Acts 16.6-7: 'Forbidden by the Spirit to preach in Asia'

[Macarius]

Hello,
I am having difficulties interperting these 2 verses, why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?
Thanks
Michael

[Kris]

Hello,
I am having difficulties interperting these 2 verses, why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?
Thanks
Michael

I remember reading something from one of the Fathers who said the Holy Spirit forbade them to preach to those people, at that time, because He knew they would reject the Truth. Therefore it was an act of mercy by which the people were spared the much greater condemnation that comes from knowingly rejecting Christ.

Later on, however, the Apostles ventured into Asia and spread the Word of God there.

[Father David Moser]

why would St. Paul, St. Silas, and St. Timothy be "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia." How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14?

This relates to the Church order which we also know from Holy Tradition. Asia was the "territory" of other apostles. By going there, St Paul would have been abandoning the flock that he was given by God and intruding on the responsibility given to another of the Apostles. I believe it was Nathaniel who had been given responsibility for that particular part of the world by the Holy Spirit and St Paul was given responsibility for Asia Minor, Greece and the Mediterranian. So this doesn't conflict, but rather acknowledges that St Paul was not the only apostle preaching the word in the world.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

I remember reading something from one of the Fathers who said the Holy Spirit forbade them to preach to those people, at that time, because He knew they would reject the Truth. Therefore it was an act of mercy by which the people were spared the much greater condemnation that comes from knowingly rejecting Christ.

Later on, however, the Apostles ventured into Asia and spread the Word of God there.

Dear Kris,

Do you know the patristic source of this? I'd be very grateful to know the larger text.

INXC, Matthew

[Robert Hegwood]

Is there a tradition that says they world was divied up among the apostles in some way. I'm aware that the tradition says that St. Andrew traveled as far north as Lake Ladoga and that St. Thomas ended up in India and St. Mark in Egypt.I can't say I entirely understand the territorial argument since St. John apparently had a number of Churches he was responsible for in Asia Minor ...wouldn't that overlap with St. Paul if that region was part of his responsibility.

[Peter Farrington]

Asia in this context does not mean our modern continent of Asia.


In Asia - See the notes on Act_2:9. This was doubtless the region of proconsular Asia. It was also called Ionia. Of this region Ephesus was the capital; and here were situated also the cities of Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia, etc., within which the seven churches mentioned in Rev. 1–3 were established. Cicero speaks of proconsular Asia as containing the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Carla, and Lydia. In all this region the gospel was afterward preached with great success. But now a more important and a wider field was opened before Paul and Barnabas in the extensive country of Macedonia.

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for this clarification.

In 1 Peter 1:1 it would seem that it had been left to St. Peter to bring the Gospel to this part of 'Asia', so it would seem at though this was a particular instance of the Spirit guiding the Apostles as He thought best, rather than any prohibition against preaching the Gospel in 'Asia'.

This seems to have been a hard time for St. Paul, if we judge by Galatians 4:13-14, but, as we are told in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

12:9 And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness. Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Delayed in Galatia by 'infirmity of the flesh', prevented by the Holy Spirit from going to Ephesus or to Bythinia, he found his way to Troas where he preached the word; an example of several kinds here, for all of us.

Macarius asked:

How does this edict relate to Luke 24:47 and Matthew 24:14? Also what ramifications do the aforementioned verses have on on the foundation of beliefs and our ministry?

It might be that the answer is that whilst it does not contradict the Great Commission, it reminds us to be mindful of the promptings of the Holy Spirit - and perhaps even that sheep stealing is wrong?

For me, it simply increases my admiration for St. Paul, who humbled himself to the will of the Holy Spirit and went where he was meant to go.

In Christ,

John