John Calvin Commentary Acts 17

They came to Thessalonica. We do not know why Paul attempted nothing at Amphipolis and Apollonia, which were, nevertheless, famous cities, as appears from Pliny; only because he followed the Spirit of God as his guide, and took opportunity from the present situation. As opportunity arose, he also tried to do some good there, but because he had no success, Luke passes over it. And while he had been beaten at Philippi and had scarcely escaped from great danger, he preached Christ at Thessalonica. It appears from this how courageous he was to stay the course of his calling, and how bold he was, time and again, to enter into new dangers.

This invincible fortitude of mind, and such patient endurance of the cross, sufficiently declare that Paul did not labor in the manner of men, but that he was equipped with the heavenly power of the Spirit. And this also showed wonderful patience in him, in that, when he went to the Jews, whose unbridled willfulness he had so often experienced, he proceeded to seek their salvation.

But because he knew that Christ was given to the Jews for salvation, and that he himself was made an apostle on the condition that he should preach repentance and faith, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, committing the success of his labor to the Lord, he obeyed His commandment (though he had no great hope of doing good).

He previously seemed to have taken his final farewell of the Jews when he said, It was behoveful that the kingdom of God should be first preached to you; but because ye receive it not, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. But that harsher pronouncement must be understood as applying only to that group who had wickedly rejected the gospel when it was offered to them and made themselves unworthy of the grace of God. And toward the nation itself, Paul did not cease to carry out his mission as an ambassador. By this example, we are taught that we ought to hold the calling of God in such high regard that no unthankfulness from men can hinder us, but that we continue to be concerned for their salvation as long as the Lord appoints us to be their ministers. And it is likely that even then there were some who on the first Sabbath refused sound doctrine, but their willfulness did not prevent him from coming again on other Sabbaths.

He disputed. Luke first sets down the substance of the disputation—namely, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is Christ, who was promised previously in the Law and the Prophets, who, by the sacrifice of his death, made satisfaction for the sins of the world and brought righteousness and life by his resurrection; and secondly, how he proved what he taught.

Let us handle this second point first. Luke says that he disputed from the Scriptures; therefore, the proofs of faith must be derived from the mouth of God alone.

If we dispute about matters that concern humans, then let human reasons take their place; but in the doctrine of faith, the authority of God alone must reign, and on it we must depend.

All people confess this to be true: that we must rely on God alone; yet there are but a few who hear Him speak in the Scriptures.

But if that maxim is accepted among us—that Scripture comes from God—then the rule for either teaching or learning ought to be taken from nowhere else.

By this it also appears with what devilish fury the Papists are driven when they deny that any certainty can be gathered from the Scriptures; and, therefore, they hold that we must abide by the decrees of men. For I demand of them whether Paul observed a correct order in disputing or not? At least, let them blush for shame that the Word of the Lord was more revered in an unbelieving nation than it is today among them.

The Jews admit Paul and tolerate him when he disputes from the Scriptures. The Pope and all his followers, however, consider it a mere mockery when Scripture is cited, as if God spoke doubtfully there and mocked people with vain tricks.

Furthermore, there is today much more light in the Scriptures, and the truth of God shines there more clearly than in the Law and the Prophets. For in the Gospel, Christ, who is the Sun of Righteousness, sheds His rays upon us with perfect brightness.

For this reason, the blasphemy of the Papists is all the more intolerable while they would make the Word of God still uncertain. But let us understand that, as faith can be grounded nowhere else but in the Word of the Lord, so we must rely solely on its testimony in all controversies.

Opening. In this place, he describes the sum and subject of the disputation. He sets forth two points concerning Christ: that He must have died and risen again, and that the Son of Mary who was crucified is Christ. When the question concerns Christ, three things come into question: whether He is, who He is, and what He is.

If Paul had had to deal with the Gentiles, he would have needed to set his beginning further back, because they had heard nothing concerning Christ; nor do irreligious people conceive that they need a Mediator. But this point was beyond doubt among the Jews, to whom the Mediator was promised. Therefore, Paul omits that as superfluous, as it was received by common consent.

But because there was nothing more difficult than to bring the Jews to confess that Jesus who was crucified was the Redeemer, Paul therefore begins with this: that it was fitting for Christ to die, so that he might remove the stumbling block of the cross. And yet we must not think that he recited the bare history. Instead, he undoubtedly takes as a foundational principle that the reasons were shown why Christ must have suffered and risen again; namely, because he preached of the ruin of mankind, of sin and its punishment, of the judgment of God, and of the eternal curse in which we are all enveloped.

For even the Scripture directs us here when it foretells the death of Christ. As Isaiah says not simply that Christ should die, but plainly expressing—because we have all erred, and every one has gone his own way—he assigns the cause of His death: that God has laid upon Him all our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace is upon Him, that by His stripes we may be healed; that by making satisfaction for us, He has purchased righteousness for us (Isaiah 53:4–8). So Daniel also shows the force and fruit of His death in his 9th chapter (Daniel 9:24), when he says that sin must be sealed up, that eternal righteousness may succeed.

And surely, there is no more suitable or effectual way to prove the office of Christ than when people, humbled by the awareness of their miseries, see that there is no hope left unless they are reconciled by the sacrifice of Christ. Then, laying aside their pride, they humbly embrace His cross, of which they were previously both weary and ashamed.

Therefore, we must come to the same fountains today from which Paul draws the proof of the death and resurrection of Christ. And that definition brought great light to the second point. It would not have been so easy for Paul to prove, and certainly to establish, that the Son of Mary is Christ, unless the Jews had been taught beforehand what kind of Redeemer they were to hope for.

And when that once becomes clear, it only remains for those things to be applied to Christ which the Scripture attributes to the Mediator. But this is the sum of our faith: that we know that the Son of Mary is that Christ and Mediator whom God promised from the beginning; once that is done, that we know and understand why He died and rose again; that we do not imagine for ourselves any earthly king, but that we seek in Him righteousness and all parts of our salvation—both of which things Paul is said to have proved from the Scriptures.

We must know that the Jews of that time were not so obtuse, nor so insolent, as they are today. Paul could have drawn arguments from the sacrifices and from all the worship of the Law, at which the Jews today snarl like dogs. It is well known how improperly they distort and corrupt other places of Scripture.

In those days, they had some receptiveness in them; also, they somewhat reverenced the Scripture, so that they were not completely unwilling to be taught. Today, the veil is laid over their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:15), so that they can see no more in the clear light than moles.

Certain of them believed. We see here the fruit of Paul’s disputation. He proved plainly that Jesus was for us, and that his resurrection is the life of the world. Yet only some of the Jews believe; the rest are blind at noonday, and with deaf ears refuse the sure and plain truth.

This is also worth noting: while only a few Jews believed, a great multitude of the Greeks, who were much farther off, came to the faith. To what end can you say they were trained up in the doctrine of the law from their childhood, except only that they might be more estranged from God?

Therefore, the Lord now begins to show some signs of that blindness in them which the prophets often denounced to them. Nevertheless, he declares by this that his covenant was not in vain, because he at least gathered some of that people to himself, so that the sparkles of the election may shine in the remnant which was saved freely.

Luke also teaches that they did not believe Paul's sayings merely to the extent that they subscribed to them with a cold consent, but that they testified their earnest affection, because they had joined themselves to Paul and Silas as companions and provoked against themselves the hatred of their nation by the free profession of the gospel.

For what does this joining mean, except that they professed that they approved the doctrine which he delivered, and that they took his part? For there is nothing more contrary to faith than if, when we recognize the truth of God, we nevertheless stand in doubt and are reluctant to join ourselves to any side.

If anyone would rather explain it that they joined themselves to Paul and Silas because they were desiring to learn, so that they might be better instructed personally, this also shows the lively heat of faith. And this always remains an unmovable truth: no one truly believes in Christ except the one who gives himself over to him and freely and willingly fights under his banner.

Of religious Grecians a multitude. Because they had imbibed the first principles of godliness, they were nearer to the kingdom of God than others who had always lain in the filth of superstition. Nevertheless, the question is, how did the Greeks acquire religion, who, being bewitched with wicked errors and delusions, were without God? As Paul teaches (Ephesians 2:12).

But we must know that wherever the Jews were exiled, some seed of godliness went with them, and some savor of pure doctrine was spread abroad. For their miserable dispersion was so turned to an opposite purpose by the wonderful counsel of God, that it gathered to the true faith those who wandered in error.

And though religion among them was also corrupted with many wicked inventions, yet because most of the Gentiles were weary of their own madness, they were enticed to Judaism by this concise principle: that nothing is safer than the worship of the one true God. Therefore, by “religious Greeks” understand those who had some taste of the true and lawful worship of God, so that they were no longer given to gross idolatry.

Though, as I have said, it should be understood that it was only a light and obscure taste, which was far from true instruction. For this reason, Luke improperly gives them such an honorable title. But just as the Spirit of God sometimes graciously bestows the name of faith upon some elementary beginning and first exercise of faith, or even upon a mere preparation for it, so in this passage they are called 'religious' who, having abandoned idols, had begun to acknowledge one God.

And though that confused or obscure persuasion does not in itself deserve to be counted religion, yet because it is a step by which we come nearer to God, it takes its name from the consequence (as they call it) or from that which follows. Indeed, the blind and superstitious fear of God is sometimes called religion—not because it truly is so, but improperly, to note the difference between a deficient worship of God and gross and Epicurean contempt. Nevertheless, let us know that the truth and the sound doctrine of the word of God is the rule of godliness, so that there can be no religion without the true light of understanding.

And being moved with envy. We see how Paul could nowhere establish the kingdom of Christ without some conflict, for as soon as any fruit of doctrine appeared, persecution arose with it; but because he knew that he had to war against Satan and the wickedness of the world, he was not only hardened against all assaults, but he was also encouraged to proceed all the more courageously.

Therefore, all the servants of Christ must be content with his example: if they see that their labor yields some fruit, this reward must be their compensation for all kinds of persecutions. And this passage teaches that the zeal with which the unbelievers are carried headlong, and set on fire, is nothing but furious force, because it is not governed by the prudence of the Spirit, nor by righteousness or equity.

And though they always pretend the name of God as an excuse for their disordered zeal, yet this history plainly declares that mere hypocrisy reigns inwardly, and that all corners of their hearts are stuffed with poisoned malice. These enemies of Paul boasted that they were defenders of the law of God, and that they hated Paul and contended with him only in its defense.

Why then do they arm the wicked and conspire with them to cause a tumult? Why then do they also bring the gospel into such contempt before a secular magistrate, a contempt that could also have brought contempt upon the law? Such sedition plainly declares that they were motivated by anything but a desire to please God to be so hostile towards Paul. For to what end do they surround Jason’s house and strive in a disorderly way to drag Paul out from there, except to set him before the people to be stoned? Therefore, let us understand that wicked zeal, which is fervent (the original text notes it 'boils') in superstitious men, is always infected with hypocrisy and malice; and this is why it breaks out into cruelty without any restraint.

Taking to them certain vagabonds. The Greek word Luke uses signifies sluggards, and men of no account, who, having nothing with which to keep themselves occupied at home, ran up and down idly; or bold (the original text clarifies this as 'audacious') and hungry fellows, who are ready to perjure themselves to cause tumults and to be involved in every wicked deed.

From this it also appears that their own conscience told them that they were doing wrong, since they enlisted wicked men to take their side and support them. For since the magistrate favored them, what moved them to stir up that turmoil, except that they had no hope of success unless matters were thrown into disorder and everything was in an uproar?

And Luke describes how such instigators stirred up sedition; namely, they gathered the people together in groups and spread their poison here and there, until they were strong enough to make an assault. This tactic (the original text clarifies this as 'artifice') is all too common among seditious individuals, as those cities that are subject to this trouble know very well.