John Calvin Commentary Acts 16

Luke now begins to declare what Paul's proceedings were after Barnabas and he had separated. First, he shows that at Lystra he took Timothy into his company to be his companion. But, so that we may know that Paul did nothing rashly or without good consideration, Luke says plainly that Timothy was a man whom the brethren highly approved of, and that they testified to his godliness; for Luke states it quite literally.

And so Paul himself observes a similar principle in choosing, which he elsewhere commands to be followed in choosing ministers (1 Timothy 3:7). Nor should it be thought that those prophecies with which Timothy was set forth and adorned by the Spirit had even then come to light, as Paul testifies elsewhere (1 Timothy 1:18). But there seems to be some disagreement in this: Luke says that Timothy was well reported of among the brethren, while Paul requires that one chosen to be a bishop should have a good report from those who are outside.

I answer that we must principally look to the judgment of the godly, as they are the only fit witnesses and alone discern rightly and wisely according to the Spirit of God; and that we ought to attribute no more to the wicked than to blind men. Therefore, it appears that godliness and holiness of life must be judged according to the will and consensus of godly men, so that he whom they commend may be considered worthy to be a bishop.

Nevertheless, I confess that this also is required in the second place: that even unbelievers should be constrained to commend him, lest the Church of God be endangered by their slanders and evil speaking, if it allows itself to be governed by men of bad reputation.

He circumcised him, because of the Jews. Luke plainly expresses that Timothy was not circumcised because it was necessary, or because the religious significance of that sign still continued, but so that Paul might avoid giving offense. Therefore, consideration was given to men, while the matter was free before God. For this reason, Timothy's circumcision was not a sacrament, like that which was given to Abraham and his posterity (Genesis 17:13), but a neutral ceremony that served only to foster love and not for any practice of godliness.

Now, the question is whether it was lawful for Paul to use an empty sign whose meaning and power were abolished, for it seems an empty thing when one departs from God's institution. Circumcision, however, was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ.

To this question I answer that circumcision did indeed cease at the coming of Christ in such a way that, nevertheless, its use was not immediately abolished. Instead, it remained free until everyone could know that Christ was the end of the law, through the clearer revelation of the gospel's light.

And here we must note three degrees.

1. First, the ceremonies of the law were abolished by the coming of Christ in such a way that they no longer pertained to the worship of God, nor were they figures of spiritual things, nor was there any necessity to use them.

2. Second, their use was free until the truth of the gospel could appear more plainly.

3. Third, it was not lawful for the faithful to retain them, except insofar as their use served for edification and no superstition was fostered by it; although that freedom to use them, of which I have spoken, is not without exception, because ceremonies had to be regarded in different ways.

For circumcision was not in the same category as the sacrifices, which were ordained for expiating sins. Therefore, it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timothy; it would not have been lawful for him to offer a sacrifice for sin.

Indeed, it is a general principle that all the worship of the law ceased at the coming of Christ (because it was to continue only for a time) regarding faith and conscience. However, concerning their use, we must know this: it was indifferent and left to the liberty of the godly for a short time, as long as it was not contrary to the confession of faith.

We must note the shortness of time of which I speak, namely, until the clear manifestation of the Gospel. This is important because some learned men are grossly deceived on this point, thinking that circumcision still applies among the Jews, while Paul teaches that it is superfluous when we are buried with Christ by baptism (Colossians 2:11–12). It was better and more truly said in the old proverb: "The synagogue was to be buried with honor."

Now it remains for us to declare to what extent the use of circumcision was indifferent. That will easily appear from the nature of this liberty. Because the calling of the Gentiles was not yet generally known, it was fitting that the Jews should have some prerogative granted to them.

Therefore, until it could be better known that adoption was extended from the lineage and family of Abraham to all the Gentiles, it was lawful, as far as edification required, to retain the sign of distinction.

For since Paul would not circumcise Titus, and affirms that this was well done (Galatians 2:3), it follows that it was not lawful to use this ceremony always and indiscriminately. Therefore, they were to have regard for edification and for the public benefit of the Church.

Because he could not circumcise Titus without betraying the doctrine of the Gospel and exposing himself to the slanders of adversaries, he abstained from the free use of the ceremony, which he did use with Timothy when he saw that it was profitable for the Church.

From this it easily appears what horrible confusion reigns in Popery. In it, there is a huge heap of ceremonies—and for what purpose, except that they may have a hundred veils instead of the one veil of the old temple? God abrogated those ceremonies which He had commanded, so that the truth of the Gospel might shine more clearly. Men dared to presume to bring in new ones, and that without any measure.

After this, a wicked notion arose that all these serve for the worship of God. Finally, the devilish confidence in merit followed. Now, since it is evident enough that such ceremonies are neither veils nor tombs with which Christ is covered, but rather stinking dunghills in which faith and religion are choked, those who make their use generally free ascribe more to the Pope than the Lord grants to His law.

It is pointless to speak of the mass and of such defilements which contain in themselves manifest idolatry.

They all knew this. Luke tells us that this was Paul’s intention: to create an opening for Timothy to the Jews, so that they would not abhor him as a profane man. They all knew (he says) that his father was a Grecian. Therefore, because mothers, in such matters, had no authority over their children, they were fully convinced that he was uncircumcised.

Let the readers note here, by the way, how miserable the bondage of God's people was then. Eunice, Timothy's mother, was one of the small remnant whom the Jews themselves regarded as a pariah. Yet, being married to a man who was an unbeliever, she dared not consecrate her children to God.

No, she dared not even give them the external sign of grace. And yet, she did not therefore cease to instruct her son from childhood in holiness, in the fear of God, and in His true worship. This is an example surely worthy of being followed by women whose husbands, with their tyrannical rule, try to frighten them from keeping and training up their children and families in chastity and true godliness.

In this passage, "Grecian" is used for "Gentile," following the old and common custom of Scripture.

They delivered them the decrees to keep. In these words Luke signifies to us how desirous Paul was of peace. The best and strongest bond to keep and foster peace among the churches was to observe what was established by the apostles. When Paul takes great pains about that, he takes great care so that no trouble might arise through his fault.

And let us remember that this continued only for a time. Because, as soon as he sees the danger of offense cease, he completely unburdens the churches, and setting aside the decree, he makes free what the apostles had forbidden. And yet he does not cancel or violate by that abrogation what the apostles had decreed, or despise the authors themselves; because they did not intend to establish a perpetual law, but only to mitigate for a short time what might hurt weak consciences, as I declared more fully in the former chapter.

By this, the folly of the Papists is sufficiently refuted, who severely accuse us that we are very unlike Paul, because we want the consciences of the godly governed by the Word of God alone, disregarding the decrees of the Church (as they call them), and not to be subject to the will of men. But, as I have already said, Paul meant nothing less than to trap people's consciences in the snare of necessity, for he is not contradicting himself when he cries out in other places:

All things are clean to the clean, (Titus 1:15); and again, He who is clean eats all things, (Romans 14:2); and again, The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, (Romans 14:17); and again, Meat does not commend us to God, (1 Corinthians 8:8); and again, Eat all things which are sold in the market, asking no question for conscience sake, (1 Corinthians 10:25).

But in one word he reconciles those things which might otherwise seem to disagree, when he commanded to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, for another man's conscience sake. Nevertheless, he takes great care that he does not bind godly souls with the laws of men.

Therefore we attempt nothing today which is contrary to or at variance with Paul. But the Papists mock us too crudely when they compare their laws with the decrees of the apostles. The apostles invented no new worship of God; they had erected no new spiritual government; but out of their desire to maintain peace, they exhorted the Gentiles to yield a little to the Jews.

Before the Pope can excuse his laws under this pretext, he must first change them entirely. And as for us, since the Papists place the spiritual worship of God in human inventions and transfer the right that belongs to God alone to men, so that they may reign as lords over souls, we are compelled to strongly resist them, lest by treacherous silence we betray the grace obtained by the blood of Christ.

Now, what similarity can there be between three decrees established for the help and comfort of the weak, and an infinite heap of laws, which not only oppresses miserable souls with their weight but also swallows up faith? We know the complaint of Augustine writing to Januarius, that the Church was wickedly burdened even then with too great a burden of traditions. Could he, I ask you, endure the bondage of these times, which is almost a hundred times harder and heavier?

The churches were confirmed. From this we gather that what Luke sets down, or rather touched upon concerning the decrees of the apostles, was, so to speak, inserted incidentally, not being very relevant to the matter. For he commends a far different fruit of Paul’s doctrine when he says that the churches were confirmed in the faith.

Therefore, Paul so ordered external things that he was principally careful for the kingdom of God, which consists in the doctrine of the gospel and far surpasses and surmounts external order. Therefore, those decrees were mentioned insofar as they were helpful for maintaining concord, so that we might know that the holy man cared about it.

But religion and godliness have the primary place, their sole foundation being faith, which in turn rests upon the pure Word of God and does not depend on human laws.

Now, by this example, Luke urges us forward to proceed continually, lest, at the beginning, sloth or neglect of making progress come upon us. Also, the way to increase faith is expressed, namely, when the Lord stirs us up by the diligent work of His servants, as at that time He used the labor and diligence of Paul and his companions.

When he immediately adds that they were also increased in number, he commends another fruit of preaching; and yet he thereby also signifies to us that the more those who are first called grow in faith, the more they bring others to Christ, as if faith spreads to others through its branches.

When they had gone throughout. Luke shows here how diligent and careful Paul and his companions were in the office of teaching, for he says that they journeyed through various regions of Asia Minor so that they might preach the gospel.

But he recounts one thing that is worth remembering: they were forbidden by the Spirit of God to speak of Christ in some places. This serves significantly to highlight the apostleship of Paul, as he was undoubtedly greatly encouraged to proceed when he knew that the Spirit of God was his guide on his way and the governor of his actions.

And wherever they went, they prepared themselves to teach, doing so according to their calling and according to the commandment of God. For they were sent to preach and publish the gospel to the Gentiles without exception. However, the Lord revealed His counsel in governing the course of their journey, which was previously unknown, even in an instant.

Nevertheless, the question is: If Paul taught nowhere except where he was led by the Spirit, what certainty can the ministers of the Church have today concerning their calling, who are not certified by any oracles about when they must speak or remain silent? I answer that since Paul’s province and charge were so wide, he needed the unique direction of the Spirit.

He was not made the apostle of one particular place or of a few cities, but he had received the commandment to preach the gospel throughout Asia and Europe, which was like sailing on a vast sea. Therefore, there is no reason for us to wonder that in that confusing vastness God beckoned to him, as if by reaching out His hand, to show how far He wanted him to go, or where.

But here arises another, harder question: why did the Lord forbid Paul to speak in Asia and not allow him to come into Bithynia? For, if the answer is made that these Gentiles were unworthy of the doctrine of salvation, we may in turn ask why Macedonia was more worthy.

Those who desire to be overly wise assign the causes of this difference to human beings, saying that the Lord grants His gospel to every person as He sees them inclined toward the obedience of faith. But He Himself says far otherwise: namely, that He appeared plainly to those who did not seek Him, and that He spoke to those who did not ask of Him.

For from where does the readiness to be taught and a mind to obey come, but from His Spirit? Therefore, it is certain that some are not preferred over others by their own merit, since all people are naturally alike: backward and resistant to faith.

Therefore, there is nothing better than to leave to God the sovereign power to grant or withhold His grace from whomever He wills. And surely, as His eternal election is free, so His calling is also free, which flows from it, and is not grounded in human beings, since He is not indebted to anyone.

Therefore, let us know that the gospel springs and issues forth to us from the sole fountain of mere grace. And yet God does not lack a just reason why He offers His gospel to some and passes over others. But I say that this reason lies hidden in His secret counsel.

Meanwhile, let the faithful know that they were called freely when others were set aside, so that they do not take to themselves what is due to the mercy of God alone. And concerning the rest, whom God rejects for no manifest cause, let them learn to wonder at the profound depth of His judgment, which they may not search out.

Here the word “Asia” is taken to mean that part which is properly so called. When Luke says that Paul and his companions attempted to go into Bithynia, they were forbidden by oracles. Such direct guidance was given only when need required, as the Lord is accustomed to be present with His people in sorrowful and uncertain matters.