simply Gentiles unaffected by the influence of Judaism and that he
did not view the Hellenistic Christians' approach to them as
pre-empting the uniqueness of Paul's later Gentile policy'.
Instead *Hellenistas* `is to be understood in the broad sense of
"Greek-speaking persons", meaning thereby the mixed population of
Antioch in contrast to the *Joudaioi* of verse 19'. It is clear
from both Acts 15:1 and Galatians 2:11ff, that in the church of
Antioch Jews and Gentiles, the circumcised and the uncircumcised,
were at the time enjoying table fellowship with one another.
This new outreach took place in *Antioch*, Luke tells us
(20), and no more appropriate place could be imagined, either as
the venue for the first international church or as the springboard
for the world-wide Christian mission. The city was founded in 300
BC by Seleucus Nicator, one of Alexander the Great's generals. He
named it `Antioch' after his father Antiochus, and its port,
fifteen miles west along the navigable river Orontes, `Seleucia'
after himself. Over years it became known as `Antioch the
Beautiful' because of its fine buildings, and by Luke's day was
famous for its long, paved boulevard, which ran from north to
south and was flanked by a double colonnade with trees and
fountains. Although it was a Greek city by foundation, its
population, estimated as at least 500,000, was extremely
cosmopolitan. It had a large colony of Jews, attracted by
Seleucus' offer of equal citizenship, and Orientals too from
Persia, India and even China, earning it another of its names,
`the Queen of the East'. Since it was absorbed into the Roman
empire by Pompey in 64BC, and became the capital of the imperial
province of Syria (to which Cilicia was later added), its
inhabitants included Latins as well. Thus Greeks, Jews, Orientals
and Romans formed the mixed multitude of what Josephus called `the
third city of the empire', after Rome and Alexandria.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow. Acts 11:22-24. b). The Greek mission is endorsed by
Barnabas.
February 9th,2000

THE MESSAGE OF ACTS.

A Commentary by John Stott.

Acts 11:22-24. The Greek mission is endorsed by Barnabas.

News of this fresh development *reached the ears of the
church at Jerusalem*, much as they had previously heard `that
Samaria had accepted the word of God' (8:14) and `that the
Gentiles [sc. Cornelius and his household] also had received the
word of God' (11:1). Luke seems to be hinting that they felt the
need to assure themselves that all was well, in addition to
helping to nurture this young, multi-cultural church. This time
they did not send an apostle, however. Instead *they sent Barnabas
to Antioch* (22), whom Barclay called `the man with the biggest
heart in the church', and who was known to be true to his name
`Son of Encouragement' (4:36). *When he arrived* in Antioch, he
immediately *saw* for himself *the evidence of the grace of God*
in the converts' changed lives and new international community,
and in consequence he both *was glad*, presumably expressing his
joy in praise, *and encouraged them all* (`encouraged' being
perhaps a deliberate play on his name) to *remain true to the Lord
with all their hearts* (23). It was an exhortation both to
perseverance and to whole-heartedness. Luke was obviously
impressed with Barnabas' Christian character, and attributed his
ministry to it: for (it is a pity that NIV does not translate this
connecting particle *hoti*) *he was a good man, full of the Holy
Spirit and faith*. It is no wonder that *a great number of people
were brought* (literally `added', as RSV) *to the Lord* (24).
The verb for `added' in verse 24 (*prostithemi*) has become
for Luke an almost technical word for church growth. He used it
twice in relation to the Day of Pentecost, first of the three
thousand who were added that day (2:41) and then of the daily
additions which followed (2:47). Later he wrote of `more and more
men and women' believing in the Lord and being added to the church
(5:14), while in Syrian Antioch `a great number of people' were
added (11:24). This use of the verb *prostithemi* led the famous
Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper to propose the word `prosthetics'
to define missiology (although today it applies to the surgical
replacement of limbs and organs), since it should be concerned
with expansion of the church by additions to its membership.
Hermann Bavinch responded that it would not be an appropriate
term, however, because in the New Testament it is the Lord who
does the adding (2:47), not human missionaries. We might also
comment that the additions are not just to the church but to the
Lord (11:24). When we see `the Lord adding to the Lord', so that
he is both subject and object, source and goal, of evangelism, we
have to repent of all self-centred, self-confident concepts of the
Christian mission.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow. Acts 11:25-26. c). The Greek mission is consolidated by
Saul.
February 10th,2000

THE MESSAGE OF ACTS.

A Commentary by John Stott.

Acts 11:25-26. The Greek mission is consolidated by Saul.

Barnabas' next action was to go *to Tarsus to look for Saul*
(25), for Tarsus was Saul's home town to which the Jerusalem
believers had sent him, when his life was threatened (9:28-30).
That was seven or eight years previously. What he had been doing
meanwhile we do not know, although in his letter to the Galatians
he seems to indicate that he was preaching in Syria and Cilicia
(Gal.1:21ff). Some commentators have suggested that it was during
this period that he suffered some of the physical persecutions to
which he later referred (2 Cor.11:23ff), and was disinherited by
his family (Phil.3:8).
We cannot help admiring Barnabas' humility in wanting to
share the ministry with Saul, and his sense of strategy also. He
must have known of Saul's calling to be the apostle to the
Gentiles (9:15,27), and it may well have been the Gentile
conversions in Antioch which made him think of Saul. At all events
*when* Barnabas *found him, he brought him to Antioch*, and then
*for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church*, most of
whose members were young and uninstructed believers, *and taught
great numbers of people* (26a).
They must have taught about Christ, making sure that the
converts knew both the facts and the significance of his life,
death, resurrection, exaltation, Spirit-gift, present reign and
future coming. It was because the word `Christ' was constantly on
their lips that *the disciples were called Christians first in
Antioch* (26b)? Luke has so far referred to them as `disciples'
(6:1), `saints' (9:13), `brethren' (1:16; 9:30), `believers'
(10:45), those being `saved' (2:47) and the people `of the Way'
(9:2). Now it seems to have been the unbelieving public of
Antioch, famed for their wit and nicknaming skill, who, supposing
that `Christ' was a proper name rather than a title (the Christ or
Messiah), coined the epithet *Christianoi*. It was probably more
familiar and jocular than derisory. Although it does not seem to
have caught on initially, since elsewhere it appears only twice in
the New Testament (Acts 26:28 and 1 Pet.4:16), it at least
emphazied the Christ-centred nature of discipleship. For the
word's formation was parallel to *Herodianoi* (Herodians) and
*Kaisarianoi* (Caesar's people); it marked out the disciples as
being above all the people, the followers, the servants of Christ.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow. Acts 11:27-30. d). The Greek mission is authenticated by
good works.
February 11th,2000

THE MESSAGE OF ACTS.

A Commentary by John Stott.

Acts 11:27-30. The Greek mission is authenticated by good works.

It was *during this time* Luke continues, that *some
prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch* (27). *One of them ,
named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted a severe
famine would spread over the entire Roman world* (the *oikoumene*
or `inhabited earth' being regarded as more or less coterminous
with the empire). Luke adds in parenthesis that this predicted
famine *happened during the reign of Claudius* (28). Claudius
ruled from AD 41 to 54, but historians do not record `a severe and
world-wide famine' (NEB) during this period. F.F.Bruce therefore
proposes the more general expression `great dearth' (AV), adding
that this period `was indeed marked by a succession of bad
harvests and serious famines in various parts of the empire'. For
example, Josephus wrote of a great famine which during the reign
of Claudius oppressed the people of Judea, so that `many people
died for want of what was necessary to produce food withal',
although Queen Helena bought and distributed large quantities of
corn and figs.
Luke's concern, however, is not so much with the fulfilment
of Agabus' prophecy as with the generous response of Antioch's
church. For *the disciples, each according to his ability, decided
to provide help for the brothers living in Judea* (29). Moreover,
their decision led to action. They were soon *sending their gift
to the elders by Barnabas and Saul* (30), who, having ministered
as evangelists and teachers, were glad now to minister as social
workers also. This second visit of Saul's to Jerusalem, which Luke
here records, seems (although not all scholars agree with this) to
be the same as the second visit which Paul himself mentions in
Galatians 2:1-10. The Parallels are striking. He writes there that
he travelled `with Barnabas', that he went `in response to a
revelation' (i.e. Agabus' prophecy), and that the leaders urged
him to `continue to remember the poor', which was `the very thing'
he was `eager to do', namely in bringing the famine relief.
One naturally wonders why, apart from the famine, the
Jerusalem church was now so poor as to need this relief, and
whether perhaps their extreme generosity which Luke has described
in Acts 2 and 4 was a contributing factor. At all events, it was
now the turn of the Antiochene believers to be generous. They gave
*each according to their ability* (cf. 2Cor.8:3), just as the
Jerusalem believers had previously distributed `to anyone as he
had need' (2:45; 4:35). I have often wondered if Marx knew these
two passages and bracketed them in his mind. For in his famous
`Critique of the Gotha Programme' (1875), that is, of the united
policy of the two wings of German socialism, he called for
something much more radical than they proposed, when society can
`inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs!'
Whatever our political and economic convictions may be,
these are plainly biblical principles, that is, ability on the one
hand, need on the other, and how to relate them to each other.
These principles should characterize the family of God. It is not
an accident that the Jerusalem recipients of Antiochene relief are
called `brothers' (29). More important still, this brotherhood or
family included both Jewish and Gentile believers, and the
fellowship between them was illustrated in the relations between
the two churches. The church of Jerusalem had sent Barnabas to
Antioch; now the church of Antioch sent Barnabas, with Saul, back
to Jerusalem. This famine relief anticipated the collection which
Paul was later to organise, in which the affluent Greek churches
of Macedonia and Achaia contributed to the needs of the
impoverished churches of Judea. Its importance to Paul was that it
was a symbol of Gentile-Jewish solidarity in Christ, `for if the
Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings', he wrote.
`they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material
blessings' (Rom.15:27).