I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on Acts 17-18.

    When Paul and Silas preached in Thessalonica and Berea we see somewhat of a repeat of what happened to Paul and Barnabas. There are a few differences. In Thessalonica, Paul and Silas had reached a larger percentage of the prominent women and their opponents were unable to turn them against them. In this case those who wanted to make trouble for Paul and Silas needed to appeal to troublemakers in order to start trouble. Luke does not spell it out, but it reads to me like Paul and Silas were able to get their message heard by the prominent citizens of the Thessalonica so that even those who did not become believers did not accept the slander which their opponents spread about them. Then in Berea, when opposition started, only Paul needed to leave in order to calm things down. Silas and Timothy were able to stay in order to minister and teach longer. Of course, Luke tells us that the people of Berea were more open minded than those of Thessalonica. So, Paul’s confrontational approach to opposition was counterproductive, but they did not ask Paul to change. They just asked him to go elsewhere while Silas and Timothy remained and answered the arguments for those who were receptive.

    I have always loved Paul’s appeal to the Athenians both because I identify with their intellectualism/skepticism and because of the simplicity of the argument. Paul used the fact that the Athenians sense that there was likely a Power in the universe about which they lacked knowledge. From there he argued that that Power is God. Further he argued that their sense that they were missing something was a result of the signs to Himself which God had put in the very fabric of the universe. Finally, Paul made the case that God had now provided a more concrete knowledge about Himself through His resurrection of Jesus so that people could fully know who He was. The bulk of those listening were unwilling to accept the idea that God could resurrect the dead. This illustrates the problem with relying totally on logic; if your starting assumptions are wrong you will never be able to reach the correct conclusion.