1st Missionary Trip - Lorin

seems to intentionally insert this reference to a long, prosperous ministry between the initial opposition to it (v. 2)
and the full blown opposition (vv. 4-6). This lengthy productive ministry provided the continuing stimulus for the
developing opposition to these missionaries.
The way Luke describes this ministry is instructive. Humanly, it was the consistent courageous speaking
in behalf of the Lord a message about God’s grace: διέτριψαν παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ μαρτυροῦντι
τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ. Divinely, this preaching of God’s grace was affirmed supernaturally by miracles:
διδόντι σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα γίνεσθαι διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν. We don’t have any account of a specific miracle to
know exactly what Paul and Barnabas did, but such information is not important to Luke’s point. He stresses that
God provided convincing proof that what these missionaries was preaching came from Him and with His blessing.
To confirm that in the eyes of both Jews and Gentiles listening to this Gospel message, these missionaries
were able to perform actions that clearly went beyond human abilities or powers (σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα). Such a
perspective is consistent with the miracles done by Jesus, then by Peter, and now by Paul and Barnabas. Their
miracles were not done for show or to dazzle an audience with human possession of supernatural power. Both
Simon Magnus in Samaria (Acts 8) and the Jewish magician Bar-Jesus (Acts 13) had not understood that critical
point. Miracles done by Jesus and the apostles were validating signs (σημεῖα) that pointed to a reality beyond
the miracle. Thus the miracles reflects actions consistent with the message of the Gospel that underscores both
God’s offer of salvation in Christ and the warning of final judgment.
(3) In verse four Paul and Barnabas are termed ἀποστόλοις, apostles. Apart from here and 14:4 Luke
never uses the term apostle for Paul, in spite of Paul being the central character of the second half of the book
of Acts. The inclusion of Barnabas under this label also poses some challenges, since the term at its technical
meaning is restricted in the New Testament to the original Twelve and to Paul. In both Luke and Acts, 70 of the
75 instances of ἀπόστολος refer only to the Twelve original apostles ordained by Jesus. The simplest -- and in
my estimation -- the most natural meaning of ἀπόστολος in 14:4, 14 in reference to Paul and Barnabas is the
non-technical meaning of ‘messenger’ or ‘missionary.’ This is consistent with how the term is clearly used in John
13:16; 2 Cor. 8:23 (referring to Paul’s co-workers), and Phil. 2:25 (referring to Epaphroditus). 134 In the narrative
great emphasis is given to Paul and Barnabas as divinely sent messengers through whom God was working in
unusual fashion to persuade the listeners to the Gospel that it had a divine origin. To then speak of them as commissioned
messengers is quite natural, and is the etymological root meaning of ἀπόστολος.
(4) In Antioch the impact of the Gospel preaching διεφέρετο δὲ ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου διʼ ὅλης τῆς χώρας,
Thus the word of the Lord spread throughout the region. But in Iconium the impact was centered in the city itself and
no mention is made of its spreading to neighboring towns and villages. And ironically this came about in spite of a
very limited time in Antioch but a lengthy period of time in Iconium. It could be that Luke just failed to mention an
expanding impact in Iconium as he did in Antioch. But he seems to be more deliberate in his choice of including
or omitting details that this would imply.
(5) The strategy of the opposition to Paul and Barnabas, while somewhat similar did take on some differences
between Antioch and Iconium. In Antioch Jewish opposition chose to pressure some devout Gentile
women worshippers at the Jewish synagogue who had power and leverage with city governmental leaders. Thus
working through these women and some of the men of power in the city, they were able to have Paul and Barnabas
officially banished from the city and the region: ἐξέβαλον αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν. But in Iconium, a
plot to kill Paul and Barnabas was hatched up in an unholy alliance between Jewish and Gentile leaders in the
city: ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων σὺν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν ὑβρίσαι καὶ λιθοβολῆσαι αὐτούς.
The opposition to these missionaries in Iconium was present among both Jewish and Gentile leaders in the city.
Very likely Luke’s mentioning of the city becoming divided (ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως) over supporting
and opposing these two missionaries played a role in this seeming deeper and more widespread opposition to
134Many modern commentators go to extreme and bizarre lengths to explain away the use of ἀπόστολος here in chapter fourteen. See
the otherwise competent commentator Joseph Fitzmyer observations:
This designation probably comes from the source he is using, in which the two were so named, and he has not bothered to
make the source conform to his otherwise usual practice. So Roloff, Apg., 211; Weiser, Apg., 348–49. If this explanation is not
considered valid, and Barrett (Acts, 671) considers that it is not, then it is difficult to explain why Luke would refer to Paul as an
“apostle” only in this chapter. Becker thinks that Luke uses the title in these two instances only in the sense of “a church missionary”
and that it does not have the same sense as that implied in 1:21–22 (Paul, 59, 79). That, however, is a dubious distinction. In
1:21–22 Luke has listed his criteria for membership in the Twelve, and otherwise he never regards either Paul or Barnabas as part
of that group. There were, in fact, in the early church other persons beyond the Twelve who bore the title apostolos.
[Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (New Haven; London:
Yale University Press, 2008), 526.]
Page 225