John Calvin Commentary Acts 13

Here follows an account, not only worthy of being remembered but also very profitable to be known, of how Paul was appointed the teacher of the Gentiles. For his calling was, as it were, a key by which God opened to us the kingdom of heaven. We know that the covenant of eternal life was properly concluded with the Jews, so that we had nothing to do with God’s inheritance, since we were strangers (Ephesians 2:12), and the wall of separation was between us, which distinguished those of the household from strangers.

Therefore, Christ bringing salvation to the world would have profited us nothing unless, the division being removed, some entrance had been made for us into the Church. The apostles had already received the commandment concerning the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world (Mark 16:16), but they had kept themselves up to that time within the borders of Judea.

When Peter was sent to Cornelius, it was a thing so new and strange that it was almost considered a prodigy. Secondly, that might have seemed to be an extraordinary privilege granted to a few men. But now, since God plainly and openly appoints Paul and Barnabas to be apostles of the Gentiles, by this means He makes them equal with the Jews, so that the gospel may begin to be common to both.

And now the wall of separation is taken away, so that both those who were far off and those who were near may be reconciled to God; and that, being gathered under one head, they may grow together to be one body. Therefore, Paul’s calling ought to have no less weight among us than if God were to cry from heaven in the hearing of all people, that the salvation promised in the past to Abraham and to the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:17) belongs to us today no less than if we had come from the loins of Abraham.

It is for this reason that Paul labors so much in defense and affirmation of his calling (Galatians 1:17 and 1:12-24), so that the Gentiles may be firmly convinced that the doctrine of the gospel was not brought to them by chance, nor by human rashness, but, first, by the wonderful counsel of God, and secondly, by express commandment, while He made known to humanity what He had decreed within Himself.

There were in the church. I have explained in connection with Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 what difference there is (at least in my judgment) between doctors and prophets. It may be that in this place they are synonymous (or that they mean the same thing), so Luke’s meaning is that there were many men in that church endowed with a special grace of the Spirit to teach.

Surely I cannot see how it can be consistent to understand prophets as those who were endowed with the gift of foretelling things; instead, I think it signifies excellent interpreters of Scripture. And such had the office to teach and exhort, as Paul testifies (1 Corinthians 45:37). We must note Luke’s main point: Paul and Barnabas were ministers of the church of Antioch; God now calls them from there to another place.

Lest anyone think that that church was destitute of good and capable ministers, so that God provided for other churches at its expense, Luke addresses this beforehand, saying that there was such an abundance there that, though it helped others, enough remained for its own use. By this it appears how plentifully God had poured out His grace upon the Church, from which rivers, as it were, might be drawn and carried into various places.

So even in our time, God so enriches certain churches more than others, that they are seminaries to spread abroad the doctrine of the gospel. Manaen, who was brought up with Herod, must have come from a noble family.

And Luke deliberately mentions this to show us the godliness of this man who, despising worldly pomp, had joined himself to the simple and despised flock of Christ.

He might, indeed, have been a principal courtier if he had been ruled by ambition; but to wholly devote himself to Christ, he did not refuse to exchange those fleeting honors for reproach and ignominy. For if we consider the state of the Church at that time, he could not give his name to the gospel without making himself subject to common infamy.

Therefore, the Lord intended to teach us by his example to despise the world, so that those who cannot otherwise be true Christians—unless they cast away those things that are precious to the flesh as harmful obstacles and hindrances—may learn with a valiant and lofty mind to despise the world.

And they ministered to the Lord. The word that Luke uses not only signifies to be occupied with holy things, but also sometimes to hold public offices. And because the holy rites of the Gentiles consisted for the most part of burnt offerings and sacrifices, it is often taken to mean to offer sacrifice; a meaning that greatly pleased the Papists, so that they might prove that the apostles practiced some form of sacrifice.

But even if it were so, yet they foolishly claim in defense of their mass that the teachers of Antioch offered sacrifice. First, since the word is in the plural number, it follows that every one of them said mass. But setting aside trivialities, I say we must consider what kind of sacrifice Christ entrusted to his Church.

The Papists claim that the office of priesthood is assigned to them to sacrifice Christ and by sacrificing him to secure peace with God. There is so little mention made of this in Scripture that the Son of God rather claims this honor for himself alone.

Therefore, Christ’s Church has another priesthood, namely, that every person may offer himself and all he has to God; and that the public ministers may offer souls to God as a sacrifice, with the spiritual sword of the gospel, as Paul teaches (Romans 15:16).

Moreover, the prayers of all the godly are the spiritual calves of the lips (Hosea 14:2), with which God is well pleased when they are offered up on the holy altar; that is, in Christ’s name, as in Hebrews 13:15.

Therefore, when Luke says that the prophets and teachers ministered to God when the Spirit spoke to them, I understand nothing else than that they were engaged in public worship or service. He adds fasting, so that we may know that their minds were then free from all hindrances, so that nothing might prevent them from giving attention to prophesying. But the question is whether they observed a communal fast, or if Luke only signifies that they had been fasting up to that time. It is without question that these circumstances were recorded so that Paul’s calling would carry more credibility among us.

Separate to me. God commands that Paul and Barnabas be sent with the consent of the Church to the place where he had appointed them to be sent; from which we gather that there is no lawful election of pastors, except where God is sovereign. For although he has commanded that the Church should elect pastors and bishops, he has not therefore granted men so much liberty that he does not retain ultimate authority as the supreme governor.

The ordinary election of pastors differs from this appointment of Paul and Barnabas because it was necessary that they should be appointed by heavenly revelation to be the apostles to the Gentiles; which is not necessary in the daily ordination of pastors. But they agree in this: that just as God testified that Paul and Barnabas were already appointed by his decree to preach the gospel, so no one may be called to the office of teaching except those whom God has already chosen for himself in a way.

Furthermore, there is no need for the Spirit to cry to us from heaven that the one we are considering is called by God, because we receive those whom God has equipped with necessary gifts, as it were, from hand to hand (as they say), since they are formed and made fit by his hand.

But when Luke says in this passage that Paul was appointed by the votes and consent of the Church, it seems not to agree with Paul’s own words, where he denies that he was called of men, or by men (Galatians 1:1).

I answer that he was made an apostle long before (and that by no votes of men), before he was sent to the Gentiles; and he had already carried out the duties of an apostle for many years when he was called to go to the Gentiles by a new revelation.

Therefore, so that he might have God as the author of his apostleship, it is with good reason that he excludes men. And God does not now command that Paul be ordained by the Church for this reason, namely, that his calling might depend upon men; but God makes known His decree, which was still known to only a few, and that with a public commandment; and He commands that it be sealed with the solemn assent of the Church.

Therefore, this is the meaning of the words: that this is the time in which Paul must preach the gospel among the Gentiles, and, the wall of partition having been broken down (Ephesians 2:14), he must gather a Church from the Gentiles, who were previously strangers to the kingdom of God. For although God had used him until now in Antioch and elsewhere, this was now added as a special commission: that God intended to adopt the Gentiles into the same inheritance of life with the Jews.

But if he had been thus appointed as a teacher of the Church from the beginning, he would not then have needed to be called at that time by men. For, since the Lord pronounces that He had called him, what does He leave for the Church, except that they obediently agree?

For men’s judgment is not presented here as in a doubtful matter, nor do their votes and assents have any freedom. But we must note what I have already said: that Paul and Barnabas are not now merely appointed as teachers, but an extraordinary office is assigned to them, so that they may begin to bring the grace of God to the Gentiles generally. And this is what the words imply when it is said, Separate to the work. For undoubtedly He is speaking of a new work, one that had not previously been undertaken.

But how is Barnabas appointed in this passage to be Paul’s companion and colleague, who, as far as we can tell from Scripture, never carried out the office of teaching? Indeed, who always allowed Paul to teach, without saying anything himself?

I answer that he had enough opportunities to speak in Paul’s absence, so that they both had enough to do. For one person could not always be present in all places. It is not to be doubted that he faithfully discharged the duty God had assigned him, and that he was not a silent observer. And why should we wonder that Luke does not record his sermons in detail, seeing that he scarcely repeats one of a thousand of Paul’s?

The Spirit said. Whatever Macedonius and his sect may object in order to reject it, yet we have in this passage a plainer and sounder testimony to the divine essence of the Spirit than they can evade or nullify. There is nothing more uniquely characteristic of God than to govern the Church alone with His power and commandment; but the Spirit claims this right when He commands that Paul and Barnabas be separated to Him, and testifies that they were called by His command.

Assuredly, we must necessarily confess that the body of the Church is lame and headless unless we confess that it is God who orders it at His pleasure, who sets teachers over it, and who governs its proceedings and order.

We find later in Paul’s sermon in Acts 20:28 that all bishops who govern the Church are placed by the Holy Ghost; but no one is to be counted a lawful pastor of the Church, as the same Paul testifies, except the one who is called by God. Nor does God identify false prophets by any other mark, except by this: that He has not sent them. Therefore, we gather that the Holy Ghost is truly God, whose authority is sufficient to choose pastors, and who has the primary authority in choosing them, which is also confirmed from the words of Isaiah:

And now, behold, the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit,
(Isaiah 48:16).

Furthermore, we must note from these words that He (the Spirit) is a person truly subsisting in God; for if we accept Sabellius's notion that the word 'Spirit' does not signify a person, but that it is a mere attribute [epithet], it would be a foolish and absurd statement that the Holy Ghost has spoken; Isaiah also would foolishly ascribe to Him the sending of a prophet.

When they had fasted and prayed. To obey the oracle, they not only sent Paul and Barnabas away but also, with a solemn rite, appointed them to be the apostles to the Gentiles. This was undoubtedly a public fast.

Luke had previously said that they were fasting, since they were engaged in their ministry; this might have been according to custom. But now there was another reason: by appointing a public fast, which was customary in difficult and very important matters, they stirred both themselves and others to earnest fervency in prayer, for fasting is often mentioned in Scripture as an aid to prayer.

Because it was a matter of such importance to establish the kingdom of Christ among the Gentiles, the teachers of Antioch, not without cause, earnestly prayed to the Lord that He would enable His servants. The purpose of their prayer was not that God would, by His Spirit of wisdom and discretion, govern their judgments in choosing—because all dispute or doubt concerning this matter had been removed. Instead, they prayed that God would equip with the Spirit of wisdom and strength those whom He had already chosen for Himself; that He would strengthen them with His power against all the assaults of Satan and the world; that He would bless their labors so they might not be unfruitful; and that He would open a door for the new preaching of the gospel.

The laying on of hands, which Luke mentions thirdly, was a type of consecration, as we have said (Acts 6:6). For the apostles retained the ceremony that was used among the Jews, according to the ancient custom of the law, as well as kneeling and similar rites, which were beneficial for practicing godliness. In summary, this was the purpose for which they laid their hands on Barnabas and Paul: that the Church might offer them to God, and that they, with the Church's consent, might declare that this office was entrusted to them by God. For the calling was properly God’s alone, but the external ordination belonged to the Church, and this was according to the heavenly oracle.

Being sent out by the Holy Ghost. There is no mention made here of the election made by the Church, because it was altogether a divine calling; the Church only received those who were offered by the hand of God. He says that they came first to Seleucia, which was a city of Syria. There was, indeed, a country of the same name; but it is more likely that Luke speaks of the city, which was not far from Cyprus by sea.

He says that they first began to preach the gospel in Salamis, a famous city of Cyprus. Nevertheless, they seem to begin incorrectly; for since they were sent especially to the Gentiles, they preach the word of God, nevertheless, to the Jews. I answer that they were not so exclusively committed to the Gentiles that, setting aside the Jews, they were obliged to go straight to the Gentiles. For when God made them teachers of the Gentiles, He did not depose them from the office which they had previously exercised. Therefore, there was no reason to prevent them from laboring with both Jews and Gentiles. Indeed, furthermore, it was fitting that they should begin with the Jews, as we shall see at the end of the chapter.

Moreover, Luke adds incidentally that they were helped by John. For Luke's meaning is not that John was their servant for personal needs or physical comforts. Rather, in that John was their helper in preaching the gospel, Luke commends his godly zeal and diligence. This was not because their level of honor was equal, but because the labor was common to all. For this reason, John had less excuse afterward when he forsook the holy calling.