Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 17

Thirty-three miles southwest of Philippi was Amphipolis, at one time the capital of the northern district of Macedonia. Situated on the east bank of the Strymon River, it straddled the Via Egnatia. But though it was larger and more important than Philippi, Paul and his companions “passed through” it. As they continued west-southwest, they also passed through Apollonia some twentyseven miles beyond Amphipolis. Their desire was to reach Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia and its largest and most prosperous city, lying another forty miles southwest of Apollonia.

Thessalonica (modern Salonika) was strategically located on the Thermaic Gulf. Straddling the Via Egnatia, it linked the rich agricultural plains of the Macedonian interior with the land and sea routes to the east. When Rome conquered Macedonia in 167 B. C., Thessalonica became the capital of the second of the four administrative districts of the province. With the reorganization of Macedonia into one province in 142 B. C. it became the capital. It was declared a free city in 42 B. C. As a large commercial and government city of perhaps two hundred thousand, Thessalonica naturally attracted diverse groups of people, including a substantial Jewish contingent (1 Thessalonians 2:14–16). Paul seems to have looked on it as the strategic center for the spread of the Gospel throughout the Balkan peninsula (1 Thessalonians 1:7–8). Therefore Paul and Silas—though doubtless in some pain from their recent beating and time in the stocks—pushed on resolutely the hundred miles from Philippi to Thessalonica.

In portraying the extension of the Gospel to the main cities bordering the Aegean Sea, Luke lays special emphasis on the fact that Paul’s preaching consisted of both proclamation and persuasion—interlocking elements of the one act of preaching. He had struck such a note earlier (cf. 13:43), and it will continue to be heard in 17:17; 18:4, 19; 19:8–10; 20:9; 24:25; 26:28; 28:23. At Thessalonica the missionaries, true to their policy of “to the Jews first, but also to the Gentiles” (cf. comments on 13:46–52), sought out the local synagogue, sure of finding there a prepared audience of both Jews and “Godfearing” Gentiles. During the span of three Sabbath days Paul carefully reasoned from Scripture, attempting to prove that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead. Then he went on to declare: “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” In other words, the preaching of Paul at Thessalonica was a “proclaimed witness”—i.e., a witness to the facts that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that his suffering and resurrection were in accord with the Scriptures, and that through his earthly ministry and living presence men and women can experience the reign of God in their lives. At times miracles accompanied the proclamation.

In portraying the extension of the Gospel to the main cities bordering the Aegean Sea, Luke lays special emphasis on the fact that Paul’s preaching consisted of both proclamation and persuasion—interlocking elements of the one act of preaching. He had struck such a note earlier (cf. 13:43), and it will continue to be heard in 17:17; 18:4, 19; 19:8–10; 20:9; 24:25; 26:28; 28:23. At Thessalonica the missionaries, true to their policy of “to the Jews first, but also to the Gentiles” (cf. comments on 13:46–52), sought out the local synagogue, sure of finding there a prepared audience of both Jews and “Godfearing” Gentiles. During the span of three Sabbath days Paul carefully reasoned from Scripture, attempting to prove that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead. Then he went on to declare: “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” In other words, the preaching of Paul at Thessalonica was a “proclaimed witness”—i.e., a witness to the facts that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that his suffering and resurrection were in accord with the Scriptures, and that through his earthly ministry and living presence men and women can experience the reign of God in their lives. At times miracles accompanied the proclamation.

“Some of the Jews were persuaded,” but the greater number of those who responded positively to Paul’s preaching in the Thessalonian synagogue were “God-fearing” Greeks and “prominent women” (i.e., women of high standing in the city who were the wives of the principal citizens). The Jason mentioned in v.5 as Paul’s host was probably one of the Jewish converts; Aristarchus and Secundus, identified as Thessalonians in 20:4, may have also been converted at this time.

Just as at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, the Jews who did not believe the Gospel were incensed at the Gentiles’ response to Paul’s preaching and with his direct approach to them. So they stirred up a riot. Their plan was to bring Paul and Silas before “the crowd” and “the city officials” on a charge of disturbing the Pax Romana by preaching a religio illicita and by advocating another king in opposition to Caesar. But when they could not find the missionaries at Jason’s house—evidently because Jason and some others who believed their message had hidden them—they dragged Jason and some other Christian brothers before the politarchs. As a free city, Thessalonica had its governing assembly of citizens, which is probably what Luke had in mind by the use of the term “crowd” (demos; GK 1322) in v.5. The magistrates of Thessalonica were called “politarchs,” a title applied almost exclusively to Macedonian cities. From five inscriptions referring to Thessalonica, it appears that a body of five politarchs ruled the city during the first century A. D. Certainly the assembly of citizens and the politarchs at Thessalonica would have known of the troubles within the Jewish community at Rome in connection with Christianity and of Claudius’s edict of A. D. 49–50 for all Jews to leave that city . Probably the Jewish opponents of the missionaries played upon the fear that such a situation might be duplicated at Thessalonica, unless Paul and Silas were expelled. In addition, from their charge that the missionaries proclaimed “another king” (v.7), it may be inferred that they tried to use Paul’s mention of “the kingdom of God” (cf. 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31) to arouse suspicion that he was involved in anti-imperial sedition. Indeed, it may be for this reason that Paul avoided the use of “kingdom” and “king” in his letters to his converts, lest Gentile imperial authorities misconstrue them to connote opposition to empire and emperor.