The gospel purposely sent west?

If so, for what sovereign reason?

I hope thoughts on church history fit here. If not, please feel free to switch them.

But,

First Missionary Journey

2 - "And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

3 - Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 - So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Selucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

5 - And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues (always to the Jew first); and they also had John as their helper.

6 - And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos etc....
(Acts 13:2-6)

They go on to Perga and Antioch (and on the sabbath day went into the synagogue - always to the Jew first) and on to Iconium and other places but never east. They return and the council of Jerusalem is held.

Second Missionary Journey

Disagreements arise and Barnabas and Mark sail to Cyprus and Paul "was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strenghtening the churches." (Acts 15:39-41. There's then Derbe and Lystra and,

6 - And they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

7 - and when they had come to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

8 - And passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas.

9 - And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a certain man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."

10 - And when we had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
(Acts 16:6-10)

So, they're forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia and later the Spirit of Jesus does not permit them to go to Bithynia. They obey the Macedonain vision and as a result,

First Convert in Europe

In Philippi,

13 - And on the sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

14 - And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

15 - And when she and her household had been baptized...
(Acts 16:13-15)

A lot of things happened and they visit and evangelize and teach in lot of places but never to Asia if I'm correct.

Third Missionary Journey

The journey includes Alexandria, Ephesus, Macedonia and Greece and Troas and eventually Rome
(Acts 18- the rest).

I know the gospel was to be sent to the ends of the earth and I'm sure many have been called to Asia and have gone. And I know they did go to what is known as Asia Minor But the initial thrust seemed to be sovereignly directed to "go west." I've heard that we need to be thankful because when Paul obeyed the Macedonian vision that the gospel "went west" and history has since shown the benefits of this obedience. Compare the map today of Christian countries versus other countries with other religions and we see some of the results. I'm thankful and I wonder why the Lord determined this direction and what His directives of where to go fit in with His overall plans. Not that He was entirely writing off the other areas of Asia. I've been speaking more with a recent Muslim acquaintance and I found out yesterday he is from Egypt where the Quaran has probably been taught to him since he was on his mother's knees. Just like the Bible was taught to many of us since we were on our mother's knees. I'm sure Egypt has been evangelized for the gospel but Egypt is predominantly Muslim and Muslim countries are many. But it seems to have somehow been because of the early and intial thrust of the church but this early evangelistic effort by the church seems to have been done under the Lord's specific directions. Being so long in the driver's seat, as I guess the west has perhaps unconsciously seen itself, I wonder if the west has perhaps unconcsciously developed the idea that "God came this way" because He saw something superior to deal with versus the rest of the folks. I'm not trying to knock any heads but it just becomes more and more apparent that whoever we are and wherever we live its grace upon grace that got us here. We could have just as well grown up in a predominant Muslim or Buddhist society or something similiar.

But have I even put correct meaning into the account of the direction Paul was given which resulted in his first convert in Europe? When Paul obeyed the Macedonian vision the gospel went west - is that a Christian urban myth or reality? But if the west continues to turn its back on its true Christian heritage it will have turned its back on a lot but I'm sure that's obvious. I'm just thinking out loud here.

A careful read of the passages you quoted shows that these men were seeking to be very sensitive to being led by the Spirit of God. Going into all the world and preaching the gospel was not something they could do as they saw fit. They had to be led by the Lord of the church to go where He wanted them to go... when He wanted them to go.

For example, they were not to go into Bythinia... and they were forbidden to go into Asia. They were to go into Macedonia at that time.

It should show us all our deep need to be submitted to the leading of the Spirit in all we say and do.

And the Gospel did eventually go into Asia. But what Luke and the others knew as Asia... this is different from what you and I think of today.

The Gospel was preached in Asia, and in fact we read in the Revelation of "the seven churches which are in Asia" (Rev. 1.4). Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc. This was the area the early church understood and knew as Asia.

Paul and those with him were not to go there at that time. The Holy Spirit has a specific timing for the will of God. We need to learn those timings.

Another thing you want to consider is that you are reading what is largely the history of the ministry that the Lord gave to the apostle Paul. Peter went to the Jews in Babylon which was under the rule of the Persians and definitely in an eastward direction. Church tradition teaches that the apostle Thomas was martyred in India.

Luke is not trying to give us a complete chronology of first century Christianity; rather, he was trying to show how the Church fulfilled the call to go to Jerusalem, Samaria, and the the ends of the earth. There was a tremendous spread of Christianity across northern Africa beginning at this time also.

Those are some pretty good replies with good insight to consider. I don't have time to respond right now but I have read the replies and will read them again.

"Doc"

Hulsey: Very true. The 12 were sent primarily to regions where Israelite populations existed from the diaspora. It is interesting that you bring up Thomas and India. I read recently of a group of Jews returning from there to Israel from the "lost" tribe of Manasseh. It makes sense that Thomas would have gone there to evangelize those of the house of Israel. No doubt he also won gentiles to the Lord in the process. Paul was called primarily to the gentiles, hence the places he traveled. I am not trying to second guess the Holy Spirit on this one, but the places Paul went have been a real center of influence in the whole world over the centuries. Paul also won many Jews to the Christ in the process as well.

I know this is a little off the subject, but I find it interesting. There is a group of Jews in Central America who call themselves sephardic Jews. Look up a place called sepharad in the KJV. They can trace themselves back to the southern coast of Spain. Interestingly enough, that is just where Jonah tried to book passage to rather than going to Ninevah. Why? Presumably because there was a thriving population of Jews that lived there.

Anyway, that is my 2 bits.

Travis

I've been speaking with a new Muslim acquaintance recently and it caused to look again at church history versus that of other religions. I don't know yet how Muslims feel about their early history but their first major evangelistic outreach seems to leave something to be desired even though I know there are peaceful Muslims in the world. I've been a little foggy before now but this part of history is beginning to get clearer and I know it's something you've heard before. I wonder how Arab textbooks would describe it.

Spread of Islam

"Moslems in Mecca and Medina planned the first major wars that spread Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa. After Mohammed died in A.D. 632, Abu Bakr was elected caliph, the Moslem ruler. He and his successors encouraged the jihad, or holy war. Within a hundred years, they built an empire which stretched from northern Spain to India. The rapid spread of Islam threatened Christian Europe and resulted in many wars between Christians and Moslems. The best known of these wars are the crusades."

(The World Book Encyclopedia - copyright 1960)

"Feeling himself spurned and convinced that the will of Allah had been defied by the Meccans, Mohammed began to shape a religious-political community dedicated to the punishment of sinners and to the spread of the true religion by the force of arms. He molded his converts, mostly Arab nomads from Mecca and its vicinity, into an armed political following, held together and inspired to obedience by the commands of the prophet. More and more Mohammed's revelations took the form of political and social legislation destined to create a nation of holy warriors. By 630 his following was strong enough to recapture Mecca, a feat that impressed many Arab tribes and caused them to join the prophet. During his last years Mohammed also turned his conquering force against other Arab tribes to compel them to join his community. When he died in 632, Mohammed was the leader of a large following of Arabs whose primitive tribalsim had been overcome by their willingness to obey Allah and his prophet.

Mohammed's success in drawing together the Arab world was impressive enough, but even more astonishing developments were to follow. Almost immediately after his death, the new Arab "nation" burst out of Arabia and began a series of military conquests that affected most of the civilized world. During the first generation after Mohammed (that is, from 632 to 661), Arab armies won an amazing series of victories that destroyed the Persian Empire and wrestled the prize provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and extensive areas of North Africa from the Byzantine Empire. Before the end of that period, Arab armies were probing India, and Arab sea power was developing to challenge Byzantine control of the Mediterranean. After a brief interlude during which internal problems over leadership of the Muslim community absorbed Arab energies, the advance resumed. During the latter part of the seventh century, all of North Africa was conquered while Arab forces pushed into the Indus Valley and the outer reaches of China. An offensive was mounted in Asia Minor, and the seemingly irrepressible Arabs moved closer to Constantinople. Before 700 they were in virtual control of the Mediterranean, a development which further threatened the Byzantine position. In 711 Arab forces from Africa crossed into Europe and quickly overran the Visigothic kingdom in Spain. From there they began to conduct raids into Gaul to threaten the Frankish kingdom. But the drive to expand was weakening by this time: In 717-718 Arab forces were defeated at Constantinople by Leo III and soon after were driven out of Asia Minor. In 732 - exactly a century after Mohammed's death - the Frankish leader Charles Martel defeated them in the Battle of Tours in Gaul and halted their further advance in Europe.

The conquest of this vast empire within a century represents one of the great military feats in all history.

(A Short History of Western Civilization - by John B. Harrison and Richard E. Sullivan - copyright 1960)

Some contrast!