And he came to Derbe and Lystra and behold, a certain disciple was there, by name Timotheus, son of a Jewish believing woman, but [the] father a Greek,
Paul comes back to Derbe and Lystra, where an earlier visit had ended in a stoning. There he finds a young disciple with a divided home, and the verse raises two questions: where did this disciple come from, and why does Luke name his parents?
Paul had been stoned in these streets. Commentators point to what he found when he came back.
This chapter opens with Paul back at Derbe and Lystra — back, that is, to the scenes where he had suffered the stoning. In those very places he now finds Timothy, who was to become in his later years such a comfort to him. A happy illustration of how God's government acts in favour of the godly. We tend to think of it only as acting against the ungodly. Out of the place of Paul's sufferings sprang one of his greatest comforts.
Timothy is already a disciple when Paul arrives. That points back to earlier work.
Luke says little about the other results of the apostle's visit to Derbe and Lystra. Our attention centres on a "young disciple" there. So Timothy was not converted at this time. No doubt he was converted during the apostle's earlier visit, for Paul speaks of him as his "true child in the faith". Paul had become his father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
That earlier visit was violent, and the boy may well have watched it happen.
Timothy fully knew what persecutions Paul endured at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra. Most of these persecutions happened on Paul's first missionary journey, when Timothy was perhaps only a boy. But he knew all about them, and he may have seen some of them himself. At Lystra the crowd stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, thinking he was dead. Very probably the boy Timothy stood among the disciples who gathered around him when he rose up and entered the city.
Two generations of faith stood behind Timothy. Commentators tie his mother's faith to the Scriptures he learned as a child.
Paul traces Timothy's faith back only to where the Christian faith began in his family, with his grandmother: "a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice" (2 Timothy 1:5). We learn from this same letter that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures from childhood — and who can doubt that he learned them through the teaching of these godly women, or at least his mother? The grandmother and the mother had embraced the Christian faith, and so had Timothy. The apostle seems to treat this as proof that "the faith" was all the more real in Timothy's soul. It also laid on him a still more solemn duty of faithfulness to the Lord in this loose and corrupt period of the church. Every reader must conclude that it is a priceless blessing to have godly parents — parents who seek to bring up their children in the nurture and instruction of the Lord.
The other half of the verse carried a stigma. Under the older law, a marriage like this one was a breach of order, and the children of it had no standing.
Confusion had entered into the practical life of the Jews, as it had among Christians. The mother of Timothy was a Jewess, his father a Greek — a thing unlawful among the Jews. His mother was godly, and his grandmother too. Now such a marriage was completely contrary to the custom of the Jews. See Nehemiah 13:23-31; Ezra 9, 10. According to these books the sons and daughters counted as heathen. They had to be rejected and sent away, along with the wife. It was a disorder.
By the law's reckoning, then, Timothy's parentage was a disorder. Luke's first note about him is his mother's faith.
Luke introduces Timothy by what believers around him said of him, not by his gifts.
They must above all look for the evidence that it is God who has called him. This involves the principle mentioned when Timothy first went out with Paul: he "was well spoken of by the brothers" (Acts 16:2). There were those who knew him well.
Paul had just parted from Barnabas.
They did not have to go far before they found a new companion, Timothy of Lystra. He was to fill the gap caused by the disagreement with Barnabas. Paul lost the fellowship of Barnabas as a friend and brother. But in Timothy, his own son in the faith, he found a sympathy and a fellowship that ended only with the apostle's life.
- Ground. The town that stoned Paul is the town where God had Timothy waiting. Suffering ground became seed ground.
- Fruit. Luke calls Timothy a disciple before Paul arrives. The earlier preaching had taken root and lasted.
- Home. A believing mother and grandmother taught him the Scriptures from childhood. Commentators call godly parents a priceless blessing.
- Stigma. By the law's reckoning a Greek father left Timothy outside. The verse still opens his story with his mother's faith.
- Sending. Before Timothy goes out, believers who know him vouch for him. That test still applies to anyone claiming a call from God.
who had a [good] testimony of the brethren in Lystra and Iconium.
Paul returns to Derbe and Lystra and finds a young disciple named Timothy. The only thing Luke records about him here is what other believers said of him — so what qualifies a person for the Lord's service?
Luke gives almost no detail about Timothy's work. Instead he records the verdict of believers in two towns.
Scripture says little about the other results of the apostle's visit to Derbe and Lystra. It concentrates our attention on a "young disciple" there. So he was not converted on this visit, but no doubt during the apostle's earlier one. Paul speaks of him as his "true child in faith." Paul had brought him to new birth in Christ Jesus through the gospel. His circumstances were unusual. He was the son of a believing Jewish woman, Eunice, but his father was Greek. The believers in those parts gave him an exceptionally good testimony.
So Timothy was no new convert. He had believed since Paul's earlier visit, long enough for those living near him to form a settled view.
Lystra was not neutral ground for Paul. It was the town where a crowd had stoned him.
This chapter opens with Paul back at Derbe and Lystra — back, that is, to the scenes where he had suffered the stoning. In those very places he now finds Timothy, who was to become in his later years such a comfort to him. A happy illustration of how God's government acts in favour of the godly. We are apt to think of it only as acting against the ungodly. Out of the place of Paul's sufferings sprang one of his greatest comforts.
Timothy learned the Scriptures from childhood. He had probably also seen for himself what following Paul cost.
His home was in either Derbe or Lystra, probably Lystra. His mother was a believing Jewish woman named Eunice. Genuine faith lived not only in her but first in his grandmother Lois. His father was a Greek, and since he had never been circumcised, he may have been raised as a Greek. Even so, he knew the Holy Scriptures from earliest childhood. The brothers who lived in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him… It was at Lystra that a crowd stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, thinking he was dead. Very probably the boy Timothy was among the disciples who "stood around him" when he "rose up and entered the city." He must also have known how John Mark had turned back from the very path of service to which he was now called. Yet he did not hesitate to follow Paul, though he must have known it would mean sharing the same kind of persecution. I wonder how many of us would have done the same.
Timothy was shy by nature, and Paul took him anyway.
Timothy was timid by nature (2 Tim. 1:6-8), yet Paul clearly saw him as a dependable worker with a good report from the believers. This always matters if you are concerned about doing the work of the Lord.
A servant answers to the Lord, not to men. Yet the believers who live alongside him still have a part to play.
The servant's viewpoint and the assembly's must stay quite distinct in this matter. The servant is to be God's servant only, and not man's. Even so, the assembly has to judge whether it can share fellowship with him in his work… Above all, they must look for evidence that God has called him. This involves the principle mentioned when Timothy first went out with Paul: he "was well spoken of by the brothers" (Acts 16:2). There were people who knew him well.
The same kind of witness followed Timothy later on.
The presbytery were the company of elders who doubtless knew Timothy, and so testified to it. (Compare Acts 16:2.)
- Home first. Faith in Lois and Eunice, plus the Scriptures from childhood, shaped Timothy before anyone spoke well of him.
- Then witness. He had been a disciple since Paul's earlier visit, and those who lived beside him gave him an exceptionally good testimony.
- Reaching further. The good word reached beyond his own town to Iconium.
- Then the call. Paul took Timothy as a dependable worker with a good report. That still matters for anyone who wants to do the Lord's work.
- Then fellowship. The servant belongs to God, not to men. The believers' part is to recognise God's call and stand with him, as the elders later did for Timothy.
Him would Paul have go forth with him, and took [him and] circumcised him on account of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew his father that he was a Greek.
The battle over circumcising Gentile believers had just been fought and won. Then Paul takes his new young helper and circumcises him. Why did the son of a Greek father need this at all? And why did Paul refuse the same thing for Titus?
Everything in this verse starts with Timothy's parents.
Confusion had crept into the everyday life of the Jews, as it had among the Christians. Timothy's mother was Jewish, his father Greek — a thing unlawful among the Jews. Such a marriage went completely against Jewish custom. See Nehemiah 13:23-31; Ezra 9 and 10. Those books count the sons and daughters as heathen, to be rejected and sent away with the wife. It was a disorder. The Jews all knew his father was a Greek. With a Jewish mother, Timothy's position was a scandal to them, and the apostle removes the scandal. In their eyes the Greek father had made the mother impure. They would have had plenty to say if her son brought them the gospel.
So where did the law stand on a child like Timothy?
To circumcise Timothy was precisely what the law would not have done. Everyone knows that when a Jew and a Gentile married, the law would have nothing to say to their children. In law, a Jewish father could not own his own children by a Gentile mother, and the same the other way round. (See Ezra 10.) Timothy was the child of such a marriage. So no one had any claim to circumcise him, even if it was allowed. And just because there was no such claim, Paul stoops in grace to those on lower ground, and stops their mouths completely. Grace knows how and when to bend, no less than to be as unflinching as a rock.
Paul wanted this young man with him, and there was a practical problem to solve.
Timothy's father was a Greek, so Timothy was not circumcised. Jewish circles would not have accepted him. Paul knew this and circumcised him... In Timothy's case it was simply a matter of removing something that would have got in the way of his service for the Lord. Paul was not concerned to keep up an appearance of consistency that would have been only skin-deep. Here was a God-given helper in the work, and it was best to remove all that would hinder his labours.
With Titus, Paul refused. Why the difference?
The two cases look alike, yet the apostle treats the men very differently. This difference of action involves a principle, and breaking it has been the fruitful source of division in the Church of God. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." In itself it makes no difference. But the moment anyone tries to impose it, we must resist firmly. Otherwise the liberty of the gospel is damaged, or conscience toward God is wounded. In this case it was "false brothers," not unbelieving Jews, who tried to impose circumcision and so bring the gospel under Jewish law.
Another writer states the rule in one sentence.
Paul could circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), because no one could demand it. But with Titus, where they did demand it, the apostle firmly refuses. Grace knows what is consistent with the truth of the gospel.
Picture the believers watching this. Many of them would have judged Paul for it.
Here we find a principle of real importance for our guidance. It matters all the more because Paul did something that many, one can imagine, would judge him for. It is remarkable how ready people are to judge those who know far better than they do. People who know very little are the readiest of all. Nothing is easier than forming a judgment. Whether the grounds are adequate and the conclusion sound are other questions... What alarm this must have caused among the believers, especially the Gentiles! The battle for Gentile freedom from circumcision had just been fought and won.
- Free of claim. Timothy was the child of a mixed marriage, so the law had no claim on him. This was never obedience to Moses.
- Free to give. No one could demand it, so Paul was free to give it. Grace bends where law cannot command.
- Free for reach. Everyone knew Timothy's father was Greek. Uncircumcised, he would have found Jewish doors closed.
- Free to refuse. When others demanded circumcision, as with Titus, Paul refused outright. The same liberty that yields also resists.
- Free from opinion. Paul would not protect a surface consistency. The verse warns us against quick judgments of servants we do not understand.
And as they passed through the cities they instructed them to observe the decrees determined on by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.
Paul, Silas and Timothy travel from town to town on a new journey. They carry a written decision from Jerusalem about circumcision and the law for Gentile believers. Two questions come back again and again: what were these "decrees," and how could one gathering hand rulings to another?
The dispute was over whether Gentile believers had to take on circumcision and the law. The answer lifted a weight instead of adding one.
No one should ask them to be circumcised or tell them to keep the law. The letter only reminded them to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). This left the grace of God in all its pure reality and blessing. When the Gentile believers heard it, they were glad of the encouragement.
The ruling did not stay in Jerusalem.
Paul and his companions left the decrees with the churches. So the Jews there had Jerusalem's own decision: the law did not bind the Gentiles.
The verse names who framed the ruling. It was not one church sending orders to other churches.
When the Holy Spirit speaks of the decrees, He says in Acts 16:4 that they were the decisions "reached by the apostles and elders." It was the apostles and elders who had come together to consider the matter. ... Could any gathering today, sure that the word teaches a doctrine, send a decree to other gatherings? No! There was an authority and a capacity then which no longer exist.
The same writer adds that apostolic authority is not what settled the matter. What mattered was where the ruling came from.
God had not allowed Paul and Barnabas to settle the question at Antioch. Such a decision would not have ended the argument. It would have left two separate assemblies. But the moment the Jewish Christians and the assembly at Jerusalem granted liberty to the Gentiles, no one could stand against their freedom from the law. The apostles did not settle this point by their apostolic authority, though that authority did confirm the decree.
Paul hands out a letter that frees Gentiles from the law. Just before this, he had circumcised his new helper. Some readers call that a contradiction.
At Jerusalem the circumcision of the Gentiles met the strongest resistance. On his new journey into Asia Minor Paul carried the decrees to the assemblies and delivered them. Those decrees had clearly freed the Gentiles from any laying of the yoke of the law on them. Yet at Lystra he himself circumcises Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father. For some this is inconsistency enough to discredit the whole story. ... He clearly uses the rite in the fullest Christian liberty. That liberty is always the freedom to give up your own privileges whenever it better serves the love that moves us to seek souls for Christ.
There is a striking silence later. The same disputes come up in Paul's letters, and he never points back to this document.
Scripture records this of the apostle and his companions. It is all the more worth noticing because the letters never mention these decrees, even when the questions discussed at the council come up there for an answer. Here again we have to see the wisdom of God. The decrees went where Jewish influence was strong. They had the highest value in settling the doubts of people who looked up to Jerusalem, and above all to the apostles and elders there.
The two approaches do not clash. They belong to different moments.
The decrees suited the time and the place of the people who received them. Paul was notably eager to hand these decrees to churches already formed where there were many Jews. But when he wrote his letters, later in the exercise of his apostolic power, he settles the question quite apart from the decision at Jerusalem. He settles it by the truth of Christ and His work, now fully revealed.
The result was not friction but strength and growth.
The group of travellers, now larger, carry with them the decrees decided on by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. These have a happy effect. They confirm the assemblies in the faith and add to their number. It is grace that establishes the soul and wins the heart to God.
- Settled — the letter refused to lay circumcision or the law on Gentile believers. It asked only that they keep away from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.
- Sourced — the apostles and elders framed it. Commentators hold that no gathering today has that authority to send rulings to others.
- Strategic — a ruling from Paul and Barnabas at Antioch would have left two rival assemblies. Coming from Jerusalem, it silenced every objection.
- Free — the man who carried this charter of Gentile freedom had just circumcised Timothy. Liberty includes the freedom to give up your own rights to win people.
- Grace — the decrees strengthened the churches and added to their number. It is grace, not rules, that settles the soul and wins the heart to God.
The assemblies therefore were confirmed in the faith, and increased in number every day.
Paul and his companions carried the letter from Jerusalem from city to city. Luke sums up the result in one line: strength on the inside, growth on the outside. So what made these churches strong, and can anything else do it?
The letter came from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. One writer explains why it was such good news to the Gentile believers who received it:
As they passed through the cities, "they delivered the decrees of the apostles and the elders for them to keep." This was a lasting testimony. Suppose the Christian Jews wished to put their brothers from among the Gentiles under the law of Moses. Then they were acting against the mind and authority of the apostles and elders — the men whom the Lord had established for Christ by the Holy Spirit, and who were an authority in the Jewish church itself. That the Judaisers had no authorisation at all from the leading men gave the Gentile brothers a source of joy, and so they were established in the faith.
So what makes an assembly stable? One writer rules out one answer first:
Here we get the first thought of establishment in relation to the Church, and what is it? Support from the world? Far from it! It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit through this beloved apostle and his fellow workers. It is the ministry of the truth that sets people free — takes them out from under law, puts them into liberty, and into the sense of "the true grace of God in which you stand." The Greek word for "establish" means "to make stable, or strong." That is real establishment. It is God's support and God's ministry, though it comes through human lips.
The same writer adds the other side. Wherever the world touches the church, God's people learn to lean on human help instead of on the Lord, and the result is dry and fruitless.
One writer traces both halves of the verse to grace, and names what argument does instead:
"The assemblies then were being strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily." So the Lord used the action of grace to help forward His testimony. Agitation is very destructive. It harms the settling of the soul, and it harms the progress of the work among new converts. Faith is fed by grace, not by questions that breed strife. Nor is it fed "by foods" — the apostle's somewhat scornful name for Jewish controversies, "which did not benefit those who followed them." And grace cannot be separated from Christ, who is "the same yesterday and today and forever." Questions apart from Him are met by varied and strange teachings that only unsettle the mind. It is good for the heart to be established by grace.
Luke writes "the churches" in the plural. Kelly reads the growth as fresh assemblies springing up, or at least as their numbers rising daily. Many assemblies did not mean many rival bodies:
In the first few years of the church's history the spread of the gospel was remarkable. The companies of believers multiplied fast, and the numbers of individual believers rose quickly. Yet they were still all together in the same purpose, though not in the same place. There was a unity between them; they were one in the things of the Lord. They walked together in the truth, and acted together in faith and love. Across large districts, though there were many assemblies, there was but one church.
One writer turns the verse into a question he asks of himself:
Where the word of God has its way in each believer and in the company together, increase is bound to follow. So that verse is often a challenge to me — why is there no increase? Why should it be decrease? The fault cannot be on God's side (that would be blasphemy)... So the difficulty must be on our side... This need not be numerical, although we would like to see that. Numbers alone are not always a sign of increase according to the mind of the Lord.
- Cause. The letter from Jerusalem removed a burden. The apostles and elders refused to put Gentile believers under the law of Moses, so the churches had something to stand firm in.
- Gift. The Spirit's ministry through Paul and his fellow workers made them strong. The truth sets people free; no support from the world can do that.
- Grace. Grace feeds faith; disputes never do. Agitation harms the settled believer and the work among new converts alike.
- Reach. The churches were many companies across many cities, yet one church. They walked together in the truth and acted together in faith and love.
- Result. Strength and daily increase arrive together. Where the word of God has its way, increase follows. So when increase is missing, the question is for us, not for God.
And having passed through Phrygia and the Galatian country, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia,
Paul is midway through a second journey. He crosses inland country in what is now Turkey, and the obvious next step is the rich province of Asia on the coast. Instead the Holy Spirit stops him. That raises two questions: who decides where the work goes, and how does a servant know when God says no?
The verse names who gave the order. It did not come from a sponsor, a committee, or a senior colleague:
Take, for example, Acts 16. In verse 6, Paul and his fellow-reapers were "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia." In the next verse we read, "They attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." No archbishop, missionary board, or self-styled "general" was directing their movements. It was THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. In Acts 13, when Paul and his companions set out to preach, we read that they were "sent out by the Holy Spirit." Evangelists, pastors, and teachers are the Lord's servants, and only He has any right to direct or command them.
Paul already had orders to preach everywhere. That did not make the choice of where and when his own to settle:
The broad commission is to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." That in no way sets aside the need to be subject to God about the way it is carried out. His own interest in the work is so great that He cannot leave the questions of time and place — or any other matter in a work so precious — to chance, or to the judgment of men, which can fail. Even an apostle needed this, and always did. Everyone who would have success in his work must take every doubtful point into God's presence for guidance. They pass through Phrygia and Galatia, where we later hear of disciples who are largely, if not entirely, the fruit of their work at this time.
The verse does not say how the Spirit forbade them, and commentators differ. One writer takes it as an inward check they felt rather than words they heard:
They had Asia on their mind, but they felt no freedom to go. There was no joy, no sense of the Spirit's guidance. So they had to wait until it was clear. They did not wait long, and God's larger purpose was soon revealed.
Another writer sees a direct ban in one case, and something gentler in the other:
When they reached Mysia, Bithynia lay to the north or north-east, and Asia to the south. He would have gone in both directions, if he had been allowed. In the first case the Holy Spirit forbade him outright. In the second the Spirit did not let him go, which seems to show a less direct kind of guidance, working more through circumstances.
The ban says nothing against the people of Asia. The refusal was about timing:
He knew all hearts, and He alone can use any mouth for God's glory. So the Holy Spirit forbade them to speak the word in Asia now. Those who believe in man may show their real unbelief in God by finding fault with this ban. Those whose confidence is in His grace will admire His care: He led them to the right place of testimony then, and He worked later in the very place He now forbade.
Two shut doors left only one road, and it ran to the coast:
They could turn neither to the right hand nor to the left, so they travelled on to Troas. It was God's purpose that Paul and his company should find their proper sphere of service at that time in Europe, not in Asia. The plan of the work and its development were both of the Holy Spirit. And when they reached Troas, Paul understood why God had turned him from his own purpose, and how wise that was.
Why would a faithful worker need to be stopped?
So it is very important to remember that it is no different in the work of the Lord. There the worker is always in danger of being guided by fair appearances, or of following what pleases his own mind, or perhaps the suggestions of others whom he respects.
- Directed — the Holy Spirit Himself steered the workers. No board, office or human leader stood over them.
- Detailed — orders to preach everywhere do not settle where and when. Those questions still go to God.
- Denied — God refused Asia for now, and later worked in the very place He had closed. A shut door is not a verdict on the field.
- Diverted — blocked on the right and the left, they walked on to Troas, and only there did the reason appear: Europe.
- Dependent — even an apostle could be pulled along by fair appearances or by advice he respected. That is why the Spirit checked him.
having come down to Mysia, they attempted to go to Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;
Paul and his companions reach the edge of Mysia and turn north with a plan of their own. For the second time in two verses the Spirit stops them — so what kind of "no" was this, and why the new name for the One who gave it?
Some older English Bibles read only "the Spirit" here. The better text names Him more fully.
There is no doubt at all about the true reading of the last clause of Acts 16:7. It is: "the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them." The Revised Version, or any recent translation, will show the English reader this. The phrase is unusual. We do well to ask why verse 6 calls Him "the Holy Spirit" and verse 7 calls Him "the Spirit of Jesus." … The title seems meant to remind us of the truly evangelistic heart of the Lord Jesus when He was on earth.
One answer looks at how Jesus Himself lived on earth.
Christ lived in unwavering devotion to the will of God. He was obedient in all that He did and all that He said: "Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Everything in His life pleased God. Everything was under God's direction, subject to the Spirit's guidance. We read of Him led by the Spirit, driven by the Spirit. There was no self-will, nothing of self in His walk. So how fitting this character of the Spirit is for the apostle Paul — the Spirit of Jesus directing him in his service here.
They had good reason to choose Bithynia. The refusal still overruled them.
They attempted to go on into Bithynia. We know from 1 Peter 1:1 that scattered Jewish believers were living there, as well as in Galatia and the province of Asia. But this was not now the mind of the Lord for His service. To those who value Scripture, the evidence here is as plain as possible: the Spirit acted personally to correct even the apostle's proposed movements.
A wide commission does not settle where and when.
They came to Mysia and planned to go into Bithynia. This was not God's leading, though we are not told why: the Spirit of God stopped them. The apostles had been told to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel." Yet they could not take this command as a permit to go wherever and whenever they wanted. They still had to depend on God's leading, though they were willing enough to go anywhere in the world.
The wording changes between verse 6 and verse 7.
The Lord guides His servants in different ways. The word translated "forbidden" in the first phrase could also be translated "prevent," "hinder" or "keep from." Perhaps circumstances hindered them, and they understood that this was from the Lord. In the second case they seem to have got the clear impression that the Spirit was saying "no" to their plans. And they were obedient. Clear guidance about where not to go still left them without an answer about where they should go.
One writer ranks such leading below knowing God's mind in communion.
Even for the apostle, the command not to go into Bithynia was not the highest sort of guidance by the Spirit. It was blessed guidance, yet not the highest an apostle knew. It was more like reining in a horse or a mule, and not so much knowing God's mind in communion.
The block was not bad luck or bad timing, and its purpose soon showed.
Here we have the Spirit hindering. This is not a hindrance of circumstances, but a clear prohibition, made known plainly… The reason for it soon becomes clear. A fresh start was coming: the gospel was to go into Europe. The next chapters give us the wonderful history of that journey from Troas to Philippi and the cities of Greece. Later on Paul did a great work in Ephesus; now the Spirit hinders and forbids so that they may go further.
The same hand still moves workers across the map today.
The Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Jesus, closed doors in the East to lead the servants of Christ west to Europe. … Today the Spirit of Jesus leads preachers of the Word to India, China, Africa and the islands of far off seas.
- The name. The better reading is "the Spirit of Jesus." The name points to the obedient Man who was always led, never self-willed.
- The correction. Bithynia was a sensible target, with believers already scattered there. Even so, the Spirit overruled an apostle's plan.
- The limit. "Go into all the world" is a commission, not a permit; where and when still wait on the Lord's leading.
- The method. Verse 6 reads like a hindrance, verse 7 like a plain "no." Guidance comes in more than one form, and a bare refusal, though blessed, is not the highest kind.
- The map. Doors shut in the east opened the way to Troas and Europe. The refusal was redirection — and the Spirit still sends workers this way today.
and having passed by Mysia they descended to Troas.
The journey in Acts 16 has been a series of shut doors: no preaching in Asia, no entry into Bithynia. Verse 8 records what is left: a road past Mysia, ending at a harbour town. No destination, no explanation.
Paul had a plan, and twice the Spirit blocked it. One writer asks why, and points to where the answer came.
But why these checks and diversions from the Apostle's purpose? Certainly the work in Galatia might have seemed reason enough for not letting him enter the Roman province of Asia at that time. But why was the way to Bithynia closed when they were so near to it? The question stayed unanswered until they passed by Mysia and came down to Troas. There Paul learned by a vision at night that they were to go to Europe.
Another writer draws the positive side: the stops themselves were guidance.
Paul was stopped in his journeys through Asia, as we are told here, and "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia." The Spirit of God is so fully regarded as the directing person in the church… So in various ways, divine guidance was never missing.
Troas was not a random halt. One writer notes what its harbour opened up.
They reached the town of Troas, "the port for embarkation for any country to which the Holy Spirit might send them."… Its harbour was good. Much of the traffic between the continents of Europe and Asia flowed in and out of it.
The closed door in Bithynia was not God's last word about Bithynia.
Paul intended to go to some other parts of Asia, such as Bithynia, to preach the gospel, but the Spirit of God closed every door in that land. It was not that the Lord did not care for those in darkness in Bithynia. We know from 1 Peter 1:1 that He sent the gospel to that land by some other messenger. But now the time had come when Europe, as well as Asia, was to have the gospel, and the Lord chose His servant Paul to preach it there.
One writer finds a clue in two words of this verse: "came down."
They "came down" to Troas, which implies that Luke, the writer, was there at the time. There seems no doubt that God arranged this so that Luke could be there and travel with them to Philippi. Luke clearly stayed in Philippi when Paul and Silas left. But Luke says nothing of his own work.
At Troas the leading took a different form. One writer points out what that required of Paul.
When they arrived in Mysia they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So they passed by Mysia and came to Troas. There Paul had a vision in a dream. This was not the open direction of the Spirit. Understanding what it meant was left to spiritual intelligence.
The same writer applies this to everyone who works for the Lord.
It is very important to remember that it is no different in the work of the Lord. There the worker is always in danger of being guided by fair appearances, or of following what pleases his own mind, or maybe the suggestions of others whom he respects… The work is His, and He alone is able to direct it in gracious wisdom and power. We are at best only His workmen in that work.
- Stopped. Two refusals — Asia, then Bithynia — left one road open, and it ran to the coast.
- Stranded, on purpose. Troas was the port ships sailed from to anywhere. The place of waiting was the place of launching.
- Not abandoned. God closed Bithynia to Paul, not to the gospel; another messenger carried it there later.
- Joined. At Troas Luke was there to travel with them — the closed doors gathered the company God meant to send.
- Explained last. The reason came after the obedience. The vision at Troas answered why the doors had closed.
And a vision appeared to Paul in the night There was a certain Macedonian man, standing and beseeching him, and saying, Pass over into Macedonia and help us.
The Holy Spirit had blocked Paul twice, first from Asia and then from Bithynia, and he reached Troas with no obvious road left. Then, at night, a stranger appears and pleads, and the whole direction of the gospel's spread turns on it.
The blocked routes only made sense once the vision came.
But why these checks and diversions from the Apostle's purpose? The work in Galatia might well seem reason enough for keeping him out of the Roman province of Asia at that time. But why was the way to Bithynia barred when they were so near to it? That question stayed unanswered. Then they passed by Mysia and came down to Troas. There a vision at night told Paul that they were to go to Europe.
Only a narrow strip of water separated Paul from Europe. The direction he was given was not one he had been planning.
Look at Mysia on your map. You will find it close to the Dardanelles, the narrow strip of water that separates Asia from Europe. In the vision a man of Macedonia begged him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." Now we see why the Holy Spirit checked Paul from moving in other directions. Here was the solution to all his perplexity. Paul might never have thought of leaving Asia and going into Europe.
The plea itself is the heart of the verse. What the man says reveals his condition.
God sends him a vision in the night: he sees a man of Macedonia beckoning to him and saying, "Come over and help us." Nothing could be plainer than this: here was a man who felt his need. "Come over and help us" is the language of a needy man.
The crossing that followed was quick. The same writer sets it beside the slower return trip years later.
God gives him a fair wind. He gets across in a day and a half. When he comes back later, the same trip takes him five days. The Lord loves to send the gospel to sinners, and I think the Holy Spirit delights to record God's readiness to meet the needy soul. There was a hungry heart in Macedonia, a needy sinner. God arranges everything so that His messenger reaches that needy one quickly with the gospel of His grace.
Should we wait for a vision before making a decision? One commentator answers plainly.
Someone may say that we can hardly expect a vision to settle our doubts in the end. So we seem to be left without the comfort this passage might give us. But neither did the apostle expect, or generally receive, a vision to guide him. It is not given to any man to walk habitually in such open light. It would not really encourage faith, which has to do with the unseen and not the seen. And perhaps the record here serves a good purpose. It stops us expecting one fixed method of assurance, and it throws us on Him to meet us in whatever way He pleases.
Paul alone received the vision, though the whole team needed direction.
So the Lord helped His servant in a positive way. They all needed direction for their work, but Paul alone saw the vision. It was a favour often shown him, and of the highest kind, which no creature has a right to expect… God never fails us in present difficulties. It is we who fail in waiting and counting on Him. And His written word, our main guide, is now complete, as it was not then… The apostle's vision impressed them all at once, and they turned their eyes and steps toward Macedonia.
The vision showed a man. The first meeting in Macedonia looked nothing like it.
Then they reached Philippi. By the small river Gangites they had their first chance to speak. We wonder if Paul looked for the man he had seen in his vision. There was no man present. A company of women had gathered at the place where people met for prayer. Lydia of Thyatira is the first convert of Europe… And it was the Lord who opened her heart.
- Closed — Asia and Bithynia were shut, and the reason stayed hidden until Troas. The blocked road was part of the guidance.
- Called — Paul might never have thought of leaving Asia for Europe. The call opened a continent he had not aimed at.
- Cry — "Come over to Macedonia and help us" is the speech of a man who knows he is needy. That cry brought the gospel into Europe for the first time.
- Crossing — a fair wind carried them over in a day and a half, faster than the return trip. God hurries His messenger toward a hungry heart.
- Converts — Paul looked for a man and found praying women. Lydia became the first convert of Europe, and the Lord opened her heart.
And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go forth to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to announce to them the glad tidings.
The verse turns a night vision into a decision: Paul and his companions weigh what they have seen and act on it. No voice gives an order. They draw a conclusion, and on that conclusion the gospel changes continents.
The vision came without an explanation attached. What settled its meaning was the state of the man who received it.
Paul lived in the things of God. So he read the vision as his mission, by the knowledge he had of both the thoughts of God and the needs of men. He crossed over at once into Macedonia.
Only Paul saw the vision, yet the verse says "we" concluded. One writer also points out which name for God the verse uses.
Alone with God, in the silent hours of the night, the apostle received what we may call fresh marching orders. Now he could understand why he had been turned away from entering Bithynia... He told his companions what he had seen and heard. They all agreed it was a call from God to cross the sea and visit that country. For we read: "concluding that God" (not "the Lord") "had called us to preach the gospel to them."
The Spirit had already stopped them twice from preaching. The vision explained why.
It is good that the Holy Spirit can guide His servants where they are to work. He can also forbid and hinder them if they try to go where they are not sent... At Troas Paul may have been in great perplexity, unsure before the Lord where he should go. There he had a vision, a God-given vision... We now see why the Holy Spirit checked Paul from moving in other directions. Here was the solution to all his perplexity. Paul might never have thought of leaving Asia and going into Europe.
Their speed says something about how these men lived.
Happy servants! They were not tangled up with the affairs of this life. They were free and ready to set out at the Lord's bidding. They sailed at once, with a fair wind, for the opposite shore.
Up to this verse the account has said "they."
But it is worth noticing that the language is "we", not "they" as before. Luke thus modestly but unmistakably lets us see that he joined the apostle's company at Troas. From this point the inspired writer was a personal witness. That is surely no small matter. But some hold that his account now takes on a higher character, and no error in principle could be deeper. Not so: inspiration rules out all question of degrees of certainty or of authority. It is equally of God, whether the writer saw what he wrote or not.
The obvious objection is that visions do not come to us.
But neither did the apostle expect, nor generally receive, a vision to guide him. It is not given to any man to walk habitually in such open light. It would not really encourage faith, which has to do with the unseen and not the seen. And perhaps the record here may do us good. It keeps us from expecting any one method of assurance. It casts us on Him to meet us in whatever way He pleases... No doubt the man of Macedonia appeals to what is, or should be, always the driving force in us. Weighing one need against another will have its place in settling the matter for us. So will weighing what the Lord has been leading up to in His ways.
The names in this story sit on two different continents.
Until this time the apostle Paul had only preached the gospel in Asia. Remember that Jerusalem and Antioch and most of the other places mentioned in the Bible are in Asia. Philippi and Rome and Corinth and such places are in Europe... It was not that the Lord did not care for those in darkness in Bithynia... but now the time had come when Europe, as well as Asia, was to have the gospel.
- Hindered. The two closed doors were not failure. The Spirit was steering these men toward a continent Paul might never have chosen.
- Shown. The vision came at night to one man. He told the others, and all agreed it was God's call. He did not keep the guidance to himself.
- Concluded. God gave no audible order. They drew the conclusion. A mind living in the things of God read the sign, weighing God's thoughts and human need.
- Immediate. Nothing held them back. They sailed at once, with no gap between knowing and obeying.
- Enlarged. From that one conclusion the gospel crossed from Asia to Europe. Luke joined here and wrote from then on as an eyewitness. That makes the account no more inspired than what went before.