article50

§45 In Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9)

From Philippi, Paul and his companions traveled to Thessalonica. Here they followed their usual pattern of ministry wherever a synagogue could be found. They would preach there, and from the synagogue would come their first converts. But from the synagogue also came their fiercest opponents, and in Thessalonica the Jews again succeeded in having the missionaries effectively banished (cf. 13:50). The story is told briefly, the lack of detail making us feel the loss of Luke’s company. By telling us only the story of their relationship with the synagogue, Luke gives the impression that the missionaries were only in Thessalonica for three Sabbaths, but it is clear from Paul’s letters that they were there for much longer—long enough for a church to be established with its own leaders (1 Thess. 5:12) and for outlying areas to be reached with the gospel (1 Thess. 1:7); long enough to warrant Paul’s working “day and night” so as not to be a burden on the church (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8); and long enough for the church at Philippi to send him gifts (Phil. 4:16).

17:1 / By following the Egnatian Way to the west and the south, they passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, apparently without making a long stay in either. The comment that in Thessalonica there was a synagogue implies that there was none in these towns (no evidence of any has ever been found). The two towns may only be mentioned, therefore, as their overnight stopping places, and if we make the further assumption that each of these stages of about thirty miles was completed in one day, then we must conclude that they made the journey on horseback, perhaps thanks to Lydia’s generosity.

Thessalonica (formerly called Therma) had been refounded by Cassander and named after his wife, the daughter of Philip II of Macedon and the half-sister of Alexander the Great. It became the capital of one of the four republics into which Macedonia was divided in 167 B.C., and when these were later combined to form one province (148 B.C.), it became the capital of the whole (see disc. on 16:12). Because the city had sided with the eventual victors of the battle of Philippi, it was rewarded by being made a “free city,” governed on Greek rather than Roman lines by its own elected magistrates and by its citizen assembly (dēmos; see disc. on vv. 5f.). Luke refers to each of these institutions, giving the magistrates their correct title of “politarchs,” attested by a number of inscriptions found in this area. The provincial governor had his residence in Thessalonica, and important military and naval bases were located there also. In Paul’s day it was one of the great seaports of southeastern Europe, with an estimated population of about two-hundred thousand. Its Jewish community appears to have been correspondingly large, certainly so by comparison with Philippi, which is only as one would expect. There would be little to attract Jews to a military colony and much that would draw them to a cosmopolitan and commercial city such as this.

17:2–3 / The missionaries began their work in the synagogue as was Paul’s custom (v. 2; cf. Luke 4:16 for the same expression). There for three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving his message (vv. 2, 3). Since Luke has already furnished us with an example of Paul’s synagogal preaching (13:16–41), he is here content merely to hint at his message (the direct speech is probably due to Luke’s familiarity with Paul’s preaching—he did not have to be there to know what he said) and instead gives us an insight into his method. He began with the Scriptures (lit., “from the Scriptures”), but instead of straight teaching, as in the synagogues of the East, he seems to have proceeded by means of “discussion” (Gk. dialegesthai; cf. our “dialectic”)—an expression that appears here for the first time in Acts (cf. v. 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 20:7, 9) and may indicate a change of style in response to a different environment. “True, it was proclamation, but it was not take-it-or-leave-it proclamation. It was proclamation plus explanation and defence” (W. Barclay, AHG, p. 166; but see G. Schrenk, “dialegomai,” TDNT, vol. 2, p. 94). Out of this discussion he was able to “explain” the Scriptures (lit., to “open” them; cf. Luke 24:32) from his own Christian perspective and so to “prove,” first, that Jesus was the Christ (see note on 11:20); second, that the Christ had to suffer, that is, to die (see disc. on 1:16); and third, that he had to rise from the dead (v. 3). If there were any doubts earlier about the centrality of the death of Jesus in Paul’s preaching (see disc. on 13:39), they are here dispelled. The outline resembles 1 Corinthians 15:3f., and as that passage makes clear, it was the gospel preached not only by Paul, but the message preached by them all.

17:4 / The result of this preaching (as so often elsewhere) was that some Jews were persuaded, including perhaps Aristarchus (see disc. on 20:4) and Jason (cf. vv. 5, 7); but by far the best response was from the God-fearing Greeks (see notes on 6:5 and 13:14), of whom Secundus may have been one (see disc. on 20:4). Among the God-fearers were not a few prominent women, though the Greek could equally mean “wives of the leading men.” In Macedonia either was possible (see note on 16:13; see also disc. on 1:14; 13:50). That the converts are said to have joined Paul and Silas implies that the missionaries had by now withdrawn from the synagogue and were conducting separate meetings (see disc. on 14:27 and notes). The verb “to join” is literally “to assign by lot” and occurs here in the passive—these people “were allotted to Paul and Silas [by God]” (see disc. on 2:47). But some take the passive as equivalent to the middle voice, “they threw in their lot” with the missionaries. From the outset this church was predominantly Gentile, and before long the great majority of its members appears to have come straight from a pagan background with no previous contact with the synagogue (cf. v. 5).

17:5 / Though Paul was permitted to speak in the synagogue for only three Sabbaths, his letters indicate that he and the others stayed in Thessalonica much longer than this (see introduction to this section). Indeed, they seem to have had no thought of leaving. But the jealousy of the Jews would not leave them in peace (cf. 13:45). They determined to be rid of Paul and Silas and formulated a plan to bring them before the assembly on a charge of sedition. And to give some grounds for this charge, they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace and organized them into staging a riot (cf. 14:4f., 19; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). No charge was better calculated than that of treason to start a riot in the city, and with the stage thus set for the successful prosecution of the missionaries, the rioters, presumably led by the Jews, rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the dēmos, that is, to “the assembly of the people” (NIV mg).

17:6–7 / But their plans went awry. Paul and Silas could not be found, and without them they could hardly appear before the assembly. In frustration, therefore, they seized Jason and some other brothers (v. 6) and dragged them, not to the assembly as originally planned, but to the politarchs, accusing them of offering hospitality to the seditionists. The charge had to be shouted because of the melee. Concerning Paul and Silas they alleged that they had caused trouble all over the world (lit., “have turned the world upside down,” i.e., the Roman Empire)—an exaggeration, of course, but an indication of how close communications were between the Jews of the Diaspora. The “first missionary journey” had evidently left a deep impression on the Jews of Asia Minor, and this was known to their co-religionists in Macedonia. In detail the charge was two-pronged. Paul and Silas were accused of defying Caesar’s decrees—an assertion difficult to understand, if it had any basis, unless Paul’s preaching had been construed as a prediction of a change of ruler; there were imperial decrees against such forecasts—and of saying that there was another king (v. 7). This was the same charge that had been brought by the Jews against Jesus (cf. Luke 23:2; John 19:12, 15). In neither case was it deserved, for the kingdom they preached was not of this world. But to the Jews “Christ” meant “king,” and since the latter was the title generally applied to the emperors in the lands east of Rome, they could maliciously accuse the Christians of proclaiming a rival to Claudius. That Christians so often called Jesus “Lord” would have lent further color to this accusation.

17:8–9 / These charges were made in public with disturbing effect on both the crowd and the city officials (v. 8). The accusations were serious and had to be taken seriously. But on investigation, the politarchs seem not to have found the evidence as convincing as the accusers had hoped (cf. v. 9, they let them go), though they did impose certain penalties on the Christians. They “took security” from Jason and the others that Paul and Silas would not preach any more in Thessalonica. This explains the missionaries’ sudden departure. In 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 18, we have Paul’s own reflection on this turn of events, which he attributes to Satan through the instrumentality of the Jews. He might not have taken his dismissal so tamely had Jason not given his word. As it was, he and Silas had no option but to abide by it. Paul’s removal did not put an end to the harassment of the Thessalonian Christians. Those who were left behind were subjected to a persecution that to Paul (who of course would know) seemed as severe as that which the Jewish Christians had endured (1 Thess. 2:14; 3:1–5; 2 Thess. 1:6). Nor did his absence lessen the calumnies of the Jews against him in particular (1 Thess. 2:13–16).