(A) Introduction (Read the reference.)

Like many other passages in the book of Acts the first part of this chapter is about conflict between Christian activists and their opponents. The truth is still resisted and that is what makes Luke's account of relevance today. Paul knew what he was writing about when he penned these words to the Ephesians: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Eph12v12.

(B) Paul's Method.

When Paul and Silas arrived in Thessalonica they did what they always did and went to the local synagogue to address the Jews and God-fearing Greeks. Paul reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining 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. v2.

There are several points to note about Paul's method:

(a) He was prepared to tell religious people what they did not want to hear.
Paul told the congregation in the synagogue that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. v3. The Messiah was not the all conquering earthly king that the Jews expected. Indeed the Jews rejected their Messiah and engineered his crucifixion. However this was in the will of God. The sacrificial death of Jesus was redemptive. He was the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. It required courage to talk to Jews along these lines. It was not the message the majority wished to hear.

Christians are easily upset today. Those who attend church for one service a week do not like to be warned about their lack of appetite for God's word. Those who never meet for prayer get jumpy if rebuked for neglecting a fundamental Christian activity. The mean hate being told to give, the legalistic detest being reminded of their liberty, the exclusive resent being lectured on church unity and Calvinists foam at the mouth if it is suggested that faith can be lost.

Most church secretaries are very sensitive to any criticism of the speaker that they have engaged. It only takes a few disparaging remarks from a couple of sniffy members of the congregation for a speaker to be struck off the church secretary's list. The preacher is not the only one who needs to display some courage.

(b) Paul's message was controversial.
Paul's preaching was always divisive. Some of the Jews were persuaded but others were jealous of the influence he was exerting over the Gentiles.

It is never pleasant to make enemies; to be unloved. The Jews specially targeted Paul. When 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. v13. Such was the animosity of the Jews to Paul that the brothers in Berea sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. v14. The Jews realised that Paul would never allow Christianity to be absorbed into Judaism. He is hated by modern Jews for pointing out the limitations of the Law of Moses and making the Christian position clear: You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised in Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal3v26to29.

(c) Paul was uncompromising about the basics.
There were certain basic truths that Paul proclaimed over and over again and upon which he would never compromise. Jesus was the Messiah sent from God. He died that men and women might be forgiven for the wrong that they have done God. He rose from the dead to give eternal life to all who believe on his name. Paul would have reiterated that great statement of Peter's: Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. Acts4v12.

The basic truths of Christianity might even yet get us into trouble. Those with most to say about Britain as a multi-faith community believe that one faith is as good as any other. They usually have no faith themselves and speaking patronisingly in terms of religious faith providing comfort to those in need of it - poor things. Christianity is not about giving solace to the fearful but about reconciling God and man. Only Jesus can bring about reconciliation. See my section on the 'Last Judgement' in the article on 'Heaven and Hell.'

(d) Paul reasoned with the Jews.
Paul did not address his audience in the same sort of way as modern evangelists preach the gospel. He debated with the synagogue congregation in both Thessalonica and Berea. Paul asked questions and expected answers. Paul took questions and gave answers. Paul reasoned, discussed and argued. This is a much more demanding process than delivering a monologue. In debate you need to be master of your brief.

I think many rather staid and lazy church congregations would be horrified by Paul's approach. Let us suppose he was the visiting speaker at a Baptist church where several who attended each Sunday had not been baptised. Paul gets up to speak and he starts with a question: "Would any disciple of Jesus Christ who has not been baptised like to explain to me why that is?" It would not be a rhetorical question. Paul would wait for someone to respond. Imagine the uneasy silence. It is too embarrassing for words. No-one says anything and Paul waits and waits. Would he ever be asked back to preach again? I don't think so!

(e) Paul explained the relevance of the Scriptures to the life of Christ.
Paul proved from the Old Testament that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. v3. Luke does not record here how Paul did this. I think that by far the best description of how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament revelation is found in the book of Hebrews. See for example my exposition on 'The Superior Sacrifice.'

I think it very unlikely that Paul would be able to put the case for Christianity on TV, the radio or in the tabloid press today. The most he would be allowed is a few sound bites. Serious Bible scholars contribute infrequently to TV or radio discussions of religious issues. Someone like Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones was rarely given the opportunity to broadcast.

At Thessalonica: Some 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. v4. Paul persuaded some of the Jews by reasoned argument but a lot of them were unwilling shift their ground. I recently had an e-mail from an American Theologian about my interpretation of Jesus' words to the dying thief. (See 'After Death' section of Article on 'Heaven and Hell'.) My correspondent hesitated to express her disagreement because in her experience people disliked having their religious opinions questioned.

Why is it that that most religious folk find it difficult to change? There are at least 5 reasons:

(a) Pride doesn't allow us to accept that we are wrong and someone else is right.
One day I was out bird watching with my friend Tommy Bamber. I spotted a bird in the distance and sang out, "There's a bullfinch in the tree ahead." As Tommy swung his binoculars round the bird flew off. Why do they always do that! Tommy said, "There's no white showing in its arse - it's a chaffinch JR." Now usually I bow to Tommy's superior wisdom despite his coarse use of language. But on this occasion I insisted that I could tell a bullfinch from a chaffinch. I wasn't a complete novice .... But the bird did not show any white in its bottom and so it could not have been a bullfinch. My pride kept me from admitting I was wrong. All Christians I are quite happy to confess that they are sinners but remarkably reluctant to own up to a mistake.

Christian theologians through the years have reacted to their critics in much the same vein as the Pharisees to the man born blind. The man put up a reasonable defence of Jesus. He said, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he (Jesus) comes from, yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." The Pharisees did not respond well to the rational remarks of the man who was born blind. To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out. John8v34. The Pharisees abandon reason for abuse. They exclude from their deliberations someone who dares to criticise them.

When John Huss and later Martin Luther pointed out failings of the Roman Catholic Church the hierarchy would not be told. Their reaction was more or less identical to the Pharisees - "How dare you lecture us!" John Huss and Martin Luther were thrown out of the Roman Catholic Church. If the leaders of the Church had shown more humility and admitted that errors needed addressing the Reformation might never have happened.

It is by no means only the Roman Catholic Church that is at fault! I have written several closely reasoned letters to my own Association of Grace Baptist Churches protesting about policy but never recieved a rational reply. All I get is something like this: 'The policy has been carefully discussed by a forum of pastors and elders. A decision has been made and we are not going to change it.' That does not constitute a satisfactory response. I don't imagine Paul would ever answer a critic like that. Jesus was subject to very hostile questioning but always attempted to enlighten his opponents.

(b) It undermines our confidence to admit that we are wrong.
There are quite a lot of Christians who are quite insecure. They fear that if they are wrong about one thing then they may be wrong about most things. They cannot admit to one error for fear that their whole faith will be undermined and the house will come tumbling down. Such folk are building on the sand. The Christian who obeys the Lord Jesus Christ is building on the rock and it would take a lot more than to be proved wrong on a few points of doctrine to bring the house down. Jesus said: "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock." Mt7v25.

Fundamentalists adopt a similar attitude to the Bible. They feel that if any factual error in Scripture is admitted this will undermine confidence in God's Word. How can any of it be trusted? They seem to overlook the fact that for 2000 years it has been tried and tested and does what the writer to the Hebrews claims: For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Heb4v12. (See my exposition on this verse.) The Bible addresses man's spiritual needs not because it is inerrant but because God inspired it.

(c) We are frightened of losing credibility.
Church leaders and theologians are reluctant to admit error because they fear it will undermine their reputations and authority. Christian scholars are not alone in this. In 1910 Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of Continental Drift. His ideas were opposed by contemporary geologists and geophysicists not least because Wegener was a meteorologist.

As a schoolteacher I was keenly aware of the need to exercise authority. A schoolteacher stands in need of authority more than a scholar of any description. Admitting to a mistake never diminished my authority. One afternoon I noticed, 'Ann Branston sits here', carved into a desk. The next time Ann came into the room I informed her that she was going to stop behind at the end of the lesson and sandpaper the desk. She went ballistic. "I've had enough of you ******** teachers," she shouted - and stormed out. Later I examined the desk again with my mark book open. It seemed unlikely that Anne Branston would write 'Ann Branston sits here.' I had made a mistake. A few days later, during registration, I apologised to Anne in front of her form. It did not demean me. Anne was perfectly well behaved from that time on. One girl came to me and said, "I admire you, Mr Reed, for saying that you were sorry."

People are more likely to admire and trust us if we acknowledge our mistakes.

(d) We may be jealous of someone who is better informed than we are.
Sadly it is not uncommon for Christian leaders to close ranks against an advocate of change who is more gifted than they are. A man who thinks clearly, who presents his case convincingly, who handles Scripture expertly and is blessed with success does not invariably exert influence over those above him in the religious hierarchy. There are not many like Apollos who let Priscilla and Aquila put him right.

Some teachers are jealous of their young, up to date, enthusiastic colleagues. I was very fortunate in my first head of department. He said to me, "John I don't know much about Geomorphology - you can take over teaching that at A level." Mr Smeltzer was not jealous of my knowledge but glad of it. He saw that it would strengthen the Geography teaching in the school. I have always been grateful for the freedom I was given to experiment and develop my skill in that first teaching post.

The Jewish leadership envied Jesus and engineered his crucifixion. Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were jealous of Paul's influence and stirred up trouble for him in one town after another. Envy and jealousy are not sins that are often preached about. They are terrible twins and frequently conspire to silence an opponent of error and advocate of truth.

(e) We are reluctant to abandon beliefs we find comforting.
The Jews must have found it reassuring to believe that they were God's chosen people. They were Abraham's seed and the Children of Promise. Paul taught: If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal3v29. Orthodox Jews would have found that little word, 'if', disturbing.

I know lots of people who hang onto beliefs that are not true simply because they are comforting. People like to think that their loved ones are in heaven looking down with wry amusement at the antics of their friends and family on earth. This is not something the Bible teaches. Many believe in the, 'Final Perseverance of the Saints'. This doctrine states that once a person has exercised saving faith they cannot be lost. Yet Hebrews was written because Christian Jews were apostatising. If genuine Christians cannot fall away there is no point to the Epistle to the Hebrews. (See the Exposition on Heb10v26to39.) Although I spent months carefully expounding Hebrews to the long suffering members of our prayer meeting it made not the slightest difference to their beliefs. Those who believed 'once saved always saved' at the beginning of my talks still held this belief at the end - because they found it a comfort. I can almost hear a reader of a Reformed disposition, if such a one should exist, saying, "Good for them!" I found it profoundly depressing! There are other Christians who are sure that God will save everybody. Usually these Christians have lost someone much loved and very precious who did not believe in Jesus. They cannot bear to think that a cherished father, mother, husband, wife or child will be judged unworthy of eternal life. There are numerous references to judgement and the destruction of the unrighteous in the New Testament. All of them are ignored in order to hold on to a belief that provides comfort.

(D) Opposition tactics.

The Jews who opposed Paul:

(a) Made a bad alliance.
Luke writes: So they rounded up some bad characters from the market place, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. v5. The Jews resorted to the low life of the city to stir up trouble for Paul and Silas. Their actions were despicable.

It is always bad when churchmen look for worldly allies. It was scarcely becoming when the liberal Bishops in the Church of England looked for allies in the media during the controversy over appointing an unashamedly gay Bishop.

(b) Made a false accusation.
They said: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here." v6. My dear father used often to quote the Authorised Version: "These that have turned the world upside down are come her also." He loved that phrase - 'turned the world upside down.' Sadly it is not a good translation. The Jews were accusing Christians of making trouble.

This accusation was rich come from the Jews who had employed 'rent a mob' to discredit the Christians. It was not Paul and Silas who were causing trouble but the jealous Jewish opponents of Christianity. It was they who started the riot.

Similarly it wasn't the Evangelicals in the Church of England who instigated the trouble in the Church of England over the appointment of a gay Bishop; it was the crafty Bishop of Oxford who tried to force the issue on homosexuality.

I suppose there are some Grace Baptists who would classify me as a troublemaker. I certainly am not! For years, although not in agreement with Grace Baptists over certain matters of doctrine, I was quite passive. It was only when the militants demanded that all churches in the Association made a commitment to the Calvinistic Articles of Faith in their entirety that I protested. This was a new departure instigated by those pastors who wept to show their love for the Doctrines of Grace and insisted that all weep with them!

(c) Misrepresented the message of Paul and Silas.
The Jews accused the Christians in Thessalonica before the city officials of, "Defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus." Jesus was a king; he admitted as much to Pilate. But his kingdom was, 'Truth'. Pilate did not consider that the King of Truth posed a threat to Caesar and pronounced Jesus innocent of any wrongdoing. Jesus had resisted the temptation to rule the world. He came to win men's hearts and rule their conduct.

Evangelical Christianity is misrepresented by its enemies. We are accused of bigotry, obscurantism, intolerance, censoriousness and harshness. We lack compassion and forgiveness. Our attitudes are exclusive rather than inclusive. Evangelicals should be more like Jesus who was inclusive, forgiving and compassionate. Yet Jesus made many scathing remarks about the Pharisees; he was contemptuous of Herod - "Go tell that Jackel..."; he took a whip to the money changers in the temple; the Master even told a young man he loved that there was no place for him in the Kingdom until he had sold all his possessions and given the proceeds to the poor. It is easy to show from the New Testament that Jesus set very, very, high standards. He said, "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Mt7v14.

The opposition tactics did have beneficial results. It is possible that Jason was a tentmaker and that he employed Paul and Silas on a casual basis. The crowd rushed to the house of Jason to apprehend the two missionaries. However the two men had been forewarned and taken into hiding. As a result Jason and a few other Christians appeared before the magistrates. They were bound over to keep the peace. In other words they were made responsible for preventing any more riots. So Paul and Silas were sent away at night.

Paul regretted being moved on. It is clear from his epistle to the Thessalonians how much Paul longed to with them: But brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you..... 1Thes2v17. However it was probably best that Paul kept moving on. Every time he was forced out of one town he went on to another with the gospel. The Thessalonian's loss was Berea's gain.

God often works like this. As one door is slammed shut another opens wide.