'Now, when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came
to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2. And Paul, as his
manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath-days reasoned with
them out of the scriptures, 3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must
needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this
Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4. And some of them believed,
and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great
multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 5. But the Jews which
believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of
the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an
uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out
to the people, 6. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and
certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have
turned the world upside down are come hither also; 7. Whom Jason hath
received; and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying
that there is another king, one Jesus. 8. And they troubled the people
and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. 9. And when
they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto
Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received
the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so. 12. Therefore many of them believed; also
of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.'--ACTS
xvii. 1-12.
'Shamefully entreated at Philippi,' Paul tells the Thessalonians, he
'waxed bold in our God to' preach to them. His experience in the former
city might well have daunted a feebler faith, but opposition affected
Paul as little as a passing hailstorm dints a rock. To change the field
was common sense; to abandon the work would have been sin. But Paul's
brave persistence was not due to his own courage; he drew it from God.
Because he lived in communion with Him, his courage 'waxed' as dangers
gathered. He knew that he was doing a daring thing, but he knew who was
his helper. So he went steadily on, whatever might front him. His
temper of mind and the source of it are wonderfully revealed in his
simple words.
The transference to Thessalonica illustrates another principle of his
action; namely, his preference of great centres of population as fields
of work. He passes through two less important places to establish
himself in the great city. It is wise to fly at the head. Conquer the
cities, and the villages will fall of themselves. That was the policy
which carried Christianity through the empire like a prairie fire.
Would that later missions had adhered to it!
The methods adopted in Thessalonica were the usual ones. Luke bids us
notice that Paul took the same course of action in each place: namely,
to go to the synagogue first, when there was one, and there to prove
that Jesus was the Christ. The three Macedonian towns already mentioned
seem not to have had synagogues. Probably there were comparatively few
Jews in them, and these were ecclesiastically dependent on
Thessalonica. We can fancy the growing excitement in the synagogue, as
for three successive Sabbaths the stranger urged his proofs of the two
all-important but most unwelcome assertions, that their own scriptures
foretold a suffering Messiah,--a side of Messianic prophecy which was
ignored or passionately denied--and that Jesus was that Messiah. Many a
vehement protest would be shrieked out, with flashing eyes and abundant
gesticulation, as he 'opened' the sense of Scripture, and 'quoted
passages'--for that is the meaning here of the word rendered
'alleging.' He gives us a glimpse of the hot discussions when he says
that he preached 'in much conflict'(1 Thess. ii. 2).
With whatever differences in manner of presentation, the true message
of the Christian teacher is still the message that woke such opposition
in the synagogue of Thessalonica,--the bold proclamation of the
personal Christ, His death and resurrection. And with whatever
differences, the instrument of conviction is still the Scriptures, 'the
sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.' The more closely we
keep ourselves to that message and that weapon the better.
The effects of the faithful preaching of the gospel are as uniform as
the method. It does one of two things to its hearers--either it melts
their hearts and leads them to faith, or it stirs them to more violent
enmity. It is either a stone of stumbling or a sure corner-stone. We
either build on or fall over it, and at last are crushed by it. The
converts included Jews and proselytes in larger numbers, as may be
gathered from the distinction drawn by 'some'--referring to the former,
and 'a great multitude'--referring to the latter. Besides these there
were a good many ladies of rank and refinement, as was also the case
presently at Beroea. Probably these, too, were proselytes.
The prominence of women among the converts, as soon as the gospel is
brought into Europe, is interesting and prophetic. The fact of the
social position of these ladies may suggest that the upper classes were
freer from superstition than the lower, and may point a not favourable
contrast with present social conditions, which do not result in a
similar accession of women of 'honourable estate' to the Church.
Opposition follows as uniform a course as the preaching. The broad
outlines are the same in each case, while the local colouring varies.
If we compare Paul's narrative in I Thessalonians, which throbs with
emotion, and, as it were, pants with the stress of the conflict, with
Luke's calm account here, we see not only how Paul felt, but why the
Jews got up a riot. Luke says that they 'became jealous.' Paul expands
that into 'they are contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the
Gentiles that they may be saved.' Then it was not so much dislike to
the preaching of Jesus as Messiah as it was rage that their Jewish
prerogative was infringed, and the children's bread offered to the
dogs, that stung them to violent opposition. Israel had been chosen,
that it might be God's witness, and diffuse the treasure it possessed
through all the world. It had become, not the dispenser, but the
would-be monopolist, of its gift. Have there been no Christian
communities in later days animated by the same spirit?
There were plenty of loafers in the market-place ready for any
mischief, and by no means particular about the pretext for a riot.
Anything that would give an opportunity for hurting somebody, and for
loot, would attract them as corruption does flesh-flies. So the Jewish
ringleaders easily got a crowd together. To tell their real reasons
would scarcely have done, but to say that there was a house to be
attacked, and some foreigners to be dragged out, was enough for the
present. Jason's house was probably Paul's temporary home, where, as he
tells us in 1 Thessalonians ii. 9, he had worked at his trade, that he
might not be burdensome to any. Possibly he and Silas had been warned
of the approach of the rioters and had got away elsewhere. At all
events, the nest was empty, but the crowd must have its victims, and
so, failing Paul, they laid hold of Jason. His offence was a very
shadowy one. But since his day there have been many martyrs, whose only
crime was 'harbouring' Christians, or heretics, or recusant priests, or
Covenanters. If a bull cannot gore a man, it will toss his cloak.
The charge against Jason is that he receives the Apostle and his party,
and constructively favours their designs. The charge against them is
that they are revolutionists, rebels against the Emperor, and partisans
of a rival. Now we may note three things about the charge. First, it
comes with a very distinct taint of insincerity from Jews, who were, to
say the least, not remarkable for loyalty or peaceful obedience. The
Gracchi are complaining of sedition! A Jew zealous for Caeesar is an
anomaly, which might excite the suspicions of the least suspicious
ruler. The charge of breaking the peace comes with remarkable
appropriateness from the leaders of a riot. They were the troublers of
the city, not Paul, peacefully preaching in the synagogue. The wolf
scolds the lamb for fouling the river.
Again, the charges are a violent distortion of the truth. Possibly the
Jewish ringleaders believed what they said, but more probably they
consciously twisted Paul's teachings, because they knew that no other
charges would excite so much hostility or be so damning as those which
they made. The mere suggestion of treason was often fatal. The wild
exaggeration that the Christians had 'turned the whole civilised world
upside down' betrays passionate hatred and alarm, if it was genuine, or
crafty determination to rouse the mob, if it was consciously trumped
up. But whether the charges were believed or not by those who made
them, here were Jews disclaiming their nation's dearest hope, and, like
the yelling crowd at the Crucifixion, declaring they had no king but
Caesar. The degradation of Israel was completed by these fanatical
upholders of its prerogatives.
But, again, the charges were true in a far other sense than their
bringers meant. For Christianity is revolutionary, and its very aim is
to turn the world upside down, since the wrong side is uppermost at
present, and Jesus, not Caesar, or any king or emperor or czar, is the
true Lord and ruler of men. But the revolution which He makes is the
revolution of individuals, turning them from darkness to light; for He
moulds single souls first and society afterwards. Violence is always a
mistake, and the only way to change evil customs is to change men's
natures, and then the customs drop away of themselves. The true rule
begins with the sway of hearts; then wills are submissive, and conduct
is the expression of inward delight in a law which is sweet because the
lawgiver is dear.
Missing Paul, the mob fell on Jason and the brethren. They were 'bound
over to keep the peace.' Evidently the rulers had little fear of these
alleged desperate revolutionaries, and did as little as they dared,
without incurring the reproach of being tepid in their loyalty.
Probably the removal of Paul and his travelling companions from the
neighbourhood was included in the terms to which Jason had to submit.
Their hurried departure does not seem to have been caused by a renewal
of disturbances. At all events, their Beroean experience repeated that
of Philippi and of Thessalonica, with one great and welcome difference.
The Beroean Jews did exactly what their compatriots elsewhere would not
do--they looked into the subject with their own eyes, and tested Paul's
assertions by Scripture. 'Therefore,' says Luke, with grand confidence
in the impregnable foundations of the faith, 'many of them believed.'
True nobility of soul consists in willingness to receive the Word,
combined with diligent testing of it. Christ asks for no blind
adhesion. The true Christian teacher wishes for no renunciation, on the
part of his hearers, of their own judgments. 'Open your mouth and shut
your eyes, and swallow what I give you,' is not the language of
Christianity, though it has sometimes been the demand of its professed
missionaries, and not the teacher only, but the taught also, have been
but too ready to exercise blind credulity instead of intelligent
examination and clear-eyed faith. If professing Christians to-day were
better acquainted with the Scriptures, and more in the habit of
bringing every new doctrine to them as its touchstone, there would be
less currency of errors and firmer grip of truth.