Bible Commentaries
Acts 26

Verses 1-32

XXXI

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Felix was superseded as procurator of Judea, and on departing he seeks to put the Jews under obligations to him by leaving Paul bound. He was superseded on account of the many complaints of his mal-administration sent to Rome by the dissatisfied Jews.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; Acts 25:15-16, 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 Acts 25:9, 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 Acts 25:9 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 Acts 25:13, and extending to Acts 25:22. 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 Acts 25:23, and the great opportunities afforded to Paul. (See Conybeare and Howson, Vol. II, pp. 294-98, and Farrar in his Life of Paul.) That Acts 25:23 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 (Acts 26:29) 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 day – at 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 (Acts 26:29) 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?

Verses 4-5

XV

PAUL’S EARLY LIFE BEFORE HE ENTERS THE NEW TESTAMENT STORY

Acts 21:39; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:6; Acts 23:34; Acts 26:4-5; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Romans 11:1; Galatians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:4-6; 1 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 Romans 16:11: "Salute Herodion my kinsman," and Romans 16:21: "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 (Galatians 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?

Verses 9-11

XVI

SAUL, THE PERSECUTOR

Acts 7:57-60; Acts 8:1-4; Acts 22:4-5; Acts 22:19-20; Acts 26:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; Galatians 1:22-24.

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 [Romans 16:7], and my own sister [Acts 23:16], and shake the faith of my other kinsmen, Jason and Sosipater [Romans 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 Galatians 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 were 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 do you explain that, in this persecution, Saul could put to death Christian people, since they, the Jews, had no such authority?

Verses 12-20

XVII

SAUL’S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION

Acts 9:1-19; Acts 22:5-16; Acts 26:12-20; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:7-10; Romans 7:7-25.

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, 1 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 1 Corinthians 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 her’s 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," i.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, i.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 Timothy 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, i.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 (1 Timothy 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, i.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 is the value of this man’s conversion to the church and the world?

19. What is 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?

Verse 20

XVIII

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; Acts 11:25-30; Acts 22:17-21; Galatians 1:5-24; Acts 15:23-41; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; 2 Corinthians 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 Acts 9:17: "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 1 of this harmony read Acts 9:17-19; in column 2, Galatians 1:15-17; returning to column 1 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 Galatians 1:19-20; then back to column I, read Acts 9:28-29 (except last clause); then in column 3 read Acts 22:17-21; in column 1, Acts 9:29 (last clause) to Acts 9:31; in column 2, Galatians 1:21-24; in column 4, Acts 11:25-30; Acts 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 Acts 12. All matters apart from that are briefly noted, and only as they connect with Jerusalem, the center. But from Acts 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 2, 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 is the theme of this section?

2. What is the scriptures?

3. What is the time covered by this period?

4. What two scriptures must here be reconciled?

5. What is the problem here?

6. What is the Hackett view of it?

7. What is 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 is 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 are 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?