Acts 13:1-3
Dedicated to Serve Because of Grace
August 4, 2002
Fans come in all shapes and sizes, but few fans are as dedicated and devoted to their team as Cub fans. People always tend to excuse their poor performance, but in Chicago, where the hapless Cubs have not won a World Series pennant since 1908, excuses have become an art form. As Rich Cohen writes in Harper's magazine:
When the Chicago Cubs last won a World Series, the automobile was still a new and untrusted invention.…In the years since…that series, most of the European monarchies have collapsed, two world wars have been fought, Communism has risen and fallen, and disco has come and gone and come again. Losing year after year, sometimes in the last weeks of the season, more often in the middle of August, the Cubs have become a symbol of futility, the blind, never-ending hope of a hopeless people. Before his death, Jack Brickhouse, the great Cubs play-by-play man, excused the team by saying, "Everyone is entitled to a bad century." (R. Cohen, "Down and Out at Wrigley Field" Harper's, 8/01)
What we must not forget is that our word “fan” comes from the Latin fanaticus, referring to one inspired by a deity, one given over to uncritical devotion. A fan is one dedicated, devoted, completely sold out.
Winston Churchill said: “A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”
While we may shake our heads at the devotion and dedication of the diehard fan, there is something admirable, that they are gripped by something which gives direction and purpose. If a fanatic is one so consumed that dedication becomes effortless, we must ask ourselves: “To what am I dedicated? What drives me to do what I do?”
If the ancients understood that the fanatic was propelled by some external being now an internal force, as Christians we must ask ourselves: “How does my relationship with Christ motivate me?” If people are dedicated to a team that never wins, to a cause with minimal benefits, how much more should we be devoted, dedicated to the God whose grace has declared us to be his own.
Our passage this morning shows us what happens when God’s grace grips God’s people. In response to grace, because of the life transforming power of the gospel, God’s people are dedicated to diversity, worship and obedience. God’s grace means not that we lose sight of our goal, not that we run frantically to a destination we know not, but rather we are energized by grace, devoted and dedicated to something greater than ourselves. In Acts 13 we see what happens to a church in the grip of God’s grace, dedicated to serving Him. READ Acts 13:1-3
Acts 13 is a watershed in Luke’s description of the progress God makes through His people. Up to this point the church moves forward by the impetus of persecution and the determination of a few individuals to tell others about Christ. In the recent weeks we’ve seen how the gospel crossed the great hurdle of ethnic division. Now the Gentiles are welcomed members. But now the focus of attention moves from Peter in Jerusalem to Paul in Asia Minor, with Antioch as the launch pad for this new mission.
You’ll recall that Antioch was a cosmopolitan city, the third largest in the Roman empire, just behind Alexandria in Egypt and Rome in Italy. But what made this city unique was that it was a great stew of cultures from the east and the west. When men from Cyprus and Cyrene took the good news of Christ to the Gentiles, the floodgates were now open to the rest of the world.
Let’s take a look at what happens when God’s grace grips God’s people.
When God’s grace grips God’s people they are dedicated to diversity v1
They are dedicated to a diversity of gifts
In today’s parlance diversity has become such a buzz word as to loose its meaning. It’s PC aura may make it loathsome to some people. Yet in our passage we are reminded that the nature of God’s grace does not limit, but expand. We expect that those dedicated to a cause will dress alike, act alike, will march in lock step fashion. But when God’s grace grips our lives, our dedication is to reflect that grace by welcoming those who may well be unlike us. In our passage diversity is seen in two areas, in the diversity of gifts and the diversity of backgrounds.
Luke begins by giving a short list of the various gifts that were exercised in Antiochian church, there were prophets and teachers. This is not the most extensive list possible. In Ephesians 4 Paul outlines the basis for these gifts: we have unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This unity is most clearly celebrated in the diversity of gifts God gives. Among those gifts listed in Ephesians 4 we see the two found in Acts 13: prophets and teachers. The distinction made by Luke between prophets and teachers is a difficult one to comprehend.
Most often we define prophets as those who were guided by the Holy Spirit to exhort people with boldness, based on being given supernatural insight by the Spirit into the meaning of Old Testament texts. There is a mixture of both foretelling and forthtelling, that is, revealing a truth not previously understood in the context of God’s previously revealed Word. The primary focus of the prophet would be to relate the coming Messiah and his work of redemption to very specific and personal events at that time.
Teaching on the other hand was would likewise communicate necessary information, but in a less applicatory fashion. This would be more of a nuts and bolts communication of information about specific details of how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. Teaching imparts specific universal information to an audience with the view of allowing the audience to draw the necessary applications.
While these gifts are given by the same God, they may either complement or conflict. I can imagine the prophets wanting the teachers to get beyond communicating the basic information and the teachers pulling their hair out when the prophets would spend so much time on application.
But as a church is gripped by God’s grace, as they wrestle with the implications of God enabling different people to different tasks, that being sold out to God does not necessitate that we all talk the same, walk the same and speak the same.
At Cornerstone my proclivity is toward teaching, so I am excited when there are those who bring a different set of gifts to the table. It would be easy to try to create a monolithic Cornerstone culture, where the Session are Chris clones, where we engage in deep theological discussions but never roll up our sleeves and engaged in mercy ministries.
They are dedicated to a diversity of backgrounds
Not only is there dedication to a diversity of gives, but God’s grace enables us to be dedicated to a diversity of backgrounds. This is seen in the list Luke gives us of those present in the church. We are unsure if these five men make up the prophets and teachers or if this is the pool from which God would choose those he wished to be sent out. But what is obvious is that these five men are a part of a diverse congregation
We have already spent time on Barnabas, a member of the tribe of Levi, the priestly clan. Yet Barnabas was from Cyprus in the Mediterranean, so his own background was both closely tied to the Jewish culture as well as affected by Hellenism.
The name Simeon is Hebrew in origin, but the nick name Niger may tell us he was an African, as niger is Latin for black, as seen in the country of Nigeria. There is some speculation that this Simeon is the same as Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross for Jesus in Luke 23:26. Cyrene is a port city in North Africa.
His sons, Alexander and Rufus were known to the Christian community as Mark 15:21 gives us their names. Mark’s Gospel is often understood to be written to those in Rome, so when Paul sends greetings to Rufus in Romans 16:13 and then goes on to say that Rufus’ mother has been a mother to him, it may be that he lodged with Simeon in Antioch.
Lucius of Cyrene, definitely came from North Africa. He may well have been one of the key leaders in Antioch in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles of that city, as Acts 11:20 tell us that men from Cyprus (Barnabas?) and Cyrene (Simeon and Lucius?) spoke to the Greeks.
Manaen is a Hebrew name which is further confirmed by the fact that he was a member of the court of Herod the tetrach. This Herod would be Anitpas, son of Herod the Great, uncle of Agrippa whose death we examined last week.
The description that he was a member of the court refers is syntrophos, literally means he was suckled by the same nurse as Herod, but by the first century came to mean that he was raised with him. He was perhaps a boyhood friend of the king.
Saul who is from Tarsus in Cilicia is listed with little more, as we will hear more of him later.
What is amazing is that the leadership of this church reflected the city in which they lived. The church in Antioch was not a monochromatic gathering which sought safety in gathering with those who were just like themselves. The church had those who were well steeped in Jewish culture, trained as rabbis, as Saul was. Manaen was likewise Jewish, but his upper class status would have placed him at odds with a Saul or Barnabas. The Simeon and Lucius from Africa show that the church is not just for those home grown boys of Syria, but is ready to include those from other lands.
This is not the first time this issue is addressed in Acts and it won’t be the last. God’s grace must grip our lives to such an extent that we will dedicate ourselves to accepting people unlike us, whose culture may even be at odds from our own.
When God’s grace grips God’s people they are dedicated to Worship v2
They are dedicated to worship that sacrifices
Their habit was to worship. Grace always leads to worship, but it is a worship that is not simple, easy and can be done without engaging the mind. The word used to describe their worship was originally used of public servants serving a city. Later it was used of a priest whose dedication to serve God was seen in his willingness to serve not for the money, but to serve God by serving people. This is the word most commonly used for worship, so that when we say “worship service” we are repeating ourselves.
Worship is not the activity of a few while the congregation remains passive. But worship is an activity in which we all engage with a view of serving God by serving each other. How did you serve others this morning? It may well have been in the songs you sang, songs which were not your favorite, but you know others enjoy them. It may have been in attentive listening to a sermon, so that you can leave here and share with someone else the truths you learned today.
There is another aspect of this worship which involves sacrifice. Not only were they worshipping, but they were fasting. This comes up twice in our passage, in v2 and 3.
Fasting is indeed a lost aspect often in churches, one which fell out of favor as Christians have prescribed it as necessary to grab God’s attention. Rather, what we see here is that when we are already grabbed by God’s grace, setting aside time to worship God and not so focused on our needs and comforts (like coming on a Sunday morning to a steaming elementary school gym) helps us to see that God’s grace means we will dedicate ourselves to worship that may mean sacrifice.
They are dedicated to worship that is sensitive
God sends the missionary through two essential and complementary means: the personal, inward call to the individual and the outward confirmation through the church.
What is meant when we are told that the Holy Spirit spoke?
The context of God speaking is worship, when the Word is forefront.
“A church that is sensitive to the mind & will of God is a church that offers itself in God’s grace to the world, to be used of God that men might be saved.” (W.A. Criswell)
Ideally, when Christians meet, as Christians, to take counsel together, their purpose is not--or should not be--to ascertain what is the mind of the majority but what is the mind of the Holy Spirit--something which may be quite different.
The first issue that we must deal with is the idea of Spirit-led calling to ministry. It is common for some of our contemporaries to appeal to texts such as this to support the idea that the Holy Spirit has called them to a particular "ministry," often times apart from a direct connection to a local church and apart from any legitimate church authority. This raises the question for all of us, "How do we know when we have been called by the Holy Spirit to a particular ministry?" "How does the Spirit led us today?" In answering this question it is important to point out that everyone has divinely given calling--a place to serve--but not everyone is called to serve in ministry. The Scriptures are clear that ministry is not more "spiritual" or legitimate than a secular calling. Both are equal before God. We usually determine our calling by simply finding out what were are good at and what we like doing. And as a result we serve God by fulfilling these callings to his honor and glory. But being called to a particular ministry is a bit different. Not only is there the sense of first determining what our skills and interests are, there is also the leading of the Spirit and the confirmation of that calling by the church. And it is clear that the Spirit does indeed call some to serve as missionaries, pastors, teachers, deacons, elders, and so on.
But how do we know whether we are called or not? Hopefully I can remove some of the mystery from this. First, there is the desire to serve in a specific capacity--what is called the "internal calling." But this is followed by an external confirmation of that call. And it is from texts like this that we have clear evidence that not only is there the subjective calling of the Holy Spirit leading certain individuals to perform various tasks, there is also the recognition of that internal calling by the external authority of the local church-- i.e., the elders. Paul and Barnabas were called by the Holy Spirit, but they were confirmed in this calling by the elders of the church through the laying on of hands. Just because someone gets a wild hare to serve and attributes this desire to the Spirit doesn't mean that they have been called. Such a person has no biblical legitimacy to "minster" until that calling is confirmed. So when someone has a desire to serve, and their gifts and calling are confirmed by the elders, then such a person can serve Christ's church, knowing indeed they have God's blessing. While this is not an infallible thing, it certainly provides an important check and balance for us who may have sincere desires, but not the gifts nor the calling.
First, to whom did the Holy Spirit reveal his will? Who is the “they” who were worshipping and fasting, and to whom he spoke? It seems unlikely that we are meant to restrict them to the small group of five leaders, for that would entail three of them being instructed about the other two. It is more probable that the church members as a whole are in mind, since both they and the leaders are mentioned together in v1, and on the not dissimilar occasion when the seven were to be chosen, it was the local church as a whole who acted (6:2-6). Moreover, when Paul and Barnabas returned, they gathered the church together. They reported to the church because they had been commissioned by the church (14:26-27). Further, if the Holy Spirit disclosed his purpose to the church, there is no need to except Barnabas and Saul themselves. Rather the reverse. Does not the Holy Spirit’s instruction to set them apart for the work to which I have called them imply that he had already called them before he made it known to the church?
Secondly, what was it that the Holy Spirit revealed to the church? It was very vague. The nature of the work to which he had called Barnabas and Saul was not specified It was not unlike the call of Abram. To him God had said, “Go to the land I will show you.” To the Antiochene church God said, “set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” In both cases the call to go was clear, while the land and the work were not. So in both cases the response to God’s call required an adventurous step of faith.
Thirdly, how was God’s call disclosed? We are not told. The most likely guess is that God spoke to the church through one of the prophets. But his call could have been inward rather than outward, that is, through the Spirit’s witness in their hearts and minds. However, it came tot hem, their first reaction was to fast and pray, partly (it seems) to test God’s call and partly to intercede for the two who were to be sent out. We notice that in neither reference to fasting does it occur alone. It is linked with worship in vf2 and with prayer in v3. For seldom if ever is fasting an end in itself. It is a negative action (abstention from food and other distractions) for the sake of a positive one (worshipping or prayer). Then, after they had fasted and prayed, and so assured themselves of God’s call and prepared themselves to obey it, they placed their hands on them and sent them off (3). This was not an ordination to an office, still less an appointment to apostleship (since Paul insists that this was not from men nor by man), but rather a valedictory commissioning to missionary service.
Barnabas and Saul surely felt a powerful inward call from God to be missionaries to the nations. And yet this was not enough. They knew that the ministry of the gospel itself was something that no one can just take to himself (Heb 5:4). They were not free to be self appointed, lone ranger preachers. God had instituted a church, with an order, a leadership, and a membership, and from whom and through whom his ministers would be ratified by the outward call of the body of Christ. This was no formality, no mere procedure of checking credentials and issuing the right papers. The church was seriously concerned to be of one mind with the Lord in this venture.
Today we do not expect audible guidance from the Holy Spirit, but guidance we do expect, through the prayers and the counsels of the church. When we also take into account that the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem had previously sanctioned the mission to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7-9) and that Saul already had the inward call to word (9:15; 22:21), we have a clear mandate for the church to exercise careful, prayerful responsibility in setting apart men to the ministry. The Antioch church might have rubberstamped either the apostles’ decision or Saul’s inner call, but they did neither. They sought the mind of the Lord themselves.
How do you suppose the Holy Spirit spoke to five people at once? Did the Spirit speak to five people at once, or did Simeon Niger say, “The Holy Spirit is telling me that we are to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work to which the Spirit has called them.”? We don’t know how the Spirit spoke to the men. All we know is that the Spirit spoke to them and they understood what the Spirit wanted. Most important of all: They DID what the Spirit asked. They laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them off. This was an outward-focused church. When the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them,” they knew exactly what the work was. It was going out and sharing the Good News of Jesus in the world. They knew this not just because Saul and Barnabas had already been doing this kind of work, but because it is the basic command of Jesus. His Great Commission tells us to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. The last words He spoke to the apostles, which we read in the first chapter of the Book of Acts are: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
When God’s grace grips God’s people they are dedicated to Obedience v3
They are dedicated to active obedience
There are many young people I find today who are looking to God to lead them in some dramatic way. They think they must go away and hole up in a cave somewhere to commune with nature in order for God to speak. Once they get away on a mountain somewhere then he will speak in some dramatic fashion and send them back with a great sense of call. Perhaps some here have been waiting thirty or forty years for that to happen, and it has not happened yet. Very probably it is not going to happen at all because God does not call that way very often. Sometimes he does, but usually his call comes when one is busy exercising his gift where he is, just as here. These men were busy employing their gifts, and, in the midst of their activity, the call of the Spirit came.
Now, I do not know how he spoke. It may have been through a prophetic utterance of one of these prophets as they were gathered together worshipping and ministering, (performing their gifts). Or it may well have been that he spoke as he speaks to many today in what we have learned to call "insistent unanimity," i.e., a deep conviction shared by everyone in the group that the Spirit of God desires a certain thing. This is the way he has led us many times here at Peninsula Bible Church. We have felt a deep, insistent sense that the Spirit was moving in a certain direction, and everyone shared it. Whenever we have had this sense of unanimity we have taken it as the leading of the Holy Spirit, and subsequent events have invariably proved it to be true. This is often the way God works. He spoke to men who were already at work doing what they knew. You can steer a ship or a car if it is moving, but it is very difficult to steer it when it is sitting still. God loves to see people at work at what they know to do, and then he will give them further direction. Notice also two elements of the Spirit's sovereign choice: He chose the men, and He chose the work.
Did you notice that when the Holy Spirit told Barnabas and Saul to go—they went. They didn’t argue. They didn’t claim that they weren’t well enough prepared. They didn’t say they needed another class. They didn’t say they might not be ready to answer people’s questions. They went. We might say, “Sure they went. They already had enough training. They were already chosen by God for the work. They were special. The results of Saul and Barnabas are unusual by today’s standards, but Saul and Barnabas were no more special than you and I. Saul had more religious training than any of the other Apostles, to be sure, but when he wrote to the Philippians he told them that such training and diplomas and status were all so much rubbish. Diplomas and degrees don’t lead people into the kingdom of God, into a relationship with Jesus Christ. People who are willing to focus outwardly in the name of Jesus, lead people to Jesus.
They are dedicated to sacrificial obedience - sent them off
Who then commissioned the missionaries? According to v4, Barnabas and Saul were sent on their way by the HS, who had previously instructed the church to set them apart for him 92). But according to v3 it was the church which, after ht laying on of hands, sent them off. It is true that the latter verb could be translated “let them go” discharging them from their teaching responsibilities in the church at Antioch, in order to make them available for a wider ministry. So, in our anxiety to do justice to the HS’s initiative, we should not depict the church’s role as having been entirely passive. Would it not be true to say both that the Spirit sent them out, by instructing the church to do so, and that the church sent them out, having been directed by the Spirit to do so? This balance will be a healthy corrective to opposite extremes. The first is the tendency to individualism, by which a Christian claims direct personal guidance by the Spirit without any reference to the church. The second is the tendency to institutionalism, by which all decision making is done by the church without any reference to the Spirit. Although we have no liberty to deny the validity of personal choice, it is safe and healthy only in relation to the Spirit and the church. There is no evidence that Barnabas and Saul volunteered for missionary service; they were sent by the Spirit through the church. Still today it is the responsibility of every local church especially of its leaders) to be sensitive to the HS. In order to discover whom he may be gifting and calling.
They sent out two of the most gifted leaders in the church, a step of faith.
The laying on of hands imparted no new power or giftedness, but showed solidarity of the church with the men.
Martin Luther said “A religion that does nothing, that saves nothing, that gives nothing, that cost nothing, that suffers nothing, is worth nothing.”
"The gospel must be preached afresh and told in new ways to every generation, since every generation has its own unique questions. The gospel must constantly be forwarded to a new address, because the recipient is repeatedly changing his place of residence." (Helmut Thielicke)
I have already indicated that it is not so much the process which is emphasized here as it is the fact that Barnabas and Saul were divinely appointed by the Spirit to go from Antioch and to continue their work in a much broader geographical context. Nevertheless, this is the first “missionary sending” of the New Testament, and thus we are obliged to lay this incident alongside current missionary methodology and see how the two compare. While I in no way see these three verses in Acts as laying down an inviolable pattern for sending out missionaries, I do think that our practice today is radically different, and in ways that at least cause me to wonder if we are going about mission in the best possible way. Much of what we are doing in missions is a matter of tradition, and not of biblical precedent. Let me point out a few areas of rather striking contrast.
(1) Current missionary practice is to send out young, inexperienced people, rather than mature, proven and experienced men. God sent out the two key leaders of the church at Antioch, not two young and inexperienced people. The work of missions requires all the maturity and proven giftedness the church can give. Why is our practice so different from what we read here? The young and inexperienced, I might add, were taken along as helpers, as John Mark was. In his first venture, Mark failed, but not irreversibly.
(2) Current missionary practice tends to leave the “leading of the Spirit” to the individuals who are sent out, rather than to reveal God’s leading through the most mature leaders of the church. In our times, missionaries go to the mission field when they feel led of God to go. Missionary boards are often those who are left with the decision as to whether or not God has led them to be sent out, but the church is not nearly as involved in the process of discerning God’s guidance, or in expressing God’s leading. I wonder why.
(3) Current missionary practice does not usually send out missionaries in teams, as Jesus did, and as the church at Antioch did. Happily, I think that there is a return to this practice of sending missionaries out in teams, but there are still many instances where this is not the case. The biblical precedent seems to be both clear and consistent. Sometimes there may be more than two sent out at the same time, but seldom, if ever, less.
(4) Current missionary practice seems to emphasize the need to send out “many” missionaries, but this church sent out only two. The theme goes something like this: “Millions (now billions) are dying without Christ; the more missionaries we can sent forth, the more of these lost can and will be saved.” From the standpoint of mere mathematics, this seems true. But God sent out only two men from Antioch, and look at the impact these men had. I am not so sure that the problem in missions is sending out too few people as it is not sending out those who God has called, and those whom the Spirit of God will empower and bless.
(5) Current missionary practice is dominated by the raising of missionary support, and yet money is not even mentioned in our text. If we had more money, more missionaries could be sent out, and these could be better equipped. That is the argument which I often hear. How many missionary letters have you read that did not mention money? I fully agree that those who minister have the right to be supported, although this support should come from those to whom we minister (cf. Luke 9:1-9; Luke 10:1-9; 1 Corinthians 9). The support of missionaries was commended (Philippians 4:15-16; 3 John 5-8), but Paul’s normal practice was to support himself, something which we do not hear a great deal about today.
I fear that in missions today there is too much human wisdom and too much dependence upon men and not on God. I pray that I am mistaken, but I frankly doubt it.
“Will you please tell me in a word,” said a Christian woman to a minister, “what your idea of dedication is?”
Holding out a blank sheet of paper the pastor replied, “It is to sign your name at the bottom of this blank sheet, and to let God fill it in as He will.”
