An Interpretation of the English Bible
by B. H. CARROLL
Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Edited by
J. B. Cranfill
BAKER BOOK HOUSE
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright
1948, Broadman Press
Reprinted by Baker Book House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September 1973
Second Printing, September 1976
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING - MALLOY, INC.
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1976
I Historical
Introduction and Analysis
III An Introduction to the Second Chapter of Acts,
and
the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (2:1-36)
IV Pentecost
and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (2:1-47)
V Pentecost
and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Cont.) (2:1-47)
VI Pentecost
and the Kingdom (2:1-47)
VII The Theory
of Baptismal Regeneration (2:38)
VIII The Theory
of Baptismal Regeneration (2:38)
IX The
Gift of the Holy Spirit The Habit of the Early Church (2:39-3:1)
X The
Sadducean Persecution (3:1-5:42)
XI The
Office of Deacon, the Pharisaic Persecution, Stephen and Saul
to
the Front, a New Issue, and the Rejection of the Holy Spirit
and
the Anointed Church by Jerusalem (6:1-8:3)
XII Philip to
the Front (8:4-40;
21:8-9)
XIII The General Superintendence of the Apostles Over the Work
Outside Jerusalem,
The
Samaritans Welcomed into the Kingdom (8:14-26; 9:1-12:25; Gal. 1:18-20)
XIV An
Introduction to a Study of Paul
XV Paul's
Early Life Before He Enters the New Testament Story
(21:39; 22:3; 23:6, 34;
26:4-5)
XVI Saul, the
Persecutor (7:57-68; 8:1-4; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:9-11)
XVII Saul's Conversion, His Call to the Apostleship and His
Commission
(9:1-19,
22:5-16; 26:12-20)
XVIII Saul
From His Conversion to His Ordination (21:1-36)
XIX Antioch of Syria, the Center, and Paul's First Missionary
Tour to the Heathen
(13:1-14:28)
XX Antioch
of Syria, the Center, and Paul's First Missionary Tour to the Heathen
(Continued)
XXI The Great Conference at Jerusalem Concerning a
Vital
Question of Salvation and the Private Conference at Jerusalem on Paul's Independent
Apostleship and Gospel (15:1-35)
XXII The Great Social Question at Antioch and the Separation of
Paul and Barnabas in Missionary Work (15:36-39)
XXIII Paul's Second Missionary Tour, or the Gospel Carried Into
Europe (15:40-16:40)
XXIV The Ministry of Paul and His Companions at Thessalonica,
Berea, and Athens
(17:1-34)
XXV Paul at Corinth and the End of the Second Missionary Tour (18:1-22)
XXVI Paul's
Third Missionary Tour Paul at Ephesus (18:23-21:16)
XXVII Paul's
Third Missionary Tour (Cont.)
XXVIII From
Ephesus to Jerusalem (21:1-36)
XXIX Paul in the Hands of His Enemies at Jerusalem and His Speech
on the Stairway
(21:37-23:30)
XXX Paul Before
Felix and Felix Before Paul (23:31-24:27)
XXXI Paul and Festus: Festus and Agrippa; Paul and Agrippa (25-26)
XXXII From
Caesarea to Rome (27-28)
That Luke is the author of this book appears from its
first sentence (Acts 1:1), making it a continuation of his Gospel, and from the
use of the personal pronoun, first person, in some chapters, showing that he
was a companion of Paul, as in 16: 10_16; 20:5; 28:16. The book was probably
written at Rome, during Paul's first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:30), Luke
being then with him (Acts 28:16), and as we also see from the references in
Philemon 24 and Colossians 4:14. Its date was about A.D. 63. The person
addressed was Theophilus (Arts 1:1), to whom his Gospel was dedicated (Luke
1:1).
There are several New
Testament references to the author. We learn from Colossians 4:14 that he was
(1) a physician; (2) a Gentile Christian, probably one of Paul's converts; (3)
the author of two New Testament books (see Luke 1:1; Acts 1:1); (4) a companion
and fellow worker with Paul from whom he received many of the facts, given both
in his Gospel and in Acts; (5) he first appears in the story at Troas (Acts
16:10-11) and again at Philippi (Acts 20:5) and so continues with him to end of
the book, and (6) he was with Paul in both of his Roman imprisonments. In the
first imprisonment we have the testimony of Philemon 23; Colossians 4:14; Acts
28:16; and in the second Roman imprisonment we have the testimony of Paul in 2
Timothy 4:11.
The title of the book is,
as the manuscripts say, "Acts of the Apostles" or, without the
article, simply, Acts. Two of the general limits of the book are (1) the spread
of the gospel from Jerusalem, the Jewish capital, to Rome, the capital of the
world; (2) the time period, AD. 33 to A.D. 63, i.e., thirty years. Many
commentaries contest the propriety of its title, "Acts of the
Apostles", but that propriety is supported by the following
considerations: (1) It does give some of the acts of all the apostles, i.e., it
recites the names of eleven of the original twelve, and of their place of
meeting in an upper chamber (1:13); (2) it gives the history of the filling of
the place of Judas by Matthias (1:15-26) ; (3) it gives an account of the
baptism of all of them in the Holy Spirit (2:1-4) ; and subsequently of the
teaching of all of them (2:42) ; (4) it gives an account of their great prayer
meeting (4:23-31); (5) it teaches us that they all wrought miracles (5:12), and
were all imprisoned in the Sadducean persecution (5:18), and were all delivered
by an angel of the Lord (5:19), and were all beaten with stripes (5:40), and
that they continued their teaching (5:42) ; (6) it shows that they all
participated in the ordination of the deacons (6:2-6); (7) they all remained in
Jerusalem when the disciples were scattered abroad by the Pharisee persecution
led by Saul (8:1); (8) it shows that they all participated in sending Peter and
John to confer the power of the Spirit on Philip's converts in Samaria (8:14);
(9) it shows that some of them received Paul when he was introduced by Barabbas
(9:27); (10) they all received and justified Peter's account of the conversion
of the Gentile, Cornelius (11:1-18); (II) it shows that they all participated
in sending Barabbas to Antioch to look into the preaching unto the Greeks there
(11:20-22); (12) they were all suffering under the Herodian persecution, one of
them, James, the brother of John, being killed (12:9-24), and Peter imprisoned;
(13) they all participated, including Paul, in the decision of the great
question the greatest of the apostolic times whether Gentiles must become
Jews in order to be saved (15:1-21), and joined in the decree to the churches
officially settling this great question (15:22-30; 16:4) ; (14) there was also
full and official recognition of Paul's independent apostleship and of the
division of labor Paul and Barabbas to go to the Gentiles, and the others to
the circumcision (this we learn from Gal. 2:1-10); (15) from chapter 13 to the
end of the book we have the acts of the Apostle to the Gentiles. From these
fifteen particulars, the propriety of the title is sufficiently evident. It
must be observed that the title in the manuscripts is without the article, and
hence makes no claim to record all the acts of all the apostles. Indeed, its
first beginnings at Jerusalem, then in Samaria, then among the Romans at
Caesarea, then the Greeks at Antioch and various Greek cities of Asia Minor and
in Europe, and finally at Rome.
Another important matter is
settled by the book, viz.: that the apostles, though inspired, illumined, and
empowered by the Holy Spirit, were "set in the church." We find the
church, the whole 120, participating in the selection of Matthias; we find the
church participating in the baptism of the Spirit, in the institution of the
office of deacon, and in every detail of the worldwide character of the gospel.
For example, the action of the church in the case of the Samaritans receiving
the gospel, the action of the church in the case of the Greeks getting it, and
in the great judicial decision of Acts 15, as set forth in Acts 15:2, 6-7,
11-12, 15. This is a very important matter to know that even inspired,
illumined and Spirit-empowered apostles were set in the church and worked
through the churches.
Many special names, or ascriptions, have been given to
this book, e.g.: Barnes calls it, The Gospel of the Holy Spirit.
Chrysostom, the great Greek orator, The Demonstration of the
Resurrection. Luther calls it, A Commentary on Paul's Epistles. Eichorn,
A History of Missions Propagating Christianity. Lekebusch, A
Continuous Fulfillment of the Promise in 1:8. Grotius, A
Biographical Description of the Work of Peter and Paul. Baumgarten, The
Teachings and Deeds of the Risen and Ascended Savior. Others, "An
unfinished history of the church of the first century." Yet others,
"The growth of the church, external and internal, from its foundation in
Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, to its establishment in Rome, the center of
heathendom." Canon Norris has named it, The Continued Action of the
Risen Lord, Through the Spirit, in the Interval Between the Gospels and the
Epistles. (See the fine introduction by Professor Lindsay.)
Certain facts that justify somewhat the definitions of Barnes and Norris as
given above are as follows: (1) Jesus gave his sentence limits the record to
"beginnings." We have here worldwide commandment through the Holy
Spirit, 1:2; (2) they were to tarry until they were endued with that Spirit-
power (1:4) ; (3) they received this power (2:1-4) ; (4) every advance toward a
broader gospel was specifically Spirit-guided, viz.: the freer preaching of
Stephen, the broader work of Philip, the still broader work of the reception of
Cornelius, the preaching to the Greeks, the sending out of Paul and Barnabas,
the recognition of their work, the great decision in Acts 15, the
"Where-to-go," the "how-long-to-stay," the making of
officers in the church, and the blessings on their work, all of the Holy
Spirit.
The human heroes of the book are Peter, Stephen, Philip, and Paul.
We do well to trace on the map the missionary journeys of the book:
1. The Journeys of Philip:
(1) From Jerusalem to Samaria; (2) From Samaria to the desert land between
Jerusalem and Gaza; (3) Thence to Azotus, and thence to Caesarea.
II. The Journeys of Peter: (1) He first goes (with
John) from Jerusalem to Samaria, and then returns; (2) he goes to Lydda; (3) to
Joppa; (4) from Joppa to Caesarea; (5) thence to Jerusalem; (6) from Jerusalem
he goes back to Caesarea, where he is left, so far as this history goes. (See,
again, Professor Lindsay's Acts of the Apostles.)
III. At the dispersion caused by Saul's persecution we have the journeys of
some unnamed brethren who (1) carried the gospel from Jerusalem to Phoenicia;
(2) others to the island of Cyprus; (3) yet others to Antioch of Syria.
IV. The Journeys of Barnabas: (1) From Jerusalem to Antioch; (2) from Antioch
to Tarsus after Paul; (3) from Tarsus back to Antioch with Paul; (4) from
Antioch back to Jerusalem with Paul; (5) from Jerusalem back to Antioch with
Paul; (6) from Antioch with Paul and Mark, on a long missionary tour and
return; (7) from Antioch, with Paul, to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) ; (8)
back to Antioch; (9) from Antioch to Cyprus, with Mark, after the separation
from Paul.
V. The Journeys of Paul: (1) As a persecutor from Jerusalem to Damascus; (2)
after his conversion, from Damascus to Arabia and back to Damascus, three
years; (3) from Damascus to Jerusalem to see Peter; (4) from Jerusalem to
Tarsus, several years; (5) from Tarsus to Antioch, with Barnabas; (6) from
Antioch with Barnabas to Jerusalem, carrying alms, about the time James was
killed and Peter imprisoned by Herod (Acts 12); (7) from Jerusalem back to
Antioch; (8) then follow his three great missionary tours, ending at Jerusalem
(Acts 13:1 to 21:19); (9) being arrested at Jerusalem, he, with many
vicissitudes, by land and sea, is carried to Rome (Acts 21:20 to 28:31).
We should note the contemporaneous history in the thirty years covered by Acts:
I. Roman Emperors: (1) Tiberius, under whom Christ was crucified; (2) Caligula,
A.D. 37; (3) Claudius, A.D. 41, mentioned in Acts 18:2; (4) Nero, A.D. 54.
II. Civil Rulers in Judea: (1) Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator until A.D. 36;
(2) Herod Agrippa I, the Herod of Acts 12. Under Caligula, the Roman Emperor,
he obtains, first, Gaulonitis, then Galilee and Perea. Under Claudius he gets
Samaria and Judea, and so rules all Palestine until his death, A.D. 44. (3)
Cuspus Fadus, at the death of Herod, becomes Roman procurator. (4) Herod
Agrippa II, the King Agrippa of Acts 26, was king, but not of Judea. (5) Felix
was made procurator by the Emperor Claudius. He is the Felix who trembled under
Paul's preaching, but left him a prisoner (Acts 23:24). (6) Festus was made
procurator by the Emperor Nero. He is the Festus before whom Paul appeared
(Acts 25).
III. The High Priesthood, which underwent many changes: (1) Caiaphas, before
whom Christ appeared; (2) Jonathan, son of Annas, A.D. 37; (3) Theophilus, son
of Annas, A.D. 38; (4) Simon Cantherus, A.D. 41; (5) Matthias, son of Annas,
A.D. 42; (6) Elionacus, son of Cantherus, A.D. 45; (7) Ananias, A.D. 47; (8)
Ishmael, son of Phabi, A.D. 59.
The divine purpose of the book appears in its relation to the Gospel by the
same author, and the relation of both to the glorious person of our Lord. This
book must be considered primarily as a continuation of Luke's Gospel concerning
the one glorious person, our Lord Jesus Christ, in his saving relation to the
whole human race the Gospel telling us what Jesus began to do and teach until
his ascension and exaltation to his mediatorial throne; Acts telling us what
this glorious King continued to do and teach until his kingdom had extended
from Jerusalem, the center of Judaism, to imperial Rome, the capital and center
of the heathen world. The Gospel gives an account of the earth life of Jesus,
while Acts gives an account of his heaven life.
The stress in both books is on the humanity of our Lord
in his relation to the whole race of man, the Gospel, unlike Matthew, tracing
his genealogy beyond Abraham, and even Noah, back to Adam; and unlike John,
stressing less his antecedent deity, while Acts shows the risen, ascended man
made both Lord and Christ, and reigning in heaven to carry out on earth and for
all nations the purposes of his sacrificial death in Jerusalem, beginning,
indeed, at Jerusalem, but extending to all nations.
We miss the mark in interpreting the book if we do not see this aim of the two
books, set forth so plainly in Luke 24: 44-48. "And he said unto them,
These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the
prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they
might understand the scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is written,
that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all
the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things."
It is reaffirmed in Acts 1:6-8. "They therefore, when they were come
together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom
to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons,
which the Father hath set within his own authority. But ye shall receive power,
when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth." It is repeated in Peter's Pentecostal sermon: "For to you is
the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many
as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:39), and abundantly
evidenced in the freer preaching of Stephen, the wider work of Philip, and the
startling commission to Paul at his conversion (Acts 9:15; 22:14-21; 26:16-18),
and in the vision of the ark to Peter, followed by the reception of Cornelius,
and in the preaching to the Greeks at Antioch: "But there were some of
them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto
the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with
them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord" (Acts
11:20-21) ; in the sending out of Barabbas and Saul to the Gentile world (Acts
13:1-4) ; in the decision of the great question of salvation in Acts 15,
preceded by the solemn giving of the hand of fellowship to the Gentile workers
(Gal. 2:1-10); in the side-light settlement of an involved social question just
after (Gal. 2:11-21); and in the devotion of the greater part of the book to
the labors of the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
The divine superintendence in all the transactions recorded in the book appears
from the evident reluctance of the human agents to follow the broader lines of
salvation, on equal terms for all men. Every forward step was questioned,
investigated, contested, and reluctantly taken. The Jewish prejudice fought
hard and long. If Philip preaches to Samaritans, as our Lord did, that matter
must be investigated (Acts 8:14). To even our Lord himself, urging the open
door to Gentiles, Peter characteristically replied, "Not so, Lord" (Acts
10) ; and when Peter was convinced himself, he had to explain to a questioning
church (Acts II); and so long as the disciples, scattered abroad by Saul's
persecution, preached to Jews only, it was all right, but when some of them
preached to Greeks, a deputation was sent to look into the matter (Acts
11:19-23).
What a solemn time they had over the great question decided in the council at
Jerusalem! How strange that Peter, who so successfully justified himself when
believers of the circumcision arraigned him for "going in to men
uncircumcised and eating with them" (Acts 11:2-4), in the case of
Cornelius, should allow himself to be browbeaten into dissimulation by the same
men on precisely the same point, but a little while after, at Antioch (Gal.
2:11-21). How fiercely the same narrow-minded element obstructed every step of
Paul's advance toward a worldwide gospel! And how stubbornly even Paul himself
insisted on being a home missionary to the Jews, instead of going far hence to
the Gentiles! (Acts 22:17-21.)
The marked difference between this book and the Gospel by the same author
appears from two facts: (1) While the purpose of Acts is to show a continuation
of the Gospel account of what Jesus "began to do and teach," in the
Gospel, Jesus acts immediately in his own person, but in Acts he works
mediately through the Holy Spirit. Hence Acts has been aptly styled "The
Gospel of the Spirit." When in his lifetime he had said, "I will not
leave you orphans; I will come to you," and when in the great church
commission he says, "Lo, I am with you all the days," the meaning is
this: "I will come by the Holy Spirit; I will be present by the Holy
Spirit." This omnipresence by the Spirit was far more expedient and
profitable to them than a limited presence in the flesh. (2) While Acts is a
continuation of Luke's Gospel account of what Jesus began to do and teach, the
Gospel tells of what he did and taught on earth Acts, what he did and taught
from his throne in heaven. In both, the stress is on the humanity of our Lord
in his saving relation to the whole race. This purpose overrides the prejudices
of all the Jewish subagents.
I commend to you as fine, clear, and simple, Dr. A. T. Robertson's
"Outline" as it appears in his Student's Chronological New Testament:
I. Jerusalem as the Center (1-12).
1. Waiting for the promise of the Father (1).
2. The promise fulfilled at Pentecost (2).
3. An incident in the work of Peter and John, and opposition encountered from
the Sadducees (3:1 to 4:31).
4. Wrestling with a social problem in church life (4:32 to 5:11).
5. Outward prosperity and renewed hostility from the Sadducees (5:12-42).
6. Meeting a crisis in church administration (6:1-7).
7. The Pharisees aroused by the preaching of Stephen, and his consequent death
(6:8 to 8:la).
8. The forced expansion of Christian effort in Judea, Samaria and the
surrounding countries, as illustrated in the career of Philip (8:lb-40).
9. The complete change in the affairs of Christianity wrought by the conversion
of Saul the persecutor (9:1-31).
10. The door opened to the Gentiles (9:32 to 11:30).
11. The new persecution from the civil government Herod Agrippa 1 (12).
II. Antioch as the Center (13:1 to 21:14).
1. The formal entrance of Barnabas and Saul upon the missionary enterprise
(13:1-3).
2. The first great mission tour of Paul and Barnabas (13: 4 to 14:28).
3. The conference at Jerusalem over question of Gentile freedom from Jewish
ceremonialism (15:1-35; cf. Gal. 2: 1-10).
4. Paul's second great mission tour (15:36 to 18:22).
5. Paul's third great mission tour (18:23 to 21:14).
III. Paul in the hands of his enemies
(21:15 to 28:31).
1. In the toils at Jerusalem (21:15 to 23:30).
2. Before Roman Court at Caesarea (23:31 to 26:32).
3. To Rome with appeal to Nero (27:1 to 28:15).
4. For two years awaiting Nero's pleasure (28:16-31).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
There are many good commentaries on Acts available for English Bible students
who know no Greek. As examples I name:
(1) Professor Lindsay; publishers, T. and T. Clark. This, in two parts, is
small, portable, clear, and simple. Any country preacher without knowledge of
Greek can easily understand it.
(2) Hackett on Acts American Commentary. This is critical and
classical, but cold. One never reaches the revival spirit through Hackett. From
some of its critical statements and interpretations we dissent.
(3) As an old, but warm, spiritual commentary, Barnes on Acts is good.
QUESTIONS
1. Who wrote the book of Acts, and what is the internal proof?
2. Where was the book written?
3. When was it written?
4. To whom was it written?
5. What are the chief New Testament references to the author?
6. What is the title of the book?
7. What are some of the general limits of the book?
8. What may we say of the propriety of its title, Acts of the Apostles, which
has been so generally contested by the commentators?
9. What great matters touching the kingdom were thus settled, not by one
apostle, but by the body of apostles?
10. What other important matter is settled by the book?
11. Mention some special names, or ascriptions, men have given to this book.
12. Cite some facts which justify somewhat the definitions of Barnes and Norris.
13. Who were the human heroes of the book?
14. Give the missionary journeys of the book.
15. What contemporaneous history in the thirty years covered by Acts?
16. What is the relation of Acts to the Gospel of Luke, as to time, and how are
these books related, as to the glorious person of our Lord?
17. What is the stress of each of these books?
18. What is the aim of the book, and its bearing on the interpretation?
19. What is the evidence of the divine purpose of the book?
20. What are the marked differences between this book and Luke?
21. What outline commended, and what the main points of this outline?
22. What books are commended on Acts?
THE DEDICATION, THE INTRODUCTION,
AND THE WAITING CHURCH
Acts 1:1-26.
The key passage of the book of Acts, taken in connection with Luke 24:47, is
1:8: "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you:
and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
The whole book is a development of that passage. The scope of the book is the
progress of the gospel by the church through the Spirit from Jerusalem to Rome,
and the time period of the book is thirty years. The first chapter is divided
into two parts: (1) A dedication, and the introduction, the first eleven
verses; (2) the waiting and preparing of the church for the promise of the
Father (5:12), to the end of the chapter.
This discussion will be devoted to chapter 1. The book, like Luke's Gospel, is
dedicated to Theophilus a Greek word, meaning a friend of God. We do not know
about Theophilus beyond what is stated in the Gospel and in this book. The
chapter is divided into two time periods the introduction covering forty days
from the resurrection of Christ, until his ascension, and the ten days in which
the church waited and prepared for the giving of the promise by the Father.
It will be observed at once that this book is a continuation of the Gospel by
Luke, the first fourteen verses being but little more than a resume of Luke
24:33-53, and as in the Gospel he recites what Jesus began to do and to teach,
until his ascension, so in this book he recites what Jesus began to do and to
teach from the ascension up to the time that the gospel reached Rome in the
person of Paul. It is quite necessary, however, to distinguish between the
doing and the teaching of Christ in the Gospel, and the doing and the teaching
of Christ in Acts. In the Gospel, we have an account of what Christ did and
taught on earth, and here what he does and teaches from heaven. Especially note
that both the Gospel and Acts confine what they say to the
"beginnings" of his doings and his teachings. The Gospel does not
attempt to enumerate everything that Jesus did and everything that he taught.
So in Acts, only the beginnings are presented. We have the beginning in
Jerusalem, in Samaria; the beginning at Antioch; the beginning at all the
places visited by Paul, but not everything that was done at any of those places
is told in this book. The object of the book is to show the start in each
place.
Another distinction between the two is this: The Gospel tells what Christ did
and taught directly and personally; the Acts tells what Christ did and taught
mediately through the Holy Spirit and the church. But Jesus is the hero of both
books. It is important to remember to keep in mind continually the
conception of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts. Where is he? In heaven. What is
his position there? He is enthroned as King of kings and Lord of lords, at the
right hand of the Father. What is he doing there? He is reigning as King, and
through his providential government caring for his gospel, his kingdom, his church
here upon earth; and so making all things work together for good to them that
love God; and up there, he is also interceding as High Priest for his people.
He is their Advocate in heaven. In this book, the Holy Spirit, his alter ego,
is their Advocate on earth.
We are next to consider in this book the conception of the church, particularly
in the ten days of waiting, and we are to understand the church as already
organized. It has its chief officers, the apostles. Its laws and ordinances as
an institution are already established. As a particular church at Jerusalem it
will soon have its deacons and pastors. We are to conceive of the church also
as commissioned that the church is commissioned to do two things: (1) To bear
witness to give testimony and the fact to which they are to give testimony
or bear witness, is the resurrection of Christ; that the same Jesus who was
crucified gave the resurrection as a sign and proof of his messiahship; that
same Jesus was raised from the dead, and was received, after being recognized
on earth, up into heaven. That is the first part of the commission of the
church to bear witness to the fact that Christ is risen. (2) Another duty of
the church is to proclaim to the whole world this risen Christ as the Saviour
of the world, and that is the theme all through the book.
Notice that the church, while organized, is yet ignorant of some points, viz.:
"Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" That is
the question they propounded to him. They had in mind an earthly, Jewish
kingdom, Just as the premillennialists have in mind an earthly, Jewish kingdom,
at the second advent of our Lord. He evades that question by telling them it is
not for them to know the times or the seasons. Our words, "times" and
"seasons," indicate long and short periods. Chronos means a
long time; kairos, a short period of time. In this way Jesus hints that
there are to be long periods of time before the prophecies concerning himself
in his word are to be entirely complete.
Note also, concerning the church, its form of government. Though there are
apostles who are ambassadors for Christ, and qualified to speak for him, yet in
the church, they are all on an equality, with a congregational form of
government; no distinction between apostles, deacons, and other brethren, and
none between man and woman. It is the only pure democracy the world ever saw. A
pure democracy is one in which all of the people of the state, without regard
to age or sex, or previous condition of servitude, participate on a footing of
equality. In this church, we see three classes of people: (1) The eleven
apostles, kingdom officers, (2) certain noted women, to whom Luke, in his
Gospel, refers several times, as did the other Gospels women that had sustained
Jesus by their contributions, and we know the names of most of them, names
given in the Gospels and 'in Acts, (3) also the four brothers of Jesus. In the
last Gospel account of them we find that they were unbelievers: "Neither
did his brethren believe on him," is. e., his brethren according to the
flesh. But here they are in the church, and we safely infer that they were led
to faith by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ to James, the oldest of the
brothers. When Jesus appeared to James after his resurrection, it doubtless led
to the conversion of James, Jude, Simon, and Joseph, the four half-brothers of
Jesus. They are now in church, and one of them is to be very prominent. He is
to be the pastor of the first particular church; he is to write, perhaps, the
first New Testament book that was written. Another of them, Jude, is to write
one of the latest of the New Testament books. These are the brothers of our
Lord. And these are the three special classes named in that first church the
apostles, the women, and the brethren of our Lord. Among the women his mother
is particularly specified, and this is the last reference to his mother that we
have in the Bible.
You don't get from the Bible the Mariology and the Mariolatry of Roman
Catholicism.
You will remember that Jesus, when dying, commended his mother to the apostle
John. His brothers were very poor; they were not able to take care of her. But
John was wealthy, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, remained with John until
she died. But the Bible does not tell anything about her being taken up to
heaven without dying, or anything about her own immaculate conception; nor that
she was born holy; nor does it tell us that she is queen of heaven, and the
fountain of all grace, and the source of salvation. All that comes from the
perversions of the doctrines of Christ in the later ages.
This church, in that ten days of waiting, occupied itself in doing the
following things: At the close of his Gospel, Luke says that they worshiped in
the Temple with great joy; that they continued in the Temple. In that upper
room where the Lord's Supper was observed, and where some of the appearances of
Christ were made to them, they continued steadfastly in prayer. We infer the
object of those prayers by the promise which had been given: "Ye shall be
endued with power not many days hence . . . and ye shall be my witnesses, both
in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth," i.e., "tarry until you are endued with this power; Is will
send upon you the promise of my Father." Naturally, in those ten days,
when they prayed, they prayed for the power of the Holy Spirit to qualify them
to do their work as a church. The thing that gave them joy was that when Jesus
ascended into heaven, the angels came and said, "This Jesus, who was
received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him
going into heaven." So that the ascension of Christ is directly connected
with the second advent of Christ in its teaching. As the Lord's Supper
continually points forward to the final advent, so the ascension points to the
final advent. But you have not fairly started in theology until you are able to
answer these three questions: (1) Why was Jesus exalted to the right hand of
the Father? (2) What is he doing up there? (3) How long is he to stay up there?
Acts answers them. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, tells us that
because he voluntarily laid aside his glory in heaven and took upon himself
human nature, and in the nature of mankind suffered and died for the salvation
of men, therefore, "God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
above every name . . . far above all angels, principalities, and powers."
Man was made originally a little lower than the angels, but with the purpose of
God that he should one day be above the angels. And this is first fulfilled in
the ascension of Christ. We do not see all dominion, once conferred upon man,
exercised by man, but we do see Jesus Christ, who was made a little lower than
the angels, exalted to the right hand of the Father, far above all
principalities and powers.
In connection with this ascension, so far as Luke's Gospel goes, and so far as
the book of Acts goes, Jesus passes out of sight in the cloud. But the book of
Daniel, and one of the psalms tell us more about the passage up into heaven.
The psalm describes him as he approaches heaven, telling us how he left the
earth, and that as he approached the heavens he cried out, Lift up your heads,
0 ye gates; Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors: And the King of glory will
come in. Who is this King of glory? Jehovah of hosts, He is the King of glory.
Then Daniel tells us exactly how he was received in
heaven, saying, "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with
the clouds of heaven one like unto a Son of man, and he came even to the
Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and
languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which
shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"
(Dan. 7:13-14).
And that the kingdom was to be fulfilled down here upon the earth among the
saints, for an everlasting possession. Notice in studying the Bible how one
book supplements the teaching of another book. This book of Acts lifts him up
out of sight in a cloud; that psalm shows him approaching heaven; Daniel shows
him reaching heaven and receiving his kingship; Philippians shows the extent of
his domain when be had ascended into heaven. As to how long he will stay there,
this book of Acts and the psalm distinctly answer (Psalm 110:1): Jehovah saith
unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies they
footstool.
How long? Until he has made his enemies his footstool; and that psalm tells us
how he will exercise his power that he is sending forth his power (army)
through Zion; that in the day in which he leads out his armies here on earth
his young men shall be volunteers, and shall go forth in the beauties of
holiness, and shall be as multitudinous as the drops of dew in the dawn of the
morning. It is very important in the beginning of this book to see that the
hero of Acts is the hero of the Gospel by Luke; that the hero of Luke is the
hero on earth, and the hero of Acts is the hero in heaven the one continuing
in heaven his teachings and deeds on earth, but through the Holy Spirit and the
church. But while that psalm limits his stay in heaven "until his enemies
are made his footstool," this book limits his stay thus "whom the
heavens must receive [or retain] until the times of restoration of all
things."
The last conception of the church to which Is shall refer in her waiting state
is that while it is organized and complete, and while it is commissioned, yet
as a house, since Jesus left it, it is empty. While Jesus was with it, that
house; was not empty. During its emptiness it is waiting for its infilling and
for its power.
In that waiting period of ten days, or toward the end of it, there is quite an
important incident given. Peter, whose mind has been illumined, as we learn
from the last chapter of Luke, where the Lord opened their minds that they
should understand the scriptures, cites passages from the psalm, one of which
had been fulfilled in the death of Judas, and one other was to be fulfilled in
a successor to Judas, and he wants the apostolic college complete before the
power comes down. So he goes up in the presence of the 120, not as a dictator,
but speaking to them as brethren, on the footing of equality, saying,
"Brethren, it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which
the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was
guide to them that took Jesus. . . ." For it is written in the book of
Psalms, "Let his habitation be made desolate, and let no man dwell
therein; and his office let another take." "Office" here means
overseership.
This scripture says, "Let another take his office." Now they must
have the number complete, and so the manner of selecting a successor to Judas
comes up. The church determines certain qualifications (5:21-22): "Of the
men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that
he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his
resurrection."
Note the qualifications: He must have continued with the Lord up to the present
time, beginning with the baptism of John, and be a competent witness of the
resurrection of the dead. Those qualifications he must have to be one of the
twelve apostles to the Jews. The baptism of John was the beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and as he is to occupy the position of a
witness, he must have continued all the time that the Lord went in and went out
among the disciples. There were several men in the congregation who had that
qualification, from whom they might nominate, but here was a matter which the
church could not determine who of the men so qualified the Lord himself would
choose to fill that office. They could refer the case to him, but they could
not decide the question. Christ alone can call; he alone can call one to be an
apostle. He is not there in person; the Spirit has not yet come down; and so
Peter proposes that the church nominate, and appeal to Christ by his province,
to determine which of those nominated shall be the one. They selected two
Joseph, called Barsabbas, and Matthias both good men; both, from the baptism
of John to the present time, had been with Jesus; both were witnesses to the
resurrection of Jesus; they have the general qualifications. But the church
could not know the heart of Matthias, nor the heart of Joseph; so they prayed.
Here then is a prayer made particularly to the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has
the right to select an apostle: "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all
men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen."
The method of determining the decision of Jesus Christ was by lot. There are
many places in the Old Testament where matters are decided by lot. The lot is
cast, but the disposing of the lot is of the Lord. So they would write on
little tablets, "Matthias" or "Joseph Barsabbas," and they would
put these tablets into an urn and shake them, and one of them would fall out.
The one that fell out had the name "Matthias" on it, and if the Lord
disposed of the lots of those nominations by the church, Matthias is designated
as the apostle to take the place of Judas.
Just here, note that we get our word "clergy" from that transaction,
derived from kleros, a lot, and as the lot was used to determine who
should enter that ministry, and as the lot designated which one was to be in
that ministry, so the ministry at large are called "clergy," from
that word "lot."
Here arises the question: Was the election of Matthias presumptuous and
unauthorized, and what is the argument pro and con? An old Hardshell brother
once said about it: "Brethren, you know that man Peter; well, he was
always going off with his mouth half-cocked, continually getting into trouble,
and though the Lord distinctly said, 'Wait until you be endued with power from
on high,' this Peter in his forwardness proposes to elect an apostle, and who
do you think they elected? You never will guess if I don't tell you. It was
that little man, Matthias, and he has never been heard of from that day to
this; and if I had been there, I would have voted for Paul, sure." That is
the Hardshell position. One of the greatest Methodist bishops practically takes
the same position, and many other people believe that the election of Matthias
was unauthorized. They say, "When we see the foundations of the heavenly
city there are twelve names on them, the names of the twelve apostles. Now, if
Matthias is to come in, where does Paul come in? We know that Jesus did call
Paul."
All of that is very plausible. Some very good men have held and do still hold
that view. I take the other view, for the following reasons: (1) It was
essential that this house, which now was built, to be occupied by the Spirit,
to be complete, should have the full number of the apostles. (2) Christ did not
only inspire Peter, but he had illumined his mind to understand the scripture.
(3) This man Matthias, from that time on, was numbered with the apostles. With
the others, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost;
with the others he participated in all of the general actions of the apostles,
throughout the book; and the book does continually refer to the whole number of
them, including Matthias.
Paul's apostleship stands upon an entirely different basis. He was the apostle
to the Gentiles. There were to be twelve apostles to the Jews. The number never
would have been completed if Matthias had not been chosen.
JUDAS ISCARIOT
Just here we need a restatement of certain matters concerning Judas Iscariot
already considered in the interpretation of the Gospels: Was Judas ever a
regenerate man? Did he fall from grace as well as from office? Was this fall
total and final, so that he was forever lost, or did he so repent that he was
finally saved? The passage from which these questions arise is Acts 1:15-26,
and the answers to them divide the Christian world into Calvinists and
Arminians.
The abstract doctrine is embodied in the proposition: A child of God by
regeneration, or a penitent believer in Jesus Christ, i.e., one acquitted by
justification, may and does backside through sin after justification, but never
does so fall away as to be totally and forever lost. On this proposition
Calvinists affirm, Arminians deny.
Or a part of the issue may be hypothetically stated: If it were possible for a
regenerate man to lose his regenerate state, it would be impossible to renew
him to repentance. On the divine side the first proposition is called "The
final preservation of the saints." On the human side, "The final
perseverance of the saints."
The concrete cases usually cited for argument, pro and con, are Samson, Saul,
king of Israel, David, Solomon, and Judas. Our present case is Judas. Peter
himself says of Judas, what no one denies, "He was numbered among us
['us,' meaning the twelve] and received his portion in this ministry," and
quotes a psalm to prove that his office was vacated and must be filled. The
prayer offered to Jesus calls upon him to show which of the two nominated,
should "take the place in this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas
fell away, that he might go to his own place."
The evidence from this passage alone is clear that Judas, by
"iniquity," fell from an office, and not from a regenerate state. And
it certainly intimates that he was forever lost, since he fell that "he
might go unto his own place." It is clear from many scriptures that Judas
was never a regenerate man. Long before, in the Galilean ministry, just after
the great discourse on the bread of life, which offended many, our Lord had
said of Judas, "He is a devil" (John 6:70-71). The statement by John
(12:4-6) demonstrates that Judas was both a hypocrite and a thief before he
betrayed the Lord, and the statement by our Lord at the paschal supper
certainly intimates his eternal doom (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21).
Dr. Adam dark, the greatest Methodist commentator, bases & hope of the
ultimate salvation of Judas on his alleged repentance, confession of sin, and
restoration of the bribe money (Matt. 27:3-4). The contention is untenable
because: (1) The verb expressing this so-called repentance is not metanoeo,
used to express evangelical repentance, but metamelornai expressing
remorse or worldly sorrow. (2) We know from Paul's use of the latter word (2
Cor. 7:10) it "worketh death," while true repentance "is unto
salvation and life." (3) So in the case before us, the remorse of Judas
worked death: "He went out and hanged himself," which means suicide,
or self-murder.
In our interpretation of the Gospels, particularly of Matthew 27:3-4, in the
very passage upon which Dr. Adam Clark bases his contention, it is shown that a
modern author, in the Edinburgh Review, somewhere about 1870 to
1873, posing as an ancient Roman living near the time of Christ's betrayal, and
philosophizing concerning Judas, writes a poem assuming that he betrayed
Christ, in the hope that the Lord, by the display of miraculous power, would rescue
himself and overthrow all his enemies. But when he saw that the Lord quietly
submitted himself to capture and condemnation, he bitterly repented, gave back
the price of blood, testified of Christ's innocence, and in despair destroyed
himself. The poem is very ingenious, but cites no scripture to support its view
of the motive of Judas, and goes squarely against all the scriptural accounts
of the traitor.
It was Satan, who finding an apostle who was a hypocrite and thief,
disappointed that Christ's kingdom was not to be of this world, and its
treasurer not likely to have opportunity of large stealing, put it into his
heart to betray, and then led his despairing victim to suicide. All of the
action of Judas, subsequent to the betrayal, is on a line with the remorse of
criminals, who, fleeing from their own despair, seek relief in suicide.
It is very difficult to harmonize satisfactorily Peter's account of the manner
of Judas' death, and the disposition of the price of blood (Acts 1:18-19), with
the Gospel account of Matthew 27:3-10. The difficulties are three: (1) Peter
says, "This man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity,"
the natural force of which is that Judas himself purchased a field with the
reward of his iniquity. Matthew shows that the bribers of Judas bought this
field, which was a potter's field. (2) Peter says that "falling headlong,
[i.e., in this field] he burst asunder, . . ." Matthew says, "He went
and hanged himself." (3) Peter intimates that this field received its
name, "Akeldama," i.e., field of blood, from the blood of
Judas. Matthew intimates that it received this name because purchased with the
"blood money" that bribed Judas to betray the Lord.
It would be uncandid to deny an apparent lack of harmony between the account of
Matthew 27:3-10 and the briefer account in Peter's parenthetical statements
(Acts 1: 18:19). It would unnecessarily weary the reader to recite the
multitudinous attempts at reconciliation, or per contra, the efforts to show
hopeless contradiction. A fairly good report of them may be found in Broadus' Commentary
on Matthew.
Before attempting my own interpretation I will ask the reader to have before
him both accounts in parallel columns. He will so find them in Broadus' Harmony
of the Gospels. Now assume, for argument's sake, that both accounts, in
some way, are true, and supplementary to each other; that is, that neither
tells the whole story, and both are needed to a full account, and then verify
the assumption by an adequate explanation. The order of the facts, according to
this interpretation, would be:
1. Judas, finding Jesus condemned by the Sanhedrin, is stricken with remorse.
The blood money burns his pocket. He tries to divest himself of it by throwing
it down before the bribers. But he cannot thus separate himself from that money
any more than Pilate could divest himself of sin by washing his hands.
2. Judas, driven by despair, fleeing from the sight of men, goes to an old
potter's field, that is, a place where deep excavations have been made to get
at the kind of clay used by potters in molding their pottery. We may today find
such pits near cities, excavated for gravel. Whether this particular potter's
field was in the side of the cliff overlooking the valley of Hinnom as
tradition alleges, or north of the city, as some conjecture, is immaterial. It
was a lonely, desolate place.
3. Here his urgent despair, wishing to escape itself, suggests suicide. How
shall he accomplish it? First constructing a short cord, out of his outer robe
or belt, he climbs down the side of one of the deep pits until level with the
top, and having knotted one end of the cord around his neck he throws the loop
of the other end over a projecting rock, and swings off. So, as Matthew says,
"he hanged himself." But with the sudden drop of his weight, the loop
slips over the rock, or dislodges the rock, or breaks no matter which
"he falls headlong" (or face down), striking with terrific force the
sharp rocks at the bottom of the pit, "and bursts asunder, all his bowels
gushing out," as Acts declares.
4. "This became known to all the city."
5. The authorities became exercised on two points: "Where shall we bury
Judas, and what shall we do with his bloodmoney?" "His suicide there
has rendered the potter's field accursed. We will use his own blood money to
buy it for his burial place, and it will also suffice as a Gentile
cemetery." So says Matthew. And so also Acts: "This man obtained a
field with the reward of his inequity." This causative sense of the word
"obtained" is grammatically explained by Hackett in his Commentary on
Acts, expounding this very passage. But it has more than grammar to support
this sense, since as we have already hinted, Judas could not divest himself of
his title to this blood money, by throwing it down in the sanctuary, nor divest
himself of what was purchased with it.
6. Because his blood money purchased this field, it, according to Matthew, was
called "The field of blood." Because this potter's field was stained
by the blood of his own self-murder, it, according to Acts, was called
"the field of blood." Both were true. Neither reason is expressed as
exclusive.
7. But there is yet a higher reason justifying both records: The potter's field
became a monumental evidence for ages of (a) the guilt of the bribers; (b) the
guilt and doom of the traitor bribed; (c) the innocence of the betrayed Lord;
(d) the fulfillment of ancient prophecies. This possible and probable
explanation of both records fully supplies all that is necessary to offset a charge
of contradiction between the two accounts.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the key passage of the book of Acts, and
what is its relation to the book as a whole?
2. What is the scope of the book?
3. What is the time period of the book?
4. What are the two parts of the first chapter, and
what the time of each?
5. To what was the forty days, or the first part,
devoted?
6. To what the ten days, or the second part?
7. How does this book continue the Gospel of Luke, and
what the distinction between the two?
8. What is significant from the use of the word
"began," verse I?
9. Who then is the hero of both books?
10. How must we conceive Jesus throughout the Acts?
11. What does Jesus do in heaven, as enthroned?
12. How does he teach and do what he does on earth in
that time?
13. What conception have we of the church in the ten
days?
14. How does the church manifest its ignorance on some
points, what the meaning of "times" and "seasons," and what
the application?
15. What the form of church government?
16. What is the position of the women in the church?
17. What the three special classes in this first
church?
18. What is the last account of the half-brothers of
Jesus in the Gospels, and what clearly inferable concerning them from this
account in Acts?
19. Which of the half-brothers of our Lord do we hear
from again in the Scriptures, and what did each of them do, respectively?
20. What can you say of this reference to Mary, the
mother of Jesus, and what of the Catholic system of Mariology and Mariolatry?
21. What did the church do during the ten days of
waiting, and for what did they pray?
22. How is the ascension of our Lord connected with
the second advent of our Lord?
23. What three questions must be answered in order to
a fair start in theology, and how does the scripture answer the first?
24. How do the Psalms and Daniel carry on the story of
the ascension?
25. How does Paul carry it on in his letter to the
Philippians?
26. What is here notable with reference to the
relation of the different books of the Bible?
27. How do the Psalms carry the idea yet further, and
how does Acts show the same thing?
28. In this conception of the church, what is notable
as to its occupant?
29. How was the matter of selecting a successor to
Judas introduced, and what the qualifications for such successor as determined
by the church?
30. Why should they pray especially to the Lord Jesus
Christ in this instance, and what the method of determining his choice?
31. How do we get our word "clergy"?
32. Was the election of Matthias presumptuous and
unauthorized, and what the argument pro and con?
33. What questions arise here concerning Judas
Iscariot, what the passage from which they arise, and into what two classes do
the answers to these questions divide the Christian world?
34. What the proposition of the abstract doctrine, and
what position does each class take, respectively?
35. What the hypothetical statement of a part of the
issue?
36. What is the first proposition called, from the
viewpoint of the divine side, and what also from the viewpoint of the human
side?
37. What the concrete cases usually cited for argument
pro and con?
38. What says Peter of Judas, what is clearly evident
from this passage, and what other Scripture proof cited?
39. What hope does Adam dark hold out for the
salvation of Judas, and what the reply to this contention?
40. What he position taken by a modem author in the
Edinburgh Review, and what the reply to this contention?
41. What did Satan find in Judas that made him an easy
victim of suicide, or self-murder?
42. What the difficulties of harmonizing Acts 1:18-19
and Matthew?
43. Where may be found a fairly good report of the
attempts at reconciliation, or the efforts to show hopeless contradictions of
these accounts?
44. What the authors interpretation of them, and
according to this interpretation, what the facts.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND CHAPTER OF
ACTS,
AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
Acts 2:1-36.
This discussion is but an introduction to a long exposition, or rather a series
of discussions of Acts 2, with its correlative passage in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament. Without a clear understanding of it no man can
establish a claim to be a theologian. From its typical and prophetic roots in
the Old Testament, a retrospective view from it illumines the Gospels, of which
it is a climax; and a prospective view from it illumines the mission of the
churches, inspired letters which complete the Canon, and which define the
scope, doctrine, discipline, and cooperation of the churches, and prophetically
outlines their future. It is the fulfillment of many promises. These promises
are not only distinct promises, but are promises with distinct meaning. It is
the beginning of a new dispensation. That is to say, it is the beginning of the
dispensation of the Holy Spirit and the churches, until Christ comes to final
judgment. And this involves many distinct promises, for example, in John's
famous chapters (14-17), it fulfils the promise of the coming of the Holy
Spirit to abide with the church as Christ's alter ego, or the other Paraclete.
Then, many times is the promise that Christ will baptize in the Holy Spirit.
These promises are quite distinct in meaning. The coming of the Holy Spirit to
abide with the churches, and the promise to baptize in the Holy Spirit are
distinct things. Moreover, in the promise: "He will baptize in the Holy
Spirit and fire," the baptism in fire "is distinct in meaning from
the baptism in the Holy Spirit." Then again, the coming of the Holy Spirit
as an abiding Paraclete, is not the same as the anointing of the most holy
(Dan. 9:24, last clause), though both are here fulfilled and related to each
other.
We must not mix the thought of the coming and abiding of the Holy Spirit with
the churches till Jesus comes with that accrediting' of the church whose
miraculous varieties of attestation will soon pass away with their passing
need, for after "tongues have ceased" the Spirit will still remain,
infilling with spiritual power, leading, teaching, and guiding the churches so
that the people of God shall not be orphans. Indeed, there are so many distinct
things taught in Acts 2 that an understanding of it calls for a conception of
the meaning of very many scriptures.
I name now certain scriptures of both Testaments that bear upon the proper
interpretation of Acts 2. The confusion of tongues at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).
Three Old Testament types: First, the cloud filling the tabernacle (Ex.
40:34-38). Second, the cloud filling the Temple of Solomon (I Kings 8:10-11).
Third, the cloud filling Ezekiel's ideal temple after Solomon's Temple was
destroyed (Ezek. 43:1-6). Then, as has been already suggested, we must
understand the last clause of Daniel 9:24, anointing the most holy and the
prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.
The New Testament promise is expressed in Matthew 3:1112; Mark 16:17-18; John
1:33; 7:37-39; Acts 1:8. The following New Testament scriptures show the
fulfillment of this promise: Acts 2:1-6; 8:14-16; 9:17, connected with Is
Corinthians 14:18; Acts 10:44-46; 19:1-6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. These
scriptures show what occurred, to wit: Acts 2:1-6 shows that the Jews received
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:14-16 shows that the Samaritans received
it. Acts 9:17 with 1 Corinthians 14:18 shows that Paul received it. Acts
10:44-46 shows that the Romans at Caesarea received it. Acts 19:1-6 shows that
the disciples at Ephesus received it. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 shows that the
Greeks at Corinth received it. The explanation of these several occurrences is
given in the following scriptures: Acts 2:13-36; 8:18-20; II: 15-18, together
with 15:7-9, and 1 Corinthians 12-14. The most important of all by way of
explanation are these three chapters of I Corinthians. I would not trust any
man to expound Acts 2 who did not understand these three chapters in Corinthians.
A study of these passages of scripture shows that the disintegration of one
people, as one nation, by a confusion of tongues at Babel, was reversed by the
gift of tongues; and as the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
signifying that when the human race, because it was of one lip, one word, one
speech, was united against God, he divided them into different nations by
confusing their tongues, and multiplying their languages, the object of the
coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was in part to restore the unity of the
long-severed fragments of the human race into one family of God. The gift of
tongues is to indicate how this unity is to be brought about.
As it was evident that the house built by Moses, his tabernacle, even though
completed as a structure, was an empty house until the cloud filled it, showing
that God himself was to be the occupant, and as the Temple of Solomon, though
thoroughly completed, was to be the house of God after the use of the tabernacle
as a portable house was no longer necessary, yet remained empty until the cloud
filled it, and as this was equally true of the vision temple of Ezekiel, all of
these by the infilling cloud symbolizing the presence of God as an inhabitant
of these several houses, show that when Jesus built the antitype of these
houses, which was the church, as an institution, it was essential that the new
house should receive a heavenly occupant, or as Daniel puts it, there must be
an anointing of a most holy place. Therefore, the church which Jesus had
established was, on this day of Pentecost, infilled by what the cloud
prefigured that is to say, the coming of the Holy Spirit. I stress the Daniel
prophecy which says: "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon
the Holy City, to finish transgressions, and to make an end of gin-offering,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy
[place]." These events and the Hebrew use of the words "most
holy" forbid any reference to Christ himself in this anointing. It is
after the Messiah is cut off that the most holy place is to be anointed. To
restate the whole thought: The tabernacle was the house that Moses built, and when
complete was filled with a cloud signifying the typical presence of God. It was
succeeded by the Temple of Solomon, to which, when complete, the cloud was
transferred, and which was filled with the glory of God. When that Temple was
destroyed, Ezekiel, in exile) sees a vision temple in which at a certain
juncture a cloud came and filled it. Matthew shows that when Christ died the
veil of the Temple, that is, Zerubbabel's Temple, enlarged by Herod, was rent
in twain, and when that veil was rent in twain from top to bottom, it signified
that the old Temple was made empty forever. Yet, God must not be without a
temple. So after the death of Christ had made reconciliation for sin the true
temple, the church, the truly holy place, was anointed by the coming of the
Holy Spirit.
Let us look again at the New Testament promise concerning what was fulfilled in
Acts 2. John the Baptist says, "I indeed baptize you in water, but there
cometh One after me who is to be preferred before me. He shall baptize you in
the Holy Spirit and in fire." The additional words, "and in
fire," will be explained later. He afterward points to Jesus and says,
"This is he who is to baptize in the Holy Spirit." We have already
seen that in Acts I, just before he ascended into heaven, Jesus said, "Ye
shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence." It was only ten
days, and in John 7 on the last great day of the feast, Jesus said, "If
any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the
scripture hath said, from within him shall outflow the rivers of living water.
But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to
receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet
glorified." Then in the four chapters of John, from which I gave you
references, Jesus says, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I
go not away the Comforter [or Paraclete, or Advocate, or Helper] will not come
unto you." Then he mentions the several things the Spirit will do when he comes,
and not all the same things. That was the promise of the Father. If we look at
the story as given in Acts 2:1-4, we see that three things occur: First,
something audible: "And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the
rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were
sitting." Second, what was visible: "And there appeared unto them
tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of
them." Third, a result: "And they were all filled with the Holy
Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance."
This evidently occurred in the upper chamber, where they had celebrated the
Lord's Supper, and where our Lord had appeared unto them after his resurrection
several times. The sound which was heard was audible, not alone to them. It was
so heard over all the city that a great multitude came together that
multitude being largely composed of the Jews of the dispersion from various
parts of the world. And they were confounded, amazed, at hearing each one of
those, upon whom appeared the semblance of a flaming tongue, so speaking that
each man heard what was said in his own language in which he was born. The
sound must have been terrific, for it not only filled the house, but the city.
It was like the rushing of a cyclone, the sweeping down of a tremendous current
of wind. The people were able to locate the sound, and came rushing to the
place where it was echoing. Everybody could bear witness to this because it was
audible and so loud. Then, there was an appeal to sight.
There appeared unto the 120๙"tongues distributing themselves, tongues like
as of fire," that is, they saw a luminous appearance of tongues, just as
we have seen a lambent flame act that way. So these luminous tongues
distributed themselves and sat upon the head of each member of the 120,
including the twelve apostles, those women, the mother of Jesus, and others,
and the brothers of Jesus. This luminous phenomenon has often been seen in an
electric storm, when the electricity would fasten itself upon some object, like
the point of a spear, or the top of a mast, and play about like a tongue of
fire. It is especially so seen on ships at sea. Virgil alludes to it, saying
that when he saw in a storm that one of these lambent tongues rested upon the
head of young Iulus, the sailors took it as an omen that he was favored of the
gods. Anyhow, that is what was visible. The results to the 120 are thus
expressed: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." These are
the things told in the first four verses of this chapter, as to what they
heard, what they saw, and the double result: First, filled with the Spirit;
second, all of them speaking with tongues.
Later we will take up the question, "What is meant by speaking with
tongues?" This result took place in Jerusalem, the holy city, in Samaria,
in Caesarea, in Damascus, and in Corinth, so that the Jews, the Samaritans, the
Romans, the Orientals at Ephesus, and the Greeks at Corinth, all were baptized
in the Holy Spirit. There are some differences in the details as to the results
in these various places. The record says, "Now when the apostles that were
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto
them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet he was fallen upon none of
them." It gives no details of how it was manifested at this place. It must
have been manifested some way, because Simon Magus was so much impressed by it
that he thought that if he could obtain the power of imparting such a gift he
could bring much money. Of the case at Caesarea the record says, "While
Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the
word. And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the
Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God," that
is to say, the baptism in the Holy Spirit was not to be limited to Jerusalem.
The Samaritans, the kinspeople of the Jews, received it. Paul, the Apostle to
the Gentiles, received it at Damascus, and the Romans at Caesarea received it.
The record in the case at Ephesus is this: "It came to pass, that, while
Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to
Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said unto them, Did ye receive the
Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much
as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given." Whereupon Paul explained
John's preaching and baptism, and then baptized these disciples. "And when
Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Spirit came on them and they spake
with tongues and prophesied." Here is a diversity. It is stated as plainly
as elsewhere that the baptism in the Spirit was to be received only by
Christians. But heretofore its only manifestation was the speaking with
tongues. Here prophesying is added.
We now take the remarkable case at Corinth as described by Paul in the first
letter to that church, beginning with 1 Corinthians 12:4: "Now there are
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." So far we have only found the
diversity of tongues and prophesying. "To one is given through the Spirit
the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same
Spirit; to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings,
in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another
prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of
tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues." Indeed, in chapter
14 he adds: "What is it then, brethren? When you come together, each one
hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an
interpretation." He is speaking wholly of these miraculous gifts. The most
remarkable thing about Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthians 12 is that the
baptism in the Spirit was diverse in its results in different cases. One man
was truly baptized in the Spirit who could only speak with tongues, but another
man was also baptized in the Holy Spirit who could work miracles, while, as it
was foretold in the last of Mark's Gospel, others could, with impunity, drink a
deadly poison or be harmlessly bitten by venomous reptiles. And that passage in
Mark says, "These signs shall follow them that believe."
Consider further the explanations of the several instances of receiving the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:13, 30-37 the recipients of the baptism
in the Holy Spirit appeared to be very highly stimulated in some way, so that
the outsiders looking on them said, "These men must be drunken with new
wine." But Peter's explanation, while admitting the stimulus and the
intoxication, shows it to be a spiritual intoxication to which a reference is
made in one of Paul's letters: "Be not drunk with wine wherein is riot,
but be ye intoxicated with the Holy Spirit."
That the case at Caesarea was a real baptism in the Holy Spirit appears in
Peter's explanation in Acts II, where he says, "And as I began to speak,
the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered
the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized in water; but ye shall
be baptized in the Holy Spirit. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he
did also unto us, when we believed the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I
could withstand God? And when they heard these things, they held their peace,
and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
repentance unto life." That is to say, if this baptism of the Spirit could
come only to those who believe, in harmony with Paul's question at Ephesus,
"Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" and the Caesareans
had received the Holy Spirit, it followed that God had antecedently granted
unto them repentance unto life.
It is evident, from an examination of the promise of the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, and the miraculous manifestations of the reception of this baptism,
that it was no ordinary work of the Holy Spirit, such as conviction,
repentance, faith, which had been occurring from the days of Abel. It was yet a
thing of promise when Jesus ascended into heaven. In no way, then, could the baptism
in the Spirit be counted as regeneration. In regeneration the Holy Spirit is
the agent, a sinner is the subject and the purpose is to make him a Christian;
but here Jesus is the agent, the subject is a Christian, and the purpose is to
increase his efficiency as a Christian man to accredit him. It is evident
that in Acts 2 the members of the church, converted people, received this
baptism, but after Peter's preaching, outsiders were converted. None of them
that day was baptized in the Spirit. They were baptized in water. There was a
promise, however, to them and to their children limited by "those whom God
should call," that they should receive this baptism of the Spirit, or this
gift of the Spirit, if God called them to it, and that in making the call there
would be no distinction as to age or sex.
To contrast the baptism of the Spirit and regeneration more particularly let us
consider two passages in John. In John 4: 10-15 Jesus speaks of the water of
life as a benefit to the recipient. He says to the woman, "If thou knewest
the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, give me to drink; thou
wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."
She says, "Thou hast nothing to draw with. How are you going to get the
water?" To this Jesus replied: "Every one that drinketh of this water
shall thirst again, but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him
shall never thirst. But the water that I shall give him shall become in him a
well of water springing up into eternal life." That is certainly
conversion, and the Joy of it. Whoever is converted has in himself and for
himself a spring an unfailing spring of life. But in John 7:37-38, where the
reference is clear to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he said: "If any man
thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the
scripture hath said, from within him shall outflow rivers of living water. But
this spake he of the Spirit which they that believed on him would
receive." Here is again a river of water, but it is not for the benefit of
the person. It is beneficial only when it outflows to other people, and it is
expressly declared to be that outgoing power from a converted man which follows
the reception of the Holy Spirit that is given.
Again, regeneration, or conversion, is of grace in all of its exercises
contrition, repentance, faith. But the baptism of the Spirit is a gift, and in
Is Corinthians 13 Paul sharply contrasts the difference between a gift and a
grace. He says, "Whether there be tongues they shall cease, whether there
be prophecies they shall fail; but now abideth faith, hope, love these three,
and the greatest of these is love." This is often manifest in preaching. A
man may have a preaching gift; he may be apt to teach, but he may be devoid of
Christian graces; if so devoid, yet be truly a regenerate man. The references
that have been cited show that no man could receive the baptism of the Holy
Spirit until after he was converted. Paul asks, "Have ye received the Holy
Spirit since ye believed?" Se also writes to the Galatians) "Received
ye the Holy Spirit by works of law, or through the gift of faith?" Showing
that they had to have faith before receiving the miraculous gift of the Spirit.
In every age of the world, through all of its preceding dispensations, the plan
of salvation was one; that is, by regeneration on its divine side and by
contrition, repentance, and faith on its human side.
Paul in 1 Corinthians gives an additional thought. He says, "Ye were all
baptized in the one Spirit unto one body." He is not here discussing water
baptism at all. He says, "Ye were all baptized in one Spirit," and
the object of the baptism in the Spirit was unto the church, or the one body.
It is, perhaps, well to make clear just here another distinction. I once asked
a man if be had been baptized. His reply was, "I have been baptized in the
Spirit," implying that water baptism amounted to nothing, but the true
baptism was the baptism in the Spirit. I tried to show him that in water baptism
a man is the administrator, and in the Spirit baptism Jesus is the
administrator; that Jesus personally never did baptize in water. Pointing to
him John said, "He is the One that shall baptize you in the Holy
Spirit."
In water baptism the element is water: "I, indeed, baptize you in
water." The element in the Spirit baptism is the Spirit: "He will
baptize you in the Holy Spirit," making a distinction in element as well
as in administrator. There is no distinction in the subject of the two baptisms.
Only a Christian should be baptized in water, and only a Christian could be
baptized in the Holy Spirit, but the design of the two baptisms was very
unlike. The object of the water baptism is to make a public confession of faith
in the Messiah; as it were, to put on the uniform of the Lord, or to show forth
in a figure the resurrection of Christ, and to accept the pledge of our own
resurrection. But the design of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is thus
expressed: "Ye shall receive power when the Spirit is come upon you,"
as it is expressed in John 7: "Out from you shall flow rivers of
water."
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of Acts 2?
2. What its relation to certain promises, what the
promises, and what distinction in their meaning emphasized?
3. What Old Testament scripture and incident bearing
upon the interpretation of Acts 2?
4. What 1,wo Old Testament prophecies of this coming
of the Spirit?
5. What three Old Testament types, of which the coming
of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is the antitype?
6. In what New Testament scriptures is the promise of
the baptism in the Spirit expressed?
7. What New Testament scriptures show the fulfillment
of this promise?
8. What occurred in each instance of the baptism of
the Holy Spirit?
9. What scriptures give the explanation of what
occurred in these several instances, and which is the most important
explanation of all?
10. A study of these scriptures shows what?
11. What the similarity between the tabernacle, the
Temple, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the house which Jesus built?
12. What the prophecy of this in Daniel, and to what
does "most holy" in Daniel refer?
13. Now restate the whole thought.
14. What was the promise of the Father as stated by John
the Baptist, by Jesus, in John 7:37-39, chapters 14-16, and Acts 1:5?
15. What three things occurred on the day of Pentecost
as recorded in Acts 2:1-4?
16. Where did these things occur, and what the effect
on the city?
17. Describe what they saw when they came together.
18. What natural phenomenon described by the author to
which this appearance is likened? Give special instance.
19. What the double result of this baptism in the
Spirit?
20. What nationalities are represented among those who
received this baptism in the Spirit, and what the significance of it?
21. What the differences in the details as to the
results in these several instances?
22. What the record of the case at Ephesus, and what
diversity here?
23. What the diversities of gifts at Corinth, and what
the results in some instances as foretold in the last of Mark's Gospel?
24. In what was the stimulation in the case of this
baptism of the Spirit like intoxication, what Peter's explanation of it, and what
reference to this similarity in one of Paul's letters?
25. What the proof that the case at Caesarea was a
real baptism in the Holy Spirit, and how does this prove that only Christians
received the baptism of the Spirit?
26. How do you prove that this baptism of the Spirit
was not an ordinary work of the Spirit, such as conviction, repentance, and
faith?
27. What the difference between the baptism in the
Spirit and regeneration, as to the agent, the subject and the purpose?
28. What limitation as to the ones who should receive
this baptism of the Spirit?
29. Show the contrast between regeneration and the
baptism in the Spirit from two passages in John.
30. What other distinction between regeneration and
the baptism in the Spirit?
31. Prove from the scripture that only Christians
could receive the baptism in the Spirit.
32. What was the object of this baptism in the Spirit?
PENTECOST AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY
SPIRIT
Acts 2:1-47.
Considering baptism in the Spirit as one of the things that occurred on the day
of Pentecost, let us restate the difference between it and water baptism in
these distinct particulars: administrator, element, subject, design, form,
duration, objective, establishing the last particular, i.e., the objective, by
bringing out clearly the New Testament usage of the verb, baptizo, and
the noun, baptisma, followed by the preposition, eis.
It is important to note the distinction between baptism in water and baptism in
the Spirit: (1) As to the administrator: In water baptism the administrator is
a man in the flesh; in the Spirit baptism the administrator is Jesus in glory.
(2) As to the element: In the one, water is the element, and in the other, the
Holy Spirit is the element: "I indeed baptize you in water . . . he will
baptize you in the Holy Spirit." (3) The distinction as to the subject: In
both cases the subject is a Christian; it is, or ought to be, a Christian who
is baptized in water, and it is a Christian who is baptized in the Holy Spirit.
(4) As to the design: In the one the design is to declare or symbolize what has
been done; and in the other the design is to confer efficiency for what is to
be done. The design will be brought out more clearly later. (5) What is the
distinction in form? Water baptism is uniform always the same thing. The
Spirit baptism is diverse in form, or manifestation. A man may be really
baptized in the Spirit, and another man baptized in the Spirit, and they both
may not have the same thing, being thus diverse in form. (6) What is the
distinction in duration? Water baptism in the one form continues until our
Lord's second advent. The chief event of the day of Pentecost, is. e., the
coming of the Holy Spirit, was once for all, as the coming of our Lord in the
flesh was once for all. The baptism in the Spirit, after it had come in its
diverse accrediting form, was transitory, ceasing with the sufficient
attestation. (7) The distinction in the objective is even more important. It is
made clear by the New Testament usage of the verb, baptizo, or its noun,
baptisma, followed by the preposition, eis. Eis in
connection with this verb, or its noun, means in or into, when the reference is
to the element, as in Mark 1:9: "Was baptized of John eis (in or
into) the river Jordan." But with these references to the element ]ust now
we have nothing to do. We consider the usage when the reference is not to the
element, but only to the object or objective.
In these cases eis does not mean because of, as some zealous Baptist
would render Acts 2:38, nor in order to, as some Campbellites would render it,
but unto, somewhat like with reference to. For example: (1) Baptism in water is
unto repentance, eis metanoian (Matt. 3:11); (2) unto remission of sins,
eis aphesin . . . hamartion (Acts 2:38). Here the first example
(Matt. 3:11), "unto repentance," enables us to avoid a mistake in
interpreting the second one (Acts 2:38), "unto remission of sins."
The text of Matthew 3:11 absolutely forbids "in order to" aa a
translation of this preposition, because John is there insisting on repentance
of the subjects before he would baptize them. He refuses to baptize the
Pharisees until they bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Therefore baptism
unto repentance is not "in order to." It would destroy the whole
sense of the context, and equally so when we come to consider Acts 2:38. It
does not mean "in order to" there. Brother E. Y. Mullins has a way of
making it mean "in order to" there, by bringing out a kind of a split
result, which I think is unjustifiable by the laws of language. (3) Unto a
death: "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized eis
ton thanaton autou i.e., into his death" (Rom. 6:3). Here the
closest meaning seems to be with reference to. It certainly could not mean in
order to there; that when we are baptized, we are baptized "in order
to" his death; it could not mean that. (4) Unto his death also explains
another instance immediately preceding, i. e., "unto Christ," eis
Christon lesoun (Rom. 6:3), that is, baptism into Christ means baptism into
his death: "All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into
his death." The latter passage is epexegetical of the former.
Again we find an example in Galatians 3:27: "For as many of you as were
baptized into Christ did put on Christ," that is, as a uniform. (5) With a
side of the objective in water baptism: "Into the name of the Father, and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," eis to onoma (Matt. 28:19). But
baptism in the Spirit has an objective different from any of these. In 1
Corinthians 12-14, Paul has discussed baptism in the Spirit and compared it
with other things. And in chapter 12 he uses this language: "For in one
Spirit were we. all baptized into one body, eis hen soma (I Cor. 12:13).
Then in explanation of the one body he continues: "God bath set some in
the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues."
These gifts conferred in the baptism in the Spirit were "unto" one
body the church.
The difference in objective, then, between the two baptisms is evident: The
baptism in water may be "unto repentance," "unto remission of
sins," "unto Christ's death," "unto the triune name."
The baptism in the Spirit is "unto the church." As no other
objective, its object was to empower the church, to dower the church, to
accredit the church. The baptism in water has no such object.
As the church was established by our Lord in his lifetime, and commissioned by
him, it was Gods building; it was the true temple. But in his absence, after
his ascension and until the Spirit came, as a temple it had no shekinah; as a
house it had no occupant; as an ecclesia it had no attestation. We thus see how
the baptism in the Spirit was "unto" the church.
1. If the baptism in the Spirit is eis the church, what is the real
significance of this great transaction, as foreshadowed in the tabernacle of
Moses, the Temple of Solomon, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the prophecy of
Daniel 9:24, recognizing that the baptism of the Spirit is unto the church? The
significance of the great transaction described in Acts 2:2-4, and explained in
2:16-18, is intensified by its evident fulfilling of certain foreshadowings in
the Old Testament. For example: The cloud filling the tabernacle, which was the
house that Moses built, when it was completed. In Exodus 40:33-35 we have a
clear account of this; that when this house of God, this tabernacle was
completed, no part was left out, not a mere particle of the material of which
it was to be constructed, but when that material was put together so that it
formed a house; when Moses had thus finished this house of God, the cloud which
symbolized the glorious presence of Jehovah, came down and filled it, so that
it was occupied by a symbol of Jehovah's presence.
2. The cloud filled the Temple, which was the house that Solomon built, when it
was completed. We have the record of it in I Kings 7:51 to 8:11. David gathered
this material, and received from God the architectural plan of it; then
Solomon, with every piece of material prepared beforehand, put it together; and
that day when it was finished the Inhabitant came down a cloud representing
the glorious presence of Jehovah, and filled that house.
3. The cloud of the glory of Jehovah filled the vision temple of Ezekiel, when
it was seen as completed. We have in the latter chapters of Ezekiel a
description of the ideal temple, and that record goes on to show that when it
was completed (Ezek. 43:1-4) the glory the cloud of glory of the presence
of Jehovah came and filled this temple. It was the anointing of a new temple,
or most holy place) after the Messiah, by his vicarious, expiatory death, had
made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness (Dan.
9:24).
Let us note again the order of events: "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy
people and upon thy holy city, (1) to finish transgression, (2) and to make an end
of sins, (3) and to make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) and to bring
everlasting righteousness, (5) and to seal up vision and prophecy, (6) and to
anoint the most holy [place]."
It is important to observe that the tabernacle as a typical, but transitory
house of God, was occupied by the symbol of the glorious presence of Jehovah,
but when the people were settled in the land, filling all the borders promised
to Abraham (Gen. 15) and there was peace through all the borders, then there
was no more need for the portable house of wandering and war; so the cloud
symbol of the glorious presence was transferred to the fixed habitation built
by Solomon, restored by Zerubbabel, and still more restored by Herod it makes
no difference. Just so, when a fixed typical house had served its purpose, its
veil was rent in twain from top to bottom, when Messiah died, and though it
survived as a shell until destroyed by Titus, it was empty an empty,
uninhabited house, because the new house, built by our Lord himself his
temple, his church, was, on this famous Pentecost, filled by the glorious
presence of Jehovah in the coming of the Holy Spirit; and so, according to
Daniel, there was the "anointing of the Most Holy."
You need not be disturbed because commentators unwisely interpret this last
clause of Daniel 9:24 as referring to the anointing of a person, even our Lord
himself. Three insuperable obstacles stand in the way of their interpretation:
(a) The Hebrew usage demands that the "most holy" of Daniel 9:24 be
considered as a place, or rather a house, and not a person. (b) The orderly
sequence of events in this verse places the anointing of the most holy as the
last of the great series, and after reconciliation has been made for iniquity,
(c) Our Lord's own anointing took place at his baptism, the beginning and not
the end of his public career, according to prophecy (Isa. 11:1-5) and to fact
(Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:18-21; John 6:27). Even when Jesus spoke about the
anointing in the address that he made at Nazareth, he quoted Isaiah, and he
claimed that he had that anointing of the Spirit testified to by Isaiah, and
that it was fulfilled that day as he spoke.
It is quite important also to note that as in Ezekiel's vision the river of
life outflowed from the sanctuary (Ezek. 47), after the cloud of glory filled
it (Ezek. 43:1-4), so, as has been stated, according to John the outflowing
rivers of living water from the believers was to be after the coming of the
Spirit (John 7:37-39): "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him
shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they
which believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given;
because Jesus was not yet glorified." The waters of the sanctuary came
trickling down, then they became a streamlet, next as it were ankle-deep,
later, up to the knees, then waist-deep, until they became a river big enough
to swim in, wherever it went conferring life and fertility to the land. John 7
shows the growth and depth of the stream from the sanctuary, and this passage
should be compared with every passage in Ezekiel; then can be seen what occurred
on the day of Pentecost an infilling of the house that Jesus built, which is
clearly foreshown in Ezekiel and clearly fulfilled in John 7.
It is further to be noted that as the cloud filled the portable house of Moses,
which served only during the period of wandering and war, then was succeeded by
Solomon's cloud-filled and fixed habitation in time of peace, so the new house,
the "time church" of our Lord, the Spirit-occupied house, on this
famous Pentecost, for the war and moving period, itself will be succeeded in
the eternal peace period by the church in glory, as an everlasting habitation
of God (Rev. 21). These are not mere annals; they are more than incidental
correspondents. If ever on this earth in the library of sixty-six books of the Bible
there was an articulate system of truth conjoined: coupled, capable, adaptable,
without marring the symmetry of the whole, it is this truth.
So when you go to interpret this book your interpretation must fit all round.
Thus would "the fathers"๙1 don't mean patriarchs, but our Baptist
fathers make this statement: "The interpretation of one passage must be
in accord with one canon (or rule) of faith."
We will not carry forward this line of thought, answering again in enlarged
form and in distinct particulars, the following questions: What the clear
distinction between the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the
subsequent or attending baptism in the Spirit that day? What and why the
baptism in the Spirit, its extent as to persons or classes, and its duration?
What the distinction between the ordinary graces of the Spirit, both before and
after Pentecost, and the extraordinary gifts of the baptism in the Spirit?
These are very important questions, and we will take them up in order:
1. The coming of the Holy Spirit on this Pentecost, and the baptism of the 120
in the Spirit after he arrived, are two distinct things which must not be
confounded. The baptism was only one of the many results of his coming, or
rather fulfils only one of the many purposes of his coming. For example: Acts
2:2-4 is one result. In the same chapter are many, but one will suffice here:
"And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared
unto them tongues parting among them, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one
of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
That is one of the results of the Spirit's coming that day. After Peter had
preached, we read ( 2:37) : "Now when they heard this, they were pricked
in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren,
what shall we do?"
Notice it was a different crowd a sinner crowd and that sinner crowd was
not baptized in the Spirit. This is another result of the Spirit's coming that
day. Acts 2:2-4 is one result, i.e., this baptism of which the 120 are the
subjects, fulfilling the promises of Acts 1:8, first clause, and last clause of
Mark 1:8. Whereas Acts 2:37 expresses another, but quite distinct result,
fulfilling John 16:8-11, in which sinners are convicted of sin: "And he,
when he is come, he will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness,
and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness,
because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more; of judgment, because the
prince of this world hath been judged."
The Holy Spirit came on this Pentecost as the other Paraclete, the only Vicar
or Vice-Regent of our Lord, to remain on earth, while our Saviour remains in
heaven. He is our earth Advocate (Rom. 8:26-27) only so long as Jesus is our
heaven Advocate (Rom. 8:34, last clause; Heb. 7:25; I John 2:1). When the Lord
comes again, the Vice-Regent will cease to be vicar, just as the vice-president
presides only in the absence of the president, and does not act when he is
present. Some people want an earthly vicar, and call him "Pope." The
Holy Spirit is the only vicar, who mediately continues the immediate teaching
begun by our Lord (John 14:26; Rev. 2:7, II, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). When Jesus
was here, he did the teaching directly; since he went to heaven, he still does
the teaching, but he does it mediately, through the Holy Spirit. Hence the
statement of our Lord, "He will teach you all things, . . . and guide you
unto all truth," and the statement in Acts 1:1-2: "The former
treatise I made, 0 Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and
to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given
commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen."
Thus he came to be the great witness to our Lord. He came to reveal the Lord in
us, as the Lord came to reveal the Father to us.
These multiform purposes of the Spirit's coming, in all which he is the agent,
are not to be confounded with the baptism in the Spirit, in which our Lord is
the agent.
2. The baptism in the Spirit, then, is that miraculous submersion of certain
early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit, which accredited the church
established by our Lord, as a new and divine institution, superseding the
narrower Jewish institution, by its inclusion of all people into the family of
God. In order to accredit this, power was manifested in the miraculous gifts
enumerated in Acts 2; 8; 10; 19; 1 Corinthians 12. To this end, understand that
the baptism in the Spirit is the submersion of certain Christians into the
power of the Spirit in order to accredit a new institution, distinct from the
Jewish institution, in itself to include all peoples, and not just one people,
and for spiritual reasons, not fleshly reasons. To this end this power came
first on Jews (Acts 2) then on Samaritans (Acts 9), then on Romans (Acts 10), then
on Greeks (Acts 19; Is Cor. 12). The accrediting was just as much needed to
Peter as it was needed to the heathen. He was mighty hard to convince that this
new institution was meant for all people. Jesus gave him some keys, one to open
the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles, and he was very
prompt in opening the Jew door on this day, but that other key lingered, and
its door remained closed, until he was on a certain housetop. The key had
rusted, but then came that vision of an ark, in which Peter learned that God,
who had cleansed the Gentiles, was no respecter of per- sons and that the door
of faith had to be opened to the Gentiles also. That accrediting was very hard
for the church to receive. When called to account for the baptism of Cornelius,
a marvelous baptism, Peter said: "Who was I, that I could withstand
God?" Why, there was this same gift that they received on the day of
Pentecost, and there it was on this Gentile, Cornelius, and he was speaking
with tongues. "Who was I, that I could withstand God?" Then when
Philip went to Samaria, as soon as the church at Jerusalem heard that he was
over there baptizing Samaritans, they sent a delegation to look into the case,
for they had no dealings with the Samaritans. But when the Spirit came in the
same way on these Samaritans, they spake with tongues. You will notice the
enlargement all the time from Jews to Samaritans, to Romans, to Greeks. We
are getting at the purpose of this accrediting. I put my definition more
clearly on the baptism in the Spirit than heretofore, as a new institution,
superseding the old, and gathering all peoples into one family of God.
What was the result of that sort of attestation? Paul says (and I am sure he
thoroughly understood it), in that circular letter to the Ephesians, including
besides that Greek city, other cities in the Lycus valley (Eph. 2:11-22):
"Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are
called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made
by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel) and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having
no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were
far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace [is. e., he
makes peace between us and another party that we have been at war with], who
made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in
his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
that he might create in himself of the two, one new man, so making peace."
What a light that throws on the death of Christ on the cross, to which he
refers I And therefore, as contained in a letter to the Colossians, where the
peculiar Jewish ordinances are referred to, he says, "Nailing it to the
cross . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, . . ." Let no man
therefore judge you, "for through him we both have our access in one
Spirit unto the Father." There we have the Trinity. Then the result:
"So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are
fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief
cornerstone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into
a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a
habitation of God in the Spirit." "In whom each several building [the
church at Ephesus, at Laodicea, at Smyrna, at Antioch, at Jerusalem], fitly
framed [Jews and Gentiles] together." I am sure that the accrediting on
that day, is of the greatest importance to the whole universe, in having
convinced Peter, even, that this was a new institution; that it was not to be a
Jewish institution, and that it was to supersede the old institution.
3. As this baptism was merely to attest, to accredit the church, it was not
necessarily something to be continued permanently, but to cease when the
attestation was sufficient. This very transitory nature was one of the things
contrasted with the graces of the Spirit, in 1 Corinthians 13:8: "Whether
there be tongues, they shall cease, etc."
QUESTIONS
1. What the distinction between baptism in water and
baptism in the Spirit as to the administrator?
2. What the distinction as to the element?
3. What the distinction as to the subject?
4. What the distinction as to design?
5. What the distinction as to form?
6. What the distinction as to duration?
7. What the distinction as to the objective?
Illustrate by the use of baptize and baptisma, followed by eis.
8. Restate the real significance of this great
transaction on the day of Pentecost, as foreshadowed in the tabernacle of
Moses, the Temple of Solomon, the vision temple of Ezekiel, and the prophecy of
Daniel 9:24.
9. Does the "most holy" of Daniel 9:24 refer
to a person or to a place, and what the argument?
10. What the constructive argument based on Ezekiel
43:1-4; 47:1-2; John 7:37-39?
11. What the relation of tabernacle, Temple, and
church, and what the bearing of this fact on correct interpretation?
12. What the clear distinction between the coming of
the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent or attending baptism in the
Spirit that day?
13. What and why the baptism of the Spirit, what its
extent as to persons or classes, and what its duration?
14. How was the accrediting by the baptism in the Holy
Spirit received by the church and the proof?
15. What the distinction between the ordinary graces
of the Spirit, both before and after Pentecost, and the extraordinary gifts of
the baptism in the Spirit?
PENTECOST AND THE BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
(Continued)
Acts 2:l-47.
Was the baptism in the Spirit the same as the baptism in fire? The form of my
answer to that is in Matthew 3:11-12: "I indeed baptize you in water unto
repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am
not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire; whose
fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he
will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with
unquenchable fire." I will now explain the additional words, "in
fire," and answer the question, Is the "in fire" fulfilled in
Acts 2:3: "And there appeared unto them tongues, parting asunder [or
distributing themselves], like as of fire"?
About the fairest, most trustworthy, most thoroughly critical explanation given
by expositors is to be found in Dr. Broadus' great Commentary on Matthew,
to which you are referred. My own statement of the case, pro and con, is this:
1. One side (but a view that I am going to controvert) is this: The baptism in
the Spirit and fire is one baptism, indicated by the absence of the preposition
before "fire."
2. The "in fire" is epexegetical of "in the Holy Spirit,"
merely expanding the thought, as in John 3:5: "Except one be born of water
and the Spirit, . . ." (3) John the Baptist appears to have had in mind
Malachi 3:1-3, particularly: "He is like a refiner's fire . . . and he
will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of
Levi, and refine them as gold and silver." Therefore, the baptism in the
Spirit and fire is a purification, a sanctification. (4) The one pronoun,
"you" "He will baptize you" shows that the same persons
baptized in the Spirit were baptized in fire. (5) Hence in the fulfilment we
find "tongues of fire," the visible expression of the baptism of the
Spirit. This is one side, and very fairly given, and just as strong as one who
holds that view can state it.
1. The other side: It is admitted that the absence of the preposition before
"fire" is strong presumptive evidence of the unity of the baptism in
the Spirit and fire; but it is not conclusive evidence, and cannot be pleaded
against a context strongly the other way, as many examples of usage clearly
show. The context of the passage quoted as analogous (John 3:5): "Except
one be born of water and the Spirit" very strongly supports the unity of
the birth, and that John 3:5 is epexegetical of "born from above"
(John 3:3). But the context of Matthew 3:11-12 and of Luke 3:16 is
overwhelmingly the other way. Let us examine Matthew 3:10-12, noting the fire
in each case: "And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every
tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he
will thoroughly cleanse his threshingfloor; and he will gather up his wheat
into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire."
The ax hews down, and the trees that bring not forth good fruit, the fire
burns; in v. 12 the fan winnows the chaff from the wheat, and the fire burns
the chaff. In both these verses are two classes with different destinies. The
good trees are not cut down and burned; the wheat is not burned with the chaff,
but gathered into the garner. The "you" whom John addresses are two
classes not one represented by good and bad trees, and by wheat and chaff.
How then can we make the "fire" in the intervening verse sanctifying
and not punitive consuming? Some of the "you" Jesus will baptize in
the Spirit, but others of the "you" he will baptize in fire, just as
he discriminates between the destiny of good trees and bad trees, and of wheat
and chaff. This view is confirmed by the significant fact that in every case
where the baptism "in fire" occurs, the context shows it to be
punitive, and a consuming fire. The context of Matthew 3:11 has been given; see
also the context of Luke 3:16-17, where also the fire is given. You will find
that some punitive character is placed upon it. Then if you will note the
absence of such context in Mark 1:8, you will observe that there is also an
absence of the fire. Mark say\ "I baptize you in water; but he shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:5 says, "Ye shall be baptized
in the Holy Spirit," and does not mention fire; and where it does not
mention fire it does not mention the punitive character.
2. The citation from Malachi, presented for the first side of this argument, is
unfortunate for those who cite it, since the context there supports a contrary
view. Malachi 4 is the context of the third. Let us examine Malachi 4:1-3, and
note the punitive office of the fire, and the class to which it is applied:
"For behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud,
and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall
burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise
with healing in its wings [beams]; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves
in the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under
the soles of your feet in the day that I make [do this], saith Jehovah of
hosts."
That chapter closes by referring to John the Baptist; that Elijah was to come;
Jesus says that John the Baptist was meant by Elijah in that prophecy. If John
the Baptist, as is claimed, and as I grant, had in mind what Malachi says, then
he had in. mind two very distinct classes of people. Upon one class the sun of
righteousness was to arise, with healing in its beams. The other class was to
be burned up, and be ashes under the feet of that first class.
A refiner's fire is not intended to make the gold or silver better metal; it
does not change the intrinsic value of the gold or of the silver a particle.
But the object of the refiner's fire is to eliminate and destroy that which is
not gold and silver, but which is mixed up with it. To separate and consume the
dross is the object of the refiner's fire. Therefore, no sanctifying power is
referred to here; for if it be claimed that Malachi 3:4 presents two comings of
the Lord, far apart, it is granted. But Joel's prophecy, which Peter quotes as
explanatory of the baptism in the Spirit, does this same thing (Acts 2:17-18),
referring to Christ's coming in the Holy Spirit, while verses 19-20, also
quoted from Joel, seem rather to refer to Messiah's final advent for judgment,
as can easily be seen by the parallel passage in Matthew 24:29-30, and by
comparing these phenomena with Matthew 25:41-46, the end of the discussion.
There it is clear that the baptism in fire means "Depart from me, . . .
into everlasting fire . . . And these shall go away into eternal
punishment."
3. The contention that "tongues of fire" in Acts 2:3 fulfils the
"fire" of Matthew 3:11 is both untenable and inexcusable, for the
viewpoint of either of the theories here contrasted. Therefore, no
"tongues of fire" are in Acts 2:3. There appeared unto them tongues
which parted asunder, or distributed themselves, "like as of fire."
This reference is not even to the color of the tongues seen, but to the method
of parting or distributing among them. Parting among them like as of fire.
Fire, when it is a great flame, parts asunder, separating in tongue-shaped
flames. Whenever we see a great fire we see these tongues. There parted unto
them tongues, whether black, white or red, the record does not say, but it does
say that they parted asunder, just as a fire will part asunder, into several
flames that are in the shape of tongues. The point of likeness, therefore, is
not in the color of what they say, but in the method of its distribution; and
"like as" never expresses identity. That is my point of view of the
subject, and it can readily be seen that it is not untenable, because there was
no fire. Something did occur which finds a likeness in fire.
I will now suppose that I am on the other side, and I will show that it is
untenable and inexcusable; that this is not intended to fulfill the other;
these tongues did not sanctify those who possessed them. Says Paul,
"Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the
unbelieving," therefore they accredit. These tongues did not make the
people any better, but they did accredit the people who spoke them to the
unbelieving crowd that stood around. "For a sign," not to the
believer, but to the unbeliever. Again Paul says, "Though I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or
a clanging cymbal." Once more he says, "Love never faileth: but
whether there be tongues [and he is discussing this baptism in Spirit altogether],
they shall cease. . . . But now abideth faith, hope, love"; the things
that benefit one are the graces of the Holy Spirit, and they stay in the world
and in the church. They will be here when Jesus comes, but that tongue business
ceases. Why? Because it is not the purpose of the sign to be continuous. Just
as soon as it serves its purpose, it is valueless. It has exhausted the purpose
of it having been brought into being.
A sign is not to sanctify the one who exhibits it, but to accredit him.
God gave Moses signs to show unto Pharaoh not signs to himself; he had signs
for him. The object of these signs to Pharaoh was not to make Moses better, but
to accredit him before Pharaoh as a messenger from God.
What then is meant by "baptism in fire"? Hell! It means everlasting
punishment in hell. (See in my first book of sermons the subject thus treated.)
Would you, then, in this way, pray to be baptized in the Spirit and in fire? I
would not. I have often heard it: "Come now, 0 Lord, and baptize us in the
Spirit and in fire." The reason I would not pray for both of them is that
they do not harmonize; the two things do not go together. If I were going to
pray for the one, I certainly would not pray for the other. I would not pray
for the baptism in the Spirit, because that was a credential, and its day has
passed. (Credentials are not continuous.) I would not pray for the baptism in
fire, because I do not want to go where it takes place. But I am quite sure
that many people pray that, with a meaning they have put on those words; and I
do know that God oftentimes answers their prayer, not according to what they
say, because they miscall it, but according to what they mean. And I doubt not
that people often pray for things they do not name rightly, and the Lord hears
and answers according to the intent.
That brings us to another important question: Were there any influences of the
Spirit communicated at Pentecost which may now be received? Unquestionably. I
have already called attention to the distinction between the fullness of the
meaning of the coming of the Spirit, and the narrowness of the meaning of the
baptism in the Spirit. The very thing those people prayed for may be involved
in the coming of the Spirit. The Spirit came occupying and infilling the
church, and he came to stay until Christ's final advent. And if he stays, he
stays for that purpose; and I have a right to pray for all things which he came
to give, except that of accrediting, as the early church was. Take, for
example, what Paul prays for in the letter to the Ephesians. He prays the two
biggest prayers that I have ever read or heard (Eph. 1:15-21): "For this
cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you,
and the love which ye show toward all the saints, cease not to give thanks for
you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and
revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of your heart enlightened,
that ye may know what is the hope of his calling; what the riches of the glory
of his inheritance in the saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power
to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might,
which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to
sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and
authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in
this world, but also in that which is to come." These are all mighty
spiritual gifts.
Take his next prayer (Eph. 3:14-19): "For this cause I bow my knees unto
the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he
would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened
with power through his Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your
hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length
and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,
that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God." That is a titanic
prayer. Paul prays that for the church at Ephesus. So the importance of this
question: Were there any influences of the Spirit communicated at Pentecost
that may now be received?
The next question: Was the gift of tongues a power to speak in other languages,
or a mere ecstasy, unintelligible to other people, and that the man himself
oftentimes did not understand? On that point we find the commentators parting
asunder like the forks of a road. Conybeare and Howson, m their Life and
Epistles of Paul, when they come to discuss the gift of tongues in 1
Corinthians claim that it was not a gift to speak in different languages.
Now, was it the power to speak in other languages? Certainly it was, or I have
to take back what I said about Pentecost reversing the incident at Babel. Let
the record answer whether this was a mere ecstasy, or actual power to speak in
different languages: "Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout
men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the
multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them
speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying,
Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in
our own language wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:5).
That does not describe mere ecstasy, but the power to speak in the different
languages; and the record goes on to specify the nations from which they came:
"Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in
Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt
and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and
Proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the
mighty works of God." While they were all Jews, yet Jews of the
dispersion, who had ceased speaking the Hebrew tongue, they spoke the languages
of the country where they lived, and what amazed them the thing that startled
them was to see these ignorant Galileans, having a corrupted dialect of
Aramaic, speaking better than they could these words in their own languages, to
which they were born. Is have more respect for Conybeare and Howson's
commentary than for many others, but I have not a bit of respect for their
position on this subject. We will now show the likeness between the subjects of
these influences and drunken men, quoting Paul. When the Spirit came that day
to fill the church as an abiding presence, the subjects of these influences of
the Spirit were swept off their feet. It was like the communication of the
divine afflatus, which showed in their eyes, in their courage, in their
mountain high, star-high faith. It showed that they were in a measure possessed
so much so, that outsiders who did not believe in religion, said, "These
men are drunken; that is the way a drunken man does." There is a likeness.
Paul in his letter to the Ephesians says, "Be not intoxicated with wine,
wherein is excess, but be intoxicated with the Spirit." It is an
intoxication in each case, a mighty stimulation. In one case it is a good
Spirit, and in the other, a very bad spirit; in the one a Spirit of love, in
the other a spirit of woe, as a man standing on a whiskey barrel, once said,
"There are spirits above, and spirits below [pointing to the barrel];
spirits of love, and spirits of woe." Each one is a mighty stimulation.
One stimulates the soul; the other dethrones the reasoning power. And yet there
are certain resemblances. I have heard this called drunkenness by infidels who
came to a big meeting, who were rapt, even when gazing in their faces; as these
sighed, others were sobbing, or weeping, or shouting the power of the truth.
"Why," the infidels would say, "these people here are crazy;
they are possessed; they act like drunken people."
What did this marvelous coming of the Spirit demonstrate? I give an
illustration to lead up to the answer: A husband and father loves his family in
the old world. They are in privation. The father comes to the new world. He
says, "If I get there and prosper, I will send you back something that
will make it certain to you that I have arrived and have prospered." Months
pass away. At last, that wife and those lonely children get a letter, and in it
is a check on a London bank for ten thousand pounds. What did that check
demonstrate? "That the man had gotten there, and that he had prospered.
Jesus says, "It is expedient for you that I go away. You think I am
leaving you orphans; but I am not leaving you orphans. If Is go not away, the
Paraclete, the Comforter, will not come to you. Is go to my Father, and Is will
send him to you. Now you wait and see." They waited ten days; they prayed.
And on the fiftieth day from his expiatory death the demonstration came that
Jesus was in heaven; that he did get there, and was exalted to the throne of
God, and he is there living as King and Priest, the whole universe subject to
him. It was a demonstration of the exaltation of Jesus Christ to the right hand
of the Father.
Is will explain the typical signification of Pentecost, the 3,000: The Jews had
three national feasts. Every Jew was expected to attend these three feasts. One
of them was the Feast of Pentecost, the one following the Passover, and
separated from Feast of the Passover by fifty days. On the fiftieth day from
the time the paschal lamb was slain, which of course would be in April, was the
time of the firstfruits of harvest, and at that feast, they offered unto God
the firstfruits of the incoming harvest, which was to be a pledge of the
greatness of the harvest, of which this was only an "earnest," or
foretaste. Therefore, if on this Pentecost, the firstfruits amounted to 3,000
souls, "oh, what shall the harvest the final harvest be?" That
day, what shall the harvest be that day when in the fulness of time, out of
every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred, a multitude that no man can
number, will constitute the redeemed of the Lord? The spiritual significance of
Pentecost was these 3,000๙that is, the lifting up of the sheaf of the first
fruit offered unto God.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the baptism in Spirit the same as baptism in
fire, and what the scripture proof?
2. Is this additional phrase, "in fire,"
fulfilled in Acts 2:3, and what the explanation of "in fire," pro and
con?
3. Is it right to pray for the baptism in the Holy
Spirit, and why?
4. Would you pray for the baptism in fire, and why?
5. Were there any influences of the Spirit
communicated at Pentecost which may now be received? If so, what?
6. Was the gift of tongues a power to speak in other
languages, or a mere ecstasy, unintelligible to other people, and that the man
himself oftentimes did not understand?
7. What the similarity between the subjects of these
influences of the Spirit and drunken men?
8. What admonition of Paul relative to these effects?
9. What the "drunken man's" couplet?
10. What did this marvelous coming of the Spirit on
the day of Pentecost demonstrate? Illustrate.
11. What the typical signification of Pentecost?
Let us consider the kingdom of heaven in its relation to this Pentecost. When I
was a young preacher I was challenged to debate with a Campbellite. Young
preachers debate oftener than the old ones. One of the topics for discussion
was, "Resolved, that the kingdom of heaven was set up on the day of
Pentecost, and not before." He affirmed; I denied. When I came to reply to
his first speech I asked him these questions:
"What did Christ give to Peter?"
He said, "The keys of the kingdom."
"How many keys?"
"Two; one for the Jews, and one for the Gentiles."
"When did Peter use the key that opened the door to the Jews?"
"On this Pentecost."
"When Peter opened that door of the kingdom on that day, did he open it
from the inside or from the outside? If from the outside, when did he get in,
and how?"
He was so confused that he did not answer.
There is not a word said in this chapter about setting up a kingdom not a
syllable. It is forced in there. The laws of the kingdom had been established;
the subjects of the kingdom were there; the executive body of the kingdom had
been established; the house was complete. The King had gone up to be crowned,
but the kingdom was there.
Was the church instituted, established, or organized on this Pentecost? There is
not a syllable on that in Acts 2.
Christ instituted the church. He established it in the days of his flesh. The
church was this day accredited received its credentials.
It was a house complete, but empty. It then received its Inhabitant, but the church
was not instituted, nor established, nor organized on this Pentecost.
Now let us go through this chapter, and simply look at some things in several
verses, calling for explanation.
We will first locate the countries of the people mentioned in verses 9-11,
taking the names where the peoples are expressed, and then where the countries
are named: "Parthians and Medes and Elamites Cretans and Arabians."
Take your map and locate Parthia, and Media where the Medes came from, and Elam
where the Elamites came from. They come in their order. Parthia is the highest
up, next Media, and then Elam. Look northeast of the Euphrates. Follow that and
commence high up on the map to get Parthia, then drop down to Media, and lower
still for Elam. The Cretans were the inhabitants of the island of Crete in the
Mediterranean, and the Arabians inhabited Arabia. Luke mentions "Dwellers
of Mesopotamia" people living between the Tigris and the Euphrates,
between the rivers, or in the midst of the rivers, as the word signifies. Judea
you know. The following are in Asia Minor: Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia;
those are the Asia-Minor provinces, Asia there meaning not the Continental, but
Proconsular Asia. Egypt is in the northern part of Africa, around the' Nile.
Parts of Libya about Cyrene, also in the northern part of Africa. Vast
multitudes of Jews were carried there, strangers of Rome; the site of Rome is
in Italy.
All these came from these countries, and were Jews or proselytes, one or the
other, but all of them, except those living in Judea, were Jews of the
dispersion, or Hellenistic Jews. The great majority could not speak a word of
Hebrew. They spoke the tongues of the countries where they lived.
Now here is a question on verse 20: The Sun shall be turned into darkness, And
the Moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable
day.
What is that great and notable day of the Lord? Notice that the prophet in his
prophecy has what is called a perspective ; he glances at a mountain range,
peak upon peak, and the highest peak is the less distinct; and to the eye in
this perspective the whole range looks like one mountain, but when he goes
there he finds that it is a mountain back of a mountain. Joel sees two
mountain peaks in his prophecy. One is the coming of the Spirit, which is here
described, and the other is the final advent of our Lord. In Matthew 24 we have
this same description, applying to the final advent of our Lord.
Let us expound 2:23: "Him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and
slay." I call attention first to the reading of the Revised Version, the
latter part of the verse: "you have taken and by the hands of lawless men
[or men without the law did crucify." Notice there is a change in thought,
and the Revised Version is more accurate than the Authorized Version which
reads "by wicked hands have slain." But it is not on account of that
difference in rendering that I call attention to verse 23. Here we have
presented three things: (1) The determinate counsel of God, his purpose, and
(2) the foreknowledge of God, and (3) the crucifixion of Christ by men, where
another purpose comes in, the man-purpose. The man purpose is to crucify
Christ. Here is a good purpose: That Christ should die for man; God's motive is
good, looking to salvation. Man's motive is bad, wicked, looking to murder.
Notice that this purpose of God, and this foreknowledge of God are before the
world began before there was any matter or universe, or any part of the whole
earth. In particular before man was made there was a purpose of God in Christ,
and in Christ's death. That foreknowledge of God was before the creation.
God's purpose and his foreordination and man's agency go right along without
any conflict, and if you can get the fact in your mind that it does, you need
not bother about the philosophy of the explanation.
We are conscious every day that there is a will above our will, that has to do
with carrying out our will and sometimes not according to our will. Everybody
knows both those things, and it is not worth while to argue about the
philosophical reconciliation.
Acts 2: 27, 31 needs some notice. Verse 27: "Thou wilt not leave my soul
unto Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption." Verse
31: "He, foreseeing this, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that
neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." Note:
1. The distinction here between the soul and the body. When I was a soldier and
not a Christian, I heard a Restorationist preach about the soul. His theory was
that man has no soul in our sense of the word soul no more than a brute, but
that a converted man has the pneuma or spirit, and that is immortal. He
said, "As for my soul, it can go to hell whenever it wants to." Then
he further said, "The word translated soul in the Bible means so many
things that it does not mean anything. For example, it means, for one thing, a
smelling bottle." Then he said, "Does anybody want to ask a
question?" "Yes," I said, "I'll ask you one. It is the law
of language, that when you put the meaning of a word in the place of the word,
that it makes sense. Now, what sort of sense does this make: 'Why art thou cast
down, 0 my smelling bottle? Why art thou disquieted within me, 0 my smelling
bottle? Thou wilt not leave my smelling bottle in hell. What would it profit a
man to gain the whole world and 'lose his own smelling bottle?' " I did
not tell him that somebody else used that before I did, but it had a practical
effect on that audience.
2. The other distinction between soul and body is, "Because a man goeth to
his everlasting home, and the mourners go about the streets; before the silver
cord is loosed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the
fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returneth to the
earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it." Never be
beguiled on two points: (a) that there is no distinction between soul and body;
(b) never waste time on trichotomy; that is, that there are three parts of the
man, the soma, body, the psuche, soul, and pneuma, spirit. Spirit
and soul are used interchangeably, and to fix up a double man is sufficient. It
is an easy matter to explain how pneuma would be used in one instance
and psuche, or soul, in another. We have not, however, got to the main
point in my mentioning this: How could both of these, the "not abandoning
the soul unto hell," and the "not suffering the body to see corruption,"
be expounded in the resurrection of the body? The answer is that when Christ's
body was raised, and glorified, then the soul of Christ came back to it, and
both can be expressed by the resurrection of the body. But the distinction is
there, which leads us to the next thought: "Thou wilt not abandon my soul
unto hell." What does that mean? I am going to discuss it in two meanings
and let you take your choice. Take the Greek, Hades, follow strict grammatical
thought, and see when he says, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul unto
Hades," that it would be equivalent to, "Thou wilt not allow my soul
to remain disembodied, houseless." Hades, the state as well as the place
of the soul, is bodiless. "Thou wilt not let my soul remain a part, just a
part of man, the spiritual part disembodied; nor wilt thou suffer my body, the
other part to become corrupt." The resurrection will come to prevent the
corruption, and reunite the soul and body, and thus fulfill both the thoughts.
All that sounds plausible, but I am going to advance an idea on which I do not
speak dogmatically, but put a slight interrogation point after it myself. The
old creed says, "I believe that Christ died and was buried and descended
into hell." On that they built this theory that the soul of Christ,
after his body died, went into the spirit world, not only, as they advocate it,
into paradise or purgatory. As the Catholics say, he went to bring out the old
saints, and when there, another expounder of the passage in Peter says, to
preach to the souls of the antedeluvians, and bring salvation to them in hell.
But I don't believe he went there after he died, and you cannot take the
document and support the idea that Christ's soul went to hell after he died.
You cannot take their papers and make them agree on any point, first as to
whether he went before the resurrection, or after the resurrection.
It is unquestionable that Christ's soul entered hell while he was on the cross:
"The pangs of hell got hold upon me." He died the spiritual death,
which is absence from God, when he said, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" And the devil and the demons were around him; the thirst of
hell was upon him.
But, "Thou wilt not abandon my soul unto hell." He was there, but not
to stay. He came out of that to say to the Father, "Receive my
spirit." He was no longer forsaken of the Father. That is when I think
Christ descended into hell. I am sure that he went, neither in soul, nor in
body, after death, because his soul went to heaven, for he had particular
business up there, which had to be attended to. He had to go there at once to
offer the blood of the atonement as the High Priest, and when he came back to
his body, I am sure his soul did not go down there; it went up when he died. So
his descent into hell, if you locate it anywhere, you have to locate it in the
three hours' darkness, when he was God-forsaken and in the power of Satan.
We will take up 2:28: "Thou hast made known unto me the ways of
life." There are two ways the way of the soul, and the way of the body.
Christ makes known what becomes of the soul on the dissolution of the body. Our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, abolished death and brought life and immortality, life
to the soul and immortality to the body. These are the ways of life. If we take
what Christ did on the cross away a valley impenetrable drops down into the
future as to the soul Where does it go?
"If a man die, where is he?" Christ showed us. "If a man die,
shall he live again?" Christ says, as to the body, that he makes known the
ways of life for both. I will illustrate in this way: Some inland travelers in
Africa reported a huge river on the western coast the Niger. But sailors said
that there was no such river running into the ocean, and that these travelers
had lied. Dr. Lardman determined to solve the question by experiment. He went
inland until he saw this river, and it was a big one. He went in a boat, and
never left that boat until he came out into the sea, and he noticed that before
it got to the sea it divided into many mouths, not one of them large. Thus, by
an actual experiment, Dr. Lardman brought to light the existence of the Niger.
So Jesus Christ comes down to earth, enters into the stream of human life, soul
and body. His separated soul does not remain disembodied. His body does not
remain in the earth, the grave of the body, and he comes back. He is the one
traveler that has returned from that bourne. He comes back, and flashes a light
on the question: Where is the soul of the dead man, and what is it doing? What
shall become of the body of the dead man, and when? This is what is meant by
making known to us the ways of life.
Acts 2:34 says, "For David ascended not into the heavens." I heard a
Baptist preacher once allege that there was no forgiveness of sins to the Old
Testament saint, nor reception of the Old Testament saint into heaven until
after Christ's death and resurrection that the soul stopped in some half-way
house. I could cite scripture for half an hour to annihilate that position.
This means here, that David in his body is not ascended into heaven. He is
discussing the resurrection of Christ, and it cannot refer to David, that his
body never saw corruption. He hasn't ascended into heaven. Why? His grave is
here.
In 2:36, "Let all the house of Israel, therefore, know assuredly that God
hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." Here
are two thoughts. Many others will occur to you, but two are all I will bring
out now. "This Jesus whom ye crucified."
In preaching the Convention sermon before a Southern Baptist Convention,
several years ago, a Baptist preacher said, "As to Christ's resurrection
body, we do not know what became of it. It was assumed merely for purposes of
identification. It is not important that we know."
I stick that phrase, "this Jesus," right through his position.
"This Jesus whom ye crucified," that same Jesus who was recognized,
and that same Jesus who ascended into heaven, and that same Jesus who is made
both Lord and Christ. It is very important for us to know what will become of
our bodies.
You take the keystone out of the arch, when directly or indirectly you deny the
propitiatory efficacy of the cross, and the resurrection of Christ.
The resurrection of Christ is the demonstration of the other; it is the sign
"Lord and Christ." And here we have the thought of "Christ, the
Anointed One" separated from "Lord." And yet it is true that the
King is anointed as well as the Priest. You keep the King and Priest distinct
in your mind, but the person is the same, in Christ. He is a King who is a
Priest, and a Priest that is a King. The offices of Christ are those of the
Anointed One. He was anointed to be our Prophet, Priest, King, Judge) and
Sacrifice. All these are distinct, and would come under the term,
"Christ," just as the English word corresponds to the Greek, Christos,
and to the Hebrew, "Messiah."
I now expound 2:37, and compare it with 5:33 and 7:54. Here is something a
little peculiar: "Now when they heard this they were pricked in their
heart." Somebody once asked to show how repentance comes, and what brings
it about. It is evident here that this pricking of the heart this conviction
brought about contrition. Conviction is God's side. God convicts a man, and
he becomes contrite. Without conviction there is no contrition. Godly sorrow
leads to repentance. Not that their hearts were pricked. Peter says,
"Repent." I have called attention to that pricking in the heart, and
ask you to compare it with the word in 5:33, where Peter is talking again:
"When they heard that they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay
him." Notice that in 2:37, when they were pricked in the heart, they said,
"Men and brethren what shall we do?" In 5:33 they were cut to the heart
and sought to slay Peter. Now turn to 7:54, and this time is it Stephen
speaking, preaching substantially the same sermon that Peter preached on both
of these occasions: "When they heard those things they were cut to the
heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." Peter preached on the
day of Pentecost and they were pricked in their heart, eventuating in
salvation. In chapter 5 he preached the same sermon and they were cut to the
heart, and sought to slay him, Stephen preached his sermon, embodying the same
facts, and they were cut to the heart and gnashed on him with their teeth. The
word in Acts 2 in Greek is not the same word used in the other two places. In
2:37 it is katenugesan; in 5:33 and 7:54 the word is dieprionto,
to saw through; middle voice, to be vehemently enraged. However, I do not set
much store by the fact that the words are different. I merely call attention to
the fact. I make no capital out of the distinction. But there must be something
important in the meaning of a word, and that word, "cut," expressed
by dieprionto, is a word of importance. It might appear that one of
these led to salvation, but the other to murder, but I do not think so. What I
call attention to is this: You often Hear the question: Can a man resist the
conviction of the Holy Spirit? Stephen says, "You do always resist the
Holy Spirit," and in verse 51, right before this. Is it possible that a
convicted man can be lost? I think millions of them are in hell now. But you
ask, "Can the contrite man be lost?" I say that the contrite man
cannot be lost. Whenever the conviction by the Holy Spirit eventuates in
contrition, or godly sorrow, that man will be saved; but if the conviction does
not eventuate in godly sorrow, it is turned into a murderous direction as in these
two cases. It does not result in salvation. A man cannot commit the
unpardonable sin unless the Holy Spirit has been enlightening him. That is the
unpardonable sin the presumptuous sin the sin that hath never forgiveness.
It is a sin not against daylight or intellectual light, but a sin against
spiritual light.
So that you may, without going into a refined theological discussion, by taking
a common sense view and keeping with the scriptures, see that the same
preacher, Peter, preaching the same thing each time, and another preacher like
him preaching the same thing, the Holy Spirit of God being present each time,
had different effects on the hearers. Here are the facts: "Pricked in the
heart," . . . "cut to the heart," and also a twofold result. In
one case, conviction becomes contrition, or godly sorrow, and they repent,
believe, and are saved. In the other cases the conviction was not sufficient to
produce contrition. They know that Jesus is the Christ. In chapters 5, 7 they
know that he not only is the Christ, but also the Spirit bears witness to the
word of Stephen and Peter.
I once heard a preacher rebuke some young people for laughing in church,
stating that they might commit the sin against the Holy Spirit. I think his
remark was very much uncalled for. Here is the condition when one may commit
the sin against the Holy Spirit, not when he does a thing thoughtlessly, but
when he is in a great revival of religion, when the power of God is following
him, when the place is awful on account of his presence, when sinners are
overwhelmingly convinced, and he then and there rejects Christ, saying,
"No" when he does not trust him, but goes off and gets drunk, etc.
There is the danger. Such are sinning against the spiritual light, just as these
men mentioned in Acts 7 were.
Consider now Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." Here I call
your attention to the fact that the word, "repent," is in the plural:
"Repent ye," a strong imperative; and then there is a mild
imperative, simply "let every one of you be baptized," that is, every
one of you who has repented. So that the first question that comes up is: Does
the remission of sins connect with both of these words? Is it "repent
ye" eis aphesin hamartion or "repent and be baptized"
eis aphesin hamartion?" Does it connect with just one of these
imperatives, and if so, which one, and what is the meaning? I will give some
interpretations, some of which I do not think worth a snap of the finger:
1. Luke 24 says, "Repentance and remission of sins shall be
preached." That shows the relations between repentance and remission of
sins. It is said that John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance
"eis aphesin hamartion repentance unto the remission of
sins."
2. Here is the strong imperative, "repent," and then follows a
subsidiary thought: "Let every one of you be baptized." Take the main
sentence: "Repent ye" eis aphesin hamartion, i.e., repent ye
. . . unto remission of sins," and that would mean just the same as Peter
used the word in chapter 3 where he says, "Repent ye . . . that your sins
may be blotted out," using hopos, the remission of sins connecting
with the first, and making the word a strong imperative, the other being
subsidiary, and intended to imply that repentance has been accomplished, as:
"Go make disciples, baptizing them." Make disciples first, then
baptize the disciples. Now they say that this means, "Repent ye unto the
remission of sins, and let every one of you be baptized," i.e., every one
who has repented and received remission of sins, that one is to be baptized.
Dr. Hackett says that this one is not right, and that the remission of sins
connects both words. I am not discussing this as a Greek expert just now. I am
showing the way to interpret, viz.: that there is a harmony between every
passage in the Bible as to repentance and remission of sins.
3. Some take this position: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins," connecting the
remission of sins with Christ, the Anointed One, that when one believes in
Christ it is unto the remission of sins, and he cites the passage in Acts
10:43, where Peter says, "To him gave all the prophets witness that
whosoever believeth on him, through his name shall receive remission of
sins," or be baptized in his name unto the remission of sins."
4. Brother E. Y. Mullins explains it this way, that eis here means in
order to, i.e., repent and be baptized in order to the remission of sins that
you receive through repentance and faith in Christ, and in order to symbolic
remission of sins that you receive in baptism." That is what he told the
Campbellite convention, and he sent it to me and asked me what I thought of it.
I told him I did not like that split result, making the word mean double. Using
the same word in the same connection with two different meanings violates the
laws of language. Is have now given a list of interpretations.
Let us connect remission of sins with the verb, baptistheta, to be
baptized, eis aphesin hamartion. How shall we interpret it? I interpret
it just exactly as I do a passage in Matthew.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the kingdom of heaven set up on the day of Pentecost, and why?
2. Give the controversy of the author on this point.
3. Was the church instituted, established, or organized on the day of
Pentecost, and if not, what was done to it?
4. Locate on a map the countries of the peoples mentioned in Acts 2:9-11.
5. What is the great and notable day of the Lord mentioned in 2:20, and what is
meant by the perspective of prophecy?
6. What the difference between the revised version and the authorized version
of Acts 2:2-37.
7. What three things are presented ill. this verse,
and what their application?
8. On verses 27 and 31 what two distinctions between soul and body, what the
position of the Restorationists on this point, and what the author's experience
with, one of them?
9. What is trichotomy, and is there any scripture for it?
10. What the first theory of interpretation of the expression., "Thou wilt
not leave my soul unto Hades," given by the author?
11. What the teaching of the old creed?
12. What false doctrine founded on a misinterpretation of this and other
scriptures?
13. What the author's position and argument on this question?
14. What the meaning of verse 28, "Thou hast made known unto me the ways
of life"? Illustrate.
15. What is the meaning of verse 34, "For David ascended not into the
heavens"?
16. What author's position with reference to the "half-way house"
theory?
17. What two thoughts brought out on Acts 2:36, and what the importance of
each?
18. Expound Acts 2:37, and compare it with 5:33 and 7:54.
19. Can a man resist the conviction of the Holy Spirit and be lost? If so, can
a contrite man be lost, and what the relation and the difference between
conviction and contrition?
20. Under what conditions may one sin against the Holy Spirit, and what is the
unpardonable sin?
21. As an introduction to Acts 2:38, what is the first thing about it to which
the author calls attention, and what the first theory of interpretation given?
22. What the second theory, and the argument?
23. What the third theory, and its argument?
24. What is Dr. Mullins' theory, and what the objection to it?
25. Does the author connect the remission of sins with the verb
"repent," or with "be baptized," or with both?
THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION
Acts 2:38.
We now come to an important subject growing out of Acts 2:38 to which I devote
two whole chapters because (1) the two opposing theories of interpretation to this
and other passages, supposed to be kindred, have divided the Christian world
since the second century, resulting in modern times in the formation of the
distinct domination, the "Campbellites," and (2) the consequences are
that one of these two theories has changed the plan of salvation, necessitated
a new system of theology, introduced new ordinances, changed the subjects of
church membership, prepared the way for a new church polity, and for a union of
church and state. That being the case, and as that battle has been going on
from the second century till this day, it justifies these two whole chapters
being devoted to the subject.
The first theory mentioned above, is expressed in the following propositions:
(1) The plan of salvation by grace has ever been, is now, and will ever be,
just one plan in its essential requirements of man. (2) These requirements are
all spiritual. (3) They are the new birth, repentance toward God, and faith
toward (in) the Messiah. (4) The great model of the faith which brings
salvation is the faith of Abraham, prior to his subjection to any external
ordinance. (5) Salvation before ordinances. (6) Blood before the laver. That is
the first theory.
The opposite theory is: (1) Salvation by ordinances. (2) Baptismal regeneration.
(3) Baptismal remission (4) Baptism, like repentance and faith, a condition of
the new birth, salvation and remission of sins.
The entire New Testament usage of the verb, baptize, and its noun when followed
by the preposition, eis, with the accusative for its object must be
considered, in order to correctly interpret Acts 2:38. The New Testament usage
of the verb, baptize and its noun, when followed by the preposition, eis,
with the accusative as its object, is more important than classic usage. When
you write down all such New Testament passages, in their order, and look at
them carefully, each in its context, then we must render that preposition, eis,
by an English word or phrase that will meet the requirements of every context.
When you write down sentences in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation,
that have the verb, baptizo, or its noun) followed by the preposition,
eis, and that followed by the accusative for its object, look at those in
their respective groups, then stop and rub out that preposition, eis, in
every case, and substitute its meaning in an English word or phrase, you must
see that it would give a rendering in English that would fit everything. The
meaning of a word when substituted for that word, will make sense. That is a
fine text which takes the entire New Testament usage. Take an English-Greek
Concordance it will save much trouble and make out a list of passages,
commencing with Matthew 3:11: "I baptize you in water unto
repentance." The verb, baptize, is there, the preposition, eis, and
metanoian in the accusative, which is the object of the preposition. Go
thus through the whole New Testament and note every passage. Each passage,
however, must have baptize), or its noun, followed by the preposition, eis,
with the accusative as the object.
As we go through the New Testament in this manner we find a circle of
scriptures used to support the theory that water baptism, like repentance and
faith, is a term, or condition, of salvation. Here are those passages on which
the people rely who hold that baptism is in order to remission of sins: The
passages in which the verb, baptize, or its noun, is employed, followed by the
preposition, eis, with the accusative as it object; they select only
three. They select as their first group the following:
1. Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:27. They take the passages only of
"baptized eis" with the accusative. One of them is,
"baptized eis remission of sins"; another is, "baptized
eis Christ"; and the other, "baptized eis his death." These
passages form their first group. The grammatical construction is the same in
every case, and they say, "You Baptists have no plan of induction."
If we ask them how they get into the remission of sins, they say, "We are
baptized into it." If we ask, "How do you get into Christ?" they
answer, "We are baptized into Christ." If we ask, "How do you
get into the death of Christ?" they say, "We are baptized into the
death of Christ." They also say, "We know how to get in, but you have
no method of induction." When I come to these passages I will tell you
what to say to them. One scripture will answer: "By faith we enter into
this grace wherein we stand." That is our method of induction.
2. Their second group is that which connects baptism with the washing away of
sin, without the preposition, eis. "And now why tarriest thou?
arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). This is the
only passage in this group.
3. The third group consists of those passages which connect baptism with
salvation, Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved," and I Peter 3:21: "Baptism doth also now save us."
4. The fourth group is that which seems to connect baptism with regeneration,
consisting of, "Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God" (John 3: 5). "Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by
the washing of water with the word" (Eph. 5:25). "According to his
mercy he hath saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
When you can correctly interpret these four groups of scriptures you have the
heart and the body, the center and the circumference, the substance and the
shadow of it all. This is the second theory, and it thus makes salvation to
come through ritualism through ordinances.
The real substance of this contention is this: (1) It is a salvation by ritual.
(2) It is a sacerdotal salvation, since it requires the presence, the office and
performance of another party, the administrator of the ordinances, and thereby
securing our salvation, making you responsible) when your salvation is
dependent upon somebody else, and on what somebody else does. That is what we
call "sacerdotal" sacer, & Latin word for priest a priestly
salvation.
(3) This requires competent authority to pronounce on the fitness of the
"sacer" (priest) or administrator, and thus makes it an endless
question with any man as to whether he is saved until he can prove that the one
that baptized him is a qualified administrator, and thereby contradicting the
statement of Paul, that God made salvation by faith, is. e., Is may repent and
believe by myself, just thinking about the Bible, or reasoning about it.
(4) Now this other thing: the theory is that, like repentance and faith, it is
a term of salvation, but this is unlike repentance and faith, in that they are
personal, and this other is not personal; it is still more unlike repentance
and faith in this, that the scriptures expressly say, "Except you repent,
you shall perish," and, "He that believeth not is condemned."
Nowhere in the Bible do we find an expression of that kind about baptism.
The greatest modern advocate of their theory is Alexander Campbell, and a short
history of his contention is this: He came over from Scotland and settled in
Virginia. He had a certain quasi connection with a Baptist church. Anyhow, he
was present at Baptist associations, and named his first paper The
Christian Baptist. But he says, "When I began my debate on the act
of baptism with McCall, who was a Presbyterian, while studying for that debate I
found out that baptism, unless it was intended to secure the remission of sins,
was as empty as a blasted nut."
That was the germ of the idea in his mind, according to his own statement,
hence Mr. Campbell, from that time on, began to publish things that the
Baptists did not believe, and soon he brought out a new paper, which he called
the Milllennial Harbinger. In other words, he considered himself
to be the harbinger, the forerunner, the "John the Baptist" of the
millennium; and that it was this new theory of his that was bringing about the
millennium. In that Millennial Harbinger was an "Extra"
on the remission of sins. It was a little too long to go into his little paper.
In this Extra, which was the first general and formal announcement of his proposition,
he took the position of baptismal regeneration, baptismal remission, or
baptismal salvation that wherever you find "purifying" or
"sanctifying" it means baptism. In other words, he made it mean the
whole thing.
When he brought out that extra the "fur began to fly." All over the
land the Baptists rose up and said, "This man does not belong to us,"
and their leaders began to reply to his extra, among whom were the celebrated
Andrew Broadus, the elder J. B. Jeter, both of Virginia; also Carr, pastor of
one of the great Richmond churches. Whereupon everybody knew there would be a
war at the next meeting of that association. The association met and a
committee was appointed to consider the state of the churches. That committee,
of which Carr was chairman, found that the churches were being wrecked by a new
doctrine, set forth in the extra of the Millennial Harbinger. So the committee
recommended that the churches withdraw fellowship from the preachers who
advocated that doctrine, and from the members who accepted it. The churches
acted instantly, all over Virginia. And since they drew that line of cleavage,
Campbellism has no longer hurt the Baptists. This heresy passed into Kentucky.
There it divided the associations and the churches. Wherever it went a fire
arose. Where there are two horses going in opposite directions, no man had
better try to ride both at the same time. Where two are not agreed they ought
not to try to walk together. Then Mr. Campbell organized his own denomination.
In the meantime, he held debates with quite a number of people on the subject.
His two great lines of argument were as follows: He relied most upon the
grammatical construction, i.e., Metanoesate, kai baptistheto hekastos human
en to onomati lesou Christou eis aphesin ton hamartion humon, kai lempsesthe
ten dorean tou hagiou pneumatos. He said that the grammatical construction
placed aphesin hamartion, remission of sins, as the object to be secured
by the baptistheto, and be attempted to prove his points by the citation
of many scholars who admitted his grammatical constructions. His second
argument was that from the second century down to the present time, great
multitudes of Christians had held to that, and the majority of those who
claimed to be Christians, which would include all the Romanists, all the Greek
Catholic churches, and a number of others. Those are the main lines of his
argument.
A kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last, stands
or falls with the theory, viz.: the proposition that the Lord's Supper at the
hands of the priest, after it has been converted into the very body and blood
of Christ, is essential to salvation. The advocates of this theory would say,
on grammatical construction, Jesus said, "This [holding up the bread, after
they had blessed it] is my body broken for you," and then [holding up the
cup]: "This cup is my blood, shed for the remission of sins," and
then they would quote a passage in another part of John: "Except a man eat
this flesh and drink this blood he has no life in him." So they made much
of grammatical construction, and also of historical argument. They made out a
stronger case for their part of the theory than Campbell did for his) and on
precisely the same line of argument. I have always contended that the
Campbellites must abandon their theory, or accept this one as here stated.
If it is true that there is no -way to get into Christ except through baptism,
then there is no way to get Christ into us except through the Lord's Supper.
The induction must be both ways: "I in you and you in me." There is
no shadow of a doubt that the two are like two pillars which support an arch.
The arch is one, and the pillars are the two supporters of the arch.
The antecedent arguments opposing both Campbell's theory and the kindred
Romanist theory, similarly based, are as follows:
(1) The plan of salvation from the book of Genesis to Revelation is one plan.
Whatever has been essential as a requirement is always essential, just as much
so in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, and yet baptism and the Lord's
Supper were not parts of the Old Testament. And all must admit that some Old
Testament people were saved. If so, according to their theory, they were saved
by compliance with terms that we do not have to observe, and we are saved by
compliance with terms that they did not have to observe; therefore, the plan
was changed in the essential terms of salvation.
(2) But the model case of Abraham, the model case of salvation by faith as in
Abraham) utterly nullifies any change in the plan: "Abraham believed
Jehovah, and it was imputed to him for righteousness," or justification,
and Paul says, "This was written not for Abraham's sake alone, but for our
sake." When we believe in Christ it is imputed unto us for righteousness,
and we must follow in the steps of our father, Abraham, showing that the plan
of salvation was the same.
(3) Another antecedent, argument is the testimony of the prophets. Peter said
to Cornelius, "To him [that is, to Jesus] bear all the prophets witness,
that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission
of sins." Here is remission of sins conditioned upon faith, and all the
prophets bore witness to the fact that a man who believed on him received the
remission of sins, and there was no baptism at the time that the prophets bore
that testimony.
(4) Acts 16:30 is the only place in the Bible where the express question is
put, "What must I do to be saved?" and the express answer is,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
(5) In many instances in the life of Christ he said to men and women, "Thy
faith hath saved thee," and that where there was no baptism at all.
(6) A certain passage in Hebrews goes to the heart of the matter. Talking about
the ritual of the Old Testament it says, "It was not possible that the
blood of bullocks and of goats could take away sin." Why?
Because there was no intrinsic merit in the blood of bulls and goats. Apply
that principle: It is not possible that baptism in water shall take away sin.
There is no intrinsic merit in it.
"The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." The
Old Testament ritual did not do it, and the New Testament ritual does not do
it.
(7) If we make some external act to be performed by another party essential to
our salvation, then the promise of salvation can never be made sure to us, and
yet the scriptures teach that God made salvation by faith that it might be made
sure.
That penitent thief, for instance, was up there dying, hanging on his cross.
Suppose baptism is an essential condition to salvation; he is lost, for he
could not come down. But Jesus looked at him who had complied with no ritual,
and said, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
I discuss this subject at length because I want to solemnly impress upon the
mind the way these two theories fight, have been fighting, and will continue to
fight until the end of the world.
(8) I will assume a perpendicular line as upon a blackboard. Write on one side
of it, "Lovers of God," and on the other side, "Haters of
God." On one side are believers; on the other side, unbelievers. Now, from
which of these two sides will you take the subjects for baptism people who
love God, and believe in Jesus Christ, or haters of God and unbelievers? A
follower of Campbell will say, "Take lovers of God and believers in Jesus
Christ." Then I say, "Whosoever loveth is born of God," and
"we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," and "He
that believeth has been born of God." They may wrestle with that
perpendicular line as much as they please they can never break it.
(9) Paul says, "I thank God I baptized none of you; God sent me not to
baptize but to preach the gospel."
If baptism were one of the terms of salvation, Paul was thanking God that he
had refused to perform one of the things essential to salvation.
Does he not make a distinction there between the essence of the gospel that
saves, and baptism? No man can deny it if he carefully studies the passage.
(10) The repeated declarations in the Bible, e.g., take this one: "God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on
him should not perish, but have everlasting life," and "he that
believeth shall not come into condemnation, but hath everlasting life." So
the scriptures might be multiplied, but Is must stop here.
We have for the next chapter the interpretation of the four groups of
scriptures which are very necessary to the under-standing of the things that
oppose one of these theories, as follows: The first group, Acts 2:38; Romans
6:1-4; Galatians 3:27; the second group (just one), Acts 22:16; the third
group, Mark 16:16; Is Peter 3:21; the fourth group, John 3:5; Ephesians 5:26;
Titus 3:5.
Is have now led up to the exegesis of these four groups. Is want to settle some
things while Is am on this. Is would go to the end of the earth to oppose any
man who says that he is necessary to my salvation by making any rite or
ceremony a term of salvation.
Is would never go and look for the remissions of sins in a pool of water.
QUESTIONS
1. What justifies two whole chapters devoted to Acts 2:38?
2. What the propositions of the first theory?
3. What the propositions of the second theory?
4. What particular usage must be considered, that we may correctly interpret
Acts 2:38?
5. What the method pursued in the investigation of this truth?
6. What the first group of New Testament scriptures used to support the theory
that water baptism, like repentance and faith, is a term, or condition of
salvation, and what the distinguishing characteristic of this group?
7. From these scriptures, what their method of induction, and what the opposite
theory of induction?
8. What the second group, and its distinguishing characteristic?
9. What the third group, and its characteristic?
10. What the fourth group, and its characteristic?
11. What the real substance of this contention?
12. What the meaning of "sacerdotal"?
13. Who the great modern advocate of this theory, and what is a short history
of the contention?
14. What were his two lines of argument?
15. What kindred theory, similarly based, which he combated to the very last,
stands or falls with this theory?
16. What antecedent argument opposes Campbell's theory, and the kindred
Romanist theory, based on the unity of the plan of salvation?
17. What one based on the model case of Abraham?
18. What one based on the testimony of the prophets?
19. What one based on the plain question and answer?
20. What one based on the teaching of Christ?
21. What one based on a passage in Hebrews?
22. What one based upon the promise of a sure salvation to them that believe?
23. What one based on the illustration of the dividing
line? 24. What one based on Paul's statement that he did not baptize certain
people? 25. What one based on the repeated declaration in the Bible?
THE THEORY OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION (Concluded)
Acts 2:38.
The last chapter was devoted to the great principles which interpret Acts 2:38,
and I would have you bear in mind everything that was said in that chapter. The
object of the present discussion is to give a brief exegesis of the circle of
scriptures cited. I showed that four classes of scriptures were generally cited
in favor of the Campbellite position, is. e., that Acts 2:38 should be
interpreted to mean that baptism is "in order to" remission of sins;
that these cases are where the verb, baptize, or its noun, is followed by the
preposition, eis, and the accusative case, of which the most notable is
Acts 2:38. There we have the verb, baptistheto, let him be baptized, and
the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, aphesin hamartion, the
remission of sins.
Words in all languages may have, and do have: (1) the common, ordinary meaning;
(2) a frequent meaning, different from the ordinary; (3) a rare meaning,
different from both the others. Just so this Greek preposition, eis, in
the New Testament with the accusative case, commonly means, in order to;
frequently it means with reference to, or in token of, or concerning and it
rarely means because of.
There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely
determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word
according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing
of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context
I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the
"canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things.
You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study
that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to
give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning.
I will illustrate these principles in reverse order:
(1) The ritualistic Jews, holding to the letter of the law of sacrifices and
strict grammatical construction, insisted that their compliance with the law of
appointed sacrifices did secure to them the actual remission of sins, and hence
there was no necessity for a new covenant, with a nobler Sacrifice. But Paul,
in the letter to the Hebrews, shows that it was impossible for the blood of
bullocks and goats to really take away sin. They had not the intrinsic merit.
It was incongruous, contrary to the nature of things, that the blood of a
soulless brute should expiate the sins of a man. Just so when the Romanist quotes
Christ's words: "This cup of the covenant which is poured out for many
unto the remission of sins" claims a literal, ordinary meaning for the
word, eis, according to strict grammatical construction, we reply: It is
impossible for grape juice to take away sins.
(2) To illustrate the power of the general context in determining the meaning
of a word in a specific case, we say, scripture must interpret scripture. The
trend of the Bible must govern a literal, grammatical construction of a single
passage. The passage must harmonize with clear, abundant passages elsewhere. If
the book teaches in a thousand passages that only the blood of Christ,
apprehended by faith, can take away sin, we are not warranted in attributing to
an external rite the same power, merely on the ground or literal, grammatical
construction in a few passages. These few detached passages concerning external
rites must be interpreted in harmony with the spiritual trend of the entire
revelation. That is an unquestioned principle of interpretation.
(3) To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of
the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the
accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples:
Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah."
Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It
is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so,
they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to
them after they repented not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the
repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches
in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning
because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But
they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case.
(4) We will now consider a frequent meaning of eis, also determined by local
context, in the following still more pertinent passage, for in it we have the
verb, baptize, as well as the preposition, eis (Matt. 3:11): "I
indeed baptize you in water eis repentance." All the context shows that
John required repentance, and even its fruits, as a condition precedent to
baptism. It would be foolish to render it, "I baptize you in order to
repentance." Here the preposition has not its ordinary meaning, in order
to, nor its rare meaning, because of, but its frequent meaning, with reference
to a repentance that they had exercised. "Is baptize you with reference
to that exercising of it," is what John means. Or, as Tyndale, in his
version (it was a very fine version for his time) says, "I baptize you in
token of repentance." That makes fine sense.
Matthew 3:11 has a bearing on Acts 2:38. It is the first New Testament use of
the verb, baptizo, followed by the preposition, eis, with the accusative
case, and is the key passage for unlocking the meaning of Acts 2:38. They stand
or fall together, so exact is the parallel. That they do stand or fall together
is evident from their exact parallelism. A further evidence that they stand or
fall together is found in the fact that both Mark and Luke tie them together:
Mark 1:4: "John preached the baptism of repentance" eis aphesis
hamartion; Luke 3:3: "He came preaching the baptism of
repentance" eis aphesin hamartion. Here are two gospels, then,
that tie those passages together. And right after them is used Acts 2:38:
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ" eis phesin hamartion. If we then translate Matthew 3:11,
"I baptize you with reference to repentance," and "John indeed
baptized with the baptism of repentance with reference to the remission of
sins," why not here go right on and say, "Repent ye, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ with reference to the remission of
sins?" Remember that in every case we render the preposition in all these
conjoined cases (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38) by "unto"
in the frequent sense of with reference to. Now that will fit the local
context, and it will fit the general context.
To find another instance of eis is nearer to Acts 2:38 we have only to
glance back to verse 25, another unmistakable instance of eis in the
sense of concerning, and not in order to. Note that it is in the same speech:
"For David saith eis (concerning] him," speaking of Christ.
What is to hinder us, then, from taking Acts 2:25, where the eis means
concerning, or with reference to, and putting that meaning of it in verse 38?
The classics abound with this sense of the preposition, eis. Dr. Broadus quotes
three: (1) From Aristophanes: "To jeer at a man eis his rags,"
i. e., with reference to his rags. Now we would not jeer at a man in order to
his rags. (2) From Xenophon: "To reproach eis friendship." We
do not reproach a man because of his friendship, and certainly not in order to
his friendship. (3) From Plato: "To differ from one eis
virtue." We do not differ from a man in order to virtue.
We may apply the ad hominern argument to our Campbellite brethren. They
evade the many cases of remission through faith and without baptism, in the
life of our Lord, by saying, "The law of pardon was not given till
Pentecost." How, then, do they dispose of Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, paralleling
remission under the preaching of John the Baptist with the preaching of Peter
at Pentecost in Acts 2:38? John baptized eis aphesin hamartion, exactly
paralleling what Peter did in Acts 2:38. Then, briefly, the meaning of eis in
Acts 2:38 is this: Repent ye plural, and a strong imperative "and let
every one of you who has repented be baptized" a mild imperative
"in the name of Jesus Christ eis aphesin hamartion" with
reference to remission of sins.
I am willing to risk my scholarship on that. One thing I am sure of is that
however much a man may rely on the technical, grammatical construction, his
common sense is constantly pushing him off that platform when it leaves him to
the idea that he cannot obtain remission of sins from God unless he submits to
an external rite. All the world revolts at that, and so does the teaching of
the Bible.
The second group of scriptures is where baptism is connected with the washing
away of sins, without the preposition, eis, in it. There is only one
passage of that kind (Acts 22:16): "Arise [Ananias said to Paul], and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins." The points here are: (1) Paul is
commanded to wash away his sins; (2) to wash them away in being baptized. Two
simple questions will unveil the meaning: (a) Can a man himself really wash
away his sins? (b) Can water on the outside really wash away sins on the
inside? The two are answered by the scripture: "God alone can forgive
sins," and when we come to the real remission it must come from God.
Again: "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all
sin." Therefore, it is evident that when Paul was commanded to wash away
his sins Paul himself, not God, was commanded to wash them away that it is
not a real washing away of sins that is meant, because that contradicts the
other scripture, that God alone can take away sin. And when it says that he was
commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, it is evident that it is not a real
cleansing from sin that is contemplated, for the scriptures so abundantly teach
that the blood of Jesus Christ alone really cleanses from sin. Then what does
it mean? That Paul in baptism might symbolically wash away his sins. What God
himself accomplished through the sacrifice of his Son, Paul might show forth in
a symbolic cleansing, just as what Christ's blood accomplishes in the remission
of sins, the wine of the Lord's Supper may symbolically accomplish. As there
must first be a substance to cast a shadow, so the symbolic cleansing is just
like taking the Lord's Supper, if we are not really saved.
So baptism is unmeaning without a prior and real remission of sin. Being really
saved, we may picture symbolically that salvation in a memorial. Otherwise it
would be like Bunker Hill Monument without a previous battle to commemorate.
Peter expressly declares that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh,
using the term "filth" in the sense of spiritual defilement (not dirt
on the body), and using the word "flesh" in its common meaning of the
carnal nature (not the physical man). I think Peter in that little parenthesis,
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," was inspired of God
to put in a precaution against attributing to baptism real cleansing of the
defilement of sin. He foresaw the coming of the Campbellites, and put in a word
against them.
The third group of scriptures is apparently connected with regeneration: (a)
"Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God" (John 3:5). (b) "According to his mercy he saved us,
through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit"
(Titus 3:5). (c) "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for
it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with
the word" (Eph. 5:25).
These three passages constitute the third group of scriptures. For a full
explanation of John 3:5, see author's first volume of sermons, page 181, on,
The Human Side of Regeneration. The following is a quotation from it:
He must be "born of water and Spirit." There is just one birth,
"born of water and Spirit"; and it means exactly what "born
again" means; and it means exactly what "born of the Spirit"
means; and it means exactly what "born of God" means; just that and
no more. Then, if it means just that, why put it in this form: "born of
water and Spirit''? I will tell you why. In the new birth there are at least
two distinct ideas: (1) cleansing; (2) renewing. If you took only the idea of
cleansing and left out the renewing, cleansing would not do any good. The sow
that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mire because she is a sow. If
you do not change her nature, then you do no good to cleanse her, but if you
change the nature and do not cleanse, then you have left purity imprisoned in
filth. So there are two ideas always, at least two, in the new birth: (1)
cleansing; (2) renewing.
For explanation of Titus 3:5 see the same volume, page 183: "For we
ourselves also were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers
lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man
appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that
being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of
eternal life." Notice how overwhelmingly conclusive and how comprehensive
is this scripture: (1) We were every way evil and lost till the love of God to
man appeared in our Saviour. (2) It appeared not by our works of righteousness.
And baptism is a work of righteousness (Matt. 3:15). (3) But it appeared in the
shedding on us abundantly the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ. This is the
new birth. (4) But this new birth consists of two things: (a) The washing of
regeneration, i.e., the cleansing from sin secured by the Spirit's application
of Christ's blood, in other words, "born of water." (b) The renewing
of the Holy Spirit i.e., the giving of a new heart, which is "born of
Spirit."
From the same work, page 187, is also taken this extract on Ephesians 5:25:
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he alight
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," Therefore
"born of water," which means the "washing of regeneration,"
which means "the sprinkling of our hearts from an evil conscience,"
which brings justification, which is apprehended by faith, must be such a
"washing of water" as comes "by the word," because faith
comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and, therefore, the sanitizer
of babes who finds literal water-baptism in Ezekiels "Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you," exchange the blood of Jesus, and an
essential part of the "new birth" for water, and very little of that.
And the immersionist who finds literal water-baptism in John's "born of
water," makes the same exchange, only getting a little more of the water.
But even this compensation is lost in a birth for a burial. His more water has
drowned him.
The fourth group of scriptures consists of two: "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned"
(Mark 16:16), and "which also after a true likeness doth now save you,
even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ; who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels
and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (I Peter 3:21-22).
The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether
it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library
in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New
Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last
twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript,
discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript,
you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that
account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach
from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a
part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine
on it.
And there is only this one passage in the whole Bible upon which you can
plausibly build a baptismal salvation argument (Mark 16:16).
It is very easy to answer all those other passages; it is not go easy to answer
this one. But let us suppose that it really belongs to God's Word. "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall
be condemned." I would construe it just exactly as I construe the passage,
"He that endureth unto the end shall be saved." "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved"; that is true. He that endures
to the end and is baptized shall be saved; that is true also. But when the
negative is stated, it does not say, "He that believeth not and is not
baptized shall not be saved, or shall be condemned." When you put it
negatively it has no reference to baptism. It does not say, "He that is
not baptized shall not be saved." It does not make any difference how many
things one may put in believe, be baptized, keep the law, go to church with
salvation, it does not affect salvation. If the first one was to secure
salvation, it will be true if you put all of them in. That will not take away
from the truth. He that believeth hath everlasting life; he that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved. Some would make it read: "He that believeth
and is baptized and goes to church every Sunday, etc., etc. etc., hath
everlasting life." You can put in as many as you please and they all
follow from the first one. But to put it negatively, you could not say,
"He that does not go to church every Sunday will be lost." And in
negation it does not say, "He that believeth not and is not baptized"
it stops at the believer. This is the explanation of this passage, assuming
it to be a part of the Bible.
Is once had a controversy with a Methodist brother on falling from grace. I was
stating the fact that if you have your name in the Lamb's book of life God will
in no wise blot it out that it stuck. He said, "I can disprove
that." I said, "Where is the passage?" He said, "Over there
where Jesus is talking about those who have their names in the Lamb's book of
life (Revelation 3:5)." I said, "That does not say what he will do; it
says that he will not blot the name out." So when you come to prove a
thing you must not rely upon an implication. You must bring up a clear-cut
statement of God's Word. If that text had said, "He that believeth not and
is not baptized shall be condemned," I would not know what to do with it.
Bear these in mind then: (1) It is a very doubtful text. (2) Saving faith is
faith that is fruitful (fruit-bearing). (3) It does not mean that baptism is a
condition of entrance into a saved state, by what follows "He that
believeth not shall be condemned," like "except ye repent, ye shall
perish."
On I Peter 3:21 I make this point on the picture of baptism: "Baptism doth
now save us." Baptism doth now save us in a figure; baptism doth now save
us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. That is the figure,
but baptism does not put away the impurity of the carnal nature does not put
away the filth of the flesh. These are the four points: (1) Baptism saves us in
a figure. (2) That figure is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
(3) Paul says, "You have been planted in the likeness of his death, so ye
shall be in the likeness of his resurrection." Wherever you see a baptism
you see a burial and a resurrection. This is not a real salvation, but a
pictorial one a figure of salvation, and baptism does save us that way, and
nobody will deny it. (4) The injury of a good conscience toward God. And the
force of this last is: (a) The conscience is bad before it is cleansed, (b) How
made good? Hebrew 9:14: "By the blood of Christ." (c) The place of a
good conscience 1Timothy 1:5 explains.
This, my last general remark, is on the evil consequences of this doctrine. In
the history of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, baptismal salvation, or
baptismal remission, the consequences have been fearfully evil. By its fruits
ye shall know it. What has been its fruit in history?
(1) The first fruit was that as soon as Christians, after the apostles, reached
a conclusion from these scriptures that I have been expounding that sins were
really remitted in baptism, and that baptism is never to be repeated, they
instantly began to postpone baptism, so as to include, when they were baptized,
just as many of their sins as possible. From the time of Augustine and
Tertullian it was very manifest. Tertullian said, "Why hurry baptism? All
the sins you commit up to that time are washed away. Then put it off as long as
possible." That is consequence number one.
(2) If baptism means the absolution, or remission of sins, "Why not,"
said the mother, "baptize my baby?" And just as sure as the sun
shines in the heavens this doctrine of baptismal remission forced "infant
baptism." There never would have been any but for that. And the testimony
of history is as clear as a sunbeam as to the relation between these two things
that infant baptism is the product of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
That is the second fruit a fruit that is not good, either.
(3) "Since I may baptize my baby, in order to save it, why not sprinkle
it? Why need I dip the little fellow? Why not simplify the ordinance, and just
sprinkle a few drops of water on it?" And it is certain that that is the
doctrine which changed the act of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. It is
certainly true. Dr. Burleson was once telling a Campbellite friend of ours, Dr.
Carrington of Austin we both thought a great deal of him that if there were
no infant baptism in the world today, that which he (the Campbellite friend)
was preaching would bring it about. "Oh, no," he said, "that
could not do it." Yet it happened with this very Brother Carrington that
he was sent for by a family, and the mother said, "Brother Carrington, my
preacher is gone; you are a preacher, not of my faith, it is true, but you are
a preacher, and here's my baby about to die; I believe it is lost if it is not
baptized, and I ask you to baptize the baby" and Dr. Carrington, the
Campbellite preacher, sprinkled that baby I That is a fact of Texas history. I
do not like that fruit.
(4) The next fruit is sacerdotal salvation a salvation at the hand of a
priest, or some other human being. That is not good, either.
Another fruit is that if you baptize all the babies, and keep up baptizing all the
babies, then you banish believer's baptism out of the world.
There would be none at all. You go to a country where this
"sacramental" ordinance by baptism has prevailed, and where it has
necessitated infant baptism, and where it has necessitated this change in the
form of baptism, there is no one in the whole nation to be found, since being
administered to infants as they come into the world, not a man could be found
who could pass to maturity to be baptized on a profession of his faith, and he
is taught to believe that it is all right. They say, "We cannot repeat the
baptism." So if these false teachings are accredited there is utterly no
use for these scriptures: "Believe and be baptized; repent and be
baptized; they that believed his word were baptized, etc."
(5) The next fruit is this: If there is no salvation without baptism, suppose I
had a brother, a cousin, or an aunt who died, and was not saved, then I would
say, "Why not let us have a baptism for the dead?" And it brought
that in just as certain as there is anything in the world; for those who died
without having been baptized, and hence, according to that doctrine, were not
saved, and therefore there arose a baptism from the dead.
Take again this fact: It reverses the gospel. Instead of repent, believe and be
baptized, they put it: Believe, repent and be baptized.
(7) And it certainly also brings a union of church and state, as sure as the
world stands. This is the fruit of the doctrine in history.
QUESTIONS
1. Give a brief statement, in review, of the discussion of Acts 2:38 thus far.
2. What three meanings may a word in any language have?
3. Apply this principle to the Greek preposition, eis.
4. What three principles of interpretation enable us to safely determine when
to depart from the ordinary meaning and to render this word according to the
frequent or rare meaning?
5. Illustrate the principle of "the nature or congruity of things."
6. Illustrate the principle of "the bearing of the general context."
7. Illustrate the principle of "the bearing of the local context."
8. What the bearing of Matthew 3:11 on Acta 2:38?
9. What further evidence that they stand or fall together?
10. What other instance of eis nearer to Acts 2:38?
11. What the classic usage of eis? Give examples.
12. What argument may be applied to the Campbellites? Explain fully.
13. Then, briefly, what is the meaning of Acts 2:38?
14. What constitutes the second group of scriptures, and what the explanation?
15. In the light of this explain I Peter 3:21.
16. What the third group of scriptures?
17. Explain John 3:5.
18. Explain Titus 3:5.
19. Explain Ephesians 5:25.
20. What the fourth group of scriptures?
21. Explain Mark 16:16.
22. What the picture of baptism in I Peter 3:21, and what the points contained
therein?
23. What are the evil consequences of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration?
THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
THE HABIT OF THE EARLY CHURCH
Acts 2:39 to 3:l
So now we take up Acts 2:39 to 3:1 for exposition. The closing part of Acts
2:38 says, "And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," and
verse 39, For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." I take
that last clause of 2:38 "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit" because of its connection with the succeeding verse; and so the
question arises what is meant by the gift of the Holy Spirit? Does it mean
the ordinary graces of the Spirit, such as men received before Pentecost, and
are receiving now, and have been receiving through all the history of the
world, i.e., the convicting power of the Spirit, repenting power of the Spirit,
and believing power of the Spirit? No, it does not mean that. The promise
refers to the prophecy of Joel: "It shall come to pass in the last days,
saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh," and then this
baptism in the Spirit is described. Peter says to the convicted men of Israel:
"You have witnessed our reception of the baptism of the Spirit; you have
seen its effect on us. Now, if you will repent and believe, and be baptized, ye
shall receive that gift." He goes on to say, "For the promise is to
you and to your children, and unto all that are afar off," limited by just
so many as God shall call to receive it.
Joel says, "I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh," i.e., all
kinds of people old men, young men, maidens, the promise is unto you,
fathers, and unto you, children of the fathers, and unto you that come from a
great distance, afar off, whether of the dispersion of the Jews, or of the
Gentiles. The "afar off" refers to all of those. "After your
conversion, these signs shall follow them that believe" that which comes
after the baptism in the Holy Spirit. You who then will repent, who will
believe, you shall receive the same thing that you wonder at in these. In Acts
2 Peter says, "Who was I, that I could withstand God?" And seeing
that these Gentiles received the same gift which they had at the beginning,
while he was talking to Cornelius and his household, the Spirit fell upon
Cornelius and his household, and he began to speak with tongues. Peter says,
"It was the same gift that came to us on Pentecost." So in Acts 19,
when Paul asked certain disciples he found there, "Have you received the
Holy Spirit since you believed?" he is asking if, upon their part, they
have been baptized in the Spirit. That is what he means exactly. That being the
meaning of the word "gift" in the passage, "ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit," because it was promised to them and to their
children, and to just as many as God should call.
It means that the number of people to receive this baptismal power of the
Spirit was limited to just as many as the Lord our God should call to receive
it.
He could limit it to some Jews on the day of Pentecost, to some Gentiles
afterward, as in the case of Cornelius; to some at Corinth, to some at Ephesus,
and long enough to fully accredit the church before his call on that was
brought to a stop just as many as he would call.
Is now expound 2:42, particularly giving the four services that constituted the
habit of the early church. The King James Version says, "And they
continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking
of bread, and in prayers." From that translation we get the idea that to
continue steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine is to remain firm in the faith.
That is not at all the thought of the original, however. They were constant in
attending upon the following things: The teaching of the apostles, the breaking
of bread, fellowship, and prayers. They were constantly attending or they were
constant in attending upon the teaching of the apostles, who kept on with their
teaching. It is the object of that verse to express a habit of the early church
a habit of continual attention to the following things: (1) Public worship;
(2) the contribution worship (for that is what fellowship here means) ; (3) the
Lord's Supper worship; (4) the prayer meeting worship.
Let us put that into a little plainer English. If God converts my soul and I
believe in Jesus my Saviour, the habit of my life must be along the line of
that faith; and inasmuch as God has appointed the public services of his
church, I will be constant in my attendance upon those services. I won't stay
away half the Sundays. If public worship is appointed by the congregation for
every Sunday, then unless providentially hindered, I will be there at those
services. Then in order to carry on the kingdom of God, if contribution
services are appointed, I won't skip those on the days appointed, whatever they
may be, few or many; if observing the Lord's Supper, I won't stay from that.
The meetings appointed for prayer, I will attend. That is the true sense of the
Greek. It is one of the finest themes upon which any preacher can preach. Here
were 3,000 people happily converted. They were brought into a new covenant, and
these young converts were constantly attending all the public teaching of the
apostles.
This is the literal Greek: "And they were stedfastly continuing on the
teaching of the apostles"; "and they were stedfastly continuing koinonia,"
which has several meanings. Of course it expresses the idea of participation,
and hence we sometimes use it in the sense of fellowship; they were constantly
attending upon the "contributions."
The necessity for those constant contributions is seen from the context. The
record says twice, epi to auto all who believed were epi to auto,
i.e., together; they were at the same place, and there were thousands of them
there. There people were in a great revival meeting. The meetings were held
every day. Some came from a distance, and there were necessary expenses
involved in keeping that great crowd of people epi to auto at the same
place; and therefore there had to be a distribution of rations. They had to be
fed, just as when we hold a big meeting a camp meeting and the people
gather to stay through the meeting. From twenty to thirty miles around they
came epi to auto, "together," or "at the same
place." One brother says, "I will furnish so and so," so many
hogs, for instance; another so many beeves, and another so much money, as in
this case in Acts where the contributions were necessary. They had all things
common.
They took those funds for the support of that meeting into a common fund, under
the conditions of that great gathering, and they were held together at one
place, just as we get a large sum of money, etc., for the camp meetings of
today, barrels of ice water with cups, thus having meals all together. A long
table is spread, and everything cooked is placed upon it. We have often seen
that kind of a thing great crowds of people coming together, having their
meals, not separately, but "together." And in order that this big
crowd be held together, some man was so full of the Spirit of God that he said,
"To the end that this meeting may go on, I will bring all I have here and
put it in the general fund." Later on we strike the account of that man
doing it. But I am trying to show the force of epi to auto, together, or
at the same place. It is a question of that pronoun reference, as to what
"at the same place" means. That would put them together; therefore
the word "together" should be translated, "that place,"
because they were at the same place. Therefore they were together. Many times
in the New Testament the word which is translated fellowship evidently means
contribution. I have not space to recite all the passages. We come to a number
of them in the New Testament.
It was a great task to care for such a vast congregation, even for one day. The
believers numbered 3,000, and a little later 5,000, not counting the women and
children. Later still, it included a very great number, such as Greeks, and
still later, when the disciples were multiplying and kept multiplying, there
arose a complaint concerning the distribution of the provision for that great
camp meeting, because some did not get enough, and did not get anything to eat.
I have seen at camp meetings the bread or beef give out, and some of the crowd
could not get to the table before it gave out.
This situation in the early church led to the appointment of deacons. The
apostles said, "It is not reason that we should quit our preaching, our
ministry, of the word, and go around and see that these people are fed, that
this great volume of food is equally distributed. It is all here common. You
must appoint somebody to take charge of this. We cannot stop to serve tables.
We have to attend to the preaching and prayer meetings to the ministry of the
word and of prayer. That is our special charge, so you bring business men here
who can attend to that."
It was characteristic of those young converts, who were coming by the
thousands, to continually attend all the public services the preaching
services, the contribution services for the support of the meeting, the
services for observing the Lord's Supper, and the prayer meeting services.
We used to have a big horn, a conch shell, a trumpet or a triangle, anything
that would give a loud sound, at our big meetings, to announce the services as commencing.
They would have a sunrise prayer meeting, a nine o'clock prayer service, a ten
o'clock song service, an eleven o'clock preaching service, and then an
afternoon service.
Next, in order that these young people and all new converts who were being
brought into the church might be introduced to the ordinances of God, they
would have the Lord's Supper. Note that it is said of these converts that they
formed four habits: Constant attendance on the preaching service, on the
contribution service, the observance of the Lord's Supper, and on the prayer
service. And when you get a church to do that you have a power.
I preached on that text at a great meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The most distinguished Baptists in the United States, and the most learned
theological seminary professors, the presidents and professors of literary
institutions, the great evangelists and missionaries, at home and abroad, some
of them white-headed, just ready to go away to God, were present. I presented
these four points as the points of power in the church: Constant attendance on
these four services that if a man wouldn't dodge the preaching, nor the
giving, nor the prayer meeting, nor the observance of the Lord's Supper, he
would not be very apt to backslide, but would keep in line. But if he was
willing to attend the prayer service, and shut his eyes when the contribution
plate was passed around, singing, "Fly abroad, thou mighty gospel,"
and yet put in nothing to make its wings flap, he convicted himself. He was
leaving out one of God's appointed methods of worship. Now we are enabled to
interpret the next thing.
"And all who believed were epi to auto, 'at the same place,'
'together'; epi to auto kai eichon hapanta koina, and had all things
common." This passage of scripture has given rise to the doctrine called
"the community of goods." There are men now who say, "Let every
one of us, whether rich or poor, put into a common pile everything we have, and
then each one take out enough to sustain him every day." That is the key
passage of the Scholastics. But is it the intent of this passage (2:44) to
teach what is commonly understood as "community of goods," is. e., if
one has $10,000 worth of property, another $5,000, and another $2,000, does this
passage require you to lump in your money and to ride out even?
It does not, and here is the proof. I am going to show that there is no law
here establishing what is understood as a community of goods. In order to do
that I will turn a little forward, where the same matter comes up again. In
4:34 we have this account: "For neither was there among them any that
lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and
brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostle's
feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. And
Joseph, a Levite, having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at
the apostles' feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife,
sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy
to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter
said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and
to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not
remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?" This
shows that his private ownership had not departed from him. It was not the
object of the scriptures concerning this great lesson to teach that private
ownership was done away with at all. It was a voluntary thing, done under the
impulse of the great meeting that was going on to take care of all those
people, to keep them together, epi to auto at the same place. A man
did not have to sell his property; he was not obliged to do it; but if he felt
prompted to do it, in order that the meeting would not stop, he was not afraid
to do it. But if he sold his land the money was still his; there was no law
that required him to bring it all. But Ananias and Sapphira claimed that they
had put it all in, but they had kept back part, telling a lie about it to God,
or to the Holy Spirit, as if he did not know. They wanted to have the
reputation that Joseph had, who sold all he had and brought the whole of it and
put it into the fund. So they sold a piece of land, conspired together to fool
Peter and to fool God that they would go and say that they had received so
much and that was all of it. But Peter says, "Ananias, that property was
yours before you sold it, and after you sold it the money was still yours. Your
offense is, then, that you said, 'We received for it so much and put the whole
of it into the common fund.' " So that Ananias' case disproves any idea of
"common property."
I will illustrate it: In the Madera Mountains, at the headquarters of the
warlike tribe of the Comanche Indians, for many generations there has been a
beautiful valley, plenty of water and plenty of grass, and when the moon is at
its full, it is one of the best places in the world for holding a meeting. So
every year they make great provision for a meeting. They say, "F. W.
Johnson, what will you do towards it?" He says, "I'll give ten
beeves, and so many sheep." Another says so many quilts, another a big
table, so that anybody may be invited to come. The crowd is too big to make it
all into one table, however, and there is no time to average just what they
give, but what they do bring there is "common." You step up to F. W.
Johnson, or to W. D. Cowan, who are the main supporters of that meeting. You
have just come, maybe a stranger riding horseback, and you say, "I'd like
to have a place to sleep tonight blankets, etc." "We have it for
you," these brethren say; "just come here; everything is 'common.'
" Now that did not mean that Johnson sold all he had and put it in, but
for the purpose in view it was truly a common affair.
There is a change from the American Version in the Revised Version of 2:47 and
3:1 which is a textual matter. Let us compare these two versions. The last
verse of the chapter of the American Version reads: "Praising God, and
having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such
as should be saved." The Revised Version says, "Praising God, and
having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those
that were being saved." Is there any church in it? No; "to
them," epi tois, or epi to auto the same phrase again.
"And the Lord added" to the same crowd, the same place, daily such as
were being saved. In the best of the Greek manuscripts the word
"church," does not appear, but the Revised Version takes that epi
to auto from the first verse in the next chapter and puts it there. In
other words, chapter 3 begins epi to auto, and joins it together.
"Now Peter and John were going up to the temple." We have no
"together" in the Revised Version, and the revised is correct. It
follows the true original manuscript. The "together" of 3:1 in the
American Version belongs to 2:47, and this word "together" should be
put there in the place of the word "church." The idea of the church
is there. It was one church.
Is interpret this passage according to the Revised Version. Some later
manuscripts give the idea as "church" by putting that word in, just
like they put it in once before in the same chapter, where "church"
does not occur, though the idea of church is there. It was an immensely big
church. Before they got through, the way Is count it, there were 100,000
members right in Jerusalem, and the crowd just kept gathering by the thousands
every day. It swelled and swelled, got bigger and bigger, all of the apostles
preaching. Just like we would say, "Brother A. preaches in the First
Church at 9 o'clock; Brother B. at the Second Church at the same hour, and
Brother C. in the Tabernacle, while Brother D. will hold forth in the Court
House." All over the town that great multitude gathered and had preaching.
They were brought there and held together by the power of that meeting. If the
reader would like to do a little private work, let him take an English-Greek
concordance, and translate the word "fellowship" and see its relation
to money. You will see that here it means participation in a money meeting,
that is, a fellowship meeting. They had fellowship in the public services;
fellowship in giving money' participation in the giving of money; they had
fellowship when the Lord's Supper was observed; they participated m the prayer
meeting, and everybody took part.
QUESTIONS
1. What is meant by the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38?
2. To whom was the gift limited?
3. Expound Acts 2:42, particularly giving the four services that constituted
the habit of the early church.
4. Why was it necessary for those constant contributions?
5. What church office was instituted here, and what the circumstances of its
institution?
6. What was characteristic of the young converts in the Pentecost meeting?
7. Is it the intent of Acts 2:44 to teach what is commonly understood as
"Community of Goods"? What the proof?
8. What illustration by the author of the scriptural idea of having things
"common"?
9. What change from the Authorized Version found in the Revised Version of Acts
2:47 and 3:1, and what is the true idea of the passage?
10. Interpret this passage according to the Revised Version.
Chapters 3-5 are devoted to the history of the first great persecution of the
Spirit-filled and accredited church, with attendant circumstances. This, quite naturally,
was of Sadducean origin. (1) The Sadducees were the rulers of the people,
dominating in politics, and through the high priest, dominating the Sanhedrin.
(2) They were materialists, believing in neither angel nor spirit, nor in the
resurrection of the body. (3) The great issue, publicly and boldly made by the
Spiritfilled church, was that Jesus was risen from the dead and exalted to the
sovereignty of the universe, and was demonstrating these great truths by
unmistakable signs and wonders. (4) The people were being swept away by these
demonstrations, so that what the Sadducees might well call "the last
error" was worse than the first. (5) Hence the Sadducees had to meet this
issue, so publicly and convincingly made, or else lose both political and ecclesiastical
power. (6) Moreover, the demonstration of the resurrection of Jesus established
his messiahship, and convicted the rulers of sacrilege and murder in putting
him to death, so that they were on trial for their lives, their faith, their
offices, and their political leadership.
This important issue had been forced on them by Peter. In his great sermon on
Pentecost he had alleged in the presence of myriads of the people, from all
parts of the world, the following things: "Ye men of Israel, hear these
words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and
wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye
yourselves know; him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: whom God raised up,
having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be
holden of it" (Acts 2:22-24). And again, "This Jesus did God raise
up, whereof we all are witnesses. Being therefore by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear" (Acts 2:32). And also,
"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made
him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 2:36). He
had introduced the testimony of the prophet Joel, and particularly the
declaration of the great king, David. Three thousand of the people were
converted in one day, and every day following vast additions were made to their
number. The meeting was protracted. They held services publicly in the Temple
every day. Money, by voluntary contribution, poured into the treasury. Their
baptisms and observances of the Lord's Supper were public and continuous. They
were jubilant in praise, and had favor with all the people. The revival was a
conflagration threatening to wrap all Jerusalem in its spiritual flame.
At this juncture occurred a public incident which forced the Sadducean rulers
to take official notice of the great movement. In the very gate of the temple,
Peter and John had wrought an amazing miracle on a well-known cripple,
hopelessly lame from his mother's womb; the miracle was wrought in the name of
Jesus of Nazareth; a great concourse of the people were attracted to the scene
of the miracle, recognizing the subject of it, witnessing the completeness of
the healing, and standing in amazement before the miracle workers. Peter
replies to their amazement (a) by disclaiming any power or holiness in himself
and John to do this mighty work; (b) he boldly accuses them of denying the holy
and righteous One, preferring a murderer instead, delivering him up to Pilate
and forcing him reluctantly to condemn him, and of killing the Prince of Life;
(c) that the God of Abraham raised him from the dead, of which fact they were
witnesses, and (d) that through his name through faith in his name was
given to this hopeless cripple, so well known to them, this perfect soundness
in the presence of them all.
Peter further improved the occasion thus: (1) He admitted that spiritual
ignorance caused the people and their rulers to commit so grave a blunder and
so heinous a crime. (2) But the passion of the Messiah, foreshown by all the
prophets, was thus fulfilled. (3) He therefore exhorts to repentance and
turning, so that (a) their sins might be blotted out; (b) that great revivals
might come from the glorified Lord; (c) that he must remain in heaven until the
times of restoration of all things attested by all the prophets; (d) that this
Jesus was the great Prophet like unto Moses, who according to Moses, God would
raise up from among the brethren; (e) that whoever would not hear this prophet
would be cut off from Israel; (f) that Samuel and all succeeding prophets
foretold these things; (g) that they, as sons of the prophets and of God's
covenant that in Abraham's seed, who is the Messiah, all nations should be
blessed, were first offered the blessings of forgiveness. To this indictment of
rulers and people and this marvelous exhortation, the people made great
response. About 5,000 men, not counting women and children, were converted
(Acts 4:4).
This issue, so made by Peter, was the boldest and most comprehensive challenge
in all history.
It claimed all the books of the Jewish Bible, all their covenants and promises,
all their patriarchs, mediators, prophets, illustrious kings and heroes, all
their sacrifices and rituals. It charged sacrilege and murder in the rejection
of Jesus. It affirmed the resurrection, the exaltation and the glorification of
the rejected Lord. It preached repentance on account of this sin. It promised
remission of sin and eternal life to those who believed. It threatened
exclusion from the covenant of all the impenitent and unbelieving. It intimated
a transfer of the kingdom to the Gentiles, if they persisted in their
rejection, so the Sadducees had to accept the challenge.
The Sadducees felt compelled to respond to the challenge: (1) They arrested
Peter and John, imprisoned them for the night, and held them to trial before
the Sanhedrin on the morrow. (2) They gathered all the Sadducean kindred of the
high priest, Caiaphas, including Annas, his father-in-law, ex-high priest, John
and Alexander, thus assembling those most responsible for the crime of the
murder of the Lord, and by thus gathering the special Sadducean kindred
dominating the council. (3) The Sanhedrin itself was convened, and the
prisoners set before it.
Their inquisition concedes the fact of the miracle, but demands, "By what
power, or in what name, have you done this?" A prophecy of the Lord was
thus fulfilled: "They shall deliver you up to councils." Our Lord had
foretold and provided for this very exigency. He said, "Be not anxious
beforehand what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy
Spirit" (Mark 13:11; Matt. 10:16-20).
In this foretold strait, Peter obeyed the direction of Christ, as we find in
Acts 4:8-12: "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye
rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day are examined concerning a good
deed to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; be it known unto
you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him, doth
this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought
of you, the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other
is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is
given among men, wherein we must be saved."
That is the noblest answer in history.
The effect of Peter's boldness on the council is thus described Acts 4:13:
"Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived
that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took
knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." That council could not
understand that ignorant and unlearned men) arrested and imprisoned, and
brought before that supreme court of the Jewish nation, should stand there, not
as prosecuted, but as prosecutors, indicting their judges. This shows that the
power of preachers is not dependent upon, or I should say, not proportioned to
the amount of their education, but it 13 proportioned to their being filled
with the Holy Spirit, and to their being educated or trained in the Word of
God. Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, had a theory that only college graduates
should be allowed to be preachers, and they refused to receive into their
seminary anybody who did not graduate at a reputable institution of learning.
He was amazed to hear of some work done by a blacksmith, who never had been to
school much, and he kept on hearing so much about this blacksmith that he,
after investigation, was himself persuaded and convinced that this unlearned
man did shake the gates of hell every time he preached to the people. Dr.
Wayland, who differed altogether from the Presbyterians (he was a Baptist),
about the absolute necessity for college education in order to preach, cites
this case of Alexander's honest testimony to something that he did not
understand and he never did understand how that blacksmith could be such a
power for God in his preaching.
This is why I have said in one of my opening addresses before our seminary that
while I would always encourage every man to get all of the education that his
means and his family condition would allow, yet I would never be guilty of the
folly of saying that only college men could be preachers of power, and that
when any theological seminary took the position not to admit into its
theological department any but college graduates, it took a position that would
have prevented either Christ or any one of the twelve apostles from entering
it.
Here were two indisputable facts: A miracle confronted the Sanhedrin, and it
was a good deed of healing and mercy. How keen the sarcasm of Peter: "If
we be examined this day for a good deed, healing this impotent man."
A well supported tradition exists among the Baptists of Virginia. It was in the
period of the union of church and state. Two Baptist preachers were indicted
for preaching without Episcopal license. This tradition says that Patrick Henry
was employed to defend them, or took the case voluntarily, and that all he did
was to stand up before the court and say, "What is the indictment against
these men? Preaching the glorious gospel of the Son of God? Great God I That is
the indictment! Are there no thieves going around unarrested and unconvicted?
Are there no murderers upon whom to visit the vengeance of law, that you must
indict and try men for preaching the gospel?"
This should ever be the challenge of the people of God: Here is our good work!
Behold this monument of grace! This work was not done in a corner. It is
self-interpretative. Here is a drunkard; look at him. See what he was, and
behold what he is!
The result of the deliberation of this inquisition before the Sanhedrin seems a
most impotent conclusion. It is expressed in Acts 4:15-18, thus: "But when
they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among
themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable
miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in
Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the
people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this
name. And they called them, and charged them not to speak at all nor teach in
the name of Jesus." That was their conclusion; so they called them back in
again and charged them accordingly.
Acts 4:19-20: "But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it
is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge
ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard." In other
words, "You may pass any judgment you please. You are the earthly court,
but so far as we are concerned, being under higher authority, we must ignore
both your threat and charge, and speak boldly and openly what we have seen and heard."
If one should wonder why the Sadducees stopped at a threat, the reason is given
in Acts 4:21-22: "And they, when they had further threatened them, let
them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people; for
all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was more than forty
years old, on whom this miracle of healing was wrought." They had malice
enough to kill them, but they were afraid of the people, and did not like to go
before the people on such a case as that, with a forty-year-old man, who from
his mother's womb had been a cripple, and everybody knew him. It was a good
thing done, and there he stood, perfectly healed.
Peter and John report the whole case to the church. Acts 4:23: "And being
let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests
and the elders had said unto them." The church reports it to God.
"And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one
accord, and said, 0 Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the
sea, and all that in them is: who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our
father David, thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, And the
peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array,
And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against His
Anointed: for of a truth, in this city against thy holy servant Jesus, whom
thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the
peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever way thy hand and
thy counsel foreordained to come to pass." Let us hear them pray:
"And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants
to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest forth thy hand to
heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy
servant, Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they
were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they
spake the word of God with boldness."
This courage and fidelity on the part of leaders and people had a wonderful,
fivefold result first on themselves and then on others: (1) "And the
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul. (2) And not one of
them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had
all things common. (3) And with great power gave the apostles their witness of
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and (4) great grace was upon them all. For
neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of
lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each,
according as anyone had need." Persecution unifies God's people; it
increases their love for one another, and makes them sacrifice for one another;
it opens their hearts and their purses. As an old sailor once said, "It
takes a side-wind to fill all the sails." (5) lt developed great men, for
example, Acts 4:36-37: "And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed
Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of
Cyprus by race, having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at
the apostles' feet."
From this it may be observed that in every meeting of very great power, when
the root of things is gotten at, when the topmost twig is being shaken, when
the sound of the wind is in the mulberry trees, when the fire is burning in
every meeting of that kind, there suddenly steps out to the front some man who
afterward shakes the world. That is one of the great powers of revivals of
religion. It calls out heroes, who up to that time had never been awakened.
Moreover, it exposes and eliminates hypocrites for example, the marvelous judgment
of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-10).
From three viewpoints this case is very instructive. It is evident that these
two were swept into the church on the wave of a great excitement, without
spiritual preparation. They could not understand the coming of the Holy Spirit,
nor the mighty emotions and deeds of those around them who were filled with the
Spirit. They had witnessed the heroic sacrifice of Barnabas, and coveted, not a
similar spirit, but the credit of his deed, without the sacrifice. They conspired
together to obtain this credit. They sold a piece of land, agreeing to keep
back a part of the price, while affirming that the part offered was all they
received. They had neither a consciousness of the presence of the omniscient
Spirit, nor that Peter, as an apostle filled with the Spirit, could read their
minds. They supposed they had only to fool a mere man. They were not prepared
for the exposure, nor his awful sentence in Acts 5:3-5. They were filled with
Satan not the Holy Spirit. Similar tragedies frequently occur in great
revivals. The shortest road to the eternal sin the unpardonable sin is from
a great revival. Satan attends them, ever ready to suggest a quick way to
instant and eternal ruin.
Indeed, it is only from a place of great light that the unpardonable sin can be
committed.
A second viewpoint of instruction is the apostolic power of judgment. It was
not often exercised, but always possessed. A similar case thus appears in Acts
13:6-12. Here again the apostle recognizes the presence of Satan opposing,
through an agent, the work of the Holy Spirit. There are other New Testament
cases, but these two illustrate.
I have often heard Major Penn and other great evangelists affirm that, on certain
occasions, when the Spirit's power was greatest, by a kind of spiritual
instinct they felt the hostile presence of Satan working some form of
opposition through some human agent. On one occasion I witnessed his dramatic
exposure of this hostile occult influence.
A not less important viewpoint is the effect of this judgment (1) on the
church, (2) on hypocrites, and (3) on outsiders. On the church it brought great
fear (5:11); on the hypocrites it says, "Of the rest durst no man join
himself to them" (5:13). It was getting too hot for hypocrites. It is only
in lukewarm times that conscious hypocrites most seek to join themselves to the
churches. People then come in without regard to the spiritual requirement
regeneration. Let the time come when "judgment must begin at the house of
God," and the lightning begins to strike, they become very shy of joining
the church.
What was the effect on the outsiders? The answer is found in 5:14:
"Howbeit, the people magnified them; and believers were the more added to
the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." The power of the apostles
grows: "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people: and they were all with one accord in Solomon's
porch." That is an answer to the prayer found in 4:29-30: "And now,
Lord, look upon their threatenings; and grant unto thy servants to speak thy
word with all boldness, while thou stretchest forth thy hand to heal; and that
signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy servant, Jesus."
Here Peter's power reaches a climax in special miracles. Here we have it:
"Insomuch that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid
them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might
overshadow some one of them" (Acts 5:15).
My brother, J. M. Carroll, has a regular "sugar-stick" sermon on
"The Shadow of Peter, or the Power of Influence." When you get so
near to God and so full of the Spirit that the people will bring the helpless
cases where you would walk along, so that your shadow might fall on some of
them, then you may know you are at the topnotch of power. The author has a
sermon on special miracles "The Bones, Fringes, Shadows, Handkerchiefs,
and Aprons." Here you have a miracle by a shadow. In Elisha's case the
miracle was by bones. In our Lord's time they touched the fringe, the hem of
his garment; and in the apostle Paul's time they sent out aprons and
handkerchiefs that had touched him.
The last two paragraphs of this chapter (Acts 5:17-42) recite a revival of the
Sadducean persecution. The apostles not only continued their witness of the
resurrection, but the Holy Spirit magnified their witness by mighty signs,
wonders and Judgments, until vast multitudes were converted to the faith, and
they grew to an astonishing height in love, faith, unity, and courage. The
streams of the sick, of the troubled souls, that converged in a tide toward the
apostles and the happy church, and every increase of the shouts of the healed
and the joy of the redeemed, excited their wrath.
The record says: "But the high priest rose up, and all they that were with
him [which is the sect of the Sadducees], and they were filled with jealousy,
and laid hands on the apostles, and put them in public ward." [This time
they get all of them in prison.] "But an angel of the Lord by night opened
the prison doors, and brought them out, and said, 'Go ye, and stand and speak
in the temple.' " So they are to go right on preaching the word. And when
the Sanhedrin the next morning sends for the prisoners, their officer cornea
back with his finger on his lip, saying, "They're gone." Another
comes running in and says, "I saw them; they are right back there in the
Temple, still preaching, and great crowds of people around." Then they
send officers very quietly, without tumult or violence, for fear of the people,
and bring them before the court again, and this is the inquisition now:
"And the high priest asked them, saying, We strictly charged you not to
teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching,
and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
That shows that Peter had hit the mark. He had been indicting them as murderers
in every speech he had made, and now they see the point. They say, "You
intend to bring this man's blood upon us." Peter replied, "We must
obey God rather than men." He repeats his accusation: "The God of our
fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree. Him did God exalt
with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel,
and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these sayings; and so is the
Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him." They do not make
much out of that man, but were cut to the heart, and thought in their hearts to
slay them.
The end of the Sadducean persecution comes in this way: An old man, Gamaliel,
who was a Pharisee and the teacher of Paul, a doctor of the law and of great
repute, requests that the prisoners be put apart for another consultation.
Gamaliel makes a great speech, commencing with a word of caution (5:35). He
then recites two well-known incidents of turbulent movements, which, though so
threatening for a time, came to naught, and the agitators perished, and then
hinting that this movement had higher ends, motives and issues, closes with the
advice found in 5:38-39. The record says, "And to him they agreed."
But the context shows their agreement was only partial. (See 5:40.) Just how
weak and futile was their half- way measure appears from 5:41-42. And so ended
the Sadducean persecution. We may not leave the subject, however, without
suggesting a dominant reason for their failure. Their unbelief in the
supernatural utterly disqualified them for leadership.
Materialists who do not believe in angels, nor in spirit, nor the resurrection,
but in this life only, never can carry the crowd. Therefore, the one who broke
up this persecution, as we will see in another issue, was a Pharisee, who would
not Join them on that issue. They were ready enough to join in the persecution
in another issue, as we will see later, but they did not join in an issue of
the resurrection, and that was the issue Peter had made that Christ was
risen. Therefore, we learn in our Lord's time, as recorded in Luke 20:27-40,
that when the Sadducees came to Jesus with a question about the resurrection,
he replied to them, and the Pharisees sympathized with his answer in putting
the Sadducees down. And in Acts 23, when Paul was arraigned before this very
council, he divided the crowd by saying, "Brethren, the only thing against
me is that I preached the resurrection of the dead," and instantly the
Pharisee part of the council stood with Paul. They would not fight on that
issue, and today you need not have any dread of any opposition that comes from
a materialist. He can't get a following, for all over the world men's
consciences and their nature teach that there is a life beyond this life that
there is a God and a place for the soul. The materialists, therefore, are a
very small crowd; so the Sadducean persecution came to naught.
Before closing this chapter we recur, for practical observations, to several
antecedent paragraphs lightly passed over in giving rapid history of the
Sadducean persecution. First, the reply of Peter to the request of the lame man
at the beautiful gate of the Temple: "Silver and gold have I none, but
what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
walk."
It is related that a distinguished visitor on one occasion was waiting on the
Pope, to whom the Pope showed all his treasures, jewels, the money, explaining
that streams from all over the world continued to flow into this treasury. Says
the Pope, "There has been a very great change since the first pope's time)
for Peter said, 'Silver and gold have I none.' " "Yes," said the
visitor, "and I am afraid there has been a very great change in another
direction: that you cannot now make an impotent man walk; you have the silver
and the gold, but have you Peter's faith and power?"
We do well also to note that "silver and gold" are not the greatest,
and most times, the best gifts in our power, and to be thankful for the fact,
since otherwise only the rich could give.
Second, there can be no better example of true homiletics than Peter's sermon to
the people on the occasion of this great miracle. It equals his Pentecost
sermon. It deserves a special analysis. It was a great occasion. Carlyle, on
Stump Speaking, affirms that the first prerequisite to a great oration is a
great occasion. It must not be manufactured to afford an opportunity for a
speech. The stirring times and even the urgent hour must call for it. Then the
speech must fit the occasion, and supply its calls and needs, leaving nothing
more to be said.
There must be a man for the occasion, who, God-called and qualified, has
something to say, and will so say it that action and not applause will cap its
climax prompt, decisive, fitting, and adequate action. All these conditions
are filled in this case in Peter himself and the results.
The supreme court of the nation has put itself in opposition to the supreme
court of heaven on the gravest question of conscience. Those who believed in
rendering unto God the things that are God's, were making an open, daylight,
life and death issue. At the beautiful gate of the Temple God magnified their
testimony by an amazing miracle. A beggar, crippled from his mother's womb, and
known to all the people, received as alms an instantaneous perfect healing. His
frantic exhibitions of praise to God, and joyous, grateful clinging to Peter
and John, drew an immense crowd whose speechless amazement and staring, louder
than words, demanded an explanation. Peter's sermon is that explanation.
ANALYSIS
1. He rebukes their marveling at the man: "Why should it be thought
incredible that God should work a miracle?"
2. He rebukes their staring at him and John, as though this wonder should be
attributed to either their goodness or power.
3. He attributes the miracle exclusively to his risen Lord, through faith in
his name.
4. He then begins his indictment) seeking their conviction of sin, contrasting
their way with the Father's (Acts 3:1315).
5. He shows again, without any attempt at harmony between free will and divine
agency, that notwithstanding they had wickedly and murderously contributed to
Christ's sufferings, all these sufferings had been foreshown in all their
prophets.
6. His tender heart next goes out to the indicted and convicted (Acts 3:17).
Here he introduces a new kind of ignorance characteristic of the New Testament,
and delimiting the unpardonable sin. Theirs was not mental ignorance, for they
had head knowledge of all the matters involved. They lacked spiritual
enlightenment, without which the eternal sin cannot be committed. Compare the
case of Paul. (See Acts 26:9; I Tim. 1:13.) See also the veil over the hearts
of the Jews when they read Moses, 2 Corinthians 3:5, and compare Hebrews
10:26-29. And yet this spiritual illumination does not necessarily reach
regeneration, for the regenerate cannot commit the unpardonable sin (see I John
5:16-18). Nor does spiritual conviction always result in that contrition or
godly sorrow which worketh repentance unto life.
7. He now comes with great clearness and force to his exhortation and
application (Acts 3:19-21). .Here he finely discriminates between repentance
and conversion. Logically a change of mind must precede a change of life
course.
8. But we are particularly interested in the motives toward, or the results
conditioned on the repentance and conversion enjoined. These are. three: (1)
"So that your sins may be blotted out." (2) "So that there may
come seasons of refreshings (is. e., revivals) from the presence of the Lord."
(3) "So that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, whom
the heavens must receive until the times of restoration of all things."
This part of his exhortation bristles with eschatological doctrine. It fixes
far off the final advent of our Lord.
It unquestionably teaches, as many other scriptures, that the dramatic
conversion of the whole Jewish nation, so vividly described by Paul, Ezekiel,
Zechariah, and Isaiah must not only precede the advent, but the advent itself
cannot be until all prophecies of antecedent events have been fulfilled.
9. His sermon closes with the identification of the prophetic Messiah with
Jesus of Nazareth, and suggests him, not only as their Messiah, but the one
"in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
Third, Acts 4:31: "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein
they were gathered together." This miracle on nature, like the earthquake
which followed the midnight praise and prayer service of Paul and Silas in the
Philippian Jail (Acts 16:25-26), caused the solid earth to respond in thrills
to its Creator's mandate.
Fourth, Acts 4:32 (see the passage). From time immemorial this passage has been
made the basis of the socialistic doctrine of "Community of goods no
private ownership of property." The contention is untenable. It is true
and deducible from many other passages, that as against God, there is no
absolute ownership of private property and in the light of his stewardship no
Christian can say, "Aught of the things I possess is my own." But it
is not here taught that "Community ownership of private property is
substituted for stewardship to God." This is certainly the teaching of
Peter's reply to Ananias (see Acts 5:4). It does prove, however, that
individual owners of private property, moved by love to God, did voluntarily
sell their goods, and put it into a common fund for the necessitous believers.
This was a charity fund for the poor in a great necessity. This necessity arose
mainly from the Jews of the dispersion, enumerated by nations in Acts 2,
lingering so long in Jerusalem to attend the great revival meeting commencing
at Pentecost and lasting until the Christian part of it was all dispersed
abroad by the Pharisee persecution under Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 8:1-3;
11:19). This is further evidenced by the necessity for the office of deacon
(Acts 6). It became too burdensome a. matter for the apostles personally to
distribute daily the alms of this common fund. There is no hint here or
elsewhere of "community ownership of private property," but
everywhere a custom of the churches to provide for their own poor, or in case
of great necessity, for the poor saints elsewhere. See Paul's great collections
for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and his specific instructions to Timothy
about each church's home poor (I Tim. 5:3-16).
Let us now explain Acts 4:4: "But many of them that heard the word
believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." Thus
reads the Revised Version, and the King James has it: "The number of the
men was about five thousand." Now, does that mean, with or without
counting the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, that the number came to be 5000, or
that 5000 were converted this day? It is based on the exegecies of the Greek,
which reads: "The number of the men came to be about five thousand."
Dr. Newman says it means that there had been about 2000 converted since
Pentecost, 3000 that day, and by this time had come to be about 5000, counting
men only. Meyer says the same thing in his Acts; the great exegete, Hackett, a
Baptist, in his Book on Acts, also says it, as do a great many others. But I
say that it means 5000 that day; 5000 heard the word that day and 5000 believed
that day; and the number, as they kept hearing and believing, came to be 5000
men in all. There is no reference to any conversions connecting with any
previous occasion, and if we look in the "Pulpit Commentary," Acts we
find a fine Greek scholar saying that the grammar, although itself is a little
doubtful in construction, is in favor of the position that 5000 that day were
converted.
The Sadducees complained, saying, "You intend to bring this man's blood
upon us" (Acts 5:28). When they were crucifying the Lord, this very crowd
said, "His blood be upon us, and our children." Peter is not putting
the blood on them; they put it on themselves, knowingly and willfully. They had
said, "His blood be upon us and upon our children." They took that
responsibility then, and now they begin to realize it. But there is a greater
realization ahead of them.
Nations, like individuals, are responsible, and when they complete their
rejection of the Spirit's witness, as their rejection of our Lord himself, the
doom and long exile of this favored people will commence with the destruction
of Jerusalem and last until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
QUESTIONS
1. What the theme of Acts 3:1 to 5:42?
2. Why does the first persecution come from the Sadducees?
3. Who of the church was to the front in making this issue, and what the
8cripture showing the issue?
4. What the public incident which forced the Sadducean rulers to take official
notice of the movement, what the effect of the incident on the people, and what
Peter's reply to their amazement?
5. How did Peter improve the occasion, and what the analysis of his
exhortation?
6. How did the people respond to this exhortation?
7. What may we say of this issue so made by Peter, and what in particular makes
it so?
8. How did the Sadducees respond to the challenge?
9. How did they begin their inquisition?
10. What prophecy of our Lord was thus fulfilled?
11. What direction did our Lord give for such exigency?
12. How did Peter obey the direction of Christ?
13. What the effect of Peter's boldness on the council?
14. What does this show as to the preacher's power, and what heresy here
pointed out?
15. What the two extreme positions with regard to this subject? Illustrate.
16. What the force of Peter's answer? Give the Virginia illustration.
17. What may always be the challenge of the people of God? Illustrate.
18. What the result of the deliberation of this inquisition before the
Sanhedrin?
19. What was Peter's great reply to their threatening?
20. Why did the Sadducees stop at a threat?
21. How did Peter and John and the church respond to the injunction not to
preach, and to the threat if they should preach?
22. What prophecy was here fulfilled as indicated by their prayer?
23. What were the results to the church in this first issue with the Sadducees?
24, What illustrious man comes to the front and, as an example of this, what
benevolence?
25. What awful judgment at this juncture, and what the three viewpoints of the
case?
26. What was the effect of this judgment (1) on the church, (2) on the
hypocrites, and (3) on outsiders?
27. What is notable in the apostles now, and to what prayer is 5:12 an answer?
28. In what did Peter's power find a climax?
29. What sermon of the author here cited?
30. How did the Sadducees again take up the challenge, and what was the result?
31, What ended the Sadducean persecution, and how did it end?
32. Why the failure of all Sadducean opposition and persecution, and what
illustration from our Lord's time?
33. What the story of the Pope and the visitor, and what the important lesson
of this incident in Arts to us?
34. What great example of homiletics in this connection, and how does it rank
with his other recorded sermons?
35. What, according to Carlyle, are the prerequisites
to a great oration, and how do the occasion and Peter measure up to these
prerequisites in his event?
36. Give complete analysis of Peter's sermon here.
37. What can you say of the earthquake of Acts 4:31?
38. What false doctrine founded on Acts 4:32, and how does the author refute
it?
39. What does the passage really prove, and how is this further evidenced?
40. Explain Acts 4:4.
41. Explain Acts 5:28.
42. What greater realization was just ahead of these Jews?
THE OFFICE OF DEACON, THE PHARISAIC PERSECUTION, STEPHEN
AND SAUL TO THE FRONT, A NEW ISSUE, AND THE REJECTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND
THE ANOINTED CHURCH BY JERUSALEM
Acts 6:1 to 8:3.
So far in the book of Acts we have considered two leading thoughts: (1) the
coming of the Holy Spirit to occupy and to accredit the church; (2) the
Sadducean persecution, waged on account of the issue made by the church and the
Holy Spirit that Christ was risen from the dead. The topics of discussion in
this chapter are very important. We have already noted that the protracting of
the great revival commenced at Pentecost (which really lasted three and a half
years), detained, in the Holy City, multitudes of the Jews of the dispersion
for so long a time that great necessity arose, which was met by a burst of
philanthropy never surpassed in the world's history.
Our first topic is the creation of the office of deacon. The church was
composed of Hebrews and Hellenists, or Grecians. The Hebrews were Palestinian
Jews, speaking the mixed Hebrew tongue, called Aramaic, and were generally more
rigid than the Hellenists in devotion to all the rites and traditions of the
past.
The problem of fairly distributing the benevolent fund of the church to all the
needy ones now confronted the church. There came up a complaint on the part of
the Grecians, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. That
was the problem. It would not do to have the church divided on a matter of that
kind, and there had to be a solution of that problem. The solution was that the
apostles ordered the church as a whole to select a body of men who should
attend to this financial, or secular matter; and that they would then be ordained
to the work by prayer and the laying on of hands. The church thereupon elected
seven men, calling them from among the Grecians, the parties from whom the
complaint came, and these seven men took charge of this matter and relieved the
apostles from having to consider the temporalities when all their energies
should be devoted to preaching the Word. That was the solution of the problem.
Let us connect and explain the following: Acts 2:45, where they had everything
common, and out of that common fund provided for all the necessitous cases of
the entire congregation; 4:35, where Barnabas and others sold their possessions
and put the proceeds of the sale into this common fund; 6:1, where complaint
arose about the fairness in the distribution of this fund; 11:29 and 12:25,
where a contribution was made for the purpose of aiding the poor saints in
Jerusalem; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, where Paul says, "As I have given order
to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let
each one of you lay by him in store . . . that no collections be made when I
come," this fund to be sent to Judea to help the poor saints; 2
Corinthians 8-9, which is devoted to the same subject; and I Timothy 5:3-11,
where Paul instructs Timothy, who was then at Ephesus, as to what kind of
widows to receive on this beneficiary list.
My object in grouping these scriptures is to show more clearly than heretofore
in what respect they had "all things common" that it was with
regard to the necessity. Those who had abundance either gave money, or sold
their property and got money, and put it into a common fund, and that fund had
to be distributed among all of the necessitous cases, according as each had
need.
When you study this account all the way through the New Testament, you will see
that it did not approximate in meaning what the Socialists now claim for it;
that it did not mean that all of the property was to be common, but that all
should participate according to the ability, to create a fund common to the
necessity.
We have here the lesson in church polity, that though the apostles themselves
were present, the election of officers must be by the church, being
congregational in form and polity, and every member of the church, male and
female, being entitled to an equal vote in matters that related to the
congregation. We have already found the same thing in the election of the
successor to Judas. Here again it is made perfectly plain that even the twelve
men, inspired of God, did not assume to elect officers of the church. They
directed the church to do the electing, and they participated in the
ordination. This was the institution of the deacon's office referred to in
Philippians 1:1, where Paul writes to the bishops and deacons, and whose
qualifications are set forth in I Timothy 3:8-13.
The philosophic ground on which this institution rests is the division of
labor. An Old Testament parallel is Jethro's suggestion to Moses to appoint
judges to judge the small matters, and let him (Moses) judge only of matters
God-ward. In Christ's time, Judas exercised the deacon's office. That college
of apostles was a church in embryo, and Judas, one of the twelve, carried the
bag, with the result that he extracted from it its contents. "He was a
thief," John says. We may well ask another question: Is there a failure
when the preacher exercises the deacon function, and was that the reason for
now putting this temporal matter into the bands of laymen?
A preacher can dip a brush In lampblack and swab out all the white in his reputation,
if he goes wrong on the use of church funds.
I knew a preacher who wanted all the time to be deacon as well as pastor; he
kept all the funds, and there was a great row at the final examination of his
financial accounts.
The Methodists and the Romanists both hold that a deacon is an order of the
clergy. It cannot be that it was intended to institute a new order in the
ministry, for the reason assigned: "We cannot leave the word of God and
serve tables; therefore, look ye out brethren from among you, suitable men, to
attend to this, and we will give ourselves to the ministry of the word and to
prayer." That makes it perfectly plain that they were not intending to
create a new order of preachers, but secular officers to attend to the
temporalities of the church.
I heard a sermon by a great Mississippi Baptist preacher, S. S. Lattimore,
father of J. C. Lattimore, of Waco, and 0. S. Lattimore, of Fort Worth. The
subject was, "We Cannot Leave the Word of God to Serve Tables," and
the position he took was that the deacon is elected to serve tables: (1) The
tables of the poor. (2) The table of the Lord's Supper. (3) The table of the
pastor. I thought it a very ingenious division of the table question.
If, then, it was not intended to create a new order in the ministry, what about
the preaching of two of these deacons Stephen and Philip? The explanation is
that deacons sometimes become preachers. Two of these seven did. We see such
things happen now, but they were not elected to the office of preacher in this
case (Acts 6:1-6).
The present classifications in the ministry are: (1) pastors, meaning
shepherds; bishops, meaning overseers of the work, which refers to the same
office; pastors or bishops are those that have charge of the church; (2)
evangelists, or kingdom preachers; (3) missionaries. A missionary may not
necessarily be an evangelist. Those can hardly be called different orders in
the ministry that is, one is not higher than the other; it is not a graded
thing, but it is a classification.
Some people are concerned to know whether a deacon should be a married man and
a father. I will say that is better, but I would not consider it absolutely
necessary. We certainly cannot infer it from the passage that is usually quoted:
"Likewise their wives . . . grave." The word does not mean
"wives," i.e., the wives of deacons, but it means
"deaconesses." It is better that these men be men of rich religious
character and experience, and possessing the confidence of the denomination, as
they are going to handle public funds.
The result of the solution of this problem which confronted the church is found
in Acts 6:7: "The word of God increased, and multitudes were
converted." There are certain essential elements of the rite or ceremony
of ordination indicated here: (1) election by the church; (2) prayer; (3)
laying on of hands. Those three things belong to the rite, or the ceremony, or
ordination.
These remarks have been preliminary. We now advance in the discussion. A new
man came to the front at this time, and his character and work rendered him
prominent, not only then, but in all ages since. That man was Stephen, and the
character of his work was as follows. The record states (1) that he was full of
the Holy Spirit; (2) that he was full of faith; (3) that he wrought miracles
and wonders. When it says that he was full of faith, it means that he had a
clearer and stronger faith than any other man then living on the earth. No one
of the apostles had such clear recognition of the meaning of the kingdom of God
and of the church and of the work of the church as this man Stephen. He is the
colossal figure in the history of the early church. He presented a new matter
to the people which it took the apostles a long time to see.
In 6:9 we find a synagogue and some other terms of the verse that need
explanation. This was a Jewish synagogue, not for resident Jews, but for Jews
of the dispersion, who stayed for a long time in Jerusalem, and as they did not
understand the Hebrew language, the ordinary Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem did
not benefit them much, so it is called (1) the synagogue of the
"Libertines" (Freedmen); (2) "Cyreneans and Alexandrians"
Jews from northern Africa, where they had been settled by one of the Ptolemies;
(3) "Cilicia and Asia," the home of Saul; a great many Cilician Jews
were in that synagogue. It is implied in their making an issue with Stephen
that Stephen himself, being a Grecian, being one of the dispersed Jews, and
better able to speak to that class than to the Hebrews, was pushing,
particularly among these dispersed Jews, the grand thoughts concerning the
kingdom of God that he bore in his own mind. He was very aggressive; he carried
the war into the enemy's territory. Saul of Tarsus was probably the rabbi of
this synagogue. He was educated first at home, then he was graduated in their
theological school, of which Gamaliel was president, and became a rabbi, and
was of this particular synagogue.
The method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this synagogue, which was
entirely new, was to debate the question. There had been no debate heretofore.
The Sadducees did not try to debate with them. This young man, Saul, was a
trained thinker, speaker and logician, and he did not propose to let this thing
go without "tackling" it in debate. So there was a challenge for
debate. Stephen was making certain points, and he was making them among these
Grecian people. Still young and ambitious, he had his fire; he believed
confidently in his ability to beat any man in -the world. They put it up to him
to debate the question. And this is the new method of resistance. The two
opposing were the rabbi of this synagogue, and Stephen, who was pushing war
over into that synagogue. I would like to have heard the discussion. I am sure
it was a fight of the giants.
The issue now is not the resurrection of the dead, but on the whole of the old
dispensation having served its purpose; it is vanishing and a new dispensation
takes its place. Many of the things in the old dispensation were nailed to the
cross of Christ. Their great Temple is now an empty house; its veil is rent in
twain from top to bottom; a new temple has been anointed, according to the
prophet Daniel, in chapter 9 the anointing of the most holy place the Holy
Spirit coming down and filling the house that Jesus built, leaving the other
house vacant. Everything in connection with that system that is local and
transitory has vanished away. In other words, Stephen was making right there in
that debate just exactly the argument that is made in the letter to the Hebrews
that in the new dispensation is a greater than Moses, a greater than the
angels, a greater than Joshua, a greater than Aaron. That a greater sacrifice
than the bullocks, sheep, and goats, offered on Jewish altars, had been
offered. There is then the new temple, the new Sabbath also, everything new
now; just what the letter to the Hebrews discusses. This is the issue that
Stephen made that this Jesus is the one pointed out by Moses and by the
prophets as the true Messiah. That is the forward step taken by Stephen.
The result of the debate is given in 6:10: "And they were not able to
withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spake." They could not
resist the power of his eloquence, and Saul went down in the fight. A deaf man
was once asked why he attended a big debate, since he could not hear. He said
he could always tell which side got whipped. "Why?" he was asked.
"Because the one that gets whipped gets mad." So Saul, failing in
this new method of resistance by discussion, revived an old one, an account of
which we find in 6:11-14. They took up that old "rusty sword of
persecution" that the Sadducees had tried. They took this thing into the
courts, and brought the power of the council to bear on it, and decided this
matter dogmatically.
When they arrested Stephen and tried him before the Sanhedrin there were three
charges, and that shows what he had been preaching:
(1) Their witnesses testified that this man Stephen had spoken blasphemous
words about their Temple. I have no doubt that Stephen said it was an empty
house that had served its day that it was only waiting a short time until it
would be blotted out from the earth, and one stone would not be left upon
another that it was never to be erected again, never to have the altar of
sacrifices again. That is the first charge, and we see how plausible they made
it.
(2) That he spoke against the law. I have no doubt that they made plausible
proof on that, and yet it was false. He did not speak against the law, but just
as Christ said: "I have not come to destroy, but to fulfil it" that
the law in all of its types and shadows and ritual had been completed, filled
full, and there was no more use for it; that there was a new law, calling for a
different Sacrifice, calling for a different Priest.
(3) That he preached that so far as the customs taught by Moses were typical
and ritualistic, and pertaining to a past dispensation, they would be changed.
I have no' doubt that he stood there and preached that the wall of partition
between Jews and Gentiles was broken down and ground to powder. And he had more
faith in that than any other man of his time. His appearance and bearing before
the Sanhedrin were marvelous. He did not look like a guilty man; he did not
look scared. When they looked steadfastly at him they saw a face illumined a
face like the face of an angel. The Lord God was the light of his countenance.
The light and glory of God was in his eye. He stood there as a king among men.
He did not come in like a whipped cur, begging pardon for existence or
appealing for pity.
Let us analyze his defense, and especially make clear his charge against them.
The defense corresponds to the charge in its three parts๙6:13-14. It shows that
the Jews misunderstood their own scriptures, which distinctly showed the
transitory nature of the old dispensation. He submits his proof: (a) That Moses
foretold the coming of a Prophet like unto himself, whose teaching should be
final, (b) The prophets foretold the same thing, (c) The tabernacle of Moses
was temporary, and succeeded by the Temple, (d) That God had left the old
Temple, since he dwelleth in a temple not made with hands. Stephen was
preaching a temple not made with hands the church every stone in this new
temple being a living stone, or a converted man or woman, (e) That all through
the probations of their history they had rejected the definitely appointed
leaders. They had rejected Moses; they had rejected God; they had rejected the
prophets; they had rejected the Lord himself, when he came in fulfilment of the
prophecy of Moses; and now, to cap the climax, they were rejecting the Holy
Spirit, whom Christ sent from heaven; they were resisting the anointed church
which that Spirit accredited. The effect of the defense and the charge on that
Sanhedrin was terrific: "They gnashed on him with their teeth." They
were "cut to the heart." The word of God was a sword in the hands of
Stephen. It was living and powerful, and dividing the joints, reaching the marrow
and laying bare the soul itself in its nakedness. His face was shining. One of
the great painters, Rembrandt, obtained his special style by putting a halo
around the face. The photographers adopt that style now, in which the face is
flooded with light, and this is exhibited in the picture. We read that the face
of Stephen was illumined, and looking up, far above earthly courts, he sees the
heavens opened, and the heavenly court. He sees the supreme court of the
universe, the glory of God, and Jesus, who is represented as seated on the
right hand of God. He has leaped up to his feet. Stephen said, "I see
Jesus, standing at the right hand of the majesty on high."
That vision was according to a prophecy of our Lord. When Christ had been put
on oath, about three and a half years before this time, by this same Sanhedrin,
having the same officers, he said (testifying under oath that he was the
Messiah), "Hereafter ye shall see me at the right hand of God." They
counted that blasphemy when Christ said it. Now Stephen, remembering the words
of the Lord says, "I see him. He said he would appear at the right hand of
God. I see him there." His appearance was his demonstration that he was
the Messiah. According to what promise of the Lord? Jesus said, "Let not
your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's
house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to
prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again,
and will receive you unto myself." When the time of a Christian's death
approaches, there is a coming of the Lord. Jesus meets him at the depot of
death, and receives him into the everlasting tabernacles. Stephen, the brittle
thread of his life about to be snapped in twain, and his soul to be evicted by
violence from his crumbling body, says, "I see him; he is standing; he
said he would come, and he has come." What was the reason of the effect on
that council? It is that this vision which this man evidently saw was a plea
established upon what Christ had said, and, therefore, they were affected
instead of this man being affected, and though affected, yet not in love with
the truth brought to light. They hated it. The greater its light the more they
squirmed; the greater the light, the more they writhed in it. Just like a worm
exposed to the light, they could not stand the effect of the light. So they
brought in a verdict on the charge of blasphemy, and he was executed as
indicated by the penalty, which was stoning. Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin
and voted in rendering this verdict, the proof of which is found in Acts 8:1;
26:10: "Saul was consenting unto his death . . . when they were put to
death, I gave my vote against them." But Stephen made a twofold prayer,
which sustains a relation to the words and deeds of our Lord. His first prayer
was, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," looking into the face of Jesus,
just as we look into any man's face. Jesus was there, and as the tenement of
clay was about to crumble, and the soul was about to be evicted, Stephen said,
"Lord, receive my spirit." What word of Christ does he recollect?
"It is finished. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." The
other part of his prayer was, "Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to their
charge," praying for his murderers.. Jesus made intercession for the
transgressors: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." So
Stephen was talking to the Lord, that he lay not this sin to their charge.
Augustine said of this prayer in one of his great homilies:
Si Stephanus non sic orasset, Eccleaia Paulum non haberet.
If Stephen had not so prayed, The Church had not had Paul.
I sometimes think of that prayer and that fiery disputant who was mad because
he had been defeated in the debate, and who is now a persecutor, a witness and
judge, and of Stephen, looking in the face of the Saviour, and saying,
"Lord, lay not this sin to Saul's charge," and then I track that
prayer until I see it answered.
There is special significance in the fact that the witnesses laid their clothes
at the feet of Saul. He was the chief persecutor, and as the law required that
the witnesses should lay aside their outer cloaks, and cast the first stone, so
when they disrobed themselves of their outer cloak in order to stone Stephen,
they brought their clothes and put them at the feet of this young man named
Saul, showing that everything was being done under his direction and
leadership.
The persecution now commenced is unlike the Sadducean persecution. It is the most
sweeping transaction that the Jews ever conducted in their history. It includes
that most abominable of all exercises inaugurated inquisitorial visitation
into the private home, and the dragging of men and women violently before the
courts, and then when they were put to death, Saul gave his vote against them.
It reached every man, every woman, and every child in the church, except the
apostles, and expatriated those whom it did not select. The fire was so hot
that they fled in every direction.
A distinct prophetic period here ends according to Daniel, who said that when
the Messiah comes, he will confirm the covenant with many for one week; that in
the middle of the week he should be cut off that is, he would confirm it for
one week of three-and-a-half years during his public ministry, and then he
would confirm it three-and-a-half years after his death. This persecution of
Saul is the end of the second three and-a-half years. Hereafter the salvation
of the Jews is an exception; hence there will be no ingathering of the Jews
until they shall say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord." It means that the God of salvation is now shut out from their
faces. But this persecution affects the church in a broader understanding of its
commission. Its members see now, as I will show in a subsequent discussion,
that Samaria must have the Word of God; that the Gentiles must also have it, as
was seen in the forward step of this fiery Stephen, such as they had never had
before, and that no apostle had up to that time. This gives Stephen a prominent
place in the transition. He is a keystone figure in the transaction. He is the
colossal leader that gets the church out of its rut of preaching to Jews only,
and puts the wheels of the carriage of salvation on a graded road and track
that will lead to every nation, tribe, tongue, and kindred in the world.
Likewise Saul sustained a vital relation to this great transition. He was the
man who by that debate and that persecution, just as effectually, though unconsciously,
helped to spread the gospel to the whole world, as he did later when he
preached it himself. Thus again the wrath of man was made to praise God.
But what of the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a
Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, as compared with what the same Sanhedrin
had said three years before to Pilate (John 18:31) of the unlawfulness of their
putting a man to death? Pilate said, "Take him yourselves, and judge him
according to your law," and they said, "It is not lawful for us to
put any man to death." Here they were putting a man to death, and they
were trying him according to their law, and Paul says, "We tried and put
to death." Here is the explanation: This was the year A.D. 37, in which
Tiberius, the Emperor, died, and the new emperor had not come in, and as
procurators were appointees of emperors, there were no procurators. At this
juncture there was no procurator in Palestine, no Pontius Pilate, and,
therefore, they took matters into their own hands at the risk of a subsequent
explanation of it when the emperor should come to it. Just here the Pharisee
persecution ended by the conversion of Saul, and then the church had rest (Acts
9:31).
Acts 7:2-3, 22, 25, 53 shed much light on the Old Testament. Acts 7:2-3 says,
"The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy
land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show
thee." The Revised Version of Genesis indicates that God's call to Abraham
took place after he got into the promised land. Stephen here says that that
call came before he got to Haran. The King James Version rightly translates
Genesis 12:1 and the Revised Version "slips up" on it. The Authorized
Version says, "God had said to Abraham." Acts 7:22 says, "And
Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in
his words and works." That throws light on the education of Moses, and
also on the public official deeds of Moses. Acts 7:25 says, "And he
[Moses] supposed that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving
them deliverance." That throws light on the interference of Moses in
Egypt, and shows that God had told him that he was to deliver Israel. He had a
revelation which we do not learn from Exodus. He supposed his people understood
that they were to be delivered by him. Acts 7:53 says, "Ye who received
the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not." That is light on
the Sinaitic covenant that it came through the ministry of angels, later
reaffirmed in the New Testament, accepted by Jews, and especially claimed by
Josephus. Just here is needed an explanation of Acts 7:16, which says,
"And they were laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for the price in
silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem." The only explanation of that is
that there is an error in the text of the copyist. Abraham did not buy that
land. If we go back far enough we will see that it was Jacob's and not
Abraham's; and that Jacob claimed that he got it by bow and spear. His sons,
Levi and Simeon, got it by as rascally a trick as was ever perpetrated.
QUESTIONS
1. What the leading topics so far discussed in Acts?
2. What the themes of this chapter?
3. What the distinction between Grecians and Hebrews in Acts 6:1?
4. What problem now confronted the church, and what its solution?
5. Connect and explain the following scriptures: Acts 2:45; 4:35; 6:1; 11:29;
12:25; I Cor.16:1-14; I Cor. 8-9; and 1 Timothy 5:3-11.
6. What lesson of church polity here taught?
7. Was this the institution of the deacon's office referred to in Philippians
1:1, and whose qualifications are set forth in I Timothy 3:8-13? What the
proof?
8. On what philosophic ground does this institution rest, what Old Testament
parallel, who in Christ's lifetime exercised the deacon's office, and what the
result?
9. Was the deaconship, now established, an order in the ministry as taught by
some denominations? If not, how explain the preaching of Stephen and Philip,
who were deacons?
10. What the present classifications in the ministry? Give examples.
11. Must a deacon be a married man and a father?
12. What was the result of the solution of this problem, which confronted the
church?
13. What the essential elements of the rite of ordination?
14. What new man now comes to the front, and what character of his work
rendered him prominent, not only then, but in all ages since?
15. Explain the synagogue of 6:9 and the other terms of the verse, and what is
implied in their making an issue with Stephen?
16. Who was probably the rabbi of this synagogue?
17. What entirely new method of resistance to the gospel now adopted by this
synagogue, and who were the opposing leaders?
18. What the issue this time as contrasted with the Sadducean issue, and what
great forward step had been taken by Stephen which created this issue?
19. What the result of the debate?
20. Failing in this new method of resistance by discussion, what old one did
they revive?
21. What charges did they bring against Stephen, and what the plausibleness of
each?
22. What his appearance and bearing before the Sanhedrin?
23. Analyze his defense; especially make clear his charge against them.
24. What the effect of the defense and the charge, on the council?
25. What the vision of Stephen, what its relation to a prophecy of our Lord,
also to a promise of our Lord, and what the reason of its effect on the
council?
26. Did they render a verdict, and on what charge was he executed, as indicated
by the penalty?
27. Was Saul a member of the Sanhedrin, did he vote in casting this verdict,
and what the proof?
28. What Stephen's twofold prayer, and what its relation to the words and deeds
of our Lord?
29. What said Augustine of this prayer in one of his great homilies?
30. What the significance of the witnesses laying their clothes at the feet of
Saul?
31. What the sweeping persecution that followed, what its signification, what
its character, what its extent, and what its result?
32. What distinct prophetic period ends here, and what its meaning to the
Jewish nation?
33. How did this persecution affect the church with reference to the
commission?
34. What may be said of Stephen's relation to this great transition?
35. What was Paul's relation to it?
36. Compare the execution of Stephen on the verdict of a Jewish court, on a
Jewish charge, with a Jewish penalty, with what the same Sanhedrin had said
three years before to Pilate, and explain.
37. How did the Pharisee persecution end?
38. What light on the Old Testament from Acts 7:2-3?
39. What light also from 7:22?
40. What from 7:25?
41. What from 7:53?
42. Harmonize Acts 7:14 with Gen. 46:26f; Ex. 1:5; Deut. 10:22.
43. Explain Acts 7:16.
44. Explain the word "church" in Acts 7:38.
You will find in the four lists of the twelve apostles the name of Philip (see Matt.
10:2; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14f; Acts l:13f). Was the Philip we are to discuss
here, Philip, the deacon of Acts 6:5, or was he Philip, the apostle, and what
the proof? My answer is: (1) In 8:1 it is declared that in the persecution
conducted by Saul of Tarsus, all of the congregation was scattered abroad
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles, and these
latter were not scattered; (2) Acts 8:14 locates the apostles still at
Jerusalem when they heard of Philip's work in Samaria; (3) 8:40 carries this
Philip to Caesarea; (4) 21:8-9 shows that many years later he was still living
at Caesarea where he entertained Paul, and expressly declares that he was one
of the seven deacons. I submit this circumstantial proof of identity because Romanist
traditions confound him with Philip the apostle, just as they confound James
(Acts 15:13) and Jude (Jude 1), half-brothers of our Lord, with the apostles
James, the son of Alpheus (Luke 6:15), and Judas, the brother of James (Luke
6:16). The scriptures concerning this Philip are Acts 6:5; 8:4-13; 8:26-40;
21:8-9, which show that he was a Hellenistic Jew, and that he is said to have
had four daughters who prophesied.
It is well just here to locate on a map the Azotus of Acts 8:40 and trace a
line to Caesarea. Gaza is near to Azotus, the most southern of the Palestinian
cities on the Mediterranean coast, and going up that coast to Caesarea,
straight up the coast line, you have the line of Philip's travels, and the
cities in which he preached. On this same line are Lydda (9:32) and Joppa
(9:36). This shows that Philip's work probably led to Christ the disciples whom
Peter found at these two cities.
In Acts 10:37 Peter declares that Cornelius, the centurion at Caesarea, already
knew the word published about our Lord. It is quite probable that through
Philip's preaching at Caesarea he had obtained some of the knowledge which
prepared him to receive Peter, as he is the only preacher that we know of at
that time preaching in Caesarea.
Now, trace a line on the map from Tyre through Ptolemais to Caesarea. Tyre is
in Phoenicia, the northern part of the Mediterranean coast of Judea. Going from
Tyre south of Caesarea, an intervening seaport between Tyre and Caesarea is
Ptolemais. It is probable that the congregations at Tyre and Ptolemais found by
Paul (Acts 21:3-8) were established by Philip. If we connect Acts 2:17-18
(Joel's prophecy), that on the handmaidens should the Spirit of God be poured
out, with 21:9, "Philip had four daughters who prophesied," and Mark
16:17-18, and connect, "These signs shall follow them that believe,"
with Acts 2:43, which tells us that the apostles gave many signs and wonders,
with 8:7, where Philip works miracles, it is evident that both Philip and his
daughters had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
With these facts and probabilities before us, let us give a summary" of
the scriptural history of the life and labors of Philip. He was a Hellenistic
Jew, attending the Passover at which our Lord was crucified; was in the great
audience addressed by Peter on the day of Pentecost (2:5-11); was converted,
with his daughters, and all received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and were
well-known factors in all the marvelous history of that series of great
meetings, lasting for three-and a-half years, recorded in Acts 2:5 to 8:4.
Being well known to all the multitude of the disciples, he was by them elected
to the office of deacon, and was second of the seven. But when the persecution
of Saul ended the great series of meetings, dispersed the congregation, and
thereby left no deacon's work to do, he became an evangelist, and boldly
carried the gospel to the Samaritans, as our Lord himself had done (John 4),
and under Spirit-guidance went into the desert near Gaza, and led the Ethiopian
treasurer, a Jewish proselyte, to Christ, through which convert, according to
history and tradition, Ethiopia was evangelized. Then, under the same
Spirit-guidance, he carried the gospel to the whole Mediterranean coast of
Judea, from Azotus to Tyre, establishing congregations at Saroaria; Peter
following him at Lydda, Sharon, Joppa, and Azotus, Lydda, Sharon, Joppa,
Caesarea, Ptolemais, and Tyre, thus influencing the tides of commerce and
merchants that through these great seaports reached all the western world.
The remarkable things in these labors are: (1) He commenced at the important
city of Samaria, on the great northern thoroughfare from Jerusalem to Galilee,
Damascus, and the Euphrates. (2) Then near Gaza on the great thoroughfare from
Jerusalem to Africa. (3) Then the coast line of the Mediterranean, whose
seaports were the starting points of the sea thoroughfares over which travel
and commerce reached northern Africa, Asia Minor, and all Europe. (4) With
headquarters at Caesarea, the Roman capital of the East, he was in touch with
all the thought, official power, and intercommunication of imperial Rome, the
mistress of the world. (5) The selection of these strategical positions was not
accidental, but Spirit-guided in every instance; so we see from the record that
he was to be the forerunner of the Jerusalem apostles and of Paul, Peter, and
John following him to the city of Caesarea; Paul following him at Tyre,
Ptolemais, and Caesarea. (6) He was the first, after our Lord himself, to
openly carry the gospel to the Samaritans, thus breaking down the wall of
partition that had stood between Jews and Samaritans since Assyria conquered
and led away into captivity the ten tribes, and repeopled the city of Samaria
with aliens, and put over the country captive priests that established a rival
worship to Jerusalem (2 Kings 17:23-24), which later, in the days of Ezra and
Nehemiah, opposed the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, and persisted in
hostility and alien worship until the days of our Lord (John 4:9-26). The
hostility that had stood that long, all through these centuries of strife, was
now broken down by the preaching of Philip in that city of Samaria.
His position in the spread of the kingdom is between Stephen and Paul in
understanding that in Christ there can be neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision
nor uncircumcision, barbarian, bondmen, nor freemen, "but Christ is all in
all"; he stands between Stephen and Paul in following worldwide lines of
evangelization. Just here we are interested to know what were the themes of
Philip's preaching in Samaria.
The record says that he preached Christ unto them (8:5); and he preached unto
them concerning the kingdom of God in the name of Christ. These themes indicate
that Jesus died to save Samaritans, and that the kingdom of heaven was intended
to include Samaritans. The record also says that demons were cast out, and
malignant diseases cured as signs of this man's preaching. Then followed a most
remarkable result. When those of the city of Samaria understood that Christ had
died for them, and that they were included in the scope of the kingdom of
heaven, and this was attested by such remarkable signs, then they all were of
one accord, giving attention to the preaching of Philip, "And there was
much joy in the city" (8:8).
For a long time there had been a man in Samaria named Simon, a magician, or
sorcerer, who dominated Samaria, and who claimed to have the great power of
God. He had bewitched these people by his sorcery, so that they held him in
regard as the messenger of God in their city. No doubt the bewitching by
sorcery included all of these magical arts and tricks of legerdemain, and even
pseudomiracles, in order to attest him, so that the city of Samaria, when
Philip reached it, was thus full of malignant forms of diseases. It was
demon-possessed, diseased and deluded by sorcery.
In this connection we notice that Acts 8:12 says that those who had been
subject to Simon, when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God, were baptized, both men and women. You learn from that, that
faith must precede baptism, and, therefore, subjects of baptism must be people
able to repent and believe and hence they are here said to be men and women.
From 8:13 we learn that a mere demagogue, when the crowd won't follow him, will
follow the crowd. When Simon's flock all left him, he jumped over the fence.
There are some exceedingly fine lessons concerning Simon Magus that will come
out in the next chapter; so I gather just this one here. Later we will take up
this theme: "The apostles following Philip." Then we will consider
Simon Magus in connection with Peter. The only lesson to which I call attention
here is that when the true miracles of God come in touch with pseudomiracles,
they show up the pseudomiracles. Simon saw that Philip had a power which he did
not possess, and that when the crowd left him he followed the crowd, and. was
filled with wonder at these signs of Philip they were so different from his,
so manifestly genuine, so much more to the point, while his were so manifestly
demerited in their intent just as when Paul came to a certain island there
was a sorcerer, Elymas, who dominated the island and influenced the government,
but he was rebuked and smitten with blindness by Paul, and sorcery gave way
before the power of the gospel. Just as in the city of Ephesus, the people who
had been deluded by books of magic, when the true gospel of Jesus Christ came
in conflict with it, the magic was abandoned and their books piled on the
street, though very costly, and made into a bonfire, whose sparks ascended to
the skies, announcing the triumph of the word of God over the delusions of
Satan.
PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH ACTS 8
The great moral lessons of this section are the following:
(1) God sometimes calls men from preaching to crowds in a city to preaching to
one man in a lonely place. Just so we trace Philip. There, in that big meeting
in Samaria, he receives a call to pass Jerusalem by, going down into the desert
a strange direction of God. When he gets there his audience is just one man.
(2) Men sometimes get less from a heterodox and hypocritical Jerusalem than
from a wayfarer in a desert place. This treasurer of the queen of Ethiopia was
a proselyte, not a Jew, but a proselyte to the Jews. He had been attending the
great feasts in Jerusalem, and was now returning. He found no light in
Jerusalem. He had made a long trip, and out there on his way back he meets a solitary
man in the desert and gets light and life and salvation from him.
(3) The third moral lesson is that the conversion of one man may revolutionize
a nation. There are more results abiding today from this desert meeting of two
men than from the great meeting in the city of Samaria. History tells us that
this man, after his conversion, being so influential, became a preacher of the
gospel in his own country, Ethiopia, which answers to Abyssinia of the present
day; that the whole country was brought to Christ through this man, and in
Abyssinia today there is more religion than there is in Samaria where this big
meeting was, and it is a purer religion. So God understood what he was doing.
Once a pastor preached a sermon somewhat on that line on Sunday, and a man in
the audience was greatly distressed at heart, and it seemed that it would be a
great difficulty to get him to move away from a great position of usefulness to
loneliness. He came back from hearing the sermon saying, "Maybe God wants
me to lead somebody to Christ like that Ethiopian eunuch," and he may
revolutionize a nation.
(4) There is much profit in an inquirer's study of God's Word. This was a very
sincere man. He did not go to Jerusalem except for religious purpose; and
driving along, back home in his chariot he was reading God's Word. What great
good comes to a man from a study of God's Word!
(5) Where one wants to understand, and is in desperate earnestness about it, an
interpreter will be found. You may rest assured that in your study of God's
Word, when you come to matters that you cannot explain, if you really want to
understand them if you are desperately in earnest about them God is sure to
bring you somebody that can explain every case of perplexity.
(6) The docile spirit will receive instruction from any competent source. This
man had the teachable spirit. Here he is accosted by a stranger:
"Understandest thou what thou readest?" And he said, "How can I,
except some one shall guide me?" "And he besought Philip to come up and
sit with him," whereupon this traveler climbed up into his chariot to
expound that passage of God's Word.
(7) The next moral lesson is that the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of
Jesus. He was reading a prophecy, and the place where he read was this: He was
led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, So
he openeth not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His
generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth.
(8) The next lesson is that from any text in the Bible the shortest road leads
to Jesus Christ. Philip took that very scripture which was puzzling this man,
and showed him that the shortest road from that scripture would bring him to
the very same Jesus Christ that he was reading about in that scripture. He is
the lamb, the sheep, which openeth not his mouth. This was Jesus, as thus fixed
by the Spirit of interpretation, and shows the deep significance of that famous
fifty third chapter of Isaiah.
(9) When one is converted he seeks to obey. The eunuch says, "What doth
hinder me to be baptized?" In other words, he says, "You preached
Christ to me; I have taken him. Why not let me obey Christ right now? Why wait
till I get back home?"
Here the question arises, Why could not the Jews at Jerusalem expound Isaiah
53?
This eunuch was up there, where were priests, rabbis, and all the Jewish people
of Judea. Why could not they tell him what the prophet meant? The answer is that
the Jews believed only those prophecies to be messianic that spake of the
conquests of the Messiah, and as making the Jews the nation of the world. They
refused to attribute to him the humiliating passages those that told of his
suffering and of his death. Some Jews even said that there had to be two
Messiahs one the great leading Messiah that was to be the great king of the
dews, this conqueror of the world and the other a Messiah of suffering.
This passage has a bearing on the act, subject, and administrator of baptism.
The passage says that they got down from the chariot and that they both went
down into the water, and that Philip baptized him, and that they came up out of
the water. That certainly has a very decisive bearing on the "act" of
baptism, as to what it is. In the preceding verse, when the eunuch said,
"What binders me from being baptized?" Philip replied, "If thou
believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." That means that it is not
lawful unless one believes with all his heart. But it is very doubtful indeed
whether verse 37 is a part of the text; it is certainly not in the oldest
manuscripts. It was doubtless first written on the margin by some copyist and
afterward got into the text.
Alexander Carson said that it was impossible for man or Satan to keep this
witness from saying that immersion is baptism. Then he said that a fool once
followed a wagon all the way from Glasgow to Edinburg to see if the hind wheel
would ever catch up with the fore wheel. "That fool," he said,
"had an errand in all that long journey, though a fool's errand, but
whoever will take both the baptizer and the baptized down into the water for
the purpose of sprinkling him has not even a fool's errand."
Old Dr. Fisher, with whom I had a debate in Waco, and also at Davilla in Milam
County, in commenting on this passage, said, "If Philip preached an
immersion sermon he had a sprinkling text," and quoted from Isaiah 53:
"He shall sprinkle many nations." I replied by saying that the word "sprinkle"
in that scripture, meant astonish, or startle, and proved it by the scholarship
of the world, and that the word in Greek was thaumazo: "So shall he
astonish many nations," and that it was evident by the very word astonish,
which also is implied from the context: "Like as many were astonished at
thee [his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the
sons of men], so shall he startle [or astonish] many nations." That was my
reply to him.
It may here be asked, Was the baptism of the eunuch authoritative as to the
administrator? If so, why cannot a deacon baptize now? This deacon, Philip, was
the evangelist at this time, and not a deacon. He had become a preacher. I have
known deacons to become preachers, and I have known, in some cases, a good deacon
to be spoiled to make a mighty poor preacher, but it was not so in this case.
Philip went ahead and prepared the way under God, for the apostles. We have
already seen that after he baptized the eunuch he was found at Azotus, and then
it is said that he preached in all the cities up the coast to Caesarea, among
which were Lydda and Joppa, which Peter afterward visited and found a
congregation already there, just as he had followed Philip into Samaria. He
never thought to go to Samaria himself to preach, but when he heard that Philip
had reached there, he and John went over to look into it. So he followed Philip
to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea; and we see from chapter 21 that Paul, returning
from a foreign missionary tour, stops at Tyre, finding a congregation, and at
Ptolemais, also finding a congregation, and at Caesarea, where he found another
congregation. Paul also stopped at the house of Philip, the evangelist. It is
astonishing how that after the persecution of Saul of Tarsus, the pressure
generally took hold of the people. They went everywhere preaching the word.
They carried the gospel to Samaria, to Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Ptolemais, Tyre,
Phoenicia) and Antioch. They are the ones that changed the tone of the
preaching from Jews only, to Gentiles as well, and the apostles could hardly
keep up following. They were getting there after these men had broadened the
lines, lengthened the cords, and strengthened the stakes.
In 8:26-29 it is said that the angel and the Spirit spoke to Philip, and, in
8:39, the Spirit caught away Philip. Now, how did the angel and the Spirit thus
deal with Philip? Doubtless the angel of the Lord spake to Philip in a vision;
doubtless the Spirit of the Lord spake to Philip by an inside impression, and
doubtless the Spirit of God moved on Philip powerfully to go to a new place.
QUESTIONS
1. Was the Philip of this section the Philip of Acts 6:5, the deacon, or the
apostle Philip? What the proof?
2. Why submit this circumstantial proof of identity?
3. Group in order the scriptures concerning Philip.
4. From these scriptures was he probably a Hebrew Jew or a Hellenist Jew?
5. What do we know of his family?
6. Locate on the map the Azotus of Acts 8:40, and trace a line to Caesarea.
7. Are Lydda (9:32) and Joppa (9:36) on this line?
8. Then whose work probably led to Christ the disciples whom Peter found at
these two cities?
9. In Acts 10:37 Peter declares that Cornelius, the centurion at Caesarea,
already knew the word published about our Lord. Is it probable that through
Philip's preaching at Caesarea he had obtained some of the knowledge which
prepared him to receive Peter?
10. Trace a line on map from Tyre through Ptolemais to Caesarea.
11. Connect Acts 2:17-18, Joel's prophecy that on the handmaidens shall the
Spirit of God be poured out, with 21:9, "Philip had four daughters who
prophesied," and Mark 16:17-18, and connect "These signs shall follow
them that believe" with Acts 2:43, which tells that the apostles did many
signs and wonders, with 8:7 where Philip works miracles, and then state the
relation of Philip and his family to the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
12. With these facts and probabilities before us, what is a summary of the
scriptural history of the life and labors of Philip?
13. What the remarkable things in these labors?
14. What then is his position in the spread of the kingdom?
15. What were the themes of Philip's preaching in Samaria?
16. What do these themes indicate?
17. How was this preaching attested?
18. What was the remarkable result?
19. Who at this time dominated Samaria, and how, and what is meant by sorcery?
20. What lesson do we gather from 8:12 on the relation between faith and
baptism, and consequently on the subjects of baptism?
21. What lesson do we gather from 8:13 which says, that when the crowd left
him, Simon also believed and was baptized, and followed Philip, wondering at
the miracles that he wrought?
22. What are the great moral lessons of this section?
23. Why could not the Jews at Jerusalem expound Isaiah 53?
24. What is bearing of this passage on the act & subject of baptism?
25. What said Alexander Carson of this passage?
26. What about that verse 37: "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou
mayest?"
27. What said a Methodist preacher about this?
28. Was the baptism of the eunuch authoritative as to the administrator? If so,
why cannot a deacon baptize now?
29. Show how Philip went ahead and prepared the way under God for the apostles?
30. Explain how the angel and the Spirit spoke to Philip (26, 29), and how the
Spirit caught away Philip (39).
THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE APOSTLES
OVER THE WORK OUTSIDE OF JERUSALEM, THE SAMARITANS WELCOMED INTO THE KINGDOM,
ETC.
Acts 8:14-26; 9:26-12:25 with Galatians
1:18-20.
The scope of this section extends from 8:14 to the end of chapter 12, omitting
the Philip section, which we have discussed; also omitting the Paul section,
which will be discussed later. The time covered by it lies between the dates
A.D. 34-44; so I am discussing about ten years of history in this chapter. The
great themes of the section are: (1) The general superintendence of the
apostles over the work outside of Jerusalem, Peter leading. (2) The Samaritans
formally welcomed into the kingdom, and receiving the baptism in the Holy
Spirit, and the case of Simon, the sorcerer. (3) Superintendence of the
apostles continued, Peter following up the work of Philip on the Mediterranean
coast. (4) Peter leading, the door of the kingdom opened to the Gentiles at
Caesarea, and their baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10). (5) Should Jewish
Christians eat and socially dwell with uncircumcised Christians? (11:1-18). (6)
The first blended church Jew and Gentile and the name,
"Christian." (7) The Herodian persecution (Acts 12).
The passages showing apostolic superintendence of the kingdom of God outside
Jerusalem are: (1) Acts 8:14. "When the apostles that were at Jerusalem
heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
John"; (2) 9:32: "And . . . as Peter went throughout all parts, he
came down also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda," and then follows this
Mediterranean coast business, where he goes over Philip's ground; (3) 11:22
shows that at this time the church, not the apostles, when it heard that the
Grecians had received the kingdom at Antioch, sent unto them Barnabas. These
passages indicate general apostolic superintendence. Any apostle, by himself,
or apostles by themselves, or by point act, might authoritatively supervise any
work in any part of the kingdom of God, but they had no successors.
Great advance is indicated by the reception of Samaritans into the kingdom of
God. You have only to go back into history to see the fact of the hostility of
the Jew against the Samaritan. When the ten tribes revolted, and Samaria was
made their capital and leader, the ten tribes were conquered by the king of
Assyria and led into captivity, and the cities of Samaria were repeopled by an
alien element, brought from beyond the Euphrates. This element intermarried
with the resident poor of the Jews that were left of the ten tribes, and the
king of Assyria sent back a captive priest to establish a religious
headquarters for them. So they built a temple in Samaria on Mount Gerizirn, and
claimed to be the true successor to Moses. They retained the Pentateuch in a
corrupt form, and still have it. They said, "It is in this mountain and
not in Jerusalem that you should go to worship." Therefore, if the Jew was
moving south, which indicated he was going to Jerusalem to worship, they would
not receive him into their houses. They even refused to receive Christ when he
came that way) but they would welcome him if he came from Jerusalem. This
hostility became so bitter in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Samaritans
endeavored to frustrate the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In John 4 we read that the
Jews had no dealings with Samaritans. Therefore, if the Samaritans, through the
bold preaching of Philip, received the word of God, and if such apostles as
Peter and John go there and confirm and ratify that work, a moving of the fence
is indicated.
The record says, "And Simon also himself believed; and being baptized, he
continued with Philip." Those who believe in apostasy, like our
Campbellites and Methodist brethren, insist that he was converted, just like
everybody else, and was baptized, and fell from grace. The argument on the
other side is this: There is a belief which is not faith. It is an intellectual
acceptance of the proposition, but not a heart reception of it; and as a proof
that this man was not at heart a Christian, Peter says to him, "Thou hast
neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right before God.
Repent therefore of this wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought
of thy heart shall be forgiven thee." Simon believed, as a great many
other people believe and are received into the church. Ostensibly they are all
right; preachers cannot read their hearts. Profession of faith is made; it may
be a credible profession, too, but after circumstances will develop that there
was no true reception of, and reliance on, the Lord Jesus Christ. So I hold
that Simon Magus was not a Christian. It is not probable that he repented
afterward and was saved. He was guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit. He
offered to purchase the power, that on whomsoever he laid his hands, they might
receive the Holy Spirit, and he would have the power of working miracles. He
tried to buy the power of the kingdom of God, and it was a sin against the Holy
Spirit. Peter seems to feel it is a case like that of which John speaks:
"There is a sin unto death; I do not say you should pray for it." It
is an eternal sin, for which there is no forgiveness, neither in this world nor
in the world to come. He seems to have that impression on his mind when he
says, "If perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee." The
legal offense in medieval and modern times called "simony" is derived
from this name. A man is guilty of simony when he obtains by bribery an
ecclesiastical office or gift.
There are later ecclesiastical traditions concerning Simon and Peter and they
are legion. Beginning even from the time of Justin Martyr, and going on for
several centuries, there are legends, and the books are full of them, to this
effect: (1) That Simon Magus, from the time of this meeting with Peter, hated
him and determined to devote his life to blocking the gospel of God. (2) That
he followed Peter to Rome, and there he claimed himself to be the Christ, and
that he had the oracles of God, and Justin Martyr says that a statue was
inscribed there with that legend, and that he obtained, according to this
tradition, great power with the apostles. The tradition further alleges that he
was the founder of that gnosticism which Paul had to combat in the Lycus
Valley, and of which so much is said in my sermon before the Southern Baptist
Convention in Hot Springs. Now when we receive these traditions, let us always
do so with a great deal of salt. Some of the most powerful forgeries ever
perpetrated in ecclesiastical history are connected with these traditions of
Simon.
The Holy Spirit states that Peter went to Lydda, and there he found a certain
one named Aeneas, who kept his bed eight years, and healed him; and the miracle
was so astonishing that all the section of Lydda and Sharon, seeing him, turned
to the Lord. While he was there at Lydda the brethren at Joppa, who had already
been led to Christ through Philip, sent for him on account of the death of a
most estimable woman Dorcas a woman of great charity. And when Peter got there
the weeping friends exhibited the garments she had made for the poor. Peter
raised her to life, and that miracle further spread the power of the gospel.
From the transactions at Joppa the modern "Dorcas" societies get
their name.
The case of Peter and Cornelius has many great texts and lessons: (1)
Cornelius, the man, was captain of a hundred in a Roman band, part of the real
bodyguard of the emperor. (2) He was a religious man, doubtless what the Jews
called "a proselyte of the gate," not circumcised, but a man who
prayed to God always, and gave much alms to the people. This man, a poor
Gentile of the uncircumcision, had a vision from God, telling him that his
prayers and alms had come up before God as a memorial. They had not yet reached
their consummation. He was not a saved man yet, but they were gone up as a
memorial. That showed that he was near the kingdom of God, and also showed his
attitude toward the kingdom. To whom the angel said, "Send men to Joppa,
and fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner,
whose house is by the seaside, . . . who shall speak unto thee words whereby
thou shalt be saved." In other words, "You are not saved, but you are
in a condition now to be saved, and this man will tell you how to be
saved." This is Cornelius and his vision.
We now take the other man, Peter, as the third messenger to Cornelius. On the
way, according to a Jewish custom, Peter, preaching to the cities, at the hour
of prayer, the ninth hour, goes up to the housetop to pray one of the regular
praying places. He prayed; he became hungry, and suddenly he saw a vision. He
saw a great ark, as though it were a sheet with its four corners drawn
together, making something in the shape of the ark, slowly let down from the
heavens. Peter peeped over into it and saw everything that was in Noah's ark
every kind of bird, beast, elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus lions, tigers,
leopards, jackals, hyenas, and every bird from the condor and eagle to a
humming bird, and every snake that crawled the horse, the rabbit, the dove,
the pigeon all mixed up together in that ark. Certainly a sight such as Peter
never saw before, nor even the Roman emperors, when they gathered at their
magnificent feasts the trophies of the chase from the hunting fields of the
world. They never saw the multitude and the magnitude of animals that Peter saw
in that ark. The lion and the lamb, and the leopard and the goat were all there
together. So Cornelius said, "If it is good for me, it is good for my
wife, and for my servant, and I have gathered all my household to see if you
can tell us words whereby we can be saved. I would like for these people to
hear, that they may be saved also."
Peter makes a confession: "I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons." It was high time that he was learning that. But in every nation
wherever the heart hungers after union with God, after reconciliation with God,
whether civilized or barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, longing for redemption,
and as Paul says, "is seeking after God," God is ready to save.
"I see that now, but I never saw it before," says Peter. So Peter was
convinced, and preached Christ๙ Christ for the Gentiles. Finally, as he threw
the doors to the Gentiles wide open, he said, "To him bear all the
prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall
receive remission of sins." That is a fine text. We strike the same
thought in Revelation: "Whosoever will, let him come." As Peter said
it, the heart of Cornelius laid hold of Christ. I will prove that presently. He
then and there repented toward God and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Look
at the very words of it. He then and there received the remission of sins, and
following that, received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The whole crowd of
them was saved in a body, and they began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance.
When Peter narrated these facts to the questioning Jews, they heard it all and
said, "Then hath God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."
And recounting the facts in the great meeting, Peter described it thus:
"God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us." So they
repented, had faith and were baptized in the Holy Spirit. The question came up
before: "This is a Gentile crowd; yet, in view of these facts can anyone
forbid water that these should not be baptized?" In other words, "Who
is going to oppose the baptism of these people with these facts before
them?" And he commanded them to be baptized. That, then, is the case of
Peter and Cornelius. "Whosoever" was the wide gate for the Jews on
the day of Pentecost. Here we see the gate for the Gentiles opened.
Acts 11 says that Peter got into trouble, for some of the brethren rose up and
said, "We hear that you went unto the Gentiles uncircumcised men and
did eat with them and drink. We know that Gentiles ought to be Christians in
order to be saved, but Jesus is the king of the Jews, and you eat with
Gentiles, i.e., uncircumcised people who violate the law of Moses." Peter
stated the case over again, and it was decided he had done right, but it did
not stay decided, not even for Peter, not even after that great decision stated
in chapter 15, where came up the whole question. There was Peter, in the
presence of all the apostles, also Titus, Paul and Barnabas, and after that
gathering he went to Antioch and ate with the Gentiles, as he had done with
Cornelius, until certain of them came from James; then Peter drew out, and even
Barnabas was overcome by their doctrine. So Paul leaped up, shook his finger in
Peter's face, saying, "Thou art tearing down what thou didst once build
up." (See 10:4-29, 34,43.)
Certain circumstances led to the planting of the gospel in the capital of
Syria, the great city of Antioch. A crowd of brethren were going ahead of the
apostles all along here. The apostles were not scattered. They first preached
to the Jews only, but in chapter II it says that some of them, when they got to
Antioch, preached to the Gentiles, just as Philip had done to the Samaritans,
and the Gentiles here accepted and were baptized, and there, for the first
time, was a blended church of Jew and Gentile, the middle wall of partition
broken down, ground to powder and pulverized to dust, and God's prophets blew
even the very dust away, and made thus of twain one new man in Christ Jesus, in
whom is neither Greek nor Jew, nor Scythian, barbarian, bond nor free,
indicating thus how it started there.
Here we find the origin of the name, "Christian." The word occurs
three times in the New Testament. In chapter 11 it is said, "The disciples
were called Christians first at Antioch." At Jerusalem they were called
Jews; they were called Gentiles at Rome; but here they were called
"Christians." The outsiders gave them a name in Antioch, the city
which belonged to Antiochus Epiphanes that Greek city, one of the four
dependencies of the kingdom of Alexander the Great. Seeing this blending of
different nationalities they said, "They are Christians, whether Jew or
Greek." In Acts 26 Paul, speaking before Agrippa, the latter said,
"With a little trouble you would persuade me to be a Christian," and
Paul replied, "I would that not only almost but altogether you were just
as I am, except these bonds." Then in I Peter 4, Peter says, "If you
suffer for your own sins, bear it; you deserve that, but if you suffer as a
Christian, if affliction is put on you simply because you are a Christian,
not because you have done wrong, rejoice and glorify God in it."
Campbellites of the present day quote a prophecy to the effect that this name
was divinely given, God intending it to be the name of his people, and
therefore, instead of calling themselves Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, etc., they took the God-given name, "Christian," and
want us to so call them. They say that theirs is the "Christian
church" and ours is only the Baptist church. That is their contention. But
when Barton Stone and others raised the point, Alexander Campbell said in his
book, "This name was not God-given; but given by the heathen as an
expression of their conception of that blended church; the name 'disciple' is
God given. Let no man among us be guilty of trying to force upon us the
peculiar name of Christian." They squirm when Alexander Campbell is quoted
on their name. Calling yourself a name, does not make you what that name
signifies. Better wait till others bestow that name, and not usurp it. If God
calls you a Christian, all right; if your neighbors give you the apostolic
character, all right, but just because you say, "I am a Christian; mine is
the Christian church," that does not make it so, and it is supreme folly
to force a man who does not believe that they have the gospel, to continually
call them Christians.
Let us compare the Revised Version text of 9:31 with the common version, and
harmonize this use of the word "church" with the Baptist view. The
American Version reads, "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea
and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified." The Revised Version says,
"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace,
being edified." Baptists say you cannot use the word "church" in
a provincial sense. Does not this Revised Version rendering "knock the
bottom out" of this position? I say no. Why? Because at that time there
was only one church. "Then had the church rest." Its members were
scattered all over Judea, but later, when those scattered crowds were brought
together into separate organizations, Paul says, "The churches of
Judea," and Dr. Broadus endorses my position.
In chapter 12 we have the case of Herod against the church. Herod the Great was
the one who sought to destroy Jesus when a baby; the record tells of his death.
This is the Herod here that had Christ brought before him and crowned with
thorns, and mocked him. When we come to Acts 26 we find Herod Agrippa, still a
different one. You have seen the Sadducean persecution and the Pharisee
persecution. You now come to the Herodian persecution not the ecclesiastical
but the governmental. The Roman appointee-power persecutes and kills James, the
brother of John, and imprisons Peter, intending to put him to death. And the
church got together at the house of John Mark's mother, and prayed, "0
God, spare Peter! Spare Peter!" They prayed, Herod slept, and an angel
swooped down and opened the prison doors and released Peter, setting him down
before the prayer meeting crowd. Peter answered their prayer by knocking at the
door, at which answer they were startled, saying, "This surely must be a
spirit"; the answer came quickly; when they knocked, it was opened. Then
the record says that Herod made out he was God; that God struck him and the
worms ate him, and the word of God waxed mighty and prevailed. It has been that
way ever since. He who tries to crush the gospel and its teachings will be eaten
of worms. Voltaire, Ingersoll, and finally all the higher critics, have
preached the gospel's funeral, yet it is today the livest thing on God's earth,
and the worms will eat the man who opposes it.
The word "Easter" occurs in the American Version of 12:4:
"Intending to bring him forth to the people after Easter." The
Revised Version says, "Intending after the Passover to bring him
forth." So the common version says that Herod intended after Easter to
bring him forth. Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the
American Version to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter, but the Greek
plainly shows that "Passover" is precisely the word.
The events and factors in the great transition from a Jewish conception of the
kingdom and the church, to a conception of the kingdom and church of all
people, are as follows: (1) Stephen's enlarged gospel; (2) Philip's broader
practice; (3) the conversion and commission of Saul of Tarsus; (4) the opening
of the door of the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles (Cornelius and others) at
Caesarea; (5) the blending of all together in one great church at Antioch. Thus
the whole matter was accomplished.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the time and scope of this section, and what its several themes?
2. Cite the passages showing apostolic superintendence of the kingdom of God
outside Jerusalem.
3. What great advance is indicated by the reception of Samaritans into the
kingdom of God?
4. Was Simon Magus a Christian, & what the argument pro & con?
5. Is it probable that he repented afterward and was saved? If not, of what sin
was he guilty?
6. What legal offense in medieval and modern times was derived from this name?
7. What the later ecclesiastical traditions concerning Simon & Peter?
8. Summarize the work of Peter in following up Philip at Lydda and Joppa.
9. What modern organizations get their name from the transactions at Joppa?
10. Summarize the case of Peter and Cornelius, telling its great texts and
their lessons.
11. What the issue in the Jerusalem church over this case, how decided, and did
it remain decided for Peter?
12. Recount the circumstances of planting the gospel in the capital of Syria,
the great city of Antioch.
13. What was the origin, and what the New Testament usage of the name
"Christian?"
14. What the Campbellite contention concerning the name, and your view of it?
15. Compare the Revised Version text of 9:31 with the common version, and
harmonize this use of the word "church" with the Baptist view.
16. State the case of Herod against the church in chapter 12, and its issue,
and distinguish this Herod from the others in the New Testament.
17. Explain the use of the word "Easter" in the American Version
12:4: "Intending to bring him forth to the people after Easter."
18. State, in order, the events and factors in the great transition from a
Jewish conception of the kingdom and the church, to a conception of the kingdom
and church of ail peoples.
We now make a new start in our study of Acts, and I open the discussion with a
general bibliography of Paul. Some of the most helpful books on Paul are: (1)
The textbook, Goodwin's Harmony of the Life of Paul; (2)
Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul, which is the
greatest that has been published, and no book on this line has ever equaled it;
(3) Farrar's Life and Works of Paul. While Farrar is semi-infidel
as to the Old Testament scriptures, and not quite so bad, but bad enough in
that respect concerning the New Testament, yet his treatise on the life of Paul
is wonderful, and to be highly recommended; (4) Stalker's Life and Works
of Paul; (5) Malcolm McGregor's Divine Authority of Paul's
Writings; (6) Monod's Five Lectures on Paul; (7)
The Epic of Paul, by W. C. Wilkinson, who wrote that fine Epic of
Moses, and who is great in these epics; (8) the author's two lectures, Paul,
the Greatest Man in History, and The Fifth Gospel; (9)
Ramsay's books on Asia Minor, and Paul's Travels; (10) Hackett on
Acts; (11) Lightfoot on Galatians; (12) Luther on
Galatians; (13) Smith's Bible Dictionary, article,
"Paul"; (14) Paley's Horae Paulinea. I read that when I
was a boy. My father had some books which would now be considered
"old," but they beat anything we can get hold of today, and this is
one of them. Nothing has ever been published since to equal some articles by
Paley.) (16) Various commentators on Acts and Paul's letters; (17) a late but valuable
book on Paul is Wilkinson's Paul and the Revolt Against Him.
The New Testament bibliography of Paul consists of: (1) Acts of the apostles;
(2) Paul's letters; (3) 2 Peter 3:15-16, and (4) James 2:14-26. The New
Testament passage that goes farthest back in the history of Paul is Acts 9:15:
"He is a chosen vessel unto me, . . ." The next passage going back in
Paul's history, is Galatians 1:15.
The following is the chronological data in the history of Paul, and probable
conclusions:
1. At the first mention of his name, he is called "a young man" (Acts
7:58), and in his letter to Philemon, written during his first Roman captivity,
he calls himself "Paul, the aged."
2. (a) Though a "young man" when first mentioned in the history, yet
he was probably a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10), which necessitated that
he must be at least thirty years old. (b) He was probably rabbi of the
synagogue mentioned in Acts 6:9, which had the debate with Stephen, and which
also called for thirty years of age. (c) The high powers conferred on him by
the high priest (Acts 9:2) and the Sanhedrin (22:5) argues a man of reputation
and assured position. (d) Daniel 9:26-27 teaches that the Messiah would confirm
the covenant with many Jews for one week, or seven years, but that he himself
would be cut off in the middle of the week; so that the confirmation of the
covenant with many Jews must extend three and one-half years after the
Messiah's death; but this abundant confirmation with many Jews ceased with
Paul's persecution and conversion. (e) But Paul was converted when Aretas was
king of Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32), which reign Josephus dates. (f) From all which
we may fairly conclude that Saul was about the age of our Lord.
3. (a) The outside evidence: We learn from 2 Corinthians 11:32 that Aretas was
king of Damascus when Paul escaped there from after his return there from
Arabia, which was about three years after his conversion; and also the date of
his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian (Gal. 1:18). The Aretas date we get
from Josephus. (b) The death of Herod (Acts 12) coincides with Saul's second
visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:23-25), and Josephus gives us the date of
Herod's death. (c) Galatians 2:1 fixes his third visit to Jerusalem fourteen
years after his conversion, which was the occasion of the Jerusalem Council
(Acts 15), A.D. 50. (d) Paul's two years' imprisonment at Caesarea, the
outgoing of Felix and the incoming of Festus (Acts 21-26) furnishes dates from
Josephus and Roman historians (A.D. 61), which, with the length of the voyage
to Rome, aid us to know that he reached Rome about A.D. 62 or 63.
The profit and the delight of the study of history is most enhanced when we
study the character, life, and labors of a great man in a great period of time.
In every such case the thoughtful and candid student discovers that a higher
power has prepared the man for the times and the times for the man a fact
less apparent, though no less true, in the case of ordinary men in uneventful times.
Alexander the Great scattering the Greek civilization from Macedon to the Nile,
the Euphrates, and the Indus; Caesar smiting Gaul, bridging the Rhine, and
crossing over to Britain; Marlborough shattering the overweening power of Louis
XIV at Blenheim, Oudenarde, Ramillies, and Malplaquet; Frederick the Great
triumphing at Rossbach and Leuthen; Napoleon crumbling the monarchies of
Europe; Bismarck welding feeble principalities into the Germanic empire, while
Von Moltke's strategy culminates at Sedan, Metz, and Paris; Columbus
discovering America; the Declaration of American Independence, fruiting at
Yorktown; Dewey's victory in Manila Bay, with Schley's triumph off Santiago
All these, as interpreted by the wisest students, manifest God in history as unmistakably,
if not so expressly, as the call of Abraham, Moses giving the Law from Mount
Sinai, Samuel establishing the School of the Prophets, David sitting on the
throne of united Israel, or Ezra restoring Jerusalem and the scripture canon.
Indeed, every broad generalization of history, by its disclosure of God's
purpose and man's preparation, snatches the scepter from both the uncertain
hand of Chance and the relentless grasp of Fate, to put a diadem on the brow of
Providence.
It did not just happen that Hebrew civilization, expressed in one word,
"religion," was distributed over the world by the dispersion of the
Jews, by their synagogues in every city, and by a propaganda that compassed sea
and land to make one proselyte. Nor was it by mere chance that Greek
civilization, expressed in one word, "culture," was next diffused
throughout all the lands by conquest, colonization, trade, and language. Nor by
accident did Roman civilization, expressed in the one word,
"government," follow after to bind the whole world into unity. These
all, and many other confluent forces, were but constituent and essential
elements of that "fulness of time" in which he came, whose accusation
was "written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin." Nor was it a fortuitous
circumstance that Jesus of Nazareth failed to impart all his gospel to the
twelve apostles, unable to receive its fulness and unprepared for its worldwide
propagation. Which one of the Galilean fishermen was ever able to interpret,
expound, and apply all the significance of earth's greatest tragedy, the
crucifixion on Calvary, or to set forth with equal clearness and correlation
the respective parts of all the participants in that tragedy?
God did not intend Christianity to be like the Jordan River, which confines its
flow within a narrow channel, but he designed it to become a river of life.
Christianity would have been disseminated in its gospel merely to the Jew, but
for Paul. But what part had the Jew, through the Sanhedrin and Herod? What part
the heathen, through Pilate's court? What part the devil, whose was the power
of death and darkness? What part God, the Father? What part the Holy Spirit?
What part the Son himself, and what part you and I? Were they fully prepared to
answer these other burning questions:
1. Under what law was Jesus condemned Jewish, Roman, or Divine?
2. Of what offense was he convicted blasphemy, treason, sedition, or sin?
3. By what court was the operative sentence pronounced the Sanhedrin, Pilate,
or God?
4. What penalty was assessed separation of soul from the body, or separation
of the soul from God, or both?
5. By whom was he executed the centurion or the Almighty?
6. Who of them could systematize the correlated doctrines deducible from this
execution into an inexorable and universal plan of salvation?
7. Will this salvation be all of grace, or all of works, or of grace and works
combined?
8. Was this the death of a hero, or martyr, inciting to imitation and saving by
example, or was it the death of a unique substitute for sinners, vicarious and
expiatory?
9. Was the fountain of salvation, unsealed by this death, to be confined in its
flow within the narrow channel of a small Jewish river, losing itself in the
Dead Sea, with no outlet, or must it become a river of life, whose healing
tide, ever wider, deeper and more irresistible, could neither be dammed up nor
turned aside by any barrier of race, color, sex, caste, or condition, until its
inflow should heal all dead seas?
10. Was Christianity intended to crystallize into historic form as only one of
many Jewish schools or sects, or must it become in development the world's one
"image of truth beside which the Jewish remnants are only as the shapeless
fragments and powdered dust struck off by the sculptor's chisel from the block
of marble in carving the snow-white statue?"
11. Was the service of this new religion to perpetuate the weak and beggarly
rudiments of a typical ritual administered by robed priests at obsolete altars,
through lifeless liturgies and cumbrous ceremonies, or be rendered in tiny
essays on tinted paper, aping some heathen philosophy, charming by its conceit,
but powerless to awaken or to save, or must it be proclaimed via voice, by
living heralds, face to face with dying men wherever found in the home, on
the street, in the field, or in the forum?
The requirements involved in the complete answers to these and kindred
questions called for a new man and an independent apostleship. That man was
Saul of Tarsus a man prepared for his work by nature, culture, and grace. As
antecedent probabilities we need not inquire what things were supposedly
requisite to his fitness. We have something more reliable in the actual facts.
Let us rapidly glance at the most salient and significant of these facts which
enter into his preparation or constitute his fitness for the apostolic office.
He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews not a Hellenist and specially qualified for
his great work. A Hellenist was a Jew who had not been living in Palestine, but
Paul did not Hellenize. He remained a Hebrew of the Hebrews. The orthodox
Palestinian Jews not only retained the sacred speech, but were zealous in the
maintenance of strict Hebrew traditions concerning their holy city, their
Temple, and their law. On the other hand, most of the Jews of the dispersion
had lost their Hebrew speech and manners in acquiring the Greek tongue and its
culture. They were not merely liberalized and broadened by the spirit and
genius of the Greek cities where they lived, but were loosened in attachment to
many holy things of their ancient religion, by travel, trade, and cosmopolitan
association with their philosophies and religions. If the Hebrew was too
narrow, the Hellenist was too broad. But Saul of Tarsus, though a Hellenist,
did not Hellenize. Born in one of the most famous university cities of the
Gentile world, expert in the Greek language and literature, familiar from
childhood with the trade, movement, culture, philosophies, and religions of
foreign lands and nations, he was yet trained diligently in his childhood,
according to Mosaic requirements, spent his boyhood in the secluded school of
the synagogue, and was graduated from the sacred Jerusalem college. Thus profiting
above all his associates in the Jewish religion, having sounded all its depths,
climbed all its heights, traversed all its breadths, weighed all its merits, he
was peculiarly qualified, in his own experience, to meet, resist, and overcome
the deadly Judaizing tendencies that everywhere sought to sink Christianity
into a mere Jewish sect.
He was a Roman citizen. This citizenship he did not purchase, but he was
free-born. How this exalted privilege, once esteemed the world's highest honor,
came into his family, we may only conjecture. Certainly, not from his being
born in Tarsus, which, though a free city in being allowed to retain
self-government after subjection to Roman power, was not a Roman colony like
Philippi.
Perhaps his father, or grandfather, was one of the Jewish captives led away
into slavery by Pompey, and was afterward not only manumitted, but enfranchised
by adoption into some noble Roman family. However it came about, the fact is
certain, Paul could say, in the sentence immortalized by Cicero, "I am a
Roman citizen."
Exemption from chastisement by the lictor's rod and from other shameful
indignities was not the chief value of this citizenship. It conferred access to
circles of association from which a mere Jew was forever barred. Thus, unlike
the original twelve, he was en rapport with the world's three great
civilizations. As a Hebrew he faced all Jews. As a Hellenist he faced all
Greeks. As a Roman citizen he faced the world. He might not only appeal to
Caesar, but preach the gospel in Caesar's household.
There was an advantage and also a disadvantage in his being a Pharisee of the
Pharisees. In national spirit, this constituted him a patriot, and not a
Herodian. In religious spirit this committed him to a belief in the immortality
of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment. The
Sadducean spirit could not give birth to an apostle.
Pharisaism also constituted him a legalist. The only way of life it recognized
was that of obedience to the law of Moses. This obedience must meet, not only
all the requirements of both the moral and ceremonial law, as written in the
sacred books, but all additional requirements and subtleties of tradition
imposed by rabbinical comment on the law. His theory of righteousness would be:
"I need no regeneration by the Holy Spirit, because I am a child of
Abraham. I was never in bondage to original sin. I need no suffering Messiah to
vicariously expiate either my birth-corruption, or my actual transgression,
seeing I am freeborn, and touching the law, have lived a blameless life. I need
no continuous sanctification by the Holy Spirit, seeing that I keep myself
without spot or blemish. I may well thank God that I am not as other men. I
fast twice a week. I pay tithes of all I possess. I am as white as snow. I
stand on my record under the great Mosaic Law: Do and live. I have diligently
busied myself to establish my own righteousness, and need not to submit myself
to the righteousness of another. If any man might have confidence in his record,
and reasonably hope to be acquitted and not condemned in the final judgment, I
more, since I have gone beyond all other men in the attainment of
self-righteousness."
In other words, since Saul of Tarsus failed of life in this direction, let no
other, till the end of time, hope to succeed. He followed that pathway to the
mouth of the pit, and under his feet crumbled its last inch of standing ground.
Paul always obeyed the dictates of his conscience in matters of right and
wrong. He was a sincere man. He allowed nothing to beguile him into doing what
he believed to be wrong, or to restrain him from doing what he honestly
believed to be right. He followed his convictions without shirking or
faltering, into all their logical consequences. Even in his sins, conscience
was king. If he persecuted by invading the sanctity of the home and dragging
men and women to prison, judgment, and death, it was only because he verily
thought within himself that he was doing God's service.
Before determining the exact value of this qualification for apostolic office,
let us first settle the intrinsic value of a verdict of conscience. Conscience
is that inward faculty or monitor, divinely implanted in the very constitution
of man, which passes judgment on the rightfulness of its owner's motives and
conduct. Its standard of right is the highest known law. It is, therefore,
neither a law-maker nor a law-publisher, but a judge who interprets and applies
whatever law is known. If the known law standard be faulty, or if the knowledge
of a faultless law standard be imperfect, its mandates may not be expected to
quadrate with abstract right. On this account, the decisions of one man's
conscience, and what is adjudged wrong in one country, may be accounted right
in another country. Moreover, if the very nature of man become corrupt, his
conscience also suffers in the fall, and may itself need to be cleansed in
order to normal purity. And, what is equally important to know, if the mandates
of any individual conscience be habitually slighted and disregarded, it loses
its sensitiveness and becomes callous. Its fine moral perceptions become dim
eyed. While conscience, being an original and necessary faculty, is never the
creature of education or custom, neither of which has creative power, it may
become the slave of either, or of both. All these considerations militate
against the infallibility of its verdicts.
But, notwithstanding these necessary disclaimers, conscientiousness is an
essential element in all true goodness or greatness. The insincere man can
never be either good or great. Moreover, the characteristic of
conscientiousness is the most reliable ground of hope for the repentance and
conversion of one who is in the wrong. Being right himself, one may hope to
gain the most rabid and violent opponent, if only the opponent be sincere in
his opposition, but if his opposition be only a cloak for his covetousness, a
mask for his selfishness, or a mere subterfuge behind which he seeks for
personal ends, then he will not likely be receptive of truth or amenable to
reason. It follows that, until death ends probation, a conscientious man is
always salvable.
Mark well that a conscientious man can never commit
the unpardonable sin the sin against the Holy Spirit and therefore, conscientiousness
clearly delimits the scope of possible salvation. It is just at this point that
Saul's conscientiousness bears upon his fitness for his great apostleship, and
makes his conversion a signboard marking the boundary line of possible
salvation. He himself says, "Though I was before a blasphemer, and a
persecutor, and injurious; howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it
ignorantly and in unbelief" (1 Tim. 1:13). That is to say, that if he had
committed these sins against spiritual knowledge and spiritual convictions, his
sin would have been unpardonable. In yet other words, any man this side of
death may be forgiven, who has not rejected Christ after spiritual knowledge,
and after having established strong convictions that he is the Christ. The positive
side of the doctrine is thus stated in that great dissertation attributed to
Paul: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful
expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the
adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion
on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much surer punishment, think ye,
shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath
counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing,
and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:26-29). Thus,
the conversion of Saul of Tarsus located one pole of salvation.
Paul was also the chief of sinners. Not counting those guilty of the
unpardonable sin, he was the greatest sinner earth has ever known, or ever will
know. If we could take all men from Adam to Christ's second advent, and grade
them in single file according to the heinousness of their offenses, Saul of
Tarsus would be the outside man, farthest from heaven and nearest to hell. The
snatching of this man from the very brink of the pit, the plucking of this
brand from the burning, to make him not only a Christian, but an apostle, gives
ground for hope to all the prisoners of despair, and furnishes a model, beyond
which Omnipotence could not go, of the superabounding grace of God. This is
just what he says, "Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief;
howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ
show forth all his long suffering, for an ensample of them that should
thereafter believe on him unto life eternal" (1 Tim. 1:15-16). His
conversion, therefore, locates the other pole of salvation.
He was a great thinker and profound reasoner. Only John, of the original
twelve, is called a theologian, and his theology is of the mystical order, to
be understood and appreciated mainly by the man already saved. But Paul's
theology is intended to convince the unbeliever and overwhelm the gainsayer. He
seems to have studied profoundly all the significance of the tragedy of
Calvary, and to have formulated and correlated into a system all the doctrines
which enter into the plan of salvation. If eloquence be rightly defined as
"so speaking as not merely to convince the judgment, kindle the
imagination and move the feelings, but to give a powerful impulse to the will,"
then Paul was profoundly eloquent. The letter to the Romans must remain to the
end of time a monument of argument, towering higher, broader-based and more
imperishable than the pyramid of Cheops. One such apostle was needed, that
Christianity might commend itself to earth's thinkers, and remain unshaken by
the assaults of all opposing philosophies.
Paul was the greatest sufferer. Before the scales of his dazzling call fell
from his blinded eyes, the Master said, "I will show him how great things
he must suffer for my sake." Somewhat early in his ministry, the catalogue
of his sufferings stood "in stripes above measure, in deaths oft. Of the
Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with
rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have
been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of
robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils
in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among
false brethren; in labor and travail, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst,
in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things that are
without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, the anxiety for all the
churches" (2 Cor. 11:23-28).
Our last look at him discovers "such a one as Paul the aged, burdened with
fetters, and the last word we hear is, "For I am already being offered,
and the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I have
finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me
the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give to
me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved his
appearing" (2 Tim. 4:6-8).
Next to his Lord "he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief."
Chains bound his wrists, while stocks enclosed his ankles. His back was often
bared to the Jewish scourge and the lictor's rod. He was more storm-tossed than
Aeneas, more wind-driven than Ulysses. If, by the turn of a helm, he shunned
the maw of Charybdis, he must feel the grating of his keel on the granite edge
of Scylla. While bonds confined him, ocean wrecked him that the viper might
bite him. Mobs openly raved to rend him, while conspiracy lurked to assassinate
him. Always danger sentineled his sleep, and death confronted his waking. He
was tortured more than Tantalus by hunger that might not be appeased, and
thirst that might not be quenched. Prometheus, bound on the cold rocks of Mount
Caucasus, while vultures fed on his vitals, was not more a living sacrifice
than Paul offered in his body, which died daily, and was ever under the
sentence of death. He was lonelier in his responsibility than William Pitt, the
great secretary, standing solitary against the world, or than Frederick the
Great, with his world deluge of enemies pouring in on him from every side. And
withal, the care of all the churches was heavier on him than the weight of the
world on Atlas. But as the sandalwood tree perfumes the axe which smites it, so
his sufferings exhaled the fragrance of intercession for those who smote him.
On his lips the song would indeed have been eloquent: Must I be carried to the
skies, On flowery beds of ease, Whilst others fought to win the prize, And sailed
thru' bloody seas?
Now, at last, his own words of faith are fulfilled to him: "For our light
affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly
an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4:17). He who can part from country
and from kin, And scorn delights, and tread the thorny way, A heavenly crown
through toil and pain to win He who, reviled can tender love repay, And,
buffeted, for bitter foes can pray He who, upspringing at his Captain's call,
Fights the good fight, and when at last the day Of fiery trial comes can nobly
fall Such were a saint, or more; and such the holy Paul!
He was the greatest worker. Rarely, indeed, do we find the thinker and the
evangelist combined! The man who writes great books or matures profound
philosophies is seldom a man of affairs. The mystic will likely be a dreamer,
delighting in solitude and meditation. But Paul was no secluded monk, no
Utopian idealist. He mixed with men. He loved the crowded city. Dr. Farrar
seems to bewail that, unlike David, he never described the marvelous landscapes
and the sea-views of his travels. May it not be that he was too much absorbed
in the "manscape" to dwell on the landscape? Whoever traveled so
much, preached so much, and labored so much?
Paul never had a vacation. Even in prison he wrote those letters which
constitute the world's heritage. Doubtless he rests well now.
Paul was also the weakest man. We are accustomed to associate robust health with
great endurance. But Paul was never well. His body was a body of death. Great
sickness was the occasion of one of his mightiest ministries. He moved about in
weakness and trembling. He was buffeted by a thorn in the flesh so excruciating
that three times, as his Lord in Gethsemane, he earnestly besought his Master
to remove it, and make him well. The world marveled when the Prince of Orange
on the one side, and the Duke of Luxemburg on the other side, both invalids,
directed every movement of their opposing armies from litters carried on men's
shoulders, being unable to walk or ride. Paul was afflicted, doubtless, with
acute and repulsive ophthalmia, and so oft-times must have been led by another.
Poor groping man! How pitiable when left alone I With great sprawling letters
must he write, when no amanuensis is at hand to receive dictation. Paul was a
little man, like Alexander Stephens. He had no imposing presence like Sam
Houston, Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and John C. Breckenridge.
"His bodily presence was weak." But surely he had the silver tongue
and golden mouth of oratory, did he not? Ah! no; "his speech was
contemptible," in the judgment of his enemies; or, as he admits, he was
"rude in speech." Perhaps he out-stammered Moses. Durer's picture of
him, or the ivory German tablets of the eleventh century, is nearer to nature
than Raphael's cartoon.
A poor, little, afflicted, blear-eyed, bald-headed, stuttering Jew!
Somebody must always be present to minister unto him, or direct his steps, or
write his letters. How can this man travel? How can he endure privation? How
can he do a man's work? With no gift or grace of elocution, how can he speak?
William L. Yancey, Daniel Webster, Sargent S. Prentiss, Roscoe Conkling, W. J.
Bryan they are orators. But this man who rises in weakness, in fear and much
trembling, whose stammering tongue cannot please fastidious ears, and who is
estopped by conscience, will not speak with the enticing words of man's wisdom
how can he be an orator? He could not possibly look well. There is not only
nothing imposing in his presence, but there is something unpleasant, if not
repulsive.
Sir Walter Scott, in Rob Roy, makes Die Vernon say that "if
only a woman were blind so as not to see his outward appearance, she would
certainly fall in love with Rashleigh Osbaldistone's voice." But Paul had
not even a voice. "His speech was contemptible." What on earth had
he, then, to make him great?
He had a personality more striking and decisive than any other man of history.
He had a Christian experience which he never doubted, and of which, as a fact,
he made more than did any other man.
It comes out in every speech and letter. He had humility the lowest, and
courage the sublimest. He had faith without wavering, love immeasurable, and
hope without a cloud. He had exquisite sympathy for all the lost and the
suffering, and the most lively appreciation of every word and deed of kindness.
He had convictions which hell could not shake. He believed something. There was
no palsy in his trust. He had a commission from God. He had high conceptions
of, and loyal devotion to, duty. His fidelity to a trust could not be beguiled,
purchased, nor intimated. The powers of the world to come possessed him at all
times. The nearness, certainty, and eternity of heaven and hell he always
realized. But more than all, he had the grace of God, which was made so perfect
in his weakness that he could glory in his infirmities, and find strength in
his very powerlessness. The faith of his converts stood, not in the wisdom or
eloquence of man, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. He
had all the internal equipment, but none of the external graces of the great
orator.
He was the firmest and yet the most flexible of men. Let classic authors
eulogize the combination of the suaviter in nodo, with the fortiter
in re. This is the man more courtly than an old-time Virginia gentleman,
and more inflexible than Wellington, who illustrates the combination. A vital
principle he never surrendered nor compromised. In matters of mere expediency,
he would go any length to conciliate and to gain, and, fortunately for mankind,
he had the common sense to know a principle when he confronted it. He never
could have mistaken stubbornness for firmness, or opinion for principle. He
discriminated well between liberty and lawlessness. He was always careful lest
his exercise of liberty and privilege should be the occasion of a brother's
stumbling. In great love, he often declined to claim all his rights and dues.
He excelled marvelously in adjustment and adaptation. In a perfectly innocent
way, he was made all things to all men, if by all means he might save some. He
put himself readily on the plane of either Jew or Greek. If one sought,
however, to change his gospel into another gospel, he became as rigid as
granite and as hot as a volcano. He would have buried an anathema into the face
of an angel coming on such an errand. O, but he could stoop to the lowest, soar
to the highest, weep with the saddest, rejoice with the gladdest, and pray for
the wickedest.
He had a complete and independent gospel. He received it, not mediately, but
directly from the glorified Lord. He had never read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, for they were as yet unwritten. He did not receive a syllable of his
gospel nor a shred or his apostolic authority from any of the original twelve.
We might as well call Peter the pope of Abraham and Moses as to call him the
pope of Paul. The revelation to Paul was more complete than the revelation to Peter.
The authority conferred on Paul was both independent and absolute. The pillars
of the church at Jerusalem communicated nothing to him, but were constrained to
recognize his authority, and to give the hand of fellowship to his independent
mission. Peter never had occasion to rebuke Paul, but Paul was constrained to
correct Peter. Every contention of Paul was sustained, not only by men, but by
the Holy Spirit. And in his last letter Peter reckons Paul's writings among the
scriptures of God. The reformatory power for erring churches and teachers rests
in Paul's writings. There Augustine found it. There Luther found it. There
Spurgeon and Whitefield found it. There must we all find the clearest data for
determining Christian doctrine, Christian ethics, and church order.
In thus selecting for emphasis a few out of the many characteristics of Paul's
power, we have suffered from the embarrassment of riches. The half a score
might as well have been a full score. We find one-half of the books and one
fourth of the bulk of our New Testament written by this man. It is also evident
that part of Luke's Gospel was derived from Paul. In discussing such a man,
there is danger of ascribing to the servant the glory of the Master. On this
point Monod says, "Fear not from, however, a panegyric in which the saint
of the day shall usurp the place reserved to his Master and ours. . . . It
would be poorly apprehending the spirit of Saint Paul, to render him that which
belongs only to the Lord. Could I forget myself to that extent, I should expect
to see his image rush to meet me, crying out to me, as formerly to the
inhabitants of Lystra, 'O, men, why do ye do these things? We also are men,
subject to like passions with you.' "
Let us look to see what lies behind and before us. We have studied an important
part of the Acts of the apostles. The rest of the book will be devoted to a
study of Paul, centering on his work. I will add a few notes on books to those
already mentioned, as follows: Conybeare and Howson will furnish the background
or historical setting of the scriptural picture. Stalker's is the best summary
of the subject; the more we study it the more its value appears. Dr. McGregor's
has no equal in the matter considered. Farrar's surpasses all others in
exegesis, though it contains some things much to be reprobated. Paley's, an old
book and favorite of my youth, is devoted to an argument on the evidences of
Christianity, based on the undesigned coincidences between the Acts and Paul's
epistles. As most of these are by Pedobaptist authors, we may naturally expect
some things to which the author may not subscribe.
And now, while none of us may aspire to Paul's place in history, may we each,
according to his gifts and God's mercies, see to it that what history we make shall
harmonize with his. May we in our day, be faithful to the deposit of truth left
us by him and follow him, as he followed Christ.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the general bibliography of Paul?
2. Give the New Testament bibliography of Paul.
3. What New Testament passage goes farthest back about Paul?
4. What the New Testament passage going back in Paul's history?
5. What the chronological data in the history, and what the probable
conclusions?
6. When is the profit & delight of study of history most enhanced?
7. Illustrate from history.
8. Give a brief generalization of history on this point.
9. Illustrate this generalization by the significance of three words.
10. Did God intend Christianity to be like the Jordan River
which confines its flow within a narrow channel?
11. Can you answer all the questions propounded by the author as necessitating
a new man and a new apostleship?
12. Was he both a Hebrew of the Hebrews and a Hellenist, and what the
qualifications for his great work?
13. Was he Roman citizen? How did he obtain and what its value?
14. What advantage & disadvantage of being Pharisee of Pharisees?
15. In what did his extreme conscientiousness consist?
16. What the intrinsic value of a verdict of conscience?
17. What the exact value of this qualification for apostolic officer?
18. How does this conscientiousness of Saul of Tarsus locate one pole of
salvation?
19. In what way was he the chief of sinners, and how does this locate the other
pole of salvation?
20. How was he a great thinker and profound reasoner?
21. How was Paul the greatest sufferer?
22. Show how he was the greatest worker.
23. How was Paul the weakest man?
24. Explain his being the firmest and yet the most flexible of men.
25. Show that he had a complete and independent gospel.
26. In selecting characteristics of Paul's power, from what may one suffer, and
what the danger in discussing such a man?
27. What the testimony of Monod on this point?
28. What the best book commended for the background of this study of Paul, what
the best as a summary, what the best on the authority of Paul's writings, what
the best in exegesis, and what the best on the evidences of Christianity?
PAUL'S EARLY LIFE BEFORE HE ENTERS THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY
Acts 21:39; 22:3; 23:6, 34; 26:4-5; 2 Corinthians 11:22;
Romans 11:1; Galatians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:4-6; I Timothy 1:12-13; 2 Timothy
1:3.
This discussion does not make much headway in the text book, but it covers an
immense amount of territory in its facts and significance. This section is
found in Goodwin's Harmony of the Life of Paul, pages 15-17, and the theme is
Paul's history up to the time that he enters the New Testament story. Saul, now
called Paul, a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the sect of the Pharisees, yet
a freeborn Roman citizen, by occupation a tentmaker, by office a rabbi, and a
member of the Sanhedrin, was born in the city of Tarsus, in the province of
Cilicia, about the time of our Lord's birth. Tarsus was situated on the narrow
coast line of the eastern part of the Mediterranean, just under the great
Taurus range of mountains, and on the beautiful river Cydnus, which has a
cataract just before it reaches the city, and a fall, beautiful then and
beautiful now, coming down into that fertile plain where the city goes into a
fine harbor, which opens the city to the commerce of the world through the
Mediterranean Sea. It was on the great Roman thoroughfare, which was one of the
best roads in the world. There were two of these mountain ranges, one of them
right up above the city through the Taurus range into the coast of Asia Minor,
the other following the coast line, which leads into Syria. This is the way
that the mountains came down close to the sea, making a certain point very
precipitous, and there was a typical beach between those mountains and the sea.
That road into Syria was called the Oriental way. Over the Roman thoroughfare
passed the land traffic, travel and marching armies for centuries. It was in
that pass that Alexander fought his first great battle against the Persians,
and thus obtained an entrance into the East. It was through that pass that,
marching westward, and before Alexander's time, Xerxes the Great, the husband
of Esther (mentioned in the Bible), marched his 5,000,000 men to invade Greece.
I could mention perhaps fifty decisive battles in ancient history that were set
and were successful conquests by preoccupation of that pass. That shows the
strategical position of this city that it commanded the passes of the Taurus
into Asia Minor, and the pass into Syria, and through its fine harbor came in
touch with the commerce of the world on the Mediterranean Sea.
Paul says that it was "no mean city," in size or in population. It
was notable, (1) for its manufacture, that of weaving, particularly goat's
hair, for on that Taurus range lived goats with very long hair, and this was
woven into ropes, tents, and things of that kind; (2) because it was the
capital of the province of Cilicia; (3) because, under Rome, it was a free
city, i.e., it had the management of its own internal affairs, which
constituted a city a free city, like the free city of Bremer in the early
history of Germany. Other cities would be under the feudal lords, but there
were a number of cities free, and these elected their own burghers, and
governed their own municipal matters a tremendous advantage.
Tarsus received from the Roman Emperor the privilege of being a free city. Keep
these facts well in mind, especially and particularly as regards the land and
sea commerce. (4) Because it possessed one of the three great world-famous
universities. There were just three of them at that time: One at Tarsus; one at
Alexandria, at the mouth of the Nile; and one at Athens. It was not like some
other cities, remarkable for its great buildings, its public games and its
works of art. You could see more fine buildings in Athens or in Ephesus or in
Corinth than you had any right to look for in Tarsus. It celebrated no such
games as were celebrated in the May festivals at Ephesus, and in the great
Greek amphitheater in that city, or in such games as the Isthmian, celebrated
in Corinth. It was not remarkable for any of these. Its popular religion was a
low and mixed order of Oriental paganism. There is this difference between the
Oriental and Occidental heathen the former in the East, and the latter at
Rome, and the West. Ephesus had an Oriental religion, though it was a Greek
city. Tarsus, too, was a Greek city, but was partly Phoenician and partly
Syrian. There were more arts and intellectuality in western paganism than in
the Oriental, which was low, bestial, sensual, in every way brutal, shameful,
immodest, and outrageous. The Phoenicians, who had a great deal to do with
establishing the city of Tarsus, had that brutal, low form of paganism. That
infamous emperor, Sargon, celebrated in the Bible, the Oriental king of the
original Nineveh, was worshiped in that city. There never lived a man that
devoted himself more than he to luxury in its fine dress, gorgeous festivals,
its gluttony, its drunkenness, its beastiality. Paul was born in that city, and
he could look out any day and see the heathen that he has so well described in
chapter 1 of the letter to the Romans.
Citizenship in a free city under Rome did not make one a Roman citizen, as did
citizenship in Philippi, a colony. To be born in a free city did not make one a
Roman citizen. It conferred upon its members, its own citizens, the right to
manage their own municipal affairs. To be born in Philippi would make one a
Roman citizen, because Philippi was a colony. The name of its citizens were
still retained on the muster roll in the city of Rome. They had all the
privileges of Roman citizenship. Their officers were Roman officers. They had
processions, with the magistrates, and the lictors and with the bundles of
rods. But there was nothing like that in Tarsus. The question came up in Paul's
lifetime, when the commander of a legion heard Paul claiming that be was a
Roman citizen. This commander says that with a great sum of money he did
purchase his citizenship in Rome. Paul says, "But I was freeborn." If
freeborn, how then could he have obtained it? In one of two ways: Before Christ
was born, Pompey invaded Jerusalem, and took it. He was one of the first great
triumvirate, with Julius Caesar and Marcus L. Crassus. Pompey's field of labor
was in the East, Caesar's was in the West, and he (Pompey) took Jerusalem and
led into slavery many Jews of the best families. When these slaves were brought
to Rome, if they showed culture, social position, educational advantages, they
were promoted to a high rank or office, among slaves; and if they particularly
pleased their owners they were manumitted, either during the lifetime of their
owner, or by will after his death. In this way many noble captives from all
parts of the world were carried as slaves to Rome. They were first set free and
then had conferred upon them the rights of Roman citizenship. It could have
been that Cassius, who with Brutus, after the killing of Julius Caesar,
combined against Mark Anthony, and Octavius (Augustus), who became the emperor
and was reigning when Christ was born, captured this city of Tarsus and led
many of its citizens into Rome as slaves. Paul's grandfather, therefore, or his
father, might have been led away captive to Rome, and through his high social
position and culture may have been manumitted, and then received as a citizen.
Necessarily it occurred before this boy's time, because when he was born, he
was born a Roman citizen. It could be transmitted, but he had not acquired it.
There is a difference between the terms Jew, Hebrew, Israelite, Hellenist,
and a "Hebrew of the Hebrews." All these are used by Paul and Luke in
Acts. We get our word, "Hebrew" from Heber, an ancestor of Abraham.
Literature shows that the descendants of Heber were Hebrews, and in the Old
Testament Abraham is called "the Hebrew." That was not the meaning of
the word in New Testament times. We come to the New Testament meaning in Acts
6, which speaks of the ordination of deacons, and uses the word
"Hebrew" in distinction from "Hellenist." They both, of
course, mean Jews. While a Hebrew in the New Testament usually lived in
Palestine, but not necessarily, he was one who still spoke or was able to read
the original Hebrew language and who practiced the strict Hebrew cult. A
"Hellenist" was a Jew who had either been led into exile, or who, for
the sake of trade, had gone into other nations, and settled among those people
and had become liberalized, lost the use of the Hebrew tongue entirely, and
neither spoke nor wrote the Hebrew language, but who spoke and wrote mainly in
Greek. "Hellenist" is simply another term for "Greek."
Whether used in the New Testament Greek or the Hellenistic Greek, it means Jews
living among Greek people, and who had acquired the language, and in the many
respects had followed more liberal Greek customs. Then a Hebrew living in
Palestine would not allow himself to be liberalized.
Paul lived out of Judea. He, his father, and indeed his grandfather, adhered
strictly to all the distinguishing characteristics of the Hebrews. The
"Israelite" and the "Jew" mean anybody descended from
Jacob. "Israelite" commenced lower down in the descent.
"Hebrew" gets its name from the ancestor of Abraham, but an Israelite
was a descendant of Jacob. The distinction of "Jew" came a little
later to those descendants of Jacob living in Judea. The "Hebrew of the Hebrews"
means a Jew-who went to the greatest possible extreme in following the Hebrew
language, cult, habits, training, and religion. He was an extremist among them.
Some people would suppose from Paul's occupation tentmaking (he worked at
that occupation, making tents with Aquila and Priscilla) that from this
unskilled labor his family were low in the social position, and poor. The
inference is wholly untenable. In the first place, every Jew had to have a
trade, even though he were a millionaire, and Paul's old teacher, Gamaliel,
used this language: "Any kind of learning without a useful trade leads to
sin." Paul took up this trade because he lived at Tarsus. There anybody
could go out and learn the trade of weaving ropes and check-cloth made out of
the long hair of Mount Taurus goats. The trade would not simply satisfy the
Jewish requirement, but a man could make his living by it. We see Paul a little
later making his living just that way. Well for Paul that he knew something
besides books.
I am more and more inclined to follow an industrial idea in systems of
education. We have our schools and universities where the boys and girls learn
a great deal about books, and the girl goes home and does not know how to make
bread. She does not know how to rear a brood of chickens; she does not know how
a house is to be kept clean, nor how to keep windows clean. The floors in the
corners and in places under the beds and sofas are unswept. Boys come home that
cannot make a hoe handle. They have no mechanical sense, no trade. They can
neither make a pair of shoes nor a hat nor a pair of socks, nor anything they
wear. And thus graduates of universities stand with their fingers in their
mouths in the great byways of the world practically beggars not knowing how
to do anything.
The Jews guarded against that. Let Paul fall on his feet anywhere, and withdraw
from him every outside source of financial support, and he would say,
"With these hands did I minister to my necessities." He could go out
and get a piece of work. He knew how to do it. All this is bearing on the
social and financial position of Paul's family. Everything indicates the high
social position of his family, and that it occupied a high financial position.
They did not take the children of the lowest abode and give them such an
ecclesiastical training as Paul had. They did not educate them for the position
of rabbi, nor let them take a degree in the highest theological seminary in the
world. Paul's family, then, was a good one.
Paul's religious and educational advantages were on two distinct lines: Purely
ecclesiastical or religious, and I can tell just exactly what it was. A little
Hebrew boy five years old had to learn the Ten Commandments, and the hallelujah
psalms. When six, he advanced to other things which could be specified
particularly. His education commenced in the home and went on until he entered
the synagogue, which trained him in all the rudiments of biblical education.
When he was twelve or thirteen years old he was called "a son of the
commandments." Just like the occasion suggests when Jesus was twelve years
old he had them take him to Jerusalem, and he was allowed to go into the Temple
and to be with the great doctors there.
When Paul was twelve or thirteen his influential father sent him to the great
theological seminary. There were two of these seminaries. One had a greater
influence than the other in the city of Jerusalem. Therefore, he says, "I
was brought up in this city. I was born in Tarsus, but brought up in the city of
Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel." He was a very noble character. The
opposite seminary differed from this one. It was the Shammai Seminary,
differing from the other on this point: The Shammai Seminary was very narrow;
did not allow its pupils to know anything about literature whatsoever except
religious literature. But the aged Gamaliel said to Paul and to all his other
students, "There are certain classical lines along which you may study and
learn." This is the kind which Paul attended, the school of Gamaliel,
graduating there and becoming a doctor of divinity, or a rabbi. He studied
profoundly. This religious part of his education he got in the original Hebrew.
When he and Jesus met at the time of his conversion, they spoke in the Hebrew
tongue to each other. "There came a voice which said in the Hebrew [the
old Hebrew tongue], Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" And he answered
in the Hebrew. Then, of course, he spoke and wrote in the Aramaic, which was
the common dialect in Judea, and different from the Hebrew, since the Hebrew
had gone altogether out of use in the ordinary speech, and almost in the
ordinary reading.
The New Testament abounds in evidence of Paul's general educational advantages.
The city of Tarsus possessed one of the three great universities of the world.
Did Paul take a course in that? There is no evidence that he did, and no
probability that he did. For the universities in that day did not mean as much
as they do today in a certain line, though I am sorry to say that the great
universities of the present day are dropping back and adopting the old utterly
worthless studies of the universities of that day; that is, speculative
philosophy about the origin of things, and they do not know anything more when
they get through than when they began. Also the Epicurean philosophy, which we
now call "Darwinism," making a speculative study of biology, botany,
geology, etc., trying to prove that everything came from a primordial germ, and
that man not only developed from a monkey, but from a jellyfish, and that the
jellyfish developed from some vegetable, and that the vegetable is a
development of some inorganic and lifeless matter.
There never was at any time in the world one particle of truth in the whole
business. None of it can ever be a science. It does not belong to the realm of
science.
Saul never had a moment's time to spend in a heathen university, listening to
their sophistries, and to these philosophical speculations, or vagaries. If he
were living now he would be made president of some university. We learn from
the Syrians that one of these universities, the one in Tarsus, had a professor
who once stole something, and was put in "limbo." Their university
professors were also intensely jealous. They had all sorts of squabbles, one
part in a row with another part; so that after all there was not much to be
learned in the universities of those times, and after a while there will not be
much in ours, if we go on as we are now going. I am not referring to any
university, particularly, but I am referring to any and all, where
philosophical speculations are made thee basis of botany, zoology, natural
history of any kind, geology, or any kindred thing. Paul struck it in the city
of Athens, its birthplace, and smote it hip and thigh.
I do not suppose at all that Paul was a student in the university of Tarsus,
but that while he was at Jerusalem, and under the teaching of Gamaliel, he did
study such classics as would be permitted to a Jewish mind. Hence we find in
his letters expressions like this: "One of themselves, a prophet of their
own said, Cretans are always liars," and when at Athena he says,
"Certain, even of your own poets have said, For we are also his
offspring." How could he become acquainted with those classical allusions
if he had never studied such things? That chiliarch, who commanded a thousand
men a legion said to Paul, "Do you speak Greek?" He had heard him
speaking Greek. Of course he spoke Greek, and wrote Greek, All of his letters
were written in Greek. He had learned that Greek language somewhere. He had not
learned it in that university at Tarsus, but in the Seminary at Jerusalem. Take
his letters and see his profound acquaintance with the Greek games of every
kind. Some of them he may have attended, but he certainly knew all about them
as though he had witnessed them. He may have seen only an occasional game. So
he must have learned it from the literature, for he discusses every phase of
it, especially the foot-racing, the combats in the arena between the gladiators,
and the wrestling with the lions in the arena. His letters are full of
allusions that indicate his acquaintance with the Greek literature. At
Alexandria there was one of the other universities, a much greater one in its
Greek literature than the university of Tarsus. Alexandria was founded by a
Greek, Alexander the Great. One of the Ptolemies had a great library, the
greatest library in the world, which was destroyed by the Saracens. But notice
also how Paul puts his finger right upon the very center and heart of every
heathen philosophy, like that of Epicureanism our Darwinism; that he debated
in Athens; and note the Stoics whom he met while there, and the Platonians, or
the Peripatetics. You will find that that one little speech of his, which he
delivered in the city of Athens, contains an allusion which showed that he was
thoroughly and profoundly acquainted with every run and sweep of the
philosophic thought of the day, and anybody not thus acquainted could not have
delivered that address. This is to show the general culture of his mind.
Take the mountain torrent of his passion in the rapid letter to the Galatians.
Take the keen logic, the irresistibility of its reasoning, which appears in the
letter to the Romans, or take that sweetest language that ever came from the
lips or pen of mortal man, that eulogy on love in 1 Corinthians 13. Then take
the letter to Philemon, which all the world has considered a masterpiece in
epistolary correspondence. It implies that he was scholarly. Look at these varieties
of Saul's education. He was a man whose range of information swept the world.
He was the one scholar in the whole number of the apostles the great scholar
and I do not see how any man can read the different varieties of style or
delicacy of touch, the analysis of his logic or reasoning, which appear in
Paul's letters, and doubt that he had a broad, a deep, a high, and a grand
general education.
As to Paul's family the New Testament tells us in Acts 23:16 that he had a
married sister living in Jerusalem, and that that sister had a son, Paul's
nephew, who intervened very heroically to help Paul in a certain crisis of his
life. And in Romans 16:7-11 are some other things that give light as to his
family: "Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners
. . . who also have been in Christ before me." Here are a man and a woman,
Andronicus and Junias, Paul's kinsfolk, well known to the apostles in
Jerusalem, for he says, "Who are of note among the apostles." They
were influential people, and they had become Christians before Paul was a
Christian. Take verse 11: "Salute Herodion my kinsman," and verse 21:
"Timothy, my fellow worker saluteth you; and Lucius and Jason and
Sosipater, my kinsmen." So here we have found six individuals who are kinspeople
to Paul, and who were all members of the church at Rome. We know that much of
his family, anyhow.
The things which distinguished a Pharisee from a Sadducee were of several
kinds: (1) The latter were materialists, whom we would call atheists. They
believed in no spirit; that there was nothing but matter; that when a man died
it was the last of him. (2) There were Epicureans: "Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die," they said. (3) Also in their political views they
differed from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were patriotic, and wanted the
freedom of their nation. The Sadducees were inclined to the Roman government,
and wanted to keep up the servitude to the Romans. (4) The Pharisees also cared
more about a ritualistic religion. They were Puritans stern, and knew no
compromise, adhering strictly to the letter of the law, in every respect. If
they tithed, they would go into the garden and tithe the cummin and the anise.
The phrase, "Pharisee of the Pharisees," means one who would whittle
all that down to a very fine point, or an extremist on that subject. He said
(Gal. 1:14), "I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age
among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my
fathers." They were just Pharisees he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees.
He went all the lengths that they would go, and he topped them. It meant
something like this: "I am a son of Abraham; I am freeborn; I have never
sinned; I need no vicarious expiation for me; I need no Holy Spirit; I was
never in that bunch; you need not talk or present regeneration to me; I am just
as white as snow." It followed that they were not drunkards, they were not
immoral; they were chaste, and did not have any of the brutal vices.
Paul had perhaps never met Jesus. They were about the same age. Paul went to
Jerusalem when he was thirteen years old, and stayed there until he graduated
in the same city. Some contend from certain expressions, as, "I have known
Christ after the flesh; henceforth I will know him . . . no more," that he
had known Jesus in the flesh. It will be remembered that in the public ministry
of Christ he was very seldom in Jerusalem. He stayed there a very short time
when he did go. His ministry was mainly in Galilee. Even in that last mighty
work of his in Jerusalem there is a big account of it but it just lasted a
week. And Saul may have been absent at Tarsus during that time. I think when he
saw Jesus the fact that he did not recognize him is proof enough, for if he had
known him in the flesh he would have recognized him. But he said, "Who art
thou?" when he saw him after he arose from the dead.
Paul, before conversion, was intensely conscientious in whatever he did free
from all low vice, drunkenness and luxurious gluttony and sensuality of every
kind. He was a very chaste man, a very honest man, a very sincere man, a very
truthful man, and all this before conversion. I take it for granted that he was
a married man. An orthodox Jew would not have passed the age of twenty
unmarried. He could not be a member of the Sanhedrin without marrying; and in
that famous passage in Corinthians he seems to intimate clearly that he was a
married man. Speaking to virgins (that means unmarried men and women and
includes both of them that had never married) he says so and so; and to widows
and widowers, "I wish they would remain such as I am." It seems to me
that the language very clearly shows that at that time he was a widower. Luther
says that no man could write about the married state like Paul writes if he was
an old bachelor. I think Luther is right; his judgment is very sound. Paul did
not marry again; he remained a widower, and in the stress of the times advised
other widowers and widows to remain in that state; but if they wanted to marry
again to go ahead and do so; that it was no sin; but the stress of the times
made it unwise; and he boldly took the position that he had a right to lead
about a wife as much as Peter had, and Peter had a wife.
QUESTIONS
1. What the theme of this section?
2. What Saul's name, nation, tribe, sect, citizenship, occupation, office,
birthplace, and date of birth?
3. Give an account of Tarsus as to its political, strategical, commercial,
manufacturing, educational advantages, and its popular religion.
4. Did citizenship in a free city under Rome make one a Roman citizen as did
citizenship in Philippi, a colony?
5. How, then, could one obtain it?
6. Distinguish the difference between these terms: Jew, Hebrew, Israelite,
Hellinist, and a "Hebrew of the Hebrews."
7. What the social and financial position of Paul's family, particularly in
view of his occupation?
8. What Paul's religious and educational advantages?
9. What New Testament evidences are there of Paul's general educational
advantages?
10. What do we know about Paul's family as seen in the New Testament?
11. Was Paul a rabbi? If so, where did he probably exercise his functions as a
rabbi?
12. What is the meaning of the phrase, "Pharisee of the Pharisees?"
13. Did Paul ever meet Jesus before his death? If not, how account for it in
view of the interest and publicity of the last week of our Lord's life?
14. What was Paul's character before conversion?
15. Was he a married man, and what the proof?
SAUL, THE PERSECUTOR
Acts 7:57-68; 8:1-4; 22:4-5, 19-20;
26:9-11;
1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13, 22-24.
In a preceding chapter on Stephen we have necessarily considered somewhat a
part of the matter of this chapter, and now we will restate only enough to give
a connected account of Saul. In our last discussion we found Saul and other
members of his family residents in Jerusalem, Saul an accomplished scholar, a
rabbi, trained in the lore of the Jewish Bible and of their traditions, a
member of the Sanhedrin, an extreme Pharisee, flaming with zeal, and aggressive
in his religion, an intense patriot, about thirty-six years old, probably a
widower, stirred up and incensed on account of the progress of the new religion
of Jesus.
In considering this distinguished Jew in the role of a persecutor, we must
find, first of all, the occasion of this marvelous and murderous outbreak of
hatred on his part at this particular juncture, and the strange direction of
its hostility. On three all-sufficient grounds we understand why Saul did not
actively participate in the recent Sadducean persecution. First, the issue of
that persecution was the resurrection, and on this point a Pharisee could not
join a Sadducean materialist. Second, the motive of that persecution was to
prevent the break with Rome, and Saul as a Pharisee wanted a break with Rome.
Third, the direction of that persecution was mainly against the apostles and
Palestinian Christians, who, so far, had made no break with the Temple and its
services and ritual, or the customs of Moses. To outsiders they appeared as a
sect of the Jews, agreeing, indeed, with the Pharisees on many points, and
while they were hateful in their superstition as to the person of the Messiah,
they were understood to preach a Messiah for Jews only and not for Gentiles.
That is why Saul did not join the Sadducean persecution because of the issue
of it, because of the motive of it, and because of the direction of it.
1. Five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor: First, the coming to the
front of Stephen, the Hellenist, whose preaching evidently looked to a Messiah
for the world, and not only looked to a break with Jerusalem and the Temple,
but the abrogation of the entire Old Covenant, or at least its supercession by
a New Covenant on broad, worldwide lines that made no distinction between a Jew
and a Greek. That is the first cause of the persecuting spirit of Saul.
2. Stephen's Messiah was a God-man and a sufferer, expiating sin, and bringing
in an imputed righteousness through faith in him wrought by the regenerating
Spirit, instead of a Jewish hero, seated on David's earthly throne, triumphant
over Rome, and bringing all nations into subjection to the royal law. This is
the difference between the two Messiahs. So that kind of a Messiah would be
intensely objectionable to Saul.
3. Stephen's preaching was making fearful inroads among the flock of Saul's
Cilicean synagogue, and sweeping like a fire among the Israelites of the
dispersion, who were already far from the Palestinian Hebrews.
4. Some of Saul's own family were converted to the new religion, two of them
are mentioned in the letter to the Romans as being in Christ before him, and
his own sister, judging from Acts 23, was already a Christian.
5. Saul's humiliating defeat in the great debate with Stephen.
These are the five causes that pushed the man out who had been passive in the
other persecution, now to become active in this persecution. They account for
the vehement flame of Saul's hate, and the direction of that hate, not toward
the apostles, who had not broken with the Holy City, its Temple, its sacrifice,
nor the customs of Moses, but against Stephen and those accepting his broader
view. We cannot otherwise account for the fact that Saul took no steps in his
persecution against the apostles, while he did pursue the scattered Christians
of the dispersion unto strange cities.
We may imagine Saul fanning the flame of his hate by his thoughts in these
particulars:
1. "To call this Jesus 'God' is blasphemy.
2. "To call this convicted and executed felon 'Messiah,' violates the Old
Testament teaching of David's royal son triumphing over all of his enemies.
3. "That I, a freeborn child of Abraham, never in bondage, must be re-born,
must give up my own perfect and blameless righteousness of the law to accept
the righteousness of another, is outrageous.
4. "That I must see Jerusalem perish, the Temple
destroyed, the law of the Mosaic covenant abrogated, and enter into this new
kingdom on the same humiliating terms as an uncircumcised Gentile, is
incredible and revolting.
5. "That this Hellenist, Stephen, should invade
my own flock and pervert members of my own family, Andronicus and Junias, my
kinsmen [Rom. 16:7], and my own sister [Acts 23:16], and shake the faith of my
other kinsmen, Jason and Sosipater [Rom. 16:21], is insulting to the last
degree.
6. "That I, the proud rabbi, a member of the supreme court of my people,
the accomplished and trained logician, should be overwhelmed in debate by this
unscholarly Stephen, and that, too, in my own chosen field the interpretation
of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, is crucifixion of my pride and an intolerable
public shame. Let Stephen perish!
7. "But more humiliating than all, I find myself whipped inside. This
Stephen is driving me with goads as if I were an unruly ox. His words and
shining face and the Jesus he makes me see, plant convicting pricks in my heart
and conscience against which I kick in vain; I am like a troubled sea casting
up mire and filth. To go back on the convictions of my life is abject
surrender. To follow, then, a logical conclusion, is to part from the counsel
of my great teacher, Gamaliel, and to take up the sword of the Sadducee and
make myself the servant of the high priest. Since I will not go back, and
cannot stand still, I must go forward in that way that leads to prison, blood,
and death, regardless of age or sex. Perhaps I may find peace. The issue is now
personal and vital; Stephen or Saul must die. To stop at Stephen is to stop at
the beginning of the way. I must go on till the very name of this Jesus is
blotted from the earth."
That is given as imagined, but you must bring in psychology in order that you
may understand the working of this man's mind to account for the flaming spirit
and the desperate lengths of the persecution which he introduces.
Seven things show the spirit of this persecution, as expressed in the New
Testament:
1. In Acts 8:3 (Authorized Version), the phrase, "making havoc" is
used. That is the only time in the New Testament that the word
"havoc" is found. It is found in the Septuagint of the Old Testament.
But it is a word which expresses the fury of a wild boar making havoc a wild
boar in a garden: rooting, gnashing, and trampling. That phrase, "making
havoc," gives us an idea of the spirit that Saul had, which is the spirit
of a wild boar.
2. In Acts 9:1, it is said of Saul, "Yet breathing out threatenings and
slaughter." How tersely expressed that is! The expiration of his breath is
a threat, and death. Victor Hugo, in one place, said about a man,
"Whenever he respires he conspires, and that is the nearest approach in
literature to this vivid description of the state of a man's mind that the
very breath he breathed was threatenings and slaughter.
3. The next word is found in Acts 26:11. He says, "being exceedingly mad
against them." That is the superlative degree. He was not merely angry at
the Christians, but it was an anger that amounted to madness; he was not merely
mad but "exceedingly mad." So that gives you the picture of that wild
boar.
4. "He haled men and women." "Haled" is an old Anglo Saxon
word. We don't use it now, but it means "to drag by violence." He
didn't go and courteously arrest a man; he just went and grabbed men and women
and dragged them through the streets. Imagine a gray-haired mother, a chaste
wife, a timid maiden, grabbed and dragged through the streets, with a crowd
around mocking, and you get at the spirit of this persecution.
5. The next word is "devastate." Paul used this word twice, and
Ananias used it once (Acts 9:21). That word is the term that is applied to an
army sweeping a country with fire and sword. We say that Sherman devastated
Georgia. He swept a scope of country seventy-five miles wide from Atlanta to
the sea, leaving only the chimney stacks not a house, not a fence with fire
and sword. And that word is here employed to describe Saul's persecution.
6. Twice in Galatians he uses this word in describing it: "I persecuted
them beyond measure," that is, if you want to find some kind of a word
that would describe his persecution, in its spirit, you couldn't find it; you
couldn't find a word that would mean "beyond measure."
7. The last phrase is in Acts 22:4, "unto death." That was objective
in spirit, whether men or women. These seven expressions, and they are just as
remarkable, and more so, in the Greek, as they are in English, give the spirit
of this persecution.
The following things show the extent of this persecution:
1. Domiciliary visits. He didn't wait to find a man on the streets acting in
opposition to any law. He goes to the houses after them, and in every place of
the world. The most startling exercise of tyranny is an inquisition into a
man's home. The law of the United States regards a man's home as his castle,
and only under the most extreme circumstances does the law allow its officers
to enter a man's home. If you were perfectly sure that a Negro had burglarized
your smokehouse, and you had tracked him to his house, you couldn't go in
there, you couldn't take an officer of the law in there, unless you went before
a magistrate and recorded a solemn oath that you believed that he was the one
that did burglarize your place, and that what he stole would be found if you
looked for it in his house.
2. In the second place, "scourges." He says many times I have
scourged them, both men and women, forty stripes save one; thirty-nine hard
lashes he put on the shoulders of men and women. Under the Roman law it was
punishable with death to scourge a Roman citizen. Convicts, or people in the
penitentiary, can be whipped. Roman lictors carried a bundle of rods with which
they chastised outsiders, but on home people they were never used. Cicero makes
his great oration against Veres burn like fire when it is shown that Veres
scourged Roman citizens. Seldom now do we ever hear of a case where a man is
dragged out of his house and publicly whipped by officers of the law, just on
account of his religion.
3. The next thing was imprisonment. He says,
"Oftentimes I had them put in prison." A thunderbolt couldn't be more
sudden than his approach to a house. Thundering at the door, day or night,
gathering one of the inmates up, taking him from the home and taking him to jail.
What would you think of somebody coming to your house when you were away in the
night, and dragging your wife and putting her in jail, just because she was
worshiping God according to the dictates of her conscience? We live in a good
country over here. We have never been where these violent persecutions were
carried on.
4. He says that when they were put to death he gave his voice against them. He
arrested them and scourged them, and then in the Sanhedrin he voted against
them.
5. In the next place he compelled them to blaspheme. The Greek doesn't mean
that he succeeded in making them blaspheme, but that he was trying to make them
blaspheme. For instance, he would have a woman up, and there was the officer
ready to give her thirty-nine lashes in open daylight: "You will get this
lashing unless you blaspheme the name of Jesus," Paul would say. Pliny, in
writing about the Christians in the country over which he presided when he was
ordered to persecute the Christians, says, "I never went beyond this: I
never put any of them to death if when brought before me he would sprinkle a
little incense before a Roman god. If he would Just do that I wouldn't put him
to death."
6. Expatriation, ex, from, patria terra, "one's
fatherland" exiled from one's country. It was an awful thing on those
people at a minute's notice either to recant or else just as they were, without
a minute's preparation, to go off into exile, father, mother, and children. The
record says, "They were all scattered abroad except the apostles."
7. Following them into exile into strange countries, and cities, getting a
commission to go after them and arrest them, even though they had gotten as far
from Jerusalem as Damascus.
8. The last thing in connection with the extent of this persecution is to see,
first, the size or number of the church. Let us commence with 120 (that is,
before Pentecost), add 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, add multitudes daily, add
at another time 5,000 men and women, add twice more, multitudes, multitudes,
then we may safely reach the conclusion that there were 100,000 Jewish
communicants in that first church at Jerusalem. That represents a great many
homes. This man Paul goes into every house, he breaks up every family. They are
whipped; they are imprisoned; they are put to death or they are expatriated;
and over every road that went out from Jerusalem they were fleeing, the fire of
persecution burning behind them. The magnitude of the persecution has never
been fully estimated.
There are eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters
that show his own impressions of this sin. One of them you will find in the
address that he delivered on the stairway in Jerusalem when he himself was a
prisoner (Acts 22); another one is found in his speech at Caesarea before King
Agrippa (Acts 26). You will find two references in chapter 1 of the letter to
the Galatians (1:13, 23) ; there is one in 1 Corinthians 15:15; another in
Philippians 3; still another, and a most touching one, when he was quite an old
man (1 Timothy). We may judge of the spirit and the extent of a thing by the
impression that it leaves on the mind of the participator.
Everything that he inflicted on others, he subsequently suffered. He had them
to be punished with forty stripes save one; five times he submitted to the same
punishment. He had them put in prison; "oftentimes" he was
imprisoned. He had them expatriated; so was he. He had them pursued in the land
of expatriation; so was he. He had them stoned; so was he. He attempted to make
them blaspheme; so they tried to make him blaspheme under Nero, or die, and he
accepted death. He had them put to death; so was he. Early in his life, before
a great part of his sufferings had yet commenced, we find his catalogue of the things
that he suffered in one of the letters to the Corinthians, and just how many
particular things that he had suffered up to that time.
Two considerations would naturally emphasize his unceasing sorrow for this sin:
1. His persecution marked the end of Jewish probation, the closing up of the
last half of Daniel's week, in which the Messiah would confirm the covenant
with many. From this time on until now, only an occasional Jew has been
converted. Paul did it; he led his people to reject the church of God and the
Holy Spirit of God, the church which was baptized in the Spirit, and attested
by the Spirit. He, Saul, is the one that pushed his people off the ground of
probation and into a state of spiritual blindness judicial blindness from
which they have not yet recovered.
2. The second thought that emphasized this impression was that he thereby
barred himself, when he became a Christian, from doing much preaching to this
people. In Romans 9 he says, "I could wish that I myself were anathema
from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh."
"I bear them witness," he says in the next chapter, "that they
have a zeal for God," and in Acts 22 he says that when he was in the
Temple wanting to preach to Jews, wanting to be a home missionary, God appeared
to him, and said, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem;
because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me." That was
one of the most grievous things of his life, and we find it, I think (some may differ
from me on this), manifested in the last letter of his first Roman imprisonment
the letter to the Hebrews. He wouldn't put his name to it. He didn't want to
prejudice its effect, and yet he did want to speak to his people.
Let us compare this persecution with Alva's in the Netherlands, and the one
following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In a few words, it is this:
There were two great bodies of Christian people, so-called, in France the
Romanists and the Huguenots. Henry of Navarre was a Huguenot. He became king of
France, outwardly abjuring his Huguenot principles, but on the condition that
liberty of conscience should be allowed to the people. His grandson, Louis XIV,
revoked that great edict of toleration, and by its revocation, in one moment, commanded
hundreds of thousands of his people to adopt the king's religion. If they
didn't, troops or soldiers were placed in their homes with the privilege of
maltreating them, and destroying their property, without being held responsible
for any kind of brutal impiety that they would commit. Their young children
were taken away from the mothers and put in the convents to be reared in the
Romanist faith; the men had their goods confiscated, and in hundreds of
thousands of instances were put to death. They were required to recant or leave
France at once. Before they got to the coast an army came to bring them back,
and when some of them did escape, my mother's ancestors, the Huguenots, when
that edict was revoked, came to South Carolina. Some of them went to Canada,
some to other countries where there was extradition. The Romanists pursued
them, and when they were able to capture them, brought them back to France to
suffer under the law. Some of those that reached Canada left the settlements
and went to live among the Indian tribes. There they were pursued.
When Alva came into the Netherlands (Belgium and Holland), the lowlands, under
Philip, the King of Spain, the inquisition was set up and he entered the homes;
he made domiciliary visits; he compelled them to blaspheme; he put to death the
best, the most gifted, those holding the highest social and moral positions in
the land, to the astonishment of the world. With one stroke of his pen he not
only swept away all of their property, but anyone that would speak a kind word
to them, or would keep them all night in the house, such a person was put to
death. All over that country there was the smoke going up of their burning, and
the bloodiest picture in the annals of the world was what took place when
Alva's soldiers captured a city. I would be ashamed before a mixed audience to
tell what followed. The devastation was fearful.
This persecution illustrates the proverb, "The blood of the martyrs is the
seed of the church." Whenever Saul put one to death, a dozen came up to
take the place of that one. Indeed, he himself caught on his own shoulders the
mantle of Stephen before it hit the ground, as God put the mantle of Elijah on
Elisha, and as God made John the Baptist the successor in spirit to Elijah. The
blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
The effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom, and on
missions, was superb. Those Jewish Christians in Jerusalem those terrapins
would never have crawled away from there, if Saul hadn't put fire on their
backs, but when the fire began to burn and they began to run, as they ran, they
preached everywhere. It was like going up to a fire and trying to put it out by
kicking the chunks. Whenever a chunk is kicked it starts a new fire. When that
persecution came, then Philip, driven out, preached to the Samaritans. Then men
of Cyrene, pushed out, preached to Greeks in Antioch, and they opened up a fine
mission field. Peter himself, at last, was led to see that an uncircumcised
Gentile like Cornelius could be received into the kingdom of God. So it had a
great deal to do with foreign missions.
The effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front was marvelous.
They never did come to the front in the history of the world as they did in
this persecution. The apostles were left behind. The preachers right in the
midst of the big meeting in which 100,000 people had been converted, were left
standing there, surrounded by empty pews, with no congregation. The
congregation is now doing the preaching. A layman becomes an evangelist. These
people carry the word of God to the shores of the Mediterranean, into Asia
Minor, to Rome, to Ephesus, to Antioch, to Tarsus, to the ends of the earth,
and laymen do an overwhelming part of this work.
It is well, perhaps, in this connection to explain how Saul, in this
persecution, could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no
such authority. In the case of Christ we know that it was necessary for the
Jews to obtain Roman authority in order to put to death, but just as this time
Pontius Pilate was recalled, the Roman Procurator was withdrawn, and a very
large part of the Roman military force and the successor of Pilate had not
arrived, so the Jews were left pretty much to themselves until that new
procurator with new legions came to the country.
QUESTIONS
1. What of Saul already considered in a preceding chapter?
2. Why did not Saul participate actively in the Sadducean persecution?
3. What five causes stirred him up to become a persecutor?
4. How may we imagine Saul fanning the flame of his bate by his thoughts?
5. What seven things show the spirit of this persecution as expressed in the
New Testament?
6. What things show the extent of this persecution?
7. What eight distinct references by him in two speeches and four letters which
show his own impressions of this sin?
8. What his own sufferings, in every particular? Were they such as he
inflicted?
9. What two considerations would naturally emphasize the unceasing sorrow for
this sin?
10. Compare this persecution with Alva's in the Netherlands and the one
following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
11. How does this persecution illustrate the proverb, "The blood of the
martyrs is the seed of the church"?
12. What was the effect of this persecution on the enlargement of the kingdom,
and missions?
13. What was the effect of this persecution in bringing laymen to the front?
14. How explain that, in this persecution, Saul could put to death Christian
people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority?
SAUL'S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE
APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION
Acts 9:1-19, 22:5-16; 26:12-20; 1 Corinthians
1:1, 9:1; 15:7-10; Romans 7:7-35.
In commencing this chapter, I call attention to my address called, "The
Greatest Man in History," which you will find in The Southwestern
Theological Review, Vol. I, No. II. There are ten special scriptures
which bear upon the conversion of Saul, and most of them upon his call to the
apostleship. The accounts given are as follows: (1) By Luke, Acts 9:1-9, A.D.
36; (2) by Barnabas, Acts 9:26-28, A.D. 39; (3) by Paul at Corinth, Galatians
1:15-16, A.D. 57; (4) by Paul at Ephesus, 1 Corinthians 15:8-10, A.D. 57; (5)
by Paul at Corinth, Romans 7:7-25, A.D. 58; (6) by Paul at Jerusalem, Acts
22:1-16, A.D. 59; (7) by Paul at Caesarea, Acts 26:1-19, A.D. 60; (8) by Paul
at Rome, Philippians 3:4-14, A.D. 62; (9) by Paul in Macedonia, I Timothy
1:12-16, A.D. 67; (10) by Paul at Rome, 2 Timothy 1:9-12, A.D. 68. In order to
understand the conversion of Saul of Tarsus we must be able to interpret these
ten scriptures.
To prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion I submit two
scriptures: (1) The words that Jesus said to him when he met him, "It is
hard for thee to kick against the goads." (2) What he says about his
experience in Romans 7:7-25, that he was alive without the law until the
commandment came, when sin revived and he died.
As to the time and place of Paul's conversion, the argument is overwhelming
that he was converted outside Damascus. In the first place, the humility with
which he asked the question, "Who art thou, Lord?" Second, the spirit
of obedience which instantly followed: "Whereupon, O King Agrippa, Is was
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision." Again he says, "When God
called me by his grace, he revealed Christ in me." So we may count it a
settled question that Paul was converted out there on the road, when the light
above the brightness of the midday sun shone about him, and he fell to the
ground.
The proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state, is
found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, and also 15:8, in which he expressly affirms that
he had seen Jesus, and puts it in the same class with the appearances of Jesus
to the other disciples, after his resurrection from the dead. It was not simply
an ecstasy, nor a trance, nor a mere mental state, but he actually met Jesus,
and saw him. Jesus appeared to him, not in the flesh, as on earth before his
death, but in the glory of his risen body. He and Paul actually met. There was
a necessity for his actually seeing the Lord. He could not otherwise have been
an apostle, for one of the main functions of the apostolic office was to be an
"eyewitness" that Jesus had risen from the dead. So Peter announces
when Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas that he must be one who had
continued with them from the time of the baptism of John until the Lord was
taken up into the heavens, and that he must be one eyewitness of the
resurrection of Christ. Other passages also bearing on his apostolic call, are,
one particularly, 1 Corinthians 9:1-9, and then what he says in the beginning
of his letters: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, not
of man." I need not cite all of these beginnings. You can trace these out
yourself. The second particular passage that I cite, to be put by the side of 1
Corinthians 9:1-9, is Galatians 1:15-16.
Let us distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and
show what part of this point experience may not be expected in conversions
today, and was not a part of his Christian experience, and what the elements of
his Christian experience. When I was interested in the subject of my salvation,
to me, a sinner and an outsider, the distinction between Saul's conversion and
his call to the apostleship was very clear. You must understand that the light
above the brightness of the midday sun was the glory of the appearance of the
risen Lord to Saul, in order that he might see him to become an apostle, and
the shock which Paul experienced by thus seeing the risen Lord was the shock
that knocked him down, but it was not a part of his Christian experience it
was a part of his call to the apostleship. You must not expect anything of that
kind in order to your conversion, nor must you teach other people to expect it.
But the elements of his Christian experience were these: (1) He was convicted
that he was a sinner; (2) Christ was revealed to him; (3) he did believe on the
Christ thus revealed as his Saviour; (4) he did then and there receive the
remission of his sins, which remission was pictorially set forth in his baptism
three days later.
Here it is well for us to define a Christian experience. I was once present
when a man came to unite with the church, and the first question propounded to
him was, "Please tell us in your own way why you think you are a
Christian." "Well," he commenced in a sort of
"sing-song" manner, "one day ah, about five o'clock ah, I
just took a notion to walk around the work-fence ah, and I thought maybe I'd
better take my rifle along ah, for I might see a squirrel ah," and he
went on just that way. I myself have heard, in a Negro protracted meeting on
the Brazos, about eight miles below Waco, candidate after candidate tell their
experiences. They commenced this way: "Well, about last Sunday night
ah," following the same "sing-song" manner, "something
seemed to drop down on me like a falling star ah, and I heard the angel
Gabriel toot his horn ah; I went down in the valley to pray ah," and
so on.
Therefore, I say that we ought to define accurately the Christian experience.
This is a Christian experience: All those convictions, emotions, and
determinations of the soul wrought by the Spirit of God in one's passage from
death unto life. That may sound like a strange definition of a Christian
experience. It has in it a conviction and certain emotions, also certain
determinations, or choices, and those convictions and emotions are not excited
by seeing a squirrel, not in imagining that you heard Gabriel blow his horn,
for it is not Gabriel that is going to blow the horn. Michael is the
horn-blower. But this conviction, this emotion and the determinations of the
will, are all Spirit-wrought. And a Christian experience covers every one of
those in the passage from death unto life.
There are varied uses which the New Testament makes of Paul's experience:
1. As soon as he was converted, and yet outside Damascus or at least as soon as
he had entered Damascus, the Lord tells Paul's Christian experience to Ananias
in order to induce that disciple to go to him. That disciple says, "Lord,
I know this man. Why, he is a holy terror! He just kills us wherever he finds
us." But the Lord says, "I tell you he is a chosen vessel unto me,
and you go to him." So the Lord made use of Paul's experience to prepare
Ananias to accept Paul, and to minister to him what ought to be ministered to
him, just as God made use of the experience of Cornelius related by himself to
Peter in order to prepare Peter to perceive that God was no respecter of
persons.
2. The second use made is by Barnabas in Acts 9:26-28. Paul came to Jerusalem
three years after his conversion, and essayed to join himself to the disciples,
but they would not receive him: "You? Take you? Accept you? Why, this
whole city is full of the memories of your persecutions." But Barnabas
took up for him, and related how this Saul had met Jesus, and how he was a
believer in this gospel, and a preacher. And the relating of Saul's experience
to the Jerusalem church removed all of their objections to him, and prepared
them to receive him among them, so the record says, "he went in and out
among them."
It is for such objects that the Christian experience should be related to the
church. God requires it as the second ceremonial act that the man shall
publicly confess the change that has taken place in him before he can be
received into the church, and I will be sorry whenever, if ever, the Baptists
leave that out. A man must not only be converted inside, but in order to join
the church there must be a confession of that conversion.
In this particular case it was exceedingly appropriate for Barnabas to relate
it, as they would not be disposed to believe Paul. The general rule should be
that each candidate tell his own experience. It is better to let the candidate
just get up and tell the church why he thinks he is a Christian, in his own
way. Some people object to it. They say it is too embarrassing to the women. I
have never found it so, but Is have seen men so "shaky" when they
went to get married that they answered so low I could hardly hear them. But
women are always assertive. A woman knows she loves him. She knows what she is
doing, and she doesn't mind saying so.
I remember a Christian experience related to our old First Church at Waco. A
Mrs. Warren gave it. I talked with her privately, saying, "When you come
before the church, don't let anybody suggest to you what you are to say, and
don't you say anything because somebody else has said it; you just simply say
what has happened to you." When I put the question to her, she opened her
Bible and put her finger on the passage from which she heard a sermon, and
showed how that sermon took hold of her; told how it led her to pray; she then
turned to another passage, showing that through faith she believed in Jesus
Christ; and she thus turned from passage to passage. I considered hers the
most intelligent and the most impressive Christian experience I had ever heard.
That kind of testimony does a world of good.
3. The third use of it Paul himself makes in his letter to the Galatians. He
says, "God, who separated me even from my mother's womb, and called me by
his grace, to reveal his Son in me." Thus he goes on to make use of his
Christian experience. He says, "Therefore, now first I was converted, and
then called as an independent apostle. That is why I do not go to Jerusalem to
submit my experience to Peter or John, having derived this direct authority
from God, from Christ, who alone can call an apostle. That is why I did not
submit to the instruction of man."
4. The next use he makes of it is what is told in Romans 7, and he there tells
his experience in order to show the use of the law in the conversion of a man
that the law does not convert the man; that it discovers sin to him: "I
had not known sin except the law said, Thou shall and shalt not do this or
that. I was not even conscious that I was a sinner until the law showed me I
was a sinner. Apart from the law I felt all right, about as good as anybody,
but when the law came, sin revived and I died." And then he goes on to show
that this mere sight of sin through the law cannot put one at peace with God,
neither can it deliver one; it does not enable one to follow the right that he
sees in order to evade the wrong that he would not; that it leads one to cry
out, "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this
death?" But when he says, "I thank God through Christ Jesus our
Lord," he then shows how his conversion, through faith in Jesus Christ was
led up to by the law: the law was a schoolmaster to lead him to Christ.
5. In the letter to the Corinthians he makes another use of it. He explains
that he is so different from what he was, saying, "By the grace of God I
am what I am." In other words, "You need not come to me and say,
Why, Paul, when did you commence to do better, to work out your own
righteousness? You are so different from what you were when I first heard of
you; you then were breathing out threatenings,' for I say to you, By the grace
of God I am what I am."
6. We see another when he stands on the stairway in Jerusalem, giving an
explanation as to why he quit one crowd and then went to another crowd. They
were howling against him for going over to the Christians after being so
zealous as a Jew, and he asked the brethren to hear him. He admits all that
they said as to what he had been, and to justify his occupying the position he
now occupies, he says, "I will tell you my Christian experience," and
he proceeds to do it. If a leader of wild young men, up to all sorts of
mischief and devilment, should go off for a few days, and come back changed,
and the boys say, "Come down to the saloon tonight, and let us have a good
time," and he would then say, "No," they would wonder what had
come to him and would ask, "What has come over you lately? Come and let us
have a game of cards." But, "No," he says, "boys, I will
tell you why I cannot do that." Then he explains why, and he leaves that
crowd because he can't stay with it any more. So Paul explained why he left the
persecuting crowd, and could not go with them any more. He had had a Christian
experience.
7. In Acts 26 there is another instance recorded in which he made use of it. He
was at Caesarea, arraigned on trial for his life, before Festus and King
Agrippa. He is asked to speak in his own defense. In defending himself against
the accusations of his enemies he relates his Christian experience.
8. In the letter to the Philippians he relates his Christian experience in
order to show the impossibility of any man's becoming righteous through his own
righteousness, and to show that Christ laid hold of him. He uses his own
experience now to show that his righteousness can never save him, and that
though regenerate, he cannot claim to be perfectly holy and sinless.
9. In 1 Timothy 1:12-16 he relates his Christian experience in order to explain
two poles of those who are salvable: (a) "God forgave me because I did it
through ignorance," and (b) to show that any man who has not committed the
unpardonable sin, may be saved, since he, the chief of sinners, was saved.
10. Then, in the last letter to Timothy, and just before he died, he recites
his Christian experience. He says, "I know him whom I have believed, and I
am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him
against that day," is. e., "I committed my soul to him on that day
when he came to me and met me; I knew him before I committed it to him, and I
am persuaded that he is able to keep it." He made that use of his
Christian experience because he was under the sentence of death, expecting in a
few hours to be executed. This is his farewell to earth and to time, so he
closes his letter with the statement that the time of his exodus is at hand;
that he is ready to be poured out as a libation; that he has fought a good
fight, has kept the faith, and that he feels sure that there is laid up for him
a crown which God the righteous Judge will give to him at his appearing, is.
e., the appearing of Jesus. The relating of that experience came from the lips
of a dying man, showing that the ground of his assurance gives calmness the
calmness of God's peace.
A startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience. We do not
find many uses of Peter's experience, or John's, or Matthew's, or Mark's, or
Luke's. Paul is the only man in the New Testament whose experience is held up
before us in ten distinct passages of scripture. To account for the fact, let
us expound the two reasons for this particular man's conversion (1 Tim.
1:13-16), in which he says, "Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it
ignorantly in unbelief . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in
me as the chief [of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his
longsuffering, for an ensample, . . ." the conclusion of which is this:
All these uses are made of Paul's experience because as Abraham had the model
faith, which is the pattern for all generations, so Paul is a model in
Christian experience he is the pattern. If you preach on the faith of Abraham
you have the model faith of the world; if you preach on the experience of Saul
of Tarsus you have the model experience of the world.
The principal lesson to us is that as it was in the particular case of Paul, so
it is in our case, that the most stupendous fact in our history is not when we
were born according to the flesh, but when we were born according to the
Spirit. That is our real birthday. It is the most significant and the most
far-reaching fact of anybody's lifetime and an abundant use may be made of it.
For instance, John Jasper, the Negro preacher, with his Christian experience
could always reply to any atheist even to President Eliot, of Harvard, about
a new religion. He would say to President Eliot, "When you say there is no
such thing as the religion that has been preached, you ought to say, 'Not as
you knows of.' I have it, and since I have got it and you haven't, I am higher
authority on that than you."
In Edward Eggleston's Circuit Rider is the story of a fighting
preacher, who was going to his appointment, and certain rough men stopped him
on the way and told him that he must turn round and go home, and not fill that
appointment. "No," he said, "I am going to fill it; I'm not
going home." "Well, then, we will take you down from your horse and
give you such a beating that you will not feel like preaching."
"Well, you ought not to do that," he said. "You get down,"
they said. He got down and whipped both of them outrageously, but in the fight
he got his jaw badly bruised and marred, and when he got to where he was to
preach he could not preach. There was a big crowd, and no preacher who could
preach. So he looked around and took a poor, thin, long-haired, black-eyed
young fellow who had been very wild, but who had just been converted just a
boy. The preacher said, "Ralph, get up here and preach."
"Why," he says, "I am no preacher; I have not been a Christian
long; I have not been licensed, nor ordained." "But," said the
preacher, "get up here and preach." "Why," said the boy, "I
do not know any sermons." "Well, if you try to make a sermon and
fail, then throw your sermon down, and tell your Christian experience before
this crowd." So that boy got up and made a failure of trying to preach a
sermon like preachers preach. Then, weeping, he said, "Brethren, I can
tell you how God for Christ's sake forgave my sins," and he became more
eloquent in telling his experience than Demosthenes or Cicero, and that whole
crowd was weeping under the power of the boy's simple recounting of the
salvation of his soul. He could not possibly have done any better than just
what he did that day.
There is a myth that when Jupiter made a man he put a pair of saddlebags on his
shoulders. In one of the saddlebags was the man's own sins and in the other
were the sins of his neighbors, and when the man threw the saddlebags on his
shoulder the sins of his neighbors were in front of him and the other saddlebag
with his own sins was behind him so that he could not see them, but his eyes
were always on the sins of his neighbors. But when conversion comes God reverses
the saddlebags, and putting the man's own sins in front, he places the sins of
his neighbors behind him, so that he never thinks about what a sinner A, B or C
is, but, "Oh," he says, "what a sinner I am!" That is the
way of it in the Christian experience. Some think that it was the thought
underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners,
is. e., that it was because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other
people. My belief is that all of us feel that way the first time we quit
looking at our neighbors' sins and begin looking at our own sins, but it is not
the explanation of Paul's statement, because that does not make a pattern of
the case. He says, "Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief:
howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ
show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should
thereafter believe on him unto eternal life." Note that his case was a
pattern to them that should thereafter believe. That was the reason, and not
simply that of looking at his own sins instead of his neighbors.
What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the
chief of sinners, is e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or
injurious? No. I have showed in a previous chapter that Louis XIV and Alva in
the lowlands persecuted worse than all. Others have gone before him in
blaspheming, and there have been more injurious men than he. The answer is
this: He was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees," that is, he was an
extremist, going to the fine points of Pharisaism, the acme, the pinnacle, the
apex of Pharisaism, which is self-righteousness, and Paul was the most self-righteous
man in the world. What is the sin of self-righteousness? It says, "I am
not depraved by nature; I do not need the new birth, the re-birth of the Holy
Spirit; I need no atonement; I am the 'pink of perfection.' " That is the
greatest sin that man ever committed, because it rejects the Father's love. It
rejects the Saviour's expiatory death, and his priesthood. It rejects the work
of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Hence it is the
culmination of sin. While other people are self-righteous, Paul was the outside
man, which means that if all the sinners from Adam to the end of the world were
put in a row and graded according to their heinousness, this one a sinner) this
one more a sinner, that one even more, and to the outside man, the worst, the
one next to hell, that man was Saul of Tarsus. That is what is meant by being
the outside man as a pattern. He topped them all, to be held up before other
sinners, so as to say, "If the outside man was saved, you need not
despair." The value of this man's conversion to the church and to the
world is very great. It marked the turning point in the direction of the labors
of the church in a worldwide way, and it established forever the foundations of
the new covenant as against the old covenant.
His apostolic call and independent gospel knocks the foundation out from under
the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope, because it shows that he did
not derive from Peter his apostolic authority; that he did not even go to see
Peter before he commenced exercising his call; that he did not get from Peter
one syllable of his gospel; and whenever an issue came up between him and Peter
the latter went down and not Paul. That one fact destroys the entire claim of
the papacy that Peter was the first Pope.
There are some things in this connection that need explanation. First, the
falling of the scales from his eyes. Literally, there was no falling of the
scales from his eyes, but the glory of Christ blinded him. His physical eyes
could not see. It was not his soul that was blinded, but his physical eyes; and
"the scales" that fell from his eyes was this temporary suspension of
sight caused by this glory of the Lord. If you hold your eye open a little and
let me put a red hot iron, not against your eye, but close to it, it will make
you as blind as a bat, but if you shut your eye it won't do it, because the
tears in your eyes will break the conduction of the heat. Paul's case is just
as when you are standing out of doors on a dark night and there comes an intense
flash of lightning. When it is gone you cannot see for a moment. That is the
scales.
Second, Paul was unable to eat and drink for three days. The experience that
had come to him was turning the world upside down. He had meat to eat that the
ordinary man knows not of. The disciples were astonished that Jesus, sitting at
the well of Sychar, was not hungry. He says, "I have meat to eat that ye
know not of." Hundreds of times I have been in that condition, after a
great illumination in God's work, and some powerful demonstration in a meeting,
that I could not eat anything. The things of heaven tasted so much better than
the things of earth. No man eats for a while in the shock of such tremendous
experience as that Paul passed through.
Third, the Lord said to Ananias, "Behold, he prayeth." The question
arises, What was he praying for? What do you pray for? You are converted. The
Lord said to Ananias, "Paul prayeth." It was used as a proof that he
was converted, and, "therefore Ananias, you may go to him." Ananias
was afraid to go. So the Lord said, "Why, you need not be afraid to go; he
is not persecuting now, he is praying; there has a change come over him."
I do more praying and quicker praying after an extraordinary visitation of
God's grace than at any other time.
QUESTIONS
1. What address commended for study in connection with this chapter, and have
you read it?
2. What the scriptures bearing on the theme, and what the corresponding date of
each?
3 Prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion?
4. Through whose ministry was Paul convicted?
5. At what point in the story was he converted when he met Jesus outside
Damascus, at the end of three days in Damascus, or at his baptism?
6. What the proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental
state?
7. What was the necessity for his actually seeing the Lord?
8. Cite other passages also bearing on his apostolic call.
9. Distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show
what part of this joint experience may not be expected in conversions today,
and was not a part of his Christian experience.
10. Define a Christian experience.
11. What varied uses does the New Testament make of Paul's experience?
12. What startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience?
13. To account for the fact expound the two reasons for this particular man's
conversion (I Tim. 1:13-16) in which be says, "Howbeit Is obtained mercy,
because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; . . . howbeit for this cause I
obtained mercy, that in me as the chief of sinners] might Jesus Christ show
forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample, etc."
14. What the lessons to us of the use to be made of our experience, and what
illustration of it?
15. Cite the myth of Jupiter concerning the man and the saddlebags.
16. Was it the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself
the chief of sinners, is. e., was it because he saw his own sins, but not the sins
of other people? Explain fully.
17. What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him
the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he was a. persecutor, blasphemer, or
injurious?
18. What the value of this man's conversion to the church and the world?
19. What the bearing of his apostolic call and his independent gospel on the
Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope?
20. Explain the falling of the scales from his eyes.
21. Explain his not eating and drinking for three days.
22. The Lord said to Ananias, "Behold, he prayeth." What was he
waiting for?
SAUL FROM HIS CONVERSION TO HIS
ORDINATION
See list of references below.
The theme of this section is the history of Saul from his conversion and call
to the apostleship, up to his ordination as an apostle to the Gentiles; that
is, it extends from Acts 9 over certain parts of Acts up to chapter 13, but not
all of the intervening chapters of Acts. The scriptures are Acts 9:17-30;
11:25-30; 22:17-21; Galatians 1:5-24; Acts 15:2341; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27,
32-33; 12:1-4; Acts 26:20, which you have to study very carefully in order to
understand this section. The time covered by this period is at least nine
years, probably ten years, of which we have very scanty history. We have to get
a great part of our history from indirect references, and therefore it takes a
vast deal of study to make a connected history of this period.
Two scriptures must here be reconciled, Acts 9:19-26 and Galatians 1:15-18. The
particular points conflicting are that Luke in Acts 9 seems to say that
immediately, or straightway, after his conversion Saul commenced to preach at
Damascus, and the Galatian passage says that straightway after his conversion
he went into Arabia and remained there a long time before he returned to
Damascus. The precise question involved in the account is, Did Paul commence to
preach "straightway" after his conversion, as Luke seems to represent
it, or did he wait nearly three years after his conversion before he began to
preach? Luke's account in Acts 9 seems on its face to be a continuous story
from Damascus back to Jerusalem, without a note of time, except two
expressions: "And he was certain days with the disciples that were at
Damascus," and then a little lower down he uses the expression, "when
many days were fulfilled." Luke's account says nothing about Saul's
leaving Damascus, his long absence and return there. In a very few words only
he tells the story of three years. With his account only before us, we would
naturally infer that Saul began to preach in Damascus "straightway"
after his conversion, but we would also infer that this preaching was
continuous there after he commenced, until he escaped for his life to go to
Jerusalem. But the Galatian account shows that he left Damascus straightway
after his conversion, went into Arabia, returned to Damascus, and then took up
his ministry there, and, after three years, went to Jerusalem. This account
places the whole of his Damascus ministry after his return there.
The issue, however, is not merely between Luke's "straightway" and
the Galatian "straightway," though this is sharp, but so to insert
the Galatian account in the Acts account as not to mar either one of the
accounts, and yet to intelligently combine the two into one harmonious story.
In Hackett on Acts, "American Commentary," we find the argument and
the arrangement supporting the view that Paul commenced to preach in Damascus
before he went into Arabia, and in chapter II of Farrar's Life of Paul we find
the unanswerable argument showing that Paul did not commence to preach until
after his return from Arabia, and that his whole ministry at Damascus was after
that time, and then was continued until he escaped and went to Jerusalem.
The Hackett view, though the argument is strong and plausible in some
directions, breaks down in adjustment of the accounts, marring both of them,
and failing utterly in the combination to make one intelligent, harmonious
story. The author, therefore, dissents strongly from the Hackett view and
supports strongly that of Farrar. In other words, we put in several verses of
the letter to the Galatians right after Acts 9:19.
Let us take Acts 9, commencing with verse 17: "And Ananias departed, and
entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou earnest, hath
sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy
Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he
received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was
strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at
Damascus." And Galatians 1:15 reading right along: "But when it was
the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and
called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away
into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." All of that must follow
Acts 9:19. Then we go back and read, beginning at Acts 9:20: "And
straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of
God," that is, straightway after he returned from Arabia. Then read to
Acts 9:25, and turn back to Galatians 1:18: "Then after three years I went
up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." Then go with Acts 9:26: "And when
he was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples."
The following is a harmony of these scriptures:
It is intensely important that you have this harmony of all these scriptures.
You divide all of this into four parts just like the Broadus method in Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. I have in four parallel columns made the harmony complete
in the passages mentioned, showing how far to read, and then taking up the one
that supplies, so that one can read the entire story without a break. In column
I of this harmony read Acts 9:17-19; in column 2, Galatians 1:15-17; returning
to column I read Acts 9:20-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; then in column 2,
Galatians 1:18 (except the last clause); then back to column I and read Acts
9:26-27; in column 2, Galatians 1: 18 (last clause) and 19-20; then back to
column I, read Acts 9:28-29 (except last clause); then in column 3 read Acts
22:17-21; in column I, Acts 9:29 (last clause) to verse 31; in column 2, Galatians
1:21-24; in column 4, Acts 11:25-30; 12:25. This is the harmonious story of
Paul. Then read for purposes of investigation, Acts 15:23-41 in order to get
the information about his Cilician work, also read 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 to
find out what part of the sufferings there enumerated took place in Cicilia.
Then read 2 Corinthians 12: 1-4, as this pertains to Cilicia. Then read Acts
26:20 and ask the question, When did he do this preaching in Judea, and was it
during his Cilician tour? This gives all the scriptures. Carefully read it over
in the order in which the scriptures are given. It makes the most perfect story
that I have ever read. It does not mar any one of the four separate cases. It
does combine into one harmonious story and gives us an excellent harmony of
these scriptures.
The value of this harmony is very evident. This arrangement mars no one of the
several accounts of the story, but does combine them into one harmonious story,
and provides an explanation for Luke's "certain days," "many days,"
the Galatian "three years," Luke's "straightway," and the
Galatian "straightway."
With this harmony before us, we can see why Luke is so very brief on the
account of Paul in Acts 9. His plan is to tell the story of the Jerusalem
church up to the end of chapter 12. All matters apart from that are briefly
noted, and only as they connect with Jerusalem, the center. But from chapter 13
he makes Antioch the center, and we are told of his arrest, and later on he
shifts back to Jerusalem, and then back to Rome, and thus winds up the history.
Remember the centers: First center, Jerusalem; second center, Antioch; third
center, Jerusalem, and fourth center, Rome.
Saul did not commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion
because he had nothing to preach. He had not yet received the gospel. A man
cannot by sudden wrench turn from propagating the Pharisee persecution to
propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ. He must have the gospel first, and must
receive it direct from the Lord. After you take up the New Testament passages
showing how he received the gospel, you will see that he did not receive it
while at Damascus. Indeed, we have the most positive proof that he did not
receive it there.
But why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, and how long there? Being
willing to accept Christ as his Saviour, he needs time for adjustment. He needs
retirement. He needs, like every preacher needs after conversion, his
preparation to preach and to know what to preach. He went into Arabia for this
purpose, and, of course, Arabia here means the Sinaitic Peninsula, or Mount
Sinai. Up to his conversion he had been preaching Moses and the law given on
Mount Sinai. Now he goes into Arabia to Mount Sinai, the very place where God
gave the law to Moses, to study the law and the gospel, and comes back to us,
having received of the Lord the gospel as explained in Galatians.
There are some analogous cases. The other apostles had to have three years of
preparation, and under the same teacher, Jesus. They would have done very poor
preaching if they had started immediately after their conversion. Jesus kept
them right there, and trained them for three years. Now Paul commences with the
three years' training, and he goes to Arabia and receives the three years' preparation
under the same teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. He not only knows the
facts of the gospel as we know them from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as
one that was there right at the time, and he gets it firsthand from the Lord
Jesus Christ himself telling him all the important facts bearing upon the
remaining of the incarnation of Jesus, where he came from in coming to the
earth, how much he stooped, what the coming signified, of his death, his
burial, his resurrection, his ascension. We get the harmony of the gospel by
studying the books, but he did not get it as we do, but by direct revelation
from the Lord Jesus Christ. He introduces a statement concerning the revelation
that he received, and he is careful to tell the Corinthian church how that
Christ died, was buried, and rose again in three days. It took three years and
a half in the analogous cases of other apostles.
Elijah went into Arabia and into this very mountain when he was perplexed; and
there came an earthquake, and God was not in the earthquake; and there came a
fire, and God was not in the fire, but there came a still, small voice showing
Elijah what he must do. Take the case of Moses when the revelation was made to
him that he was to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Egyptians. God told
him the methods and the means and sent him into the same Sinaitic Peninsula. He
stayed there forty years in study and preparation, and then delivered Israel.
John the Baptist remained in the wilderness thirty years in order to preach six
months. Neither did Jesus open his mouth to preach a sermon until after his
baptism, and was led into the wilderness and tempted of the devil, and then
came back and immediately commenced to preach. More hurtful mistakes are made
by unprepared people taking hold of the Scriptures than in any other way. A
certain colonel, when asked by a zealous young preacher, "Well, colonel,
what do you think of my sermon," answered, "Zealous, but weak."
We have only to read Galatians 4 to see the significance of Sinai and Jerusalem,
which shows the revolutions which took place in his mind while he was in
Arabia. If the apostle Paul had not gone into Arabia, but had been sent to
Judea under the old covenant, which is Jerusalem, as Jerusalem now is, the
Christian world would have been a Jewish sect. You have only to read to see how
certain of the apostles clung to the forms and customs of the Jewish law and
claimed that one could not be a Christian without becoming a Jew and being
circumcised. What would have been the effect if God had not selected this great
life and revealed to him the ministry of the gospel that had been rejected by
the Jews and given to the Gentiles, so that foreigners and aliens might become
citizens and saints? For a more elaborate discussion of this subject see the
author's sermon on the Arabian visit.
Just before the ministry at Damascus he went into Arabia and returned. He was
in Arabia over two, perhaps three years. As he stayed about three years before
he went back to Jerusalem, his ministry was not very long in Damascus. The
record says, "straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus,"
etc. What kind of sermons did they have? The Jews over at Damascus that were
still holding to the Mosaic law could not yet understand .this revolutionary
preaching, and right there at Damascus, he received one of the five Jewish
scourgings that are mentioned in 2 Corinthians, which gives a list of the
number of times he received the forty stripes save one, and the number of times
beaten with the Roman rods, and the number of times scourged with the Jewish
scourge. Finding the scourging was not sufficient, they laid a plot against
him. They conspired and set a watch at every gate all around the city to kill
him. The walls at Damascus have houses built on them, as you can see to this
day. They put him in a basket and from a window in the upper story they letrbim
down by the wall. Aretas was king of Damascus at this time) and he stationed
soldiers at every gate to keep watch, and while they were watching the gates,
Paul escaped from the window in an upper story, as given in the thrilling
account of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. Also Luke gives the account, saying that the
brethren let him down in a basket by the wall. Now he being let down, started
to Jerusalem. Three years have elapsed since he left there, a persecutor, and
he returns now a preacher of the Lord Jesus Christ. That presents this
connected account.
But why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter? Commentaries say he wanted
to get information from Peter; Catholics say that Peter was Pope. Whatever he
wanted to get, I think he derived nothing from Peter. When he came there they
expressed distrust of him. If he had commenced to preach at Damascus
"straightway" after his conversion, in three years' time some notice
would have gotten to Jerusalem, and there would not have been this distrust
when he got there. Only one had heard of this change and his beginning to
preach, and that was Barnabas, of the Jewish church. When Barnabas related
Paul's experience, they received him and he went in and out among them. But he
was there only two weeks.
He commenced immediately to preach to the Grecians, and it stirred up the
people as it did at Damascus, and they were so intensely stirred that they laid
a plan to kill him. So he left, and there are two reasons for his leaving. When
the brethren saw the Jews were about to kill him, they sent him to Caesarea and
over to Tarsus. That is one of the reasons for his leaving. Paul gives an
entirely different reason. He says, "And it came to pass when I was come
again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance, and
Jesus came unto me saying, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem,
for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. Get thee far hence and
preach to the Gentiles," and he, therefore, went.
Here was the Cilician ministry, its sufferings and its revelations. He was over
there five years, and some of the sufferings enumerated in 1 Corinthians II are
bound to have occurred in that period; some of the shipwrecks, some of the
scourges, some of these stonings. In 2 Corinthians 12 he says, "I knew a
man in Christ, fourteen years ago," so if you drop back fourteen years you
find yourself there with Paul in Cilicia. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 we find the
revelations that occurred there. One of the revelations there was that
marvelous revelation that he received (2 Corinthians 12:4): "How that he
was caught up into Paradise." Here the question arises, Was it in this
tour that he preached on the coasts of Judea? In Acts he seems to say that he
preached at Damascus first and then at Jerusalem, and in Cilicia, and on the
coasts of Judea. We have no history of his preaching on the Judean coasts
beyond his statement, and if he did not preach on the coasts of Judea at that
time, when do we find a period in his life before that where he could have
preached on the Judean coasts? On his way to the Jerusalem conference.
Therefore, he says, "While I was in Cilicia, and the five years I was at
Tarsus, and just a little way from Tarsus on the Judean coasts."
Let us consider the Antioch ministry. The record says Barnabas had gone to
Tarsus in order to find Saul and bring him back with him, and that Barnabas and
Saul preached a year at Antioch. A great many were brought into the church. It
was the first time in the world where Jew and Gentile were in the same church
together, socially, eating and drinking with each other. But Paul now makes his
second visit to Jerusalem. The last of chapter II tells us that Agabus, one of
the prophets, foretold a drought in Judea, and Paul and Barnabas took a
collection over to them. Later, when Paul is making his last visit to
Jerusalem, Agabus meets him and gives that remarkable prophecy which we find in
Acts 21, about what would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem, he having
received the revelation from the Holy Spirit. But the condition of Jerusalem
when he arrived was awful. Herod, as we find in Acts 12, was persecuting the
church, and had killed James and imprisoned Peter. Paul comes just at that
time. On his return to Antioch he finds a new companion, Mark.
The Romanists place here Peter's first visit to Rome. They take two passages of
scripture, one Acts II, where Peter visits all parts, and they say when he left
Jerusalem this time he went to Rome, and got back to Jerusalem in time for that
big council in Acts 15. So far as Bible history goes, there is not a bit of
testimony that Peter ever saw Rome. I think he did, but we do not get it from
the Bible.
Here arises another question, Did the shock of our Lord's appearance to Saul on
the way to Damascus, likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and
permanently affect his sensibilities? My opinion is that it did. He was never a
strong man after that. His eyes always gave him trouble. Though the scales fell
from his eyes, and he was not entirely blind, his eyes were weak, and he had to
grope his way in walking. There are two pictures of Paul which greatly contrast
his physical appearance. Raphael gives us a famous cartoon of Paul at Athens,
and one of the most famous pictures of the great apostle. We find a copy of it
in most Bible illustrations, certainly in any Roman Catholic Bible. Another
picture is by the artist, Albrecht Durer. It is called a medallion, a carved picture,
and it presents a little, ugly, weak, bald-headed, blear-eyed Jew. Durer's
picture is the one that fits Paul's account of himself, and not Raphael's.
I here commend, in addition to Conybeare and Howson's Life of Paul
and Farrar's History, Lightfoot on Galatians.
QUESTIONS
1. What the theme of this section?
2. What the scriptures?
3. What the time covered by this period?
4. What two scriptures must here be reconciled?
5. What the problem here?
6. What the Hackett view of it?
7. What the real solution of it?
8. Show how the scriptures are made to fit this scheme.
9. How may we show the harmony of these scriptures?
10. What the value of this harmony?
11. Why did not Saul commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his
conversion?
12.Why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, & how long there?
13. What the analogous cases cited?
14.What was the added value of this preparation to Saul?
15.What sermon commended in this connection & have you read it?
16. Describe the ministry at Damascus.
17. Why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter?
18. Explain the distrust there & its bearing on preceding question.
19. How long was he there?
20. What of his ministry while there?
21. What two reasons for his leaving?
22. How long was the Cilician ministry, and what its sufferings and its
revelations?
23. Was it in this tour that be preached on the coasts of Judea?
24. Describe the Antioch ministry, and how long was it?
25. What carried Paul on his second visit to Jerusalem, and when does Agabus
again appear in this history?
26. What was the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived?
27. Where do the Romanists place Peter's first visit to Rome?
28. On Paul's return to Antioch, what new companion had he?
29. Did the shock of our Lord's appearance, to Saul on the way to Damascus
likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his
sensibilities?
30. What two pictures of Paul greatly contrast his physical appearance, and
which is most likely true to nature?
31. What special authority on this period, in addition to Conybeare and Howson,
and Farrar's History, commended?
ANTIOCH OF SYRIA, THE CENTER,
AND PAUL'S FIRST MISSIONARY TOUR TO THE HEATHEN
Acts 13:1 to 14:28.
A map of the Roman Empire in the times of the apostles should be always before
the New Testament student. The reason that a map of that kind is of so much importance
to the student is that it gives the Roman provinces to which the New Testament,
and particularly the book of Acts, makes so many references. This is specially
needful in studying any part of the New Testament that applies to Asia Minor
and the provinces of Asia, in order that one may comprehend the governmental
divisions at that time, and the form of the government in the different places.
It is important to locate the two Antiochs of this section, and tell how there
happened to be two. The first Antioch the one from which Paul starts out is
the capital of Syria. Syria includes the Holy Land. The second Antioch is in
the Roman province of Galatia, but the native name of it is the Phrygian
Antioch of Pisidia. There happened to be two, because the ruler of the Syrian
Antioch built the other Antioch, and that ruler was Antiochus. Whether he was
Antiochus Is, II, III, or IV, we do not stop to notice now, but he was
Antiochus, ruler of Syria, and built over in Asia Minor, in the country of
Pisidia, which was afterward included in the Roman province of Galatia, the
second Antioch.
Alexander the Great conquered all of Asia Minor and Syria, and the Orient up to
the river Indus. When he died his empire was divided into four parts, and one
of his generals, Seleucus, had the empire of Syria, whose capital was this
Syrian Antioch, built by Antiochus, one of the Seleucidae, 80 that it was the
capital of the fourth part of the Greek empire. There this great man ruled, and
before the New Testament times one of the kings who reigned was Antiochus
Epiphanes, who was the one that troubled the Jews so much, and tried to destroy
their religion, the history of which we find in the book of the Maccabees.
After a while the Roman Empire rises, and the Romans sweep the Greek Empire
away. And when they sweep it away, then they divide the whole Roman Empire into
governmental provinces, and one of the governmental provinces was Syria. That
included Antioch, Damascus, and Jerusalem, and the head of the district lived
at Antioch. That brings up the history somewhat to the first Pentecost.
In Acts 2 we learn that certain Syrian Jews were there in Jerusalem, and heard
Peter's great sermon. In chapter 6 we learn that Nicolaus, a proselyte of
Antioch, was one of the first deacons. When the persecution of Saul, which
commenced at the death of Stephen, was raised against the Jerusalem church,
certain Syrians who were there went as far as Antioch, some of them preaching
to the Jews only, and some of them preaching to the Greeks. As soon as
information came to the Jerusalem church that the Greeks were being preached to
in the city of Antioch, they sent Barnabas there, a good man, full of faith and
the Holy Spirit. Barnabas had been the means of introducing Saul, after his
conversion, to the Jerusalem church. When he saw the magnitude of the work in
the Syrian Antioch, and knowing that Paul was called to be an apostle to the
Gentiles, he went to Tarsus after Paul. Paul joins him in Antioch, and they
start off to preach and build the first blended church of Jews and Gentiles.
Paul's commission to the heathen was given to him on the day he was converted,
and the exact words of it are found in Acts 26 as follows: "But arise, and
stand upon thy feet; for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee
a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of
the things wherein Is will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people,
and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may
turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by
faith in me" (Acts 26:16-18). That was his commission, given him the day
he was converted.
It was about ten years after that commission was given to the commencement of
this section, and there were many intermediate events. It was three years from
his conversion to his first visit to Jerusalem; he was five years in Cilicia;
he was more than one year at Antioch; so it would be about ten years in all
since this commission was given. The intermediate events are as follows: (1)
His going into Arabia to receive the gospel. (2) His preaching at Damascus. (3)
His preaching and rejection in Jerusalem. (4) His preaching in Cilicia. (5) His
preaching at Antioch.
This long delay of ten years between the giving of his commission to the
Gentiles and his now being ordained to be sent out to the Gentiles, are
explained thus: As an example, God called Moses as a deliverer of Israel forty
years before he instructed him to commence the delivery. As there was a
necessity for delay in the case of Moses in the proper preparation of the
public mind and Moses' own mind and the mind of the Egyptians, to take place
between his call and the work of deliverance, just so it was in the case of
Saul. He was not ready to preach outright, at once, from the day he was called
to preach to the Gentiles. Public sentiment at Jerusalem in the church that
already existed was not yet ready for him. In his own time God would tell him
when this great work would commence.
The Holy Spirit now intervenes to give effect to this commission. He found a
certain number of disciples, brethren, prophets and teachers at Antioch,
engaged in fasting and prayer, and impressed their minds to ordain Barnabas and
Saul to go to the Gentiles. He is the one that intervenes, and that is how he
did it, as chapter 13 commences thus: "Now there were at Antioch, in the
church that was there, prophets and teachers, Barnabas, and Symeon that was
called Niger, and Lucius of Gyrene, and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the
tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy
Spirit said, Separate me, Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have
called them. Then when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them,
they sent them away" (Acts 13:1-3).
There is a distinction between prophets and teachers. A prophet was one who
had, by inspiration and authority, revelations from God to deliver to the
people. He might also be a teacher. A teacher was one) when he was not a
prophet also, who could instruct other people in the things that were revealed
by inspiration. This is the distinction between a prophet and a teacher.
Here we have an ordination ceremony. An ordination is an official ceremony by
the church, setting apart a man to a specific work by prayer and laying on of
hands. The value of the ordination here is this, that while Paul had received
his commission known to him, there had been no occasion of the Holy Spirit
calling a church to recognize that commission of Paul. In other words, God
always makes a double shot. If he calls a man to preach, he calls a church to
recognize that call. If he calls a man to do a specific thing, then he also
calls the particular person that he is to work with. The Eunuch meets Philip
promptly, and is at the place to receive him when he comes. He called Peter to
go to Cornelius, and he called Cornelius to receive Peter. Sometimes a young
fellow thinks he is called to preach, and no church agrees with him. I think he
had better not preach. There must be a call at both ends of the line. Paul had
been preaching before. This was not to call him out as a preacher. This was to
send him out to preach to Gentiles, therefore the necessity of this ordination.
Let us delimit the three missionary tours with Antioch as the central
authority. The first one is set forth in Acts 13-14. At the beginning of
chapter 13, Antioch sends out the missionaries. At the end of chapter 14 they
get back home and report all their work. So that one is delimited. The second
one starts from Antioch, commencing in Acts 15:36. And that one ends at Acts
18:22. That is the end of the second tour. The third commences at Acts 18:23: "And
having spent some time there, he departed, and went through the region of
Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples." That
takes us to the end of chapter 20. With Antioch as a starting point, here are
three great missionary tours to the heathen, as just delimited; so that we are
now to consider these tours in order, and our topic now is the first tour.
The missionaries thus far are Barnabas and Saul. Barnabas is the one who so kindly
befriended Saul, and introduced him to the Jerusalem church, and who went after
him to Tarsus and brought him to Antioch to help in the great revival there, so
their relations were very close. There went along with them a young man named
John Mark as their minister; that is, he was to attend to a great many details
of this expedition, and Paul needed him very much on account of his own
physical condition, being half-blinded. It was a great help to have a young man
along who could manage details. So the missionaries were Barnabas, Saul, and
John Mark.
With a map before you, start from Antioch, the great capital of Syria. Damascus
is about half-way between Jerusalem and Antioch. Come down to the sea from
Seleucia. There they take ship and come to Salamis, on the Island of Cyprus;
then they go through the country about 100 miles to Paphos, which is the
capital of Cyprus; then they take ship and go to Perga, which is the capital of
the Roman province, Pamphylia; then they go through the Taurus Mountains into
Pisidia to Antioch, its capital; then they go southeast to Iconium and then
south to Lystra, then east to Derbe. Now they take a back track until they get
down into Pamphylia again at Perga; then they go across the land to that
seaport, Attalia; there they embark and go home; they do not go back by Cyprus,
but they go straight to Seleucia. That is the course on the map; so the tracing
is from Antioch in Syria to the Seleucian sea port; from that sea port to
Salamis, on the Island of Cyprus; through the island to the capital of the
island, to Pamphylia, across the mountains to Antioch in Pisidia; and from
there to Iconium; then to Lystra, to Derbe, and right back over the trail until
they get to Perga, then to Attalia, and then straight across to Seleucia in
Syria.
The Island of Cyprus, in the Mediterranean Sea, has always been a famous place.
I could speak at length on its past history. At this time it was a part of the
Roman Empire, and Paphos is said to be the birthplace of the goddess, Venus.
The Greeks said she was born out of the foam of the sea, and hence the worship
was largely the worship of Venus, and as vile a worship as the human mind can
devise. The Jews had been there quite a while. Long before Christianity came,
Jews were there. There was also a synagogue at Salamis, which is on the east
side of the island, and Paphos is on the west. Both are sea ports. One can go
from one place to the other, either by land or by sea.
The recorded incidents of the work in Cyprus are few. The record tells us,
without any other incident, that they preached in the synagogue at Salamis.
What happened we do not know. The record then says they went from there to
Paphos, and there they found a certain Jew, Bar-Jesus, is. e., son of Jesus.
His Greek name was Elymas, and he was a sorcerer, and that sorcerer opposed
Barnabas and Paul, by exerting an influence over the Roman governor And Paul.
by the exercise of apostolic power, smote him with blindness, and the miracle
made such an impression on the mind of Sergius Paulus that he accepted the
faith preached to them; so the Roman governor became a convert.
Just here it is well to account for the important position of Elymas, a.
sorcerer, at the court of Sergius Paulus. By this time in history, mythology
was rejected by the Romans. They saw it was a deception, but the human mind
cannot do without some kind of religion, and particularly are men anxious to
understand the future, and, therefore, they turn to the fortunetellers,
diviners, and sorcerers, and we find them at almost every Roman court. We find
them with the kings up to the fifteenth century. This Roman, like any other
man, was anxious about the future. He had no faith in the heathen religion, and
this Oriental comes along as a sorcerer, like Balaam in the old time, like
Simon Magus that we have just heard about over in Samaria, and Rome was full of
them. That is how they came to find such a gentleman (?) there.
There are two changes relative to the missionaries, which date from Paphos.
First, from this time on Saul is called Paul. Never after this is he called
Saul. In chapter 13, "Saul who is also called Paul" is there in
parenthesis. We need not try to account for this change in the name by
attributing it to the conversion of Sergius Paulus; that is conjecture. It is a
fact that Jews took corresponding Roman names. It may be that the great Elymas
family at Rome was the one who bought the ancestors of Paul, and that among the
Romans his name was always Paul, and among the Jews it would be Saul. But
anyhow the change takes place in that name. We find from now on Paul steps to
the front. Second, Barnabas has been in the front all the way, and his name was
first when they were first sent out. All the time after this date it is Paul
and Barnabas, and when they talk about who is going, Paul is first. The braver
man in an exigency ill a missionary tour comes to the front. The next preaching
place is Antioch of Pisidia.
Let us look at the way of going from Paphos to Antioch. They take a ship here
at Paphos and come to Pamphylia, and a little distance from the coast is Perga.
Leaving Perga, they go over some awful mountains. The men that travel over
those roads say now that they are horrible, and terrible to get over. They keep
climbing and climbing, and when they get up there to Antioch, they are on a
high plain, far above the seacoast, just as the Panhandle plain is above the
lowlands of Houston; just as they climb from Amarillo to Denver through the
mountains.
A far-reaching event occurred while they were at Perga. John Mark left them,
the cause of which we have but a faint idea. Paul and Barnabas do not tell why,
but we know that it was something blame worthy, for Paul kept it in his mind as
a bitter and blamable thing. It may be that this young man started out with
them on this trip, willing enough to stay with them as long as they were at
Cyprus, Barnabas' own home, where he could be with kinsmen, for Mark was akin
to Barnabas. He was all right there, but when they got to Perga, and there saw
before them that terrible climb into the mountains, into an unknown world, and
the peril of robbers, and ten thousand other perils, he took the toothache, or
something of that kind, and dropped out.
The effect on the relations between Paul and Barnabas was that when they started
on the second tour, and Barnabas wanted to take Mark, Paul said he should not
go, because he turned back before. Barnabas stood up for his kinsman. This
separated Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas took Mark, and went back to Cyprus, and
Paul took Silas and went over the same country. So these two good friends
separated in their work for life. As to the effect on the further relations
between Paul and Mark, I am glad to report that, later on, Paul takes Mark
back, and writes, "Send Mark to me, for he is profitable to me for his
ministry." So the relations between Paul and Mark ended promisingly.
Here this question arises, Why probably was there no preaching at Perga on the
going-trip, and yet when they return, they do preach at Perga? The probable
answer, as given by quite a number of very distinguished men on this question,
is, that they got to Perga at the middle of the spring. The people down on the
coast at that season leave the coast and travel up into the mountains on
account of malaria. When they came back, that malaria was over, and the people
were at home; therefore, when they came back they preached at Perga. Moreover,
in going with this emigration of the people to the mountains they would have
needed escorts. Two lone men, going through that terrible mountainous country,
would have had a hard time.
This Antioch, as I have said, was built by Antiochus, one of the Greek rulers
at the other Antioch, and it was a city of very considerable importance
throughout the Grecian and Roman world. Augustus, the second Roman Emperor
(Julius Caesar being counted the first), made it a colony. We will strike
another colony when we get to Philippi a little later. Antioch in Syria was a
free city, but Antioch in Pisidia was a colony. That gave them the privilege of
Roman citizens, their names being retained on the muster of the citizens in the
city of Rome. They had free municipal government, Roman magistrates just as
they had in the city of Rome, who ruled over that town. It remained an
important place for 1,400 years, which is a long time. Probably more than 1,500
years it remained an important place. It was right on the Roman road that
commenced near Ephesus, and went through this country to reach Syria. It ran
along the mountains, and came right down close to the sea, and there is that
pass where so many important battles were fought. Antioch was right on that
road. There was the native population; there was also the Greek population that
came when the country was in the empire of the Greeks, then there was the Jewish
population a very large population and finally, the Roman population. Their
religion was heathen and vile.
There was a synagogue at Antioch and we have their service described in Acts
13:14-15: "But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of
Pisidia; and they went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And
after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent
unto them, saying, Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people,
say on." That is a scene such as can be witnessed until this day, and is
witnessed in ten thousand places of the earth. On the sabbath day a certain
part of the law is read, then a section of the prophets, then comes what is
called the Midrash the interpretation of the scriptures read.
Quite a number of men, with whom I agree, have inferred from certain Greek
words used in the passage of the law that was read, that it was a portion of
Deuteronomy I, and the portion of the prophets read was Isaiah 1:1-22. They
appointed so much of the law to be read every sabbath day, and a certain
portion from the prophets. Having read, the custom was for the minister in the
synagogue to look around, and if there was any distinguished brother present,
he was very apt to invite him to deliver the Midrash. When Jesus was in the
synagogue at Nazareth, they handed him the book and told him to read, and he
read a passage to them in Isaiah, whereupon he delivered a sermon and told them
that the scripture he read was fulfilled in their midst that day. In like
manner, Paul, taking the second passage of the law and prophets, delivers his
first recorded sermon, and we have it right before us.
Let us analyze this first recorded sermon of Paul's. He commenced with the
references in Deuteronomy and Isaiah. He told them bow that God had brought
them up out of the land of Egypt; how he had cared for them in the wilderness;
how he had preserved them in the time of the Judges until David was king, and
how he had promised that the Son of David should be the Messiah, and how the
prophecy had been recently fulfilled; that the Son of David had come; that the
rulers at Jerusalem had misunderstood and crucified him, and he had risen from
the dead, and wound up by saying, "Now my glad tidings to you is that through
faith in this crucified Son of David, who is risen from the dead, you can be
purified from all the things that are written in the law against you." In
other words, his sermon, in the most tactful way, gives us a historical account
of that people, winding up in the crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, and
the justification through faith in Jesus, which brings salvation. It is one of
the most orderly sermons in the world.
There is a very important chronological date given in this sermon. He says that
it was 450 years from the beginning of the period of the Judges to Samuel, the
prophet. Then, if we add forty years, the time Samuel judged Israel, we have
490 years, the period of the Judges. So, from the call of Abraham to the
settlement in Canaan was 490; from the settlement in Canaan to the rise of the
monarchy, 490 years; from the rise of the monarchy until its downfall, 490
years, and from the downfall of the monarchy to the coming of Christ, 490
years.
QUESTIONS
1. What map should be always before the New Testament student, and why?
2. Locate the two Antiochs of this section, and tell how there happened to be
two.
3. Give brief account of the Syrian Antioch up to the first Pentecost.
4. Trace in Acts the events touching this Antioch up to chapter 13.
5. What was Paul's commission to the heathen, and when was it given to him?
6. How long was it after this commission was given him to the commencement of
this section?
7. What the intermediate events, and why the long delay between his commission
and his ordination?
8. Who now intervenes to give effect to this commission, and how?
9. What the distinction between prophets and teachers?
10. What is an ordination, and what its value here?
11. Delimit the three missionary tours, with Antioch of Syria as the central
authority.
12. Who the missionaries, and what their relation thus far?
13. Trace on a map the first tour.
14. Give a short account of Cyprus, its government, its heathen religion, the
Jews there, and its connection with Christianity thus far.
15. Locate Salamis and Paphos.
16. What the recorded incidents of the work in Cyprus?
17. How account for the important position of Elyrnas, a sorcerer at the court
of Sergius Paulus?
18. What changes relative to the missionaries dating from Paphos?
19. Describe their way of going from Paphos to Antioch.
20. What far-reaching event occurred while they were at Perga, what the
probable cause, what the effect on the relations of Paul and Barnabas in the
next tour, and what the ultimate effect on Paul's relations to Mark?
21. Why probably was there no preaching at Perga on the going trip, and yet
when they return they do preach at Perga?
22. Give a short account of this Antioch, its government, its heathen religion,
and the Jews there.
23. Describe the synagogue at Antioch and their service therein.
24. Analyze this first recorded sermon of Paul's.
25. What important chronological date given m this sermon, and what its
bearing?
FIRST MISSIONARY TOUR TO THE HEATHEN
ANTIOCH OF SYRIA, THE CENTER, AND PAUL'S (Continued)
There are certain Old Testament passages interpreted in Paul's great sermon in
Antioch of Pisidia. The Psalm 2:7: "Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee." Paul interprets that to refer to the resurrection of
Christ. Christ was the Son of God in several ways by eternal subsistence, by
being born of the Virgin Mary, and by his resurrection from the dead:
"This day have I begotten thee." The second passage that he
interprets is Isaiah 55:3: "I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
even the sure mercies of David." Paul refers that to the resurrection, and
not the sure mercies that come to David, but the sure mercies that David, as a
prophet, foresaw. This he explains by another passage in Psalm 16:10, in which
David foresaw that the Messiah's body would not see corruption, and that his
soul would not be left disembodied. If it were not for Paul's interpretation no
man would have rightly given the meaning of these Old Testament passages. So
the third one is the passage in Psalm 16:10, and the last one is Habakkuk 1:5,
in which Paul applies to them the prophetic warning of Habakkuk.
The results of this sermon were immense. Both Jews and proselytes, before they
left the house, crowded around him and asked him to present the same matter to
them the following sabbath. Whenever a preacher goes to an appointment, and the
brethren crowd around him and ask him to repeat that matter the following
Sunday, then he may know that he made a good impression. The second result was
that a great many of the Jews and proselytes, even after they had left the
house, talked with them personally and evidenced conversion. And the third
result was that the sermon was so much talked about in the intervening week
that when the next sabbath came, the house would not hold the people. He had a
message for the Gentiles by which they, without becoming Jews, could be saved
saved at once by simply believing upon Jesus Christ. It certainly was glad
tidings to those Gentile people in that city, and the result was that the city
turned out en masse. I consider it one of the greatest recorded sermons.
But when the next sabbath came, and the Jews saw such a vast multitude of
Gentiles pouring into their synagogue, they were filled with jealousy. The Jews
were willing to take the Gentiles in occasionally, but they must become Jews.
They would keep them proselytes at the gate a while, and after they were
circumcised they became proselytes of righteousness. But they never sought to
turn great bodies of people. They thought that salvation and the divine favor
were for the Jews. When they saw this mixed multitude of Gentiles pouring in to
bear this new gospel, their prejudice and jealousy caused them to stand against
the gospel. The crowd divided. How did Paul meet this issue? He says, "Since
you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal .life, we turn to the Gentiles."
In other words, "You have had the gospel offered to you, and you reject
it; you don't want these others to have it; now we turn away from you and we
turn to these other people." Then he makes a bold declaration which shows
what a power of interpretation is in the man: "For so hath the Lord
commanded us, saying, I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, That thou
shouldest be for salvation unto the Uttermost part of the earth.
Jesse Mercer preached a great missionary sermon on this text. It was on an
important missionary occasion. This was the point he made: Whatever a prophet
foretells as to God's purpose, that to succeeding men becomes a command to do
that thing. When God, through Isaiah, said, "I have get thee for a light
of the Gentiles," that prophecy becomes a command to us to go, and we
should acknowledge that command; and he deduced the sermon from the text. When
I was a young preacher I memorized that sermon. It may be found in the life of
Jesse Mercer.
The last clause of verse 48, which reads thus: "As many as were ordained
to eternal life believed," needs some explanation. When I was a young
fellow and had not imbibed the doctrine of predestination I wanted that to read,
"And as many as believed were ordained to eternal life." Perhaps that
is the way you want to interpret it. Dr. Broadus said, "Let the scripture
mean what it wants to mean," and you let that passage stand ordination
to precede eternal life. Ordination to eternal life takes place in eternity.
Paul, in Romans 8, gives us the order. Many modern people do not believe it. We
seldom ever hear anybody preach a sermon on it. I heard a strong preacher once
say, "I just can't believe it." Romans 8:29 reads, "For whom he
foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son . . .
and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified." Justification comes at believing. So unless that passage
reads, "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed," it would
break Paul's chain all to pieces.
Settle it in your mind that salvation commences with God, and not with man.
If you put it the other way, "As many as believed were ordained to eternal
life," then you put the man ahead. It is the question after all, Is
salvation of grace or of works?
There are certain notes of time which they spent in Antioch. We do not know how
long. We know they were there two sabbaths, for we have an account of his great
sermon one sabbath and his repeating the same discourse the next sabbath. Then
there is this additional note, verse 49: "And the word of the Lord was
spread abroad throughout all the region." So we can't tell just how long
they were in that city. But that sermon that day touched and converted many
Jews and proselytes. It interested a whole Greek city, and not only the city,
but all that country around Antioch was stirred up.
Verses 50-51 read as follows: "But the Jews urged on the devout women of
honorable estate, and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecution
against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out of their border. But they shook
off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium." The
things that need explanation are (1) that reference to those women, and (2)
their shaking the dust off their feet. It is an interesting fact that very many
of those who became proselytes to the Jews were great and intelligent women.
These women evidently became disgusted with the heathen religion. A woman in
her sorrow is much more apt to want to find a real consolation than a man,
because he is out in the busy world, and finds in the press of business an
engagement for his mind, while the woman, sitting at home, perhaps churning
with her hands, or rocking the cradle with her feet, with a question in her
mind that keeps knocking for an answer. The Jews went to these leading women
and got them to use their influence.
And when the leading Women of the town go to talking against a preacher, he had
just as well pack his grip.
As long as the women stand up for him he need not be afraid of the men. Jesus
commanded that when the disciples entered a town, they should go to a house and
say, "Peace be to this house," and if they received them they should
let their peace rest on that house, but if they did not receive them, they were
to shake the dust off their feet. Just what Jesus said do, Paul and Barnabas
did. They shook the dust off their feet as a testimony. All this we will meet
at the great judgment day. A man is on trial, and there is brought up a little
handful of dust in evidence, and he looks at that and says, "What has that
dust got to say against me?" The answer comes, "On this very dust
God's apostle stood and preached to you the word of eternal life, and you
rejected it." That is the thought.
When I was in Mexico, Brother W. D. Powell, who was then missionary there,
brought me a little pebble a beautiful translucent stone, with a crimson
streak through it. I said, "What do you bring that to me for?" He
said, "It is a memorial. When Maximilian was shot to death it was found
that he stood on this white stone, and it is a memorial of the killing of
Maximilian."
It is astonishing how many witnesses will rise up in the judgment against
people. The Book of Tears, the Book of Curses, the words we speak, and the dust
they stand on when they plead with men to turn to God, all witness against
those who reject Christ and persecute his witnesses.
AT ICONIUM
I will give a short account of Iconium, its government, its heathen religion,
the Jews there, and why the apostles here were safe from the authorities at
Antioch. The jurisdiction was different here. Iconium was the central one of
fourteen cities under Roman government, governed by a tetrarch, and the
authorities at Antioch had no jurisdiction in that tetrarchy. It was the
convenience of these several communities that was of great advantage to the
apostles. Sometimes they would have to go only a few miles to get into a
different jurisdiction. In this case it was sixty miles from Antioch of Pisidia
to Iconium, and it was sixty miles from Iconium to Derbe. The heathen religion
was about the same as at Antioch of Pisidia, which has been described, and
there were a great many Jews, just as there were at all the other places.
Of Paul's ministry here the record says, "And it came to pass in Iconium
that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a
great multitude, both of Jews and of Greeks, believed." Mark the words
"so spake." A long time ago I discovered that I did not need so much
to study to know what to say when I went to preach, but I did need to study in
order to "so speak" that what I said would stick take root. There
is the problem of speaking any kind of speaking. It is a very easy matter for
any preacher that has good common sense to take a passage of scripture and
outline what he is going to say, but now let him deliver it, and so say it that
it will attract attention that it will fasten itself upon the hearts of the
people. The difference in the power of men is the difference in the way they
say things. They so spake that a great multitude of Jews and Greeks believed.
Suppose they had gotten up there and preached this way: "I am telling you
about God, and some time or other in your life it would be a good thing to look
into this." They certainly would not have convinced anybody. But they shot
to kill. They wanted an immediate acceptance. They so spake as to put the issue
right on the hearts of the people, so that they would decide that day not
wait until after dinner, not wait until they went home, but that they decide
right then.
"But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles,
and made them evil affected against the brethren. Long time, therefore, they
tarried there, speaking boldly in the Lord. who bear witness unto the word of
his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. [Now you come
to an important result.] But the multitude of the city was divided; and part
held with the Jews, and part with the apostles." Jesus says, "I came
not to send peace, but a sword." If you preach the gospel straight-out,
you are going to make a line of cleavage unless you give up and Just say some
little easy thing that will have no more effect than that Bar-Jesus had. When
you preach as these men preached, lines will be drawn; they are going to stand
for or against.
The other way you won't make any enemies and you won't make any friends with
the people. You will be like the fly when it apologized for resting on an ox's
horn. He said, "If you had not said something I would never have known you
were there." If you are like that fly, they won't know you are in town,
but if you stir them up, how ready they are to begin to draw the line! They
will talk about you on the street, and in the home, one man saying, "I
like this, and I don't like that," and the fire gets hotter and hotter,
and at last you have the town divided. Easy preachers never can divide a town.
So that is a part of the result.
Let's see the next verse: "And when there was made an onset both of the
Gentiles and of the Jews, with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and to
stone them, they became aware of it, and fled into the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra,
and Derbe, and the region round about." When they could no longer meet
them with argument, or withstand the power of these men, then they took up
persecution, just as Saul himself did when Stephen beat him in the debate; he
went over and borrowed the weapon, persecution, from the Sadducees, as if to
say, "I will throw rocks at him." As to the time of the ministry
there, all we know is what the record says that it was a long time. As to the
result, they captured half the crowd, and it terminated as it did at Antioch,
by persecution.
AT LYSTRA
Lystra had a different government from Iconium. It was a place of some
importance, and the heathen religion there was different from the heathen
religion at Cyprus. In Cyprus the main worship was Oriental Venus. Here at
Lystra there was a temple of Jupiter, and the worship of this place was the
worship of Jupiter, the chief god according to the Greek mythology. Zeus, the
Greeks called him, but the Romans called him Jupiter. The Jews were here, just
as they were at the other places.
The events of the ministry here are found in the following scriptures: Acts
14:8-20; 16:1-3; I Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:1; 3:10-11, which are very
important. The record commences: "And at Lystra there sat a certain man,
impotent in his feet, a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked.
The same heard Paul speaking who, fastening his eyes upon him, and seeing that
he had faith to be made whole, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy
feet. And he leaped up and walked. And when the multitude saw what Paul had
done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods
are come down, to us in the likeness of men."
This ministry commences there with the healing of that helpless cripple. By one
word of Paul's he became sound in a moment. The miracle had a tremendous effect
upon the whole population, as you see from the next verse (12): "And they
called Barnabas Jupiter, [he was more imposing]; and Paul, Mercury [he was
quicker], because he was the chief speaker." The old legends are full of
the accounts of gods moving among men. It was a favorite trick of Jupiter's;
sometimes for no very nice purpose. But now when they saw these men, at a word,
convert a hopeless, helpless cripple into perfect soundness of health, they
said, "These men are gods; Jupiter comes down; we have his temple and he
has not been here in a long time, but he is here with Mercury." They went
to the priests of the Temple, and they were ready enough to respond; they got
ready to sacrifice to Jupiter; they took a large handsome bull, or steer, put
garlands on his horns, and prepared him for sacrifice. They marched in a big
parade down to where Paul and Barnabas were, and were going to kill that ox in
the street. Paul and Barnabas, having been reared Jews, with the idea of one
God, it seemed to them the most awful blasphemy, and they rushed among them and
said, "We are men just like you! We are not gods! There is only one
God!" But they had a great deal of difficulty in keeping these people from
welcoming them as gods.
Notice still further (19): "But there came Jews thither from Antioch and
Iconium [the two last places visited] and having persuaded the multitudes, they
stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead."
They left him lying, bruised by heavy stones. These are the three events: (1)
The healing of the cripple. (2) The attempted worship of them as gods. (3) Paul
stoned until he was supposed to be dead. If those had been all the events I
never would have added Acts 16:1-3; I Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:1; 3:10-11
to the list of scriptures to show the events at Lystra. What do we learn by
looking at these passages? We find that among the number that were converted at
Lystra were a grandmother named Lois, a mother named Eunice, and a boy named
Timothy, which is the biggest event that happened here. We will hear from those
same people again as we go on in the history. If nobody else had been converted
in that meeting but that one boy, whose mother was a Jewess and whose father
was a Greek that boy Timothy the whole tour, with all its sufferings and
its changes, would have been paid for. When Paul got up he moved on and went to
Derbe.
AT DERBE
The events at Derbe were these: They had an exceedingly successful meeting.
There was no persecution here at all, which is the first place where they did
not meet with strong resistance, and a very famous man was converted, whose
name is Gaius. We find him referred to in Acts 20:4. Gaius, of Derbe, who
attached himself to Paul, just as Timothy attached himself to Paul later. But
Acts 19:29 tells us about a Gaius, Acts 20:4 tells us about a Gaius, Romans
16:23 tells about a Gaius, 1 Corinthians 1:14 tells about a Gaius, and 3 John
tells about a Gaius. Now, what is the difference between the Gaius of Acts
19:29; 20:4; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14; 3 John? The Gaius of Acts 19:29
and Romans 16:23 is a Macedonian. He will be converted later on. We have not
come to his conversion yet. The Gaius of Acts 20:4 is a Derbe man. Gaius of 1
Corinthians 1:14 is a Corinthian man. We have not come to his conversion; we
will get to it later. The Gaius of 3 John, I don't know. It is probable that he
may have been an Ephesian. He may possibly have been the Gaius of Derbe. John afterward
came to stay in this country, had jurisdiction over it after Paul had passed
away, and he knew Gaius and wrote him a letter.
They returned the same way and the sublimest spirit of Christian courage was
evinced by going back this way. They had just been expelled by persecution from
Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. They go right back to every one of those places,
and follow clear on down to Perga. Let us imagine that we are off on a
missionary tour, and are nearly home; that we could go home without much
trouble, and the impression comes to us to go back the way we came, a very
circuitous Way, and as we go back, to stop at the places where our lives had
been in danger where those enemies still were. But there were two great
objects accomplished by going back this way. They are clear and distinct: They
went back to confirm the faith of the converts in those places, and to ordain
elders in every church that had been established. These people had just emerged
from heathenism. The record says that the disciples were filled with joy and
with the Holy Spirit. These churches had no preachers. These young converts had
no training, and they go back to confirm them in the faith.
I never will believe in the Roman and Episcopal rite of confirmation. There is
no such thing in the Bible, but the Bible doctrine of confirmation is a great
thing.
Do not leave a young convert, who is like a little toddling fellow a baby
that doesn't know how to walk to run around and pick up just what he can find
to eat. Nurture him.
There is a mighty lesson for mission work here. One of the surest and best
opportunities of mission work is to strengthen the things that are. When we
raised this question in the mission work in Texas, all over Texas men said,
"I will pay money to the mission work, but I won't pay money and call it
missions to send a man around to the churches." Those are the very places
that needed the work of confirmation. When you strengthen a feeble church, you
increase the missionary opportunity. General missionaries go from town to town
where there are churches, hold meetings, confirm, strengthen, root and ground
the faith of the people, and build them up in the knowledge of the grace of
God.
When they went to a church they sought out the gifts that had been developed
under the preaching.
You can hold big meetings, but when you preach, if no one under your preaching
ever wants to preach, then you may question your own authority to preach.
Whenever a meeting does not impress some man to preach, I don't care how much
fuss you make, the meeting is a failure.
In those places where they stood up and preached, some converts were impressed
to preach (there was always more than one; here the number was from one to
fifteen); they were ready for ordination, and we find a sample of just how it
was done. The brethren at Lystra and Iconium recommended to Paul the next time
he comes along, to ordain Timothy. The apostles went to these churches and
found that some young converts had a message, had been talking in prayer meeting,
and then the church would say, "Brother A, B, or, C is doing good work. He
is speaking and leading some to Christ." "And they ordained elders in
every church," as many as were ready for it. There are very few Baptist
churches without these. I have known forty-six ordained preachers to be in the
First Baptist Church in Waco, but that doesn't mean that they were all pastors
of the church. There may be a pastor with half a dozen assistants. Dr. W. B.
Riley's church at Minneapolis has six or seven assistants. So that has no
bearing on the Baptist polity except to confirm it.
AT PERGA in PAMPHYLIA
There were great sufferings on the land part of this tour, and there is another
account of them, besides Luke's in Acts, found in 2 Timothy 3:10-11. Timothy was
one of the converts on this tour. Paul, writing in Timothy here, said,
"But thou didst follow my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith,
longsuffering, love, patience, persecutions, sufferings; what things befell me
at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions Is endured: and out of
them all the Lord delivered me." This is a reference to Timothy when they
were at Lystra, where Timothy was converted. When the grandmother, the mother
and the son get right, things are all right: "The unfeigned faith, that is
in thee; which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and,
I am persuaded, in thee also." When the old grandmother was converted,
then the mother, and then the boy, I imagine he stopped at that house. That
gave Timothy an opportunity to know about these things. And there is another
event there were certain prophecies about Timothy which show that somebody
had prophesied great things about this boy. So, very naturally, Paul would go
there to stay while he was in that city.
According to modern maps of the Roman Empire, on the northern border of
Pamphylia is a province that used to be Galatia, bordering on Lycaonia, and was
by the Romans put under one province. Dr. Ramsay contends that as Acts gives no
account of Paul's preaching in that Galatian province, and as it does give an
account of his preaching at Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, those were the Galatian
churches; that Paul spoke of the country as it then existed. I am very much
inclined to agree with him. He wrote a great book on it. If his contention be
right, the events that are mentioned in the letter to the Galatians must be
added. Paul said, "The reason that I stay with you so long is that I am
sick, and the trouble is with my eyes." He never got over that blinding
light when Jesus appeared to him, and he says, "I bear witness that you
Galatians so sympathize with me that you are willing to pluck out your eyes and
let me have them." If the thing could have been done, they would have been
willing.
The relation of a particular church to this tour is this: The church at Antioch
a great church in the grace and under the direction of the Holy Spirit
started these men out, and they made the tour, came back, gathered that church
together, and made a report of the work they had done.
It sometimes happens that a particular church is able to conduct a missionary
enterprise by itself. Spurgeon's church was able to do it. Riley's church in
Minneapolis baa a foreign mission established. Generally it is better for all
the churches to combine as an association, state convention, or national
convention in the work. But we cannot deny that a single church has the right,
and, if it has the ability, it is its duty to do missionary work as a church,
whether any other church does or not.
It is interesting to note the distances and modes of travel of these New
Testament missionaries. By using a scale we find that from Antioch to Seleucia
it is about sixteen miles; from Seleucia to Salamis about 130 miles; from Salamis
to Paphos, about eighty miles; from Paphos to Perga, about 200 miles; from
Perga to Antioch, about eighty miles; from Antioch to Iconium) ninety miles;
from Iconium to Lystra, seventy miles; from Lystra to Derbe about forty miles.
There is land travel and sea travel, and part of the land travel is the
crossing of mountains. You can get the direction from the map.
In all the places touched, there were certain elements of population. There is
always first a native population. This is the Roman province of Galatia, but
this part used to be Phrygia, and Phrygia used to reach over to Galatia, and
Lycaonia was on the east. There is always the native population, or original
people. The next is the Greeks. The Greek population came in when that country
was subject to Greece. After this, great multitudes of Jews poured in, and the
latest of all came the Romans. At any one of these places could be found
original natives, Greeks, Jews, and Romans; that is the order in which they
settled. That takes us through Paul's first missionary tour, which shook the
world.
There arose from that tour an issue of very great importance, and a decision
was reached that affects all time. That issue was made from the fact that it
was the first time that preachers of Jesus Christ went to the heathen. God sent
a Roman centurion to Peter, but he was a proselyte, and here they are told to
go to the heathen. Then it is immensely important from the personality of the
converts. Sergius Paulus, Lois, Eunice, Timothy, and Gaius of Derbe, a mighty
man, were brought to God on that tour. And to this day there is the impression
of that one expedition.
Many miracles were wrought, but only two are specially set forth, though the
record says that God wrought wonders and mighty deeds by their hands. The
miracle on Elymas and that cripple are the only ones that are mentioned. I
often take up the Bible and read that first tour, then I shut the book and try
to see the people. I see the missionaries; then I see Bar-Jesus; then Sergius
Paulus, who was converted; then this family Lois, Eunice, and Timothy; then
that cripple, poor fellow, and the joy that came to his soul; then I see that
great evangelist, Gains, that was converted. in that way I impress the thing on
my mind so that I can get off without my Bible with me and follow every tour of
Paul's, not only the three recorded in Acts, which we are now considering, but
the one he took into Cilicia, and the one that follows after the book of Acts.
I make these people live before me. Then I begin to say: What shall I do with
these people, and what lesson shall I learn from them for myself?
QUESTIONS
1. What Old Testament passages interpreted in Paul's great sermon in Antioch of
Pisidia?
2. What the interpretation here given of each?
3. What the results of this sermon?
4. What the occasion of the issue with the Jews on the next sabbath, how was
this issue met, and what the result?
5. What great sermon here cited, and what the theme and content thereof?
6. Explain the last clause of verse forty-eight, which reads thus: "As
many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
7. What are the notes of time which they spent in Antioch?
8. Explain verses fifty, and fifty-one which read as follows: "But the
Jews urged on the devout women of honorable estate, and the chief men of the
city, and stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out
of their borders. But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and
came unto Iconium."
9. Give a short account of Iconium, its government, its heathen religion, the
Jews there, and why the apostles here were safe from the authorities at
Antioch.
10. Give an account of Paul's ministry here, its time, its result, and its
termination.
11. Give a brief account of Lystra, its government, its heathen religion and
the Jews there.
12. What the events of their ministry here?
13. What the events and characteristics of the work at Derbe?
14. What is the difference between the Gains of Acta 19:29; Acts 20:4; Romans
16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14; and 3 John?
15. Trace their way back across to Perga, and then directly to Antioch.
16. What spirit did they evince by going back this way?
17. What two great objects were accomplished by going back this way?
18. What mighty lesson for mission work here?
19. Why was there a plurality of elders in every church, and what Its bearing
on present Baptist polity?
20. Locate Pamphylia on the map of the Roman Empire.
21. What the great sufferings on the land part of this tour, and where is
another account of them besides Luke's in Acts?
22. What is Dr. Ramsay's contention about the Galatian churches to which Paul
wrote the letter later?
23. What is the relation of a particular church to this tour?
24. What the respective distances, directions, and methods of travel from
Antioch in Syria to Seleucia, to Salamis to Paphos, to Perga, to Antioch in
Pisidia, to Iconium, to Lystra, and to Derbe?
25. In all these places touched, what the elements of population and their
order of settlement?
26. What issue arose from this tour, who were some of the prominent converts,
and what the miracles wrought?
THE GREAT CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM CONCERNING A VITAL QUESTION
OF SALVATION AND THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM ON PAUL'S INDEPENDENT
APOSTLESHIP AND GOSPEL
Acts 15:1-35 with Galatians 2:1-10.
In order to understand thoroughly Acts 15 we must consider the scriptures cited
at the head of this chapter, and their several themes, in addition to the
scriptures and themes in the succeeding chapters. On these great events we have
the richest, the ablest, and the soundest literature in Christian history. That
part of Conybeare and Howson that touches Acts 15; Dr. Lightfoot's great
discussion on the same subject in his Commentary on Galatians,
that part of Farrar's Life of Paul that touches on Acts 15, and
Philip Schaff's great discussion on the subject in his History of the
Christian Church, are very fine. I could cite many others, but these
are all great books, and their discussion of Acts 15 is the most important and
far-reaching in the history of Christianity.
The history of the question raised at Antioch, is as follows: A number of
Pharisees, nominal converts to Christianity, who held membership in the church
at Jerusalem, and who opposed the reception of Gentiles into the church, left
Jerusalem and went to Antioch, and side-stepped into the church, i.e., stepped
sideways into the church. That is what the Greek says. It means
surreptitiously, privily. Their purpose was to spy out what was done at Antioch
in the matter of Gentiles, and then to bring them into bondage to the Jewish
customs. It was a villainous thing; it didn't come up naturally. When they got
up there, they privately agitated this question: "Except a man be
circumcised after the manner of Moses, he can not be saved!" That made it
intensely important a question of salvation: "Except one submit to this
external rite (that God never intended for anybody but Jews), he could not be
saved." It stirs me every time a question of that kind comes up, e. g.,
when a man says, "Except you be baptized, you can't be saved."
Whoever and whenever anyone makes salvation depend upon an external rite, that
one is an enemy to the gospel of grace.
They commenced the agitation that way, and finally what is discussed so much
privately comes out publicly, somebody says something about it. Paul and
Barnabas soon learned that there were a lot of "sneaks" that had slipped
into the church, and were undermining the most fundamental things that they
preached, and, of course, as says our history, there was no small discussion
about the matter.
But why didn't Antioch, being an independent church, settle that question itself?
The answer is that the men who were making this issue came from a similar
church at Jerusalem, and claimed to have the backing of the authorities at
Jerusalem. Hence, there was a propriety that could not be disregarded, viz.:
that this matter should be referred to that Jerusalem church and to the
apostles. Their questions were, "Did you give these men any such
permission to come to us? Are they representatives of you, or are they just
representing their own deviltry?" We do that now in our churches. If a
man, or a set of men, goes from one church to another church, and stirs up a
row there on a question of intense doctrinal importance, before voting on it
the latter church must decide whether these people represent the former church.
That is why the matter was referred to the church at Jerusalem by the church at
Antioch.
Two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question
to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle and himself competent to decide
it authoritatively. They were these: The church at Antioch elected him as a
messenger, to take this matter up at Jerusalem. Paul was accustomed to yield to
a church. An apostle is set in the church, and not over it. But he took
precaution to carry the matter to the Lord, and so the second motive was, that
the Lord, by revelation, told him to go up that these things needed
settlement at Jerusalem. It was an intensely important thing that the apostle
should not even seem to be preaching contrary doctrines, and if the apostles
and the authorities in the Jerusalem church were teaching that men could not be
saved except they become Jews, then it was quite important for that matter to
be known. If they were not teaching that, it was equally as important that
these men who came to represent them, should be publicly exposed. As a test
case Paul took Titus along. Here is" a full blood Gentile Titus who on
that first missionary tour, while the record nowhere says it in. so many words,
it is quite probable was converted. He was a Paul man and a life-long companion
of Paul. Is suppose he was converted in the island of Cyprus, the first place
they touched and labored.
Paul took this case along. These men said, "Except a man be circumcised,
he cannot be saved." Paul answers, "Here is a man, not a lineal
descendant in any way from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and do you mean to say
that this intelligent man, who has the evidence of his conversion and the
attestation of the Spirit of God, who is evidently already saved, can't be
saved until he is circumcised? He is not a Jew; he doesn't want to become a
Jew. He is not even a proselyte of the gate." It was important to take
along a case on the great question. The history of the journey to Jerusalem is
found in 15:3: "They, therefore, being brought on their way by the church,
passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the
Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." You will note
that the church having sent these messengers out, accompanied them part of the
way. They didn't let them slip off. They were going on a very important mission
a mission for this church and were to represent the church in this matter,
and so this church brought them on the way, and I suppose paid all their
expenses. A church ought to pay the expenses of any messengers that they send
to represent them in an association or convention. I don't know whether it was
at this time, or during the five years that he was in Cilicia (Tarsus) that he
did that preaching on the coast of Judea, but certainly he had a chance to do
some of it on this trip. He went right through the country, and through the
coast country. And the record says that they went talking about this question
that was going to come up, and talked about the salvation of the Gentiles, and
there is no other statement in the New Testament or anywhere about Paul's
having preached in the coast of Judea.
After the arrival at Jerusalem there were several public and private
conferences, but it is somewhat hard to tell just how many. We know that there
were very important private conferences. We will notice one of them presently,
but we know that there must have been at least three public conferences.
The first was when the delegation got there. The record says that they were
received by the apostles and the elders and the church. It was a grave matter.
These representatives came with high credentials. The matter touched both
churches, and the Jerusalem church, in a very dignified way, turned out to hear
what they had to say. Then the record says that there was much discussion, and
some of the sect of the Pharisees boldly took the position that those men that
went to Antioch were right that one had to be circumcised in order to be
saved. That may have been the second assembly the reception assembly first
and then the discussion, as to the object of their coming, in a second
assembly. Anyhow, there is one assembly, and no conclusion reached. The matter
is discussed. There were men right in Jerusalem avowing precisely what those
fellows that slipped in up at Antioch had said. The record then says, "The
apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
matter." The apostles and the preachers all the preachers in the church
at Jerusalem held a meeting for them, but the main body of the church was not
there. Just as one would gather together all the officials of a church to
consider a grave matter, and then when they had considered, one goes before a
church meeting and presents his recommendations. The record then says that they
called the whole church together, and the letter says that the church
participated in the decision that had been reached in that meeting of the
apostles and elders. So there were certainly three public meetings and one
private meeting. Paul affirms that one of the meetings was held in private, and
it was with the apostles only, and the pastor of the church, James.
This was not a council in the ordinary sense of the word. A deliberation of one
church is not a council it is a conference. The Antioch church sent some
questions there, and the Jerusalem church conferred upon these questions. A
council is where a number of churches, through messengers, regularly
accredited, meet and consider a matter. So when we get into ecclesiastical
history, and they tell us about this being the first great synod, and the first
great council, we need not believe it. This was just a church conference. Paul
didn't vote in it. They deliberated, and rendered a decision. The Antioch
church referred the question to the Jerusalem church for final decision.
The record says that they sent these men to the apostles and elders who were at
Jerusalem, but they were received by the whole church, and when the apostles
and elders had considered it, then the whole church came together and
considered it, and joined in the answer, or final decision.
We will now hear the decision of the question submitted to them:
"Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment;
it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, . . ." and then it goes
onto finish the decision. They not only decided against the statement that
those men made in Antioch, but they utterly disavowed those men, and I think
they ought to have had a little church trial after that crowd got away, and
called these men up for lying and spying. They may have done so. But, anyhow,
they decided the question in favor of Paul.
This decision was communicated in a formal letter, and then two great
representatives of the church were sent along to confirm it by word of mouth.
It was a very important proceeding. To whom was it communicated? "And they
wrote thus by them: The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren
who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting." They
sent it to a whole section of the country. By whom was it received? The record
says, "So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having
gathered the multitude together [the whole church], they delivered the epistle
[to the whole church]," and then Judas and Silas got up and spoke by word
of mouth to the whole church. What was its effect? It gave very great joy at
Antioch. That is a fine suggestion to young preachers about how to do things.
There wasn't a misstep made anywhere. The church at Antioch didn't get mad and
kick and say the Jerusalem church had gone into heresy. They didn't fuss about
IT. They said, Let us find out if this is so. They did it in a dignified,
honorable manner. Every time I read it over, I am charmed with the method with
which they went at the thing, and how the response was made.
The order of all the proceedings, private and public, was as follows:
1. They were received by the whole church at Jerusalem, and then the question
stated) whereupon certain members of the church took the position that they
ought to be circumcised. The case of Titus was presented: "What are you
going to do about this man?" That meeting reached no decision; that was
for discussion.
2. When they adjourned, Paul met the apostles and the elders and privately laid
before them a question, somewhat involved in this matter, as to his independent
apostleship and his gospel. That matter had to be settled separately. There
were Jewish members of the church that denied that Paul had an independent
apostleship. They thought he must be subordinate to the others. So he wanted
that question settled. There were some among them that questioned whether he
had the full gospel. He wanted that settled. Then there were others that
questioned whether it was his particular mission to carry the gospel to the
Gentiles. He wanted that settled, and that was not to be settled by the church
at Jerusalem, but by these apostles. The apostles were Peter and John and
James, the half brother of our Lord and not an apostle, but the pastor of that
church, and one of the most influential men among the Hebrew Christians in all
the world certainly on outside Jews more influential than all the rest of
them put together. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that it became
evident in this private conference that nobody gave him anything or added
anything to his gospel. He didn't get it from any of them. He didn't get his
authority from them. He was called to be an apostle independently by the Lord
Jesus Christ, and they recognized the divine call of Jesus Christ; that Paul
was the apostle to the Gentiles, and that Peter was the apostle to the
circumcision, and got up and gave each other the right hand of fellowship on
it. That was a tremendous gain. That was in the private conference.
3. So when the public meeting came, in which the apostles and elders were to
consider this question, we want to know what the proceedings were. James
presided, because he was pastor of the church, and all the apostles were there,
and so when the case was ready for consideration, the first thing was for Paul
and Barnabas to state the case of their work among the Gentiles, and they got
up and recited that missionary journey we have just discussed, how they went to
Cyprus and what followed there; how they went to Phrygia, and Mysia, Iconium,
Lystra, and Derbe; what were the tremendous effects of that tour; what mighty
signs and displays of divine power attended that work; they recited it all.
"Now you are to consider whether we dare go back over that journey, and
tell those people they are not saved. They repented they believed, they were
baptized, the Spirit attested the work." Paul testified that Jesus sent
him to do the work; the Holy Spirit testified that he had Paul and Barnabas set
apart to do that work. Now that is the case.
As soon as that was over, only two men spoke. Peter got up and said,
"Brethren, this case has already been settled. You have already passed on
it; you know how that in the beginning I led, under the divine guidance, the
Gentile Cornelius into the kingdom of heaven. You have already investigated
that fact, and passed on it. Are you going to repeal your decision in these
other cases?"
Then James got up and said that what Simeon said (he calls him Simeon, which is
the Aramaic name for Simon) was confirmed by prophecy; that prophecy said that
it should be just that way and he quoted the prophecy. He says, "Brethren
my view of the matter is that we should not attempt to put on these Gentiles a
burden that neither we nor our fathers were ever able to bear. You can't impose
the whole Mosaic ritual on the Gentile world." When those two men got
through speaking, the case was settled unanimously, so far as the apostles and
the preachers were concerned.
4. Then came the whole church conference. They were called together, and the
recommendations made by the apostles and preachers were presented, and to the
surprise of everybody that leaned to the Mosaic side of the question, the
decision was unanimous. Whereupon they wrote this letter and sent these men. I
don't know when there ever was such a meeting of the church except the meeting
on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was received.
The test case brought by Paul had to be discussed and disposed of publicly,
because it represented the marrow of the question that was sent down to them,
viz.: "Shall Titus be circumcised?" Paul says, "He certainly was
not," and it was decided that Titus did not have to be circumcised.
The infidel Renan says that Paul yielded, and that Titus was circumcised. The
semi-infidel Farrar takes the same position. He devotes about four pages most
elaborately arguing to show that Paul, in order to gain the main question,
would make concession in the case of an individual. Paul was never known to
concede a principle. I have warned you more than" once concerning Farrar.
He was a very great man, had a very bright mind, and was a great scholar. His
Life of Christ is really masterful, and so is his Life of Paul,
but you can't trust him. You have to watch him with both eyes all the time. The
first tiling you know, he will go off at a tangent on some freak. His head wasn't
level. As old Governor Brown, of Georgia, used to say, "He was a very
brilliant man, but he lacked judgment."
Let us analyze the letter sent: (1) A most respectful greeting; (2) disavowal
of the men who came to represent them at Antioch; (3) the decision itself; (4)
a restriction on the Gentiles of certain necessary things which we will
consider later.
James, in his speech, uses this language: "Wherefore my judgment is that
we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn. to God; but that we
write unto them, that they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from
fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood," or, as it is
expressed in the letter, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to
us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye
abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, it shall be
well with you." Could you do any one of those things without committing a
wrong. In other words, would it be wrong for you to eat an animal that had been
killed by being choked to death? Or would it be wrong for you to eat blood
pudding? My answer to the question is this: That the most of these things are a
part of the covenant with Noah before there were any Jews a covenant that
touched the whole human race. There is where we find it, and therefore in
imposing that upon Gentiles, they did impose no more than God imposed in the
Noah-covenant for the whole race. The reason that they assigned for not :
eating things strangled or for not eating the blood after it was taken out in
an any way, is that the life is in the blood. It is all right to eat a beef,
but not the blood. [Opinions differ here.] To my mind none of us are justified
in taking life in order to live, nor are we called upon to make cemeteries of
our digestive organs in which to inter dead hogs and cattle.--Editor. , When
you put the knife in the throat to let the blood out, don't catch that blood
and make a blood pudding out of it. Old Mr. John McKnight, at Independence,
said that he liked blood puddings better than any other food that he had. In
the first place, it is an animal way of eating. Tigers and lions catch a deer
by the throat and drink its blood. Minks and polecats do that when they get
into the chicken house. One of them will kill a dozen chickens and just drink
the blood. A sheep-killing dog will do that, or a wolf. One hungry wolf in one
night may kill dozens of sheep never bothering them except just to cut the
jugular vein with his tusks and drink the blood. It is a beastly thin, and I
say it is wrong now.
In the very next chapter, Paul and Silas carried this very decree, or decision,
and gave it to the churches in Antioch, Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe, to be kept
by the churches. Dr. Farrar tries to make it appear that a good many of those
things were just local, and soon passed away. The decree of the conference at
Jerusalem was delivered to all the churches. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself,
very many years after this, in making his revelation to John on the Isle of
Patmos, brings up this charge against two of those churches. "You eat
things sacrificed to idols. . . ." Repent, therefore; or else I come, . .
." So that what they imposed at the end of that letter (and this is about
what James meant: "We don't propose to make Jews out of you, but we do
insist on your being decent men") was that these Christians were to
observe things that touch all mankind.
Here we need to harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few
days after this (Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Gal. 2:3-5).
There stood Paul at Jerusalem and said, "Ye can't circumcise Titus,"
and a few days after, at Lystra, he takes Timothy and circumcises him. Timothy
was a Jew, and as a matter of expedience, in order to give him a greater
entrance in preaching to Jews, Paul circumcised him. Titus was not a Jew. Paul
says in the matter of expediency: "I will be all things to all men to
enable me to save them. I will become a Jew to those that are Jews; to those
that are weak I will be weak. I will put myself on their basis, if there isn't
a great principle involved." He saw no use in circumcision at all. He
says, "Circumcision availeth nothing, and uncircumcision availeth
nothing," but in the minds of Jews, and particularly at that day, a Jew
that wouldn't be circumcised couldn't get a hearing.
A certain premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, in
which he said, "Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first
God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." They
say that the object of preaching is to take the elect out of the crowd not to
preach to save everybody, but to go to pick out the elect. That is the first
step. "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After these things I will return, And I will again build the tabernacle of
David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will
set it up."
They say that the next stop is the restoration of the Jews and the Jewish
polity, the Temple, and all its services, etc.~, that having now taken the
elect out of the heathen nations, and having brought the Jews back, the other
elect, then "the residue of men may seek after the Lord." They say
that that is the order.
A Campbellite man was the first I ever knew to present that thought. In a great
debate between Thompson, a Baptist preacher, and Burgess, a Campbellite
preacher, when they were discussing election, the Campbellite preacher took the
position that the elect were the picked crowd, and that they were elect in
every sense of the word, but that the bulk of the saved would consist not of
the elect, but of those that would come in afterward. But, here will never be such
an anticlimax as Christ coming back to the earth, and then setting up the old
Jewish polity, and becoming the king of the Jews literally, and through the
kingdom of the Jews, ruling the World.
That is the very interpretation that Paul fought all his life, and that James
fought. That is premillennialism. That when they say, "Thy kingdom come on
earth," they mean to say, "at Jerusalem with Christ as earthly king,
and ruling all the rest of the world through the Jews, with the old polity set
up." They misinterpret the words of Christ. The New Testament shows that
the restoration of the Jews is the conversion of the Jews; that it is a
spiritual restoration, and that the Jerusalem they come into is the heavenly
Jerusalem, and not the earthly Jerusalem, and that the old Jewish polity will
never be set up.
I doubt, not that the Jews will one day settle again in the Holy Land. I think
that is very probable. Personally I would like to see them do it, but if you
mean by it that when they get there that Jesus will come to them come before
the millennium and that their old polity of sacrifices will be established,
and that he, as king at Jerusalem, will rule all kings of this world through
the Jews, I don't believe a word of it.
1 Corinthians 8:8 teaches that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any,
on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make
one stumble. It takes the position that there is no sin in eating a piece of
meat offered to an idol; that every creature of God is good; that is all right,
but you must not consider the abstract right of a thing. You must consider it
in its relation. There isn't a particle of harm in my pressing my finger on a
piece of crooked steel, but if that crooked steel is the trigger of a pistol,
and the pistol is pointing at another, then there is a great deal of harm in
pressing a crooked piece of steel. Paul says, "If my eating meat causes a
weak brother to stumble, I will never eat it while the world stands." As a
proof that it is wrong, Jesus Christ himself speaks against it in Revelation in
regard to the churches, holding them responsible for violating that law. Then
Paul himself says in that same letter to the Corinthians, and in a different
connection, "You cannot take the cup of the Lord and the cup of
demons."
It is of immense signification that the decision was here made that Paul's
gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the
others. The first part of the immense signification is that it wipes off the
face of the earth the foundation stone of Romanism that the pope of Rome is
the head of the Christian world. Here was a man (they say Peter was the first
pope) who gave no authority to Paul. Here is a man that is welcomed by Paul.
Here is a man that goes up and gives the right hand of fellowship upon this
fact that Paul was independent of him, got nothing from him, and was not
responsible to him. But the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and
private, did not forever settle the questions decided. They did settle them
authoritatively, but not practically.
There were some important matters also not decided by this conference which
occasioned much trouble later. One of them was, Shall Jewish Christians
socially eat and drink with Gentile Christians? Another was, Is it essential
for a Jew, not a Gentile, to be circumcised in order to be saved? But Peter
greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision. He followed right on after, and he
got up there and confirmed what Silas and Judas had just said.
QUESTIONS
1.What must we consider in order to understand thoroughly Acts 15?
2. On these great events what valuable helps have we?
3. Give the history of the question raised at Antioch, showing its origin, its
importance, its discussion, and particularly why it should be referred to
Jerusalem, since Antioch was an independent church having competent
jurisdiction over its own affairs.
4. What two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this
question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle, and himself competent
to decide it authoritatively?
5. What test case did Paul take with him, and why?
6. What the history of the journey to Jerusalem, and was this the time when he
preached throughout all the coasts of Judea, as is affirmed in Acts 26:20?
7. After the arrival at Jerusalem, how many public and private conferences were
held? Explain fully.
8. Was this a council in the ordinary sense of the word? If not, what was it?
9. To whom did the Antioch church refer the question, and by whom was the
matter finally decided?
10. What was that decision, how was it communicated, to whom communicated, by
whom received, and the effect of its reception?
11. Recite the order of all the proceedings, private and public.
12. Was the test case brought by Paul considered and disposed of publicly or
privately?
13. How was it decided?
14. Who of prominence in modern times contend for a different result in this
particular matter? What is their contention?
15. Give in order the incidents of the discussion, and the decision of the main
question, the speakers, and their speeches. (See the record.)
16. Analyze the letter sent.
17. What have you to say of the necessary things imposed on the Gentiles by this
letter? Would you now consider it wrong to do any of those things, and why?
18. What subsequent proofs that this decision was not local, not to be limited
in time, not to be limited to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia?
19. Harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this
(Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Gal. 2:3-5).
20. What premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, and
what the reply to it?
21. Does not 1 Corinthians 8:8 teach that meat offered to idols is as good to
eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating
does not make one stumble, and what the application in this case? What does the
editor of this INTERPRETATION say about meat eating?
22. Before whom were the questions of Paul's independent apostleship, gospel
and the subdivision of labor brought, how decided, and why was this particular
matter not referred to the Jerusalem church at large?
23. What the immense signification of the decision that Paul's gospel was
independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others?
24. Did the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private,
forever settle the questions decided?
25. What important matters were not decided by this conference, which
occasioned much trouble later?
26. Who, coming to Antioch, greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision?
THE GREAT SOCIAL QUESTION AT ANTIOCH, AND
THE SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS IN MISSIONARY WORK
Acts 15:36-39; Galatians 2:11-21.
We have two distinct scriptures and two special themes in the scope of this
chapter. The first scripture is Galatians 2: 11-21, and the theme of that
scripture is "The Great Social Questions at Antioch." The second
scripture is Acts 15:36-39, and the theme is, "The Separation of Paul and
Barnabas in Missionary Work."
We showed in the last chapter that, while it was definitely settled in the
Jerusalem conference that a Gentile did not have to be circumcised and become a
Jew in order to be saved, there were other important questions that the
Jerusalem conference did not settle. While it decided the Gentile's relation to
the Jewish law, it did not decide fully the Jew's relation to the law, and this
social question comes up on the Jew's relation to the law, viz.: Were the Jews
under the Mosaic covenant, as they understood themselves to be, or could they
mix freely with the Gentiles and eat with them! It was purely a social
question. Admitting that the Gentile can be a Christian and be saved without
any respect to the Mosaic law, what about the Jew and his relation to that law?
Ought they allow the Jew to mingle freely with the Gentile? How could he go on
keeping the Mosaic covenant if he did? That was the question. And why had this
question come up? Paul had his way in that Jerusalem conference; he won out on
all his points. Evidently there was an impression left on the minds of the
strict Jews at Jerusalem after that circumcision question for the Gentiles had
been settled, lest there should be a misunderstanding as to what a Jew should
do. And so a party of Jews left Jerusalem and came to Antioch, and Paul says
that they came from James. And that is nowhere denied in the history. They do
not come in surreptitiously, as did that first party, but they came on account
of the apprehension in the mind of James that the Jews were straying away too
far. "Certain from James," and Paul states that on his own knowledge.
In case of those other men, James disavowed sending them, but no one disavows
that this party that now came to Antioch did come from James. They were afraid
that some work was going on there in that free and easy way at Antioch. That
distinct question with them was a matter of conscience to the Jews. That is
why, by whom, and how that question was raised.
The names of the parties who came are not given. Paul just says, "Certain
from James." You understand that now at Antioch are Paul, Barnabas, Silas,
Mark, and Peter. They are there when these men come from James. Before these
men got there, Peter and Barnabas were mingling freely with the Gentiles, and
all of them eating with them. James may have heard of that, but anyhow, when
these men came from James, that shocked Peter. You cannot account for the
effect on Peter unless you realize that these men came from James, pastor of
the church at Jerusalem, the most widely known, the most influential Jew with
the Jews, in the known world.
We get the estimate with which James was held by everyone, especially his own
church at Jerusalem, by reading Josephus. He attributes the destruction of
Jerusalem to the fact that the Jews stoned this James. Everybody knew him. He
was an ascetic. He did not eat enough to keep a chicken alive, and had large
callosities formed on his knees by his being continually in prayer. John the
Baptist, Elijah, the Rechabites, or the Essenes, were never more ascetic than
James was.
Before we leave this question we note what Paul says that not only Peter was
led away by representatives of this man, but that Barnabas. his old comrade,
was overcome. He had been with him on the first tour, and they had mingled I
freely with the Gentiles. It looked like this social question was going to
practically neutralize all the advantages of the conference. So we see that in
a church like Antioch half of the members would be counted as outcasts from the
other half. They would let them stay in the same place with them when they went
to preaching, but they must not go into each other's houses must not take a
meal together. Very soon, unless human nature was very different then from what
it is now, it would have made the biggest kind of a row. Those Gentiles would
have said that God is no respecter of persons; that what God had cleansed was
not common or unclean, but that the Jews refused to come to their houses; that
they could not see how they could have fellowship with them in church
relations. So it brought on an extremely acute crisis that lasted for a long
time. Certainly, it lasted through Paul's lifetime.
As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in
the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; 15:7-11), why, under the
prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch? You know that when
Peter, under a vision of the Lord, went to the house of Cornelius, he entered
into that house, he took his meals with Cornelius, and Acts II tells us that
when he got back to Jerusalem they raised a question with him, saying,
"Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." That
is the very question we have here. Peter had a hard time saving himself, but we
find his exposition in Acts II, and very nobly does he appear there. He said,
"God has showed me that I must not so construe that old Mosaic law. He
showed me that what he had cleansed I must not count unclean, and he sent the
baptism of the Spirit on Cornelius," and when he got through with his
speech they agreed with him. As this very question had been considered and
favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts
11:1-18), why under the promptings of James, should it be raised again at
Antioch?
I will give my opinion as the answer to that question. I take it for granted
that James saw the difference between a preacher alone just the preacher
going in unto Gentiles when he was preaching to Gentiles, and the establishment
of a common precedent that would affect all the members of the church. We
understand, as Peter was under divine guidance, and being a preacher, like any
preacher in China, who is bound to go into that Chinese's house and eat with
him if he ever does him any good. My opinion is that James made a distinction
between the preacher's doing this and the whole church doing this. He was
afraid that the distinction between the Jews and the rest of the world would be
obliterated if this custom prevailed with the people. That's my answer to that
question.
Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and
Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from
Jerusalem? Paul answers it very clearly. He very plainly says that Peter's
convictions on the subject were not changed, and Barnabas was not changed, and
that because certain ones came from James, they were led to dissimulate. That
is his word, "dissimulate." Peter held James in great reverence. He
was the half-brother of our Lord, and that fleshly relation gave him an undue
prominence. It was not a case where Peter would agree with James, for he did
not after he got to Antioch this time. He mingled freely with the Gentiles,
eating with them so there was no change of conviction, but he did not want to
pull loose from James.
Let us see what Paul says about that. I will give the language in order to get
its full import. It commences at Galatians 2:11: "But when Cephas came to
Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before
that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he
drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even
Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." That is pretty plain
talk. He was the only man in the crowd that recognized how big that question
was.
Paul was the man that saved the situation, and here is his argument. Here is
what he says to Peter (Gal. 2:14-21) : "But when I saw that they walked
not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before
them all [he did not take him off privately; just got him in the meeting], If
thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [That is the way you have
been doing the Jews.] We, being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but
through faith in Jesus Christ even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might
be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we sought to be
justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister
of sin? God forbid, for if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I
prove myself a transgressor. For I, through the law, died unto the law, that I
might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh
I live in faith the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is
through the law, then Christ died for nought."
In other words Paul says, "If your position is correct that you can take
the Gentiles in without circumcision and they can be saved in Jesus Christ
and if the preacher can go and mix with these people, is Christ a minister of
sin? You found sin in something that is not sin." Then he says, "God
forbid, for if I build up again those things which I have destroyed, I prove
myself a transgressor." That is exactly what Peter did. He built up the
right thing, as he did in the case of Cornelius, but here in Antioch he is
pulling that down. "I through the law died unto the law that I might live
unto God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live)
but Christ liveth in me; and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in
faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up
for me." In other words, "This Christian life that I am living I do
not live by the Mosaic law. I do not make void the grace of God; for if
righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought." He counted
it a repudiation of the gospel. That's who saved the situation and how he saved
it.
Let us take James as he is presented to us in Acts 21. When Paul goes to Jerusalem
the last time, and goes there loaded down with money that he has raised for
those people the poor James comes to him and says not a word of thanks for
the money or presents. But, "Brother, you see how many thousands [or,
rather, according to the Greek word here meaning myriads, how many ten
thousands] there are of the Jews who believe, and they are all zealous for the
customs of Moses, and they are under the impression that you are preaching and
doing away with the customs of Moses: I suggest that you conform to a certain
custom of Moses: Take a vow on yourself and go into the Temple and let all the
people see that you are keeping a vow according to the Mosaic customs." I
can conceive of what must have been the feeling of Paul that day, but how as a
matter of expediency, where no principle was involved, he said, "While I
do not consider this custom binding on me, I am willing to be Jew in observing
this law if you do not make the custom a law of salvation in the gospel."
Look at James as he appears the last time in the Acts, then take his letter and
read it through. It is written to the dispersion in this very territory where
Paul's missionary tour is. While in that letter of James there is the clearest
evidence that he is a Christian that he does accept Jesus Christ as his
Saviour, and while there are many good things and no evil things, there is an
absence of some good things that would have come in mighty well if he had said
them.
So far, then, as we have light on the history of James, he would have been
satisfied for Christianity to have been a sect of the Jews, believing in the
Messiah, but holding on to the Temple and all of its rites. That is my
impression. That is the reason that in that sermon of mine, "But I Went
into Arabia," I take the position that if it had not been for Paul; if
God's providence had not raised him up to stand by the right view of that
question, Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect. You see that Peter
was afraid of James; and Barnabas, as great as he was, was also afraid of
James, and I suspect that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul's rebuke, had
somewhat to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas in future work. There
was another matter which was the cause of that separation, but we must remember
that here were two men out on that first tour, and an issue had come up in the
church where they had left, and Paul takes a position that convicts Barnabas of
dissimulation. There might have been๙1 do not affirm it๙1 suggest that there
might have been a residuum of feeling in the heart of Barnabas that would have
made him willing enough, the next time they go out, not to go together. That
would be the way of two of us. If we had had a sharp debate, it would have had
that effect on us. Barnabas had as much human nature as we have.
The immediate occasion of that separation was this: Paul had proposed to
Barnabas that they go back and revisit all the churches that they had preached
to in that first missionary tour, and see how they were getting along. Barabbas
gays, "Yes, and I will take Mark along." Paul says, "No, not
Mark; we tried him once and he backed out right at the critical point."
Barnabas says, "He is my cousin; he is all right. If I go, Mark must
go." Paul said, "He cannot go with me," and so the contention
became sharp, and they separated. Barnabas takes Mark and goes back to Cyprus,
his old home, the place that Paul and Barnabas evangelized, and in that part of
the territory Mark had been faithful. Paul goes to the part of the country that
Mark did not visit with them. And this man Silas, one of the deputies sent up
by the Jerusalem church, continued to remain at Antioch, and he was very much
taken with Paul, and he says, "I will go with you."
It is hard to say about the merits of the quarrel. I can see how Barnabas was
going to hang onto his kinsman, and give him another trial, and, as a matter of
fact, giving him that other trial pulled him out all right. Even Paul was
satisfied. Later on in his life he has Mark back with him, and was very much pleased
with him, and in his letter, he says, "Bring Mark with you. I need
him." So you must judge Barnabas was right, by proving that Mark ought to
have another chance.
Brethren, what would become of us, if, when we made a blunder, we did not have
another chance? Some of the bitterest things in our memory are when we recall
the great mistakes that we have made, and if there is one thing that a good man
desires, it is an opportunity to show that he does not want to perpetuate his
mistakes, and so with Barnabas. [Perhaps the greatest weakness in many
otherwise good men is their unwillingness to forgive and restore an erring
brother. Not so with Jesus. The same Peter who, with bitter oaths denied the
Master on the night of the betrayal, was upon repentance, at once taken to the
Saviour's heart, and on the day of Pentecost strode like a giant. Editor.]
But we must understand Paul. Life to him was a very serious thing, and these
missionary enterprises were full of labor and suffering, and very great danger.
He wanted to know the people that went with him. He himself was very feeble,
never well, continually needing some young man to help him. Now, is it wisdom
to start out after a thing, a desperate undertaking, and take a man along that
failed the other time? So my view of the merits of the quarrel is that both of
these men had enough to justify their views in the case. The fact that one or
the other did not yield proves that both of them were still in the flesh. The
best man in the world is in the flesh. Well does Paul say later, "I do not
count myself perfect, I do not consider that I have laid hold of everything for
which Christ laid hold of me; I am trying to forget the things that are behind,
and press forward to the things that are before; keeping my eyes on the high
calling of God in Christ Jesus." In other words, he says, "I have the
standard all right. I won't lower it, but I do not come up to it."
The New Testament has not another word to say about Barabbas. His name drops
out of the history. What he did when he went to Cyprus with Mark, we do not
know. I take it for granted that they did well, but the New Testament does not
have another word to say about him. It would have had a great deal to say if he
had gone on with Paul. He lost the association with the man that was to shake
the world, and fill all future ages. That was a very great loss.
It is as if a man had started out with Sam Houston in the war of Texas
Independence, and they had been together up to the time of the fall of the
Alamo, of Goliad and Refugio, and there some question had come up and he had
separated from Houston. He would have missed by that separation the glory of
San Jacinto. I think he would have thought of it on every San Jacinto Day as
long as he lived. He may have had the highest and best motives for pulling
away, but the children would always say when April 21 came, "Papa, I wish
you had kept on with Houston until after that battle."
The great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these events at
Jerusalem and Antioch are:
1. Present-day churches have the same things to confront them as did the
Antioch church.
2. Do not multiply the things you say are essential to salvation. Just leave
them where God left them. Do not say with the Campbellites that one cannot be
saved unless he is baptized, and do not say with the Romanists that he cannot
be saved unless he partakes of the Lord's Supper. Leave things that are
essential to salvation Just as you find them, all spiritual regeneration,
repentance, and faith, and stop there.
3. Don't be a stickler for things that, carried out to their legitimate
analysis, will nullify a question of salvation. Do not stand for any position
that, if it is fully carried out, will block the gospel and divide churches.
4. Whether you think about Paul, Barnabas, Peter, Mark, or James, we have this
treasure in earthen vessels. Just think of all the good men that you know and
you will be bound to quote Paul.
5. God himself shows that there is a propriety in dividing the work into home
missions and foreign missions. When Peter and Paul gave each other the hand of
fellowship, Peter went to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles one to be a home
mission man and the other a great foreign mission leader, and God was in that.
6. Division, even when it springs from quarrels, God can overrule to a greater
furtherance of the gospel. Associations have been formed sometimes because two
brother Baptists could not both be leaders. Look at what great result followed
the separation of the Southern Baptists from the Northern Baptists. We never
amounted to anything here in the South until the Southern Baptists were
organized. The old National Convention never met in the South. We had no
personal acquaintance with the secretaries; only a few people in the great
states sent contributions, and they were little, piddling contributions. When
the Southern Baptist Convention was organized, we had our own assemblies and
all the meetings were held in the South from Texas to the Atlantic Coast, and
the result was that we multiplied the points of contact between the people, and
that division resulted in great good.
If there never had been any split in the school at Old Independence, we would
not have Baylor University. This university resulted from the split at Old
Independence. A quarrel occurred between the trustees and Dr. Burleson. It is
hard to say which was more to blame, but in the great vital points, Dr.
Burleson was right, but he ought not to have been crowded like they crowded him
on those great questions. He took his entire faculty and moved up to Waco and
started Waco University, and the old school began to decline when he left.
I have not mentioned a hundredth part of the practical lessons that can be
discovered from these great events, but I will pass on, commencing at Paul's
second missionary tour in the next chapter.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scriptures and themes of this chapter?
2. What was the great social question raised at Antioch soon after the
Jerusalem conference which tended to nullify its decisions?
3. What the full history of it?
4. Why, by whom and how was it raised?
5. Why had it stronger support at Jerusalem than the question about
circumcision, and how account for its effect on Peter and Barnabas?
6. As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem
in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; 15:7-11), why under
the prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch?
7. Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and
Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from
Jerusalem? Explain fully.
8. Who saved the situation, and what his argument?
9. Does the subsequent history of James in Acts 21:17-25, or in his letter to
the dispersion, or in Josephus, indicate that he ever reached a clear
understanding of the distinction between the old covenant and the new? Discuss.
10. Is it possible that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul's rebuke, had somewhat
to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas for the future work? Explain.
11. What was the immediate occasion of that separation, and what the merits of
the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas?
12. What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say of a great common weakness
and the importance of forgiveness and brotherly love? What illustration cited?
13. What further has the New Testament to say of Barnabas, and what possible
loss to him in the separation?
14. What great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these
events at: Jerusalem and Antioch?
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY TOUR,
OR THE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE
Acts 15:40 to 16:40.
The second missionary tour of Paul includes all of that part of Acts 15:40 to
18:22. Let us trace on the map this entire tour. Starting at Antioch they
passed through a part of Syria, Cilicia (following the line on the map), then
to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Pisidia, and then to the Galatian churches proper,
Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium, then over against Mysia, where an attempt was
made to go into Bithynia and into Mysia, but the Spirit forbade, and they came
on down to Troas, across from Troas, having passed Mysia to the seaport to
Philippi, then from Philippi they went to Thessalonica and to Berea. There Paul
leaves his company, part of which comes to Athens by sea; from Athens he goes
to Corinth, and from Corinth he sails to Ephesus, from Ephesus he returns to
Caesarea, to Jerusalem, and then to Antioch again. That outlines the tour.
Luke's account of this tour is found in Acts 15:40 to 18:22. There are many
parallel accounts in Paul's letters, which will by the tour was about three and
a half years, about A.D. 51-54. The great general event of the tour is the
carrying of the gospel into Europe. The preceding events, though of great
moment and covering much time, are briefly sketched that the author may hasten
to his chief theme. We are dependent on Paul's letters for a knowledge of those
details, otherwise we could not construct a connected narrative, and even these
do not supply details for much of the tour.
A striking characteristic of this tour is the addition to Paul's party from
time to time of famous fellow workers, each of whom will be noticed in proper
connection. Equally striking is the fact, developed in this tour, and
everywhere manifest in the next tour, that the questions decided at Jerusalem
and Antioch, while authoritatively settled, were not practically settled. It
was a bitter and desperate fight throughout Paul's life, and in some form had
persisted through all Christian history, and is a living issue today of very
great magnitude.
In the study of this tour, we must also decide in some way or other, and as
well as may be, certain historical questions involving no little textual
critics, relative to the work in Galatia. The decision depends upon the weight
of probabilities, and leaves room for honest differences of judgment. We cannot
hope to consider all the matters of this tour in one chapter. This would be to
leave the reader without a clear understanding of some of the most important
matters in the Bible. We must take time for study sufficiently thorough to
enable one to teach a Sunday school class at least in this part of the New
Testament.
This tour originated in a suggestion of Paul to revisit the brethren in all the
cities evangelized on the first tour to see how they fared (Acts 15:36). We
have already noted (Acts 14:21-23) a return visit to all the churches
established then, to confirm them; to exhort them to continue in the faith, to
warn them to expect tribulation, and to provide them with a local ministry.
This he did not consider sufficient. They were babes in Christ, without
experience or training enough to safely care for themselves. And the lesson has
already been emphasized that convert culture was stressed by Paul as an
essential and important part of missionary work. He did not consider missions
to be like marking and branding cattle, and then turning them out to scatter
over a fenceless range. They needed to be horded, fed, and rounded up enough to
know where home was. It was economy to strengthen weak churches.
All mission work, in order to become permanent and self-sustaining, calls for
general evangelists, not free lances given to sentimental slush, but men of
character, mighty in doctrine, and sound in church polity.
Moreover, Paul was eager to carry to these churches the decision of the
Jerusalem conference; to hedge against similar trouble on his beloved mission
field. It was this care for all the new churches established that constituted
the bulk and weight of Paul's crushing burden. Two fires burned unquenchable in
his soul: "I must go forward to the regions beyond; I must go back and see
how they fare behind me."
The reader will observe that Paul, when he started on this tour, had no thought
of Europe. But Luke, writing afterward, barely glances at this confirming work,
and rushes the narrative into Europe. How little do any of us know when we
start out where we will land! Be like Paul; let the Spirit guide. Hold your
life loosely in his hands.
What was accomplished in Syria and Cilicia is given in Acts 15:40-41. In two
verses Luke disposes of the work in Syria and Cilicia, confirming the
churches." These churches were probably planted by Paul in his early
ministry (Acts 9:30; 26:20; 11:26). What was accomplished in the churches of
Lycaonia and Phrygia, viz.: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, is given in Acts
16:1-5. In two verses (16:4-5) Luke tells us that as they went through these
cities, they delivered to them, to be observed by them, the decision of the
Jerusalem Conference, and so the churches were established in the faith, and
increased daily. But one far-reaching event at Lystra he notes more
particularly Paul's finding of Timothy, the good report of him by two
churches, his circumcision by Paul, and his accession to the mission band. Both
Titus and Timothy were fruits of the first missionary tour. From Paul's letters
we gather very important additional matter about this great evangelist, who was
nearer to Paul's heart than any other co-laborer of his life. Let us sum up the
general facts about him: His father was a Greek; his mother was a Jewess (Acts
16:1). His mother's name was Eunice and his grandmother's name was Lois. They
were devout people, and had carefully instructed the child in the Holy
Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15). When Paul preached at Lystra, on the first tour, the
grandmother was first converted, then the mother, then the boy (2 Tim. 1:5).
Paul calls Timothy "my beloved child," "my true child in
faith" (2 Tim. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:2). "My beloved and faithful child"
(1 Cor. 4:17).
On his return to Lystra, Paul finds Timothy very active in Christian service in
his own home church (Acts 16:1-2). Certain prophets in the church had foretold
by inspiration that he would be a great preacher (1 Tim. 1:18). The churches at
Lystra and Iconium, where he had labored, united in his commendation (Acts 16:2).
As Paul had long desired a companion to take the place vacated by Mark, he
selected Timothy for this place, and that his ministry might not be handicapped
among the Jews, he circumcised him (Acts 16:3). And on the approval of the
churches, he was ordained by a regular presbytery, Paul participating, to the
office of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). As the hands of the presbytery were laid
upon him, the gift of the Holy Spirit came upon him. There is no New Testament
evidence that he ever became a pastor, notwithstanding the postscript to 2
Timothy in the common version, or did other work than that of an evangelist,
often, however, acting in this capacity as the apostolic delegate, with all the
authority of such delegation, as at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). He was a kingdom
preacher rather than pastor of a particular church. From this ordination till
Paul's death, he was the most beloved, the most faithful, and the most
efficient of all, Paul's co-laborers. Paul's love toward him, care for him, and
appreciation of him were unbounded, and bear this testimony: "As a child
serveth a father, so he served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
The modern young preacher cannot do better than to study Timothy, and Paul's
exhortations to him, to find a model of ministerial character and fidelity. An
orderly summary of his further connection with Paul is as follows:
1. Becoming Paul's inseparable companion, except as directed elsewhere by Paul,
he labored with his great leader in that trying period of sickness and success among
the Galatians, described in Galatians 4:15-20.
2. At Philippi (Phil. 2:22; Acts 16:12-40).
3. At Thessalonica and Berea and was left at Berea (Acts 17:14).
4. Rejoins Paul at Athens, and was sent back to Thessalonica (Acts 17:15 and 1
Thess. 3:2).
5. Rejoins Paul at Corinth (Acts 17:15; 18:5; 1 Thess. 3:2), and brings the
news from Thessalonica that occasions the first letter to that church, Timothy
being associated with him in sending the letter. The second letter follows.
6. Timothy remains with Paul throughout the rest of this tour, and on the third
tour till he was sent to Corinth during the great meeting at Ephesus (1 Cor.
4:17; 16:10).
7. From Corinth he returned to Ephesus with the news that led to the second
letter to the Corinthians.
8. Near the close of the Ephesian meeting, Paul sends Timothy to Macedonia
(Acts 19:20), where Paul joined him.
9. At Corinth he sends salutations in Paul's letter to the Romans (Rom. 16:21).
10. With Paul, Timothy returns from this third tour (Acts 20:4), yet Timothy
went ahead as far as Troas, and they were there together.
11. From Troas, Timothy and the rest of Paul's company go by sea to Assos (Acts
20:13-14), and take up Paul, who had traveled thither by land from Troas.
12. It is probable that Timothy did not go with Paul beyond Miletus on this
return trip, as intimated in Acts 20:4, but he was with Paul in his first Roman
imprisonment and joined in the letters to the Philippians, Philemon, and
Colossians (Phil. 1:1; 2:10, Philem. 1; Col. 1:1). But was arrested there, and
so not associated with the letter to the Ephesians. Shortly, however, he was
liberated, as mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews (Heb. 13:23).
13. In the last tour of Paul (not mentioned in Acts) Timothy was left at Ephesus
(1 Tim. 1:3), while Paul went the last time into Macedonia.
14. Paul was again arrested, taken to Rome and there, just before his
martyrdom, wrote the second letter to Timothy (2 Tim. 1:2).
In considering the work in Galatia, we are bound to take up that historical
question that involves some textual criticism, viz.: Where were the churches of
Galatia to which Paul wrote his letters, and when did he establish those
churches? Dr. Ramsay's contention is that Paul in speaking of Galatia, simply
means a Roman province, not confining it to the ethnological founders; that it
covered Galatia proper, part of Pisidia, and a part of Lycaonia, and, therefore
that the churches of Galatia to which he wrote the letters were the churches of
Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia, and hence the work done there,
if that contention be correct, is the work that we have already discussed in
the first tour.
That is a new contention, and a whole book of great research is devoted to
sustaining that proposition, and one of the texts cited to support it is this
passage in Acts 16:6. We do not get the thought from the King James Version.
The Greek of that is this: "When they had gone through the Phrygian [an
adjective] and Galatian country." Dr. Ramsay says that that text proves
his contention; that to call it the Galatian country some people might think it
meant ethnological Galatia, that is, Galatia, according to the population; but
to call it the Phrygian and Galatian country, it would mean that part of
Phrygia which Galatia was made to include under the Roman Empire, and would
prove that the churches of Phrygia and Galatia were the churches of Derbe,
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.
That is a strong point, but my objection to it is that Luke does not follow,
even half the time, the names according to a map of the Roman Empire. He
follows one according to peoples. His Galatia is Galatia proper; hence he has
his Lycaonia, and he has his Mysia, following the ethnological peoples of the
places. Nearly all commentators contend that the churches of Galatia were
churches in Galatia proper. Here are the three great towns: Pessinus, Ancyra,
and Tavium; they belonged to Galatia proper. If those commentators were right,
and I think they were, then Paul's whole work in Galatia is summed up here by
Luke in half a verse: "When they had gone throughout Phrygia and
Galatia." That is all he says about it. He doesn't tell what is done. He
doesn't belong to the party then, but he joins the party a little later, just
before they go over to Philippi. He just touched the most important points
until they got to this place, where Luke joined the party. From that time on he
puts the bulk of the work in Europe.
Galatia is the same as Gallia. When Caesar says, "Gaul is divided into
three parts," that is the same as if he had said, "All Galatia is
divided into three parts." The inhabitants of this body of country were
genuine Gauls. In modern times we would call them French. They were Celts, a
very different class of people from the Germans. They are a lively, cheerful,
dancing, singing, mercurial people. They are the people that settled Wales, and
they have these characteristics there today. They also settled Ireland, and
that's the Irishman of today lively in imagination, but not stable. They are
quick to take up a thing, and just as quick to turn it loose.
What led Paul to preach to those people? An overwhelming sickness took
possession of him, probably that acute disease of the eyes. His suffering was
very great. He tells about it in his letter to these churches, and he says that
they were very good to him. They received him as though he was an angel from
heaven he says, "You were so compassionate with me that you would have
taken out your own eyes and given them to me, so that I could have seen
better." The meeting there was attended with all those demonstrations that
signified the recent meetings in Wales great enthusiasm. People came up
shouting; they may have had some shakes, as in the early Methodist meetings;
surely it was a regular storm meeting over there. That is the way they received
him. Another fact is that some Judean people teachers came over and told
these people that Paul was not an ordained apostle; that he never saw Jesus
Christ in the flesh; that he was subordinate to others, and to the Jews, and
there were a great many who said, "His gospel is not first-class. If you
want to get the right thing, you hear James, or Peter." And those
Galatians mercurial fellows that they were went over to that other crowd.
Paul hears about it, and he writes his letter, saying:
"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, that you should turn away from
that which I have preached unto you, and turn to the weak and beggarly elements
of the world? I would like to ask you a question: Did you receive the Holy
Spirit by works of the law, when I was among you, or did you receive it by
faith, and having commenced in the Spirit, is it right now to try to consummate
it in works according to the old ceremonial Mosaic law? That is incongruous. If
you commence in the Spirit, you must go on in the Spirit!" He says,
"These people have made merchandise of you. When I was among you, I set
Christ before you, as evidently crucified, and you accepted it as if an angel
from heaven had preached it. Now I stand in doubt; it looked as though you were
converted people, but I am not sure of it now. If you were converted people,
how could you turn back so quickly?" Galatians 4 shows us what his work up
there was, which Acts doesn't mention at all. Luke just puts it in half of a
verse.
Timothy was with him there. The letter to the Galatians is a flashlight from
heaven. It contains more parts of the history of the New Testament than any
other equal amount of the Word of God. That is the reason Luther hugged that
book to his heart. He based his reform on the letter to the Galatians. So Paul
had great success in Galatia.
There is a strange guidance of the Holy Spirit on this tour. The record of it is
set forth in Acts 16:6-8. Physically, Paul was nearly dead. He had been very
sick, almost unto death, in that Galatian meeting. Now he starts from it to
come down to Proconsular Asia. The Spirit says, "No, you can't go there
this time." He will go there next time, but he does not let him go there
this time. Then when he gets up to the province of Mysia, he says that his mind
inclined him to go into Bithynia. The Spirit barred the way, saying, "Not
now." And so passing from Mysia without stopping, not knowing where he
will go, they come down to Troy.
There was a time when Greece invaded Troy and wiped it off the face of the map.
See Homer and Vergil. Now Paul goes to Troy, very sick, and he sees in a
dream-vision away across the Aegean Sea a colossal, gigantic figure Macedonia.
It is Greece appealing to Troy; it is Europe calling to Asia for the gospel;
and he sees that figure with outstretched hands and hears him say: "Come
over into Macedonia and help us. We belong to the human race; we have had no
gospel." Maybe that is why the Spirit would not let him go into Bithynia
and would not let him go into Asia, but brought him to the edge of the sea,
across which is Macedonia.
It was the most stupendous event in history, apart from the crucifixion of
Christ the carrying of the gospel into Europe. After the work in Asia and
Africa had surely passed away, Europe took up the work until "the course
of empire took its way" across the ocean and brought the gospel to
America, and now America is taking it up and is carrying it into all parts of
the world. This event revolutionized history.
There was a remarkable accession to the party at Troas. It was Luke, who was a
physician. Paul calls him "the beloved physician." Unquestionably he
also was an evangelist. Paul wants him to join the party to take care of his
broken down body. Luke becomes a traveling surgeon with Paul, and we know that
he went with Paul over to Philippi; that he remained there till Paul comes back
there to return to Asia, and that Luke went with him all the way to Rome, the
physician still with him with him when arrested in Jerusalem, with him in
Caesarea, and probably at Caesarea Luke wrote his Gospel. Paul was there two
years with him. Luke was with him on that voyage to Rome.
Take your Bible and look up the word "Luke" and, gathering all
together, sum it up. But the books do not follow in order of time. For
instance, Romans, then 1 and 2 Corinthians; they come first in the Bible, but 1
and 2 Thessalonians come first in time, then 1 and 2 Corinthians, then
Galatians, and next Romans. If you can get your books arranged right, and
connect them on that plan, you will get the order. There is no difficulty in
that question, except the order. Now you see from that a very important
accession to the party is Luke. They cross the sea and come to Neapolis, the
seaport, and then come on to Philippi.
The Romans, having conquered the Greek Empire, divided this country into
provinces, making Philippi one of the chief cities. Achaia represented that
part of Greece that is the Peloponnesus, almost an island, where Athens and
Corinth are. Philippi was a city of some importance before the Romans got
possession of the country, but after they had conquered it, the Romans
themselves had a big fight with each other after Julius Caesar was
assassinated. Augustus Caesar became emperor, but not until the downfall of the
other triumvirate. Augustus Caesar associated himself with men to help him gain
the empire. When Julius Caesar was assassinated, Brutus and Cassius (who were
among the conspirators) raised a war in order to make Rome a republic, as it
used to be, and the last fight for the republic was at this town called
Philippi. After the battle was lost, Brutus and Cassius committed suicide on
the field of battle, and on account of the great triumph, the Romans made that
city a colony.
I have already described a Roman colony thus: It consists of a body of citizens
of the people of Rome, who, in a body, retain their names on the muster rolls
of Rome, and the city is governed just exactly like the city of Rome. That
accounts for the fact here that magistrates governed the city, and they were
followed by lictors, who executed the will of the magistrates, and each lictor
carried a bundle of rods. When they punished, they did not bother with
scourging. When you see the account of being punished with rods, that is Roman;
when forty stripes save one are given, that is Jewish. Philippi was a Roman
city, then, and very few Jews were there. How do we know? Because no synagogue was
there. All that they had was a little prayer chapel, just outside of the city
on the river bank. The King James version says, "Where prayer was wont to
be made." The Greek says, "Where was a prayer-chapel." There
were not enough people to have a synagogue, and they had to content themselves
with a little prayer-chapel outside the city. This shows that very few Jews
were there. It was like a little mission station, away out of the city, with
about one and a half men in it, and twelve women. That explains how that, when
they went to the first meeting, they found women there.
There were some marvelous events in connection with the work in Philippi. The
first event is the first conversion in Europe. Paul went to that prayer meeting
and found some women there, and commenced talking to them, and the record says
that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia so that she attended to the things
spoken by Paul. Lydia was a visitor from Thyatira, over in Asia. She was a fine
business woman, and her business took her there. She was a Jewish proselyte.
Let the preachers please notice:
"Whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were
spoken by Paul."
That shows that our greatest need in preaching is to get attention. When a
colonel gives out his first word in drilling a battalion, it is,
"Attention, battalion!" We have to get good attention before we can
get them to do anything. A preacher goes into a city immersed in politics, or
business, or pleasure; they do not know anything about him; he gets no attention.
Here comes the antecedent work of the Holy Spirit. Where does Lydia's attention
come from? The Lord opened her heart. Here we see just how it was done. Do not
say that because Lydia attended to Paul that the Lord opened her heart, as so
many want to construe that other scripture, saying, "All that believe are
ordained to eternal life," which reads: "And as many as were ordained
to eternal life, believed" (Acts 13:48). Take notice that God hits first
every time that grace, from its incipiency to its consummation in glory,
carries out the work of salvation. It does not start with us.
If salvation had waited for us to start it, it never would have been started.
It always starts with God.
And Lydia was baptized. The work looked like it would stop just on the fringe
of the town, in a little Jewish prayer meeting. If the devil had not been so
big a fool, it would have stopped right there. But the devil had possession of
a maiden who was demon-possessed, and this maiden was a fortuneteller, a sorceress,
a diviner, and seeing the value of her power, no matter who did the work, they
did not care about that whether God or the devil they saw that money could
be made out of that maiden. They formed a syndicate and bought her, and her
value to them was that the demon possessed her mind. Oh, the greed of money!
That men would form a company, patronizing the work of the devil to rake in a
big pile of shekels! For under the devil's influence this maiden wanted to be
associated with such men as Paul, Luke, Silas, and Timothy, and as they would
go to prayer meeting, she would follow along after them. The people would see
them, and she would turn to the people and say, "These men just ahead are
the great power of God." She wanted to be associated in mind with these
workers. And there is not a business on the earth that will not call you a good
fellow if you just stand before the people as if you were a "hail, fellow,
well met." If you wink at whiskey-selling, at gambling, at the vices, at
the sabbath-breaking, they will cover you with flowers, and the newspapers will
notice you, saying, "There is a broad preacher."
But Paul was not willing to be associated in the public mind with the devil,
and he commanded the devil to come out, and when the demon came out she was not
worth a cent to them. Their capital that they had invested was all gone. When
men see their capital going, no matter what kind of evil business it is
invested in whenever they see that business knocked in the head by the gospel
they are going to fight and not be very scrupulous. So they grabbed these
preachers and took them before the magistrates. They did not say a word about
casting that demon out of the maiden, but they came and made this accusation:
"These men, being Jews, have greatly disturbed this Roman city, and teach
customs not lawful for us to observe, being Romans. The grass will grow in
Philippi if you let these men go on; the whole business of the town will be
killed." You get a city stirred up on that, and it will howl. And the magistrates
had the lictors to take Paul and Silas and beat them whip them like slaves.
They then put them in jail, charging the jailer to keep them safely. That
night, at midnight, with no light, their feet in the stocks, their backs
bruised, death coming tomorrow, they prayed. That is a time for men to pray.
They can do nothing. God can do anything. They pray, and right in close
connection with that prayer comes an earthquake. The infidel will tell you that
it was a coincidence; faith will tell you that the earthquake was God's answer
to the prayer. That is the way he had of answering it. The prison doors were
all thrown open, and that jailer, supposing all the prisoners were gone, put
his sword toward his heart. He was a Roman, and had received a charge; his
prisoners were gone; he would kill himself when all hope was lost: "Brutus
and Cassius committed suicide right out there on the battlefield and why may
not I?" and with the point of the sword on his heart comes the word of
the gospel "Do thyself no harm." Man has no right to harm himself.
Other people may harm you, then you cannot help it. A man may set fire to your
house while you are away, but don't you go home and set fire to it. Some vile
whisperer may put shame on the honor of your wife or sister, but don't you do
it. Never put your signature to your own dishonor. Let the world do what it
will, but don't you be the author of your own shame.
I took that as a text in the prohibition campaign of 1887, and preached all
over Texas on it: That a man had no right to harm himself, because of his
relations to other people; because he could not make it stop in himself. That
jailer had a family, and if he had killed himself, that family would have waked
up that night and stood barefooted in his blood. The jailer, trembling and
astonished, came in and fell down before Paul and Silas. "Since I may not
harm myself . . . what must I do to be saved?" And as quick as lightning
comes the answer to the question, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and
thou shalt be saved, and your family can come in at the same door, if only they
believe." "Come in and all thy house, into the ark," said God to
Noah.
I have thought a thousand times of that scene. At midnight, that man was lost.
At midnight, he was saved. At midnight, salvation came to him, and to every
member of his family. They all believed; they all rejoiced; they were all
baptized. What a mighty change since they went to bed that night. Went to bed
lost woke up next morning everyone in the kingdom of God. I suppose that
if the devil had known what was going to happen, he never would have pestered
those people, but would have let the meeting fringe just outside the city with
a few Jewish women.
This is the only place in the Bible where the question is plainly asked:
"What must I do to be saved?" And there is the answer: "Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Be saved, right there
and then, and forever. I note also that this was not a Jewish persecution.
There were very few Jews there, and they had no influence. It was a Roman
persecution.
The church established here was the dearest to Paul of all the churches he
established. It sent contributions to him more than once. So I say that it was
really a missionary church.
Just here the question arises, how do you account for Paul being beaten with
rods? His Roman citizenship would have saved him if he had claimed it.
Sometimes he claimed it, and sometimes he did not. If he had just said, "I
am a Roman citizen," they would not have dared to beat him with those
rods; but he did not claim half of his rights, and it was best for the gospel
that he did not. That finishes chapter 16. From there they went to
Thessalonica.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scriptures for Paul's second missionary tour?
2. Trace on. the map this entire tour.
3. What the time covered by this tour, what the great event of this tour, and
from what source do we get the details of this tour?
4. What striking characteristic of this tour?
5. What equally striking fact developed in this tour and everywhere manifest in
the next tour?
6. In the study of this tour what historical question must we decide, and upon
what does the decision depend?
7. What was the object at the outset, and what real distinction between this
and his former missionary tour?
8. What was accomplished in Syria and Cilicia?
9. What was accomplished in the churches of Lycaonia and Phrygia, viz.: Derbe,
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch?
10. What great accession to this party at Lystra, and what the history of this
great evangelist?
11. Give an orderly summary of his further connection with Paul.
12. What was the work in. Galatia, what Dr. Ramsay's contention, and what the
author's objection to it?
13. Who were the Gauls, the inhabitants of Galatia; what their traits?
14. What Paul's rebuke to this people found in his letter to them?
15. What can you say of this letter, and what use made of it by Martin Luther?
16. Give an account of the strange guidance of the Holy Spirit on. this tour.
17. What is the real meaning of Paul's "Man of Macedonia?"
18. What remarkable accession to the party at Troas, and what the New Testament
account of this man?
19. Give a history of Philippi.
20. What can you say of its government?
21. How may we know that there were few Jews there?
22. What the marvelous events in connection with the work in Philippi?
23. What is the infidel's explanation of the earthquake at Philippi, and what
the Christian's explanation?
24. Is a man ever justifiable in committing suicide, and why?
25 What pointed question here as to the plan of salvation, and how did Paul
answer it?
26. Was this a Jewish persecution, and what the proof?
27. What was the character of the church established here, and how was it
regarded by Paul?
28. How may we account for Paul being beaten with rods, since he was a Roman
citizen?
THE MINISTRY OF PAUL AND HIS COMPANIONS AT
THESSALONICA, BEREA, AND ATHENS
Acts 17:1-34.
Thessalonica is situated at the head of the gulf leading into the Aegean Sea
and is on the great Ignatian Road. It was then, and has been ever since, a
great city. It was not only important on account of its strategic position in
the days of Paul, but continues so till this day. There are multitudes of both
Jews and Christians in it now. About the middle of the tenth century, it was
captured by the Saracens, or Mohammedans. Then it was rescued by the Crusaders,
and then, finally, in about the middle of the fifteenth century, it was
captured by the Turks and they hold it yet. It was a free city, not a colony.
The Emperor Augustus made it a free city. The form of its government is
indicated by a word that Luke uses, which occurs here only in all literature
"polytarchs" which means many chiefs. It was governed by men of its
own selection. In the days of the Dutch towns and German free towns, we had
something like its form of government governed by the burgesses, or
syndicates, elected by the people.
So far as the record goes, it seems that Paul was there three weeks. Anyhow, it
says that he preached for three Sundays in the Jewish synagogue. As to the matter
that he preached we gather something, but very little, from the record. The
record tells us that he "went in unto them, and three sabbath days
reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and alleging that it behooved
the Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus whom,
said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ." Another clause in the text
shows that his enemies said that he taught that there was another king one
Jesus. That shows that the manner of his preaching to the Jews was to take the
Old Testament and prove from it that the Messiah that was to come would be a
sufferer; that he would be put to death; that he would rise again from the
dead, and that, risen from the dead, he would become the exalted King of the universe.
But that gives you but a faint conception of what Paul preached while he was
there. I enjoin upon you, that you quietly sit down and read over the first and
second letters to the Thessalonians, and learn from them what he says he
preached while he was there with them. At least, you will find these matters
were presented especially eschatological matters the doctrine of the last
things. It has to do with what will take place at the last, at the end of the
world, in connection with the coming of Christ. Very great stress was put upon
that in Paul's preaching, and the reason that he preached that particular thing
was that both to him and to them the preaching was in great suffering and
persecution, and he was pointing to the fact that, while we must have
tribulation upon the earth, at last all will be well for the righteous and evil
for the wicked. Another thing that he says that he preached day and night was
that whoever professes to be a Christian must live a holy, godly life; that he
must not steal; must not lie; must not wrong his neighbor; that he must be
industrious; he must not be an idler, nor a busybody. In other words, as much
there as anywhere else he ever preached it, he presented the practical side of
Christianity. Read his letters where he says to those he is addressing,
"You remember I told you this when I was with you." How thankful we
ought to be that we have these two letters to the Thessalonians! We never would
get upon our minds the right impression of that three weeks' meeting if we did
not have these letters to tell us how the meeting was carried on.
It is also very important to know how he preached, how he held a meeting, as
well as the things he preached about. He presented Christ as prophet,
sacrifice, priest, king, and judge, and he presented a holy life, but we want
to know the manner in which he preached. It is important, not only to have
something to say, but to say it so that it will stick. Note what he says:
"Our exhortation is not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: but
even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we
speak; not as pleasing men, but God, who proveth our hearts. For neither at any
time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of
coveteousness [we didn't have any financial ax to grind in that meeting], God
is witness; nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others" (I
Thess. 2:3-6). Then he continues, "When we might have claimed authority as
apostles of Christ, we came among you as brethren; we were gentle in the midst
of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children. So, being affectionately
desirous of you, we were well pleased to impart to you not the gospel of God
only, but also our own souls, for you were very dear to us. You remember,
brethren, and are witnesses how holily and righteously and unblameably we
behaved ourselves toward you that believe. You know that we dealt with you,
every one of you, as a father with his own children, exhorting you and
encouraging you and testifying unto you." That is a very fine manner. When
you hold a meeting, remember how Paul preached in this great city the manner of
it as well as the matter.
The manner of the reception of his preaching is found in I Thessalonians 2:13:
"For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received
from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as
the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in
you that believe." It is a great thing when a man is holding a meeting, if
he so conducts himself that people will think he is God's messenger, and they
will receive what he preaches, not as the word of men, but as the word of God.
The power of this preaching there is seen also from the letter. The text, verse
6, taking the testimony of the enemies, says, "These that have turned the
world upside down are come hither also." That is their testimony to the
power. Let us see what the testimony to the power of that meeting is on the
part of Paul. In I Thessalonians 1:5 he says: "Our gospel came not unto
you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much
assurance." The power was so great that the people who believed received
assurance as they received faith. The evidences of the Spirit's work were so
marvelous, so manifest, that converts who believed, believed fully; they
staggered not with any doubt, having a full assurance of faith. So that must
have been indeed a great meeting in its power.
The cost of the meeting was borne in two ways. The first proof is I
Thessalonians 2:9, "For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail:
working night and day that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you
the gospel of God." Paul paid his own expenses. He didn't do it all the
time, as I will prove to you. Toward the latter part of the meeting, that
Philippian church that he had just established, sent him a big contribution,
which he very gratefully acknowledges when he writes the letter to the
Philippians. It was a mission church, hardly out of the cradle yet. He had just
left it, and they remembered how poor he was, without money and without purse.
They recalled how he had worked, and of their own volition, without a
suggestion from him before he left Thessalonica, they took up a big collection
and sent it to him. He states that they did it more than once. They sent him
another one when he got to Corinth.
What a beautiful church was that Philippian church! Of all the churches that
Paul ever established, he appreciated the church at Philippi most, and it loved
him most. It not only sent funds to him here at Thessalonica, but at Corinth,
and when they heard that he was long afterward arrested and taken to Rome as a
prisoner, they sent their pastor with a big contribution to go and find him in
the prison and give it to him. So I would call that a Missionary Baptist
church.
In I Thessalonians 2:14-16 he refers thus to the character of the opposition:
"For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in
Judea in Christ Jesus: for ye also suffered the same things of your own
countrymen, even as they did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and
the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all
men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up
their sins always: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." Then
in the very beginning of the letter he refers to the opposition of the Jews,
not the Jewish Christians, but the outside Jews. He held the synagogue for three
sabbath days, but they fought him from the very start.
As to the result of that meeting, Acts 17:4 says, "And some of them [that
is, the Jews, not many] were persuaded and consorted with Paul and Silas; and
of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."
The Lord bless the women! And these were great women, rich women, influential
women. So there the accessions to the church were just a few Jews, but a great
multitude of the proselytes and of the outside Gentiles, and not a few good
women. That church ought to have made a fine record.
But we also want to know what about the results afterward. So I cite another
passage from the letter, written not long after the meeting. Paul is at Corinth
when he writes it. He says, "And ye became imitators of us and of the
Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy in the Holy Spirit;
so that ye [the result] became an example to all that believe in Macedonia and
Achaia. For from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in
Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth;
so that we need not to speak anything. [The report that goes on about the work
in your place does the speaking.] For they themselves report concerning us what
manner of entering in we had unto you; and how you turned unto God from idols,
to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he
raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to
come" (I Thess. 1:6-10).
There is a certain expression there that I stress. When you talk about the
results of that meeting, you have first the multitude; you have, second, the
character, and if I had time, I would give you individuals that afterward
became famous, who were converted in that meeting. Then we have the fact stated
that so marvelous was that effect that the sound went forth, or it sounded
forth, sounding all over Macedonia, all over Achaia and everywhere.
Thessalonica was a seaport and the news of that meeting went out on every ship.
Thessalonica was on the great Ignatian Way, and the travel was incessant ๒ east
and west, away from Rome and toward Rome, and everybody carried the news of
that meeting. It was on the by-way that went up into a high place of Macedonia,
and even into Illyrica; they all heard about the meeting they had at
Thessalonica, that is, this three weeks' meeting. Thessalonica was a great
city, and many people lived there.
The Jews, having found that they couldn't stop this meeting by growling and
standing out on the edges (you know how opponents do stand out on the fringe of
the meeting and make fun and snarl), said that the meeting was overriding them
and therefore they went before these polytarchs and preferred a charge a
charge of treason Just exactly like the charge they preferred against Christ:
that there was another king, and therefore it was against Caesar, saying,
"They tell about another king one Jesus." That is one point. The
next point is sedition. They caused the disturbance. Nobody was disturbed but
themselves, and they were doing it. If there was anything in the world that a
Roman magistrate would become alarmed at, it was turbulences in the streets.
The Roman power was very stern about any popular disturbance. They would hear a
charge of that crime quicker than they would anything else. And the soldiers
were ready to dash in among them at any time to put down any sort of a mob
movement. You will see a sample of it, and how a Roman deals with it, when we
get to Corinth.
They went to the house of Jason, the man with whom the preachers were staying.
Jason was entertaining them. There are still a good many people left in the
world like the women in the time of Elisha that built a prophet's chamber. They
are glad to have the preachers. They get benefit in the family. We learn from
the letter to the Romans that Paul had a kinsman named Jason, but this one is
in Thessalonica, and while it is hardly probable that that kinsman did move
over to Rome, as it wasn't very long till the letter to the Romans was written,
I conclude that this Jason was not a kinsman of Paul, but Just one of the
brethren, one of the converts. They rushed up to the house, but Paul and Silas
were not there, and they captured Jason and others, and brought them up before
the magistrates, and put them under bond that there should be no more
disturbances, very much like people giving bond now to keep the peace.
I call attention to a word in the Authorized Version of Acts 17:5: "The
Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd
fellows." In our time that old Anglo Saxon word "lewd" has a
meaning of sexual infamy attached to it. That is not the meaning here. Very
recently one of the greatest writers on the use of words has published an article
in a magazine on the change in the meaning of English words. "Lewd"
originally meant the people. After a while it began to mean the common people,
and finally it got to mean (and this is the meaning it has here) that part of
the people we call loafers people who hang around courthouses or stand and
talk at the barroom doors. If you can just think of the word, "town
loafer," you will have the right idea. So, on the whole, the meeting was
not successful with the Jews.
Paul's desire to continue his work at Thessalonica was evinced later. They
shipped him off rapidly, leaving Silas and Timothy there, however. Some of the
brethren took Paul and carried him down to the sea in order that he might go by
sea to Athens. He couldn't travel by himself, and those young converts were
very kind to him. It is like the country brethren sending buggies to meet the
preacher, and sending him back when he goes out to hold his meetings. They took
Paul all the way down to the seacoast. In his feebleness he couldn't go by
himself. They went with him to Athens, and having domiciled him there, they
went back home. When they went back they took a message from him to Timothy and
to Silas to come to him at once. Here is what he says on that subject๙1
Thessalonians 2:17-18: "But we, brethren, being bereaved of you for a
short season . . . because we would fain have come unto you, I Paul, once and
again; and Satan hindered us." Then he goes on to say why he wanted to
come that he counted that great multitude his hope, his crown of rejoicing;
that that would be enough for him when he got to heaven, bringing his sheaves
and saying, "Lord, these are from Thessalonica." And in I
Thessalonians 3:2 he refers to it again: "And sent Timothy, our brother
and God's minister in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort
you concerning your faith." We see he had sent word to Timothy to join him
at Athens. Timothy came, and as soon as he got there, Paul sent him back to
Thessalonica: "I can't bear to think of what would become of that crowd of
people; I want to know how they are getting along," says Paul. "I go
to Corinth from Athens, and you can join me there, and tell me about the
Thessalonians." We find after a while that Timothy did come to him at
Corinth, and this called forth those letters to the Thessalonians.
Berea was not a place of the importance that Thessalonica was. It was like
holding a meeting in the country, and the Jews there being far out of touch
with the travel of Jews and the Jerusalem news, liked the preacher that would
get up and tell them about the Old Testament. These were more noble than the
Jews at Thessalonica. They not only received the word gladly, but they took up
their Old Testaments and examined them to see if what Paul preached was true.
You have a people in a good fix when you make them pull their Bibles out and
brush the dust off and verify what you preach. That is a fine spirit. The
character of the work done here at Berea was fine, but there was a distinction
in its result from that done in Thessalonica. At Berea a multitude of the Jews
were converted, and only a few at Thessalonica.
The work was interrupted when that same Jew crowd of devils at Thessalonica
heard he was there holding another meeting and followed him and brought the
case up before the officers of the law. If they could have just held the
meeting there a while longer with that spiritual force of the Berean Jews,
without being interrupted, and with everybody getting out their Bibles as the
preacher preached, all the Jews in that country might have been converted. But
Paul left Silas and Timothy, while the Berean brethren took him on to Athens.
We are not to think of the Athens of the days of Pericles, the greatest city in
the world for its power in art, painting, sculpture, oratory, philosophy, literature,
and so great that it has affected the world ever since. We are not even to
think of the Athens of the days of Demosthenes, though some of the
characteristics were already developed that are now in full sway. Demosthenes,
when he was trying to stir them up against Philip of Macedon, told them that
Philip of Macedon was a man that was always doing something: "You don't do
anything but just go around and say, What is the news? How on earth are you
going to stand before such a man as Philip of Macedon?" We will see that
they are of that disposition when Paul reaches Athens. While not in its glory,
it still has its Acropolis, high up over that city that marvelous building
even today a wonder of the world, its Parthenon, and over on another hill stood
a colossal statue of the goddess Minerva, and lower down on the hill was their
celebrated court room, Mars' Hill, the Areopagus (pagos meaning hill, and arcs
meaning Mars "Mars' Hill"), and lower down still was what is called
the "Agora," market place. It was a big market place, with rows and
rows of the most beautifully sculptured pillars, and under the porticoes of
that market place the philosophers would meet the people and teach. Socrates
taught there. The market place was the daily newspaper of the day. It was the
schoolhouse, where everybody met everybody and told everybody what everybody
knew. It was full of sculptured idols. They were on every hilltop. They were on
all the hillsides, and lined both sides of the streets clear down to the bay
the Pireus. They were in every house; they were in every garden, and as a
writer once said, "It is easier to find a god in Athens than to find a
man"; gods to the right of them, gods to the left of them, gods in front
of them, and gods behind them, all around them and all over them, and yet the
people had lost faith in all those gods.
I have already said that the brethren of Berea brought him overland to the
seaport. There he took ship, came around to Athens, sailed through those rough
waters of the Aegean those islands of the Aegean about which Byron wrote,
"The Islands of Greece, where Paphos and Sapho sang," said to be the
most beautiful islands in the world except the Thousand Islands in one of the
northern lakes. When Paul arrived he had no forward thoughts; they were all
backward. He was distressed to be there by himself, and he says, "Tell
Silas and Timothy to come forthwith." Then his mind was on that great
meeting in Thessalonica and Berea and Philippi; there were two fires always
burning in his heart, one pointing to the regions beyond, and one pointing back
to the regions behind. But his mind was diverted and his spirit was stirred
within him when he saw the city full of idols. Walking up and down the streets,
he saw these idols, and reading the inscriptions on them, his spirit was
stirred within him. This stirring of the Jew's heart at beholding the idols in
Greece was foretold by what prophet? I preached my educational sermon on that.
It is from Zechariah: "I will stir up thy sons, 0 Zion, against thy sons,
0 Greece." He was grieved with its philosophy, and just as it is now, a
man that believes in God, in the inspiration of the scriptures and in the
integrity of the scriptures, comes, and there is the philosopher of the schools
competing. I sent that address to Dr. Strong, at Rochester, and he wrote back
and said, "I don't fear the Greeks as much as you do," but now he
fears the Greeks in his old age, when one of his own sons has gone off after
them, and when he sees the whole North swept away with their philosophy, his
old age is full of intense concern.
Paul first went into the synagogue and preached to the Jews. Then he went for
that market place. That was the place to find the people, and he took them one
at a time. He just had to preach. Then it is said that certain philosophers of
the Epicureans and Stoics met him. Epicureanism is just exactly what modern
evolutionists teach. They are the authors of it, and later, men borrowed from
them. In other words, the Epicureans stole all their best ideas. They were
materialists and atheists. They didn't believe in God. They believed all things
in the world came about by a fortuitous coming together of atoms. That the
earth is governed by chance and not divinely, and that death is the end of man,
therefore "Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die,"
was their motto. The Stoics were Pantheists and materialists. They believed
that matter was eternal; that nothing happened by chance as the Epicureans
taught, but that everything comes to pass by an inexorable fate. They beat the
Hardshells, saying that "whatever is to be will be if it never
happens." Their great fault was pride.
Mars' Hill was a place where they held their courts. The Athenian ecclesia
assembled there. Raphael's cartoon of Paul in Mars' Hill is a great work of
art. Raphael was a great painter, one of the masters, and he has left an
immortal painting of Paul here at Athens. You see a very imperfect copy of it
in some of your Bibles; if you could study the great painting itself, it would
evidently be a marvel to you.
Let us analyze Paul's address on Mars' Hill. He commences exactly as
Demosthenes commenced, "Men of Athens [he knew about Demosthenes], I
perceive that in all things ye are very religious. For as I passed along and
observed the objects of your worship [objects of your worship: you carry your
religion into worshiping a multiplicity of things; that is very religious], I
found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an Unknown God.' " Two
classical writers declare that they have seen those altars with those
inscriptions. Understand that Paul was carried to that courthouse practically
unawares. He was not dragged there, but he was taken to the courthouse on this
charge: "You seem to be a setter forth of strange gods." There was a
law in Athens that no man must introduce another god. I sympathize with that
law. They surely had enough.
Socrates was put to death on that very charge, that he said that a spirit which
they called a demon, a supernatural being, instructed him, and as he didn't
call that spirit either Jupiter, Pluto, Saturn, Minerva, or Venus, or any of
their so-called gods, that was teaching a strange god, and Socrates was put to
death. That charge is brought against Paul. In analyzing his address, you see
how adroit he is in evading that: "You accuse me of setting forth strange
gods," and in using their very words, he says, "I set forth unto you
a God that you ignorantly worship. I am introducing no new divinity. I am
introducing a God that you confess you are ignorant of, for you have an altar
on which you have inscribed, 'To the Unknown God.' Now that God whom you do not
know, I tell you about, and he is not at all like what the Epicureans or the
Stoics teach; he created man and everything you see, and he does not need
anything from us. We sprung from him, and he made of one blood all the nations
that inhabit the earth."
The Athenians believed that their blood was "blue blood," and that no
other people in the world had the same origin. They taught that they were
indigenous that they just came up right there, and that all the rest of the
world were barbarians. Standing on Mars' Hill, where they held such a belief,
and such a contempt for the outside world, he made them see the unity of the
race, and that they were not separate from the rest of the world in their
derivation. And standing there, with a gesture he could point to the statue of
the goddess Minerva, and then sweep his hand toward the Acropolis, where
hundreds of gods were presented in statues, he says, "God dwelleth not in
temples made with hands," thus quoting Stephen. How well he remembered
what Stephen said!
Then he says, "And this God, of whom you have unjustifiable ignorance, not
only appointed your nation its place and its season, but every other nation its
place and its season, and has put in man a longing for God that they should
seek after him. Though they grope in blindness, that he would reach out his
hand and touch their hand, if haply they might find him. He is not far off. He
is near." Then he said (the idea of going to the most cultivated place in
the world, e. g., to Yale, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge combined, and saying
to them, "The times of your ignorance God overlooked"), "You are
great in a certain way. You know how to paint, and how to make speeches, how to
carve in wood, and in stone; you know how to philosophize, but about God, about
eternity, about the relation of man to heaven, and to his fellow man, you are just
as ignorant as moles and bats."
And it is -true today, that the places of the greatest culture are the places
of the greatest ignorance of God and the hardest places in which to preach.
Paul says, "God overlooked your ignorance, but now, as Christ has come, as
life and immortality are brought to light, as the stream of life is brought to
your very door, God now commandeth men everywhere to repent, because he hath
appointed a day of judgment, and the judge will be this very man that I preach
unto you, and the evidence he (God) has given to this man is that he raised him
from the dead."
The Athenians stopped him right there, "Oh, if you are going to talk about
the resurrection of the dead, why of course philosophers cannot believe that.
If you are going to bring in a miracle like that, why, we can't accept
it." Paul quoted from two of their poets. Aratus, of Tarsus, Paul's own
city, was one of them, who wrote, With him, with Zeus are filled All paths we
tread, and all the marts of men: Filled, too, the sea, and every creek and bay.
And all in all things need we help of Zeus, For we, too, are his offspring.
And, second, Cleanthes, who wrote, Thee Tis meet that mortals call with one
accord, For we thine offspring are, and we alone Of all that live and move upon
this earth Receive the gift of imitative speech.
This address of Paul proves him to have been a very learned man. The logic of
his address, the connected chains of thought, prove it. He was acquainted with
Demosthenes' manner of commencing an address, and everything shows that he
could speak to the most cultivated audience in the world. But this is the only
time that he ever adopted the learned method of preaching, and it was the
poorest preaching that he ever did, and had the poorest results. There was one
man, Dionysius and one or two women converted. So when he got over to Corinth,
the next place, he just got down on his knees and said, "I discard
rhetoric; I discard all rounded periods; I lay aside the wisdom of words, and
in fear and trembling I cling to the cross of Christ," and he had another
big meeting, but he didn't have it at Athens. If you were going to preach the
commencement sermon at Yale or Harvard, I venture to say that unless somebody
warned you, you would get on your stilts and scrape the sky with your rhetoric
and oratory. They wouldn't care anything about that. It is nothing more than
the aurora borealis to them nothing more than glowworms. The greatest crowd
of intellectualists are like a lot of lightning bugs on a mullein leaf, with
their tails together, and imagining that they are illumining the world.
Paul never did get from under the mighty impressions of the Thessalonians and
the meeting in Philippi and Berea. Oh, that was a love feast! And he got up on
the mountaintop. He saw the city of Jerusalem, the way opened up into heaven,
and the power of the world to come got hold of him. But when he got down there
at Athens to philosophizing, his heart grew cold. So every time he thought of
that meeting, he was whipped. You had just as well try to feed your guests on a
painted supper as to preach that way.
This question arises, Did Paul ordain elders in Thessalonica, and what is the
proof? I say that he did, but the proof is found in one of his letters to them.
That shows how many things Luke leaves out. If we had a letter of Paul about
every place he held a meeting we would not be ignorant about what was done. The
proof is that when he left Thessalonica he left preachers in charge of it, not
only Silas and Timothy, but special men. He didn't mark and brand cattle to
turn them out on the range.
QUESTIONS
1. Where is Thessalonica situated, what its strategic position in the days of
Paul and now, what of the Jews there, what its relation to the Mohammedans, and
what kind of government did it have?
2. How long was Paul there, and what the proof?
3. What the matter and what the manner of his preaching there?
4. What the importance of his method of preaching there?
5. What the manner of the reception of his preaching?
6. What the power of his preaching there?
7. How was the cost of the meeting borne, and what church sent contributions to
him at various times?
8. What was the character of the opposition at first in Thessalonica?
9. What was the result of the meeting then and thereafter?
10. What expression here stressed by the author, and why?
11. How did the persecution assume the Gentile form, and what the result?
12. What is the meaning of "lewd fellows" in this connection?
13. Who of the mission party had been left at Philippi?
14. On the whole, was the meeting successful with the Jews?
15. How was Paul's desire to continue his work at Thessalonica evinced later?
16. Give an account of Berea, its importance, the Jews there, the character of
the work done there, and the distinction between this result, and the result at
Thessalonica.
17. How was the work interrupted?
18. Whom did Paul leave behind?
19. Give an account of Athena.
20. How did Paul reach Athens?
21. What the state of Paul's mind when he arrived there?
22. What diverted his mind, and put him to work there?
23. To whom did he first preach?
24. Then to whom did he preach?
25. Who were the Epicureans, and who now represent them?
26. Who were the Stoics, and what did they teach?
27. What was Mars' Hill?
28. Describe Raphael's cartoon of Paul on Mars' Hill.
29. Analyze Paul's address on Mars' Hill.
30. What was the result of this effort of Paul?
31. Who were the poets from whom Paul quoted in this speech, and what were
their words?
32. Who came to him here?
33. What does this address prove as to Paul's learning?
34. What evidence have we that Paul discarded later this philosophical method
of preaching, and why?
35. What the respective impressions on Paul's life about the work in Philippi,
Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens?
36. Did Paul ordain elders in Thessalonica, and what the proof?
PAUL AT CORINTH AND THE END OF THE
SECOND MISSIONARY TOUR
Acts 18:1-22.
The twenty-seventh chapter of Farrar's Life of Paul is very fine
in furnishing a background of Acts 18. Also the corresponding chapters in
Conybeare and Howson, and particuarly that chapter in Stalker's short
Life of Paul that is devoted to the study of the New Testament church
the church at Corinth. But the Corinth of this section is not the Corinth of
ancient Greece. That Corinth was absolutely destroyed by the Romans before
Christ, and this is an entirely new city. It is situated on an isthmus which
connects the upper part of Greece with the lower part. The lower part is called
Peloponnesus, and the upper part is called Achaia. In the history of the world,
the strait of water or the isthmus of land has always been regarded as
strategically important. This isthmus was the highway from upper Greece into
lower Greece. It has a port on each side, one opening into the Aegean Sea, and
the other on the western side, opening into the Mediterranean Sea. The smaller
vessels of that day were sometimes dragged across that isthmus in order to
avoid that circuit around the lower part of Greece.
The government was proconsular. Whenever the governor of a Roman province is called
proconsul, that means that it is a senatorial province. If it is an imperial
province, then the emperor at Rome appoints without any counsel, its chief
officer, and the very word proconsul proves that this was a senatorial
province, and this Corinth of this section is the Roman capital of Achaia.
ITS CELEBRITIES
Standing high above the city is the mountain capped with buildings, called
Acro-Corinth, Just as Athens had its Acropolis. From the top of that
Acro-Corinth one could see over into both seas, and far out into upper and
lower Greece. The second celebrity was the famous Isthmian games where
athletics held sway. Athletes from every part of the world competed in boxing,
in foot racing, in throwing quoits. What we would call, in modern times, the
football ground of the world, was here at Corinth, and it attracted more
attention than anything else.
The third celebrity was its Temple of Venus. Venus had a great many temples,
and they were called by different names, but she was the main goddess worshiped
here.
ITS RELIGION
The religion was too vile to discuss publicly. Just think of Sodom and
Gomorrah) and you have a picture of the religion of Corinth. An ancient writer
said that Corinth had the highest culture in the world, but was rotten in the
sight of God. No decent tongue could describe what occurred under the name of
religion, Just as common and everyday as eating a family meal. This was
intensified by the fact that it was a commercial place of great importance,
and, second, it was the game place of the world. It was the place where the
vanity fairs, the races, and all forms of gambling were carried on, and the
sailors of two seas continually coming in, the vileness of the West itself,
polluted by the vileness of the Orient; thus we have a description of Corinth.
There were multitudes of Jews there. Wherever commerce goes, the Jew goes. It
was a place of multitudes of slaves, not Negro slaves, but captives of any
nation in war, reduced to the most abject slavery, in which the honor and the
life of the slave are held absolutely at the will of the owner. Paul was here
nearly two years. The record specifies that he remained here a year and a half,
with some time before, and many days after that. So if we say about two years,
we will have it about right.
Acts 18 and I and 2 Corinthians are of inestimable value. We would not have on
very vital points any New Testament, if these letters to this church that Paul
established there, were left out. So on that account, Dr. Stalker, in his Life
of Paul, devotes a whole chapter to the New Testament church, and takes the
church at Corinth as his example.
Paul went from Athens to Corinth. Athens is in the upper part of Greece toward
the east, and Corinth is right on the isthmus that connects upper and lower
Greece. I take for granted that he went by sea. He could go in about five
hours, and if he went the other way, by land, it was a very hard all day trip,
and some over, unless they went fast. There was nobody with Paul in going to
Corinth. Timothy had joined him at Athens. Silas was yet at Berea, and Paul had
sent Timothy from Athens back to Thessalonica. Luke had remained at Philippi,
and so here he was by himself going off to a new place. But he found on his
arrival in Corinth Priscilla and Aquila, about the most noted married couple
mentioned in the New Testament, with the woman's name coming first. In other
words, I take it that she had a more decided character than her husband. A
famous Southern woman was called Madam Laver and Mr. Laver was called the
husband of Madam Laver. But her name was in the front. They both, Aquila and
Priscilla, are good and great people. They lived a part of their time at Rome,
and the Emperor Claudius just at that time had banished the Jews from Rome.
There was a tremendous colony of Jews on the off side of the Tiber in the city
of Rome, a place of terrible disturbances, and Claudius banished the Jews. And
so Aquila and Priscilla, being Jews, came over to Corinth.
A connected New Testament account of this remarkable man and his wife is of
some value. By taking a concordance and getting the names, we find that at
Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, they kept house; and in Rome they had a church in
their own house. There is no use in talking about this faithful New Testament
couple living out of the church. If there wasn't a church, they would establish
one. I always like to read about them. They are the ones who take young
preachers in charge, who haven't learned all about the gospel, and teach them
what they don't know, and keep them from making mistakes a fatherly, motherly
couple.
Paul was supported in Corinth at first by his own labor. It was cheap labor,
and he didn't make enough to live on, and part of the time he was half starved.
I mean that, literally. Later, when Silas and Timothy Joined him, they brought
a contribution from the Philippian church, and be had a better time after that.
This privation of Paul gives the occasion of the most remarkable discussion in
the New Testament on the support of the ministry. We find it in 2 Corinthians.
Everyone ought to read and thoroughly study that discussion. He asks these
Corinthian people to forgive him for doing them the wrong of not being
chargeable to them for that two years' work. It hurt them for a preacher to
stay there two years and get nothing for it. It was a "slam" on them.
But he had a special reason. Everybody in Corinth worked for gain. And so, when
this preacher came, the first question would be, "What ax has he to
grind?" "What selfish interest is he after?" Some of them didn't
work for gain, but they would sell themselves for gain, body and soul. Seeing
what public sentiment was on that subject, he determined that no man in Corinth
should give him a nickel. He claimed, however, his right to a living. But he
waived the right in view of the exigency of the situation.
Paul's labors, until the arrival of Timothy and Silas, were very strenuous. He
worked so hard every day to get enough to support him that he used the sabbaths
only in discussing with the Jews in their synagogues, somewhat mildly too. But
there was a turn in his labors on the coming of Timothy and Silas. He was a man
that appreciated sympathy. His heart craved it. He loved to see brethren
standing close by him that would stand up to him, and it greatly increased his
courage and his determination when Silas and Timothy joined him. So when they
same, he went over to the synagogue and made this issue supreme: The Messiah of
the Old Testament is Jesus of Nazareth. When he made that issue, and made it
very sharp, the Jews blasphemed. They accepted the challenge, and fought back
at him so hard that he shook his robe, like shaking the dust off his feet,
signifying that he was done with them. Their fight against him was intensely
bitter. You see his feelings reflected in his letter to the Thessalonians which
he wrote there, about how intense and bitter was their opposition. He went just
across the street to the house of a Jewish proselyte called Justus, and held
his meeting there in that private house. We will see that he did exactly a
similar thing when we get to the next chapter, at Ephesus, when he goes over
into the schoolhouse of one Tyrannus and opens up his meeting. He was close to
the synagogue and the Jews, and he wanted to be thus situated so that all the Jews
going to the synagogue who wanted to hear him could do so, and he held his
meetings there in that house.
The condition of his labors here was hard:
1. He was afflicted in body very .much. He was very weak, and the physical
condition caused his mind to despond.
2. The opposition was baneful and deadly.
3. His hunger and poverty were such that he broke down under it. It is the only
place in the Bible where it looked like Paul was going to be whipped.
God saw that his servant was about to fail. Jesus appeared to him in a vision
and said, "Fear not, Paul. You are letting these people scare you. Fear
not, nobody here shall harm you." He had his life in his hand every day,
and he knew that those Jews had the spirit to assault him on the streets, anywhere
they met him. "Fear not, Paul, I am with thee. Preach boldly the truth and
don't let the fear of man fall on your heart; your meeting is going to be very
prosperous, for I have much people in this city." That is a clause that
calls for explanation. God is here speaking of people as being his people
before they had even been under conviction: "Is have much people in this
city. You haven't called them out yet, but there is a lot of them here, and you
have to preach and let your preaching bring them out." An Arminian can't
explain that passage, but a Calvinist can. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says,
"Other sheep have I, not of this fold. I am going to call them, and when I
call they will come." The man doesn't come first. Let me repeat again what
I have endeavored to make plain that God's work comes first, and that man
responds to God's work. The Arminian would like to have it read, "I will
have much people in this city after they are converted." He counted them
his then his in election; his in predestination.
His themes here were very different from what they were at Athens. He stuck to
one theme here Jesus Christ and him crucified. He had only one reliance here
the demonstration of power by the Holy Spirit. He laid aside all his rhetoric
and all his earthly wisdom and knowledge, and as a little child, relying
exclusively upon the power of the eternal Spirit, he preached Christ and him
crucified. He admitted that there was not much strength in him. He says,
"I was with you in weakness and fear and much trembling. You couldn't
depend on me," and he says, "I determined that if you were converted,
your conversion should not be attributed to the wisdom of man, but to the
demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit."
There were some very notable conversions here. Among them Crispus, the ruler of
the synagogue, and his entire family. Paul captured the captain on the other
side Stephanus and all of his household, and another Gaius. He got one Gains
in Derbe, and another in Macedonia, and still a third Gains, he gets here at
Corinth; and Erastus, who is also a man of influence these became valuable
helpers in after years. But the majority of his converts came from what we call
the lower classes of the people. A great number of them were slaves. Some of
them were fresh from the vilest debasements of heathenism. Some of them were
liars. He says so. Some of them were drunkards, for he says, "Such were
some of you," when exhorting them to quit lying, stealing, and subjecting
themselves to beastly debauchery. "Such were some of you, but ye are now
washed; ye are sanctified."
When we consider that this population here was very much mixed, the last layer
being Romans, the next layer Greeks, then Jews, then a mixture of the odds and ends
of creation, every traveling faddist, necromancer, fortuneteller, seer, diviner
every fellow that had a trick by which to make money at a fair coming to
the Isthmian games, we can form some idea of the nature of the converts. If we
go to any big city where a fair is going on, we may see the fellows standing
around who will relieve us of our money for a great variety of things and with
very little trouble to us if we pay any attention to them.
Achaia was a senatorial province. It changed back and forth in its history, but
now we know by that word, "deputy" (in the King James version,
"procurator"), that it was senatorial. Gallic was the procurator, and
Farrar, chapter 27, gives us a superb account of him. His real name was not
Gallic, but a Roman widower named Gallic had adopted him, so he had added the
name Gallic to his own name. He was the brother of the famous philosopher,
Seneca, and was said to be the noblest, most gentlemanly Roman of his day,
about as Sir Philip Sidney was regarded among the English. He is the only man
that the Romans ever called "the sweet Gallic." He was always
superbly dressed, gentlemanly in manners, nothing harsh about him, and his
brother Seneca was known to say of him, "Everybody in the world loves Gallic,
and none of them loves him half as much as he deserves." This is the
character of the man that was proconsul.
The prosecution of Paul before Gallic is quite interesting. Gallic had just
come, and these Jews had been fighting Paul to the death, seeing a new
procurator, determined to prosecute him before the procurator, and their charge
was that he taught contrary to the Jewish law. As soon as the charge was made,
Paul rose to speak, and Gallic waved him aside: "There is no necessity for
any speaking here. I quash this indictment. If you have a charge against this
man for immorality, for anything that comes in the Roman jurisdiction, it is
reasonable that I should hear you, but when you come up here concerning
questions and matters of your own law, I will have nothing to do with it. This
court dismisses the case." Farrar well says, "I wish he had not
dismissed it till Paul had made that speech he started to make, for we do want
another speech from Paul, such a one as he would have made if he had had a
chance."
There are a great many people who hang around the courthouse and catch the cue
from the tone of the judge, and when these men saw the judge dismiss Sosthenes,
the ruler of the synagogue, probably the successor of Crispus when they saw
him dismissed from the court, they concluded they would add a little to it. So
they grabbed Mr. Sosthenes and gave him a beating right there in full view of
the judge. It wasn't hard to make a Greek or a Roman crowd beat a Jew. All they
wanted was permission.
I knew one young man in Burleson County that couldn't make a prayer in public
without referring to the number of the people like Gallic, who "cared for
none of these things." He brought it into every prayer that he ever
offered. Now when it is said that Gallic "cared for none of these
things," it wasn't the religious question that he cared nothing about, but
he didn't care what they did to. Sosthenes, that Jew. That was a very little
matter to him, and it was to anybody that came from Rome. He had never heard
the Christian side presented at all. Perhaps if he had heard it he might have
been saved, and tradition says that Paul did save his brother Seneca when he
got to him.
This question arises: Is the Sosthenes of verse 17 the Sosthenes of 1
Corinthians 1:1? 1 Corinthians, the first letter that Paul writes back to this
church, says, "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the
will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother." Now, is he the same man? If he
is the same man, that beating did him a great deal of good. But there is no
reason to suppose that it was the same man.
Some great letters were written from Corinth at this time. In these two years,
early in his stay there, he wrote the first letter to the Thessalonians. As
soon as Timothy came and brought him the news, he wrote that letter of love and
comfort, I Thessalonians, and toward the end of his stay there, about a year
after his first letter, he wrote his second letter to correct some wrong
impressions that they had drawn from his preaching among them, and from his
first letter about expecting Christ any moment, and making their ascension
robes, quitting their business and giving away their property. He wrote the
second letter to take that conception out of their minds.
There were remarkable displays of spiritual power in the great number of
baptisms in the Spirit at Corinth. All those Pentecostal signs speaking with
tongues, miracle-working power, the gifts of the Spirit, and mountain-moving
faith. No church in the New Testament had such a meteoric display of
supernatural power as this church had at Corinth, and it was the wonder of the
world to see a saved man get up and speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave
him utterance. A man who the week before had been a drunkard, would turn away
from maudlin speech to enunciating the praises of God, under the mighty power
of that Spirit. The meeting stirred the mud sills.
They misused these supernatural gifts of the Spirit in that they magnified them
above the graces of the Spirit love, faith, hope, and Christian character.
Let a man from low down in the scale of the world, from the rabble, get hold of
such tremendous power as that of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and it is the
biggest thing in the world. He doesn't want to think about anything else nor
talk about anything else, so when he would get into a meeting with others who
had received this gift, it was like a bedlam. Twenty-five or thirty would be
standing up at the same time, some singing, some praying, some testifying. Paul
writes to them and says, "If an infidel or an ignorant man should come
upon you during such a time he would say, 'You are crazy,' " and therefore
he wrote those three marvelous chapters, the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth
chapters of I Corinthians, which is the one great exposition of the baptism of
the Spirit found in the New Testament.
I am now glad that they babbled as they did, for if they had not, we in our
time would never have had that sweetest gem in the Bible๙1 Corinthians 13, in
which he teaches that "Love is the greatest thing in the world," and
the superiority of faith and hope over any of these passing powers that were
merely given for signs and for attestation: "Whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be prophecies, they shall fail, but now abideth
faith, hope, love these three, and the greatest of these is love." So
that we are indebted to what the Methodists would call "that sanctified
row" in the church at Corinth for about the three finest chapters in the
New Testament.
With the most remarkable sagacity, Dr. Stalker has put in a brief life of Paul
and made one of his chapters "a New Testament Church." I have been
wonderfully impressed with his acumen and wisdom in making that chapter bring
out before us, so we can see it, a church of New Testament times. Some Jews in
it, many heathen in it, slaves in it, recently converted drunkards, and liars
and thieves all of this church babes in Christ, mere toddlers without
training and experience, misunderstanding the Lord's Supper and their public services,
and yet Christians, needing a leader, needing discipline, needing confirmation
in the faith. Stalker well says that if you should take a look at that New
Testament church the church at Corinth you would not be filled with despair
if you had vexatious problems in the church to which you preach. Where have you
in our time, among this decent American people, anything at all comparable to
the problems of that New Testament church?
THE END OF THE SECOND MISSIONARY TOUR
The salient events of Paul's return to Syria, in order, are these: About ten
miles from Corinth was its seaport opening into the Aegean Sea at Cenchrea. He
went there because he intended to reach Syria by sea. Aquila and Priscilla went
with him. They intended to stop at Ephesus, having business there, and to
Paul's surprise, the Jews in Ephesus, who had never met him, heard him and
asked him to come again and stay longer. He said "No" that he had
an engagement ahead of him, and that if God willed he would come back again,
and on the next tour he did come back and in the power that shook the world.
But just now he couldn't stop to hold a meeting in Ephesus. So he sailed into
Syria, and his vessel landed him at Caesarea, the Roman capital of Judea, and
from Caesarea he went to Jerusalem and saluted the brethren, and from Jerusalem
he went to Antioch, the place where he set out. Those are the salient events.
Paul, staying two years in Corinth, would necessarily have a church established
at that seaport, only ten miles away. He reached all that country in that two
years' meeting, so that we know that there was a church there, because he
mentions a church there in his letter to the Romans written not a great while
after, while he was at Ephesus on the next trip. And the most notable member of
that church was a woman named Phoebe, who was a deaconess. Paul bears
remarkable testimony to her. He says she was a helper of many.
May heaven's blessing rest on the good women that, in the cause of the gospel,
give themselves, heart and soul, to it! Such a woman as Priscilla, such a woman
as Phoebe, such a ladies' society as the first ladies' society of the New
Testament, organized to take care of Jesus as their guest; such women as Lydia
and numbers of others what an unmixed blessing to the church and to the
world!
But what have you to say of this office? Was it a New Testament office? When I
was pastor of the First Baptist Church at Waco, we elected deaconesses, but we
didn't ordain them. In other words, in the administration of the affairs of a
large church, there is always some use for experienced women. Sometimes a case
of discipline would come up concerning a woman, involving matters of such
delicacy that a deacon could not very well investigate it. That is a fine place
for a deaconess to get in some work. Sometimes it happens that strangers join
the church, women who don't know how to prepare for baptism, and a deaconess,
as soon as a woman would join the church, would go right up to her and ask her
if she understood what was necessary to be done for baptism, proffer her
assistance, and a great many other things of that kind.
The record says that at Cenchrea, he shaved his head, having a vow. Some of the
commentators boldly claim that Aquila is the nearest word to that expression
"he had a vow" that Aquila is nearer than Paul, and that we ought
not to skip Aquila in going back to find an antecedent. But the probabilities
are that Paul had a vow. I imagine that, back there in that Corinthian meeting,
when he was about whipped in mind, whipped inside, about to give up, and when
Jesus appeared to him and told him not to get scared, that he was with him and
nobody should hurt him๙1 imagine that in that awful time, following the human
instinct and perfectly in accord with the Old Testament covenant, he made a vow
the most natural thing in the world for a man to do when he is in very great
trouble. "Now Lord, you just get me out of this and Is will do so and
so." Is know one mercurial man in Waco that every time he gets sick he gets
scared and calls in all his kinsmen and solemnly makes a vow that if the Lord
will pull him through this time, that he will go to church; that he will be
good, but when the trouble is past, he is like Ephraim, like the fellow in the
ship about to sink, who said, "Lord, if you will just save me from this
ocean death, I will give 5,000 dollars to your cause," and an Irishman
near by hearing him, said, "You are a fool," and the man said,
"Why, ought I not to say it?" "Yes, but don't you mean it. Just
say you will, and when you are saved out of it, you needn't do what you
promised." It is right to make a vow. That is clearly taught in the Old
Testament, but "Pay thy vows unto the Lord." If we will do a good
thing, it is right to resolve to do it, but the wise man says in that
inimitable book of Ecclesiastes, "Keep your feet. Don't let them slip from
under you when you go into the house of God, and don't give the sacrifice of
fools." He is talking about their vows. He says it is better that one
should not vow than to vow and not pay. He says, "If you dovow, pay, and
don't say before the angel, It was an error." Anyhow, Paul made a vow and
the vow we know from what is said about it, was what is called the temporary
Nazirite vow. A man might vow a Nazirite vow for thirty days, or he might take
the vow of the Nazirite for life. John the Baptist was a Nazirite. Did the
shaving of the head mark its beginning or its end? That marks its end.
On his return from the second missionary tour, did Paul go to Jerusalem before
he went to Antioch, and what the proof? A good deal of it rests on one
statement: "And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and saluted the
church, and went down to Antioch." That is all in the history about this
fourth visit of his to Jerusalem after his conversion, and it is a matter of
fact that in going to Jerusalem. from Caesarea, it is all the way up hill, and,
as one traveler said, "half the way back." Dr. Farrar allowed his
imagination to spread its wings and take a big flight in trying to fill up this
record, "He went up and saluted the church." He thinks rightly, I
suppose, that Paul wanted always to have a good relation to that Jerusalem
church and the other apostles, but he imagines from the little said about it
and the short stay, that they gave Paul the cold shoulder. They may have done
so. There were some that would have been quite willing to do it.
There is a notable difference in Paul's travels and letters and the travels and
letters of modern Christians, and even the modern lives of Paul. Paul never
wrote anything about the statue of Minerva, the Pantheon, the Acropolis at
Athens, the Acro-Corinth, the notable landscapes and "seascapes." Let
one of the brethren go off on a trip to the Holy Land and he devotes his whole
letter to the description of curios, in answering questions concerning curios
and sightseeing, but Paul was more interested in "manscapes" than
landscapes or seascapes. He was going on a mission of salvation. All of his
heart and soul was in it. It would amaze Paul to read Conybeare and Howson or
Farrar, at the immense amount of space that they devote to background. And yet
there is proof that Paul was not unobservant of the remarkable scenes witnessed
in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 4:9; 9:24-27; 11: 14; 15:32; 2 Corinthians 1:14-16; 5:10
show that Paul took a look at those Isthmian games when he was there; that many
of his illustrations refer to the boxing, the foot racing, the athletic
exercises, and to the triumphs that are declared. He doesn't give a shadow of a
thought to what they were, but simply makes that language to apply to Christian
footraces, the Christian athletic exercise and the Christian triumph. In
Corinth he wrote his letter to the Romans, and that awful picture of
heathendom, commencing at 1:21 and extending to verse 32, was illustrated
before his eyes there in Corinth. In the first letter to the Corinthians, 5:1;
6:9-20; 10:7-8; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 7:1, we see that the most impressive, the
most appalling thing to Paul was the moral corruption of the place. It was at this
place that a man took his father's wife. Read the passages that I have given,
and see that when this preacher got there, more to him than the scenery, more
than the widespread white wings of commerce, more than culture and refinement,
more than the startling sight of ships dragged across that little isthmus from
sea to sea, was the awful corruption of this Sodom.
I close this chapter with a lesson concerning Gallic. What a pity that Gallic
did not know that that day he had an opportunity, and perhaps the only one in
his life, of hearing a speaker whose words would reverberate throughout
succeeding ages till the coming of Christ! Gallic stands up before the minds of
the world simply because, for one brief moment of his life, he came into the
light of Paul, and millions of people know Gallic from that fact more than
anything about which his brother Seneca or the Roman Emperor said of him. Then
was his opportunity.
For one fleeting instant he stood in the orbit of the light of the greatest man
history ever produced, and if he had not waved aside the speaker ready to
speak, he could have heard precious things.
QUESTIONS
1. What the special helps on Acts 18?
2. Give a brief account of Corinth, its situation, history, government,
celebrities, religion, and the Jews.
3. How long was Paul there?
4. What the value of Acts 18 and. I and 2 Corinthians?
5. Trace on the map Paul's travel from Athena to Corinth.
6. Who was with Paul in going to Corinth?
7. Whom did he find there, and why were they there?
8. Give a connected New Testament account of this remarkable man and his wife.
9. How was Paul supported in Corinth?
10. To what remarkable discussion does this give an occasion?
11. Give an account of Pauls labors until the arrival of Timothy and Silas.
12. What turn in his labors was stressed on the coming of Timothy and Silas,
and what was the issue of it?
13. What constituted the hard condition of his labors there?
14. How was he cheered and uplifted, and what the explanation of the last
clause of 18:10?
15. What the themes of his ministry there?
16. What notable conversions there, and what the position and character of most
of the converts?
17. Was Achaia an imperial or senatorial province of Rome, and what the proof?
18. Give an account of Gallic, the procurator, and what book gives a fine and
elaborate account of him?
19. Give an account of the prosecution of Paul before Gallic, its charge, why
dismissed, and the result?
20. Explain the misuse of the last clause of verse 17 in modem sermonizing.
21. Is the Sosthenes of verse 17 the Sosthenes of 1 Corinthians 1:1?
22. What great letters were written from Corinth at this time?
23. What remarkable display of spiritual power in this meeting, what its
misuse, and what the great discussion called forth by the misuse?
24. How has Dr. Stalker made most valuable use of this part of Paul's work?
25. Give, in order, the salient events of Paul's return to Syria.
26. Give an account of Cenchrea, the church established there, its most notable
member, and her office.
27. Was the vow at Cenchrea Paul's or Aquila's, what the proof, and did the
shaving of the head mark its beginning or its ending?
28. What the proof that on his return from the second missionary tour Paul went
to Jerusalem before he went to Antioch?
29. In what notable respect are Paul's travels and letters different from the
travels and letters of modern Christians, and even from the modem lives of
Paul, and what the lesson?
30. Yet what proof that Paul was not unobservant of the remarkable scenes
witnessed in Corinth?
31. What feature of Corinthians life most impressed his mind?
32. What great lesson concerning Gallic?
PAUL'S THIRD MISSIONARY TOUR PAUL AT
EPHESUS
Acts 18:23 to 21:16.
The scriptures, so far as Acts is concerned, devoted to this tour, are from
chapters 18:23 to 21:16. The special theme is "Paul at Ephesus" (Acts
19). The time of the whole tour is from A.D. 54 to A.D. 58๙four years. The time
at Ephesus, three years. At this time Nero was emperor at Rome, and under him
Paul was to suffer martyrdom.
Let us trace on the map the whole tour from Antioch to Jerusalem. Commencing at
his usual starting point, Antioch. he came near Tarsus, and went up into upper
Galatia Galatia proper confirming the churches at Tavium, Ancyra, and
Pessius. Then he went down to Ephesus. He was at Ephesus three years. In that
time he made many other runs into the country, so as to reach all Asia. Leaving
Ephesus, he went again into Macedonia, stopping at Troas, as before, where
Titus met him, or was to have met him, came on into Macedonia, and went to
these same churches where he had labored on his second missionary tour, then
coming on down to Corinth, where he remained quite a while, three months
anyhow, and in that time he wrote the letter to the Galatians and the letter to
the Romans; while at Ephesus he wrote the first letter to the church at
Corinth; while up in Macedonia he wrote the second letter to the church at
Corinth. Then he came on back and took a sea voyage to Tyre and to Caesarea,
then he went to Jerusalem, and there he was arrested and remained a prisoner
all through the rest of the book of Acts.
A large part of this tour is devoted to confirming churches previously
established. Until he goes to Ephesus all that part of the first tour is
devoted to confirming churches previously established, and after he leaves
Ephesus, all that part of the tour through Macedonia and Achaia is devoted to
confirming churches. The advanced work is the work that he did at Ephesus. The
letters written during this tour, as stated above, are as follows: While he was
at Ephesus he wrote the first letter to the Corinthians, and after he got over
into Macedonia he wrote the second letter to the Corinthians, when he got to
Corinth he wrote the letter to the Galatians, and also the one to the Romans,
and this last letter, the one to the Romans, was to prepare the way for his
coming to Rome.
The closing part of chapter 18 tells us that Apollos came to Ephesus; that he
was a Jew from Alexandria; that he was a very learned and a very eloquent Jew;
that he had heard of John's preaching over in Judea that Jesus had come, John
pointing to Jesus as "The Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the
world." Further than that he did not know. It was a gospel of a Messiah,
but what that Messiah he did not know. He is one of the most remarkable
characters in the Bible, and his contact with Paul is very special. Just about
the time that Paul goes to Ephesus, before he gets there, Apollos has expressed
a desire, after being instructed in the way of the Lord by Aquila and
Priscilla, to go over to Corinth. They write letters of commendation, and he
goes to Corinth, being now fully instructed in the gospel of Jesus, and becomes
a tremendous help to Paul in Corinth, but is made the occasion of a division,
though himself not intending evil.
Perhaps there was no man living who could, in a more popular way, present the
Old Testament scriptures, and their bearing upon Jesus as the Messiah. He did
not have an equal in his day as a popular speaker. In his graces of person all
the matters preached were lost. At Corinth some brethren were so attached to
him that they preferred him to Paul and Peter, or anybody else, and in that
way, without his intending it, he was made a part of the occasion of creating a
division in the church at Corinth. To show that he had no part in it, Paul,
after Apollos came back to Ephesus, wanted to send him back to Corinth, but in
view of the troubles that had arisen, he declined to go. He did not want to go
there and let a crowd of schismatics rally around him. The scriptures which
refer to this man are not a great many, but they are very pointed, showing his
real value as a genuine preacher, and Paul was very much attached to him.
A mighty financial enterprise was engineered on this third tour, an enterprise
of mammoth proportions to help the poor saints in Jerusalem. We have to gather
the history of this work, which was a big enough piece of work for any one man
to do, from the various letters. The most notable scriptures bearing upon it
are 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8-9, though there are references
elsewhere. When he got there into Galatia that he had previously evangelized,
he gave orders to these churches to lay by in store on the first day of every
week, and take up a systematic collection. When he got over into Macedonia, he
repeated these orders, and the finest response of any of them was made by these
poor people living at Philippi. When he came down into Achaia, he repeated the
same instructions to the churches there, and in his two letters, particularly the
two to the church at Corinth, he tried to stir them up to redeem the pledges
they had made the year before. All through this period of four years, that
systematic collection was going on. He sent Titus to help out the Corinthians
in engineering their collections, and as the funds were raised, they were
placed in the hands of representatives of the church raising the money, and
some representative of each section went back with him when he went to
Jerusalem to carry it. So when he got to Jerusalem, the end of this tour, he
put down before the leaders of the church funds that had, during the four
years, been gathered in the Gentile churches of Asia and in Europe. What a pity
that, coming before that Jerusalem church with these funds, the brethren did
not give him a more cordial welcome!
What is written about this financial enterprise is of inestimable value to the
churches today. To show how much value could be drawn, I got my first idea from
what is a prepared collection from studying these financial enterprises as
stated everywhere in these letters. Every preacher should group the references
to this enterprise and the different expediences adopted, and learn once for
all how a collection is to be taken, how a great contribution is to be
engineered. I practiced it in my pastoral life in Waco. When a collection was
to be taken for home, state, or foreign missions, or the Orphans' Home, I spent
weeks preceding, preparing for that collection, and when the day came, before a
word was said, Is would know within a few dollars what that collection was
going to amount to. I had first canvassed the Ladies' Society, B. Y. P. U., and
the Sunday school, and knew what they were going to pledge. I had previously
approached the leading contributors as to how much they would give as a start,
when the collection was to be taken. As soon as the day came and I had
announced the purpose of the collection, Is simply called out, "Ladies'
Society No. I, No. 2," etc., and their amounts would be called out and the
money sent up in an envelope; then the Sunday school, then the Young People's
Union, then expressions from leading individuals, BO that by the time this was
over, which would be done in Just a few minutes, we would generally have about
a thousand dollars. Then would commence the appeal to others that could not do
so much, and in fifteen minutes our collection would be over. If any man
imagines that that was an offhand business, then it shows that he has not
studied the situation; that he did not know what I had been doing for weeks.
PAUL AT EPHESUS
Ephesus, for a long period, had been a famous city. It is near the coast line
and they had at this time a magnificent seaport. It was a Greek city. The
Ionians had colonized Ephesus, and the day of the Greek glory had passed, and it
was now the capital of the Roman province of Asia. While it had its own
municipal government, the Greek ecclesia, the very word that is used to refer
to a church, and exactly such an ecclesia as that ruled Athens, ruled in
other Greek cities unless the power had been taken away from them, but we will
have special occasion in this connection to learn what a Greek ecclesia does.
The celebrities at Ephesus constitute a part of the wonders of the world. This
very celebrity was the marvelous temple of Diana. This temple had been burned
down the night that Alexander the Great was born, and all Asia Minor and Greece
proper contributed funds to rebuild it. When Alexander came to be a man, they
still had not completed it, and be offered to furnish all the funds if they
would just let his name be written on it. They declined. There were 127 pillars
of the most magnificent sculpture that has ever been seen in any structure on
earth. A prince was proud to be allowed to put up just one of those pillars if
he was able. The stairway work into the upper part of it was just one vine,
brought from Cyprus, that naturally curved to make the stairway. That temple is
listed among the seven wonders of the ancient world.
In the temple were the finest pieces of sculpture in the world. The greatest of
the sculptors at Athens prided themselves on putting their masterpieces in this
temple. The greatest painters had hanging on these walls their masterpieces.
Votive offerings, priceless in value, were to be seen. The shrine part of the
temple, that part which held the goddess, was a small dark place somewhat like
the most holy place in the Jerusalem Temple, and back of that shrine was a
bank, as we now call it. It was the safe place for all the people of that end
of the world to put their money.
The Diana of this temple must not be confounded with the Diana of the Greek or
Roman religion. That one was beautiful, but this Diana here, so far as the
statue shows, was a beastly, Oriental, ugly image that looked like a mummy,
wrapped about on the lower part and covered with breasts, the whole idea being
to show the productiveness of nature. And it was claimed that that statue
dropped down from heaven. I don't blame anybody in heaven for dropping it, if
it was up there. The worship of it was just as bad as the worship of Venus on
the Island of Cyprus, or in the city of Corinth.
The time of the great festival was our May Day in May. All Asia poured into
Ephesus in May, and this is just the time that this persecution against Paul
takes place just this time of the year. Their May Day festival consisted
largely of parades, something like a carnival in New Orleans, but in the city
of Rome men put on grotesque masks, some representing Jupiter,, some Mercury,
some Venus, some one thing. and some another, and the beating of ten million
tin pans, or the scraping of iron, or the grinding of steel, or the letting off
of forty steam engines at one time could not equal the kind of noise they made.
They thought it great, and that it needed a great noise.
Another celebrity there was its famous amphitheatre. The remnants of it can be
seen until this day, in which some of the events in this chapter took place. It
would seat thirty thousand people, being somewhat larger than most theatresin
this country. These were the notable celebrities the Temple of Diana, one of
the wonders of the world, their famous May Festival, and this magnificent
theatre.
I have already given some account of the character of their religion. Just as
at the fairs in this country, there are thousands of people who made their
living by carving little shrines and temples, either representing the temple
itself, or representing the image of the goddess, with magical letters written
on it. These visitors would come in and want to carry back a portable temple,
portable goddess or portable memento of the time they had had at the May
Festival. There were a great many Jews there.
There were three co-existent ecclesias present in this one city, which
had a bearing on the essential character of a New Testament church. First,
there was the Greek ecclesia that organized assembly which performed
no functions except as an assembly. Then the Jewish ecclesia, and finally that
ecclesia of which Jesus said, "I will build my ecclesia" Every one of
them was an organized assembly, each one of them had no power to transact
business except in session at the regular assembly. I know that some men, just
a handful, yet have an idea that the church is not an ecclesia, and they deny
the ecclesia idea altogether. Theological professors who take that position
have to repudiate 136 references to the Jerusalem ecclesia, and they have to
repudiate every reference to Christ's ecclesia.
One text summarizes the whole situation at Ephesus. Paul, in writing his first
letter to the Corinthians, says, "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost;
for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many
adversaries." When I was a young preacher I took that as my text and took
Acts 19 to expound the meaning of the text. We find that passage in 1
Corinthians 16. That text summarizes the whole situation.
The rest of this chapter will be devoted to expounding that text, "There
are many adversaries." Ten special adversaries are mentioned. Acts 19:1-7
tells us that when Paul got over there he found a certain adversary in the form
of an incomplete gospel, and it was hurtful to the complete gospel to have the
ground overcast by an incomplete gospel. Let us state fully the case of the
twelve disciples found at Ephesus, and bring out clearly the following points
of controversy: (1) Was John's baptism and gospel, Christian baptism and
gospel? (2) Who baptized the twelve disciples? (3) Were they rebaptized by
Paul? (4) If so, what the elements of invalidity in their first immersion? (5)
What the bearing of the whole case on valid baptism?
The record states that when Paul got over there and found these men, he said,
"Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" You know that in
Acts 2:38 there was a promise that whosoever would believe in Jesus Christ
would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That gift had come down that day
with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now Paul, wishing to find out the status
of these men, says, "Did ye receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?" And
they said, "We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was
given." That is, they had no knowledge at all of Pentecost.
"Well," he said, "into what then were ye baptized?" They
said, "Into John's baptism." Paul then explains that John truly
preached "repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus," and
baptized people, but it was in a Christ to come, John had foretold this thing
that had occurred on Pentecost, saying, "When the Messiah comes he will
baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
John had been dead twenty years. These men evidently had not seen baptism by
John. If they had ever heard John, they would have known that John taught that
the Messiah would send this gift of the Holy Spirit, and would baptize his
people in the Holy Spirit. He saw that there was a deficiency in their baptism,
and that their faith did not go far enough, since it did not take in a Messiah
as already come. It was a general belief in a Messiah, but not in Jesus as a particular
Messiah. John was the harbinger to Christ. He had no successor; no man had a
right to perpetuate John's baptism; so when people elsewhere, as did Alexander,
took it upon themselves to baptize with reference to John's baptism, it was
without any authority. So that a capital deficiency in their baptism was that
it was not by an authorized administrator, and so Paul, having explained the
matter to them that the Holy Spirit in the baptism of the saints had come down,
and that Jesus had come, counting as nothing the unauthorized baptism to which
they had been subjected, rebaptized them, and then laid his hands on them and
they received the gift of the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. They
were thus lined up, and that is the way that trouble was disposed of.
This is a real adversary you find as you go out to work. As a rule you will
find people lodged about half way. They believe some things, but they don't get
far enough. Perhaps they are satisfied with the sprinkling they received in
childhood; perhaps they have had a baptism like these people, but not by a
qualified administrator, and the thing tends to confusion, but if you are ever
going to have people drawn into cooperation, you will have to meet those
things.
The second adversary is presented in Acts 19:8-10: "And he entered into
the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and
persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were
hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
departed from them and separated the disciples, reasoning daily In the school
of Tyrannus. And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they
that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." That
adversary was the Jewish ecclesia the synagogue refusing to accept Jesus as
the Messiah, blaspheming his name, bitterly obstructing the work, as we have
seen in other places. Paul saw that in that city of the gods a line of cleavage
must be drawn so he did just what he had done at Corinth. He moved his meeting
to the schoolhouse. He had nothing more to do with the Jews; they could not
walk together; they could not agree. The Jews were fighting him and fighting
the gospel, so that he disposed of that adversary by a separation of the church
and the Jews. He drew a line. He did not want a row every time they came to the
meeting. He followed this plan for two years, and held the day.
The third adversary is presented in Acts 19:11-12: "And God wrought
special miracles by the hands of Paul; insomuch that unto the sick were carried
away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from
them, and the evil spirits went out." That adversary was the demons, the
devil's spiritual agency, and if there ever was a place on earth where
demonology prevailed in its worst extent, and the demons were multitudinous and
disastrous, it was right here at Ephesus. As Satan's sub-agents, his demons had
been controlling that city, and its business, and prompting its spirit, it
became necessary that some extraordinary power of God should be brought to bear
to counteract the influence of those demons. So here we come to a case of
special miracles. Here I commend to the reader my sermon on "Special
Miracles." The Spirit's power was displayed in an unusual way. We had a
case of that remarkable miracle where the very shadow of Peter healed people
near him. An apron that Paul wore while he was at work at his trade, carried
and touched by a sick man a man under demoniacal possession caused the
devil to go out of him, and a handkerchief that Paul used to wipe his face when
the sweat would pour down under his labor, had the same effect. These were
unusual miracles, like the miracle of Elisha's bones that brought a man to life
when he touched them. God shows extraordinary power in order to meet
extraordinary exigencies, and so the demons were wiped out.
The fourth adversary is given in Acts 19:13-18: "But certain also of the
strolling Jews, exorcists, took upon them to name over them that had the evil
spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul
preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, who
did this. And the evil spirit answered and said unto them, Jesus I know, and
Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on
them, and mastered both of them and prevailed against them, so that they fled
out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, both Jews
and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all, and the name of
the Lord Jesus was magnified. Many also of them that had believed, came,
confessing and declaring their deeds."
So we find this adversary to be impostors who assumed to cast out' demons under
the name of Jesus, while having no respect for Jesus, and hating Paul
impostors that borrowed Paul's reputation there and the idea of the power of
Jesus in casting out demons, and these impostors came from the Jews. I once
heard a preacher say, shaking his head, "Those were smart demons, saying,
'Jesus I recognize, Paul I know, but who are you? You liar, you impostor, you
can't come to meeting shaking the name of Jesus over me. I can whip you.'
" And so that is the way that adversary was overcome.
The fifth adversary we find in Acts 19:19-20: "And not a few of them that
practiced magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the
sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand
pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed."
What was that adversary? Evil literature, called "Ephesian Letters."
Certain letters were written on little slips to carry in the vest pocket,
pinned on the lapel of the coat; certain magical incantations were written out.
You find abundant reference to it in ancient literature, plays about a certain
athlete who never could be killed until he had lost the magical letters on his
person. Like a Negro with a horseshoe above his door, or with a rabbit's foot
to keep good luck. It is asserted that that literature obtained a hold over a
great many of their minds, and it obtains it yet over many minds. A great many
people now will turn back if a rabbit goes across the path ahead of them. They
go back and start over if they happen to take a ring off the finger. They will
not start on a journey on Friday. In our time there is a vicious literature,
vile and corrupt, and that is one of the greatest enemies of Christianity. Good
literature has to fight evil literature, and the gospel triumphs when the evil
literature goes down. When those books were brought together and piled in that
street, and a bonfire made of them, and the smoke of that fire hailed the
stars, it stood a lurid monument of the mighty power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The sixth adversary is found by examining several scriptures, viz.: Acts
19:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:11; 4:17; 5:1; 7: 1; 16:8-9, 17. What was that
adversary? The devil was very anxious to get Paul away from Ephesus, and so he
starts a row at Corinth, the church that Paul had established, and appeals to
him to come to Cloe's household, and so the church at Corinth writes him a
letter in which are all sorts of questions about the contention, for him to
settle, and an appeal made to him to come and help them. Paul says, "I
will tarry at Ephesus." The devil led them astray that far, and had
already weakened his force, since he had to take Timothy and Erastus and send
them over to stay that tide until he could get there.
QUESTIONS
1. What the general theme of this chapter, and what the scriptures?
2. Trace on the map the whole tour from Antioch to Jerusalem.
3. What part of this tour is devoted to confirming churches previously
established, what the churches, and what part to advance the work?
4. What letters were written during this tour, what the order of writing, what
the place and time of each, and which was to prepare for new work?
5. Give a connected account of Apollos.
6. What mighty financial enterprise was engineered on this third tour?
7. Give an account of Ephesus, its celebrities, its prevalent religion, and the
Jews there.
8. What three co-existent ecclesias were present in this one city, and what the
bearing of the fact on the essential character of a New Testament church?
9. What one text summarizes the whole situation at Ephesus?
10. What the first adversary, and how overcome?
11. State fully the case of the twelve disciples found at Ephesus answering the
five questions in the body of the text?
12. What the second adversary, and how overcome?
13. What the third adversary, and how overcome?
14. What the fourth adversary, and how overcome?
15. What the fifth adversary, and how overcome?
16. What the sixth adversary, and how overcome?
PAUL AT EPHESUS PAUL'S THIRD MISSIONARY TOUR (Continued)
We continue in this chapter the discussion of Paul's adversaries at Ephesus.
The seventh adversary was the craftsmen's ring, organized by Demetrius, the
silversmith. In making the silver shrines or other souvenirs of the temple,
whether of wood, stone, or metal, or the portable images of the goddess, or the
amulets, charms and talismans inscribed in the "Ephesian letters," or
the costumes for the May festivals, a multitude of craftsmen were employed
designers, molders, coppersmiths, sculptors, costumers, painters, engravers,
jewelers. Perhaps one image or shrine would pass through the hands of several
craftsmen before it received the delicate finishing work of the silversmith.
The enormous crowds assembled in the annual May festivals, the steady influx of
strangers from a world commerce, the devotees of the displays in the theatre,
all inspired by curiosity, superstition, lewdness, or the greedy spirit of
traffic, would create a demand for such wares surpassing the value of a gold
mine. But the preaching of Paul, so far as accepted, undermined the whole
business, dried up the springs of demand, and tended to leave all these
craftsmen without an occupation.
Demetrius, anticipating the genius of modern times, organized the several
guilds to make a life and death fight against a common enemy threatening all
alike. His own inspiration was the love of money. His business was as
profitable as the slave trade, the whiskey traffic, or the panderers who
supplied the victims of lust. But formidable as a craftsmen's union may be when
used as a unit to promote evil, Demetrius was too shrewd a politician to rely
on only one means of war. While perhaps religion was nothing to him, he caring
only for gain, yet he recognized the value of alliance with that mighty factor,
religious fanaticism, the eighth adversary, and so stirred it up in these
crafty words: "For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made
silver shrines of Diana, brought no little business unto the craftsmen; whom he
gathered together, with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know
that by this business we have our wealth. And ye see and hear, that not alone
at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned
away much people, saying that they are no gods that are made with hands: and
not only is there danger that this our trade come into disrepute, but also that
the temple of the great goddess Diana be made of no account, and that she
should even be deposed from her magnificence whom all Asia and the world
worshipeth."
The devil never inspired a craftier speech. From his viewpoint the facts
justified his fears. We learn from the letter of Pliny, fifty years later, that
the gospel had put all the gods of Mount Olympus out of business, and left all
their temples desolate. Combining gain, superstition, and civic pride he
necessarily stirred up the ninth adversary, namely a howling, murderous, senseless
mob. A tiger aroused in the jungle is not swifter in his leap, nor a pack of
ravenous wolves more cruel, nor a flood of molten lava, vomited from the hot
throat of a volcano, more insensible to argument. If the mob spirit lasted it
would be hell. Its own violence exhausts it, or who could escape? A
conflagration in heat and roar could not surpass in swiftness and terror the
gathering of that Ephesian mob.
"Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" rolled in surges of repetition and
reverberation through the streets of the city, and every palace, tenement and
house of traffic poured its occupants into the streets to swell the volume of
the frenzied throng, saying, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"
"Where is this Paul? What house dares to harbor him?" They rush to
this place of abode. Aquila and Priscilla interpose and "lay down their
own necks" to save their guest. Paul cannot be found. The mob seizes two
of his co-laborers, the Macedonians, Gaius and Aristarchus. Had they found Paul
he would have been torn asunder, limb by limb, but not finding him against whom
their hate burns, they think to invoke another ally, the tenth adversary, the
Greek ecclesia, or municipal authority, and so pour themselves, 30,000 strong,
into the great theatre, its place of gathering, and keep on howling.
Here occurs a sideshow, or injected episode, unwise, impotent, ludicrous,
shameful. The Jewish ecclesia, the unbelieving synagogue, becomes alarmed. They
know they are a stench in the Gentile nostril. They know that such a stormcloud
charged with electricity will strike somewhere, and in the absence of the
particular victim sought, their pitiable experience has taught them that it
will strike the Jew. So they put in Alexander, one of their officials, as a
lightning rod to assure the dear Ephesians that they did not do it that they
hate Paul as much as the mob does. Poor Alexander never got a hearing. Being
recognized as a Jew, his appearance was like waving a red rag in the face of a
mad bull. The howling was renewed, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"
and did not stop for two hours.
In the meantime Paul, informed that his friends were held in jeopardy, with
characteristic and magnanimous courage, sought to push his way into the theatre
to say, "Here I am; if ye seek me, let these men go." But prudent
friends interposed to restrain him. Even certain of the Asiarchs, officials
selected from the province to be managers of the May festivals and masters of
ceremonies, who were attached to Paul, besought him not to venture himself into
that theatre where he could get no hearing, and would only needlessly sacrifice
his life.
The mob, having shouted itself hoarse and exhausted its cyclone fury, the
opportunity brought forth a matchless political orator, the town clerk, or
recorder of the Greek ecclesia. Using a faultless address as a broom, he coolly
swept that exhausted mob out of the theatre a limp, ashamed, inert mass of
trash. Truly, he was a master of assemblies. He filled Virgil's description of
Neptune assuaging the storm which inconsiderate Aeolus had let loose against
the frail Trojan fleet, or was like Dr. Broadus at the Fort Worth session of
the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1890, quieting in a moment the controversy
on Sunday school publications.
Young preachers aspire to be masters of assemblies. They ought to study this
town clerk's speech. Note its excellencies. He awaited his opportunity. He
would not have been heard earlier. He quietly showed them that their
proceedings were undignified, unlawful, unnecessary, and dangerous. Is
paraphrase what he said: "Everybody knows that Ephesus is the sacristan,
or custodian of the temple of Diana, and of the image of the goddess which fell
down from Jupiter. Nobody has questioned the city's jurisdiction. These men
whom you have unlawfully arrested and brought here, are not charged with the
sacrilege of robbing the temple or blaspheming the goddess. A mob has no
authority to arrest men, and cannot be a court. An ecclesia has no authority
unless lawfully summoned. If Demetrius has a grievance against Paul for an
offense coming under Roman jurisdiction, let him carry his case before the
proconsul. If the grievance touches matters over which the Greek ecclesia. has
jurisdiction, let him bring this case before the regular session of that court.
These courts, both Roman and Greek, being accessible, why raise a tumult so
obnoxious to our Roman masters? Indeed, we are liable already to answer to the
Romans for this disturbance, this being only a mass meeting and a violent one
at that. Rise, be dismissed, go home, keep quiet, do nothing rash."
We will now analyze the "great door and effectual" opened to Paul (1
Cor. 16:9) : (1) Hearts are locked against the gospel so men will not give
attention; God opens the heart to attend, as in Lydia's case (Acts 16:14). (2)
The door of faith is closed against the gospel; God opens it so men will
believe (Acts 14:27). (3) Jesus is the door to the sheepfold, but man cannot
see except that the Spirit directs his eyes (John 10:7; 1 Cor. 12:3). (4)
Utterance, liberty, or afflatus, does not come to the preacher at his will, but
the Spirit can open the door of utterance so that he can speak with a tongue of
fire (Col. 4:3). (5) The door of access to the Father can be opened only by him
who has the key of David. He can open and none can shut and none can open. He
has the keys of death and hell (Rev. 1:18; 3:7-8). So at Ephesus, God opened to
Paul a door of utterance, and to the people the door of attention, faith and
salvation. It was great and effectual. Neither the synagogue nor the Greek
ecclesia, nor the proconsul, nor Satan and all his demons, could shut it.
The expressions in the chapter that mark the progress of the work are: (1) The
baptism of the twelve disciples in the Holy Spirit (v. 6) so that Paul at one
stroke gained twelve mighty helpers; (2) all Asia heard the word (v. 10); (3)
special miracles conquer demons (v. 11-12); (4) fear fell upon all, and the
name of Jesus was magnified (v. 17); (5) confessions were made (v. 18) ; (6)
the burning of the books (v. 19) ; (7) so mightily grew the word of the Lord
and prevailed (v. 20); (8) demons were made to refuse recognition of impostors.
Chapter 20:17, 28, 35, proves that under Spirit-guidance elders were ordained and
instructed. The great converts of this meeting were Tychicus and Trophimus
(20:4) Epaphras (Col. 1:7), and the family of Philemon (Philem. 2). The
following scriptures show that no other preacher in the history of the world
labored under such hard conditions, suffered as much, or carried such a burden.
He was in the shadow of death, and exposed to the daily malice of earth and
hell for three years: Acts 20:18-21, 26-27, 31-35; 1 Corinthians 4:1113; 15:19,
32; 2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 4:5-15; 6:4-10; 11:2328. It is evident that in this
three years occurred many of the horrible privations, perils, imprisonments,
scourgings, hunger, cold, sickness, and daily death, and the burdens enumerated
in 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. The fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Cor.
15:32) has no reference to the Demetrius mob, for that had not yet occurred.
It must be understood literally, that he had been thrown to the wild beasts in
the arena of the theatre, and died under their claws and fangs) but, as at
Lystra, where he was stoned to death, was restored by the miraculous power of
God (2 Cor. 1:8-10). He expressly says of this occasion: "We are made a
spectacle unto the world, both angels and men" (1 Cor. 4:9). The Greek is theatron,
to which he again refers in Hebrews 10:33. It was at this time he wrote:
"If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we of all men are most
pitiable" (1 Cor. 15:19). It was of this period he wrote: "I bear
branded on my body the marks [Greek: stigmata] of Jesus" (Gal. 6:17). From
head to foot he was crowned with ineffaceable scars. It was of this time he
wrote: "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are
naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and we toil,
working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we
endure; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the
offscouring of all things, even till now" (1 Cor. 4:11-13).
He never knew where he could stay at night. Consumed with hunger and thirst, he
preached in rags. We would not do it. See the spruce, dapper messengers gather
in our assemblies, shining in spotless collars and cuffs, and think of Paul in
rags. See him burdened with the care of all the churches. See him going from
house to house by day and night for three years, pleading with tears. See him
the victim of foul aspersion and misrepresentation. Scorn gibes him. Mockery
crowns him with thorns. Envy, jealousy, and malice, raging furies, seek to tear
him limb from limb. Defeated greed, slanderer, and exposed uncleanness, like
harpies, pick and hawk him with beak and talons. Tyranny binds him with chains
to cold rocks that vultures may gnaw his vitals. Every day he dies, every day
he is crucified, every day persecution drives cruel spikes and nails through
his hands and feet. In the gloom of every night demons come like vampires, or
hooting owls, or howling wolves, or hideous nightmares, or croaking ravens, to
break his spirit. Hell's cartoonists sketch his future in a background of evil
omens and apprehensions. It was of these trials he wrote:
"But in everything commending ourselves, as ministers of God, in much
patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in
imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; in pureness,
in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love
unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of
righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by glory and dishonor, by evil
report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well
known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as
sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having
nothing, and yet possessing all things" (2 Cor. 6: 4-10).
There are several items that need to be noted in particular: He was supported
there by the work of his hands. Perhaps once Corinth sent him a contribution,
or at least some kind words, which he counted as food (1 Cor. 16:17-18). The
designation given to the gospel here and the preceding and subsequent
references thereto is "The Way," i.e., the way of life (w. 9, 23).
The name originated with our Lord: "I am the Way" (John 14:6), and it
was twice used in Acts before the double use of this chapter (9:2; 18:25) and
three times subsequently (22:4; 24:14, 22). It became common in the early
centuries.
Note the great special service rendered to Paul by Aquila and Priscilla at
Ephesus. When the mob sought him at their house they offered to "lay down
their own necks" that their guest might escape (Rom. 16:3).
This tour, in its preaching, and particularly in the four great letters, I and
2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, settled forever the systematic theology
of salvation by grace through faith, and furnished all subsequent ages with the
storehouse of arguments for justification by faith, and vicarious expiation.
Out of these letters came both the inspiration and power of the reformation. No
man questions their authority. They constitute Paul's Gospel. A summary of the
events condensed in Acts 20:1-6 is as follows: While yet at Ephesus, Paul, on
varied information, had written I Corinthians, in which he had promised to
visit them. But Timothy's report made him hesitate. He then sent Titus,
intending to go to Corinth first, after leaving Ephesus, if Titus brought back
a good report in time. But as Titus had not returned up to the time he left
Ephesus, he went to Troas expecting there to meet Titus with such a report as
would justify going to Corinth from that point. While waiting there he preached
effectually and established a church, but though God opened him a door of
success, he was consumed with anxiety about matters in Corinth, and as Titus
did not come with news, he closed his meeting and passed over into Macedonia to
visit the churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. In Macedonia, Titus
joined him with good news in the main from Corinth, and so from Macedonia he
wrote the second letter to the Corinthians, again promising to be with them
speedily (2 Cor. 1:1 to 2:13). Passing through Macedonia, confirming the
churches, he came to Corinth at last (Acts 20:1-3), and spent the winter there.
It was during this winter's sojourn at Corinth that he wrote the letters,
Galatians and Romans. From Corinth he had expected to sail direct for Syria.
Finding out a plot of the Jews to entrap and slay him at the seaport Cenchrea,
he returned by land to Macedonia. And from Philippi he sent ahead to Troas, the
brethren named in Acts 20:4, and then after the Passover he, with Luke and
maybe others, followed them to Troas. The time in Europe was nearly a year.
AT TROAS
The incidents at Troas are these: After a space of five days, he arrived at
Troas and stayed a week, and on the first day of the week they all came together
to partake of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper was administered probably by
the church at Troas, and all the context shows that these visiting brethren
from sister churches participated in all particulars of that supper. Luke says
they assembled to break bread. Dr. J. R. Graves took the position that only the
members of a local church, celebrating the supper, should participate in its
observance. He once asked me what I thought of his position. I told him that as
a matter of right, only the church could administer the supper, and only the
members of that church could claim as a right to participate, but inasmuch as
visiting brethren and sisters are of like faith and order, that on invitation
they might participate. Then we had it on this case at Troas, and on the
uniform Baptist custom. Notice that whenever they go to observe the Lord's
Supper the preacher says, "Any brethren or sisters of sister churches of
like faith and order, knowing themselves to be in good order [not disorder],
are invited to participate with us." That is what is called inter-church
communion, but not a very good name for it. I always invite the visiting
brethren and sisters, but I specify very particularly who is invited.
Another incident occurred that interrupted the preaching a little. Paul,
knowing that he had to leave the next day, preached a sermon that night. He was
in the third story preaching. It was hot in that country over there, so they
had all the windows open for air, and a boy, Eutychus, bad the best place in
the house, right in the back window, and as Paul went on preaching until
midnight (he did not deliver fifteen-minute essays he preached a sermon)
Eutychus' eyes got heavy, and he went to sleep. Something perhaps disturbed
him, maybe a fly lighted on him, anyhow he fell out of the window fell from
the third story and was killed instantly. Therefore don't get sleepy in church.
Paul went down and brought him back to life by the exercise of miraculous
power, and went right back and resumed his sermon. When he got through they
celebrated the Lord's Supper. Some Campbellite brothers and sisters say it
should be administered only on the first day of the week, and every first day
of the week, and cite this case here at Troas when they came together on the
first day of the week to celebrate the Lord's Supper. It was a splendid day of
the week to celebrate the Lord's Supper, but Paul's sermon was so long that it
was next day before he even got through that sermon. They did not partake of
the Supper until Monday.
When we get a three years' sample of a man's preaching we can have some idea,
especially if he is preaching every day and every night in that three years, as
to the matter, the scope, and the manner of his preaching. Of course, if he
hasn't got much to preach, he could not preach three years right straight along
he would run out of material but Paul was brimful, and the scope of his
preaching is expressed in two ways: (1) That he had withheld nothing that was
profitable. (2) That he had not shunned to teach the whole counsel of God. That
would have been a fine seminary course if we could have been there three years;
could have taken that three years in the Bible by the greatest expounder since
the Master went to heaven. He preached at every town, and particularly in
preaching to the unconverted, he says, "Is testified both to the Jews and
to the Greeks) repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."
Some preachers go around and leave out repentance. He ought to preach the
gospel, and he should preach repentance as he preaches faith, and he needs to
preach it in the order repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ. As to the manner of his preaching, notice the address itself, how he
describes it. He says, "Why, brethren, you know that I was with you in
humility. By the space of three years, publicly and privately, from house to
house, day and night, with tears, I ministered unto you."
If we should put together all we have suffered, it would not be as much as that
man suffered in that three years. We have not made half as many sacrifices as
he did. We have never come as near laying a whole burnt offering upon the altar
of God. In analyzing this address, observe that there are three prophecies in
it: (1) He says, "After I am gone, wolves are going to come and ruin the
flock." (2) "After I am gone many of your own selves, right on the
inside of the church, will rise up and mar the work that has been done. (3) And
he says, "Brethren, you will never see me again." This is his
farewell discourse. Those are the three prophecies. The events of this tour
testify to the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath. We have the
record of this assembly on the first day of the week, and in a letter on this
tour he says, "On the first day of the week [and this applies to the
churches generally] lay by in store, that there may be no collections when I
come." In other words, he says, "Every week, just according to your
ability, give what you give liberally, cheerfully, and lay it by in store, so
when I come you will have the collection ready."
QUESTIONS
1. What the seventh adversary?
2. How did this one stir up the eighth adversary?
3. How was the ninth adversary stirred up?
4. How was the tenth adversary stirred up?
5. What was the outcome of it all?
6. What are the excellencies of the town clerk's speech?
7. Analyze the "great door and effectual," opened to Paul.
8. What the expressions in the chapter which show the marvelous development of
the work?
9. Who were the great converts of this meeting?
10. What the character and hard condition of Paul'8 ministry in Ephesus?
11. How was Paul supported there?
12. What designation was given to the gospel there, and what the preceding and
subsequent references thereto?
13. What great special service rendered to Paul by Aquila and Priscilla at
Ephesus?
14. What the full significance of this missionary tour?
15. Give a summary of the events condensed in Acts 20:1-6, and the time covered
by them.
16. What the incidents and lessons of the stay at Troas, and what the bearing
of the observance of the Lord's Supper there on interchurch communion?
17. Who was a great advocate of the non-interchurch communion, and what his
main argument?
18. Analyze the address to the Ephesian elders, showing particularly the
matter, scope, and manner of Paul's ministry.
19. What the testimony of the events of this tour to the first day of the week
as the Christian sabbath?
FROM EPHESUS TO JERUSALEM
Acts 21:1-36.
The scripture for this chapter is Acts 21, and the theme is "From Ephesus
to Jerusalem." The party that journeyed from Ephesus to Jerusalem was
Paul, Luke, and Trophimus, and doubtless others. They saw at Rhodes one of the
seven wonders of the world. The entrance to the harbor at Rhodes was narrow,
and straddled across that entrance was the Colossus of Rhodes, a gigantic
bronze image in the shape of a man an image designed to represent the sun.
Vessels sailed between its legs, but at the time of Paul this image by an
earthquake had been broken in its legs, had fallen over on the ground, and was
lying there. It remained there on the ground for many centuries after Paul.
Finally a Jew bought it, and it took nine hundred camels to carry the bronze
away.
AT TYRE
In Acts 26 Paul says that he had preached on all the coast of Judea, and
Philip, the evangelist, having his headquarters at Caesarea, could very easily
have planted a church at Tyre. Our Saviour himself visited Tyre once, and there
occurred an instance of salvation to a Gentile, granting of the prayer of the
Syrophoenician woman. We learn from Acts 11 that there were people in Tyre who
had been converted in Jerusalem, and dispersed by the persecution of Saul, and
through these men that church at Tyre may have been established.
There are two notable events in the week's stay of Paul's party there, to which
I think it necessary to call attention. One is that the prophets there
distinctly made known to Paul by the Holy Spirit that he should not go to
Jerusalem. The other event is the exceedingly touching farewell of the body of
Christians there when they followed Paul men, women and children all of
them, down to the beach, and had a prayer on the beach just before he left
them.
Combining the statement in this section (v. 4), about what the prophet said to
Paul, that he should not go to Jerusalem, and the full statement in this same
chapter when Agabus came down from Judea and in an emblematic way showed what
would happen to Paul if he did not go to Jerusalem, and the passage in the next
chapter (22:17-21), where Paul relates an experience of his that took place on
his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, in which Christ had appeared
unto him and told him that the Jews there would never receive his testimony,
and to get away and go far hence to the Gentiles, I do not think that Paul was
justifiable in going to Jerusalem.
He went against the expressed declaration of the Spirit of God speaking through
the prophets; and the explanation of his going is that the man's love for home
mission work, and his intense desire to save the Jerusalem Jews, always kept
him looking back toward Jerusalem. In the letter to the Romans he says that he
could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren's sake according to
the flesh. And there is no doubt that his going to Jerusalem at this time was
wholly unnecessary. The purpose of the going was to carry the big contribution
that had been collected, and the representatives of the churches were right
there with him, and were carrying the money.
It is a fact that his going at that time kept him shut up in prison four years
two years of the time at Caesarea, in which we have no history of him. If
there were any letters written they were not preserved. The other two years of
the time he was at Rome, where he was carried. There we have Borne great work
done by him, but I can't persuade myself that it was the will of God for him to
go to Jerusalem at that time. It puts the greatest worker in the world out of
commission for four years, except as I think, it is quite probable that when he
was at Caesarea that two years, he helped Luke write his Gospel, and later gave
us his prison letters from Rome.
AT PTOLEMAIS
We account for disciples at Ptolemais just as we
account for them at Tyre. Paul came from Tyre to Ptolemais by ship. There are
two historic events for which Ptolemais is noted. First, for the most heroic daring
events by Richard the Lion Hearted during the Crusades, when he took this
impregnable place by storm, and second, the vain attempt of Napoleon to take it
by storm or siege.
There is a relation between Paul and Philip. When Paul got to Caesarea, Philip,
the evangelist, entertained him. It will be remembered that Philip was one of
the seven deacons, and that when Paul's persecution drove him from Jerusalem he
became Philip the Evangelist, and he is the next man after Stephen to enlarge
the thought of the spread of the gospel among other nations, which Paul himself
ultimately carried to its greatest expansion. This is the first time that they
had met since Paul's persecution drove him out of Jerusalem. How delightful
must have been their conversation upon the great growth of the idea that the
gospel was meant for all men!
An Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the case of Philip's four daughters,
which has a bearing on woman's work in the gospel. The Old Testament prophecy
was a prophecy of Joel quoted by Peter on the Day of Pentecost that the Spirit
would come upon women as well as men, and upon girls, or handmaidens. This
shows that the women were to have an active part and an influential part in the
kingdom of God, and they have always had. There is another Old Testament
prophecy, the famous song-story of Deborah. They always were good at publishing
news, and when it is good news, one woman can tell it to as many people as ten
men can, especially if she has a telephone.
Here the question arises about the sphere of her prophesying. In 1 Corinthians
11:5, 13, Paul says that when she does prophesy she should prophesy with her
head covered, and in 1 Corinthians 14:31, 34 he says that it is not her
province to prophesy before mixed audiences in the churches, but that leaves a
very wide margin for her work.
From the history here (w. 10-11), I suppose that Agabus had heard of Paul's
arrival at Caesarea, and of his purpose to go to Jerusalem, and came expressly
to warn against his going there. Caesarea was not a great distance from
Jerusalem. Paul was at Caesarea two weeks. Men of his reputation, and with
travelers going to and fro, it is likely that Agabus heard of his being there
(Agabus the same prophet we have heard of before in Acts II), and under the
promptings of the Spirit comes down there and shows Paul what will happen if he
goes.
Those enormous contributions that had been gathered from all over Macedonia and
Achaia, and possibly the contributions of the Galatians were added, though
there is no record of it, but certainly all Macedonia and Achaia had part in
it. Considering verse 16, we see that it was necessary to take with him from
Caesarea a Jerusalem host to entertain him when he got to Jerusalem. Mnason was
the man who went. He was an early disciple, and he went with Paul from Caesarea
in order to entertain him when he got to Jerusalem, since this was the interval
between the Passover and Pentecost. Paul at first tried to get there for the
Passover, and finding that impossible, he stopped at Philip's for the Passover,
and was now hurrying to get there for Pentecost, which is fifty days after, and
during these great feasts Jerusalem had a million strangers in it, and if one
didn't know beforehand where he was going to stay all night, he couldn't find
out after he got there. In a marvelous modern book by a Baptist, Bunyan's
Pilgrim's Progress, Mnason of this section and Gains of 2 John are made the
types of Christian hosts and of hospitality. When he was taking his pilgrim
from earth to heaven he made him stay one night with Brother Mnason and another
night with Brother Gaius on the way, since they are so noted in the New
Testament history for their hospitality. The brethren of verse 17 were of the
Jerusalem church, being the brethren of the house of Brother Mnason. Next day
they met the Jerusalem brethren and apostles.
Paul took his companions with him because they were messengers from the
churches that had contributed, and the elders were present because they were to
receive and disburse these contributions. We learn in Acts II that when Paul
and Barabbas went to Jerusalem to carry a contribution to the Christian
brethren in Judea, they delivered it to the elders. The Gentile that he took
with him was Trophimus, the Ephesian, and in Acts 15 we learn that he took
Titus with him for a special reason; so he takes Trophimus on this journey for
a special reason, is. e., as if to say, "Here is a Gentile. And he has a
bag of money for your people. Are your Jewish prejudiced brethren going to receive
this money brought by this Gentile brother?"
Though Luke does not here refer by name to the business part of this meeting,
we see from a subsequent statement that he knew it, and did not mean to
suppress the evidence of it. The passage is Acts 24:17, which Luke wrote, and
which shows that the purpose of going to Jerusalem at this time was to deliver
this money.
Paul was apprehensive that this business might not be well received. Romans
15:25-31 says, "But now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the
saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a
certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea,
it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For, if the
Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to
them, also to minister unto them in carnal things. When, therefore, I have
accomplished this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will go on by you unto
Spain. And I know that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of
the blessing of Christ. Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers
to God for me; that I may be delivered from them that are disobedient in Judea,
and that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the
saints."
We see from this that Paul was a little uneasy on this question, and that he
wrote to these Romans to ask them to pray that it might work out all right. It
is a little singular that when he set out after that decision, given in Acts
15, that they charge him to remember the poor saints in Judea, since he always
did that very thing, and yet he knew how intense was the prejudice there. He
not only worked to get a good contribution, and from the right motives, and was
anxious that it might be rightly distributed, but he prayed for it after he got
it, that it might get there and accomplish its office.
One of the most remarkable prayers of that kind occurred in connection with the
history of Brown University, the first Baptist college in the United States. It
was very small when it started, and the day they took the first contribution
for it, eleven men put up a dollar apiece with which to start it, and they got
down around that little pile of money and prayed and prayed that God, who
multiplied the loaves and fishes, would let it eventuate in a great institution
of learning. I preached a sermon once on the thought: "After making a
great contribution, what then?"
Having gotten through with the money part of this meeting, Paul rehearsed the
events of this tour. I can imagine that scene there, and all those Jerusalem
preachers sitting there, Trophimus, the Gentile, standing by, when he rehearsed
one by one every marvelous triumph of God in the salvation of the Gentiles.
When they heard it they glorified God, and it is to their everlasting credit
that they did. What took place immediately after would indicate that they
didn't glorify him much, but they did glorify God, and Paul thus secured from
James and from the Jerusalem brethren, praise that God was saving the Gentiles.
That was a fine point gained.
Let us expound verses 20-26, showing first how James and the Jerusalem church
understood a Jewish Christian's .relation to the Mosaic law; second, a
Gentile's relation thereto; third, the difference between them and Paul;
fourth, the motive prompting the suggestion that they made to Paul; fifth, the
reason for Paul's adopting the suggestion; sixth, the good that it did. They
said to him (for his presence was embarrassing), "You see, brother, how
many thousands of Jews there are here in Jerusalem who are believers, and every
one of them is zealous for the law. They all observe every Levitical custom,
and they have been informed that you are teaching the Jews all over the world
to forsake Moses, not to circumcise their children, and not to observe the
customs. Now, in order to convince these people that you yourself correct
errors and do observe these customs, we suggest, as four men have taken the
Nazirite vow, that you take them and be at the charges necessary for the
accomplishment of their vow, footing the bill, and go with them to the Temple;
and that will prove to these thousands of Jewish Christians that you are all right
as regards the law." Those are the facts as stated in that suggestion. The
suggestion was closed this way: "This doesn't apply to Brother Trophimus
here. He is a Gentile, and we have already decided in the council that we held
that the Gentiles shall have no burden put upon them but to refrain from eating
blood, and from fornication and from idols." So we see that James and that
whole crowd, while truly Christians, yet made their Christianity simply a sect
of the Jews, and they kept up all the Mosaic customs. We see that they did not
now hold that a Gentile, in order to be a Christian, must do that. The
difference between them and Paul was this: It was just as plain to Paul as
sunlight that the whole Jewish economy was about to pass away, in fact, as it
had already done in divine order. He had said that circumcision and
uncircumcision, neither availeth anything; that a man was not a Jew who was
simply a Jew outwardly, but one who was a Jew inwardly; that all these things
were shadows. The substance was in Christ, and when the substance came it was
foolishness to go back and take up the weak and beggarly elements of the world.
That is what he taught and believed, and therein he differed from them. Just
twelve years from the day that this event occurred, Jerusalem and the Jewish
nation were wiped off the map by the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus, and
after that nobody thought about going up to the Temple and observing the days
and the services and the customs of a shadowy covenant that had passed away
forever.
The motive that prompted their suggestion to Paul was very probably a kind one.
He had shown such signal generosity in devoting four years to raising this
fund, getting the churches to send messengers, always going by and showing the
utmost courtesy and deference to the Jerusalem Christians, and to the other
apostles, that they didn't want the rabid members on their side to raise a row
with Paul. I think that was the motive, and so far as the history goes, the
Jewish Christians didn't raise any row with him at this time at all.
How do you account for Paul's adoption of the suggestion? I have no doubt that
it seemed to him just like a grown-up man riding corn-stalk horses, as if to
say, "When I was a child I thought as a child, I spake as a child, but
when I became a man I put away childish things, and these things have served
their purpose." After showing that nothing could induce him to circumcise
a Gentile in order to his salvation, he would be a Jew to gain a Jew, and he
would be under the law to gain those under the law, and in matters of
expediency, when no great principle was involved, and when it was merely his
giving up a privilege of his, he was willing to give it up, and thus Paul did
concede in this case. And he said that he did it in order to put himself in
saving touch with those under the law, though he himself was not under the law.
Did it do any good? Not a bit in the world. It was the most unwise thing that
could possibly have been done, for it put Paul conspicuously in the Temple for
a week. It required seven days to consummate this vow, and Jerusalem was full
of Jews who were not Christians, from all over the world, and somebody from
some of the places where he had been would be sure to recognize him, and they
hated him worse, than they did the devil. Indeed, they called on the devil to
help them hate him, and that very thing happened. The Jews from Ephesus saw
him, and one of them had noticed him on the streets walking with this Gentile,
Trophimus; so when they recognized him in the Temple they raised the row that
led to his four years of imprisonment. They rushed up and grabbed him and
dragged him down the steps in order to get him out of the holy precincts and
then kill him. They meant to kill him, and nothing but the interposition of a
third party kept them from killing him. And the cry went over Jerusalem ; it
was like touching a powder magazine with a spark of fire; the streets were soon
thronged with people. The tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, was held by
a strong band of soldiers. There were two garrisoned places, one, the
Praetorian, and the other, the Tower of Antonio. The centurions held the tower,
and the chiliarchs, captains of thousands, held the Praetorian, and when they
saw a tumult and a man about to be killed, the centurion notified the chiliarch
(Roman legions were divided into ten parts of a thousand men. Each thousand was
divided into ten companies of one hundred men each; a centurion commanded a
company of one hundred and a chiliarch was a captain of a thousand, a cohort, a
band) and they rushed in and rescued Paul from his murderers.
Similar recent occurrences had prepared the Roman guards for such an emergency
as this. It is a matter of fact that from the crucifixion of Christ until the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a little less than forty years later,
Jerusalem was like a volcano preparing for an eruption, and occasionally
breaking out. In A.D. 44, when Cuspus Fadus was made the procurator on the
death of that Agrippa (Herod Agrippa mentioned in Acts 12), he declared that
the crown of Herod and the gorgeous robes of; the high priest (those were the
two highest symbols of authority) should be carried into the tower of Antonio
and kept so that the Romans holding the crown of the ruler and the robe of the
high priest, could fill both offices as they wished.
When the Jews learned that these sacred things were defiled by being put in
charge of the Roman soldiers, they raised an awful row just such a tumult as
occurred here and they raised such a big fuss that the Emperor Claudius had
to revoke the order. He saw it meant war, and how much bloodshed the war would
occasion, it was hard to tell. It put him to the expense of sending seven or
eight legions over there and revoking the order. Then, in A.D. 49, when Gumanus
was procurator, one of the soldiers on the Tower of Antonio, looking down and
watching the Jews, what they were doing around the Temple, and becoming
disgusted at them, made a most insulting gesture, and the Jews took up rocks
and began to stone him, stormed the tower itself, and raised such a mob that it
called out the entire Roman force there and from ten to twenty thousand Jews
perished. A great many of them were just trampled to death in the crowd.
Then a little later, while Cumanus was procurator, a bandit highwayman, by the
pass from Jericho to Jerusalem, to which our Saviour referred when a man fell
among thieves on that trip, robbed a Roman messenger, and the Romans held the
neighboring villages responsible, and in burning those villages one soldier
came across an Old Testament, the Old Bible, and he burned it openly in sight
of the Jews and blasphemed as he burned it. That made such a row that the
Romans themselves had to execute that soldier.
Then again in A.D. 54 (four years after that time), the Samaritans, who had
refused to entertain Christ because he was going toward Jerusalem, killed a
party of pilgrims on their way to the feast at Jerusalem, whereupon Eleazar, a
patriotic bandit like Barabbas, gathered a squad and killed a large number of
the Samaritans. The Samaritans; appealing to Cumanus with a bribe, he decided
against the Jews, and the Jews fought him. One of the leading Jews of the
family of Annas went to Rome and a female slave named Pellas at that time had a
great deal of influence through a Jewess that was a favorite of the Emperor,
and they secured a decision in favor of the Jews on condition that the Jews
would then petition that Felix, the brother of the slave, Pellas, should be
procurator; and so Felix comes, and when this Felix came to be procurator, he
stirred up things greatly. He entrapped that bandit chief, Eleazar, and sent
him in chains to Rome. He, through a machination of the very Simon Magus that
Peter denounced, seduces Drusilla, the wife of a king, who was the sister of
Agrippa. Then, because Jonathan protested, he hired assassins to stab Jonathan,
and thus, from A.D. 57 (within a year of the time Paul was there), everybody
employed assassins.
It was just about as bad as it was when Caesar Borgia was pope of Rome. He was
the worst assassin, except Philip II of Spain) that the world ever saw. Seven
weeks before Paul came to Jerusalem, an Egyptian came and claimed to be the
Messiah according to the Jewish idea, and he said if they wanted to have proof
that he was, and would follow him outside of the city he would stand there and
look and the walls would fall down, and the Roman power would be overcome.
About 30,000 Jews followed him. The Romans charged them, killed about 400,
captured a few thousand, and that Egyptian escaped, and what became of him
nobody ever found out, but that is what is meant by Claudius Lysias, the
chiliarch, when he said to Paul, "Are you not that Egyptian that led out
the four thousand assassins?" It happened just seven weeks before. And it
was not long until Jerusalem fell as a result of another such uprising, when
Titus came and took the city and many thousands perished with the Temple and
the holy city.
QUESTIONS
1. Who constituted the party of this part of the tour?
2. What one of the seven wonders of the world did they see at Rhodes, what its
history and purpose, what its state then, and what became of it?
3. How may we account for the disciples at Tyre, and what the recorded instance
of its touch with Christ and his gospel?
4. What notable events in the week's stay of Paul's party there?
5. Was Paul justifiable in going to Jerusalem on this trip, and what the proof?
6. How may we account for the disciples at Ptolemais?
7. For what two historical events is Ptolemais noted?
8. What the relation between Paul and Philip, and what the reasonable
supposition of the matter of their conversation for nearly two weeks?
9. What Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the case of Philip's four
daughters, what its bearing on woman's work in the gospel, and according to
Paul's letter to the Corinthians, what her sphere of prophesying?
10. What the purpose of the coming of Agabus to Caesarea to see Paul, and what
the proof?
11. What the most valuable part of that baggage which they carried to
Jerusalem?
12. Why was it necessary for Paul to take from Caesarea a host to entertain him
at Jerusalem, and who was the man?
13. In what great modern book are Mnason and Gains made the type of Christian
hosts and of hospitality?
14. Were the brethren of verse 17 of the Jerusalem church?
15. Why should Paul's companions go with him to see James, what Gentile was
among them, on what other occasion had Paul taken a Gentile with him, and why
the elders all present at the interview?
16. Prove from a subsequent statement that Luke knew of the business part of
this meeting, and did not mean to suppress the evidence of it.
17. What striking proof that Paul was apprehensive that this business might not
be well received?
18. What followed the business part of this meeting, and what the moral effect
of it?
19. Expound verses 20-26 in six distinct items.
20. What similar recent occurrences had prepared the Roman guards for such
emergency as this?
PAUL IN THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES AT
JERUSALEM
AND HIS SPEECH ON THE STAIRWAY
Acts 21:37 to 23:30.
The scripture for this chapter is Acts 22-23, and the general theme for the
rest of the book of Acts is, "Paul in the hands of his enemies and under
the protecting care of his Lord." The distinct forces to be considered)
each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem, are as
follows: (1) The believing Jews or Christians at Jerusalem; (2) the unbelieving
Jews at Jerusalem, coming in from the dispersion to the feasts; (3) Lysias, the
representative of the Roman military government in Jerusalem; (4) Paul's
kinsman; (5) Paul himself; (6) Paul's Lord.
The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem forced upon Paul the observance of a custom
that he didn't consider binding, but he was willing for expediency's sake to
observe it, and thus put him in the Temple where he would be in full view of
the millions of Jews gathered in Jerusalem. After putting him in that position
and seeing that it was the cause of an assault upon his life by the unbelieving
Jews, and of his arrest by the Romans, there is no record then or later of
their coming in to testify in Paul's behalf or bringing any influence whatever
to bear to enable him to escape from the difficulty. Action moved so fast in
the assault on him, and in the arrest and his being sent away from Jerusalem,
that you might excuse their silence there, but when they knew he was taken to
Caesarea, although some time elapsed before his trial there, and the enemies
had ample notice and time to get there to testify against him, they sent no
representatives.
The impression made on my mind is that they acted in an ungrateful,
"scaly" sort of way. As he had come there to bring them a big
collection that had taken him four years to gather together, and for their
benefit, and as they had specifically endorsed his work among the Gentiles, and
as they knew he was in that Temple at their instance, and also knew that the
charge was false that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts, it
is to me an amazing thing that they did nothing to help him.
As was shown in the former chapter, the whole unbelieving Jewish population,
whether at Jerusalem or in the lands of the dispersion, was a seething, boiling
pot, and feeling that the last thing that they had to hold to was this Temple
and Moses, they were jealous to madness of anything that reflected upon the
sanctity of that Temple or upon the customs of Moses. Of all men living they
hated Paul most, because they regarded him as an apostate from the Jewish
faith. They recognized him in the Temple, and couldn't have touched him except
upon one ground, and that was, that he had introduced into the sacred precincts
a Gentile. The Romans did not allow the Jews generally to have jurisdiction
over life and death, but out of deference to their intense jealousy to guard
the sacred precincts of the Temple from intrusion, the Romans did allow them to
kill any man found in those sacred precincts that was not a Jew.
That enables you to understand why they brought the accusation against him that
he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts. If they could do that
they could kill him right there under the eyes of the Roman guard, and escape
Roman prosecution. Their hate was uniform in its persistence, and multiform in
its method. They manifested their intense rancor, not only by the manner in
which the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth when he appeared
before the Sanhedrin, but because a number of avowed assassins, forty in
number, came and apprised them of what they wanted to do, viz.: to kill Paul,
and asked the Sanhedrin to enter into the plot this far, that it would urge
that Paul be brought before the Sanhedrin again as if to gain further
information. When they agreed to that they became guilty of the whole
diabolical conspiracy.
Let us consider the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman
soldiers in Jerusalem. The procurator, Felix, was at Caesarea, and hence
Lysias, the chiliarch, had command of all the Roman forces in Jerusalem, and
was responsible on this point, that he should keep down all tumult. So that he
was in the full discharge of his duty when he witnessed a tumult right under
the Tower of Antonio and sent his soldiers to disperse that crowd, and found
out what was the matter. He was in the full discharge of his duty when he saw
all of them holding the one whom the Jews were trying to kill, for he supposed
that it must be that Egyptian who had been the cause of such a slaughter of the
Jews. He was following the Roman custom when, not being able to understand what
the grievance was from what the crowd was shouting all around him, he ordered
Paul to be examined by torture. It was a very cruel proceeding, but the Roman
law allowed him to practice it always; that is, they stretched a man out with
thongs, and put him to the torture to make him tell what was the cause of the
assault against him. Lysias wanted to know what it was, and he couldn't gather
from what the Jews said; so he wanted to force the person accused to state the
cause. "What devilment have you been into that makes the people want to
kill you?" But when Paul avowed his Roman citizenship, Lysias followed the
law in instantly countermanding the order to put him to the torture. And Lysias
followed the Roman custom of inquiring into a case before he judged of the
case, in having Paul brought before the Sanhedrin in order that in that open
court he might ascertain what the gist of the matter was. And he recognized at
a glance what it was. Then when a vow was made to kill Paul, he showed himself
to be able in tactics and in administrative capacity to put Paul beyond the
power of assassination, by sending him to his chief, the procurator at
Caesarea. No man can read the action of Lysias in this whole matter without
receiving a very favorable impression of this Roman officer.
But Paul had some kinsfolk there, and as there were forty men who had conspired
to assassinate Paul, and as they carried their plot to the whole Sanhedrin
(such a secret as that couldn't be kept), so Paul's kinsfolk found out about it,
and the nephew came with a warning. It isn't said that he was a Christian. That
is probable, yet it is strange that James and the elders couldn't find out
anything and couldn't offer any service, but this boy did find out, and took a
very active and noble part.
So far as Paul is concerned, he is entirely innocent. He had done nothing to
justify an assault upon him in the Temple. It was an outrageous thing against
the Temple for any violent man to come into it and lay hold upon a man who was
carrying out the Temple regulations. And when he was rescued by the Romans, we
see that he didn't lose his self-possession. The crowd came so near killing him
that the soldiers had to pick him up and rush with him in their arms to get up
that stairway out of danger, but before his feet hit the ground he wanted to
say something. He wasn't going to allow his life to be disposed of, and the
cause to be put in jeopardy, without doing all he could. So he says to Lysias,
"May I speak to you?" addressing him in Greek. "Why, do you
speak Greek?" says Lysias, "Is supposed you to be that
Egyptian." "No," says Paul, "I am a Jew, a citizen of
Tarsus, no mean city." "Well," answers Lysias, "What do you
want?" "Why, I want to speak to that mob there." Lysias is very
anxious to find out all the facts he can, and he permits it. So Paul stands
there on the stairway and delivers that inimitable address that we will
consider later, and as Paul spoke in Hebrew, Lysias couldn't get any light on
the subject, and when he proposes to bring Paul before the court to torture
him, Paul still has his wits about him and says, "I am a Roman. You can't
torture me." Then when Paul is brought before the council, he boldly
affirms in his first sentence that from his youth up he had lived conscientiously,
no matter which side he was on; that he thought he was doing God's service when
he did it.
When the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth, Paul's anger
flashed out: "God will smite thee, thou whited wall! You attempt to try me
by the law, and contrary to the law command me to be smitten in the
mouth?" But when somebody said, "You are reviling the high
priest," quick as a flash he turned, saying, "Brethren, I knew not
that he was the high priest. I remember the law says that there should be
reverence toward rulers." He possessed quick self-control, and then when
he saw there was no chance to get a verdict before that crowd, with his will as
quick as lightning, recognizing Pharisees and Sadducees there, he adopted the
old Latin proverb, "Divide your enemies in order to conquer them,"
and instantly avows that he is under charge on account of his belief in the
resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees, of course, sided with Paul on that, and the Sadducees against
him, and they turned to fighting each other, and Paul escaped. It shows the
most nimble wit in hazard. And then when his nephew brings him the information
about the plot you see how his wisdom is running all the while. He says,
"You go show these facts to Lysias." Throughout the whole proceeding
he commends himself to us in not getting scared, and in not losing his head; in
seizing every opportunity for self-defense and for setting forth the cause.
That is Paul's part.
The tact of Paul's speech on the stairway is almost infinite:
1. In that he spoke it in Hebrew. If anything in the world would appeal to that
crowd it was to hear their own mother tongue. When such a great multitude of
the Jews had lost the power to speak Hebrew, or even to read it, it was an
instant appeal to them that this man would speak to them in the mother tongue.
2. While everything he said had been said before, yet it is the way in which he
makes what he says meet that case. He applies it to this point: First, "I
was once Just such a zealot as you are about your law. Your high priest knows
it. You all know that I went to any length to put down Christianity. But,
brethren, I met the Lord. The light in which I met him was so bright it blinded
me. By the power of God I am a changed man. There has been an internal experience
to justify my change from one crowd to another crowd, and the recognition of my
change was by as devout a Jew as you are one Ananias and the Lord met him
and sent him to authenticate what had been done. And to show that my heart is
toward you as it ever has been, when I was in Jerusalem at the time of the
conference here in the church I went to the Temple, and there the same Lord
that converted me and that impressed Ananias to baptize me, told me to go to
the Gentiles. You have nothing against me beyond my going to the Gentiles, and
yet I have gone in obedience to your Messiah gone after an experience of
conversion to prove to me that my former zeal against the church was wrong, and
authenticated by a Jew just as zealous as you are." It was impossible for
an orator to state a case with any greater simplicity and with any more
tactfulness. But when he said "Gentiles," why that was like waving a
red flag before a mad bull. Then they went to howling at once.
Here we have the expression, "Wash away thy sins." We have already
considered that in Acts 2:38, but I will restate it now, since here Paul is
commanded to wash away his sins. Since he is commanded to wash away his sins in
baptism, that proves that it wasn't real cleansing from sin, but a figurative
one, because God alone can remit sin, and there is no virtue in baptism to take
it away. Therefore, what is meant is that Paul himself, not God, could
symbolically wash away his sins in baptism. Baptism could symbolize the
cleansing from sin, though it couldn't actually remove it.
Lysias ordered Paul's examination by torture in order to find out what the
grievance of the Jews was against this man, and Paul escaped it, as I have
already shown, by claiming to be a Roman citizen; and that leads to the next
expedient of Lysias. As a Roman he is bound to find out in some way what the
grievance is, so the next expedient is to order the Sanhedrin to come together,
and he said, "You are not to mob this man. He is my prisoner, and I want
to know what is against him," and the expedient was very successful from
his point of view. It demonstrated to him that there were no charges against
Paul that could come under the jurisdiction of a Roman. So he won out on this
expedient. He saw that they didn't agree themselves, and that it was only a
matter upon which Pharisees and Sadducees differed a matter of their own law
and he never had any doubt about the case any more.
Paul's saying, "I wist not that he was the high priest," is hard to
explain. I will give what some commentators have said, viz.:
First, that Ananias had usurped the office of high priest during a vacancy, and
therefore was not recognized by Paul. There is no evidence that that office was
vacant.
Second, that Paul, having been long absent, was really unacquainted with the
person of the high priest. That cuts no figure, because Paul would recognize
the man that was wearing the full official dress of the priest, as the priest.
Third, that the words are ironical: "I couldn't be supposed to know that
you, a man that would command me to be smitten in the mouth as you did, was
high priest."
Fourth, that Paul on account of his nearsightedness, his imperfect sight,
couldn't discern that dress. That is Farrar's explanation, and it is a very
plausible one. too.
Fifth, that "I wist not, brethren," means, "I didn't give it a
thought; I just spoke fast, and when he commanded me to be smitten in the mouth
I spoke without giving a thought to the fact that the one who said it was high
priest." That is not very plausible.
Of all these explanations the most plausible one to me is Farrar's. A
near-sighted man may come right into a room and unless he comes right up close
to a person he will not recognize him.
[I most heartily agree here with Canon Farrar and Dr. Carroll on their
explanation of Paul's failure to recognize the high priest. It is almost
tragical that there is so little allowance made for the man who has an
infirmity of vision. I have suffered for nearly thirty years with what I
suppose to be the same eye trouble that so harassed and afflicted Paul. Many
times I do not recognize my best friends, even when they are but a few feet
away. It has been one of the greatest of all my crosses, and I am sure that in
this incident Paul did not have sufficient vision with which to recognize the
high priest, and that this is a full explanation of the matter. Editor.]
Before this, Paul had set forth the Christian's duty toward rulers in Romans
13:1-7: "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there
is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore
he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that
withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to
the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? Do
that which is good, and thou shall have praise from the same; for he is a
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger
for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be in subjection,
not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this
cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service attending
continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom
tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom
honor."
The explanation of the three classes of Paul's military escort is that the
Roman legion was divided. The main dependence of the Roman legion was what is
called the heavy-armed soldiers. They carried the shields and that deadly short
sword. They carried also an immensely long lance. When they drove that lance
into the ground and drew on their short swords, they turned the battle. Right
ahead of them was a line of spearmen, that before they got in touch with the
enemy could throw their javelins, and fall back behind the heavy part. The
third part was the light troops cavalry. Every legion had those three classes
of soldiers, so when Lysias sent a guard of 200 soldiers, tremendously heavily
armed troops, 200 spearmen, light armed troops, and 70 cavalrymen, that made a
body that could adapt itself to any kind of an enemy that would attack them
on the way and it was exceedingly formidable, for Lysias recognized the power
of the malice of the Jews.
A very favorable impression is made on the mind by this account. The world
never saw such military discipline as the Romans had. Whenever they camped for
just one night they would do work enough to build a town. They would dig a
ditch and throw up a wall around their camp. They knew exactly where to put the
baggage wagons. Every cavalryman knew where his place was. Every spearman knew
where his place was. It was a citadel of fortifications, if they just camped
one night, and over all Europe, where the Romans marched, could be seen their
camps at night. Frederick the Great came near having a military discipline
equal to the Romans. As to the administration of justice, we are compelled to
bow before it. Take this man Lysias, or Gallic, or any other case that came up,
and how careful they are! They would say, "It is not our custom to try a
man until we hear him. We will hear both sides of it. We want to know the
facts, and if what he is accused of doesn't come under the Roman jurisdiction,
we dismiss the case." And the only time when there is a
"slip-up" in Roman justice is where the man appointed to power, like
Pilate or like that slave, Felix, to whom we will come later, has itching palms
or fears, then justice goes awry. The Roman code, together with the code of
Moses, is the foundation of the law that rules the civilized world today. The
Romans had good roads. They had good discipline. They had fine administration
of justice. A "slip-up" would come only in some special cases, as I
have mentioned.
There are three styles in this section the inimitable historical prose style of
Luke, the epistolary style of Lysias, and the oratorical style of Paul in
making a speech. When I read it over I can feel the touch of each one of them
as I come to it.
When a school boy I read the twenty-seven novels of Walter Scott, and I had
read quite a number of his historical books before I came to his epistolatory
ones, and I was perfectly delighted when I came to Gauntlet, a story in the
form of letters written from one to another. Scott enhanced the literary
excellence of his stories by changing the style.
Lysias' letter is a genuine letter. Paul's speech is a great speech. Luke is a
true historian. There is nothing stilted. There is one touch of human nature in
the letter of Lysias. He knows how to write: "Claudius Lysias unto the
most excellent governor, Felix, greeting: This man was seized of the Jews, and
was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers, and
rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause
whereof they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found
to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his
charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was shown to me that there
would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his
accusers also, to speak against him before thee."
So the one touch of human nature in that letter is this: "This man was
taken of the Jews and would have been killed of them: Then I came with an army
and rescued him." Now, he didn't know that Paul was a Roman when he first
interfered. He found that out afterward, but as he stated it, it certainly put
him in a more favorable light to make Felix think that he understood it that
way that be was endeavoring to take care of the Roman people. Every man is
the hero of the story he tells.
I knew a man to run into our camps on the frontier once, gasping for breath and
his tongue out, telling about the Indians only two miles off, and how they had
crowded him, bow he had saved his horses, and how he had come across to give
information to the camp (it was all made up to scare us) and John Meriwether
says, "I was a fool to believe you at first, but I was wise in believing
you afterwards, because there was such a natural twang in the way you made yourself
the hero, that I thought you were telling the truth."
QUESTIONS
1. What the scripture for this chapter, and the general theme for all the
remainder of Acts?
2. What distinct forces must be considered, each from its viewpoint, in their
interplay on the results at Jerusalem?
3. State the case from the viewpoint of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, and
your judgment of their performance.
4. What the case of the unbelieving Jews there?
5. What the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers
in Jerusalem?
6. What the case of Paul's kinsman?
7. What the case of Paul himself?
8. Analyze Paul's speech on the stairway, and give the substance of this speech
in paraphrase.
9. What the explanation and force of "wash away thy sins"?
10. Why did Lysias order Paul's examination by torture, and how did he escape?
11. What the next expedient of Lysias, and what the result?
12. What the explanation of Pauls saying, I wist not that he was the high
priest"? What the remarks on this incident of the editor of this
INTERPRETATION?
13. Where before had Paul set forth the Christians duty toward rulers and what
is the substance of his statement?
14. How do you explain the three classes of Paul's military escort?
15. What impression is made on the mind by this account of Roman military
discipline and administration of justice?
16 When was there injustice practiced under the Roman law, and what
illustrations cited?
17 What the literary excellence of this section?
18. What one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias? Illustrate.
PAUL BEFORE FELIX AND FELIX BEFORE PAUL
Acts 23:31 to 24:27.
There are strange contrasts in this section which awaken certain lines of
thought. The first contrast is between Felix and Paul. The one an intensely
religious and moral man, and with the greatest possible integrity, the highest
moral courage an innocent man. The other, the one who is acting as judge, one
of the greatest rascals that ever went unhung. He had been a slave, and was too
vile to talk about. His whole life was offensive to God and man. How great the
contrast with a man innocent of all offense, tried before such a judge! The
next contrast is brought out in the case of Felix before Paul. God's judgment
was different from man's judgment. The lines of thought awakened by this
contrast are these: Look at these people to whom Paul was brought to be judged,
also Christ in his ministry. Pilate, Herod the Great (that Herod who died and
was eaten of worms as related in Acts 12), Felix, Festus, Gallic, and Nero, and
just think of that Agrippa the Second, Bernice, and Drusilla, all of them
coming in the limelight of personal contact with either the Lord or some of his
closest followers, going into history simply because they came into the orbit
of that light for a little while.
THE FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE FELIX,
23:33-35
There is a certain force of the compound Greek word, diakousornai (v. 35),
rendered, "I will hear thee fully," and there is a special reason for
the employment of that particular word. The use of the preposition, dia, with
akouo gives an intensity to the verb. The verb means "to hear";
putting in the preposition dia implies a degree of hearing much stronger than
the other: "I will hear thee fully." That is the force of the word.
The reason for the employment of that word is that a Roman officer who stood in
judgment on a person who had been commended in a letter that had been sent, was
required by Roman law to give a full hearing. Paul reached Felix commended by a
letter from Lysias, who stated that he was a Roman citizen, and that there was
nothing in the charges against him. That is called a eviogium by the Roman
officer that sent him to the judge. The Roman law was, that if the judge gets a
eulogium from the officer that passed the person to him, he must hear the case
fully. He must not do it slightingly. That is why Felix uses the expression:
"I will hear thee fully." He did not tell the truth when he said it,
but the law required him to say it.
The place of Paul's confinement was called "Herod's palace," or
praetorium, i. e., judgment hall. Herod the Great, in order to please the
emperor Augustus, built the whole city of Caesarea. He made a magnificent
harbor. He built the most stately palaces and buildings, and in the palace that
Caesar was to occupy, if he ever came there, was a praetorium, the judgment
office in which he might hear cases. There is no Caesarea now nothing but the
ruin of ruins.
THE SECOND APPEARANCE BEFORE FELIX, ACTS
24:1-23
The value of this section is that it gives most graphically the method of Roman
trial. We have the judge, the prosecution, the counsel of the prisoner, the case
formally stated by the prosecution, and the defense fairly stated by Paul. The
value of it is in giving us a look into a Roman court room.
The speeches of Tertullus and Paul appear here in contrast. Tertullus was
employed by the Jews. He was prosecuting this case as a hired lawyer. Let's
look at his speech. His clients present are Ananias, the high priest, and the
elders. He is going to speak before them and this is his speech: "Seeing
that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by thy providence evils are
corrected for this nation, we accept it in all ways, and in all places, most
excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But, that I be not further tedious unto
thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found
this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews
throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: moreover
assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold: from whom thou wilt
be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things
whereof we accuse him. And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that
these things were so" (Acts 24:1-9).
Let us analyze this speech. It commences in the oratorical method of attempting
to conciliate the judge by saying flattering things, and in saying that he does
some steep lying. Notice what he says: "Seeing that by thee we enjoy much
peace." No man that had ever been put over that country had stirred up
more rows with the people. "And that by thy providence evils are corrected
for this nation." Tacitus, the Roman historian, and Josephus, say that his
deeds were infamous. "We accept it in all ways, and in all places, most
excellent Felix, with all thankfulness." They never did accept anything
that he did. They hated him worse than they hated the devil. But he put all
that into his speech. Tacitus says that everything he did was in the spirit of
the slave which he was, and the Jews, instead of accepting his administration
thankfully, never did stop until they bad him recalled, and Porcius Festus sent
to succeed him.
But anyhow that is the way he commences. That is called the exordium of the
speech, in which he placates his audience by saying pleasing things to them,
either to make them laugh or tickle their fancy, or gratify their pride. All
orators do that.
Notice what the accusation against the prisoner is. There are three points in
it: (1) He accuses him of sedition, that is, against the Roman law he created
disturbances among the Jews throughout the world.; (2) heresy, which is against
the Jewish law, only as a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes; (3) his
profanation of the Temple, which is against both Jewish and Roman law. Those
are the three points, and in a very masterly way he presents the accusation.
There is just about as much truth in it as in that flattery in the exordium,
but it is certainly done in an orderly way. The next point in his speech is
that the Jews, under the Roman law, had a right to try a man for offenses
against the Jewish law, and Paul was such an offender, and he alleges that they
had arrested him and were proceeding to give him a trial under the Jewish law
for offenses that were against the Jewish law, and that a Roman chiliarch came
with violence and took him away, when they were about to try him, and commanded
them to come and appear before Felix.
That is certainly presented in a masterly way, and equally false. They were not
proceeding to try him according to their law. They were proceeding to kill him
when Lysias interfered. There was no trial about it. There was a mob putting
him to death and they almost succeeded. Notice now what the object of the
speaker is. In the analysis of the address we must know what the lawyer is
trying to get at. From this address let us see what object he is after what
it is he wants to get at. "We were trying this man before the Jewish law
[which they were continuing under the Roman jurisdiction], and the Roman
official, Lysias, snatched him away from that court." What is he after? He
wants Felix to say, "Take him back to Jerusalem and try him under your
law." That's the point, and they had assassins ready to kill him if they
ever got him back there. He wants this procurator to say that his case is not
ready yet to come before his court that Lysias was indiscrete in going into a
Jewish court when they were trying him on matters pertinent before their court.
"Now take him back and try him." That is what he wants him to say.
Let us now analyze Paul's speech: "Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been
of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defense [or I do
the more cheerfully answer for myself]." That is his exordium. Just as
when he makes a speech before Agrippa, he says, "I think myself happy,
King Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all
the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: especially because thou art expert
in the customs and questions which are among the Jews." It is a fact that
Felix for quite a while had been a judge for the Jewish nation, so that his
exordium is truthful: "Because you have had time and opportunity to find
out these people here that are making the accusation, and to know something of
the merits of the Christian religion for which I am accused." So that exordium
is certainly true in statement, and a fine way to put it. Never begin a case by
abusing the court. If you can't say good things, just speak out what is true.
That is what Paul does. Next he says, "Seeing that thou canst take
knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at
Jerusalem." In other words, "Now, you as a judge living here, knowing
the country and hearing this string of accusations against me, can find out, if
you want to, that I have been in this country but twelve days, going from
Caesarea to Jerusalem, and now I am back here again, and in all that time it is
only twelve days; so it is very easy to get your facts." "And neither
in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd
[they accused him of sedition; now he is replying to it], nor in the
synagogues, nor in the city. Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof
they now accuse me."
He is here answering the Jewish charge. First charge is that he went about
raising disturbances, rousing the people up. He says, "It has been just
twelve days; there are plenty of witnesses; you can find out all I did in those
twelve days, part of which I consumed in going to Jerusalem and being brought
back here. In that time they cannot prove that I was even disturbing, either in
the synagogue or in the Temple, or raising any disturbances whatever, and as
for profaning the Temple, that is where they arrested me. I was there
conforming to the customs of the Mosaic law." That is the way he answers
the first charge. Now he is going to answer as to his being a heretic:
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call a sect
so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to
the law, and which are written in the prophets."
How are they going to make a heretic out of a man that believes everything that
is written, either in the law or the prophets, or in the Bible? He continues:
"And having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that
there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Herein I also
exercise myself to have a conscience void of offense toward God and man always.
Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings [to
create sedition; I came on a mission of mercy and kindness; I had worked four
years to get up these funds]: amidst which they found me purified in the
Temple, which was no crowd, nor yet with tumult [not I, but they], but there
were certain Jews from Asia who ought to have been here before thee, and to
make accusation, if they had aught against me." In other words, he says,
"Why are these witnesses not present? They are the men that raised the
row." Then he goes on, "Or else let these men themselves say what
wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, except it be for this
one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the
dead I am called in question before you this day."
It is one of the most perfect defenses that was ever delivered in a courtroom.
It sticks to the question; it answers the accusation; it points to the crowd of
Ananias and the elders that are there: "You can get your witnesses out of
that crowd right there for my prosecution; now all I want to do is to have them
put on the witness stand. The whole time was twelve days; you can easily find
out whether I am guilty of sedition or not. As to my believing in Christ, that
is true, but that doesn't make me a heretic, because I believe in the
resurrection of the dead; in fact, they had a row over it when I was tried
before this crowd." That's the analysis of the two speeches. All who
intend to be speakers, should study all cases where great speeches are made to
learn how speeches are to be made.
There is a new term of reproach employed by Tertullus, destined to become
historic, anticipated by previous scripture, as other names originated by
enemies also became historic. The term of reproach is "The sect of the
Nazarenes." From Nazareth! "Did any good thing ever come out of
Nazareth?" The scripture that anticipates it is that statement in Matthew
2:23, "That the prophecy might be fulfilled, he shall be called a
Nazarene." The other cases where enemies originated names, are the words
"Christian," originated in Antioch, and "Galilean," used by
an apostate emperor, Julian. When he came to die, after trying so hard to
destroy Christianity, he said, "Thou Galilean hast conquered."
"Galilean" means a crude fisherman, and "Nazarene" and
"Christian" were all terms of reproach, and all became historic.
There is a certain basis of fact underlying Tertullus' flattery of Felix. Felix
did two things that may have been beneficial. He did suppress the bandits, and
he is the man that whipped the impostor, the Egyptian, but it was at a very
great cost to the Jews in both cases, and they did not thank him for driving
the bandits out, since there were more patriots driven to desperation than
bandits, in the present sense of the word. They were very friendly to the
Jewish people because they were people that refused to submit to the injustice
of the tyrants, a good deal like Judas Maccabaeus. Anyhow, he had done those
two things that might be called a basis of fact.
They clamored for the sentence against Paul. The record says that he,
"having more exact knowledge concerning the way, deferred them." The
force of it is this: It means that Felix, from his residence there, probably
living in Gaesare when Philip the evangelist was there, and since Paul had from
time to time been there and preached, knew what that heresy was. The idea is
that he had too exact information on that subject to be fooled by those words
of Tertullus, and therefore he deferred judgment. They thought they would take
Paul back with them, but they did not get him. Felix very plausibly says,
"There is no evidence in this case; you have made an accusation against
Lysias. Lysias will be here soon and I will just defer it until I hear from
him." That is the ground on which he defers it. He had the letter of
Lysias stating the case, and there was not a bit of reason that Felix should
not have ended that whole matter and set Paul at liberty right there. They had
utterly failed to establish anything, and he knew it. But the real motive which
prompted him to postpone decision was shekels. He wanted the prisoner, unknown to
him, to bribe him, and he deferred the case and left it unsettled, hoping that
Paul would pay him some money. Doubtless he had heard of that big collection
that Paul had taken up to Jerusalem, and he knew how much devoted to Paul his
friends were, and if he would just hold him a while someone would come and pay
him a big sum, or else the other crowd would pay him a proper sum to send Paul
back to Jerusalem. That is what governed that slave. There is evidence in this
section that Felix was assured of Paul's innocence, viz.: the charge that he
gave the centurion. He was not to be put in the prison, and his friends were to
have free access to him. We know by this that he was thoroughly convinced of
the falsity of the accusation, but he simply detained him to get shekels. It
was detention under pretense, yet he allowed his friends to come and see him
just as freely as if he were not a prisoner.
FELIX BEFORE PAUL
The record says, "After certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife,
who was a Jewess, and he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in
Christ Jesus." This time it is Felix before Paul. The Herod in Acts 12
imagined himself a god, the angel of the Lord smote him and the worms ate him
up. He was the father of the King Agrippa that he we will take up in the next
chapter, and of the Drusilla that we will consider in this chapter, and of
Bernice๙one brother and two sisters. The older sister was Bernice, and Drusilla
was the younger sister. And she was a Jewess; so they all were Jews. What is
the history of her connection? She had been married to another man. The Simon
Magus that Peter had turned down, given in Acts 8, had come there and gotten
the ear of Felix, and, paid by Felix, and using his charms and incantations, he
had enticed Drusilla away from her husband to come to Felix. Of course, there
was a divorce, but it amounted to stealing a man's wife. It did not make any
difference to Drusilla, or any of her kin, how often that was done; she was
ready. There is not known in history any set of women that were more vile in
their relations than these two women. These people found their immortality in
history by coming in touch with Paul. This Drusilla, when Felix was driven back
to Rome on the importunities of the Jews, drifted out near Naples, and in that
great eruption of Mount Vesuvius, was buried under its lava. Those excavators
have doubtless come upon the bones of the woman, vile in her life, and who yet
once had the opportunity to hear God's apostle teach righteousness, chastity,
and judgment to come.
But this interview was not intended to be judicial. The record says that man
and his wife came to hear Paul about the faith of Christ. So it was not a
trial. But Paul makes it so, and reverses the relative positions of himself and
Felix. He takes Felix and Drusilla and brings them before the great judgment
bar of God. He tries them there under that text of righteousness, chastity, i.
e., continence (the text says self-control, but it refers to sexual control),
and judgment to come. Instead of Paul being tried before Felix, Felix is being
tried before Paul. Paul did not tremble when he stood before Felix, but Felix
trembled when he stood before Paul.
He knew that Felix and Drusilla were unrighteous from the crown of their heads
to the soles of their feet. He knew they were unchaste. He knew that they were
amenable to the final and everlasting judgment of God. And they came to find
out about the faith in Christ, and he takes that subject and discusses it. Was
it polite? Not very, but it certainly was right. Paul was not sent out to be
polite he was sent out to preach the gospel of God. And if he ever did intend
to preach on righteousness, continence, and judgment to come, that was the
audience for him. The general idea is that when one preaches he must look over
his crowd, and never wound anybody in that crowd.
There is a story about a deacon that came to a new preacher, and the deacon
says, "Parson, don't say anything about the Roman Catholics, for there is
quite a number of them present in the audience; and don't say anything about
the Episcopalians, for the judge is an Episcopalian, and he has come out to
hear you; and don't say anything about the saloon business, for that man is a
wholesale liquor dealer, and he is very liberal." "Will you please
tell me whom I may say something about?" asked the young preacher. The
deacon said, "There are no Mormons here give it to them." That is
the idea that some people have about preaching. That was not Paul. He took a shot
at the game in sight. He was ready for anything, whether they were crouched or
on the wing. He took a shot at the crowd before him.
The trembling of Felix was not worth a cent religiously. It shows the cowardly
apprehension of his peril, but there was no repentance about it. He trembled as
the thief trembles when he is caught.
There are parallels to this interest of Felix in the case of Herod and John the
Baptist, and Louis XIV and his great court preachers. Herod was the one that
beheaded John the Baptist, and the one that mocked Christ, and was just such a
rascal as Felix, and there was a bad woman in that case. He had taken his
brother Philip's wife, and he wanted to be patronizing to the great Judean
prophet, John the Baptist, and sent for him. John shook his finger in his face
and said, "It is not lawful to have your brother's wife." That was
not polite, was it? Herod was very much stirred by John. He preserved John for
a long time, but a woman does not forgive such things. Man may, but woman never
does, and Herod tried to save John from the woman. I will venture that Drusilla
did not tremble like Felix. Herod frequently sent for John after that, but at
last the woman got his head. And when it was brought to her on a charger she
took a bodkin and pierced his tongue with it, and said, "You will never
say again, It is not lawful to have your brother's wife.'"
The case of Louis XIV is one of the most shameful cases in the sight of the
moral law. He affected to be the most pious man in the world, the defender of
the faith and the cross of the Roman Catholics. The preachers that preached
before him were really greater preachers than the Protestants in their day, and
yet, though he heard these great sermons, he went right along living his life
of shame.
There is a striking example in the case of Louis XIV cited in Strong's
Systematic Theology. One of these great preachers was discussing in the
presence of Louis XIV this text: "But I see another law in my members
warring against the law of the mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law
of sin which is in my members." While he was discussing that subject,
Louis, who always claimed to have special privileges, cried out aloud in the
audience, "Oh, sire, I know those two men, the two are in this man!"
The preacher looked down at him and said, "Sire, to know is somewhat, but
one or the other of them must die; one or the other must conquer." He was
a brave preacher and he made Louis XIV tremble. Paul made Felix tremble, and
John the Baptist made Herod tremble.
There are some great revival texts in this section: (1) Paul's text:
"Righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." (2) "Felix
trembled," or the inadequacy of mere trembling without true repentance to
save men. (3) "Go thy way for this time, and when I have a more convenient
season I will call thee unto me." How many times has this been preached
from! A very fine text, too.
The despicable attitude of Felix is presented in verses 26-27. That says that
Felix kept coming to see Paul, hoping he would give him something to let him
loose. Now there is the picture of the man holding out one hand to Paul and one
to the Jews, say-ing, "I am holding this case in the balance; I do not
know how to decide it." He held a pair of scales in each hand; it depended
on which of them would put the most money in it. There is a pertinent passage
from Shakespeare on "the law's delay and the insolence of office."
This man kept Paul there two years when there was not a thing to do but just
pronounce him acquitted. The passage is in. Hamlet's soliloquy (Act III, Scene
1), commencing thus: To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis
nobler in the mind, to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; Or
to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them? To die,
to sleep, No more; and, by a sleep, to say we end The heart-ache, and the
thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly
to be wish'd. To die; to sleep, To sleep perchance to dream; ay, there's
the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled
off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: There's the respect, That makes
calamity of so long a life: For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despis'd love,
the law's delay, The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of
the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin?
who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life; But that the
dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn No
traveller returns, puzzles the will; And makes us rather bear those ills we
have, Than fly to others that we know not of?
In the successful administration of justice three things are fundamental and
vital:
(1) That the defendant should be tried where he can have fair hearing. (Paul
could not get it in Jerusalem.); (2) that the man who is arrested should have a
speedy trial; (3) that in the trial the righteous should be acquitted and the
wicked condemned.
If we compare Luke's "Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus" (v. 27),
with Josephus' "Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix"
(Antonym, Book XX, chap. 8), it looks like one copied from the other, but Luke
wrote his first, of course. We may compute Paul's twelve days (v. II) by
referring to the textbook, which shows the twelve days and what each day was
devoted to. (See Goodwin's Harmony of the Life of Paul, p. 131).
There is just one allusion in Acts to the great collections by Paul so
abundantly discussed in Ins letters, i. e., this one here: "I came to
bring alms to my nation." That is the only time in Acts that we have any
reference to it. Luke's Gospel was probably written at Caesarea during the two
years there of Paul's imprisonment. The traceable effect of Paul's Caesarean
imprisonment on his later writings is ably discussed in Conybeare and Howson,
in Stalker's Life of Paul and in some other works. The date of
Festus' succeeding Felix was A.D. 60 or 61. Luke and Aristarchus were with Paul
at Caesarea.
Ananias, the high priest, here appearing against Paul, to whom Paul had said,
"God will smite thee, thou whiled wall," was killed by the assassins.
He is here enticing the assassins to kill Paul. Vesuvius got Drusilla, the
assassins got Ananias, and Judea just kept on boiling and boiling over
everywhere against Felix. Charges going all the time to Rome that were finally
successful. At Caesarea, while Paul was a prisoner there, the streets ran with
the blood of the Jews stricken down by Roman soldiers. Thus ends the sad story
of Felix, the slave.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scripture and the theme of this chapter?
2. What strange contrasts does" this section present, and what lines of
thought does it awaken?
3. What the force of the compound Greek word diakousornai, and what the reason
for the employment of that particular word?
4. Why was the place of Paul's confinement called Herod's palace or praetorium,
i. e., judgment hall?
5. What the value of the section Acts 24:1-23?
6. How did Tertullus introduce his speech, and how many and what lies did he
tell in the exordium?
7. What threefold accusation did he make against Paul?
8. What the Roman law with regard to offenses against the Jewish law, what did
Tertullus allege concerning Paul's arrest and trial under the Jewish law?
9. What was the object of Tertullus in his speech?
10. How does Paul begin his speech, and what the contrast between his exordium
and that of Tertullus?
11. How does Paul answer the threefold charge against him?
12. What can you say of Paul's defense in this case?
13. What new term of reproach employed by Tertullus destined to become
historic, what previous scripture anticipates it, and what other names
originated by enemies also became historic?
14. What basis of fact underlies Tertullus' flattery of Felix?
15. What the force of the phrase, "Having more perfect knowledge of the
Way"?
16. On what alleged ground does Felix defer judgment, and was there any reason
to wait for the testimony of Lysias?
17. What real motive prompted Felix to postpone decision?
18. What evidence in this section Felix was assured of Paul's innocence?
19. What the history of Drusilla's connection with Felix?
20. Was this interview of Felix before Paul intended to be judicial?
21. How does Paul make it so, and reverse the relative positions of himself and
Felix?
22. Was it polite in Paul to discuss such a theme in such a presence, and if
not, how may we justify it?
23. What the religious character and value of the "trembling of
Felix"?
24. What parallels to this interest of Felix do we find in the case of Herod
and John the Baptist, and Louis XIV and his great court preachers?
25. What striking example in the case of Louis XIV cited in Strong's Systematic
Theology?
26. What great revival texts in this section?
27. What the despicable attitude of Felix as presented
in verses 26-27?
28. Cite the pertinent passage from Shakespeare on "The law's delay and
the insolence of office."
29. In the successful administration of justice, what things are fundamental
and vital?
30. Compare verse 27, and Josephus' Antonym Book XX chapter 8, and tell which
wrote first, Luke or Josephus.
31. How may we compute Paul's twelve days?
32. How many allusions in the Acts to the great collections by Paul so
abundantly discussed in his letters?
33. What New Testament book was probably written at Caesarea during the two
years there of Paul's imprisonment?
34. What effect of Paul's Caesarean imprisonment on his later writings?
35. What the date of Festus' succeeding Felix?
36. Who were with Paul at Caesarea?
37. What became of Ananias, the high priest?
38. What transpired in Judea and at Caesarea during Paul's two years of
imprisonment there?
PAUL AND FESTUS; FESTUS AND AGRIPPA; PAUL AND AGRIPPA
Acts 25-26.
Felix was superseded as procurator of Judea, and on departing he seeks to put
the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound. He was superseded on
account of the many complaints of his mal-administration sent to Rome by the
dissatisfied Jews. Knowing that he would have to give an account of these
matters when he got to Rome, he wanted to put the Jews under obligation to him
by leaving Paul bound so as to modify their testimony against him when he was
held to account.
We know but little about Festus beyond what our record tells us, but Josephus
discusses him pretty freely, and gives him a good name as a conscientious
ruler. Having been only three days at the political capital, Caesarea, he went
to Jerusalem to spend ten days studying the situation, as a ruler ought to do,
trying to get acquainted with the character of the people over whom he was to
rule. In Acts 25:1-5, 15-16, we have an account of a request preferred by
Jewish officials to Festus concerning Paul, and the reply of Festus. These facts
show three things:
1. That this was a great hazard to Paul, because, when a new procurator
arrived, he would quite naturally wish to conciliate the people by granting
their first request. To grant it meant death to Paul.
2. The fact that after Paul had been in prison for two years, this Jewish hate,
unsleeping and unrelenting, showed itself Just as soon as a new procurator puts
his foot in their capital, is a demonstration of its intensity.
3. The facts are very highly commendatory to Festus. The Jews requested first
as a favor, as the Greek word says, that Festus send Paul to Jerusalem to be
tried. Festus replied that it was not a Roman custom to grant as a favor that a
man should be tried not according to law; that there must be an opportunity for
the accused to face his accusers, and the evidence must be looked into, and
inasmuch as Paul was already there in custody in Caesarea, instead of sending
him to Jerusalem, the ones in authority in Jerusalem could come up to Caesarea
to press their cage, and not try to get a change of venue. All that is very
fine on the part of Festus. We now come to the
TRIAL BEFORE FESTUS
We find three accounts of this trial. The first is Luke's own account, Acts
25:6-12; then the account given by Festus himself, Acts 25:13-21; and then the
account of Paul, Acts 28:17-19. If we compare this trial with the previous one
before Felix, we find that the only difference is that in this case the Jews
have no orator, or lawyer, or at least there is nothing said about it. The charges
are exactly the same. They fail in their proof, just as they did before. They
convince Festus, Just as they had convinced Felix, that there was nothing in
their accusations for the Roman court to take cognizance of.
The instant duty of Festus was to pronounce Paul acquitted and release him. But
instead of doing his known duty, he makes a proposition to Paul. Commencing at
verse 9, we read: "But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews,
answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of
these things before me?" It is a little difficult to know exactly what
that proposition means. We may construe it. "Wilt thou consent to a change
of venue, and let me try the case over again at Jerusalem?" or it may
mean, "Are you willing, if I am present, to let this case be taken to
Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin try you?" It may mean either one of those two
things, and I think it means the latter. I judge so from Paul's response.
This proposition was unfair, even if he meant that he would try the case,
because it put the place of trial where animosity against the prisoner was such
that his life would be in danger. Second, it was judicially unfair to seek to
do this on account of the desire to please the Jews. Why should he please the
Jews any more than he should Paul? What was a judge to do with things of that
kind? Besides being unfair, it reversed his former decision. When the Jews
asked originally that Paul be sent to Jerusalem for trial, he refused. Now in
asking Paul if he was willing to go to Jerusalem to be retried, it reverses the
other decision. Furthermore, he misrepresented his motive in making it. Luke
says in verse 9 that Festus made the proposition, desiring to please the Jews.
Festus in telling about it, Acts 25:20, says: "And I, being perplexed how
to enquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and
there be judged of these matters." He gives as his motive that he had some
doubt in his mind about the manner of his question, but Luke gives his motive as
a desire to please the Jews.
This proposition meant great hazard to Paul. He knew the Jews. He knew, and
Lysias knew, and Festus knew, because he had all the correspondence and testimony
previously taken, that the sole object of the trial was to get an opportunity
to assassinate Paul. Paul recognized this, and said to Festus, the judge,
"You know that I am guilty of no offense," and now he saw that if
Festus wavered, which he was doing, and sent him to Jerusalem, that meant death
to him. How would he escape that? He escapes by an appeal to Caesar: "You
tried this case; you admit there is nothing against me; now you propose to send
me to Jerusalem to be tried over again; I appeal to Caesar as a Roman
citizen."
This proposition of Festus exhibits him in a less favorable light than his
original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem. He stands
so well in the first case, and everything he says is so much to the point and
judicially fair! Now, evidently, he is learning something about the Jewish
character, and the power of Jewish hate. He has seen that the Jews have brought
about a recall of Felix, and his selfishness is appealed to: "Now, must I
forget that I am a fair judge, and look at the case as it will likely affect me
if I get these people mad?" That doesn't present him to us as half the man
that the other does. Thus we may account for his wavering his selfishness for
the fear that he might get himself into complications with the Jews.
Here I explain briefly the appeal to Caesar. When Rome was a republic it
elected tribunes. These tribunes had the power at any time to arrest a case, or
in court stop its proceedings without assigning a reason, and have it tried
before them, and if the case had been tried and adjudicated, these tribunes had
the power to reverse it. When Rome became an empire, the Emperor assumed all
the functions of the tribunes. In other words, the Emperor had the power and
the authority to stop the proceedings of any court in the empire, and he had
the power of a petit court, and then he had the power to reverse any decision
that had been rendered. An ordinary man that lived in the province, as the
Jews, the Ephesians, or the Galatians, could not appeal to Caesar. What the
proconsul, the procurator, or the propraetor did was final. But a Roman citizen
living in any of these countries, just by simply saying, "I appeal to
Caesar," could stop any case, anywhere. They could proceed no further after
he made that appeal. There was not anything left for the Roman consul, or
procurator, to do except just to say what Festus said: "Thou hast appealed
unto Caesar; unto Caesar shalt thou go." There was only one exception. If
the Roman citizen was a bandit or a pirate, and caught in the very act of
robbery or piracy, he could not appeal to Caesar.
FESTUS AND AGRIPPA
The case, now being taken out of the hands of either
the Sanhedrin or of Festus himself, all that this procurator could do was to
send Paul by the first good opportunity to Rome, and to send all the papers in
the case and refer it to Caesar. But an opportunity did not come every day for
sailing ships, going in the right direction, and while they were waiting for a
ship, Agrippa II, the king of Chalcis, and his sister Bernice, came to pay a
complimentary visit to the new procurator, and it occurred to Festus to lay
this case before Agrippa. He had this special object in view: Agrippa had great
influence. Agrippa had charge of all the Temple officers, and power to appoint
a high priest. He was the last king of any kind that the Jews had except the
spiritual king, Jesus. Festus, having recognized the turbulent character of the
Jews, if he could get a concurrence of judgment on this case from this king,
himself a Jew, it would greatly disarm any opposition of the Jews on account of
Paul.
Luke's account gives a plain, straightforward statement of the case, commencing
at verse 13, and extending to verse 22. Festus states the whole case to
Agrippa, and when we look at the two, side by side, we discover that Festus'
statement of the case to Agrippa is much more complimentary to himself than
Luke's statement of the case. That little piece of human nature, to which I
have already referred, comes in. Robert Burns says, and very much to the point,
Och! Mankind is unco weak, But little to be trusted, If self the wavering
balance touch, 'Tis rarely right adjusted.
In other words, "Let a fellow state his own case and he is a hero,"
"but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out." That is what the
Bible says about it.
PAUL BEFORE AGRIPPA
Let us look at the assembly described in verse 23, and the great opportunities
afforded to Paul. (See Conybeare and Howson, Vol. II, pp. 294-98, and Farrar in
his Life of Paul.) That verse 23 says, "So on the morrow,
when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered into
the place of hearing with the chief captains, and the principal men of the
city, at the command of Festus, Paul was brought in."
That was a very imposing assembly. King Agrippa and Bernice were out in full
regal regalia. I suspect every woman that was permitted to be present went
there largely to see how Bernice was dressed in her court dress, as much as to
hear Paul's case. All the chief captains of the Roman legion were there. The
Roman cohorts and that was a very imposing body of distinguished men that had
been on a hundred battlefields were there. They were the conquerors of a
hundred countries. That word, "pomp," signifies a great deal.
"Then came the chief men of the city," and it was a great city at
that time. A very imposing assembly indeed, and here is a poor preacher that
has an opportunity to speak before this grand audience. There are people before
him that have never heard a sermon in their lives; some that knew him but
little, if anything, about the religion that was dearer to him than life. But
God's providence had managed it so that he was thus to stand before kings and
testify of the grace of God. We may live to a good old age without ever having
such an opportunity. A schoolboy thinks it is a great thing if he is selected
to deliver one of the commencement addresses, or represent his society in a
debate, but this was a bigger thing than that.
Festus, in introducing the case, throws light on the requirements of the Roman
law, and he certainly knew what to gay. Let us see how he introduces Paul. He
is the master of ceremonies: "And Festus saith, King Agrippa, and all men
who are here present with us, ye behold this man, about whom all the multitude
of the Jews made suit to me, both at Jerusalem and here, crying that he ought
not to live any longer. But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of
death; and as he himself appealed to the emperor, I determined to send him.. Of
whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord [calls Caesar, 'my lord'].
Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and specially before thee, King
Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have somewhat to write. For it
seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the
charges against him." That is a very admirable statement. The Roman law
required that when a man was sent up to Rome on appeal, all the papers relating
to the case should be sent, and all the testimony that had been taken, and a
clear statement made by one who sent him as to what he was accused of. Now we
come to:
PAUL'S DEFENSE
Here, as elsewhere, Paul arises to the greatness of the occasion. His speech
has always been recognized as a classic. Many a time as a schoolboy I have
spoken it. I know nothing in literature that I put ahead of it. It was just
exactly the right thing to say under the circumstances. Some people lose their
heads on great occasions; some, like a young hunter the first time he sees a
deer, take what is called a "buck ague" or what young people claim to
be "stage fright," or what some young bridegrooms know to be
"marriage fright." I have stood up to marry men that were shaking so
that the women had to hold them up. I never saw a woman lose her
self-possession, but I have known men to be scared nearly into a fit. Paul
exhibits the most marvelous self-possession and voices the clearest ideas not
a superfluous word. Let us analyze the address:
1. The exordium: "I think myself happy, King Agrippa, that I am to make my
defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused of
the Jews: especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which
are among the Jews." Festus was not. He was competent to try the legal
questions in full, but he didn't know anything about their customs, their laws,
their traditions, and their fanaticism, but Agrippa did; he knew all about
them. Paul said, "I count myself happy to have an opportunity to discuss it
before a competent judge one who is expert in the matters that are involved,
and before a man who can detect any false statement in a moment." That is
the exordium.
2. The next thing that he sets forth is that he himself is thoroughly well
known to the whole Jewish people, and particularly this accusing crowd, for he
was brought up at Jerusalem. They know all his manner of life; they know that
according to the strictest sect of their religion, he lived a Pharisee. Agrippa
could understand that! so he was not a stranger, with doubtful antecedents to
be met. It was just about like trying George Washington at Mount Vernon.
3. Next he names, with unerring accuracy, the three real accusatives that they
have against him:
(a) His first crime is that he is judged for the hope of the resurrection of
the dead. Of course, if the Sadducees were officials of the Sanhedrin, they
would have their grievance against him. He had been going all over their
country testifying to a case of the resurrection of the dead. Then he goes on
to show that this doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as Agrippa is bound
to know, was the thing toward which all Jews were looking, and was the end of
all Israel worship. That was the great hope of the entire nation, and his first
crime was, that he testified to the resurrection of the dead. Then he calls
attention to the fact that the person who was risen from the dead, Jesus, was
one whom he himself had exceedingly opposed. That he had not believed in him at
all; that he had persecuted him; but that on the way to Damascus with
authority, given him by the Jewish officials, that were here pressing the case,
to persecute, he met Jesus who was risen, his resurrection proving his claims;
that face to face he met him, and that his experience turned him from
persecution to the preacher of that which he had persecuted.
(b) "And then when Jesus met me he commissioned me to preach to the
Gentiles; that is my next offense, that I preached to the Gentiles. I did that under
the commission of Jesus, to whose resurrection I bear witness."
(c) "Then my third offense is that I claim that this Jesus is the Messiah
of the Jews. My answer to that is that I have not said a thing more than the
law and the prophets have said; that the Messiah would suffer and be put to
death and rise again the third day, and that he would be a light to the
Gentiles as well as to the Jews."
Did you ever see anything more clearly to the point? And those were the three
crimes: (1) That he testified to the resurrection; (2) that he preached
salvation to the Gentiles;
(3) that he claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Take those three
things out of the way and there is no grievance against him, and yet in
occupying that position he had the evidence of his own eyewitness and personal
experience, for he saw the risen Lord, and he preached nothing more than the
law and the prophets taught concerning the Messiah.
Right at that point (for here the address is properly ended), Festus interrupts:
"Paul, Paul, you are mad; you study so much that you have lost your mind;
talk about prophets and the law and a man risen from the dead!" With the
utmost courtesy, giving Festus his legal title, he says, "I am not mad,
Most Excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. King
Agrippa, you know it. These things were not done in a corner; it is not some
magical sleight-ofhand, in a dark room, with only a few people present; these
things all took place in broad daylight before ten thousand witnesses, and
Agrippa knows, everybody knows, the things to be true. It is not madness with
me, it is soberness." Then he whirls upon King Agrippa, saying, "King
Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest."
Then followed Agrippa's words (A. V.), "Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian." As some people render it, he spoke ironically, "Would
thou with a few words attempt to make me a Christian?" and that closed the
incident. The effect on Festus was that Paul was a sincere enthusiast; that his
mind was unbalanced by hard study. How may we account for the impression? It is
the impression made upon worldly men, who witness any great enthusiasm of God's
people, just as the reception of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was
construed to be intoxication. As Paul says, the natural man discerneth not the
things of God; they are of spiritual discernment. Thus Paul himself says that a
man may come into the assembly, and conclude from the way they are going on
that they are crazy. That is the way the Athenians looked at it when Paul got
up and talked about the resurrection of the dead at Athens.
Before we can determine what the effect on Agrippa was we have to know what
Agrippa meant by what he said. Great hosts of people, and particularly radical
higher critics, and the great modern scholars, say that Agrippa spoke
ironically. Conybeare and Howson take this stand. So does Farrar. So does Meyer
in his Greek Commentary, and an abundance of others. I don't believe that. I do
not agree with them for two reasons. We cannot understand Paul's reply if that
is what he meant. Paul responds, "I would to God that not only thou, but
also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am,
except these bonds." He knew what Agrippa meant, and you cannot fit that
reply of Paul's into this finical interpretation of the critics, and so I do
not accept that rendering of it. My second reason is that Agrippa showed that
the arrow had hit him. He stopped the proceedings right then and there, and got
up and left. When you shoot a deer, as I have done many a time, the deer that
is hit will separate from the crowd at once. If he is hit hard he will separate
from the crowd and go off into the thicket, and that is exactly what Agrippa
did, he took his sister and left. And so I think the effect on Agrippa was
this: He looked in the face of that calm, noble, Spirit-guided man, knowing the
facts of the history thoroughly, heard him tell about that Christian
experience, and thought in his royal heart with regard to Paul, "Isn't it
the greatest thing in the world to be a Christian?" And I think he ran to
get rid of his impression.
There are certain great texts in his address. One is this: "Why should it
be though a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" It
would be incredible if some man was going to raise the dead, but why should it
be thought a thing unbelievable if God should raise the dead. This is no harder
to do than to create a man out of nothing. What is a miracle to God? I have
preached on that many a time. God is the explanation of the miracle, of the
universe, and of regeneration. A second great text is, "Almost thou
persuadest me to be a Christian." Many a time have I preached from that,
as has nearly every other preacher, and he has my permission to go on preaching
it in the way that common minds will clearly understand it. I do not care who
may differ with me in this interpretation of it. Those King James revisers were
great scholars, and far more orthodox than some of the later ones. Another
great subject is, "What is madness to the world is truth and soberness if
we only consider it from the right point of view."
A great hymn suggested by it is, "Almost Persuaded." I have seen
Major W. E. Penn stand up before an audience of three thousand people and with
a mighty choir standing before him, sing, "Almost persuaded Almost, but
lost!"
Paul's reply to Agrippa (v. 29) places him far above his judges and auditors:
"I would to God that . . . not thou only, but also all that hear me this
day, might become such as I am, except these bonds," and he holds up his
chains. In other words, "I do not want them to have any of my sufferings,
but I would that every one were not only close to the line but would step over the
line this day." I heard a great Washington preacher preach on that text in
Waco and his theme was "Paul's Benevolence." He wanted to see people
altogether such as he was, but not to have the troubles that were his. But
Agrippa closed the hearing right at this point because it got too hot for him
too personal. Yet both Agrippa and Festus solemnly decided that there was not a
thing in those accusations against Paul, and he might be set at liberty if he
had not appealed to Caesar.
There is a subsequent value to Paul in this verdict. The value is this, that
when Festus sent the account and wrote what the charges were, he put in such a
favorable commendation of Paul that when he got to Rome he was not subject to
harsh imprisonment. He had an opportunity to preach; and the value of it is
seen in that he had friends visiting him continuously, and when he was tried he
was acquitted.
There is an eternal remembrance lingering in the minds of Festus, Agrippa, and
Bernice. They are all now in their eternal home. Memory is a wonderful thing,
as Abraham said to the rich man in hell. A remembrance for those three is that
marvelous day at Caesarea, when that noble sufferer, that great preacher, stood
before them, and tried to entice them across the line of salvation with the power
of his life and his benevolence. Just here let us compare, "Felix
trembled," "Agrippa almost persuaded," Luke 10:11: "that
the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you," and Mark 12:34: "Thou art
not far from the kingdom of God." From these four scriptures the
conclusion is that a man may be pierced with remorse and tremble at the shadows
of a coming hell; that a man may be almost persuaded to be a Christian; that a
man may see salvation come right up to his very door; that a man may be nigh
unto the kingdom of God, and yet be lost.
Upon this point I give some quotations bearing on the value of one's
opportunity, and the danger of its neglect. Shakespeare in Julius Caesar
(Act IV, Scene 3), uses this language: There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of
their life Is bound in shallows, and in miseries.
Then there is this quotation from Lowell's book of the Crisis:
Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth
with falsehood, For the good or evil side.
It came to these men that day; they had the opportunity in their time to decide
for good or evil. There was a tide that day in their lives. If they had taken
that tide at its flood that day๙at its highest point, its crest their lives
would have ended in salvation, but omitted, all the voyage of their lives was
bound in shallows and in miseries.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scripture and the themes of this chapter?
2. Why was Felix superseded as procurator of Judea, and why, on. departing,
does he seek to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound?
3. What do we know of Festus, his successor?
4. How does Festus commence his administration?
5. What request concerning Paul was made by Jewish officials to Festus?
6. Why was this a great hazard to Paul?
7. How does it exhibit the Jewish hatred of Paul?
8. How does the reply of Festus commend him?
9. How many and what accounts do we have of this trial?
10. Compare this trial with the previous one before Felix.
11. What then the instant duty of Featus?
12. Instead of doing his known duty, what proposition does he make to Paul, and
what the exact force of it?
13. What the judicial unfairness of this proposition?
14. How does it reverse his former decision?
15. How does he misrepesent his motive in making it?
16. What the great hazard to Paul, what his recognition of it, and his method
of escape?
17. How does this proposition of Festus exhibit him in a less favorable light
than his original reply to the Jews asking that Paul be brought to Jerusalem?
18. How may we account for his wavering?
19. Explain the appeal to Caesar.
20. In sending Paul to Caesar, what must the procurator send with him, and what
their facility of travel at this time from Caeaarea to Rome?
21. Why does Festus relate Paul's case to Agrippa and permit Paul to speak
before him?
22. Compare the Festus statement of the case to Agrippa with Luke's account of
the same matter, and tell what you discover.
23, What does Robert Burns say very much to the point?
24. Was this a judicial investigation before Agrippa, and why?
25. Of what prophecy was it in part a fulfilment?
26. What may we say of the assembly described in verse 23, and the great
opportunities afforded Paul?
27. How does Festus introduce the case, and what light does his introduction
throw on the requirements of the Roman law?
28. Does Paul rise to the greatness of the occasion? If so, how?
29. What is Paul's exordium, and what was his purpose in it?
30. How does Paul appeal to Agrippa in this speech?
31. What were the three accusations against him, and how did he answer them?
32. What was the effect on Festus, and how may we account for it?
33. What the effect on Agrippa, and what the exact force of the authorized
version of Acts 26:28?
34. What great texts in his address, and what uses made of them?
35. What great hymn suggested by Agrippa's answer to Paul?
36. How does Paul's reply to Agrippa (v. 29) place him far above his judges and
auditors?
37. Why did Agrippa close the hearing right at this point?
38. What was the verdict?
39. What subsequent value to Paul in this verdict?
40. What eternal remembrance must linger in the minds of Festus, Agrippa and
Bernice?
41. Comparing the case of Felix, the case of Agrippa, Luke 10:11; Mark 12:34,
what may we conclude?
42. What quotations cited bearing on the value of one's opportunity and the
danger of its neglect?
FROM CAESAREA TO ROME
Acts 27-28.
In all literature there is not such an accurate description of a voyage as this
given by Luke. Indeed, the book of Acts can be tested as to its accuracy on more
points than any other book in the whole Bible. If it were not a true narrative,
in a thousand places proof would be abundant of its falsehood. But the fact
that on every point it is proven to be exactly accurate, is the highest
demonstration of its historical value. Virgil, in his Aeneid, in describing the
voyage of the Trojan fleet over a great many of the same places of the
Mediterranean Sea, is generally exact in his references to the winds and to the
navigation of that sea. Homer, in his Odyssey, while giving many important
points, is not so accurate as Virgil. In the corresponding chapters of
Conybeare and Howson on this voyage of Paul will be found about as good a thing
as anybody can say about the journey in these two chapters, though there are some
fine things in Farrar's description of Paul's voyage.
In the navigation of that day they had no regular passenger ships like we have.
We have the great liners that run from New York to Liverpool, and to Hamburg
and other points. They had no passenger ships. Even the emperors, when they
didn't go in their war galleys, took a merchant vessel. They had no compass to
steer by. The compass has been invented since that time. They had no charts,
and hence we can understand a number of things in this chapter that vessels
that had no compass and no chart, and indeed no rudder such as we now use
only two paddles that they used and what conditions these people would be in
if they couldn't see the sun or moon or stars for many days.
While these ships were inferior in build to the ships of modern times, their
merchant vessels were large vessels, and for a part of this voyage Paul was on
one of those big merchant vessels. He was not on the same ship all the voyage.
He was on three different vessels in making this voyage, and the second one was
a big merchant vessel an Alexandrian ship carrying wheat. The Romans
themselves were no sailors, and when they fought on sea, they fought as land
troops. The sailing of the sea was mainly in the hands of the Greeks. Alexandria,
the coast of Asia Minor, the Peloponnesus, and the Aegean Islands, and some of
the ancient Phoenicians were still great in commerce. There was a steady line
of trade from Alexandria to Rome, carrying wheat. Rome was dependent upon the
bread or wheat that came from the valley of the Nile. There was a steady line
of commerce that came over the Isthmus of Suez brought by Arabian ships to that
point, and after crossing the isthmus it was brought across the Mediterranean
in Greek ships. The Greek ships also brought all of the trade from Middle and
Western Asia.
Hence we find that when they start to send these prisoners, there being no
regular line of passenger ships, they wait for the merchant ships, and the
first. available one wasn't going on straight across to Rome at all. It was
going to Adramyttium, on the coast of Asia Minor, and they took that vessel,
and when they got nearly to their destination they found an Alexandria ship
going to Rome, and they were transferred to that ship, and when that ship was
wrecked on the Island of Malta (Melita it is called in our text), a third ship
took them to that point where they went by land to the city of Rome.
The salient incidents of this voyage are as follows:
1. The first incident is that in taking a merchant vessel they had to go to the
southern coast of Asia Minor in order to fall in with an Alexandria ship.
2. The second is that as soon as they got on this big Alexandrian merchantman,
the weather became very bad, and remained so until the ship was wrecked.
3. In the terrible storm, many days and nights no sight of the sun or stars,
Paul had a vision. An angel of God came to tell him that the ship would be
lost, but that he, all the sailors, the soldiers, and the prisoners would be
saved.
4. The next incident is the shipwreck itself. The ship, striking before it got
clear to the coast line, 276 people, every one of them without exception got
safe to land, a thing that doesn't occur more than once in ten thousand cases.
5. The inhabitants of that island were very kind to
them. Paul is bitten by a viper, and fulfilling the prophecy given in the
latter part of Mark's Gospel that the bite of deadly serpents should not harm
them, he escaped, and then came the miracles that he wrought in that island, the
great favor that came to those shipwrecked people where they remained for three
months till the winter passed. Then there was a ship there, that had wintered
there, that took them on to Rome, and when they got to Puteoli, the brethren
there met him, and at the Appii and the Three Taverns the brethren out of Rome
came and met him, and so they got safely to Rome.
On this voyage Paul came to the front. It doesn't make any difference how he started
out as a prisoner and little regarded before he gets there he is going to
boss the whole crew. Long before that journey is over, he is the head man. It
is Paul that saved them; it is Paul that secured them comfortable quarters in
that island, and kept them three months. It was not Jonah that they had along.
The time consumed in this voyage was several months. They were three months
wintering on the island of Malta. Many days were consumed in getting there, and
more than a week after that; so it was a long time from Caesarea to Rome. They
got there about A.D. 62. They passed Scylla and Charybdis, the famous
celebrities, proverbial for danger, after leaving Melita, or Malta. Scylla was
a dangerous rock just under the edge of the water, and off to the side and
somewhat in front of or opposite, was Charybdis, a very dangerous whirlpool in
that strait of the Mediterranean between Sicily and Italy, and hence the old
Latin proverb, "He who shuns Scylla must beware of Charybdis." We
must not go out too far in trying to avoid Scylla or we will come into the
dangerous whirlpool, Charybdis, and we must not go too far away from Charybdis
lest we strike Scylla. During the earthquake in Sicily in 1909, those two
places, both the whirlpool and the rock, disappeared from the strait, and are
no longer there.
A part of the journey was by land. The record says that they came to Puteoli
and met some brethren there, and then came to the Great Appian Way. This was a
way leading to the Imperial City, Rome, and was the most beautiful street that
earth ever saw. It was laid off for many miles, running down the Tiber,
following the river's course, like a broadway, and the whole length of that
broadway was paved with broad sidewalks so that footmen would never come in contact
with teams, or chariots; everywhere there were the most finished works of art
all along the side. Sometimes, when Rome decreed a triumph to a consul, the
great parade would come up that way. The people in the city would take their
evening walks down that way, and in the moonshine would go miles down that
beautiful way. Great men, world-illustrious, were buried in imposing sepulchers
along that way. An American city would think that it was next to heaven if it
had such a street.
The Emperor of Rome at this time was Nero, the infamous, the most bestial man
that ever occupied a throne. His persecution had not commenced. It commenced
soon after Paul's imprisonment expired. Indeed, it commenced in A.D. 64, but
Paul is loose and gone by that time. There was what is called the Ghetto, that
is, a suburb set apart for the Jews on one of the banks of the Tiber, and there
were a good many of them there a little before Paul's time. Ten thousand of
them had signed a petition with reference to some affray that occurred over in
Judea. I recommend Jews of the Roman Empire, by Brice, which sets forth clearly
the conditions of the Jews in that great city.
Two years after Paul got there, Nero burned Rome. He played his harp while it
was burning, and then to escape the indignation of the people, he attributed it
to the Christians, and then came the bloodiest persecution of all time. This is
the way he fixed it up: He laid off a street about like the Appian Way, and
instead of putting statuary all along the way, he put iron pillars, and to each
pillar he chained a living Christian, and then had oil and tar poured over him
and set him afire, and that constituted the light; then Nero drove up and down
in the light of the burning Christians. Paul had just gotten away before that
came, however.
There are several proofs of Paul's mild imprisonment. We can see from the fact
that the Christians went down that Appian Way a long ways, two bands of them,
to meet him, that they were under no restraint, and when he got there that he
was allowed to talk in the synagogue, to have an interview with the Jewish
people, and then he lived in his own hired house, and there was chained to him
a soldier, and the soldiers, one fast succeeding another, so that Paul was able
to preach to nearly all of that famous Praetorian Guard of 10,000. His friends
visited him from every part of the world. All that goes to show that the
letters of Festus and of Lysias had made their proper impression on the mind of
the emperor. Paul's case might not come up soon, because from every direction
of the world prisoners were being sent in whose cases Caesar adjudicated, not
that Caesar paid any attention to them, but he appointed some delegate of his
to examine all those cases of appeal, and it was two years before they got to
Paul.
The centurion that had charge of Paul had charge of the Augustan Cohort, and he
was certainly a noble fellow. Whenever we see such expressions as Italian Band
or Augustan Cohort, we may know that this detachment is off in some foreign
country. It belongs to that famous Praetorian Guard the emperor's body-guard.
They could not be sent to a foreign field except under peculiar circumstances
when the emperor would detach portions of it. Three legions garrisoned Judea
like the five legions in Syria, and the many legions on the Danube, all of whom
would recruit from the natives, and in a Roman legion might be found men from
Britain, men from the forests of Germany, and Gaul and Jews, and people from
every nation under heaven, but that Praetorian Guard of 10,000 were all
Italians. Now it chanced that a cohort of this Praetorian Guard was over in
Judea, and quite naturally a centurion of that Judean garrison would take
charge of these prisoners.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scripture, and the theme of this chapter?
2. What can we say of Luke's description, of this voyage, and what of
navigation at that time?
3. What the salient incidents of this voyage?
4. How does Paul come to the front?
5. What the time consumed in this voyage?
6. What famous celebrities, proverbial for danger, did they pass after leaving
Melita, or Malta?
7. What part of the journey was by land?
8. Who was Emperor of Rome at this time, what his character, what his history,
and what of the Jews in Rome?
9. Had the persecution of Christians commenced at this time?
10. What the proofs of Paul's mild imprisonment?
11. What is meant by the "Augustan Band"?