3rd Missionary Trip - Lorin

Christ. But even in the darkest moments when he “despaired of life itself” (1:8), he found in the grace of God hope
and encouragement to continue on in ministry. Central to this ministry was Paul’s deep concern for the welfare of
the churches, and in particular to the Corinthian church he was writing to in this letter. He realized deeply that, in
his own words, “we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing;
to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life,” Χριστοῦ εὐωδία ἐσμὲν τῷ θεῷ ἐν
τοῖς σῳζομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, 16 οἷς μὲν ὀσμὴ ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον, οἷς δὲ ὀσμὴ ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν
(2:15-16). Christian ministry is not a popularity contest. No matter how faithful one is to God, some will respond
positively and others in bitter hostility to the ministry given them. As Paul continues to assert, just as he did to the
Ephesian leaders, it is a matter of integrity of commitment to God that is the bottom line of ministry (cf. 2:17).
What can we learn from these profiles of missionary service by Paul on this particular trip? Of course,
the same essential missions strategy that characterized the first two journeys continued to guide the apostle on
this third journey. Without repeating the details that are summarized at the end of the two previous chapters of
this study, let me simply underscore the following. Then we will glean from this trip some additional insights not
particularly prominent on the first two journeys.
Consistently throughout his missionary work the core approach of Paul in preaching the Gospel had been
“to the Jew first and then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι). Even though his calling from
God in the beginning was to preach the Gospel to Gentiles, he did not neglect the Jewish people. But as was true
on the first two trips, so it remained true on the third trip. 296 His preaching Christ in the Jewish synagogues resulted
in greater response from Gentiles with attraction to the Jewish religion, than from Jews in the synagogues
(cf. Acts 19:8-10). God used the existing religious structure of Diaspora Judaism in order to provide something
of a launch pad for the Gospel message in the towns through the provinces of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia.
But the earlier pattern of Jewish opposition to the Gospel and to Paul continued on the third trip. The
lengthy Ephesian ministry as the major depiction by Luke underscores Jewish opposition to Paul (Acts 19:9), although
the effort to kill him in Ephesus stemmed from the silversmiths connected to the pagan temple of Artemis
(Acts 19:23-41). Yet the Jewish synagogue did align itself with the opposition to Paul at the theater in Ephesus
(Acts 19:33-34). In Corinth, at the end of his three month stay in the city, it was a Jewish plot to kill him that forced
a last minute change of plans (Acts 20:3). In his writings to the Corinthians Paul alludes to these challenges
(2 Cor. 1:8-11). Nothing is mentioned either by Luke or by Paul about what he faced when he came through
Macedonia from Asia and Ephesus on his way to Corinth, and then when he passed back through the province
from Corinth going to Troas. Because his ministry focused on existing churches rather than on evangelizing, he
evidently did not attract much attention from the Jewish synagogues in these cities these last two times, unlike
on the second missionary journey when evangelizing was the key focus.
What potential lessons can be derived from this missionary strategy for our world? At minimum,
some of the following seem to come out of Paul’s strategy. First, the apostle used the already existing religious
structures as much as possible to present the claims of the Gospel to the population of the city where he was.
He did not ignore them, even though he realized quite well that some risk was present in this approach. Second,
from both Luke’s accounts and from Paul’s writings his preaching method was to present the Gospel in terms of
what God did in Christ, rather than presenting Christianity as right and the other religions including Judaism as
wrong. We saw this dramatically in Luke’s account of Paul’s sermon in Athens on the second missionary journey
(Acts 17:22-31). The “I’m right and you’re wrong” approach is a recipe for disaster in preaching the Gospel. Paul
knew that and avoided that approach both in his approach to Jews and to Gentiles. This in no way meant compromising
his message regarding human sinfulness, which he included strongly in his preaching. But with Jesus
as the solution to humanity’s sin problems. Third, Paul went to the places where God opened a door for him; he
didn’t try to “bust down any doors” where people were not receptive to the Gospel message. His shifting from
the Jewish synagogue to the lecture hall of Tyrannus at Ephesus (Acts 19:8-10) is a prime example of this. What
Paul understood is what we must understand. God is the one who prepares the hearts of people to receive the
Gospel message, not us. We cannot ‘convict’ people of their need of Christ as Savior; only God working through
His Spirit can do that! When the modern day preacher assumes this role, superficial repentance and phoney faith
commitments are what result.
Fourth, the modern missionary must remain flexible in his or her ministry actions. Paul’s lengthy ministry
in Ephesus (Acts 19) depicts Paul engaging in a wide variety of ministry actions. These included instructing some
disciples of John and baptizing them, presenting the Gospel to hostile audiences both Jewish and Gentile, being
296 Compare 1 Cor. 1:22-25.
Page 486