John Calvin Commentary Acts 13:2

"And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." — Acts 13:2 (ASV)

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.