Commentary on Acts 14:5-13

By Bob Myhan

⁵And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone them, ⁶they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region. ⁷And they were preaching the gospel there.

We should not think, because of the “onset” (ASV) here spoken of, that the preaching of the Paul and Barnabas was largely unsuccessful in Iconium. They had not only planted the seed but had planted a congregation in the city (see verses 21-23). Nor should we think the apostles were cowards. No doubt they had bestowed miraculous spiritual gifts on at least some, so the gospel could continue to spread even in the absence of the apostles. And the lost of Lystra and Derbe needed to hear the gospel, as well. The proximity of Lystra to Iconium also shows that they exhibited great courage in preaching the gospel there. It should also be noted that Paul did not use miraculous power as a defense for these powers were for the revelation and confirmation of the word. The “rulers” mentioned here are most likely Jewish rulers of the synagogue, rather than city officials, inasmuch as they had a predilection for stoning.

⁸ And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother's womb, who had never walked. ⁹This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, ¹⁰said with a loud voice, "Stand up straight on your feet!" And he leaped and walked.

 It should be noticed that, unlike today’s supposed “faith healers,” the apostles did not send men ahead to advertise a soon-to-come healing service, so that everyone with an imaginary ailment can show up to receive a miraculous cure. Healing was only done by the apostles on a situation by situation basis. Healing was never for its own sake but to confirm the preaching as the inspired word of God. Faith on the part of the one who would be healed was not a condition of healing. Peter and John, for example, healed another man who had been lame from his mother’s womb when the lame man clearly was not expecting or even asking for such (3:1-11).

No doubt Paul had to speak with authority in order for the man to exercise what faith he had. It is most likely that Paul spoke with a loud voice so the crowd would hear and watch to see what happens. Paul passed the first test of a prophet.

And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'-- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Dt. 18:21-22)

When Paul commanded the man to “stand up straight on your feet,” the man did not merely stand up straight on his feet; he “leaped and walked.”

¹¹Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" ¹²And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

 It should be remembered that the Gentiles, though pagan, were not irreligious. Rather, they were devoted to the gods they worshiped, though those gods had no real, objective existence. They existed only in the minds of their worshipers. The KJV has Jupiter and Mercury, the Roman equivalents of Zeus and Hermes, likely because it was thought that the people would be more familiar with the Roman than with the Greek pantheon.

¹³Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.

The priest of Zeus, thinking the gods had come to earth, intends to worship Barnabas and Paul with pagan sacrifices.

(To be continued)

A Study of the Holy Spirit (Part 17)

By Bob Myhan 

Some claim that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Act 2:38 IS the Holy Spirit and that He personally and literally indwells every Christian. But this writer is convinced that they do not understand the indivisible nature of an individual person, even a divine person, as is the Holy Spirit. Consider for a moment the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River by John the Baptist.

When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." (Luke 3:21-22)

Here we have all three members of the Godhead—the Father in heaven, the Son on earth and the Holy Spirit descending from heaven to earth. It has long been argued, and correctly so, that since there are three distinct persons in three different locations, the Oneness doctrine (that there is only one person in the Godhead) is unbiblical. It should be remembered that John the Baptist was to “be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). He had just baptized Jesus so there are four persons in the scene above. Hold that thought.

Now, personal, literal indwelling advocates insist that the Holy Spirit is both literally and personally in the body of every faithful Christian. If that is true, then it seems to this writer that the Holy Spirit is not a single individual but a plurality of individuals.

Back to the scene above. If it is affirmed that the Holy Spirit is personally, and literally in the dove and in John the Baptist, how can it be argued that the Oneness doctrine is unbiblical? If the Holy Spirit can be in John literally and personally and in the dove literally and personally, why can He not be in the body of Jesus literally and personally and still be in heaven literally and personally, saying, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased"? And why would this not make the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus who, in turn, would be the Son of the Holy Spirit? It then could be argued that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is the Father. Would this not be equivalent to the Oneness doctrine? If not, why not?    

(To be continued)