Incidental Characters – Acts 19:21-41

I have told you several times that I don’t go to public movie theaters.

That doesn’t make me a better person than those who do; it’s just that I don’t.

Also over the last several years, I don’t think that I’ve rented more than 2 or 3 movies in any given year.

But honesty forces me to admit that I do watch movies on TV.

And I also admit that whenever possible I like to read the footnotes and credits at the end of the movie.

If the scenery looked at all familiar, I try to see if I can guess where the film was made – especially if I think that it was in Canada.

And even though, I’m not familiar with all the actors and actresses, sometimes I recognize one of them and I try to figure out their name.

One of the fun things is to watch a really old movie and see a minor character being played by an actor who, 10 years later became a really big star.

Sometimes I am surprised when the credits point out the fact that the entire movie only had 5 characters.

Then again in other movies the list of names seems to go on for ever and ever.

We have read this scripture several times so far, and we’ve had several messages.

I think that we’ve milked it for just about all of the lessons that I can see this time around.

We’ll have just one more message next Sunday before moving on to chapter 20.

A year from now, when I read the Book of Acts once again,

I’ll probably see a multitude of things that I’ve missed,

but that will be next year not this year.

As I was reading the credits and names of all the players, I spied at least one more interesting application.

So, despite already looking at some, let’s briefly consider some more of the INCIDENTAL CHARACTERS.

First, there were the ASIARCHS.

Verse 30: – “And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.

And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.”

Although, as always, there is nothing wrong with our translation,

the Greek words “certain of the chief of Asia” is literally “certain of the ASIARCHS.”

All of the commentaries which I consulted agreed on this word “Asiarchs,”

But there was some little disagreement on what they actually were.

JFB wrote: “These were wealthy & distinguished citizens of the principal towns of the Asian province, chosen annually, and ten of whom were selected by the proconsul

to preside over the games celebrated in the month of May (the same month which Romanism dedicates to the Virgin).

It was an office of the highest honor and greatly coveted.

Certain of these, it seems, were favorably inclined to the Gospel, at least were Paul’s “friends,”

and knowing the passions of a mob, excited during the festivals, “sent (a message) to him desiring him not to adventure himself into the theater.”

A.T. Robertson said that “these “Asiarchs” were ten officers elected by cities in the province who celebrated at their own cost public games and festivals.

Each province had such a group of men chosen, as we now know from inscriptions,

to supervise the funds connected with the worship of the emperor, to preside at games and festivals even when the temple services were to gods like Artemis.

Only rich men could act (as Asiarchs), but the position was eagerly sought.”

John Gill differed just a little:

“These were not princes of Asia, rulers or governors of provinces, or cities, or civil magistrates;

but priests who presided over the games and diversions at the theatre, and had the management and command of things there.

Such an one was Philip the Asiarch, the church of Smyrna makes mention of in their account of the sufferings and martyrdom of Polycarp,

whom the people entreated that he would send out the lion to Polycarp; that is, out of the theatre which he had the command of;

but he replied he could not do it, because he had finished the theatrical exercises:

from whence it appears that he was the governor of the theatre, and had his title of Asiarch from thence, as these men had.”

There is no indication from the scriptures that there were special activities taking place in the theater at that time, but I suppose that it could have been possible.

Several commentaries suggested that this took place in the month of May when there were special festivities honouring Diana.

And more than one mentioned the fact that May is the month when Roman Catholics honour Diana’s Christian counter-part.

Whether or not that was the case, it is likely however that this WAS the place of gladiatorial combat and battles between men and beasts.

Elsewhere in Paul’s epistles, he hints that these things took place while he was in Ephesus.

In other words, Gaius and Aristarchus could have come close to becoming lion-food in honour of Diana.

But these Asiarchs were the men in control of such “games.”

Just as one of them later saved Polycarp from that death, these may have saved Gaius and Aristarchus,

And one or more of them may have convinced Paul not to enter the theater.

There is also no indication from the scriptures to suggest that these Asiarchs were Christians.

Just as most of us have acquaintances who are not children of God, Paul could have had some as well.

I have people who respect me as a Christian, but who have no desire to follow me to the cross.

Every Christian should have the respect of at least some of the lost around them.

Do YOU?

The next incidental character who needs to be addressed is Alexander.

Verse 32: – “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.

But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”

We need to remember that through the eyes of Demetrius and the other Gentiles, there was no difference between Paul and the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue.

As far as they were concerned, Paul was a Jew.

In fact maybe even worse – a wandering, trouble-making Jew.

Certainly, both the Christians and Jews believed that the worship of Diana was idolatry.

And when a Greek neighbor of theirs was converted to Christ, they saw it as nothing more than Jewish proselytism.

As thousands of the citizens of Ephesus swept into the theater, there were Jews swept along with them.

And when it appeared to the leaders of the synagogue that this was going to turn into an attack upon THEM, as well as against Paul and his friends, they decided to make a pre-emptive strike.

Alexander must have been one of the more eloquent men of the synagogue.

I’m sure that he was thrust onto the podium in order to disavow any connection with the Christians.

BUT when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”

When it comes to credits at the end of movies, I’m sure that there are union rules which come into play.

If someone is a member of the Academy of Screen Actors Guild or whatever it is called, I wouldn’t be surprised if their name HAS to be listed as one of the actors in that movie, no matter how minor his role.

But there was no actors guild, and there were no union rules, which forced Luke to name names here.

That tells me that there was good reason that we have been given the name of Demetrius.

And it could very well have been that he WAS the Demetrius whom John later praised as an exemplary Christian.

Could it also be possible that Alexander is named for much the same reason, or for an opposite reason?

For a while, before the Apostle John became pastor of the church in Ephesus, Timothy was its pastor.

Turn to II Timothy 4:23:

Your Bible doesn’t have verse 23? Then look just after verse 22:

“The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.”

Now go up to II Timothy 4:14: – “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit gave to us the name of Alexander here in Acts 19, because He intended to tell us more about this same man in II Timothy?

Now take a look at I Timothy 1:18: – “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

I think that one of the conclusions might be that for every potential Demetrius, there is a potential Alexander.

And you have a choice: either to be a blessing to the Gospel preacher or to be a knife in his side.

And I can assure you that the Lord of those preachers will not hold him guiltless who attacks His servant.

There are other characters in this story which we don’t need to study any more deeply right now.

There is the Apostle Paul, the human star of the show.

There is Demetrius, whom we’ve looked at in a couple of messages thus far.

And there is the town clerk, for whom I have a great deal of respect, even though, I don’t think he ever became a child of God.

For the same reason that I think that Demetrius was eventually saved, I don’t think that this man was.

Demetrius’ name is given to us, but this man’s name was not.

That proves absolutely nothing, but it does afford us a couple of clues.

But I do intend to return to this man next Sunday morning.

Two of the other characters in this story are Gaius and Aristarchus.

Bro. Knowles brought something to my attention last Sunday which is kind of interesting.

After the service he came and asked me if I had a self-pronouncing Bible, and I told him that I do.

We looked up the pronunciation of Gaius in my Bible, and it is “GAY-us,” but in his Bible it is “GI-us.”

One of the links that we have on our church web-site is to another web-site which pronounced Bible words.

This man’s name is among those on that site.

And which pronunciation does the internet recommend? “GAY-us” of course (he said triumphantly).

Once again, I remind you, that I learned thirty years ago,

not to argue about people’s pronunciation of Bible names.

When the experts can’t agree, I know that I don’t have any reason to enter the debate.

There are two other actors in this Bible story which we’ve looked at, skipped over, and to whom I return for just a moment.

Notice verse 21 once again:

“After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.

So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.”

As we said a week ago, these two men were sent to precede Paul’s second visit into Macedonia and Achaia.

(Which by the way is pronounced “A-KAY-ia” in that same internet program.)

Timothy, of course, was from Galatia, back east, closer to Syria.

Erastus, may have been the man who had been the chamberlain of the city of Corinth.

But neither was specifically from Macedonia where they were going to be doing most of their work for the next few months.

Now, how do you suppose Paul selected THESE two men to precede him?

I must assume that he felt that it was the leadership of the Lord.

The Holy Spirit led him to send people ahead of the main group, and it the Lord chose these two men.

The thing that I want you to see is that the two MACEDONIANS;

Men who might have had more influence over the churches in Philippi and Thessalonica, Gaius and Aristarchus, were left behind to be caught by the mob and nearly killed in the arena.

But Timothy and Erastus, who were not from Macedonia were permitted to escape this attack.

In other words, we need to learn to acknowledge the sovereign authority of the Lord over each of us.

God has every right to determine who will face the jaws of the lions and who will be the special guests of the Lord’s wealthier churches.

Ultimately, there was no harm that came to any of these four men.

And perhaps, Gaius and Aristarchus eventually received the greater blessing because of what they had to suffer for the cause of Christ.

But these are areas which belong to the Lord.

Its our job to be the willing recipient of either the Lord’s blessings or His trials, and to use whatever it is that the Lord gives us for His glory.

Are you prepared to be EITHER an Erastus or a Gaius?