WHEN THEY HAD passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.
5But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. 6But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” 8When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil. 9Then they made Jason and the others post bond and let them go.
10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
13When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. 14The brothers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. 15The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.
Original Meaning
AFTER LEAVING PHILIPPI, Paul, Silas, and probably Timothy passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, possibly spending the night in those cities. They traveled ninety to one hundred miles along the great Roman road, the Egnatian Way, until they reached Thessalonica (now called Salonika) (v. 1). In this city their next ministry began.
Ministry in Thessalonica (17:1–10a)
THESSALONICA WAS THE capital of the whole province of Macedonia and its largest and most prosperous city. “As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue” and spoke there on three Sabbaths (v. 2). He must have stayed there much longer than three weeks, for he later writes that he worked day and night in Thessalonica so as not to burden the people there (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8), and that while in that city he also received “aid again and again when [he] was in need” from the church in Philippi (Phil. 4:16). The result of the ministry of Paul and Silas was the conversion of several Jews and God-fearers (v. 4). Paul’s comment in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 indicates also that many of those converted were pagans: “You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” Six key words describe the evangelism of Paul and Silas in Acts 17:2–4, which will help us in constructing a biblical theology of evangelistic proclamation (see below).
Seeing that their influence over various people had diminished, the Jews were jealous (cf. 5:17), and they resorted to ignoble means to fight the missionaries. They used “some bad characters from the marketplace . . . and started a riot” (17:5a). It was not the last time that religious people used the very people they were supposed to be transforming into good people to do their dirty work. Because Paul and Silas had probably been taken to a safe place, their host Jason and some brothers were taken to the city officials (vv. 5b–6a). The title Luke uses for the city officials, polytarches, has “been found in inscriptions ranging from the second century B.C. through the third century A.D. and applied almost exclusively to Macedonian cities.” Evidence from five inscriptions referring to Thessalonica indicate that “a body of five politarchs ruled the city during the first century A.D.”1
Portraying the evangelists as “men who have caused trouble all over the world” (v. 6b) is severe. But it is true that turmoil often results when the gospel challenges people to change their lives, and usually such turmoil originates with those who reject this challenge. The charge against Paul and Silas was that they had defied Caesar, “saying that there is another king,” Jesus. Many scholars feel that it was sensitivity to this charge that caused Paul to decrease the emphasis on the kingdom of God and the kingship of Jesus in his letters “lest Gentile imperial authorities misconstrue them to connote opposition to the empire and emperor.”2
There had been trouble in Rome in connection with the Jews for some time. The events in Thessalonica may have occurred in the spring of A.D. 50, shortly after Claudius expelled Jews from Rome (in 49) following riots associated with Jews and Christians.3 The authorities would not have wanted a repetition of such problems, and the Jewish opponents would have exploited that fact. Jason was released after posting bond, probably assuring the politarchs that he and the “other brothers” would not cause any more problems and would see to it that Paul and Silas left the city. This is the presumed background behind Paul’s statement that he, Silas, and Timothy were torn away from the Thessalonians and that Satan stopped them from returning (1 Thess. 2:17–18).
Ministry in Berea (17:10–15)
PAUL PROCEEDED SOUTH from Thessalonica rather than following the Egnatian Way, which continued west toward Rome. His next stop is Berea (present-day Verria). Berea was not as important a city as Philippi and Thessalonica, but it was a Greek-speaking town unlike the western towns that belonged to the section known as “free Macedonia.” David Gill feels that this may reflect Paul’s “desire to remain within the Greek-speaking world rather than have to cope with the problems of different cultures.” The three Christian communities he founded on this trip were in a position to take the gospel westward (see 1 Thess. 1:8). Gill suggests that Paul may have visited “free Macedonia” on his next trip.4
In keeping with their usual practice the team started off at the synagogue (v. 10) and made the pleasant discovery that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians” (v. 11a). Luke gives two reasons for this commendation: “They received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (v. 11b). As we will show below, they expressed an attitude of humble receptivity that lies at the heart of faith.
Luke records that among the converts in Berea were many Jews and “also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men” (v. 12). One of the converts, Sopater, accompanied Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem. Both in Thessalonica and Berea prominent women were among those converted (vv. 4, 12). It seems that in Athens too prominent people were converted (17:34).
But Paul had to make a sudden and rushed exit from Berea as well. Jews from Thessalonica arrived and roused the crowds in Berea, just as they had done in Thessalonica. Paul was sent with a group from Berea to the coast and traveled to Athens. The first few weeks in the life of a new church are most important, and the new believers need to be provided for. Therefore Silas and Timothy stayed on in Berea with instructions to join Paul as soon as possible (vv. 14–15).5
Note Paul had to flee from all three Macedonian cities in which he ministered. This must have been difficult for him to take, but he left behind three stable churches.
Bridging Contexts
A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY of evangelistic proclamation. Six key words (all verbs) describe the evangelism of Paul and Silas; they are helpful in the construction of a biblical theology of evangelistic proclamation (vv. 2–4). (1) Paul “reasoned” (dialegomai) in the synagogues (v. 2). This Greek word occurs ten times in Acts 17–24 in reference to Paul’s ministry6 and became “a technical term for Paul’s teaching in the synagogue.”7 Scholars have not reached a consensus about the meaning of this term. In two of its other three occurrences in the New Testament (Mark 9:34; Jude 9) dialegomai has the idea of “argue, fight with words.” In Acts, however, “it approaches the meaning of give an address, preach.”8
Many have given dialegomai the meaning of dialogue, but that does not seem to be the primary focus of that word. Fürst thinks that the audience was permitted to ask questions.9 According to Marshall, in Acts “dialogue or debate arises . . . as a result of the initial proclamation. . . . The objective is always to correct misunderstandings of the gospel.”10 David Williams suggests that “instead of straight teaching, as in the synagogues of the East, [Paul] seems to have proceeded by means of ‘discussion.’ ” The appearance of dialegomai “here for the first time in Acts . . . may indicate a change of style in response to a different environment.”11 A recent detailed study of Paul’s preaching by D. W. Kemmler also suggests that dialogue may be included along with formal and continuous discourse.12
Whether or not the word dialegomai implies discussions, the record in verses 2–3 shows that the viewpoints of the hearers were given due weight in Paul’s evangelistic preaching. Yet we should note that dialegomai is not used in Acts in the philosophical sense in which it is used in classical Greek. As Schrenk explains, “in the sphere of revelation there is no question of reaching an idea through dialectic.”13 God has spoken, and we are called to proclaim that message by expounding it. But in our proclamation we will face objections and questions that need to be carefully answered in order to prove (paratithemi, v. 3; see [3], below) the validity of the Christian scheme. Today we call this apologetics.
(2) How the reasoning that constituted apologetics was done is explained in verse 3 with two more key words: “explaining” (dianoigo) and “proving” (paratithemi). Dianoigo literally means to open, and the idea behind this word is well expressed in Luke 24:32: “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” The subject expounded from the Scriptures was that “the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:3a).
(3) Such an exposition would have encountered opposition from Jews, to whom the cross was a stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23). Thus, to the exposition Paul added “proving” (paratithemi),which means he carefully answered questions posed to him, responded to their objections, and demonstrated the validity of his claims.14
(4) Paul “proclaimed” (katangello) a clear message about Jesus Christ to the Thessalonians (v. 3b). The outline of his preaching given in verse 3 resembles the summary of his gospel presented in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4. David Williams observes, “If there were any doubts earlier about the centrality of the death of Jesus in Paul’s preaching . . . they are dispelled.”15 As we pointed out earlier (see comments on faith in 16:31), the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts had the same message.
(5) The next two words, “persuaded” and “joined” (v. 4), describe the response to the message. The aim of apologetics is not simply discussion so that we can know what each other believes. Rather, it is to “persuade” (peitho). This verbis particularly relevant because Luke uses it seven times in Acts to describe Paul’s evangelism.16 In 2 Corinthians 5:11 Paul himself said, “We try to persuade men.” This use of peitho has been defined as “to convince someone to believe something and to act on the basis of what is recommended.”17 Such confidence in our message derives from the conviction that we are bearers of the definitive revelation from God to the human race. If the Creator and Lord of the universe has given a final message to the human race and we know it, then we must do everything in our power and within our principles to bring people to appropriate that message into their lives. Evangelism, in other words, aims at a response, a response so comprehensive that it can be called a conversion.
(6) Conversion is also implied in the word translated “joined” (proskleroo), which appears only here in the New Testament. There is some question about its exact meaning, but whatever it is, the idea is that the new believers joined the company of the apostles.18 Their minds had been changed and they had made a decision about the truth. They took the next step: “They attached themselves to the missionaries, casting their lot with them, come what may.”19
The above discussion shows us that evangelism involves proclaiming the message of Christ, especially his death and resurrection. The proclamation may20 include discussion, and it aims at persuading people so that they will be converted to Christ and incorporated into the church. This is not a comprehensive definition of evangelism, but we can say that all biblical evangelism must have these features.
Evangelism and opposition. As noted above, whenever the gospel challenges people to change their course of action, turmoil often results, instigated by those who reject this challenge (vv. 5–9, 13). Jesus predicted this in Matthew 10:34–36:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
“a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
While persecution and antagonism are inevitable, we know from Paul’s actions in Acts that he did all he could to reduce opposition and to establish legal legitimacy for the Christian movement. This is why he cited his Roman citizenship when under attack (16:37; 22:25–28; 23:27), and this is the most probable reason why he appealed to Caesar later on (25:11).21
Paul’s fleeing from all three churches in Macedonia must have been hard for him to take, and he was deeply affected by it. Shortly after these events he wrote the Thessalonians, “Brothers . . . we were torn away from you” (1 Thess. 2:17). He also told them, “We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi” (2:2). Bruce thinks that this is why, writing about the visit he made to Corinth a few weeks later, he said, “I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Cor 2:3).22 Moreover, the new Christians were also persecuted. Paul was so distressed about this that he sent Timothy to encourage them (1 Thess. 3:1–6).
But the news Paul eventually received about them from Timothy was encouraging (1 Thess. 3:6–9). In fact, Paul held up the Macedonian churches as examples to other churches on how to face “severe suffering” (1:6–7) and on how to express rich generosity in the midst of trial (2 Cor. 8:1–6). The tone of his letters to the Philippians and Thessalonians suggests that these churches brought him the greatest joy.23 Suffering experienced during evangelism may not be as big a tragedy as we think when we first experience it.
The heart of noble character. When Luke makes a complimentary statement about the character of people, we do well to examine that character trait and seek to emulate it. He explains the noble character expressed in Berea: “They received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (v. 11b). It was the Bereans’ eagerness to hear from God and respond to what they heard that made them noble. We will show below that this lies at the heart of nobility for all people, even those who have been converted.
Social levels in Paul’s churches. The mention of prominent people as converts through Paul’s ministry (vv. 4, 12) raises questions about the long-held consensus that the early Christians were for the most part poor people. This view may have been influenced by the late second-century writing of Celsus,24 who was “the first pagan author we know of who took Christianity seriously enough to write a book against it.”25 There he caricatures Christians as poor, ignorant people from the lower strata of society.26 But a consensus seems to be emerging now that “a Pauline congregation generally reflected a fair cross-section of urban society,”27 with prominent members of society and poorer people coming together in the same church. In fact, some of the wealthier members seem to have acted as patrons, upon whose generosity the churches depended.28
Wayne Meeks’s influential book The First Urban Christians conveniently summarizes the evidence for the existence of wealthier people in the Pauline churches. But Meeks, who worked primarily with the Pauline letters, does not think that there were people from “the extreme top . . . of the Greco-Roman scale” in the Pauline churches.29 Even this is now contested by David Gill, who, after discussing the material in both Acts and the Pauline letters, concludes that “there are now good reasons to think that the Christian communities became established in part through élite families of the main urban centres in the eastern provinces.”30
Earlier we noted that the Jerusalem church and the church in Antioch were heterogeneous churches.31 This characteristic was carried over into the Pauline congregations.
Contemporary Significance
PROCLAMATION IN A pluralistic age. The key words for Paul’s evangelistic preaching apply today. Paul expounded the death and resurrection of Christ even though it was a stumbling block to the Jews. In our eagerness to be relevant and sensitive to people’s needs, we may be tempted to ignore the cross. Since many people have lost the sense of a holy God, they may not be aware of the seriousness of sin. Thus, as we seek to present Christ as the answer to their problems, we may feel tempted to concentrate on their felt needs rather than the needs they should be addressing. A good way to solve this problem is to start by showing the relevance of the gospel to felt needs and to deal with the questions people are asking. Once we have won their attention through this “bridgehead,” we can move to the questions they should be asking—how to be saved from sin in order to be right with a holy God—which Christ answered on the cross.
In other words, in the preliminary process of proclamation, healing and discussions on contemporary problems are helpful. But we must always look for a way to bring up the message of Christ and his death and resurrection. It seems to me that while the contemporary church is developing effective models to meet people’s felt needs, it is not looking seriously enough for effective ways of communicating the message of the cross and empty tomb.32
The philosophical idea of dialegomai in classical Greek (reaching an idea through dialectic) represents a closer model to understanding contemporary evangelistic proclamation than the biblical idea. It fits in with the pluralistic philosophy that has swept through much of our society. Pluralists are calling for apologetics to be replaced by dialogue. But the dialogue they speak about is a meeting of minds where no one wants to cause another to change religions. Rather, each one seeks to enrich the other.33 John Stott represents a more biblical approach:
Although there is an important place for “dialogue” with men of other faiths . . . there is also need for “encounter” with them, and even for “confrontation,” in which we seek both to disclose the inadequacies and falsities of non-Christian religion and to demonstrate the adequacy and truth of, absoluteness and finality of the Lord Jesus Christ.34
Receiving feedback as to what our hearers are thinking through questions, observations, or objections is a necessary part of evangelism, especially when witnessing to non-Christians. It enables us to find out how they have understood what we have communicated. After giving an evangelistic message on John 3:16 at a Youth for Christ meeting I spoke to a Buddhist youth who had been in the audience. He told me that his religion says the same thing as I had said, whereas I thought this message showed clearly the difference between Christianity and Buddhism. He had filtered my Christian terminology through the Buddhist way of thinking in his mind and emerged with a Buddhist message from my talk!
Commitment to proclamation does not preclude listening to others. When people describe their views, we must give them full attention. Sometimes, in a witnessing situation, we may listen more than talk, for we should not rudely interrupt someone else’s description of his or her views. We are servants, and it should not bother us if they dominate a conversation. Of course, love for this person will cause us to look for every opportunity to share the liberating news of Jesus. Part of our listening may involve reading what non-Christian writers have to say about their religion, rather than only reading apologetic material written by Christians (cf. comments on Paul’s ministry in Athens [17:16–34]).
I want to add here that there is another type of dialogue that often takes place between Christians and those of other faiths that should not be classed under evangelism but nevertheless may be a valid activity. It is a natural expression of what Jesus meant when he said of his disciples, “My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. . . . As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (John 17:15–16, 18). Though we are not of the world, we do go into the world and participate in its activities. Jesus, for example, ate with tax collectors and sinners and earned the criticism: “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners’ ” (Matt. 11:19). We meet with people who are different from us but among whom we live, and we talk and socialize with them. Among the things we talk about is religion.
As a result, we may have discussions where people of different religions participate and share each other’s views. When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I did this regularly with a group of students in our neighborhood. We met in a Muslim home on Saturday nights. The majority of those who met were Muslims; there was also an atheist (a disciple of Bertrand Russell) and a somewhat nominal Christian. We discussed many things, including politics, sports, world affairs, philosophy, and religion. I always went there as a witness of Christ and often talked about my faith. I yearned for the salvation of these people, and they knew that (only the nominal Christian came to faith in Christ). Our meetings were not strictly evangelistic events, yet what I learned from them has been important in my own pilgrimage.
Evangelicals have generally shied away from this type of dialogue, especially since many of a liberal persuasion have substituted such dialogue for evangelism. But this is not evangelism at all. It is an exercise in community living and learning, just like discussions that take place on marketing, management, sports, politics, or technology. It can be conducted in a formal setting or an informal setting.35 Of course, in our heart of hearts we long for the conversion of these people. But sometimes the rules of the discussion prevent us from using persuasion in the way that is usually practiced in evangelism. Such personal discussions can help in understanding other faiths in a much richer way than other means (e.g., reading books) provide. Such understanding will help our proclamation and can also open people to being receptive to the Christian message.36 Let me emphasize again that this is not evangelism and thus does not really belong in a discussion of Paul’s theology of proclamation in Acts. But I discuss it here because it is a key issue today that is often discussed in connection with dialogue in evangelism.
Paul not only expounded the gospel from the Scriptures, but he also practiced apologetics. Those who seek to be biblical in evangelism should become both expounders and apologists. In my early years of ministry I saw myself as a Bible expositor, and part of my expository ministry was to explain the gospel to non-Christians. But they began to present objections and ask questions I found difficult to respond to. As I kept searching for answers, I began to realize that to be an effective witness for Christ meant getting into apologetics too.
In other words, we aim to persuade people so that they will accept the truth of the gospel. It is not surprising that, like apologetics, persuasion is also frowned upon in regard to religion as an expression of intolerance and of disrespect for others. This is strange because, as Donald McGavran reminds us, persuasion is “the basis of all learning, progress and commerce.”37 For example, it lies at the heart of marketing and political campaigning. In reality, persuasion is an expression of our respect of individuals and our belief in their potential under God. If we know that someone who has the potential of receiving eternal life is holding to a false belief that is hindering that life, we will seek to persuade that person about the truth. But we will do so in a way that reflects the respect we have for the individual.
There are, of course, disrespectful ways of persuasion. One way is imposition, which John Stott describes as “the crusading attempt to coerce people by legislation to accept the Christian way.”38 Another way is manipulation, where factors not basic to the gospel are brought to bear on people to cause them to change their religion. Manipulation can take place through the stirring of the emotions so that people lose control of their wills. It can occur when someone offers incentives, like the promise of jobs, if one converts to a religion. Some cults manipulate people through a process of brainwashing or the force of strong personality, where they surrender their wills to the group.39
Peter describes the proper balance between conviction and respect in proclamation in these words: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15b–16a).
Responding to opposition. When, out of sacrificial love, we share the good news with people and encounter opposition and misrepresentation, that fact can be difficult to accept. But the gospel is so radical that many will see it as a cause that is turning the world upside down (v. 6, ASV, KJV). We must never forget that. Note what Jesus said: “Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20). The history of the churches in Macedonia teaches us that suffering is the matrix out of which strong and healthy churches can emerge.
If we remember this, we will not be surprised and angry over the opposition we face. Anger over opposition is a trap that many fall into, and it results in blunting their witness and dampening their joy in the Lord. The biblical approach has been well expressed by Paul to the Thessalonians: “You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6). A key for facing this suffering, then, is to ensure that we have “the joy given by the Holy Spirit.”
However, as we discussed in our study of Paul’s ministry in Philippi, we must also be careful to ensure that we do everything in our power to show that proclaiming the gospel is within the bounds of legality, and we should do nothing to antagonize our opponents unnecessarily. This is the probable reason why Paul left Thessalonica against his wishes (1 Thess. 2:17). He would rather leave the area than antagonize his opponents further, for that would make life more difficult for the believers in Thessalonica.
How to be like the Bereans today. Does Luke’s attribution of nobility to the Bereans mean that they were more deserving of salvation than other people? Did they have an inherent qualification that caused them to merit salvation? That would go against the biblical teaching that no one merits salvation. On the contrary, their nobility lay in their willingness to acknowledge their need, resulting in an eagerness to hear from God and to receive what they heard. This in turn resulted in their salvation. They came down from their pedestals as people of high standing (cf. v. 12, “prominent Greek women”) or as people of high Jewish heritage (“many of the Jews”) and, like hungry children in need of food, they sought God’s Word.
In the Bible, nobility is childlikeness—the refusal to make claims of nobility for oneself. Jesus said, “Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3–4). The character trait that Jesus recommends here is an attitude of repentance—of need, of admission that one possesses no merit. Such people are open to learn from God what he wishes to teach and receive from God what he wishes to give.
This is the heart of Christian faith: an attitude that makes people continue to go to the Scriptures in order to learn more and to grow. Just as salvation is through faith, so is growth in the Christian life. When we study the Bible, it is not some meritorious act through which we can claim to have grown spiritually. Bible study that pleases God is an expression of faith. It is an attitude that says, “I am needy. You alone can satisfy my need. You have spoken a message and it is recorded in the Bible. I will go to that book as a hungry baby seeks her mother for milk.”
In 2 Timothy 3:14–17 Paul shows how the same attitude to the Word that opens the door to salvation also opens the door to Christian growth. Verse 15 connects Scripture with salvation: “and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Paul then connects Scripture with growth (vv. 14, 16–17):
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it. . . . All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The attitude we are describing is well expressed in a memorable quote from John Wesley:
To candid, reasonable men I am not afraid to lay open what have been the inmost thoughts of my heart. I have thought: I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow through the air. I am a spirit come from God and returning to God; just hovering over the great gulf till, a few moments hence, I am no more seen, I drop into an unchangeable eternity! I want to know one thing: the way to heaven, how to land safe on that happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end he came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be homo unius libri [a man of only one book]. Here then I am, far away from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone—only God is here. In his presence I open, I read his book from this end, to find the way to heaven.40
It is not easy today to get people to receive a message with great eagerness or to examine the Scriptures as the Bereans did (v. 11). In this postmodern world the emphasis is on personal truth that resides inside of us. Truth is viewed as subjective, and people resist the idea of objective knowledge and of eternal, unchanging truths. People are getting less and less used to studying books. Expository preachers even find it difficult to get people to become alert enough to direct their eyes to the Bibles in front of them. They prefer to look with glassy eyes at the preacher, often with their mind on something very different to what is being preached!
Thousands of aids to Bible study are in print today, which are supposed to simplify the task of studying the Scriptures. They may simplify study, but often they become a substitute to careful study of the Word. Without examining the Scriptures for answers, people read the answers that others have given to the questions they ask. Moreover, this is an age when people are so used to receiving predigested material from television that they find going to the Scriptures to do inductive study to be something strange.
There is an urgent need, then, to lead our people to discover what Oletta Wald has called The Joy of Discovery in Bible study.41 And it is indeed a great joy to discover God’s truth through personal study of the Word. We need a new generation of Christian leaders who will first of all set apart time to do this for themselves. They will then communicate their enthusiasm for Bible study to those they lead. They will help raise up a new crop of Berean Christians.
Heterogeneous churches. We have already discussed the significance of the heterogeneous churches found in Acts.42 Here we will only repeat the fact that having Christians of different social and cultural backgrounds within the same local church not only accords with the biblical pattern but also demonstrates in a vivid way the power of the gospel to unite humanity. In a world that is being torn asunder by ethnic strife, this may be one of the most powerful contemporary demonstrations of the glory of the gospel we have to offer the world.
We need to be specialized in our efforts to evangelize different cultural groups, as the church growth specialists rightly advocate. But we must also do all we can to incorporate people from these groups into the wider church, both to demonstrate the power of the gospel to unite people and to mutually enrich us through the contributions they make to our understanding of the gospel.