Peter Defends His Actions to the Jerusalem Church, 1-18

11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 11:3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’ 11:10 This happened three times, and then everything was pulled up to heaven again. 11:11 At that very moment, three men sent to me from Caesarea approached the house where we were staying. 11:12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 11:13 He informed us how he had seen an angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 11:14 who will speak a message to you by which you and your entire household will be saved.’ 11:15 Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 11:17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” 11:18 When they heard this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.”

This sections marks the end of the ‘Petrine narrative’, which began towards the end of ch. 9.  We will now see a shift in focus from Jerusalem to Antioch, and the accounts of Paul’s missionary journeys.  Peter appears once more (in ch. 12), and is mentioned once more (in 15:7).

The episode involving Cornelius signals, then, a pivotal change in the progress of the gospel.  What had been a Jewish messianic renewal movement now fully welcomes Gentiles.  This had been anticipated in the response of the Samaritans to the good news, and in Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopean eunuch, both reported in ch. 8.  But Samaria was nearby (both geographically and spiritually), and the Ethiopean was evidently a ‘God-fearer’.  Like them, Cornelius (also a God-fearer) is a bridge character.  The truly global nature of the gospel is about to be fully revealed.  The repetitiveness of Luke’s account at this point, along with his attention to detail, underscores its importance.  (See this, by Ian Paul).

The Gentiles too had accepted the word of God – They had accepted the good news of Jesus Christ.

The circumcised believers – ‘Those of the circumcision’, or perhaps even, ‘those of the circumcision party’ (ESV, cf. Galatians and the end of Acts 21).

“You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them” – Sharng a meal, was, of course, an indication of fellowship.

“The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation” – Or, ‘without distinction’; ‘without partiality’, cf. 1 Pet 1:17.

“These six brothers” – Twice the number of witnesses required by Jewish law.

“As at the beginning” – Lloyd-Jones infers from these words that the Pentecostal outpouring was not once-for-all.  It was, he says, ‘the first of a series’.  In fact, there are fresh outpourings of the Spirit in Acts 4, Acts 15, and elsewhere.

They ceased their objections and praised God – Lit. ‘they were silent’, but, obviously, they were not literally silent, because they praised God!  Ian Paul points out that Paul uses a cognate verb when he commands women ‘to be silent’ in 1 Tim 2:12.

Activity in the Church at Antioch, 19-26

11:19 Now those who had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the message to no one but Jews. 11:20 But there were some men from Cyprus and Cyrene among them who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. 11:21 The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.

Those who had been scattered because of the persecution – Verses 19-21 refer back to the events recorded in chapter 8.  Acts 8:4 describes them as preaching the word wherever they went.

This persecution had taken place over Stephen.  Stephen’s life had, of course been painfully and criminally cut short.  But Milne comments on his legacy:

‘It would probably not be wrong to see these witnessing believers as Hellenistic Jewish disciples who had identified with Stephen’s theology and its Gentile-laden missional perspectives. In a real sense Stephen and his vision lived on in these disciples. It is never too early in life to raise the question of our life-legacy. What will we leave behind us? Legacy can have few richer forms than that modelled by Jesus who invested so much of Himself and His time in the apostles, and by Stephen here, in similar terms, with respect to his spiritual fellow-pilgrims.’

According to Harper’s Bible Commentary, Luke’s main concern in this passage ‘is to sketch the beginnings of gentile Christianity at Antioch, which figures prominently later (Acts 13:1; 14:26–28; 15:22–35, 40; 18:22; cf. Gal. 2:11).’

Willimon remarks that

‘The gospel is like a wildfire—stamp upon it in one place, it will ignite in another. Now it burns brightly with nothing to hold it back, for even the barrier between gentile and Jew has been surmounted.’

David Cook puts it like this:

‘God’s purpose is always more expansive than that recognised by the church. Think of the Father’s response to the Son in Psalm 2:8: “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession”. Jesus Christ is Lord of all and all need to be given the opportunity of recognising his Lordship. No one is ever to be considered “off-limits”.’

Phoenicia – modern Lebanon.  ‘Its main towns were Ptolemais, Tyre, Zarephath and Sidon, and we hear later of Christian groups in three of these places (21:3, 7; 27:3), no doubt formed at this time.’ (Marshall)

Cyprus – already mentioned (Acts 4:36) as the home of Barnabas.

Antioch was the third largest city of the known world (after Rome and Alexandria), having a population of up to half a million.  It was 300 miles north of Jerusalem.  It was highly cosmopolitan, being home to Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, Africans, Indians and Asians.  Indeed, it was divided into a number of sectors, according to ethnicity.  It was a great crossroads of culture and trade.  It was, accordingly, both pluralistic and idolatrous.  Not so very different from many places today – ‘multicultural and diverse and full of competing world-views’ (Merida).

Longenecker calls Antioch:

‘a melting pot of Western and Eastern cultures, where Greek and Roman traditions mingled with Semitic, Arab, and Persian influences’

According to Wiersbe:

‘Its magnificent buildings helped give it the name “Antioch the Golden, Queen of the East.” The main street was more than four miles long, paved with marble, and lined on both sides by marble colonnades. It was the only city in the ancient world at that time that had its streets lighted at night.

‘A busy port and a center for luxury and culture, Antioch attracted all kinds of people, including wealthy retired Roman officials who spent their days chatting in the baths or gambling at the races. With its large cosmopolitan population and its great commercial and political power, Antioch presented to the church an exciting opportunity for evangelism.’

This Syrian Antioch is to be distinguished from Pisidian Antioch, where we find Paul in chapter 13.

It was, writes Stott, an ideal place to start a new church:

‘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.’

They were speaking the message to no one but Jews – On the evangelistic activity by ordinary Christians, see also Acts 8:4 (from which point the present account picks up).

Some men from Cyprus and Cyrene – They would have had Jewish roots, but were probably less conservative, in terms of cultural outlook, than Palestinian Jews.  As Merida says,

‘They wouldn’t have had as much anti-Gentile prejudice, and they would have done business with Greeks all the time.’

Merida notes that we don’t even know their names:

‘Unknown Christians really can make a difference, and unknown Christians are never unknown to Christ, whose verdict on us matters most.  The most important people in the church aren’t always the most recognised.  Don’t confuse admiration with importance.’

Merida infers from this the importance of cultural engagement on our part.

Cyrene is situated in North Africa.  Milne suggests a possibly origin for the Christian faith there:

‘Cyrene was noted earlier as one of the places represented at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and the hometown of Simon who carried Jesus’ cross to Calvary (Matt. 27:32; Luke 23:26). It is tempting to believe that the emergence of the faith there can be directly traced back to that timeless scene on the Via Dolorosa (Luke 23:26), and hence that one of the major tributaries which flowed into and fed this Antioch mission led directly back to Jesus (John 12:24).’

Although the cause of the gospel has often been served by particularly gifted (and famous) individuals, there are other occasions when no one person stands out: it is the team-work that counts.

Fernando comments on these ‘unnamed pioneers’:

‘This great work was done by a group of “ordinary Christians” who went and shared the gospel. In fact, much of the growth of the church must have happened through such people (see 8:1, 4)—as should be the case today.’

They began to speak to the Greeks too – probably Greek-speaking Gentiles (rather than Hellenised Jews).  So Barrett.

There had been an awakening in Samaria (Acts 8), but the Samaritans were closely related to the Jews.  Peter had preached to Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10), but this had not been part of any strategic mission to non-Jews.  In his case, he had been prompted by divine intervention, but nothing similar is mentioned here.  (As Marshall notes, we do not know if the conversion of Cornelius had already taken place, and therefore could have acted as a precedent).  So, as Merida points out, these ‘courageous and trail-blazing evangelists…were breaking through a major cultural barrier.’

Proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus – Proclaiming, that is, the lordship of Jesus, rather than his messiahship.  As Merida comments:

‘The Gentiles wouldn’t have been as interested in “the hope of Israel.”  But the title Kurios, Lord, was commonly spoken in Antioch.  These evangelists were able to tell everyone about the Kurios who is the only Lord.’

These evangelists knew the gospel, and they knew the people they were evangelising.  They engaged in (to use Stott’s phrase) ‘double listening’.  They preached the gospel in a way that was intelligible and meaningful to their audience.

Moreover,

‘the unspoken assumption is that they did so without requiring circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1, 5).’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary)

The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord – Note the combination of divine action and human reaction.

The present account makes it abundantly clear that true mission is divinely empowered: we read of ‘the hand of the Lord (v21); ‘the grace of God’ (v23); and the fulness of ‘the Holy Spirit’ (v24).

‘Even though this outreach effort occurs independently of the Jerusalem church, and without apostolic initiative, it has numerical success, which is attributed to the “hand of the Lord” (Acts 11:21; cf. Luke 1:66; 2 Sam. 3:12).’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary)

It must ever be that ‘the hand of the Lord’ is with every genuine conversion:

‘Every Christian conversion is, finally considered, a matter of divine initiative. We are, left to ourselves, ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1). To become a Christian requires a miracle of the Holy Spirit: ‘no one can say “Jesus Christ is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit’ (1 Cor. 12:3). Accordingly no Christian ministry is more dependent on prayer than evangelism, since without God’s regenerating intervention the gospel will ever be preached in vain.’ (Milne)

Milne comments on the relevance of the gospel message:

‘The Gentiles of Antioch were, in common with their contemporaries across the empire, seriously religious. The Romans, like the Seleucids before them, had erected a number of magnificent temples there, and close by the city were the renowned groves of the goddess Daphne, as well as a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo where orgiastic rites were celebrated in the name of religion. There was a widespread longing in Antioch for a worthy Lord to worship, and for a power to save from the burdens of guilt and enslaving passions, and the hidden but menacing influences of astral forces and destructive fate. The evangelists in Antioch presented a message which was precisely tailored to these yearnings: the offer in Jesus of a Lord and Saviour (‘Jesus’) who could liberate and save them from their guilt and inner bondages, and from all threatening spiritual powers; one who could meet their deepest needs and fulfil their highest longings. He offers no less to our needy multitudes today.’

Larkin notes that the evangelistic work at Antioch went across cultural and ethnic barriers:

‘In a day when a misapplication of church-growth theory’s “homogeneous unit principle” can produce monocultural churches, God’s blessing on inclusive evangelism across ethnic lines at Antioch is a necessary reminder of where God’s heart is. While he may indeed give growth within homogeneous ethnic units, such units are not his ideal, and neither should they be ours.’

11:22 A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 11:23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts, 11:24 because he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and a significant number of people were brought to the Lord.

The church in Jerusalem – Willimon remarks that it was not enough for the church in Jerusalem to hear that a ‘large number’ of people had professed conversion.  Especially in a day when the mission to the Gentiles was still in its infancy, they needed to be sure that this was a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.

‘Paul’s dramatic conversion was confirmed by an examination in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–30). Peter’s movement toward Cornelius must be affirmed by the saints at First Church Jerusalem (Acts 11:1–18). In Acts 15:1–35 Jerusalem will debate the missionary strategies of Paul. Lest we miss the significance of all this direction from Jerusalem, let us remember that Jerusalem is where the Twelve are in residence. Back in Acts 8:1, we were surprised to learn that everyone fled Jerusalem except for the Twelve. The Twelve form the historical base for the Jesus movement. Acts begins by identifying the Twelve as those who were with Jesus from his baptism until his ascension (Acts 1:21–22). They are the apostolic link with the historic ministry of Jesus, the bearers of the tradition, the source from which the mission of the church flows, the court of last appeal in the midst of controversy.’

The same writer adds that the church in every age must be open to such scrutiny and (if required) correction:

‘Why should we submit to the judgment of the Creed, the scrutiny of Scripture, the opinions of dead people? Many are suspicious of the past, seeing it as a repository of misunderstanding, injustice, and benighted ideas. The Bible is an ancient book, full of old, culturally determined values. Therefore we must make our own way, using our own experience as our only guide. We thus ignore our own culturally determined biases (for the bias of the past is usually easier to see than our own) and cut the church loose from its moorings. Jerusalem and the Twelve who reside there stand as a warning to the church that we ignore our past, we jettison the apostolic “facts” of our faith, at the greatest of peril.’

The Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to Antioch. ‘Since preaching to Gentiles had been accepted in principle by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:18), it commissions not an apostle, but Barnabas, who is nevertheless duly qualified (v. 24; cf. Acts 4:36–37), to confirm the effort as legitimate (Acts 11:22).’ (Harper’s Bible Commentary)

When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts – ‘So far from urging any legalistic demands upon the new converts, he rather instructed them to remain firm in their faith; here we see how Barnabas merited being called ‘Son of encouragement’ (Acts 4:36).’ (Marshall)

‘To “cleave to the Lord” includes loving the Lord, walking in His ways, obeying His Word, and serving Him wholeheartedly.’ (Wiersbe)

Because he was a good man – This ‘is a quality that inspires loyalty and commitment. It can mean generosity (Matt. 20:15), a quality that comes to the fore here with Barnabas’s unhesitating acceptance of this new work. Sometimes it refers to good as opposed to bad, as in good fruit versus bad fruit in Matthew 7:17. In the parable of the sower in Luke, the good soil is said to refer to “those with a noble and good heart” (Luke 8:15). To sum up, when Luke uses “good” to describe Barnabas, he is describing someone with true Christian character, a man of integrity and wholesomeness.’ (Fernando)

Fernando adds:

‘Good persons refuse to break any principles to achieve their desired goals. They do not have ulterior motives of achieving some hidden agenda as they serve in the church or the world. When they are put in leadership, we can expect them to make unselfish and principled decisions. Good persons do not lie to suit their own purposes. They do not crush others in order to climb in society or manipulate people and situations for their own ends. They do not use people and then drop them when they no longer serve their purposes. They take responsibility for mistakes.’

Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit and of faith – The latter term, obviously, refers to more than saving trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.  It suggests an intense awareness of the presence of God and of his power and purpose in the world.  Fulness of ‘faith’, then, goes hand in hand with, and springs from, fulness of the Holy Spirit.

‘His character was well adapted for this function, for he was outstanding for the Christian quality of his life; no other man is described by Luke as good in Acts, and in his spiritual gifts he stood on a level with Stephen.’ (Marshall)

Merida discusses this in terms of accountability.  Whereas, on several occasions, Jewish leaders were sent on a fault-finding mission to Jesus, here Barnabas is sent on a fact-finding mission.  This new church lacked apostolic leadership, was of a very diverse make-up, and required careful leadership and wise pastoral care.  Barnabas, the encourager, was just the man for the job.  Local ministries and missions must never be allowed to lose contact with the centre.

Fernando comments that it is possible for persons who lack integrity (i.e. goodness) to rise to positions of fame and influence in the church.  They achieve ‘results’.  They attract large followings.  They become prominent spokespersons.  But when their lack of integrity is discovered, the church and its mission are brought into disrepute:

‘At the beginning of this century liberalism posed a great threat to the church and nearly destroyed its vitality. At the end of this century worse results may come through the devastation caused by people who preach the evangelical message but lack personal integrity.’

Fernando notes, concerning Paul’s list of qualifications for leadership in the church:

‘Out of the long list he gives in 1 Timothy 3:2–7 only one element has to do with ability (the ability to teach). The rest are about the maturity, character, and reputation of a leader. There are many things that we can do in ministry without godliness and the fullness of the Spirit. We can lead meetings, prepare and deliver messages, organize and implement programs, win elections, and head committees. But we cannot help people abide in the Lord. To produce godly people we too must be godly. To produce people of prayer we too must be people of prayer. To produce people who walk close to God we too must walk close to God.’

A significant number of people were brought to the Lord – It appears from this that there was a ‘second wave’ of conversions following the arrival of Barnabas.

11:25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

Barnabas came, saw that the Lord’s hand was at work in Antioch, and encouraged the believers.  But the work of discipling needed to continue, so Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, and he brought him to Antioch.  For a whole year, the two of them met with the church and taught a significant number of people.

Tarsus was several days distant (by foot) from Antioch.

According to Schnabel, Luke’s language here suggests that Barnabas expected to find Paul in his home town of Tarsus, and would have enquired from the Jewish community there about his whereabouts.  The fact that Barnabas had to search for Paul suggests that the latter was engaged in missionary activity in the surrounding area.

But why look for Saul?  Wiersbe:

‘Barnabas knew that God had commissioned Saul to minister to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17).’

Indeed, Saul was called, qualified, and equiped to teach Jews and Gentiles alike.

The results of evangelism must be tested by apostolic tradition, and nurtured by apostolic instruction.

‘What Saul had done at Tarsus we have no idea, but we can only assume he had been teaching in the synagogues, trying to persuade his family and friends in the region that Jesus really was the Messiah spoken of in the scriptures.’ (Wright)

‘Again and again the church needs not only the people who really can take the work forwards but the people who, in prayer and humility, can spot the very person that God is calling.’ (Wright)

We need to remember, too, that gifted leaders are in danger of taking too much upon themselves.  They must learn to delegate, and to ask for help.  As D.L. Moody once said: ‘It is better to put ten men to work than to do the work of ten men.’

The relationship between these two men would be tested later, Acts 15:39; Gal 2:13.

‘The work that Barnabas and Paul did in Antioch is described as teaching the church, but this could refer to evangelism as well as to the upbuilding of existing converts.’ (Marshall)

These two met with the church in Antioch.

Schnabel elaborates:

‘The meetings with the church—if the model of the Jerusalem church is any indication of what followers of Jesus did in their meetings (2:42–47)—would have consisted of

1. 1. 1. instruction in the teachings of Jesus and in the significance of his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures and the teaching of the apostles;

      2. fellowship, including shared meals;

      3. celebration of the Lord’s supper during meals, remembering Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation, and anticipating his return;

      4. prayers of praise and intercession.

The fact that the believers are called “disciples” (μαθηταί; see on 5:11) in v. 26g places the focus on teaching and on learning.’ (Formatting added)

The note that they taught a significant number of people probably refers to a wider sphere of activity, as

‘Barnabas and Saul instructed the believers in the church and they engaged in evangelistic outreach, teaching Jews and Greeks about the good news of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah and the Savior of the world.’ (Schnabel)

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch – They were generally called something else: ‘all who believed’ (Acts 2:44); ‘the disciples’ (Acts 6:1); followers of ‘the way’ (Acts 9:2; 18:26; 19:9; 22:4).

This term was applied

‘probably first as a form of mockery by the Gentile non-believers. Jewish non-believers did not believe Jesus was the Christ, and the believers are never pictured as using the term of themselves, preferring ‘disciples’ or ‘saints’ or ‘brothers’ (Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16 are the other NT uses of the term). In a non-Jewish context ‘Christos’ would not have implied ‘the anointed one’ but probably ‘the oily one’!’ (Gempf, in NBC)

The name ‘christiani‘ seems to be a Latin construction. The ending ‘iani‘ sometimes denotes the soldiers of a particular general: Tacitus, for example, refers to Galbiani, Galba’s men. References also occur to Augustiani, Caesariani and, in the gospels to Herodianoi, partisans of Herod.

The name ‘Christian’ is used three times in the NT (Acts 11:26; 26:26, and 1 Pet 4:16).  In each of these three cases it is used by outsiders.  That this usage is very early is attested by Tacitus, who uses the term in the same way of Christians in Rome at the time of the Neronic persecution (AD 64).  For a more recent parallel, consider the use of the term ‘Methodist’ – first used by outsiders, and then later adopted by themselves.  (See the relevant article in Cross & Livingstone’s Dictionary of the Christian Church)

Merida comments that Christianity had previously been thought of by outsiders as a Jewish sect.  But, now, they are distinguished from Jews on the one hand, and from unconverted Gentiles on the other hand.

Are we known as Christians where we live, work, or study?

Famine Relief for Judea, 27-30

11:27 At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) 11:29 So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 11:30 They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

At that time – Possibly during the year that Barnabas and Saul ministered in Antioch, or perhaps more generally during the early years of the church there.

Prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch – We learn nothing about their purpose in coming, or about what they actually did in Antioch, apart from the incident involving Agabus.

Wiersbe articulates a near-cessationist viewpoint:

‘The New Testament prophets received their messages from the Lord immediately, but ministers and teachers today get their messages mediately through the Scriptures. We today have the completed Word of God from which the Holy Spirit teaches and guides us. First Corinthians 12:10 ties together the gifts of prophecy, discernment, and tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Of course, the Spirit is sovereign and can give to a believer any gift He desires (1 Cor. 12:11), but the passing of Apostles and prophets from the scene, and the completing of God’s revelation in the Word, suggest that a change has taken place.’

But this is to adopt too suspicious an attitude.  Fernando, on the other hand, writes that he can see no adequate reasons for rejecting the possibility of prophecy in the church today.  But he thinks, with Grudem, that the gift may be present, though not recognised as such:

‘Paul seems to suggest that prophecy is at least desirable, if not essential, in the community life of the church (1 Cor. 14). Wayne Grudem has pointed out that often the gift of prophecy is operating in churches without its being recognized as such. For example, sometimes in a time of prayer someone may pray something that becomes an unusual means by which God directs the group. Or a speaker may say something he or she had not planned to say, which becomes a direct message from God to someone in the audience.’

Agabus got up – Probably during one of the church meetings.

He predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come – Agabus will bring another gloomy prophecy in Acts 21:10.  But this is typical of the prophetic ministry: to speak up, even when the message might be unpopular.

‘The role of prophets in Scripture is frequently thought to have been that of prediction, but their main role was to prepare people for action. Frequently in the OT the prophets worked towards social justice, and here the important part of Agabus’ work was not so much that he successfully foretold the future, as that he encouraged and enabled the believers to help each other.’ (Gempf, NBC)

Nevertheless, the predictive element in prophecy should not be underestimated.  As Fernando writes:

‘Often, as here, prophecy involved prediction of future events. Paul considered it to have high value (1 Cor. 12:28; 14:5, 24–25; Eph. 4:11), even something to be desired (1 Cor. 14:1, 39), for prophecies contained messages from God that edified Christians (1 Cor. 14:3).’

(This took place during the reign of Claudius) – which was from 41-54 AD.  The Roman historian Suetonius confirms that there were droughts during this period.

Since the famine was predicted to affect the whole known world, it would have been understandable if the believers in Antioch had hoarded resources for themselves.  But they didn’t.  They decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.

According to Gempf (NBC),

‘from 41–54, and the Roman historian Suetonius confirms that there were droughts during this period. The gift sent via Barnabas and Saul was probably delivered during the visit spoken of in Gal. 2. The gift is not there mentioned explicitly, but Paul does say in response to Peter and John’s request to remember the poor that that was the very thing he was already concerned about.’

Marshall agrees that this visit is probably the one which is also recorded in Gal 2.  So also Wright, and many others.

Noting the different types of financial giving recorded in Acts, Peterson notes:

‘Acts does not commend any one method of giving, but sets before readers several different examples of generosity and practical care for one another. When Paul later urged individuals to make a convinced and cheerful decision to do likewise (2 Cor. 9:7), he stressed that such giving is a ‘ministry’ (Acts 9:1) which brings glory to God (Acts 9:12–13) and demonstrates the extent to which God’s grace has impacted them (Acts 9:14).’

So the believers contributed, each in accordance with his financial ability – ‘This means that each believer was free to decide how much of what he owned he would contribute to the relief mission. When Paul organized a collection for the believers in Jerusalem between AD 50 and 57, he followed the same practice (1 Cor 16:1–2; 2 Cor 9:7).’ (Schnabel)

Sending their financial aid to the elders – These elders may have been the same people who are designated ‘deacons’ in Acts 6:1-6, to whom the apostles had delegated responsibility for the care of the needy.

Wiersbe notes that

‘The purpose of true prophecy is not to satisfy our curiosity about the future but to stir up our hearts to do the will of God.’

Willimon invites us to ponder Luke’s mention of money:

‘Not content to let us bask in the bright glow of successful evangelization of pagans or new church development, Acts insists that we attend to the significance of what the church does with its gold. Judas betrayed his Lord for cash (Acts 1:18). Ananias and Sapphira deceived the Holy Spirit and died because of money (Acts 5:1–11). Simon appeared a fool in trying to purchase the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18). Later, we shall see Paul and Silas jailed when they disrupt the business practices of some Philippians (Acts 16:16–24). The silversmiths of Ephesus rioted when the gospel disrupted their source of income (Acts 19:23–41). Love of money is one of the most insidious forces with which the gospel must contend. The battle between the truth of Christ and our homage to cash is relentless.

‘…Jesus excoriated the Pharisees, telling them that ritual purity was not as important for their spiritual well-being as almsgiving (Luke 11:40–41). When Jesus lectured on the duty of charity (Luke 16:9–13), Luke observes, “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him” (Luke 16:14). In Acts the Christian community is shown to be adhering to the best traditions of Israel in its almsgiving. It is not a matter of reaching out to the “deserving poor” or “helping the poor to help themselves”—the puny justifications for charity one often hears today. Almsgiving is obedience to God’s will.

‘Conversion is proved by charity. If the rich ruler desires to follow Jesus, he must go sell all and distribute to the poor (Luke 8:18–30). Zacchaeus must give half of all of his goods to the poor (Luke 19:1–10). Genuine repentance is accompanied by a change in one’s relationship to one’s own goods as well as generosity to the poor.’

On the role of elders in the apostolic church, Wiersbe comments:

‘The word elders in Acts 11:30 has not been used before in Acts, except to refer to the Jewish leaders (Acts 4:5, 23; 6:12). In the church, the elders were mature believers who had the spiritual oversight of the ministry (1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1). When you compare Acts 20:17 and 28, and Titus 1:5 and 7, you learn that “elder” and “bishop” [overseer] are equivalent titles. The elders/bishops were the “pastors” of the flocks, assisted by the deacons; and the qualifications for both are found in 1 Timothy 3.

‘Wherever Paul established churches, he saw to it that qualified elders were ordained to give leadership to the assemblies (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In the Jerusalem church, the Apostles and elders gave spiritual oversight (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22).’

‘The church should always be open to the cry of the poor, from whatever quarter it comes, and should always be ready to respond by sending its best help and its best people. The first ‘Christians’ were not just known as ‘the king’s people’. They were known as people who, precisely because that ‘king’ was Jesus himself, were committed at the deepest level to giving themselves in love to one another and to all in need.’ (Wright)

Wilcock comments on the help that this (mainly Gentile) church sent to the (mainly Jewish) churches in Judea:

‘There is more to this than meets the eye. For these Christians were the church of Antioch, and the congregation which had come into being at Antioch was the first church in the world which was not primarily Jewish. The mother church in Jerusalem had literally never seen anything like it, and there must have been Hebrew Christians who doubted whether such a phenomenon could be a true church at all. No wonder a deputation was sent to see what was going on. Barnabas was sufficiently convinced when he “saw the grace of God” at work in Antioch. But how is this new congregation to vindicate itself publicly as a true congregation of God’s people? The answer of the New Testament is, by rising to the challenge of the temple. “Who then will offer willingly?” cried David in the days of the first temple, and the Chronicler in the days of the second. The third temple, the New Testament one, is no longer a building but a people, yet in its thoroughly practical need to be supported by gifts in cash and in kind, it provides the same down-to-earth test of a true devotion to the Lord.’ (In The Message of Chronicles [BST], 114) See 1 Chron 29:1-9.

Peterson notes that:

‘The sending of a gift from the mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Antioch to the more established Jewish Christian communities in Judea is an important expression of solidarity across social and cultural boundaries.’

Echoing Spencer, Peterson adds that this sharing of the means to obtain food is the equivalent of the table-fellowship recently achieved in the household of Cornelius.

Willimon stresses that the importance of mutual dependence between churches in every age:

‘These gentiles really have been converted, for they evidence the time-honored Jewish practice of philanthropy. As the Jews in Jerusalem generously reached out to include even the gentiles in the gospel, so these gentiles reach out to share what they have with their less fortunate brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. The church is not isolated congregations, each going its own way, looking after its own household. The church consists of congregations yoked to one another—older congregations like Jerusalem giving birth to new ones and guiding and nurturing them in the true faith; younger congregations like Antioch responding to fellow congregations in need.’

A balancing comment by Larkin draws attention to the situation in the ancient world and that pertaining in our modern (Western) world:

‘In our time, in the Western world and increasingly elsewhere, decades of social legislation have made the state responsible for meeting the physical needs of our neighbors, including fellow Christians. Antioch’s example, then, raises the hard question: How much personal responsibility do I feel for the physical needs of others, especially the church in the Two-Thirds World? Though we cannot meet every need that global news brings to our attention, we can still do something to live out the holistic liberality that is an essential mark of being Christians.’