Bible Commentaries
Acts

PREFACE

The book of Acts occupies a very unique and important position in the divine plan of man’s redemption. The first four books of the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—give the miraculous conception, birth, life, teachings, miracles, betrayal, trial, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. In these the final and world-wide commission of Christ is recorded "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." In the Acts we have a record of the execution of this commission and the establishment and growth of the church; the terms of admission into the church are recorded in the many cases of conversion. The question, "What must I do to be saved?" is frequently asked and clearly answered. The Acts records the answer as given by inspired men. This makes the Acts a very important book.

J. W. McGarvey wrote a commentary on Acts, published in 1863. Twenty-nine years later, 1892, this commentary was revised and enlarged. In 1896, David Lipscomb wrote the comments on the Uniform Sunday School Lesson for 1897, which were taken from the book of Acts and epistles. He later modified and enlarged upon his comments and put them in a volume, "Commentary on Acts of the Apostles." It was not his original purpose or plan to put them in the permanent form of a "commentary." However the book has proved to be helpful for nearly fifty years. It has been thought that now is an opportune time to publish another commentary on the Acts.

Many questions of great theological import arise in the study of Acts; the ablest and most conscientious commentators have differed and always will differ on them. It has been the aim of the author of this commentary to handle these questions in the light of divine truth without being dogmatic he has attempted to leave the reader or student free to exercise unfettered and unbiased judgment on these controverted points and passages; he has not attempted to interfere with the liberty of conscience, but has earnestly and prayerfully sought to set forth the mind of the Holy Spirit on all of these passages of scripture. More than two years of special study and thought have been given to the preparation of this volume. In many instances the Greek word has been given, but always with an English spelling so that one with the aid of a Greek lexicon can study and make such research as he may desire. However, in the main, the ordinary English reader can understand the thoughts that are expressed. The author has kept in mind the average church member and has written in a clear and simple way, constantly keeping before him those students of the Bible who only have an ordinary degree of education. This commentary is intended to help all come to a fuller knowledge of the truth of God.

The author is indebted to many writers and commentators. The use of quotation marks has been omitted, but due recognition is made in the bibliography at the close of the volume. The introduction will be found helpful in understanding some things which are essential to a thorough knowledge of the contents of the book. The outline, chronological table, and index will aid the student.

H. LEO BOLES.

April 1, 1940.

OUTLINE OF THE ACTS

PART ONE

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH:

PETER AS THE CHIEF ACTOR

SECTION ONE

INSTRUCTION TO APOSTLES; ASCENSION OF

CHRIST. DESCENT OF HOLY SPIRIT

Acts 1:1 to Acts 2:13

SECTION TWO

THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM

Acts 2:14 to Acts 6:7

SECTION THREE

GOSPEL PREACHED IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA

Acts 6:8 to Acts 8:25

SECTION FOUR

CONVERSION OF THE EUNUCH,

SAUL, AND CORNELIUS

Acts 8:26 to Acts 12:25

PART TWO

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH:

PAUL AS THE CHIEF ACTOR

SECTION ONE

PAUL’S FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 13:1 to Acts 14:28

SECTION TWO

DISPUTE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION SETTLED

Acts 15:1-35

SECTION THREE

PAUL’S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 15:36 to Acts 18:22

SECTION FOUR

PAUL’S THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 18:23 to Acts 21:16

SECTION FIVE

PAUL AT JERUSALEM

Acts 21:17 to Acts 23:35

SECTION SIX

PAUL AT CAESAREA

Acts 24:1 to Acts 26:32

SECTION SEVEN

PAUL’S VOYAGE TO ROME

Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:10

SECTION EIGHT

PAUL AT ROME

Acts 28:11-31

INTRODUCTION

Biblical history consists of two great parts—the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament is also divided into two divisions—the life of Christ from his birth to his ascension, and the apostolic history from the ascension to the close of the New Testament. The apostolic history may again be subdivided into ’two parts—a connected narrative extending from the ascension of Christ to the second year of Paul’s captivity at Rome, and a group of detached and incidental statements scattered through the other books of the New Testament. The first part of this subdivision is designated as the Acts.

I. THE AUTHOR

It is generally conceded that Luke is the author of this book; it is his second volume of the great library. The Gospel according to Luke was the first volume and the Acts is a continuation of his narrative of events connected with the Christ and his work in the redemption of man. Luke identifies himself with the first words of this book; he addresses the same person and makes reference to his "former treatise" (Acts 1:1) in such a way as to identify himself as its author. The connection and unity of the Acts with the Gospel according to Luke emphasizes the authorship of the Acts. He was a companion of Paul; the "we" sections prove Luke to be both a companion of Paul and the author of the Acts; (Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:6-16; Acts 21; Acts 27; Acts 28.) These sections are full of details and very vivid in description; they are conclusive evidence that the writer was an eyewitness of what is recorded. The same style of writing appears in both the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts; there is also the same interest in medical matters by using the same terms which were familiar to physicians at that time;

Finally, the testimony of the early Christian fathers to Luke as the author is unanimous and conclusive; Irenaeus, who lived about A.D. 178, himself intimate with some associates of the apostles, knew the book of Acts and regarded it as the work of Luke . Clement of Alexandria, who lived about A;D. 190, regarded Luke as its author. Tertullian, who lived about A.D. 200, bore accumu lated evidence to this fact. Eusebius, who lived about A.D. 325, says, "Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician, was mostly Paul’s companion, though he associated not a little with the apostles. He has left us examples of the art of healing souls, which he acquired from the apostles, in two divinely inspired books; first in the gospel, which he testifies to have written according to what eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered to him from the beginning, all of which also he says that he investigated from the first; and secondly, in the Acts of the Apostles, which he composed not from report, as in the other case, but according to his own personal observation."

II. THE TITLE

It is very probable that Luke gave no title to this volume of his contribution to the New Testament. We do not have his manuscript, and the manuscripts that we do have give the title in various forms; In some of the important manuscripts of the New Testament, the title is not "The Acts of the Apostles," but "Acts of Apostles," and in one very important manuscript, the Sinaitic, the book is simply called "Acts"; this was written in the fourth century, and has at the beginning the title, "Acts," or strictly "Doings," but at its close reads "Acts of Apostles." The Vatican manuscript, also written in the fourth century, has at the beginning of the work, "Acts of Apostles," but in its margins calls it only "Acts." The Alexandrian manuscript, of the fourth or fifth century, and several smaller and later manuscripts give the title, "Acts of the Holy Apostles." The modern critical Greek editions of the New Testament by Lachmann, Alford, and Westcott and Hort give the title "Acts of the Apostles"; but Tischendorf follows the Sinaitic manuscript and reads simply "Acts." The Revised Greek Testament, however, gives "Acts of the Holy Apostles."

Nearly all of the English versions, from Tyndale’s to the Revised Version of 1881, give the title as "The Acts of the Apostles." This title is too broad for the contents of the book, since they chiefly relate to the "acts" or teaching and work of Peter and Paul, and not "the acts" of all the apostles. The book records some of the acts of some of the apostles, but it is not the works of "The Acts of the Apostles." It contains no detailed account of the work of any of the apostles except Peter and Paul. John is mentioned on three occasions, but he appears rather as the companion of Peter than as the doer of any special act by himself. We have no notice of James the son of Zebedee except of his execution by Herod more space is devoted to Stephen and Philip, who were not apostles, than to James; more space is given to Timothy and Silas than to some of the apostles.

It is very likely that the book was called simply "Acts," and for some time this designation was sufficient to distinguish it from other books. But after some time, before this book came into circulation, other books were written by uninspired writers with such titles as "The Acts of Peter and Paul," "The Acts of Timothy," "The Acts of Barnabas," and several others of like title; hence, it became necessary, as such literature increased and was circulated, to enlarge the title of this original volume of "Acts," and from such exigency we find in various manuscripts different titles given to it, such as "Acts of the Apostles," "Acting of Apostles," "Acts of All the Apostles," "Acts of the Holy Apostles," with still longer additions in manuscripts of later date.

III. THE DATE

The date of the writing of the Acts is uncertain. The common opinion is that the book was written between the years A.D. 64 and A.D. 70. Some have extended the time as late as A.D. 80; the majority of modern critics place it between A.D. 70 and A.D. 80. This date rests mainly on the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is claimed that Luke 21:10 shows that this tragedy had already occurred, as compared with Mark 13:14 and Matthew 24:15. Attention is called to the absence of the warning in the Gospel according to Luke. However, some have placed the date before A;D. 70; this date is supported by some modern critics who claim that there are "very weighty" arguments in favor of the early date. It seems reasonable that the author continued his history fully up to the time when he wrote, so that the last recorded event may be assumed to give approximately at least the time of his writing. On this assumption, the date would be two years after Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome (Acts 28:30), which may be assumed to be the date that Paul was released from prison. This line of argument would fix the date at about A.D. 63.

It seems evident that Luke wrote the Acts before A;D. 70. He mentions Felix, Festus, and Agrippa in exact harmony with what we learn of their history and character from other sources . The mention of the speech of Tertullus before Felix, both by what it says and what it omits, is evidence that we are dealing with the writings of one who lived through the events of which he has given us the history. The frequent notices given of Jerusalem furnish evidence of the date of the writing. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70, and yet in the entire book of Acts there is not a single word to indicate that the author of this book knew anything of that event or even of the causes which brought about its destruction. Jerusalem is always mentioned as still in its grandeur; the temple service and sacrifices continued to be observed; at the great feasts crowds of strangers assembled as the law enjoined, and among its population the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees act the same parts which they do in the history found in the Gospel according to Luke. Hence, we conclude that it was written and completed very soon after A.D. 63, and not later than A.D. 66.

Paul was brought a prisoner to Rome in the year A.D. 61 or A.D. 62, and was kept in prison at least two years; In the year A.D. 64 occurred the great fire at Rome, kindled by the emperor, Nero, who, in order to avert suspicion from himself, placed the blame on the Christians, and began the persecution of Christians; If Paul was set at liberty after his imprisonment of two years, he must have come out of prison in the end of A.D. 63, or in the beginning of A.D. 64; If he was kept in prison, he probably was one of the first to be executed. In any case Paul was liberated or put to death about A.D. 64, and the manner in which Luke speaks of that imprisonment seems to imply that at the time in which he wrote the apostle’s condition had changed. Again we conclude that the book was written about the end of Paul’s captivity at Rome, or about A.D. 63 or 64.

IV. THE HISTORICAL VALUE

Every book in the New Testament has its place, or else it would not have been written. The Acts has a very important place in the New Testament. Jesus had given his commission to his apostles to "go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15.) Luke had said "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47.) The historical record of the redemption of man would be incomplete without the history of the apostles laboring under this commission. This book gives a record of some of the apostles in their obedience to the commission. It is in this book that we have the all-important question, "What must I do to be saved?" and the answer given by inspired men; It is in this book that we learn the terms of salvation; this makes it an important book. There is no other book in the New Testament where this question, "What must I do to be saved?" is asked and answered.

The Acts gives a history of the first thirty years of the church; this was the story of the first generation of Christians; It begins with Pentecost in A.D. 33, and ends with the close of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in A.D. 63 or 64. During this period Rome was ruled by the successors of Octavius; the rule of Octavius had scarcely ended before the imperial throne began to be the prize of the most successful soldier. Palestine was subjected to many changes. Herod Agrippa I was slowly gaining the rule over all Palestine; the first twelve chapters of the Acts narrate the first twelve years of the history of the church. Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius were emperors in Rome. It is necessary to keep these events in mind in reading the first part of the Acts.

All believers in the Bible regard the Acts as a genuinely historical work and accurate in its details; it is a trustworthy history, and judged from almost every possible standpoint of historical criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects an extraordinary work. It fills a unique place in the scheme of redemption; the Holy Spirit gave this book to us; hence, we need to give it a place in our thoughts.

V. CHRONOLOGY

There is always an element of uncertainty in chronological events of the Bible. This is especially true when the Bible does not give the dates of the events. No one should be dogmatic in fixing the time or chronology of events in the Bible. The dates of certain events recorded in the Acts are fixed by contemporary historians. For example, the death of Agrippa II at Caesarea, as mentioned in Acts 12:23, occurred, according to Josephus, in A.D. 44. Another instance is the recall of Felix, the Roman governor, which occurred, according to Josephus, in A.D. 60 or 61. From these two dates as starting points, the chronology of Acts can be approximately constructed, but there is no certainty the dates of many of the events narrated by Luke. The following table will be helpful to the student of the Acts:

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

A.D. Event Roman Emperors

33 The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) Tiberius, A.D. 14-37

36 Martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7)

37 Conversion of Paul (Acts 9)

Conversion of Cornelius Caligula, A.D. 37-41

(Acts 10, 11)

44 Martyrdom of James (Acts 12:2)

44-49 Paul’s first missionary journey Claudius, A.D. 41-54

as far as Lystra and Derbe,

returning to Antioch(Acts 13, 14)

50 or 51 Apostolic council in Jerusalem

(Acts 15)

51-53 Paul’s second missionary journey

through Asia Minor and Greece

(Acts 15:40 to Acts 18:22)

54-57 Paul’s third missionary journey, Nero, A.D. 54-68

including three years at Ephesus

(Acts 18:23 to Acts 21:17)

57 Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem

53-60 Paul’s captivity in Caesarea

61 Paul’s voyage to Rome

61-63 Paul’s captivity in Rome

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE APOSTLES.

ANDREW, one among the first called of the apostles of our Lord (John 1:40; Matthew 4:18); brother, whether elder or younger is uncertain, of Simon Peter. (Ibid). He was of Bethsaida, and had been a disciple of John the Baptist. On hearing Jesus a second time designated by him as the Lamb of God, he left his former master, and, in company with another of John’s disciples, attached himself to our Lord, By this means his brother Simon was brought to Jesus. (John 1:41). The apparent discrepancy in Matthew 4:18 ff; Mark 1:16 ff, where the two appear to have been called together, is no real one, John relating the first introduction of the brothers to Jesus, the other evangelists their formal call to follow him in his ministry. In the catalogue of the apostles Andrew appears in Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, second next after his brother Peter; but in Mark 3:16, Acts 1:13, fourth next after the three, Peter, James, and John, and in company with Philip, And this appears to have been his real place of dignity among the apostles. The traditions about him are various. Eusebius makes him preach in Scythia; Jerome and Theodoret, in Achaia (Greece); Nicephorus, in Asia Minor and Thrace. He is said to have been crucified at Patrae, in Achaia. Some ancient writers speak of an apocryphal Acts of Andrew.

BARTHOLOMEW, one of the twelve apostles of Christ. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). It has been not improbably conjectured that he is identical with Nathanael. (John 1:45 ff). He is said to have preached the gospel in India—that is, probably Arabia Felix; and, according to some, in Armenia.

BARNABAS, a name signifying “son of prophecy,” or “exhortation” (or, but not so probably, “consolation,” as A.V.), given by the apostles (Acts 4:36) to Joseph, or Joses, a Levite of the island of Cyprus, who was early a disciple of Christ. In Acts 9:27 we find him introducing the newly converted Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem, in a way which seems to imply previous acquaintance between the two. On tidings coming to the church at Jerusalem that men of Cyprus and Cyrene had been preaching to Gentiles at Antioch, Barnabas was sent thither (Acts 11:19-26), and went to Tarsus to seek Saul, as one specially raised up to preach to the Gentiles. (Acts 26:17). Having brought him to Antioch, he was sent with him to Jerusalem with relief for the brethren in Judea. (Acts 11:30). On their return they (Acts 13:2) were sent forth by the church for the missionary work, A.D. 45. From this time Barnabas and Paul enjoy the title and dignity of apostles. Their first missionary journey is related in Acts 13:14. It was confined to Cyprus and Asia Minor. Some time after their return to Antioch (A.D. 47 or 48), they were sent (A.D. 50), with some others, to Jerusalem, to determine with the apostles and elders the difficult question respecting the necessity of circumcision for the Gentile converts. (Acts 15:1 ff). On that occasion Paul and Barnabas were recognized as the apostles of the uncircumcision. After another stay in Antioch on their return, a variance took place between Barnabas and Paul on the question of taking with them, on a second missionary journey, John Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas. (Acts 15:36 ff). They parted, and Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, his native island. Here the Scripture notices of him cease. The epistle attributed to Barnabas is believed to have been written early in the second century.

JAMES.—1. James, “the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles. We first hear of him in A.D. 27, when Zebedee, a fisherman (Mark 1:20) was out on the Sea of Galilee with his two sons, James and John, and some boatmen. He was engaged in his customary occupation of fishing, and near him was another boat belonging to Simon and Andrew, with whom he and his sons were in partnership. Finding themselves unsuccessful, the occupants of both boats came ashore, and began to wash their nets. At this time the new Teacher appeared upon the beach. At his call they left all, and became, once and forever, his disciples, hereafter to catch men. For a full year we lose sight of James. He is then, in the spring of 28, called to the apostleship with his eleven brethren. (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:13). In the list of the apostles given us by Mark, and in the book of Acts, his name occurs next to that of Simon Peter; in the gospels of Matthew and Luke it comes third. It is worthy of notice that with one exception (Luke 9:28) the name of James is put before that of John, and that John is twice described as “the brother of James.” (Mark 5:37; Matthew 17:1). This would appear to imply that at this time James, either from age or character, took a higher position than his brother. It would seem to have been at the time of the appointment of the twelve apostles that the name of Boanerges was given to the sons of Zebedee. The “Sons of Thunder” had a burning and impetuous spirit, which twice exhibits itself in its unchastened form. (Luke 9:54; Mark 10:37). The first occasion on which this natural character manifests itself in James and his brother is at the commencement of our Lord’s last journey to Jerusalem in the year 30. He was passing through Samaria, and “sent messengers before his face” into a certain village, “to make ready for him” (Luke 9:52)—that is, in all probability to announce him as the Messiah. The Samaritans, with their old jealousy strong upon them, refused to receive him, and in their exasperation James and John entreated their Master to follow the example of Elijah, and call down fire to consume them. At the end of the same journey a similar spirit appears again. (Mark 10:35). On the night before the crucifixion he was present at the agony in the garden. On the day of the ascension he is mentioned as persevering with the rest of the apostles and disciples in prayer. (Acts 1:13). Shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44, he was put to death by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts 12:1-2).

JAMES THE LESS, son of Alphaeus or Clopas, and brother of our Lord (see above), was called to the apostolate, together with his younger brother Jude in the spring of the year 28. It is not likely, though far from impossible, that James and Jude took part with their brothers and sisters and the Virgin Mary, in trying to “lay hold on” Jesus in the autumn of tine same year (Mark 3:21; and it is likely, though not certain, that it is of the other brothers and sisters, without these two, that John says: “Neither did his brethren believe on him” (John 7:5), in the autumn of A.D. 29. We hear no more of James till after the crucifixion and resurrection. At some time in the forty days that intervened between the resurrection and the ascension the Lord appeared to him. This is not related by the evangelists, but it is mentioned by Paul. (1 Corinthians 15:7). Again we lose sight of James for ten years, and when he appears once more it is in a far higher position than any that he has yet held. In the year 37 occurred the conversion of Saul. Three years after his conversion he paid his first visit to Jerusalem, but the Christians recollected what they had suffered at his bands, and feared to have anything to do with him. Barnabas, at this time of far higher reputation than himself, took him by the hand, and introduced him to Peter and James (Acts 9:27; Galatians 1:18-19), and by their authority he was admitted into the society of the Christians, and allowed to associate freely with them during the fifteen days of his stay. Here we find James on a level with Peter, and with him deciding on the admission of Paul into fellowship with the church at Jerusalem; and from henceforth we always find him equal, or in his own department superior, to the very chiefest apostles, Peter, John, and Paul. For by this time he had been appointed to preside over the infant church in its most important center, in a position equivalent to that of bishop. This pre-eminence is evident throughout the after history of the apostles, whether we read it in the Acts, in the Epistles, or in ecclesiastical writers. (Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 15:19; Acts 21:18; Galatians 2:9). According to tradition, James was thrown down from the temple by the Scribes and Pharisees; he was then stoned, and his brains dashed out by a fuller’s club.

JOHN THE APOSTLE was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman on the Lake of Galilee, and of Salome, and brother of James, also an apostle. He was probably younger than his brother, whose name commonly precedes his (Matthew 4:21; Matthew 10:3; Matthew 17:1, etc.), younger than his friend Peter, possibly also than his Master. His call, and that of his brother, to be first disciples and then apostles of our Lord are related under “James.” Peter and James and John come within the innermost circle of their Lord’s friends. Peter is throughout the leader of that band. To John belongs the yet more memorable distinction of being the disciple whom Jesus loved. He hardly sustains the popular notion, fostered by the received types of Christian art, of a nature gentle, yielding, feminine. The name “Boanerges” (Mark 3:17) implies a vehemence, zeal, intensity, which gave to those who had it the might of Sons of Thunder. (James). The three are with him when none else are, in the chamber of death (Mark 5:37), in the glory of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), when he forewarns them of the destruction of the Holy City (Mark 13:3, Andrew in this instance with them), in the agony of Gethsemane. When the betrayal is accomplished Peter and John, after the first moment of confusion, follow afar off, while the others simply seek safety in a hasty flight. (John 18:15). The personal acquaintance which existed between John and Caiaphas enabled him to gain access both for himself and Peter, but the latter remains in the porch, with the officers and servants, while John himself apparently is admitted to the council chamber, and follows Jesus thence, even to the pretorium of the Roman Procurator. (John 18:16; John 18:19; John 18:28). Thence he followed, accompanied probably by his own mother, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, to the place of crucifixion. The Teacher who had been to him as a brother leaves to him a brother’s duty. He is to be a son to the mother who is left desolate. (John 19:26-27). The Sabbath that followed was spent, it would appear, in the same company. He receives Peter, in spite of his denial, on the old terms of friendship. It is to them that Mary Magdalene first runs with the tidings of the empty sepulcher (John 20:2); they are the first to go together to see what the strange words meant. Not without some bearing on their respective characters is the fact that John is the more impetuous, running on most eagerly to the rock tomb; Peter, the least restrained by awe, the first to enter in and look. (John 20:4-6). For at least eight days they continued in Jerusalem. (John 20:26). Then, in the interval between the resurrection and the ascension, we find them still together on the Sea of Galilee. (John 21:1). Here, too, there is a characteristic difference. John is the first to recognize in the dim form seen in the morning twilight the presence of his risen Lord; Peter the first to plunge into the water and swim toward the shore, where he stood calling to them. (John 21:7). The last words of the gospel reveal to us the deep affection which united the two friends. It is not enough for Peter to know his own future. That at once suggests the question: “And what shall this man do?” (John 21:21). The history of the Acts shows the same union. They are of course together at the ascension and on the day of Pentecost. Together they enter the temple as worshipers (Acts 3:1), and protest against the threats of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13). The persecution which was pushed on by Saul of Tarsus did not drive him or any of the apostles from their post. (Acts 7:1). The sharper though shorter persecution which followed under Herod Agrippa brought a great sorrow to him in the martyrdom of his brother. (Acts 12:2). His friend was driven to seek safety in flight. Fifteen years after Paul’s first visit he was still at Jerusalem, and helped to take part in the settlement of the great controversy between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. (Acts 15:6). His subsequent history we know only by tradition. There can be no doubt that he removed from Jerusalem and settled at Ephesus, though at what time is uncertain. Tradition goes on to relate that in the persecution under Domitian he is taken to Rome, and there by his boldness, though not by death, gains the crown of martyrdom. The boiling oil into which he is thrown has no power to hurt him. He is then sent to labor in the mines, and Patmos is the place of his exile. The accession of Nerva frees him from danger, and he returns to Ephesus. Heresies continue to show themselves, but he meets them with the strongest possible protest. The very time of his death lies within the region of conjecture rather than of history, and the dates that have been assigned for it range from A.D. 89 to A.D. 120.

JUDE, or JUDAS, LEBBEUS, and THADDEUS (A. V., “Judas, the brother of James”), one of the twelve apostles; a member, together with his namesake “Iscariot,” James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, of the last of the three sections of the apostolic body. The name Judas only, without any distinguishing mark, occurs in the lists given by Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, and in John 14:22, where we find “Judas, not Iscariot,” among the apostles; but the apostle has been generally identified with “Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). Much difference of opinion has existed from the earliest times as to the right interpretation of the Greek words here used. The generally received opinion is that the Authorized Version is right in translating “Judas the brother of James;” but we prefer to follow nearly all the most eminent critical authorities, and render the words “Judas the son of James.” The name of Jude occurs only once in the gospel narrative. (John 14:22). Nothing is certainly known of the later history of the apostle. Tradition connects him with the foundation of the church at Edessa.

MATTHEW.—Matthew, the apostle and evangelist, is the same as Levi (Luke 5:27-29), the son of a certain Alpheus. (Mark 2:14). His call to be an apostle is related by all three evangelists in the same words, except that Matthew 9:9 gives the former, and Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 the latter name. The publicans, properly so called (publican), were persons who farmed the Roman taxes, and they were usually, in later times, Roman knights, and persons of wealth and credit. They employed under them inferior officers, natives of the province where the taxes were collected, called properly portitores, to which class Matthew no doubt belonged. The traditions respecting the later life of Matthew are various, but nothing whatever is really known.

MATTHIAS, the apostle elected to fill the place of the traitor Judas. (Acts 1:26). All beyond this that we know of him for certainty is that he had been a constant attendant upon the Lord Jesus during the whole course of his ministry; for such was declared by Peter to be the necessary qualification of one who was to be a witness of the resurrection. It is said that he preached the gospel and suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia.

PAUL was the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. He was called of God for this work. All that we know of his history we gain from the Acts of the Apostles and the letters written by him to the churches. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. (Philippians 3:5). His father lived in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, in Asia Minor. “I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city,” (Acts 21:39). His father had acquired, in some way, the franchise of a Roman citizen, which Paul, as his son, inherited. “I was free born.” (Acts 22:28). In his early life and among the Jews he was known as Saul, Saul of Tarsus. In Tarsus he must have learned to speak and write fluently the Greek language, and become familiar with the customs and habits of the Greeks, which served him so well in his after work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. At Tarsus also he learned the trade of tent-making, at which he labored while preaching to support himself and his companions in labor. (Acts 18:3). There was a goat’s hair cloth made in Cilicia, called Cilicium, for tents.

Paul tells us that, although born in Tarsus, he was brought up in Jerusalem. (Acts 22). He came to Jerusalem while yet a boy, probably for the sake of his education, and was placed under Gamaliel. He was brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel is supposed to be the same that is known as the most learned of the Jews. Paul testifies: “After the most straightest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” He kept the law blamelessly. Saul’s most marked quality was a quick and alert conscience that led him to do with zeal and earnestness whatever he thought was right. Saul was a young man when the persecution arose against Stephen. Stephen was himself a Grecian Jew, and disputed with those of the synagogue of the foreign Jews. Among those disputing with him are mentioned “those of Cilicia.” Cilicia was the home of Saul, and the suborned “witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.” (Acts 7:58). We cannot resist the idea that Saul—young, ardent in temperament, zealous for the faith of his fathers—was one of those of Cilicia who disputed with Stephen. Saul consented to his death, and followed it up by seeking to destroy the other disciples. “As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” (Acts 8:3). The next we hear of him is: “Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord [persecuted them to strange cities], went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:1-2). On this journey Jesus appeared to him, and the whole course of his life was changed. Instead of arresting men and women and bringing them bound to Jerusalem to be punished for worshiping Jesus, he entered into the synagogue and preached Jesus as the Christ.

The facts connected with Saul’s conversion are narrated three times in the Acts of the Apostles: once by Luke (chapter 9), twice by Paul in his speech at Jerusalem, and then before Agrippa. The sudden light from heaven, the voice of Jesus reproving his persecutor, Saul struck to the ground blind and cast down, his acknowledging that Jesus is the Lord, the three days of sorrow and penitence and fasting, the coming of Ananias sent by the Lord that he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit, Saul’s baptism to wash away his sins, are the striking circumstances connected with his conversion.

Saul, with his characteristic promptness and the fidelity to his convictions, at once entered into the synagogue and preached Jesus, that he is the Christ, the Son of God. He remained at Damascus many days, until threatening danger caused the disciples to send him away. He went to Arabia, and returned thence to Damascus. (Galatians 1:17). At the end of three years from his conversion he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. He saw only Peter and James of the apostles. (Galatians 1:18-19). When he came to Jerusalem, the apostles and the church feared him; but Barnabas assured them of his conversion and trustworthiness as a Christian. Paul “was with them coming in and going out.” His Greek education and familiarity with them led him, like Stephen, to dispute with the Grecians in Jerusalem. They were unable to cope with him, so they determined to imprison him. The disciples urged him to flee. He left by way of Caesarea, and visited Cilicia, his native land.

“Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus’. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” The persecution about Stephen is supposed to have taken place in the year 34. Barnabas is sent down to Antioch to see about these converts in the year A.D. 42. It would seem that these scattered disciples, accustomed to mingle freely with the Gentiles, and some of them proselytes, came to Antioch, and, in their overflowing zeal, preached to the Gentiles before they had been authoritatively admitted by Peter at the house of Cornelius. The apostles either had not heard of it, or, more probably, regarding it as contrary to God’s order, did not recognize them as Christians until after the conversion of Cornelius. After the Gentiles had been admitted at the house of Cornelius, they then sent Barnabas to look after these Gentile converts at Antioch. He came, labored with them, and went to Tarsus to seek Saul to come and help him in the work. They spent a year in Antioch at this time. During the year prophets came from Jerusalem, who foretold the coming famine; and the brethren “determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” (Acts 11:29-30). After this, Barnabas and Saul returned to Antioch, and brought with them John, whose surname was Mark, who afterwards was the occasion of the separation of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch.

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaean, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (Acts 13:1-3). The meaning of this is that, while God had called Saul to be an apostle to the Gentiles, he had not as yet devoted himself actively to the work. On his way to Damascus God told him that he appeared to him to make him a minister and a witness, “both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” He had also called Barnabas to this work; but we have no account of the call save here, where he tells that he had called him. His after life corresponds to this call. Saul, up to this time, had not been called into the full apostleship; nor had he been endowed with the apostolic measure of the Holy Spirit.

Saul had been filled with the Holy Spirit, and received the gift of the Spirit that qualified him to teach from the time that Ananias laid his hands upon him; so after his baptism he immediately began to teach Christ “in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.” (Acts 9:20). When he went to Jerusalem three years after, the disciples were afraid of him, and Barnabas took him in and declared his conversion. Had he wrought miracles, he would doubtless have told of this to assure them of his conversion. In this enumeration they are called “prophets and teachers.” All belonged to the order of gifted persons lower than the apostles. Saul is mentioned last as the least among these prophets and teachers. Had he been endowed as an apostle at this time, it would not have been true to call him a prophet or teacher, any more than it would be true to say that General Grant or General Lee was captain while performing the active duties of general. The meaning is that God selected Paul to be an apostle; but he required him to serve in the lower capacities, that he might be trained and fitted to fill the higher ones. He entrusted him with the lower spiritual gifts, that he might prove his worthiness to use the higher ones. He tells them to “separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” They were already gifted prophets and teachers, Barnabas classed with the prophets, Saul with the teachers. Barnabas had been thirteen years and Saul ten years in the work of preaching. What was the object of the fasting, prayer, laying on of hands? Soon after this sending them away, Saul is called Paul. He works miracles. The relation toward Barnabas changes; so that, instead of Barnabas and Saul, as heretofore, it is henceforward Paul and Barnabas. Paul henceforward takes precedence, and is the more highly endowed of the two. Saul, henceforward called Paul, having received a higher measure of the Spirit, becomes a fully endowed apostle. It might be considered that hands were laid on him to impart a higher measure of the Spirit that fitted them for the apostleship, but it is hardly possible that those imposing hands could impart a higher measure than they possessed. It possibly was the way of commending them to the grace of God. (Acts 14:26).

About this time Paul was caught up to the third heaven, and heard things not lawful to utter. (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). It is possible that he saw Jesus and received the apostolic measure of the Spirit on this occasion. Paul and Barnabas passed through the provinces of Asia Minor, preaching the gospel; and at the end of about two years they returned to Antioch (Acts 14:26), called the church together, and rehearsed all that God had done for them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

About this time the question of circumcising the Gentiles arose, and Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to the apostles for the decision of this question. They returned to Antioch and delivered the epistle. They continued there for a time. Then Paul proposed to Barnabas that they should go again to every city where they had gone and see how they do. Paul and Barnabas separated on the propriety of carrying John Mark with them, who had turned back after starting with them on the former tour. Barnabas took Mark and departed to Cyprus, his native land, and disappears from history. Paul took Silas or Silvanus, and went upon the second journey, visiting and strengthening the disciples. In the journey they delivered to all the churches the decrees of the apostles on the question of circumcising the Gentiles. On this journey the apostle extended his labors into Galatia. (See Galatians 1, 2). It was on this journey that he saw in a vision the man of Macedonia calling to come over into Macedonia and help them, on which he made his first tour into Europe. He was joined by Luke at Troas. He preached at Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth. Here he remained over two years, and then departed to return to Jerusalem. During this trip he wrote the two letters to the Thessalonians.

Paul first met with Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, and they accompanied him as far as Ephesus on his departure, where they remained for a time. Paul proceeded on his journey to Jerusalem. (Acts 18:21). After his visit to Jerusalem, he returned to Antioch, whence he started upon his third preaching tour, passing over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples. (Acts 18:23). He found the twelve knowing only John’s baptism at Ephesus, and was assaulted by the Ephesian mob under the lead of Demetrius. He then went again into Macedonia, and passed down to Corinth, in Greece. On this journey he was again collecting funds to aid the impoverished saints in Judea. From Philippi, accompanied by messengers to carry these gifts, he set sail to Jerusalem, intending to reach there by Pentecost. He sailed along the coast of Asia Minor, and landed at Caesarea. He went up to Jerusalem, was arrested, and after a number of plots to murder him and mistrials before the governors of the province at Jerusalem and Caesarea, he appealed his case to Cesar. He was carried a prisoner to Rome through a tempestuous voyage. After reaching Rome, he still was not granted a speedy trial.

Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all who came in unto him, “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.” (Acts 28:31). He was held a prisoner all this time. This is the last authentic account that we have of Paul. Tradition, corroborated by some circumstances, says that his trial came off, and he was acquitted and released. He then went on a tour of teaching the churches, was arrested, tried, and suffered martyrdom at Rome.

The characteristics of Paul were a keen and quick conscientiousness that demanded first of all what is right, then a self-sacrificing devotion to the right that led him to do what he regarded as right, let it cost him what it might in labor or suffering. These were his marked qualities before his conversion. They were broadened and strengthened by his faith in Christ until he seems to have been filled with an ambition to suffer like Christ for the salvation of the world. His life was one of labor, self-denial, and suffering. “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.” (2 Corinthians 11:23-28). Paul was not only more abundant in labors and sufferings in traveling and preaching the gospel, but he wrote more of the New Testament than any other writer. Fourteen epistles are attributed to him. Some think that the one to the Hebrews was written by another, which would leave thirteen to him. As said, the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written during his second missionary tour. The two letters to the Corinthians were written during his second tour, from Ephesus. The letter to the Romans was written from Corinth on his last tour. The other letters were all written while he was a prisoner in Rome. The second letter to Timothy is thought to have been written from Rome after his second imprisonment, in. view of his approaching death. “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, T have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:6-8). Notwithstanding his life of labor and suffering and his approaching martyrdom, he felt that his life was one of triumphant glory, and that he would be rewarded with a crown of immortality.

PETER.—His original name was Simon—i.e., “hearer.” He was the son of a man named Jonas (Matthew 16:17; John 1:43; John 21:16), and was brought up in his father’s occupation, a fisherman on the sea of Tiberius. He and his brother Andrew were partners of John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who had hired servants. The apostle did not The, as a mere laboring man, in a hut by the seaside, but first at Bethsaida, and afterwards in a house at Capernaum, belonging to himself or his mother-in-law, which must have been rather a large one, since he received in it not only our Lord and his fellow-disciples, but multitudes who were attracted by the miracles and preaching of Jesus. It is not probable that he and his brother were wholly uneducated. The statement in Acts 4:13, that “the council perceived they [i.e., Peter and John] were unlearned and ignorant men,” is not incompatible with this assumption. The translation of the passage in the Authorized Version is rather exaggerated, the word rendered “unlearned”—that is, men of ordinary education, as contrasted with those who were specially trained in the schools of the Rabbis. It is doubtful whether our apostle was acquainted with Greek in early life. Within a few years after his call he seems to have conversed fluently in Greek with Cornelius. The style of both of Peter’s epistles indicates a considerable knowledge of Greek: it is pure and accurate, and in grammatical structure equal to that of Paul. That may, however, be accounted for by the fact, for which there is very ancient authority, that Peter employed an interpreter in the composition of his Epistles, if not in his ordinary intercourse with foreigners. That he was an affectionate husband, married in early life to a wife who accompanied him in his apostolic journeys, are facts inferred from Scripture. He was probably between thirty and forty years of age at the date of his call. That call was preceded by a special preparation.

Peter and his brother Andrew, together with their partners James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were disciples of John the Baptist when he was first called by our Lord. The particulars of this call are related with graphic minuteness by John. It was upon this occasion that Jesus gave Peter the name “Cephas,” a Syriac word answering to the Greek “Peter,” and signifying a stone or rock. (John 1:35-42). This first call led to no immediate change in Peter’s external position. He and his fellow-disciples looked henceforth upon our Lord as their teacher, but were not commanded to follow him as regular disciples. They returned to Capernaum, where they pursued their regular business, waiting for a further intimation of his will. The second call is recorded by the other three evangelists, the narrative of Luke being apparently supplementary to the brief, and, so to speak, official accounts given by Matthew and Mark. It took place on the sea of Galilee, near Capernaum, where the four disciples, Peter and Andrew, James and John, were fishing. Peter and Andrew were first called. Our Lord then entered Simon Peter’s boat, and addressed the multitude on the shore. Immediately after that call our Lord went to the house of Peter, where he wrought the miracle of healing on Peter’s wife’s mother. Some time was passed afterwards in attendance upon our Lord’s public ministrations in Galilee, Decapolis, Perea, and Judea. The special designation of Peter and his eleven fellow-disciples took place some time afterwards, when they were set apart as our Lord’s immediate attendants. (See Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; the most detailed account, Luke 6:13). They appear then first to have received formally the names of apostles and from that time Simon bore publicly, and as it would seem all but exclusively, the name “Peter,” which had hitherto been used rather as a characteristic appellation than as a proper name. From this tame there can be no doubt that Peter held the first place ’among the apostles, to whatever cause his precedence is to be attributed. He is named first in every list of the apostles; he is generally addressed by our Lord as their representative; and on the most solemn occasions he speaks in their name. Thus when the first great secession took place, in consequence of the offense given by our Lord’s mystic discourse at Capernaum (see John 6:66-69), “Jesus said unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Thus again, at Caesarea Philippi, Peter (speaking as before in the name of the twelve, though, as appears from our Lord’s words, with a peculiar distinctness of personal conviction), repeated that declaration: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The confirmation of our apostle in his special position in the church, the ratification of the powers and duties attached to the apostolic office, and the promise of permanence to the church, followed as a reward of that confession.

The early church regarded Peter generally, and most especially on this occasion, as the representative of the apostolic body, a very distinct theory from that which makes him their head, or governor, in Christ’s stead. Primus inter pares, Peter held no distinct office, and certainly never claimed any powers which did not belong equally to all his fellow-apostles. This great triumph of Peter, however, brought other points of his character into strong relief. The distinction which he then received, and it may be his consciousness of ability, energy, zeal, and absolute devotion to Christ’s person, seem to have developed a natural tendency to rashness and forwardness bordering upon presumption. Upon this occasion the exhibition of such feelings brought upon him the strongest reproof ever addressed to a disciple by our Lord. In his affection and self-confidence Peter ventured to reject as impossible the announcement of the sufferings and humiliation which Jesus predicted, and heard the sharp words: “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” It is remarkable that on other occasions when Peter signalized his faith and devotion he displayed at the time, or immediately afterwards, a more than usual deficiency in spiritual discernment and consistency. Thus a few days after that fall he was selected, together with John and James, to witness the transfiguration of Christ; but the words which he then uttered prove that he was completely bewildered, and unable at the time to comprehend the meaning of the transaction. Thus again, when his zeal and courage prompted him to leave the ship and walk on the water to go to Jesus (Matthew 14:29), a sudden failure of faith withdrew the sustaining power; he was about to sink, when he was at once reproved and saved by his Master. Toward the close of our Lord’s ministry Peter’s characteristics become especially prominent. Together with. his brother and the two sons of Zebedee he listened to the last awful predictions and warnings delivered to the disciples, in reference to the second advent. (Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:3, who alone mentions these names; Luke 21:7).

At the last supper Peter seems to have been particularly earnest in the request that the traitor might be pointed out. After the supper his words drew out the meaning of the significant act of our Lord in washing his disciples’ feet. Then, too, it was that he made those repeated protestations of unalterable fidelity, so soon to be falsified by his miserable fall. On the morning of the resurrection we have proof that Peter, though humbled, was not crushed by his fall. He and John were the first to visit the sepulcher; he was the first who entered it. We are told by Luke and by Paul that Christ appeared to him first among the apostles. It is observable, however, that on that occasion he is called by his original name, Simon, not Peter; the higher designation was not restored until he had been publicly reinstated, so to speak, by his Master. That reinstitution took place at the Sea of Galilee (John 21), an event of the very highest import. Slower than John to recognize their Lord, Peter was the first to reach him; he brought the net to land. The thrice-repeated question of Christ, referring doubtless to the three protestations and denials, was thrice met by answers full of love and faith. He then received the formal commission to feed Christ’s sheep, rather as one who had forfeited his place, and could not resume it without such an authorization.

Then followed the prediction of his martyrdom, in which he was to find the fulfillment of his request to be permitted to follow the Lord. With this event closes the first part of Peter’s history. Henceforth he and his colleagues were to establish and govern the church founded by their Lord, without the support of his presence. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles is occupied by the record of transactions, in nearly all of which Peter stands forth as the recognized leader of the apostles. He is the most prominent person in the greatest event after the resurrection, when on the day of Pentecost the church was first invested with the plenitude of gifts and powers. The first miracle after Pentecost was wrought by him. (Acts 3). The first miracle of healing was soon followed by the first miracle of judgment. Peter was the minister in that transaction. (Ananias). When the gospel was first preached beyond the precincts of Judea, he and John were at once sent by the apostles to confirm the converts at Samaria. Henceforth he remains prominent, but not exclusively prominent, among the propagators of the gospel. At Samaria he was confronted with Simon Magus, the first teacher of heresy.

About three years later (compare Acts 9:26 and Galatians 1:17-18) we have two accounts of the first meeting of Peter and Paul. This interview was followed by other events marking Peter’s position—a general apostolical tour of visitation to the churches hitherto established (Acts 9:32), in the course of which two great miracles were wrought on Aeneas and Tabitha, and in connection with which the most signal transaction after the day of Pentecost is recorded: the baptism of Cornelius. That was the crown and consummation of Peter’s ministry. The establishment of a church in great part of Gentile origin at Antioch, and the mission of Barnabas, between whose family and Peter there were the bonds of near intimacy, sot the seal upon the work thus inaugurated by Peter. This transaction was soon followed by the imprisonment of our apostle. His miraculous deliverance marks the close of this second great period of his ministry. The special work assigned to him was completed. From that time we have no continuous history of him. It is quite clear that he retained his rank as the chief apostle; equally so that he neither exercised nor claimed any right to control their proceedings. He left Jerusalem, but it is not said where he went—certainly not to Rome, where there are no traces of his presence before the last years of his life. He probably remained in Judea. Six years later we find him once more at Jerusalem, when the apostles and elders came together to consider the question whether converts should be circumcised. Peter took the lead in that discussion, and urged with remarkable cogency the principles settled in the case of Cornelius. His arguments, adopted and enforced by James, decided that question at once and forever. lit Was a disputed point whether the meeting between Paul and Peter, of which we have an account in Galatians 2:1-10, took place at this time or on St. Paul’s return from his great missionary journey. The only point of real importance was certainly determined before the apostles separated, the work of converting the Gentiles being henceforth specially entrusted to Paul and Barnabas, while the charge of preaching to the circumcision was assigned to the elder apostles, and more particularly to Peter (Galatians 2:7-9). This arrangement cannot, however, have been an exclusive one. Paul always addressed himself first to the Jews in every city; Peter and his old colleagues undoubtedly admitted and sought to make converts among the Gentiles. It may have been in full force only when the old and new disciples resided in the same city. Such at least was the case at Antioch, where Peter went soon afterwards.

From this time until the date of his Epistles we have no distinct notices in Scripture of Peter’s abode or work. Peter was probably employed for the most part in building up and completing the organization of Christian communities in Palestine and the adjoining districts There is, however, strong reason to believe that he visited Corinth at an early period. The name of Peter as founder, or joint founder, is not associated with any local church save those of Corinth, Antioch, or Rome, by early ecclesiastical Rome before the last year of his life, but there is some evidence that he and Paul were the founders of and labored with that church, and suffered death in that city. The time and manner of the apostle’s martyrdom are less certain. According to the early writers, he suffered at or about the same time with Paul, and in the Neronian persecution. All agree that he was crucified. The apostle is said to have employed interpreters. Of far more importance is the statement that Mark wrote his gospel under the teaching of Peter, or that he embodied in that gospel the substance of our apostle’s oral instructions. (Mark). The only written documents which Peter has left are the First Epistle, about which no doubt has ever been entertained in the church; and the second, which has been a subject of some controversy.

PHILIP THE APOSTLE was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter (John 1:44), and apparently was among the Galilean peasants of that district who flocked to hear the preaching of the Baptist. The manner in which John speaks of him, the repetition by him of the selfsame words with which Andrew had brought to Peter the good news that the Christ had at last appeared, all indicate a previous friendship with the sons of Jona and Zebedee, and a consequent participation in their Messianic hopes. The close union of the two in John 6, 12 suggests that he may have owed to Andrew the first tidings that the hope had been fulfilled. The statement that Jesus “found” him (John 1:43) implies a previous seeking. To him first in the whole circle of disciples were spoken the words so full of meaning: “Follow me.” (Ibid). As soon as he has learned to know his Master, he is eager to communicate his discovery to another, who had also shared the same expectations. He speaks to Nathanael, probably on his arrival in Cana (comp. John 21:2), as though they had not seldom communed together, of the intimations of a better time, of a divine kingdom, which they found in their sacred books. In the lists of the twelve apostles, in the synoptic Gospels, his name is as uniformly at the head of the second group of four as the name of Peter is at that of the first (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14); and the facts recorded by John give the reason of this priority. Philip apparently was among the first company of disciples who were with the Lord at the commencement of his ministry, at the marriage of Cana, on his first appearance as a prophet in Jerusalem. (John 2). When John was cast into prison, and the work of declaring the glad tidings of the kingdom required a new company of preachers, we may believe that he, like his companions and friends, received a new call to a more constant discipleship. (Matthew 4:18-22). When the twelve were specially set apart for their office, he was numbered among them. The first three Gospels tell us nothing more of him individually. John, with his characteristic fullness of personal reminiscences, records a few significant utterances. (John 6:5-9; John 12:20-22; John 14:8). No other fact connected with the name of Philip is recorded in the Gospels. He is among the company of the disciples at Jerusalem after the ascension (Acts 1:13), and on the day of Pentecost. After this all is uncertain and apocryphal.

SIMON THE CANAANITE, one of the twelve apostles. (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18). Otherwise described as Simon Zelotes. (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The latter term, which is peculiar to Luke, is the Greek equivalent for the Chaldee term preserved by Matthew and Mark (Canaanite). Each of these equally points out Simon as belonging to the faction of the Zealots, who were conspicuous for their fierce advocacy of the Mosaic ritual.

THOMAS, one of the apostles. According to Eusebius, his real name was Judas. This may have been a mere confusion with Thaddeus, who is mentioned in the extract. But it may also be that Thomas was a surname. The word means “a twin;” and so it is translated in John 11:16; John 21:2 (Didymus). Out of this name has grown the tradition that he had a twin sister, Lydia, or that he was a twin brother of our Lord; which last, again, would confirm his identification with Judas. (Comp. Matthew 13:55). He is said to have been born at Antioch. In the catalogue of the apostles he is coupled with Matthew, in Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; and with Philip in Acts 1:13. All that we know of him is derived from the Gospel of St. John, and this amounts to three traits, which, however, so exactly agree together that, slight as they are, place his character before us with a precision which belongs to no other of the twelve apostles, except Peter, John, and Judas Iscariot. This character is that of a man slow to believe, seeing all the difficulties of a case, subject to despondency, viewing things on the darker side, and yet full of ardent love of his Master. The first trait is his speech when our Lord determined to face the dangers that awaited him in Judea on his way to Bethany. Thomas said to his fellow-disciples: “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” (John 11:16). The second was his speech during the Last Supper: “Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” (John 14:5). It was the prosaic, incredulous doubt as to moving a step in the unseen future, and yet an eager inquiry to know how this step was to be taken. The third was after the resurrection. He was absent—perhaps by accident, perhaps characteristically—from the first assembly when Jesus had appeared. The others told him what they had seen. He broke forth into an exclamation, the terms of which convey to us at once the vehemence of his doubt, and at the same time the vivid picture that his mind retained of his Master’s form as he had last seen him lifeless on the cross. (John 20:25). On the eighth day he was with them at their gathering, perhaps in expectation of a recurrence of the visit of the previous week, and Jesus stood among them. He uttered the same salutation, “Peace be unto you;” and then, turning to Thomas as if this had been the special object of his appearance, uttered the words which convey as strongly the sense of condemnation and tender reproof as those of Thomas had shown the sense of hesitation and doubt. The effect on Thomas is immediate. The conviction produced by the removal of his doubt became deeper and stronger than that of any of the other apostles. The words in which he expressed his belief contain a far higher assertion of his Master’s divine nature than is contained in any other expression used by apostolic lips: “My Lord, and my God.” The answer of our Lord sums up the moral of the whole narrative: “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen me, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29). In the New Testament we hear of Thomas only twice again—once on the Sea of Galilee with the seven disciples, where he is ranked next after Peter (John 21:2); and again in the assemblage of the apostles after the ascension (Acts 1:13). The earlier traditions, as believed in the fourth century, represent him as preaching in Parthia or Persia, and as finally buried at Edessa. The later traditions carry him farther East. His martyrdom whether in Persia or India, is said to have been occasioned by a lance, and is commemorated by the Latin Church on December 21, by the Greek Church on October 6, and by the Indians on July 1.

THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The Holy Spirit is revealed to us in the Scriptures as a personality of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of these persons seems to have performed distinct offices in the affairs of the universe. God, the Father, provided for all things; the Word, afterwards made flesh, Jesus Christ created (John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16), and the Holy Spirit organized, gave law, and in the law guides and directs all things forward to their predestined end. So when the writer says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” we understand that God, through the Word, afterwards Christ, created the “heaven and the earth.” When created, the earth was without organic form, and was empty. Darkness brooded over all. The Spirit of God made his advent on earth, and the result of his coming is recorded in giving the order and working harmony to the elements of earth, as is told in the succeeding verses of Genesis 1.

The office of the Holy Spirit is set forth in Job 26:13 : “By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens.” Psalms 104:30 : “Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.” This refers to the putting forth of the vegetation in the spring. This is attributed to the Spirit, as it is the opposite process of nature. Isaiah 40:7 : “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it.” The Spirit organized matter, gave the laws, and in and through the laws guides matter forward to accomplish its ends. In the spiritual creation the persons of the Godhead perform the same offices. God, the Father, provided the great plan of redemption, and sent Jesus, the Son, to create the materials for the new creation. He did this in the persons of the apostles and disciples that he made. When he completed his work, they could take no step forward in spreading the religion and extending the rule of God on earth until the Holy Spirit came and organized them into the church of the living God, and gave laws, and took up his abode in these laws to guide and direct them forward to accomplish the work for which they were created.

“The word of God is the seed of the kingdom.” The Spirit of God dwells in the word, as the germinal principle dwells within the material seed. Jesus promised them another Comforter that would abide with them forever. (John 14:16). “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26). “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” (John 15:26). “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7). “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” (John 16:13-14). From this we learn that it was needful for the carrying out of the work of Jesus Christ and for the good of the disciples that Jesus should go away, go back to his Father’s throne, and that he would send the Holy Spirit to complete the work that Jesus had begun. Jesus came and created the material for the new creation. He went to heaven to prepare mansions for them to inhabit. When he went to prepare a place for them, he sent the Holy Spirit to guide and perfect, and so fit his children to occupy these mansions that he went to prepare for them. The two works of preparing for each other must go forward at the same time: one in heaven, the other on earth. “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.” (Acts 1:4). “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8). They were to await at Jerusalem until this Spirit should come to guide them; then they were to bear witness of him in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world, to all the nations of the Gentiles. After the ascension, the apostles tarry in Jerusalem, awaiting with expectancy and awe the coming of the Spirit to guide them into all truth.

The advent of this Spirit had been the subject of prophecy from the days of Moses. It was to be a day of refreshing and of glory from the Lord, and the laws of the Lord were to be written upon the hearts, not on tables of stone. They who henceforward worshiped him would do it in spirit and truth. The spirit of man was to be regenerated and molded by the Spirit of God, and under the inspiration and direction of the Spirit salvation was to be preached to all nations. The Holy Spirit came down from heaven on this day, and the apostles spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. The Acts of the Apostles has been called the gospel of the Holy Spirit. The book is composed of teachings of the Spirit to guide men into salvation from sin, as the Epistles are the teachings of the Spirit after they have become Christians to teach them how to conduct themselves as Christians.

No book of the Bible stands more closely connected with the forma­tion of the church and the conversion of the people to Christ than Acts of the Apostles. The only biography of Jesus—his conception, birth, life, teaching’s, the works that he did, his persecutions, trial, death, burial, resurrection and ascension—we have given in the first four books of the New Testament. These things concerning Jesus “are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (John 20:31). Having in these books given the testimonies to convince them that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he concluded his mission by telling the apostles: “All power [the Revision says “authority”] is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Under this commission they were to go and teach, make disciples of all nations. They were to await at Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit should come that would guide them into this work.

“The Acts of the Apostles,” then, is a history of what the apostles did and taught under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in converting men to Christ, and in planting churches among the different peoples of the world. The book is sometimes called the “book of conversions.” In it is the only account of the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit, the conversion of sinners under that preaching, and the planting of churches of Jesus Christ by the apostles. If a person desires to learn how men and women were converted to Jesus Christ and brought to the remission or forgiveness of their sins and into the church of the Lord Jesus Christ by the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, he can find it nowhere set forth with such clearness and infallible certainty as in the “Acts of the Apostles.”

There is a natural order in the books of the New Testament. The first four books set forth the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God; the Acts of the Apostles tell how to become servants of Jesus Christ, or how to enter his church, become members of his body; the Epistles tell how the disciples are related to one another and to the world, and how they should conduct themselves as his children in both their individual and church capacity; then the book of Revelation gives the future history of the church in its relations with the kingdoms of the world. No more important question is ever presented to men than this: How and where may I find the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead me out of the state of sin and rebellion against God into the forgiveness of sins and into the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ? These questions are answered fully and clearly exe mplified only in the Acts of the Apostles. Shall we not study them with interest and diligence?

About The Book of Acts

by John Robertson
Witchita Falls, Tx

The prophets of old had foretold of the last days when the Christ would come into the world, establish the Lord’s kingdom, and reign as king. Matthew seemed to be obsessed with the idea of the kingdom of God and its beginnings in the book that bears his name. Though Christ came into the world, as was prophesied, his kingdom had not been established at the point of his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven (see Acts 1:6 ff). The book of Acts fills in all the details regarding God’s promise to establish his kingdom and forgive man of their sins.

History revealed God’s promises to mankind through his beloved Son Jesus Christ. The proof of Jesus being the Christ is overwhelming. When the gospel of Christ was preached some believed some disbelieved. Those who believed were added to the kingdom of God and through time God’s kingdom grew larger and larger. Today the same kingdom and gospel continues to be presented to man and we are all left with the decision to accept or reject the Christ. Jesus summarized the contents of the book of Acts when he said, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:19-20). This article shall thereby examine the main object of Acts which is to illustrate that after the kingdom was established and the gospel preached to the world there were varying responses.

Proving that Jesus is the Christ

One universal fact among religious Jews was that they looked, searched, and longed for the day when Christ would come into the world and fulfill God’s promises. The Apostle Paul, while giving a defense to king Agrippa, said that he was being accused of misdeeds by his enemies because of “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain” (Acts 26:6-7). Though the Jews served God night and day in hopes of seeing the Christ they amazingly did not recognize him once he came into the world. Jesus did not meet their expectations of a king that would free them from Roman oppression (see Matthew 11:16-17; Matthew 13:57-58). Jesus astounded and offended them by identifying their sin and demanding repentance (Matthew 15:12; John 7:7). These Jews knew that accepting Jesus as the Christ meant giving up their worldly ambitions and they had no desire to do so (John 12:37 ff). Jesus (Matthew 21:42) and Peter (Acts 4:11) quote from Psalms 118:22 to illustrate that God had always known that many would reject the Christ. All who reject Christ must know that they reject the most glaring facts revealed by the prophets and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Every prophecy ever written about the Messiah in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the man Jesus Christ (see Acts 3:24 ff; Acts 13:29-33; Acts 26:21-32). Not only did the birth, life, death, and burial prove Jesus to be the Christ by there were many witnesses of his resurrection from the dead (see Acts 2:31-32; 1 Corinthians 15:6). To reject Jesus was and is to reject the obvious!

Consider these varying responses to the Gospel Message

When the gospel was preached there were varying responses. Some mocked (Acts 2:12-13; Acts 17:32) while others showed a genuine interest (Acts 2:12-13; Acts 13:42-43) in the message of salvation. The gospel caused some to be sore troubled (Acts 4:2) and jealous (Acts 13:45). The consequences of the gospel message upon the messenger often had horrid results too. Stephen was murdered because of his preaching (Acts 7:54-56). Paul was imprisoned for five years (two years in Caesarea and three years while traveling to Rome and in Rome as a prisoner). One thing that rises out of the depths of rejection, jealousy, murder, and people being sore troubled over the gospel message was that no matter how angry the gospel caused some it’s progress would in no way be impeded (see Acts 26:14).

Many heard the gospel and did “believe” (see Acts 4:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 13:48; Acts 17:34; Acts 18:8). When the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he needed to do to be saved Paul answered saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house” (Acts 16:31) and so he did. What is fascinating about the book of Acts is that it sets out early to document the requirements of salvation. Acts 2:38 stands as a thesis statement of the book in relation to salvation. Men heard, believed, confessed, repented, were baptized, and encouraged to live faithfully all the days of their lives. Each case of conversion, after the initial sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2, must take into account the words of Peter. The book of Acts proves that “believing” is more than just making a mental decision to accept that Jesus is the Christ. Believing involves the hearing, confessing, repenting, being baptized, and purposing to live faithfully. The Apostle Paul, while preaching to those of Antioch, connects “belief” with “justification and the forgiveness of sins” (see Acts 13:38-39). To believe is thereby to be justified of sins. Man is justified, According to Peter’s sermon, by being baptized into Christ.

What The Book of Acts Is

The book of Acts is a clear and concise work that exposes the reality of Christ, the existence of the kingdom of God (the church), and detailed instructions regarding what one must do to be added to this kingdom. Some accepted the gospel message and the terms of admission into the kingdom of God but many did not. Though majority of people throughout history, including today, reject Christ his kingdom continues to grow. How will you respond to the gospel message of salvation?

The book of Acts is an introduction to Christianity. There are three simple subjects examined in the book. First, Acts reveals the day that Christ’s kingdom, the church, was established. Secondly, we find the beginnings of preachers, apostles, and prophets teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world. Thirdly, we find varying responses to the gospel message. Some people believed some people disbelieved. Those who believed were added to the Lord’s church and it grew exponentially during these early days. Though the object of the book is very simple its affects upon man’s history is profound. Two thousand plus years have passed since the church was established. The gospel message continues to be preached and people continue to have varying responses to truth.

The Establishment of the Church

The Old Testament spoke of a future kingdom that would be governed by the seed of David (see 2 Samuel 7:12-17 and Isaiah 9:6-7).

Interestingly, when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, an angel appears to her and reveals the child’s identity. The angel said, "You shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:30-33). Luke precisely identifies Christ as the king of this future kingdom at Acts 2:30-33. Jesus is the king of the kingdom that was foretold of coming in the Old Testament (see John 18:36-37).

The prophets of God also foretold of the time that his kingdom would be established. Isaiah and Daniel tell us that God’s everlasting kingdom would be established in the "latter days" (Isaiah 2:2-3 and Daniel 2:28). Jerusalem would be the location of its beginnings (Isaiah 2:2-4). When Jesus came into the world John the baptizer said "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:1-3). Jesus said that there were some alive listening to him preach that would remain alive and see the kingdom of God established (Mark 9:1). When the Day of Pentecost had come Peter said that the events the people were now witnessing were the things that the prophets said would occur in the "latter days" (Acts 2:16-17).

Jesus said that the disciples would know when his kingdom was established because it would come with power (see Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:6-8). When the Day of Pentecost came at Acts 2 the apostles received this power (see Acts 2:1-4).

The prophets of old also foretold that God’s eternal kingdom would be established in Jerusalem at the time that his law went forth to man (see Isaiah 2:2-3 and Luke 24:45-49). Matthew said that Jesus would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). When the Day of Pentecost arrived the apostles were in Jerusalem and Peter preached the law of Christ that would enable men to be forgiven of their sins (see Acts 2:1; Acts 2:5; Acts 2:37-38).

God’s kingdom was established on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2. The kingdom of God is the church of Jesus Christ. Those who heard, believed, and were baptized for the remission of their sins did so because the gospel of Jesus Christ "called" upon them to do so (see Acts 2:37-39 and 2 Thessalonians 13-14). The Apostle Paul said that the gospel "calls" people to enter into his Kingdom (see 1 Thessalonians 2:1314). Again, Paul said that those who have been called by the gospel message receive the remission of their sins and they are translated into the kingdom of God (see Colossians 1:12-13). When we read past Acts 2 we read of the church (kingdom of God) now existing (see Acts 5:11; Acts 8:1 etc.).

Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ

After the church was established men and women went throughout the world preaching the gospel message. The book of Acts records a uniform message that was preached. Starting on the Day of Pentecost we find a foundation sermon delivered by the Apostle Peter. Peter preached about Jesus Christ and man’s sins. Those who believed that Jesus was the Christ and were willing to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins would be forgiven (see Acts 2:37-38). Every sermon preached after Peter’s was a carbon copy of Peter’s words. Whether the preacher was Peter, Philip, Paul, or Luke the message was the same. Those who heard the gospel preached, believed the message, confessed that Jesus was the Christ, repented of their sins, baptized for the remission of their sins, and purposed to live faithfully all the days of their lives were added to the church of Christ (Romans 16:16).

Preaching the same message of Jesus was very important. At Acts 15 we find that some were preaching additional things for salvation. The erring was saying that unless people were circumcised they could not be saved (see Acts 15:5). The church had a great issue with these false teachers. The method of salvation had already been preached to thousands and the church was consequentially growing. To add something to the salvation equation that God did not was error. Today, many denominational bodies have added and subtracted from the original pattern of hear, believe, confess Christ, repent of sins, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and live faithfully. Nothing has changed in God’s message yet man tries to change it. Some say that you do not have to be baptized to be saved and forgiven of sins. Others say that all you have to do is say the sinner’s prayer to be saved. Such words are daring and great error (see 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Peter 2:10 and 2 John 1:9-11). The pattern, or Law, has been established by Christ and no man has the right to altar those words (see Revelation 22:18-19).

Varying Responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ

The book of Acts records various responses to the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the Apostles of Jesus Christ preached the gospel some illustrated a genuine interest (see Acts 2:12-13; Acts 13:42-43). Many heard the gospel and "believed" (see Acts 4:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 13:48; Acts 16:30-33; Acts 17:34; Acts 18:8). The same gospel that brought joy to some caused others to be sore troubled (Acts 4:2) and jealous (Acts 13:45). When Felix and Drusilla heard the gospel they replied to Paul saying, "Go your way for this time and when I have a convenient season I will call for you" (Acts 24:24-25). Festus, after hearing the gospel message of Christ being resurrected from the dead and man’s responsibilities to obey him said that Paul’s much learning had driven him mad (Acts 26:24-25). King Agrippa heard Paul’s sermon on Christ and said, "Almost you persuade me to become a Christian" (KJV - Acts 26:28). Though there were varying responses many did hear, believe, confess, repent, and be baptized for forgiveness and added to the Lord’s church. The Church grew exponentially during these early days (see Acts 4:4; Acts 5:14; Acts 6:1 etc.).

The consequences of the gospel message upon the messenger often had horrid results. Stephen was murdered because of his preaching (Acts 7:54-56). Paul was often stoned and beaten for the words he preached (see Acts 14:19 and 2 Corinthians 11:22 ff). He also was imprisoned for five years (two years in Caesarea and three years while traveling to Rome and in Rome as a prisoner). One thing that rises out of the depths of rejection, jealousy, murder, and people being sore troubled over the gospel message was that no matter how angry the gospel caused some it’s progress would in no way be impeded (see Daniel 2:44-45 and Acts 26:14).

Many heard the gospel and did “believe” (see Acts 4:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 13:48; Acts 17:34; Acts 18:8). When the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he needed to do to be saved Paul answered saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your house” (Acts 16:31). What is fascinating about the book of Acts is that it sets out early to document the requirements of salvation. Acts 2:38 stands as a thesis statement of the book in relation to salvation. Men heard, believed, confessed, repented, were baptized, and encouraged to live faithfully all the days of their lives. Each case of conversion, after the initial sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2, must take into account the words of Peter. The book of Acts proves that “believing” is more than just making a mental decision to accept that Jesus is the Christ. Believing involves the hearing, confessing, repenting, being baptized, and purposing to live faithfully. The Apostle Paul, while preaching to those of Antioch, connects "belief" with "justification and the forgiveness of sins" (see Acts 13:38-39). To believe is to be justified of sins. Man is justified, according to Peter’s Acts 2 sermon, by being baptized into Christ.

The book of Acts is a clear and concise work that exposes the reality of Christ, the existence of the kingdom of God (the church), and detailed instructions regarding what one must do to be added to this kingdom. Some accepted the gospel message and the terms of admission into the kingdom of God but many did not. Though majority of people throughout history, including today, reject Christ his kingdom continues to grow. How will you respond to the gospel message of salvation?

Introduction To Acts

By J.W. McGarvey

It is necessary to the successful study of any literary production, that the exact design of the author should be known and kept constantly in view. It would be doing great injustice to the author of Acts, to suppose that he undertook this work without having before him some one leading object, which should serve as the connecting thread of the narrative, and according to which all the historic details should take place and form.

The conjecture of commentators as to what this leading object is are various and somewhat conflicting. “The writer’s object,” says Dr. Hackett, “if we are to judge of it from what he has performed, must have been to furnish a summary of history of the origin, gradual increase, and extension of the Christian Church, through the instrumentality, chiefly of the Apostles Peter and Paul.” This is rather a statement of what he has performed than of the object for which he performed it. The same defect attaches to Dr. Alexander’s conjecture. He says: “The book before is a special history of the planting and extension of the Church, both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating centers, as sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome.” That the history does exhibit these facts is certainly true, but that there is behind this a design for the accomplishment of which these facts are stated, must be equally true.

The author’s design is equally misunderstood by Bloomfield, and others with him, who say that it was “to give an authentic account of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and of the miraculous powers and supernatural gifts bestowed by the Spirit,” and “to establish the full claim of the Gentiles to be admitted into the Church of Christ.” It is true that the history establishes the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church, and also contains an account of the descent and work of the Holy Spirit, yet neither of these can be regarded as the leading thought around which the contents of the volume adjust themselves.

Mr. Barnes, in the midst of some detached statements upon this subject, has approached the true idea in the following characteristic remark: “This book is an inspired account of the character of true revivals of religion.” But the true idea is still more nearly approached by a writer in Kitto’s Encyclopedia who says: “Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke, in writing Acts, was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish.”

It is correctly assumed by Dr. Hackett, in the words above quoted, that we are to judge of a writer’s design by what he has performed. Bearing in mind the distinction between the work done and the design for which it is done, a slight glance at the contents of this book will reveal to us a design which has escaped the notice of all the above-named writers.

Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversion of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative. All other matters are merely incidental. The events of the first chapter were designed to prepare the apostles for the work of converting men; the gift of the Holy Spirit to them and to others was to qualify them for it; the admission of the Gentiles was an incident connected with the conversion of Cornelius, and others after him; the conference, in the fifteenth chapter, grew out of these conversions; and the long account of Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome, with his sea-voyage and shipwreck, constitute but the connected history of his preaching to the mob in Jerusalem, to the Sanhedrim, to Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome. The episode in the twelfth chapter, concerning the persecutions by Herod, and his death, is designed to show that, even under such circumstances, “the word of God grew and multiplied.” All the remainder of the history consists, unmistakably, in detailed accounts of conversions.

Such being the work performed by the author, we may readily determine his design by inquiring, Why should any cases of conversion be put upon the record? Evidently, it was that men might know how conversions were effected, and in what they consisted. The cases which are recorded represent all the different grades of human society; all the different degrees of intellectual and religious culture; all the common occupations in life, and all the different countries and languages of the then known world. The design of this variety is to show the adaptation of the one gospel scheme to the conversion of all classes of men.

The history of a case of conversion, necessarily embraces two distinct classes of facts: First, the agencies and instrumentalities employed in effecting it; second, the changes effected in the individual who is the subject of it. In the pursuit of his main design, therefore, the author was led to designate specifically all these agencies, instrumentalities, and changes. He does so in order that his readers may know what agents are employed, and how they work; what instrumentalities must be used, and how they are applied; and what changes must take place, in order to the Scriptural conversions of a sinner.

The chief agent employed in the conversion of men is the Holy Spirit. It is this fact which led the author to detail so minutely the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the various gifts and influences by which his work was accomplished. He thus teaches the reader what part this divine agent performed in the conversion of sinners, and how he performed it.

Another important agency employed was the personal labor of the apostles and inspired evangelists. The manner in which their part of the work was performed is carefully described, in order that men of every age and country, whose business it is to perform the part corresponding to theirs, may learn, from their example, how to perform it Scripturally. But Peter and Paul were the chief laborers of that generation, and for this reason their names occupy the prominent position assigned them.

It is well known that the recital by men of the process of their conversion is well calculated both to teach sinners the process through which they must struggle in order to conversion, and to stimulate them to undertake it. Men are taught more successfully and influenced more powerfully by example than by precept. Many religious teachers of the present day, having discovered the practical workings of this principle in human nature, depend much more, in their efforts to convert sinners, upon well-told experiences than upon the direct preaching of the Word. The success which has attended this policy should admonish us that these experiences of conversion recorded in Acts are by no means to be lightly esteemed as instrumentalities for the conversion of the world. They possess, indeed, this advantage: that, in contrast with all the conversions of the present day, they were guided by infallible teaching, and were selected by infallible wisdom from among thousands of others which had occurred, because of their peculiar fitness for a place in the inspired record. They have, we may say, twice passed the scrutiny of infinite wisdom; for, first all the conversions which occurred under the preaching of inspired men were directed by the Holy Spirit; and, second, if any difference existed between those put on record and the others, the Holy Spirit, by selecting these few, decided in their favor as the best models for subsequent generations. If a sinner seek salvation according to the model of modern conversions, he may be misled; for his model is fallible at best, and may be erroneous; but if he imitate these inspired models, it is impossible for him to be misled, unless the Holy Spirit itself can mislead him. Moreover, in so far as any man’s supposed conversion does not accord with these, it must be wrong; in so far as it does accord with them, it must be right.

If it be asked why we may not as well take for our model the cases of conversion which occurred under the former dispensation, or during the life of Jesus, the answer is obvious. We do not live under the law of Moses, or the personal ministry of Jesus, but under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, just previous to his ascension, committed the affairs of his kingdom on earth into the hands of twelve men, to be guided by the Holy Spirit, who descended shortly after he ascended; and now all that we can know of present terms of pardon must be learned through the teaching and example of these men. If, then, the conditions of pardon under any preceding dispensation be found to differ from those propounded in Acts, in all the points of difference the latter, and not the former, must be our guide. These are the last, and certainly the most elaborately detailed communications of the Divine will upon the subject, and belong peculiarly to the new covenant under which we live. If God has made them to differ, in any respect, from those under the old covenant, he teaches us, by this very difference, that he has thus far set aside the old through preference for the new. In the following pages it is made a leading object to ascertain the exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and the precise elements which constitute real conversion to Christ.

The present is pre-eminently a missionary period of the Church. None has been more so, except the age of the apostles. Especially is it distinguished by success in the conversion of sinners in professedly Christian lands. Hence, it is a demand of the age that the true method of evangelizing the world should be known and read of all men. But the true method can be found only in the labors of inspired apostles and evangelists, and the record of these labors is found only in the book of Acts. A failure to understand and to appreciate this book has been, and still is, a most prolific source of confusion and error in the popular presentation of the gospel. But failing to discover its chief design, sinners are far more frequently directed to the Psalms of David for instruction upon the subject of conversion than to this book, which was written for this express purpose. There is, therefore, no one book in all the Bible to which the present generation of Bible readers so much need to have their attention specially directed. We have endeavored, in this volume, to set forth the labors of these inspired preachers as the true and infallible guide of the modern evangelist.

Another peculiarity of the present age is, the unlimited range given to speculations concerning the agency of the Holy Spirit in human redemption. A subject into which investigation should never have been pushed beyond the simple facts and statements of revelation, has thus become a most fruitful source of philosophical vagaries and of unbridled fanaticism. Whatever differences may appear among the many erroneous theories upon the subject, they all agree in the conception of a direct impact of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man, by which the latter is enlightened and sanctified. This conception is not only common to them all, but it is the fundamental conception in each one of them. Under the influence of it, the more contemplative theorist receives new revelations, or “speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost;” the more enthusiastic calls for outpourings of the “Holy Spirit and of fire,” dances, shouts, and falls in spasms; while the transcendentalist, receiving still further measures of the Spirit, points out mistakes made by the inspired apostles, and exposes defects in the character of Jesus.

Among the prevailing Protestant sects, a common theory of spiritual influence serves almost as a bond of union. It sometimes makes them almost forget the conflicts of past ages, melts down the cold barrier of separating creeds, and brings hereditary enemies together, to worship, for a time, at a common shrine. It is made the standard of orthodoxy; and to him who devoutly swears by it, it serves, like charity, to cover a multitude of sins, while to him who calls it in question, and contents himself with the very words of Scripture, it is a ban of excommunication. A difference on all other subjects is tolerated, if there is agreement on this; an agreement on all other subjects can be no bond of union, if there is a difference on this. In public discourse all other topics are made subordinate, and even the preaching of Christ, which was the work of the apostles, has been supplanted by preaching the Holy Spirit.

Various as are the conclusions of these theorists, they all have a common tendency to disparage the Word of God. Precisely as a man learns to depend upon internal admonitions for his religious guidance will he feel less dependence upon the written Word. Hence it is that the masses of the people, who are under the influence of these teachings, are so deplorably ignorant of the Bible. To call back the mind of the reader from all such vagaries to the revealed facts and simple apostolic statements upon this important subject, is another leading object of the following work. We will find that the book of Acts presents, in living form and unmistakable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit.

Some sixteen of the twenty-eight chapters of Acts are devoted almost exclusively to the labors of the Apostle Paul. Whatever can be known of this most heroic and successful of all the apostles must not only be interesting to every reader, but also highly instructive, as an example of faith in Christ in its higher development. Some of the most interesting facts in his history, and those which throw the greatest light upon his inner life, are not recorded by Luke, but may be gathered from incidental remarks in his own epistles. In this obscure position, they must ever escape the notice of ordinary readers. It is proposed, in this volume, to give them their chronological place in the narrative, thus filling up the blanks which Luke’s design caused him to leave, and rounding out to some fullness and symmetry the portraiture of this noblest of all human subjects of Scripture biography.

We have already assumed, in accordance with the universal judgment of competent critics, that Luke is the author of Acts. For the evidences on which this judgment is based, I refer the reader to works devoted to this department of Scripture study. It appears, from his being distinguished by Paul, in Galatians 4:11-14, from those “of the circumcision,” that he was a Gentile, but of what country is not certainly known. He was a physician by profession, and is styled by Paul “the beloved physician.” This encomium, together with the fact that he shared with Paul many of the labors of his life, was his ever-present companion in his imprisonment, even his only companion in the closing scenes of his life; and that we detect his presence or absence in the scenes of the narrative only as he used the pronoun we or they to describe the party, are circumstances which indicate a character marked by great courage and endurance, yet softened by extreme modesty and warm affections. That he was a most enthusiastic admirer of Paul is evident both from the devotion with which he clung to his side, and from the vividness with which every peculiar expression of countenance and gesture of the apostle impressed his memory. He frequently records the sweeping motion of the hand with which Paul arrested the attention of an audience, and the glance with which he fixed his eyes upon the enemies of the truth. Yet, notwithstanding this personal admiration, so just is his sense of propriety that he never pauses for a moment to express his admiration for the wonderful developments of character which he portrays. In this, however, he but imitates a distinguishing peculiarity of all the inspired writers.

The book of Acts embraces a period of about thirty years—from the ascension of Christ, a.d. 33, to the end of the second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 63. In the latter part of the year 63, or the beginning of 64, while Luke was still with Paul in Rome, it is most likely that the work was published. For the historical connection and chronology of particular events described in the work, the reader is referred to the body of the Commentary.

It was no part of my original design to undertake a revision of the English text of Acts, but I hoped that, ere this time, an improved version of the whole New Testament would be put into the hands of the public by the American Bible Union. No final revision of Acts, however, having appeared from that Society, or from any other source, up to this writing, I am constrained to content myself with such a revision of the text as I have been able to prepare during the progress of the work. I have aimed to preserve, in general, the language of the common version. Where the propriety of a change would be obvious to the reader of the Greek, or depends merely upon taste, no notes are given to justify it. In cases where a defense seemed to be needed, the reader will find it, either in the body of the work or in foot-notes. I beg the critical reader, however, to remember that the revision is designed not for general adoption, but simply for the purpose to which it is applied in this Commentary, and that, even here, it is a secondary part of the undertaking.

In the execution of the work, I have aimed to make not merely a book of reference, but a volume to be read consecutively through, with the interest which belongs to the narrative. In order to this end, I have aimed to make a prominent the author’s connection of thought throughout; and, in order to render it the more instructive, wherever the text presents important issues connected with the great religious questions of the day, I have taken time to elaborate the argument as freely as the space which I had allotted myself would admit.

Acts Chapter One

By J.W. McGarvey

Acts 1:1-2. A NARRATIVE of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince men that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his birth and terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the “former narrative” which Luke had addressed to Theophilus, and he alludes to it as such in introducing his present work: (1) “The former treatise I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up.”

This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon it. The specific reference to “the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up” is still more in point, from the fact that all the authority which the apostles had for the labors Luke is about to narrate was derived from the commandment given on that day. The history of that day furnishes but one commandment then given, which was the apostolic commission. In this commission, then, Luke locates the starting point of his present narrative.

If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to us, we must begin with the author, by a proper understanding of this commission.

During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human being to announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he discovered a disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not only to various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” we are told that, at the close of the conversation, “he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” Such was his uniform injunction on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John had witnessed his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim him his Son, as they came down from the mount, “Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man is risen from the dead.”

This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the New Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid that political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public mind, might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews that he was their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative reason for it, found in the mental and moral condition of the disciples themselves. Their crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their gross misconception of the nature of the expected Kingdom, their misunderstanding of much that he had taught them, and their imperfect remembrance of that which they had understood, rendered them incapable of presenting his claims truthfully, not to say infallibly, to the world. Moreover, their faith had not, as yet, acquired the strength necessary to the endurance of privations and persecutions. While laboring under these defects, they were most wisely prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ.

During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed them that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should receive the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.” “I have many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth.“ “He shall testify of me: and you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.” In these words they have a promise that they shall testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit for their guide; but the promise looks to the future for its fulfillment.

Finally, “in the day in which he was taken up,” he gives them the commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them to preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this commandment, they could not have dared to tell any many that he was the Christ; with it, they are authorized to begin the labors which our historian is about to narrate. But even yet there is one restriction laid upon them; for they have not yet received the promised qualifications. “He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me.”

Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for the limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it is composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but must be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew presents three of them, as follows: “Go, disciple all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever I have commanded you.” Mark presents five items in these words: “Go preach the gospel to every creature; he who believes and is immersed shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned.“ Luke simply states that Jesus said, “Thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” If we combine these items, by arranging them in their natural order of succession, we will have the commission fully stated.

The command quoted by Mark, “Preach the gospel to every creature,” necessarily comes first. The command, “Disciple all nations,” is next in order; for it is by means of preaching that they were to make disciples. But when a man is made a disciple he becomes a believer; and Matthew and Mark agree in the statement that he who believes, or in Matthew’s style, he who is discipled, is then to be immersed. Luke, however, says that repentance must be preached, and as repentance precedes obedience, we are compelled to unite it with faith, as antecedent to immersion. Next after immersion comes Mark’s statement, “he shall be saved.” But salvation may be either that which the pardoned sinner now enjoys, or that to be enjoyed after the resurrection from the dead: hence this term would be ambiguous but for Luke’s version of it, who quotes that “remission of sins” is to be preached. This limits the meaning of the promise to that salvation which consists in remission of sins. Next after this comes the command, “teaching them to observe and do” what I have commanded you. Finally, they were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently, complied not with the terms of the commission, should be condemned. In brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations by preaching the gospel to every creature; to immerse all penitent believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, promising such the remission of their sins; then teaching them all their duties and privileges, as disciples of Jesus. In the mean time, all were to be assured that he who believed not should be condemned.

Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its guidance. Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the items of their commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. For the strongest confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we refer to the course of the narrative as set forth in the following pages.

Acts 1:3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted a part: (3) “To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” From the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days.

Acts 1:4-5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: (4) “And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.” The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above, as being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference to the time and place of beginning. The “promise of the Father” which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit. On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, ii. 16–18.

Acts 1:6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by announcing, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.” It was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him, the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated. (6) “Now when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority. (8) But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.”

The question, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles still misconceived the nature of Christ’s kingdom; second, that the kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some attention at our hands, especially the latter.

Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy Spirit.

The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive Scripture statements.

The expression “kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.“ The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son,” and says “He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.”

Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “the kingdom of Christ and of God” began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham.

But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “We see Jesus,” says Paul, “who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser.

Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” He “sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,” and the Father said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” At this word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “Lord of lord and King of kings.” It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “All authority, in heaven and on earth is given to me.”

Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.“ This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension.

We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.” Again: “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in.” And again: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you.” It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John’s ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “Then is the kingdom of God come to you.”

But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand;” eggike, “is near.” Jesus exclaims, “Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he.” Again: “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” And, finally, the question we are now considering, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory.

Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed.

On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness.

We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “a minister of the circumcision,” and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “better covenant.” Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. Then “the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom,” indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, but through the vail—that is to say, his flesh —he put an end to the priesthood of Aaron, and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross. At the death of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next Pentecost the new kingdom began.

Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider, briefly, the Savior’s answer to the question which has detained us so long. He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which God has appointed in his own authority.” By the expression “in his own authority,” I suppose Jesus intended to indicate that the times and seasons of God’s purposes are reserved more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them.

But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power: hence Jesus adds, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” The power here promised is not authority, for this he had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.

While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion to mark out their successive fields of labor: first “in Jerusalem,” next, “in all Judea,” then “in Samaria,” and finally, “to the uttermost part of the earth.” It is not to be imagined that this arrangement of their labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was merely designed to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through the prophets, because there were good reasons why it should be so. One reason, suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning in Jerusalem, was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of Jesus in the same city in which he was condemned. But the controlling reason was doubtless this: the most devout portion of the Jewish people, that portion who had been most influenced by the preparatory preaching of John and of Jesus, were always collected at the great annual festivals, and hence the most successful beginning could there be made. Next to these, the inhabitants of the rural districts of Judea were best prepared, by the same influences, for the gospel; then the Samaritans, who had seen some of the miracles of Jesus; and, last of all, the Gentiles. Thus the rule of success was made their guide from place to place, and it became the custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands, to preach the gospel “first to the Jew” and “then to the Gentile.” The result fully justified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the gospel was in Judea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles of every region was through the Jewish synagogue.

Acts 1:9. Having completed his brief notice of the last interview between Jesus and the disciples, Luke says, (9) “And when he had spoken these things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” We learn from Luke’s former narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them, with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft into heaven. The cloud which floated above formed a background, to render the outline of the person more distinct while in view, and to suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its bosom. Thus all the circumstances of this most fitting departure were calculated to preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical illusion.

It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye-witnesses of the scene, if it really occurred, while is mentioned only by Luke and Mark, who were not present, is ground of suspicion that the latter derived their information from impure sources. Even Olshausen acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted on this point, because he could not account for this peculiar difference in the course of the four historians. That the testimony of Mark and Luke, however, is credible, is made apparent to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became of his body after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal and incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distinguish it from that of Lazarus, or the widow’s son of Nain, so that he should be called “the first fruits of them who slept,” but the fact that he rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave the earth, there was only this alternative, that his body should return again to the grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, therefore, is the account of the ascension from being incredible, that even if none of the historians had mentioned it, we would still be constrained to conclude that, at some time, and in some manner, it did take place.

We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not mention the ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary the Magdalene at the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated that it would take place. He said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” And that his ascension would be visible, he had intimated to the disciples, when he said, “Doth this offend you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?”

But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit an account of this remarkable event, and why should Like and Mark, who were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it? It would be sufficient to answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that which led each of these writers to omit some interesting facts which are mentioned by others.

But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the last chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that John saw fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which occurred on the shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the last day’s interview. Of course, it would have required a departure from, this plan to have mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings his narrative to a close with a scene on a mountain in Galilee, whereas the ascension took place from Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem. There was nothing in his closing remarks to suggest mention of the ascension, unless it be his account of the commission; but the commission was really first given to them at that time, though finally repeated on the day of the ascension. On the other hand, Mark and Luke both chose, for their concluding paragraphs, such a series of events as leads them to speak of the last day’s interview; and as the ascension was the closing event of the day, it would have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still further, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events of which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal account of the ascension.

Acts 1:10-11. Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming narrative, hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even Luke had mentioned before. (10) “And while they were gazing into heaven, as he went away, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, (11) who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in the same manner that you have seen him going into heaven.” These “two men in white apparel” were, undoubtedly, angels in human form. This is the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and is confirmed by the fact that two others who appeared at the sepulcher, and are called “men in shining garments” by Luke, are called “two angels in white” by John. Luke speaks of them according to their appearance; John, according to the reality.

It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus would come again, but that he would come in like manner as they had seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It is a positive announcement of a literal and visible second coming.

Acts 1:12. At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their longing gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and cheered by the promise of his return, (12) “Then they returned into Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet, which was near Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day’s journey.” The ascension took place near Bethany, which was nearly two miles from Jerusalem, and on the further side of Mount Olivet. It was the nearer side of the Mount, which was distant a Sabbath-day’s journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. We learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they returned to Jerusalem “with great joy.” Their sorrow at parting from the Lord was turned into joy at the hope of seeing him again.

Acts 1:13. “And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas brother of James.” This enumeration of the apostles very appropriately finds place here, showing that all of those to whom the commission was given were at their post, ready to begin work, and waiting for the promised power from on high.

Acts 1:14. The manner in which these men spent the time of their waiting, which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would expect: (14) “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” The chief scene of this worship was not the upper room where the eleven were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.”

The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disciples, instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faithful to the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his own mother. Though the prominence here given to her name shows that she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the manner in which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed of the worship which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous church.

Whether those here called the “brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined, from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the solution of this question, but it properly belongs to commentaries on the gospels, and to these the reader is referred for the arguments, pro and con.

Acts 1:15-18. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle to fill the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had authorized this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed that, as he himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in like manner, fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. Neither had the apostles yet received that power from on high which would enable them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. From these considerations, it has been supposed by some that the whole procedure was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact that Matthias was afterward “numbered with the eleven apostles,” and that the whole body were from that time called “the twelve,” shows that the transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after they were fully inspired. This gave it the sanction of inspired authority, whatever may have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and the fulfillment of this promise required that the number should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not reckoned among “the twelve.” He distinguishes himself from them in 1 Corinthians 15:5; 1 Corinthians 15:8. “He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve,” and “he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection was made, is not designated. The incident is introduced in these terms: (15) “And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together was about one hundred and twenty,) (16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas, who was guide to them that seized Jesus. (17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

The parenthetical statement that the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as including all who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were then and there assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after his resurrection, by “above five hundred brethren at once.” The hundred and twenty were, perhaps, all who were then in the city of Jerusalem.

The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed by most commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by Luke, though some contend that it is part of Peter’s speech. If the latter supposition is true, there is no ambiguity in it to the original hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon them, and which was invested in this way because they could find no other suitable use for it. Knowing this, they could but understand Peter as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field to be purchased. But whether the words are Peter’s or Luke’s, it must be admitted that a reader unacquainted with the facts in the case would be misled by them. Luke, however, presumed upon the information of his first readers, and that knowledge of the facts which they possessed has been transmitted to us by Matthew, so that we have as little difficulty as they did in discovering the true meaning of the remark.

As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method of reconciling Luke’s account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly correct. We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the separate statements. The whole affair stands thus: “He went out and hanged himself;” and, by the breaking of either the limb on which he hung, or the cord, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

Acts 1:19. The next statement, (19) “And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood,” is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him. But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done here prove the words to be his.

Acts 1:20. The historian now resumes the report of Peter’s speech, which he had interrupted by the parenthesis. In the remarks already quoted, Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any commandment of Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. He also states, as the ground for the application of that prophesy which he is about to make, the fact that Judas had been numbered with them, and had “obtained part of this ministry.” He now quotes the prophesy alluded to: (20) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein. His office let another take.“

These two passages from the Psalms, when read in their original context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when he uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that the habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that whatever office he held should be given to another, then it was pre-eminently proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be thus punished, and that so important an office as that of Judas should be filled by a worthy successor.

Acts 1:21-22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence: (21) “Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning from the immersion of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection.” There being no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter here, like Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus.

Acts 1:23-26. “Then they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen (25) to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles.”

It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom the choice should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which one he had chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one upon whom the lot fell was the Lord’s choice. The reason that they did not make the selection themselves was evidently because they thought proper that the Lord, who had chosen Judas, should also choose his successor. If it be inquired why, then, they ventured to confine the Lord’s choice to these two, the most plausible answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander, that, after careful examination of the parties present, they were the only two who possessed the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the selection of these two was made by the body of disciples, or by the apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, as many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of popular election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons between whom an election was to be made, was not the election itself; and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, and not by the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew the lots, but the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall.

The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of its kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one beyond the point perspicuity. The question having reference to the spiritual as well as the historical characteristics of the two individuals, most appropriately do they address the Lord as kardiognosta, the heart-knower. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt chose, or dost choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord before the choice; but, “show which one of these two thou hast chosen.” They describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as the “ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place.” He had been in a place of which he proved himself unworthy, and they have no hesitation in referring to the fact that he had now gone to his own place. That place is, of course, the place to which hypocrites go after death. Here is a simple address to the Lord, beautifully appropriate to the petition they are about to present; then the petition itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded. So brief a prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely be recognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that they will be heard for their much speaking.

Acts Chapter Two

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 2:1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative, (1) “When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.”

The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour. On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, “the feast of weeks.” But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.

This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present. The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day—the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day.

That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, “The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath.” He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was “preparation day,” and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread. According to the law, the count began on “the morrow after” this day, which was Sunday. Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o’clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday.

Why Luke uses the expression, “When the day of Pentecost was fully come,” is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.

It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “all with one accord in one place;” for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read the first four verses of this chapter, noticing the connection of the pronoun “they,” which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be together in one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, “They were all together in one place.” Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the last verse of the former into its connection with the latter, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: “The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, “You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.” It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event, to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty.

Acts 2:2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together: (2) “And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging.

Acts 2:3-4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) “There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence.

There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, “it sat upon each of them,” the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,” and “continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication,” would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all.

We have already said something of the necessity of this event; but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted—power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, “You shall receive power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching.

But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it.

It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power.

Acts 2:5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus. (5) “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle.

Acts 2:6-12. “And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.” The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) “And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.“ Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) “And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?“

Acts 2:13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after saying that “all were amazed,” etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) “But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine.” The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet.

In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could understand the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this explanation our attention is now directed.

Acts 2:14-15. “Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of drunkenness.

Acts 2:16-18. Peter continues: (16) “But this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (18) And on my men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.”

From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips.

It is quite common with pedo-baptist writers and speakers to make use of the expression, “I will pour out my Spirit,” to prove that pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by Dr. Alexander, as follows: “The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application.” That the apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, “This effusion is the very thing,” which they had “heard called a baptism.” If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour: otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was baptized.

The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably requires; for he says, “You shall be baptized.” These words express an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus explains the promise, “You shall be baptized in the Spirit,” by saying, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This is still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.

We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The term pour, here, is used metaphorically. In our vague conception of the nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and a subtle fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, is called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style of the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. The analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is not that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between a subtle fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit.

We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in question an immersion. When Jesus said, “John baptized in water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit,” his words suggested an analogy between John’s baptism and that of the Spirit. But they could not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that their bodies were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is forbidden by the very nature of the case. But they would naturally expect that their spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the Spirit, as their bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event corresponded to this expectation; for they were “filled with the Holy Spirit;” he pervaded and possessed all their mental powers, so that, as Jesus had promised, it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of their Father that spoke in them. Their spirits were as literally and completely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been in the waters of Jordan.

Acts 2:19-21. So much of Peter’s quotation from Joel as we have now considered was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speaking, and is of quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remaining portion: (19) “And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and illustrious day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to pass that every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time of Peter’s speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfillment of these words; hence the remark with which he introduces the quotation, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” is to be understood only of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The remainder of the prediction must have still looked to the future for its fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, expect that the events mentioned were to take place, “before that great and illustrious day of the Lord.” This day of the Lord is certainly spoken of as a day of terror and danger; and no doubt the salvation contemplated in the words, “every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” is salvation from the dangers of “that great and illustrious day.” The interpretation of the whole passage, therefore, depends upon determining what is meant by that day. Is it the day of destruction of Jerusalem, or of the final judgment? The best way to settle this question is to examine the use of the phrase, “day of the Lord,” in both Old Testament and New.

In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of Joel, the phrase “day of the Lord” occurs three times, and designates a time when the land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But with the passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the same chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks of some other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies of Joel, and of all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used invariably to designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in which Babylon was to be destroyed, “the day of the Lord,” and says of it, “The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Ezekiel, in like manner, foretelling the desolation of Egypt, says, “The day of the Lord is near; a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.” Obadiah uses the same phrase in reference to the destruction of Edom; Amos, in reference to the captivity of Israel; and Zechariah, in reference to the final siege of Jerusalem. And induction of these passages establishes the conclusion that “the day of the Lord,” with the prophets, is always a day of calamity, the precise nature of which is to be determined in each case by the context. In some cases the context is so obscure as not to determine the reference with certainty. The text before us possesses some of this obscurity, yet with the aid of the above remarks, and the use made of the passage by Peter, we may determine the reference with no small degree of certainty.

It is evident from Peter’s application of the first part of the quotation to the the advent of the Spirit, that the latter part, which is contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene then transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there would be good ground to suppose that reference was had to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the prophesy are “all flesh;” therefore, all classes of men are embraced in the prophetic view, and the “day of the Lord” must, according to Old Testament usage, be a day of terror in which all are interested. But in the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews alone had any thing to dread; hence this can not be the reference. It must, then, be the day of judgment; for this is the only day of pre-eminent terror yet awaiting all mankind.

This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New Testament writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground indeed for the prominence that has been given to commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. There was another and far different day, in their future, to which they gave the appellation, “the day of the Lord.” Paul says, “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.“ “We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.“ “Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.” “But the day of the Lord will comes as a thief in the night.” These are all the occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, and they show conclusively that “the day of the Lord,” with the apostles, was the day of judgment.

The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the “signs and wonders” mentioned by the prophet; for these are to occur before that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic meaning of the “blood and fire, and smoky vapor,” and the darkening of the sun and moon, they represent events which are to take place before the day of judgment.

Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we can at once decide what salvation is contemplated in the declaration, “Everyone who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The only salvation connected with the day of judgment is the salvation from sin and death. The reference, therefore, is to this, and not to salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem.

This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the Lord, an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable prayer which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of that disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Certainly no one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting in disobedience can be included in this promise.

Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates. This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single word by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argument. The amazement of the people, upon beholding the miraculous scene, was a tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account for it. They were well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter’s explanation. But if even he had attributed the effects which they witnessed to any less than divine power, they must have rejected his explanation as unsatisfactory. The question with them, indeed, was not, whether this was a divine or human manifestation, but, admitting its divinity, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” When, therefore, Peter simply declares, that this is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God, they had no alternative but to receive his explanation, while the fact that it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave to it additional solemnity.

If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude would have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one of them would have been converted. All this has yet been said and done is preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. We are yet to search for the exact influence which turned their minds and hearts toward Jesus Christ.

Acts 2:22-24. It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon the minds so wrought up and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next made by Peter. (22) “Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know; (23) him, delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; (24) whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held under it.” Filled with amazement, as they were already, by a visible and audible manifestation of the Spirit of God, they now see that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is subservient to the name of the Nazarene whom they had despised and crucified. This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence so replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath they have just heard no less than seven startling propositions: 1st. That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders and signs which God had done by him. 2d. That they, themselves, knew this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to death, by the torture of crucifixion. 5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 6th. That God had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it was not possible that death should hold him.

Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into one short sentence. The name “Jesus of Nazareth” brought vividly before their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious history flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning him is an appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was from God. There is no need of argument to make this demonstration clear; nor of evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; for they were done “in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” The fearfulness of the murder is magnified by the thought, that he had been voluntarily delivered to them, in accordance with a deliberate purpose of God long ago declared by the prophets. The manner of his death makes it more fearful still. They had nailed him to the cross, and compelled him to die like a felon. These things being so, how penetrating the appeal to their consciences, “with wicked hands you have crucified and slain him!” This was no time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and what he does by another. The “wicked hands” are not, as some suppose, the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual work of his execution, but the hands of wicked Jews. Here, before him, were the very persons who had been assembled but fifty days before at the Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of that awful day. He appeals to their individual consciousness of guilt; and this gives an intensity to the effect of his discourse upon their hearts, which it could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious of fearful guilt in having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant of God; and suddenly revealed to themselves as actors in the darkest scene of prophetic vision, how shall they endure the additional thought, that God has raised the crucified from the dead? Never did mortal lips pronounce, in so brief a space, so many thoughts of so terrific import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the speeches of all her orators, or the songs of all her poets. There is not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the burdens of all the prophets of Israel, nor among the mighty voices which echo through the pages of the Apocalypse. It is the first announcement to the world of a risen and glorified Redeemer.

Acts 2:25-28. There are two points in this announcement which required proof, and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. Having stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined purpose of God, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David in the 16th Psalm. (25) “For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh shall rest in hope; (27) because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (28) Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance.” Only so much of this quotation as refers to the resurrection suits the special purpose of the speaker, the preceding portion serving only to connectedly introduce it.

The words, “Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life,” constitute the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had been negatively expressed, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption” The words “Thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance,” no doubt refer to that joy set before Jesus, for which “he endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,” there is no distinction intended between the condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the whole is merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me among the dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion advanced, but not defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does intend to fix our attention upon the body and soul of Jesus separately. The most obvious reason for this opinion is the fact that his body and soul are spoken of separately, and with separate reference to their respective places of abode during the period of death. The soul cannot see corruption, neither can the body go into hades; but when men die, ordinarily, their bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, not the grave, but hades. The words in question declare, in reference to both the body and soul of Jesus, that which must have occurred in his resurrection, that the one was not left in hades, neither did the other see corruption. The apostle, in commenting upon them, makes the distinction still more marked, by saying, (verse 31, below), “He spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in hades, nor his flesh see corruption.” Why do both the prophet and the apostle so carefully make the distinction, unless they wish to fix attention upon it?

The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, as its etymology indicates, (a, privative; idein, to see) the unseen. The Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched a friend sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the motion of the frame and the light of the eye, the continued presence of the soul, until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the eye fixed and leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had been deposited in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. But where is the soul? You see it no longer. There are no signs of its presence. It is gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the unseen. That the soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That it returned again to the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter; and it is this return which was predicted by the prophet, and which caused the exultation both of himself and the apostle.

The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the resurrection of their own bodies. As long as men entertain the idea that their spirits enter into final bliss and glory immediately after death, they can never be made to regard the resurrection of the body as a matter of importance. This idea has been produced a general skepticism among the masses, in reference to a resurrection of the body; for men are very apt to doubt the certainty of future events for which they see no necessity. As respects the resurrection of the body of Jesus, the most popular conception of its necessity is no doubt this, that it was merely to comply with the predictions of the prophets and of Jesus himself. It would be far more rational to suppose that it was made a subject of prophesy, because there was some grand necessity that it should occur.

It would occupy too much space, in a work of this kind, to fully develop this subject, we must, therefore, content ourselves with only a few observations, the complete vindication of the correctness of which we must forego.

When the eternal Word became flesh, he assumed all the limitations and dependencies which belong to men; “for it behooved him to be made in all things like his brethren.” One of these limitations was the inability to work without a body; hence, to him, as well as to his brethren, there was a night coming in which he could not work. He says, “I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; the night is coming when no man can work.” This night cannot be the period after the resurrection, for then he did work. It must, then, be the period of death, while his soul was absent from his body. During this period, he himself asserts, he could do no work, and certainly neither history nor prophesy refer to any work which he then did. It was the Jewish Sabbath among the living, and he observed it with absolute stillness in hades. If he had appeared to his disciples, as angels appear to men, convincing them that he was still alive, and could then have gone to heaven in his mere spiritual nature, who could say there was any necessity for a resurrection of that body in which all his sufferings were endured, and through which all temptations had reached him? But he could not be. Hades was to him a night of inactivity, as it is to all his disciples, though to neither is it a state of unconsciousness. If it had continued forever, then the further work of redemption, which could only be effected by a mediator in heaven, a Christ on the throne, sending down the Holy Spirit, directing the labors of men and angels, and finally raising the dead to judgment, would have remained undone forever. It was this thought which caused the exultation of the apostles, in view of the recovery of his soul from the inactivity of hades, and its reunion with the uncorrupted and now incorruptible body. “He was delivered for our offenses,” but “was raised again for our justification.” His death was the atonement, enabling God to be just in justifying those who believe on Jesus; but his resurrection enabled him to enter heaven with his own blood, securing eternal redemption for us. The resurrection was, therefore, an imperious necessity in his case, and it will be in ours; for not till he comes again will we enter the mansions he is preparing for us, and receive the crown of righteousness which he will give to all them, who love his appearing.

Acts 2:29-31. Having exhibited, in the quotation from David, “the determined purpose, and foreknowledge of God,” in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, the apostle, never overlooking the logical necessities of his argument, next considers the only objection which his hearers would likely to urge against his prophetic proof. In the words quoted, David speaks in the first person, and this might lead some to object, that he was speaking of himself, and not of the Messiah. If, however, it be proved that he did not speak of himself, they would readily admit that he spoke in the name of the Christ. Peter proves this, in these words: (29) “Brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us to this day. (30) Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God had sworn to him, that from the fruit of his loins he would raise up the Christ, according to the flesh, to sit on his throne; (31) foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.” David’s own flesh having seen corruption, as they themselves admitted, and his soul being still in hades, there was no alternative but to admit that he spoke of the Messiah. This brief argument not only refuted the supposed objection, but opened the minds of his hearers, to an entirely new conception of the prophetic throne of David, and of the Messiah, who was to occupy it; showing, that instead of being the ruler of an earthly kingdom, however, glorious, he was to sit upon the throne of the whole universe.

Acts 2:32-33. Thus far in his argument, the speaker has proved that the Messiah must rise from the dead to ascend his throne; but he has yet to prove that Jesus was thus raised, and was, therefore, the Messiah of whom David had spoken. He proves the resurrection by the testimony of himself and the eleven other witnesses standing with him: (32) “This Jesus has God raised up, of which we are all witnesses.” Here the twelve unimpeached witnesses testifying to a sensible fact, and presenting their testimony with all the authority belonging to miraculously attested messengers from God. This was sufficient, as to the resurrection. But it must also be proved that after he arose he ascended to heaven and sat down upon his throne. It would be unavailing, for this purpose, to urge the fact that the twelve had seen him ascend; for their eyes had followed him no further than the cloud which received him out of sight. But he presents, in proof, this immersion in the Holy Spirit, which the multitude were witnessing, and which could be effected by no one beneath the throne of God. (33) “Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” What they then saw and heard was both the proof that he who sent it down had ascended the throne of heaven, and the assurance that Peter spoke by divine authority in declaring this fact.

Acts 2:34-35. One more point established, not so much in proof of the exaltation of Christ, as to show that it also was a subject of prophesy, and this inimitable argument will be complete. (34) “For David has not ascended into the heavens, but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, (35) until I make thy foes thy footstool.” The Pharisees themselves admitted that in this passage David referred to the Messiah, and had been much puzzled by the admission in a memorable conversation with Jesus; but Peter, unwilling to take any thing as granted, which might afterward be made a ground of objection, carefully guards the application, as he had done that of the previous quotation by David, by the remark that David himself had not ascended to heaven; hence, he could not, in these words, be speaking of himself. This admitted, it must be granted that he spoke of the Messiah, for certainly David would call no other his Lord.

Acts 2:36. The progressive advances of his argument being now complete, those of them which needed proof being sustained by conclusive evidence, and the remainder consisting in facts well known to his audience, he announces his final conclusion in these bold and confident terms: (36) “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ.“

Acts 2:37. It has already been observed, that up to the moment in which Peter arose to address the audience, although the immersion in the Holy Spirit had occurred, and its effects had been fully witnessed by the people, no change had taken place in their minds in reference to Jesus Christ, neither did they experience any emotion, except confusion and amazement at a phenomenon which they could not comprehend. This fact proves, conclusively, that there was no power in the miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, which they witnesses, in itself alone, to produce in them the desired change. All the power which belonged to this event must have come short of the desired effect, but for a medium distinct from itself, through which it reached the minds and hearts of the people. The medium was the words of Peter. He spoke; and when he had announced the conclusion of his argument, Luke says: (37) “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” In this exclamation there is a manifest confession that they believe what Peter has preached to them; and Luke’s declaration that they were pierced to the heart shows that they felt intensely the power of the facts which they now believed. Since Peter began to speak, therefore, a change has taken place both in their convictions and their feelings. They are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and they are pierced to the heart with anguish at the thought of having murdered him. In the meantime, not a word is said of any influence at work upon them, except that of the words spoken by Peter; hence we conclude that the change in their minds and hearts has been effected through those words. This conclusion was also drawn by Luke himself; for in saying, “when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and cried out,” he evidently attributes their emotion and their outcry to what they heard, as the cause of both.

If Luke had regarded the change effected as one which could be produced only by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, he could not have expressed himself in these words, for his language not only entirely ignores such an influence, but attributes the effect to a different instrumentality. We understand him, therefore, to teach that the whole change thus far effected in these men was produced through the word of truth which they heard from Peter.

Let it be observed, however, that what they had heard concerning Christ, they had heard not as the words of the mere man Peter; for, previous to introducing the name of Jesus, he had clearly demonstrated the inspiration of himself and the other apostles. This being established beyond the possibility of rational doubt, from the moment that he began to speak of Jesus they were listening to him as an inspired man. But the Jews had long since learned to ascribe to the words of inspired men all the authority of the Spirit who spoke through them; hence this audience realized that all the power to convince and to move, that the authority of God himself could impart to words, belonged to the words of Peter. If they could believe God, they must believe the oracles of God which find utterance through Peter’s lips. They do believe, and they believe because the words they hear are recognized as the words of God. Faith, then, comes by hearing the word of God; and he who hears the admitted word of God, must believe, or deny that God speaks the truth. This is true, whether the word is heard from the lips of the inspired men who originally gave it utterance, or is received through other authentic channels. The power by which the word of God produces faith is all derived from the fact that it is the word of God.

No words, whether of men or of God, can effect moral changes in the feelings of the hearer, unless they are believed; nor can they when believed, unless they announce truths or facts calculated to produce such change. In the present instance, the facts announced placed the hearers in the awful attitude of the murderers of the Son of God, who was now not only alive again, but seated on the throne of God, with all power in his hands, both on earth and in heaven. The belief of these facts necessarily filled them with the most intense realization of guilt, and the most fearful anticipation of punishment. The former of these emotions is expressed by the words of Luke, “They were pierced to the heart;” the latter, in their own words, “Brethren, what shall we do?” They had just heard Peter, in the language of Joel, speak of a possible salvation; and the question, What shall we do? unquestionably means, What shall we do to be saved?

38. This is the first time, under the reign of Jesus Christ, that this most important of all questions was ever propounded; and the first time, of course, that it was every answered. Whatever may have been the true answer under any previous dispensation, or on any previous day in the world’s history, the answer given by Peter on this day of Pentecost, in which the reign of Christ on earth began, is the true and infallible answer for all the subjects of his authority in all subsequent time. It deserves our most profound attention; for it announces the conditions of pardon for all men who may be found in the same state of mind with these inquiries. It is expressed as follows: (38) “Then Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

That the offer of pardon, made to the world through Jesus Christ, is conditional, is denied only by the fatalist. We will not argue this point, expect as it is involved in the inquiry as to what the conditions of pardon are. When we ascertain the prescribed conditions of pardon, both questions will be settled in settling one.

Pardon is the chief want of the human soul, in its most favorable earthly circumstances. The rebel against God’s government, though he lay down his arms and becomes a loyal subject, can have no hope of happiness without pardon for the past; while the pardoned penitent, humbly struggling in the service of God, knows himself still guilty of shortcomings, by which he must fail of the final reward, unless pardoned again and again. The question as to what are the conditions of pardon, therefore, necessarily divides itself into two; one having reference to the hitherto-unpardoned sinner, the other to the saint who may have fallen into sin. It is the former class who propounded the question to Peter, and it is to them alone that the answer under consideration was given. We will confine ourselves, in our present remarks, to this branch of the subject, and discuss it only in the light of the passage before us.

If we regard the question of the multitude, What shall we do? as simply a question of duty under their peculiar circumstances, without special reference to final results, we learn from the answer that there were two things for them to do—Repent, and be immersed. If Peter had stopped with these two words, his answer would have been satisfactory, in this view of the subject, and it would have been the conclusion of the world, that the duty of a sinner, “pierced to the heart” by a sense of guilt, is to repent and be immersed.

But if we regard their question as having definite reference to the salvation of which Peter had already spoken, (verse 21,) and their meaning, What shall we do to be saved? then the answer is equally definite: it teaches that what a sinner thus affected is to do to be saved, is to repent and be immersed.

From these two observations, the reader perceives, that so far as the conditions of salvation from past sins are concerned, the duty of the sinner is most definitely taught by the first two words of the answer, taken in connection with their question, without entering upon the controversy concerning the remainder of the answer. If it had been Peter’s design merely to give an answer in concise terms, without explanation, no doubt he would have confined it to these two words, for they contain the only commands which he gives.

But he saw fit to accompany the two commands with suitable explanations. He qualifies the command to be immersed by the clause, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” to show that it is under his authority that they were to be immersed, and not merely under that of the Father, whose authority alone was recognized in John’s immersion. That we are right in referring to this limiting clause, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” to the command to be immersed, and not to the commf the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:1 tells us that the day of Pentecost has now arrived. Pentecost literally means fifty and was a day of offering the firstfruits, fifty days after the Passover (Leviticus 23:15). Pentecost is also called the Feast of Weeks or the Feast of Firstfruits in the Old Testament. Therefore, it has been 50 days since the crucifixion of Jesus and since the apostles were taught by Jesus for 40 days after His resurrection (Acts 1:3), we know the apostles have been waiting about a week for the coming of the Holy Spirit, which was promised by Jesus (Acts 1:4-8). Pentecost was a celebration of thanks to God for His blessing the harvest. This information sets the scene for what is about to take place in Acts 2.and repent, is evident from the fact that it would be incongruous to say, “Repent in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Peter further explains the two commands, by stating their specific design; by which term we mean the specific blessing which was to be expected as the consequence of obedience. It is “for the remission of sins.” To convince an unbiased mind that this clause depends upon both the preceding commands, and express their design, it would only be necessary to repeat the words, “Repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” But, inasmuch as it has suited the purpose of some controversialists to dispute this proposition, we here give the opinions of two recent representative commentators, who can not be suspected of undue bias in its favor.

Dr. Alexander (Presbyterian) says, “The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer.” Again: “The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins.”

Dr. Hackett (Baptist) expresses himself still more satisfactorily: “eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matthew 26:28 Luke 3:3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.”

The connection contended for can not be made more apparent by argument; it needs only that attention be called to it, in order to be perceived by every unbiased mind. It is possible that some doubt might arise in reference to the connection of the clause with the term repent, but one would imagine that its connection with the command be immersed could not be doubted, but for the fact that it has been disputed. Indeed, some controversialists have felt so great necessity for denying the last-named connection, as to assume that the clause, “for the remission of sins” depends largely upon the term repent, and that the connection of thought is this: “Repent for the remission of sins, and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ.” It is a sufficient refutation of this assumption to remark, that, if Peter had intended to say this, he would most certainly have done so; but he has said something entirely different; and this shows that he meant something entirely different. If men are permitted, after this style, to entirely reconstruct the sentences of inspired apostles, then there is no statement in the Word of God which may not be perverted. We dismiss this baseless assumption with the remark, that it has not been dignified by the indorsement of any writer of respectable attainments, known to the author, and it would not be noticed here, but for the frequency of its appearance in the pulpit, in the columns of denominational newspapers, and on the pages of partisan tracts.

The dependence of the clause, “for the remission of sins,” upon both the verbs repent and be immersed, being established, it would seem undeniable that remission of sins is the blessing in order to the enjoyment of which they were commanded to repent and be immersed. This is universally admitted so far as the term repent is concerned, but by many denied in reference to the command be immersed; hence the proposition that immersion is for the remission of sins is rejected by the Protestant sects in general. Assuming that remission of sins precedes immersion, and that, so far as adults are concerned, the only proper subjects for this ordinance are those whose sins are already pardoned, it is urged that for in this clause means “on account of” or “because of.” Hence, Peter is understood to command, “Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed.” But this interpretation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st. To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not only to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no sane man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a theory which could not be otherwise sustained.

We observe, further, in reference to this interpretation, that even if we admit the propriety of supplanting the preposition for by the phrase on account of, the substitute will not answer the purpose for which it is employed. The meaning of this phrase varies, according as its object is past or future. “On account of” some past event may mean because it has taken place; but on account of an event yet in the future, would, in the same connection, mean in order that it might take place. The same is true of the equivalent phrase, “because of.” If, then, the parties addressed by Peter were already pardoned, “on account of the remission of sins” would mean, because their sins had been remitted. But as this is an indisputable fact that the parties addressed were yet unpardoned, what they are commanded to do on account of remission of sins must mean, in order that their sins may be remitted. Such a rendering, therefore, would not even render the obvious meaning of the passage less perspicuous than it already is.

It will be found that any other substitute for the preposition for, designed to force upon the passage a meaning different from that which it obviously bears, will as signally fail to suit the purpose of its author. If, with Dr. Alexander, we render, Repent and be immersed “to (or toward) remission of sins,” we still have remission both beyond repentance and immersion, and depending upon them as preparatory conditions. Indeed, this rendering would leave it uncertain whether repentance and immersion would bring them to remission of sins, or only toward it, leaving an indefinite space yet to pass before obtaining it.

If, with others still—for every effort that ingenuity could suggest has been made to find another meaning for this passage—we render it, Repent and be immersed unto or into remission of sins, the attempt is fruitless; for remission of sins is still the blessing unto which or into which repentance and immersion are to lead the inquirers.

Sometimes the advocates of these various renderings, when disheartened by the failure of their attempts at argument and criticism, resort to raillery, and assert that the whole doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins depends upon the one little word for in the command, “be immersed for the remission of sins.” If this were true, it would be no humiliation; for a doctrine based upon a word of God, however small, has an eternal and immutable foundation. But it is not true. On the contrary, you may draw a pencil-mark over the whole clause, “for the remission of sins,” erasing it, with all the remainder of Peter’s answer, and still the meaning will remain unchanged. The connection would then read thus: “Brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Remembering now that these parties were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and that their question means, What shall we do to be saved from out sins? the answer must be understood as the answer to that question. But the answer is, Repent and be immersed; therefore, to repent and to be immersed are the two things which they must do in order to be saved from their sins.

The reader now perceives, that, in this first announcement to sinners of the terms of pardon, so guardedly has Peter expressed himself, and so skillfully has Luke interwoven with his words the historic facts, that whatever rendering men have forced upon the leading term, the meaning of the whole remains unchanged; and even when you strike this term and its dependent words out of the text, that same meaning still stares you in the face. The fact is suggestive of more than human wisdom. It reminds us that Peter spoke, and Luke wrote, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That infinite wisdom which was dictating a record for all time to come is displayed here, providing for future controversies which no human being could anticipate. Like the sun in the heavens, which may be temporarily obscured by clouds, but will still break forth again, and shine upon all but those who hide from his beams, the light of truth which God has suspended in this passage may be dimmed for a moment by the mists of partisan criticism, but to those who are willing to see it, it will still send out its beams, and guide the trembling sinner unerringly to pardon and peace.

If there were any real ground for doubt as to the proper translation and real meaning of the words eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins, when connected with the term immersion, a candid inquirer would resort to its usage when disconnected from this term, and seek thus to determine its exact import. It happens to occur only once in connection suitable to this purpose, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. When instituting the supper, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins,” eis aphesin hamartion. It is impossible to doubt that the clause here means in order to the remission of sins. In this case it expresses the object for which something is to be done; in the passage we are discussing, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done: the grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same. Men are to repent and be immersed in order to the attainment of the same blessing for which the blood of Jesus was shed. The propitiation through his blood was in order to the offer of pardon, while repentance and immersion are enjoined by Peter upon his hearers, in order to the attainment of pardon.

The careful reader will have observed that in stating the conditions of remission of sins to the multitude, Peter says nothing about the necessity of faith. This omission is not sufficiently accounted for by the fact that faith is implied in the command to repent and be immersed; for the parties now addressed were listening to the terms for the first time, and might fail to perceive this implication. But the fact is, that they did already believe, and it was a result of their faith, that they were pierced to the heart, and made to cry out, What shall we do? This Peter perceived, and therefore it would have been but little less than mockery to command them to believe. It will be observed, throughout the course of apostolic preaching, that they never commanded men to do what they had already done, but took them as they found them, and enjoined upon them only that which they yet lacked of complete obedience. In the case before us, Peter was not laying down a complete formula for the conditions of pardon; but was simply informing the parties before him what they must do in order to the remission of their sins. Being believers already, they must add to their faith repentance and immersion.

Before dismissing this topic, we must remark that the doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins does not assume that immersion is the only condition of remission, but simply that, it is one among three conditions, and the last of the three. Administered previous to faith and repentance, as in the case of infants, it is not only absolutely worthless, but intensely sinful.

The exact meaning of the term repent will be considered below, under iii. 19.

After commanding the inquirers to repent and be immersed for the remission of sins, Peter adds the promise, “and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The gift of the Holy Spirit should not be confounded with the Holy Spirit’s gifts, nor with the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit are religious traits of character, and they result from the gift of the Holy Spirit. The latter expression means, the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is analogous to the expression, “promise of the Holy Spirit” in verse 33, above, where Peter says, “having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” The gifts of the Holy Spirit were various miraculous powers, intellectual and physical. These were conferred only upon a few individuals, while the gift of the Spirit is promised to all who repent and are immersed.

Acts 2:39. Peter does not limit the promise of the Holy Spirit to his present audience; but adds, (39) “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” That we are right in referring the word promise, in this sentence, to the promise of the Holy Spirit just made by Peter, is evident from the fact that this is the only promise made in the immediate context.

Some pedobaptist commentators have affected to find in the words, “The promise is to you and your children,” a show of authority for infant membership in the Church of Christ. But Mr. Barnes, though of that school himself, has the candor to say of this expression, “It does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to infants. It is a promise, indeed, to parents, that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity.” That this is the true conception of the apostle’s meaning is demonstrated by the fact that the promise in question is based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, with which infants could not possibly comply.

The extension of this promise “to all who are afar off,” is not to be limited to all the Jews who were afar off; but it is properly qualified by the additional words, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” It included, therefore, every individual who should, at any future time, be a subject of the gospel call, and guarantees to us, of the present generation, the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the same terms on which it was offered to Peter’s hearers on the day of Pentecost.

Acts 2:40. The historian had now concluded his report of Peter’s discourse, but informs us that he has given only an epitome of it. (40) “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” The term testify refers to the argumentative portion of his discourse; and the term exhort to the horatory portion. The latter naturally and logically followed his statement of the conditions of pardon, and the substance of it is compressed by Luke into the words, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” The command to save themselves must sound quite strange in the ears of such modern theorists as affirm that men have no ability to do, or say, or think anything tending to their own salvation. But this only shows how far they have departed from apostolic speech and thought. Peter had proposed conditions of pardon which they could comply with, and now their salvation depended upon their compliance with these conditions. When they complied with them, they saved themselves. To be saved from that untoward generation was not, as the conceit of Universalists would have it, to escape the siege of Jerusalem; for the great mass of them escaped that, by dying a natural death before it took place. It was to escape the fate which the mass of that generation were destined to meet in eternity, on account of their sins. We will more fully discuss the exact import of their term saved in this and similar connections under verse 47, below.

Acts 2:41. The multitude, who had been so pierced to the heart by Peter’s discourse, as to cry out, “Brethren, what shall we do?” were happily surprised to find the terms of pardon so easy. (41) “Then they gladly received his word, and were immersed; and the same day there were added about three thousand souls.” The pronoun they identifies the parties immersed with those who had cried out, What shall we do? It shows that they promptly complied with the command which Peter had given them. The word which they gladly received can not be the main part of Peter’s speech, for this had pierced them to the heart; but it is the word of his answer, which gave their feelings great relief by opening to them so easy a method of escape from the doom which they dreaded, and which they so richly deserved.

Times without number the objection has been urged, and as often refuted, that three thousand men could not have been immersed in so short a time, and with the inadequate supply of water afforded in Jerusalem. As to the quantity of available water, Dr. J. T. Barclay, in his work entitled “The City of the Great King,” written during a residence of three years and a half in Jerusalem, as a missionary, shows that Jerusalem was anciently better supplied with water than any other city known to history not permeated by living streams. Even to the present day, though most of the public reservoirs are now dry, such as the supposed pool of Bethesda, 365 feet long by 131 in breadth, and the lower pool of Gihon, 600 long by 260 in breadth, there are still in existence bodies of water, such as the pool of Siloam, and the pool of Hezekiah, affording most ample facilities for immersing any number of persons.

As to the want of time for the immersion of so many, any one who will make the mathematical calculation, without which it is folly to offer the objection, will find that there was the greatest abundance of time. Allowing that Peter’s speech commenced at nine o’clock, as he himself states in verse 15, and that the exercises at the temple closed at noon, we have left six hours till sunset. To immerse sixty men in an hour would be very deliberate work for one administrator. But there were twelve administrators, hence, each hour there were not less than seven hundred and twenty persons immersed. At this rate, in less than four and one-fourth hours the whole multitude would be immersed, leaving the sun nearly two hours high when the last candidate emerged from the water. In view of this simple calculation, which a child could make, it is truly astonishing that so many grave critics and preachers should urge this objection. It strikingly illustrates the blinding effects of partisan zeal.

Now that the three thousand are added to the Church, we may glance back over the history of the day, and learn upon what preparation they were received to the fellowship of the disciples. To accomplish this, we must first consider their state of mind before Peter spoke to them, and then observe the changes through which they passed. Being Jews, then, they were already believers in the true God, and in the inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures. Luke declares, also, that they were “devout men.” They were, however, unbelievers in reference to Jesus Christ, and they were guilty of participating in his crucifixion. At the moment that Peter arose to speak, they were full of amazement at witnessing the immersion of the twelve in the Holy Spirit, but their religious character remained unchanged. Peter speaks; and, at the conclusion of his argument, there is an evident change in their convictions. But they believe now nothing additional to what they did at first, except what Peter has proved to them. He has attempted to prove, however, only two propositions: first, That he and the eleven were inspired; second, That Jesus of Nazareth was now both Lord and Christ. The first, moreover, was established only as a means of proving the second. Several other subordinate facts were also proved for the same purpose, so that the whole speech is properly resolved into an attempt to prove the single proposition with which it concludes, that “God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” This, then, is what the three thousand believed, and this is all that distinguished their faith when immersed, from what it was before they heard the gospel from Peter’s lips.

But another change had occurred within them. Under the influence of their new faith, they were pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt. This is the “godly sorrow” which “works repentance,” and it prepared them to promptly obey Peter’s command, “Repent, and be immersed.” They repented, and were immersed. Their conversion, therefore, consisted in believing that Jesus is the Christ, repenting of their sins, and being immersed. This entitled them to membership in the Church, and so it does every human being who does likewise.

Acts 2:42. Having been immersed simply upon their faith in Jesus Christ, these young disciples had many subordinate objects of faith to become acquainted with, and many duties yet unknown, in which to be instructed. In giving an account of these matters, Luke is far more brief, adhering strictly to the chief purpose of his narrative, which is to give the process and means of conversion, rather than a history of the edification and instruction of the converted. He closes this section of the history with a brief notice of the order established in the new Church, first describing their order of worship. (42) “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching, and in fellowship, and in breaking the loaf, and in prayers.”

The apostles were as yet the only teachers of the Church, and in this work they were executing the second part of their commission, which required them to teach those whom they immersed all things that Jesus had commanded. The same command which made it their duty to teach, made it also the duty of the disciples to learn from them, and to abide by their instruction. This duty the first disciples faithfully complied with, though it has been grievously neglected by their brethren of later ages.

For the purpose of being taught by the apostles, they must have assembled together, and this was the occasion for manifesting their fellowship, which term expresses their common participation in religious privileges. It has been urged by some writers, that the term koinonia should here be rendered contribution, instead of fellowship, and that it refers to contributions which were regularly made in the public assemblies, for the poor. That the term is used in this limited sense in at least two places in the New Testament, must be admitted, viz.: in Romans 15:26, “It hath pleased them of Macedonia to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem;” and in 2 Corinthians 9:13, where Paul says the saints “glorify God for your liberal contribution to them and to all men.” But such is not, by any means, its common usage. It usually occurs in such connections as the following: “You were called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ.” “The favor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.” “And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” “We have fellowship with one another.”

The radical idea in this term is that of participation in common. We have fellowship with God, because we are made partakers of the divine nature, as we escape the corruption which is in the world through lust. We have fellowship with the Son, because of the common sympathies which his life and sufferings have established between himself and us; and with the Spirit, because we partake of the strengthening and enlightening influences of his teachings, and because he dwells in us. We have fellowship with one another, because of the mutual participation in each other’s affection and good offices. The term is also used in reference to the Lord’s supper. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?” We partake in common of the benefits of his broken body and shed blood, which are symbolized in the cup and the loaf.

From the meaning of the term, as thus exemplified, originates its use in the sense of contribution; for in the act of contributing to the necessities of others, we allow them to participate in the blessings which we enjoy. We are not authorized, however, by the rules of criticism, to give it this limited signification, except where the context clearly requires it. Seeing that Christians enjoy fellowship with so many sources of happiness, the term unrestricted must embrace them all. In the present instance the context imposes no limitation upon its meaning, and it would be quite arbitrary to restrict it to the sense of contribution. The use of the article before koinonia can not be pleaded as a ground for such restriction; for it only indicates the notoriety of that which the term designates. Still, the idea of contributing to the wants of poor brethren is involved in the fellowship of Christians, and by the statement that they continued steadfastly in the fellowship, we understand that they continued in the common participation of religious enjoyments, including contributions for the poor. Whether these contributions were made at every meeting or not, we are not informed; but they were certainly made when circumstances required.

Together with the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, Luke enumerates “breaking the loaf and prayers,” as part of the exercises in which the disciples continued. The frequency with which the loaf was broken is not intimated here. It will be discussed under Acts 20:7. This brief statement shows merely that this institution, according to the Savior’s command, was observed from the very beginning of the Church.

The prayers mentioned are those there were offered in public. The number of prayers offered on any occasion, or the order in which the prayers, the instruction, breaking the loaf, and the other acts of fellowship followed each other, is not intimated. Luke’s silence in reference to these particulars may have arisen from the fact that there was no invariable order of exercises; or may have been intended to prevent the order in the Jerusalem Church from being regarded as an authoritative precedent. It shows clearly the intention of the Holy Spirit that the assemblies of the saints should be left to the exercise of their own discretion in matters of this kind, and furnishes a most singular rebuke to the hundreds of party leaders who have since attempted to impose authoritative rituals upon the congregations. If the example of the Church in Jerusalem, in this respect, though its exercises were directed by the whole body of the apostles, was not binding upon other Churches, what body of uninspired men shall have the presumption to bind what God has purposely left free?

Acts 2:43. Next to this brief notice of the exercises of the Church, we have a glance at the effect of the scenes just described, upon the surrounding community. (43) “And fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.” This fear was not that which partakes of aversion, for we learn below, (47) that many were daily added to the Church; but it was that silent awe which miracles naturally inspired, mingled with respectful deference to a people of such holiness.

Rev 2:44, 45. We are next introduced to a striking instance of the fellowship previously mentioned. (44) “Now all who believed were together, and had all things common, (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, as any one had need.” This was not a community of goods, by which all were placed on a pecuniary level; for distribution was made only as any one had need. It was only such liberality to the poor as should characterize the congregations of the Lord in every age and country. Poor brethren must not be allowed to suffer for the necessaries of life, though it require us to divide with them the last loaf in our possession. “He who has this world’s goods and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?” We will, hereafter, see that the Church in Jerusalem was not the only one which engaged in this species of benevolence. This conduct was in marked contrast with the neglect of the poor which was then common among the Jews, even in violation of their own law, and which was universal among the Gentiles. Nothing of this kind had ever been seen on earth before. We will refer to the subject again, under iv. 32, below.

Acts 2:46-47. The further history of the Church, for a short time, is condensed into this brief statement: (46) “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, received their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added those saved every day to the Church.”

Whether the disciples continued to offer sacrifices or not—on which question see Acts 21:18-26—that they should “continue daily with one accord in the temple,” was most natural. The temple had been, to them and their fathers, for many generations, the house of God and the place of prayer. The apostles had been led to its sacred precincts by the Savior himself, and here it was that the Holy Spirit had come upon them. Their most holy associations were connected with it, and it would have been doing great violence to their feelings to require them at once to abandon it. This natural reverence for the place continued till its destruction by Titus; and even to this day, the hill where the temple once stood has a peculiarly sacred place in the hearts of Christians. The “breaking bread,” klontes arton, mentioned in this sentence, is not the “breaking of the loaf,” e klasis touartou of verse 42; but refers to common meals of which they partook “from house to house.” This is evident from the connection: “breaking bread from house to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of heart.” It was that breaking of bread in which they “received their food,” which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf. There is no evidence that the emblematic loaf was ever broken in mere social gatherings. It belongs exclusively to the Lord’s day.

By the expression “singleness of heart” is meant the concentration of their affections and desires upon a single subject. This devotion and concentration of thought could but result, as it did, in giving the disciples “favor with all the people,” and causing daily additions to the Church.

Those added to the Church daily were not “such as should be saved,” as rendered in the common version, but tous sozomenous, the saved. In what sense they were saved, is a question of some importance. Dr. Hackett says: “The doctrine is that those who embrace the gospel adopt the infallible means of being saved.” This is, undoubtedly, true doctrine; but it is not what is taught in the passage; for Luke speaks not of those who daily embraced the means of salvation, but of those who were saved. The view expressed by Alexander, that “men are said to be saved, not only in reference to the final consummation, but to the inception of the saving work,” is a nearer approach to the true conception, but still falls short of it. It is not an inception of the saving work, of which Luke speaks, but the salvation referred to is complete; the parties spoken of being called “the saved.” Both these learned commentators, by keeping their minds fixed upon a future state as offering the only fulfillment of the word “saved,” have failed to discover the exact sense in which it is here used by the historian. Primarily, the term save means simply to make safe. In the religious sense, it means to make safe from the consequences of sin. If men had never sinned, they could not be saved, seeing they would be already safe. But having sinned, they are saved when they are made safe from the consequences of their sins. This is done when their sins are forgiven. At the moment a penitent sinner obtains pardon, he is, so far as the past is concerned, completely saved. It is in this sense that the parties in this case added to the Church are called “the saved.” Paul uses the term in the same sense when he says of God, “According to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

The fact that the Lord added the saved, or pardoned, to the Church, justifies two conclusions: first, That men are entitled to membership in the Church the moment they are pardoned; second, That men should join the Church, not as a means of obtaining pardon, but because they have already obtained it. The former conclusion shows that it is unscriptural to admit, as some parties do, that certain persons are pardoned, and yet refuse them Church-fellowship. The latter condemns the practice observed by others, of received persons to membership “as a means of grace;” i. e., as a means of obtaining pardon.

A Look At Acts 2:37-38

For several generations God’s people have conducted debates with our denominational neighbors as to the meaning of the word “for” (Greek, eis) in Acts 2:38. Peter commanded on that occasion:

“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for [unto ASV] the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The English term “for” is very flexible; it may indicate a goal that is yet not reached, e.g., “Go to the pharmacy for [to obtain] medicine.” Or it may be used to refer to a circumstance that has transpired already, e.g., “He went to prison for [on account of] burglary.”

Because of this flexibility with reference to “for,” some have assumed that the Greek word eis has the same flexibility, and therefore baptism is not to obtain the forgiveness of one’s sins; rather, it is engaged because of pardon received already (presumably at the point of faith). There are several things to be said in response to this ploy.

English Is Not Greek

Just because the English “for” has some elasticity, and thus may point to a precedent circumstance, such does not mean that the Greek preposition eis has similar properties.

The Greek term eis is found about 1,750 times in the New Testament. While it has a variety of meaning shades, it always is prospective (forward looking), and is never retrospective (backward looking) in its direction.

It is “an indicator of direction toward a goal, not as an indicator of location without direction” (Balz, 398). The preposition is used with the accusative case, meaning it points to the object of verbal action. Thus eis generally is translated by such terms as in, into, unto, to, toward, etc. It is a goal-oriented term.

Theology and Grammar Matters

Theologically speaking, the construction of the compound verbs — “repent and be baptized” — connected with the prepositional phrase — “for the forgiveness of sins” — demonstrates that the sense of eis cannot possibly be “because of,” thus conveying the sense, “on account of the forgiveness of your sins." And why is that?

Because it would equally affirm that one is required to “repent” because of the forgiveness of his sins. Who in the world subscribes to the notion that one repents of sin because his transgressions are forgiven already? That makes no sense at all.

Comparative Passages Highlight the Truth

In Matthew 26:28 there is an identical construction of eis, conjoined with the terms “forgiveness of sins,” just as in Acts 2:38.

In the Matthew text, as he institutes the communion supper, Jesus said: “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.”

Even the renowned Baptist scholar, A. T. Robertson, who attempted to twist Acts 2:38 into conformity with his personal theological agenda, was forced to surrender his position when discussing Matthew 26:28. Of the controversial phrase he stated:

“The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins” (210; emphasis added).

In his massive Historical Grammar, Robertson suggested that sometimes “grammar” has to give way to “theology” (389). Is that any way to treat the verbally inspired word of God? Yet that is how Robertson sought to dispose of Acts 2:38. For shame!

The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. On the other hand, if baptism may be dismissed, repentance may be as well.

Since Protestants have already determined in their minds that baptism cannot be a requisite for salvation but that repentance is essential, this passage obviously “troubles” them.

Their challenge, therefore, is this: how may one divorce the obligation to “repent” from the command “be baptized” in this passage? The above-stated grammatical contortion, based upon the differing verbal “numbers,” is their solution.

However, the argument is futile. It is a fundamental form of grammatical construction that a group may be addressed with a general command; and then, as a matter of emphasis, a second injunction may be issued to each individual within the group—both commands being equally obligatory.

Here is an example of this construction we hear frequently: “All who are departing for San Francisco, approach gate three; each of you must have his ticket available for the agent.”

Let me follow up on this in a couple of ways. Several years ago I wrote a letter to F.W. Gingrich, co-translator, along with William Arndt, of the highly-respected Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. This is the most authoritative Greek lexicon extant in the English language. The letter, dated February 12, 1968, inquired as follows:

Dear Professor Gingrich: Is it grammatically possible that the phrase “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38, expresses the force of both verbs, “repent ye” and “be baptized each one of you,” even though these verbs differ in both person and number?

From Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania (February 21, 1968), Gingrich replied:

Yes. The difference between metanoesate [repent] and baptistheto [be baptized] is simply that in the first instance, the people are viewed together in the plural, while in the second the emphasis is on each individual.

No credence can be given to the sort of argument made by Mr. Slick. But, as indicated above, some religionists—particularly our Baptist neighbors—have argued this position for years. In reality, though, they’ve been notoriously inconsistent.

I have before me at this moment a copy of the Church Manual Designed For The Use Of Baptist Churches, by J.M. Pendleton. In a segment which addresses the “subjects” who are appropriate candidates for baptism, Pendleton was attempting to explain why baptism may not be administered in the case of infants. In a consideration of Acts 2:38, he wrote:

The gospel was preached, the people were pierced to the heart, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you.” No man will say that the command “Repent,” is applicable to infants, and it is certain the same persons [emphasis added here] were called on to repent and be baptized (1955, 84).

Pendleton’s concession completely devastates the argument of his Baptist colleagues.

But consider this additional statement from Mr. Slick, the director of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:

Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Timothy 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized.

A couple of observations must be made regarding this statement:

1. Repentance is a “gift” from God only in the sense that the Lord grants man the opportunity to repent (cf. Acts 11:18). That the sinner has the obligation to personally do the repenting is evidenced by the fact that he is commanded to discharge the responsibility (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19).

2. There is no biblical evidence whatever that “regeneration” is effected at the point of repentance. That is Mr. Slick’s unwarranted assertion. In the text under consideration, “forgiveness of sins” follows both repentance and immersion; it does not precede either of these commands. The gentleman is simply wrong about this matter.

Our friend’s desire to defend the integrity of the Scriptures in various areas of apologetics is commendable. However, his egregious perversion of the divine plan of salvation undermines an otherwise noble effort. We can only hope he will restudy his position on the plan of redemption.

The phrase “for the remission of sins” translates the Greek eis aphesin ton hamartion. The preposition eis points to a goal that is as yet unreached. Never, in any reputable translation, is this expression rendered “because of the remission of sins.”

Compare, for instance, the use of the phrase in Matthew 26:28.In that text, Jesus declared: “For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for [eis] the remission of sins.”

Now here is an appropriate question: Does it matter whether or not one believes that the Lord shed his blood “to obtain” remission of sins, or if he died “because of” pardon already effected? Is what one believes regarding the efficacious nature of Christ’s death important?

How can one possibly hold the viewpoint that opposite constructions are equally valid? Such is a wholly illogical position. How can one conscientiously ignore inspired grammatical forms that were designed to convey precise religious ideas?

Unfortunately, this is the extreme to which some appear to be driven in their irresponsible attempts to extend Christian fellowship across the borders of modern denominationalism.

Acts Chapter Three

By J.W. McGarvey

Acts 3:1-10. Thus far, the labors of the apostles had met with uninterrupted and most astonishing success. Luke is now about to introduce us to a series of conflicts, in which success and temporary defeat alternate in the history of the Jerusalem church.

(1) “Now Peter and John were going up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man, lame from his birth, was carried thither, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of those entering into the temple: (3) who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked alms. (4) And Peter, earnestly looking on him, with John, said, Look on us. (5) And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not; but what I have, this I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. (7) And seizing him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankles received strength; (8) and leaping forth, he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the people saw him walking and praising God, (10) and recognized him, that it was he who had sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.”

This is by no means the first miracle which had been wrought by the apostles since the day of Pentecost; for we have seen, in Acts 2:43, that many signs and wonders had been wrought, by which the people were filled with awe. But the circumstances attending this miracle were calculated to awaken, as it did, an unusual excitement. The Beautiful gate of the temple, so called because of its magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty feet wide, covered with gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple. The subject of this cure, being laid every day at this gate to beg, was well known to all who frequented the temple. From the natural curiosity of the benevolent in reference to the afflictions of those to whom they minister, it was probably known to all that he had been a cripple from his birth. Besides this, the time of the cure was when a multitude of pious people were entering the temple for evening prayer; and their attention was unexpectedly arrested by the leaping and shouting of the man who was healed. As they witnessed his ecstasy and saw him clinging to Peter and John, no one asked the meaning of the scene, for all saw at once that the cripple had been healed by the apostles, and they stood gazing in amazement upon Peter and John.

Acts 3:11-15. The apostles took a position in one of the open colonnades which faced the inner side of the temple wall, called Solomon’s Portico. (11) “And while the lame man who was healed was holding fast Peter and John, all the people ran together to them on the portico called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.” The admiration of the multitude was directed toward Peter and John; and was understood by Peter to indicate that they attributed the cure rather to the singular holiness of himself and John, than to the power of their master. He determined to take advantage of the circumstances, by turning their excited thoughts into the proper channel. (12) “Then Peter, seeing this, answered to the people, Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you look earnestly on us, as though by our own power or piety we have caused this man to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and rejected in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to let him go. (14) But you rejected the holy and just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; (15) and you killed the author of life, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.”

In this passage the apostle makes the same statement, in substance, with which he introduced the main theme of his former discourse. The antithetical style adopted on this occasion gave to it a force scarcely excelled by his former discourse, while it was even more penetrating to the consciences of his hearers. The fact that the God of their fathers had glorified Jesus, is contrasted with the fact that they had delivered him up to die; their refusal to let him be released, with the cruel Pilate’s determination to let him go; their rejection of one holy and just, with their demand that a murder should be released to them; and their murder of him, with his authorship of all life. These four points of antithesis form the four steps of a grand climax. Whom the God of our fathers glorified, you have delivered up to die. Your criminality is heightened by the fact, that when even a heathen judge declared him innocent, and desired to release him to you, you rejected him. Even this does not express the enormity of your guilt, for you yourselves knew him whom you rejected to be holy and just, and preferred the release of one whom you knew to be a murderer. But above all, in murdering him, you put to death the author of life, who has arisen from the dead. We might challenge the pages of all the classics for a climax more thrilling in its effect upon the audience, or for a happier combination of climax and antithesis. The effect upon the multitude was overwhelming. The facts declared were undeniable, except the resurrection, and of this the men who had just healed the cripple were the witnesses.

Acts 3:16. But Peter does not stop short with this climax, terminating in the resurrection from the dead. He proceeds to prove his present power and glory by the facts which were then filling them with amazement. (16) “And his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong, whom ye see and know. Even the faith which is through him, has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” In this verse, there is one of those repetitions common with extemporaneous speakers, and designed to express more guardedly a thought already uttered. Perhaps the formula employed by Peter in the act of healing, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk,” suggested to him the phraseology, “his name, through faith in his name, has made this man strong.” But lest the superstitious audience might imagine that there was some charm in the mere name of Jesus, a mistake which was afterwards made by certain Jews in Ephesus, he adds, “The faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness.” The faith was not that of the cripple; for it is clear, from the description, that he had no faith. When Peter said to him, “Look on us,” the man looked up, expecting to receive alms. And even when Peter told him, in the name of Jesus, to rise up and walk, he did not attempt to move till Peter “took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” He exhibited no faith, either in Jesus, or in Peter’s healing power, till after he found himself able to stand and walk. We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk upon water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, “Why could we not cast him out?” He replied, “Because of your unbelief.” In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only “the prayer of faith” which could heal the sick.

It must be here observed that faith was necessary to the exercise of spiritual gifts, already imparted, and that no faith, however strong, ever enabled the uninspired to work miracles. The notion, therefore, which has existed in some minds, from time to time, ever since the apostolic period, that if our faith were strong enough, we, too, could work miracles, has as little foundation in scripture as it has in experiment.

Acts 3:17-18. At this point in the discourse there is a marked change in Peter’s tone and manner, which we can attribute to nothing else than some visible indication of the intense pain produced by what he had already said. He had made a most terrific onslaught upon them, and exposed their criminality in unsparing terms; but now, induced by some perceptible change in their countenances, he softens his style, and extenuates their fault. (17) “And now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers. (18) But those things which God had before announced through the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath thus fulfilled.” That they acted in ignorance of the real character of Jesus was an extenuation of their crime, but it did not render them innocent; for the preceding remarks were intended to convict them of crime, and in his preceding discourse he charged that with wicked hands they had crucified and slain him. Peter assumes, what none of them could honestly deny, that it was by wicked motives they were impelled to the fatal deed.

In connection, with this assertion of their criminality, he states another fact hard to be reconciled with it in the philosophy of man, that, in the commission of this crime, God was fulfilling what he had declared through his prophets should be done. Once before, in speaking of this same event, Peter had brought these two apparently conflicting facts, the sovereignty of God, and the free agency of man, into juxtaposition, when he said, “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.” That God had predetermined the death of Jesus cannot be denied without contradicting both the prophets and the apostles; and that they acted wickedly in doing what God had determined should be done, Peter affirms, and three thousand of them on Pentecost, with many more on this occasion, admitted it. If any man can frame a theory by which to philosophically reconcile these two facts, we will assent to it, if we can understand it; but unless both facts, unaltered have a place in the theory, we must reject it. We reject every man who denies either of the facts; but while he admits them both, we will not dispute with him about the theory upon which he attempts to reconcile them. This much, fidelity to the word of God on the one hand, and brotherly kindness on the other hand, demand of us. In the meantime, it is better to follow Peter’s example. He lays the two facts side by side, appealing to the prophets for the proof of one, and to the consciences of men for the proof of the other, and there he leaves them, seeming not to realize that he had involved himself in the slightest difficulty. It is folly to attempt to climb where we are certain of a fall.

Acts 3:19-21. Having now fully demonstrated the Messiahship of Jesus, and exposed the criminality of those of who had condemned him, the apostle next presents to his hearers the conditions of pardon. (19) “Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, and that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, (20) and he may send Jesus Christ, who has before preached to you, (21) whom heaven must retain until the time of the restoration of all things which God has spoken, through the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began.”

Here, as in his former statement of the conditions of pardon, the apostle makes no mention of faith. But, having labored, from the beginning of his discourse, to convince his hearers, they necessarily understood that his command, based as it was, upon what he had said, implied the assumption that they believed it. A command based upon an argument, or upon testimony, always implies the sufficiency of the proof, and assume that the hearer is convinced. Moreover, Peter knew very well that none would repent at his command who did not believe what he had said; hence, in every view of the case, he proceeded, naturally and safely, in omitting mention of faith.

In the command, “Repent and turn,” the word “turn” expresses something to be done subsequent to repentance. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, unless we suppose that turn is equivalent to repent; but this is inadmissible, because there could be no propriety in adding the command turn, if what it means had been already expressed in the command repent. We may observe, that the term reform, which some critics would employ instead of repent, would involve the passage in a repetition not less objectionable. To reform and to turn to the Lord are equivalent expressions, hence it would be a useless repetition to command men, Reform, and turn.

In order to a proper understanding of this passage, it is necessary to determine the exact scriptural import of the term repent. The most popular conception of its meaning is “godly sorrow for sin.” But, according to Paul, “godly sorrow works repentance in order to salvation.” Instead of being identical with repentance, therefore, it is the immediate case which leads to repentance. Paul says to the Corinthians, in the same connection, “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance.” This remark shows that it is sorrow which brings men to repentance, is also implies that there may be sorrow for sin without repentance. That there is a distinction between these two states of mind, and that sorrow for sin may exist without repentance, is also implied in commanding those on Pentecost who were already pierced to the heart, to repent. It is also evident from the case of Judas, who experienced the most intense sorrow for sin, but was not brought to repentance. His feeling is expressed by a different term in the original, which is never used to express the change which the gospel requires, and is equivalent to regret, though sometimes, as in his case, it expresses the idea of remorse.

In thus tracing the distinction between “godly sorrow” and “repentance,” we have ascertained the fact that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and this must constitute one element in the definition of the term. Whatever it is, it is produced by sorrow for sin. Is it not, then, reformation? Reformation is certainly produced by sorrow for sin; but, as we have already observed, turning, which is equivalent to reforming, is distinguished, in the text before us, from repenting. The same distinction is elsewhere apparent. John the Immerser, in requiring the people to “bring forth fruits meet for repentance,” clearly distinguishes between repentance and those deeds of a reformed life which he styles fruits meet for repentance. With him, reformation is the fruit of repentance, not its equivalent. The distinction is that between fruit and the tree which bears it. When Jesus speaks of repenting seven times a day, he certainly means something different from reformation; for that would require more time. Likewise, when Peter required those on Pentecost to repent and be immersed, if by the term repent he had meant reform, he would certainly have given them time to reform before they were immersed, instead of immersing them immediately. Finally, the original term is sometimes used in connection with such prepositions as are not suitable to the idea of reformation. As a general rule it is followed by apo, or ek, which are suitable to either idea; but in 2 Corinthians 12:21, it is followed by epi with the dative: “Many have not repented, epi, of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed.” Now men do not reform of their evil deeds, neither will the preposition, in this case, bear a rendering which would suit the term reform. Reform, then, does not express the same idea as repent, but, as we have seen above, reformation is the fruit or result of repentance.

Seeing now that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and results in reformation, we can have no further difficulty in ascertaining exactly what it is; for the only result of sorrow for sin which leads to reformation, is a change of the will in reference to sin. The etymological meaning of metanoia is a change of mind; but the particular element of the mind which undergoes this change is the will. Strictly defined, therefore, repentance is a change of the will, produced by sorrow for sin, and leading to reformation. If the change of will is not produced by sorrow for sin, it is not repentance, in the religious sense, though it may be metanoia, in the classic sense. Thus, Esau “found no place for metanoias, a change of mind, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Here the word designates a change in the mind of Isaac in reference to the blessing which he had already given to Jacob; but this change did not depend upon sorrow for sin, hence it was not repentance, and should not be so translated. Again, if the change of will, though produced by sorrow for sin, is one which does not lead to reformation, it is not repentance; for there was a change in the will of Judas, produced by sorrow for sin, yet Judas did not repent. The change in his case led to suicide, not to reformation; it is, therefore, not expressed by metanoeo, but by metamelomai. Our definition, therefore, is complete, without redundancy.

We can now perceive, still more clearly than before, that in the command, “Repent and turn,” the terms repent, and turn, express two distinct changes, which take place in the order of the words. Their relative meaning is well expressed by Dr. Bloomfield, who says that the former denotes “a change of mind,” the latter “a change of conduct.” Mr. Barnes also well and truly remarks: “This expression (’be converted,’) conveys an idea not at all to be found in the original. It conveys the idea of passivity—BE converted, as if they were to yield to some foreign influence that they were now resisting. But the idea of being passive in this is not conveyed by the original word. The word properly means to turn—to return to a path from which one has gone astray; and then to turn away from sins, or to forsake them.” That turn, rather than be converted, is the correct rendering of the term, is not disputed by any competent authority; we shall assume, therefore, that it is correct, and proceed to inquire what Peter intended to designate by this term.

As already observed, it designates a change in the conduct. A change of conduct, however, must, from the very necessity of the case, have a beginning; and that beginning consists in the first act of the better life. The command to turn is obeyed when this first act is performed. Previous to that, the man has not turned; subsequent to it he has turned; and the act itself is the turning act. If, in turning to the Lord, any one of a number of actions might be the first that the penitent performed, the command to turn would not specially designate any of these, but might be obeyed by the performance of either. But the fact is that one single act was uniformly enjoined upon the penitent, as the first overt act of obedience to Christ, and that was to be immersed. This Peter’s present hearers understood. They had heard him say to parties like themselves, “Repent and be immersed;” and the first act they saw performed by those who signified their repentance, was to be immersed. When, now, he commands them to repent and turn, they could but understand that they were to turn as their predecessors had done, by being immersed. The commands turn, and be immersed, are equivalent, not because the words have the same meaning, but because the command, “Turn to the Lord” was uniformly obeyed by the specific act of being immersed. Previous to immersion, men repented, but did not turn; after immersion, they had turned, and immersion was the turning act.

We may reach the same conclusion by another course of reasoning. The command Turn occupies the same position between repentance and the remission of sins, in this discourse, that the command Be immersed had occupied in Peter’s former discourse. He then said, “Repent and be immersed for the remission of sins;” now he says, “Repent and turn that your sins may be blotted out.” Now, when his present hearers heard him command them to turn in order to the same blessing for which he had formerly commanded them to be immersed, they could but understand that the generic word turn was used with specific reference to immersion, and the the substitution is founded on the fact that a penitent sinner turns to God by being immersed.

This interpretation was first advanced, in modern times, by Alexander Campbell, about thirty years ago, and it excited against him then an opposition which still rages. The real ground of this opposition is not the interpretation itself, but a perversion of it. The word conversion being used in popular terminology in the sense of a change of heart, when Mr. Campbell announced that the word incorrectly rendered in this passage, be converted, means to turn to the Lord by immersion, the conclusion was seized by his opponents that he rejected all change of heart, and substituted immersion in its stead. He has reiterated, again and again, the sense in which he employed the term convert, and that the heart must be changed by faith and repentance previous to the conversion or turning here commanded by Peter; yet those who are determined upon doing him injustice still keep up the wicked and senseless clamor of thirty years ago. The odium theologicum, like the scent of musk, is not soon nor easily dissipated. There are always those to whose nostrils the odor is grateful.

There are several facts connected with the use of the original term, epistrepho, in the New Testament, worthy of notice. It occurs thirty-nine times, in eighteen of which it is used for the mere physical act of turning or returning. Nineteen times it expresses a change from evil to good, and twice from good to evil. The term convert, therefore, were retained as the rendering, a man could, in the scriptural sense, be converted to Satan as well as to God. But be converted can never truly represent the original, though it is so rendered six times in the common version. The original is invariably in the active voice, and it is making a false and pernicious impression on the English reader to render it by the passive voice. If we render it truthfully by the term convert, we would have such readings as these: “Repent and convert;” “lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and should convert, and I should heal them,” &c. In a correct version of the New Testament, the expression be converted could not possibly occur; for there is nothing in the original to justify it.

Not less worthy of observation is the fact, that while the change called conversion is popularly attributed to a divine power, as the only power capable of effecting it, and it is considered scarcely less than blasphemy to speak of a man converting another, or converting himself, yet the original word never does refer either to God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent. On the contrary, in five of its nineteen occurrences in the sense of a change from evil to good, it is employed of a human agent, as of John the Immerser, Paul, or some brother in the Church; and in the remaining fourteen instances, the agent is the person who is the subject of the change. Thus, men may be properly said to turn their fellows, yet the subjects of this act are never said to be turned, but to turn to the Lord. The term invariably expresses something that the sinner is to do. These observations show how immeasurably the term convert has departed, in popular usage, from the sense of the original which it so falsely represents, and how imperious the necessity for displacing it from our English Bibles. The word turn corresponds to the original in meaning, in usage, in inflections, and translates it unambiguously in every instance.

Peter commands his hearers to repent and turn, in order to three distinct objects: first, “That your sins may be blotted out;” second, “That seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;” third, “That he may send Jesus Christ who was before preached to you.” It is supposed, by the commentators generally, that the last two events are contemplated by Peter as cotemporaneous, so that the “seasons of refreshing” spoken of are those which will take place at the second coming of Christ. That there will be seasons of refreshing then, is true; but there are others more immediately dependent upon the obedience here enjoined by Peter, to which the reference is more natural. The pardon of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which were immediately consequent upon repentance and immersion, certainly bring “seasons of refreshing,” which might well be made the subject of promise to hearers supposed to be trembling with guilty apprehension. The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift of the Spirit did in the former discourse. Then, after repentance, immersion, and the remission of sins, came the promise of the Holy Spirit; now, after the same three, somewhat differently expressed—i. e., repentance, turning to the Lord, and blotting out of sins—comes the promise of “seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.” They are, then, the fresh and cheering enjoyments of him whose sins are forgiven, and who is taught to believe that the presence of the approving Spirit of God is with him.

The third promise, that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all who are his. It is qualified by the remark, “whom heaven must retain until the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” It is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in this connection. It is commonly referred to a state of primeval order, purity, and happiness, which, it is supposed, will exist just previous to the second coming of Christ. But the apostle speaks of a restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside those which refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction. Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to finally restore that moral saw which God originally exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the prophesies which are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again.

Acts 3:22-23. For the twofold purpose of giving confirmation to the claims of Jesus, and warning his hearers as to the consequences of rejecting him, the apostle next introduces a well-known prophesy of Moses. (22) “For Moses, indeed, said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up for you, from among your brethren, like me: him shall ye hear in all things, whatever he shall say to you. (23) And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” Whether Peter was right in applying this prophesy to Christ depends upon the likeness between him and Moses. This likeness may be traced in many subordinate incidents of his history, but lies chiefly in that which distinguishes both Moses and Christ from all other prophets. Moses as a deliverer of his people, and an original lawgiver. No prophet had been like him in these two particulars. The chief mission of the other prophets, so far as their cotemporaries were concerned, was to enforce the law of Moses. But Christ had now come, speaking by his our authority, offering a more glorious deliverance to the people than that from Egypt, and issuing new laws for the government of men. This proved that he, and he alone, was the prophet spoken of by Moses, and Peter’s hearers now perceive that the authority of Moses himself binds them to the authority of Jesus, and that they must hear him, on the penalty of destruction if they refuse.

Acts 3:24. Not content with bringing to bear the testimony of Moses, Peter adds to it the combined voices of all the prophets: (24) “And, indeed, all the prophets, from Samuel, and those following in order, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days.” This declaration is to be understood only of those prophets whose predictions are recorded in the Old Testament, for to those alone could Peter appeal in proof of his proposition. It was conceded by the Jews, that all the prophets had spoken of the days of the Messiah, and it was already proved, by Peter’s preceding remarks, that Jesus was the Messiah; hence the argument is now complete.

Acts 3:25-26. Having completed his argument, in which the Messiahship of Jesus was demonstrated by the miraculous cure they had witnessed, and by the testimony of all the prophets, from Moses and Samuel down to Malachi, Peter next makes a powerful appeal to his hearers, based upon their veneration for the fathers of their nation, and for the covenant which God had made with them. (25) “You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kingdoms of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, has sent him to bless you, in turning away each one of you from his iniquities.” This was a tender appeal to their national sympathies, made more effective by the statement that to them first because of their relation to the prophets and to Abraham, God had sent his risen Son to bless them, before visiting the rest of the world.

The use here made of the promise to Abraham shows the true interpretation of it. It is to be fulfilled, according to Peter, in turning living men away from their iniquities. Those only, therefore, who, under the influence of the gospel, turn away from their iniquities, can lay claim to the blessings contemplated in this promise. That all the kindreds of the earth were to be blessed does not affect this conclusion, except to extend its application to those of all nations who should, at any period of time, turn from their iniquities. The Universalian view of this promise is contradicted by all the apostolic comments upon it; for they all unite in denying the blessing to any but those who in this life believe and turn to the Lord.

Acts Chapter Four

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 4:1-3. Just at this point in Peter’s discourse: (1) “And while they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, (2) being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was already evening.” This sudden disturbance of the interested audience, by a body of armed men rushing through their midst and seizing Peter and John, is the beginning of a series of persecutions with which Luke is about to follow the account of the first peaceful triumphs of the apostles.

We would naturally, at first thought, expect to find the parties to this violent proceeding identical with the chief persecutors of Jesus, supposing that the same motives which had excited opposition to him would perpetuate it against his disciples. But the Pharisees were his most bitter enemies, the Sadducees being comparatively indifferent to his pretensions, while here we see the Sadducees leading the attack upon the apostles, and we will soon see the leader of the Pharisees interfering to save them from threatened death. In order to appreciate this unexpected change in the aspect of the parties, we must note a little more carefully the ground of opposition in each case.

The supposition sometimes entertained that Jesus was hated by men simply because there is in human nature an innate aversion to truth and holiness, is not less false to the facts of history than to the nature of fallen men. It is disproved by the fact that it was not the mass of his cotemporaries who hated him, as the supposition would require, but chiefly, and almost exclusively, the Pharisees. That portion of the people who were most depraved, according to external appearances, heard him gladly, and delighted to praise him, while the Pharisees, who were most of all noted for their piety, were the men who hated him most. Neither were they actuated simply by an aversion to his holiness; for they had a more substantial, if not a better reason for hating him. If he had been content merely to go about doing good, and teaching righteousness, “letting other people alone,” he might have passed his days in peace. But such was not his sense of duty. He knew that his teaching could not have proper effect unless the erroneous doctrines of the Pharisees, who were then the chief teachers of Israel, were dislodged from the public mind, and the mask of hypocrisy, which had secured them their great reputation for piety, were stripped off. He undertook, therefore, an offensive warfare upon their doctrinal tenets and their religious pretensions. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew contains an epitome of this warfare on his part, than which there is not a more withering philippic on record in all literature. Such denunciation necessarily provoked the most intense hatred on the part of such Pharisees as were too deeply imbued with the prevailing spirit of the party to be reached by the truth. By this very fact, however, they made it more evident to the people that they deserved all the denunciation which he hurled against them. On the other hand, the Sadducees were so well pleased with his successful assaults upon their hereditary and too powerful enemies, that they forgave, in some degree, his known opposition to their favorite doctrine, and felt for him some friendly sympathy.

With the apostles the relations of these parties were as naturally reversed. Instead of assaulting, in detail, the doctrinal tenets of any party, they confined their labors, at first, to testimony concerning the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. This confirmed the chief distinctive doctrine of the Pharisees, who believed in a resurrection, and it left their other tenets, for the time being, unnoticed. But the whole force of this preaching was leveled against Sadduceean infidelity in reference to the resurrection, and it therefore aroused this party to an activity never exhibited before. They rushed in and arrested Peter and John, “being indignant that they taught the people, and preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.” They were seconded in this violent movement by the priests who were at the time officiating in the temple, and who were either identified with the Sadducees, or were enraged because the apostles, in the very midst of the temple, were drawing away the people from waiting upon their services. The “captain of the temple,” with his guard, was doubtless subject to the orders of the chief of the officiating priests, and executed the arrest.

Acts 4:4. The audience who had been listening to Peter must have been thrown into intense excitement by the arrest, and the disciples among them, doubtless, expected to see re-enacted, in the persons of Peter and John, the murderous scenes which had terminated the life of their master. Notwithstanding this excitement, however, the words of Peter were not without a decided effect upon the hitherto unbelieving portion of his hearers; for Luke says: (4) “But many of those who were hearing the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand.” Whether this number includes the three thousand who were added on Pentecost or not, has been a matter of some dispute, but it is generally agreed by critics that it does. If those who believed on the present occasion were alone intended, the writer would have said the number en, was, instead of egenethe, became, about five thousand.

Acts 4:5-6. The prisoners having been arrested late in the afternoon, all further proceedings were adjourned till the next day, and Peter and John had the quiet of a night in prison for reflection and mutual encouragement ere they were brought to trial. (5) “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes, (6) and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together in Jerusalem.” This assembly was the great Jewish Sanhedrim, and the parties here named are the different officials who constituted that tribunal. Who John and Alexander were is not now known. Annas and Caiaphas are historical characters, conspicuous in the history of the trial of Jesus, and also prominent on the pages of Josephus. Between the latter and Luke there is an apparent discrepancy, in reference to their official position at this time, Luke calling Annas the high priest, and Josephus attributing that dignity to Caiaphas. According to Josephus, Valerius Gratus, the immediate predecessor of Pontius Pilate, had removed Annas from the high priesthood, and after having appointed and removed three others, one of them, Eleazar, the son of Annas, finally left Caiaphas in office, when he was superseded by Pilate. The Apostle John informs us that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas. According to the law of Moses the high priest held office during life; hence, in deposing Annas, the Roman governor violated the Jewish Law, and the act was religiously null and void. Annas was still high priest by right, and for this reason is so styled here by Luke. The Jews, also, recognized his right, by taking Jesus before him for trial, though he, not daring to claim the office, sent them to Caiaphas. In his former narrative, Luke also mentions them both as being high priests at the same time. This is best explained by the fact that one was rightfully entitled to the office, and the other was exercising it by illegal appointment.

The “kindred of the high priest” embraced not only the chief members of his immediate family, but also some of the deposed high priests, who were all, in great probability, connected with the one high priestly family, and thereby entitled to seats in the Sanhedrim.

Acts 4:7. When the court was assembled, the prisoners were introduced, and the cripple, who had been healed had the boldness to appear by their side. (7) “And placing them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have you done this?”

This is not the first time that Peter and John had been together in the presence of this august assembly. As they gazed around for a moment, and recognized the faces of their judges, they could not fail to remember that terrible morning when their masters stood there in bonds, and they themselves, full of fearful misgivings, stood in a distant part of the hall, and looked on. The fall, and the bitter tears of Peter, on that occasion, were now a warning and a strength to them both, and their very position brought to mind some solemn words of Jesus which had never acquired a present value till now. “Beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in the synagogues, and you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in the same hour what you shall say. For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your father that speaks in you.” Cheered by this promise, they now stand before their accusers and judges with a boldness unaccountable to the latter.

The prisoners had been arrested without a formal charge being preferred against them, and the court was now dependent upon what might be extorted from them, for the ground of their accusation. The question propounded to them is remarkable for its vagueness. By what power, or, in what name, have you done this? Done what? might have been the answer. Done this preaching? or this miracle? or what? The question specified nothing. There was no one particular thing done by Peter, on which they dared fix attention; but they frame an indefinite question, in attempting to answer which they evidently hoped he would say something on which they might condemn him.

Acts 4:8-10. They could not, however, have asked a question which suited Peter any better. It left him at liberty to select any thing he had done as the subject of reply, and, therefore, he chose to select that deed, which, of all that had been done, they were most unwilling to hear mentioned. He frames his answer, too, with a more direct reference to the other terms of their question, than they either desired or anticipated. (8) “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, (9) If we are examined this day concerning the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he had been saved, (10) be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand before you sound.” This statement needed no proof, for the Sanhedrim could not deny, with the man standing before them, that the miracle had been wrought, nor could they, with plausibility, attribute the deed to any other power or name than that assumed by Peter. To deny that it was a divine power would have been absurd in the estimation of all the people; but to admit that the power was divine, and yet reject the explanation given by those through whom it was exercised, would have been still more absurd.

Acts 4:11-12. Realizing the advantage which he had now gained, Peter pushes his adversaries into still closer quarters, by adding: (11) “This is the stone which was despised by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved.” In this passage, he places his proud judges in the ridiculous attitude of searching about vainly for a stone to fit the corner of the foundation, while persistently rejecting the real corner-stone, without which the building can be reared. And, leaving the figurative language of David, he more fully declares, that there is no salvation for man except in the name of the very Jesus whom they had crucified. This proposition is universal, and shows that the redemption effected by Jesus will include every human being who shall finally be saved.

Acts 4:13-14. Instead of answering evasively and timidly, as was expected of men in their social position, when arraigned in such a presence, the apostles had unhesitatingly avowed the chief deed of yesterday’s proceedings, with the name in which it had been done, stating all in the terms most obnoxious to their hearers. (13) “Now, seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were illiterate and private men, they were astonished, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) But beholding the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” There was total silence for awhile, when Peter ceased speaking. Not a man in the Sanhedrim could open his mouth in reply to Peter’s brief speech. He had avowed every obnoxious sentiment on account of which they had been instigated to arrest him, yet not one of them dares to contradict his words, or to rebuke him for giving them utterance. The silence was painful and embarrassing.

Acts 4:15-16. Finally, the silence was broken by a proposition that the prisoners be withdrawn. (15) “And having commanded them to go aside out of the Sanhedrim, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? For that, indeed, a noted miracle has been wrought by them, is manifest to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can not deny it.” This admission, in their secret deliberations, shows the utter heartlessness and hypocrisy of their proceedings, and it is astonishing that they could any longer give each other countenance in such a course.

Acts 4:17. The real motive which controlled them, and under the influence of which they kept each other in countenance, was an unconquerable desire to maintain their old influence with the people. This is manifested in the conclusion to which they came. (17) “But, that it may be spread no further among the people, let us strictly threaten them, that they speak, henceforth, to no man in this name.” The man who made this proposition no doubt thought that he had most satisfactorily solved a difficult problem, and the majority were too well pleased to find some means of escape from their present awkward predicament, to look very shrewdly into the probable success of the measure proposed. It was a safe course, if not a very bold one, and as there was no obstacle in the way but conscience, the could find no difficulty in pursuing it.

Acts 4:18. The resolution was no sooner formed than acted upon. (18) “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus.” How Luke learned the particulars of the secret consultation which resulted in this injunction, we are not informed, though it is not difficult to imagine. Gamaliel, Saul’s teacher, and perhaps Saul himself, was present as a member of the Sanhedrim; and a great company of the priests themselves afterward became obedient to the faith. These and other conversions from the ranks of the enemy opened up channels for such information in abundance.

Acts 4:19-20. The apostles, if at all anxious concerning their personal safety, might have received this stern command in silence, and retired respectfully from the assembly. (19) “But, Peter and John answered and said to them, Whether it is right, in the sight of God, to hearken to you rather than to God, do you judge. (20) For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” This was an open defiance of their power, with a direct appeal to their own consciences for a vindication of it. The apostles were not willing that their silence should be construed into even a momentary acquiescence in such a command, and they spoke in such a manner as to be distinctly understood.

Acts 4:21-22. It was a sore trial to the haughty spirits of the Sanhedrim to brook such defiance; but a desire to conciliate the people, mingled, no doubt, with a secret fear of the consequences of putting to death men who had exercised such power, restrained their wrath. (21) “And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, not finding how they might punish them, because of the people; for all glorified God for what was done. (22) For the man on whom this miracle of healing was wrought was more than forty years of age.“

Acts 4:23-30. The apostles had now humbled the pride of their adversaries, and went away from the assembly in triumph. But they were uninflated by their present prosperity, as they had been undaunted by their recent danger. They had now attained that lofty degree of faith and hope which enables men to maintain a steady calmness amid all the vicissitudes of life. The course they immediately pursued is worthy of remembrance, and of all imitation. (23) “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported what the high priests and the elders had said to them. (24) And when they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said: Sovereign Lord, thou God who hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them; (25) who through the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his anointed. (27) For, of a truth, against thy holy son Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontus Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do what thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (29) And now, Lord, behold their threatenings; and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, (30) by stretching out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy son Jesus.” This prayer was uttered by one of the brethren, and the expression, “they lifted up their voice with one accord,” indicates the perfect unity of sentiment with which they followed the words of the leader.

In all the prayers of the apostles, we observe strict appropriateness, in the ascription to God with which they open, and a remarkable simplicity in presenting the exact petition, and no more, which the occasion demands. On a former occasion, they had set before him two men, that he might choose one for the apostolic office, and they addressed him as the “heart-knower;” now they desire his protecting power, and they style him the “Sovereign God who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that is in them.” They remind him that, according to his own words by David, kings and rulers, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, had risen up against his anointed while the people and the Gentiles were imagining vain things; and they pray him to “behold the threatening,” and grant to his servants boldness to speak the word in defiance of all opposition.

In these days of passion and war, in which it is common for prayers to be filled with earnest entreaties for victory over our enemies, and sometimes with terrible maledictions against those who are waging war against our supposed rights, it is quite refreshing to observe the tone of this apostolic prayer. These men were not in danger of losing some mere political power or privilege, but the dearest and most indisputable right they had on earth was denied them, and they were threatened with death if they did not relinquish it; yet, in their prayers, they manifest no vindictive nor resentful spirit; but, in reference to their enemies they simply pray, Lord, behold their threatenings. Their gentle spirits never could have conceived that unblushing impiety which now so often brings men upon their knees for the very purpose of pouring out in the ears of God those violent and destructive passions which he has forbidden us to allow a place even within our hearts. By such prayers men seek to make God a partisan in every angry contention among men, as though he were nothing more than themselves. Much needs to be said upon this unhappy theme, but it can not be said here.

In praying for boldness the apostles give an intimation of the manner in which they expected it to be imparted to them. It was not by some direct and internal spiritual impact, but by external manifestations of his continued presence and favor: “by stretching out his hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be wrought through the name of Jesus.”

Acts 4:31. The prayer for boldness was answered at once, and in the way they had requested. (31) “And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness.” The shaking of the house, attended by a conscious renewal of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, gave them the boldness for which they prayed, because it assured them that God was still with them.

Acts 4:32-35. From this brief account of the first conflict of the young congregation, Luke again turns, to view more minutely the internal condition of the Church. Their religious life was now more fully developed, than at the period glanced at in the close of the second chapter, and his description is more in detail. (32) “Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did one of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. (33) And with great power the apostle gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was upon them all. (34) Neither was there any among them who lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and it was distributed to each, as any one had need.”

Considering the immense numbers of this congregation, and that they were so suddenly drawn together from every class of society, it is certainly remarkable, and well worthy of a place in this record, that they were “of one heart and of one mind.” But the most signal proof of the power of the gospel among them was the almost entire subsidence of selfishness. Among the heathen nations of antiquity, systematic provision of the wants of the poor was unknown; and even among the Jews, whose law was watchful for the welfare of the poor in many respects, those who became insolvent were sold into temporary bondage to pay their debts. It was, therefore, a new thing under the sun, to see a large community selling houses and lands to supply the wants of the poor. It could but give additional weight to all that was said by the apostles, and for this reason Luke breaks the thread of his statements concerning it, to throw in the remark, that “With great power the apostles gave testimony concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was among all.” This remark does not mean that the testimony of the apostles was more distinct or positive, or that it was sustained by more signal miracles than before; for neither of these is possible. But it means that their testimony had more power with the people; and this is attributed to the harmony observed within the Church, together with their unheard-of benevolence, which combined to give them “great favor” with the people.

The fact that distribution was made to each as he had need, shows that it was only the needy who received any thing, and that there was no equalization of property. The sale of property and consecration of the proceeds was voluntary with each individual, and not an established law of the Church. This is evident from the question of Peter to Ananias, below: “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?”

Acts 4:36-37. After stating that many brethren who had property sold it, and gave up the proceeds, Luke now gives an individual instance of this liberality, introduced, no doubt, on account of the subsequent celebrity of the individual. (36) “Now Joses, who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, (which is, when translated, son of exhortation,) a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, (37) having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” This surname was given to Joses on account of his excellence in horatory address, and not on account of the consolation which he afforded by his liberality. The original term paraklesis, rendered consolation in the common version, is a verbal noun used to express both the act of the verb parakalein and the effect produced by it. We have no one word in English to represent it in these two senses; but exhortation expresses the act, and consolation the effect. We have, therefore, exhortation eight times in the common version, when the paraklesis is connected with the agent, but always consolation when the reference is to the recipient. As Barnabas is contemplated at the agent, in this case, it should be exhortation, not consolation. This criticism is confirmed by the history of Barnabas. When the Church in Jerusalem heard that a congregation was planted in Antioch, they sent Barnabas thither, who “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord.” This exhorting being the object for which he was sent, his selection for the mission indicates his superiority in that kind of talent. Perhaps it was chiefly on account of this talent, in which Paul was deficient, that Barnabas became the traveling companion of this apostle. It is a talent much more rare than mere logical power, and has always been highly prized by the Churches.

It is quite probable that the land sold by Barnabas constituted his whole estate. Having no family dependent on him, he consecrated his life to unrequited missionary labor.

Acts Chapter Five

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 5:1-2. In close connection with this unprecedented liberality of the brethren, we are now introduced to a remarkable case of corruption, of which it was the occasion. The praise always lavished on disinterested benevolence sometimes prompts illiberal men to make a pretense of liberality. But the mere desire of praise is incapable of subduing selfishness, so as to make a truly liberal heart; for it is itself a species of selfishness. In contrast with the course of Barnabas, we are told: (1) “But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife being also privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the feet of the apostles.” This language implies, what is distinctly avowed by the wife below, that this part was represented as the whole price of the possession.

Acts 5:3-4. “But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thy heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Here Peter brings together the influence of Satan, and the free agency of the tempted, just as he had, in former discourses, the free agency of men, and the purposes of God. He demands of Ananias, “Why has Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit,” and, in the same breath, “Why hast thou put this thing in thy heart?” The existence and agency of the tempter are distinctly recognized, yet it is not Satan, but Ananias who is rebuked; and he is rebuked for doing the very thing that Satan had done, showing that he is as guilty as though Satan had no existence. Indeed, he is rebuked for what Satan had done. The justice of this is manifest from the fact that Satan had no power to fill his heart with evil, without his co-operation. That he had rendered this co-operation, threw the responsibility upon himself.

Peter’s knowledge of the deception was the result not of human information, but of the insight imparted to him by the Holy Spirit. This is necessary to the significance of the entire incident, as well as to the purport of Peter’s own words.

Acts 5:5. The exposure of Ananias was very surprising, but neither the audience, nor perhaps Peter, was prepared by it for the event which immediately followed. (5) “And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and expired. And great fear came upon all who heard these things.” There is no evidence that Peter had any will of his own in this matter; but it was an act of divine power exerted independent of the apostolic agency. The responsibility, therefore, attached not to Peter as an officer of the Church, but to God as the moral governor of the world. The propriety of the deed may be appreciated best by supposing that Ananias had succeeded in his undertaking. His success would not only have turned the most praiseworthy feature of the new Church into a source of corruption and hypocrisy, but it would have brought discredit upon the inspiration of the apostles, by showing that the Spirit within them could be deceived. Thus the whole fabric of apostolic authority, which was based upon their inspiration, would have fallen, and precipitated the entire cause into hopeless ruin. The attempt, therefore, presented a crisis of vital importance, and demanded some such vindication of their inspiration as could neither be mistaken nor forgotten. The immediate effect of the event was just the effect desired: “great fear came upon all who heard these things.”

Acts 5:6. The scene was too awful for lamentation, or for needless funeral services. As when Nadab and Abihu fell dead at the door of the tabernacle with strange fire in their censers, there was no weeping nor delay. All were stricken with horror, as they saw the curse of God fall upon the wretch. (6) “And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.“

Acts 5:7. Sapphira was not present. (7) “And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.” How she remained so long ignorant of the fate of her husband, we are not informed, though it is a most extraordinary circumstance. He had died suddenly, in a manner which had excited everybody; had been buried; and three hours had passed; yet his wife, who must have been in the vicinity, has no intimation of it, but comes into the very assembly where it had occurred, without a word reaching her ear upon the subject. There is no way to account for this, but by the supposition that there was a concerted determination on the part of the whole multitude to conceal the facts from her. This was a most unnatural determination, and one difficult of execution, except on the further supposition that Peter commanded the multitude to restrain their natural impulses, and let her know nothing until he himself was ready to reveal it to her. This course was necessary in order to effectually expose her.

Acts 5:8-10. She came in prepared to act out fully the part which she had agreed upon with her husband. (8) “Then Peter answered her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much? She said, Yes; for so much. (9) Then Peter said to her, Why is it that you have agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10) Then she immediately fell at his feet and expired: and the young men coming in found her dead, and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.” In her case, Peter knew what was about to take place, and declared it; but there is no indication that he exerted his own will or miraculous power to cause her death. We regard her death, like that of Ananias, as a miracle wrought independent of the power lodged in the apostles.

In the question, “Why have you agreed together to put to proof the Spirit of the Lord?” Peter expresses the result of their agreement, though it may not have been what they had in view. They did put the Spirit to proof, by testing his powers. If he had failed under the test, the consequences, as we have suggested above, would have been disastrous. But now that the test applied has triumphantly vindicated the fullness of apostolic inspiration, it was not likely that such another attempt could be made.

Acts 5:11. The failure of the plot proved as propitious to the cause of truth as its success would have been disastrous. (11) “And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon all who had heard these things.” This fear was excited, not only by the sudden and awful fate of the guilty pair, but also by the fearful nature of that spirit-searching knowledge imparted to the apostles. The disciples were now filled with more just conceptions than before of the nature of inspiration, and the unbelieving masses who heard of the event were awed into respect and reverence.

Acts 5:12-13. Increased activity of the apostles followed, and their office was still further magnified. (12) “And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all, with one accord, in Solomon’s Portico, (13) and of the rest no man dare join himself to them, but all people magnified them.” It was the apostles alone who were in Solomon’s Portico, as is evident from the fact that the term apostles, in the first clause of the 12th verse, furnishes the only antecedent to the pronoun they, in the statement, “they were all, with one accord,” etc. This being so, “the rest,” who dared not join themselves to them, must include other disciples, as well as the unbelieving multitude. It need not be concluded, from this, that the disciples stood off at the same fearful distance with unbelievers; but that they were so filled with awe by the exhibition connected with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, that they dare not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked their former intercourse with them. Such a feeling was at first experienced by the apostles themselves in the presence of Jesus, and was well expressed by Peter, when he and his companions made the first miraculous draught of fishes: falling down at the knees of Jesus, he exclaimed, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” That such a feeling was also experienced by the whole Church, at this time, has just been stated by the historian, in verse 11, where he says, “Great fear came upon all the Church.”

Acts 5:14. The statement just made, that “of the rest no man dared to join himself to them,” can not mean that persons dared not join the Church, for the reverse is now stated. (14) “And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” The increased awe in the presence of the apostles, with which the people were inspired, made them listen with increased respect to their testimony concerning Jesus, and brought them in greater numbers to obedience.

Acts 5:15-16. The connection of Luke’s next statement, introduced by the adverb so that, is somewhat obscure: but I presume he intends to state a result of all the facts just mentioned. Signs and wonders were done by the apostles; the people magnified them, and believers were the more added to the Lord. (15) “So that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. (16) There came also a multitude out of the cities round about to Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those vexed by unclean spirits, who were all healed.“

Acts 5:17-18. The excitement which now prevailed throughout Jerusalem and the neighboring villages, and found utterance in the most enthusiastic praise of the apostles, was too much for the equanimity of the dignitaries who had so strictly forbidden them to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. (17) “Then the high priest rose up, and all who were with him, being the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal, (18) and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison.” Here we have the same Sadducees at work who had arrested and threatened Peter and John. They were “filled with zeal;” but it was a zeal inspired less by love for their own cause, than by hatred for that which was triumphing over it. The advocates of error will generally appear quite easy, and sometimes, even generous, when their cause is merely standing still; but their zeal is always kindled when the truth begins to make inroads upon them. The zeal of these Sadducees was fanned to its fiercest heat by recent events, and they determined to execute the threats with which they had recently dismissed two of the apostles, making all the twelve their present victims.

Acts 5:19-21. When they were all seized and cast into prison together, the apostles could but expect that they would now feel the entire weight of the wrath which was treasured up against them. (19) “But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors in the night, and led them forth, and said, (20) Go stand in the temple, and speak to the people all the words of this life. (21) And having heard this they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called together the Sanhedrim, and all the eldership of the children of Israel, and sent into the prison to have them brought.” The apostles were already in the temple, teaching the early worshipers as if nothing unusual had occurred, when the Sanhedrim met and sent to the prison for them.

Acts 5:22-23. After some delay, the officers returned into the presence of the Sanhedrim without their prisoners. (22) “But when the officers arrived, and did not find them in the prison, they returned and announced, (23) saying, The prison we found closed with all safety, and the guards standing before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one within.” This appalling circumstance would have been sufficient, with less determined men, to stay all hostile proceedings, and even to disperse the court who had assembled for the trial for the apostles.

Acts 5:24-26. The startling announcement was not without serious effect even upon the stubborn Sadducees. They were staggered by it, and knew not at first what to do or think. (24) “Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple, and the chief priest heard these words, they were perplexed concerning them, what this might come to. (25) But some one came and announced to them, Behold, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people.” This announcement relieved the perplexity of the Sanhedrim, by enabling them to proceed with business, and relieving them from the unpleasant necessity of dispersing without a good excuse. They now dispatch a more honorable guard after the apostles than they had, at first; for the captain of the temple himself takes command. (26) “Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.” The clause, “lest they should be stone,” is so arranged as to furnish a reason for both the preceding statements, that they “feared the people,” and that they “brought them without violence.” The enthusiasm of the people had been much increased, no doubt, by the angelic deliverance, which was by this time well known about the temple.

Acts 5:27-28. We have now a very lively and graphic description of the arraignment and trial of the apostles. (27) “And having brought them, they placed them in the Sanhedrim, and the high priest asked them, (28) saying, Did we not strictly command you not to speak in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” These words contain two specific charges against the apostles, disobedience to the Sanhedrim, and an effort to bring upon them the blood of Jesus.

Acts 5:29-32. To these charges the apostles candidly and fearlessly respond. (29) “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” This answers the first charge. They plead guilty, but justify themselves by the authority of God. Peter and John had left the Sanhedrim before, with the words, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken to men more than to God, do you judge.” Now, as if that question was decided, they declare, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” They then answer the second charge by a restatement of the facts: (30) “The God of our fathers had raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hung him on a tree. (31) This man has God exalted to his own right hand, a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” This was repeating, with terrible emphasis, the very thing which was charged against them as a crime.

In the declaration that Jesus had been exalted a Prince and a Savior, “to grant repentance to Israel and remission of sins,” it is implied that repentance, as well as remission of sins, is in some sense granted to me. But to grant repentance can not mean to bestow it upon men without an exercise of their own will; for repentance is enjoined upon men as a duty to be performed by them. How, then, can that which is a duty to be performed, be said to be granted to us? We will readily perceive the answer to this question, by remembering that repentance is produced by sorrow for sin, and that it belongs to God to furnish men with the facts which will awaken this sorrow. Without revelation, men would never be made to feel that sorrow for sin which works repentance; but in the revelation of Jesus Christ we are furnished with the chief of these motives, and because of this, he is said to grant repentance.

Acts 5:33. The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude. (33) “Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them.“

Acts 5:34-39. At this crisis the madness of the Sadducees was suddenly checked by the prudent counsel of one of the opposite party. The Pharisees were less exasperated, because their leading dogma was sustained by the apostles, and they saw that any imprudent proceedings were likely to involve the whole Sanhedrim in trouble, without regard to party; therefore, Gamaliel interposes his advice. (34) “But a certain Pharisee in the Sanhedrim, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, arose and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while.” This removal of the prisoners, like that of Peter and John before, was designed to prevent them from taking encouragement from any admissions which might be made during the pending discussion. They were, accordingly, withdrawn. (35) “And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you are about to do respecting these men; (36) For before these days, Theudas arose, declaring himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, attached themselves; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing. (37) After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up, in the days of the enrollment, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. (38) And now I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this purpose or this work is from men, it will be destroyed; (39) but if it is from God, you are not able to destroy it; lest you even be found to fight against God.”

A question has been raised as to whether Luke is not guilty of an anachronism in this report of Gamaliel’s speech, by making him refer to a Theudas, who is mentioned by Josephus, and who flourished many years later, under the reign of Claudius Cæsar. Such a reference could not possibly be made by Gamaliel; and if it was made by Luke, he is not only guilty of the anachronism, but, what is far worse, of giving a false report of Gamaliel’s speech. Rather than admit a hypothesis involving such consequences in reference to a historian of unimpeached veracity, we must suppose that some impostor by the name of Theudas did flourish at the time here alluded to by Gamaliel. Judas the Galilean is also mentioned by Josephus, whose account of him agrees with this given by Gamaliel. The enrollment is most likely the same referred to in Luke 2:1.

Upon the fate of these two impostors, Gamaliel bases his advice to the Sanhedrim, in reference to the apostles. The moral merits of this advice may be differently estimated, according to the point of view from which he contemplate it. If we regard it as a general rule of procedure in reference to religious movements, it must be regarded as a mere time-serving policy. Instead of waiting to see whether such a movement is going to prove successful or not, before we take ground in reference to it, the lover of truth will promptly investigate and decide its merits without regard to public opinion. But if we regard Gamaliel as only giving a reason why men should not persecute a cause which they are not prepared to accept, it was certainly most judicious advice. When we have decided against a cause, we should render a reason for our decision, and then leave it to the developments of Providence, well assured that whatever is not from God will come to nothing without any violent agency on our part. We should also be afraid to resist with violence or passion any thing bearing a semblance to truth, lest we fight against God, and be ourselves overthrown.

The last clause in Gamaliel’s speech, “Lest you be found even to fight against God,” indicates a suspicion, on his part, that such a result was by no means impossible. In view of the many miracles which had been wrought by the apostles, and their miraculous deliverance from prison the very night before, it is strange that something more than a suspicion to this effect did not possess the mind of Gamaliel, and of all the Sanhedrim. It was, doubtless, owing to serious misgivings on this point, that the embittered Sadducees yielded so readily to advice from the opposite party.

Acts 5:40. There was no opposition to Gamaliel’s advice. (40) “And they obeyed him; and having called the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” Scourging was so common in the Roman empire, even of men untried and uncondemned, and was so common a fate of Christians at the time Luke was writing, that he mentions it here rather as a matter of course. It is the first time, however, that it was experienced by the apostles, and was, probably, harder to endure than it ever was afterward.

Acts 5:41-42. However painful the scourging was, it did not cause any resentful manifestations on the part of the sufferers, but they bore it cheerfully. (41) “Then they departed from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were thought worthy to be dishonored for his name. (42) And every day, in the temple, and from house to house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” The Sanhedrim had now tried both threats and scourging upon the apostles without checking their activity, and as there was nothing further for them to try but death, which they were not yet prepared to inflict, they relinquished for awhile their efforts. In this first contest, therefore, the apostles were completely victorious, and compelled their adversaries to abandon the field.

The apostles taught and preached not only publicly in the temple, but “from house to house.” In this they give an example to the ministry of all ages, which is well worthy of imitation. Private instruction and admonition bring the teacher and the taught into closer contact, and secure an individuality of effect not attainable in a public assembly. It cannot, therefore, be well dispensed with; but he who employs it most diligently will, other things being equal, employ his energies most successfully.

Acts Chapter Six

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 6:1. From the preceding account of the struggle, between the apostles and the Sadducees, Luke now turns to consider, briefly, the internal condition of the Church during the same period. Though the mass of the disciples had attained many of the excellencies of Christian character, they were still but men, and liable to the partialities and prejudices of men. This became manifest in a manner which at first threatened serious consequences. (1) “Now, in those days, the disciples having multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenist against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” The disciples in Jerusalem now numbered largely over five thousand. In so large a multitude, it was almost impossible to look after the wants of all with equal care, and some unintentional oversight must unavoidably occur. The “daily ministration” is undoubtedly that distribution from the funds contributed by the brethren, which was made “to every one according as he had need.” That it was made daily, confirms our former conclusion, that there was no general equalization of property, but only a provision for the needy. The Hellenists were Jews of foreign birth and Greek education, and were so called because of their conformity to the manners of the Hellenes, as Greeks were called. Many of them were, perhaps, not permanent residents in Jerusalem, but had remained there after Pentecost on account of their interest in the new religion. They were the more likely to be neglected, because less familiarity known to the apostles and their assistants.

Acts 6:2-4. This unforeseen circumstances suggested to the apostles the propriety of insinuating a new office in the Church. Though the Holy Spirit was given to guide them into all the truth, its additional instruction was given only as circumstances required. They were not theorists, with a constitution and by-laws drawn up in advance, to which, under all circumstances, the Church must conform; but they allowed the condition of the congregation, from time to time, to dictate the provisions which should be made, and therefore the provisions which were made precisely such as were needed. Hitherto the Church had been without an officer of any kind, except the apostles; for the supposition advanced by some writers, that the young men, oi neoteroi, who buried Ananias and Sapphira, were regularly-appointed officers, is without foundation, except in the analogy of later and unscriptural organizations. Seeing, then, that the Church in Jerusalem existed for a time under the control of the apostles alone, it follows that a Church may now exist under the written teaching alone of the same apostles. But seeing, further, that when circumstances required it, other officials were appointed, it follows that all Churches among whom similar wants arise should provide themselves in the same way. All Churches, however, will inevitably find need for such officers as the New Testament authorizes; hence they should procure them without unnecessary delay.

When the murmuring came to the ears of the apostles they acted promptly. (2) “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said, It is not well that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. (3) Therefore, brethren, look out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we ourselves will continue in prayer and the ministry of the word.” The alternative with the apostles was to “leave,” in some degree, “the word of God,” and serve the tables satisfactorily, or turn this business over to other hands, and “continue in prayer and the ministry of the word” as uninterruptedly as before. They showed their superior regard for the latter ministry by choosing the latter course.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles that the whole “multitude of the disciples” should take part in the selection of these officers. No ingenuity of argument can evade the conclusion that this gives the authority of apostolic precedent for the popular election of officers of the Church. The multitude were limited, however, by apostolic authority, to the choice of men of a certain description. They must be men of “good repute;” not merely good men, but men whose goodness was accredited among the brethren.

They must also be men who were “full of the Holy Spirit.” Whether this means that they must be possessed of miraculous powers, or merely that they must exhibit abundantly the fruits of the Spirit, it is difficult to determine. The circumstances, that up to this time no miracles had been wrought, so far as we know, by any of the apostles, and that, immediately after the appointment of the seven, Stephen appears “doing great wonders and miracles among the people,” seem to indicate that they were merely full of the Holy Spirit in the ordinary way, but received miraculous powers when the hands of the apostles were laid upon them. On the other hand, the expression, “full of the Holy Spirit,” generally means possessed of the miraculous powers of the Spirit. Whatever may be the decision of this question, it is certain that when a disciple was “full of the Spirit” in either sense, the religious sentiments were in lively exercise, and this is all that can be required in a candidate for the same office at the present day.

The office which the apostles are about to institute and fill is easily identified with that of the deacon as described in the third chapter of First Timothy. The seven are not styled diakonoi, deacons, but they were selected to attend to the daily diakonia, (verse 1) and their service is expressed by the verb diakoneo, (verse 2) the same which expresses the duty of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:10-13. The chief duty for which they were appointed, was “to serve tables,” diakonein trapezais; yet this duty need not prevent them from discharging any other functions for which they were qualified, and for which they could find time. God exacts the employment of every talent that is committed to us, and has appointed no work to be done which is too holy for the humblest disciple. We therefore find one of the seven deacons soon after in the front rank of the defenders of the faith; while another, after the dispersion of the Church, preaches in Samaria, and immerses both the Samaritans and the Ethiopian nobleman. Those who deny to deacons, at the present day, the same privileges, impose a restriction which is in direct conflict with the word of God. As to the title evangelist, afterward applied to Philip, see the “Commentary on Acts,” xxi. 8.

Acts 6:5-6. The proposition of the apostles so wisely provided for an obvious want, that there could be no hesitation about prompt compliance with it, (5) “And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, (6) whom they placed before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid their hands on them.” It is a remarkable proof of the generosity of the Church at large, that all these are Greek names, indicating that they were selected from the very party whence the murmuring had proceeded. It was as if the Hebrews had said to the Hellenists, We have no selfish ends to accomplish, not any jealousy toward you who complain, therefore we give the whole business into your hands, and will fearlessly trust our poor widows to your care. So generous a trust could not be betrayed, except by the basest of men.

All that is now known of five of these men is the fact of their appointment to this office. Their names are not again mentioned in the New Testament. It need not be presumed, from this, that they were subsequently inactive or unfaithful, but simply that Luke selected, for his brief narrative, a chain of events in which others were the actors.

Of Nicolas, it is said that he was “a proselyte of Antioch,” which means that he was a Gentile who had been proselyted to Judaism before he was converted to Christ. Thus we see that, even at this early period, the apostles had no objection to the reception of Gentiles, provided they had been circumcised.

Stephen is specially described as “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit,” not because the others were destitute of these excellencies; for one of the qualifications necessary to a selection was that they should be men “full of the Holy Spirit.” But if the seven were distinguished above others in this respect, Stephen may have been distinguished in the same way among the seven.

The object of the imposition of hands, on this occasion, has been a subject of some dispute; some contending that it was merely to impart miraculous gifts to the seven, and others, that it was the ceremony of their induction into office. Miraculous gifts were often conferred by the apostles in this way, and there is much probability, to say the least, that they were now conferred upon the seven; but the context forbids us to suppose that this was the only object of the ceremony. The apostles had commanded the disciples to do one thing, and they themselves proposed to do another. The multitude were to “look out” the men, “whom,” say the apostles, “we may appoint over this business.” The part performed by the apostles was their appointment to office. But all the apostles did was to pray and lay on their hands; hence, this was the ceremony of their appointment. It stands upon record as a precedent, and should be complied with in similar cases. The fact that men cannot now confer a miraculous gift by laying on hands, does not relieve them from the obligation to impose hands as a ceremony of appointment to office.

The question as to who should perform this ceremony should give no trouble. The parties who directed in the organization of the Church were the official on this occasion, and so, according to the precedent, should it always be. Whoever plants a Church, or sets one in order, should lay hands on its officers. When there are peculiar circumstances not anticipated by the precedent, they should be provided for according to the wisdom of those concerned, being careful not to violate the precedent. The example of the apostles is binding in this, as in all cases not peculiar to the apostolic office, or to the condition of the early Churches.

Acts 6:7. The appointment of the seven over the business of daily ministration to the poor was intended to supply an existing deficiency in the organization of the Church. The more efficient organization gave greater efficiency to the labors of all. (7) “And the word of God increased, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was greatly multiplied, and a great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith.” This is the first intimation of the accession of any of the priests to the new faith. It was the most signal triumph yet achieved by the gospel, for the priests of the old religion were more interested in maintaining it than were any other class among the Jews. The peculiar relation which the priesthood sustain to any system of religion must always render them the chief conservators of obsolete forms, and the most formidable opponents to the introduction of new truth. When the priests of an opposing system begin to give way, it is ready to fall. No fact yet recorded by Luke shows so strikingly the effect of the gospel upon the popular mind in Jerusalem.

The expression used concerning these priests, that they became “obedient to the faith,” is worthy of notice as implying that there is something in the faith to be obeyed. This obedience is not rendered in the act of believing; for that is to exercise the faith, not to obey it. But faith in Jesus as the Messiah requires obedience to him as Lord; hence obedience rendered to him is styled obedience to the faith. It begins with immersion, and continues with the duties of a religious life. Paul declares that the grand object of the favor and apostleship conferred upon him was “for obedience to the faith among all nations.” Without it, faith itself is of no avail, for all who “obey not the gospel,” whatever may be their faith, will be “destroyed from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power.”

There is another expression in this verse worthy of notice, because of its singular contrast with modern phraseology in such connections. It is said, “The word of God increased,” and the specifications are, that the number of disciples was greatly multiplied, and that a great multitude of the priests became obedient. At the present day such incidents are often introduced by remarks of this kind: “There was a precious season of grace;” “The Lord was present in his saving power;” “A gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit,” etc. So great a departure from Scripture phraseology clearly indicates a departure from scriptural ideas. When men are engrossed with the conception that conversion is an abstract work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, they are likely to express themselves in this unauthorized manner. But Luke, who had no such conception, saw in the increase of the disciples an increase of the word of God; by which he means not an increase in the quantity of revelation, but in its effect. The more favorable circumstances which now existed within the Church, by the cessation of recent murmuring, and the introduction of a better organization, gave greater weight to the word that was preached, and greater success was the consequence.

Acts 6:8. We are now introduced to a very thrilling account of the labors and death of Stephen. His career, previous to the final conflict, is thus briefly sketched: (8) “Now Stephen, full of faith and of power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” The power by which he wrought these miracles is connected with the fact that he was “full of faith.” This accords with the fact already observed, (Acts 3:16,) that the degree of miraculous power exerted by those who possessed spiritual gifts depended upon the degree of their faith.

Acts 6:9-10. The activity of Stephen, though probably not greater than that of the apostles during the same period, naturally attracted to him more especial attention, because he was a new actor in the scene, and one who had hitherto occupied a subordinate position. The opponents of the gospel were aroused into renewed activity. The first persecution occurred upon the surprising success of Peter and John in Solomon’s Portico; the second, upon the triumphs which followed the death of Ananias and Sapphira; and the third now springs up upon the appearance of new advocates of the faith. (9) “Then there arose certain persons from the synagogue called the synagogue of the Freedmen and Cyrenians, and those from Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen; (10) and they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.”

The policy of the opposition is now changed. Having been deterred, by fear of the people, and by division of sentiment in their own ranks, from resorting to extreme violence, and finding that threats and scourging were unavailing, they now resort to discussion, expecting, by superior learning, to confound men who could not be forced into silence. The parties who entered the lists of debate were all foreign-born Jews. The Freedmen were Jews who had been set free from Roman slavery; the Cyrenians and Alexandrians were from the north of Africa; the Asians and Cilicians from the peninsula of Asia, the last-named being from the native country of Saul of Tarsus.

The fact that Saul was a leader in the contest now begun identifies the attacking party as Pharisees; for he was a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and “brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel.” The violent proceedings of the Sadducees having been checked, in part, by the counsel of Gamaliel—the great teacher of the Pharisees—the apostles had gone on in their ministry, not merely proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus, but prosecuting the second part of their commission, “teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever Christ had commanded.” This somewhat relieved the Sadducees from the brunt of attack, and turned it upon the Pharisees, whose traditions were directly assailed by the maxims of true piety and morality. The consequence was, a rallying of this party to an activity not manifested before since the death of Christ. Having nearly all the learning and talent of their nation in their ranks, and especially the literary culture and wealth of the foreign Jews, they resorted with great confidence to disputation. The seven deacons, who were also foreigners, were naturally brought into more direct contact with these foreign-born disputants; and Stephen, who was the most gifted of the seven, soon found himself engaged, single-handed, in a conflict with them all.

This is the first time the disciples measured the strength of their cause in open discussion. Hitherto the young converts had enjoyed no opportunity to compare the arguments by which they had been convinced with those which learning and ingenuity might frame against them. But now they were to hear both sides of the great question presented, with the odds of number, learning, and social position all on the side of their opponents. It was an interesting crisis, and it needs no very vivid imagination to realize the palpitating anxiety with which the disciples resorted to the place of discussion. Their fondest hopes were realized; for it soon became evident that Stephen had all the facts and the statements of Scripture in his favor, so that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke.” By the “spirit by which he spoke,” I suppose Luke refers to the Holy Spirit, who supplied him with whatever knowledge and wisdom he may have lacked.

In entering freely into this discussion, Stephen acted in accordance with the example of his master, and that of all the apostles. Their example makes it the duty of all disciples to whom God has given the necessary wisdom, to defend in discussion, against all opposition, the truth as it is in Jesus. Whoever does so, in the fear of God, and with a devout zeal for the salvation of men, will find his enemies unable to resist him.

Acts 6:11-14. When the advocates of error are defeated in discussion, they always resort to slander, or to violence. They tried both against Stephen. The Pharisees having the management of the case, we find their subsequent proceedings governed by the same policy which they pursued in the case of Jesus. (11) “Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” This was the indictment upon which the further proceedings were based, and it was circulated boisterously among all classes. (12) “And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and led him into the Sanhedrim, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceases not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; (14) For we have heard him saying, that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

This is the first time that “the people” are represented as taking part against the disciples. During the first two persecutions the “fear of the people” had restrained the violence of the persecutors, which renders their present opposition the more remarkable. But the Sadducees, who had conducted those persecutions, had but little popular influence, and had contented themselves with merely asserting the authority of the Sanhedrim, without the aid of any ingenious policy. The Pharisees were more influential and more cunning. They put in circulation a slanderous report, which was cunningly directed against a single individual, and which their great popular influence enabled them to circulate with effect; and by this means they aroused a strong popular feeling in their own favor.

The general charge against Stephen was speaking blasphemy “against Moses and God,” otherwise expressed, “against this holy place, and the law.” The change of phraseology arises from the fact that the temple and law were the visible representatives of Moses and of God. The specifications under this charge were these: “We have heard him saying that this Jesus will destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” It is quite likely that Stephen was guilty of the specifications; but they fell very far short of the crime of blasphemy against Moses and against God. In thus teaching, he was really honoring Moses, by insisting upon the very termination which Moses himself had assigned to his own law, while he honored God by receiving him whom God had sent.

Acts 6:15. As Stephen stood before the Sanhedrim, thus falsely and hypocritically accused, and fully aware of a determination to condemn him without regard to evidence or justice, he could but remember the similar accusation of Jesus, of Peter and John, then of all the apostles; and his heart must have swelled at the thought of being identified with them in suffering. The baseness of his persecutors—who, under pretense of zeal for Moses and the law, were violating the one and dishonoring the other, by seeking the lives of the only men who believed his words—must have filled him with indignation, while love for the truth which he was defending, and for the Redeemer for whom he was suffering, was kindled afresh, and the power of a glorious hope inspired him with the most invincible courage. Emotions so intense and so lofty spread a glow upon his countenance which attracted the attention of the whole audience. (15) “And all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking earnestly upon him, saw his face as if it were the face of an angel.” There is no need to suppose anything supernatural in his appearance, such as a halo of light enveloping his countenance; for a countenance naturally fine and expressive, when lit up by emotions so intense and heavenly as those which must then have swelled the breast of Stephen, would be sufficient to suggest such a comparison. If there were any brethren present, with what tearful delight they must then have gazed upon the hero of faith! And if any of the members of the Sanhedrim were still capable of nobler sentiments, how intense must have been their agitation! The trial proceeds:

Acts Chapter Seven

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 7:1. “Then said the high priest, Are these things so?” Stephen responds in a long and powerful discourse.

There is great diversity of opinion among commentators, as to the logical bearing and connection of this discourse. We would naturally expect to find in it—if we regard it as properly a defense—a formal response to the charge which had been preferred. But it contains no direct answer to any of the specifications. He neither admits nor denies what was charged in reference to the destruction of the temple by Jesus and the changing of the customs delivered by Moses; though his silence may be regarded as an admission that the witnesses had spoken the truth on these points. Neither does he formally answer to the charge of blasphemy against Moses and against God, or against the holy temple and the law. The only thing in the discourse that has even an indirect bearing in this way, is his frequent reference to facts contained in the writings of Moses, which has been understood, by some commentators, as intended to indicate a degree of respect for Moses inconsistent with a disposition to speak blasphemy against him. But if such was his purpose, it is unaccountable that he should have pursued so indirect a course, instead of distinctly avowing the sentiments he intended to indicate. Again, this supposition can not account for the introduction of so many facts connected with the persecution of various individuals.

The best statement of the drift of the discourse, I think, is this: The charge against him was hypocritically preferred, and his judges had no intention to investigate it, but were using it merely as an excuse for his predetermined condemnation to death. They were now giving him somewhat the form for a trial, to keep up appearances before the people. Under such circumstances, Stephen knew that it would be useless to offer a formal defense; and, therefore, he does not undertake it. He sees, however, that his persecutors were identifying themselves, by their proceedings, with the unbelieving and persecuting portion of their forefathers, and he determines to make them stand forth to the people in this their true position. In prosecuting this purpose he selects his material from the writings of Moses, and shows that his accusers are with the persecuting party, while his Master and himself are side by side with Moses and others whom they had persecuted: Thus he hurls back upon them, and fastens on them, effectually, the charge which they had falsely preferred against him.

Acts 7:2-4. We will now take up the different sections of the discourse, treating each separately, and showing their connected bearing upon his main purpose. Before exhibiting the manner in which Moses was treated by the ancestors of his audience, he first shows that the mission on which Moses came was a subject of prophesy: thus indicating, at the outset, an analogy between it and that of Christ. To do this, he must begin with Abraham, to whom this prophesy was first given; but his reference to Abraham is only for the historical introduction of his main theme. (2) “And he said: Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, (3) and said to him, Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I will show thee. (4) Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran: and thence, after his father died, he removed into this land in which you now dwell.“

Acts 7:5-8. Having now introduced Abraham, and brought him into the land of Canaan, Stephen quotes the prophesy, connected with the fulfillment of which he is to find the chief points of his argument. (5) “And he gave him no inheritance in it, not a footprint: and he promised to give it for a possession to him and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (6) But God spoke thus: That his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and they should bring them into bondage, and afflict them four hundred years. (7) And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage, I will judge, said God, and after these things they shall come forth, and serve me in this place. (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so he begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs.”

The period of four hundred years is taken by Stephen from Genesis 15:13, where God expresses himself, in round terms, of a period which was, more accurately, four hundred and thirty years, as we find in Exodus 12:40-41. This was not the period of their actual sojourn in Egypt; but, as we learn from Paul, (Galatians 3:17,) and from the genealogical tables in Genesis and Exodus, it extended from the call of Abraham to the departure from Egypt.

Acts 7:9-16. The speaker next proceeds to recount the circumstances which brought the people down into Egypt, in order that the rejection of Joseph, and the final salvation of the whole family through him, might stand out before his hearers, and be made to bear upon his final conclusion. (9) “And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt. And God was with him, (10) and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. (11) Now, there came a famine on all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. (12) But Jacob, having heard that there was grain in Egypt, sent out our fathers the first time. (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s kindred was made known to Pharaoh. (14) Then Joseph sent and called to him his father Jacob and all his kindred, seventy-five souls. (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, (16) and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulcher which Jacob bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.”

There is a numerical discrepancy between moses and Stephen, in reference to the number of Jacob’s family when they went into Egypt. Stephen makes then seventy-five, while Moses states them at seventy, including Joseph’s family and himself. The Septuagint translation of Genesis agrees with Stephen. Various methods of reconciling these statements are proposed, of which the only satisfactory one is this. The number given by Moses includes all “who came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives.” The number given by Stephen must, then, include five of their wives, who were, probably, all that were then living. The translators of the Septuagint, having some historical evidence, now lost to us, that five of their wives went with them, saw fit to fill up the number in their translation, and Stephen followed their enumeration.

It was Jacob, and not Abraham, who purchased the sepulcher from the sons of Emmor, as is certain from the history given in Genesis 33:19-20; yet it is attributed to Abraham here in the common version, and most of the Greek manuscripts. It is far more likely, however, that the manuscripts should err, in a case of this kind, than that the error should have been committed by Stephen or by Luke. I have, therefore, not hesitated to insert the name of Jacob, instead of Abraham, in the text. Dr. Bloomfield says, “The best critics are of the opinion that Abraham is spurious.”

Acts 7:17-29. From this glance at the leading points in the history of Joseph, Stephen advances to the case of Moses, showing that his brethren rejected him in like manner, and were also finally delivered by him. (17) “But when the time of the promise of which God had sworn to Abraham was drawing near, the people increased and were multiplied in Egypt, (18) until another king arose who knew not Joseph. (19) The same dealt craftily with our kindred, and afflicted our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, in order that they might not live. (20) In which time Moses was born, and was exceedingly beautiful. He was nourished in his his father’s house three months. (21) And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. (22) And Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and was powerful in words and in deeds. (23) And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to look after his brethren, the children of Israel. (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended and avenged him who was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. (25) Now he thought that his brethren would understand that God would, by his hand, give them salvation; but they did not understand. (26) The next day he appeared to them as they were fighting, and would have brought them to peace, saying, Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another? (27) But he who was wronging his neighbor thrust him away, saying, Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Do you wish to kill me as you killed that Egyptian yesterday? (29) Then Moses fled at this word, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begot two sons.”

In the rejection of Moses by his countrymen, when he was seeking to deliver them from bondage, according to the promise of God, Stephen has before the minds of the Sanhedrim another case bearing upon his final conclusion. It is true, that as yet they could not anticipate the use he intended to make of it, but the obscurity of his design awakened their curiosity, and rendered their mortification the more intense when at last it was suddenly developed. If they could have anticipated it, they would have stopped his mouth at the beginning.

Acts 7:30-37. There were other incidents in the life of Moses fully as much to his purpose as this; and to these he proceeds to advert. (30) “And when forty years were completed, there appeared to him, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. (31) When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to observe it, the voice of the Lord came to him. (32) I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and did not dare to observe it. (33) And the Lord said to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. (34) I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and have come down to deliver them; and now, come, I will send thee into Egypt. (35) The same Moses whom they rejected, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the hand of the angel who appeared to him at the bush. (36) He led them out, after doing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. (37) This is the same Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren like me; him shall ye hear.” In this passage, the speaker has not only presented, in a most emphatic manner, the contrast between the rejection of Moses by his brethren, and his appointment by God to the very office of ruler and deliverer, which they refused him, but has also made a further advance toward his final purpose, by introducing the prophesy uttered by this same Moses concerning the Messiah. This prophesy was still more apposite, because it refuted the charge that he had spoken blasphemy against Moses, in saying that Christ would change the customs appointed by him. If Moses himself foretold the coming of a successor who should supersede him, he alone pays proper respect to Moses who submits to his successor.

Acts 7:38-40. To keep prominent the ill treatment received by Moses at the hands of the people, the speaker proceeds to note their conduct in the wilderness. (38) “This is he that was in the congregation in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living oracles to give to us. (39) Whom our fathers were not willing to obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back into Egypt, (40) saying to Aaron, Make us Gods who shall go before us; for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.” This instance of their rejection of Moses was much more flagrant than the first, seeing that it occurred immediately after the most splendid manifestations of God’s presence with him; and that, in the very words which they addressed to Aaron, they acknowledged that it was he who had brought them out of Egypt. These circumstances also render more striking the analogy which Stephen is about to develop between him and Jesus; for he also had been rejected, notwithstanding the admission, by his enemies, that he had wrought miracles.

Acts 7:41-43. Stephen next shows that the same people who so often rejected the servants of God, likewise rejected God himself. (41) “They made a calf in those days, and brought sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. (42) And God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, even as it is written in the book of the prophets, O house of Israel, have you offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness? (43) You have even taken up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which you made, to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” With this brief glance at the subsequent fate of the people who had so often rejected their deliverers, covering a period of many centuries, and terminating with their captivity in Babylon, Stephen concludes his summary of facts; but, previous to the final application, which he saw would raise a storm in the Assembly, he has a few words in reference to the temple.

Acts 7:44-50. Instead of either admitting or denying the charge of blasphemy against the temple, he undertakes to show the true religious value of that building. This he does, by first alluding to the movable and perishable nature of the tabernacle, which preceded the temple, and then, by showing, from the prophets, that the presence of God is not limited to temples made with hands. (44) “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, saying to Moses that he should make it according to the pattern which he had seen; (45) which also, our fathers, having received, brought in with Joshua within the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, (46) who found favor before God, and desired to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house. (48) Yet the Most High dwells not in temples made with hands, as says the prophet, (49) Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord; or what is my place of rest? (50) Did not my hand make all these things?” By this statement, the speaker intrenches himself behind undisputed facts of their own history, and the sentiments of their own prophets, in reference to the temple, and is now ready to spring upon them the whole concealed power of the carefully arranged facts from the life of Moses and of Joseph.

Acts 7:51-53. As Joseph, the divinely-selected savior of his brethren, had been sold by those brethren into slavery; and as Moses, divinely selected to deliver Israel from bondage, was at first rejected by them to become a sojourner in Midian, and was then sent back by the God of their fathers to be rejected by them again and again, notwithstanding the most indisputable manifestations of God’s presence with him; and as all the prophets had met with a similar fortune, so, now, the final prophet, of whom Moses and all the prophets had spoken, had been rejected and slain by the sons of these persecuting fathers. The combined power of all these facts and analogies is now concentrated in the closing paragraph of the speech, and expressed in these terrific words: (51) “Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are always resisting the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (52) Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? They murdered those who announced before concerning the coming of the Just One, of whom now you have been the betrayers and murderers; (53) who received the law through the ranks of angels, and have not kept it.”

The pent-up fires which had burned within the breast of Stephen from the beginning of these unjust proceedings, and had given an angelic glow to his features at the beginning of his speech, had been carefully smothered and controlled during the progress of his argument; but now that the restraints of the argument were withdrawn, they had burst forth in these scorching and blazing words.

Acts 7:54-60. The exasperation of the Sanhedrim was the more intense, from the fact that the denunciation hurled upon them was not a sudden burst of passion, but the deliberate and sustained announcement of a just judgment. They had not been able to resist, in debate, the wisdom and the spirit by which he spoke, and now their efforts to convict him of crime had recoiled terribly upon their own heads. They had no course now left them, but the usual resort of unprincipled partisans when totally discomfited, and to this they rushed with fearful rapidity. (54) “When they heard these things, they were exasperated, and gnashed their teeth upon him. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. (57) Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord, (58) and cast him out of the city, and stoned him. And the witnesses laid off their garments at the feet of a young man called Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling on the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death.”

This was a strange way for a court to break up; the whole body of seventy grave rabbis, whose official duty it was to watch for the faithful and regular proceedings of law, leaving their seats, and rushing with the wild mob, amid hideous outcries and tumultuous rage, to the sudden execution of a prisoner absolutely untried and uncondemned. But the maddest pranks ever played upon this mad earth are witnessed when wicked men set themselves in uncompromising opposition to God and his holy truth. So uniformly has this been true in history, that, at the present day, when such opposition is to be sustained, whether on great or insignificant occasion, no well-informed man expects aught else than disregard of all the rules of justice and propriety. If the infuriated scenes which have been enacted under such circumstances, in the history of Christianity, could be dramatically represented, the performance might be appropriately styled, The Madman’s Drama.

The vision witnessed by Stephen, while the Jews were gnashing their teeth upon him, need not be understood as the real opening of the heavens, so that the things within them could be seen by the human eye, but only a representation to his eyes, such as those granted to John in the isle of Patmos. It was vouchsafed both for his own encouragement in the hour of death, and that the remembrance of the words in which he described it, and the hue of countenance with which he gazed upon it, might remain indelibly impressed upon the minds of those who were present. There was at least one in the audience upon whom, we have reason to believe, this impression was deep and lasting. The young man Saul never forgot it; but, long afterward, when bending under the weight of many years, he makes sad mention of the part he took in these dreadful proceedings.

The death of Stephen was an event of most thrilling interest to the young Church, and well deserves the large space allotted to it by the historian. The disciples had embarked, with all their interests, both temporal and eternal, in the cause of one, who, though he proved himself mighty to deliver, while present with them, had now gone away beyond the reach of vision, and no longer held personal converse with them. They had struggled on faithfully thus far, and, amid many tears, some stripes, and much affliction, they had still found a deep satisfaction of soul in his service. It was demonstrated that their faith could sustain them in life, even amid very bitter trials; but it was not yet known how it would sustain them in the hour of death. No one of their number had yet tried the dread reality, and no man can now tell how much their spirits may have wavered in the prospect, and inclined backward toward the faith of their fathers, distrustful of the new arm of salvation. How great the strength, therefore, and how sweet the consolation imparted to every heart, when the first who died was so triumphant in the pangs of death! After witnessing the scene, they could go onward in their tear-dimmed course of suffering, without one fear or care for that within the grace, or beyond it. At the late day in which we live, which has been preceded by the happy death of millions of Christians, and which is often yet made deeply glad by their triumphs in the trying hour, we are not able to appreciate the eagerness with which the first disciples drank in the consolations of this glorious death. It was a fortuitous and most fitting preparation for the fiery ordeal through which the Church were immediately afterward called to pass.

We omit any notice of the part taken by Saul in this shocking tragedy till we come to comment on the ninth chapter, where his career becomes the leading theme of the historian

Acts Chapter Eight

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 8:1-4. The enemies of the disciples had now tried and exhausted all the ordinary methods of opposing the truth. Under the leadership of the Sadducees they had tried, first threatening, then imprisonment, and then stripes. They were about to follow this with the death of the twelve, when the milder counsels of the yet unexasperated Pharisees had prevailed, and resort was had to discussion. But the cause which had prospered under the imprisonment and scourging of its chief advocates bounded forward with astonishing rapidity when the strength of its plea was brought before the people in open discussion. Its learned opponents were completely discomfited. Foiled in their efforts, the Pharisees were now ready to unite with the Sadducees in a common persecution. They selected Stephen as the first victim, because he had been their most formidable opponent in the discussion. They had determined to proceed in their bloody purpose with the forms of law; but, in a moment of frenzy, they had broken loose from all restraint, and dispatched their victim with the violence of a mob. Once embarked in this mad career, nothing less than the utter extermination of the Church could satisfy them. Hence the historian proceeds to inform us that, (1) “On that day there arose a great persecution against the Church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad through the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (2) Yet devout men carried Stephen to burial, and made great lamentation over him. (3) But Saul wasted the Church; entering into the houses, and dragging forth both men and women, he committed them to prison. (4) Nevertheless, they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.”

The grief of a community at the loss of a good man is more intense when he falls in the performance of some part characteristic of his life. But it is most intense when death, at such a moment, is precipitated by injustice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the burial of Stephen should have been attended with “great lamentation.” The perilous condition of the congregation—some of whom were being hourly cast into prison, and most of whom were contemplating flight—could but deepen their grief. The funeral services were soon followed by a general dispersion of the disciples. With much bitterness of heart, they left behind them their native city and their individual homes, to seek refuge among strangers. But the bitterness of their temporal loss must have been slight, to the truly devoted among them, compared with the disappointment of their brightening hopes concerning the speedy triumph of the gospel. How bitter, too, must have been the disappointment of the twelve, at suddenly finding themselves left alone in the great city, the congregation of many thousand disciples whom they had collected—all scattered and gone! While the thought of the brethren and sisters fleeing for life, and of the many already languishing in prison, they could have but regarded their own lives as in imminent danger. But, supposing that the time for which Jesus had limited their stay in Jerusalem had not yet expired, they courageously stood at their post, regardless of consequences.

The present distress and flight of the disciples had resulted, not from the mere fact that they believed in Jesus, but more especially from the zeal and persistency with which they pushed his claims upon the attention of others. Seeing that they had now lost everything, by this course, a worldly prudence would have taught them to be, thenceforward, more quiet and unobtrusive in the propagation of their faith. Even the interests of the cause itself, which had been jeopardized by the boldness with which Stephen had attacked the prevailing iniquity, might have been urged in favor of a change of policy. But this time-serving expediency was reserved for the disgrace of a later age. It never took large possession of the heroic hearts of the early disciples. On the contrary, the scattered disciples “went everywhere preaching the word.” The result was the rapid spread of the gospel into the cities of Judea, and even into Samaria. Thus, the apparent ruin of the single Church in Jerusalem resulted in the springing up of many Churches throughout the province—proving, for the thousandth time in the world’s history, how impotent is the hand of man when fighting against God. As the blows of the blacksmith’s hammer upon the heated iron scatter the scintillations in every direction, so the effort of wicked Jews to crush the Church of Christ only scattered its light more widely abroad.

Acts 8:5. Among the many who now went everywhere preaching the word, the historian chooses to relate here the labors of only one. (5) “Then Philip went down into the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them.” This Philip was one of the seven, and his name stands in the list next to that of Stephen. The reason why Luke selects his labors for this place in the history, is because he was the first to preach the gospel in Samaria. Jesus had commanded them to testify first in Jerusalem; then in Judea; then in Samaria; and then to the uttermost part of the earth. Luke follows them in the regular prosecution of this programme.

Acts 8:6-11. When Philip first entered the city of Samaria, the public mind was in a condition most unfavorable to the reception of the gospel. The practice of magical arts was quite common among the Jews and Samaritans of that age; and the masses of the people of all nations were very superstitious in reference to them. At the time now referred to, the people of Samaria were so completely under the influence of a magician, that one less bold than Philip would have had no hope of success in preaching the gospel to them. But he had confidence in the power of the gospel, and commenced his labors with a firm purpose. His success was far beyond what could have been anticipated. (6) “And the multitudes, with one accord, attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought. (7) For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many, paralyzed and lame, were healed. (8) And there was great joy in that city. (9) But a certain man named Simon was in that city before, practicing magic and astonishing the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was some great one: (10) to whom they all gave attention, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. (11) And they gave attention to him because he had astonished them with magic arts for a long time.”

We are here introduced to another case of conversion, with a very brief account of the means and influences by which it was effected. These demand careful consideration. It is in order that the perfect adaptation of the gospel means employed by Philip may the more strikingly appear, that Luke is particular to state the previous mental condition of the people. They had been so much astonished by the magic arts of Simon, that the prevailing conviction was, “This man is the great power of God.” The dreamy genius of Neander has caught up some vague tradition of the fathers concerning a supposed theosophy involved in this expression; and, by a common sympathy in mysticism, rather than by the force of his reasoning, has transmitted it to many recent commentators. But the sober judgment, content with more natural conclusions, finds in it only the impression which such arts as Simon practiced usually make upon a superstitious multitude. The tricks of his legerdemain they supposed to be exhibitions of divine power. The first work for Philip to do was to prostrate the influence of Simon by undeceiving the people.

To accomplish this object, he has recourse to the power of the Holy Spirit. This power, addressed to the eye in the healing of lameness and paralysis, and the casting out of demons; and to the ear, in preaching Christ to them, soon arrested the attention of the multitude. There was a prompt and universal decision in the public mind in favor of the miracles wrought by Philip, and against the pretensions of Simon. What the distinction between these miracles and Simon’s astonishing tricks, which led to so prompt a decision, we are not able to say, because we know not what these tricks were. Suffice it to say, that this single incident should put to silence forever that species of skepticism which resolves all the miracles of Christ and the apostles into occult art and optical illusions; for here are these arts, in their most delusive form, brought into direct conflict with apostolic miracles; and so palpable is the distinction, that it is at once discovered and acknowledged by the whole multitude.

Acts 8:12. The unmistakable reality of the miracles wrought by Philip convinced the people that he was attended by the power of God; and that was enough to make them acknowledge the authority of God in what he communicated to them. In order that men may believe the Gospel, it is only necessary that they believe it to be, in reality, the word of God. But the Holy Spirit convinced them that what they heard was the word of God, by attending it with a sensible demonstration of the power of God. That they believed was but the natural result of what they saw and heard. (12) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women.” Being convinced that they heard the word of God, they believed it because it was the word; and, for the same reason, they yielded to its authority. Their obedience was not the result of any inherent power in the word, apart from its authorship; for if it were believed to be the word of man, it would have no authority and no power. All the authority and power which are in it, therefore, result from the belief that God is its author. This belief was effected, in the present instance, by the Holy Spirit, through miraculous attestations; hence, the whole change wrought in the parties may be styled the work of the Holy Spirit. The simple facts of the kingdom over which Christ was reigning, thus attested, were set forth before the people, and, upon belief of these, attended by a willingness to comply with their requirements, they were immersed without delay. This was but a faithful execution of the commission, which says, “He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved.”

Acts 8:13. The most signal triumph achieved on this occasion was that over Simon himself. Luke gives it the prominence of a separate statement, in these words: (13) “And Simon himself also believed, and when he was immersed he continued with Philip, and beholding the signs and great miracles which were done, he was astonished.” The commentators nearly all agree that Simon’s faith was not real, but feigned; and that the statement that he believed is made according to the appearance, and not according to the reality. They urge that subsequent developments prove the insincerity of his professions, and compel us to adopt this conclusion. It must be confessed, that at the time Philip might have been deceived by him; but this could not be said of Luke, who wrote subsequent to all the developments in the case. If his object was to describe the events as it appeared to Philip, he might retain, in the first instance, the mistake of Philip; but we would expect, on this supposition, a subsequent correction. No such correction, however, is given; neither is there any evidence that Luke intended to represent the case as it appeared to Philip. On the contrary, he speaks from his own stand-point, and had all the facts before him which we have before us. His statement, therefore, should control our judgment, and he says, not that Simon feigned belief, but that he believed. We conclude, then, that he did, in the true and proper sense of the word, believe.

Some commentators, disposed to admit the statement that Simon believed, still deny the sufficiency of his faith, and urge that it was deficient in its object. But the historian makes no distinction between what Simon believed, and what was believed by the Samaritans. They “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ;” and Luke adds, without qualification, that “Simon himself also believed.” He believed, then, what Philip preached; be believed the gospel. This conclusion is based upon statements too positive and unambiguous to be set aside because of any difficulty in reconciling them with facts subsequently developed.

Acts 8:14-17. Before recording the sequel of Simon’s case, Luke introduces an incident, which, on account of its singularity in New Testament history, demands very careful consideration. (14) “Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John; (15) who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (16) For as yet he had fallen upon none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

It would be useless to incumber these pages with the many unsatisfactory explanations of this procedure with which commentaries abound. We will be content with a simple effort to learn what it teaches, by a careful consideration of the facts. We notice, then, first, That the Samaritans had believed the gospel, and been immersed. They were, then, according to the commission, and according to Peter’s answer on Pentecost, pardoned, and in possession of that “gift of the Holy Spirit,” which was promised on condition of repentance and immersion. Second, After they had been in possession of this gift, for a period sufficient for the news to reach Jerusalem, the whole body of the apostles united in sending to them Peter and John. Third, Previous to the arrival of Peter and John, none of them had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. Fourth, Upon the imposition of hands by the two apostles, accompanied with prayers, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, conferring miraculous gifts. From these facts we may draw several conclusions. 1st. Whatever other objects may have been contemplated in the mission of the two apostles, such as confirming the faith of the disciples, and assisting Philip in his labors, it is quite certain that the chief object was the impartation of the Holy Spirit. What they did when they arrived in Samaria was certainly the object for which they went. But the chief thing which they did was to confer the Holy Spirit; hence, this was the chief object of their visit. If, however, Philip could have conferred this gift, the mission, so far as the chief object of it is concerned, would have been useless. This affords strong evidence that the miraculous gift of the Spirit was bestowed by no human hands except those of the apostles. That such was the conclusion of Simon, who was an interested witness of this proceeding, is evident from the proposition he made to Peter, to purchase from him this power. If all who had the Spirit could impart it to others, he need only to have sought the gift himself, knowing that this would include the power to impart it. But his offer to buy this power, and that from an apostle, shows that the apostles alone possessed the power of imparting the Spirit. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in the only other instance of the kind recorded in Acts, that of the twelve disciples in Ephesus, the same gift was bestowed by the hands of an apostle.

The case of Timothy is no exception, as has been supposed, to this conclusion; for, although Paul states that the gift which was in him was given him through prophesy and “the laying on of the hands of the eldership;” yet he exhorts him, in the second epistle, “Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands.” These two statements can be reconciled either by supposing that Paul refers to the gift of office in the former, and the gift of the Spirit in the latter; or, that the eldership united with Paul in laying on hands, while it was the apostolic part of the service which imparted the Spirit, the eldership participating, because at the same time he was ordained to the work of an evangelist.

2d. From the fact that these disciples enjoyed pardon and membership in the Church before receiving the miraculous gift, it is evident that this gift was not necessary to the enjoyment of either of these blessings. Yet, strange to say, the mystic power of an ultra spiritualism has thrown these plain facts into the utmost confusion in the minds of some great men. Witness the following from Neander, in reference to the condition of the Samaritans previous to the visit of Peter and John. “They had not yet attained the consciousness of a vital communion with the Christ whom Philip preached, nor yet to the consciousness of a personal divine life. The indwelling of the Spirit was as yet something foreign to them, known only by the wonderful operation which they saw taking place around them.” This assertion is evidently in direct conflict with the commission, and with the promise of Peter, that those who would repent and be immersed should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul also teaches that the indwelling of the Spirit is characteristic of all who are Christ’s; and certainly all are Christ’s who have been immersed into the name of Christ, as had been these Samaritans.

3d. The statement that “as yet he had fallen on none of them, only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” thrown in parenthetically in explanation of the mission of Peter and John, necessarily implies that there was no such connection between immersion into Christ and the miraculous gift of the Spirit, as that the latter might be inferred from the former. This gift, then, was not common to the disciples, but was enjoyed only by those to whom it was specifically imparted.

Seeing that this extraordinary gift of the Spirit was not necessary to the conversion and pardon of these parties, nor to the indwelling of the Spirit, it is proper to inquire for what purpose it was bestowed. We have already observed, in commenting on Acts 1:8, that the design of bestowing it upon the apostles was to endow them, intellectually, with power to establish the kingdom, and to furnish miraculous attestation of their mission. In general, miracles were designed to indicate the divine sanction of the procedure with which they were connected; but when the miracle assumed a mental form, it was designed to qualify the party for some mental labor. The young Church in Samaria had hitherto been guided by the infallible teaching of Philip, and more recently, by that of Peter and John. But these brethren must, in executing their high commission, soon depart to other fields of labor. If, in doing so, they should leave the Church in the condition in which Peter and John found it, there would be no means left them of increasing their knowledge of the new institution, and none but their uncertain memories of retaining with accuracy what they had already learned. To supply this defect, chiefly, and secondarily, to leave among them the means of convincing unbelievers, the gift of inspiration was bestowed—not upon all the disciples, for this is not necessarily implied in the text, but upon a sufficient number of chosen individuals. For further information upon the design of such gifts, I refer the reader to the twelfth and fourteenth chapters of First Corinthians. A complete discussion of the subject would belong to a commentary on that epistle, rather than to one on Acts. Suffice it here to add, that these gifts, served as a temporary provision, until the facts, doctrine, commandments, and promises of the new covenant were committed to writing by inspired men, when the prophesies, tongues, and miraculous knowledge of individual teachers gave place to the written record.

Acts 8:18-19. In the above remarks upon the incident before us, we have assumed that the gift imparted was miraculous. This assumption is justified by the fact that it was a matter of observation by those who were not recipients of it, as is evident from the next statement of the text. (18) “And when Simon saw, that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, (19) saying, Give me also this authority, that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Spirit.” The form of this proposition shows that the Holy Spirit did not come upon these persons directly from heaven, as upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, but that it was imparted through imposition of hands. This marks the difference between the immersion in the Holy Spirit, to which the event on Pentecost belongs, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit, to which we refer the present case. The latter was effected through human agency; the former without it.

In order to account for the impious proposition of Simon, we must remember his former mode of life, and consider the mental habits which must have been cultivated. Having been accustomed to the performance of astonishing tricks as a means of making money, and to the increase of his stock in trade by purchasing the secret of every new trick which he met with among his brother magicians, he had acquired the habit of looking upon every thing of an astonishing character with reference to the money which might be in it. When, now he saw that by imposition of the apostles’ hands the miraculous power of the Spirit was imparted, and remembered that there were many even among the disciples, who had not yet received the coveted gift, he at once perceived that the power to impart it could be made a source of great profit. His overruling avarice, mingled with intense fondness for popular influence, prompted him to seek this power. The blinding influence of these passions prevented him from seeing the impropriety either of offering to buy it, or of intending to sell it; for certainly, if he had realized the light in which his proposition should be regarded, he would not have ventured to make it.

Acts 8:20-23. Nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of an apostle than such a proposition. It was well calculated to arouse the impulsive spirit of Peter, and his response is marked by his characteristic vehemence. (20) “But Peter said to him, Your silver go with you to perdition, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God with money. (21) You have no part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. (22) Repent, therefore, of this your wickedness, and pray God, if, perhaps, the purpose of your heart may be forgiven you. (23) For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of iniquity.” This description of Simon’s spiritual condition shows clearly that he was not, at that time, in a state of mind acceptable to God. “The gall of bitterness” is a forcible expression of the wretchedness of his condition; and “the bond of iniquity,” of the dominion which sin exercised over him. His heart was not right in the sight of God, and he was in the way to perdition. The declaration that he had “no part nor lot in this matter” depends, for its interpretation, upon the meaning of the expression “this matter.” Whether it refers to the gospel, or to the impartation of the Spirit, is not altogether certain. In either case, the declaration is true; for it is certain that he had no part in the impartation of the Spirit; and equally certain that he was then under the condemnation of God.

Whether we are to suppose that Simon’s destitute and miserable condition was the result of having forfeited the favor of God by falling into sin after his immersion, or that his confession and immersion had been insincere, so that he had never been pardoned, is not to be determined, as many suppose, by the grossness of his present conception concerning the Holy Spirit. The question resolves itself into this: whether the discovery that a man is under the control of some wicked passion soon after his immersion is proof that he had not been a proper subject for immersion. If conversion involves so complete a renovation, that old mental habits are entirely eradicated, never to exert their influence again, then Simon was not a genuine convert. But if, as both Scripture and experience teach, the turning of a sinner to God is simply the triumph of conscience and the better feelings over the passions, while the latter still exist in a latent state, ready to spring into activity on the approach of temptation, we must admit that Simon may have been a penitent believer at the time of his immersion. That he was a believer is asserted by Luke; but whether he was to such a degree penitent as to receive pardon when he was immersed, is not certainly determined by the text. For aught that is affirmed of him, he may either have been influence by sinister motives in confessing his faith, or have been truly penitent at the time, and afterward, under the spur of temptation which the splendid gifts bestowed by Peter were the occasion of, have yielded to the sudden impulse of his ruling passion.

Whichever of these hypotheses we adopt, the case affords no objection to the immediate immersion of all who confess faith in Christ, and indicate a desire to obey him, no evidence of their insincerity being apparent. The inspired example of Philip is an authoritative guide for us, and if it appear that he occasionally immersed an unprepared subject, modern evangelists cannot be censured for following his example, though they should occasionally meet with the same misfortune.

The supposition that Philip and Peter both, by the power of discerning spirits, knew from the beginning that Simon’s heart was not right, but, for wise reasons, withheld the announcement until his wickedness was developed before the people is entirely gratuitous. The gift of “discerning spirit,” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:10, was the power of testing the claims of those who professed to be inspired. There is no evidence that it was ever used by the apostles or others to detect the concealed thoughts and emotions of the soul. The detection of Ananias and Sapphira is not a case in point, for it was effected not by discerning their thoughts, but by a direct revelation to Peter that the story which they told was a lie.

Acts 8:24. The conclusion of the conversation between Peter and Simon leaves us in doubt as to the final fate of the latter. Peter had exhorted him to repent, and pray to God for pardon. (24) “Then Simon answered and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” This response indicates very clearly that the scathing speech of Peter had a good effect. It doubtless awoke Simon to a clearer perception of his own character, filled him with more becoming awe of the Holy Spirit, and aroused some fear of the terrible consequences of his sin. As the curtain of history here falls upon him, he disappears in a more promising state of feeling, but without leaving us fully assured that he recovered from the dominion of his unholy passions. Many things are said of his subsequent career, in ancient and modern commentaries, but nothing that is sufficiently authenticated to deserve our serious attention.

Acts 8:25. In connection with the prime object of their visit to Samaria, Peter and John also furthered the efforts of Philip in preaching and teaching. This we learn from an incidental remark in connection with the statement of their departure for Jerusalem. (25) “Now they, having testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned into Jerusalem and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” This labor in the Samaritan villages was performed on their journey toward Jerusalem, which may have been somewhat circuitous, according to the situation of the villages which they desired to visit. Thus these primitive preachers of the gospel made all the stations of their journeys through the country successive points for disseminating the truth.

Acts 8:26. When the congregation in Samaria had been supplied with spiritual gifts, and sufficiently instructed to justify leaving them to their own resources for edification, Philip was called away to other fields of labor.

We are now introduced to another of those minutely detailed cases of conversion which are recorded for the purpose of instruction in reference to the means of turning men to God, and inducing them into the kingdom. The purpose of bringing him to a knowledge of salvation was formed in the divine mind, and specific means of accomplishing it put into operation, ere the man himself was aware of it. The narrative traces the steps by which this purpose of God was accomplished, and enables us to know, when God determines upon the conversion of an individual, how he proceeds to effect it.

The first step taken in the case was to send an angel from heaven. But where does the angel make his appearance? To the man for whose benefit he came? So it must be, if he is to hold any direct communication with him. But, strange to say, while the man was south of Jerusalem, traveling toward Gaza, the angel descends into Samaria, to the north of Jerusalem, and appears to Philip. (26) “And an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south, into the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert.” This is all that the angel has to say; and now his part of the work, which was simply to start the evangelist in the direction of the person to be converted, is accomplished. He retires from the scene.

The statement “this is a desert” is correctly supposed, by the best commentators, to be no part of the angel’s speech to Philip, but to have been added by Luke to note the singularity of a preacher being thus peremptorily sent away from a populous country into a desert. The term desert is not here to be understood in its stricter sense of a barren waste, but in its more general acceptation, of a place thinly inhabited. Such an interpretation is required by the geography of the country, and by the fact that water was found for the immersion of the eunuch. The only road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passed through a level district suitable for wheeled vehicles, was that by Bethlehem to Hebron, and thence across a plain to Gaza. According to Dr. Hackett, this is “the desert” of Luke 1:80, in which John the Immerser grew up. Dr. S. T. Barclay, who traversed this entire route in May, 1853, says that he traveled, after leaving “the immediate vicinity of Hebron, over one of the very best roads (with slight exceptions) and one of the most fertile countries that I ever beheld.”

Acts 8:27-28. Philip promptly obeyed the command of the angel, and was soon in close proximity to the intended convert, though, as yet, he knew nothing of him. (27) “He arose and went; and behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, (28) was returning, and sitting in his chariot, was reading the Prophet Isaiah.“

Acts 8:29. Just as Philip entered the road to which he had been directed by the angel, and saw the chariot before him, the Holy Spirit began to work for the conversion of the treasurer. And where does he begin his work? In the heart of the sinner, by direct communication? No. Like the angel, he begins with the preacher. (29) “Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.” This was a miraculous communication from the Spirit, such as frequently directed the labors of inspired men. The object of it was the same as that of the angel’s visit, to bring the preacher and the subject for conversion face to face.

Acts 8:30. The purpose of the angel’s visit and the Spirit’s miraculous communication was now accomplished. (30) “Then Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the Prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you understand what you are reading?” Considering the relative position of the parties, one an humble footman, and the other a chief officer of a powerful kingdom, sitting in his chariot, this question appears rather an abrupt and inappropriate introduction to the conversation. But it was, in reality, the most natural and appropriate question that Philip could ask. Hearing the man reading aloud, in what we call the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, that touching description of the sufferings of Christ, he knew that it was unintelligible to him if he was not acquainted with the gospel; whereas, if he had learned the story of the cross, he could not fail to understand it. The question, “Do you understand what you are reading?” was, then, the very question to determine where he stood, and how to approach him.

Acts 8:31-35. The man’s response was definite and satisfactory. (31) “And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the place of the Scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and as a lamb silent before his shearer, so he opens not his mouth. (33) In his humiliation, his condemnation was extorted, and who shall fully describe his generation? For his life is violently taken from the earth. (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of whom does the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man? (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at the same Scripture, preached to him Jesus.”

We have now before us all the influences and agencies employed in this man’s conversion, and may restate them, as follows: He was reading a remarkable prophesy concerning Christ, and had paused upon it, with the inquiry, Of whom is this written? He could recollect nothing in the history of the prophet himself, or of any other man, to which it would apply. He was, therefore, unable to understand it; and if he learned to pray as David did, the prompt impulse of his heart was, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” In this frame of mind he was best prepared for the influences which God, who knows the secrets of all hearts, was preparing for him. If his eyes can be made to penetrate the darkness of that prophesy, and his heart to feel the power of the truth which lies there hid from his gaze, all will be well. But there is no human being present to teach him, nor does any friend of Jesus know even of his existence. What, then, will be done? God employs his Spirit to open the eyes and touch the hearts of men; will he not, then, immediately distill a heavenly influence upon man’s soul, to enlighten him and save him? He does not do it. And if not in this case, where no human agent is at hand, who shall say that he does in any other? The word of God is silent in reference to any such abstract influence, and he who assumes its existence gets behind the curtain of revelation.

But God employs angels in ministering to those who shall be heirs of salvation. In the absence of human agency, will not some angel be dispatched to the aid of this waiting subject for salvation? An angel is truly sent; but his mission is, to start a man in the direction of the chariot. When the man gets within sight of the chariot, the Holy Spirit begins to work; but he works by first bringing the man to the side of the chariot, and next, through his lips, speaking to the man in the chariot. Thus we see, that, though an angel from heaven has appeared, and the Holy Spirit has operated miraculously for the conversion of the sinner, there is still an insuperable necessity for the co-operation of a man, Unless that man does his part of the work, all that has been done by both the angel and the Spirit will prove unavailing. Not the slightest influence from either of the heavenly messengers reaches the sinner’s mind or heart, until the preacher begins to speak, and then it reaches him through the words which are spoken.

The further process is easily traced. As Philip opens up item after item of the prophesy, and shows its fulfillment in Jesus, the eyes of the eunuch begin to penetrate the Scripture, until, at last, he sees a flood of heavenly light where all was darkness before. His eyes are opened, and he sees the wondrous glory of the suffering Savior beaming from the inspired page which lies before him. This is effected, not by an abstract influence of the Spirit, enabling him to understand what was before obscure, but by the aid of a fellow-man providentially sent to him for the purpose.

The treasurer may have heard of Jesus, in Jerusalem; but, if so, he heard of him through those with whom he had been up to worship, the bitter enemies of the cross; and knew him only as an impostor who had been deservedly crucified, though now worshiped by a few deluded Jews as their Messiah. But now, with a prophesy before him which he had tried in vain to find fulfilled in the history of any other man, but which finds its complement in the life and death of Jesus; and informed, by a man whose astonishing knowledge of the word of God is a guarantee of his honesty, that Jesus is risen from the dead, his honest heart interposes no wicked obstacles to his faith, and he believes. The demonstration strikes him with the greater force, because it is so unexpected. The Jews could not explain that prophesy, for they could not find its facts in the life of any of their great heroes; and though the reference to the Messiah was so palpable as to at once suggest itself to every reader, they would not apply it to him, because their conception of his earthly glory conflicted with the humiliation and suffering described by the prophet. Until now, this very difficulty had been puzzling the mind of the treasurer. But he now sees the prophesy fulfilled; and while the demonstration compels him to believe, the true conception of a bleeding Messiah touches his heart. And this is effected by the Holy Spirit in Philip, through the words which Philip spoke.

Acts 8:36. “And as they went along the road, they came to certain water. And the eunuch said, What hinders me to be immersed?” The appearance of the water to which they had come suggested this question, but it could not have been done so unless the eunuch had been taught something concerning immersion as a religious ordinance. But he had enjoyed no opportunity for instruction on this subject, except through the teaching of Philip. Had Philip, then, preached him a sermon on immersion? No. Luke says Philip “preached to him Jesus.” How, then, had he, while hearing Jesus preached, obtained instruction in reference to immersion? There is only one answer to this question. It is, that to preach Jesus, after the apostolic method, involves full instruction upon the subject of immersion. The prejudice, therefore, which exists at the present day against frequent introduction of this subject in discourses addressed to sinners, is altogether unscriptural; and those only preach Jesus correctly who give to it the same prominence which belongs to it in apostolic discourses. It was a part of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, of Philip’s preaching to the Samaritans, and of his present discourse to the Ethiopian; and we will yet see, in the course of this commentary, that it always occupied a place in the preaching of inspired men on such occasions. Indeed, it would be impossible to preach Jesus fully without it. For the beginning of the gospel, historically, according to Mark, is the immersion of John, to which Jesus submitted, and near the conclusion of it is the commission given in the last words of Jesus on earth, commanding every believer to be immersed. Thus he who preaches Jesus has immersion in the beginning and in the end of his sermon.

Acts 8:37. By almost universal consent of recent critics, the whole of this verse is excluded from the original text, and should be from all versions. For the reasons on which this decision is based, we refer the reader to “Bloomfield’s Commentary” on the passage, “Tregelles’ History of the Printed Text,” and other critical works.

This verse has been used chiefly for the purpose of determining the confession which was made originally by candidates for immersion. The fact that this is an interpolation must modify the argument on this subject, but does not invalidate it. The fact that such a confession as is here put in the mouth of the eunuch was uniformly required by the apostles, is evident from other passages of Scripture. It is quite certain that it was confessed by Timothy. Paul says to him: “Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, into which you were called, and did confess the good confession before many witnesses.” This confession was made at the beginning of his religious career; for it is connected with his call to eternal life. It is the same confession which is attributed to the eunuch; for Paul immediately adds: “I charge thee before God, who gives life to all things, and Jesus Christ, who bore testimony under Pontius Pilate, to the good confession,” etc. Now, what is here called “the good confession” is certainly the confession that he was the Christ, made before the Sanhedrim, under Pontius Pilate. But this is identified, by the terms employed, with the confession which Timothy had made, which is also “the good confession.” Timothy, then, made the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the same attributed to the eunuch. Moreover, this confession was so conspicuous, at the time of Paul’s writing, that it was known as the confession, and so highly esteemed as to be styled the good confession.

That Timothy was not alone in making this confession is evident from the following statement of Paul: “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” From this it appears that one item in “the word of faith” which the apostles preached, was the confession of the Lord Jesus with the mouth. Paul assumes that this word was in the mouths and hearts of the brethren in Rome, whom he had never seen, and with whose conversion he had nothing, personally, to do. This assumption can be justified only on the ground that it belonged to “the word of faith” everywhere preached. He argued, from the universal practice of the apostles, to a particular conclusion in reference to their converts in Rome. We have, therefore, both his premises and his conclusion, to sustain us in deciding that this confession was universal in the primitive Church, as a part of the apostolic ritual.

We here have use for the interpolated verse now under consideration. The fact that it is interpolated does not prove that the eunuch did not make the confession. On the contrary, when rightly considered, it establishes the presumption that the passage, as it now reads, is a faithful account of the event. The interpolation is easily accounted for. The text read: “The eunuch said, See, here is water; what hinders me to be immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water.” Now, the object of the interpolator was to fill up what appeared to be a historic blank, so that Philip should not appear to have led the man into the water too abruptly. In doing so, he, of course, inserted what he supposed to be the apostolic custom; and the fact that he inserted this confession shows that he believed that the apostles required candidates for immersion to make the confession. Furthermore, the interpolator would naturally be guided by the prevailing custom of his own day, so that his amendment might be received by his cotemporaries. In whatever age, therefore, the interpolation was made, it indicates both the custom of that age and the opinion then prevalent as to the apostolic custom. Whether these considerations have any force or not, depends upon the proximity of the age in question to the apostolic period. But this interpolation was known to Irenæus, a.d. 170, and this proves that the confession which the Scriptures show to have been universal in the days of the apostles was perpetuated into the latter part of the second century.

Both the custom of confessing Christ, and the formula employed, originated in the most natural way, and without any positive precept. Jesus appeared in Galilee and Judea, proclaiming himself the Christ and the Son of God. As men became convinced of his claims, they would say, “I believe that he is the Christ.” Others would say, “I believe that he is a prophet, but I deny that he is the Christ.” Thus the confession or denial of this proposition was the first mark of distinction between believers and unbelievers. The Pharisees, therefore, “agreed that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” The confession was, then, all that was necessary to identify one as a disciple of Jesus. Hence, with special reference to this state of things, Jesus said, “He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven; but he that denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven.” After the commission was given, enjoining the immersion of all believers, the confession was still perpetuated, and immersion naturally took position immediately after it.

A confession thus necessarily originating from the grand issue that Jesus presented to the world, and involving the earliest distinction between his friends and his foes, could not fail to have an important position in the formation of those friends into a great organization. The Church of Christ, like every other useful organization, is created and sustained by the obligations of some truth. This truth may be properly styled the foundation of the organization, because it is that from which it springs, and without which it could not exist. The truth declared in the confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is beyond controversy, the foundation of the Church of Christ, and is so declared by Jesus himself. Without it no Church of Christ could possibly exist. It had to exist as a truth, and be demonstrated to men as such, before the Church would begin to be. The truth itself, however, and the confession of it, are two things entirely distinct. The former is the foundation; the latter, a means of building on it. There is no way to build an organization of men and women on a truth, except by a mutual confession of it, and an agreement to live together according to its obligations. When individuals, believing that Jesus is the Christ, mutually confess it, and agree to unite in the observance of its obligations, the immediate and necessary result is a Church. In this way the confession became an organic element in the ecclesiastical constitution.

Inasmuch as some have conceived that Jesus in person is the foundation of the Church, it may be well to observe here that there is no way in which an organization can be built on a person, except by believing something in reference to him. It is not the fact that there is such a person as Jesus, but that that person is the Christ which gave existence to the Church.

Inasmuch as members of the Church are built upon the true foundation, in part, by a mutual confession of its truth, the confession, formally made, is both an acknowledgment of the obligations which the truth imposes, and a pledge to all the duties of a member in the Church. It is true, that the confession, like immersion, and eating bread and wine, may occur amid the careless scenes of a wicked life, without any religious import. But this is only to say that the specific acts which God calls upon us to perform in religious ordinances may be performed by wicked men without religious intent. And this, again, is only to say, that, in adapting his institutions to us, instead of inventing new and unheard-of performances, he has lifted up certain actions and words already familiar, into association with religious truth and obligation. This arrangement is a proof of his wisdom; for by it the mind is averted from the mere physical act, which might otherwise have usurped too much consideration, and is compelled to associate the value of the deed with the thoughts which surround it. Such is pre-eminently the case with the confession, which, though a very simple declaration of faith, is a formal assumption of all the obligations of a Christian life.

The kingdom of Christ is not limited to earth, but was designed to bind together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men. God himself was the first to present himself for this great union. Over the bank of the Jordan he made the same confession which is required of us, and thereby not only bore testimony to the fact that Jesus was his Son, but, also, voluntarily placed himself before the universe in the attitude which the incipient mediatorship required him to occupy. By this formal confession he pledged himself to accept the mediation of Christ, just as we, by the same confession, pledge ourselves to accept the blessings which that mediation procures for us. If God had never confessed Jesus, in this or some equivalent manner, we would have no direct assurance from him that he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Like men on earth, the angels in heaven passed into the privileges of the kingdom of God, by making this same confession. When Jesus ascended up on high, the Father said to him, “Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Then he “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God,” and God said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Then were fulfilled the words of Paul, “God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The angels all confessed the good confession, receiving Jesus as their Lord, and rendering thus their first act of worship to the Son of Mary. The one identical confession, therefore, has brought together, in one harmonious whole, God, angels, and men; the latter being pledged by it to eternal worship, and the former pledged forever to accept their grateful homage through Christ.

That this confession was the only one required of candidates for immersion by the apostles, is universally admitted by those who are competent to judge. It is likewise admitted that they regarded it as a sufficient confession. This fact alone should teach men to be satisfied with it now. He, indeed, who is guided by the Bible alone, can not require of men any other confession than such as he finds authorized by Bible precedents. Neither is it possible that he who implicitly follows the apostolic precedent can be misled, unless the apostles, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament, can mislead them. Fidelity to the word of God, therefore, binds us to this confession alone, and, in clinging to it, we have every assurance which inspiration can give that we are right.

Departure from apostolic precedent is never justifiable, except when the precedent itself was the result of circumstances peculiar to the apostolic age. The primitive practice of washing the feet of brethren who came into the house from the highway, was an accidental, and not a necessary result of the law of hospitality. Growing out of the peculiar habit of wearing sandals, it ceased to be a matter of duty as soon as the circumstances which gave rise to it disappeared. If a similar change of circumstances has taken place in reference to the confession, rendering it insufficient for our times, then we are no longer bound by the precedent. That such is the case is affirmed by many of our cotemporaries, and we must extend these remarks sufficiently to consider the reasons offered in support of this opinion.

It is often argued that, in the days of the apostles, the moment men became convinced that Jesus was the Christ they were ready to submit to his service; but now, every Church is surrounded with men and women who are convinced of this fact, but still persist in wickedness; hence some more effectual test should now be applied. This argument is based upon a false assumption in reference to results of primitive preaching; for we read of many rulers of synagogues who believed in Jesus, but would not confess him for hear of the Pharisees; of Joseph of Arimathea, who, though a disciples kept it secret; of Felix, who trembled under the preaching of Paul, but said, Go thy way for the present; and of Agrippa, who was almost, though not altogether, persuaded to be a Christian. If these men in high stations were deterred by fear, or by worldly lusts, from making the confession, how much more the common people, who had much more to fear! Witness the parents of the blind man who had been healed by Jesus, who gave evasive answers in the synagogue for this very reason. There is no evidence that men were more prompt to yield to their convictions then than they are now.

Sometimes it is argued, quite inconsistently with the above, that the danger of being known as a Christian in those days rendered the simple confession a sufficient test of a man’s devotion; but now, when Christianity is popular, it is entirely insufficient. It must be granted, that sometimes it was dangerous to property and life to become a Christian, yet it was true then, as it is now, that many insincere persons found their way into the Churches. Jude complains that “ungodly men, turning the favor of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” had “crept in unawares.” Paul echoes the same sentiment in reference to “false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” There are those “who went out from us because they were not of us,” and there was Demas, who forsook Paul in the hour of danger, “having loved this present world.” And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Simon the sorcerer, of Alexander the coppersmith, of Phygellus and Hermogenes, of Hymeneus and Alexander whom Paul delivered over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme, and of many others who proved insincere in their confession, or false to its obligations. Surely, if a test of sincerity which could let into the fold such wolves as these was sufficient for the inspired apostles, we may be content with the same, unless we affect a wisdom and a zeal superior to theirs.

But the most popular argument against the present sufficiency of the good confession is this: that the immense multiplicity of doctrinal errors now prevalent requires a severer test of soundness in the faith than was used by the apostles before these errors had an existence. Unfortunately, however, its historic assumption is as baseless as that of the two we have just considered. For not only were the Churches surrounded with most pernicious errors in doctrine, but were sickened by the poison of those errors within their own bosoms. Pharisees in Jerusalem crept in to spy out the liberty of the new covenant, and bring the brethren back into bondage to the law; and there were Sadducees in the Church at Corinth who denied the resurrection. There were philosophers, such as “Hymeneus and Philetus, who concerning the faith have erred, saying that the resurrection is already past, and overthrow the faith of some,” and there were transcendentalists, who denied that “Jesus Christ had come in the flesh,” having speculated his bodily existence into the essence of moonshine, or something equally unreal. James had to warn some against being deceived into worship of the heavenly bodies, by assuring them that “every good gift comes down from the Father of lights,” and not from the lights themselves; while Paul fights many a hard battle against brethren who were disposed to openly countenance fornication, incest, and the sacrificial banquets of heathen worship. Under the pressure of all this influx of falsehood and iniquity, why did not these inspired men see their mistake, and, discarding the simple confession, draw up a masterly catechism, which would shut out every error, and guard the purity of the Church? How sad the reflection, that men so ingenious in other respects, were so stupid in this! And how fortunate for us, that the wiser heads of Rome, Geneva, Augsburg, and Westminster have supplied this deficiency in the work of the apostles!

We have thus far argued upon the broadest assumption in reference to the inefficiency of the good confession in guarding the purity of the Church. We might retort upon the advocates of creeds and catechisms, by showing that these devices can not be, and have not been, any more efficient; but we prefer to show the real exclusiveness of the good confession. It is certainly exclusive enough to keep out the pagan, the Jew, the Mohammedan, the atheist, and the infidel; for none of these can honestly make the confession. It will exclude the Unitarian and the Universalist; for while they are willing to confess that Jesus is the Christ, in the next breath they deny him, by contradicting some of his most emphatic declarations. It will also exclude the wicked and impenitent; for it is offered only to penitent believers. If this is not considered sufficient, we may advance still further, and say that it will exclude the Roman Catholic, who persists in having other intercessors in heaven, besides “the high priest of our confession.“ It will exclude the devotee of the mourning bench, who waits for an operation of the Spirit before he comes to Christ. It will exclude the pedobaptist, who is satisfied with his sprinkling; for it requires an immediate immersion. None of these characters can scripturally make the good confession without some specific change in views or in character. Lest the tune of the objector should now be changed, and he should cry, “Your confession is too exclusive,” we add, that it receives all whom the apostles would receive, and excludes all whom they would exclude.

Acts 8:38-39. When Philip ascertained that the eunuch believed in the Lord Jesus, and desired to obey him, there was no delay, but his desire to be immersed was immediately gratified. (38) “And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him. (39) And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.”

This is one of the passages which the conflict of contending parties has rendered familiar to every reader of the New Testament. The questions in controversy are: First, Whether Philip and the eunuch went into the water, or only to it; Second, Whether the facts in the case afford any evidence that the eunuch was immersed.

The determination of the first question depends upon the exact force of the antithetical expression, katebesan eis to udor, and anebesan ek tou udatos. If the latter means, “they went up out of the water,” then the former necessarily means, “they went down into the water;” and vice versa. There are two methods of inquiry, therefore, by which to determine whether they went into the water: First, The direct method, which depends upon the meaning of the words supposed to declare this fact; Second, The indirect method, which determines whether they went into the water, by determining whether they went out of it.

In dealing with this question, Dr. Moses Stuart, one of the most learned and candid of the disputants on the pedobaptist side, does great injustice to his own reputation. He says: “That eis, with the verb katabaino, often means going down to a place, is quite certain; e. g., ’Jesus went down to Capernaum;’ ’Jacob went down to Egypt;’ ’They went down to Attalia;’ ’They went down to Troas;’ ’He went down to Antioch;’ ’Going down to Cæsarea.’” How strange it is that the learned author did not perceive that in every one of these examples the meaning is necessarily into! If he had paused to ask himself whether Jesus went into Capernaum, and Jacob into Egypt, and so of the others, or merely went to the boundary line of those places, he would have spared his reputation by erasing this paragraph. He would also have saved himself the utterance of another unfortunate sentence on the same page: “I find but one passage in the New Testament where it seems to mean into when used with katabaino. This is in Romans 10:7, Who shall go down, eis abusson, into the abyss?” Besides the examples mentioned above, he must have searched with very little industry not to have discovered the following: “Let him that is on the housetop not go down into, katabato eis, the house.” “Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also first descended into, katebe eis, the lower parts of the earth?” “This man went down into, katebe eis, his house, justified rather than the other.” “A certain man was going down, katabainen, from Jerusalem into, eis, Jericho.” “The road that goes down, katabainousan, from Jerusalem into, eis, Gaza.”

These are all the instances in the New Testament in which these two words occur together; and the reader can but see, that in every single instance the controverted expression means to go down into. By our first method of inquiry, therefore, it is settled that Philip and the eunuch went down into the water.

It is not logically necessary to pursue this discussion any further; but, let it might be imagined that the conclusion we have already reached should be modified by the force of the other member of the antithesis, we must give some attention to the meaning of anebesan ek tou udatos. And here I must take exception to another sweeping declaration of Dr. Stuart’s. He says: “anabaino is never employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. The preposition ek, here, would agree with this idea—although it, by no means, of necessity implies it; but anabaino forbids us to thus construe it.” Why is this apparently broad assertion so cautiously limited to the single case of “emerging from a liquid substance?” Is it possible that Dr. Stuart knew that the expression meant to go up out of, but, thinking that it did not occur in any other passage in connection with a liquid, framed his proposition to suit such an accident? It is humiliating in the extreme to see so great a mind descend to such special pleading on so grave a subject. If anabaiein ek means to go up out of, nothing but the most determined obduracy can preclude the admission that it means the same when referring to liquids as to other substances. Now, it is a fact, and it must have been known to Dr. Stuart, if he examined into the ground of his own statements, that, in every single occurrence of these two words in connection, in the New Testament, they men to go up out of. Moreover, in one of these occurrences they are “employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. In Revelations 13:1, John says: “I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast, ek tes thalasses anabainon, rising up out of the sea.” Notwithstanding this broad assertion of Dr. Stuart’s, therefore, the expression in question does, without a single exception, invariably mean to go up out of. Philip and the eunuch, then, went up out of the water; hence, they must first have gone down into it. By both methods of inquiry, the conclusion is established.

The most astonishing display of partisan blindness on this passage is yet to be noticed. It is an argument employed by Moses Stuart, in which he is followed by Dr. Alexander. He says: “If katebesan eis to udor is meant to designate the action of plunging, or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the eunuch: for the sacred writer says they both went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and, what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch.” This argument proceeds upon the assumption that immersionists regard the act of going down into water as the act of immersion, than which there could not be a grosser perversion of their meaning. When a strong mind descends to arguments so weak and childish as this, we have the clearest evidence that the cause in which it is employed is felt to be weak and untenable.

We must now address ourselves to the inquiry, whether this passage affords any evidence in favor of immersion. This much-controverted question may be discussed either as a philological question, or as a question of fact. In the former method, the controversy turns upon the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. In the latter, upon the action performed by the apostles when they baptized men. Questions of fact are much more tangible than those in philology, especially when the philological inquiry runs into a foreign language. We prefer, therefore, to discuss this question as a simple matter of fact; and this method is the more appropriate in this work, which treats of acts performed by apostles. It can be most easily determined what act was performed when men were baptized, without any discussion as to the meaning of the word baptizo.

If the passage before us contains any evidence that the eunuch was immersed, outside of the meaning of the word, it must be circumstantial evidence, and not direct testimony. In ordinary jurisprudence, the former is often more conclusive than the latter; for living witnesses may be bribed, or voluntarily bear false testimony; but facts, however grossly they may be misinterpreted, can never give real utterance to falsehood. Circumstantial evidence is that derived from facts which transpired in such connection with the main fact assumed as to indicate its existence or character. There are two conditions necessary to its conclusiveness: First, That the facts which constitute the circumstances be fully authenticated; Second, That they shall be such as can not be accounted for without the admission of the main fact at issue. The first condition is always satisfied in scriptural inquiries, because the facts are asserted by infallible witnesses. Everything depends, therefore, upon compliance with the second condition. This compliance may be so various in degree, as to admit of every possible degree of conclusiveness, from the slightest presumption up to absolute certainty. When the circumstances are as easily accounted for without the fact assumed as with it, they afford no evidence at all. When they can be better accounted for with the fact than without it, the evidence is probable. When they cannot possibly be accounted for without the fact, and are fully accounted for by the fact, the evidence is irresistible.

When the facts constituting the circumstances are actions performed by men, this introduces an additional element into the argument. In this case, if the agent is a rational man, he must be supposed to act for a reason, and his actions, as circumstances, may be regarded with reference to the reasons for which they were performed. We further observe, that the question, What act was performed by the apostles under the name of baptism? has not reference to an indefinite number of actions, but is confined, by the nature of the controversy, to two. It was either immersion or affusion; the latter term embracing both the specific acts of sprinkling and pouring. This is admitted by all parties; for, although some contend that either act will serve the purpose of a valid baptism, no one, at the present day, contends that the apostles practiced both. Those who contend for affusion deny that the apostles or John the harbinger practiced immersion; while those who contend for immersion deny that they practiced affusion. It is as if A and B were brought into court for trial in reference to the murder of C. It is admitted by both the parties, and known to the counsel, the jurors, the judge, the sheriff, and the spectators, that the murder was committed by one of these two parties. Now, whatever evidence might be presented to exculpate A, would have precisely the same tendency to the conviction of B. And if the demonstration of A’s innocence were complete, the jury would render a verdict against B, though not a witness had testified directly to his guilt. Just so in the present case. Whatever evidence can be fund against the affusion of the eunuch and others, is good to the same extent in favor of their immersion, and vice versa.

The circumstances by which this question is to be decided are divided into two distinct classes, which we may style, respectively, circumstances of fact, and circumstances of allusion. We will consider them in the order in which they are here named.

There are some circumstances of fact which afford no evidence upon this question whatever. For instance, three thousand persons were baptized in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, in one afternoon. Now, if it were impossible for the agents employed to immerse so many in so short a time, or if sufficient water for that purpose could not have been found in Jerusalem, the two circumstances of place and time would furnish evidence against immersion. But as the facts on which this evidence would depend did not exist, no such evidence is here found. All the circumstances involved in the transaction can be accounted for by the supposition of either affusion or immersion; hence they furnish no evidence in favor of either as against the other. In like manner, the command of Ananias to Saul, to “Arise and be baptized,” though it supplies the fact that previous to being baptized he must arise from his prostrate or recumbent position, furnishes no evidence bearing upon our question, because it is consistent with either immersion or affusion. If it were proved that C was murdered with a club, this in itself would be no evidence again A, or in favor of B, seeing that either of them could have used a club.

But there are other circumstances of fact which afford unmistakable evidence upon this question. The agent about to perform the act in dispute selected for the purpose a river, as the Jordan, or a place where there was “much water,” as in “Ænon near to Salim.” When the parties about to perform the act were in an ordinary dwelling, they went out of doors for the purpose, though it were the hour of midnight, as in the case of the Philippian jailer. When they came down to the water selected, both the administrator and the subject went down into it, as in the case of the eunuch, and the baptism was performed while they were in it. These are all unquestionable facts, for they are declared in unambiguous terms by infallible witnesses. They are also actions performed by rational men, and, therefore, each of them must have been performed for some reason. Moreover, the reason for each was furnished by the nature of the main act, for the purpose of accomplishing which each of these subordinate actions was performed. But the supposition of affusion furnishes no conceivable reason for any one of these actions. It can not, therefore, be the main act in question.

Again: If the main act could have been as well and as conveniently performed without these subordinate actions as with them, then all these agents acted without a reason. But certain affusion, even of the multitudes baptized by John, could have been performed as conveniently to himself and the people, at some well or fountain centrally located, as at the Jordan, or in Ænon. Paul could have sprinkled the jailer as conveniently in the house at midnight, as out of doors; and Philip could have sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch as well at the brink of the water, as by going down into it. Each of these subordinate actions, therefore, was an irrational one, if affusion was the main act performed.

But, still further, there are good and valid reasons against such a line of action as we are considering, such as have sufficed, in every age and country, and among all ranks of society, to cause those who perform affusion to pursue a course the reverse of this in every particular. To save time and labor, and to avoid personal discomfort, instead of going to rivers and places of much water, they administer the rite at home or at church. Instead of going out of doors at night, if they happen to be out of doors at night, they prefer to go into the house. And, instead of going down into the water, they dip into it merely the tips of their fingers, or, avoiding all contact with the water themselves, they pour it from a vessel upon the subject. To suppose, in the face of all these reasons, which are controlling with rational men, that the apostles performed the various actions which we know they did, for the purpose of affusion, is to suppose them to act not only irrationally, but contrary to all the reasons which govern rational men. But they were rational men; therefore, he who reasons thus concerning them is convicted, beyond question, of drawing an irrational conclusion.

So far as the circumstances of fact are concerned, we might logically rest the case here; for, having sustained the negative proposition that affusion was not the act in question, we have no alternative but to conclude that it was immersion. But the same circumstantial evidence which brings us to so solid a conclusion by this indirect method, serves the purpose equally well when applied to the direct proof of immersion. The supposition of immersion furnishes the desired reason for each one of the subordinate actions we have been considering. It accounts for the selection of a river or a place of much water; for leaving the house at midnight, and for going down into the water. It is the only supposition which can account for them; and, therefore, their existence demands the existence of immersion. We must either deny these facts, which would be infidelity; deny that the apostles acted rationally, which would be the height of folly and impiety; or admit that immersion, and not affusion, was the apostolic practice.

The circumstances of allusion are equally conclusive with those already considered. Their force may be stated thus: When parties who are certainly acquainted with the facts in dispute let drop incidental remarks indicative of the nature of the facts, such remarks afford evidence, by indicating the knowledge possessed by the speaker. If, in the case of trial for murder above supposed, it were known that D was cognizant of all the facts, any incidental statement of his, inconsistent with the supposition that he knew A to be the murderer, would afford circumstantial evidence in favor of A, and against B. Now, Jesus and the apostles were cognizant of all the facts in reference to baptism, and they have made certain allusions to it, which, so far as the nature of the act is concerned, are incidental, but which indicate what they knew the act to be. If, upon a collation of these allusions, we find them inconsistent with the knowledge, on their part, that baptism was affusion, but just such as imply the knowledge that it was immersion, the evidence from this source will be conclusive.

Of the many allusions at hand, we will select, for our present purpose, only a few, the bearing of which appears least liable to dispute. First, in the words of our Savior, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” That the expression, “born of water,” is an allusion to baptism, is admitted by all standard commentators and critics known to the writer, and is disputed by none but those who are incapable of being candid upon this subject. The term is used metaphorically, and, therefore, indicates some connection with water, which is analogous to a birth. But there is no conceivable analogy between a birth and an application of water by affusion; hence it is impossible that Jesus could have known the act alluded to to be affusion. The expression forces the mind to something like a birth, which can be found only in the act of drawing the body out of water, which takes place in immersion. This, alone, could have suggested the metaphor to the mind of Jesus, and to this our minds intuitively run when we hear the words pronounced. It is intuitively certain, therefore, that Jesus alluded to immersion, and not to sprinkling.

The next allusion to which we invite attention is that in which Jesus calls the unspeakable sufferings which were to terminate his life, “The baptism with which I am to be baptized.“ Here the term baptism is used metaphorically for his sufferings, which could not be unless there is, in literal baptism, something analogous to the overwhelming agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary. The soul revolts at the supposition that a mere sprinkling, or pouring of water on the face, could have supplied this analogy, and intuitively demands something like the sweep of water over the sinking body, which is witnessed in immersion. Immersion supplies the analogy, and it must be the meaning of the term baptism, if there is any meaning in the Savior’s mournful words.

One allusion from the Apostle Paul, and one from Peter, will suffice for our present purpose. Paul exhorts the brethren to draw near to God, “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Here is an allusion to the sprinkled blood of Christ, as cleansing the heart from an evil conscience, and to baptism as a washing of the body. But this language is inconsistent with the idea of sprinkling or pouring a little water on the face, which could, by no propriety of speech, be styled a washing of the body. Nothing but immersion will meet the demands of the expression, for the words describe what takes in immersion, and in no other ordinance of the New Testament. Peter’s allusion is quite similar to this. He says: “Baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the seeking of a good conscience toward God.” Now Peter could not have supplied the words, “Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” unless there was something in baptism which might possibly be mistaken for this. But it would be impossible for any one to so mistake sprinkling, while immersion might be readily mistaken for a cleansing of the flesh. Peter, then, knew that immersion, and not affusion, was baptism, and so indicates by this language.

We now have before us, from Jesus and Paul and Peter, who certainly knew what baptism was, unmistakable allusions to it, which could not have been made if they knew it to be affusion, and which force us to the conclusion that they knew it to be immersion. It is difficult to conceive how circumstantial evidence could be more conclusive.

We might add to our list of circumstances of allusion the statement of Paul in Romans 6:4, and Colossians 2:12, that in baptism we are buried and raised again. But I regard this as direct testimony to what is done in baptism, and not a mere allusion to it. If any man were to try to frame a statement of what takes place in the act of immersion, he could not do so in more unambiguous terms than to say, “We are buried and raised again.” If he were to say, “We are immersed,” it would not be so specific a description of the act, nor so little liable to dispute as to its real meaning.

The last clause of the passage under consideration demands some notice ere we introduce another section of the text. It is said that “when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.” No doubt the influence of the Spirit by which Philip was caught away was the same as that which had at first joined him to the chariot. It was that monition of the Spirit by which the movements of inspired men were frequently directed. We will notice frequent instances of the kind in the course of this work.

When Philip was caught away to other labors, the eunuch “went on his way rejoicing.” So universally does joy pervade the hearts of those whose sins are forgiven, that many sectaries of modern times have mistaken it for the evidence of pardon. The fallacy which they commit is to assume, without authority, that a real pardon from God is the only cause which can induce this feeling. Now, we know that joy must spring up in the heart, under the belief that pardon has been dispensed, however mistaken that belief may be. The convict awaiting execution would be just as happy if deceived by a counterfeit pardon, as if it were genuine. So with the penitent sinner. When his soul has been racked, for hours and days together, by the torture of an awakened conscience, it is likely, by the reaction of its own powers, or through exhaustion of the nervous system, to become calm. Now, if he has been taught that the supervening of this calm is an indication of pardon, immediately upon the consciousness of its presence there will spring up that joy which he alone feels who believes his sins are pardoned. Such individuals, however, generally have serious doubts, at times, whether they did not mistake the natural for the supernatural, and they seldom obtain more than a hope that their sins were forgiven. The rejoicing of the eunuch was based upon far different and more solid ground. Taught by Philip, according to the commission, and according to the preaching of Peter, who had been Philip’s own teacher, that the penitent believer was to be immersed for the remission of sins; realizing in his own consciousness, that he was a penitent believer; and having been immersed, his conviction that his sins were pardoned was as solid as his confidence in the word of God and in his own consciousness. In neither of these could he well be mistaken, and, therefore, his joy was not alloyed by any harassing doubts.

We now part company with this noble man, whose ready faith and prompt obedience give evidence of such a character that we would love to travel with him further; but here the curtain of authentic history drops upon him, and we see him no longer. Happily, the echoes that come back to us, as he passes on, are notes of joy, and we may hope to meet him at the point where all our journeys meet, and rejoice with him forever.

Acts 8:40. The historian brings the present section of his narrative to a close by a brief notice of the subsequent labors of Philip. (40) “But Philip was found at Azotus; and, passing along, he preached the gospel in all the cities till he came to Cæsarea.” The town of Azotus, the Ashdod of the Old Testament, was westward of the route the eunuch was pursuing, on the shore of the Mediterranean. Philip’s further tour extended northward, along the sea-shore, to Cæsarea. We are not yet prepared to bid him a final adieu; but will meet him again, after the shifting scenes of many years, to say farewell amid many tears.

Acts Chapter Nine

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 9:1-2. These is a sudden transition in our narrative at this point, and it assumes more the character of a biography. The writers of sacred history, in both Testaments, devote the greater part of their space to biographical sketches. The greater familiarity of the masses of the people with such portions of the Bible fully attests the wisdom of this course. This familiarity is the result of a deeper impression made upon the heart, and, consequently, upon the memory. We accept it, therefore, thankfully, that Luke, in his sketch of apostolic labors, was directed to record, somewhat connectedly, the labors of Paul, rather than detached sketches from the lives of all the apostles. What is lost to our curiosity in reference to the other apostles is far overbalanced by the more thrilling effect of a continuous personal narrative. This effect is all the more thrilling, from the selection of him, who, among all the apostles, was “in labors most abundant.”

Saul has already been introduced to the reader in the account of Stephen’s martyrdom. By the aid of his own subsequent statements concerning himself, we are able to trace his history to a still earlier period. The early education and ancestral remembrances of a man have much to do in forming his character and shaping his career. Those of Saul were calculated to thrust him into the very scenes in which he first figures in history. He was born in the city of Tarsus, in Cilicia, not far from the period at which Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He was of pure Jewish extraction, of the tribe of Benjamin, and descended from pious ancestry. This insured his careful instruction in Jewish history, and such portions of the law of Moses as he could understand in childhood. His parents were Pharisees, and, therefore, his understanding of the Scriptures was modified by the peculiar interpretations and traditions of that sect, while his prejudices were all enlisted in its favor.

Besides this religious instruction, he was taught the trade of tent-making. The goat’s hair which was used in this manufacture was produced in Cilicia in such abundance, and of so fine a quality, that the manufactured article acquired the name Cilicium, from the name of the province. The wisdom of his parents in teaching him this trade as a means of providing against the unfortunate contingencies of life, will be fully exemplified in the course of this narrative.

The child was being educated, under the eye of an overruling Providence, for a future unthought of by either himself or his parents. His residence in a city where the Greek language prevailed was not the least important circumstance bearing upon his education. Like the children of foreigners in our own country, though the ancestral tongue was the language of the fireside, on the streets and in all places of public resort he was compelled to employ the language of the adopted country. In this way he acquired that familiarity with the Greek, which enabled him, in after-life, to employ it with facility both in writing and speaking.

It was only his earliest childhood that was thus devoted to parental instruction, and to the acquirement of the Greek language and a trade; for he was “brought up” in the city of Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel. Under the instruction of this learned Pharisee, whose prudence and whose calm indifference to the cause of Christ we have had occasion to notice, in commenting on the second trial of the apostles, his Pharisaic prejudices must have been intensified, with his knowledge of the law was enlarged, and his zeal for it inflamed.

A youth of Paul’s intellectual capacity would be expected to make rapid advances with the opportunities which he now enjoyed, and so, he tells us, he did. “I made progress in the Jew’s religion above many my equals in age in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” This pre-eminence among his school-fellows was accompanied by the strictest propriety of religious deportment; so that he could appeal, after the lapse of many years, to those who knew him in his youth, though now his enemies, to testify that, “according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” He could even declare that he was, “touching the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.” Such was his character, and his reputation, when he finished his course of instruction in the school of Gamaliel.

If the usual supposition concerning Saul’s age is correct, it is not probable that he was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, or for several years previous. If he had been, it would be unaccountable that in all his epistles he makes no allusion to a personal knowledge of Jesus. The supposition that he was at that time still confined in the school of Gamaliel is not only inconsistent with his supposed age, which could not have been less than thirty at the time he is introduced to us, but it is insufficient to account for his ignorance of events over which the every children of Jerusalem rejoiced. The supposition that he left the school and returned to Tarsus previous to the immersion preached by John, and reappeared in Jerusalem after the ascension of Jesus, is most agreeable to all the known facts in the case. By an absence of a few years he had not forfeited his former reputation, but appears now as a leader in the movements against the Church. We have already, in commenting on Acts 6:9, ventured the assumption, that among the Cilicians there mentioned as opponents of Stephen, Saul bore a leading part as a disputant. Such a position of his superior learning and piety would naturally assign him, and his prominence at the stoning of Stephen affords evidence in favor of this assumption. The law required that the witnesses upon whose testimony an idolater was condemned to death should throw the first stones, in the execution of the sentence. In accordance with this law, the witnesses against Stephen, preparatory to their cruel work, laid off their cumbrous outer-garments, at the feet of Saul, who “was consenting of his death.” After the death of Stephen, he still maintained the position of a leader, and continued to commit men and women to prison, until the Church was entirely dispersed. Many of those committed to prison met with the fate of Stephen. This fact is not stated by Luke, but is confessed by Paul in his speech before Agrippa. Many others were beaten in the synagogues, and compelled to blaspheme the name of Jesus as the condition of release from their tortures.

After the congregation in Jerusalem had been dispersed, Saul doubtless thought that the sect was effectually crushed. But soon the news came floating back from every quarter, that the scattered disciples were building up congregations in every direction. One less determined than Saul might have despaired of final success is destroying a cause which had thus far been promoted by every attack made upon it, and which even sprung up with increasing strength from apparent destruction. But his was a nature which gathered new resolution as obstacles multiplied before him; and thus he appears in the present text, which, after so long delay, we must now have before us. (1) “But Saul, yet breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, (2) and requested from him letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he found any of that way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.”

Why he selected Damascus as the scene of his first enterprise, rather than some of the cities of Judea, is acknowledged by Olshausen as “difficult to determine.” But when we remember the sensitiveness of patriots, in reference to the reputation of their country and its institutions in foreign lands, the difficulty disappears. The ancestral religion of the Jew was his pride and boast in every land. It was bitter enough to the proud Pharisee that it should be brought into disrepute among a portion of the population at home; but when the hated authors of this reproach began to spread it abroad in surrounding kingdoms, it was beyond endurance. When the news reached Jerusalem that this dishonoring heresy had begun to spread in the ancient and celebrated city of Damascus, where thousands of Jews then lived, and had obtained a religious influence over a large portion of the population, the exasperation of the Pharisees knew no bounds, and Saul, with characteristic ardor, started in pursuit of the fugitives. He had reason, of course, to believe, that, upon requisition of the high priest, the authorities of Damascus, which was then embraced within the dominions of the Arabian king Aretas, would deliver up the disciples as fugitives from justice. That he was correct in this is sufficiently demonstrated by the zeal with which the governor afterward lent the aid of his guards to the orthodox Jews, for the purpose of seizing Paul himself.

Acts 9:3. The storm of passion with which Saul started from Jerusalem would naturally subside, in some degree, in the course of the five or six days necessary to perform on foot the journey of one hundred and forty miles, leaving him in a calmer mood, and better prepared for the scenes which transpired near the close of the journey. (3) “And as he journeyed, he came near to Damascus, and suddenly there flashed around him a light from heaven.” This occurred at noon, when the sun was shining with full meridian strength upon the sandy plain which he was traversing, yet the light from heaven was “above the brightness of the sun.”

We are now fairly introduced to the history of Saul’s conversion, and must note carefully the entire process, both with reference to the specific changes effected, and the influences which produced them. In order that we may have the case fully before us, we will draw upon the parallel passages in the twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters for such additional facts as they furnish.

Acts 9:4. “And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He not only heard this voice, but, gazing, while his eyes could endure it, into the midst of the glory, he saw distinctly the being who spoke to him. The question he heard, by the simple force of the word persecute, carried his mind forward to his bloody purpose in Damascus, and back to his bloody deeds in Jerusalem. Nor was this the only involuntary motion of his mind upon the instant; for here we must locate the additional words, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” This language reveals to us that Saul’s conscience had not been altogether at rest during his persecutions, but that, like an unruly ox, he had been kicking against a goad, which urged him to a different course. Although he had acted ignorantly, and in unbelief, yet it was with so many misgivings, that he ever afterward regarded himself as the chief of sinners, having been the chief of persecutors. His conscience must have been instantaneously aroused by this reference to its past goadings.

Acts 9:5-6. Though his conscience was now aroused, and he knew full well that the vision before him was from heaven, he can not comprehend it until he knows who it is that speaks to him and asserts himself the object of his persecutions. (5) “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute.” It is impossible for us, who have been familiar with the glory of our risen Savior from our infancy, to fully appreciate the feelings which must have flashed, like lightning, into the soul of Saul, upon hearing these words. Up to this moment he had supposed Jesus an impostor, cursed of God and man; and his followers blasphemers worthy of death; but now, this despised being is suddenly revealed to him in a blaze of divine glory. The evidence of his eyes and ears can not be doubted. There he stands, with the light of heaven and the glory of God around him, and he says, “I AM JESUS!” “Now is Jesus risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.” Stephen was a blessed martyr, and I have shed innocent blood. My soul is guilty. “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” I have gloried in my shame. All that I have gained is lost. It is filth and refuse. I will throw myself upon his mercy. (6) “And he, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The die is cast. The proud spirit yields, and the whole mighty current of that soul is turned back in its channel, to flow forever, deeply and strongly, in the opposite direction.

The glorious power of the one great gospel proposition was never more forcibly illustrated than on this occasion. A moment ago, Saul was sternly, and with fearful calmness, pressing to the destruction of the cause of Jesus, but now he is a trembling suppliant at his feet. What has produced this change? It is not the fact that he has seen a light and heard a voice. For when he fell to the ground in alarm, his unbelief and ignorance still remained, and he still had to ask the question, “Who art thou?” Thus far, he is no more convinced that Jesus is the Christ than he was before; but he is convinced that the vision is divine, and this prepares him to believe what he may further hear. When that heavenly being, whose word he cannot doubt, says, “I am Jesus,” one new conviction, that must, from its very nature, reverse all the purposes of his life, takes possession of his soul. To stifle its effects he is not able; to resist its impulse is contrary to the honesty of his nature; and he has no time, if he would, to steel his heart against it. The change flashes over him in an instant, and he lies there a penitent believer. The word of the Lord, miraculously attested, gives him faith. The conviction that Jesus, whom he had persecuted in the person of his disciples, is really the Lord of glory, brings him to repentance. He mourns over his sins, and yields his will. These facts reveal the glorious simplicity of gospel salvation; and while we contemplate them, the sickly talk about “irresistible grace,” which floats, like the green scum on a stagnant pool, over the pages of many commentaries, in reference to this conversion, is swept away, while the sights and sounds which haunt the memory of many a superstitious convert are driven back to dwell with the ghosts and hobgoblins of a night of ignorance now nearly gone.

To the question, What wilt thou have me to do? the Lord gave an answer which naturally divides itself into two parts. One part is given by Luke, in the verse before us, and by Paul, in his speech to the Jerusalem mob; the other, in the speech before Agrippa. The latter contains his commission as an apostle, and is expressed in these words: “I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee a minister and a witness of the things which thou hast seen, and of those in which I will appear to thee, delivering thee from the people and the Gentiles, to whom I now send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified, by faith in me.” In this sentence, which we will notice more at length in its proper connection, Jesus states the object of his personal appearance to Saul, and gives him his commission as an apostle. The former was necessary to the latter; for an apostle must be a witness of the resurrection, and this he could not be without having seen him alive since his crucifixion. Having now seen him, not only alive, but glorified, his evidence was afterward classed with that of the original apostles and witnesses. If he had been converted without having seen the Lord, he would not have been an apostle, unless the Lord had afterward appeared to him to make him one. Instead of this, the Lord chose to appear to him in connection with his conversion. While this appearance was necessary to his apostleship, we may not assume that it was necessary to his conversion, unless we take the strange position that it was impossible for him to be convinced in any other way.

Before Saul could enter upon the office of an apostle, it was necessary that he should become a citizen of the kingdom of which he was to be a chief officer. The other portion of the Savior’s reply has reference to his duty in this particular. It is stated by Luke in these words, constituting the last clause of verse 6, of which we have already quoted a part: “Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Saul’s own statement of it is more minute: “Arise and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all the things which are appointed for thee to do.” The things which he was to do as an apostle had just been told him, and concerning these there had been no previous appointment. The things which had been appointed for him to do concerned him in common with all other penitent sinners. These having been already appointed by the Lord himself, and their execution committed to the hands of faithful men, the Lord shows respect to his own transfer of authority, by sending the suppliant to Damascus to learn them.

During his personal ministry, Jesus sometimes spoke pardon, at once, to penitent sinners. But, since his resurrection from the dead, and the appointment, by formal enactment, of the terms of pardon, there is no instance of this kind. Moreover, his refusal to tell Saul his appointed duty, or to pardon him on the spot, establishes the presumption that he will not do so in any case. If there ever was an occasion on which we would expect the glorified Savior to speak pardon, in person, to a sinner, it is here, when he is in actual conversation with the penitent, and the request is formally preferred. But he refuses to do so. Those, therefore, who imagine themselves to have received a direct communication of pardon from Christ, either orally, or by an abstract spiritual agency, are deluded. They claim for themselves what was not accorded to Saul, and what is inconsistent with the order established in the kingdom of Christ. The reply to all inquirers, if Christ should now speak, would be, as it was then, Go to Damascus, and it shall be told you; Go to the apostles and evangelists of the New Covenant, and the answer will now be given you by Peter, Philip, Ananias, in the same words, and by the same authority, that it was then.

Acts 9:7. While the conversation was passing between Saul and Jesus, the conduct of his companions is thus described by Luke. (7) “Now, the men who were journeying with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” Paul gives a different account of their demeanor, by saying that they all fell to the ground; but the two accounts harmonize very naturally. The first effect of such an apparition would naturally to be prostrate them all; but his companions, not being held in this position by any direct address to them, would naturally arise after the first shock was over, and fleeing to a safe distance, there stand gazing, in mute terror, upon the glory which enveloped their leader. This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Paul represents the falling to the earth as occurring before the voice was heard, while their standing speechless is connected by Luke with the close of the conversation.

This supposition helps to account for a well-known verbal discrepancy between these two accounts. Luke says they heard the voice; Paul says “they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.” The discrepancy arises from the ambiguous use of the verb hear. There is nothing more common, among all nations, than for one who is listening to a speaker, but, either from his own confusion or the indistinctness of the speaker’s articulation, can only catch an occasional word, to exclaim “I don’t hear you;” although the sound of the voice reaches him continually. It is in this sense of the word hear, that the companions of Saul, in the confusion of their effort to escape from the scene, failed to hear the voice. They heard the sound, but did not understand the words.

Acts 9:8-9. When the vision disappeared, Saul promptly obeyed the commandment given him. (8) “And Saul was raised from the earth, but when his eyes were opened he saw no one, and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. (9) And he was there three days without seeing, and did neither eat nor drink.” The physical effect of the intense light into which he had gazed upon his eyesight was not more painful than the moral effect of the whole scene upon his conscience. The former made him blind; the latter filled him with remorse. To this feeling alone can we attribute his total abstinence from food and drink. The awful crime of fighting murderously against God and Christ was pressing upon his soul, and as yet he knew not what to do that he might obtain pardon. His Jewish education, if not his natural instinct, prompted him to pray, and this he was doing with all fervor; but the hands he lifted up were stained with blood—the blood of martyrs; and how could he hope to be heard? No penitent ever had greater cause for sorrow, or wept more bitterly than he.

Acts 9:10-12. While this scene of anguish was transpiring in the presence of the astonished Jews who surrounded Saul, the Lord was not unmindful of the promise he had made him. As he had sent him to Damascus to learn what to do, he provides him with a teacher. (10) “Now there was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. (11) And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go upon the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas, for one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold, he is praying, (12) and has seen in a vision a named named Ananias coming in and putting his hand upon him that he might receive his sight.” It will be observed, that, in these directions, the Lord does not tell Ananias what to tell Saul to do. This omission only proves that Ananias already knew perfectly what such a person should be told to do, and corresponds with the fact that the things in which he was to be instructed were “the things appointed for him to do.”

It is well to pause for a moment here, and inquire what progress has been made toward the conversion of Saul, and by what means the progress made has been effected. That he is now a believer, it is impossible for any man who has followed the narrative intelligibly to doubt. That he is also a penitent is equally certain. But the Holy Spirit—by whose direct agency alone, it is taught by man, a man can be brought to faith and repentance—has not yet been imparted to him, nor does he receive it till after the appearance of Ananias. Such an agency of the Spirit, then, is not necessary to faith and repentance. Moreover, as we have already observed, the only influence yet brought to bear upon him was that of the words of Jesus, proved to be of divine authority by the miraculous vision. He was convinced, then, by the same means that the eunuch and the three thousand on Pentecost had been, by the word of the Lord miraculously attested. His case differs from both of those, in that the Lord himself was his preacher, instead of an inspired man; and from that of the eunuch, in that the miraculous attestation was a physical display in his case, and the fulfillment of prophesy in the eunuch’s. The nature of the influences was the same in them all.

Saul is now a believer, and a penitent believer; but he is not yet justified. The theory, therefore, drawn from his own words in the epistle to the Romans, that a man is justified by faith only, the moment he believes, is proved false by Paul’s own experience. He says, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” But he had faith for three days before he was justified, or obtained peace with God. Interpreting his words, then, by his experience, we conclude that men are justified, not by faith only, nor the moment they believe, but when they are led by faith, as he was, to do what is appointed for penitent believers to do.

There is another fact in the case worthy of notice just here. There is some such necessity for the co-operation of a fellow man, in order to one’s conversion, that, although the Lord himself has appeared to Saul, and conversed with him, he can not find peace of mind, though he weeps and groans and prays for three days and nights, until Ananias comes to him. In this particular, also his case is like that of the eunuch, whose conversion could not be effected, though an angel had been sent from heaven, and the Spirit had operated miraculously, until the man Philip took his seat in the chariot. The necessity, in his case, differs from that of the eunuch, in that he needed not the man to preach Jesus to him; for this had already been done by Jesus himself. But there was something to be done before he obtained pardon, which a man must do; and the sequel will show what that something is. In the mean time, let it be observed, that all these pretended conversions of the present day, which are completely effected while the subject is in his bed at night, or alone in the grove, or praying in some solitary place, lack this something of being scriptural conversions. No man was so converted in the days of the apostles.

Acts 9:13-16. Ananias had already heard of Saul, doubtless through fugitive brethren from Jerusalem, and such was the horror which his name inspired, that he was reluctant to approach him, even when commanded by the Lord to do so. (13) “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints who are in Jerusalem, (14) and here he has authority from the high priests to bind all who call on thy name. (15) But the Lord said to him, Go; for he is to me a chosen vessel, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (16) For I will show to him how great things he must suffer on account of my name.” Here we have a statement that the Lord had made a special choice of Saul for a certain work, and a prediction that he would suffer in the execution of it. The latter demonstrates the foreknowledge of God concerning human conduct, and the former shows that he makes choice beforehand of suitable individuals to execute his purposes.

Acts 9:17-19. The assurance given by the Lord was sufficient to remove his fears. (17) “And Ananias went away and entered into the house, and laid hands upon him, and said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus who appeared to you in the road in which you came, has sent me that you may receive sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. (18) And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was immersed; (19) and taking food, he was strengthened.” In laying hands on Saul to restore his eyesight, Ananias imitated the example of Jesus, who wrought similar miracles, at one time by touching the eyes of the blind, and at another by putting clay on them and directing that it be washed away.

It is quite common to assume that Ananias also conferred the Holy Spirit upon him, by imposition of hands. But this is neither stated nor implied in the text; nor is there any evidence that any besides the apostles ever exercised the power of imparting the Spirit. The fact that this power is not known to have been exercised by any other than the apostles, establishes a strong presumption that it was not exercised by Ananias. This presumption, in the entire absence of proof to the contrary, would alone be conclusive. We do not forget that Ananias says, “Jesus has sent me that you may be filled with the Holy Spirit.” This shows that his reception of the Spirit in some way depended upon the presence of Ananias, but does not imply that he received it by imposition of hands. All the other apostles received it direct from heaven, without human agency. They also received it after they had been immersed; for the fact that Jesus preached the immersion of John, and caused the twelve to administer it under his eye, is proof that they themselves had submitted to it. Moreover, in every other case in the New Testament, with the single exception of Cornelius, the gift of miraculous power followed immersion. These facts furnish a firm basis for the conclusion that Saul’s inspiration was awaiting his immersion; and that it depended upon the visit of Ananias, because he was sent to immerse him that he might receive pardon and be filled with the Holy Spirit. To conclude otherwise would be to make his case an exception to that of all the other apostles in reference to manner of receiving the Spirit, and to nearly all other disciples, including the apostles, in reference to the time of receiving it.

The manner in which Ananias proceeded when he reached the house of Judas presents a most remarkable contrast with the course of most Protestant preachers of the present day. Leaving out of view the miraculous restoration of Saul’s eyesight, Ananias was simply sent to a man in a certain house, who had been a persecutor, but now was praying. He had no special directions as to the instruction he shall give the man, but is left to his own previous knowledge of what is proper in such cases. He comes into the house, and finds him prostrate upon the floor, almost exhausted from want of food and drink, which his wretchedness makes him refuse; and he is still praying in great agony. No man of this generation can hesitate as to the course one of our modern preachers would pursue in such a case. He would at once urge him to pray on, and quote to him many passages of Scripture in reference to the answer of prayer. He would tell him to believe in the Lord Jesus, and that the moment he would cast his soul entirely upon him he would be relieved. He would pray with him. Long and fervently would he call upon God to have mercy on the waiting sinner, and send down the Holy Ghost to speak peace to his troubled soul. If these efforts did not bring relief, other brethren and sisters would be called in, and their prayers united with those of the preacher. Pathetic hymns would alternate with zealous prayers and warm exhortations, until both the mourner and his comforters were exhausted, the latter every moment expecting to hear from their wretched victim a shout of joy, as the touch of God would roll away the burden from his soul. If all the efforts failed, the man would go mourning over his still unpardoned sins, perhaps for the remainder of his life. Fortunate would it be for him, if the terrible conclusion that all religion is but hypocrisy, or that he himself is an inevitable reprobate, did not take possession of his soul. This picture is not overdrawn; for my readers can testify that far deeper colors could be spread over it, by copying accurately from many thousands of cases which have occurred in popular “revivals.”

Such is the baleful influence of this gross departure from the word of God, that men who are under its influence are constantly denouncing as heretics those who venture to follow the example of Ananias. He finds the man to whom he is sent, praying to the Lord Jesus; but, instead of commanding him to pray on, and praying with him, he says to him, “Why do you tarry? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” There are many Churches at present day, professing to derive their creeds from the Bible, whose clergy dare not follow this example, upon pain of excommunications. Engaged in a public debate, a few years since, with a Doctor of Divinity of a numerous and powerful party, I determined to apply to him a test which had been employed before by some of my brethren, and charged that he dare not, as he valued his ministerial position, and even his membership in the Church, give to mourners seeking salvation the answers given by inspired men, in the very words, which they employed. He interrupted me, by asking if I intended to insinuate that he would not preach what he believed to be the truth. I replied, that I had no disposition to question his honesty, but that I was stating a startling fact, which ought to be made to ring in the ears of the people. I then told the audience I would put my statement to a test at once, and turning to the Doctor, I said: “Sir, if you had a number of mourners before you, as Peter had on Pentecost, pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and exclaiming, What shall we do? would you dare to say to them, ’Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?’ Or, if you were called into a private house, like Ananias, to see man fasting and weeping and praying, would you dare to say to him, ’Why do you tarry? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord?’ I pause for a reply.” I stood waiting, and the immense audience held their breath, until the silence became painful; but the Doctor hung his head and answered not one word.

It is high time that the people were won back from such delusions, and made to feel the necessity of following the word of God. Ananias was guided by the apostolic commission. Seeing there were three conditions of pardon, faith, repentance, and immersion, and that Saul had already complied with the first two, he does not tantalize him by telling him to believe or urging him to repent, but commands him to do the one thing which he had not yet done, “Arise, and be immersed.” He instantly obeyed; and then, for the first time since he saw the vision by the way, he was sufficiently composed to take food and drink. “Taking food, he was strengthened.” Like the eunuch, it was after he came up out of the water that he rejoiced.

His composure and peace of mind, after being immersed, was the proper result of intelligent obedience in that institution. If he had not already learned its design, by what he knew of apostolic preaching, the words of Ananias conveyed it without ambiguity. To a sinner mourning over his guilt, seeking pardon, and knowing that the Lord alone could forgive sins, the command to be immersed and wash away his sins could convey but one idea, that, upon the washing of water over the body in immersion, the Lord would remove his sins by forgiving them. That such was the idea intended in the metaphorical expression, “wash away,” would need no argument, if it had not suited the theories of modern sectaries to call it in question. It is a common assumption that Saul’s sins had been really forgiven before his immersion, and Ananias required him only to formally wash them away. But this is a mere combination of words to hide the absence of an idea. How can a man formally do a thing which has already been really done, unless it be by going through a form which is empty and deceptive? If Saul’s sins were already washed away, then he did not wash them away in immersion, and the language of Ananias was deceptive. But it is an indisputable fact, that at the time Ananias gave him this command he was still unhappy, and, therefore, unforgiven. Immediately after he was immersed, he was happy; and the change took place in the meantime, which connects it with his immersion. In precise accordance, therefore, with the commission, with Peter’s answer on Pentecost, and with the eunuch’s experience, his sins were forgiven when he was immersed.

These individual cases of conversion are of great value to one studying the plan of salvation, because they present more in detail the entire process that can be done in describing the conversion of a multitude. We now have before us two such, and will have a third in the tenth chapter, when we will find it profitable to institute a close comparison between them.

Acts 9:19-22. No sooner had Saul obeyed the gospel and obtained pardon, then he began to devote all his energies to building up what he had sought to destroy. (19) “Then Saul was some days with the disciples in Damascus, (20) and immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that this is the Son of God. (21) And all who heard him were astonished, and said, Is not this he who destroyed those in Jerusalem who called upon this name, and came hither for this purpose, that he might take them bound to the high priests? (22) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.” The one great gospel proposition, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, the belief of which had wrought in him all the wondrous change on the road to Damascus is now his constant theme. The synagogues being for a time open to him, and the curiosity of the people intensely exited, in reference to his change of conduct, it is probable that he had more ready access to the unbelieving Jews in Damascus than had been enjoyed by those who preceded him. Whatever opponents he encountered, were “confounded” by the proofs he presented.

In addition to proofs employed by the other apostles and teachers, Saul stood up in the synagogues as a new and independent witness of the resurrection, and glorification of Jesus. He had seen him alive, and arrayed in divine glory. He had conversed with him face to face. If any man doubted the truth of his statements in reference to the vision, his traveling companions, who saw the same light, and heard the same voice, could testify with him. If any man, still incredulous, ventured the supposition that all of them were deceived by an optical illusion, or by some human trickster, the actual blindness which remained after the vision had passed away, and was witnessed by both believers and unbelievers, proved, indisputably, that it was a reality. No illusion or deception could have produced this effect. If it were suspected that Saul and his companions had made up the story, in order to deceive, the suspicion was silenced by the fact that the blindness was real, and could not be feigned. Whether, therefore, they regarded him as honest and dishonest, such was the combination of facts that they could not find an excuse for doubting his testimony. No wonder that he “confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus.”

Such was the force of Saul’s testimony, as it was addressed to his contemporaries in Damascus. To others, not eye-witnesses of his career, and to men of subsequent generations, it stands thus: If the vision which he claimed to have witnessed was a reality, then Jesus is the Christ, and his religion is divine. But if it was not a reality, then Saul was deceived, or was himself a deceiver. His blindness precludes the supposition that he could have been deceived. Was he, then, a deceiver? His whole subsequent career declares that he was not. All the motives, in reference to both time and eternity, which can prompt men to deception, were arrayed against the course he was pursuing. His reputation among men, his hopes of wealth and power, his love of friendship, and his personal safety, all demanded that he should adhere to his former religious position. In making the change, he sacrificed them all, and, if he was practicing deception, he exposed himself, also, to whatever punishment he might suppose the wicked to incur in eternity. It is possible to believe that a man might, through miscalculation as to the immediate results, begin to practice a deception which would involve such consequences; but it is entirely incredible that he should continue to do after his mistake was discovered, and persist in it through a long life of unparalleled sufferings. It is incredible, therefore, that Saul was a deceiver. And, as he was neither deceived himself, nor a deceiver of others, his vision must have been a reality, and Jesus is the Christ.

There is no way to evade the force of this argument, except by denying Luke’s account of Saul’s career, after his supposed conversion. But this would be to deny to Luke even the ordinary credibility attached to ancient history; for the argument depends not upon miracles, but upon the ordinary events of Saul’s life, which are in themselves most credible. Supposing this much to be granted, as a basis for the argument (and it is granted by all who are acquainted with history,) the proof of the Messiahship of Jesus from the conversion of Saul is perfectly conclusive.

Acts 9:23-25. Saul now begins to see enacted in Damascus scenes similar to those in which he had played a part in Jerusalem; but his own position is reversed. He begins to experience, in his turn, the ill-treatment which he had heaped upon others. (23) “Now when many days were fulfilled, the Jews determined to kill him; (24) but their plot was known to Saul; and they watched the gates, day and night, that they might kill him. (25) Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall in a basket.” The Jews were not alone in this plot. Dwelling as strangers in a foreign city, they would hardly have ventured upon so murderous an undertaking without the connivance of the authorities. Paul himself informs us that the governor of the city lent them his active co-operation. He says: “In Damascus, the governor under Aretas, the king, kept watch over the city with a garrison, desiring to apprehend me.” From the same passage in Second Corinthians, we learn that it was through a window in the wall that he was let down. Even to the present day there are houses in Damascus built against the wall, with the upper stories projecting beyond the top of the wall, and containing windows which would answer admirably for such a mode of escape. The observations of modern travelers are constantly bringing to light topographical facts which accord most happily with the inspired narrative. Another such is the fact that there is yet a street in Damascus running in a straight line from the eastern gate for about a mile, to the palace of the Pasha, which can be no other than “the street called Straight,” on which Judas lived, and where Ananias found Saul.

It was three years from the time of his conversion that Saul made this escape from Damascus. The whole of this period had not been spent in that city, but he had made a preaching tour into Arabia, and returned to Damascus. This we learn from his own pen: “I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again into Damascus. Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.” It is quite probable that some excitement attendant upon his preaching in other parts of the dominions of King Aretas had some influence in securing the ready co-operation of the Arabian governor with the Jews, in trying to take his life.

Acts 9:26-27. The mortification of Saul as being compelled to thus escape from Damascus was remembered for many years, to be mentioned when he would “glory in the things which concerned his infirmities.” He had not yet seen any of those who were apostles before him since he left them in Jerusalem to go on his murderous mission to Damascus. He turns his steps in that direction, resolved to go up and see Peter. We will not attempt to depict the probable emotions of the now devout apostle, as the walls of Jerusalem and the towering height of the temple came once more into view. As he approached the gate of the city, he passed by the spot where Stephen was stoned, and where he himself had stood, “consenting to his death.” He was about to meet again, on the streets, and in the synagogues, his old allies whom he had deserted, and the disciples whom he had persecuted. The tumult of emotions which the scenes about him must have excited, we leave to the imagination of the reader, and pages of more voluminous writers. We know the reception which awaited him both from friends and foes. (26) “And when he arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. (27) But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had spoken boldly in Damascus in the name of Jesus.” This ignorance of the brethren in reference to the events of the past three years in Damascus is somewhat surprising; but it only proves that they had no rapid means of communication with the brethren in that city. It is not probable that Barnabas had any means of information not enjoyed by the other brethren. Doubtless he obtained this information from Saul’s own lips, either because he was prompted to do so by the generous impulses of his own heart, or because Saul, having some knowledge of his generosity, sought him out as the one most likely to give him a candid hearing. In either case, it would not be difficult for him to credit the unvarnished story, told, as it must have been, with an earnestness and pathos which no impostor could assume. When Barnabas was once convinced, it was easy for him to convince the apostles; and the warm sympathy which he manifested for Saul was the beginning of a friendship between them which was fruitful in blessing to the Church and to the world.

Acts 9:28-29. Though the brethren, even at the solicitation of Barnabas, may have received him with some misgivings, the course he pursued soon won their confidence. (28) “And he was with them coming in and going out in Jerusalem, (29) and spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Hellenists; but they undertook to kill him.” During his three years’ absence from Jerusalem, the persecution of which Saul had been the leader had so far abated that the Hellenists were once more willing to debate the points at issue. But they found in their new opponent one equally invincible with Stephen, and, in the madness of defeat, resolved that Stephen’s fate should be his.

Acts 9:30. In this emergency, the brethren found opportunity to make amends for the suspicion with which they had at first regarded him. (30) “And when the brethren knew this, they took him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.” We learn, from Paul’s own account of this movement, that it was not controlled by his own judgment, nor entirely by that of the brethren. While praying in the temple, he fell into a trance, in which the Lord appeared to him, and said, “Make haste, and get quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive your testimony concerning me.” Saul had, himself, come to a very different conclusion. Notwithstanding the murderous disposition of his opponents, he still believed that his labors among them would prove successful. He argued upon the supposition that his former position as a persecutor, like them, would now give peculiar weight, with them, to his testimony and arguments; and he ventured to urge this consideration upon the attention of the Lord: “Lord, they know that I am imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those who believe on thee; and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I was myself standing by and consenting to his death, and keeping the raiment of those who slew him.” But he had erred in overlooking the peculiar odium attached to the character of one who could be styled a deserter, inclining men to listen more favorably to an habitual opponent than to him. The Lord did not argue the case with him, but peremptorily commanded him, “Depart; for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles.” The fears of the brethren were confirmed by this decision of the Lord, and they promptly sent him to a place of safety.

After reaching Cæsarea, a short voyage on the Mediterranean and up the Cyndus brought him to Tarsus, the home of his childhood, and perhaps of his earlier manhood. He returns to his aged parents and the friends of his childhood, a fugitive from two great cities, and a deserter from the strictest sect in which he had been educated; but he comes to bring them glad tidings of great joy. He disappears, at this point from the pages of Luke; but he does not retire into inactivity. His own pen fills up the blank that is left there by the historian. He says that he went “into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face to the Churches in Judea who were in Christ; but they heard only that he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once destroyed. And they glorified God in me.” Not long after this we find mention of brethren in Syria and Cilicia, which renders it probable that his labors that were attended with his usual success. We have reason also to believe that he encountered, during this interval, a portion of the sufferings enumerated in the eleventh chapter of Second Corinthians; such as the five times that he received from the Jews forty stripes save one, the three shipwrecks, and the night and the day that he spent in the deep. We cannot refer them to a later period; for, from this interval to the time of writing that epistle, we have a continuous history of his life, in which they do not occur.

We now part company with Saul for a time, and while he is performing labors, and enduring afflictions, the full detail of which we will never learn till we meet him in eternity, we turn with our inspired guide, to contemplate some instructive scenes in the labors of the Apostle Peter.

Acts 9:31. Preparatory to this transition in the narrative, the historian glances rapidly over the territory to which we are about to be introduced, stating the condition of things immediately after Saul’s departure for Tarsus. (31) “Then the Churches had peach throughout all Judea and Galilee, and Samaria; and being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and the consolation of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.” Thus times of peace and quiet were seen to be propitious to a cause which had sprung up amid strife and opposition, showing that it was not the obstinacy of human passion, but the legitimate working of unchangeable truth, which had brought it into being. According to the philosophy which Gamaliel had urged in the Sanhedrim, its claim to a divine origin was now vindicated.

Acts 9:32-35. We have just seen Saul sent “far hence to the Gentiles;” but as yet we have no account of the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church; it is time that this account should be before us, and Luke proceeds to give it. He approaches the subject by relating the circumstances which led Peter, who was the chosen instrument for opening the gates of the kingdom to the Gentiles, into the city of Joppa, where the messengers of Cornelius found him. We parted company with this apostle on his return with John from the visit to Samaria. We meet him again, engaged in active labor through the rural districts of his native country. (32) “Now it came to pass that Peter, passing through all quarters, came down also to the saints who dwelt at Lydda. (33) And he found there a certain man named Æneas, who had kept his bed eight years, and was paralyzed. (34) And Peter said to him, Æneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise, and make your bed. And he arose immediately. (35) And all who dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned to the Lord.” The long continuance of painful disease makes the afflicted individual well known to a large circle of neighbors, and fixes their attention upon the disease itself as one difficult to cure. Hence, the effect upon this community of the cure of Æneas, like that of the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the temple, was decisive and almost universal. It was a demonstration of divine power in Jesus the Christ, whom Peter had declared the agent of the cure, which the honest people of Lydda and Saron could not gainsay, and therefore they had no honest alternative but to yield to his claims.

Acts 9:36-42. From the midst of these happy and peaceful triumphs of the truth, Peter was suddenly called away to Joppa. The circumstances which led to this event are this related to Luke: (36) “Now, in Joppa, there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, is Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and alms which she did. (37) And it came to pass, in those days, that she took sick and died. They washed her, and laid her in an upper room. (38) And Lydda being near to Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was in that place, sent two men to him, entreating him not to delay to come to them. (39) Then Peter arose and went with them. When he arrived, they led him up into the upper room, and all the widows stood by him, weeping, and showing the tunics and mantles which Dorcas made while she was with them. (40) But Peter put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed: and, turning to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. She opened her eyes; and, seeing Peter, she sat up. (41) Giving her his hand, he caused her to stand up; and, having called the saints and widows, he presented her alive. (42) It became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.”

Nothing could be more graphic and simple than this narration, or more touching than the incident itself. Amid the array of solemn and stately events which are moving before us, it is dropped in, like a flower in the forest. It opens a vista through the larger events of history, and lets in light upon the social sorrows of the early saints, awakening a closer sympathy between our hearts and theirs. We see here enacted among them scenes with which we are familiar, when one who has been noted for good works sickens and dies: the same anxiety felt by all; the same desire for the presence of him who had been their religious counselor; the same company of weeping sisters, and brethren standing by in mournful silence. As each good deed of the departed is recounted by some sobbing voice, and the garments “which she made while she was with us,” to clothe the poor, are held up to view, how the eyes gush! how the heart swells! These are sacred hours. The labors of a whole life of piety are pouring their rich influence, unresisted, into softened hearts. How blessed are the dead who die in the Lord! They rest from their labors, but their works do follow them, still working while they are at rest. When Peter came into the company of weeping disciples, he seems to stand once more beside his master, as once he and all who were with him wept with Mary and Martha over the tomb of Lazarus. But he remembers that his compassionate master is now in heaven. With deep solemnity, he motions the mourners all aside. He is left alone with the dead, and the company without have hushed their sobs into silent suspense. He kneels down and prays. How the heart turns to God beside the bed of death! How fervent our prayers are then! The prayer of faith is heard. The eyes of the dead are opened, and the faith and hope which glowed in them ere they were closed are in them now. She sees the loved apostle, and rises to a sitting posture. He takes her by the hand, raises her to the feet, and calls in her friends. Who can describe the scene, when brothers and sisters in the flesh and in the Lord, wild with conflicting emotions, rushed in to greet the loved one recovered from the dead! And if that is indescribable, what shall we say or think of that scene when all the sainted dead shall rise in glory, and greet each there on the shores of life? May Christ our Savior help us to that day! We have no Peter now, to wake up our sleeping sisters, and give them back to us; but we do not regret it, for we remember that Dorcas had to die again, and we would not wish to weep again, as we have wept over the dying bed, and the fresh sods of the silent grave. We would rather let them sleep on in the arms of Jesus, till both we and they shall rise to die no more.

Acts 9:43. Peter was engaged, at this time, in general evangelizing among the Jews, adapting his stay at a given point, and his change of place, to the exigencies of the cause. The restoration of Dorcas, doubtless, opened a wide field for usefulness in the surrounding community, (43) “and he tarried many days in Joppa, with one Simon, a tanner.” Here the historian leaves him for awhile, and introduces us to the circumstances which removed him from this to another field of labor.

Acts Chapter Ten

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 10:1-2. The scene changes from Joppa to Cæsarea, about thirty miles northward along the Mediterranean shore; and we are introduced to another case for conversion, a Gentile and a soldier. (1) “There was a certain man in Cæsarea named Cornelius, a centurion of the cohort called Italian, (2) a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God continually.” We desire to examine, with great care, the process of this man’s conversion, and begin by noticing the present religious elements of his character. He is a “devout man”—a man of deep religious feelings. He is not a devout pagan, but he “fears God,” the true God. He must, then, be somewhat acquainted with the Jewish religion. He is not identified with the Jews, being uncircumcised. He is not a timid or unfaithful worshiper of God, but has taught all his family the same worship. He gives much alms to the people, and is a praying man.

At first glance, it might appear strange that such a man should need conversion. There are many men, at the present day, in whose favor not so much can be said, who flatter themselves that their prospects for eternity are good. They are honest in their business, honorable in their intercourse with men, good husbands and fathers, generous to their neighbors, and benevolent to the poor; what have they to fear at the hands of a just and merciful God? They forget that their obligations to God are infinitely higher than those to men, even to the dearest friends on earth; and that, therefore, it is the most inexcusable of all sins persistently refuse him the worship which is his due. This offense takes the hue of the blackest ingratitude, when we remember the blood which has been shed to touch our hearts, and to open up to us the way of pardon and eternal life. Of this crime every man is guilty who does not worship the living God, and submit to the ordinances of Jesus Christ. But Cornelius was a praying man, a devout worshiper of God, besides possessing every other virtue claimed by self-righteous sinners; yet it was necessary for even him to hear “words by which he might be saved.“ Until a man can claim for himself something more than is here said of him, he may not flatter himself with the hope of salvation.

Under the former dispensation, the piety and fidelity of Cornelius would have given him an honorable place among the holy men of God; but this alone could not suffice him now. Jesus the Christ had stepped in between God and man, and opened, through the rent vail of his flesh, the only access to God. All heaven had confessed his authority, and the holy disciples on earth had come to the Father by him. But Cornelius was still calling upon God, without the name of Christ, and seeking to approach him by the old, not by the new and living way. He was in the same condition with any pious but unbelieving Jew of that or of our own age. It was necessary to his salvation that he should believe in Jesus and obey him. This would secure to him the pardon of his sins, which he had not and could not secure by worshiping according to the law.

Acts 10:3-6. This defect in his religious character was not a fault; it was only a misfortune. He was doing the best he knew how; and, if we may infer what he prayed for, from what he obtained in answer to his prayers, he was praying for additional knowledge, and perhaps for an interest in the salvation offered through Christ. Such a prayer, offered by such a man, is always acceptable to God. On a certain day he had fasted till in the afternoon, and at three o’clock was praying within his house, when, (3) “He saw distinctly in a vision, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him and saying to him, Cornelius. (4) He looked intently upon him, and was full of fear, and said, What is it, Lord? He said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now, send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon who is surnamed Peter. (6) He is lodging with a certain Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea-shore. He will tell you what you ought to do.”

Here is an unconverted man praying, and his prayer is answered. But the circumstances of the man, the nature of the prayer, and the answer given, are all essentially different from those of unconverted men who are taught to pray by the Protestant sects of the present day. The man was not instructed in a knowledge of the Redeemer, and the way of salvation, and of his own interest in the same, but neglecting his duty, as in the case with the modern sinner. Neither was he praying for pardon, while postponing obedience to the gospel, as in these cases; but his prayer was for a knowledge of his duty, and he had no one by to instruct him. The answer to his prayer was given, not, as is now so often pretended, by sending forth the Spirit into his heart to speak his sins forgiven, but by sending an angel to tell him where he can find a man who will guide him in the way of salvation.

In the case of the eunuch, an angel appeared to the preacher and sent him to the inquirer. In this case, the angel appears to the inquirer, and tells him to send for the preacher. In both cases, the only work of the angel was to bring the two men together, face to face. Thus, again, we seen an insuperable necessity, in case of a scriptural conversion, for the presence and co-operation of a human agent, showing that the divine influences, whatever, and however numerous they may be, reach the heart through the word of truth. The prayer of Cornelius was answered, like that of Saul, by referring him to inspired authorities within the Church. This shows how vain, at the present day, must be every prayer for direct answers from heaven, in reference to the pardon of sins. If a verbal answer to such prayers could be obtained, we are bound to conclude, from these precedents, that it would still be, “Go to Damascus and it shall be told you,” or “Send men to Joppa for Simon whose surname is Peter, and he will tell you what you ought to do.” Peter and Ananias are before us now, with the same instruction which they gave then, and it is useless for us to offer for what we have in hand, prayers which Saul and Cornelius offered for what had not yet been granted. The directions given by the two teachers, in these cases, and by other inspired men, is all that God granted to sinners then, and it is certainly all that we have a right to ask for now.

The necessity for the spoken word in order to the conversion of men is not only exhibited in these mission of angels, but it also explains the occurrence, in the two cases of Cornelius and the eunuch, of an agency not discernible in other cases. If no heavenly messenger had been sent to Philip, he could not have known that there was an Ethiopian on the road to Gaza, reading his Bible, and ready to hear the gospel. And if no angel had appeared to Cornelius, he could not have known that he had any interest in the blood of Jesus, or any right to send for Peter. No human being could have informed him, because all others, including Peter, were as ignorant of it as himself. An interposition from heaven is necessary; but when it occurs, it provides only for just such demands of the case as could not be supplied without it. The multitude on Pentecost needed no such angelic aid, for the preacher was before them, and each party was conscious of the right to speak, on the one hand, and the right to obey, on the other. So with us. When we wish any information, or the enjoyment of any religious privilege, we have the apostles before us, face to face. Their words are in our hands, and may be in our minds and hearts. We have no need for heavenly apparitions or illuminations; and if we expect them, we will be disappointed, or deluded. If a man in ignorance prays for a knowledge of salvation, this incident in the case of Cornelius, instead of encouraging him to pray on, actually answers his prayer, by telling him to send for some man who understands the gospel, and will guide him as Peter did Cornelius.

Before proceeding further in this case of conversion, we wish the reader to observe that enough has occurred already to secure Cornelius’ recognition as a genuine convert, by the prevailing Protestant parties of this day. Let any man come before the Church with such an experience as his, saying, “I have been for many years a devout man, worshiping God as well as I knew how, giving alms to the poor, praying continually, and teaching all my family the fear of God. Yesterday afternoon, at three o’clock, I was praying, according to my custom, when suddenly a holy angel stood before me, and said, Thy prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God.” Who would doubt that he was “powerfully converted,” or dare to insinuate that there was anything else necessary in this case? He would receive the right-hand of fellowship at once. Yet, so different was the apostolic procedure, that the man was now only prepared to hear words by which he might be saved. How long will religious men allow their inventions and traditions to nullify the word of God?

Acts 10:7-8. (7) “And when the angel who spoke to Cornelius went away, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of those who attended him, (8) and having fully related all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa.” The two servants are included in the household, who with him feared God, and the soldier selected had also learned the same great lesson. None but men of such character would be suitable messengers in a case like this.

Acts 10:9-16. The scene of the narrative now changes again, from Cæsarea back to Joppa, and to the house of the tanner, where we left the Apostle Peter. Leaving the messengers of Cornelius on the way, Luke anticipates their arrival, and relates how Peter was prepared for the favorable reception of their message. (9) “Now, on the next day, while they were on their journey, and were drawing near to the city, Peter went up upon the house to pray, about the sixth hour. (10) He was very hungry, and desired to eat; but while they were preparing, he fell into a trance, (11) and saw heaven opened, and saw a certain vessel descending, like a great white sheet tied by the four corners, and let down to the earth; (12) in which were all kinds of four-footed animals and wild beasts and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean. (15) And the voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has cleansed, do not you call common. (16) This was done three times, and the vessel was taken up again into heaven.”

In order to fully appreciate the necessity for this vision, we must remember the prejudice of the Jews against uncircumcised Gentiles. Previous to the Babylonish captivity, they had too great an inclination to intimacy with their idolatrous neighbors; but that terrible affliction cured them of idolatry, and when they returned to their own land, they put away, at the instigation of Nehemiah, all the idolatrous wives among them. This was the beginning of a reaction toward the opposite extreme, and such a state of feeling was finally induced, that, in the traditions of the elders, it was regarded as a sin even to go into the house of one who was uncircumcised. The disciples of Jesus had been educated from their childhood to an intense degree of this prejudice, and there were facts in the history of Jesus calculated to foster rather than to eradicate it. They had heard him say, “I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They had seen him work no miracle for a Gentile except under the protest, “It is not proper to take the children’s food and cast it to dogs.” And when he had sent them out on their first mission, he had commanded them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into a city of the Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” It is true, that in their final commission he had commanded them to disciple and immerse all nations; but they very naturally interpreted this in the light of past experience, and concluded that all nations were to be gradually absorbed into the Jewish commonwealth by circumcision, and afterward brought into the Church. They had not hesitated, therefore, to immerse proselytes, and even to give them office in the Church, though they still regarded it as a sin to enter the house of a Gentile who was uncircumcised.

This fact in the mental state of the apostles shows that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth at once, but their knowledge was extended according to the demands of the occasion. It was a prejudice, however, belonging to them as Jews, which had prevented them, thus far, from perceiving the particular truth here involved; and this involves the conclusion that prejudices previously were capable of impeding the inspiring influence, so that special measures were required for their eradication.

The time had now arrived when this prejudice must be uprooted from the heart of Peter. If it were a part of the work of the indwelling Spirit to act immediately upon the heart, then there need be nothing more done with Peter than for the Spirit thus to act. But there is not the slightest intimation of any such action. On the contrary, influences of an entirely different nature are brought to bear upon him, and to them the effect is plainly attributed. A series of significant objects are presented to his eye, certain words are addressed to his ear, and a combination of facts are brought to bear upon his understanding. Falling into a trance, while hungrily awaiting his noonday meal, he sees descending from heaven, and then spread out before him, a great sheet full of animals, both clean and unclean. This vision conveys no meaning, until he hears the words, “Arise, Peter; kill and eat.” He now understands it as indicating that he shall eat unclean animals. But this is so shocking to his sense of propriety that he exclaims, in perplexity, even to the invisible God who had spoken to him, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean.” But he is commanded, “What I have cleansed, do not you call common.” The vessel is brought near to him, and the same words repeated three times. Then the vision closes, and he recovers from the trance.

Acts 10:17-20. Restored now to his natural state of mind, Peter remains upon the housetop, reflecting upon the vision, and wondering if there was not some meaning in it besides that in reference to unclean animals. The question was soon solved. (17) “Now when Peter was doubting in himself what this vision which he had seen could mean, behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius, having inquired out the house of Simon, were standing at the gate; (18) and calling, they inquired if Simon surnamed Peter was lodging there. (19) But Peter was still thinking of the vision, and the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are seeking you. (20) Arise, therefore, and go down and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.” In the skillful arrangements of divine wisdom, all the separate influences which are to remove Peter’s prejudices are adjusting themselves for combined and harmonious action. Those men have been on their journey two days, but God had measured their steps to the house of Simon, and timed the appearance of the vision to the motion of their feet, so that when they reach the gate he is still on the house-top absorbed in reflection; but ere they are admitted to the house, the Spirit has sent him down to meet them, and to go with them.

Acts 10:21-22. He knows nothing, as yet, of the nature of their mission, neither does he yet understand any better than before the meaning of the vision. (21) “Then Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom you are seeking. What is the cause for which you are come? (22) And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one who fears God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for you into his house, and to hear words from you.” Upon hearing these words, the whole truth at once flashed upon the mind of Peter, and the agencies which for two days had been preparing to uproot his prejudice, sprang upon it with their combined force. No less than an angel from God has sent these men to call me into the house of a Gentile, to preach the gospel to him. My vision of clean and unclean beasts is explained. God has cleansed the Gentiles, and I am no longer to call them unclean. The Spirit has commanded me to go with these men, without doubting. The authority of God, of an angel, of the Holy Spirit, all impel me. I can resist no longer. His prejudice is gone, and doubtless he feels a new thrill of joy as his heart tremulously enlarges to take the whole world within the embrace of his philanthropy.

Acts 10:23. As the Spirit had directed, he does not hesitate as to the line of duty, but at once announces to the messengers that the journey shall begin to-morrow. (23) “Then, calling them in, he lodged them; and on the next day Peter went out with them, and certain brethren from Joppa went with him.” It was a wise precaution that he took other brethren with him, so that the whole of this new movement might be properly attested by competent and disinterested witnesses.

Acts 10:24. During the four days which had elapsed, Cornelius had made no secret of the vision he had witnessed, but had communicated it to such friends as were likely to take the same interest in it with himself. Having presumed, with all confidence, that Peter would come, and knowing the time that the journey would require, all was in readiness for his arrival. (24) “On the next day they entered into Cæsarea. Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and intimate friends.” These friends and relatives, it must be remembered, and not the mere family of Cornelius, were the chief part of the audience about to be addressed by Peter.

Acts 10:25-27. (25) “Now as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshipped. (26) But Peter raised him up, and said, Stand up. I myself also am a man. (27) And conversing with him, he came in and found many who had come together.” It is not in keeping with the character of Cornelius to suppose that he rendered to Peter such worship as is due to God. But prostration was the common attitude of approach to a superior, as it yet is in eastern countries, and Cornelius was but complying with this custom. To Peter, however, it appeared as if he intended something more, and hence the rebuke.

Acts 10:28-29. Upon entering the house of this Gentile, side by side with him, and into the presence of others who were likewise uncircumcised, Peter deemed it proper to inform them of his reason for thus departing from a well-known Jewish custom. (28) “And he said to them, You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to attach himself to, or to come into the house of one of another nation. Yet God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (29) Therefore, I came without objecting when I was sent for. I ask, then, for what purpose you sent for me?” This speech shows clearly that Peter had interpreted the vision of unclean beasts as referring to men as well as to animal food.

Acts 10:30-33. (30) “Then Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, (31) and said, Cornelius, your prayer is heard, and your alms are had in remembrance before God. (32) Send, therefore, to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea-shore. When he comes he will speak to you. (33) Immediately, therefore, I sent for you, and you have done well that you have come. Now, then, we are all present here before God to hear all things which are by God commanded you.” In this last remark Cornelius speaks for his friends who were assembled, as well as for himself. As was becoming the occasion, he had gathered in, to hear the expected messenger, only those who were willing to hear him as a messenger of God. In the statement that they were all present before God to hear what he had commanded, there was an implied pledge to obey what they might hear, and there is no doubt, from the sequel, that such was their purpose.

Acts 10:34-35. The scene before Peter enlarges his conceptions of the purpose of God; for he now sees that his mission is designed not for the benefit of Cornelius alone, but for a large number of his Gentile friends; and if for all these, then, there is to be no further national limitation to the gospel. He gives utterance to this conception. (34) “Then Peter opened his mouth and said, In truth I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons; (35) but, in every nation, he that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” This expansive thought was sufficient to burst asunder all the exclusive bonds of the Mosaic institution, and should be sufficient now to explode the equally injurious theory of an arbitrary predestination of certain men and angels to their eternal destiny. It is a positive declaration that God respects not persons but character. To fear him, and to work righteousness, and not any other distinction between persons, is the ground of acceptability with him.

Acts 10:36-38. Cornelius has now related to Peter such an experience, as, we have seen above, would secure him recognition as a genuine convert to Christ among Protestant sects; but Peter was so far from regarding it in this light, that he proceeds to preach to them as he would to other sinners. We will consider his speech by the sections into which it naturally divides itself. (36) “You know the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all,) (37) the word which was published throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the immersion which John preached, (38) concerning Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him.” From this it appears that Cornelius and his friends were familiar with the personal history of Jesus, and even with the message of peace which God has caused him to preach to the children of Israel. The information which they lacked, therefore, was only that which referred to their own interests in that message.

Acts 10:39. Not content with assuming that these facts were familiar to them, Peter gives them a surer foundation for their convictions, by presenting the testimony upon which he relies to prove the facts. (39) “And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew, hanging him upon a tree.” In view of the fact that Cornelius had been “warned from God by a holy angel,” to send for Peter and hear what he had to say, no confirmation of this his testimony was needed. They were prepared to receive everything he might say to them as a message from God.

Acts 10:40-41. The crowning fact of the gospel comes next in the statement. (40) “Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly, (41) not to all the people, to be witnesses chosen by God beforehand, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead.” Here Peter states, by way of commending to his hearers the evidence of the resurrection, a fact which has been so differently construed by infidels, as to be made a ground of objection to it; that is, that the witnesses were chosen for the occasion. Whether Peter or the infidels are right in judgment, depends entirely upon the grounds of the choice. If they were chosen because of a dishonest desire to prove the fact, or because of the ease with which they might be deceived into the belief of a fact which had no real existence, then it may be rightly regarded as a suspicious circumstance. But the reverse is true in both particulars. Such was the situation of the witnesses, that there was great danger both to property and person, in giving their testimony, and therefore every motive to dishonesty prompted them to keep silent rather than to testify. They were also the least likely of all the men of Israel to be deceived, because of their long familiarity with the person of him who was to be identified. Peter, then, was right; for the fact that such witnesses were chosen beforehand is proof that no deception was intended; while the fact that they “did eat and drink with him after he arose from the dead,” rendered it impossible for them to be deceived.

Acts 10:42-43. Having now followed the career of Jesus from the beginning to his resurrection and exhibition of himself alive to the witnesses, Peter proceeds in regular order to the next historical fact, the giving of the apostolic commission. (42) “And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who is ordained by God the judge of the living and the dead. (43) To him all the prophets testify that every one who believes in him shall, through his name, receive remission of sins.”

The declaration that every one who believes in him shall receive remission of sins has been construed as proof that remission of sins is dependent on faith only. But the fact that Peter is here stating what Jesus commanded the apostles to preach should prevent such a construction of his words; for, in the commission to which he refers, immersion is connected with faith, as a condition of pardon. His words must be construed consistently with this fact. There is no difficulty in doing this, for it is a common apostolic usage to employ faith as an equivalent for the conditions of pardon. To deny that immersion is for remission of sins, because, in a condensed statement like this, it is not specifically mentioned, is not less subversive of the truth than to deny that repentance is a condition because it is not mentioned. It is not sufficient to reply to this, that repentance was always implied in genuine faith; for it certainly was not more uniformly attendant upon faith than was immersion. It would be difficult to find, in apostolic times, a penitent believer who was not immersed, without unnecessary delay, as a genuine believer who was not penitent. All believers who repented were invariably immersed. Of course, we exclude from this remark all cases which occurred previous to the date of the commission.

If anyone, dissatisfied with this explanation, is disposed to insist that Peter’s declaration, that everyone who believes in Jesus shall receive remission of sins, must include those—if any there be—who believe, but are not immersed, we have but to show the absurdity of the assumption by referring to a parallel case in which there can be no dispute. The Apostle John says: “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him, and he in God.” He who would conclude from this remark, that the only condition of communion with God is to confess that Jesus is his Son, subverts the truth no more than he who makes the assumption in question; for the universality of the declaration is the same in both, and there is no limitation expressed in either.

There is no one fact more distinctly stated in Acts that that believers should repent and be immersed for the remission of sins: hence, there can scarcely be a grosser perversion of the word of God than to construe other statements of the Scripture so as to deny the truth of this. A condition of pardon once stated can never be set aside by any less than express divine authority.

It should be observed, further, that the statement in question is not absolutely that “every one who believes in him shall receive remission of sins;” but that he shall receive it “through his name.” The expression, “through his name,” was not thrown in here at random; for the inspired apostles never spoke at random. It has a well-defined meaning, and was intended to qualify the sentence of which it forms a part. What we receive through his name certainly can not reach us until we attain some connectionwith his name. But we are immersed into his name with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit; hence it is at the time of this immersion, that the believer receives remission of sins through his name.

Acts 10:44-46. We are next informed of a fact which is new to this narrative, and was very surprising both to Peter and his companions. (44) “While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word, (45) and the believers of the circumcision who came with Peter were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. (46) For they heard them speaking in tongues, and magnifying God.” The matter of astonishment to the Jewish brethren was not merely that these men received the Spirit; for if Peter had gone on to finish his discourse, promising them the gift of the Holy Spirit as he did on Pentecost, and had then immersed them, these brethren would have understood, as a matter of course, that they received the Holy Spirit. And if, after this, he had laid hands on them, as he did on the Samaritans, even miraculous manifestations of the Spirit could have created no surprise. The circumstances which caused the astonishment were: First, That the Holy Spirit was “poured out” upon them directly from God, as it had never been before on any but the apostles; Second, That this unusual gift was bestowed upon Gentiles.

In attempting to classify the manifestations of the Holy Spirit known in this history, we are compelled to distinguish the case before us from the gift of the Spirit enjoyed by all disciples in common, by the fact that these parties “spoke in tongues;” and from the gift of the Spirit bestowed on the Samaritans, by the fact that it was bestowed without prayer or imposition of hands. We have no event with which to classify it except that which occurred on Pentecost. That these two events constitute a class by themselves is further evident from the fact that these two parties alone are said to be “immersed in the Holy Spirit.” These two are the only instances of immersion in the Holy Spirit on record, and they are distinguished from other gifts of tongues, in that they alone were bestowed without human agency.

There is only one passage of Scripture in even apparent conflict with this conclusion, which, from the interpretation frequently given to it, demands some notice in this connection. It is the statement of Paul: “By one Spirit we were all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and have all been made to drink of one Spirit.” If the apostle intends by this to assert that all the disciples “were immersed in the Holy Spirit,” then this immersion was not peculiar to the apostles and the house of Cornelius. The question turns upon the reference of the word immerse; whether it is to immersion in water or immersion in the Spirit. It is settled by the fact that the immersion here spoken of is that which introduces “into the one body.” We know by the commission that immersion in water brought its proper subjects “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” But when, and by whatever means, men were brought into the relation expressed in these words, it is indisputable that they were brought into the one body. It was immersion in water, therefore, by which “all were immersed into one body.” Moreover, the immersion in the Holy Spirit did not have this effect; for the apostles were in the one body before they were immersed in the Spirit, and Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit before he was immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This makes it certain that the passage in question is not in conflict with our conclusion. As to Paul’s assertion that the immersion into one body was “by one Spirit,” the words “by one Spirit” are a declaration that the immersion had taken place under the direction of the one Spirit who was the author of all the gifts mentioned in the connection in which the passage occurs.

The immersion of Cornelius and his friends in the Holy Spirit previous to their immersion in water has been urged as proof that remission of sins takes place before immersion. But it can furnish no such proof unless it be first proved that the Holy Spirit could not be imparted to a man who was yet unpardoned. If Cornelius had been a man of gross wickedness, there would seem to be some incongruity in such an impartation; but, in view of his real character, and the fact that God had previously sent an angel to express his approbation of his conduct, there appears no incongruity in this circumstance.

This incident in the conversion of Cornelius can not, in any way, be held as a precedent for us; from the fact that it was a miraculous gift, and therefore peculiar to the age of miracles. It may as well be regarded as necessary to see the Lord as Saul did, in order to a genuine conversion, as to be immersed in the Spirit as Cornelius was. It is, therefore, a very gross deception to urge upon the people that they should receive the Spirit, after the precedent of Cornelius, before they are immersed.

Acts 10:47-48. The true explanation of this unusual circumstance is given in the following words, together with Peter’s own explanation of it in the eleventh chapter: “Then Peter answered, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord. Then they requested him to remain some days.” The use that Peter made of it expresses the design of its occurrence. That use was to remove all possible objection to the immersion of the parties. In any other case which had occurred, or which occurred after this, no such objection could have existed. The very fact, therefore, which led to this unusual occurrence, was an exceptional circumstance, which furnishes the strongest proof that this case is not a precedent for imitation in this particular.

Before he was interrupted, Peter had already proceeded so far with his discourse as to reach the subject of faith, and of remission of sins, and immersion must have been the next word upon his lips, if he had proceeded after the model of his sermon on Pentecost. The interruption, therefore, did not break the thread of his discourse, but enabled him to proceed with greater confidence to the very conclusion which he had intended. He first appeals to the brethren, to know if any objection yet lingered in their minds, and finding none, he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord.

Let us now recall the fact that Cornelius had been directed to send for Peter to hear “words by which he and all his family might be saved.” Peter has come, and delivered his message. He has told him of Christ, in whom the man now believes. He has commanded him to be immersed, and it has been done. This is the whole story of the conversion. When it was accomplished, the painful anxiety which he must have experienced during the last four days was removed, and his present happiness is indicated by the cordiality with which he invited Peter to remain with him some days.

We now have three individual cases of conversion before us, each detailed with great minuteness. In some particulars they are precisely alike; in others, they are quite different. But they are all three genuine cases of conversion; and, therefore, the points in which they differ are not essential to conversion, but are accidental circumstances arising from the peculiarities of the individual case. Now, in order that we may learn what is essential to conversion, and what among all the cases on record, are accidental circumstances, we must be guided by the following rule. Whatever is common to all cases is necessary to a scriptural conversion; but whatever we find in one case which certainly did not occur in all others, is a peculiarity of the individual cases in which it occurs. The points in which all the recorded cases agree are the points in which all subsequent conversions must agree with them. The points in which they differ are points in which subsequent conversions may differ from them. In order to determine that certain features are not essential, it is only necessary to find cases in which they do not occur. In order to determine that any one is essential, we must find it in all cases, or find it prescribed in some general law expressly designed to govern all cases.

While the three cases already before us are fresh in the memory, and before points of difference become multiplied by additional cases, so as to confuse the understanding, we propose to institute a comparison between them, in the light of the rule just prescribed. Leaving out of view the difference in character, occupation, and social position, of the eunuch, Saul, and Cornelius, which show only that the gospel is adapted to all men without regard to previous character or position, we will only notice those differences which might form the ground of erroneous conclusions. First, then, in the cases of the eunuch and Cornelius, there was the visible appearance of an angel; and many converts of modern times have related, as part of their experience in conversion, similar apparitions. But there certainly was not in Saul’s case the appearance of an angel; therefore, such an appearance is not necessary to conversion. Second, The Lord himself appeared to Saul and conversed with him; but he certainly did not to either the eunuch or Cornelius. It is not necessary, then, to see the Lord. Third, Saul mourned and prayed for three days after he believed, and before he was immersed; but Cornelius and the eunuch did not; therefore, protracted sorrow and prayer are not necessary to conversion. Fourth, Cornelius was immersed in the Spirit, but Saul and the eunuch were not; therefore, immersion in the Spirit is not essential, but a circumstance arising from the peculiarity of a single case.

The points in which these cases agree are chiefly these: they all heard the gospel preached, with miraculous evidence to sustain it; they all believed what they heard; they were all commanded to be immersed; they were all immersed; and after immersion they were all happy. If, then, we do not hereafter encounter recorded cases from which some of these items are certainly absent, we must conclude that at least all of these are necessary to scriptural conversion. When other cases are before us, we will institute further and more complete comparisons.

We would be glad to know more of the history of Cornelius, so as to determine how far, even in times of peace, the profession of arms is compatible with the faithful service of the Prince of Peace. He is the only soldier of whose conversion we have an account in the New Testament, and of his subsequent career we know nothing. Whether, amid the scenes of blood and desolation not many years after most wickedly visited upon Judea by the army in which he was an officer, he resigned his office, or made shipwreck of the faith, we can not know till the great day. Let it be noted, however, that his is an instance of a soldier becoming a Christian, not of a Christian becoming a soldier. It furnishes a precedent for the former, but not for the latter. Whether Peter instructed him to resign his position in the army or not, is to be determined not by the silence of the historian in reference to it, but by first determining whether military service is compatible with the moral teachings of the New Testament. If Jesus and the apostles had been, for more than thirty years previous to the publication of Acts, teaching that Christians should not take the sword, it was not at all necessary for Luke to say that Peter so instructed Cornelius.

Acts Chapter Eleven

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 11:1-3. The novel scene which had transpired in Cæsarea was soon reported abroad over the country. (1) “Now the apostles and brethren throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God. (2) And when Peter went up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision disputed with him, (3) saying, You went into the house of men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.” The prejudice from which Peter had been delivered was still preying upon the hearts of his Jewish brethren, including the other apostles. The same change is now to be wrought in them which had already been effected in him. But there is no repetition, in their case, of the vision and voices which had occurred in his. On the contrary, there is nothing brought to bear upon them but what is contained in the words of Peter.

Acts 11:4-17. (4) “But Peter related the matter to them in order from the beginning, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and saw, in a trance, a vision, a certain vessel like a great sheet descending, let down from heaven by the four corners, and it came to me. (6) Having looked intently into it, I perceived and saw four-footed animals, and wild beasts, and reptiles of the earth, and birds of the air. (7) And I heard a voice, saying to me, Arise, Peter; kill and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. (9) But the voice from heaven answered me, What God has cleansed, do not you make common. (10) This was done three times, and all was drawn up into heaven again. (11) And behold, three men immediately came to the house in which I was, sent to me from Cæsarea, (12) and the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. But these six brethren also went with me, and we entered into the man’s house. (13) Then he told us that he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying to him, Send to Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter, (14) who will speak words to you by which you and all your house will be saved. (15) And while I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us in the beginning. (16) Then I remembered the word of the Lord, that he said, John immersed in water, but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit. (17) Since, then, God gave to them the same gift as to us who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I should be able to withstand God?” The events here rehearsed by Peter had removed his own prejudice, and now, through the words which he addressed to the brethren, the same vision of unclean animals, with the command to kill and eat; the same command of the Spirit to go with the Gentile messengers; the authority of the angel who had ordered him to be sent for; and, finally, the same immersion of those Gentiles in the Holy Spirit, are all pressing upon their minds and hearts, with precisely the same import that they did upon his.

Acts 11:18. The effect of these influences was the same upon them that it had been upon Peter. (18) “When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God to the Gentiles also granted repentance in order to life.” So greatly are their hearts enlarged, that they now glorify God for the very things on account of which they had just been censuring Peter.

We have, in this incident, an exhibition of the actual method by which the minds of Christians were enlightened, and their hearts enlarged. We see that Peter was first enlightened by a combination of facts, visions, and words, so as to understand the will of God in the matter, and that through this enlightened understanding he was made to feel the weight of divine authority. Although the Spirit of God dwelt in him continually, and imparted ideas to his understanding directly, yet, when his heart was to be relieved from an injurious prejudice, the end was accomplished by means of ideas communicated to his understanding. Thus the case stands with Peter, who occupies the position of an original recipient of truth.

With the brethren in Jerusalem, who occupied the exact position toward this particular subject which we do to all revealed truth, there is this difference, that all the influence, both upon the understanding and the emotional nature, exerted in their case, reached them through Peter’s words. Still, the influence was not inherent in the words, but in the facts of which the words were the medium of communication. Moreover, the facts had such an influence only because they indicated the will of God. It was then, at last, the moral power of God, embodied in the facts reported by Peter, but brought to bear through the words of Peter, which so changed their hearts. They had only to believe what Peter reported, in order to feel this power. If they had retained their prejudice after this, they would have felt that they were resisting God.

In precisely this way the converting and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit reaches the hearts of men now. We do not have direct communication with heavenly beings, as Peter had, but, like the brethren in Jerusalem, we hear from his lips, and the lips and pens of other original recipients, the same truth which affected their minds and hearts, and we find ours affected by it in the same way. When we resist, we are resisting not Peter and Paul, but the Holy Spirit, by whom they spoke and wrote. The fact that the Holy Spirit dwells in us is no proof that his action upon our moral sentiments is direct or immediate; for he dwelt in Peter, and in the apostles who arraigned Peter; yet his action upon even their hearts was mediate, through ideas communicated. He who asserts for us a species of spiritual influence which was not exerted even upon the apostles and other inspired me, is, to say the least, a daring speculator.

Acts 11:19. The scene of the narrative is now about to change to another Roman province, and to the city of Antioch. Preparatory to this transition, the historian glances back over a period of several years, to the dispersion of the Jerusalem Church. He had made that event his point of departure in rehearsing the labors of Philip and the early history of Saul, and now, with a degree of system in his arrangement which should not be overlooked, he starts again at the same point to sweep over another part of the wide field before him. (19) “Now they who were scattered abroad from the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none but Jews.” From this we learn that while Philip was preaching in Samaria, and Saul in Damascus and Arabia, others of the brethren were spreading the truth into Phenicia, the island of Cyprus, and Antioch in Syria. Thus the knowledge of salvation was sounded out from Jerusalem simultaneously into all the surrounding provinces.

Acts 11:20-21. Among the brethren engaged in these labors, Luke chooses to follow in a narrative only those who founded the Church in Antioch. (20) “And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, having come into Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. (21) The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” These men were not immediately from Cyprus and Cyrene, but were a part of those dispersed from Jerusalem. The expression, “Some of them,” referring to the preceding sentence, thus designates them. The Hellenists were doubtless numerous in Antioch, from the fact if its being the chief commercial city of Western Asia; and these brethren, being also Hellenists, were best suited for reaching their ears.

Acts 11:22-24. Jerusalem was still the chief center of religious influence, being the chief residence of the apostles. They kept a watchful eye upon the movements of brethren in all directions, supplying help and counsel according to the demand of circumstances. They were anxious to hear of every new success, and the brethren were equally glad to report it. (22) “Then tidings of these things came to the ears of the Church in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. (23) When he arrived and saw the favor of God, he rejoiced, and exhorted them all with purpose of heart to cling to the Lord. (24) For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith; and a great multitude were added to the Lord.” It is not often that Luke bestows a direct encomium upon the characters of whom he writes, as he does here upon Barnabas. But it was proper, in this case, that the selection of Barnabas for this mission, in preference to other brethren, should be accounted for by stating the noble qualities which led to the choice. He was certainly a most proper man to send to a congregation of young disciples, to exhort them to cling to the Lord.

Acts 11:25. While Barnabas was engaged in these faithful labors in Antioch, he seems to have longed for the co-operation of a kindred spirit. He had not forgotten the converted persecutor, whom he had kindly taken by the hand when all the apostles were suspicious of him, and introduced to the confidence of the brethren. An act of kindness often makes as deep an impression on the heart of the benefactor as on that of the recipient. The heart of Barnabas had followed Saul when the brethren sent him away to Tarsus, and now that he needs a fellow-laborer, his heart directs him where to seek. (25) “Then Barnabas departed to Tarsus to seek Saul; (26) and having found him he brought him to Antioch.” The attachment being mutual, he found no difficulty in securing the object of his mission.

Acts 11:26. The united efforts of two such men as Barnabas and Saul, in a community where the gospel was already favorably heard, could not fail of good results. (26) “And it came to pass, that during a whole year they were associated together in the Church, and taught a great multitude; and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” There has been much dispute as to whether this new name was given by Barnabas and Saul under divine authority, or by the Gentiles of Antioch, or by the disciples themselves. It would serve no practical purpose to decide between the latter two suppositions, for, with whichever party it originated, it was subsequently accepted by the disciples in general.

As to the supposition that the name was given by direct revelation through Barnabas and Saul, a thorough discussion of its merits would require more verbal criticism than is suited to the design of this work, and, at the same time, be less decisive in reference to the authority of the name in question, than the course of investigation which we prefer to institute. We retain, therefore, the common version of the passage, which is sustained by the great mass of critics of all ages and all parties, while we seek a more certain basis on which to rest the divine authority of the new name than verbal criticism can establish.

If the New Testament furnishes any names for the people of God, its authority in reference to their use is not less imperative than in reference to any other use of language. We can have no more right, in this case, to substitute other names for them, or to add others to them, than to do the same in reference to the names of the apostles, of the Holy Spirit, or of Christ.

Religious names are significant. They not only distinguish the bodies to which they belong, as do modern names of individuals, but they distinguish them by a condensed description of their peculiarities. All the peculiarities of a religious denomination are expressed by the denominational name in its current import. Hence, to call a Baptist by the name Methodist would be worse than to call Smith by the name of Jones; for, besides miscalling him, it would be misrepresenting his religious principles. It is true, that, in thus miscalling the Baptist, you have not changed him into a Methodist, for he remains the same by whatever name you call him. Still, you have miscalled him and done him injustice. Truth and justice, therefore, require us to use religious names with reference to their significance.

If denominational names are significant, those originally applied to the body of Christ are not less so. They distinguish the people of God by designating some of their peculiarities. These peculiarities were found either in the relations which they sustained, or in the character which they exhibited to the world. The first relation which attracted the attention of the world, as they followed Jesus from place to place, was that of teacher and pupils. This suggested the name disciples, or learners, by which they were first designated, and which is the most common designation in the gospel narratives. From the fact that there were disciples of John, with whom they might be confounded, they were, at first, styled “disciples of Jesus.” But when John had decreased, and Jesus had increased, the limiting words were dispensed with, and the term disciple was appropriated, so that, standing alone, it always meant a disciple of Jesus. In the four gospels the limiting words are commonly employed; but in Acts, where Luke is giving some of their history as a great people spreading through the earth, after once calling them “disciples of the Lord,” at the time Saul starts after them to Damascus, he drops the limiting words, and thence throughout the whole narrative he calls them simply the “disciples.”

When the disciples assumed a new relation to their teacher, it necessarily brought them into a new relation to one another. From the nature of the moral lessons which they were learning, and which they were required to put into immediate practice, this relation became very intimate and very affectionate. It gave rise to their designation as “the brethren.” They were so styled first by Jesus, saying to them: “Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren.“ This term, however, as a distinctive appellation of the whole body, is used only once in the gospel narratives, where John says of the report that he would not die: “This saying went abroad among the brethren.“ In Acts it frequently occurs in this sense; but still more frequently in the Epistles. The latter being addressed to the brethren, and treating of their mutual obligations, this term most naturally takes precedence in them, and the term disciple, which is used in speaking of a brother rather than to him, is as naturally omitted. This accounts for the fact that the latter term is not once found in the Epistles.

This increasing currency of the term brethren in the later apostolic age is intimately associated with the introduction of another name which came into use in the same period. Jesus frequently called the disciples his own brethren, and taught them, in praying to say, “Our Father, who art in heaven;” but the title, “children of God,” which grew out of the relation thus indicated, was not applied to them during this early period. It is not so applied in any of the gospels but John’s, and in this only in two instances, where it is evident that he is using the phraseology of the time in which he writes rather than of the period of which he writes. This appellation, as a current and cotemporaneous title, is found only in the Epistles, being brought into use after the disciples had obtained more exalted conceptions of the blessed privileges and high honors which God had conferred upon them. It extorted an admiring comment from John, in his old age: “Behold, what manner of love the Father bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God!“

By this time the disciples exhibited to the world a well-defined character. It was such as identified them with those who, in the Old Testament, were called saints, and this suggested the use of this term as one of their appellations. The persecutions which they were enduring still further identified them with the holy “prophets who were before them.” This name occurs first on the lips of Ananias when he objected to approaching Saul of Tarsus. He says to the Lord, “I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints in Jerusalem.” In the Epistles this name is used more frequently than any other.

All of the names we have now considered are well adapted to their specific purposes; but all of them presuppose some knowledge of the people whom they are intended to distinguish. An entire stranger would not at first know who was meant by the disciples, or the brethren; but would ask, Disciples of whom? brethren of whom? Nor would he know who were the children of God, or the saints, until you had informed him to what certain characters these terms apply. There was need, therefore, of a name less ambiguous to those who had the least information on the subject—one better adapted to the great world. This, like all the others, originated from circumstances which demanded it for immediate use. When a Church was established in Antioch, it became an object of inquiry to strangers, brought thither by the pursuits of commerce, from all parts of the world. They were strangers to the cause of Christ in reference to all but the wonderful career of its founder. The whole world had heard something of Christ, as the remarkable personage who was put to death under Pontius Pilate, though many had heard nothing of the early history of his Church. From this fact, when strangers came to Antioch, and heard the new party who were attracting so much attention there, called Christians, they at once recognized them as followers of that Christ of whom they had already heard. This explains the fact stated in the text, that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” The fact that Luke here adopts it, and that both Paul and Peter afterward recognized it, gives it all the validity of inspired usage, and, therefore, all the weight of divine authority. That it is a New Testament name is undisputed, and this renders its divine authority indisputable.

This name, whether given by divine or by human authority, was not designed as an exclusive appellation, seeing that the others were continued in use after its introduction. It merely took its proper place among the other names, to answer its own special purpose.

To sum up the facts now adduced, the New Testament usage in reference to names is this: When the followers of Jesus were contemplated with reference to their relation to him as their great teacher, they were called disciples. When the mind of the speaker was fixed more particularly on their relation to one another, they were styled brethren. When their relation to God was in the foreground, they were called children of God. When they were designated with special reference to character, they were called saints. But when they were spoken of with the most general reference to their great leader, they were called Christians. A practical observance of the exact force of each of these names would soon conform our speech to the primitive model, and would check a tendency to exalt any one name above another, by giving to each its proper place.

The names now enumerated are all that are furnished by the New Testament. We have assumed above that it would be subversive of divine authority for disciples to adopt any other names. The truth of this assumption is demonstrated by the rebuke which Paul administers to the Corinthians for this very sin. He says to them: “It has been declared to me, my brethren, by them who are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul?” Now, if it was sinful for these brethren to assume the names of men, how can it be innocent in us to do the very same thing? The question demands the most solemn and trembling consideration of this generation.

It is no extenuation of this fault to urge that the divisions which now exist are of a different character from those in Corinth; for the difference is entirely in their favor. They had not gone so far as to divide the Church into separate organizations, but had merely formed parties within it, like the parties of the present day, which sometimes exist within a single denomination. The sin of to-day is, therefore, much greater than theirs.

It is equally vain to excuse our sin, by urging that the party names now worn are necessary, in order to distinguish the parties from one another. If the existence of the parties themselves were authorized by the Scriptures, this excuse would be valid; for we could not censure ourselves for the unavoidable results of that which is itself right. But the existence of party divisions constitutes the chief crime in the case, and leads to the sin of party names, as stealing leads to lying. The thief must inevitably lie, or acknowledge his theft; so the partisan must either cling to his party name, or give up his party. The name, in the mean time, is a necessary evil, but, being self-imposed, it is none the less evil from being necessary.

Not to multiply words upon this point, it is sufficiently evident, from the above considerations, that parties and party names among Christians should be obliterated. If we say that it is impossible to obliterate them, we are simply saying that it is impossible to bring Christians back to the New Testament model—for, in the New Testament period, there were no such divisions, and therefore a restoration of that state of the Church would be the destruction of parties and party names. If this is impossible, it can only be from one cause, and that is, that men professing to take the word of God as their guide are so hypocritical in this profession, that they will, at all hazard, persevere in despising its authority in reference to a prominent item of duty. How shameful it is, that men will uphold parties and party names, which they know perfectly that a strict conformity to the New Testament would utterly destroy! There is only one means of escape from this crying sin. Those who love God must break loose at once, as individuals, from the bondage of party, and take a position where they may be upholders of no party, and wearers of no party name. All who act thus will find themselves planted together on the plain letter of the Scriptures, as their only rule of faith and practice.

In addition to the observations already submitted on this topic, we remark that every significant name which a man wears imposes some obligation upon him, and appeals to him incessantly, though silently, to discharge this obligation faithfully. Does a man in foreign country declare himself an American, he realizes that there is a peculiar demeanor required by the fact, and feels constantly called upon to act worthy of the name he wears. Even a man’s patronymic, which means no more than that he belongs to a certain family, is forever warning him not to disgrace the name of his father. So it must be with all religious names.

Is a man called a disciple of Jesus? He remembers that it is the part of a disciple to learn what his teacher imparts, and to imitate his example. Whenever he is reminded that this is his name, he feels the necessity of studying the teachings of Jesus, and walking in his footsteps. Whenever he finds himself neglecting these duties, his very name rebukes him. This thought was not overlooked by the great Teacher himself. He says to those Jews who believed on him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Again he says, “It is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher;” and “whosoever does not bear his cross and come after me, can not be my disciple.“ Thus he gives emphasis to that exhortation which the name itself is constantly sounding in the ear of conscience.

But the disciple is also one of the brethren—a brother to the Lord Jesus, who is the oldest brother of a large family. This name is full of affection and sympathy. I can not meet a man and call him brother, without some thought of the fraternal sympathy which should exist between us. If, when my heart is poisoned by unkind feelings toward a disciple, he meets me and calls me brother, I feel reproached by the word, and am choked in the attempt to pronounce it in return. It will never let me forget the law of love. Its influence is recognized by Peter, who says, “Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently.”

There is another obligation involved in this name, arising from the fact that the brothers in one family stand on an equal footing in reference to authority, no one having supremacy over the others, but all subject to the father. Jesus makes use of this fact as the ground of a serious injunction. “Be not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher, and all you are brethren; and call no man on earth your Father, for One who is in heaven is your Father; neither be called Leaders, for one is your Leader, the Christ.” The fact that we are brethren is thus made to bear directly against that thirsting for titles of distinction, and for rank and authority in the Church of Christ, which is invariably the offspring of an unholy ambition. The modern Leaders of sects—the ghostly Fathers of mystic Babylon, and the swelling titles by which Doctors of Divinity, and the Reverend and Right Reverend Bishops and Archbishops of the present age are distinguished, exhibit the most flagrant contempt for this solemn commandment of the Lord. A man who understands the meaning of the fact that he is one among many brethren, is guarded, by the humility of this title, from participation in a sin like this.

If such are the obligations implied in the names disciple and brethren, what shall we say of that more exalted title, children of God? It originates from a supposed likeness between them and their Father. We are commanded to love our enemies, to bless them who curse us, to do good to them who hate us, and pray for them who persecute us, that we may be children of our Father who is in heaven. Thus the very highest moral obligations imposed in the word of God must ever press upon the soul of him who ears this title, inciting him to become a partaker of the divine nature.

When, in addition to these appellations, you call a man a saint, you thrust him as a companion into the midst of all the holy men of old, and make him struggle to be like them. So palpable is the force of this name, that the mass of professed Christians have long since ceased to wear it. When men apostasized from what its meaning indicates, it hung so heavily upon the conscience, that it became like a coal of fire on their heads, and they found relief in throwing it off from themselves and appropriating it to a few of the worthy dead. If we would ever come back from the long apostasy of ages, we must learn to wear the name saint, and walk worthy of the company with which it identifies us. The term saint means a holy one, and Peter exhorts, “As he who called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of behavior; because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy.”

The name Christian embodies within itself, in a more generic form, all the obligations specifically expressed by the other names. Being derived from the name of him who is “head over all things for the Church,” whose name is above every name, it is a title of peculiar honor and glory. It calls upon the man who wears it to act a part in consonance with the historic memories which cluster around it, and encourages him with the reflection that he wears a high dignity even when despised and spit upon by the powers of earth. So thought Peter, when this name was most despised. He says, “If any suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this account.” “If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.”

When the servant of Christ remembers that all these names belong to him; that, because he is supposed to be learning of Christ, he is called a disciple; because he is one of the happy and loving family of equals, they call him brother; because the Father of that family, whose character he strives to imitate, is God himself, he is called a child of God; that, because he is presumed to be holy, he is called a saint; and that, for all these reasons, he wears the name of him who by his mediation and intercession enables him to be all that he is, how powerful the incentive to every virtue, constantly yet silently pressing upon his conscience, and how stern the rebuke to every vice!

When we turn from this deep and holy philosophy of scriptural names, to consider the import of mere partisan badges, how heartless they all appear! The constant and only influence of party names is to intensify mere partisan feelings. The man who wears the name Methodist feels called upon by the fact to simply act like a Methodist; and when that name is appealed to among those who honor it, it is only to exhort one another to diligence in that which is peculiarly expected of a mere Methodist. So with all other party names. There is nothing in any of them to excite the longings of a sin-sick soul, and hence they are never appealed to when sinners are exhorted to repent. On the contrary, the most zealous partisans are often heard to assure sinners, “Our object is not to make Presbyterians of you, or Methodists, or Baptists; but we want you to become Christians.” How strange it is that men will pertinaciously cling to names which they are thus ashamed of in the presence of penitent sinners, when there are others at hand given by God himself, full of honor to the wearer, and of attraction to all who seek salvation!

Acts 11:27-30. We have dwelt long upon the new name given in Antioch; we must now consider other interesting events which occurred there about the close of the year in which Barnabas and Saul labored there together. (27) “In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, (28) and one of them, named Agabus, arose and signified through the Spirit that there would be a great famine throughout the whole world, which also occurred in the days of Claudius. (29) Then the disciples, every one according as he was prospered, determined to send relief to the brethren who dwelt in Judea; (30) which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.”

This is the first account we have of the gift of prophesy among the disciples, but Agabus and his companions appear to have been already known as prophets, doubtless from previous exercise of this gift. The brethren, therefore, did not hesitate to give full credit to the prediction, and knowing that such a famine must cause peculiar distress among the extremely poor in Judea, they were prompt to supply their wants even before the period of distress arrived. Their benevolence is not less remarkable than that of the Church in Jerusalem at the beginning. The poor for whom that Church provided were in their midst, and suffering from present want; but the disciples in Antioch anticipate a state of distress yet in the future, on the part of brethren to whom they are personally unknown, and provide for it in advance. No more striking evidence could be given, at once, of their benevolence, and their confidence in the predictions of their own prophets.

This benevolent supply was sent to the Elders, by whom, we are to understand, it was distributed to the final recipients. This is the first time that elders, as a distinct class, are mentioned in connection with the congregations of disciples. They are mentioned, however, as a class of officials then well known, and, consequently, we must infer that they had been appointed in the Churches at a still earlier period

Acts Chapter Twelve

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 12:1-2. The historian does not follow Barnabas and Saul in their tour through the districts in Judea, but, leaving them for awhile, introduces a very interesting episode concerning events that were then transpiring in Jerusalem. (1) “Now, about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hand to afflict certain persons of the Church, (2) and killed James the brother of John with the sword.” The persecutions which we have hitherto noticed were conducted by religious partisans in Jerusalem, without any active assistance on the part of the civil authorities. We are now introduced to one in which the reigning prince is the leader, while the old enemies of the truth are working behind the curtain, if at all.

This Herod was a grandson of that Herod by whom the infants of Bethlehem were slaughtered, and a nephew of “Herod the Tetrarch,” by whom John the Immerser was beheaded. He grew up in Rome, where he wasted what fortune he had inherited in princely extravagance; but while doing so he acquired an intimacy with Caius Cæsar, afterward the famous Caligula of history. When the latter ascended the throne, at the death of Tiberius, he elevated his friend Agrippa, as this Herod was most usually called, to a kingdom, which was subsequently enlarged by Claudius until it embraced all the territory ruled by his grandfather Herod the Great. He was now in the zenith of his power, and living in the utmost magnificence. Why he undertook this persecution it is difficult to tell, unless he was instigated to it by the old enemies of the Church. This appears most probable from Luke’s statement below, that he seized Peter because he saw that the death of James pleased the Jews.

A number of brethren suffered in this persecution, though James the brother of John is the only one who is said to have suffered death. He is designated as the “brother of John” to distinguish him from the other James, who is the author of the epistle bearing this name. He was the first of the apostles to suffer death, and his brother John was the last. In the death of both were fulfilled the words of Jesus, uttered on a memorable occasion, when they asked him for a seat, one at his right hand, and the other at his left. He asked them if they were able to undergo the immersion which he would undergo. They said, “We are able.” He replied, “You shall, indeed, drink of my cup, and be immersed in the immersion in which I am immersed; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.” As the sword of the executioner was made bare, and the neck of James laid upon the block, he could but remember these words. He understood, too, far better than when he first made the request, what it is to sit at the right hand of Jesus.

Why James was selected for this murderous example, in preference to any other of the apostles, we are not informed; but we have already seen that the brunt of persecution uniformly fell upon those most prominent in the scenes which were the immediate occasion of it. This consideration gives some ground for the conclusion that, though Peter and John had hitherto acted the most prominent part in Jerusalem, at this time James stood in the foreground in the conflict with the unbelieving Jews.

Acts 12:3-4. When a man engages in a wicked enterprise, his conscience makes him timid while left to himself; but the applause of the multitude enables him to drown the voice of conscience, and rush on madly to the end. Agrippa may have hesitated when he found his hands stained with the blood of an apostle; but when the people applauded, he hesitated no longer. (3) “And seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. But it was in the days of unleavened bread. (4) And having apprehended him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him, intending, after the Passover, to bring him out to the people.” A public execution during the feast of unleavened bread would have been exceedingly incongruous with the religious solemnities of the occasion: hence this delay.

The four quaternions of soldiers who guarded Peter consisted of sixteen men, each quaternion consisting of four. It was enough to keep four men on guard during each of the four watches of the night. They, together with the strength of the prison doors, were deemed sufficient for the utmost security.

Acts 12:5. We have noticed that when Peter and John were dismissed from the Sanhedrim, with a threat of violence if they dared any more to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, they came to their own company, and all united in prayer to God for courage. Now that James has been murdered, and Peter is in prison awaiting the same fate, we find the brethren once more unitedly appealing to God. (5) “Peter, therefore, was kept in prison, but fervent prayer was made by the Church to God for him.” When we reflect that the circumstances affecting the disciples were calculated in the highest degree to exasperate them against the murderers of their brethren, and stimulate them to active measures for the defense of their own lives, it is exceedingly to their credit that they were engaged in fervent prayer. If they had been taught the modern doctrine that Christians may rightly resist, with violence, the assaults of tyrannical rulers, and, whatever the weakness on their own part, may confidently appeal to the God of battles in vindication of their rights, their feelings, and their conduct, under these circumstances, must have been far different from what they were. If ever there was an occasion on which the boasted first law of nature, the right of self-defense, would justify resistance to oppression, it existed here. But, instead of the passion and turmoil of armed preparation, we hear from the midnight assemblies of the disciples the voice of fervent prayer. Where prayer is, acceptable prayer, there is no passion, no thirst for revenge, or purpose of violence. These men were disciples of the Prince of Peace.

Acts 12:6. Time wore away in painful suspense until the Passover was gone by. (6) “And when Herod was about to bring him forth, in that night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and the guards before the door were guarding the prison.” He was securely kept, according to the most ingenious method of the Roman army. Besides the prison-doors, and the guards without, his arms were pinioned by two chains, each to the arm of a soldier on the right and left, so that he could not move without disturbing one or both. If Herod was actuated, in adopting these precautions, by a desire to prevent a rescue, he ought to have known that Peter’s brethren never fought with carnal weapons, even to save the life of a brother. Or if he feared a miraculous escape of his prisoner, and intended that the guards should kill him upon the first movement of that kind, he ought to have remembered that all the twelve had once walked out of a prison in that city without hindrance either from the iron doors or the armed soldiers. But wicked men are prone to forget the warnings of the past, and continue to repeat, in endless succession, the blunders of their predecessors.

Acts 12:7-11. Though Peter undoubtedly expected to die the next day, he seems to have slept as soundly as the soldiers to whom he was chained. All was dark and still within the prison until a late hour of the night, when the scene suddenly changed. (7) “And behold, an angel of the Lord, stood by, and a light shone in the prison; and striking Peter on the side, he raised him up, saying, Rise up quickly. His chains fell from his hands. (8) And the angel said to him, Gird yourself, and bind on your sandals. He did so. And he said to him, Cast your mantle about you and follow me. (9) And he followed him, going out, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. (10) But having passed through the first and second guard, they came to the iron gate which leads into the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and going out, they went forward one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. (11) Then Peter, coming to himself, said, Now I know in reality that the Lord has sent his angel, and delivered me from the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the Jewish people.” It is not at all strange that Peter thought, at first, that he was dreaming; for the deliverance was entirely unexpected, and was effected in the most wonderful manner, and amid the bewilderment usual upon being suddenly aroused from deep sleep. When he found himself alone in the street, and had collected his senses, he knew that it was a reality, and felt like one waking from a singular dream.

Acts 12:12. When the angel departed, he stood in the street for awhile, reflecting upon the incident, and considering what he should do. In the house of Mary the sister of Barnabas, a number of disciples were at that very hour engaged in prayer in his behalf. He knew nothing of this, but, guided either by the proximity of the house, or the well-known character of its inmates, he turned in that direction. (12) “When he understood the matter, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.“

Acts 12:13-16. Although the condition of Peter was the burden of the prayers of these disciples, they were by no means expecting his deliverance, and were most likely praying that he might be enabled to endure with fortitude a death which they regarded as inevitable. (13) “And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant girl named Rhoda came to hear who it was. (14) And recognizing the voice of Peter, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in and told that Peter was standing before the gate. (15) But they said to her, You are mad. But she positively affirmed that it was really so. Then they said, It is his angel. (16) But Peter continued knocking, and when they had opened the door and saw him, they were astonished.”

When we remember that these disciples were so familiar with miracles, it is rather surprising that the deliverance of Peter should have caused so much astonishment. It shows that they were still disposed, like ourselves, to estimate the probabilities of even what God may do, by the difficulties of the execution. This is really judging of God by the standard of human ability. While we are compelled to approach the unknown through the known, we will, perhaps, never rise above this weakness. Still, it should not, even in the most difficult cases, check the fervency of our prayers. They undervalued the power or the willingness of God to grant their desires, in the day of miracles, as we undervalue his power to work without miracles; yet their prayers were none the less fervent or persistent.

When Rhoda insisted that it was Peter at the gate, and the disciples said, It is his angel, they undoubtedly had allusion to the popular superstition of their day, that a man’s guardian angel sometimes assumed his form. Before this, the twelve had twice imagined that they saw a disembodied spirit; once when they saw Jesus walking on the water, and once when he miraculously entered a closed room where they were sitting. These facts show how strong a hold the popular superstitions had upon their minds. But while the conception that angels sometimes assumed the forms of those whom they guarded, and that disembodied spirits were sometimes visible, was superstitious, we must not forget that beneath this superstition there was a solemn reality. Jesus says, “Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Paul asks, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall inherit salvation?” And David, under the old economy, says, in his own poetic style, “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them who fear him.” In view of these statements, we cannot doubt that the ministration of angels in behalf of the saints is still a reality.

Acts 12:17. Apprehensive of a pursuit, Peter did not remain long with the brethren in the house of Mary. (17) “But, beckoning to them with his hand to be silent, he related to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison, and said, Tell these things to James and the brethren. And going out, he went to another place.” Whether this other place was a place of concealment in the city, or an entirely new field of labor, is not known.

The prominence given to the name of the surviving James, in this speech of Peter, shows that he already occupied a prominent position among the brethren. We will, hereafter, see that he continued to occupy this position.

Acts 12:18-19. The escape of Peter had been altogether unobserved by the soldiers who guarded him. The two who were chained to him in the prison slept on till day, and those guarding the outside changed their watches at the regular hours without suspecting any thing wrong within. (18) “Now when it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. (19) And when Herod had sought for him and found him not, he examined the guards and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and abode there.” The military law of the Romans required that guards who allowed the escape of a prisoner, and rendered no satisfactory account of it, should be put to death. But it is impossible to believe that on this occasion Herod was governed by an honest sense of military duty. He must have known that the escape of Peter was miraculous, and the execution of the guards was an act of insane fury. A conscience stained by the blood of an apostle and of sixteen faithful soldiers could not find rest in the place where the deeds were done; and doubtless this had much to do with the removal of his residence to Cæsarea.

Acts 12:20-23. The historian pursues the history of this murderous prince a little further. (20) “Now Herod was enraged against the Tyrians and Sidonians. But they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace, because their country was nourished by that of the king. (21) And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to them. (22) And the people cried out, The voice of a God, and not of a man. (23) And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory, and being eaten by worms, he expired.” Josephus says of the “royal apparel” in which he was arrayed, that it was woven wholly of silver threads, the glittering of which, in the morning sun, suggested the idolatrous exclamation of the multitude. He also relates that Herod was seized with pains in the bowels, so violent that he had to be carried into the palace, and lingered five days in excruciating torments from the worms also mentioned by Luke. This historian mentions some circumstances of a superstitious character in connection with this terrible event, but his account agrees substantially with that of Luke. Thus was the righteous judgment of God, which is chiefly reserved for the future state, displayed even in the world, for the terror of wicked men and the encouragement of the righteous.

Acts 12:24. It was impossible that this providential and sudden death of Herod, occurring so soon after the murders which he had committed in Jerusalem, should not seriously affect the public mind. We are not surprised, therefore, that Luke adds: (24) “But the word of the Lord grew and multiplied.” Once more the efforts of men to crush the cause of Christ resulted in the extension of its triumphs.

Acts 12:25. This narrative concerning the death of James, the imprisonment of Peter, and the miserable death of Herod, is thrown in between the arrival of Paul and Barnabas on their mission to the poor saints, and their return to Antioch. It is most probable that they were in Jerusalem at the feast during which Peter lay in prison. (25) “Now Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John who was surnamed Mark.” This is the first appearance in public life of the evangelist Mark, whose education in the house of Mary his mother, and whose subsequent familiarity, first with Barnabas and Saul, and afterward with Peter, very happily fitted him for the gospel narrative which we have from his pen. We will have more to say of him hereafter.

Acts Chapter Thirteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 13:1. We have already seen that Barnabas and Saul had labored one whole year together in the city of Antioch, and we now learn that at the close of this period there were other inspired teachers associated with them. (1) “Now there were in the Church in Antioch certain prophets and teachers, Barnabas and Simeon called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” It will be observed that, in this catalogue of names, that of Barnabas stands first, and that of Saul last. As it was customary at that period to arrange names in the order of their notability at the time contemplated, we may infer that Barnabas still occupied a position of pre-eminence, while Saul was as yet comparatively undistinguished among the inspired teachers. Nothing more is known of Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen than is here stated; but this is enough to show that the future instruction of the congregation might be safely committed to their hands.

Acts 13:2-3. (2) “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate for me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them. (3) And when they had fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they sent them away.” This command of the Holy Spirit is not the call of Barnabas and Saul to their peculiar work, but refers to a call which had been previously given. It shows that Barnabas as well as Saul had received a special call to labor among the Gentiles. They had, hitherto, most probably, been associated together mainly through geniality of spirit. This geniality may also have furnished the main reason why they were directed by the Holy Spirit to continued their labors together.

The design of the ceremony of fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands observed on this occasion is variously understood. There are only two interpretations of it which are worthy of notice. First, it is assumed that the design was to confer on Barnabas and Saul the power of working miracles. The only proof offered in support of this assumption is the fact that neither of them is said to have wrought miracles previous to this time, while they both exhibited miraculous powers shortly after. But this is to argue from the silence of the Scriptures, and is, necessarily, inconclusive. They may have worked miracles before this time, notwithstanding this silence. In the case of Saul, indeed, there is almost positive proof that he did so. The Lord had given him a special commission as an apostle when he first appeared to him on the way to Damascus, and Ananias was sent to him that he “might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.“ Immediately after his immersion he began to discharge his apostolic office, and had been thus engaged three years previous to his first return to Jerusalem. Another whole year had been spent in the same work in Antioch, besides the interval of his residence in Tarsus. But an essential mark of the apostolic office was the power to work miracles. This Paul himself assumes, in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, among whom his apostleship has been denied. As conclusive proof of his apostleship, he says, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.“ If these signs are the proof of apostleship, then he must have been able to exhibit them from the time that he began to be an apostle; and this was more than four years previous to the imposition of hands by the prophets and teachers in Antioch. This fact, coupled with the statement of Ananias, that he was sent to him that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit, indicates clearly that his miraculous endowments dated from his immersion. The first supposition, then, in reference to the design of the ceremony we are considering, proves to be not only unfounded, but inconsistent with the facts of the case.

The second, and doubtless the true interpretation, is this: That the imposition of hands, accompanied by fasting and prayer, was, in this case, as in that of the seven deacons, merely their formal separation to the special work to which they had been called. This, indeed, is sufficiently evident from the context. What they did was doubtless what they had been told to do by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit simply said to them, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them.” The fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands was, then, merely their separation to this work. It was a ceremony deemed by infinite wisdom suitable to such a purpose; and, therefore, whenever a congregation has a similar purpose to accomplish, they have, in this case, the judgments and will of God, which should be their guide.

The solemn simplicity of this apostolic ceremony stands in striking contrast with the pompous mummery which often characterizes “ordination” services in modern Churches. No less striking is the contrast between the humility of Saul and the ambitious spirit of many modern clergyman who are extremely exacting in reference to the punctilios of ecclesiastical rank. Though an apostle by special commission, he was “ordained” by his humble fellow-laborers in Antioch. This fact shows that the idea of superior rank and authority had not then begun the work of ruin which it has since accomplished, in filling the minds of preachers with the same lust of office and power which characterizes the intrigues of political partisans.

Acts 13:4-5. We now follow Barnabas and Saul to their new field of labor. Their departure from Antioch is thus announced by Luke: (4) “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and thence sailed into Cyprus. (5) And when they were in Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues. And they had John as an assistant.” Seleucia was the seaport nearest to Antioch, distant some fifteen or eighteen miles, and near the mouth of the river Orontes, on the bank of which Antioch is situated. Embarking upon some trading vessel, they sailed to the port of Salamis, which is at the eastern end of the island of Cyprus.

In choosing this island as the first point in the wide world to which they directed their steps, they were, doubtless, guided not by the natural partiality which Barnabas may have felt for it as his native land, but by that fixed principle in the apostolic labors which taught them to cultivate first those fields which promised the most abundant harvest. The fact that this was the native island of Barnabas gave him hope of a more ready access to many old associates. Besides, the gospel had already been proclaimed here with some success among the Jews, and in the city of Salamis, as we learn from the text just quoted, there was more than one Jewish synagogue.

What duties were performed by John, in his capacity as “an assistant,” can not be specifically determined with certainty. The term assistant would indicate that he performed, under their direction, a part of the same labor in which they were themselves engaged. The fact, however, that Saul was not in the habit of immersing his own converts, but imposed this duty on his assistants, renders it highly probable that this was at least one of the duties performed by John.

Acts 13:6-7. Luke is entirely silent in reference to the effect of the apostolic preaching in Salamis, leaving us to suppose that it was not great. After stating that they preached in the synagogues of the Jews, he follows them in their further progress through the island. (6) “And having passed through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, (7) who was with Sergius Paulus the proconsul, a prudent man, who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.” Every reader of ancient history has observed that statesmen and generals were in the habit of consulting oracles and auguries, and that they generally kept about them some one supposed to have the power of interpreting the signs of approaching good or evil. In this particular period, the educated Romans had become skeptical in reference to their heathen oracles, but Jewish pretenders still had access to their confidence on the credit of the ancient Jewish prophets. With a knowledge of the true God superior to that of even the greatest philosophers among the Greeks, because derived from the Jewish Scriptures, this Bar-Jesus very naturally gained the confidence of even the prudent Sergius Paulus. When, however, two other Jews appeared in Paphos, claiming to bring additional revelations from the God of Israel, the same prudence which had prompted the proconsul to reject the heathen oracles in favor of the Jewish pretender, now prompted him to send for Barnabas and Saul, that he might hear the word of God from them. Such a mind as his could not fail to hear with profit.

Acts 13:8-12. While listening to the gospel, there were some indications that he was inclined to believe it. (8) “But the magician Elymas, for so is his name translated, withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith. (9) Then Saul, who is also Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his eyes on him, (10) and said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell upon him a mist, and darkness, and he went about seeking persons to lead him by the hand. (12) Then the proconsul, seeing what was done, being astonished by the Lord’s teaching.”

This is the only miracle wrought by an apostle to the injury of any one’s person. It is to be accounted for, not by supposed resentment on the part of Saul, nor by a desire to make a special example of Bar-jesus. But the case was such that some display of power over the person of the false prophet was the readiest way to convince the proconsul. When Moses went into Egypt he found it necessary to impose many personal inflictions upon the priests, in order to destroy Pharaoh’s confidence in them. The present case was similar to that. The conflict in the mind of Sergius Paulus was between the claim of Bar-jesus to prophetic powers, and that of the apostles. The best way to settle this question was to denounce him in his true character as a son of the devil and an enemy of all righteousness, and then prove the justice of the denunciation, by exerting miraculous control over his person. As he groped about, calling upon one and another of the frightened bystanders to lead him by the hand, the falsity and iniquity if his pretensions stood confessed, and the divine mission of the apostles was demonstrated. The proconsul was fully convinced, and astonished at teaching which was attended by such power.

This triumph over Bar-jesus, and the consequent conversion of Sergius Paulus, forms an epoch in the life of the Apostle Paul. Hitherto he has occupied a subordinate position, and his name has come last in the list of himself and his fellow-laborers. But hereafter he is to occupy the foreground of almost every scene in which he acts. Heretofore, Luke has written “Barnabas and Saul;” hereafter he writes, “Paul and Barnabas.” He had been, up to this time, known by no other name than Saul, being so called not only by Luke, but by Jesus and Ananias. Luke, though writing long after this name had gone into disuse, remembering the custom which thus far prevailed, thus far retains it in his narrative. But, from this time forward he uses the name Paul exclusively; and that this was the universal custom, we infer from the fact that he is so called by all others who mention his name; by the Lord Jesus; by the mob in Jerusalem; by the centurion under Lysias; by his own nephew; by Lysias the chiliarch; by Festus; and by Peter.

There are only two suppositions worthy of notice, by which to account for this change of name. First, that he had both the Hebrew name Saul, and the Latin name Paul, before this time, and perhaps from his infancy; but the conversion of the proconsul Paulus led to the exclusive use of his Latin name thereafter. This supposition, however, cannot account for the entire absence of the name Paul previous to this event. Moreover, while it is true that many Jews of that day had both a Hebrew and a Latin or Greek name, there is no evidence that such had been the case with Saul.

The other supposition is, that he received this new name by common consent, in commemoration of the conversion of Paulus. This conversion was a signal triumph; it was accomplished by his instrumentality alone, and was the beginning of the pre-eminence which he afterward maintained over Barnabas and all subsequent follow-laborers. So bold and startling an incident, though it might have been regarded as common-place in his subsequent career, attracted attention now, because it was the first of the kind in his history, and because it secured a conversion of which even Barnabas, under the circumstances, might have despaired. Surprised by the event, and observing the extreme similarity between his name and that of his distinguished convert, which differed only in a single letter, and sounded very much alike, his friends very naturally conceived the idea of changing his name, as they did. It was in perfect harmony with a prevalent custom of the time. Its universal reception soon followed as a matter of course.

It argues no vanity in Paul that he adopted this name; for he could scarcely avoid the adoption into his own use of a name by which he had become universally known. There is nothing in the event, therefore, to encourage men in pompously sounding abroad their own achievements, but much to encourage us in honoring a brother whose boldness and success are worthy of praise.

Acts 13:13. Without pausing to give more detailed accounts of the success of the gospel in Cyprus, our historian now hurries us away with the two apostles upon the further prosecution of their tour. (13) “Now those about Paul set sail from Paphos, and went to Perga of Pamphylia. But John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.” So completely has Paul now become the central figure on the pages of Luke, that here, instead of following his former phraseology, and saying that “Barnabas and Saul” set sail from Paphos, the whole company are described as “those about Paul.”

Why they chose the regions north of Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, as their next field of labor, we are not informed. Luke is equally silent in reference to the reason why John Mark, at this particular juncture, departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem. He informs us, however, at a later period, that Paul censured him for so doing. It is very plausibly suggested by Mr. Howson, that he was influenced by fear of the dangers which lay in their way, the mountains before them being commonly infested with robbers. He remarks that “No population, through the midst of which he ever traveled, abounded more in those ’perils of robbers’ of which he himself speaks, than the wild and lawless clans of the Pisidian highlanders.”

Acts 13:14-15. Luke does not longer to recount the dangers through which the two travelers may have passed in crossing the mountains, but describes their progress in these few words: (14) “But they, having departed from Perga, arrived in Antioch of Pisidia, and entering into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, they sat down. (15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, and said, Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” This is a very life-like description of the order of worship in a Jewish synagogue, and of the readiness with which the apostles gained access to the ears of their Jewish kinsmen upon their first advent in a new field of labor. The direct invitation given them to address the people was doubtless prompted by some vague knowledge of their characters as public speakers, furnished, perhaps, by themselves.

Acts 13:16. To this invitation Paul responded, by immediately arising and addressing the audience. It need not be supposed, in order to account for the leadership which he now assumes, that he had laid formal claim to superiority over Barnabas; for when two men, of generous spirit, are co-operating together under trying circumstances, he who possesses the greater courage and promptness will eventually assume the foremost position, even without a special agreement to that effect. Such was the constant danger and embarrassment of the two missionaries, that the question was, who is willing to go forward, rather than, who has the right to be heard first. Paul’s manner, in arising to open the gospel message among these strangers, was bold and commanding. It is thus described by Luke: (16) “Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand, said, Men of Israel, and ye who fear God, give audience.” This gesture, described as beckoning with the hand, was characteristic of Paul’s manner, as well shall have occasion to observe frequently hereafter, and was well calculated to arrest the attention of an audience. It is the manner of one who knows what he is about to say, and feels confident of its importance.

Besides the Jewish audience present, Paul addressed a number of Gentiles, such as were in the habit of attending Jewish worship in almost every Gentile city, and many of whom, like Cornelius, had learned to worship the true God. He distinguishes the two classes, by addressing the former as “Men of Israel,” and the latter, as “Ye who fear God.”

Acts 13:17-24. After thus arresting the attention of his hearers, he approaches his main theme, by a rapid glance at some of the most cherished events in Jewish history. (17) “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high hand led them out of it; (18) and about the time of forty years nourished them in the wilderness. (19) And having destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave their land to them as an inheritance. (20) After these things, he gave them judges about four hundred and fifty years, until the prophet Samuel. (21) Then they desired a king, and God gave them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years. (22) And having removed him, he raised up to them David for a king, to whom he also gave testimony and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who will do all my will. (23) From this man’s offspring God has, according to his promise, raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus; (24) John having preached, before his coming, the immersion of repentance to all the people of Israel.”

This glance at the history of history, from their departure out of Egypt to the reign of David, is a very circuitous method of approaching the announcement of Jesus as a Savior; but, instead of being a defect in the speech, it is one of its chief excellencies. Every speech must be judged with reference to the special character of the audience addressed. The Jews had a glorious history, of which they were justly proud; and any happily expressed allusions to its leading facts always awakened in their hearts the most lively emotions. These incidents furnished the inspiration of their songs, the themes of their orators, the foundation of their national pride, and their comfort in persecution. Whoever, of their own people, appeared most deeply touched by their memories, had the readiest access to their sympathies, and he who would treat them with indifference or contempt, incurred their utmost hatred. Before such an audience, if Paul had abruptly introduced the name and the new doctrine of Jesus, he might have appeared an apostate from the Jewish faith, seeking to supplant it by something entirely new, and would therefore have kindled the resentment of his Jewish hearers at once. But, beginning with a happy reference to the history of the chosen tribes, and the reign of their most glorious king, and catching up the promise made to David, on which their own most cherished hopes were based, he leads them, by almost imperceptible steps, to the favorable consideration of the fulfillment of that promise in the appearance of Jesus as a Savior to Israel. The reference to John, whom all the Jews now accredited as a prophet, served the same purpose, while it designated more specifically the period in which Jesus had first appeared as a Savior.

The commentators have all noticed the striking similarity between this introduction of Paul’s speech and that of Stephen before the Sanhedrim, of which Paul was probably a hearer. But the attentive reader of our comments upon the two speeches will observe that the similarity is merely in the facts referred to, not in the purpose for which the reference is made; Paul’s object being merely to favorably introduce his main theme, while Stephen was gathering up a bundle of misdeeds in the history of the fathers, with which to lash the backs of sons who were so wickedly imitating their resistance to the Holy Spirit.

Acts 13:25. Having alluded to John’s preparatory ministry, he next introduces the direct testimony which he bore to the Messiahship of Jesus. (25) “Now as John was fulfilling his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he, but behold, there is coming after me one whose sandal I am not worthy to loose from his feet.” This was a habitual saying of John, well known to all who heard his preaching, or had heard of it, and brought to bear the whole weight of his testimony in favor of Jesus.

Acts 13:26. Those who have been accustomed to watch the sympathy between a speaker and his audience can readily perceive, in the change of Paul’s manner just here, evidence that he discovered some favorable emotions at work in his audience. He interrupts the thread of his argument, by warmly remarking: (26) “Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” But his impetuosity was not so great as to make him forget, altogether, the deep-seated prejudices to be overcome in his audience, or to waive the convincing and persuasive proofs he had yet to present. He proceeds, therefore, with renewed deliberation, to a fuller statement of the argument.

Acts 13:27-29. After claiming that the Messiahship of Jesus was so well authenticated, it was necessary to give some explanation of the singular fact, that the Jews, who knew him well, had put him to death as an impostor. This he does in a way that not only removes all objection, but furnishes additional evidence in his favor. (27) “For they who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, not knowing him and the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath-day, fulfilled them in condemning him. (28) And though they found not the least cause of death in him, they requested Pilate that he should be put to death. (29) And when they had completed all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a sepulcher.” Thus, his rejection and death at the hands of Jews, which might have appeared to Paul’s hearers an argument against his claims, are made to tell mightily in his favor, by the fact that this was but the fulfillment of what the prophets had written concerning the Messiah.

In this brief statement of the death and burial of Jesus, Paul makes no distinction between those who put him to death and those who “took him down from the tree, and laid him in the sepulcher.” But this omission is entirely justifiable; for, although his friends, Joseph and Nicodemus, performed the last two acts, they did it by the express permission of Pilate, and it may be regarded as, in a proper sense, the act of his enemies.

Acts 13:30-33. The speaker proceeds to the climax of his argument; a proof of the Messiahship still more conclusive, if possible than the testimony of John, or the fulfillment of prophesy. (30) “But God raised him from the dead; (31) and he was seen many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people. (32) And we declare to you glad tidings concerning the promise made to the fathers, (33) that God has fulfilled it to us, their children, by raising up Jesus; as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my son; to-day have I begotten thee.” The fact of the resurrection of Jesus, so well attested by competent witnesses, is introduced, not only as the final proof of his Messiahship, but as happy tidings to these Jews, being no less than the fulfillment of the promise to the fathers, and the realization of their most cherished hopes.

The difficulty of applying the words of David, “Thou art my son; to-day I have begotten thee,” to the resurrection of Jesus, has led many commentators to suppose that both it and the expression, “raising up Jesus,” refer to his incarnation. But these words of David, in every other instance of their occurrence in the New Testament, are applied to his resurrection, and not to his natural birth. In Hebrews 5:5, Paul says: “Christ glorified not himself to be made a priest, but he who said to him, Thou art my son; to-day have I begotten thee.” Now, as Christ was not a priest until after he had died as a victim, and was prepared to enter heaven with his own blood, it is clear that these words are applied to his resurrection, at the time of which he entered upon his priestly office. So, likewise, in Hebrews 1:5, the question, “To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son; to-day have I begotten thee?” is adduced as evidence of his superiority to angels, and cannot, therefore, refer to the period when he was “made a little lower than the angels.” That the term rendered begotten may be properly referred to the resurrection is evident from the fact that he is called the “first begotten from the dead,” and the “first born from the dead,” in which two expressions the Greek words are the same. He was the “only begotten son of God,” by his birth of the Virgin Mary; but he became the “first born from the dead,” or the “first born of the whole creation,” when he was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. In applying the quotation from the second Psalm, therefore, to the resurrection, and endeavoring to cheer the Jews in Antioch, with the thought that a long-cherished and familiar promise was thereby fulfilled, Paul was giving his real understanding of the passage quoted, and it is one as much more cheering than that which many commentators have gathered from it, as the exaltation of Christ from the grave to his throne in the heavens was a more glorious birth than that which brought him into this sinful world.

Acts 13:34-37. That we have given the true explanation of the clause last quoted is confirmed by the course of the argument in that which follows, in which the speaker continues to quote from David, to prove that, according to his prophesies, the Messiah should rise from the dead. (34) “Now that he did raise him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke thus: I will give to you the sure mercies of David. (35) Wherefore he also says in another psalm, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (36) For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, and was added to his fathers, and saw corruption; (37) but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.”

The words quoted from the fifty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, “I will give you the sure mercies of David,” have given no little trouble to both translators and interpreters. No translator can feel well satisfied with rendering ta osia David ta pista, the sure mercies of David; yet the literal translators have generally adopted this as the best that can be done. I think the words mean the holy things made sure to David. The purpose of the quotation is to prove that God would raise the Messiah from the dead no more to return to corruption. He assumes, therefore, that the words quoted refer to the Messiah, and that his hearers would not dispute the reference. Whatever, therefore, might otherwise be our own understanding of the words, we must take this as their true reference. The promise is addressed not to the Messiah, but to the Jews; for the pronoun you (umin) is in the plural number. It is a promise, then, to give to the Jews the holy things faithfully promised to David, among which was the promise already referred to, “Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.” It furnished, therefore, the required proof that the Messiah would rise, and not see corruption.

The only objection which his hearers would be likely to raise against the argument is, that in the words, “Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,” David spoke of himself. But this objection is anticipated by the remark that David had fallen asleep and seen corruption, whereas he, Jesus, whom God raised up, as was proved by the witnesses who saw him alive, did not see corruption; hence to him the words must refer. According, therefore, to the only possible application of David’s words, and to the admitted reference of the words quoted from Isaiah, they were bound to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

Acts 13:38-39. Having now established, by brief, but unanswerable arguments, the Messiahship of Jesus, Paul proceeds to offer the audience the benefit of his mediation. (38) “Be it known to you, therefore, brethren, that through this man is preached to you the remission of sins; (39) and in him every one who believes is justified from all from which you could not be justified in the law of Moses.” The expression en touto, in him, not by him as rendered in the common version, indicates that the parties to be justified must be in Christ, that is, in subjection to his authority; as the expression en to uomo, in the law, applies to those who were under the law, and not to uncircumcised Gentiles who were not under it. The benefits of the Jewish law extended only to those who were born in, or properly initiated into the body of people to whom the law was given; and just so, the remission of sins is preached only to those who shall be in Christ by being properly initiated into his body.

By the antithesis here instituted between the law and the gospel, Paul assumes that there was no remission of sins enjoyed by those under the law. For he asserts that there were some things “from which they could not be justified in the law of Moses;” and in the expression “justified from all from which you could not be justified in the law,” the true supplement after all is sins, taken from the preceding clause. He announces that remission of sins is preached through Jesus, and from these he assumes that under the law there was no justification. This point, indeed, would need no argument, even if the context did not settle it; for certainly, if there was anything from which under the law could not be justified, it was sin; and, on the other hand, in Christ we are justified from nothing but sin. The assumption is not, that justification cannot be procured by works of law, for this is equally true under Christ; but that those under the law of Moses did not obtain remission of sins at all.

Paul argues this assumption at length, in the ninth and tenth chapters of Hebrews. The only provisions in the law at all connected with remission of sins were its sacrifices; and he asserts of them, “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” It can not be rightly assumed that he contemplates these sacrifices as considered apart from their typical meaning; for he makes no such distinction. He takes them just as he finds them, with all that belongs to them when offered in good faith, and makes the assertion that it is not possible for them to take away sins. In the preceding verses of the same chapter he presents a specific argument based upon this broad assertion: “The law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of those things, can never, by those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” He proves this proposition, and shows the particular in which they were still imperfect, by adding, “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshipers, once cleansed, would have no more conscience of sins.” If a man had once obtained remission of particular sins, he would, of course, as is here argued, no longer offer sacrifices for those sins, seeing that his conscience would no longer annoy him in reference to them. But it is a fact, he argues further, that “In those sacrifices there is a remembrance of sins made every year.” The sins of the year, for which offerings had been made daily, were remembered again on the annual day of atonement, and new sacrifices offered for them declaring to the worshiper that they were still remembered against him. As this continued, annually, throughout the life of the pious Jew, it left him in the same condition at the day of his death, and he was gathered to his fathers with his sins still unforgiven.

The same truth is taught in the very terms of the new covenant. In stating the points of dissimilarity between it and the old covenant made at Mount Sinai, the Lord says, “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more;” implying that under the old covenant this blessing was not enjoyed.

We cannot dismiss this topic without paying some attention to the question which forces itself upon us, What did the saints, under the old covenant, enjoy in reference to forgiveness, and what is the meaning of the promise so often attached to sin offerings, “The priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him?” If we had nothing but this promise to guide us, we could but conclude that the party was, at the time, really forgiven; but with Paul’s comments upon it before us, we are compelled to avoid this conclusion, and seek some other explanation of the words. There cannot be less than a promise of pardon in the words quoted; and as it cannot be a promise fulfilled at the time, it must be a promise reserved to some future period for fulfillment.

That the promise of pardon made to Jews and patriarch was reserved for fulfillment to the death of Christ, Paul affirms in these words: “On this account he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they who were called” (that is, the ancient elect) “might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.“ Here the reception of the “promise of eternal inheritance,” by those who were under the first covenant, is made to depend upon the redemption of their transgressions. This redemption was not effected till the death of Christ; therefore, till his death their transgressions remained unforgiven. Though they had the promise of pardon, and rejoiced in the full assurance that it would yet be granted, they were compelled to regard it as blessing of the future and not of the present. Their enjoyment, as compared with that of the saints under the new covenant, was as that of one who has from God a promise of pardon, compared with him who has it already in possession. Their happiness, like ours, depended upon their faith in God’s word.

Acts 13:40-41. This passage in Paul’s speech was most unwelcome to his Jewish hearers. It was an express disparagement of the law of Moses such as always fell harshly upon Jewish ears. We consequently see in the next and last paragraph of the speech an indication of a change in the aspect of the audience. It is only an audience in whom a most unfavorable change is discernible, that so watchful a speaker could address in these words: (40) “Beware, then, lest that which is said in the prophets come upon you; (41) Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; for I do a work in your days, a work which you will not believe though one should fully declare it to you.” No doubt some evidence of their incredulity was visible in their countenances, if it was not exhibited by audible murmurings. The force of the quotation was to show, that if they did reject the gospel, they would only be identifying themselves with a class of whom this conduct had been predicted.

The surprise expressed by the prophet, that they would not believe though one should declare it to them, does not assume that they should believe facts so astounding upon the mere assertion of an individual; but the object of surprise is, that they would not believe though one should declare it fully to them, that is, with all the incontestable evidences of its reality. Undoubtedly the work referred to by the apostle, in his application of the prophet’s language, is the work of raising up a savior to Israel in the person of Jesus.

Acts 13:42-43. When Paul’s speech was concluded, the synagogue was dismissed and the apostle had an opportunity to learn what particular effects had been produced. The people, candid and outspoken, let him in no doubt on the subject. (42) “Now as they were going out, they entreated that these words should be spoken to them the next Sabbath, (43) and, the synagogue being dismissed, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, talking to them, persuaded them to continue in the favor of God.” Thus, notwithstanding the majority of the Jews in the audience gave such evidence of incredulity as to extort the warning with which Paul closed his speech, some of them were ready to believe; while the Gentile proselytes, less affected by Jewish prejudices, and, therefore, better prepared to do justice to the speaker, were most deeply interested. The picture which Luke gives of their following Paul and Barnabas in a crowd away from the synagogue, and keeping up an earnest conversation, is a striking exhibition of the simple habits of the people, as well as of the interest which they felt in the new and thrilling theme of the discourse.

Acts 13:44. So deep an interest kindled in the synagogue, and taking hold of Gentile minds, could not fail to spread widely through the city during the following week, and its progress was doubtless furthered by the most active private exertions of Paul and Barnabas. The result was seen in the next assemblage at the synagogue. (44) “On the next Sabbath almost the whole city were gathered together to hear the word of God.“

Acts 13:45. So large an assemblage of the people, to hear a doctrine which appeared disparaging to the law of Moses, and which had, on this account, already offended the mass of the Jews, could but arouse their utmost indignation. They acted according to their uniform policy under such circumstances. (45) “But the Jews, when they saw the multitudes were filled with zeal, and contradicted the things spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” This was one of the instances in which Paul could say, “I bear them witness that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” It was useless to reason with them further, or to attempt to conciliate them.

Acts 13:46-47. When men take a stand like this, nothing will satisfy them but an abandonment of the truth; and hence that conciliatory bearing which should mark our address to them up to this point, may, with propriety, be dismissed, and we may proceed without regard to their feelings. So the apostles acted. (46) “Then Paul and Barnabas, speaking boldly, said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you; but since you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold we turn to the Gentiles. (47) For thus has the Lord commanded us, I have placed thee as a light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be for salvation to the extremity of the earth.“

The remark that it was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to them, before turning to the Gentiles, shows that the apostles understood that the gospel was not only to begin in Jerusalem, but that, in every distinct community, it was to begin with the Jews. Hence the frequent occurrence, in Paul’s style, of the expression, “To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” The reason of this distinction has been discussed in the commentary on Acts 1:8.

Acts 13:48. In the next paragraph we have a statement, the meaning of which has excited no little controversy. (48) “On hearing this the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were determined for eternal life believed.” The controversy turns upon the meaning of the clause osoi eoan tetagmenoi eis zoen aioniou, rendered, in the common version, “as many as were ordained to eternal life.” The Calvinistic writers united in referring it to the eternal election and foreordination taught in their creeds. They contend, therefore, for the rendering “were ordained,” or “were appointed.” If their interpretation were admitted, it would involve the passage in some difficulties which none of them seem to have noticed. If it be true that “as many as were foreordained to eternal life believed,” then there were some of the foreordained left in that community who did not believe. Hence, all those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants, were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to everlasting punishment. Now it is certainly most singular that so complete a separation of the two parties should take place throughout a whole community at one time; and still more singular that Luke should so far depart from the custom of inspired writers as to state the fact. Again, the same statement implies that all who believed on that occasion were of the elect. For, if the parties who believed were those who had been foreordained to eternal life, then none of the non-elect could have been among the number. Here is another anomalous incident: that on this occasion all who believed were of the number who would finally be saved, and that Luke should be informed of the fact and make it known to his readers. Certainly we should not adopt an interpretation involving conclusions so anomalous, unless we are compelled to do so by the obvious force of the words employed.

It is worthy of more that the efforts of Calvinistic writers to prove that this is the meaning of these words consist chiefly in strong assertions to that effect, and in attempts to answer the feebler class of the objections urged against it. Thus Dr. Hackett asserts: “This is the only translation which the philology of the passage allows.” But he makes no effort to prove that the New Testament usage of the principal word involved allows this translation. The word rendered ordained in this passage is tasso—a term which is not employed in a single instance in the New Testament in the sense of foreordained. Where that idea is to be expressed, other words are uniformly employed.

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples, or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul, we best express the idea by appointed. But when Paul says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,” he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God. When he asserts of the household of Stephanas, in Corinth, that etaxan eautous they set themselves in order for ministering to the saints, we would say they devoted themselves to ministering to the saints. But when the brethren in Antioch had been puzzled by the disputation between Paul and Barnabas and “certain men who came down from Judea,” in reference to circumcision, and they finally etaxan, set in order, to send some of both parties to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for a decision, the common version very correctly renders it, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go.”

In reference to the propriety of this last rendering, Dr. Hackett asserts that this term “was not used to denote an act of the mind;” the awkward translation of this passage to which the assertion forces him is evidence conclusive against it. He renders it, “They appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem.” This is an ungrammatical use of the word appointed. When a mission has been determined upon, we appoint the individuals who shall be sent, but we do not appoint that they shall go. Evidently, the state of the case was this: the brethren were at first undetermined what to do in reference to the question in dispute, but finally determined to send to Jerusalem for an authoritative decision of it. When a man is undetermined in reference to a pressing question, his mind is in confusion; but when he determines upon his course, it is no longer confusion, but is set in order. The term in question, therefore, meaning primarily to set in order, is most happily adapted to the expression of such a state of mind. Our English word dispose has a similar usage. It means to arrange in a certain order, and applies primarily to external objects; but when one’s mind is found arranged in accordance with a certain line of conduct, we say he is disposed to pursue it.

We scarcely need observe, after the above remarks, that the specific meaning attached to the generic term in question, in any particular passage, is to be determined by the context. In the passage we are now considering, the context has no allusion to any thing like an appointment of one part, and a rejection of the other; but the writer draws a line of distinction between the conduct of certain Gentiles and that of the Jews addressed by Paul in the closing paragraph of his speech. To render the contrast between the two more conspicuous, he throws his words into antithesis with those of Paul. Paul had said to the Jews, “You put the word of God from you;” Luke says of the Gentiles, “They glorified the word of the Lord.” Paul said, “You judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;” Luke says, many of the Gentiles “were determined for everlasting life.” It is an act of the mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as clearly an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast with it. At some previous time in their history, these Gentiles, like all others, had been undetermined in reference to everlasting life, either because they were not convinced that there was such a state, or because they hesitated to seek for it. But now their minds were set in order upon the subject, by being determined to labor for the eternal life which Paul preached.

It now remains, in order to full eludication of the passage, that we account for the connection indicated between their being determined for everlasting life, and their believing. The former stands as a cause which led to the latter. Let it be noted that everlasting life is not contemplated as the object of their belief, for, if it was, they would have had to believe in it, before they could determine for it; so that the order of the two mental acts would be reversed. But, in common with the Jews, who had been their religious instructors, they already believed in a future state, and what they now learned to believe by Paul’s preaching was the gospel of Christ. Those of them who had, either through previous religious instruction, or through the influence of Paul’s preaching, heartily determined for eternal life, were in a better frame of mind to appreciate the evidence in favor of that Christ through whom alone it could be obtained, than the others who were so undetermined upon the subject that they appeared to judge themselves unworthy of such a destiny. Such was the difference between the two classes in the audience, and Luke’s object is to declare the result of the difference in the fact that the one class believed, and the other thrust the word of God from them. To say that the difference had been wrought in them exclusively by divine agency would be to rob them of responsibility. Or to say that the favorably-disposed party had become so exclusively by their own self-determining energy would be to deny the influence of divine truth. Neither of these positions can be true; but, while it was an act of their own minds to determine for eternal life, it was God who had induced them to do so; at the same time, the other party determined against eternal life, in despite of the same divine influence exerted upon them.

Acts 13:49-52. The animosity of the Jews, excited by the success of the apostles, finally resulted in their expulsion from the city. The account is given in brief terms: (49) “And the word of the Lord was published throughout the whole region. (50) But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their borders. (51) And they, shaking off the dust of their feet against them, went into Iconium. (52) But the disciples were full of joy and the Holy Spirit.” The means by which this persecution was brought about serves to illustrate the relation which the Jews who were settled in Gentile cities sustained to the surrounding society. They had no political power in their own hands, and dared not lay violent hands upon the apostles. But certain “honorable women,” wives of the “chief men of the city,” had come under their influence by attending the synagogue worship, and through them they gained access to their unbelieving husbands so as to induce them to expel Paul and Barnabas. It is a suggestive fact, that the women who were made instruments of a transaction so discreditable are styled “devout women.” It shows that devotion in the worship of God, like zeal when not according to knowledge, may be made to do the devil’s own work. The more devout one’s feelings, while his mind is corrupted by false conceptions of duty, the greater mischief he is likely to do; so far is it from being true, that to make the heart right is to make the whole man right. No man is safe without a proper understanding of his duty, derived from the word of God.

Paul and Barnabas were not without indignation when they were thus ignominiously expelled from the city; but the only exhibition which they made of it was that which the Savior had directed; “they shook off the dust of their feet against them.” This was not a mere idle or childish mark of resentment, as it would be in an uninspired teacher; but was designed as “a testimony against them,” a solemn warning of the righteous judgment of God, whom they had rejected in rejecting his chosen messengers.

We would imagine that the young disciples, from whom their religious teachers were thus violently driven away, would have been overwhelmed with grief and fear. But we are told, as quoted above, that they were “filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.” The full assurance given by the gospel of that everlasting life which they had “determined for,” and the belief that the Spirit of God dwelt in their mortal bodies, supplied them with a joy which was no longer dependent on human agency, and of which human power could not deprive them.

Acts Chapter Fourteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 14:1-2. In Iconium the two missionaries met with better success than in Antioch, but they encountered similar opposition, and from the same source. (1) “Now it came to pass in Iconium, that they went together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude, both of the Jews and the Greeks, believed. (2) But the unbelieving Jews stirred up and disaffected the minds of the Gentiles against the brethren.” The multitude of Jews and Gentiles who believed must have been “great,” not in comparison to the whole population, but to the number who were usually convinced under such circumstances, and especially to the number who had just been convinced in Antioch. For we see that the unbelieving Jews were still an influential body, and the remark that they “disaffected the minds of the Gentiles” indicates that the masses of the Gentiles were still unbelievers.

It should not escape the notice of the reader, that the conviction of these people is attributed distinctly to the force of what the apostles spoke. They “so spoke that a great multitude believed.” This is one among many incidental remarks of Luke, which indicate that he had no conception of the modern doctrine that faith is produced by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, and which confirm by historic facts the doctrine of Paul, that faith comes by hearing the word of God.

Acts 14:3-7. This divided and excited state of the public mind continued during the whole time that Paul and Barnabas remained in the city. (3) “They continued there a long time, speaking boldly respecting the Lord, who bore testimony to the word of his favor, and granted signs and wonders to be done through their hands. (4) Yet the multitude of the city was divided: some were with the Jews, and others with the apostles. (5) But when an onset was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to abuse and stone time, (6) they, being aware of it, fled down to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, and Derbe, and the surrounding country; (7) and there they preached the gospel.” In the rapid sketch which Luke is giving us of this rather hurried missionary tour, he makes no definite note of time, to indicate how long the two missionaries remained at any particular place. The above remark, that they continued in Iconium “a long time,” is the only note of the kind in the tour, and it is very indefinite. It only indicates that their stay here was long in comparison with that at most other places during this tour.

Though their preaching here was not as successful as might have been expected from the length of time employed, it received abundant attestations of the Lord’s approval. The proof of this fact adduced by Luke is quite different from that often adduced for a similar purpose by modern writers. Now, the proof that a man’s ministry is “owned and accepted” by the Lord, is found in the “abundant outpourings of the Spirit” which attend it; and this, in other words, means the number of “powerful conversions” with which it is rewarded. But the Lord’s method of bearing testimony to the word of his favor, according to Luke, was by “granting signs and wonders to be done” by the hands of the preachers; while not a word is said, either by him or any other inspired writer, of such a spiritual attestation as is now confidently referred to. This shows that our modern revivalists have confounded the attestations of the word by signs and miracles, which was common, in apostolic times, with the exciting scenes which now occur in their revivals. This mistake not only confounds things essentially different, but assumes that the apostles were accustomed to scenes of which they never dreamed. Moreover, it erects a false and very injurious standard by which to judge whether a man’s ministry is acceptable to God. If the preacher who is most successful in gaining converts is the one whose ministry is most acceptable to God, then there is not the same value in earnest piety, a blameless life, and watchful oversight of the flock which the apostolic epistles would lead us to believe; since it sometimes occurs that men who obtain the fame of great “revivalists,” are quite deficient in these essential characteristics of an acceptable minister of the Word.

The onset made by the multitude, like the similar proceedings in Antioch, was instigated by the unbelieving Jews, though effected chiefly by the Gentiles and the rulers of the city. The escape of the missionaries must have been narrow, and was probably owing to the kindness of some stranger, whom Paul and Barnabas may have remembered with gratitude, but whose name will not be known to the great world till the day of eternity.

Acts 14:8-12. The district of Lycaonia, into which the apostles had fled, was an interior district of Asia Minor, lying north of the Taurus Mountains, but of very indefinite boundaries. The exact situation of the two towns, Lystra and Derbe, is not now known. With the character of the people, however, which is the important consideration in a narrative like this, we are made sufficiently acquainted by the narrative itself. It was one of those retired districts, remote from the great marts of trade and the routes of travel, where the people retained their primitive habits, spoke their primitive dialect, and knew little of either the civilization of the Greeks, or the religion of the Jews. This rude state of society will account for some of the peculiarities of the following narrative.

Finding no Jewish synagogues, to afford them an assembly of devout hearers, the missionaries took advantage of such other opportunities as offered, to get the ears of the people. Having succeeded in collecting a crowd in Lystra, they met with the following incident: (8) “A certain man in Lystra was sitting, impotent in his feet, a cripple from his birth, who had never walked. (9) The same was listening to Paul speaking, who, looking intently upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be healed, (10) and said with a loud voice, Stand upright on your feet; and he leaped and walked about. (11) The multitude, seeing what Paul did, lifted up their voice in the speech of Lycaonia, and said, The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. (12) And they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, Mercury.”

Although Paul had been speaking to them of the true God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, until the cripple, at least, believed; yet, when the miracle was wrought before them, all their heathenish ideas rushed back upon their minds, and they at once supposed that they stood in the presence of gods. Such was the natural conclusion of men who had been educated from childhood to believe the strange inventions of heathen mythology. It was an honest mistake, committed through ignorance.

Their conclusion as to which of the gods had appeared, was as natural and as instantaneous as their conviction that they were gods. They had a temple, or a statue, or perhaps both, in front of their city, as we learn below, to the honor of Jupiter; hence any god who might appear to them would be naturally taken for him. But when two gods appeared together, the one who acts as chief speaker could be no other than Mercury, the god of Eloquence, and the constant attendant of Jupiter in his terrestrial visits. The remark of Luke that Paul was called Mercury “because he was the chief speaker,” shows that he was familiar with Greek mythology.

Acts 14:13. The people felt the warmest gratitude for the visit of their supposed gods, and gave expression to their feeling in the most approved method. (13) “Then the priest of the Jupiter that was before the city brought bulls and garlands to the gates, and, with the people, wished to offer sacrifices to them.” The garlands of flowers were designed, according to a well-known custom of the ancients, to deck the forms of the bulls about to be offered. It is not altogether certain whether the “gates” referred to are those of a private court within which Paul and Barnabas may have retired when first greeted as gods, or the gates of the city, of which there may have been two or more in the same part of the wall, and near which the apostles may have remained with a part of the crowd. The latter I regard as the most probable supposition. The sacrifices were to be offered to the supposed gods in person, and not to the image which stood before the city.

Acts 14:14-18. Nothing could have been more unexpected or more painful to the humble missionaries, than a demonstration of this kind. The purpose of the priest and the crowd with him was, doubtless, communicated to them before the rites were commenced. (14) “Which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard, they rent their clothes, and ran into the crowd, crying aloud, (15) and saying, Men, why do you do these things? We are men of like passions with yourselves, preaching the gospel to you, that you should turn from these vanities to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; (16) who in generations past suffered all the Gentiles to go on in their own ways; (17) although he did not leave himself without testimony, doing good, and giving you rains from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. (18) And by saying these things they with difficulty restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.”

The habit of rending one’s clothes under the influence of sudden passion, which Paul and Barnabas had inherited from their ancestors, and fell into on this occasion, appears very singular to the taste of western nations. The earliest historical traces of it are found in the family of Jacob, and the example of Job; and the latest in the instance before us, which is the only one recorded of the apostles. How so childish and destructive a custom could have originated, it is difficult to imagine; but when once introduced, it is easy to see how it might be transmitted by imitation, until the use of more costly garments would put a stop to it with the economical, or the the restraints of a more enlightened piety would mollify the passions of the religious. It was, certainly, very inconsistent with the calm self-possession inculcated by Christ and the apostles; but we can excuse Barnabas and Saul on this occasion, in consideration of their early habits, which often spring unexpectedly upon men in a moment of sudden excitement.

In describing their effort to restrain the idolatry of the multitude, Luke once more reverses their names, saying Barnabas and Saul, as he did before the conversion of Sergius Paulus. This is because Barnabas was called Jupiter, and was the chief figure in this scene. The care with which Luke changes the order of their names, according as one or the other is most prominent, confirms what we have said of the pre-eminence of Barnabas previous to the commencement of this missionary tour.

Though Barnabas, on this occasion, received the chief honor at the hands of the people, yet Paul continued to play the part of Mercury which the people had assigned him; for the speech to the idolaters bears unmistakable marks of his paternity. Mr. Howson notices the coincidence between the exhortation to the Lystrians, that they “should turn from these vanities to the living God,” and his remark to the Thessalonians, that they had “turned from idols to serve the living and true God;” between the remark that “in generations past God suffered the Gentiles to go on in their own ways,” and his statement to the Athenians, that “the times of this ignorance God had overlooked;” and finally, between the argument by which he proves that God had not left himself without testimony among the heathen, and that in Romans, where he says (to quote the common version,) “The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” To which I would add, that the coincidence in thought between this speech, so far as reported, and that made in Athens to another company of idolaters is so striking, that the latter might be regarded as the same speech, only modified to suit the circumstances of the audience and the peculiarities of the occasion.

The speech and manner of the apostles finally brought the people back to their senses. It was a sad disappointment to know that their wonderful visitors were only men like themselves, and this conviction left them in great bewilderment as to the nature of the superhuman power which Paul had exerted.

Acts 14:19. This state of suspense was most favorable to the acceptance of Paul’s own explanation of his miraculous power, and consequently to their belief of the gospel; and we can not doubt that some of the disciples, whom we afterward find there, owed their conviction, in part, to the circumstance. But with those who did not promptly embrace the faith, the same suspense made room for explanations unfavorable to conviction, and such explanations were soon given. (19) “But Jews from Antioch and Iconium came thither, and having persuaded the multitude, and stoned Paul, they dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead.” The readiness with which a people who had so recently offered divine honors to Paul were persuaded to stone him to death, though at first glance surprising, is but a natural result of all the circumstances. That portion of them who had been prominent in the idolatrous proceedings felt mortified at the discovery of their mistake, and were naturally inclined to excuse their own folly by throwing censure upon the innocent objects of it. The Jews stimulated this feeling by urging that Paul was an impostor, and that all the honorable women and chief men of Antioch and Iconium had united in driving him away from those cities. This enabled them to charge him with willful deception, and as their feelings were already keyed up to their utmost tension they were easily swayed to the opposite extreme, and at a nod from the Jews they were ready to dash him to pieces. That Paul, rather than Barnabas, was the victim of their wrath, resulted from the fact that both here and in the cities from which the Jews had come, he was the chief speaker. The same circumstance which had given him the inferior place in their idolatry, gave him, finally, the superior place in their hatred.

Acts 14:20. Although Paul’s physical constitution was feeble, he had, as is often the case with such constitutions, great tenacity of life. The mob left him, thinking he was dead. (20) “But while the disciples were standing around him, he rose up, and entered into the city, and the next day he went out with Barnabas into Derbe.“

Acts 14:21-22. Having been compelled to fly from Antioch to Iconium, and from Iconium to Lystra, wading into deeper dangers at every step, who can tell the feelings with which the wounded missionary enters the gate of another heathen city, bearing visible marks of the indignity he had suffered, to excite the contempt of the people? We know, from the expression given to his feelings on some other occasions, that now they must have been gloomy indeed. But he who brings light out of darkness caused a refreshing light to shine upon the darkening pathway of his faithful servant, by granting him here a peaceful and abundant harvests of souls. (21) “And when they had preached the gospel in the city, and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, (22) confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.” Luke passes hurriedly over these scenes; but the uninspired imagination loves to linger among them, to sympathize with the suffering apostles in their afflictions and comforts, and also with the congregations in the four cities, as the two brethren, who had come among them like visitors from a better world, were bidding them farewell, and leaving them to make their own way through many temptations into the everlasting kingdom of God.

Acts 14:23. They were left as “sheep in the midst of wolves;” but they were committed to the care of the great Shepherd of the sheep, and were supplied with under-shepherds to keep them in the fold. (23) “And having appointed for them elders in every Church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” Here we have the same prayer and fasting, connected with the appointment of elders, which we have already noticed upon the appointment of the seven deacons in Jerusalem, and upon the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch. The laying on of hands, which was a part of the ceremony on those occasions, is not here mentioned; but as we have already seen that it was a part of the ceremony of appointment to office, and as the apostles are said to have appointed these elders, we may safely infer that it was not omitted.

As the office exercised by these elders, and the number of them in each congregation, have been made subjects of controversy, we will devote some space to grouping a few facts which bear upon these points. The passage before us contains the earliest mention of the appointment of elders, yet these were by no means the first elders appointed. For Paul and Barnabas, when sent to Jerusalem with a contribution for the poor saints, delivered it to “the elders.” This shows that there were already elders in the Churches in Judea. Paul and Barnabas, on their present tour, appointed elders in every Church; Titus was left in Crete that he might set in order the things that were omitted, and appoint elders in every city; and James takes it for granted that every Church has elders, by directing, in his general epistle, that the sick should call for the elders of the Church, to pray for them and anoint them with oil, with a view to their recovery. In view of these facts, it cannot be doubted that the office of elder was universal in the apostolic Churches.

That the term elder is used as an official title, and not merely to indicate the older members of the Church, is sufficiently evident from the fact that men became elders by appointment, whereas an appointment cannot make one an old man. The fact that these officers were called elders indicates that they were generally selected from the elderly class; still, it does not necessarily imply that, to be an elder officially, a man must be an elder in years. Terms which are appropriated as official titles do not always retain their original meanings. Whether advanced age is necessary to the elder’s office is to be determined, not by the official title, but by the qualifications prescribed. But, inasmuch as no such qualification is anywhere prescribed, we conclude that any brother who possesses the qualifications which are prescribed, may be made an elder, though he be not an old man.

The term bishop in our common version, rendered in some English versions overseer, is but another title for this same officer. This is evident, first, from the fact that the same brethren of the congregation in Ephesus, who came down to Miletus to meet Paul, are styled by Luke “elders of the Church,” and by Paul, bishops. Second, In the epistle to Titus, Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. He tells Titus that he left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city, prescribes some of the qualifications for the office, and assigns as a reason for them, “for a bishop must be blameless,” etc. If Washington, in his Farewell Address, had advised the American people to always elect as President a man of known integrity, and had given as a reason for it that the chief magistrate of a great people should be of blameless reputation, it would be as reasonable to deny that the terms president and chief magistrate are used interchangeably, as that the terms elder and bishop are in the passage.

That there was a plurality of elders in each congregation could hardly be disputed by an unbiased reader of the New Testament. Two facts, alone, would seem sufficient to settle this question: first, the fact that Titus was to ordain elders, not an elder, in every city; second, that they were elders, and not an elder from the Church in Ephesus, who came to meet Paul at Miletus. The objection sometimes urged, that there may have been several Churches in each of these cities, and that the plurality of elders was made up of the single elders from the individual Churches, is based upon a conjecture utterly without historic foundation. But if the argument from these passages were waived, the issue is conclusively settled by the statement of our text, that Paul and Barnabas, “appointed elders in every Church.” A plurality of elders, therefore, and not a single one, were appointed for each Church.

A full exhibition of the duties of the elder’s office, and of the moral and intellectual qualifications requisite to an appointment thereto, belongs to a commentary on the First Epistle to Timothy, rather than on Acts of Apostles. We will not, therefore, consider them here, further than to observe that the duties were such as can not be safely dispensed with in any congregation; while the qualifications were such as were then, and are now, but seldom combined in a single individual. Indeed, it can not be supposed that Paul found in the young congregations of Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and every other planted during this tour, men who could fill up the measure of the qualifications which he prescribes for this office. But he appointed elders in every Church, hence he must have selected those who came nearest the standard. It is not an admissible objection to this argument, that inspiration may have supplied the defects of certain brethren in each congregation, so as to fully qualify them; for moral excellencies, which are the principal of these qualifications, are not supplied by inspiration. The truth is, the qualifications for this office, like the characteristics prescribed for old men, aged women, young men and women, and widows, respectively, are to be regarded as a model for imitation, rather than a standard to which all elders must fully attain. It were as reasonable to keep persons of these respective ages out of the Church, until they fill up the characters prescribed for them, as to keep a Church without elders until it can furnish men perfect in the qualifications of the office. Common sense and Scripture authority both unite in demanding that we should rather follow Paul’s example, and appoint elders in every Church from the best material which the Church affords.

The qualifications to be prescribed for one who would fill an office depend upon the duties of the office. Imperfection in the qualifications leads to proportionate inefficiency in the performance of the duties. Seeing, then, that but few men are found possessing, in a high degree, all the qualifications for the office of bishop, we should not be surprised that its duties have generally been more or less inefficiently performed. Much less should we, as so many have done, seek a remedy for this inefficiency, in an entire subversion of the Church organization instituted by the apostles. After all that can be said to the contrary, the apostolic plan has proved itself more efficient than any of those invented by men. Those congregations of the present day which are under the oversight of an efficient eldership, other things being equal, come nearer, in every good word and work, to the apostolic model of a Church of Christ, than any others in Christendom. And those which have a comparatively inefficient eldership will compare most favorably with those under an inefficient pastorship of any other kind. Finally, such inefficiency is not, after all, more frequently found in the eldership than in what is popularly styled the ministry. This must be so, from the fact that the qualifications for the office, public speaking alone excepted, are more frequently found combined in three or four men, than in one, whether pastor, or class-leader, or whatever may be his title. The folly, therefore, of abandoning the apostolic eldership in favor of any other organization, is demonstrated by history; while its wickedness must be apparent to every one who esteems apostolic precedents above human expedients. To seek an escape from the condemnation due for this wickedness, by asserting that the apostles left no model of Church organization, is only to add to the original crime by perverting the Scriptures to excuse it. So long as it stands recorded that Paul and Barnabas “appointed for them elders in every Church,” and so long as the duties of these officers remain carefully prescribed in the apostolic epistles, so long will it be false to deny that the apostles left us a definite model of Church organization, and wicked in the sight of God to abandon it for any other.

Acts 14:24-26. Leaving Antioch of Pisidia, the apostles returned as far as the sea-coast by the same route through which they had gone up into Pisidia. (24) “And passing through Pisidia, they came into Pamphylia; (25) and having spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. (26) Thence they sailed to Antioch, whence they had been commended to the favor of God for the work which they had performed.” Perga, on the river Cestrus, a few miles above its mouth, was the point at which they had disembarked on their first arrival from Cyprus. They had made no delay there at first, but now we are told that they “spoke the word in Perga.” Luke’s silence in reference to the result of this effort is an indication that it was not very decided. It is probable that their design was simply to usefully employ an interval during which they were waiting for a vessel bound to Antioch. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that they finally left Perga by land, and walked down to Attalia on the sea-coast, where they would be likely to meet with a vessel without so long delay. They were not disappointed; for “thence they sailed to Antioch.”

Acts 14:27-28. The apostles had now completed their missionary tour, and there could but be great anxiety in the congregation who had sent them forth, to know the result of their labors. It was the first mission ever sent to the heathen world. The missionaries were as eager to report the success with which their sufferings and toil had been crowned, as the congregation were to hear it. He who returns from a hard-fought field bearing good tidings, pants beneath the burden of his untold story. (27) “And having arrived and assembled the Church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. (28) And they continued there no little time with the disciples.” In the statement that God had “opened a door of faith to the Gentiles,” this is an allusion both to the opening of that national inclosure which had hitherto confined the gospel almost exclusively to the Jews, and the introduction of the distant Gentiles through that door into the Church. Before this, faith had been to them inaccessible; for “how shall they believe on him of whom they had not heard?” But now that the preachers had been sent out to them, the door was open, and faith was accessible to all.

Acts Chapter Fifteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 15:1. At this point in the narrative our historian makes a sudden transition from the conflicts of the disciples with the unbelieving world to one almost as serious among themselves. There never was a national antipathy more intense than that felt by the Jews to the whole Gentile world. It was the more intense, from the fact that it was imbedded in their deepest religious sentiments, and was cultivated in all the devotions. In the hearts of the disciples this feeling had, by this time, been so far overcome, that they had admitted the propriety of receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. But they found it more difficult to convince themselves that Gentiles were to be admitted into social and domestic intimacy. Hence, when Peter returned from the house of Cornelius to Jerusalem, the chief objection urged against him was, not that he had immersed Gentiles, but “Thou didst go into the house of men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” This was the full extent to which the judaizing party in the Church were prepared, at that time, to push their objections. But when men take an unreasonable and obstinate stand against any cause, they frequently assume more extravagant ground as the cause they are opposing advances. While but a few Gentiles had come into the Church, the pharisaic party objected only to domestic association with them; but now that Paul and Barnabas had succeeded in opening a door of faith to the whole Gentile world, and it was likely that the Jews, who had hitherto constituted almost the whole body of the Church, were soon to become only a small element in its constituency, their fears were excited, and their demands became more exorbitant. Paul and Barnabas were still in Antioch. (1) “And certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you can not be saved.” As we learn from a subsequent part of this chapter, they were not content with merely enjoining circumcision, but also exacted the observance of all the law of Moses, to which circumcision was only preliminary. The success of this party would have perpetuated Judaism, and forever have neutralized those philanthropic principles of the gospel which the experience of the world and the wisdom of God alike had shown to be necessary to the moral renovation of the human race.

Acts 15:2. If Paul and Barnabas had ever been, since their conversion, blinded by these narrow views, their labors among the Gentiles would have wrought a change in their feelings, and prepared them to see the subject in a better light. They opposed the new propositions with all their powers; and though they did not succeed in silencing their opponents, they brought the discussion to a fortunate conclusion. (2) “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.”

If the brethren in Antioch had estimated at its proper value the authority of an inspired apostle, they would have yielded implicitly to Paul’s decision without this mission to Jerusalem. But they were as yet too little accustomed to reflection upon the profound mystery of apostolic infallibility to properly accredit it; and their deep prejudices on the subject under discussion was a serious obstacle in the way of clear thought. It is probable that apostolic authority is more highly appreciated now than it was then; yet the prejudices of sect and party are so intense, that even now the dictum of a living apostle would prove insufficient, in millions of cases, to convince men of their errors. Like the disciples in Antioch, who had the testimony of Paul, men now are not easily satisfied with a single inspired statement upon a point in dispute, or with the statements of a single apostle, but demand an accumulation of even divine testimonies.

It is probable that Paul would have objected to making this appeal to the other apostles, on the ground of its apparent inconsistency with his own claims to inspired authority, had not the proposition been sustained by an express revelation of the divine will. In the second chapter of Galatians, where Mr. Howson very clearly proves that Paul has reference to this journey, he says: “I went up by revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” It was the divine purpose to settle the question, not for the Church in Antioch alone, but for all the world and for all time.

Acts 15:3. Their journey to Jerusalem, which was accomplished by land, lay through two sections of country which had already been evangelized to a considerable extent. (3) “Being sent forward by the Church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy to all the brethren.” The Churches in Samaria did not, of course, sympathize with the Jewish prejudices, and although in Phenicia there were doubtless many Jews, yet the Gentile element sufficiently predominated to enable the brethren there, like the Samaritans, to rejoice that the gospel was spreading into the heathen world.

Acts 15:4. After a pleasant journey among rejoicing Churches, they reached Jerusalem. (4) “And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.” They proceeded, in Jerusalem, as they had upon their return to Antioch, to give a history of their missionary tour. This was done in the presence of the Church, the apostles also being present.

Acts 15:5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully their own position. (5) “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This party is here identified as converts from the old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of any large accessions to the Church from this party; but this incidental remark shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the truth had yielded, and were now occupying positions of influence in the congregation. Paul now once more meets some of his companions in the persecution of the disciples, not to harmonize with them, nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the claims of Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same disposition to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight against the gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which must have been well-founded, or he would not have given the public utterance to it which he did at a subsequent period. He styles them, in the Epistle to the Galatians, “False brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” Having witnessed a rapid increase of the congregations under the pressure of the persecutions and disputations to which they had formerly resorted, these wily enemies of the truth determined at length to corrupt and destroy, under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress they could not impede by open enmity. They well knew, what some of the brethren had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered powerless if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even to this day the mass of religious teachers have failed to learn this lesson, though the experience of ages has demonstrated its truth. The essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees had reference to the perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of Christ, and the same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that day to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten circumcision on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant immersion, and finally, infant sprinkling as a substitute. What the early Pharisees failed to accomplish in the face of apostolic opposition, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a thin disguise. The unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to “spy out the liberty which the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into bondage” under the law, has been successfully accomplished by these, in teaching men that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham’s family, and that the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one identical Church. The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous ritual and daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter Canaanites in the form of modern heretics; professed Christians go to war under the old battle-cry of “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon;” the Latter-day Saints emulate the Turks in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions authority is found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent reader of the New Testament knows scarcely which of these errors is most repugnant to the truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and ceaseless vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men.

Acts 15:6. After the Pharisees had stated their position, distinctly affirming that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law, it seems that the assembly adjourned to meet up again at another hour. The next meeting is then announced in these words: (6) “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Neither this nor the former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from verse fifth, that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from the twenty-second verse below, that at this second meeting the whole Church were present. There had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of coming to some distinct understanding of the subject before it was laid before the multitude. This we learn from Paul himself, who says: “I communicated to them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.” This language implies that his course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who were, doubtless, the apostles and other inspired men. Their approval of his course shows that the objections afterward urged were preferred by another class of men. The public discussion was not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they really did not differ after the facts were stated by Paul and Barnabas. But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles, to bring the other brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had already united.

Acts 15:7-11. Luke does not report all that was said, but only those speeches that were decisive, and that brought the controversy to a close. Merely alluding, therefore, to the first part of the discussion, he says: (7) “And when there had been much discussion, Peter arose and said to them, Brethren, you know that, a good while ago, God made choice among us that the Gentiles through my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness for them, giving to them the Holy Spirit even as he did to us. (9) He made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now, then, why do you put God to the proof, by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as they.” The position of the Pharisees not only condemned the course of Paul and Barnabas, but also involved a censure of Peter, who was the first of all the apostles, as he here asserts, to preach the Word to Gentiles. When arraigned once before for his conduct in the case of Cornelius, he had vindicated his procedure by relating the miraculous evidences of God’s will which had been his guide; and now, to accomplish the same end with these brethren, he adduces the most decisive of those miracles, the gift of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. Having given to them the same gift as to the apostles on Pentecost, and having imposed upon them none of the purifying rites of the law, but simply purifying their hearts by faith, he assumes that God had made no difference between them and the Jewish brethren. Now, to attempt to impose the law upon them, in the face of these evidences of God’s will to the contrary, would be putting God to the proof of his determination to maintain his own authority. It would, moreover, be imposing a yoke which the Jews themselves had never been able to bear successfully. This yoke is not circumcision, for there is no difficulty in submitting to that; but it was the law, under whose provisions no man could live without incurring its condemnation. His concluding statement, that “We believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they,” involves two important conclusions: First, That it is not through the merit of obedience to the law that we are to be saved, but through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This favor is extended in the pardon of sins. Second, That the Gentiles are saved in the same manner as the Jews. By using the plural we believe, instead of I believe, he doubtless intended to express not only the conviction of his own mind, but that of the party with whom he acted, including the other apostles. It was a decision of the inspired teachers against the Pharisees.

Acts 15:12. This brief statement of facts had so good an effect upon the multitude, that Barnabas and Paul determined to follow it by a rehearsal of similar facts in the history of their own labors among the Gentiles. (12) “Then all the multitude kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Their remarks on this occasion were not a repetition of what they had said in the former meeting, when they had set forth “all that God had done with them,” but were confined to the “signs and wonders” by which God had indicated his approbation of their ministry. The reversal of the order in which Luke now habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas, whose name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing argument on those events.

Acts 15:13-21. So far as recent indications of God’s will were concerned, the argument was now complete and unanswerable; but the Jewish mind was prone to an underestimate of passing events, while they looked back with superior reverence to the law and the prophets. The Apostle James, knowing that they would reject all possible cotemporaneous evidences, if they appeared to conflict with the written word, determined to close up this avenue of escape from the argument already presented by sustaining it with the authority of the prophets. (13) “And, after they were silent, James answered, saying, Brethren, hear me. (14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, (15) and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, (16) After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and set it upright, (17) that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. (18) Known to God from eternity are all his works. (19) Therefore, my judgment is, not to trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God; (20) but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols. and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” In this speech James shows that God, who knows from eternity what his own works would be, had foretold, through the prophet, the work which he was then performing through the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul. He had said that he would rebuild the tabernacle of David, in order that the residue of men, who had not known the Lord before, “even all the Gentiles, upon whom his name is called,” should seek after the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from among the Gentiles “a people for his name.” The prophesy clearly covered all the ground claimed for it, and made the argument complete.

There was room for no other conclusion than the one which James deduced, that they should impose on the Gentiles, so far as the class of restrictions under consideration were concerned, only those necessary things which were necessary independent of the Mosaic law. Idolatry, with all the pollutions connected with it, was known to be sinful before the law of Moses was given; and so was fornication. The eating of blood, and, by implication, of strangled animals, whose blood was still in them, was forbidden to the whole world in the family of Noah. In the restrictions here proposed by James, therefore, there is not the slightest extension of the law of Moses, but a mere enforcement upon the Gentiles of rules of conduct which had ever been binding, and were to be perpetual. They are as binding to-day as they were then. To deny this would be to despise the combined authority of all the apostles, when enjoining upon the Gentile world, of which we form a part, restrictions which they pronounce necessary. One would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gentiles, who had turned to the Lord, the sinfulness of fornication, did we not know that among heathen nations of antiquity it was deemed innocent, and even sometimes virtuous.

The controversy now pending, in reference to the identity of the Jewish Church with the Church of Christ, renders it necessary that we should here pay some special attention to one remark made by James in this speech. He applies the prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the “tabernacle of David” to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, and it is hence argued that this prophesy contemplated a reconstruction and extension of the dilapidated Jewish Church, and not the construction of a new one. The whole argument turns upon the meaning of the expression “tabernacle of David.” If the metaphorical word tabernacle here means the Jewish Church, the argument would have force. But the Mosaic institution never sustained such a relation to David that it could, with propriety, be styled the “tabernacle of David.” If such had been the reference, the expression would undoubtedly have been, the tabernacle of Moses, which would have been unambiguous. But David was a king, and had a promise from God, that his “throne should be established forever;” that there should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel. This promise God confirmed with an oath, saying, “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” According to the apparent meaning of this promise, it had long since failed; for it had been many generations since a descendant of David had occupied his throne. It was during this period, in which the royal house of David was in ruins, that Amos uttered the prophesy, “I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; I will build again the ruins thereof, and set it upright.” The term tabernacle, therefore, must be put for the family who dwell in the tabernacle, and the reconstruction of it the re-establishment of the royal dignity which the family had lost. Hence, when the birth of Jesus was announced to Mary, the angel said: “The Lord shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Thus, the promise, when properly understood, is seen to refer neither to a continuous line of Jewish kings, descended from David, nor to a reconstruction of the Jewish Church, but to the perpetual reign of Jesus, the “seed of David according to the flesh.” When, therefore, Jesus sat down upon his throne in heaven, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and now, by the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, the remainder of the prophesy of Amos was being fulfilled, by the extension of his kingdom among the Gentiles.

The closing paragraph of this speech appears, at first glance, to have no immediate connection with the preceding argument. But it was, doubtless, designed to anticipate an objection. The Pharisees might object, If you thus ignore the statue of Moses, his writings will fall into contempt, or be neglected by the people. No danger of this, says the speaker, for Moses is preached in every city, and read in the synagogues every Sabbath, and has been for generations past.

Acts 15:22-29. The speech of James brought the discussion to a close. The will of God upon the subject was now so clearly exhibited that the opposition was totally silenced, and it remained only to determine the best method of practically carrying out the proposition submitted by James. (22) “Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (23) writing by their hand these words: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the brethren from the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: (24) Since we have heard that certain persons who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, telling you to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment, (25) it seemed good to us, being of one mind, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who also will tell you the same things orally. (28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, (29) that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which, if you keep yourselves, you will do well. Farewell.”

By the construction of the Greek, we learn that it was Paul and Barnabas, and not Judas and Silas, who are commended in this letter as “men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 15:30-31. The object of sending Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas was doubtless that they, having been entirely unconnected with the conversion of Gentiles, and above suspicion of undue partiality toward them, might use their personal influence with the Jewish brethren to induce them to accept the teaching of the epistle. Their journey, and the effect of the epistle, are thus stated: (30) “So, then, being sent away, they went to Antioch, and having assembled the multitude, they gave them the epistle. (31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.” The brethren residing in Antioch had not become partisans in the controversy, but had been distressed by the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the Pharisees from Jerusalem, and desired only a satisfactory settlement of the question. The epistle, therefore, afforded them “consolation,” and they cheerfully yielded to its requirements.

The triumph of Paul and Barnabas over their pharisaic opponents was most signal and complete. And it appeared all the more signal to the brethren in Antioch, from a fact not recorded by Luke. We learn from Paul’s own account of the visit to Jerusalem, that Titus, who was a Gentile, went with him, and that strenuous efforts were there made to have him circumcised; but Paul returned to Antioch, with Titus still uncircumcised, and with his whole course indorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church. This ought to have settled the controversy forever.

Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of it by the advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy generally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first “general council,” and have styled it “The Council of Jerusalem.” The Presbyterians find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in general terms, as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of doctrine and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to them in its essential features. But its essential features are: First, That it was occasioned by an appeal from one congregation to certain parties in one other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which the first felt unable to decide. Second, That the parties to whom the appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their decision, when made, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us;” i. e., to the Holy Spirit as the divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his authority. It was the inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility of the party appealed to, that suggested and that justified the appeal. In both these peculiarities all the councils and synods of Catholic and Protestant history are essentially deficient, for, instead of being called together at the request of some congregations, to decide some question presented, they consist of representatives from a number of congregations, or districts of country, assembled for the purpose of discussing and deciding whatever questions may come up among them; and instead of being infallible, their decisions are nothing but the fallible opinions of uninspired men, in reference to which it would be the height of profanity to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us.” Not till we have an assembly under the guidance of inspired men can we allow them to authoritatively decide religious questions after the precedent of this assembly in Jerusalem. All the duties, responsibilities, and privileges of disciples have already been authoritatively propounded by inspired men; and for men now to meet together for the authoritative decision of such questions, is to assume a prerogative that belongs exclusively to inspired apostles and prophets, and, at the same time, is to assume that there are deficiencies in their infallible teachings to be supplied by uninspired men.

In arguing thus upon the merits of all judicial and legislative assemblies among the Churches, we must not be understood as condemning the co-operation of different congregations, or of individuals from them, in performing duties which are imposed by divine authority. The essential difference between assemblies for these two purposes is, that in the latter we are simply uniting our energies to perform duties appointed by the word of God; while, in the former, we undertake to decide what truth and duty are—a work which none but inspired men can perform.

Acts 15:32-34. We have said above, that the purpose for which Judas and Silas were sent to Antioch was to enforce, by their personal influence, the authority of the epistle. We find this statement confirmed by the further account of their labors. (32) “And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (33) And when the had remained some time, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren to the apostles. (34) But it pleased Silas to remain there.”

The manner in which Luke connects the fact that these brethren were prophets, with the statement that they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them, shows that the chief work of the New Testament prophets was not to foretell the future, but to exhort and confirm the brethren. He says, “being also themselves prophets, they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them;” which form of expression makes the fact of being prophets account for their exhortations. They differed from the Old Testament prophets only in that the latter gave their chief attention to foretelling future events. Still, even the predictions of the old prophets were made to answer the purpose of exhortations to their contemporaries; so that the difference between the two is very slight.

Acts 15:35. The city of Antioch still continued to be a profitable field for apostolic labor, and the scene of interesting events. (35) “Paul and Barnabas also continued in Antioch, with many others, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord.” It is during this period that the most judicious commentators locate the visit of Peter to Antioch, and the rebuke administered to him by Paul, as recorded in the second chapter of Galatians; “When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before the coming of certain persons from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.”

It has been erroneously supposed that Peter, in this affair, acted in direct conflict with the epistle which he had just united in addressing to the Gentile brethren. The harshness of this supposition has led some writers to hastily conclude that his improper conduct must have occurred at a period antecedent to the issuing of that epistle. It is also urged in favor of an earlier date of the incident, that, if it had occurred subsequent to the publication of that epistle, Paul would naturally have appealed to it in the controversy with Peter, which he seems not to have done. Both of these suppositions spring from a mistake as to the exact fault of which Peter was guilty. He did not insist that the Gentiles should be circumcised, or that they should keep the law; which were the points discussed in the apostolic epistle. But, still admitting the right of the uncircumcised to membership and its privileges, his fault was in refusing to eat with them in their private circles, although he had himself been the first to do so in the family of Cornelius, and had done so, for a time, even since he came to Antioch. In opposing such conduct, it would not have answered Paul’s purpose to appeal to the epistle from Jerusalem; for it merely asserted the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, without prescribing the intercourse that should exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised brethren. The course of argument which he did pursue was the only one available. He convicted Peter of inconsistency, saying, “If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you require the Gentiles to live like Jews?” He had lived like a Gentile while eating with them; but now, by withdrawing from them, he was virtually saying to them, You must live like the Jews. This was inconsistent, and made it appear that either he was now a transgressor, while building up the Jewish prejudices, or had formerly been, while seeking to break them down. “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.”

But the proof of inconsistency in an opponent never settles a question of truth or duty. After you have proved your opponent inconsistent, you have still to prove that his present course differs from what truth requires, as well as from his former course. Moral inconsistency convicts a man as a transgressor, but whether a transgressor now, or formerly, is still an open question. Paul, therefore, proceeded to prove Peter’s present conduct improper, by stating as an undisputed fact, “I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live to God;” that is, by the limitation which the law prescribes to itself, it has ceased to bind me, and I have ceased to live under it. This fact was decisive, because all the distinction assumed to exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised was based upon the supposition that the former, at least, were still under the law.

This is the last passage in Acts connected with the Apostle Peter. Before leaving it, we must notice one fact in connection with this unhappy incident in his life which far outweighs the dissimulation rebuked by Paul. It is the manner in which he received this rebuke. There is not the least evidence of any resentment on his part, either for the rebuke itself, or for the subsequent publication of it to the Churches in Galatia. Most men become offended when thus rebuked by their equals, and would regard it as an unpardonable offense to give unnecessary publicity to a fault of this kind. But Paul knew so well the goodness of Peter’s heart, that he did not hesitate to speak of it to the world and to future generations. That he did not overestimate the meekness of Peter, is evident from the fact that the latter subsequently spoke most affectionately of Paul, with direct allusion to his epistles, and with a publicity equal to that which his own sin had received. This excellence of Peter’s character was known to other brethren besides Paul, as is evident from the freedom with which all the four evangelists speak of his denial of the Lord. They might have omitted this incident from their narratives, if they had been influenced by that pride and sensitiveness which prompt men to hide the faults of their leaders, or if they had thought that the publication of it would give serious offense to Peter. But they knew Peter, and, we must presume, they knew that he was willing for any fault of his, however discreditable, to be published to the world, if it would do any good. This is the spirit of self-sacrifice with which every servant of God should offer himself to the cause of Christ.

Acts 15:36-41. We have lingered long upon the interval spent by Paul and Barnabas in Antioch. We are now to follow the former upon his second missionary tour. (36) “But after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in every city in which we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. (37) And Barnabas determined to take with them John surnamed Mark. (38) But Paul thought proper not to take with them him who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and did not go with them to the work. (39) Then there was a contention, so that they separated one from the other: and Barnabas took Mark and sailed into Cyprus. (40) But Paul chose Silas, and departed, having been commended to the favor of God by the brethren; (41) and went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches.” This journey, it should be observed, was undertaken for the prime purpose of revisiting the Churches where these brethren had previously labored, and not, primarily, to preach to the heathen. This shows that the solicitude with which the apostles watched for the welfare of the congregations was not less ardent than their zeal in spreading a knowledge of the gospel.

The desire of Barnabas to take John with them was, doubtless, prompted, in part, by partiality, arising from the relationship which existed between them. John, of course, desired to go, and Barnabas wished to give him an opportunity to atone for his former dereliction. Paul’s reason for refusing to let him go was based upon a want of confidence in one who would, either through fear or love of ease, desert him in a trying hour. Each considered the reason for his own preference a good one; and as neither was willing to yield for the sake of remaining with the other, they ought to have parted in perfect peace. But some unpleasant feeling was aroused by the controversy, which Luke expresses by the term paroxusmos, of which contention is rather a tame rendering, though paroxysm which we have derived from it, would express too high a degree of passion. This incident shows that the best of men may differ about matters of expediency, and that, in contending for their respective conclusions, they may be aroused to improper feelings. But the good man, under such circumstances, will always be distinguished by the readiness with which such feelings will be repressed, and by the absence of all subsequent malice. We know that Paul afterward felt very differently toward John; for, during his first imprisonment at Rome, he mentions him to Philemon as a fellow-laborer there present; and to the Colossians as one who had been a comfort to him; and, during his second imprisonment, he writes to Timothy: “Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” The slight heat engendered between Barnabas and Paul also subsided in a short time; for Paul afterward speaks of him in most friendly terms, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

By returning with Mark to his native land, Barnabas revisited a portion of the brethren to whom he and Paul had preached, while Paul visited another portion of them by a different route. Thus, notwithstanding their disagreement and separation, they did not allow the good cause to suffer, but accomplished separately the whole of the proposed work. The separation of Barnabas and Paul is our separation from Barnabas. His name is not mentioned again by Luke. But as we bid him farewell, the sails are spread which are to bear him over the sea, that he may make the islands glad with a knowledge of salvation. The further incidents of his life will yet be known to all who shall sit down with him in the everlasting kingdom.

We turn with Luke to follow the history of him who was in labors more abundant and in prisons more frequent than all the apostles, and to form a better acquaintance with his new companion. The statement that Paul and Silas were “commended to the favor of God by the brethren,” does not imply, as many writers have supposed, that they refused thus to commend Barnabas and Mark, or that the brethren sided with Paul against Barnabas in their contention. It is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the attention of the writer is fixed upon the detail of Paul’s history rather than that of Barnabas. No doubt the prayers of the brethren followed them both to their distant and dangerous fields of labor.

By a northern route through Syria, and then a westerly course through Cilicia, Paul approached the extremity of his recent tour in the interior of Asia Minor. He was not altogether a stranger along the journey, for he had spent some time in Syria and Cilicia before his first visit to Antioch; and it is most probable that he now revisited, in these districts, Churches which he had planted by his own labors.

Acts Chapter Sixteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 16:1-2. Without giving the least detail of Paul’s labors in Syria and Cilicia, Luke hurries us forward to his arrival in Derbe and Lystra, the scenes respectively of the most painful and the most consoling incidents which occurred on his former tour. His chief object in this seems to be to introduce us to a new character, destined to play an important part in the future history. (1) “Then he came down into Derbe and Lystra, and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a believing Jewess, but of a Greek father; (2) who was well attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium.” Not only the mother, but also the grandmother of the disciple was a believer; for Paul afterward writes to him: “I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, that first dwelt in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded also in thee.” From this it seems that both the mother and grandmother had preceded him into the kingdom; for it is clearly of their faith in Christ, and not of their Jewish faith, that Paul here speaks. With such an example before him, it is not surprising that the young disciple should be found well attested by all the brethren who knew him. The fact that he was thus attested not only at Derbe and Lystra, within the vicinity of his residence, but also in the more distant city of Iconium, renders it probable that he was already known as a public speaker.

On the occasion of Paul’s former visit to Lystra, we learned that while he lay dead, as was supposed, after the stoning, “the disciples stood around him.” Timothy was doubtless in the group; for he was Paul’s own son in the faith, and must have been immersed previous to the stoning, as Paul left the city immediately after. The scene occurred just at the period in Timothy’s religious life, the period immediately subsequent to immersion, when the soul is peculiarly susceptible to the impress of noble example. The recesses of the heart are then open to their deepest depths, and a word fitly spoken, a look full of religious sympathy, or a noble deed, makes an impression which can never be effaced. In such a frame of mind Timothy witnessed the stoning of Paul; wept over his prostrate form; followed him, as if raised from the dead, back into the city; and saw him depart with heroic determination to another field of conflict in defense of the glorious gospel. It is not wonderful that a nature so full of sympathy with that of the heroic apostle to extort from the latter the declaration, “I have no one like-minded with me,” should be inspired by his example, and made ready to share with him the toils and sufferings of his future career.

Acts 16:3. The discriminating and watchful eye of Paul soon discovered qualities which would render this youth a fitting companion and fellow-laborer, and it was by his request that Timothy was placed in the position which he afterward so honorably filled. (3) “Paul wished him to go forth with him, and took him, and circumcised him on account of the Jews who were in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remarkable event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious injury as to the consistency of his teaching and of his practice, in reference to this Abrahamic rite. It demands of us, at this place, as full consideration as our limits will admit.

The real difficulty of the case is made apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul’s statements, and two of his deeds. He says to the Corinthians, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;” yet to the Galatians he writes: “Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” When he was in Jerusalem upon the appeal of the Antioch Church, brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, who was with him, but he sternly refused, and says, “I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour.” Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this “on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.” In order to reconcile these apparently conflicting facts and statements, we must have all the leading facts concerning this rite before us.

We observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision “is not of Moses, but of the fathers.” The obligation which the Jews were under to observe it was not originated by the law of Moses, or the covenant of Mount Sinai; but existed independent of that covenant and the law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the law. The connection between the law and circumcision originated in the fact that the law was given to a part of the circumcised descendants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circumcision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as upon the Jews. Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation. He shall be forced, therefore, to the conclusion, that it still continues since the law, unless we find it annulled by the apostles.

Again: its perpetuity is enjoined in the law of its institution. God said to Abraham: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” An everlasting covenant is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. The covenant concerning Canaan was everlasting, because it continued as long as the twelve tribes continued an organized people to live in it. The covenant of Aaron’s priestly dignity was everlasting, because it continued in Aaron’s family as long as such a priesthood had an existence. So the covenant of circumcision must be everlasting, because it is to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham is perpetuated. This will be till the end of time; hence circumcision has not ceased, and can not cease, till the end of the world. This conclusion can not be set aside, unless we find something in the nature of gospel institutions inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised Christians from its continued observance.

It is, then, inconsistent with any gospel institution? Pedobaptists assume that it was a seal of righteousness, and a rite of initiation into the Church; and as baptism now occupies that position, it necessarily supplants circumcision. It is true, that Paul says: “Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while yet uncircumcised;” but what it was to Abraham, it never was not any of his offspring, seeing that the child eight days old could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircumcised, of which circumcision could be the seal. Again: it was not to the Jew an initiatory rite. For, first, the law of God prescribing to Abraham the terms of the covenant says: “The uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Now, no man can be cut off from a people who is not previously of them. Regarding the Jewish commonwealth, therefore, as a Church, the infant of eight days was already in the Church by natural birth, and circumcision, instead of bringing him into it, was a condition of his remaining in it. In the second place, this conclusion from the terms of the covenant is made indisputable by a prominent fact in Jewish history. While the twelve tribes were in the wilderness forty years, none of the children born were circumcised. The six hundred thousand men over twenty years of age who left Egypt all died in the wilderness, and an equal number were born in the same period; for the whole number of men at the end of the journey was the same as at the beginning. When they crossed the Jordan, therefore, there were six hundred thousand male Jews, some of them forty years of age, who had not been circumcised, yet they had been entering the Jewish Church during a period of forty years. After crossing the Jordan Joshua commanded them to be circumcised, and it was done. This fact not only demonstrates that circumcision was not to the Jews an initiatory rite, but throws light upon its real design. The covenant of circumcision was ingrafted upon the promise to Abraham of an innumerable fleshly offspring, to keep them a distinct people, and to enable the world to identify them, thereby recognizing the fulfillment of the promise, and also the fulfillment of various prophesies concerning them. In accordance with this design, while they were in the wilderness, in no danger of intermingling with other nations, the institution was neglected. But, as soon as they enter the populous land of Canaan, where there is danger of such intermingling, the separating mark is put upon them.

From these two considerations, we see that there is no inconsistency between circumcision and baptism, even if the latter is admitted to be a seal of righteousness of faith, which language is nowhere applied to it in the Scriptures. Neither is there inconsistency between it and any thing in the gospel scheme; for Paul declares: “In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.” Thence, he enjoins: “Is any man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised; is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” So far as faith in Christ, and acceptability with him are concerned, circumcision makes a man neither better nor worse, and is, of course, not inconsistent with the obedience of faith in any respect whatever.

We next inquire, Are there any apostolic precepts which release converted Jews from the original obligation to perpetuate this rite? Paul does say, “If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;” and this, certainly, is a prohibition to the parties to whom it is addressed. If it was addressed to Jewish Christians, then it is certainly wrong for the institution to be perpetuated among them. But neither Paul nor any of the apostles so understood it. That Paul did not is proved by the fact that he circumcised Timothy; and that the other apostles did not, is proved conclusively by the conference which took place in Jerusalem upon Paul’s last visit to that place. James says to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Do this, therefore, that we say to you. We have four men which have a vow on them. Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses, in order that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself walk orderly, and keep the law.” This speech shows that James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; and Paul’s ready consent to the proposition made to him shows that he agreed with James. Yet this occurred after he had written the epistle to the Galatians, in which he says, “If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” There could not be clearer proof that this remark was not intended for Jewish Christians.

Even James, in the speech from which we have just quoted, makes a distinction, in reference to this rite, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He says: “Concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written, having decided that they observe no such thing; save, only, that they keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” This remark refers to the decree issued by the apostles from Jerusalem, which Paul was carrying with him at the time that he circumcised Timothy. It should be observed, that there never did arise among the disciples any difference of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was granted by all. But the controversy had exclusive reference to the Gentiles; and the fact that the Judaizers based their plea for circumcising Gentiles upon the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, is one of the strongest proof that all the disciples considered it perpetual. If Paul, in disputing with them, could have said, that, by the introduction of the gospel, circumcision was abolished even among the Jews, he would have subverted, at once, the very foundation of their argument. But this fundamental assumption was admitted and acted upon by Paul himself, and no inspired man ever called it in question.

That it was the Gentiles alone who were forbidden to be circumcised, is further evident from the context of this prohibition in Galatians. This epistle was addressed to Gentiles, as is evident from the remark in the fourth chapter, “Howbeit, then, when you knew not God, you did service to them who by nature are no gods?” The circumcision of the Gentiles is not, however, considered apart from the purpose for which it was done. It is often the purpose alone which gives moral character to an action; and in this case it gave to this action its chief moral turpitude. The purpose for which the Judaizers desired the Gentiles to be circumcised was that they might be brought under the law as a means of justification. Hence Paul adds to the declaration we are considering: “I testify again to every man who submits to circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have ceased from Christ, whoever of you are being justified by the law, you have fallen away from favor.” This can not refer to Jews, for it would make Paul himself and all the Jewish Christians “debtors to do the whole law;” a conclusion in direct conflict with one of the main arguments of this epistle. It must, then, refer to Gentiles who were considering the propriety of circumcision as a condition of justification by the law.

We can now account for Paul’s stern refusal to circumcise Titus. He was a Gentile, and could not with propriety be circumcised unless he desired to unite himself nationally with the Jewish people. But if, with Paul’s consent, he should do this, his example would be used as a precedent to justify all other Gentile disciples in doing the same; and thus, in a short time, circumcision would cease to be a distinguishing mark of the offspring of Abraham, and the original design of the rite would be subverted. Moreover, to have circumcised him under the demand that was made by the Pharisees, would have been a virtual admission that it was necessary to justification, which could not be admitted without abandoning the liberty of Christ for the bondage of the law.

The case of Timothy was quite different. He was a half-blood Jew, and therefore belonged, in part, to the family of Abraham. He could be circumcised, not on the ground of its being necessary as a part of a system of justification by law, but because he was an heir of the everlasting covenant with Abraham. This, however, was not the chief reason for which Paul circumcised him, for Luke says it was “on account of the Jews who dwelt in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” In this reason there are two considerations combined, the latter qualifying the former. The fact that his father was known to be a Greek is given to account for the fact that Paul yielded to the prejudices of the Jews. If his father and mother both had been Jews, Paul might have acted from the binding nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Or if both had been Greeks, he would have disregarded the clamor of the Jews, as he had done in the case of Titus. But the mixed parentage of Timothy made his case a peculiar one. The marriage of his mother to a Greek was contrary to the law of Moses. Whether the offspring from such a marriage should be circumcised, or not, the law did not determine. The Jewish rabbis taught that the mother should not circumcise the child without the consent of the father, which was to admit that his circumcision was not obligatory. Paul did not, then, feel bound by the Abrahamic covenant to circumcise him, but did so to conciliate the “Jews who dwelt in those quarters,” who had, doubtless, already objected to the prominent position assigned to one in Timothy’s anomalous condition. It was, as all the commentators agree, a matter of expediency; but not, as they also contend, because it was indifferent whether any one were circumcised or not, but because it was indifferent whether one like Timothy were circumcised or not. It was an expediency that applied only to the case of a half-blood Jew with a Greek father; and it would, therefore, be most unwarrantable to extend it to the case of full-blooded Jews.

The remark of Paul that “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God,” is readily explained in the light of the above remarks, and of its own context. It is immediately preceded by these words: “Is any man called being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised.” And it is immediately followed by these words: “Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called.” So far, then, is this text from making it indifferent whether a Christian become circumcised or not, that it positively forbids those who had been in uncircumcision before they were called, to be circumcised; while it equally forbids the other party to render themselves uncircumcised; which expression means to act as if they were uncircumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to become uncircumcised literally is impossible. That circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it is indifferent whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or a Gentile; but it is far from indicating that it is innocent in a Jew to neglect this rite, or in a Gentile to observe it.

If we have properly collated the apostolic teaching on this subject, the conclusion of the whole matter is this: that Christian Jews, Ishmaelites, or Edomites, are under the same obligation to circumcise their children that the twelve tribes were in Egypt, and that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were during the period of the law of Moses. This being so, the pedobaptist conceit that baptism has taken the place of circumcision is shown to be absurd, by the fact that circumcision still occupies its own place. It is undeniable that during the whole apostolic period Jewish disciples observed both baptism and circumcision, and as both these could not occupy the same place at the same time, their proper places must be different. According to apostolic precedent, both should still continue among the Jews; neither one taking the place of the other, but one serving as a token of the fleshly covenant with Abraham, the other as an institution of the new covenant, and a condition, both to Jew and Gentile, of the remission of sins.

Acts 16:4-5. After so long delay upon the circumcision of Timothy, we are prepared to start forward again with the apostles, cheered as they were by this valuable addition to their company. (4) “And as they passed through the cities they delivered to them to observe the decrees which had been adjudged by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. (5) And the Churches were confirmed in the faith, and were daily increasing in number.” These decrees were everywhere needed, in order to unite in harmonious fellowship the Jewish and Gentile converts. Presented by Paul, who had been sent to Jerusalem for them, and by Silas, who had been sent out with high commendation by the apostles, to bear them to the Gentiles, that came with their full force to the ears of the brethren, and produced the happiest effects. The peace and harmony which they helped to confirm the brethren in the faith, and the daily increase in number was the result of this happy condition of the Churches.

Acts 16:6-8. The neighboring cities of Derbe and Lystra, where Paul was joined by Timothy, constituted the limit of his former tour with Barnabas into this region of country. He makes them now the starting point for an advance still further into the interior, and to the western extremity of Asia Minor. (6) “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the district of Galatia, being forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, (7) they went to Mysia, and attempted to go on through Bythinia, and the Spirit did not permit them. (8) So passing by Mysia they went down to Troas.”

From this hurried sketch of the tour through Phrygia and Galatia, it might be inferred that nothing of special interest occurred during its progress. But we learn from Paul himself that it was far otherwise in Galatia. In his epistle to the Churches there, he lifts the vail of obscurity thrown over this part of his life, and brings to light one of the most touching incidents in his eventful career. More than one congregation sprang up under his personal labors there, who owed their knowledge of salvation to an afflicting providence affecting himself. He writes to them: “You know that on account of infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first.” This statement does not mean merely that he was suffering in the flesh at the time; but the expression di asthenian indicates that the infirmity was the cause which led him to his preaching to them. The infirmity was evidently that “thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him,” which he had prayed in vain to the Lord to take from him. For he says to them: “My temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” It is probable that he had intended to pass through this region without stopping, but some unusual violence of the humiliating and irritating malady compelled him to forego the more distant journey, and make some stay where the Word was so gladly received by these brethren. Though Paul felt that strangers like these would be likely to despise him and reject him, on perceiving the malady with which he was afflicted, yet this people listened to his annunciation of eternal truth as if they heard an angel of God, or Jesus Christ Christ himself. His distress of mind and weakness of body were calculated to give a mellower tone to his preaching, and to awaken a livelier sympathy in truly generous hearts, and such was the effect on them. He says: “I bear you witness, that if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and have given them to me.” Thus, out of the most unpropitious hour in which this faithful apostle every introduced the gospel to a strange community, the kind providence of God brought forth the sweetest fruits of all his labors; for there are no other Churches of whose fondness for him he speaks in terms so touching. This serves to illustrate the meaning of the Lord’s answer, when Paul prayed that the thorn might depart from his flesh: “My favor is sufficient for you; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” His weakest hour, wherein he expected to be despised and rejected, he found the strongest for the cause he was pleading, and the most soothing to his own troubled spirit. It was experience like this which enabled him, in later years, to exclaim, “Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong.”

Paul’s own judgment seems to have been much at fault, during this period, in reference to the choice of a field of labor. Contrary to his purpose, he had been delayed in Galatia, “on account of infirmity of flesh;” and then, intending to enter the province of Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, he was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the Word there.” Finally they attempted to go into Bythinia, “and the Holy Spirit did not permit them.” Feeling his way around the forbidden territory, he finally went down to Troas, on the shore of the Ægean Sea.

Acts 16:9-10. Here he learns the object which the Spirit had in view, while turning him aside from one after another of the fields which he himself had chosen. (9) “Then a vision appeared to Paul in the night. There stood a man of Macedonia, entreating him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. (10) And when he saw the vision, we immediately sought to go forth into Macedonia, inferring that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel them.”

This overruling of Paul’s purpose, coupled with the absence of it at other times, indicates something of the method by which the journeyings of inspired men were directed. While their own judgment led to a judicious choice, it was permitted to guide them; but when it failed, as was likely to be the case, through their ignorance of the comparative accessibility of different communities, or the circumstances of individuals, they were overruled by some controlling providence, like Paul in Galatia; directed by angels, like Philip in Samaria; or by the Spirit, like Peter in Joppa; restrained from some purpose, like Paul and Silas when attempting to enter Asia and Bythinia; or called away across the sea, as he was now, by a vision at night. We will yet see that, as in the cases of Philip and of Peter, the prayers of individuals ready to hear the gospel were connected with the divine interference by which Paul and Silas were now being directed.

Preachers of the present day have no authoritative visions by night to guide them, and the supposition indulged by some, that they are at times prompted by the Spirit as Paul was, is nothing more than the conceit of an enthusiast, while it is nothing less than a claim to inspiration. But Paul was often guided merely by the indications of Providence, and so may it be with us. If we are attentive to these indications, we shall be under the guidance of that same All-seeing Eye which chose the steps of Paul. If the way of our choosing is entirely blocked up, at times, or some stern necessity turns us aside from a settled purpose, we may regard it as but the firmer pressure of that hand which leads us, for the most part, unseen and unfelt.

Acts 16:11-12. An opportunity was offered without delay, for the apostolic company to make the contemplated voyage to Macedonia. (11) “Therefore, setting sail from Troas, we ran by a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day to Neapolis; (12) and thence to Philippi, which is the first city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony. And we abode in that city some days.”

Samothrace is an island in the Archipelago, about midway between Troas and Neapolis. Neapolis was a seaport of Macedonia, and the landing place for Philippi. The remark that they sailed to Samothrace, and the next day to Neapolis, shows that they spent the night at Samothrace, which accords with the custom of ancient navigators, who generally cast anchor at night, during coasting voyages, unless the stars were out. This voyage occupied a part of two days.

Philippi was not the chief city of that part of Macedonia, as rendered in the common version, but the first city; by which is meant, either that it was the first which Paul visited, or the first in point of celebrity. I think the latter is the real idea; for it is obvious from the history that this was the first city Paul visited, and of this the reader need not be informed. But it was the first city of that region in point of celebrity, because it was the scene of the great battle in which Brutus and Cassius were defeated by Marc Antony. Thessalonica was then, and is yet, the chief city of Macedonia.

The observant reader will here notice a change in the style of the narrative, which indicates the presence of the writer among the companions of Paul. Hitherto he had spoken of them only in the third person; but when about to leave Troas, he uses the first person plural, saying, “we sought to go forth into Macedonia,” and “we ran to Samothrace,” etc. It is only by such a change in the pronoun employed, from the third to the first person, and from the first to the third that we can detect the presence or absence of Luke. From this indication we conclude that he first joined the company in the interior of Asia Minor, just previous to entering the city of Troas. The company with whom we are now traveling is composed of Paul and Silas, Timothy and Luke.

Acts 16:13-15. Upon entering this strange city, the first on the continent of Europe visited by an apostle, Paul and his companions must have looked around them with great anxiety for some opportunity to open their message to the people. The prospects were sufficiently forbidding. They knew not the face of a human being; and there was not even a Jewish synagogue into which they might enter with the hope of being invited to speak “a word of exhortation to the people.” By some means, however, they learned that on the bank of the river Gangas, which flowed by the city, some Jewish women were in the habit of congregating on the Sabbath-day, for prayer. Thither the apostles directed their steps, determined that here should be the beginning of their labors in Philippi. (13) “And on the Sabbath-day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and sat down, and spoke to the women who had collected there. (14) And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, was listening; whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was immersed, and her house, she entreated us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and remain there. And she constrained us.”

With Bloomfield, I reject the criticism of the most recent commentators, who render the second clause of verse 13, “where was wont to be a place of prayer.” Besides the reasons suggested by this learned author, I would observe, first, that the term proseuche is nowhere else in the New Testament used in the sense of a place of prayer, but always means prayer. Nothing but a contextual necessity, therefore, would justify a different rendering here. Again, the expression enomizeto einai means was accustomed to be, and it is never said of a place, or building, that it is accustomed to be where it is.

We now see one reason for that singular prohibition which had been steadily turning Paul aside from the fields which he had preferred, until he reached the sea-shore; and of that vision which had called him into Europe. These women had been wont to repair to this river-bank for prayer. God had heard their prayers, as in the case of Cornelius, and he was bringing to them the preacher through whose words they might obtain faith in Christ, and learn the way of salvation. Long before either they or Paul knew anything of it, God was directing the steps of the latter, and timing the motion of the winds at sea, with reference to that weekly meeting on the river’s bank, as he had once done the flight of an angel and the steps of Philip with reference to the eunuch’s chariot. Now, as in those two cases, he has brought the parties face to face. He answers the prayers of the unconverted, not by an enlightening influence of the Spirit in their hearts, but by providentially bringing to them a preacher of the gospel who knows the way of salvation.

The statement that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the things spoken by Paul, is generally assumed by the commentators as a certain proof that an immediate influence of the Spirit was exerted on her heart, in order that she should listen favorably to the truth. Their interpretation of the words is expressed in the most orthodox style by Bloomfield, thus: “The opening in question was effected by the grace of God, working by his Spirit with the concurrent good dispositions of Lydia.” Dr. Hackett says her heart was “enlightened, impressed by his Spirit, and so prepared to receive the truth.” Whether this is the true interpretation or not, may be determined by a careful examination of all the facts in this case.

First: The term open is evidently used metaphorically, but in a sense not at all obscure. To open the mind is to expand it to broader or more just conceptions of a subject. To open the heart is to awaken within it more generous impulses. What exact impulse is awakened, in a given case, is to be determined by the context.

Second: The impulse awakened in Lydia’s heart was not such a disposition that she listened favorably to what Paul said, but, “that she attended to things” which he spoke. The facts, in the order in which they are stated, are as follows: 1st. “We spoke to the women.” 2d. Lydia “was listening.” 3d. God opened her heart. 4th. She attended to the things spoken. The fourth fact is declared to be the result of the third. It was after she “was listening” that God opened her heart, and after her heart was opened, and because of this opening, that she attended to what she had heard. What the exact result was, then, is to be determined by the meaning of the word “attended.” The term attend sometimes means to concentrate the mind upon a subject, and sometimes to practically observe what we are taught. The Greek term prosecho, here employed, has a similar usage. It is used in the former sense, in Acts 8:6, where it is said the people, “attended to the things spoken by Philip, in hearing and seeing the miracles which he wrought.” It is used in the latter sense in 1 Timothy 4:13, where Paul says, “Till I come, attend to reading, to exhortation, to teaching;” and in Hebrews 7:13, where to attend to the altar means to do the service at the altar. That the latter is the meaning in the case before us is clearly proved by the fact that she had already listened to what Paul spoke, or given mental attention to it, before God opened her heart so that she attended to the things she had heard. Now, in hearing the gospel, she learned that there were certain things which she was required to attend to, which were, to believe, to repent, and to be immersed. To attend to the things she heard, then, was to do these things. That immersion was included in the things which Luke refers to by this term is evident from the manner in which he introduces that circumstance. He says, “And when she was immersed,” etc., as if her immersion was already implied in the preceding remark. If such was not his meaning, he would not have used the adverb when, but would simply have stated, as an additional fact, that she was immersed.

Having the facts of the case now before us, we inquire whether it is necessary to admit an immediate influence of the Spirit, in order to account for the opening of her heart. We must bear in mind, while prosecuting this inquiry, that the opening in question was such a change in her heart as to induce her to believe the gospel, to repent of her sins, and to be immersed, thereby devoting her life to the service of Christ. Her heart had been contracted by the narrowness of Jewish prejudices, which were obstacles, in some degree, to the reception of the gospel; but she was a “worshiper of God,” which inclined her to do whatever she might learn to be the will of God. In seeking to account for the change effected, we must also bear in mind the well-settled philosophical principle, that when an effect can be accounted for by causes which are known to be present, it is illogical to assume a cause which is not known to be present. Now, in Lydia’s case, it is not asserted that an immediate action of the Spirit took place in her heart; neither can it be known that such a cause was present, unless this is the only cause which could produce the effect. But it is known that all the power which can be exerted through the words of an inspired apostle preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, was present. And it can not be denied, that when the gospel, thus presented, is listened to by one who is already a sincere worshiper of God, as Lydia was, the heart may be so expanded by it from the narrowness of Jewish prejudice as to admit of faith, repentance, and obedience. The assumption, therefore, that her heart was opened by an abstract influence of the Spirit, is entirely gratuitous and illogical, while the real cause is patent upon the face of the narrative in the preaching done by Paul.

If it be objected to this conclusion, that it is said God opened her heart, and not Paul, we answer, that God by his Spirit was the real agent of all that was effected through the words of Paul. For it was the Spirit in Paul who spoke to Lydia, and it was the fact that the Holy Spirit was in him which compelled her to believe what he might say, and gave his words all their power. Hence, so far is the statement of the text from being inconsistent with our conclusion, that the opening of her heart through Paul’s words is the clearest proof that it was effected by the Holy Spirit as the prime agent.

If, in conclusion of this inquiry, we compare Lydia’s case with that of the eunuch, or of Cornelius, who were in similar states of mind previous to conversion, and needed a similar opening of the heart, we find that it was effected in the same way, through the power of miraculously attested truth, and that the only difference is in the phraseology in which Luke chooses to describe it. If, from these facts, we attempt a general conclusion, it is, that when any narrowness of heart, produced by improper education, or otherwise, stands in the way of salvation, the Lord removes it, and opens the heart, by the expanding and ennobling influence of his truth. This is true of the saint as well as the sinner, as is well illustrated by the case of Peter and the other apostles in connection with the family of Cornelius.

The statement that Lydia’s household were immersed with her has been taken by nearly all pedobaptist writers as presumptive evidence in favor of infant baptism. Olshausen, however, while affirming that “the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted,” has the candor to admit that “It is highly improbable that the phrase her household should be understood as including infant children.” He also affirms that “There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism.” Dr. Alexander also remarks that “The real strength of the argument lies not in any one case, but in the repeated mention of whole households as baptized.” But Dr. Barnes states the argument in the more popular style, thus: “The case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For, (1) Her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed.”

Dr. Alexander’s statement of the argument is that generally employed by debatants; that of Dr. Barnes the one most common among preachers and teachers who have no opponent before them. In reference to the former it is sufficient to say, that “the repeated mention of whole households as baptized” affords not the slightest evidence in favor of infant baptism, unless it can be proved that in at least one of these households there were infants. It there were infants in one, this would establish the presumption that there might be in some others. But until there is proof that there were infants in some of them, it may be inferred that the absence of infants was the very circumstance which led to the immersion of the whole family. Indeed, a fair induction of such cases fully justifies this inference in reference to Lydia’s case. There is positive proof that there were no infants in any other family whose immersion is mentioned in the New Testament. There were none in the household of Cornelius; for they all spoke in tongues, and believed. There were none in that of the jailer; for they all believed and rejoiced in the Lord. None in the household of Stephanas; for they “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Now, inasmuch as one of the peculiarities of all households who were immersed, of whom we know the facts, was the absence of infants, we are justified in the conclusion, no evidence to the contrary appearing, that this was also a peculiarity of Lydia’s household. The argument, therefore, as stated by Dr. Alexander, is not only inconclusive, but, when properly viewed, establishes a presumption quite the reverse.

The argument, as stated by Dr. Barnes, is based entirely upon the silence of the Scriptures. He says: “Her believing is particularly mentioned;” but “it is not intimated that they believed. On the contrary, it is strongly implied that they did not.” Now, if the mere silence of Luke in reference to their faith implies strongly that they did not believe, his silence in reference to Lydia’s repentance implies as strongly that she did not repent. In some cases of conversion, the repentance of the parties is “particularly mentioned.” “It is not intimated” that Lydia repented; therefore, says the logic of Dr. Barnes, “there is a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of” baptism without repentance. If men are allowed thus to prove what is Scripture doctrine, by what the Scriptures do not mention, there is no end to the doctrines and practices which the Bible may be made to defend. If Dr. Barnes were compelled to meet the argument in reference to Lydia’s repentance, he would do it very easily, and, in so doing, would refute his own in reference to the baptism of her children. He would show that we know that Lydia repented, because none but those who repented were admitted to baptism on other occasions. Just so, we know that all baptized on this occasion believed, because none but believers were baptized on other occasions. Not till he can prove, from other statements of the Scriptures, that persons were baptized by the apostles without faith, can he establish the presumption that these parties were not believers, simply because their faith is not mentioned.

Dr. Barnes concludes his note on this case, by saying, “It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent.” This is true. But it is equally true, that it is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized without an infant among them. The presence, therefore, of one or more infants, which is essential to the argument, remains absolutely without proof.

The mere absence of proof is not the worst feature of the pedobaptist assumptions in this case. For the assumption that infants were here baptized depends upon five other assumptions, the falsity of either of which would vitiate the whole argument. It is assumed, First, That some of the household were baptized without faith. Second, That Lydia was, or had been, a married woman. Third, That she had children. Fourth, That one or more of her children were infants. Fifth, That her infant children were so young as to necessarily be brought with her from Thyatira to Philippi. Now, so long as it remains possible that all the parties baptized were believers; or that Lydia was a maiden; or that she was a married woman or widow without children; or that her children were of a responsible age; or that her younger children were left at home in Thyatira when she came to Philippi to sell her purple cloths; so long as any one of these hypotheses can possibly be true, so long will it be impossible to prove an instance of infant baptism in her household.

One more suggestion is necessary to a full statement of the argument in this case. When Lydia invited Paul’s company to lodge in her house, they were backward about complying, as is evident from the remark that “she constrained us.” Now there can be no probable reason assigned for this reluctance, but the fact that it was her house, and the brethren felt it a matter of delicacy to be the guests of a woman. To the full extent of the probability of this supposition, which is heightened by the fact that she calls the house her own, is it probable that she was an unmarried woman, and, therefore, improbable that she had infant children. Thus we find that all the known facts in the case are adverse to the argument in favor of infant baptism.

Acts 16:16-18. We are next introduced to an incident which led to a decided change in the fortunes of Paul and Silas. (16) “And it came to pass, as we were going to prayer, there met us a certain female servant, having a spirit of divination, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. (17) The same followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, These men are servants of the most high God, who show us the way of salvation. (18) She did this for many days. But Paul, being much grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.” Demons exhibited a knowledge of the person of Jesus, and the mission of himself and the apostles, which seems not to have been derived from preaching. This was a superhuman knowledge. But there is no evidence known to me that they could foretell future events, though it was believed by the heathen generally that they could. It was the prevalent confidence in the vaticinations of persons possessed by them that enables this girl to bring her owners much gain.

If Paul had reasoned as many do at the present day, he would have been glad that this girl followed him with such a proclamation. It was the very thing of which he was trying to convince the people of Philippi, who already had confidence in the demoniac. Why, then, was he not rejoiced at so powerful co-operation, instead of being grieved, and shutting the mouth of an apparent friend? It must be because he saw the matter in a far different light from that in which it appears to those advocates of “spirit rappings,” who exult in them as affording strong confirmation of the gospel.

The course pursued by Paul was the same with that of Jesus, who invariably stopped the mouths of demons when they attempted to testify to his claims. The propriety of this course will be apparent upon observing: First, That to have permitted demons to testify for the truth would have convinced the people that there was an alliance between them and the preachers. Second, This supposed alliance would have caused all the good repute of Jesus and the apostles to reflect upon the demons, and all the evil repute of demons to reflect upon them. It was an ingenious effort of the devil to ally himself with Jesus Christ, in order the more effectually to defeat his purposes. If Christ and the apostles had given countenance to demons while telling the truth, they could have used their indorsement to gain credence when telling a lie; and thus, believers would have been left to the mercy of seducing spirits, fulfilling, with the apparent sanction of Christ, the prophesy of Paul that, “In the latter times men shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in disguise, having the conscience seared with a hot iron.” To guard against this result, it was necessary to exorcise all demons who ventured to speak in favor of the truth.

In the present instance, Paul could not pursue the settled course of the apostles, without greatly depreciating the value of the slave; and doubtless it was an extreme reluctance to interference with the rights of property which had induced him to submit to the annoyance of so many days. At length, seeing no other means of relief, he cast the demon out, and, in doing so, framed the exorcising sentence in such a way as to indicate an antagonism between the demon and Jesus Christ; saying, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her.” The immediate obedience of the spirit demonstrated the authority of the name by which Paul spoke, and thus the very attempt of the devil to gain an apparent alliance with Jesus through this demon was made the occasion of demonstrating the divine power of the latter.

Acts 16:19-21. (19) “Then her masters, seeing that the hope of their gain was gone, seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market-place to the rulers, (20) and leading him forward to the magistrates, they said, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, (21) and are announcing customs which it is unlawful for us, being Romans, to receive or to observe.” In this accusation, the real cause of complaint was concealed, for several reasons: First, The disinterested multitude would naturally sympathize with the girl who had been restored to her mind, rather than with the masters who had made her misfortune a source of profit. Second, To have made prominent the fact that Paul, by a word, had expelled the demon, would have made an impression favorable to him and his cause. But the Jews and their religion were particularly obnoxious to the Romans, and hence, when the accusation was made by men of wealth and influence, that these men, “being Jews,” were introducing customs contrary to the religion and laws of Rome, it was easy to excite the populace against them.

Acts 16:22-24. (22) “And the multitude rose up against them, and the magistrates, having torn off their garments, commanded to beat them with rods. (23) And having laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely; (24) who, having received such a commandment, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” It appears that the magistrates gave them no opportunity to defend themselves, but simply yielded to the clamor of the multitude, in utter disregard of all the forms of justice. It was that same miserable truckling to the passions of a mob, whom they ought to have ruled into sobriety and reason, which has stamped with infamy the name of Pontius Pilate.

Acts 16:25. The condition of the two brethren, as night drew on, was miserable to a degree scarcely conceivable. Besides the physical pain of sitting in a dark dungeon, with their backs bleeding from the scourge, and feet fastened in the stocks to prevent even the relief which a change of position might afford, their minds were racked with a sense of the deep injustice done them; with the reflection that such was the return they met at the hands of men for whom they had sacrificed their all on earth, and their present reward for faithful service of the Lord; and with the most mournful anticipations of their future fate. Most men, under such circumstances, would have been wild with rage against their persecutors, unconcerned for the fate of an unfriendly world, and full of doubts as to the protecting favor of God. But in the darkest and bitterest hour of their sufferings, these faithful disciples brought forth the richest fruits of their faith and piety. (25) “But at midnight Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God, and the prisoners heard them.” Men do not pray when they are enraged, nor when they are hopeless. The soul must recover from the turmoil of violent passion, before it can offer thoughtful prayer. But still greater composure is necessary to induce a disposition to engage in singing. One in deep distress may be soothed by the music of other voices, but is not inclined to join in the song itself. That Paul and Silas prayed at midnight is the clearest evidence that the tempest of their feelings, which must, at the whipping-post, and when first thrust within the dungeon and fastened in the stocks, have driven away all sober thought, and smothered all utterance, had by this time subsided. And that, after praying, they “sang praises to God,” shows how quickly the soothing effects of prayer had still further calmed and cheered their spirits. The song they sang was not a plaintive strain, suited to the sorrows of the lonely prisoner; but it swelled up in those firm and animated tones which are suited to the praises of God. How rich the treasures of faith and hope which can thus cheer the gloom of a midnight dungeon, and calm the spirit of the bleeding prisoner of Jesus Christ!

Acts 16:26. The song of the apostles was a strange sound to the other prisoners, but one most welcome to heaven; and God, who appeared almost to have forsaken his servants, came to their relief in a manner peculiar to himself, yet most surprising to all within the prison. (26) “And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bonds were loosed.” The prisoners were all awake when this occurred, having been awakened by the singing, and must instinctively have connected the phenomenon with those midnight singers.

Acts 16:27. The jailer seems not to have heard the singing, but was awakened by the motion of the earthquake, the slamming of the doors, and the clanking of the fetters which fell from the hands of the prisoners. (27) “And the jailer, awaking out of sleep, and seeing the prison-doors open, drew his sword, and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had fled.” It was not so dark as to prevent him from seeing, to some extent, what had taken place. He supposed that the prisoners had, as a matter of course, all rushed out through the open doors. He knew what the penalty, under Roman law, for allowing prisoners to escape, was death; and that peculiar code of honor among the Romans, which made them prefer to die by their own hands, rather than by that of an enemy or an executioner, drove him to this attempt at suicide.

Acts 16:28. He had already planted the hilt of his sword upon the floor, and was about to cast himself upon the point of it, when Paul, who must now have left his dungeon, saw what he was doing, and arrested his mad purpose. (28) “But Paul cried, with a loud voice, saying, Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” Reassured by this statement, and by the calmness of the tone in which it was uttered, he drew back from the leap he was about to make into eternity.

Acts 16:29-30. As soon as he could collect his senses, he recollected that the calm speaker who had called to him had been preaching salvation in the name of the God of Israel; and he immediately perceived that the earthquake, the miraculous opening of the doors, and the unlocking of chains and handcuffs were connected with him and his companion. In an instant he recognizes the divine authority, and, glancing into the black eternity from which he had suddenly been rescued, his own salvation, rather than the safety of his prisoners, at once absorbs his thoughts. (29) “Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; (30) and led them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” That he asked this question proves that he had some conception of the salvation of which Paul had been preaching; and that he trembled, and fell at their feet, shows that he was overwhelmed with a sense of danger, and painfully anxious to escape from it. At sunset, when coldly thrusting the bleeding apostles into the dungeon, he cared but little for this question. In the midst of life and health, when all goes well with us, we may thrust this awful question from us; but when we come within an inch of death, like the jailer at midnight, hanging over the point of his own sword, it rushes in upon the soul like a lava torrent, and burns out all other thoughts.

Acts 16:31-32. Leading the brethren into his family apartment, he received a full and satisfactory answer to his question. (31) “They said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house. (32) And they spake the word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his house.” Those who advocate the doctrine of justification by faith only, appeal with great confidence to this answer of the apostle, as proof of that doctrine. We can not enter upon the merits of this doctrine, except as it is affected by this and other passages in Acts.

To state the argument in its strongest form, it would stand thus: In answer to the question, What shall I do to be saved? one thing is commanded to be done: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ;” and one thing is promised. “You shall be saved.” Now, then, Paul could not have made this promise on this one condition, unless he knew that all who believe on the Lord Jesus are saved. No less than the universal proposition that all who believe shall be saved, would justify the conclusion that if the jailer believed, he would be saved. Paul, then, assumes this universal proposition, and, therefore, it must be true. But there are some who believe, and are consequently saved, who have never been immersed; therefore, immersion does not constitute a part of what we must do to be saved.

The fallacy of this very plausible argument is to be found in the ambiguous usage of the term believe. This ambiguity does not arise from the fact that there are different kinds of faith; but from the fact that the term is sometimes used abstractly, and sometimes to include the repentance and obedience which properly result from faith. Whatever is affirmed of faith only must necessarily contemplate it in the former sense. But in that sense it can not secure justification, as is proved by the force of those passages which treat of it in this sense. John, in his gospel, says: “Among the chief rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” James also says: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” In those passages faith is considered separately from the works which should follow it, and is declared to be dead, or inoperative.

Now, the statement of Paul to the jailer is not, that if he would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ with a dead faith, or a faith so weak as to be overpowered by worldly motives, he should be saved; but he evidently contemplates a living faith—a faith which leads to immediate and hearty obedience. In this usage of the term it is true that not only the jailer, but every other believer may be promised, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.” Yet it is equally true that the salvation does not result from the faith only; and that it is not enjoyed until the faith brings forth the contemplated obedience. If faith without works is dead, then it remains dead as long as it remains without works. It thus remains until the believer is immersed, if he proceed according to apostolic example; therefore, faith without immersion is dead. Paul acted upon this principle in the case before us. For, after telling him, in the comprehensive sense of the term believe, that if he would believe on the Lord Jesus he should be saved, he immediately gives him more specific instruction, and immerses him the same hour of the night. Those who argue that the jailer obtained pardon by faith alone, leave the jail too soon. If they would remain one hour longer, they would see him immersed for the remission of his sins, and rejoicing in the knowledge of pardon after his immersion, not before it.

There is another aspect of this answer to the jailer which must not be passed by; for it confirms what we have already said, and at the same time harmonizes this with other inspired answers to the same question. To Saul, who was a penitent believer, and sent to Ananias to learn what he should do, the latter replied: “Arise and be immersed and wash away your sins.” To the Jews on Pentecost, who had faith, but faith only, Peter commands: “Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” But to the jailer, who was a heathen, Paul commands, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ;” and intending more fully to develop the manner in which his faith should be manifested, promises, “and you shall be saved.” Thus each answer is adapted to the exact religious state of the party to whom it is addressed, requiring first that which is to be done first, and enjoining to be done only that which had not been done.

The conduct of the jailer in prostrating himself before Paul and Silas, and crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” shows that he already believed them to be messengers of God, and understood that their message had reference to the salvation of men. But there is no evidence that his faith or his information extended beyond this. Having commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, it was necessary to put within his reach the means of faith; and this Paul proceeds to do by preaching “the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.”

Acts 16:33-34. The preaching, as would be expected under circumstances so favorable, had the desired effect both upon the jailer and his household. (33) “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was immersed, he and all his, immediately. (34) And having led them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”

Those pedobaptist writers who claim the example of the apostles in favor of affusion and infant baptism attempt to find support for these practices in this case of conversion. Their argument for affusion depends entirely upon the assumption that the baptism was performed within the prison. If this assumption were admitted, it would prove nothing in favor of affusion so long as it is possible that there were conveniences for immersion within the prison. But the assumption is in direct conflict with the facts in the case. The facts are briefly as follows: First, When the jailer was about to commit suicide, Paul saw him, which shows that he was then outside of his dungeon, in the more part of the prison. Second, Hearing Paul’s voice, the jailer sprang into the prison, and “led them out“—not dungeon, but out of the prison. Third, Being now out of the prison, “they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” While speaking, then, they were in the house, and not in the prison. Fourth, “He took them and washed their stripes, and was baptized.” The verb took, in this connection, implies the removal of the parties to some other spot for the washing and baptizing. Whether to some other part of the house, or out of the house, it does not determine. But, fifth, when the baptizing was concluded, “he led them into his house,” which shows that, before it was done, he had taken them out of the house. Between the moment at which he took them out of the house and the moment he brought them into it, the baptizing was done. But they would not, at this hour of the night, have gone out, unless there was some necessity for it, which the demands of affusion could not supply. The circumstances, though not in itself a proof of immersion, afford strong circumstantial evidence in its favor, and is suggestive of that river on the banks of which Lydia first heard the gospel, and in which she was immersed.

It has been suggested that the party could not have passed through the gates of the city at this hour of the night; but there is no evidence that Philippi was a walled town. Again, it is sometimes objected, that the jailer had no right to take his prisoners outside the jail; and that Paul and Silas showed, by their conduct on the next morning, that they would not go out without the consent of the authorities. But this is to assume that the jailer would rather obey men than God, and that Paul and Silas were so punctilious about their personal dignity that they would refuse to immerse a penitent sinner through fear of compromising it. Such assumptions are certainly too absurd to be entertained when once observed; but, even if we cling to them, they can not set aside the fact, so clearly established above, that the jailer did lead them out of the prison.

As for the assumption that infants were baptized here, we have already observed, in commenting on Lydia’s conversion, that it is precluded by the fact that all the household believed. “He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” Moreover, Paul and Silas spoke the Word to “all who were in the house,” yet they certainly did not preach to infants. As there were no infants in the house while hearing, and none while subsequently believing and rejoicing, there could be none at the intermediate baptizing.

Before dismissing this case of conversion, which is the last we will consider in detail in the course of this work, we propose a brief review of its leading features, that we may trace its essential uniformity with those already considered. The influence which first took effect upon him was that of the earthquake, and the attendant opening of the prison-doors. This produced a feeling of alarm and heathenish desperation. It awakened within him no religious thought or emotions until the voice of Paul had recalled all that he had known of the apostolic preaching, when he instantly perceived that the miracle had been wrought by the God whom Paul and Silas preached. The proper effect of miraculous attestation of a messenger of God is next apparent in his rushing forward, falling before them, and exclaiming, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” He is now a believer in the divine mission of the apostles, but not yet a believer in Jesus Christ. Whatever he hears from these men, however, he is ready to receive as God’s truth. He hears from them the “word of the Lord,” and the next we see, he is washing from the neglected stripes of the prisoners the clotted blood, and submitting to immersion. That he was immersed proves that he was both a believer and a penitent. After immersion, he rejoices. The case exhibits the same essential features which we have found in all others; the same word of the Lord spoken and attested by miraculous evidence; the same faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, followed by repentance, and the same immersion, followed by the same rejoicing. Thus we trace a perfect uniformity in the apostolic procedure, and in the experience of their converts.

Acts 16:35-36. When the magistrates gave orders for the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, it would naturally be supposed that they intended to make some further inquiry into the charges preferred against them. But we are told, (35) “When it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, Release those men. (36) The jailer told Paul these words, The magistrates have sent word that you be released. Now, therefore, depart, and go in peace.” This order was given without any further developments known to the magistrates, at least so far as we are informed, and shows that they had only imprisoned the brethren, as they had scourged them, to gratify the mob; and now that the clamor of the mob had ceased, they had no further motive to detain them.

Acts 16:37-39. To be thus released from prison, as though they had simply suffered the penalty due them, would be a suspicious circumstance to follow the missionaries to other cities; and, fortunately, the means of escaping it were at hand. (37) “But Paul said to them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privately? No. But let them come themselves, and lead us out. (38) The officers told these words to the magistrates, and when they heard that they were Romans, they were alarmed. (39) And they came, and entreated them, and led them out, and asked them to depart out of the city.” If the fact of their having been scourged and imprisoned should follow them to other cities, it would do them no harm, provided it were also known that the magistrates had acknowledged the injustice done them, by going in person to the prison, and giving them an honorable discharge.

As it was a capital crime, under the Roman law, to scourge a Roman citizen, and Paul and Silas both enjoyed the rights of citizenship, they had the magistrates in their power, and could dictate terms to them. The terms were promptly complied with; for men who can be induced to pervert justice by the clamor of an unthinking mob will nearly always prove cowardly and sycophantic when their crimes are exposed, and justice is likely to overtake them. By making complaint to the proper authorities, Paul might have procured their punishment; but he had been taught not to resent evil, and was himself in the habit of teaching his brethren. “Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” His conduct, on this occasion, happily illustrates this precept. If he had appealed to the Roman authorities for the punishment of his tormenters, he would have been avenging himself in the most effectual method. But to yield, as he did, this privilege, was to leave vengeance in the hands of God, to whom it belongs. By this course Paul gained the approbation of God, and the admiration of posterity, while justice lost nothing; for the unresenting demeanor of the apostle “heaped coals of fire on their heads,” and the Judge of all the earth held their deeds in remembrance. The incidents justifies Christians in making use of civil laws to protect themselves, but not to inflict punishment on their enemies.

Acts 16:40. When they were discharged, they took their own time to comply with the polite request of the magistrates. (40) “Then they went out of the prison, and went into the house of Lydia; and having seen the brethren, and exhorted them, they departed.” Who these “brethren” were, besides Luke and Timothy, we can not tell; but the presumption is, that they were others who had been immersed during their stay in the city.

Acts Chapter Seventeen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 17:1. Luke now drops the pronoun of the first person, in which he has spoken of the apostolic company since they left Troas, and resumes the third person, which shows that he remained in Philippi after the departure of Paul and Silas. He also speaks of the these two brethren as if they constituted the whole company, until they are about to leave Berea, when Timothy is again mentioned. This leads to the presumption that Timothy remained with Luke, to still further instruct and organize the infant congregation in Philippi. Leaving the cause thus guarded behind them, Paul and Silas seek another field of labor. (1) “And having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they went into Thessalonica, where was the synagogue of the Jews.” The distance from Philippi to Amphipolis was thirty-three miles; from Amphipolis to Apollonia, thirty miles; and from Apollonia to Thessalonica, thirty-seven miles; making just one hundred miles to the next city which the apostles undertook to evangelize. The whole of this distance was over one of those celebrated military roads built by the Romans, and elegantly paved with flag-stones.

At Philippi there was no synagogue, and the swift passage of Paul and Silas through Amphipolis and Apollonia indicates that there was none in either of those cities; hence the synagogue in Thessalonica was the only one in a large district of the country, for which reason it is styled “the synagogue of the Jews.” The existence of a synagogue in a Gentile city was always an indication of a considerable Jewish population. Thessalonica, on account of its commercial importance, was then, and continues to be, under its modern name Salonica, a great resort for Jews. It was a knowledge of this fact, no doubt, which hastened Paul to this city, anticipating, through the synagogue, a more favorable introduction to the people than he had enjoyed at Philippi.

Acts 17:2-3. (2) “And according to Paul’s custom, he went in to them, and for three Sabbath days disputed with from the Scriptures, (3) opening them, and setting forth that it was necessary that the Christ should suffer, and arise from the dead, and that this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” This was certainly a well-chosen course of argument. One of the chief objections which the Jews urged against Jesus during his life was his humble and unpretending position in society, which was inconsistent, in their estimation, with his claims to the Messiahship. And since his resurrection, the preaching of the Christ as crucified was, to the mass of the Jews, a scandal, because it appeared an impeachment of the prophets to proclaim the despised and crucified Jesus as the glorious Messiah whose coming they had predicted. But Paul begins his argument with the Thessalonian Jews, by showing that the writings of the prophets themselves made it necessary that the Messiah “should suffer and arise from the dead.” Having demonstrated this proposition, it was an easy task to show that “this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” It was well known that he had suffered death, and Paul had abundant means of proving that he had risen again. This proof was not confined to his own testimony, as an eye-witness of his glory, though we may well suppose that he made use of this, as he did on subsequent occasions. But he gave ocular demonstration of the living and divine power of Jesus, by working miracles in his name. This we learn from his first epistle to the Church in this city, in which he says: “Our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; as you know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.” The power of the Holy Spirit, working miracles before them, gave an assurance of the resurrection and glory of him in whose name they were wrought, which the “word only” of all the men on earth could not give. Without such attestation, the word of man in reference to the affairs of heaven has no claim upon our confidence; but with it, it has a power which can not be resisted without resisting God.

This course of argument and proof occupied three successive Sabbaths. During the intervening weeks the two brethren carefully avoided every thing which might raise a suspicion that they were governed by selfish motives. They asked no man in the city for even their daily bread. They received some contributions to their necessities from the brethren in Philippi, but the amount was so scanty as to still leave them under the necessity of “laboring night and day.”

Acts 17:4. The effect of arguments and demonstrations so conclusive, accompanied by a private life so irreproachable, was quite decisive. (4) “Some of them believed, and adhered to Paul and Silas; of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” In this description the parties are distributed with great exactness. The expression “some of them” refers to the Jews, and indicates but a small number. Of the “devout Greeks,” who were such Gentiles as had learned to worship God according to Jewish example, there was a “great multitude,” and not a few of the “chief women,” who were also Gentiles. The great majority of the converts, therefore, were Gentiles; and Paul afterward addresses them as such, saying, “You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God.”

Acts 17:5-9. Such a movement among the devout Gentiles, whose presence at the synagogue worship was a source of pride to the Jews, was exceedingly mortifying to those Jews who obstinately remained in unbelief. Their number and popular influence in Thessalonica enabled them to give serious trouble to Paul and Silas. (5) “But the unbelieving Jews, being full of zeal, collected certain wicked men of the idle class, and raising a mob, set the city in an uproar. And rushing to the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people. (6) But not finding them, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the city rulers, crying out, These men, who have turned the world upside down, have come hither also; (7) whom Jason has received; and they are all acting contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. (8) And they troubled the people and the city rulers, when they heard these things; (9) and having taken security of Jason and the others, they released them.”

In the accusation preferred by the Jews there were two specifications, each one of which had some truth in it. Nearly everywhere that Paul and Silas had preached, there had been some public disturbance, which was in some way attributable to their preaching. But their accusers were at fault in throwing the censure on the wrong party. The fact that angry excitement follows the preaching of a certain man, or set of men, is no proof, either in that day or this, that the preaching is improper, either in matter or manner. When men are willing to receive the truth, and to reject all error, the preaching of the gospel can have none but peaceful and happy effects. But otherwise, it still brings “not peace, but a sword,” and is the “savor of death unto death.” The apostolic method was to fearlessly preach the truth, and leave the consequences with God and the people.

The other specification, that the brethren acted contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there was another king, Jesus, shows that Paul, while opposing the Jewish idea that the Messiah was to be an earthly prince had not failed to represent him as a king. He represented him, indeed, as the “King of kings, and Lord or lords.” But the accusation contained a willful perversion of his language; for these Jews knew very well, as their predecessors before the bar of Pilate knew, that Jesus claimed to be no rival of Cæsar. If he had, they would have been better pleased with him than they were.

One reason why the Gentiles and city rulers were so readily excited by this accusation was the fact that the Jews had then but recently been banished from Rome, as we learn from a statement below in reference to Priscilla and Aquila. The unbelieving Jews in Thessalonica, anxious to prove their own loyalty, adroitly directed public odium toward the Christian Jews, as the real disturbers of the public peace, and enemies of Cæsar.

Acts 17:10. Such was the state of feeling in the city that Paul and Silas saw no prospect of accomplishing good by further efforts, while the attempt would have been hazardous to the lives of brethren. (10) “Then the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night, to Berea; who, when they arrived, went into the synagogue of the Jews.”

This city lies about sixty miles south-west of Thessalonica. It contains, at the present day, a population of fifteen or twenty thousand, and was, doubtless, still more populous then. Here again the apostles find a synagogue, and make it the starting point of their labors.

Acts 17:11. We have now, at last, the pleasure of seeing one Jewish community listen to the truth and examine it like rational beings. (11) “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Their conduct can not be too highly commended, nor too closely imitated. The great sin of the Jews was a refusal to examine, candidly and patiently, the claims of the gospel. Having fallen into error by their traditions, they resisted, with passion and uproar, every effort that was made to give them additional light, or to expose their errors. Their folly has been constantly re-enacted by religious partisans of subsequent ages, so that the progress of truth, since the dark ages of papal superstition, has been hedged up, at every onward movement, by men who conceived that they were doing God service in keeping his truth from the people. If such men live and die in the neglect of any duty, their ignorance of it will be so far from excusing them that it will constitute one of their chief sins, and secure to them more certain and more severe condemnation. There is no greater insult to the majesty of heaven than to stop our ears when God speaks, or to close our eyes against the light which he causes to shine around us. The cause of Christ, as it stands professed in the world, will never cease to be disgraced by such exhibitions of sin and folly, until all who pretend to be disciples adopt the course pursued by these Jews of Berea; search the Scriptures, upon the presentation of every thing claiming to be God’s truth, and “see whether these things are so.” Unless the word of God can mislead us, to follow implicitly where it leads can never be unacceptable to its Author.

Acts 17:12. If the claims of Jesus are false, an honest and thorough investigation of them is the best way to prove them so. If they are true, such an investigation will be certain to convince us and to bless us. With the Bereans, the logical result of a daily investigation is stated thus: (12) “Therefore, many of them, and not a few of the honorable men and women who were Greeks, believed.” It was not here, as in Thessalonica, that “some of them” and “a great multitude of Greeks” believed; but it was “many of them,” and “not a few of the Greeks.” That they believed, is distinctly attributed to the fact that they “searched the Scriptures;” showing again, that faith is produced by the word of God.

Acts 17:13-14. There seemed to be no serious obstacle to the gospel in Berea, and the disciples may have begun to flatter themselves with the hope that the whole city would turn to the Lord, when an unexpected enemy sprung upon them from the rear. (13) “But when the Jews of Thessalonica knew that the word of God was preached by Paul in Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. (14) Then the brethren immediately sent Paul away, to go as if to the sea; but Silas and Timothy remained there.” There was always sufficient material for a mob, in a the rude heathen population of a city as large as Berea, and there was always sufficient appearance of antagonism between the gospel as preached by Paul, and the laws and customs of the heathen, to enable designing men to excite the masses against it. Hence, the easy success of these embittered enemies from Thessalonica, who, in addition to other considerations, could ask if Bereans would tolerate men who had been compelled to fly by night from Thessalonica.

The statement that the brethren sent Paul away to “go as if to the sea,” certainly implies some disguise of his real purpose. The only supposition answerable to the phraseology employed is, that he started in the direction of the sea, and then turned, so as to pursue the land route to Athens, which was the next field of labor. Mr. Howson, who insists that he went by sea, does not display his usual ability in arguing the question. Paul once traveled from Corinth to Berea by land, and why not now from Berea through Athens to Corinth? The fact that it was the more tedious and less usual route, being two hundred and fifty miles overland, is a good reason why he should have chosen it the more certainly to elude pursuit.

Whether by land or by sea, the apostle now leave Macedonia, and starts out for another province of ancient Greece. He has planted Churches in three important cities of Macedonia. Of these, Thessalonica occupied the central position, with Philippi one hundred miles to the north-east, and Berea sixty miles to the south-west. Each of these becomes a radiating center, from which the light of truth might shine into the surrounding darkness. We have the testimony of Paul himself, that from at least one of them the light shone with great intensity. He writes to the Thessalonians: “From you has sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God is spread abroad, so that we have no need to say any thing.” There was no need of Paul’s voice at any more than central points, when he could leave behind him congregations such as this. No doubt much of their zeal and fidelity were owing to the fostering care of such men as Silas and Timothy, and Luke, whom the apostle occasionally left behind him.

Acts 17:15-17. (15) “Now they who conducted Paul led him to Athens; and having received a commandment to Silas and Timothy that they should come to him as quickly as possible, they departed. (16) And while he was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was roused within him, when he saw the city given to idolatry. (17) Therefore, he disputed in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market-place daily with those who happened to be there.”

In the ancient world there were two distinct species of civilization, both of which had reached their highest excellence in the days of the apostles. One was the result of human philosophy; the other, of a divine revelation. The chief center of the former was the city of Athens; of the latter, the city of Jerusalem. If we compare them, either as respects the moral character of the people brought respectively under their influence, or with reference to their preparation for a perfect religion, we shall find the advantage in favor of the latter. Fifteen hundred years before, God had placed the Jews under the influence of revelation, and left the other nations of the earth to “walk in their own ways.” By a severe discipline, continued through many centuries, the former had been elevated above the idolatry in which they were sunk at the beginning, and which still prevailed over all other nations. They presented, therefore, a degree of purity in private morals which stands unrivaled in ancient history previous to the advent of Christ. On the other hand, the most elegant of the heathen nations were exhibiting, in their social life, a complete exhaustion of the catalogue of base and beastly things of which men and women could be guilty. In Athens, where flourished the most profound philosophy, the most glowing eloquence, the most fervid poetry, and the most refined art which the world has ever seen, there was the most complete and studied abandonment of every vice which passion could prompt or imagination invent.

The contrast in reference to the preparation of the two peoples to receive the gospel of Christ is equally striking. In the center of Jewish civilization the gospel had now been preached, and many thousands had embraced it. It had spread rapidly through the surrounding country; and even in distant lands, wherever there was a Jewish synagogue, with a company of Gentiles, who, by Jewish influence, had been rescued from the degradation of their kindred, it had been gladly received by thousands of devout men and honorable women. But nowhere had its triumphs penetrated far into the benighted masses outside of Jewish influence. The struggle now about to take place in the city of Athens is to demonstrate still further, by contrast, how valuable “a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” had been the law and the prophets.

Walking along the streets of a city whose fame had been familiar to him from childhood, and seeing, in the temples and statues on every hand, and the constant processions of people going to and from the places of worship, evidence that “the city was given to idolatry;” though a lonely stranger, who might have been awed into silence by the magnificence around him, Paul felt his soul aroused to make one mighty struggle for the triumph, even here, of the humble gospel which he preached. His first effort, as usual, was in the Jewish synagogue. But there seem to have been none among the Jews or devout Gentiles there to receive the truth. The pride of human philosophy, and the debasement of refined idolatry had overpowered the influence of the law and the prophets, so that he fails of his usual success. He does not, however, despair. Having access to no other formal assembly, he goes upon the streets, and places of public concourse, and discourse to “to those who happened to be there.”

Acts 17:18. By efforts so persistent he succeeded in attracting some attention from the idle throng, but it was of a character, at first, not very flattering. (18) “The certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him, and some said, What will this babbler say? And others, He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign demons; because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.” The persistency with which he sought the attention of every one he met suggested the epithet “babbler,” and the prominence in his arguments of the name of Jesus and the resurrection suggested to the inattentive hearers that these were two foreign demons whom he was trying to make known to them.

The two classes of philosophers whom he encountered were the antipodes of each other, and the practical philosophy of each was antipodal to the doctrine of Paul. The Stoics taught that the true philosophy of life was a total indifference to both the sorrows and pleasures of the world; while the Epicureans sought relief from life’s sorrows in the studied pursuit of its pleasures. In opposition to the former, Paul taught that we should weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who rejoice; and in opposition to the latter, that we should deny ourselves in reference to all ungodliness and worldly lusts.

Acts 17:19-21. Notwithstanding the contempt with which Paul was regarded by some of his hearers, he succeeded in arresting the serious attention of a few. (19) “And they took him and led him to the Areopagus, saying, Can we know what this new doctrine is, of which you speak? (20) For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. We wish to know, therefore, what these things mean. (21) For all the Athenians, and the strangers dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling or hearing something new.” The Areopagus was a rocky eminence, ascended by a flight of stone steps cut in the solid rock, on the summit of which were seats in the open air, where the judges, called Areopagites, held court for the trial of criminals, and of grave religious questions. The informal character of the proceedings on this occasion shows that it was not this court which had summoned Paul, but that those who were interested in hearing him selected this as a suitable place for the purpose. This is further evident from the note of explanation here appended by Luke, that the Athenians and strangers dwelling there, spent their time in nothing else than telling and hearing something new. It was more from curiosity, therefore, that they desired to hear him, than because they really expected to be benefited by what they would hear.

Acts 17:22-31. After persevering, but necessarily disconnected conversational efforts on the streets, Paul has now an audience assembled for the special purpose of hearing him, and may present his theme in a more formal manner. He has now an audience of Jews and proselytes, but an assembly of demon-worshipers. He cannot, therefore, open the Scriptures, and begin by speaking of the long-expected Messiah. The Scriptures, and even the God who gave them, are to them, unknown. Before he can preach Jesus to them, as the Son of God, he must introduce to them a true conception of God himself. It was this consideration which made the following speech of Paul so different from all others recorded in Acts. We will first hear the whole discourse, and then examine the different parts in their connection with one another.

(22) “Then Paul stood up in the midst of the Areopagus, and said: Men of Athens, I perceive that in every respect you are devout worshipers of the demons. (23) For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom, therefore, you worship without knowing him, him I announce to you. (24) The God who made the world, and all things which are in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands. (25) Neither is he served by the hands of men, as though he needed any thing, for it is he who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (26) and has made from one blood all nations of men, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, having determined their prearranged periods, and the boundaries of their habitations, (27) that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, although he is not far from each one of us. (28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as also some of your own poets have said, ’For we are also his offspring.’ (29) Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Deity is similar to gold or silver, or stone graven by the art and device of man. (30) Now the times of this ignorance God has overlooked; but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, (31) because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, of which he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

The excellence of an argumentative discourse is measured by the degree of adaptation to the exact mental condition of the audience, and the conclusiveness with which every position is established. It would be difficult to conceive how this discourse could be improved in either of these particulars.

The audience were worshipers of demons, or dead men deified. Nearly all their gods were supposed to have once lived on the earth. They regarded it, therefore, as an excellent trait of character to be scrupulous in all the observances of demon worship. Paul’s first remark was not that they were “too superstitious,” nor that they were “very religious;” though both of these would have been true. But the term he employs, deisedaimonestirous, from deido to fear, and daimon a demon, means demon-fearing, or given to the worship of demons. This was the exact truth in the case, and the audience received the statement of it as a compliment. The second remark is introduced as a specification of the first: “For, as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.” After erecting altars to all the known gods, so that a Roman satirist, said it was easier to find a god in Athens than a man, they had extended their worship even to such as might be in existence without their knowledge. No specification could have been made to more strikingly exemplify their devotions to demon worship. The commentators have suggested many hypotheses by which to account, historically, for the erection of this altar, all of which are purely conjectural. It is sufficient to know, what the text itself reveals, that its erection resulted from an extreme desire to render due worship to all the gods, both known and unknown.

Having spoken in this conciliatory style, both of their worship in general, and of this altar in particular, Paul next excites their curiosity, by telling them that he came to make known to them that very God whom they had already worshiped without knowing him. They had, by this inscription, already confessed that there was, or might be a God to them unknown; hence they could not complain that he should attempt to introduce a new God to their acquaintance. They had also rendered homage to such a God while they knew him not; hence they could not consistently refuse to do so after he should be revealed to them. Thus far the course of the apostle’s remarks was not only conciliatory, but calculated, and intended, to bind the audience in advance to the propositions and conclusions yet to be developed.

He next introduces the God to whom he refers as the God who made the world, and all things in it, and who is Lord of both heaven and earth. That there was such a God, he assumes; but the assumption was granted by a part of his audience, the Stoics, and the Epicureans found it difficult to account to themselves for the fact that the world was made, without admitting that there was a God who made it. He endeavors to give them a just conception of this God, by presenting several points of contrast between him and the gods with whom they were familiar. The first of these is, that, unlike them, “He does not dwell in temples made with hands.” All around the spot where he stood were temples in which the gods made their abode, and to which the people were compelled to resort in order to communicate with them. But that the God who made heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human hangs, he argued from the fact that he was “Lord of heaven and earth;” which implies that he could not be confined within limits so narrow. This was enough to establish his superiority to all other gods in power and majesty.

The next point of contrast presented has reference to the services rendered the gods. His hearers had been in the habit of presenting meat offerings and drink offerings in the temples, under the superstitious belief that they were devoured by the gods. But Paul tells them that the unknown God “is not served by the hands of men as though he needed anything; for it is he who gives to all men life and breath, and all things, and has made from one blood all nations of men,” and appointed beforehand their periods, and the boundaries of their habitations. These facts demonstrate his entire independence of human ministrations, and exhibit, in a most striking manner, the dependence of men upon him. They not only sustain the point of contrast presented by Paul, but they involve an assumption of the most special providence of God. By special providence, we mean providence in reference to individual persons and things. If God gives to all men life and breath and all things, he acts with reference to each individual man, to each individual breath that each man breathes, and to each particular thing going to make up all the things which he gives them. Again, if God appoints beforehand the “periods” of the nation (by which I understand all the great eras in their history,) and the “boundaries of their habitations,” he certainly directs the movements of individual men; for the movements of nations depend upon the movements of the individual men of whom they are composed. Sometimes, indeed, the movements of one man, as of Christopher Columbus, determine the settlement of continents, and the destiny of mighty nations. In view of these facts, we must admit the most special and minute providence of God in all the affairs of earth. It would never, perhaps, have been doubted, but for the philosophical difficulty of reconciling it with the free agency of men, and of discriminating between it and the working of miracles. This difficulty, however, affords no rational ground for such a doubt, for the method of God’s agency in human affairs is above human comprehension. To doubt the reality of an assumed fact, the nature of which is confessedly above our comprehension, because we know not how to reconcile it with other known facts, is equivalent to confessing our ignorance at one moment, and denying it the next. It were wiser to conclude, that, if we could only comprehend that which is now incomprehensible, the difficulty would vanish. While the uneducated swain is ignorant of the law of gravitation, he could not understand how the world can turn over without spilling the water out of his well; but the moment he apprehends this law the difficulty disappears.

The incidental statement that God made from one blood all the nations of men, is an inspired assertion of the unity of the race, and accords with the Mosaic history. To deny it because we find some difficulty in reconciling it with the present diversity in the types of men, is another instance of the fallacy just exposed. It is to deny an assertion of the Scriptures, not because of something we know, but of something we do not know. We do not know, with certainty, what caused so great diversity among the races of men, and, because of this ignorance, we deny their common paternity. Such a denial could not be justified, unless we knew all the facts which have transpired in human history. But much the larger portion of human history is unwritten and unknown; and, at the same time, we are dependent, for all we do know of the first half of it, upon the word of God. The only rational course, therefore, which is left to us, is to receive its statements in their obvious import as the truth of history.

In arguing this last proposition, Paul interweaves with his proof a statement of God’s purpose concerning the nations, “that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” He here has reference to those nations who were without revelation; and means, I think, that one purpose of leaving them in that condition was to make a trial of their ability, without the aid of revelation, to seek and feel after the Lord so as to find him. It resulted in demonstrating what Paul afterward asserted, that “the world by wisdom knew not God,” and that, therefore, “it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save those who believe.”

From this reference to the efforts of men to find God, a natural association of thought led the speaker to assert the omnipresence of God: “Although he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” The connection of thought in this passage is this: We are his offspring, as your own poets teach, and this is sufficient proof that he is still about us; for he certainly would not abandon the offspring whom he has begotten.

From the conclusion that we are the offspring of God, Paul advances to the third point of contrast between him and the gods around him: “Being then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Deity is similar to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by the art and device of man.” This was a strong appeal to the self-respect of his hearers. To acknowledge that they were the offspring of God, and at the same time admit that he was similar to a carved piece of metal, or marble, was to degrade themselves by degrading their origin.

The argument by which he revealed to them the God who had been unknown is now completed. He has exhibited the uselessness of all the splendid temples around him, by showing that the true God dwells not in them, and that he is the God who made the earth and the heavens and all conceivable things. He has proved the folly of all their acts or worship, by showing that the real God had no need to any thing, but that all men are dependent on him for life and breath and all things. He has exhibited the foreknowledge; the providence, general and special; the omnipresence, and the universal parentage of this God; and has made them feel disgusted at the idea of worshiping, as their creator, any thing similar to metal or marble shaped by human hands. Thus their temples, their services, and their images are all degraded to their proper level, while the grandeur and glory and paternity of the true God are exalted before them.

The speaker next advances to unfold to his hearers their fearful responsibility to God now revealed to them. The times of ignorance, in which they had built these temples and carved these images, he tells them that God had overlooked; that is, to use his own language on another occasion, he had “suffered the nations to walk in their own ways.” “But now, he commands all men everywhere to repent; because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he has appointed, of which he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” This was evidently not designed for the concluding paragraph of the speech, but was a brief statement of the appointment of Jesus as judge of the living and the dead, preparatory to introducing him fully to the audience. But here his discourse was interrupted, and brought abruptly to a close.

Acts 17:32-33. (32) “And when they heard of a resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear you again concerning this matter. (33) So Paul departed from among them.” There are two strange features in the conduct of this audience. First, That they listened so patiently while Paul was demonstrating the folly of their idolatrous worship, which we would expect them to defend with zeal. Second, That they should interrupt him with mockery when he spoke of a resurrection from the dead, which we would have expected them to welcome as a most happy relief from the gloom which shrouded their thoughts of death. But the former is accounted for by the prevailing infidelity among philosophic minds in reference to the popular worship, rendering formal and heartless with them a service which was still performed by the masses with devoutness and sincerity. Their repugnance to the thought of a resurrection originated not in a preference for the gloomy future into which they were compelled to look, but in a fondness for that philosophy by which they had concluded that death was an eternal sleep. Their pride of opinion had crushed the better instincts of their nature, and led them to mock at the hope of a future life, which has been the dearest of all hopes to the chief part of mankind. Thus the devotees of human philosophy, instead of being led by it to a knowledge of the truth, were deceived into the forfeiture of a blessed hope, which has been enjoyed by ruder nations, amid all their ignorance and superstition.

Acts 17:34. Although his discourse terminated amid the mockery of a portion of his audience, the apostle’s effort was not altogether fruitless. (34) “But certain men followed him and believed; among whom were Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” We find, however, no subsequent trace of a Church in Athens within the period of apostolic history, and these names are not elsewhere mentioned. We are constrained, therefore, to the conclusion, that the cold philosophy and polished heathenism of this city had too far corrupted its inhabitants to admit of their turning to Christ, until some providential changes should prepare the way.

Acts Chapter Eighteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 18:1. Having met with so little encouragement in the literary capital of Greece, the apostle next resorts to its chief commercial emporium. (1) “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and went to Corinth.” This city was situated on the isthmus which connects the Peloponnesus with Attica. Through the Saronic Gulf and Ægean Sea on the east, it had direct communication with all the great Asiatic cities, and with Rome and the west through the Gulf of Corinth and the Adriatic. It was, therefore, a place of great commercial advantages; and, at the time of Paul’s visit, was the chief city of all Greece. Its advantages for trade had attracted the large Jewish population which the apostle found there.

Acts 18:2-3. Paul entered this large city a stranger, alone, and penniless. What little means he had brought with him from Macedonia was exhausted, and his first attention was directed to the supply of his daily wants. He knew what it was to suffer “hunger and thirst;” but he had been taught to look to heaven and pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” A kind Providence found him lodging and means of livelihood. (2) “And having found a certain Jews named Aquila, born in Pontus, and Priscilla his wife, lately come from Italy because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome, he went to them. (3) and because he was of the same trade, he remained with them, and worked; for they were tent-makers by trade.” To be thus under the necessity of laboring as a journeyman tent-maker was certainly a most discouraging condition for one about to evangelize a proud and opulent city. From the calm and unimpassioned style in which Luke proceeds with the narrative, we might imagine that Paul’s feelings were callous to the influence of such circumstances. But his own pen, which often reveals emotions that were not known to Luke, gives a far different representation of his feelings. Writing to the Corinthians after long years had passed away, and all transient emotions had been forgotten, he says, “I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.” Though keenly sensitive to all the distressing influences which surrounded him, he had, withal, so strong confidence in the power of truth, and so gloried in the very humility of the gospel, that he never despaired. The companionship of two such spirits as Aquila and Priscilla afterward proved to be, was, doubtless, a source of great encouragement to him.

Acts 18:4-5. Notwithstanding all the discouragements of his situation, he devoted the Sabbaths, and whatever portion of the week his manual labor would permit, to the great work. (4) “But he discoursed every Sabbath in the synagogue, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. (5) And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.” It will be recollected by the reader, that Silas and Timothy, whose arrival is here mentioned, had tarried in Berea, and that Paul had sent back word to them, by the brethren who conducted him to Athens, to rejoin him as soon as possible. He had also “waited for them in Athens,” before his speech in the Areopagus. We would suppose, from Luke’s narrative, that they failed to overtake him there, and now first rejoined him in Corinth. But Paul supplies an incident in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which corrects this supposition. He says: “When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left alone in Athens, and sent Timothy to establish you and to comfort you concerning your faith.” This shows that Timothy, at least, had actually rejoined him in Athens, and had been sent back to learn the condition of the congregation in Thessalonica. His present arrival in Corinth, therefore, was not from his original stay in Berea; but from a recent visit to Thessalonica. Probably Silas had remained till now in Berea.

The arrival of Silas and Timothy brings us to a new period in the life of Paul, the period of his letter-writing. We have already made some use of his epistles to throw light upon the somewhat elliptical narrative before us; but we shall henceforth have them as cotemporary documents, and will be able to fill up from them many blanks in Paul’s personal history. The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth soon after the arrival of Timothy, as is proved by the concurrence of the two facts, that, on the return of Silas and Timothy, as seen in the text, just quoted, they found Paul in Corinth, and that, in the epistle itself, Paul speaks of their arrival as having just taken place at the time of writing. Several statements in this epistle throw additional light upon the state of Paul’s feelings during his first labors in Corinth. He was not only “pressed in spirit,” as stated by Luke, “in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling,” as he himself says to the Corinthians but he was racked with uncontrollable anxiety concerning the brethren in Thessalonica, for whom he would have been willing to sacrifice his own life, and who were now suffering the severest persecution. The good report brought from them by Silas and Timothy gave him much joy, but it was joy in the midst of distress. He says: “When Timothy came to us from you, and brought us good tidings of your faith and love, and that you have remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you, therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith: for now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord.” It was, therefore, with a zeal newly kindled from almost utter despair, by their good report from Thessalonica and the arrival of his fellow-laborers, that he now so “earnestly testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.”

Acts 18:6-7. The increase of Paul’s earnestness was responded to by an increased virulence in the opposition of the unbelieving Jews. (6) “But when they resisted and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said to them, Your blood be upon your own head; I am clean. Henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. (7) And he departed thence, and went into the house of a man named Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was adjacent to the synagogue.” When they began to resist his preaching with passion and violent imprecations, he could no longer hope to do them good, and to press the subject further upon them would be to cast pearls before swine. Upon leaving the synagogue, he was not driven into the streets for a meeting-place; but, as was usually the case, while he was urging, with so little success, the claims of Jesus upon the Jews, at least one Gentile, who had learned to worship the true God, heard him more favorably, and offered him the use of his private dwelling, which stood close by. Justus was not yet a disciple, but, as suits the meaning of his name, he was disposed to see justice done to the persecuted apostle.

Acts 18:8. Although he left the synagogue in apparent discomfiture, he was not without fruits of his labors there. (8) “But Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were immersed.” It was very seldom that men of high position in the Jewish synagogues were induced to obey the gospel. It is greatly to the credit of Crispus, therefore, that he was among the first in Corinth to take this position, and this, too, at the moment when the opposition and blasphemy of the other Jews were most intense. He must have been a man of great independence of spirit and goodness of heart—the right kind of a man to form the nucleus for a congregation of disciples.

The conversion of these Corinthians is not detailed so fully as that of the eunuch, of Saul, or of Cornelius, yet enough is said to show that it was essentially the same process. “Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were immersed.” They heard what Paul preached, “that Jesus is the Christ.” This, then, is what they believed. That they repented of their sins is implied in the fact that they turned to the Lord by being immersed. To hear the gospel preached, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and to be immersed, was the entire process of their conversion, briefly expressed.

Acts 18:9-10. Although his success, when about leaving the synagogue must have been a source of some comfort to Paul, an incident occurred just at this period, which shows that he was far from being relieved, as yet, from the “weakness and fear, and much trembling,” which had oppressed him. (9) “Then the Lord said to Paul in a vision by night, Be not afraid; but speak, and be not silent; (10) for I am with you, and no man shall assail you to hurt you. For I have many people in this city.” The Lord never appeared by a vision to comfort his servants, except when they needed comfort. The words “Be not afraid” imply that he was alarmed, and the assurance that no one should hurt him implies that his alarm had reference to his personal safety. His very success had, doubtless, fired his opponents to fiercer opposition, and his recent sufferings at Philippi seemed about to be repeated. But, at the darkest hour of his night of sorrow, the light of hope suddenly dawned upon him, and he was strengthened with the assurance that many in the city would yet obey the Lord.

In the declaration, “I have many people in this city,” the Lord called persons who were then unbelievers, and perhaps idolaters, his people. This would accord with the Calvinistic idea that God’s people are a certain definite number whom he has selected, many of whom are yet unconverted. But it cannot prove this doctrine, because it admits of rational explanation upon another hypothesis. He knew that these people would yet believe and obey the gospel, and he could, therefore, with all propriety of speech, call them his by anticipation. Such is no doubt the true idea.

An expression similar to this occurs in the eighteenth chapter of Revelations, where the angel, announcing the downfall of the mystic Babylon, cries: “Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues.” It has been argued, from this, that God has a people in the apostasy, who are already accepted as his own. But the language, like the statement, “I have many people in this city,” may be used simply in anticipation. The most that can be argued from it, is that he knew a people would come out of Babylon whom he could accept, and that he called them his people on account of that fact.

Acts 18:11. Under the assurance given by the Lord in the vision, Paul was encouraged to continue his labors. (11) “Then he continued there a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God.” Instead of the more usual expression, “preaching the word of God,” we have here “teaching the word of God.” This change of phraseology is not without a purpose. It indicates that Paul’s labor, during this period, consisted not so much in proclaiming the great facts of the gospel, as in teaching his hearers the practical precepts of the Word. He was executing the latter part of the commission as recorded by Matthew: “Teaching them to observe and do all that I have commanded you.”

Acts 18:12-13. The next paragraph introduces an incident which occurred within this period of eighteen months, and which is worthy of special notice, because of several peculiarities not common to the scenes of apostolic suffering. (12) “While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews, with one accord, rose up against Paul and led him to the judgment-seat, (13) saying, This man is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law.” Here we have the same charge, in form, which was preferred against Paul at Philippi and Thessalonica, causing all the trouble which befell him in those cities. But the charge, in those instances, was preferred by Greeks, with reference to the Roman law; while, in the present, the Jews had the boldness to prefer it in their own name, with reference to their own law. This fact indicates a degree of confidence in their own influence which we have not seen exhibited by the Jews in any other Gentile city.

Acts 18:14-16. In this case, however, they had to deal with a man of far different character from the magistrates of Philippi, or the city rulers of Thessalonica. Gallio was a brother of Seneca, the famous Roman moralist, who describes him as a man of admirable integrity, amiable, and popular. Such was the character which he exhibited on this occasion. Instead of yielding to popular clamor, as did so many provincial and municipal officers, before whom the apostles were arraigned, he examined carefully the accusation, and seeing that it had reference, not to any infraction of the Roman law, but to questions in regard to their own law, he determined at once to dismiss the case. (14) “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of injustice or wicked recklessness, Jews, it would be reasonable that I should bear with you. (15) But since it is a question concerning a doctrine and words, and your own law, do you see to it; for I do not intend to be a judge of these matters. (16) And he drove them from the judgment-seat.” This is the only instance, in all the persecutions of Paul, in which his accusers were dealt with summarily and justly. The incident reflects great credit upon Gallio.

Acts 18:17. Prompt and energetic vindication of the right, on the part of a public functionary, will nearly always meet the approbation of the masses, and will sometimes even turn the tide of popular prejudice. Whether the disinterested public were favorable or unfavorable to Paul before the decision, we are not informed; but when the case was dismissed, the spectators were highly gratified at the result. (17) “Then all the Greeks seized Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat; and Gallio cared for none of these things.” For once, the heart of the unconverted multitude was with the apostle, and so indignant were they at the unprovoked attempt to injure him, that when it was fully exposed, they visited upon the head of the chief persecutor the very beating which he had laid up for Paul. Sosthenes was most probably the successor of Crispus, as chief ruler of the synagogue, and may have been selected for that position on account of his zeal in opposing the course which Crispus had pursued. The beating which the Greeks gave him was a riotous proceeding, which Gallio, in strict discharge of his duty, should have suppressed. That he did not do so, and that Luke says, “Gallio cared for none of these things,” has been generally understood to indicate an easy and yielding disposition, which was averse to the strict enforcement of the law. This, however, is inconsistent with the promptness of his vindication of Paul, and his indignant dismissal of the accusers. I would rather understand it as indicating a secret delight at seeing the tables so handsomely turned upon the persecutors, prompting him to let pass unnoticed a riot, which, under other circumstances, he would have rebuked severely. The rage and disappointment of the Jews must have been intense; but the rough handling which their leaders experienced admonished them to keep quiet for a time.

Acts 18:18. This incident occurred some time previous to the close of the eighteen months of Paul’s stay in Corinth, as we learn from the next verse. (18) “Now Paul, having still remained for many days, bade the brethren farewell, and sailed into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having sheared his head in Cenchrea; for he had a vow.” It is after the arraignment before Gallio, and previous to his departure from Corinth, that we best locate the date of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. That it was written in Corinth is determined chiefly by a comparison of its contents with those of the First Epistle. The congregation was still suffering from the same persecution mentioned in the First Epistle, and there was still among them some improper excitement in reference to the second coming of the Lord. Both these circumstances indicate that it was written shortly after the first; as soon, perhaps, as Paul could hear from them after their reception of the first. That it was after the arraignment before Gallio, is sufficiently evident, I think, from the absence of those indications of distress in the mind of the writer, which abound in the First Epistle. He did not enjoy this comparative peace of mind until after the persecutions of the Jews culminated and terminated in the scene before Gallio’s judgment-seat. Many eminent commentators have contended that it was Aquila, and not Paul, who sheared his head at Cenchrea. The argument by which they defend this position is based upon the fact that the name of Aquila is placed after that of his wife Priscilla, and next to the participle keiramenos, having sheared, for the very purpose of indicating that the act was performed by him. Others, who insist that it was Paul, reply that the order of the names is not conclusive, inasmuch as they occur in this order in three out of the five times that they are mentioned together in the New Testament. My own opinion is that it was Paul, and my chief reason for so thinking is this: the term Paul is the leading subject of the sentence, to which all the verbs and participles must be referred, unless there is some grammatical necessity for detaching one or more of them, and referring them to another subject. Priscilla and Aquila are subjects of the verb sailed (understood): “Paul sailed into Syria, and with him (sailed) Priscilla and Aquila.” But if it was intended also to refer the act of shearing to Aquila, the English would require the relative and verb instead of the participle: “with him Priscilla and Aquila who had sheared his head,” instead of “Priscilla and Aquila, having sheared his head.” The Greek, in order to express this idea, would also have required the article or relative after Aquila. In the absence of such a modification of the construction, we must refer the terms keiramenos, having shaved, and eike, had, to the leading subject of the sentence, with which agree all the other verbs, prosmeinas, tarried; apotaxamenos, took leave of; and exepei, sailed away. The objection that Paul could not have taken such a vow consistently with his position in reference to the law of Moses, is fallacious in two respects. First, It assumes a degree of freedom from legal observances on the part of Paul which his conduct on subsequent occasions shows that he had not attained. Second, It assumes, without authority, that this vow was one peculiar to the law, which it would be improper for Christians to observe. The vow of the Nazarite would certainly be improper now, because it required the offering of sacrifices at its termination. But this was not that vow, seeing the hair was sheared in Cenchrea; whereas the Nazarite’s hair could be sheared only at the temple in Jerusalem. What the exact nature of the vow was, we have now no means of determining.

The only practical value of this incident arises from its bearing upon present practice. But this is altogether independent of the question whether it was Paul or Aquila who had the vow. If we admit it was Aquila, the presence of Paul, and the approbation indicated by his silence, gives to it the apostolic sanction. We conclude, therefore, that disciples would be guilty of no impropriety in making vows, and allowing their hair to grow until the vow is performed. But it must not be inferred, from this conclusion, that we are at liberty to make foolish or wicked vows, which would be better broken than kept.

Acts 18:19-22. Embarking at Cenchrea, which was the eastern port of Corinth, on a voyage for Syria, the frequent commercial intercourse between Corinth and Ephesus very naturally caused the vessel to touch at the latter city, which was the destination of Priscilla and Aquila. (19) “And he went to Ephesus, and left them there. He himself went into the synagogue and discoursed to the Jews. (20) They requested him to remain longer with them, but he did not consent, (21) but bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep the coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return to you, God willing. (22) And he set sail for Ephesus; and having gone down to Cæsarea, he went up and saluted the Church, and went down to Antioch.” The context plainly implies that the Church which he “went up and saluted” was that in Jerusalem, and not, as some have supposed, that in Cæsarea; for it had just been said that he must reach Jerusalem, and the statement that he “went up,” especially as it occurs after reaching Cæsarea, implies that he went up where he had intended to go. The final termination of his journey, however, was not Jerusalem, but Antioch, whence he had started with Silas on his missionary tour. The two missionaries had gone through Syria and Cilicia; had revisited Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium; and had taken a circuit through Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia, to Troas on the Archipelago. Thence they had sailed into Europe, and had made known the gospel throughout Macedonia and Achaia, planting Churches in the principal cities. Setting sail on their return, Paul had left an appointment in Ephesus, where he had formerly been forbidden by the Spirit to preach the Word; had revisited Jerusalem, and was now at the end of his circuit once more to gladden the hearts of the brethren who had “commended him to the favor of God,” by rehearsing all that God had done with him, and that he had opened still wider “the door of faith to the Gentiles.” Whether Silas had returned with him we are not informed. What changes had taken place in Antioch during his absence is equally unknown. The historian has his eye upon stirring events just ahead in Ephesus, and hastens all the movements of the narrative to bring us back to that city.

Acts 18:23. In accordance with this plan, he gives but a brief glance at the apostle’s stay in Antioch, and the first part of his third missionary tour. (23) “Having spent some time there, he departed, passing through the district of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, confirming all the disciples.” The historian now leaves Paul in the obscurity of this journey among the Churches, and anticipates his arrival in Ephesus, by noticing some events there, which were, in the providence of God, opening the way for his hitherto forbidden labors in that city.

Acts 18:24-26. (24) “Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born in Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. (25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and, being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning the Lord, understanding only the immersion of John. (26) He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But Aquila and Priscilla, having heard him, took him and expounded to him the way of the Lord more accurately.” The distinguished position which Apollos acquired, after this, in the Church at Corinth, and the familiarity of his name among disciples of all subsequent ages, renders it a matter of some interest to acquire an accurate conception of his personal endowments and his subsequent history. The former are set forth in the two statements, that he was “eloquent,” and that he was “mighty in the Scriptures.” The gift of eloquence is a natural endowment, but culture is necessary to its effective development. That he was an Alexandrian by birth gives assurance that he was not wanting in the most thorough culture; for Alexandria, being the chief point of contact between Greek and Jewish literature, was the chief seat of Hebrew learning in that and some subsequent generations. The Alexandrian Jews, who constituted a large element in the population of that city, were noted for their wealth and their learning.

That he was “mighty in the Scriptures,” shows that he had been educated to a thorough knowledge of the word of God. The apostles, being inspired, and able to speak with miracle-confirmed authority, were not entirely dependent upon purely scriptural proofs. But he, being uninspired, was entirely dependent upon the use of the prophesies and types of the Old Testament, in proof of the Messiahship. In a day when a knowledge of the word of God had to be acquired from manuscripts, and in which the art of reading was acquired by only a few, it was no ordinary endowment to be familiar with the Scriptures. Such an attainment is rare, even in the day of printed Bibles, and among preachers who profess to devote their lives chiefly to the study of the Bible. Indeed, the amount of clerical ignorance now extant would astonish the masses of men, if they only had the means of detecting it.

What were the exact attainments of this distinguished man in reference to the gospel is a question of some difficulty, though in reference to it there is a very general agreement among commentators. It is generally agreed that he understood no more of the gospel than was taught by John the Immerser; and of this the statement that he understood only the immersion of John is considered sufficient proof. But I confess myself unable to reconcile this supposition with two other statements of the historian, equally designed to give us his religious status. The first is the statement that he was “instructed in the way of the Lord;” and the second, that he “taught accurately the things concerning the Lord.” That the term Lord refers to the Lord Jesus Christ can not be doubted by one who consider’s Luke’s style, and observes the connection of thought in the passage. But for Luke to say, at this late period, that a man was instructed in the way of the Lord and taught it accurately, certainly implies a better knowledge of the gospel than was possessed by John; for he preached him as one yet to come, and knew nothing of his death, burial, or resurrection. The two expressions combined would, if unqualified, convey the idea that he understood and taught the gospel correctly, according to the apostolic standard. They are qualified, however, by the statement that he “understood only the immersion of John.” This is the only limitation expressed, and therefore we should grant him all the knowledge which this limitation will allow. Whatever a man must lack, then, of a thorough knowledge of the gospel, who knows no immersion but that of John, we must grant that Apollos lacked; yet the other things of the Lord he taught accurately. His ignorance had reference to the points of distinction between John’s immersion and that of the apostles, which were chiefly these, that John did not promise the Holy Spirit to those who were immersed, and did not immerse into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Whatever confusion of thought upon kindred topics is necessarily involved in ignorance of these two things, Apollos must also have been subject to; but we are not authorized to extend his ignorance any further than this. On these points he was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila, and was then able to teach the things concerning the Lord more accurately. There is no evidence whatever that he was reimmersed.

Acts 18:27-28. For some reason unexplained, Apollos concluded to leave Ephesus, and visit the Churches planted by Paul in Achaia. (27) “And when he desired to cross into Achaia, the brethren wrote, urging the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he afforded much aid to those who through favor had believed: (28) for he powerfully and thoroughly convinced the Jews in public, clearly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” This is the earliest mention of letters of commendation among the disciples. It shows that they were employed simply to make known the bearer to strange brethren, and commend him to their fellowship.

The parties to whom Apollos afforded much aid were not, as some have contended, “those who believed through his gift;” for the term charis is never used in the sense of either a spiritual or a natural gift. Neither, for the same reason, can we render the clause, “he aided through his gift those who believed.” Favor is the true meaning of the original term, and it stands connected in the sentence with the participle rendered believed. If there were any incongruity in the idea of believing through favor, we might, with Bloomfield, connect it with the verb, and render the clause “he afforded much aid, through favor, to those who believed.” But through this is the only instance in which parties are said to have believed through the favor of God, it is true of all disciples; for the favor of God both supplies and the object of faith, and brings before men the evidence which produces faith. Luke’s own collocation of the words, therefore, should guide us, and it rules us to the rendering, “he afforded much aid to those who through favor had believed.”

Apollos mightily convinced the Jews in Achaia; whereas Paul’s converts had been mostly among the Gentiles. This was, no doubt, owing to the peculiarity of his endowments, giving him access to some minds which were inaccessible to Paul. A variety of talents and acquirements among preachers is still necessary to the success of the gospel among the immense variety of the minds and characters which make up human society.

Acts Chapter Nineteen

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 19:1-7. Having sketched briefly the visit of Apollos to Ephesus, and thus prepared the way for an account of Paul’s labors in the same city, the historian now reaches the point for which he had so hurriedly passed over the apostle’s journey from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia and around to Ephesus. The appointment which he left in Ephesus, as he passed through on his way to Jerusalem, is now to be fulfilled. (1) “Now while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper districts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, (2) said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? But they said to him, We have not so much as heard that the Holy Spirit is given. (3) He said to them, Into what, then, were you immersed? They said, Into John’s immersion. (4) Then Paul said, John indeed immersed with the immersion of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him who would come after him, that is, on the Christ Jesus. (5) And when they heard this they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (7) All the men were about twelve.”

This passage is valuable chiefly because it shows how the apostles dealt with parties who, at that time, were immersed with John’s immersion. This, no doubt, was Luke’s object in introducing it. In order to understand the case, it is necessary to keep distinctly in view the facts stated of the parties previous to and subsequent to their immersion by Paul. They are called disciples, and were known as such when Paul found them; for it is said “he found certain disciples.” They were disciples, not of John, but of Jesus; for the uniform currency of the term disciple, throughout Acts, requires us to so understand it. This is further evident from Paul’s question, “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” The term believed evidently refers to Jesus as its object. They were known, then, as disciples of Jesus, and were so recognized by Paul.

Up to the moment of his conversation with them, Paul knew nothing of any irregularity in their obedience; for this was made known, to his surprise, during the conversation. When, therefore, he asked the question, “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” he could not have referred to that gift of the Spirit which all disciples receive; for he would take this for granted, from the fact that they were disciples. He must, then, have had reference to the miraculous gift, which some disciples did not receive.

It is inconceivable that these disciples were ignorant of the existence of the Holy Spirit, hence a literal rendering of their reply, “We have not so much as heard that there is a Holy Spirit,” would convey a false idea. The supplement given is necessary to complete the sense, as it is in John 7:39, where it is said, “The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet risen.” The term given must be supplied, in the latter case, in order to avoid the denial of the existence of the Spirit previous to the resurrection; and, in the former, to avoid the declaration of an ignorance on the part of these men inconsistent with the fact that they were disciples.

This answer at once revealed to Paul that there was some irregularity in their religious history; for no one could be properly discipled without learning that the Holy Spirit was to be given. He at once perceived, too, that the irregularity must have been connected with their immersion; for he inquires, “Into what, then, were you immersed?” If the gift of the Spirit had no connection with immersion, this inquiry would have been inapposite, and Paul would not have propounded it. But the apostles taught as Peter did on the day of Pentecost, when he said, “Repent and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is only on the supposition that Paul knew this to be the universal teaching of rightly-informed brethren, that he inferred something wrong about their immersion, from their ignorance of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This supposition, however, which is a necessary, not an optional one, makes the whole matter very plain. Paul’s first question had reference to the miraculous gift of the Spirit; but when they said they knew not that the Holy Spirit was given, he saw that they were ignorant of even the ordinary gift, which is promised to all who repent and are immersed, and that they were immersed without proper instruction.

Their reply, that they were immersed into John’s immersion, relieved the case of all obscurity, and Paul then understood it perfectly. He explained, that John’s immersion was one of repentance, to be followed by faith in the Messiah when he should come. Those immersed by him believed that the Messiah was coming; but they did not, until after their immersion, believe that Jesus was the Messiah, nor did they have a promise of the Holy Spirit. They were not, therefore, immersed into the name of Jesus or that of the Holy Spirit. This is further evident from the fact that Paul commanded these twelve to be “immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” which the authority of the commission requires us to understand as equivalent to the expression, “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” These points of defect, however, were not peculiar to the immersion of the twelve, but attached also to that of the twelve apostles, the hundred and twenty disciples, and the five hundred who saw Jesus together in Galilee after the resurrection, none of whom were reimmersed. What, then, led to the immersion of these parties? If their immersion had taken place, like that of all the others just named, while John’s immersion was still an existing institution, no reason could be given for their reimmersion. This, then, forces us to the conclusion that they had been immersed with John’s immersion after it had ceased to be administered by divine authority. Apollos had been recently preaching this obsolete immersion in Ephesus, and these persons may have been immersed by him. If so, they submitted to an institution which had been abrogated more than twenty years, and this was the defect that led to their reimmersion. The general conclusion, from all the premises, is this: that persons who were immersed with John’s immersion, while it was in lawful existence, were received into the Church of Christ without reimmersion. But persons who were thus immersed, after the introduction of apostolic immersion, were reimmersed. The reason why Apollos was not reimmersed as well as the twelve, was, doubtless, because, like the apostles and the other original disciples, he was immersed during the ministry of John.

Acts 19:8-12. It is worthy of note that Paul commenced his labors in Ephesus by rectifying what he found wrong in the few disciples already there, before he undertook to add to their number. It is an example worthy of imitation to the full extent that may be found practicable. When he had accomplished this, he was prepared to grapple with the Jewish and pagan errors which pervaded the community. (8) “Then he went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly for about three months, discussing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) But when some were hardened and unbelieving, and spoke evil of the way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, discussing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. (10) This continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. (11) And God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, (12) so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried from his person to the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.” This scene in the Jewish synagogue is quite uniform in its details, with other which we have noticed. Here is the same earnest argument and persuasion upon the one invariable theme; the same increasing obstinacy and evil speaking on the part of the unbelieving Jews, and the same final separation of Paul and the few who believed, from the synagogue and the majority who controlled it. As the private house of Justus had been his retreat in Corinth, the school-house of Tyrannus was his resort in Ephesus. Such incidents have their counterpart in the history of all men who have attempted, from that day to this, to correct the religious teachings of their cotemporaries. All such attempts are regarded by prevailing religious parties as troublesome innovations, and the houses erected for public worship are often closed against them. But such petty annoyances are not sufficient now, as they were not then, to suppress the truth. Paul, in the school-house of Tyrannus, had access to the ears of many who would never have entered a synagogue, and who were conciliated by the very fact that it was the Jews who persecuted him. The circumstances gained him a favorable hearing from the Greeks, while the unusual miracles wrought gave overwhelming attestation to the words he spoke.

Acts 19:13-17. It is difficult to imagine how men could witness miracles so astonishing and not acknowledge the presence of divine power. We would suppose that even atheism would be confounded in the presence of such manifestations, and that the most hardened sinner would tremble. How deep the depravity, then, of men, even Jews by birth and education, who would see in them nothing but the tricks of a skillful and designing magician. Simon the sorcerer had offered to purchase this power with money, and Bar-jesus had sought to convince Sergius Paulus that it was a cheat; but the former was made to tremble under the withering rebuke of Peter, and the latter had been smitten with blindness by the power which he reviled. A similar display of human depravity, followed by a castigation equally severe, occurred in connection with the unusual miracles just mentioned. (13) “Then certain of the wandering Jewish exorcists undertook to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had wicked spirits, saying, We adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches. (14) And they were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish high priest, who did this. (15) But the wicked spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I am acquainted with; but who are you? (16) And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaped upon them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled, naked, and wounded, out of the house. (17) And this became known to all the Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus, and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Nothing is more mortifying, or better calculated to provoke the contempt of the community, than the unexpected exposure of mysterious pretensions such as were assumed by these exorcists. The spirit was enraged at their insulting pretensions, and doubtless enjoyed the joke of exposing them. The seven resisted until they were stripped and wounded, when they fled, presenting a very ludicrous aspect as they passed along the streets. While all Ephesus was laughing at them, it was remembered that the spirit acknowledged the authority of Jesus, and of Paul, and that a licentious use of the name of Jesus was the cause of all their trouble. The mirth awakened by the event was soon changed to reverence for the name of Jesus, which they now saw was not, as the exorcists had pretended, a mere conjurer’s talisman.

Acts 19:18-20. The exposure of the seven exorcists reflected discredit upon all the pretenders to magic in Ephesus, while the name of Jesus was magnified. The effects upon the public mind were immense and astonishing. (18) “Then many of those who believed came and confessed and declared their practices. (19) And many of those who practiced curious arts, brought together their books, and burned them before all. And they counted the value of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (20) So mightily did the word of God grow and prevail.”

The believers who “came and confessed and declared their practices,” had not, till now, realized the impropriety of those arts, which their heathen education had taught them to regard with reverence. That others, who were not yet disciples, did the same thing, and even burned up their books, is a striking proof of the fear that fell upon them all. The pieces of silver in which the value of the books was computed were doubtless the Attic didrachma; for it was a Greek city, and this was the most common silver coin among the Greeks. It was worth fifteen cents of Federal money, and the value of all the books was seven thousand five hundred dollars; a sufficient indication of the extent to which these arts prevailed, and of the number and value of the books written in explanation of them. This whole account is in full accordance with the profane history of Ephesus, which represents it as the chief center of magic arts in the whole Roman empire.

Acts 19:21-22. The conclusion of the preceding events brought Paul to a period of comparative quiet, in which he began to think of leaving Ephesus. (21) “When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. (22) So he sent into Macedonia two of those who were ministering to him, Timothy and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.”

It is supposed by some that, previous to this period, Paul had made a short visit to Corinth, and returned again to Ephesus. This supposition is based upon expressions in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which are understood to imply such a visit. I regard the evidence, however, as insufficient for a safe conclusion, and will, therefore, treat the narrative as though no such visit had taken place. The reader who is curious to investigate the question should refer to Mr. Howson on the affirmative, and Paley on the negative.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus, as we learn from the remark, (chapter 16:8-9,) “I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great and effectual door is opened to me, and there are many adversaries.” It was also during the present visit that it was written, for, during his first visit, he did not tarry at all. The exact date of the epistle is best fixed within the period covered by the words “he himself stayed in Asia for a season;” for it was then that “a great and effectual door” was first opened to him. Other evidences of the date concur with these, and are fully stated by Mr. Howson.

This is not really the first epistle Paul wrote to the Corinthians; for in it he speaks of another, which he had previously written, upon the subject of fornication. He says: “I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators.” This is all we know of the subject-matter of the epistle, which is lost; and perhaps it was for the reason that it treated of this subject alone, and in a less detailed method than does the epistle now called the first, that it was not preserved with the other two.

Subsequent to the date of the lost epistle, some members of the household of Chloe had brought him information of great disorders and corruption in the Church in Corinth. He learned that the congregation was distracted by party strife; that fornication, and even incest were still tolerated by them; that some of them were engaged in litigation before the civil courts; that his own apostolic authority was called in question; that their women, contrary to the prevailing rules of modesty, took part in the worship with unvailed faces; that some confusion and strife had arisen in reference to the spiritual gifts among them; that some among them were even denying the resurrection; and that the Lord’s supper was profaned by feasting and drunkenness. Besides all this, he had received a letter from them calling for information in reference to marriage and divorce, and the eating of meats offered to idols. To answer their questions, and to correct and rebuke these disorders, was the object of the epistle. The temper in which it is written appears calm and stern; yet it is not conceivable that Paul could hear of corruptions so gross in a Church which had cost him so much labor and anxiety, without intense pain. Though no such feeling was allowed to manifest itself in the epistle, he was constrained afterward, to confess it, and say to them, “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote to you, with many tears.“ It was, therefore, with a heart full of anguish in reference to some results of his past labors, but buoyed up by the opening of a wide and effectual door in his present field, that he sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but remained himself in Asia for a season.

Acts 19:23-27. (23) “Now, about that period, there arose no small stir concerning the way. (24) For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, brought no little employment to the artisans by making silver shrines of Diana, (25) Calling them together, and the workmen employed about such things, he said, Men, you understand that by this employment we have our wealth. (26) And you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but in almost the whole of Asia, this Paul, by his persuasion, has turned away a great multitude, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands; (27) and not only is this our business in danger of coming into contempt, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana will be despised, and the majesty of her whom all Asia and the world worships will be destroyed.” This is the most truthful and candid of all the speeches ever uttered against Paul. The charge that he had said these were not gods which were made with hands, was literally true, and free from exaggeration. The appeals, too, by which he sought to stir up the passions of his hearers, were candid; for he appeals directly to their pecuniary interest, which was suffering; to their veneration for the temple, which was counted one of the seven wonders of the world and to their reverence for the goddess who was the chief object of their worship. The statement of the effects already produced by Paul’s preaching throughout the city and the province, endangering their whole system of idolatry, was equally truthful. Whether he is entitled to the same degree of credit in reference to the motive which prompted him, is more doubtful; for the fact that the class of men in Ephesus had the greatest pecuniary interest in the worship of Diana were the first to defend her sinking cause, is a suspicious circumstance, especially when we remember that these artisans had better reason than any others to know that the pieces of silver which they had molded and polished with their own hands were not gods. It appears to have been a corrupt determination to save their traffic at all hazards, which made them ignore the evidence of their own senses, and rendered them impervious to the arguments and demonstrations of Paul.

Acts 19:28-29. The prospect of pecuniary ruin enraged the artisans, while their veneration for the goddess suggested the best theme on which to give vent to their wrath before the people. (28) “And when they heard this they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. (29) And the whole city was filled with confusion; and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theater.” The outcry, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians,” awakened the old enthusiasm of all the idolaters who heard it, and the tone of rage with which it was uttered, suggesting some assault upon the honor of the goddess, threw the gathering mob into a frenzy. It was a kind of providence in reference to Paul, that he happened to be out of their reach. Not finding him, they seize his companions, and rushing into the theater, where criminals were sometimes exposed to wild beasts, they are about to take the part of the wild beasts themselves. What was the fate of Gaius and Aristarchus is not here stated, though both names occur afterward in the history, and probably designate the same individuals.

Acts 19:30-31. When Paul heard the tumult, and knew that his companions had been dragged within the theater, he could but suppose that they were torn to pieces. This thought alone was intensely harrowing to his feelings; but it was still more so to know that they were suffering in his stead. He could not endure to remain inactive at such a crisis, but resolved to die with them. (30) “But Paul, having determined to go in to the people, the disciples would not permit him; (31) and some of the Asiarchs, also, who were his friends, sent to him and entreated him not to trust himself within the theater.” By such means he was restrained from his desperate purpose, after having fully made up his mind to die. The desperation to which he was driven he afterward describes to the Corinthians in this touching language: “We would not have you ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were exceedingly pressed down beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life: but we had within ourselves the sentence of death, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.” Giving up all hope of life, as he started toward the theater, and trusting in Him who raises the dead, when the tumult had subsided, and he was assured of safety, he felt much as if he had been raised from the dead. He therefore says, in the same connection, “Who delivered me from so grievous a death, and is delivering, in whom I trust that he will even yet deliver us: you also helping by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed on us by means of many persons, thanks may be given by man on our behalf.”

Acts 19:32-34. Leaving the apostle, for a time, in the cloud of sorrow which we will find still enveloping him when we meet him again, we turn to witness the proceedings within the theater. (32) “Now some were crying one thing and some another; for the assembly was confused, and the greater part knew not on what account they had come together. (33) And they put forward Alexander out of the crowd, the Jews urging him forward. And Alexander, waving his hand, wished to make a defense to the people. (34) But knowing that he was a Jew, all with one voice, for about two hours, cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” There were two reasons why the Jews should feel some anxiety to defend themselves before this mob. First, It was well known in Ephesus that they were as much opposed to idols and idol worship as were the disciples. Second, The fact that the apostle and many of his brethren were Jews, naturally attracted toward all the Jews the hatred which had been aroused against them. A courageous and manly adherence to their own principles would have prompted them to share with the disciples the obloquy of their common position; but they were endeavoring to persuade the multitude that Paul and his party should not be identified with themselves. The cowardly trick was perceived by the multitude, as soon as they perceived that it was a Jew who was trying to address them, and they gave it the rebuke it deserved by refusing to hear him.

Acts 19:35-41. The rage of an excited multitude, unless it find some new fuel to keep up the flame, will naturally subside in a few hours. While it is at its height, it becomes only the more furious the more it is opposed; but when it begins to subside, frequently a few well-chosen words are sufficient to restore quiet. Acting upon this principle, the city authorities had not, thus far, interfered with the mob; but when they were exhausted by long-continued vociferation, the following well-timed and well-worded speech was addressed to them. (35) “But the public clerk, having quieted the people, said, Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of Ephesus is a worshiper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? (36) Seeing, then, that these things can not be spoken against, you ought to be quieted, and do nothing rashly. (37) For you have brought hither these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. (38) If, then, Demetrius, and the artisans who are with him, have a complaint against any one, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls; let them accuse one another. (39) But if you are making inquiry concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (40) For we are in danger of being called to account for this day’s tumult, there being no cause for which we will be able to give an account of this concourse. (41) And having spoken thus, he dismissed the assembly.”

This is evidently the speech of a man well skilled in the management of popular assemblies, and, doubtless, its happy adaptation to the circumstances is what suggested to Luke the propriety of preserving it. It is probable that the speaker, like the Asiarchs who interfered to keep Paul out of danger, was a friend to the apostle, and a man of too much intelligence to receive with blind credulity the popular delusion in reference to the temple and image of Diana. The speech, indeed, has a ring of insincerity about it, indicating that the speaker was merely humoring the popular superstition for the special purpose before him. Upon this hypothesis the speech appears the more ingenious. The confident assumption that the divine honors bestowed on their goddess, and the belief that her image fell from heaven, were so well known that no man would call them in question, was soothing to their excited feelings, and the remark that the unquestionable certainty of these facts ought to make them feel entirely composed on the subject, brought them, by a happy turn of thought, to the very composure which he desired, and which they fancied was the result of a triumphant vindication of their cause. Advancing, then, to the case of the disciples, like a trained advocate, he ignores the real charge against them, that of denying that they are gods which are made with hands, and declares that they are neither temple robbers, nor revilers of their goddess. Then, as for the men who had excited them to this disturbance, the proconsular courts were the proper place for complaints like theirs, and they had no right to disturb the people with such matters. Finally, he gives them a gentle hint as to the unlawfulness of their assemblage, and the probability that they would be called to account for it by the Roman authorities. This last remark had special force with the majority, who, according to Luke, “knew not on what account they had come together;” and the whole speech was well aimed toward the result which followed, the dispersion of the mob. The city authorities had reason to congratulate themselves that so fierce a mob had been so successfully controlled, and the disciples could but be thankful to God that they had escaped so well.

Acts Chapter Twenty

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 20:1. (1) “After the tumult had ceased, Paul called to him the disciples, and bade them farewell, and departed to go into Macedonia.” Thus ended the long-continued labors of the apostle in Ephesus. The “great and effectual door,” which he saw open before him but a few weeks previous, had now been suddenly closed; and the “many adversaries,” for the noble purpose of resisting whom he had resolved to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost, had prevailed against him. He had accomplished much in the city and province, but there seemed now a terrible reaction among the people in favor of their time-honored idolatry, threatening to crush out the results of his long and arduous labors. When the disciples, whom he had taught and warned with tears, both publicly and from house to house, for the space of three years, were gathered around him for the last time, and he was about to leave them in a great furnace of affliction, no tongue can tell the bitterness of the final farewell. All was dark behind him, and all forbidding before him; for he turns his face toward the shore across the Ægean, where he had been welcomed before with stripes and imprisonment. No attempt is made, either by Luke or himself, to describe his feelings, until he reached Troas, where he was to embark for Macedonia, and where he expected to meet Titus returning from Corinth. At this point, a remark of his own gives us a clear insight to the pent-up sorrows of his heart. He writes to the Corinthians: “When I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door was opened to me by the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not my brother Titus; but took leave of them, and came away into Macedonia.” We have followed this suffering apostle through many disheartening scenes, and will yet follow him through many more; but only on this occasion do we find his heart so sink within him that he can not preach the gospel, though the door is opened to him by the Lord. He had hoped that the weight of sorrow which was pressing him down above his strength to bear, would be relieved by the sympathy of the beloved Titus, and the good news that he might bring from Corinth; but the pang of disappointment added the last ounce to the weight which crushed his spirit, and he rushed on, blinded with tears, in the course by which Titus was coming. A heart so strong to endure, when once crushed, can not readily resume its wonted buoyancy. Even after the sea was between him and Ephesus, and he was once more among the disciples of Macedonia, he is still constrained to confess, “When we had come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side; without were fightings; within were fears.” Finally, however, the long-expected Titus arrived with good news from Corinth, and thus the Lord, who never forgets his servants in affliction, brought comfort to the overburdened heart of Paul, and enabled him to change the tone of the second letter to the Corinthians, and express himself in these words: “Nevertheless, God, who is the comforter of those who are lowly, comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming only, but by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, telling us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me, so that I rejoiced the more.”

But the news brought by Titus was not all of a cheering kind. He told of the good effects of the former epistle; that the majority of the Church had repented of their evil practices; that they had excluded the incestuous man; and that they were forward in their preparation for a large contribution to the poor saints in Judea. But he also brought word that Paul had some bitter personal enemies in the Church, who were endeavoring to injure his reputation, and subvert his apostolic authority. For the purpose of counteracting the influence of these ministers of Satan, encouraging the faithful brethren in their renewed zeal, and presenting to them many solemn and touching reflections suggested by his own afflictions, he addressed them the epistle known as the Second to the Corinthians, and dispatched it by the hand of Titus and two other brethren, whose names are not mentioned.

That we are right in assuming this as the date of this epistle, is easily established. For First, He refers, in the epistle, to having recently come from Asia into Macedonia, which he had now done according to the history. Second, He wrote from Macedonia, when about to start from that province to Corinth. But he was never in Macedonia previous to this, except when there was as yet no Church in Corinth, and he was never here afterward on his way from Asia to Corinth.

Acts 20:2-3. The career of the apostle for the next few months is not given in detail, but the whole is condensed into this brief statement: (2) “And when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he went into Greece; (3) and having spent three months there, he resolved to return through Macedonia, because a plot was laid against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria.” Several events transpired in the interval thus hurriedly passed over, a knowledge of which is accessible through epistles written at the time, and which we shall briefly consider.

When Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem on the mission from the Church in Antioch, as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it was formally agreed, among the apostles then present, that Peter, James, and John should labor chiefly among the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles. It was stipulated, however, that the latter should assist in providing for the poor in Judea. “This,” says Paul, “I was also forward to do.” In accordance with this agreement, we find that he was now urging a general collection in the Churches of Macedonia and Achaia for this purpose. The Churches in Achaia, indeed, were ready for the contribution a whole year before this, and Paul had written to them in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, “Upon the first day of the week, let each of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I come.” For prudential considerations, such as prompted him so often to labor without remuneration from the Churches, he was not willing to be himself the bearer of this gift, although the Churches in Macedonia had entreated him to do so. He at first, indeed, had not fully intended to go to Jerusalem in connection with it, but had said to the Churches, “Whomsoever you will approve by letters, them will I send to take your gift to Jerusalem; and if it be proper that I should go also, they shall go with me.” The importance of the mission, however, grew more momentous as time advanced, so that he resolved to go himself, and the enterprise became a subject of most absorbing interest.

The circumstance which led to this result was the increasing alienation between the Jews and the Gentiles within the Church. The decree of the apostles and inspired brethren in Jerusalem, though it had given comfort to the Church in Antioch, where the controversy first became rife, and had done good everywhere that it was carried, had not succeeded in entirely quelling the pride and arrogance of the judaizing teachers. They had persisted in their schismatical efforts, until there was not a wide-spread disaffection between the parties, threatening to rend the whole Church into two hostile bodies. By this influence the Churches in Galatia had become almost entirely alienated from Paul, for whom they once would have been willing to pluck out their own eyes, and were rapidly led back under bondage to the law of Moses. The Church in Rome, at the opposite extremity of the territory which had been evangelized, was also disturbed by factions, the Jews insisting that justification was by works of law, and that the distinctions of meats and holy days should be perpetuated. Such danger to the cause could but be to Paul a source of inexpressible anxiety; and while it was imminent he concentrated all his energies to its aversions.

Already engaged in a general collection among Churches composed chiefly of Gentiles, for the benefit of Jewish saints in Judea, and knowing the tendency of a kind action to win back alienated affections, he pushes the work forward with renewed industry, for the accomplishment of this good end. He presents this motive to the Corinthians, in the following words: “For the ministration of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints, but also superabounds to God, by means of many thanksgivings (they glorifying God, through the proof supplied by this ministration of your subjection to the gospel of Jesus Christ which you have confessed, and of the liberality of your fellowship for them and for all,) and by their prayers in your behalf, having a great affection for you on account of the exceeding favor of God which is in you.” He here expresses as great confidence in the good result of the enterprise, as if it were already accomplished, and the Jews were already overflowing with affection to the Gentiles, and offering many thanksgivings and prayers to God in their behalf. Thus he felt while stimulating the liberality of the brethren; but when the collections were all made in the Churches, and he was about to start from Corinth to Jerusalem with it, his anxiety was most intense, and he began to fear the alienation of the Jews was so great that they would not accept the gift, and thus the breach he was trying to close would be opened wider. We know this by the almost painful earnestness with which he calls upon the brethren at Rome to pray with him for the success of his efforts. He says: “Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that you strive together with me in prayer to God for me, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted by the saints.“ If he called thus earnestly for the prayers of the distant Church at Rome, how much more must he have enlisted those of the Churches in Achaia and Macedonia, who were immediately concerned in the enterprise itself! We have here the spectacle of a man who was regarded with suspicion, if not with positive dislike, by a large portion of his brethren, securing from others who were involved with him in the same reproach, a self-denying contribution for the temporal wants of the disaffected party; and, then, fearing lest their disaffection was so great as to lead them to reject the gift—a fear which would cause most men to withhold it entirely—he calls upon all the donors to unite in persistent prayer that it might not be rejected. The object of it all, too, was to gain no selfish ends, but to win back the alienated affections of brethren, and to preserve the unity of the body of Christ. No nobler instance of disinterested benevolence can be found in the history of men. The prosecution of the enterprise as we will hereafter see, was in keeping with the magnanimity of its inception. But before we consider it further, we must briefly notice some kindred facts.

For the same grand purpose which prompted the great collection, Paul wrote, during his three months’ stay in Corinth, the two epistles to the Galatians and the Romans. This we have already assumed in our references to them as cotemporaneous with the collection. The most conclusive evidence for assigning to them this date may be briefly stated as follows: In the epistle to the Romans, Paul expressly states that he was about to start for Jerusalem with the contribution which had been collected. But this could have been said only toward the close of his present stay in Corinth. Moreover, Gaius, who lived in Corinth, was his host at the time of writing to the Romans; and Phoebe, of the Corinthian seaport Cenchrea, was the bearer of the epistle. As for Galatians, it contains a reference to Paul’s first visit to them, implying that he had been there a second time. His words are: “You know that it was on account of sickness that I preached the gospel to you at the first.” It was written, then, after his second visit. But this leaves the date very indefinite, and there are no other notes of time within the epistle itself to fix it more definitely. There is, however, a close correspondence in subject-matter between it and the epistle to the Romans, indicating that they were written under the same condition of affairs, and about the same time. This, in the absence of conflicting evidence, is considered conclusive. It is not certain which of the two was written first, but, as in Romans, Paul speaks of his departure for Jerusalem as about to take place, it is more probable that Galatians was written previous to this. In both, the apostle contends by authority and by argument against the destructive teaching of the judaizing party, striving, by this means, to put them to silence at the same time that he was aiming, by a noble act of self-denial, to win back their good-will, both to himself and to the Gentiles, whose cause he had espoused.

Having dispatched these two epistles, and collected about him the messengers of the various Churches, the apostle was about to start for Syria by water, when, as the text last quoted affirms, he learned that a plot was laid against him by the Jews, which determined him to change his course. This plot was probably an arrangement to waylay him on the road to Cenchrea, and perhaps both rob and murder him. Having timely notice of the danger, “he determined to return through Macedonia,” and started by another road.

Acts 20:4-5. (4) “And there accompanied him, as far as Asia, Sopater of Berea; Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. (5) These, going before, waited for us at Troas.” This sentence brings us again into company with two familiar companions of Paul, from whom we have been parted for some time. The name of Timothy has not occurred in the history before, since he was dispatched with Erastus from Ephesus into Macedonia. He had, however, joined company again with Paul while the latter was in Macedonia, as we learn from the fact that his name appears in the salutation of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Luke, the other party here introduced, has not been an eye-witness of the scenes he was describing since the scouring of Paul and Silas in Philippi. His significant we and us were discontinued then, and are not resumed until he says, in this verse, “These, going before, waited for us in Troas.” The probability is, that he had resided in that city during the whole of this period, and now, as Paul was passing through on his way to Jerusalem, he once more joined the company. During his absence the narrative has been very hurried and elliptical. We shall now, for a time, find it circumstantial in the extreme.

Acts 20:6. The delay of Paul at Philippi may be well accounted for by the strong affection which he bore toward the congregation there, and his present expectation that he would see their faces in the flesh no more. (6) “And we, after the days of unleavened bread, sailed away from Philippi, and came to them in Troas in five days, where we remained seven days.” The “days of unleavened bread” here mentioned remind us that it had been nearly one year since the close of Paul’s labors in Ephesus; for he was awaiting the approach of Pentecost when the mob was aroused by Demetrius. He probably left there between the Passover and Pentecost, and as the Passover had now returned again, the time he had spent in his tour through Macedonia and Achaia and back to Philippi must have occupied ten or eleven months.

The voyage from Philippi to Troas occupied, as here stated, five days, though, on a former occasion, they had sailed from Troas and reached Philippi in two days. The delay on this trip is suggestive of adverse winds.

The brethren who had preceded Paul and Luke to Troas had already spent there the five days occupied by the latter on the journey, and a portion of the seven days of unleavened bread which they spent in Philippi. The seven additional days now spent there by the whole company, making an aggregate of more than two weeks, gave sufficient time to accomplish much in a community where a door was already opened by the Lord.

Acts 20:7. The last period of seven days included and was terminated by the Lord’s day. (7) “And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break the loaf, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the next day, and continued his discourse till midnight.” This passage indicates both the day of the week in which the disciples broke the loaf, and the prime object of their meeting on that day. It shows that the loaf was broken on the first day of the week; and we have no apostolic precedent for breaking it on any other day.

The disciples came together on that day, even though Paul and Luke and Timothy, and all he brethren who had come from Greece, were present, not primarily to hear one or more of them discourse, but “to break the loaf.” Such is the distinct statement of the historian. That such was an established custom in the Churches is implied in a rebuke administered by Paul to the Church at Corinth, in which he says: “When you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” Now, for this they would not have deserved censure, had it not been that to eat the Lord’s supper was the proper object of their assemblage. These facts are sufficient to establish the conclusion that the main object of the Lord’s-day meeting was to break the loaf.

This conclusion will be of service to us in seeking to determine the frequency with which the loaf was broken. If the prime object of the Lord’s-day meeting was to celebrate the Lord’s supper, then all the evidence we have of the custom of meeting every Lord’s day is equally conclusive in reference to the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper. But the former custom is universally admitted by Christians of the present day, and therefore there should be no dispute in reference to the latter.

It must, in candor, be admitted, that there is no express statement in the New Testament that the disciples broke the loaf every Lord’s day; neither is it stated that they met every Lord’s day. Yet the question, how often shall the congregation meet together to break the loaf, is one which can not be avoided, but must be settled practically in some way. The different religious parties have hitherto agreed upon a common principle of action, which is, that each may settle the question according to its own judgment of what is most profitable and expedient. This principle, if applied by congregations instead of parties, is a safe one in reference to matters upon which we have no means of knowing the divine will, or the apostolic custom. But when we can determine, with even a good degree of probability, an apostolic custom, our own judgment should yield to it. So all parties have reasoned in reference to the Lord’s day. The intimations contained in the New Testament, together with the universal custom known to have existed in the Churches during the age succeeding that of the apostles, has been decided by them all as sufficient to establish the divine authority of the religious observance of the Lord’s day; and yet they have not consented to the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper, the proof of which is precisely the same.

As a practical issue between the advocates of weekly communion and their opponents, the questions really has reference to the comparative weight of evidence in favor of this practice, and of monthly, quarterly, or yearly communion. When it is thus presented, no one can long hesitate as to the conclusion; for in favor of either of the intervals last mentioned there is not the least evidence, either in the New Testament, or in the uninspired history of the Churches. On the other hand, it is the universal testimony of antiquity that the Churches of the second century broke the loaf every Lord’s day, and considered it a custom of apostolic appointment. Now it can not be doubted that the apostolic Churches had some regular interval at which to celebrate this institution, and seeing that all the evidence there is in the case is in favor of a weekly celebration, there is no room for a reasonable doubt that this was the interval which they adopted.

It is very generally admitted, even among parties who do not observe the practice themselves, that the apostolic Churches broke the loaf weekly; but it is still made a question whether, in the absence of an express commandment, this example is binding upon us. This question is likely to be determined differently by two different classes of men. Those who are disposed to follow chiefly the guide of their own judgment, or of their denominational customs, will feel little influenced by such a precedent. But to those who are determined that the very slightest indication of the divine will shall govern them, the question must present itself in this way: “We are commanded to do this in memory of Jesus. We are not told, in definite terms, how often it shall be done; but we find that the apostles established the custom of meeting every Lord’s day for this purpose. This is an inspired precedent, and with it we must comply. We can come to no other conclusion without assuming an ability to judge of this matter with more wisdom than did the apostle.”

We return to the meeting in Troas. The extreme length of Paul’s discourse on this occasion is in striking contrast with the brevity of his other speeches, as reported by Luke. It is to be accounted for by the anxiety of the apostle, in bidding them a final farewell, to leave the brethren as well guarded as possible against the temptations which awaited them.

Acts 20:8-10. The long and solemn discourse was interrupted at midnight, by an incident which caused great alarm, and some confusion, in the audience. (8) “Now there were many lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled; (9) and there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, who was borne down by deep sleep: and as Paul was discoursing a very long time, borne down with sleep, he fell from the third story down, and was taken up dead. (10) But Paul went down, and fell upon him, and embraced him, and said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him.” It is assumed by some writers, that the young man was not really dead, and Paul’s remark, “his life is in him,” is adduced in proof of the assumption. If this remark had been made when Paul first saw him, it might, with propriety, be so understood, but as it was made after he had fallen upon him, and embraced him, action evidently designed to restore him, it should be understood as only a modest way of declaring that he had restored him to life.

Acts 20:11. The alarm produced by the death of Eutychus, the astonishing display of divine power in his restoration to life, and the stillness of the midnight hour in which it all transpired, could but add greatly to the solemnity which already pervaded the audience. Their feelings were too deeply wrought upon to think of sleep, and the meeting was still protracted. They returned to the upper chamber, where the lights were still burning, and the elements of the Lord’s supper remained as yet undistributed. Paul, notwithstanding the length and earnestness of his discourse, was still unexhausted. (11) “And having gone up, and broken the loaf, and eaten it, he conversed yet a long time, even till daybreak, and so he departed.” Thus the whole night was spent in religious discourse and conversation, interrupted, at midnight, by a death and a resurrection, and this followed by the celebration of the Lord’s death, which brings the hope of a better resurrection. The whole scene concluded at daybreak, in one of those touching farewells, in which the pain of parting and the hope of meeting to part no more, struggle so tearfully for the mastery of the soul. It was a night long to be remembered by those who were there, and will yet be a theme of much conversation in eternity.

It is a question of some curiosity whether it was at daybreak on Sunday morning or Monday morning, that this assembly was dismissed. They were assembled in the early part of the night, yet the time of their assembling was included in the “first day of the week.” If the brethren in Troas were accustomed to begin and close the day at midnight, according to the Greek custom, it must have been Sunday night when they met. But if they reckoned according to the Jewish method, which began and closed the day with sunset, then they must have met on what we call Saturday night; for in this case the whole of that night would belong to the first day of the week, and Sunday night to the second day. It is supposed, by many commentators, that the Greek method prevailed, and that they met Sunday night; but, with Mr. Howson, I am constrained to the other opinion; a conclusive proof of which I find in the fact, that if the meeting was on Sunday night, then the loaf was broken on Monday morning; for it was broken after midnight. There can be no doubt of this fact, unless we understand the breaking of the loaf, mentioned in the eleventh verse, as referring to a common meal. But this is inadmissible; for, having stated, (verse 7,) that they came together to break the loaf and now stating, for the first time, that Paul did break the loaf, we must conclude that by the same expression, Luke means the same thing. To this objection that Paul alone is said to have broken and eaten the bread, I answer, that this would be a very natural expression to indicate that Paul officiated at the table; but, on the other hand, if it is a common meal, it would be strange that he alone should eat, especially to the exclusion of his traveling companions, who were going to start as early in the morning as he did. I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning Paul and his companions resumed their journey, being constrained, no doubt, by the movements of the ship, which had already been in the harbor of Troas seven days. His example does not justify traveling on the Lord’s day, except under similar constraint, and upon a mission as purely religious as that which was taking him to Jerusalem.

Acts 20:12. Recurring again to the incident concerning Eutychus, in order to state more particularly the gratification which the brethren felt at his recovery, Luke here remarks: (12) “And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.” The close connection of this remark with the departure of Paul and his company, and its disconnection from the statement concerning the resumption of the meeting, indicate that it refers to their bringing him away from the meeting.

Acts 20:13. Paul and his whole company departed at an early hour in the morning, and the meeting breaking up at daybreak for this purpose. But their routes for the day were different. (13) “We went forward to the ship, and sailed for Assos, intending there to take in Paul; for so he had appointed, intending himself to go on foot.” The coasting voyage of the ship around Cape Lectum to Assos was about forty miles, while the distance across was only twenty. This would enable Paul to reach that point on foot about as soon as the ship could sail there with favorable winds. His motive in choosing to walk this distance, and to go alone, has been a subject of various conjectures. But the deep gloom which shrouded his feelings, caused by prophetic warnings of great dangers ahead; by the critical state of the Churches everywhere; and by the final farewell which he was giving to Churches which he had planted and nourished, naturally prompted him to seek solitude for a time. On shipboard solitude was impossible, and while in port there was always a group of disciples or a whole congregation claiming his attention. His only opportunity, therefore, during the whole voyage, for solitary reflection, such as the soul longs for amid trials like his, was to seize this occasion for a lonely journey on foot. Amid the more stirring scenes of the apostle’s life, while announcing, with oracular authority the will of God, and confirming his words by miraculous demonstrations, we are apt to lose our human sympathy for the man, in our admiration for the apostle. But when we contemplate him under circumstances like the present, worn down by the sleepless labors of the whole night; burdened in spirit too heavily for even the society of sympathizing friends; and yet, with all his weariness, choosing a long day’s journey on foot, that he might indulge to satiety the gloom which oppressed him, we are so much reminded of our own seasons of affliction, as to feel, with great distinctness, the human tie which binds our hearts to his. No ardent laborer in the vineyard of the Lord but feels his soul at times ready to sink beneath its load of anxiety and disappointment, and finds no comfort except in allowing the very excess of sorrow to waste itself away amid silence and solitude. In such hours it will do us good to walk with Paul through this lonely journey, and remember how much suffering has been endured by greater and better men than we.

Acts 20:14-16. The ship and the footman arrived together. (14) “And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. (15) Sailing thence, the next day we arrived opposite Chios. In another day we came to Samos, and remaining all night at Trogyllium, on the following day we went to Miletus; (16) for Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, so that he might not spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.” If the ship had been under Paul’s control, he could have spent at Ephesus the time which was spent at Miletus, without delaying his arrival in Jerusalem. The fact, therefore, that he avoided Ephesus, to keep from losing time, shows that the vessel was not under his control, but that a visit to Ephesus would have required him to leave the ship he was on, and take passage on some other bound for that port. This might have caused delay, and the uncertainty of meeting at Ephesus a vessel bound for Syria might have protracted the delay too long to reach Jerusalem in the time desired. The mention of the matter by Luke shows that Paul felt some inclination to revisit Ephesus, that he might witness the present results of his protracted labors there. The day of Pentecost, however, furnished the only occasion which he could expect before fall, on which the Jews would be generally congregated in Jerusalem, and he desired to be there to distribute the contribution for the poor without visiting the rural districts individually for that purpose. We will yet see that he made the journey in time for the feast.

Acts 20:17. His desire to see the brethren in Ephesus was gratified, in part, by a short delay of the vessel in the harbor of Miletus. (17) “But from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called for the elders of the Church.” The distance was about thirty miles. gone up himself but for some uncertainty about the movements of the vessel, which was probably waiting for some expected ship to come into port before proceeding. If he had missed the vessel, it would have defeated his purpose of attending the feast; whereas, if the elders should get down too late, they would suffer only the inconvenience of the walk.

Acts 20:18-21. The interview with these elders may be regarded as a type of all the meetings and partings which took place on this journey, and was, probably, described with minuteness on this account. (18) “And when they had come to him, he said to them, You well know from the day in which I first came into Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, (19) serving the Lord with all humility and many tears and trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews; (20) that I have kept back nothing that was profitable, but have declared it to you, and taught you both publicly and from house to house, (21) testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” The order in which the terms repentance and faith occur in this last sentence, and in some other passages, has been urged as proof that repentance occurs before faith in the order of mental operations. But this is a most fallacious source of reasoning. From it we might argue that sanctification precedes faith, because Paul addresses the Thessalonians as having been chosen to salvation “through sanctification of spirit and the belief of the truth;” or that the confession precedes faith, because Paul says: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” The order of the words describing two actions proves nothing in reference to the order of their occurrence, except when it is mad evident that it was the writer’s intention to indicate the order of occurrence. No such intention is manifest here.

The purpose of the sentence in question is to state the two leading topics on which he had testified among the Ephesians, and the order in which they are mentioned was suggested by the nature of the case. All the Jews in Ephesus and all the Gentiles who attended the synagogue worship already believed in God, before Paul preached to them concerning Jesus. It was also necessary that all the heathen should learn to believe in God, before hearing the gospel of the Son of God. Moreover, they might be induced to repent toward God, as they had all been taught that they must do, before they believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Repentance toward God, bringing men to an honest and candid state of mind, was a most excellent preparation for faith in Jesus Christ. This was the design of John’s ministry. He prepared them for the reception of Jesus Christ, by calling them to repentance before God. Paul also attempted to make known the true God to the Athenians, and told them that God had “commanded all men everywhere to repent,” before he introduced to them the name of Jesus. This, however, is far from being proof of repentance before faith in the ordinary sense of the expression, which requires not repentance toward God before faith in Christ, but repentance toward God before faith in God.

That a man can repent toward a God in whose existence he does not believe, is not assumed by any party; but all grant that some degree or species of faith must precede repentance, while the prevailing Protestant parties that saving faith, as it is styled, must follow repentance. The mistake which they commit arises from a misconception of the nature of both faith and repentance. Regarding repentance as simply sorrow for sin, and faith as a yielding up of the will to Christ, they very readily reach the conclusion that the former must precede the latter. But in this conception the sorrow for sin which produces repentance is mistaken for repentance itself; while the yielding up of the will to Christ, which is really repentance, is mistaken for faith. Repentance, therefore, really covers all the ground usually assigned to both repentance and saving faith, leaving no room for faith to arise after it.

A correct definition of faith is equally inconsistent with this conception. It is “confidence as to things hoped for, conviction as to things not seen.” It can exist, in this its fullest sense, only when its object is both unseen and a subject of hope. When the object is not a subject of hope, as in the faith that the worlds were framed by the word of God, the faith is merely a conviction as to something not seen. But Jesus the Christ, the prime object of the Christian’s faith, is both unseen, and the being upon whom all our hopes depend. Faith in him, therefore, is both “confidence as to things hoped for, and conviction as to things not seen.” But it is impossible for me to repent of the sins which I have committed against Christ before I am convinced in reference to his Messiahship, and have confidence in reference to the things which he has promised. It is, therefore, impossible for repentance to precede faith, in reference to him. On the contrary, faith, or conviction that he is the Christ, and confidence in reference to what he has promised, is the chief means of leading men to repentance; although it is still true, that deists, such as modern Jews, and some others who believe in God but reject Christ, might be induced to repent toward God before they believe in Christ.

We may further remark, that, in the scriptural distribution of our conception of the divine nature, God is the proper object of repentance, and Jesus Christ of faith. To believe that Jesus is the Christ is the faith; but repentance is not thus limited; it has reference to God, independent of the distinction between Father and Son. It is this thought which suggested the connection of the term repentance with the name of God, and faith with that of Christ.

Acts 20:22-27. The apostle next reveals to these brethren the cause of that deep sorrow which we have seen brooding over his spirit even before his departure from Corinth. (22) “And now, behold, I go bound in spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there, (23) except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions await me. (24) But none of these things move me, neither do I hold my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the favor of God. (25) And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. (26) Wherefore, I call you to witness this day, that I am pure from the blood of all; (27) for I have kept back nothing from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”

Acts 20:28-35. Having thus eloquently expressed himself in reference to his past fidelity and his present devotion, he gives them a prophetic warning in reference to trials which yet awaited them, and places his own example minutely before them for imitation. (28) “Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers, to be shepherds to the Church of the Lord, which he has purchased through his own blood. (29) For I know this, that after my departure, fierce wolves will enter in among you, sparing the flock. (30) Also from among yourselves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (31) Therefore, watch; remembering that by night and by day, for three years, I ceased not to warn each one with tears. (32) And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of his favor, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all the sanctified. (33) I have coveted no man’s gold, or silver, or apparel. (34) You yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. (35) In all things I have shown you, that so laboring, you should support the weak, and should remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” It was a fearful responsibility which rested on the shoulders of these men, to watch as shepherds for the flock, and realize that only by fidelity like that of Paul, could they be free from the blood of them all. In leaving them to this work, he directs their thoughts to the only power sufficient to strengthen them to perform it, by commending them to God and to his Word, assuring them that the Word was able to build them up, and give them inheritance among the sanctified. This is another among many proofs which we have seen of the confidence of the apostles in the sufficiency and power of the word of God.

The closing admonition has reference to relief of the needy, and to the discharge of their duty, even if it were necessary for them to struggle hard to make their own bread and meat, remembering that it is more blessed to give than to receive. In this, also, he could appeal to his own example, saying, “You yourselves know that these hands,” holding them out to them, “have ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me.” Thus he warns and admonishes these elders, in a speech of inimitable pathos, which is recorded by Luke that it might bear the same lesson to elders of Churches everywhere, teaching that no less than apostolic zeal and self-sacrifice are expected of them.

Acts 20:36-38. When these solemn and touching words were concluded, the apostle was ready to re-embark upon the vessel about to weigh anchor in the harbor, and the final farewell must be spoken. (36) “And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all; (37) and they all wept much, and fell upon Paul’s neck, and kissed him, (38) sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more.” It would be difficult to imagine a more touching scene. The tears of women and of children are sometimes shallow; but when full-grown men, men of gray hairs, who have been hardened to endurance by the bitter struggles of life, are seen to weep like children, and to fall upon one another’s necks, we have the deepest expression of grief ever witnessed on earth. Such, however, is not the sorrow of this world. When the strong man of the world is overwhelmed with grief, he seeks for solitude, and his heart grows harder while it is breaking. But the sorrow of the man of faith is softening and purifying. It binds the afflicted in closer sympathy with one another and with God, while it is sanctified by prayer. It is painful, but it is not altogether unwelcome. It is a sorrow which we are willing to feel again, and which we love to remember. The history of the Church is full of scenes like this. When the paths of many pilgrims meet, and they mingle together, for a few days, their prayers, their songs of praise, their counsels, and their tears, the hour of parting is like a repetition of this scene on the sea-shore at Miletus. Tears, and heavings of the breast, which tell of grief and love and hope all struggling together in the soul; the parting hand and fond embrace; the blessing of God invoked, but not expressed; the sad turning away to duties which the soul feels for the moment too weak to perform—these are all familiar to the servants of God, and are remembered as tokens of those hours when, most of all, the joys of heaven seem to triumph over the sorrows of earth.

If Paul had been parting from these brethren under happy anticipations for them both, the sorrow of neither party could have been so great. But, added to the pain of a final parting was the gloom of their own uncertain future, and the terrible and undefined afflictions which certainly awaited him. There is not, in the history of our race, apart from the sufferings of the Son of God, a nobler instance of self-sacrifice than is presented by Paul on this journey. He had already, twelve months before this, recounted a catalogue of sufferings more abundant than had fallen to the lot of any other man. He had been often in prison, and often on the verge of death. From the Jews he had five times received forty stripes save one, and had three times been beaten with rods. Once he was stoned, and left on the ground, supposed to be dead. He had suffered shipwreck three times, and spent a day and a night struggling in the waters of the great deep. In his many journeys, he had been exposed to perils by water, by robbers, by his own countrymen, by the heathen; in the city, in the wilderness, in the sea, and among false brethren. He had suffered from weariness, and painfulness and wakefulness. He had endured hunger and thirst, and had known what it was to be cold for want of sufficient clothing. Besides all these things, which were without, he had been and was still bearing a burden not less painful in the care of all the Churches. And besides even all this, was that thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet him, which was so irritating and humiliating that he had three times prayed the Lord to take it from him. These sufferings we would think enough for the portion of one man; and we would suppose that his scarred and enfeebled frame would be permitted to pass the remainder of its days in quiet. Yet here we find him on his way to Jerusalem, engaged in a mission of mercy, but warned by the voice of prophesy that bonds and afflictions still awaited him. Most men would have said: I have suffered enough. The success of my present enterprise is doubtful, at best, and it is certain to bring me once more into prison, and into untold afflictions. I will, therefore, remain where I am, amid brethren who love me, and strive to end my days in peace. Such may have been the feelings of the Ephesian elders, as they clung tearfully around him; but how grandly the hero lifts himself above all such human weakness, while he exclaims: “None of these things move me, neither do I hold my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the favor of God.” When parting forever from such a man, they might well weep, and stand mute upon the shore till the white sails of his vessel grew dim in the distance, ere they turned in loneliness to the toils and dangers which they were now to encounter without the presence or counsel of their great teacher. We are not permitted to return with them to Ephesus, and listen to their sorrowful conversation by the way; but must follow that receding vessel, and witness the bonds and afflictions which await its most noted passenger.

Acts Chapter Twenty-One

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 21:1-3. The vessel proceeded by a coasting voyage along the southern shore of Asia Minor. (1) “And it came to pass, when we had separated from them, and set sail, that we ran with a straight course and came to Cos; and the next day to Rhodes, and thence to Patara. (2) And finding a ship going across to Phenicia, we embarked and set sail. (3) Passing in sight of Cyprus, and leaving it to the left, we sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload her cargo.” The change of vessels at Patara must have been occasioned by the fact that the one in which they had hitherto sailed was not bound for a Phenician port. That the new vessel is said to be going across to Phenicia, and that it left Cyprus on the left, is an indication that the other was going to cling still further to the coast of Asia Minor, and was probably bound for Antioch.

Acts 21:4. The time employed by the sailors in putting out freight, and taking on board a fresh cargo, gave Paul another opportunity for communing with brethren on shore. (4) “And having found the disciples, we remained there seven days. They told Paul, through the Spirit, not to go up to Jerusalem.” Here Paul met a repetition of those prophetic warnings which had already cast a gloom over his feelings, and so much alarmed were the brethren at the prospects before him, that they entreated him to go no further. We are not to understand that these entreaties were dictated by the Spirit; for this would have made it Paul’s duty to desist from his purpose; but the statement means that they were enabled to advise him not to go, by knowing through the Spirit, what awaited him. The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment.

Acts 21:5-6. When the seven days had passed, including, most likely, a Lord’s day, in which the disciples came together to break bread, another scene of painful parting occurred, like that at Miletus. (5) “And it came to pass that when we completed those days, we departed and went our way, they all, with their wives and children, conducting us forward till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and prayed. (6) And bidding each other farewell, we went on board the ship, and they returned home.” Unlike the scene at Miletus, the sorrow of manly hearts was here accompanied by the tenderness of female sympathy and the tears of children. The tears of the company were bitter, but they were sanctified and made a blessing to each heart, by prayer. Thus, though all before the apostle, during this journey, was darkness and danger, all around him and behind him was earnest prayer to God in his behalf. Borne forward upon the current of such devotion, he was able to breast the storm, and defy all the powers of earth and hell.

Acts 21:7. The journey by water was soon completed, and the remainder of the distance was performed on foot. (7) “And from Tyre we went down to Ptolemais, completing the voyage, and saluted the brethren, and remained with them one day.” If the vessel had been going forward to Cæsarea without delay, they had better have continued on board than to have traveled the distance of thirty or forty miles to that city on foot. We conclude, therefore, that the vessel either intended lying in port for awhile, or did not intend to touch at Cæsarea.

The fact that Paul found brethren in Tyre and Ptolemais on the coast of Phenicia, where he had never preached before, reminds us once more of the dispersion of the Church in Jerusalem, and the fact that “they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, speaking the Word to none but the Jews.”

Acts 21:8-9. The single day spent with the brethren in Ptolemais was sufficient for the solemn admonitions which Paul was leaving with all the Churches, and for another painful farewell. (8) “And the next day we departed, and went to Cæsarea. And entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. (9) Now he had four daughters, who were virgins, and who prophesied.” When we parted from Philip, after the immersion of the eunuch, he had prosecuted an evangelizing tour through Azotus and the intermediate cities, to Cæsarea. It was probably while he was engaged in this tour that Peter had come to Cæsarea, and immersed the family and friends of Cornelius. When Philip arrived, he found the nucleus of a Church, and here we still find him, after a lapse of more than twenty years. He seems never to have returned to Jerusalem, to resume his position as a deacon of that Church, but accepted the providential arrangement by which he was thrown out into a wider field of usefulness, and thenceforward was known as Philip the evangelist. That he had four maiden daughters, who had the gift of prophesy, indicates the strict religious training which he had given to his family.

Acts 21:10-14. During the interval spent with the family of Philip, another, and the last of the prophetic warnings which Paul encountered on this journey was given, causing a scene of sorrow similar to those at Miletus and Tyre. (10) “And while we were remaining several days, there came down from Jerusalem a certain prophet named Agabus; (11) and he came to us, and took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus says the Holy Spirit: So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard this, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) But Paul answered, What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we held our peace, saying, The will of the Lord be done.”

Agabus was the same prophet who went from Jerusalem to Antioch, and announced the famine which caused the mission of Paul and Barnabas into Judea with a contribution for the poor. It was a singular coincidence that the same man should now meet him, after the lapse of so many years, when entering Judea on a similar mission, and warn him of his own personal danger. The dramatic manner in which his prophesy was delivered gave Paul a more distinct conception of the afflictions which awaited him. If his traveling companions had hitherto been silent when brethren were entreating him to desist from the journey, as is implied in the narrative, their courage now failed them, and they joined in the entreaties of the brethren in Cæsarea. The fearfulness of his prospects was a sufficient trial to his own courage, when he enjoyed at least the silent sympathy of his chosen companions; but when they deserted him, and threw the weight of their influence upon the weight already too heavy for him, the effect was crushing to his heart, though the steadfastness of his purpose was not shaken. The duty imposed upon him by the fearful condition of the Church at large was paramount to all personal considerations, and he felt willing to be bound and to die in his efforts to maintain the honor of the name of the Lord Jesus by preserving the unity of his body. Upon this declaration of his sublime self-devotion, the brethren felt unable to offer another objection, and gave expression to their reluctant resignation by the remark, “The will of the Lord be done.”

Acts 21:15-16. (15) “And after those days, we packed up our baggage, and went up to Jerusalem. (16) Some of the disciples from Cæsarea went with us, conducting us to one Mnason, a Cyprian, and an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.” The journey had been accomplished in time for the feast of Pentecost. This is made to appear by enumerating the days spent on the journey from Philippi. Leaving that city immediately after the days of unleavened bread, which was seven days after the Passover, he reached Troas in five days, where he spent seven. Four days were occupied in the passage from Troas to Miletus. Two are sufficient to allow for the stay at Miletus. In three he sailed from Miletus to Patara, which place he left the same day he reached it; and two more days, with favorable weather, would take him to Tyre. There he spent seven days, and three in the journey thence to Cæsarea. Allowing two days more for the journey from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, we have enumerated only forty-two of the forty-nine days intervening between the Passover and Pentecost, leaving seven for the stay at the house of Philip. That the feast of Pentecost did transpire immediately after his arrival in Jerusalem, is indicated by the immense multitude of Jews then assembled there, and the presence of some from the province of Asia, who had known Paul in Ephesus. Nothing but the annual feasts brought together in Jerusalem the Jews from distant provinces.

Acts 21:17. The period which had been looked forward to for months with prayerful anxiety had now arrived, and Paul was to know, without further delay, whether or not the service which he had for Jerusalem would be accepted by the saints. To his unspeakable relief, the historian was able to say, (17) “Now when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” If Luke had given any account of the contribution Paul was bringing, we should have expected him to say something more definite about its reception than is implied in this remark. But, as he saw fit to omit all mention of the enterprise, we are at liberty to infer, from the glad reception given to the messengers, that the gift they bore was also welcome. The main object of Paul’s visit and of his prayers was now accomplished. He had finished this much of his course and his ministry with joy, and his heart was relieved from its chief anxiety. Whether the Lord would now accept his prayer for deliverance from the disobedient in Jerusalem, he felt to be a matter of minor importance.

Acts 21:18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. (18) “And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related particularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) When they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law. (21) Now they heard concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means come together; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, therefore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the expenses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are nothing; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, having decided that they observe no such things, only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them.”

This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching?

First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were “all zealous for the law.” They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught “apostasy from Moses.” The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of “the customs.” By “the customs” are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings, and, as seen in Paul’s epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years.

Second. Our iniquity into Paul’s teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law. As for the law, he taught that it had been “a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster;” that, “now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held;” that we are “become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe “the customs.” In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” “Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: “Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats.” In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference.

Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered.

Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then?

The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that “we are no longer under the law,” was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter’s in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles “into the truth,” did so by a gradual development running through a series of years.

When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ; but this brought to an end its illegal continuance.

Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment’s attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that “the customs” were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, “apostasy from Moses.” But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper.

The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he “purified himself with them,” is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. But for this meaning of the term, agnizo, there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul’s own statement to Felix, that “they found me purified in the temple,” in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself “with them,” which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of Numbers, where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the “days of purification,” and the mention, in the next verse below, of “the seven days,” as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul’s part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose.

Acts 21:27-30. (27) “Now when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, aroused the whole multitude, and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law and this place, and has even brought Greeks into the temple, and polluted this holy place. (29) For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, whom they thought Paul had brought into the temple. (30) And the whole city was moved, and the people ran together, and seizing Paul, dragged him out of the temple; and the doors were immediately closed.” If Paul’s own brethren in Jerusalem has become prejudiced against him on account of his teaching in reference to the law, it is not surprising that the hatred of the unbelieving Jews toward him should be intense. Their treasured wrath was like a magazine, ready to explode the moment a match should be applied; and to charge him with defiling the holy place, which they believed that he had already reviled in every nation, was enough to produce the explosion. It is not the custom of mobs to investigate the charges heaped upon their victims; hence, without knowing or caring to know, whether he had really brought Trophimus into the temple, they seized him and dragged him out into the court of the Gentiles. The doors of the inner court were closed, to prevent the defilement of that holy place by the blood which was likely to be shed.

Acts 21:31-34. For the second time in his history the Roman authorities came to Paul’s rescue from the hands of his countrymen. (31) “And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the chiliarch of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar, (32) who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them. And when they saw the chiliarch and the soldiers, they quit striking Paul. (33) Then the chiliarch drew near and seized him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and inquired who he was, and what he had done. (34) But some of the multitude cried out one thing, and some another; and not being able to know the certainty on account of the tumult, he commanded him to be led into the castle.” The inability of the mob to agree upon any charge against him shows the precipitancy with which they had rushed upon him, while the multiplicity of charges which they vociferated shows the intensity of their hatred. The chiliarch was indifferent through total ignorance of the case, and desired to act prudently; hence he determined to protect the prisoner, and hold him for examination under more favorable circumstances.

Acts 21:35-38. It was but a short distance to the castle of Antonia, which overlooked the temple inclosure, and was connected with it by a stairway. Thither the apostle was rapidly borne, the mob pressing after him. (35) “And when he was on the stairs, he was borne by the soldiers, on account of the violence of the multitude. (36) For the crowd of people followed, crying out, Away with him! (37) And when he was about to be led into the castle, Paul said to the chiliarch, May I say something to you? He said, Do you understand Greek? (38) Are you not that Egyptian, who formerly made an insurrection, and led out into the wilderness four thousand Assassins? (39) Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus, in Cilicia; a citizen of no unknown city; and I beseech you, permit me to speak to the people.” This conversation shows that the chiliarch was utterly ignorant of the character and history of his prisoner. The best conclusion he could form from the confused outcries of the mob was the one indicated in the question just quoted. When he learned that he was a Jew, he was still more perplexed concerning the rage of the people, and not less astonished at the coolness displayed by Paul. In the hope of learning something more definite, he at once gave him liberty to speak, and stood by, an interested hearer.

Acts 21:39. “And when he gave him permission, Paul, standing upon the stairs, waved his hand to the people. And when there was general silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,”

Acts Chapter Twenty-Two

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 22:1-2. (1) “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear my defense, which I now make to you. (2) And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, they kept the greater quiet.” It is happily remarked by Mr. Howson, that, had he spoken in Greek, the majority of his hearers would have understood him; but, “the sound of the holy tongue in that holy place fell like a calm upon the troubled waters.” It was a mark of respect for Jewish nationality which they were not prepared to expect from Paul; and the result was, that the silence, which was only general at the waving of his hand, became universal at the utterance of his first sentence.

Acts 22:3-16. (3) “And he said, I myself am a Jew; born in Tarsus of Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strictest doctrine of the law of our fathers, and was zealous toward God as you all are this day. (4) I persecuted this way, even to death; binding and delivering into prisons both men and women; (5) as the high priest and the whole body of the elders are my witnesses: from whom, also, I received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring those who were there bound to Jerusalem, that they might be punished. (6) But it came to pass, as I journeyed and was drawing near to Damascus, about noon, a great light from heaven suddenly flashed around me. (7) I fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? He said to me, I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you persecute. (9) Now, they who were with me saw the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spoke to me. (10) And I said, Lord, what shall I do? And the Lord said to me, Arise, and go into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all things which are appointed for thee to do. (11) And, as I could not see for the glory of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and went into Damascus. (12) And one Ananias, a pious man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who dwelt there, (13) came to me, and stood, and said to me, Brother Saul, look up. And that moment I looked up upon him. (14) And he said, The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will, and to see the Just One, and to hear the voice of his mouth. (15) For you shall be a witness for him to all men, of what you have seen and heard. (16) And now, why do you tarry? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Such portions of this speech as are necessary to the full understanding of Paul’s conversion, we have considered in commenting on the ninth chapter. The words of Ananias, “Arise and be immersed,” probably demand a moment’s additional notice, on account of the use which has been made of them by many pedobaptist writers and speakers of an inferior grade. It is urged that the words should be rendered, “Standing up, be baptized;” and that they indicate that Paul was baptized on the spot, without leaving the house. We might admit the rendering without granting the conclusion; for the command to be baptized required him to do whatever was necessary to that act. If the act was immersion, it required him to go where it could be performed, however great the distance, and the words are entirely consistent with that idea. If he was to be immersed, he must, of necessity, arise from his prostrate or sitting position for that purpose. If he was to be sprinkled, he might as well have remained, as candidates for that ceremony now commonly do, upon his knees.

Acts 22:17-21. After this brief account of his course of persecution and his conversion, he advances to the events which occurred upon his return to Jerusalem, and which led to that peculiar ministry that had excited the hatred of his hearers. (17) “And it came to pass, when I returned to Jerusalem, and was praying in the temple, that I was in a trance, (18) and saw him saying to me, Make haste, and depart quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive your testimony concerning me. (19) And I said, Lord, they know that I was imprisoning and beating in every synagogue those who believe on thee, (20) and when the blood of thy witness, Stephen, was shed, I myself was standing by, and consenting to his death, and guarding the raiment of those who slew him. (21) And he said to me, Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles.”

By allowing Paul to speak, Lysias expected to learn something about the charges against him, supposing that he would address himself immediately and strictly to a defense. What must have been his surprise, then, to hear him, after asking the people to hear his defense, proceed with a narrative, the bearing of which upon the case was so obscure? It must be confessed that the speech afforded very little of the light that he was seeking; and even to men who are better prepared to understand it than he, it is still a source of astonishment. Here is a man in the hands of a heathen soldiery, with a prison-door opening behind him, and before him a mob thirsting for his blood, whom to appease would save him from prison, and, perhaps, from death, yet appearing to be utterly oblivious to the danger which surrounded him, and though permitted to speak, making not the slightest effort to obtain release. He could most truthfully have denied bringing Greeks into the temple, or speaking improperly of the people, the law, or that holy place; but he was so far elevated above all selfish considerations, that he desired no vindication of himself not involving a vindication of the cause he was pleading. He saw before him a deluded multitude rushing blindly to destruction, and though they were thirsting for his own blood, he pitied them, and resolved to give them light. Under the smart of the bruises they had inflicted on him, and amid their wild outcries, he remembered when he once took part in similar mobs, and the blood of Stephen rose up before his vision. This enabled him to excuse their rage, and, as the vision of Christ glorified, which he had witnessed on the road to Damascus, had changed him from a persecutor to a disciple, he resolved to try its effect upon them. He did not altogether miscalculate its power; for they listened to the whole account of his conversion with profound attention. The narrative demonstrated the divine authority of Jesus, and enabled Paul to assume, as a basis for his further argument, that it was proper to do whatever he might command. He then proceeds to account for his going to the Gentiles. It was not my own choice, for I desired to stay in Jerusalem. But the Lord commanded me in a vision to leave the city. I even remonstrated against his decision, when he peremptorily commanded, “Depart, for I will send you far hence to the Gentiles.”

Acts 22:22-24. When he reached this point in his discourse, he appeared to the mob about to vindicate the course which they condemned as criminal, instead of apologizing for it, and their rage was renewed. (22) “Now they heard him up to this word, then raised their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth! For it is not fit that he should live. (23) And as they were shouting, and tossing up their garments, and casting dust into the air, (24) the chiliarch commanded him to be led into the castle, saying that he should be examined by scourging, in order that he might know on what account they cried out so against him.” The idea of scourging a man who is assailed by a mob, to make him confess the cause for which he is assailed, is most abhorrent to all proper sense of justice, yet it prevailed in the most enlightened heathen nations of antiquity. Rome, it is true, exempted from its effects all who enjoyed the rights of citizenship; but the existence of such a distinction in a matter in which all human beings should have equal rights, is a further proof of their ignorance of the true principles of public justice. To the enlightening and rectifying influence of Christianity, modern nations are indebted for many happy changes in jurisprudence.

Acts 22:25-29. When Paul was led within the castle, the executioner made immediate preparation for his cruel work. (25) “And as he was bending him forward with the straps Paul said to the centurion, who was standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard this, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what you are about to do, for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chiliarch came and said to him, Tell me, are you a Roman? And he said, Yes. (28) And the chiliarch answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I was born so. (29) Then they who were about to examine him immediately departed from him; and the chiliarch was alarmed, when he knew that he was a Roman, and that he had bound him.” Previous to applying the scourge, the victim was bent forward upon a reclining post, to which he was bound by straps. It was this binding which caused the alarm of the chiliarch, and not the binding of his arms with chains. The latter was legal, and hence Paul remained so bound, but the former was illegal. It was just at the critical moment, when he was bent forward upon the post, and the straps were being adjusted, that the quiet assertion of citizenship caused his release, and struck terror into the heart of the officer. Notwithstanding this exemption was extended only to a favored few, we can but admire the majesty of a law, which in a remote province, and within the walls of a prison, suddenly released a prisoner from the whipping-post, by the simple declaration, “I am a Roman citizen.”

Acts 22:30. Lysias was disposed to do his duty, but he experienced great difficulty in deciding what is was. He had first inquired of the mob; had then heard a speech from Paul; and had now gone as far as he dared toward the trial by scourging; yet he knew nothing more about the charges against his prisoner than he did at first. He determined to make one more effort. (30) “On the next day, desiring to know the certainty as to what he was accused of by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the high priests and the whole Sanhedrim to come together, and brought Paul down, and placed him before them.”

Acts Chapter Twenty-Three

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 23:1-2. No sooner had the prisoner and the Sanhedrim come face to face, than the chiliarch must have perceived that he was again to be disappointed in his efforts to understand the case; for, instead of preferring formal charges against Paul, the proceedings were opened by calling upon him to defend himself: (1) “Then Paul, looking earnestly on the Sanhedrim, said: I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) Then the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him, to smite him in the mouth.” No doubt the blow was as prompt as the word. The interruption was as unexpected as it was exasperating.

Acts 23:3-5. For once in the history of his persecution, the provocation was too great for Paul, and found vent in a burst of anger. (3) “Then said Paul to him, God shall smite thee, thou whitewashed wall. And do you sit to judge me according to the law, and command me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) But those who were standing by said, Do you revile God’s high priest? (5) Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” The flash of anger was but momentary. No sooner were the words spoken than his habitual self-control regained its ascendancy. He frankly admits that he had done wrong, but excuses himself by the fact that he knew not that it was the high priest. If he had been disposed to further excuse himself, by urging that the high priest deserved all he had said of him, his plea would have been true, but insufficient. For how can we return good for evil, if we return to men their deserts? It were well if his example should be imitated by all disciples who meet with injustice at the hands of their rulers.

Acts 23:6-10. The presence in which Paul stood was not unfamiliar to him. He doubtless remembered the faces of many in the Sanhedrim, and was intimately acquainted with the party feelings which often distracted their councils, and which had been known to stain the streets of Jerusalem with blood. Seeing that they were determined not to do him justice, he resolved to take advantage of their party feuds in order to secure his own safety. (6) “But when Paul knew that one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the Sanhedrim, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit. But the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great outcry; and the scribes, who were of the Pharisees’ party, arose and contended, saying, We find no evil in this man. And if an angel or a spirit has spoken to him, let us not fight against God. (10) And there being a great dissension, the chiliarch, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from their midst, and lead him into the castle.” It will be observed, that in stating the difference between the two parties, Luke uses the term both when the reference is to three specifications, viz.: resurrection, angel, and spirit. This arose, no doubt, from the fact that the three specifications are really combined in two, as the existence of angels or spirits involves but the one question of the existence of purely spiritual beings.

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not probable that so violent a dissension could have been so easily excited. The circumstance is indicative of an unusual exasperation of the parties just preceding this event. Such a state of things, combined with the complete agreement declared by Paul with the Pharisees on the points at issue, naturally inclined them to favor this release. He declared this agreement in strong terms, asserting not only that he was a Pharisee, but the son of a Pharisee, and that it was for the hope peculiar to the party that he was arraigned as a criminal. They saw that the establishment of his doctrine would certainly be the ruin of the opposing sect, and losing sight, for a moment, of its effects upon their own party; forgetting, too, the ill-founded charge against Paul, in reference to the law and temple, they declared that they could find no fault in the man. Perhaps, also, the awkward position they were in with reference to the proof of those charges rendered them somewhat willing to find an excuse for admitting his innocence. But the slightest hint, on their part, of his innocence, was sufficient to arouse the Sadducees, because they saw that it was prompted chiefly by hatred to themselves. On the part of the Sadducees, the two most violent passions to which they were subject, hatred toward the disciples and jealousy toward the Pharisees, combined to swell the uproar which broke up the deliberations of the assembly. Paul was near being a victim to the storm which he had raised, when the Roman soldiery came to his rescue. Lysias was once more disappointed in his efforts to learn the truth about his case, and must have been in greater perplexity than ever, as he commanded the soldiers to lead him back into the castle.

Acts 23:11. If we had some epistle from Paul’s pen, written at this time, it would tell of great distress and despondency; for such a state of mind is clearly indicated by an event which now transpired. (11) “And the night following, the Lord stood by him and said, Take courage, Paul, for as you have testified concerning me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.” It is not to be presumed that this personal appearance of the Lord to encourage him occurred when it was not needed, or when encouragement could be supplied in an ordinary way. It is quite certain, therefore, that Paul’s spirit was greatly burdened that night. The long-dreaded bonds and afflictions, which had hung like a dark cloud before him on his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, had now at last fallen upon him. Thus far, since his arrest, he may have been cheered by the hope that the fervent prayers of himself and many brethren, which, in anticipation of these calamities, had been urged at the throne of favor for months past, would prove effectual for his deliverance, and for the realization of his long-cherished desire to visit Rome. But his speeches before the mob and the Sanhedrim had only exasperated his enemies, who were now, more than ever, intent upon his destruction; and his jailer, though disposed to do justice, knew not what to do but to keep him in prison. In whatever direction he could look, prison walls or a bloody grave stood before him, and hedged up his way, either to Rome or to any other field of future usefulness. But just at the proper moment to save him from despair, the solemn assurance is give, that his long-continued prayers would yet be answered, and he should preach the Word in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem. In tracing the fulfillment of this promise, we shall witness a remarkable illustration of the workings of providence in answer to prayer.

Acts 23:12-16. The light did not immediately dawn upon his prospects, but the darkness continued for a while to grow deeper. (12) “And when it was day some of the Jews made a conspiracy, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. (13) And there were more than forty who made this agreement. (14) They went to the high priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing till we have killed Paul. (15) Now then, do you, with the Sanhedrim, notify the chiliarch to bring him down to you to-morrow, as though you would inquire more accurately concerning him, and we, before he comes near, are ready to slay him. (16) But the son of Paul’s sister heard of their lying in wait, and came and entered into the castle, and told Paul.” It is difficult for a conspiracy for this kind, requiring the consultation of so many persons, to be concocted and executed with perfect secrecy. Especially is it so when the intended victim is one about whom the whole community is, at the time, intensely excited. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that some of Paul’s many friends heard of it, and that his nephew undertook the dangerous task of communicating it to him. He at once saw, that, notwithstanding the assurance of safety given the night before, the danger of his situation was more alarming than ever. The chiliarch could not well refuse to grant so reasonable a request; and if it is granted, his doom is sealed. If the Pharisees who had befriended him in the Sanhedrim had not become indifferent to his fate, they had been outwitted, so that the Sadducees were about to make the request in the name of the whole Sanhedrim without consulting them.

Acts 23:17-22. A moment’s reflection was sufficient to show Paul that his only hope of safety was in the chiliarch, and, therefore, he at once had the facts communicated to him. (17) “Then Paul called to him one of the centurions, and said, Lead this young man to the chiliarch; for he has something to tell him. (18) He then took him and led him to the chiliarch, and said, The prisoner, Paul, called me to him and requested me to lead this young man to you, who has something to say to you. (19) The chiliarch took him by the hand, and drawing aside in private, asked him, What is it that you have to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jews have agreed to request you that you bring down Paul into the Sanhedrim to-morrow, as though they would inquire more accurately concerning him. (21) But do not be persuaded by them; for there lie in wait for him more than forty men of them, who have bound themselves under a curse neither to eat nor drink until they have slain him. And they are now prepared, expecting a promise from you. (22) Then the chiliarch dismissed the young man, charging him to tell no one that you have made known these things to me.” The injunction of secrecy was prompted in part by a desire for the young man’s safety; but chiefly by an unwillingness that the Jews should know the real cause of the steps he was about to take. If they should discover that their machinations could influence his policy, they might be emboldened to give him further trouble.

Acts 23:23-30. There were at least three lines of policy between which the chiliarch could have chosen. If he had been disposed to gratify the Jews, he might have given Paul up to their malice, without probability of being known to his superiors as accessory to the murder. If he had preferred to defy their power, and display his own, he might have sent him down to the Sanhedrim under a strong guard. Or if he desired to protect Paul, yet to avoid giving unnecessary offense to the Jews, he might send him away that night before their request was laid before him. It reflects credit upon his character that he chose the course which both justice and prudence dictated. (23) “And he called to him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen, to go to Cæsarea at the third hour of the night, (24) and provide beasts, in order that they may mount Paul and take him to Felix the governor. (25) And he wrote a letter in this form: (26) Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. (27) This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be killed by them, when I came with the soldiery and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. (28) And desiring to know the cause for which they accused him, I led him down into their Sanhedrim, (29) and found him accused concerning questions of their law, but having nothing laid to his charge worthy of dead or of bonds. (30) And it being disclosed to me that a plot against the man was about to be executed by the Jews, I immediately sent him to you, commanding his accusers to say before you what they have against him. Farewell.” But for one misrepresentation in this letter, there would be nothing discreditable to Lysias in this whole affair. He had acted like a just and prudent man in managing a difficult case; but in reporting to his superior, he so states the facts as to give himself credit to which he was not entitled. He states that his first rescue of Paul was prompted by the fact that he was a Roman citizen; whereas, in truth, he knew nothing of Paul’s citizenship till after he had seized him and had prepared to scourge him. Thus a motive was claimed which was not real, and a fault which he had committed was suppressed. When we remember, however, that it is a common fault with military commanders to make the most favorable reports of their achievements, we are not disposed to give Lysias a low rank among his compeers for veracity.

The statement that he had commanded Paul’s accusers to say before Felix what they had against him, was not strictly true; for, at the time of writing, he had given no such command. But it was not intended to deceive the governor; for he intended to issue the order before the letter could be received. When this order was issued, the Jews were bitterly disappointed, and the forty conspirators had a prospect of a good long fast. They naturally felt some ill-will toward Lysias, as we shall see manifested hereafter, for snatching their victim out of their hands.

The letter also shows, that though Lysias could not understand the exact nature of the charges against Paul, he knew that they had reference to the Jewish law, and was satisfied that what they accused him of was not worthy either of death or of imprisonment. Under this conviction, if he had not been constrained to send him away for safety, he would, probably, have released him.

Acts 23:31-35. (31) “Then the soldiers, according to what was commanded them, took Paul and conducted him by night to Antipatris, (32) and, on the next day, they returned to the castle, leaving the horsemen to go forward with him. (33) They went to Cæsarea, delivered the epistle to the governor, and presented Paul before him. (34) And when the governor read the epistle, he asked of what province he was, and, learning that he was from Cilicia, (35) he said, I will hear you when your accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.” This was a palace erected by Herod the Great, who built Cæsarea.

When the troops guarding Paul has passed beyond the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, there was no further use for the powerful force of infantry; hence the return of the four hundred soldiers and spearmen. The distinction between these two classes is, that those called soldiers belonged to the regular Roman legions, while the spearmen were light-armed troops attached to the legions.

This incident in Paul’s history has been made to bear a part in the controversy as to whether military service is compatible with Christianity. It is urged that Paul could not consistently accept the services of an army of four hundred and seventy men to protect his life from a Jewish mob, unless he acknowledged the rightfulness of military service. But the facts in the case are not suitable to the argument. He did not, in the exercise of his freedom, voluntarily call for military interference; but the military had already interfered, without consulting his wishes, and taken violent possession of him; and his request was, that they should exercise the power which they had chosen to assume, for his safety rather than for his destruction. If a man were confined within the den of a gang of robbers, he might, with all propriety, request them to keep him out of the reach of another gang who were seeking his life. Such a request would be no more an indorsement of highway robbery than Paul’s request, expressed through his nephew, was an indorsement of military service. There is not an instance on record in which the apostles ever called for military interference in their times of suffering and persecution.

Acts Chapter Twenty-Four

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 24:1. When the Jews were commanded by Lysias to present their accusation before Felix, though disappointed in their first plot, they still hoped to accomplish his destruction, and made no delay in following up the prosecution. (1) “Now, after five days, Ananias the high priest, with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus, came down, and informed the governor against Paul.” It is most natural to count these five days from the time that Paul left Jerusalem, as that was the date at which the Jews were informed by Lysias of the transfer of the case.

Acts 24:2-9. The orator, Tertullus, was employed to plead the case before Felix, and the high priest and elders appeared as witnesses. (2) “And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying: (3) Seeing that by you we have attained to great tranquility, and a prosperous administration is effected for this nation by your foresight, in every respect and in every place, we accept it, most excellent, Felix, with all thankfulness. (4) But that I may not delay you too long, I entreat you to hear us, in your clemency, a few words. (5) For we have found this man a pest, exciting sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. (6) He also attempted to profane the temple; when we seized him, and wished to judge him according to our own law. (7) But Lysias the chiliarch came, and with great violence snatched him out of our hands, (8) and commanded his accusers to come before you. From him you yourself may be able, by examination, to obtain knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. (9) And the Jews assented, saying that these things were so.” The complimentary words with which this speech is introduced were not undeserved by Felix; for he had restored tranquility to the country, when it was disturbed, first by hordes of robbers; afterward by organized bands of Assassins, and more recently, by that Egyptian for whom Lysias at first mistook Paul. In suppressing all these disturbances, his administration had been prosperous.

The accusation against Paul, sustained by the testimony of the Jews, contained three specifications. It charged him, first, with exciting the Jews to sedition; second, with being the ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes; third, with profaning the temple. Tertullus also took occasion to vent his indignation against Lysias, for interfering by violence, as he falsely alleged against him, with the judicial proceedings of the Sanhedrim. Finally, he asserts that Felix would be able, if he would examine Lysias, to gain from his lips a knowledge of all of which they were now informing him.

Acts 24:10-21. (10) “Then Paul answered (the governor nodding to him to speak): Knowing that you have been for many years a judge for this nation, I do the more cheerfully defend myself: (11) for you are able to know that there are not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. (12) And neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor about the city, did they find me disputing with any one, or exciting sedition among the multitude; (13) neither are they able to prove the things of which they accuse me. (14) But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, I so worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are in the law, and those written by the prophets, (15) having hope toward God, which they themselves also entertain, that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. (16) And in this do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man. (17) Now after many years, I came to present alms to my nation, and offerings, (18) in the midst of which, certain Jews from Asia found me in the temple, purified, not with a multitude, nor with tumult. (19) They ought to be here before you and accuse me, if they have any thing against me. (20) Or let these themselves say if they found any wrong in me when I was standing before the Sanhedrim, (21) except in reference to this one sentence which I uttered when standing among them, Concerning the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question by you this day.”

This speech contains a distinct reply to each specification made by Tertullus. In answer to the charge of stirring up sedition, he shows first, that it had been only twelve days since he went up to Jerusalem. As it had now been five days since he left there, and he had been in prison one day previous to leaving, his previous stay there could have been only six days, which would have afforded no sufficient time for stirring up sedition. Moreover, they could not prove that he was engaged even in disputation with any one, in the temple, in the synagogues, or in any party of the city. As to being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, he frankly confesses that he belongs to what they call a sect: yet he believes all the law and the prophets, hopes for a resurrection of the dead, and is habitually struggling to lead a conscientious life. Finally, in reference to the charge of profaning the temple, implying disrespect for the Jewish people, he declares that the very object of his visit to Jerusalem was to bear alms to the people; and that when the Jews from Asia seized him in the temple, he was purified, and engaged about alms-giving, and the offerings of the temple. In conclusion, he notes the significant fact, that those who first seized him, and knew what he was doing, were not there to testify; while he challenges those who were present to state a single act of his that was wrong, unless it were the very heinous offense of declaring that he believed, with the great mass of the Jews, in the resurrection of the dead. The last point was made, and presented in the ironical form which it bears, in order to show Felix that it was party jealousy which instigated his Sadducee prosecutors.

Acts 24:22. His defense, though he had no witnesses present to prove his statements, had the desired effect upon Felix. (22) “And when Felix heard these things, knowing more accurately concerning that way, he put them off, and said, When Lysias the chiliarch comes down, I will thoroughly examine the matters between you. In this decision he took Tertullus at his word; for he had already said that he could learn all about the affair by examining Lysias. But the decision is attributed to his “knowing more accurately concerning that way,” showing that he had come to the same conclusion with Lysias, that Paul was accused merely about questions of the Jewish law, and not of crime against Roman law.

Acts 24:23. When the Jews were dismissed, if Felix had possessed a strict regard for justice, he would have released Paul. As it was, he only relaxed the rigor of his previous confinement. (23) “And he commanded the centurion that Paul should be guarded, but have relaxation, and to forbid none of his friends to minister to him or visit him.” His confinement was now the least rigorous which was considered compatible with safe-keeping. He was under what was called the military custody, being placed in charge of a soldier, whose left arm was chained to Paul’s right, and who was responsible with his own life for the safety of his prisoner. The guards were relieved at regular intervals, and the “relaxation” allowed Paul was, probably, an occasional release from the chain.

Acts 24:24. “Now, after some days, Felix came, with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. Drusilla, according to Josephus, was a daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose persecutions of the apostles, and miserable death, we have considered in commenting on the twelfth chapter. She was a woman of remarkable beauty, the lawful wife of Azizus, king of Emesa, but was now living in adulterous intercourse with Felix. Concerning Felix, Tacitus testifies, that “with every kind of cruelty and lust, he exercised the authority of a king with the temper of a slave.”

Acts 24:25. Under the summons to speak concerning the faith in Christ, Paul was at liberty to choose the special topic of discourse, and did so with direct reference to the character of his hearers. (25) “And as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance, and judgment to come, Felix, being full of fear, answered, Go your way for this time, and when I have a convenient season, I will call for you.” The common version, “Felix trembled,” may be true, but it is claiming more for the effect of Paul’s discourse than is asserted by Luke. He was “filled with fear,” which shows that Paul addressed him on these appropriate topics, not in a spirit of bravado, but in that earnest and solemn strain which alone can penetrate the heart. This feeling was the beginning necessary to a change of life; but lust and ambition smothered the kindling fires of conscience, and the common excuse of alarmed but impenitent sinners was urged to get rid of the too faithful monitor. It is a sad warning to all who thus procrastinate, that to neither Felix nor Drusilla did the season ever come which they thought convenient to listen to such preaching. Felix was soon dismissed in disgrace from his office; and Drusilla, with a son by Felix, perished in that eruption of Mount Vesuvius which ingulfed the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Acts 24:26-27. True to the character which Tacitus attributes to Felix, Luke adds that (26) “Hoping also that money would be given to him by Paul, so that he would release him, he therefore sent for him the oftener, and conversed with him. (27) But after two years Felix received Portius Festus as a successor; and wishing to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul bound.” Having learned, from Paul’s own lips, that he had been up to Jerusalem to bear alms from distant Churches to the poor, and knowing something, perhaps of the general liberality of the disciples toward one another, he could have no doubt, judging them according to the usage of the age, that they would be willing to purchase Paul’s freedom at a high price. That it was not done, shows that the disciples had too elevated a standard of morality to buy from a corrupt judge release from even unjust and protracted imprisonment.

These two years, if we judge from the silence of history, were the most inactive of Paul’s career. There are no epistles which bear this date; and though his friends and brethren had free access to him, we have no recorded effects of their interviews with him. The only moments in which he emerges into our view, from the obscurity of his prison, are those in which he appeared before his judges. We shall, on this account, contemplate his conduct on these occasions with the deeper interest

Acts Chapter Twenty-Five

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 25:1-5. The long imprisonment of Paul seems not in the least to have moderated the hatred of his enemies; but upon the change of governorship they renewed their efforts for his destruction. (1) “Now when Festus had come into the province, after three days he went up from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. (2) And the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, (3) requesting as a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, preparing an ambush to kill him on the way. (4) But Festus answered that Paul should be kept in Cæsarea, and that he himself would shortly depart thither. (5) Let the influential men among you, said he, go down with me, and if there is any thing wrong in this man, accuse him.” He further told them, as we learn from his speech to Agrippa, that it was contrary to Roman law to condemn a man to death before he had an opportunity for defense, face to face with his accusers. All this shows that Festus was, at this time, disposed to see justice done. He, of course, knew nothing of the plot to waylay Paul: for they kept this purpose concealed, while they professed another.

Acts 25:6-8. He made no delay in granting them the promised hearing. (6) “And when he had remained among them not more than ten days, he went down to Cæsarea, and the next day sat upon his judgment seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around, bringing many and heavy charges against Paul, which they were not able to prove: (8) while he answered in defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Cæsar have I at all offended.” The specifications embraced in this defense are the same as in the defense against the speech of Tertullus before Felix, showing that the charges were still the same. Being a “ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes” was his sin against the law; the false imputation of taking Greeks into the temple, his sin against that holy place; and the excitement of sedition among the Jews, his sin against Cæsar. In the last specification, reference was had to the mobs which the Jews were in the habit of exciting against him, whose crimes were thus charged upon him.

Acts 25:9. The accusers not being able to prove their charges, and the prisoner having plead not guilty to each specification, he should have been unconditionally released. But Festus, notwithstanding the fairness of his answer to their demands in Jerusalem, was now disposed to yield to the clamor of the Jews. (9) “But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem, there to be judged concerning these things before me?” It is possible that Festus still knew nothing of the plot to murder Paul by the roadside; but he knew that the Jews desired his death, and he here exhibited a willingness to give them the opportunity which they desired.

Acts 25:10-11. The purpose of the Jews was well understood by Paul. He remembered the purpose of the similar request preferred before Claudius Lysias, and perceived that his only safety was in frustrating their present attempt. Fortunately, the very imprisonment which exposed him to danger also furnished the means of his safety. (10) “Then Paul said, I am standing at Cæsar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you yourself very well know. (11) If I am a wrong-doer, and have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die. But if there is nothing in these things of which they accuse me, no man is able to deliver me up to them. I APPEAL TO CÆSAR.” This appeal every Roman citizen had the right to make, and it required a transfer of the case to the imperial court in Rome. The statement, “I stand at Cæsar’s judgment-seat,” was intended to justify him in refusing to be taken for trial away from Cæsarea, which was the appointed capital of the province where the courts were properly held.

His appeal to Cæsar, like his communication to Lysias, which secured his rescue in Jerusalem, is claimed as a sanction of military power. But, like that, it is only a demand made upon the military power which was holding him in unjust confinement, not to add to this injustice the crime of yielding him up to assassination. It is not an appeal from a free man to military power for protection; neither was there any necessity for the use of violence in granting his request on either occasion.

Acts 25:12. This appeal put an end to the trial, as it did to the murderous hopes of Paul’s enemies. (12) “Then Festus, having conferred with his council, answered, You have appealed to Cæsar; to Cæsar you shall go.” The conference with his advisers was probably in reference to Paul’s right to make the appeal; for he would hardly have dared, if the right was unquestioned, to hesitate about allowing it. His answer indicates some irritation under the severe rebuke of Paul’s last speech.

Acts 25:13. The custom of extending congratulations to men newly inducted into high office, which has prevailed in every age of the world, led to the next important incidents of Paul’s confinement in Cæsarea. (13) “Now when some days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Cæsarea to salute Festus.” This Agrippa was the son of the Herod who murdered the Apostle James. He was, at this time, king of Chalcis, but afterward of Galilee. Bernice was his sister. She had been married to her uncle, Herod, former king of Chalcis, but he had died, and she was still a widow. She afterward married Polemo, king of Cilicia. Like nearly all the Herod family, both male and female, she was licentious and ambitious. But she and Agrippa, being Jews by birth, were better able to understand Paul’s case than Festus.

Acts 25:14-21. Festus knew that the charges against Paul had reference to the Jewish law; but he still had not a sufficient understanding of the case to report it intelligibly to the emperor, as he now had to do, under Paul’s appeal. He determined, therefore, to obtain the benefit of Agrippa’s more familiar acquaintance with Jewish affairs. (14) “And when they had passed many days there, Festus set forth before the king the facts concerning Paul, saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix, (15) concerning whom, when I was in Jerusalem, the high priests and elders of the Jews informed me, demanding judgment against him. (16) To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to deliver any man up to death before the accused has the accusers face to face, and has an opportunity for defense concerning the accusation. (17) Then they came hither, and I, making no delay, sat on the judgment-seat the next day, and commanded the man to be brought: (18) concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such things as I supposed. (19) But they had against him certain questions concerning their own demon-worship, and concerning a certain Jesus who had died, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. (20) And I, being perplexed in the dispute about this matter, asked if he wished to go to Jerusalem, and there be judged concerning these things. (21) But Paul made an appeal to be kept for the examination of Augustus, and I commanded him to be kept till I shall send him to Cæsar.” From this speech it appears that the perplexity of Festus was not so much in reference to the main issue between the Jews and Paul, as in reference to the bearing which the case had upon Roman law. He discovered that the main issue between the parties had reference to that “Jesus who had died, and whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” This Jesus being claimed by Paul as an object of worship, he supposed it was an instance of that demon-worship, or worship of dead men deified, which was common among the Greeks and Romans. It is for this reason that he characterizes all their charges against him as “certain questions concerning their demon-worship.” By overlooking the exact mental status of the speaker, and the etymological force of the term deisideimonia, commentators have failed to give it the proper meaning both here and in Acts 17:22.

Acts 25:22. It is not probable that this was the first time that Agrippa had heard either of Paul or of Jesus. No doubt he had heard much of both, and had some curiosity to hear more. The singular circumstances which now surrounded Paul added much to his curiosity, and afforded the means of gratifying it. (22) “Then Agrippa said to Festus, I wish to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, you shall hear him.“

Acts 25:23-27. (23) “On the next day, therefore, Agrippa and Bernice having come with much pomp, and entered into the audience-chamber, with the chiliarchs and the prominent men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought forth. (24) Then Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men who are here present with us, you see the man concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer. (25) Now I perceived that he had done nothing worthy of death; but he himself having appealed to Cæsar, I determined to send him, (26) concerning whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord. Wherefore, I have brought him before you, and especially before thee, King Agrippa, that, after examination had, I may have something to write. (27) For it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not to designate the charges against him.” Festus belonged to one peculiar class of men, who found it difficult to decide how to treat Christians. The bigoted Jews, whose national prejudices were assailed by the new preachers, were prompt to decide that “they ought not to live any longer.” The blind devotees of heathen worship, like those in Philippi and Ephesus, were of the same opinion; especially when the new doctrine came into conflict with their worldly interests. The firm friend of impartial justice, such as Gallio, could easily see that they were unjustly persecuted. But to the skeptical politician, like Festus, who regarded all religion as a mere superstitious homage paid to dead heroes, and who aimed to so administer government as to be popular with the most powerful class of his subjects, it was a more difficult question. He saw clearly that Paul was guilty of nothing worthy of death or of bonds; therefore, he would not consent that the Jews should kill him; yet he was equally unwilling to offend them by releasing him. He was incapable, from his worldly and selfish nature, of appreciating Paul’s noble devotion to the good of humanity, and equally unable to understand the enmity of the Jews toward him. He must now, of necessity, send him to the emperor, but he confessed that he had no good reason to give the emperor for doing so, and was about to do an unreasonable act. In this predicament it was quite natural that he should call for the advice of Agrippa.

Acts Chapter Twenty-Six

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 26:1-3. Festus having stated the case, and the assembly being in waiting, the king assumed the presidency of the assembly. (1) “Then Agrippa said to Paul, You are permitted to speak for yourself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and offered his defense: (2) I think myself happy, King Agrippa, because I shall defend myself this day before you, touching all the things of which I am accused by the Jews; (3) especially as you are acquainted with all the customs and questions among the Jews. Wherefore, I beseech you to hear me patiently.” It must have been his left hand which he stretched forth as he began this exordium, for his right was chained to the soldier who guarded him. The compliment to Agrippa for his acquaintance with Jewish customs and controversies was not undeserved. It afforded Paul unfeigned gratification to know, that, after so many efforts to make himself understood by such men as Lysias, Felix, and Festus, he was at length in the presence of one who could fully understand and appreciate his cause.

Acts 26:4-8. After the exordium, he proceeds to state, first, his original position among the Jews, and to show that he was still true to the chief doctrine which he then taught. (4) “My manner of life from my youth, which was from the beginning among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews know, (5) who knew me from the beginning, if they were willing to testify, that, according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. (6) Even now, it is for the hope of the promise made by God to the fathers, that I stand here to be judged; (7) to which promise our twelve tribes, by earnest worshiping night and day, hope to attain. Concerning this hope, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. (8) What! Is it judged a thing incredible among you, that God should raise the dead?” The Pharisees were the least likely of all the Jewish sects to be unfaithful to Jewish institutions. It was, therefore, much in Paul’s favor that he was able to call even his enemies to witness that from his youth he had lived in the strict discipline of that sect. It was yet more so, to say that he was still a firm believer in the leading doctrine of the party, and to reiterate the assertion made on two former occasions, that it was on account of the hope of a resurrection that he was accused. This was not the avowed cause, but it was the real cause of their accusations; for the assumptions that Christ had risen from the dead was the ground-work of all Jewish opposition and persecution. He interprets the promise made by God to the fathers, by which he doubtless means the promise, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” as referring to the resurrection, because that is the consummation of all the blessings of the gospel. He exposes the inconsistency of his enemies by observing, that it was even Jews who were accusing him of crime in demonstrating this great hope so cherished by the twelve tribes. Then, turning from Agrippa to the whole multitude. he asks, with an air of astonishment, if they really deem it an incredible thing that God should raise the dead. If not, why should he be accused of crime for declaring that it had been done?

Acts 26:9-11. To still further illustrate his former standing among the Pharisees, he describes his original relation toward the cause of Christ. (9) “I thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus, the Nazarene, (10) which I also did in Jerusalem. Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the high priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my vote against them. (11) And in all the synagogues I punished them often, compelling them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” With such a record as this, there was no room to suspect him of any such bias as would render him an easy or a willing convert to Christ. On the contrary, it must have appeared to Agrippa, and the whole audience, most astonishing that such a change could take place. Their curiosity to know what produced the change must have been intense, and he proceeds to gratify it.

Acts 26:12-18. (12) “Whereupon, as I was going to Damascus, with authority and commission from the high priests, (13) at midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and those who were journeying with me. (14) And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying, in the Hebrew dialect, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. (15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you persecute. (16) But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to choose you for a minister and a witness of the things which you have seen, and of those in which I will appear to you; (17) delivering you from the people and the Gentiles, to whom I now send you (18) to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among the sanctified by faith in me.” On the supposition that Paul here spoke the truth, Agrippa saw that no prophet of old, not even Moses himself, had a more authoritative or unquestionable commission than he. Moreover, the same facts, it true, demonstrated, irresistible, the resurrection and glorification of Jesus. As to the truth of the narrative, its essential features consisted in facts about which Paul could not be mistaken, and his unparalleled suffering, for more than twenty years, together with the chain even now upon his arm, bore incontestable evidence of his sincerity. But being an honest witness, and the facts such that he could not be mistaken, the facts themselves must be real. It is difficult to conceive what stronger evidence the audience could have had in favor of Jesus, or what more triumphant vindication of the change which had taken place in Paul.

Acts 26:19-21. By these facts the speaker proceeds to justify his change of position, and his subsequent career. (19) “Whereupon, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; (20) but announced, first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works suitable to repentance. (21) On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple, and attempted to kill me.” This is a more detailed statement of the cause of Jewish enmity, which had been more briefly expressed by the statement that it was concerning the hope of the resurrection that he was accused.

Acts 26:22-23. That the Jews had not succeeded, with all their mobs, and conspiracies, and corruption of rulers, in destroying his life, was a matter of astonishment, and Agrippa might well admit that it was owing to the protecting providence of God. (22) “Having, however, obtained help from God, I have stood until this day, testifying both to small and great, saying nothing else than those things which Moses and the prophets did say should be, (23) that the Christ should suffer, and that he first, by his resurrection from the dead, should show light to the people and to the Gentiles.” Here he assumes that, instead of dishonoring Moses, he and his brethren alone were teaching the things which both Moses and the prophets had foretold; that it was required, by their writings, that the Messiah should suffer and rise from the dead.

By the statement that Christ first showed light to the people and the Gentiles by his resurrection, he must mean that he was the first to bring the subject into clear light, by an actual resurrection to glory; for there had already been some light upon it, as is proved by Paul’s previous statement in reference to the hope to which the twelve tribes had been, in all their worship, seeking to attain.

Acts 26:24. At this point in his speech, Paul was interrupted by Festus. It was a very strange speech in the ears of that dissolute heathen. It presented to him a man who from his youth had lived in strict devotion to a religion whose chief characteristic was the hope of a resurrection from the dead; who had once persecuted to death his present friends, but had been induced to change his course by a vision from heaven; and who, from that moment, had been enduring stripes, imprisonment, and constant exposure to death, in his efforts to inspire men with his own hope of a resurrection. Such a career he could not reconcile with those maxims of ease or of ambition which he regarded as the highest rule of life. Moreover, he saw this strange man, when called to answer to accusations of crime, appear to forget himself, and attempt to convert his judges rather than to defend himself. There was a magnanimity of soul displayed in both the past and the present of his career, which was above the comprehension of the sensuous politician, and which he could not reconcile with sound reason. He seems to have forgotten where he was, and the decorum of the occasion, so deeply was he absorbed in listening to and thinking of Paul. (24) “And as he offered these things in his defense, Festus cried, with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning has made you mad.“

Acts 26:25. Paul saw at once, from the tone and manner of Festus, as well as from the admission of his great learning, that the charge of insanity was not intended as an insult; but that it was the sudden outburst of a conviction which had just seized the mind of the perplexed and astonished governor. His answer, therefore, was most respectful. (25) “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness.” He saw, however, that Festus was beyond the reach of conviction; for a man who could see in the foregoing portion of this speech only the ravings of a madman, could not easily be reached by the argument, or touched by the pathos of the gospel.

Acts 26:26-27. In Agrippa Paul had a very different hearer. His Jewish education enabled him to appreciate Paul’s arguments, and to see repeated, in that noble self-sacrifice which was an enigma to Festus, the heroism of the old prophets. As Paul turned away from Festus and fixed his eye upon the king, he saw the advantage which he had over his feelings, and determined to press it to the utmost. He continues: (26) “For the king understands concerning these things, to whom also I speak with freedom: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. (27) King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.“

Acts 26:28. With matchless skill the apostle had brought his proofs to bear upon his principal hearer, and with the boldness which only those can feel who are determined upon success, he pressed this direct appeal so unexpectedly, that the king, like Festus, was surprised into a full expression of his feelings. (28) “Then Agrippa said to Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian.” Under ordinary circumstances, such a confession would have struck the auditory with astonishment. But under the force of Paul’s speech, there could not have been a generous soul present that did not sympathize with Agrippa’s sentiment.

Acts 26:29. Paul’s reply, for propriety of wording and magnanimity of sentiment, is not excelled in all the records of extemporaneous response: (29) “And Paul said, I could pray to God, that not only you, but all who hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” It was not till he came to express a good wish for his hearers and his jailers, a wish for that blessedness which he himself enjoyed, that he seemed to think again of himself, and remember that he was in chains.

Acts 26:30-32. The course of remark and the feeling of the audience had now reached that painful crisis in which it was necessary either to yield at once to the power of persuasion, or to break up the interview. Unfortunately for the audience, and especially for Agrippa, the latter alternative was chosen. The heart that beats beneath a royal robe is too deeply encased in worldly cares to often or seriously entertain the claims of such a religion as that of Jesus. A spurious religion, which shifts its demands to suit the rank of its devotees, has been acceptable to the great men of the nations, because it helps to soothe an aching conscience, and is often useful in controlling the ignorant masses; but men of rank and power are seldom willing to become altogether such as the Apostle Paul. They turn away from too close a pressure of the truth, as did Paul’s royal auditory. (30) “When he had said these things, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and those seated with them; (31) and when they had gone aside, they conversed with one another, saying, This man had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds. (32) And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Cæsar.” The decision that he had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds was the judgment of the whole company, while Agrippa went further, and said that he ought, by right, to be set at liberty. If Festus had decided thus honestly before Paul had made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the appeal had now been made, to Cæsar he must go. Whether Festus now knew any better than before what to write to Cæsar, Luke leaves to the imagination of the reader.

Acts Chapter Twenty-Seven

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 27:1-2. Not long after the interview with Agrippa, Paul saw an immediate prospect of departing upon his long-purposed voyage to Rome. The answer to his prayers was about to be realized, and the promise made him by night in the prison of Claudius Lysias that he should yet testify of Jesus in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem, was about to be fulfilled. This was being accomplished, not by any direct divine interference, but by a providential combination of circumstances. The machinations of the Jews, the corruption of Felix, the indecision of Festus, the prudence of Paul, and the Roman statute in behalf of citizens, had all most strangely, yet most naturally, combined to fulfill a promise of God made in answer to prayer. (1) “And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan cohort, named Julius. (2) And embarking on a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, intending to sail to places along the coast of Asia, Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.” Here, again, we find the significant “we” of Luke, showing that he was again in Paul’s company. The last time we met with this term was upon the arrival of the apostolic company in Jerusalem. He had probably not been far from Paul during the two years of imprisonment in Cæsarea, and was now permitted to accompany him to Rome. Aristarchus was also a voluntary companion of the prisoner, as we infer from the manner in which his name is mentioned. There were, however, other prisoners on board.

As the ship belonged to Adramyttium, which is on the coast of Mysia, it was now homeward bound, and was not expected to take the prisoners further than its own destination. But as they were about to touch at several “places along the coast of Asia,” they could calculate upon falling in with some vessel bound for Rome.

Acts 27:3. The apostolic company are now fairly launched upon their voyage, the details of which constitute a peculiar and most interesting passage in sacred history. (3) “And the next day we landed at Sidon: and Julius, treating Paul humanely, permitted him to go to the friends, and partake of their kindness.” Here we learn that Paul found friends, who were, doubtless, brethren, in the city of Sidon. Thus we find that both the Phenician cities, Tyre and Sidon, to whose wickedness the Savior once so significantly alluded, had, ere now, received the gospel. With the brethren in the former place Paul had spent a week on his voyage to Jerusalem, and now the beginning of another voyage, not much less mournful, is cheered by the hospitality of those in the latter.

Acts 27:4. (4) “And having put to sea from that place, we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.” As the proper course of the ship was westward, the contrary wind must have come from that quarter. With a favorable wind she would have passed to the south of Cyprus; but in tacking to make headway against a contrary wind, they necessarily passed to the east and north-east of that island, leaving it on the left. An additional reason for taking this tack may have been a desire to take advantage of a current which flows westward along the southern shore of Asia Minor, as far as the Archipelago, and greatly favors the progress of westward-bound vessels.

Acts 27:5-6. Passing around the north-east point of Cyprus, the vessel entered the open to the south of Cilicia and Pamphylia. (5) “And when we had sailed across the sea along Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia. (6) There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria, sailing for Italy, and put us on board of it.” Thus, according to expectation, they fell in with a vessel bound for Italy, and left the ship of Adramyttium. Their new vessel was one of the many grain ships which supplied Rome with bread from the granaries of Egypt. She was a vessel of good size, accommodating, on this voyage, two hundred and seventy-six passengers. She had, probably, undertaken to sail direct from Alexandria to Rome; but the same contrary winds which had thus far retarded the progress of the other vessel had compelled her to sail far to the northward of the direct route.

Acts 27:7-8. The wind was still contrary when they left Myra. (7) “And having sailed slowly many days, we reached Cnidus with difficulty, the wind not favoring us, and sailed under the lee of Crete, over against Salmone; (8) and coasting along it with difficulty, we came into a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea.” From Myra to the island of Cnidus is only one hundred and thirty miles; hence it must have been slow sailing to be “many days” reaching that place. From that island their course to Cape Salmone, which was the most eastern point of the island of Crete, was a little to the west of south. The wind, to turn them this much out of their course, could have been but little, if any, north of west. The lee of Crete, under which they sailed, was the southern shore, which but partially protected them from the wind, rendering it difficult to keep near the shore until they reached the harbor called Fair Havens. This was about half way the length of the island.

Acts 27:9-12. The voyage, thus far, had been so tedious that winter was approaching, and it was deemed unsafe to attempt to complete it before spring. It became a question, however, whether they would spend the winter where they were, or seek a more desirable winter haven. (9) “Much time having now elapsed, and navigation being already unsafe, because the fast had already passed, Paul admonished them, (10) saying, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with violence and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives. (11) But the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship rather than the things which were spoken by Paul. (12) And the harbor being inconvenient to winter in, the majority advised to depart thence, so as, if possible, to reach Phoenix, and spend the winter there, a harbor of Crete looking to the south-west and north-west.” Paul’s advice to the mariners was the beginning of an activity in behalf of the ship and crew which forms the chief matter of interest in the remainder of the voyage. We will yet see how nearly his prediction was fulfilled. He did not claim for it the authority of inspiration, and, therefore, we should not claim it for him; but he had some experience at sea, and expressed the result of his own judgment. It was quite natural, however, that the centurion, who seems to have had control of the matter, should put more confidence in the judgment of the owner and the master than in his. He had not yet learned to appreciate his prisoner as he did subsequently.

The description given of the harbor of Phoenix had occasioned some perplexity to commentators. As the wind was blowing from north of west, a harbor “looking to the north-west and south-west,” from the shore, would be entirely exposed to the weather; whereas this description is given to show that it was a safe harbor in which to spend the winter. Mr. Howson is undoubtedly right in assuming that Luke supposes the beholder to be looking from the water, where a vessel would lie at anchor, toward the inclosing shore, and means that to him the harbor would look to the north-west and the south-west. Such a harbor would be safe against any wind in the quadrant from south-west to north-west, and was precisely such as was needed at that time.

Acts 27:13. The harbor called Fair Havens lay on the east side of Cape Matala, which they would have to round in order to reach Phoenix; but it could not be rounded in the face of a north-west wind, hence they had to wait for the wind to change. (13) “Now when the south wind blew moderately, thinking they had gained their purpose, they weighed anchor, and sailed close by the shore of Crete.” They felt that all was secure, and even had their boat swinging astern, as they tacked slowly along the smooth sea under a gentle southern breeze. It was deceitful lull, the prelude to unexpected disasters.

Acts 27:14-17. (14) “But not long after, a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon, struck, against her, (15) and the ship being seized by it, and unable to face the wind, we gave up and were driven by it. (16) And running under the lee of an island called Clauda, with difficulty we were able to secure the boat. (17) When they had taken it up, they used helps, undergirding the ship. And fearing lest they should fall into the Syrtis, they lowered the sail, and so were driven.” It was just as they were rounding Cape Matala, and expected to be borne by the southern wind directly to Phoenix, that they were whirled away by this tempest. The direction from Crete to Clauda is south-west; the wind, therefore, must have been from the north-east. This is indicated by the name Euroclydon, which Bloomfield translates “the wave-stirring easter.” Such a wind, varying from north-east to south-east, is said still to prevail in those seas.

While passing under the lee of Clauda, the island checked the violence of the storm, and enabled them to take some precautions which were impossible in the open sea. The first of these was to “secure the boat,” which had thus far drifted astern, and was likely to be dashed in pieces. The second was to undergird the ship, a process called frapping in modern style, which consists in passing heavy cables under the hull, and fastening them securely on the deck, to prevent the timbers from parting under the force of the waves. The third precaution was to lower the sails, so as to prevent the vessel being driven too rapidly before the wind.

Acts 27:18-20. (18) “And being exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day we lightened the vessel, (19) and on the third day, with our own hands we cast out the tackling of the ship. (20) And as neither the sun nor the stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, at last all hope that we should be saved was taken away.” The sailors now began to realize the truth of Paul’s prediction about the character of the voyage, and they were prepared to listen to him with more respect when he addressed to them the following speech:

Acts 27:21-26. (21) “Now, after long abstinence, Paul stood in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, you should have hearkened to me, and not have sailed from Crete, and gained this harm and loss. (22) And now, I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there will be no loss of life among you, except of the ship. (23) For there stood by me this night an angel of God, whose I am and whom I serve, (24) saying, Fear not, Paul; you must be brought before Cæsar; and behold, God has given you all those who are sailing with you. (25) Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer; for I believe God, that it will be even as it was told me. (26) But we must fall upon a certain island.” Paul’s former prediction was already fulfilled in part, and they all believed that it was about to be in full. His reference to it was designed both to rebuke them for not heeding it, and to remind them of its correctness. His present prediction conflicted with the former in reference to loss of life; but their lives had been so completely despaired of, that they were not disposed to find fault with the former prediction, even in this particular. The present, however, was certainly spoken upon divine authority; and if we suppose the former to have been also, then the security of their lives may be regarded as a boon granted to Paul in answer to prayers offered subsequent to the first prediction. That their safety was in some sense owing to him, is evident from the words, “God has given to you all those who are sailing with you.”

Acts 27:27-29. Notwithstanding the assurance of final safety, their danger, for a time, became more imminent. (27) “And when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven along in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors supposed that they were drawing near to some land; (28) and having sounded, they found it twenty fathoms. And going a little farther, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. (29) Then fearing lest they should fall upon breakers, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for day.” From this time till day-break, the ship lay with her bow to the shore, where the waves were dashing fearfully over the hidden rocks; and was held back from inevitable destruction only by the four anchors cast astern. It was a period of fearful suspense, rendered hideous by the darkness of the night and the raging of the storm. They “wished for day,” but they knew not whether it would bring relief, or only render them more certain of destruction.

Acts 27:30-32. Under circumstances like these, both the nobler and the baser traits of human character have fair opportunity to exhibit themselves. The strong and skillful have often been known to save themselves without concern for the more helpless; while, at times, the utmost magnanimity has been displayed by the few. Both traits of character were exhibited here; one by the sailors, the other by Paul. (30) “Now the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and letting down the boat into the sea, under pretense of casting anchors out from the bow; (31) when Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Unless these remain in the ship, you can not be saved. (32) Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off.” Here we see that while the sailors, who alone could have any hope of steering the vessel safe to land, were selfishly leaving the passengers to their fate, and the soldiers were so paralyzed with fear as not to discover their design, Paul was perfectly self-possessed, and was watching for the safety of all. He had an assurance from God that no lives would be lost, yet he was just as watchful as though no such promise had been given; and he assured the soldiers that they would not be saved if the sailors were permitted to leave the vessel. We have here a happy illustration of the manner in which God’s decrees and human free agency harmonize to produce a given result. It was a decree of God that the passengers and crew should be saved, and it was certain to be accomplished; but the voluntarily watchfulness of Paul, and the desire of self-preservation on the part of the soldiers, were contingencies on which the result depended, and which contributed to it. In determining, therefore, that a thing shall be done, or declaring that it will be done, God anticipates the voluntary action of parties concerned, and only interferes, by miracles, where such action would fail of the contemplated result. In the matter of salvation, we should act as Paul did in this case: be as watchful and laborious as though God had promised us no assistance, yet as confident of divine assistance as though all were dependent on it alone.

Acts 27:33-36. In a time of extreme danger like the present, a man who is able to maintain complete self-possession has great control over those who are alarmed. Paul had already displayed his coolness and watchfulness to the soldiers, and had outgeneraled the sailors; consequently he became at once the leading spirit in the whole ship’s company. During the entire inactivity of the crew, while swinging at anchor and waiting for daylight, he endeavored to impart his own calmness to them all. (33) “Now while day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take some food; saying, This is the fourteenth day that you have been waiting, and continued fasting, having taken nothing. (34) Wherefore, I beseech you to take some food; for this is for your preservation; for not a hair shall fall from the head of any of you. (35) And when he had thus spoken, he took a loaf and returned thanks to God before all, and broke it, and began to eat. (36) Then all were of good cheer, and they also took some food.” The remark that they had taken no food for fourteen days must be interpreted in the light of the circumstances. It is not a remark of the Luke addressed to his readers, but one of Paul, addressed to his hearers. If they had taken any food at all during the time, which they certainly did, unless they were sustained by a miracle, they could but understand him as merely expressing, in strong terms, their severe abstinence. Such was undoubtedly his meaning. If Luke had been describing the fact in his own words instead of Paul’s, perhaps he would have stated it to us with some qualification. Here, again, the apostle assures them that no harm shall befall them, yet in the same breath urged them to eat heartily, as a precaution for their safety. Their safety, though certain, was still dependent upon their exertions, and, in order that they might have strength for the labor before them, it was necessary that they should break their long and exhausting fast.

The cheerfulness of Paul, as he gave thanks to God, broke the loaf, and began to eat, inspired them all with new courage. As their excitement subsided, their appetites returned; and a hearty meal, which generally smooths a rough temper, and acts as a sedative upon all mental excitement, completed her restoration of general cheerfulness, and prepared them to undertake, with alacrity, the work yet to be done.

Acts 27:37-38. The gathering of the whole ship’s company to partake of this meal seems to have suggested to the historian to mention, here, the number of persons on board. (37) “Now all the souls in the ships were two hundred and seventy-six. (38) And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, casting the wheat into the sea.” This was all done between the time of eating and daylight, and was no inconsiderable labor. It was designed to lessen the draught of the vessel, so that when run ashore she might float into the shallow water.

Acts 27:39-41. All was now done that could be, until daylight should reveal the nature of the shore ahead. (39) “And when it was day they did not recognize the land. But they discovered a certain inlet having a sandy shore, into which they determined, if it were possible, to thrust the ship. (40) And having cut away the anchors, they abandoned them to the sea; at the same time loosing the rudder-bands, and hoisting the foresail to the wind, they held toward the shore. (41) And falling into a place between two seas, they ran the ship aground; and the bow sticking fast, remained immovable; but the stern was broken by the violence of the waves.” At every point, except the one to which the vessel was steered, the shore was rocky; for this point was selected because it had a sandy shore. It required some seamanship to land where they did. While lying at anchor, the rudders, which were merely paddle-rudders, one at each side of the stern, had been lashed up, to prevent them from fouling with the four anchor-cables also astern. These were loosed to guide the vessel; and the foresail was unfurled to give the vessel the impetus necessary to a successful use of the rudders. By a skillful use of both she was steered clear of the rocks, and stranded on the sandy beach. Here “two seas met;” that is, the waves from two different points met each other, and spent their combined force upon the stern of the vessel, and she was rapidly going to pieces.

Acts 27:42. At this critical juncture there was exhibited by the soldiers an instance of depravity even greater than that of the sailors the night before. They owed their present prospect of safety to the watchfulness of Paul, yet they felt no apparent gratitude to him, and while hoping to escape themselves, they were regardless of the lives of himself and the other prisoners. (42) “Now the purpose of the soldiers was, that they would kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out and escape.” Such is the depravity of human nature, when void of religious truth, and trained to the cruelties of war.

Acts 27:43-44. But God had a purpose and a promise to fulfill, which did not admit of such a disposition of the prisoners, and the more cultivated nature of the centurion was the means of saving them. The incidents of the voyage had made an impression upon his mind most favorable to Paul, and he would not ignore the gratitude which he owed him. (43) “But the centurion, determined to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded those who could swim to cast themselves out and go first to land; (44) and the remainder, some on boards, and some on fragments of the ship. And thus it came to pass that all escaped safe to land.” Paul’s last prediction was literally fulfilled, and his fellow-prisoners owed their lives to the centurion’s partiality for him.

Acts Chapter Twenty-Eight

J.W. McGarvey

Acts 28:1-2. (1) “And after they had escaped, they knew that the island was called Melita. (2) Now the barbarians showed us no little philanthropy; for they kindled a fire, on account of the rain that was falling, and on account of the cold, and brought us all to it.” In calling the islanders barbarians, Luke adopts the style of the Greeks, by whom all nations were styled barbarians except themselves. The term had not the same sense of reproach which it bears now; yet those to whom it was applied were regarded as comparatively uncivilized. Their kindness to the shipwrecked strangers was true philanthropy, being prompted by the simple fact that they were men in distress. It was a most timely relief to the drenched and chilled and exhausted voyagers.

Acts 28:3-6. While they were endeavoring to make themselves comfortable around the fire, an incident occurred which had an important bearing upon the future welfare of the travelers. (3) “Now Paul, having gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, a viper came out from the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said one to another, No doubt this man is a murderer; whom, though he has escaped from the sea, Justice permits not to live. (5) Then he shook off the beast into the fire, and suffered no harm. (6) But they were waiting for him to swell up, or suddenly fall down dead. And when they had waited a great while, and saw that no harm came to him, they turned about, and said that he was a god.” This scene is like that at Lystra reversed. There the people first took Paul for a god, and afterward stoned him. Here they first suppose him to be a murderer, and then a god. Their bad opinion of him had not been based upon the mere fact that he was bitten by a serpent, for they knew that innocent men were liable to the same misfortune, but by the occurrence of this incident in so close connection with his safe escape from an almost hopeless shipwreck. The fact that he was a prisoner helped them to the conclusion that he had committed murder, and was now receiving a just retribution in a violent death. They attributed his punishment to the goddess of justice, using the Greek term Dike, the name of that goddess. When, after watching a long time, they found that the bite, so fatal to other men, had no effect on him, their heathen education led them irresistibly to the conclusion that he was god.

It is almost universally conceded that the island here called Melita is the modern Malta, which lies directly south of Sicily. The evidence for this conclusion is fully summed up by Mr. Howson, to whom the inquisitive reader is referred.

Acts 28:7. The admiration awakened by this event among the rude populace finally led to a more comfortable entertainment of the ship’s company. (7) “In the regions around that place were the estates of the chief man of the island, Publius by name, who received us and entertained us courteously three days.” This “chief man” is supposed to have been the Roman governor of the island. It was an instance of distinguished hospitality, to entertain for three days, with food and lodging, two hundred and seventy-six strangers.

Acts 28:8-10. But no man ever loses by such hospitality, especially if it be extended to a servant of God. Publius was not without a reward for his kindness. (8) “And it came to pass that the father of Publius lay afflicted with fever and dysentery; to whom Paul went in, and having prayed, laid his hands upon him, and healed him. (9) When this was done, others also in the island who had diseases came and were healed. (10) And they honored us highly, and when we were departing, loaded us with such things as we needed.” The voyagers had lost every thing in the shipwreck, yet, through the services of Paul, they had lacked nothing during their stay on the island, and were now about to leave it with all the necessaries for the remainder of the voyage, supplied free of cost. At the beginning of the voyage Paul was one of the most unobserved of all the passengers; but he had gradually become the chief dependence of the whole company, and had acquired an ascendency over every mind. Much of this was due to his inspiration; yet native force of character and superior talent, place them where you will, will elevate their possessor to distinction and authority. Especially will this be true in times of danger and difficulty.

We can not suppose that Paul healed diseases so generally among the islanders, without mentioning the name of Jesus. On the contrary, though Luke makes no mention of it, we can not doubt that, from the palace of the governor to the remotest hamlet of the island, the name and power of Jesus were fully proclaimed during the three months of the apostle’s stay.

Acts 28:11-14. (11) “Now after three months we set sail in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the island, whose emblem was Castor and Pollux. (12) And landing at Syracuse, we remained there three days. (13) Thence, taking an indirect course, we arrived at Rhegium. And after one day, a south wind sprang up, and we went the next day to Puteoli. (14) Finding brethren there, we were entreated to remain with them seven days; and so we went to Rome.” Castor and Pollux were represented, in Greek mythology, as sons of Jupiter, and the patron deities of sailors. Their images, carved or painted on the prow, served the purpose of distinguishing this vessel, as do the names painted upon ships and steamboats at the present day. The ship would now be called the Castor and Pollux.

Syracuse, the famous capital of Sicily, where they remained three days, was directly in their route, and the delay was probably for the purposes of trade. From this place to Rhegium they were again troubled with unfavorable winds, as is evident from their sailing by an “indirect course,” and the mention of a south wind springing up the second day after they reached this port. The south wind was directly in their course, and they sailed rapidly before it to Puteoli, accomplishing a distance of one hundred and eighty miles on the next day after they started.

It was, doubtless, an unexpected pleasure to Paul to find brethren in Puteoli, and equally unexpected to them to have the great apostle to the Gentiles in their midst. The request that he should remain with them seven days indicates a desire to have him present at their Lord’s-day meeting. It is suggestive of a season of religious intercourse, terminated by the day on which the disciples came together to break the loaf. The ship had reached her final port; for Puteoli, situated on the northern side of the Bay of Naples, was the chief landing-place for vessels engaged in the trade between Rome and Egypt. The remainder of the journey was to be performed on foot, and there was nothing to prevent Paul’s delay with the brethren, except the will of the centurion, who was under too great obligations to him to refuse any reasonable request.

Acts 28:15. The delay of seven days was long enough for news to reach the brethren in Rome, that Paul was in Puteoli on his way to their city. (15) “And the brethren, having heard from that place concerning us, came out to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Three Taverns. When Paul saw them he thanked God and took courage.” The two place here mentioned were about ten miles apart, and it was doubtless two different companies who met them, having left Rome at different times. One party had come about forty miles, to Appii Forum, and the other about thirty, to the places called Tres Tabernæ, or Three Taverns. Such a mark of respect extended to him in his bonds was highly gratifying, and no wonder that he “thanked God and took courage.”

Acts 28:16. Finally, the gates of “the eternal city,” as it was proudly styled, were entered. The prisoners were at the end of their long journey, and soon learned the disposition to be made of them for the time being. (16) “And when we came into Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the Prætorian Prefect; but Paul was permitted to dwell by himself, with the soldier who guarded him.” The Prætorian Prefect was commander of the imperial guards, and had custody of all persons to be tried before the emperor. It was probably the influence of Julius, the centurion, in his favor, which obtained for Paul the distinguished privilege of living in his own rented house, with only a single guard.

Paul had now accomplished a journey which he had contemplated for many years, and had met with some of the brethren whom he had called upon two years and a half ago, to strive together with him in prayer to God that he might come to them with joy, by the will of God, and with them to be refreshed. God had twice promised him that he should visit Rome, and now the promise was fulfilled, and his prayers were answered. But how different his entrance into the imperial city from what he had fondly hoped! Instead of coming in a free man, to appear in the synagogue, and in the forum, for the name of Jesus, he is marched in between files of soldiers, reported to the authorities as a prisoner sent up for trial, and kept night and day under a military guard. How poor his prospect for evangelizing the vast population! If Paul the tent-maker, a penniless stranger, had commenced his labors in the commercial emporium of Greece, “in weakness, and in fear and in much trembling,” how shall Paul the prisoner, with all the suspicion of crime which attaches to such a situation, begin the work of salvation in the capital of the whole world? The prospect was sufficiently disheartening; but he had one consolation which he did not enjoy in Corinth. He was not a stranger here; but was well known to all the brethren, who had heard his Epistle to the Romans read in the Lord’s-day meetings, and who were eager to form his personal acquaintance. He had already thanked God and taken courage, when some of them had met him on the way, and now he was emboldened, by their sympathy, to send forth even from his prison-walls a voice of warning to the vast multitudes around him.

Acts 28:17-20. He made no delay in beginning his work; and his first appeal, according to his uniform custom, was addressed to his own kinsmen according to the flesh. (17) “And it came to pass, after three days, that he called together the chief men of the Jews; and when they had come together, he said to them, Brethren, I have done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers; yet I was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans; (18) who, having examined me, were disposed to release me, because there was no cause of death in me. (19) But the Jews opposing it, I was compelled to appeal to Cæsar; not that I had any thing of which to accuse my nation. (20) For this cause I have requested to see you, and speak to you. For it is on account of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.” The propriety of this interview, and of the individual statements in the speech, is quite obvious. It might have been supposed, from the fact that he was accused by the Jews, that he had been guilty of some crime; and from his appeal to Cæsar, that he intended to prefer charges against his accusers. The fact that the Romans would have released him but for the opposition of the Jews, was much in his favor on the first point; and on the latter, his own disavowal was sufficient. His closing remark, that it was for the hope of Israel that he was bound with a chain, was well calculated to enlist their sympathies; for it was no uncommon thing for Jews to be persecuted.

Acts 28:21-22. The response of the Jews was candid and becoming. (21) “And they said to him, We have neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor has any of the brethren who had come reported or spoken any evil concerning you. (22) But we think it proper to hear from you what you think; though concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is everywhere spoken against.” It is rather surprising that they had heard nothing of the exciting scenes of Paul’s life in the last two years; but it often thus happens that events pass almost unnoticed by a living generation, which are destined, in subsequent ages, to figure as the leading events of history. By hearing nothing, however, they had heard nothing prejudicial to him, except that the sect of which he was an advocate had a bad reputation. If they had acted on the principle which often governs predominant religious parties, this would have been sufficient to turn away their ears. Doubtless, they had acted somewhat on this principle toward the preachers of the gospel who had preceded Paul in Rome; but the direct personal appeal which he made to them, and the conciliatory manner and matter of his address, induced them to think proper to hear what he thought. In these words, they gave good expression to an important rule of conduct; for, however a party who attempts to show us the truth may be spoken against, it is always proper to hear them before pronouncing sentence against them.

Acts 28:23-24. Before the Jews took leave of Paul, they made arrangements for a formal and deliberate hearing of what he thought. (23) “And having appointed him a day, there came to him into his lodging a greater number, to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning till evening. (24) Some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.” Sufficient time was occupied to place the whole subject before them, and to support each separate proposition with suitable evidence. The result was such a division of sentiment as almost uniformly attended the preaching of the gospel.

Acts 28:25-28. From what follows, we have reason to suppose that the unbelieving party gave some unbecoming expression to their sentiments. (25) “And disagreeing among themselves, they dispersed, Paul saying one word: Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, (26) saying, Go to this people and say, With hearing you will hear and will not understand, and seeing, you will see and not perceive; (27) for the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them. (28) Be it known to you, therefore, that the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.” The purpose of henceforth turning to the Gentiles, implied in the last remark, indicates that far the larger portion of his hearers rejected the gospel.

The quotation from Isaiah furnishes the true explanation of the failure of the gospel to effect the salvation of all who hear it fully proclaimed. The theory that the human soul must be regenerated by an immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, or that the Spirit must impart a special force to the Word in individual cases, before the gospel can be received, is an attempt to explain this matter; but it is not consistent with the explanation here given by Paul. Upon those theories, when a part of Paul’s hearers went away unbelievers, the reason was that they had not enjoyed a divine influence which was granted to the others. On Paul’s theory, however, the Lord had done as much for the one party as for the other; and the reason why one party were not believers was because, unlike the others, their ears were dull of hearing, and their eyes were closed. Neither was this condition superinduced without their own volition; for they are expressly charged with closing their own eyes. As they closed them voluntarily, they could have kept them open. Had they done so, it is implied that the process would have been reversed. They would have seen the truth; seeing it to be the truth, they would have given it a respectful hearing; hearing they would have understood it, and would have turned to the Lord that they might be healed. This was precisely the experience of the party who believed. They had themselves once been gross of heart and dull of hearing, and had closed their eyes against the truth as presented by previous preachers in Rome; but now they opened their eyes to what Paul presented, and the consequence was, they turned to the Lord. We conclude, therefore, that the power of the gospel is sufficient for the conversion of all who will see and hear. For this reason, it is sent to all in the same words; all who hear enjoy the same divine influence, and those only are lost who wilfully refuse to hear the truth, or obstinately resist it. In this arrangement there is no respect of persons with God, nor can any man attribute his final ruin to a withholding of saving influences on the part of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 28:29. Notwithstanding the principal part of Paul’s visitors went away unbelievers, they could not at once cast the subject off from their attention. Luke follows them, as they went away, with this remark: (29) “And when he said these things, the Jews departed, having much disputation among themselves.“

Acts 28:30-31. The narrative is now brought abruptly to a close, by the following statement: (30) “Now Paul remained in his own hired house two whole years, and received all who came in to him, (31) preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all freedom of speech, no one forbidding.” Here, again, Luke observes the distinction between preaching and teaching. Originating in the apostolic commission, which was the starting point of Acts, it has been preserved throughout the narrative, and now appears at its close.

The liberty granted Paul, of living in a rented house with the soldier who guarded him, enabled him to pursue these labors to the utmost advantage possible for one in military confinement. The brethren needed no invitation to visit him and hear his teaching; while their influence, actively exerted, was sufficient to bring in a large number of persons to hear his preaching.

The results of these efforts Luke does not see fit to enumerate; nor does he gratify the natural curiosity of the reader by continuing to its final close the biography of Paul. He leaves him at the end of two years’ imprisonment, without even informing us whether he was then released. True, the remark that he “remained in his own hired house two whole years, and received those who came to him,” seems to imply a change after that time; but it might have been a change to closer confinement, so far as is indicated by this remark.

It is probable that the narrative was brought to a close here, partly because the composition of it was concluded just at this time. The two years of comparative inactivity which Luke enjoyed while a companion of the prisoner Paul afforded a good opportunity for writing it, and it is quite certain that the last paragraph was not written till the close of this period.

But, independent of this consideration, the leading purpose of the narrative itself rendered this a most fitting point at which to bring it to a close. Having started out to show the manner in which the apostles and evangelism executed their commission, he had now led his readers from Jerusalem through Judea, Samaria, the provinces of Asia Minor, the islands of the Mediterranean, Macedonia, and Achaia, to the imperial city of Rome; and leaving the principal laborer here, still engaged in “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ,” his purpose is accomplished, and the narrative closes.

A commentary on Acts, strictly confined to the subject-matter of the text, would here be brought to a close. But as it has been a part of our purpose to give somewhat more fullness to the biography of Paul, by introducing information derived from other inspired sources, we have yet a few paragraphs to pen. Fortunately, the intense curiosity awakened by the closing chapters in reference to the further career of the apostle may, in some degree, be gratified. This curiosity directs itself chiefly to two questions suggested by the later portion of the history: first, what were the results to the cause of his long-wished-for visit to Rome? second, what was the result of his appeal to Cæsar?

In reference to the first question, we have already remarked, that his entrance into Rome was far different from what he had fondly hoped, and he could not reasonably expect to accomplish much while confined with a chain, and resting under the suspicion of being deservedly in confinement. But we have already seen that he continued to preach and teach for two years, and we learn something of the extent and success of his labors from epistles which he wrote during this period. Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were the earliest of these epistles, being written at one time, and forwarded, the former two by Tychicus, and the last by Onesimus, the two messengers traveling together. In the two former there are indications of great anxiety in reference to the success of his efforts, and intimations of serious obstacles in the way. He exhorts the brethren to pray for him, that a door of utterance might be opened to him, and that he might have boldness to speak the gospel as it ought to be spoken. This request shows that there were some obstructions to the proclamation of the truth, and that they were such as were calculated to check the boldness of his utterance.

Notwithstanding these obstructions, the last of the three letters above named reveals some success which had already rewarded his labors. Out of the very dregs of the dissolute and corrupt society of the metropolis, a Greek slave, who had run away from his master, a convert of Paul’s in Asia Minor, had, by some means, been induced to visit the apostle and hear the gospel. It proved the power of God to free him from a bondage far worse than that from which he had fled. After he became a disciple, Paul found him profitable to him for the ministry; being of service, no doubt, in bringing within the sound of the gospel many of his former companions. For this reason he had a strong desire to retain him as an assistant; but having no right to do so without the consent of Philemon, his master, and being unwilling to enjoin by authority upon the latter the obvious duty of liberating a slave capable of so great usefulness, he sent him home to his master, with an epistle, in which he delicately intimates his wishes in the premises, but leaves the whole subject to his own sense of propriety. Sending him home without the means to recompense his master for any thing of which he had defrauded him, Paul promises to pay the sum, if any, out of his own purse. Thus his preaching had begun to take effect upon the most hopeless class of the city population, at a time when he was urging distant congregations to pray that God would open to him a door of utterance.

But, eventually, in answer to these prayers, a door of utterance was thrown open far wider than he had reason to expect. In the Epistle to the Philippians, written at a later period, when he was expecting his trial and release, he says: “I wish you to understand, brethren, that the things which have happened to me have fallen out rather to the furtherance of the gospel, so that my bonds in Christ are made manifest in all the palace, and in all other places, and many brethren in the Lord, growing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.” From his prison, the Lord had opened a door of utterance into the imperial palace itself; so that Paul the prisoner had an audience whose ears would have been wholly inaccessible to Paul the unfettered apostle. His discourse before the emperor, if we may judge by that before Agrippa, must have awakened new thoughts and emotions in the Roman court; and what awakened new interest there could not be long in spreading to “all other places.” The Lord had led him by a strange method to Rome, and surrounded him with many discouragements; but his purpose was now unfolded, and Paul saw in the result, as it affected both the disciples and the community at large, a wisdom which before had been inscrutable. He had now demonstrated what he had once written to the Romans, that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and was ready to preach it even in Rome; for he had preached it to both the proudest and the poorest of the population, and that with a chain upon his arm.

No two years of Paul’s life were better filled with earnest labor than these two spent in his Roman prison. Besides the oral efforts just referred to, and the epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians, he is supposed, also, near the close of this period, to have written Hebrews, the most profound, next to Romans, of all his productions. He was not alone in his toil and danger, but was constantly surrounded by some of those noble brethren who were so ardently attached to his person. Timothy joins with him in the opening salutations of Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. Aristarchus and Epaphras were his fellow-prisoners; Mark, who once forsook him and Barnabas, and went not with them to the work, was now with him; Demas, who afterward forsook him, “having loved the present world,” was as yet by his side; and Luke, the beloved physician, who shared the perils of his voyage from Cæsarea, continued to relieve the dreariness of his imprisonment, and indited the last paragraph of Acts, as we conjecture, just as the two years expired.

The question as to the result of Paul’s appeal to Cæsar is not settled by direct scriptural evidence, yet it is determined, to the satisfaction of nearly all the commentators, that he was released at the end of the two years mentioned by Luke. The evidence on which this conclusion is based consists partly in the unanimous testimony of the earliest Christian writers after the apostles, and partly in the difficulty of fixing a date for the epistles to Timothy and Titus without this supposition. There are events mentioned in these epistles, for which no place can be found in the preceding history; such as his leaving Timothy in Ephesus, to counteract the influence of false teachers, while he went into Macedonia; his leaving Titus in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting there, and to ordain elders; his visit to Miletus, when he left Trophimus there sick; and to Nicopolis, where he spent the winter. The argument drawn from both these sources is very fully and satisfactorily stated by Mr. Howson, to whom the more inquisitive reader is referred.

On the supposition of his release, the subsequent known facts are best arranged as follows: He first fulfilled the purpose so confidently expressed of the Philippians of visiting them again; and next took advantage of the lodging which he had directed Philemon to prepare for him at Colosse. While in Asia, he would scarcely pass by the city of Ephesus; but it is after a short visit to Spain, that we locate that visit, at the conclusion of which he left Timothy there and went into Macedonia. It was contrary to the expectation once entertained by Paul, that he was once more greeted by the brethren in Ephesus; for he had bidden them farewell four years ago with the conviction that they would see his face no more. Leaving Timothy in Ephesus, and going to Macedonia, he wrote back to him the First Epistle to Timothy, in which he expressed a hope of rejoining him soon at Ephesus. This he most likely did, as he soon after visited Crete, in company with Titus; and the most usual route from Macedonia to this island was by way of Ephesus. Having made a short visit in Crete, he left Titus there, to “set in order the things which were wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” Shortly after leaving the island, he wrote the Epistle to Titus. He was then on his way to Nicopolis, a city of Epirus, where he expected to spend the winter. On the way he had passed through Miletus, where he left Trophimus sick; and Corinth, where he left Erastus. Whether he spent the whole winter in Nicopolis, or was imprisoned again before spring, is not certainly known; but the next that we know of him, he was a prisoner in Rome the second time, as is indicated in his Second Epistle to Timothy. From this epistle we learn several interesting particulars of his imprisonment, and of the beginning of his final trial. His situation was more alarming, and he was attended by fewer friends than before. Demas forsook him, through the love of this world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens, for some reason unexplained, went to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. Tychicus he had sent to Ephesus. Luke, alone, of all his former fellow-laborers, was with him, though he was expecting Timothy to soon rejoin him, and bring Mark with him.

At the time of writing, he had passed through the first stages of his trial, and was awaiting the second. The want of human sympathy which he had felt in his prison was realized still more intensely during his trial. He says: “At my first answer, no man stood with me, but all forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” Even Luke, who dared to visit him in his prison, and remain with him when others fled, shrunk from the fearful position of standing by his side in the presence of Nero. But the venerable man of God, though deserted in his most trying hour by human friends, was able to say, “Notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.” Thus again had he fearlessly and fully vindicated his preaching in the presence of the imperial court, and passed, a second time, through the fiery ordeal, without personal injury. The declaration that he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion is an allusion to the case of Daniel, of which his own reminded him.

But there was another stage of his trial yet before him, and from this he had reason to anticipate the most fatal results. From all the indications in view, he was induced to write to Timothy, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” He had some years before declared, “I hold not my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the favor of God.” Now, he was about to yield up his life, and upon looking back over the course he had run, and the ministry with which he had been entrusted, the conditions specified were completely fulfilled. With all confidence he is able to say, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” All who have followed his course with us in these pages can bear testimony to this declaration, and, after glancing back with him over the long series of stripes, imprisonment, and exhausting toil through which he had passed, can enter into the feeling of relief and joy with which he looked forward and exclaimed, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me at that day; and not to me only, but to all them also who love his appearing.” Like a mariner on a long voyage, whose bark had been tossed by many waves, and shrouded in the gloom of many a storm, his soul was cheered, at last, by a view of the desired haven close at hand. He is still, however, beaten by the storm, and one more dark billow is yet to roll over him, ere he rests upon the calm waters within the haven. Here the curtain of inspired history closes over him, and the last sound we hear is his own shout of triumph as he braces himself for the last struggle. It only remains for the earliest uninspired history of the Church to confirm his own anticipations, by testifying that his trial finally resulted in a sentence of death, and that he was beheaded outside the gates of Rome, in the last year of the reign of Nero, a.d. 68. We bid him adieu till the resurrection morning, well pleased that the course of the narrative on which we have commented has been so directed as to keep us for so long a time in his company.

(Simplified Study Of The Book of Acts)

By Thomas Eaves

NAME OF BOOK

This book has been designated by many different titles.

• ·    Acts

• ·    The Acts

• ·    The Acts of the Apostles

These designations can be misleading if one is not acquainted with the book. The book of Acts deals mostly with the activities of Peter and Paul. The book follows the natural divisions of Acts 1:8, "And ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

• ·    Jerusalem — Acts 1-7

• ·    Judaea and Samaria — Acts 8-12

• ·    Unto the uttermost part of the world — Acts 13-28

AUTHOR OF THE BOOK OF ACTS

The same person who wrote Acts wrote the gospel of Luke. Both are addressed to the same person (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). History points to Luke as the writer of Acts. No one has ever claimed its authorship and no one has ever disputed that Luke is not the writer. There are three "we" sections in the book (Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-21; Acts 27:1-44; Acts 28:1-16) which appear referring to the writer and Paul. It seems as if the writer was a close companion to Paul and wrote a diary of their travels. Some of Paul’s companions who could not have written the book are listed in Acts 20:4-6. The author said, "These departed and waited for "us." Luke was a companion of Paul and was with him at Colossae (Colossians 4:14) and when he wrote to Philemon (Philemon 1:24).

The medical language and the interest of the writer of Luke in the healings of Christ seem to point to one who had a knowledge and/or interest in medicine. Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14). It is interesting to note that when Luke wrote, "For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:25), that he used the term which designates a surgical needle, whereas Matthew used the word describing a sewing needle (Matthew 19:23). The language of this book is scholarly and it is evident that it was written by one who had an excellent education. The Muratorian Canon, which dates from some time near the end of the second century and gives a list of the New Testament books, names Luke as the author of Acts.

LUKE, THE MAN

Luke is mentioned in Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11. All of these were written from Rome. Luke’s name is not mentioned in Luke or Acts. Luke uses the Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) as a basis of his quotations. Eusebius, the Jewish historian, refers to Luke as, "by race Antiochian" and "physician his trade." Jerome in the fifth century said that Luke wrote The Acts of the Apostles and referred to him as a "medical man of Antioch."

DATE OF THE BOOK

The Book of Acts is volume two of Luke’s work, which was addressed to Theophilus. It was written about 62 A . D .

SEGMENT I

ACTS CHAPTER ONE

Acts 1:1-5

Introduction

(1) The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concern-ing all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: (3) to whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:

(4) and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me: (5) for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Verse One - The former treatise that Luke had written to Theophilus was the Gospel of Luke. The name Theophilus means "lover of God." Luke addressed him as "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3). This was a common title for prominent people (Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3; Acts 26:25). It is possible that he was a high Roman official.

Without a doubt Jesus was "the master teacher" (John 7:46), and one of the characteristics of a successful teacher is that he/she be a doer of the word, then a teacher. The old adage, "Don’t do as I do, but do as I say do," is not the philosophy of the successful teacher. If the gospel has not made an impact on our lives, how can we hope to change the lives of others by teaching them the gospel?

Verse Two - "Until the day he was received up" declares the ascension of Jesus as does Acts 1:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15; and Romans 1:4.

Verse Three - After His resurrection Jesus walked upon the earth for about forty days teaching about the kingdom of God. During this time He appeared to over five hundred individuals (1 Corinthians 15:4-8).

Verse Four - The apostles were instructed to remain in Jerusalem to receive the Holy Spirit, which had been promised to them (Matthew 3:11; John 14:18-26; John 16:13). It is important to note that this was a promise, not a command.

Verse Five - John baptized with water (John 3:23), but God would baptize them in the Holy Spirit, as had been promised to them.

Acts 1:6-8

Commission to The Apostles

(6) They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority. (8) But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Verse Six - The apostles asked Jesus concerning the kingdom. The Jews misunderstood the type of kingdom which God was going to establish. Expecting an earthly kingdom such as existed in the days of David instead of a spiritual kingdom, the apostles wanted to know if this was the time for the restoration of the earthly kingdom.

Verse Seven - Jesus informed the apostles that it was not important for them to know at what time that kingdom would be established. God would take care of it in due time.

Verse Eight - The apostles would receive power with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had taught that the kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1). The Holy Spirit (power) came on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Therefore, the kingdom (church) came into existence on the day of Pentecost of Acts chapter two.

Acts 1:9-11

Ascension of Christ

(9) And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (10) And while they were looking steadfastly into heaven as he went, behold two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.

Verses Nine through Eleven - As Jesus ascended into heaven the apostles received the angelic message: Jesus is coming again! The apostle Paul speaks of this in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. (Note carefully verse 17).

Acts 1:12-14

Waiting for The Promise

(12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey off. (13) And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mat-thew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. (14) These all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Verses Twelve through Fourteen - The eleven apostles returned from mount Olivet to Jerusalem which is about a Sabbath day’s journey (2,000 cubits; 1200 yards; seven tenths of a mile). Arriving in Jerusalem they entered into an upper chamber where they continued steadfastly in prayer. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was with them. This is the last reference to Mary in the New Testament.

Verse fourteen gives us information which destroys the doctrine of the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" (that Mary never had children after Jesus’ birth). Mary was with the disciples in the upper room with Jesus’ brethren. (Other passages which declare the same truth, Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-5).

Acts 1:15-26

Choosing of Matthias

(15) And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (And there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twen-ty), (16) Brethren, it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus. (17) For he was num-bered among us, and received his portion in this ministry. (18) (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

(19)And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood). (20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habi-tation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. (21) Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, (22) beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. (23) And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was sur-named Justus, and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,

(25) to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Verse Fifteen through Seventeen - In the midst of about one hundred and twenty disciples, Peter announced that Judas Iscariot was to be replaced according to prophecy.

Acts 1:18-20

REPLACEMENT FOR JUDAS

Matthew 27:3-10.

Verse Twenty-One - Qualifications are given for the one who is to replace Judas:

1. Being associated with Jesus from the time he was baptized until the day he ascended into heaven.

2. Being a witness of the resurrected Jesus.

Those who claim to be successors to the apostles today certainly do not possess these qualifications.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Six - The scriptures clearly point out that Judas was an apostle, having been numbered among the twelve (1:17) and having received his portion in the ministry of the apostles (1:17). Verse twenty-five states that Judas fell away from the ministry and apostleship. It is possible for an indi-vidual to separate himself from the grace of God.

God chose Matthias to replace Judas. While the disci-ples gave lots for the two men, the choice was made by God in answer to their prayer (Verse 24). Matthias joined the eleven, making twelve apostles.

Paul, who was an apostle, was a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15-16), one who was born out of due time (1 Corinthians 15:8). He also was privileged to see the resurrected Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8).

SEGMENT II

ACTS CHAPTER 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF T H E CHURCH

Acts 2:1-4

Arrival of The Holy Spirit

(1) And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place. (2) And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. (3) And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Verse One - Pentecost (along with the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles) was one of the annual feasts of the Jewish nation. Four names are given this feast which took place at the end of the barley harvest:

1. Feast of Harvest (Exodus 23:16).

2. Feast of First Fruits (Leviticus 23:17; Numbers 28:26).

3. The Feast of Weeks (Deuteronomy 16:10; Exodus 34:22).

4. Pentecost (Acts 2:1).

Pentecost was basically an agricultural celebration when the firstfruits of harvest were offered to God. Pentecost came fifty days after the Sabbath day of the Passover and fell on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:15-16).

Much discussion has taken place concerning the identi-fication of the "they" who were altogether in one place. Some say that the about 120 of Acts 1:15 were baptized in the Holy Spirit, while others say that the twelve apostles were the recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A very careful study of the context indicates that the "they" of verse one refers back to the eleven apostles of 1:26. The "they" of verse two, the "them" of verse three, and the "they" and "them" of verse four refer to the twelve apostles. (Matthias was added to the eleven making twelve). In Acts 2:12-13 it indicates that the twelve were the ones speaking in tongues. This was the result of being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Verses Two and Three - The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles as a sound of a rushing of a mighty wind, which filled the house where they were sitting. There were tongues like as of fire which sat upon each of them. Note that Luke does not say there was a mighty rushing wind and tongues of fire, but that there was a sound LIK E or AS a mighty rushing wind. He does not say that tongues of fire sat upon each of them, but they were L I K E or AS tongues of fire.

Verse Four - At this time the twelve were filled with the Holy Spirit. The purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit was fivefold:

1. To serve as a comforter for the apostles (John 14:16).

2. To teach the apostles all things (John 14:26).

3. To bring to the apostles’ remembrance all that Jesus had said to them (John 14:26).

4. To declare unto the apostles all things that were to come (John 16:13).

5. It gave the apostles the ability to speak in languages they had never studied, perform miracles, and to pass the power of the Spirit to others by the laying on of their hands (Acts 19:6; Acts 8:17-19).

The immediate result was that the apostles began speaking in tongues. The tongues that the apostles spoke in were languages (Acts 2:6; Acts 2:11). These were languages which they had never studied.

Acts 2:5-13

The Day of Pentecost and The Results

of The Coming of The Holy Spirit

(5) Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. (6) And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language. (7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? (8) And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born? (9) Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, (10) in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. (12) And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this? (13) But others mocking said, they are filled with new wine.

Verses Five through Ten - Jews from every nation under heaven had gathered in Jerusalem to observe this great feast. Some sixteen nations are listed as being present, yet each group heard in the "language wherein we were born." Since all of these languages were spoken by men who were Galileans, it had a profound effect upon the hearers. The result was that they:

1. Were confounded (Acts 2:6).

2. Were amazed (Acts 2:7, 12).

3. Marveled (Acts 2:7)

4. Were perplexed (Acts 2:12).

5. Asked, "what meaneth this?" (Acts 2:12).

Some, instead of listening to the message of the apostles and profiting from it, dismissed it as being words from drunken men.

Verses Eleven through Thirteen - The message of the apostles was, "The mighty works of God." Every message proclaimed from our heavenly father should center around God and His mighty works. Some of His mighty works are His:

1. Creation (Genesis 1).

2. Love for mankind (John 3:16).

3. Provisions for man’s salvation (Romans 5:8-9)

4. Revelation of His word to man (The Bible).

5. Longsuffering toward man (2 Peter 3:9).

Acts 2:14-36

Peter’s Sermon

(14) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth to them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. (15) For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day; (16) but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel: (11) And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: (18) Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I mil show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: (20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the day of the Lord come, That great and notable day: (21) And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;

(23) him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay; (24) whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (25) For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: (26) Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope: (27) Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption. (28) Thou madest known unto me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance. (29) Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. (30) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; (31) he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. (32) This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. (33) Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear. (34) For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. (36) Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Verses Fourteen through Twenty - Being charged with drunkenness, the twelve stood up and made their defense. On this occasion we have Peter’s comments recorded for our benefit as well as the benefit of those present on the day of Pentecost. Peter appeals first to the common sense of his hearers by pointing out that it was too early in the day (third hour of the day, or nine o’clock in the morning) for men to be drunk.

Peter’s explanation of this event was that it was the fulfillment of a prophecy made by the prophet Joel many years ago. What do we learn from Joel’s prophecy?

1. It had reference to the last days (this is that). Therefore Peter, as well as we, are living in the last days.

2. The Spirit was to be poured out upon all flesh.

How many does all flesh include? Is it limited in any way? From studying God’s word we know that not all Christians or all human beings nor animals had the Spirit poured out upon them (1 Corinthians 15:39). While it is true that a Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), all Christians did not have the power to perform the miraculous. To whom did all flesh refer? This gift of the Holy Spirit would not be given to Jews alone, to men alone, or to one class of society, but to representatives of all people.

Those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit included:

1. The Jews (Acts 2:1-4).

2. The Gentiles (Acts 10:45 to Acts 11:18).

The Holy Spirit was given to others by the laying on of the apostles’ hands:

1. The Samaritans (Acts 8:17).

2. Sons (Acts 2:17).

3. Daughters (Acts 21:9).

4. Young men and old men.

5.Servants and handmaids.

Those who received the Holy Spirit would:

1. Prophesy (Acts 21:9).

2. See visions (Acts 7:55).

3. Dream dreams (Acts 10:10)

The wonders of the heavens or the signs from the heavens were used to describe the judgment of God. This same terminology was used by Isaiah to describe God’s judgment against Egypt (Isaiah 19:1) and Babylon (Isaiah 13:1; Isaiah 13:9-10). This speaks of the fact that He has com-plete control over the works of His hands. Three times in the New Testament this same type of language is used:

1. At the crucifixion (Matthew 27:45-56).

2. The day of Pentecost (Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2).

3. The destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:29-31).

Not all of the prophecies of Joel chapter two were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Some were fulfilled later in the last days. Daughters prophesied later (Acts 21:9), and the Spirit was not poured out upon the Gentiles until later (Acts 10, 11).

Verse Twenty-One - "Whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved." Calling on the Lord is more than a verbal statement (Matthew 7:21). It is taking God at His word and being obedient to it. Matthew makes it clear that the "Doer," not the "Sayer," will be accepted by Jehovah God. Belief blesses only when it leads to obedience to God’s word (James 2:14-26). Note later that Peter told those who accepted Jesus to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).

Verse Twenty-Two - In this verse we have the beginning of the first gospel sermon (Salvation through Jesus Christ) preached in the history of the world. Peter preaches unto them Christ. In his sermon Peter gives four lines of proof to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:

1. The miracles of Jesus (v. 22).

2. Testimony of fulfilled prophecy (vv. 24-28).

3. The resurrection of Jesus (vv. 29-31).

4. The testimony of the miraculous (v. 33).

The miracles o f Jesus affected all areas of life. He healed the blind, lame, lepers, those who had fever, and lunatics. He raised the dead and stilled the sea, showing complete authority over the elements. Characteristics of the miracles of Jesus were:

1. Instantaneous (Matthew 12:13).

2. Made perfect or complete (Matthew 12:13).

3. Public (Matthew 12:9).

4. Acknowledged by His enemies (Matthew 12:22-24).

5. There were no failures.

6. They were used to support truth (John 11:42).

7. The miracles of Jesus were performed to prove that Jesus was who he claimed to be, the Son of God (John 14:11).

Verse Twenty-Three - Peter places the responsibility of Christ’s death upon the guilty Jews, but pointed out that God raised Him from the dead.

Verses Twenty-Four through Thirty-Three - This was prophesied by David in Psalms 16:8-11. (The interpre-tation of David’s prophecy is given in Acts 2:29-32). David had died and his tomb was in evidence to all who lived in Jerusalem, so he could not have been referring to himself. Peter stated that David was a prophet and he knew that one out of his loins (a descendant) would sit upon his throne (Matthew 1:6-16), and that David spoke of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not left in the realm of Hades (the place for departed spirits, Luke 16:19 -, but was brought forth from the dead by the power of God. His flesh did not see corruption, that is, His flesh did not decay. Peter declares that he and the other apostles were witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

Verses Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five - Further proof of the resurrected Christ was the fact that from His exalted position on the right hand of God, He had sent the Holy Spirit which they saw and heard. David could not have been speaking of himself because he had not ascend-ed into heaven.

Verse Thirty-Six - Peter concluded his sermon by once again fixing the guilt of the death of Jesus Christ upon the Jews (Acts 2:23).

Verse Thirty-Seven - Being pricked in their hearts (convicted of sin), they asked what they needed to do. Without a doubt the question, "What must I do to be saved?," is the greatest question that man can ask. What makes it so great? It involves:

1. The greatest love ever shown (John 3:16).

2. The greatest gift ever given (John 3:16).

3. The greatest sacrifice ever offered (Romans 5:8-9).

4. The greatest opportunity offered to man, the opportunity to become a child of God (John 1:12).

5. The greatest reward, eternal life with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 25:34).

Verse Thirty-Eight - Peter and the other eleven apostles did not tell these Jews who had crucified Jesus to, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," rather Peter told these believers to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Repentance is a change of mind which results in a change of life (Matthew 21:28-31, Note verse twenty-nine).

Baptism is the uniting of the believer (who has repented and confessed Jesus as the Son of God) with the blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is into the death of Jesus Christ where He shed His blood (Romans 6:3-4; John 19:34; Revelation 1:5). In baptism sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ (Acts 22:16). After their baptism they were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit dwells in the Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19). This is not equal to the Holy Spirit given by the laying on of hands of the apostles, which enabled those who received it to do miraculous signs.

Verse Thirty-Nine - The promise of salvation was to the Jews, their descendants and to the Gentiles who were afar off (Ephesians 2:11-13), and as many as God shall call unto Him. God calls all men (Mark 16:15), through the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

Verse Forty - Peter exhorted them further, encouraging them to save themselves. Man has a responsibility for his salvation, in that he must accept the invitation extended by Jesus (Matthew 11:28-30), and obey His w i l l (Romans 6:16-17).

Verse Forty-One - This verse informs us how individuals became Christians. About 3,000 on Pentecost accepted God’s word by following Peter’s instructions. They were obedient.

Verse Forty-Two - The new Christians engaged in wor-ship to God:

1. There was a teaching of God’s word by the apostles.

2. Breaking of bread.

3. Prayers.

4. Fellowship with God and fellow Christians.

There are two references in Acts two concerning the breaking of bread, verses 42 and 46. Verse forty-two is speaking of worshipping God. They had fellowship with one another in the Lord’s supper. Remember that Pente-cost fell on the first day of the week and it is on that day that God’s children meet to partake of the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7). In verse forty-six the saints engaged in a common meal for physical sustenance.

Acts 2:43-47

Conduct of The Church

Verse Forty-Three - The wonders and signs done by the apostles created a sense of fear (awe and reverence) for the divine (spiritual things).

Verses Forty-Four through Forty-Seven - These verses record a remarkable example of fellowship among Christ-ians. They were together, shared their goods and some even sold their possessions to meet the needs of their brethren. They were together day by day and partook of their food with thanksgiving. What makes this such an outstanding incident is that they were not commanded to sell their property but did it out of the generosity of their hearts.

Verse Forty-Seven - Literally, translated from the Greek this passage states, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

1. Those on Pentecost were saved (Acts 2:41).

2. Others were added to them (Acts 2:47).

3. Peter gave the terms of this salvation (Acts 2:38).

4. They were not voted on to see if they should be added to the body of the saved (Acts 2:38)

5. God did the adding, not man (Acts 2:47).

SEGMENT III

Acts 3:1 to Acts 4:31

GROWTH AND FIRST PERSECUTION

OF THE CHURCH

Acts 3:1-10

Healing of the Lame Man

(1) Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. (2) And a certain man that was lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the door of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; (3) who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked to receive an alms. (4) And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us. (5) And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something from them. (6) But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but what I have, that give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. (7) And he took him by the right hand, and raised him up: and immediately his feet and his ankle-bones received strength. (8) And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping, and praising God. (9) And all the people saw him walking and praising God: (10) and they took knowledge of him, that it was he that sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

Verse One -The hour of prayer. The regular hours of prayer seem to be three in number:

1. The first coincided with the morning sacrifice at the third hour of the morning (9:00 A . M . ) .

2. The second was at the sixth hour or at noon and may have coincided with the thanksgiving for the chief meal of the day.

3. The third hour of prayer coincided with the evening sacrifice at the ninth hour of the day (3:00 P.M.).

It is said that the influence of these hours of prayer upon the development of the religious spirit is incalculable.

Verse Two    -The beautiful gate    is described    by McGarvey in his commentary as follows:

The beautiful gate of the temple, so-called because of its magnificent folding doors, fifty feet high and forty wide, covered with gold and Corinthian brass, was the favorite pass-way into the temple.

Verses Three through Six - The crippled man asked Peter and John for an alms. Expecting silver or gold, he received something far greater; he was healed of his lameness. Peter, invoking the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, commanded him to walk.

Verses Seven through Ten - Peter lifted him up and he began walking, leaping, and praising God. The people in the temple recognized him as the one who "sat for alms at the beautiful gate," and they were filled with wonder and amazement. This miracle furnished Peter with an opportunity to preach his second sermon.

Acts 3:11-26

Peter Explains and Preaches

on Solomon’s Porch

(11) And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solo-mon’s, greatly wondering. (12) And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this man? or why fasten ye your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him to walk? (13) The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had deter-mined to release him. (14) But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, (15) and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (16) And by faith in his name hath his name made this man strong, whom ye behold and know: yea, the faith which is through him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. (17) And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (18) But the things which God foreshowed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled. (19) Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refresh-ing from the presence of the Lord; (20) and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus: (21) whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old. (22) Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. (23) And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. (24) Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, that also told of these days. (25) Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (26) Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from your iniquities.

Verses Eleven through Fifteen - The people were amazed at the healing of the crippled man and they gathered on Solomon’s porch. Solomon’s porch had a double row of columns twenty-seven feet high and was covered with cedar shingles. This porch ran along the Eastern wall in the court of the Gentiles.

Peter makes it clear to the crowd that the power to make the crippled man whole came not from them, but from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew 22:32).

This God had glorified His son Jesus whom they had:

1. Delivered up to His enemies.

2. Denied.

3. Desired a murderer over Him.

4. Killed.

5. Read: Matthew 26:47 to Matthew 27:66.

Death was not victorious over Jesus because God raised Him from the dead. In His resurrected state Jesus appeared to many (1 Corinthians 15:8-14) as He walked upon the earth forty days (Acts 1:3).

Verses Sixteen through Seventeen - The faith of the apostles in the power of God had made the cripple whole. McGarvey in his commentary makes this statement,

We must locate the faith, therefore, in the apostles; and in this we are sustained by the fact that the exercise of miraculous power, by those in possession of spiritual gifts, was always dependent upon their faith; Peter was empowered to walk on water; but, when his faith wavered, he began to sink, and Jesus said, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Nine of the apostles, once, having failed to cast out a demon, asked Jesus, "Why could we not cast him out?" He replied, "because of your unbelief (Matthew 17:20).

In answer to their prayers, also, many miracles were wrought, but it was only "the prayer of faith" which could heal the sick.

Peter said that they crucified Jesus in their ignorance as did their rulers. Their ignorance was inexcusable because they had the scripture which spoke of Hi m (John 1:45; John 5:46; Luke 24:44).

A l l that God had spoken through the prophets concern-ing the suffering of Jesus was fulfilled.

PROPHECY FULFILLED

The following are just a few of the prophecies concerning the sufferings of Jesus:

Isaiah 53:3 — Despised and Rejected — John 1:11-12 Matthew 27:1-2

Psalms 2:1-2 — Despised and Rejected — Acts 4:25-26 Isaiah 49:7 — Hated — John 15:24-25

Isaiah 28:16 — A Stumbling Block — Romans 9:32 Isaiah 53:3-4 — A Man of Sorrows — John 11:35

Luke 19:41

Isaiah 53:4-5 — Beaten for Our Sakes — Matthew 27:26

Verse Nineteen - After Peter told his audience that they had killed the Prince of life, he further instructs them to, "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out." This verse is equal to Acts 2:38. (See below):

Acts 2:38 --Repent--Be Baptized--For Remission of Sins

Acts 3:19 --Repent--And Turn--Sins To Be Blotted Out

In both cases godly sorrow led them to repent (I 1 Corinthians 7:10), which is a change of mind which leads to a reformation of life. The turning again or being con-verted is being baptized for the remission of sins. The remission or blotting out of sins follows the act of being baptized into the death of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

Verses Twenty and Twenty-One - God will send Jesus back to claim His own (Hebrews 9:28), but until that time He w i l l reside in heaven until the fulfillment of the pro-phecies made by God through the prophets.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Three - In these verses Peter applies the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18-19 to Jesus Christ.

God would:

1. Raise up a prophet like Moses.

2. Put His words in his mouth.

3. Cause the prophet to speak His commandments.

4. Destroy them that did not obey.

The great truths that Jesus taught while He was on earth came from Jehovah God (Matthew 16:18; Mark 16:16 and many other scriptures).

Moses and Jesus compared:

1. Both were sought by a king who sought to destroy them.

2. Both were law givers.

3. Both were leaders who led God’s people to a promised land. (Moses to Canaan; and Jesus to heaven).

4. Both were spokesmen from God.

Verses Twenty-Four through Twenty-Six - The prophets from Samuel on had testified of these things, and being sons of the prophets they were knowledgeable of the covenant that God had made with Abraham (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18; Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:14).

God’s promises to Abraham:

1. Would bless him.

2. Would make from his seed a great nation.

3. Would give his descendants Canaan.

4. Through his seed, " All nations of the earth would be blessed."

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the promise, " All nations of the earth shall be blessed."

These people should have expected and prepared for the coming of the "Prince of life" (Acts 3:15), instead they rejected Him. Jesus came for the purpose of turning them from their iniquities (sins). Knowing all of this they still crucified Him.

ACTS CHAPTER 4

Acts 4:1-4

Peter and John Cast Into Prison

(1) And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, (2) being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (3) And they laid hands on them, and put them in ward unto the morrow: for it was now eventide. (4) But many of them that heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about Ave thousand.

Peter, no doubt, preached the gospel (Romans 1:16), and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection would have been upsetting to the Sad-ducees because they did not believe in it (Acts 23:8). Those upset were the priests, Captain of the temple (probably the head of the temple police or the commander of the guard of the Levites who stood guard in the temple, II Chronicles 26:17-18), and the Sadducees.

Peter and John were cast into prison. Paul states that those who live godly will suffer persecution (II Timothy 3:12). Many believed and the disciples numbered about five thousand men. This is the last number (count) given for Christians in the book of Acts.

Acts 4:5-12

Peter and John Before The Rulers

(5) And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; (6) and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest. (7) And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, by what power, or in what name, have ye done this? (8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders, (9) if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means this man is made whole; (10) be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. (11) He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. (12) And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.

In these verses the Jewish leaders gathered and asked Peter and John by what power or in what name they had healed the lame man. Peter makes it very clear that it was by the power of Jesus Christ that the man was made whole. Peter again makes it very clear (as he did in Acts 2:36, 3:15), that they were guilty of the blood of Jesus, for they had crucified him by lawless hands. Furthermore, Peter tells them that Jesus was the cornerstone which they had rejected and that there is salvation in none other than Jesus Christ. He is THE savior of the world and there is none other.

Acts 4:13-22

Peter and John Are Threatened and Released

(13) Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took know-ledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. (14) And seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. (15) But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, (16) saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

(17) But that it spread no further among the people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. (18) And they called them, and charged them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. (19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: (20) for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard. (21) And they, when they had further threat-ened them, let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people; for all men glorified God for that which was done. (22) For the man was more that forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was wrought.

It is interesting to note that the Jews had the evidence (Acts 4:14; Acts 4:16) to prove that Jesus Christ was God’s Son (Acts 4:10), but they rejected it. It takes a hardened heart to deny plain observable evidence. In an attempt to stop the preaching of Peter and John they threatened them and released them. The response to their threat was, "For we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard."

The man on whom the miracle was performed had been a cripple for forty years (Acts 3:2; Acts 4:22).

Acts 4:23-31

Peter and John Report

Backto Their Brethren

(23) And being let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said unto them. (24) And they, when they heard it, lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, O Lord, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: (25) who by the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David thy servant, didst say, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? (26) The kings of the earth set themselves in array, And the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord, and against his Anointed:

(27) for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, (28) to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass.

(29) And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, (30) while thou stretchest forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus. (31) And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all tilled with the Holy Spirit, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

When Peter and John reported to their brethren what had happened, they all raised their voices and praised God. In their praise they quoted a prophecy made by David in Psalms 2:1-2 and applied it to the happenings of their day. One certain way that we know the meaning of prophecy is by the interpretation of those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

They asked the Lord for strength that they might speak His word with boldness. The Lord answered by filling them with the Holy Spirit.

SEGMENT IV

Acts 4:32 to Acts 5:16

GROWTH OF THE CHURCH

Acts 4:32-37

Unity of The Disciples

(32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (33) And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

(34) For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. (36) And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race,

(37) having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Verses Thirty-Two through Thirty-Seven - These verses speak of the disciples’ love and concern for each other and their unity is declared by their actions. As we study about the community of goods we need to note:

1. Community of goods did not exist till there was a need.

2. Division of goods was made according to need, not quantity.

3. It appears that this action was limited to the church at Jerusalem to meet the need of the saints there.

4. There is no evidence that this action was commanded.

5. There is evidence in later chapters of the book of Acts that Christians possessed private property (the mother of John Mark, Acts 12:12; Simon, a tanner, Acts 10:6).

Concerning this passage McGarvey wrote,

In reality this church was setting an example for all other churches in all time to come, by showing that true Christian benevolence requires that we shall not let our brethren in the church suffer for food, even if those of us who have houses and lands can prevent it only by the sale of our possessions.

CHAPTER FIVE

Acts 5:1-11

Ananias and Sapphira

(First Sin in the Church)

(1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, (2) and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? (4) While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

(5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it. (6) And the young men arose and wrapped him round, and they carried him out and buried him.

(7) And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

(8) And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much. (10) But Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to try the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them that have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. (10) And she fell down immediately at his feet, and gave up the ghost: and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her by her husband. (11) And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things.

In these verses we have recorded the first sin which occurred in the New Testament church. Sin is a transgression (lawlessness) of the w i l l of God (1 John 3:4). Sin can be the sin of omission (the failure to do what God has commanded to be done) or the sin of commission (doing what God has asked us not to do). Lying is the sin of commission, disobeying God’s instructions to be truthful (Colossians 3:9). Heaven is closed to the liar (Revelation 21:8; Revelation 21:27). Perhaps the sin which motivated Ananias and Sapphira to lie was covetousness or the love of money.

Note the following:

1. Ananias and Sapphira did not have to sell their possession (Acts 5:4).

2. After they sold it, it was still theirs to do with as they wished (Acts 5:4).

3. The language implies that the part that they gave was represented as being the total price (Acts 5:2-3; Acts 5:8-9).

4. The scripture indicates that they were "partners" together in this sin (Acts 5:9).

In their deception they were guilty of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and to God (Acts 5:4). As a result of their deception they both died (Acts 5:5; Acts 5:10) . This is one of the few cases where a miracle was involved in causing harm in the life of an individual (see also Acts 13:11).

The result of the discipline which was administered by God was that great fear came upon the church and all who heard about it.

Another important truth set forth in this section of the book of Acts is a characteristic of the Godhead (common-ly referred to as the Trinity by the denominational world). To lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God (Acts 5:3-4). The Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three personalities make up the Godhead.

Note from the scripture:

1. There is one God (Ephesians 4:6).

2. His name appears in the plural form (Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1:26).

3. The Godhead is one in creation as the creation is attributed to all three.

a. God (Genesis 1:1-2).

b. Jesus (John 1:1-3).

b. The Holy Spirit (Hebrews 1:2-10).

Alll three personalities are referred to as God.

1. God the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6).

2. God the Son (John 1:1; Philippians 2:5-6; Hebrews 1:8).

3. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

On several occasions Jesus is referred to as God.

1. He is "Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23), which is interpreted as, "God with us."

2. Isaiah 40:3 quoted in Matthew 3:3.

3. John 20:28; Titus 2:13.

The Son was not inferior to God the Father because He possessed the same attributes (characteristics) as the Father. (John 14:7-9). The Son did take the form of a servant that man might have a means of forgiveness (Philippians 2:4-11). "In Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

All three (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) were present at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-22; Luke 3:21-22).

Sinners who have faith, who have repented and confessed Jesus Christ, are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38).

All three are mentioned by Paul in Romans 15:30 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.

Some question how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit can be three and yet are one. Jesus said that man and woman become husband and wife and in so doing become one (Matthew 19:5). A wood crafts-man cuts down a tree and from the wood he fashions a chair, table, and a bed. There is a difference between the three products but all three are of the same substance, wood. The same is true of the Godhead. While they are three, they are of the same divine substance.

Acts 5:12-16

Teachings, Signs and Healings

(12) And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. (13) But of the rest durst no man join himself to them: howbeit the people magnified them; (14) and believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women: (15) insomuch that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might overshadow some of them. (16) And there also came together the multitude from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Verses Twelve through Sixteen - The apostles continued to show the power of God with signs and wonders. By the hand of God Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead and the apostles did signs and wonders. The result of this was the disciples and multitude did not approach the apostles with the familiarity which had marked their former association with them. (See Luke 5:8; Acts 5:11).

This does not mean that the people did not come to hear the gospel for, "believers were the more added to the Lord" (Acts 5:14).

The sick were carried into the streets on beds and couches, and from cities round about Jerusalem the sick were carried to the apostles. Luke said, "And they were healed every one" (Acts 5:16). In our day those who claim to heal the sick choose those with whom they will work. In most cases they pick those who have ailments which can’t be verified (headaches, back problems, and other similar afflictions). Not so with the apostles, due to their truly having the power of God, they healed A L L who were brought to them. The purpose of miracles in the days of Jesus and the apostles was to confirm the word of God (Hebrews 2:3-4; John 11:42).

SEGMENT V

Acts 5:17-42

GROWTH OF THE CHURCH

AND SECOND PERSECUTION

Acts 5:17-21

Apostles Arrested

Liberated by an Angel

Continued Teaching

(17) But the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy, (18) and laid hands on the apostles, and put them in public ward. (19) But an angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them out, and said, (20) Go ye, and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life. (21 A) And when they heard this, they entered into the temple about daybreak, and taught.

The apostles were imprisoned by the high priest and the Sadducees, not for what they did or said but because of jealousy (intolerance of rivalry). The people were listening to the apostles and obeying the gospel (Acts 5:14). The fact that the high priest and the Sadducees were losing influence among the people created jealousy on their part. The apostles were cast into prison but this was not God’s plan for them. An angel of God opened the doors of the prison, released the apostles with the charge to go and preach. They immediately complied with the angel’s instructions, entering the temple about dawn and once again taught the people (Acts 5:25).

Acts 5:21-26

Apostles Recaptured

(21b) But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison-house to have them brought. (22) But the officers that came found them not in the prison; and they returned, and told, (23) saying, The prison-house we found shut in all safety, and the keepers standing at the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. (24) Now when the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were much perplexed concerning them whereunto this would grow. (25) And there came one and told them, Behold, the men whom ye put in the prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people. (26) Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them, but without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned.

The high priest and those with him called a meeting of the council and sent for the apostles who had been cast into prison. The officers who had been sent to bring the apostles before the council returned and reported that the prison-house was empty. This fact alone should have been sufficient to convince the council that they were not deal-ing with the ordinary. They were perplexed, but still they remained in their unbelief. Word then came to them that the apostles were in the temple teaching the people.

Acts 5:27-32

The Apostles Before The High Priest

(27) And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them,

(28) saying, We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

(29) But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men. (30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree. (31) Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (32) And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

The apostles were brought before the high priest and reminded of the charge which they had been given (not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18). Even though so instructed, the apostles filled Jerusalem with their teachings. The Jewish council introduced yet another aspect of the apostles’ teachings, that is, "you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us" (Acts 2:36; Acts 3:14-15). The Jews were guilty of the blood of Jesus but wanted to escape that responsibility.

The apostles’ answer gives us a principle which is to govern God’s people in every age, "we must obey God rather than men." Regardless of the teachings of men, God’s word must always be first; there is no exception!

Peter repeats the message he had already proclaimed.

1. You killed the Son of God.

2. God raised Him up.

3. God exalted Him to be Prince and Savior.

4. Remission of sins is through Jesus.5.

(Compare Acts 2:22-29).

Witnesses of these facts were two-fold: 1) the apostles, and 2) the Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:33-39

Gamaliel’s Advice

(33) But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart, and were minded to slay them. (34) But there stood up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in honor of all the people, and commanded to put the men forth a little while. (35) And he said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves as touching these men, what ye are about to do. (36) For before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined them-selves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nought. (37) After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away some of the people after him: he also perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. (38) And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown:

(39) but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.

The result of Peter’s preaching was that the Jews were pricked in their hearts, that is, they were convicted of sin (Acts 2:37), and desired to kill them. The Jews should have realized that the apostles were mere messengers of Jehovah God and spoke the words of God (Matthew 10:19).

Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, who was held in honor by the people, offers his advice to the council. He reminds them of Theudas and Judas of Galilee who led people in rebellion against the Jews. Gamaliel said that both of these men perished and their followers were scattered. Gamaliel reasoned that if the works of the apostles were of God they could not overthrow it. On the other hand, if it was the works of men it would be overcome or come to nought. The fallacy of Gamaliel’s reasoning is obvious. If the work is of God Christians should support it. If it is the works of men it should be opposed (Matthew 15:9; Ephesians 5:11; Judges 1:3).

We wonder what it would have taken to convince the Jews that the works of the apostles were from God.

1. They had healed all the sick which were brought to them.

2. They had been miraculously released from prison.

This should have been sufficient to prove that God was working among the apostles and that their message was from God.

The Jews agreed with Gamaliel, called the apostles unto them, beat them and again charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus. The apostles had already responded to this charge (Acts 5:29).

Acts 5:40-42

The Apostles Are Warned

Beaten and Released

(40) And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles unto them, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. (41) They therefore departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name. (42) And every day, in the temple and at home, they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ.

The beating of the apostles had the opposite effect than that which the Jewish counsel desired. The apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Jesus and taught and preached daily in the temple and at home, Jesus as the Christ.

SEGMENT VI

Acts 6:1-7

CHOOSING OF THE SEVEN

Acts 6:1-6

(1) Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (2) And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. (3) Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (4) But we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word. (5) And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch; (6) whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them.

The Bible teaches us that the church is to care for the widows (1 Timothy 5:4; James 1:27). In the church in Jerusalem there arose a disagreement between the Jews with a Grecian background and the Jews of the Hebrew community. (Grecian Jews, Hellenists, were those who affiliated themselves with the Greeks or imitated Greek manners; also, a Jew who used the Greek language as his mother tongue). The Grecian Jews claimed that their widows were being neglected. The difficulty was resolved when the apostles told them to, "look ye out therefore seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" to be appointed over the work of caring for the widows.

The seven were not given this responsibility to encourage them to be faithful, but rather they were given this responsibility because they were faithful or respon-sible individuals.

The apostles did this that they might continue in the ministry of the word (verses 2 and 4). Not only did this allow the apostles to continue preaching, it also gave others the opportunity to serve. The seven who were chosen are named in verse five.

Acts 6:7

Summary of Growth

(7) And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

It is worthy to note that a number of priests obeyed the gospel. (Compare with John 12:42). When the word of God falls on good and honest hearts, conversion is the result.

SEGMENT VII

Acts 6:8 to Acts 8:1

STEPHEN’S ACTIONS

Acts 6:8-15

(8) And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people. (9) But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. (10) And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake. (11) Then they suborned men, who said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. (12) And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the council, (13) and set up false witnesses, who said, This man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the law: (14) for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us. (15) And all that sat in the council, fastening their eyes on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

Verse Eight - Verse eight tells us of the many wonders and signs which Stephen did among the people (see Acts 6:5-6).

Verse Nine - The synagogue of the Libertines. (The Libertines were Jews who had been in slavery and had by one means or another obtained their freedom). Those identified in verse nine were not able to withstand the wisdom of Stephen. While we today do not have the laying on of the apostles’ hands, we can through a know-ledge of God’s word stop the mouths of false teachers. Jesus put to flight Satan by quoting God’s word (Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10) . This should teach us how important it is to have a knowledge of God’s word.

Verses Twelve through Fifteen - The elders and scribes, determined to have their way, set up false witnesses who made four charges against Stephen. They accused him of:

1. Speaking against this holy place.

2. Speaking against the law.

3. Quoting Jesus as saying he would destroy the temple (see John 2:19-22).

4. Changing the customs which Moses had delivered to them.

It is the behavior of some to lie or hire someone to lie to obtain their desires (see 1 Kings 21:1-16).

Acts 7:1-60

Stephen’s Actions

(1) And the high priest said, Are these things so? (2) And he said, brethren and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran (Genesis 11:31), (3) and said unto him, Get thee out of thy land, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee (Genesis 12:1). (4)Then he came out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, God removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell (Genesis 12:5): (5) and he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child (Genesis 12:7; Genesis 17:19). (6) And God spake on this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them into bondage, and treat them ill, four hundred years (Genesis 15:13). (7) And the nation to which they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place (Exodus 3:12). (8) And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs (Genesis 17:10; Genesis 21:2-4, Genesis 29:31 to Genesis 30:5). (9) And the patriarchs, moved with jealousy against Joseph, sold him into Egypt: and God was with him (Genesis 37:18-36), (10) and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house (Genesis 39:21; Genesis 41:40-46).

(11) Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance (Genesis 41:54). (12) But when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent forth our fathers the first time (Genesis 42:2). (13) And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s race became manifest unto Pharaoh (Genesis 45:1-4). (14) And Joseph sent, and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls (Genesis 45:9). (15) And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself and our fathers (Genesis 46:5), and they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. (17) But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt (Exodus 1:7), (18) till there arose another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph (Exodus 1:8). (19) The same dealt craftily with our race, and ill-treated our fathers, that they should cast out their babes to the end they might not live (Exodus 1:10). (20) At which season Moses was born, and was exceeding fair; and he was nourished three months in his father’s house (Exodus 2:2): (21) and when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son (Exodus 2:5). (22) And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works. (23) But when he was well-nigh forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel (Exodus 2:11). (24) And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian: (25) and he supposed that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance; but they under-stood not. (26) And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another (Exodus 2:13)? (27) But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? (28) Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday? (29) And Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons (Exodus 2:15). (30) And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush (Exodus 3:2). (31) And when Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold, there came a voice of the Lord,

(32) I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not behold (Exodus 3:6). (33) And the lord said unto him, loose the shoes from thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. (Exodus 3:5).

(34) I have surely seen the affliction of my people that is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I am come down to deliver them: and now come, I will send thee into Egypt (Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10). (35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, who made thee a ruler and a judge? him hath God sent to be both a ruler and a deliverer with the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush (Exodus 3:2-5). (36) This man led them forth, having wrought wonders and signs in Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years (Exodus 12:41; Exodus 33:1). (37) This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me (Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22). (38) This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us (Acts 7:53):

(39) to whom our fathers would not be obedient, but thrust him from them, and turned back in their hearts unto Egypt (Exodus 32:1; Exodus 32:23), (40) saying unto Aaron, make us gods that shall go before us: for as for this Moses, who led us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. (Exodus 32:21-24).

(41) And they made a calf in those days and brought a sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands (Exodus 32:4-6). (42) But God turned, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets: "Did ye offer unto me slain beasts and sacrifices Forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? (43) And ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of the god Rephan, The figures which ye made to worship them: And I will carry you away beyond Babylon" (Amos 5:25).

(44) Our fathers had the tabernacle of the testimony in the wilderness, even as he appointed who spake unto Moses, that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen (Exodus 25:8). (45) Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations, that God thrust out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; (46) who found favor in the sight of God, and asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. (47) But Solomon built him a house (1 Kings 8:20). (48) Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet,

(49) The heaven is my throne,

And the earth the footstool of my feet:

What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord:

Or what is the place of my rest? (Isaiah 66:1)

(50) Did not my hand make all these things? (51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. (52) Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; (53) ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not. (54) Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (55) But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (56) and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (57) But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed upon him with one accord; (58) and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. (59) And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. (60) And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

(Note: The Old Testament references to the events mentioned by Stephen are given in parentheses at the end of the verse).

In these verses Stephen gives a condensed history of the Jewish people. The audience gives attention to his message until verse fifty-two when he accuses them of betraying and murdering the Righteous One.

Verse Thirty-Eight - Luke speaks of the church in the wilderness. The word church describes those who are called out. The children of Israel were called out of Egyptian bondage, thus they were the church in the wilderness. In the New Testament Jesus promised to build His church (Matthew 16:18). Sinners are called out of the world of sin by the gospel of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and then are added to the church (Acts 2:47), or God’s called out. The church is separate from the world (Romans 12:1-2).

Verse Fifty-Four - The audience was convicted of sin. Their reaction was different than the multitude on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41).

Verse Fifty-Six - This is the only reference in the New Testament which refers to Jesus as "standing" on the right hand of God. Other passages refer to him as sitting on the right hand of God.

Verse Fifty-Seven - The crowd "stopped their ears" as if that would remove their guilt.

Verses Fifty-Eight and Fifty-Nine - Stephen was stoned to death because he was bold enough to preach the truth.

Verse Sixty - The forgiving spirit of Stephen reminds us of Jesus (Luke 23:34).

SEGMENT VIII

Acts 8:2-40

PHILIP PREACHES IN

JUDAEA AND SAMARIA

Acts 8:1-3

Persecution Against The Church

(1) And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (2) And devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.

(3) But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison.

Verse One - A - Saul, the Pharisee, was consenting (approving) to the death of Stephen. Saul was the Jewish name of this great persecutor of the church. His Gentile name was Paul. The scriptures tell us that Paul was:

1. A Jew (Acts 22:3).

2. Of the stock of Israel (Philippians 3:5).

3. Of the seed of Abraham (2 Corinthians 11:22).

4. From the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5).

5. An Israelite (2 Corinthians 11:22).

6. A Hebrew of Hebrews (Philippians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 11:22).

7. A Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Philippians 3:5; Acts 26:5)

8. A son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).

9. Educated in the city of Jerusalem under Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).

10. Advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of his own age (Galatians 1:14).

11. Touching the righteousness within the law found blameless (Philippians 3:6).

12. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church (Philippians 3:6).

13. Born in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 22:3).

14. His family was faithful to the Jewish religion (2 Timothy 1:3).

15. His family consisted of at least one sister (Acts 23:16).

16. By trade a tentmaker (Acts 18:3).

17. In his earlier years a persecutor of the church of

Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Acts 8:3; Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:10-11).

18. Paul carried this bitter experience with him for many years (1 Corinthians 15:9; 1 Timothy 1:13-16).

19. One who had a deep and abiding love for his fellow Jews (Romans 9:3).

20. One who considered himself a debtor to all men (Romans 1:14).

21. A humble man (2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Corinthians 12:5).

22. One who loved books (2 Timothy 4:13).

23. Wrote fourteen books of the New Testament, if Hebrews is included.

24. Was born a Roman citizen (Acts 21:39; Acts 22:3; Acts 16:35-40; Acts 22:22-29).

25. Was one who was dedicated to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:16; Romans 1:16).

His conversion is recorded in Acts chapters 9, 22, 26, and his concept of Christianity is beautifully stated in his epistles to the Philippians (1:21), and Galatians (2:20).

Verse One - B - Great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem and the saints were forced from their homes. We must keep in mind that when we think of the church being persecuted we are talking about loving, morally pure, dedicated, honest, humble, sacrificing, obedient children of God suffering for their faith in Jesus Christ.

Verses Two and Three - The saints were scattered throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria. That the gospel would be preached in Judaea and Samaria was foretold by Jesus (Acts 1:8), and is described in Acts 8:1 to Acts 12:15.

Stephen was buried and great lamentation was made for him. This suggests the type of character Stephen had and his influence in the community.

Saul laid waste (devastated, ruined) the church, putting both men and women in prison.

Acts 8:4-8

Philip Seen Teaching and Healing

(4) They therefore that were scattered abroad went about preaching the word. (5) And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ. (6) And the multitudes gave heed with one accord unto the things that were spoken by Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did. (7) For from many of those that had unclean spirits, they came out, crying with a loud voice: and many that were palsied, and that were lame, were healed. (8) And there was much joy in that city.

Verse Four - Those who were scattered because of persecution went abroad preaching the word. One might have expected these persecuted children of God to go about murmuring and complaining about what they were suffering for the cause of Christ; not so! They went everywhere preaching the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

Verses Five through Eight - Philip went to Samaria and preached unto them Christ (See also Acts 8:35). The multitudes gave heed to the preaching of Philip and saw the miracles which he did. One of the problems we have in our present religious society is that religious people will give heed to most anyone except Christ. Salvation is only through Jesus (Acts 4:12; John 12:48).

There was much joy in the city because the palsied, lame and those who were possessed of unclean spirits were healed.

Acts 8:9-13

Samaritans Were Baptized, Even Simon

(9) But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime in the city used sorcery, and amazed the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: (10) to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which is called Great. (11) And they gave heed to him, because that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries. (12) But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (13) And Simon also himself believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip; and beholding signs and great miracles wrought, he was amazed.

Verses Nine through Eleven - In these verses we are introduced to Simon the sorcerer. A sorcerer was one who practiced magic. Simon through his hypnotism, ventriloquism, and other acts of magic which CLAIMED the power of casting spells, communicating with the spirits of the dead, claimed to be a great one. The people gave heed to Simon because he claimed to be "some great one" and the people thought he had the power of God. The people were amazed at the works of Simon.

Verses Twelve and Thirteen - When the people heard the preaching of Philip they believed and were baptized; they became Christians. Today, if people would believe, they would not hesitate to obey the gospel and become children of God.

Simon also believed and was baptized and continued with Philip. When he saw the power of God in the signs and miracles performed by Philip, he was amazed. When the works of Simon were compared with the works of Philip, Peter and John, there was no doubt where the real source of power was.

Acts 8:14-24

Simon Tries to Buy The Power

to Pass on The Holy Spirit

(14) Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: (15) who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: (16) for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. (17) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (18) Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, (19) saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. (20) But Peter said unto him, thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money. (21) Thou has neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God. (22) Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee. (23) For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. (24) And Simon answered and said, Pray ye for me to the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me.

The apostles, upon hearing that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John unto them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit when they became Christians (Acts 2:38), but as yet the Spirit had not "fallen upon them." The miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit resulted from the laying on of the apostles’ hands (consider Philip, Acts 6:5-6; Acts 8:6-7; Acts 8:13) . In verse eighteen Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans who received the Holy Spirit.

Simon, witnessing the acts of Peter and John, offered to buy this power, "that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit." Simon sinned by trying to buy the power of God with money (Acts 8:20). Simon was told that he had neither "part nor lot" in this matter and his heart was not right in God’s sight. Guilty of sin, Simon needed to repent and pray for forgiveness because he was in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.

To become a Christian one must: believe that God is (Hebrews 11:6), and that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son (John 8:24). The believer must repent (a change of mind which leads to a reformation of life, Acts 2:38), and confess that Jesus Christ is God’s Son (Acts 8:37). This repenting and confessing sinner must then be baptized into the death of Jesus Christ according to Romans 6:3 in order to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus (Revelation 1:5), and forgiven of all sin (Acts 2:38).

When one is a Christian and sins he/she is to confess that sin and ask for prayers that his/her sins might be forgiven (8:22-24). This is referred to as God’s second law of pardon, that is, pardon for the sinning Christian.

Those who claim that it is impossible for a child of God to sin and be lost (the doctrine of "once-saved-always-saved") maintain that Simon was not really saved but he feigned belief. This concept is to be rejected because:

1. Simon did the same thing that the Samaritans did.

2. Peter would have known that his conversion was not genuine and would have told him the same thing he told those on Pentecost to do to be saved (Acts 2:38), and not to repent and pray (God’s law of pardon for the sinning child of God).

3. Luke, the inspired writer, would have known that Simon’s conversion was not genuine.

4. To maintain that Simon did not become a child of God is to know the heart of an individual who lived over 1900 years ago.

Verse Twenty-Five - The gospel was preached in many villages.

Acts 8:26-40

The Conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch

(26) But an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the same is desert.

(27) And he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship; (28) and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. (29) And the Spirit said unto Philip, go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

(30) And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? (31) And he said, how can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. (32) Now the passage of scripture which he was reading was this,

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;

And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb,

So he opened not his mouth:

(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth.

(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other? (35) And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. (36) And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

(37) And Philip said, if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (38) And he com-manded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. (39) And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. (40) But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

The eunuch was a very important man (a eunuch of great authority), being the treasurer of Queen Candace. It is interesting to note that:

1. Reading the scriptures had led the eunuch to Jerusalem to worship God (Acts 8:27).

2. He was not ashamed of the scriptures (Acts 8:28).

3. He desired to know more about the word of God (Acts 8:30-31).

4. He desired to rightly divide the word of God (Acts 8:34).

5. He received the message of Jesus (Acts 8:35).

6. He was willing to obey (Acts 8:36).

Without a doubt the eunuch was very honest and sincere.

Verse Twenty Six - The scriptures teach that baptism is a burial (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). Those who oppose baptism as immersion will many times note that there would not have been sufficient water for Philip to immerse the eunuch because it was desert. McGarvey in his com-mentary makes this statement,

The term desert is not here to be under-stood as meaning a barren waste; for no such waste ever existed between Jerusa-lem and Gaza; but as meaning that part of the way which leads through a compara-tively unpopulated district.

The feeding of the five thousand men (plus women and children) took place in a desert place (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:31), yet there was green grass for the people to sit on (Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:39).

It is interesting to note that God did not speak directly to the eunuch but sent a preacher to him with the message of salvation (Acts 8:29-30). The eunuch was reading from Isaiah 53 and asked Philip, "of whom speaketh the prophet this?" Philip began with this passage and preached unto him Jesus. It is worthy to note that immediately following his instructions about Jesus the eunuch requested baptism (Acts 8:36). Upon his confession that Jesus Christ was the son of God (Acts 8:37), they (both Philip and the eunuch) went down into the water and Philip immersed the eunuch. (The amount of water had to be sufficient for both Philip and the eunuch to go down into the water and for Philip to immerse the eunuch). After his baptism the eunuch went on his way rejoicing. Philip continued his preaching "to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea."

SEGMENT IX

Acts 9:1-31

SAUL’S CONVERSION

Acts 9:1-9

Saul’s Vision

(1) But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, (2) and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (3) And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: (4) and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: (6) but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (7) And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. (8) And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. (9) And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.

The power of the gospel (Romans 1:16) can be seen in the conversion of those who crucified Christ (Acts 2:36, , and Saul who was a dedicated persecutor of the church of Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4). There is no sin that God will not forgive i f man will meet His conditions. Paul was on his way to the city of Damascus to seek out Christians and bring them bound to Jerusalem when he saw Jesus Christ in a vision (Acts 22:5).

Acts 9:10-19

Saul’s Stay at Damascus and His Baptism

(10) Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord .

(11) And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth; (12) and he hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight. (13) But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem: (14) and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. (15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel: (16) for I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake. (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.

(18) And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; (19) and he took food and was strengthened.

The conversion of Saul is recorded in detail in Acts chapters nine, twenty-two, and twenty-six. When these three chapters are harmonized the events read as follows.

Saul was a persecuter of the church of Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:9). He imprisoned many Christians and when they were put to death, he gave his vote against them (Acts 26:10). Punishing them in all the synagogues in an attempt to make them blaspheme, and being exceedingly mad against them he persecuted them even unto foreign cities. He obtained permission from the high priest to persecute the Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:1-2; Acts 22:5; Acts 26:10). The purpose of the trip to Damascus (Acts 9:2; Acts 22:5). As he traveled to Damascus, about noon he saw a great light from heaven above the brightness of the sun (Acts 9:3; Acts 22:6; Acts 26:13). A voice spake unto him in Hebrew saying, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks (Acts 9:4; Acts 22:7; Acts 26:14). Saul replied, who art thou Lord (Acts 9:5; Acts 22:8; Acts 26:15)? I am Jesus whom thou persecutest (Acts 9:5; Acts 22:8; Acts 26:15). What shall I do Lord? Arise and go into Damascus and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do (Acts 9:6; Acts 22:10). That Saul saw the Lord is clearly stated by Ananias (Acts 9:17), Barnabas (Acts 9:27), and Saul himself (1 Corinthians 15:8). Saul was to be a witness of Jesus Christ before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Acts 21; Acts 26:16-18). The men traveling with Saul heard the voice but saw no one (Acts 9:7). Chapter twenty-two states that the men with Saul saw the light but heard not the voice (Acts 22:9). Saul was led by the hand, blind, into the city (Acts 9:8; Acts 22:11). For three days he did not eat or drink (Acts 9:9). During this time Saul was praying (Acts 9:11). God sent Ananias to Saul and he received his sight and was baptized (Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16). He preached both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles (Acts 9:20; Acts 26:20). Several things are very interesting and important in the harmonized account of Saul’s conversion.

In Acts 9:2; Acts 22:4 Saul is spoken of as persecuting those of the Way. Those of the Way were the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9:1). This should remind us that Christian-ity is not something one gets, but is a way of life. Christianity among other things is:

1. The way of redemption (Acts 4:12).

2. The way of righteousness (Romans 1:17)

3. The way of life (Romans 12:2).

4. The way of eternal life (John 14:1-4).

5. The way to the eternal Father (John 14:6).

To persecute the church is to persecute Jesus Christ. The church is the spiritual body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23), of which Jesus is the head (Colossians 1:18). Saul was persecuting the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9; Acts 9:13), therefore he was persecuting Jesus Christ.

In Saul’s conversion to Christ we are once again reminded of the purpose of baptism.

1. Mark 16:16 - To be saved.

2. Acts 2:38 - For remission of sins.

3. Acts 22:16 - To wash away sins.

Baptism is an act of obedience which brings one into contact with the blood of Jesus Christ, which washes away sins (Romans 6:3-4; Revelation 1:5).

Is there a contradiction between Acts 9:7, "And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING THE VOICE but beholding no man," and Acts 22:9, "And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they HEARD NOT THE VOICE of him that spake to me." There is no contradiction between the two passages. The same word is used in 1 Corinthians 14:2 where it is translated "understand." It is possible to hear a voice but not understand it. Such is the meaning of these verses. The Greek language makes this distinction.

1. The Greek word for "hearing" is AKOUO, with the genitive case and means to hear without understanding (Acts 9:7).

2. The Greek word for "heard" is AKOUO, with the accusative case and means to hear with understanding (Acts 22:9).

Both verses mean the same thing, the men who traveled with Paul did not understand what the voice said to Saul.

Saul was a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), one born out of due season (1 Corinthians 15:8), who was to go to the Gentiles with the gospel.

Of great importance to us is the answer to the question, when did Saul receive the remission of sins, or when did Saul become a Christian? Some maintain that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus when:

1. He saw the light, or

2. He heard the voice, or

3. He answered the voice, or

4. He received instructions, or

5. He obeyed the instructions, or

6. He prayed.

If Saul was saved on the road to Damascus he was saved in his sins and such is not possible. Ananias was sent to Saul even after he had prayed, with God’s message for him, "And why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on His name" (Acts 22:16). Saul was not forgiven of his sins until he obeyed

Ananias’ instructions to be baptized for forgiveness (to wash away his sins).

Ananias, a devout man, one which was well reported by all, a disciple, was sent by God to Saul with the message of salvation. Ananias uses the word saint to refer to Christians for the first time in the New Testament (Acts 9:13).

Acts 9:19-22

Saul Preaches

(19) And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. (20) And straightway in the syna-gogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the son of God.

(21) And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. (22) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.

Saul, after his conversion, began immediately to devote all his energies to building up what he had been tearing down. Think of the power of his preaching:

1. He saw the Lord, positive proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. He had proof of the light and the events on the road to Damascus by his traveling companions.

Ananias’ instructions to be baptized for forgiveness (to wash away his sins).(Acts 22:16).

Ananias, a devout man, one which was well reported by all, a disciple, was sent by God to Saul with the message of salvation. Ananias uses the word saint to refer to Christians for the first time in the New Testament (Acts 9:13).

Acts 9:19-22

Saul Preaches

(19) And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. (20) And straightway in the syna-gogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the son of God.

(21) And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. (22) But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.

Saul, after his conversion, began immediately to devote all his energies to building up what he had been tearing down. Think of the power of his preaching:

1. He saw the Lord, positive proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. He had proof of the light and the events on the road to Damascus by his traveling companions.

3. The events on the road to Damascus could not be explained as an optical illusion because of his resulting blindness.

4. All of this proved the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The conversion of Saul also defines repentance for us. He was a persecutor of the church, but had a change of mind which brought about a change of life; he became a preacher for the church he once tried to destroy. His conversion also shows us the character of Saul in that he changed from that which he knew to be wrong to that which he knew to be right.

The subject of Saul’s preaching was that Jesus was the Son of God and this amazed and confounded the Jews.

Acts 9:23-25

Saul’s Escape

(23) And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him: (24) but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: (25) but his disci-ples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Paul’s preaching and stand for the truth was so power-ful that after many days the Jews plotted to kill him. When the plot of the Jews became known to the disciples they lowered Saul over the wall to safety.

Acts 9:26-30

Saul’s Visit to Jerusalem

(26) And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. (27) But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. (28) And he was with them going in and going out at Jerusalem, (29) preaching boldly in the name of the Lord: and he spake and disputed against the Gre-cian Jews; but they were seeking to kill him. (30) And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

When Saul came to Jerusalem he was accepted by the disciples only after Barnabas had recommended him. After Barnabas had brought Saul to the apostles and recounted his conversion Saul worked with them in preaching Jesus. He spake and disputed with the Grecian Jews who were seeking his life. When the brethren learned of the Jews’ plan, they sent Saul to Tarsus. It is worthy to note the subject of the early preachers.

1. Philip preached unto them Christ (Acts 8:5).

2. Philip preached unto him Jesus (Acts 8:35).

3. Saul spoke proving that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 9:22).

4. Saul preached boldly in the name of Jesus (Acts 9:27).

5. Saul preached boldly in the name of the Lord (Acts 9:29).

It is not hard to determine that Jesus Christ was the center of early preaching. This is appropriate because it is in Christ that man enjoys salvation (John 1:29; Acts 4:12).

Acts 9:31

Growth of The Church

Second Summary Statement

(31) So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied.

SEGMENT X

Acts 9:32 to Acts 11:18

CORNELIUS CONVERTED

ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES

PETER’S DEFENSE

Acts 9:32-35

Peter Heals Aeneas

(32) And it came to pass, as Peter went throughout all parts, he came down also to the saints that dwelt at Lydda. (33) And there he found a certain man named AEneas, who had kept his bed eight years; for he was palsied. (34) And Peter said unto him, AEneas, Jesus Christ healeth thee: arise, and make thy bed. And straightway he arose. (35) And all that dwelt at Lydda and in Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

In this passage the word "saints" is used for the second time in reference to Christians. Lydda was located south-east of the seacoast city of Joppa. Peter met a man by the name of AEneas who had been bedfast for eight years. Peter announced to AEneas, "Jesus Christ healeth thee: arise and make thy bed." Straightway AEneas arose. This miracle resulted in many turning to the Lord. The word of God was confirmed by this miracle (Hebrews 2:3-4), and precious souls believed and obeyed the gospel.

Acts 9:36-43

Peter Raises Tabitha

(36) Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did. (37) And it came to pass in those days, that she fell sick, and died: and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper chamber. (38) And as Lydda was nigh unto Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men unto him, entreating him, Delay not to come on unto us. (39) And Peter rose and went with them. And when he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and showing the coats and the garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.

(40) But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes; and when she saw Peter, she sat up. (41) And he gave her his hand, and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. (42) And it became known throughout all Joppa: and many believed on the Lord.

(43) And it came to pass, that he abode many days in Joppa with one Simon, a tanner.

Tabitha (which is by interpretation Dorcas) lived in Joppa. Tabitha was full of good works and alms-deeds (Acts 9:39). She fell sick and died. Peter was called from Lydda and went into the upper chamber where the body of Tabitha lay. Peter raised her from the dead and presented her alive to the saints and widows. The result of this miracle was that "many believed on the Lord." (Same result when Peter healed Aeneas.)

ACTS CHAPTER 10

Acts 10:1-8

Cornelius’ Vision

(1) Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, (2) a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. (3) He saw in a vision openly, as it were about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying to him Cornelius. (4) And he, fastening his eyes upon him, and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thy alms are gone up for a memorial before God. (5) And now send men to Joppa, and fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter:

(6) he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side. (7) And when the angel that spake unto him was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; (8) and having rehearsed all things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

The Bible points out that Cornelius was:

1. A Centurion (a military officer in charge of one hundred soldiers).

2. Of the Italian band.

3. A devout man.

4. One who feared God.

5. One who gave much alms to the people.

6. One who prayed to God always.

7. A righteous man (Acts 10:22).

8. One who was well reported by all the nation of the Jews (Acts 10:22).

Cornelius was a good moral man but he was not a saved individual for Peter would speak unto him words, "whereby thou shalt be saved" (Acts 11:14). Today those who trust in their morality (being a good person) to save them should study the conversion of Cornelius very carefully.

The conversion of Cornelius is recorded in Acts 10:1-48 and is repeated again in Acts 11:1-18 where Peter recounts the events in making his defense before the Jews in Jerusalem. These two chapters should be read together to fully understand the conversion of Cornelius. An angel appeared unto Cornelius about the ninth hour (as he kept the ninth hour of prayer, Acts 10:30), and gave him instructions to send men to Joppa and bring Peter to Caesarea. Cornelius obeyed the heavenly instructions.

Acts 10:9-16

Peter’s Vision

(9) Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour: (10) and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance; (11) and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: (12) wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean. (15) And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. (16) And this was done thrice: and straight-way the vessel was received up into heaven.

Peter had been faithful to the dietary laws of the Jewish law and had never eaten that which was unclean. Moses, in Leviticus chapter eleven, lists the animals that the Jews could not eat.

Acts 10:17-23

Peter Receives the Messengers

(17) Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon’s house, stood before the gate, (18) and called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, were lodging there. (19) And while Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (20) But arise, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting: for I have sent them. (21) And Peter went down to the men, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? (22) And they said, Cor-nelius a centurion, a righteous man and one that feareth God, and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews, was warned of God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house and to hear words from thee. (23A) So he called them in and lodged them.

Peter was perplexed about the vision he had seen. Later, when he came into the presence of Cornelius he understood the message of the vision (Acts 10:28; Acts 10:34). Peter went with the messengers to the house of Cornelius.

Acts 10:23-33

Peter Goes to Cornelius and Cornelius Explains

(23) And on the morrow he arose and went forth with them, and certain of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. (24) And on the morrow they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his kinsmen and his near friends. (25) And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. (26) But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. (27) And as he talked with him he went in, and findeth many come together: (28) and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean: (29) wherefore also I came without gainsaying, when I was sent for. I ask therefore with what intent ye sent for me. (30) And Cornelius said, Four days ago, until this hour, I was keeping the ninth hour of prayer in my house; and behold, a man stood before me in bright apparel, (31) and saith, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. (32) Send therefore to Joppa, and call unto thee Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side. (33) Forthwith there-fore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord.

The next day Peter (with certain of the brethren from Joppa) went unto the house of Cornelius. There he found Cornelius with his kinsmen and near friends waiting. Cornelius wanted these to hear what Peter had to say and arranged for them to be present. When Peter entered, Cornelius fell down at his feet and worshipped him. Peter makes it clear that men are not the proper objects of worship (Acts 10:26), even as angels are not the proper objects of worship (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 19:10).

Many had come together to hear Peter preach. Peter indicated that it was an unlawful thing for a Jew to join or come unto one of another nation. (See also John 4:9; Luke 9:51-56). Peter indicates that God had revealed to him that he was not to call any man common or unclean.

When asked why he had sent for Peter, Cornelius tells of the vision which he had seen (Acts 10:1-8; Acts 10:23-33), and indicated that he was ready to hear a message from God. It is too bad today that many are not willing to hear a message from God. If they would, their lives would be blessed and they would live with the hope of eternal life.

Acts 10:34-43

Peter Preaches to Cornelius

(34) Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (35) but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. (36) The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all) (37) that saying ye yourselves know, which was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; (38) even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (39) And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree. (40) Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, (41) not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. (42) And he charged us to preach unto the people, and to testify that this is he who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead. (43) To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.

Peter begins his sermon to the Gentiles with the truth that God is no respecter of persons. As God is not a respecter of persons, neither should His children be (James 2:1-13). The gospel is for all (Mark 16:15). One is not acceptable unto God because of who he is but because of what he is (Acts 10:35).

Again, as before (Acts 2), Peter preaches the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Concerning Jesus, Peter said:

1. God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and power.

2. Jesus went about doing good.

3. Jesus healed all that were oppressed of the devil.

4. God was with Him.

5. God raised Him from the dead.

6. After his resurrection He was made manifest (appeared) unto those who ate and drank with Him.

7. He will judge the living and the dead.

8. The prophets bear witness of Him .

9. Through His name everyone who believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 2:36-47).

10. Jesus is Lord of all.

In view of number nine above, what is involved in believing on Jesus? There is a significant difference in believing that there was a historical Jesus (John 12:42; James 2:19), and having acceptable faith in Jesus (Romans 5:1). Acceptable belief (faith) is that which is obedient to God’s instructions (Hebrews 11). The American Standard translation of the New Testament renders John 3:36 as, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." When one studies the conversions in the book of Acts and one w i l l see that the subjects were always obedient to the instructions given by the preacher or teacher.

Acts 10:44-48

Holy Spirit Falls on Cornelius

and He and His Household Are Baptized

(44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

While Peter was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. Those of the circumcision (Jews) were amazed because the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles. Peter said that the Holy Spirit fell on them even as on us (the apostles) at the beginning (Acts 11:15; Acts 2:1-4). This is the second (and final) time that God baptized humanity with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles not by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, but came directly from God (Acts 11:15). The Gentiles began speaking in tongues and magnifying God.

Peter commanded those who had received the Holy Spirit (as the apostles, Acts 10:47; Acts 11:17), to be baptized. Several things should be noted carefully:

1. Cornelius was to send for Peter who would tell him words, "whereby thou shalt be saved" (Acts 11:14).

2. Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized (Acts 10:48).

3. Therefore, baptism is essential to one’s salvation.

What was the purpose of the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius? It was not for salvation because Peter was to speak words to lead Cornelius to salvation. After Peter had recounted what had happened to the Gentiles, the Jews in Jerusalem realized, "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." This event was a partial fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28). The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius to show the Jews that the gospel was to be preached unto the Gentiles. Peter was submissive to God’s approval of the Gentiles (Acts 10:48; Acts 11:17). The inclusion of the Gentiles into God’s plan of salvation broke down the division between the Jews and the Gen-tiles. Under Christianity all had the opportunity to become children of God (Ephesians 2:13-22; Ephesians 3:6). Today, we do not have the authority to decide who w i l l hear the Gospel. God has already made this decision, ALL MEN (Mark 16:15).

ACTS CHAPTER 11

Acts 11:1-18

Peter Defends His Actions

(1)Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. (2) And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision con-tended with him, (3) saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. (4) But Peter began, and expounded the matter unto them in order, saying, (5) I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even unto me: (6) upon which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw the fourfooted beasts of the earth and wild beasts and creeping things and birds of the heaven. (7) And I heard also a voice saying unto me, Rise, Peter; kill and eat. (8) But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth. (9) But a voice answered the second time out of heaven, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common. (10) And this was done thrice: and all were drawn up again into heaven. (11) And behold, forthwith three men stood before the house in which we were, having been sent from Caesarea unto me. (12) And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man’s house: and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; (14) who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. (15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. (16) And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. (17) If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? (18) And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life.

When Peter returned to Jerusalem the Jews contended with him because he went in to uncircumcised men (Gentiles) and ate with them. Peter explained what had happened and the Jewish brethren glorified God that the Gentiles had received the opportunity to be Christians.

SEGMENT XI

Acts 11:19-30

CHURCH AT ANTIOCH

Acts 11:19-21

Preaching to Jews and Gentiles

(19) They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to none save only to Jews. (20) But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. (21) And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord.

Verse Nineteen - This verse takes us back to Acts 8:1 where Christians, under persecution, went everywhere preaching the gospel. Yet, they had preached only to the Jews at that time (that is, the time mentioned in Acts 8:1).

Verse Twenty - Some from Cyprus and Cyrene preached also to the Greeks. It is possible that there is a lapse of time between verse nineteen and verse twenty. The first group spoke only to the Jews. They were there because of the affair of Stephen. The group who spoke to the Greeks (Gentiles) could have come after salvation was offered to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).

Verse Twenty-One - God was with them and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.

Acts 11:22-26

Jerusalem Sends Barnabas

(22) And the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: (23) who, when he was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord: (24) for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord . (25) And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul; (26) and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Three - The church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch where he exhorted the new Christians to cleave unto the Lord. There is a very important Bible principle found in this action. When precious souls have obeyed the gospel they are babes in Christ and must be nourished (established in the faith, Romans 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 2 Peter 1:12). Preachers and teachers who baptize those who have obeyed the gospel, should make sure that some type of follow-up work is conducted to teach the new Christians about the type of life they are to live for Christ.

Verse Twenty-Four - The character of Barnabas is given. This reminds us that to be an effective teacher one must first be a faithful Christian (a doer of the word of God, Acts 1:1 : James 1:22-23).

Verses Twenty-Five through Twenty-Six - Barnabas goes to Tarsus, finds Saul and brings him to Antioch where they labored in the Lord’s work (taught much people) for one year. The disciples (followers of Jesus Christ) were first called Christians in Antioch. The name, "Christian," appears three times in the New Testament:

Acts 11:26 - and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 26:28 - And Agrippa [said] unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.

1 Peter 4:16 - but if [a man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let

him glorify God in this name.

Acts 11:27-30

Goodness of Disciples of Antioch

and Jerusalem to Judaea

(27) Now in these days there came down prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. (28) And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great famine over all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius. (29) And the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea: (30) which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Verses Twenty-Seven through Thirty - The announce-ment of the prophet, Agabus, that there would come a great famine over the world, stirred the Christians to send relief to their brethren in Judaea. The same benevolent spirit which was manifested in Acts 2:45; Acts 4:32 is shown here.

Before the word of God became available to God’s creatures, there were men who were given certain gifts by the power of the Holy Spirit; which was given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8:14-17; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11; Ephesians 4:11). These gifts were given to direct the church in its infancy until "we all attain the unity of the truth" (Ephesians 4:13), and until "that which is perfect is come" (1 Corinthians 13:1-10, especially verses 9 and 10). Agabus was one of these prophets.

SEGMENT XII

ACTS 12

PERSECUTION OF HEROD

Acts 12:1-5

Herod Kills James and

Puts Peter in Prison

(1) Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. (2) And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. (3) And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread. (4) And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. (5) Peter therefore was kept in the prison: but prayer was made earnestly of the church unto God for him.

Verses One through Five - Herod begins a persecution of the church. This Herod is identified by McGarvey in his commentary on Acts, as follows:

This Herod was a namesake of Agrippa; the noted minister of Augustus Caesar whose life by Tacitus is one of the noblest of Latin classics, and he was commonly called Agrippa. He was the grandson of

Herod by whom the infants of Bethlehem were slaughtered, and a nephew of Herod the Tetrarch by whom John the Baptist was beheaded. He grew up in Rome, where he wasted what fortune he had inherited in princely extravagance; but while doing so he contracted an intimacy with Caius Caesar, afterward the notorious emperor Caligula.

First, Herod kills James the brother of John. James was only one of the many who died for their faith in God (Hebrews 11:36-38; Revelation 2:13). Herod was a people pleaser. When he saw that his activities as a persecutor pleased the Jews, he put Peter in prison intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

While Peter was in prison, prayer was made earnestly (sincere, intense) by the church unto God for him. Prayer is a powerful tool in the hands of God’s children (1 Thessalonians 5:17; James 5:16). It has been said that more things are wrought by prayer than the human mind can conceive.

Note the characteristics of acceptable prayer:

• ·    Pray to God (Acts 1:24), the eternal and Holy Father (; John 17:11).

• ·    Pray according to God’s will (1 John 5:14-15; Matthew 6:10). Remember Isaiah 55:8-9.

• ·    Pray with sincerity (Matthew 6:5). Prayer offered for man’s approval is not acceptable to God. The Christian prays to God, not to be heard by man.

• ·    Pray from an obedient, dedicated, and pure life, one which is dedicated to serving God (Proverbs 28:9; 1 Peter 3:12; 1 John 3:22; Romans 12:1-20).

• ·    Pray with the spirit of humility (Luke 18:10-14).

• ·    Pray earnestly (Acts 12:5).

• ·    Pray fervently (James 5:17; Colossians 4:12).

• ·    Pray with understanding (1 Corinthians 14:15).

• ·    Pray in the name of Jesus Christ (Colos-sians 3:17; John 14:14). He is our advocate (; 1 John 2:1), and mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).

• ·    Pray persistently (Luke 11:5-10; Luke 21:36).

• ·    Pray with watchfulness (Luke 21:36; Mark 13:33; Colossians 4:12).

• ·    Pray believing (Matthew 21:22; James 1:6; Ephesians 3:20).

• ·    Pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

Acts 12:6-11

Peter Escapes

(6) And when Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and guards before the door kept the prison. (7) And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shined in the cell: and he smote Peter on the side, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. (8) And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And he did so. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. (9) And he went out, and followed; and he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision. (10) And when they were past the first and the second guard, they came unto the iron gate that lead-eth into the city; which opened to them of its own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and straightway the angel departed from him.

(11) And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a truth, that the Lord hath sent forth his angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.

Herod made sure that Peter was securely kept in prison:

1. Peter was between two soldiers.

2. Bound with two chains.

3. Guards before the doors.

There was nothing more that could have been done to make sure that Peter did not escape. An angel of the Lord appeared unto Peter and told him to rise up quickly. His chains fell off and he was instructed to follow the angel. They went past the first and second guard, and the iron gate which led to the city opened unto them of its own accord. The angel straightway departed from him.

Peter thought that he had seen a vision (Acts 12:9), but came to himself and realized that God had sent forth his angel and delivered him from the hand of Herod (Acts 12:11).

Acts 12:12-17

Peter At Mary’s House

And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together and were praying. (13) And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a maid came to answer, named Rhoda. (14) And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for joy, but ran in, and told that Peter stood before the gate. (15) And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she confidently affirmed that it was even so. And they said, It is his angel. (16) But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened, they saw him, and were amazed. (17) But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went to another place.

Peter went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. Given the opportunity to speak he declared unto them how the Lord had delivered him out of prison. He instructed them to tell these things to James (probably the Lord’s brother) and the brethren.

Acts 12:18-19

Herod Looks for Peter

(18) Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. (19) And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and tarried there.

Peter’s escape, after he had been made secure in the prison house, created a real stir (commotion) among the soldiers. There were only two explanations for Peter’s dis-appearance:

1. The soldiers conspired together and released Peter.

2. A notable miracle had been performed, and of course Herod would never admit that God’s hand was in the release of Peter.

Peter was guarded by four quaternions of soldiers. There were four soldiers to a quaternion, making a total of sixteen soldiers who were executed by Herod.

Leaving Judaea, Herod went to Caesarea.

Acts 12:20-23

Herod’s Death

(20) Now he was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: and they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was fed from the king’s country. (21) And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, and sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them. (22) And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man. (23) And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

Dressed in royal apparel, Herod came before the people and was declared to be a god. Because he gave not God the glory, an angel of the Lord smote him and he died. Christ-ians need to glorify God for all of His blessings and what can be accomplished through His children’s lives. Some-times it is easy to take credit for something accomplished, when in reality it was God who brought it about through His providence.

Acts 12:24

Third Summary Passage

(24) But the word of God grew and multiplied.

This verse is the third summary passage given in the book of Acts. The word of God grew and multiplied, that is, the cause of Christ increased.

Acts 12:25

Barnabas and Saul Return

(25) And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministration, taking with them John whose surname was Mark.

After they had completed their mission in Jerusalem, Barnabas and Saul took John Mark and returned to Antioch.

SEGMENT XIII

ACTS 13-14

PAUL’S FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 13:1-6

Barnabas and Saul Go to Cyprus

Verses 10-15

Paul and Silas Go to Berea

(1) Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was [there], prophets and teachers, Barnabas, and Symeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (2) And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (3) Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (4) So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. (5) And when they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John as their attendant.

The prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch are named as they ministered to the Lord and fasted. The Holy Spirit chose Barnabas and Saul for a special assignment in the Kingdom of God. The church fasted, prayed, laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them on their mission.

Fasting is not commanded of the Christian, but is an act of devotion. If a Christian makes the decision to fast and give himself/herself to prayer and meditation, well and good, but do not bind your decision on other children of God. Fasting should not be something to brag about as it was with the hypocritical Pharisees (Luke 18:11-12; See also the principle recorded in Matthew 6:2-6).

The brethren laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul as an act of encouragement and fellowship in their new endeavor (see 1 Timothy 4:14 for different purpose).

Barnabas and Saul left Antioch for Seleucia, which served as a seaport for the city of Antioch. Leaving Seleucia they sailed to the Island of Cyprus. Because of her wealth of natural resources and position on the Asia Minor - Egypt trade route, Cyprus came under the rule of many nations (Assyria, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Egypt a second time, and the Roman empire).

Cyprus was the homeland of Barnabas (Acts 4:36), and the stepping stone to Asia Minor. This very well may be the reason they started their work on this island. Barnabas and Saul landed at the seaport city of Salamis where they preached in the synagogues. Nothing is said about con-verts or additional information of their preaching in Sala-mis. We are told that John Mark assisted in the work.

Acts 13:6-12

Work on Cyprus and in the City of Paphos

(6) And when they had gone through the whole island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus; (7) who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding. The same called unto him Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God. (8) But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpre-tation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the pro-consul from the faith. (9) But Saul, who is also [called] Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, (10) and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. (12) Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord .

Verse Six A - From this verse it seems that Barnabas and Saul preached throughout the island and terminated their work on the island at the seaport city of Paphos.

Verses Six B - through Twelve - Entering Paphos, Barnabas and Saul came in contact with a sorcerer named Bar-jesus (Elymas by interpretation). This false prophet was with Sergius Paulus who was the proconsul. Located at Paphos was the temple of Venus-Aphrodite, who was identified with the Greek goddess, Aphrodite. A nature goddess, it was believed that she arose from the sea at Paphos. Not only did the people worship Venus-Aphro-dite, but they also engaged in the practice of sorcery.

Earlier in the book of Acts (Chapter eight) we read of Simon the Sorcerer. Sorcery was a very popular practice in this period of history since it was believed that the lives of men could be read from the stars. Those who professed to decipher the celestial readings were held in high esteem.

Sergius Paulus was a man of understanding and a truth seeker. He sent for Barnabas and Saul to hear the word of God. Bar-jesus sought to turn aside the proconsul from the faith. Saul, who was called Paul (Luke now refers to Saul by his Gentile name), rebuked him and caused him to be blind for a season.

Bar-jesus is referred to as being:

1. Full of guile.

2. Full of all villainy.

3. The son of the devil.

4. An enemy of all righteousness.

5. One who perverted the right ways of the Lord.

When Sergius Paulus observed what was done, he believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord. The conversion of the proconsul would have much influence for Christ throughout the island of Cyprus.

There is a very interesting note in Saul’s assuming his Gentile name Paul. Paul suffered what Saul had inflicted upon the Christians. Saul stoned, Paul was stoned; Saul inflicted scourgings on the Christians and five times Paul received forty stripes save one; Saul hunted the church of God, Paul was hunted; Saul bound, Paul was bound (see 2 Corinthians 11:21-23). The change of name heralded a change in leadership. Where it was formerly Barnabas and Saul, it was now Paul and Barnabas. It remained Paul and Barnabas, Paul and Silas, Paul and company throughout his labors.

Acts 13:13

On to Perga

John Mark Leaves Them

(13) Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem.

Setting sail from Paphos, Paul and his company came to Perga in Pamphylia. Nothing is said about preaching the gospel in Perga, but we are informed that John Mark left the missionary group.

Several reasons have been suggested for John Mark’s departure:

1. He did not like the change in leadership.

2. The dangers of the country.

3. He had contacted malaria.

4. John Mark may have disliked Paul’s aggressive attitude toward the Gentiles.

5. The policy of Paul may have called for a greater sacrifice than he wished to make.

It is evident that John’s reason, whatever it was, was not acceptable to Paul because he accused him of with-drawing (Acts 15:38), and later refused to permit him to accompany him on his second missionary journey. It should be noted, however, that John Mark was willing to start on the second journey, and he must have later regained the good graces of Paul because Paul later refers to him, saying to receive him (Colossians 4:10; see also 2 Timothy 4:11).

Acts 13:14-51

Paul Preaches and Makes Disciples

Is Cast Out of Antioch

He and His Company Go to Iconium

(14) But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia; and they went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. (15) And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. (16) And Paul stood up, and beckoning with the hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, hearken: (17) The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm led he them forth out of it. (18) And for about the time of forty years as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness. (19) And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave [them] their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years: (20) and after these things he gave [them] judges until Samuel the prophet.

(21) And afterward they asked for a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years.

(22) And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king; to whom also he bare witness and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who shall do all My will. (23) Of this man’s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus; (24) when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. (25) And as John was fulfilling his course, he said, What suppose ye that I am? I am not [he]. But behold, there cometh one after me the shoes of whose feet I am not worthy to unloose. (26) Brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you that fear God, to us is the word of this salvation sent forth. (27) For they that dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read

every sabbath, fulfilled [them] by condemning [him].

(28) And though they found no cause of death [in him], yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain. (29) And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. (30) But God raised him from the dead: (31) and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people. (32) And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,

(33) that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (34) And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure [blessings] of David. (35) Because he saith also in another [psalm], Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption. (36) For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: (37) but he whom God raised up saw no corruption. (38) Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: (39) and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (40) Beware therefore, lest that come upon [you] which is spoken in the prophets: (41) Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you. (42) And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.

(43) Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. (44) And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God. (45) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contra-dicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed. (46) And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (47) For so hath the Lord com-manded us, [saying], I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, That thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth. (48) And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (49) And the word of the Lord was spread abroad throughout all the region. (50) But the Jews urged on the devout women of honorable estate, and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out of their borders. (51) But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.

Entering the city of Antioch of Pisidia, Paul and his company entered the Jewish synagogue.

The worship in the Jewish synagogue on the Sabbath day consisted of three parts:

1. Recitation of the Shema, which was a type of creed composed out of Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21, Numbers 15:37-41. Prayers, eulogies, or benedictions, to which the people responded, A-Men; and if a priest was present, the blessing.

2. The reading of the scripture: first from the law (five books of Moses), then from the prophets, which included the historical books.

3. At the end came the exposition or exhortation by a competent teacher.

(R. B. Rackham, The Acts of The Apostles, p. 202)

After the readings, Paul was invited to exhort the people. Paul went up, beckoned with his hand and began his sermon. Paul’s sermon followed Jewish lines, and as Stephen’s speech (Acts seven) it took the form of a historical retrospect. From a study of this and the other sermons of Paul, there are five distinct elements which stand out:

1. An appeal to the past.

2. Statement of facts.

3. Answer to objections.

4. Appeal to the spiritual needs of men.

5. A grave warning.

These elements are present in Paul’s sermon at Antioch.

Note Paul’s proof that Christ was the Messiah:

A. By history, Acts 13:16-23.

1. God chose our fathers, Acts 13:17.

2. Delivered them from Egypt, Acts 13:17.

3. Sustained them in the wilderness, Acts 13:18.

4. Gave them a land, Acts 13:19.

5. Gave them judges till Samuel the prophet, Acts 13:20.

6. Later he gave them a king at their request, Acts 13:21.

7. He removed Saul and raised up David, Acts 13:22.

8. From David’s seed came the savior, Jesus, Acts 13:23.

B. By witnesses, Acts 13:24-40.

1. John the baptizer bore witness of Him, Acts 13:24-25.

2. His own people knew him not, as was prophesied, Acts 13:27.

3. He was crucified, buried and was resurrected, Acts 13:28-29.

4. Resurrection proven by:

a. Eyewitnesses, Acts 13:31.

b. Psalms , Acts 13:33-37.

C. Salvation offered.

1. Salvation in Jesus, Acts 13:38.

2. Warning against disbelief, Acts 13:40-41.

Paul’s message was made known to many people and he was invited to speak the following Sabbath. At this gathering almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God. The gathering of this large multi-tude stirred the Jews to jealousy and they contradicted the things spoken by Paul and they blasphemed. As the Jews "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life," Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles. Paul had been called to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), and it was also prophesied by the prophet Isaiah that the Gentiles would receive the gospel (verse 47 where Luke quotes Isaiah 49:6). When the Gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of God and some believed. The word of God spread throughout the whole region.

In verse forty-eight Luke states, "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Who were not ordained to eternal life?

The Jews, who:

1. Were filled with jealousy.

2. Contradicted the things spoken by Paul.

3. Blasphemed.

4. Thrust the gospel away from them.

5. Judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.

Who were ordained to eternal life? The Gentiles who:

1. Were glad.

2. Glorified the word of God.

3. Did not thrust the gospel away.

4. Did not judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.

5. Believed the preaching of Paul.

God has provided salvation for all of sinful mankind (Mark 16:15-16), and invites all to come to Him (Matthew 11:28; Revelation 3:20). He chose us in Him (Christ) that we should be holy and without blemish, sons of God, enjoying redemption through His blood (Ephesians 1:3-7). God wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), provides a sacrifice for man’s sins (Hebrews 9:11-15; Hebrews 9:23-28; Hebrews 10:12), and provides in the Bible instructions as to how man can receive/accept this salvation (John 8:24; John 8:21; Hebrews 11:6; Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38; Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:10; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:1-4). Man is responsible for his own eternal destiny (2 Corinthians 5:10; Acts 28:24-28).

The Jews did not give up. They were jealous, had been rebuked by Paul (Acts 13:46), and were urged on by the devout women of honorable estate and the chief men. They stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and cast them out of their borders. It is interesting to note that the persecution of Paul and Barnabas did not come from the worshipers of the heathen god, Men, which was the chief god of the city, but from among the ones to whom they had first carried the gospel.

Paul and Barnabas shook off the dust of their feet against them (Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:8-11), and left seeking for a new opportunity to follow Jesus Christ.

Acts 13:52

Disciples Filled with Joy and with The Holy Spirit

(52) And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Great joy is experienced by those who are obedient to the gospel (Acts 8:39).

ACTS 14

Acts 14:1-7

Paul and Barnabas Preach in Iconium

and are Driven Out of the City

They Leave for Lystra

(1) And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed. (2) But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren. (3) Long time therefore they tarried [there] speaking boldly in the Lord, who bare witness unto the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. (4) But the multitude of the city was divided; and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles. (5) And when there was made an onset both of the Gentiles and of the Jews with their rulers, to treat them shamefully and to stone them, (6) they became aware of it, and fled unto the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the region round about: (7) and there they preached the gospel.

In the New Testament times all four of the cities in Asia Minor visited by Paul — Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe — were in the province of Galatia. Antioch and Iconium were in the district of Pisidia and Lystra and Derbe were in the district of Lycaonia.

Entering into Iconium where the mother-goddess Cybele was worshiped, Paul and his companions entered into the synagogue of the Jews and so spake that a great number both Jews and Greeks believed.

There were among the Jewish community Gentiles, who were students of the Jewish religion. The only thing that separated them from being proselytes of the Jewish religion was the act of circumcision. They attended the synagogue and were referred to as, "God fearers" (Acts 13:16; Acts 13:26). In Acts 14:1 we see Gentiles attending the synagogue. These God fearers would be prime prospects to obey the gospel since they had been taught about the one true God and the coming Messiah. Paul would then teach them that Jesus was the Messiah and encourage them to be obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This could also be a factor in the Jews’ jealousy of Paul’s success.

Verses Two and Three - The disobedient Jews stirred up the Gentiles against the brethren. In spite of this Paul and his co-laborers tarried a long time in the city speaking boldly in the Lord and performed signs and wonders to substantiate their message. The preaching of the gospel divided the city. While some supported the apostles, those Gentiles and Jews (with their rulers) who opposed Paul and his co-workers planned to treat them shamefully and stone them. When Paul and his company learned of their plans, they fled to Lystra and Derbe and preached the gospel in these cities and the region round about.

Acts 14:8-20

Paul Heals the Lame Man

Is Proclaimed a god

Is Stoned and Left for Dead

(8) And at Lystra there sat a certain man, impotent in his feet, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked. (9) The same heard Paul speaking, who, fastening eyes upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be made whole, (10) (10) said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped up and walked. (11) And when the multitude saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

(12) And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker. (13) And the priest of Jupiter whose [temple] was before the city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the multitudes. (14) But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out (15) and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that in them is: (16) who in the generations gone by suffered all the to walk in their own ways. (17) And yet He left not himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness. (18) And with these sayings scarce restrained they the multitudes from doing sacrifice unto them. (19) But there came Jews thither from Antioch and Iconium: and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. (20) But as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and entered into the city: and on the morrow he went forth with Barnabas to Derbe.

From Luke’s account it is evident that the people were very suspicious and dedicated to the god, Jupiter (counter-part of the Greek god, Zeus; the chief god). The temple to Jupiter was before the city (Acts 14:13).

There was at Lystra a man who had been a cripple from his birth and had never walked. Paul, seeing that the man had faith that he (Paul) could heal him, commanded him to "stand upright upon thy feet." The crippled man leaped up and walked. The people who witnessed this declared that the gods had come down to them in the likeness of men (Acts 14:11). They called Barnabas Jupiter (Greek Zeus) who was the chief god, and Paul they called Mercury (counterpart of the Greek god Hermes) who was the messenger god. The priest of Jupiter prepared to offer sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas. Paul indicated that they should not be worshiped because they were just men of like passions as the men of Lystra. In verse fourteen Luke names Barnabas before Paul and refers to them as apostles. The word apostle in its general use refers to one sent. Paul and Barnabas had been sent by the church in Antioch of Syria (Acts 13:3).

Paul was an apostle in a special sense because he:

1. Saw the Lord, Acts 22:14.

2. Heard a voice from the mouth of God, Acts 22:14.

3. Was called out of due season, 1 Corinthians 15:6.

4. Was called for a special purpose, Acts 9:15.

From sermons found in the New Testament we learn a very important principle in preaching. When preaching to those who believed in God, preachers began by appealing to God’s dealings with His people.

1. Peter, Acts 2:14-47.

2. Stephen, Acts 7:1-53.

3. Paul, Acts 13:16-41.

In these examples the speakers did not declare unto them the one true God, they already believed on Him . They started teaching them where they were in knowledge. In Acts 17:16-28 Paul did not preach to the Athenians about Moses, Abraham and God’s dealings with the Israelites, but declared unto them the one true God which they worshiped in ignorance. In the passage under consideration Paul began preaching to the people about a God that they did not know (Acts 14:15-17).

Jews arrived from Antioch and Iconium and persuaded the multitudes so that they stoned Paul; dragged him out of the city thinking he was dead. One minute Paul was declared a god, but a few hours later the same group turned on him and stoned him. Paul had turned the worship of the people, with a mild rebuke, into foolishness as he told them to abstain from vain things. This left the people empty and easy to be stirred up.

Acts 14:21-23

The Next Day Paul and Barnabas Go to Derbe and

Make a Number of Disciples; They Return to Lystra,

Iconium and Antioch Encouraging the Disciples

and Appointing Elders

(21) And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, (22) confirm-ing the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to con-tinue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (23) And when they had appointed for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.

The next day Paul and Barnabas go to the city of Derbe. Their work in that city is summed up in verses twenty-one and twenty-two. No particulars of the work are mentioned, only that Paul preached and many disciples were made.

It is thought that since Derbe was not mentioned as one of the cities in which he suffered persecution, Paul’s work in this city was a peaceful one (2 Timothy 3:10).

Verse twenty-two speaks of the new Christians being confirmed. New converts are not to be left to their own, but are to be taught (grounded in the truth) that they might grow into fruitful disciples (2 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 5:11-14).

Verse twenty-three informs us that elders were appointed in every church. From the teaching of the New Testament we learn:

1. A congregation is to have a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23).

2. They are to meet certain qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

3. The terms elder and bishop describe the same office and the same work (Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28, overseer or bishop).

4. They have a definite work to do (Acts 20:28; Hebrews 13:17; Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 5:1-4).

Acts 14:24-28

They Go to Perga and Then to Attalia

They Return to Antioch of Syria

and Give a Report to the Church

(24)And they passed through Pisidia, and came to Pamphylia. (25) And when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia; (26) and thence they sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been committed to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled. (27) And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles. (28) And they tarried no little time with the disciples.

Very little is known of Paul’s work in Perga, only that he spoke the word. From Perga Paul and his company went to Attalia. Sailing to Antioch of Syria they made a report to the church which had sent them forth on their journey. Paul reported that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

These lessons can be learned from Paul’s first missionary journey:

1. The universality of the gospel. All men are to be taught the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. God’s providence. Paul and Barnabas were cared for and blessed through all manner of trials, temptations and tribulations.

3. The strength of Christian fellowship.

4. The power of God’s word is made manifest to all who read the account.

SEGMENT XIV

Acts 15:1-35

THE JERUSALEM MEETING

Acts 15:1-35

The Meeting

(1) And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, [saying], Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (2) And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, [the brethren] appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (3) They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. (4) And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. (5) But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. (6) And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter. (7) And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (8) And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; (9) and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they. (12) And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them. (13) And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: (14) Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (16) After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: (17) That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, (18) Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old. (19) Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;

(20) but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. (22) Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: (23) and they wrote [thus] by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: (24) Foras-much as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; (25) it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. (28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: (29) that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well. (30) So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. (31) And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation. (32) And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and con-firmed them. (33) And after they had spent some time [there], they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth. (34) [But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.] (35) But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preach-ing the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Luke writes of a difficulty which arose in the church at Antioch because of the false teachers who came from Judaea. They had come to Antioch teaching, "Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Paul and Barnabas had no small disputation with these teachers who would bind the Law of Moses on Christians. (Even today there are those who would bring the Old Testament practices into the church of Jesus Christ -- tithing, Sabbath keeping, and mechanical instruments of music). There is a valuable lesson in the actions of Paul and Barnabas. When the error was taught they withstood it immediately with, "no small dissension and dispu-tation." They were aware of the fact that you cannot allow error to be taught because of the destruction of the faith of Christians. The idea that if you just ignore the false teach-ing it will go away is not true. Error must be confronted and the false teachers rebuked.

The decision was made to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to inquire of the apostles and elders about these teachers.

The meeting of Paul and Barnabas with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem is referred to by many as the first conference in the church, and is used as an example and for the authority for modern day conferences. Note the comparison in the following illustrations.

THE ECUMENICAL/ECCLESIASTICAL

COUNCILS OF TODAY

Congregations select delegates to represent them and

then send them to a conference/council. Here they discuss doctrine, policy, and then vote as to whether it should or should not be. The majority rules and the churches are bound by the decisions made by the council, (see chart on next page).

In such an unscriptural arrangement, the churches are bound not by what the Bible teaches but what the council decrees.

An excellent example of this is the Methodist Church in America. The Methodist Church began in 1729 and adopted its creed in 1784. In that creed it stated "all men are conceived and born in sin." (Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. IV, sermon entitled, "The Blood-Bought Institution of the New Testament," p. 122; quote on p. 128). In 1910, delegates from the Methodist Church met in its ecumenical council in Asheville, North Carolina, and removed the statement about original sin from their creed. The delegates left home believing one doctrine and returned home believing a different doctrine. When the delegates reported to their respective congregations, they changed their faith. The members of the Methodist Church were not affected by what the Bible said, but by what the council decreed.

THE FALSE TEACHERS

OF ACTS 15

Men from Judaea came teaching a false doctrine, "Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The brethren at Antioch decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to inquire about this question (Acts 15:2).

The purpose of Paul’s and Barnabas’ trip was not to vote on anything, but to ask the apostles and elders about the false teachers who had come from Judaea. (This was an appeal to apostolic authority, Matthew 18:18). The answer to the inquiry is found in Acts 15:22-29. The church at Jerusalem had not sent the false teachers to Antioch. This action is far different from the ecclesiastical councils previously mentioned.

To the Gentiles God granted repentance unto life (Acts 11:18). When there arose those of the Pharisees who taught that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, there was much questioning. Note the facts that were brought out in their discussion:

1. God made choice among them that by Peter the Gentiles should hear the gospel and believe (Acts 15:8).

2. God gave them the Holy Spirit as he did the apostles (Acts 11:15; Acts 15:8).

3. God made no distinction between the Jews and Gentiles cleansing the Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:9). (If the Gentiles were cleansed by faith there was no need for them to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses; see Galatians 5:4).

4. To insist that the Gentiles were to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses was to put a yoke upon the disciples (Acts 15:10).

5. Both Jew and Gentile are to be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:11).

6. Barnabas and Paul told of the signs and wonders that God had wrought through the Gentiles through them (Acts 15:12).

7. James points out that God would take out of the Gentiles a people for His own name, as was prophesied by the prophet Amos (Acts 15:14-18 quoting Amos 9:11-12).

The apostles, brethren, and elders wrote to the Gentiles that they had not sent the false teachers to Antioch. They instructed the Gentiles to abstain from:

1. Things sacrificed to idols.

2. Blood.

3. Things strangled.

4. Fornication.

Not only did they put this in writing, but they sent Judas and Silas who would deliver the message in person. When the message was delivered the people rejoiced for the exhortation. Judas and Silas, being prophets, also exhorted the brethren. Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch teaching and preaching the word.

SEGMENT XV

Acts 15:36 to Acts 18:23

PAUL’S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 15:36-41

Paul and Barnabas Part Company

(36) And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, [and see] how they fare. (37) And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. (38) But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. (39) And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus; (40) but Paul chose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord . (41) And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

When the time came for Paul and Barnabas to visit the churches which had been established on their first missionary journey, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them. Paul did not want to take him because he withdrew from them on their first journey (Acts 13:13) and did not go with them to the work. Luke tells us that a sharp contention arose and Paul and Barnabas parted company. This incident in the life of Paul teaches us that sometimes brethren cannot agree on a course of action, but they can still work in the kingdom of God. It should be recognized that Paul and Barnabas did not disagree on doctrine or what the Bible taught, but on how the work was to be accomplished. This disagreement on policy resulted in two mission teams, Paul and Silas and Barna-bas and John Mark. Barnabas and John Mark went to Cyprus while Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches. How may confirming or strengthening congregations be accomplished?

1. Teach them God’s word.

2. Answer their questions about the scripture.

3. Encourage and admonish them.

4. Fellowship with them.

Of course when individuals grow spiritually (2 Peter 3:18), the congregation will increase in spirituality.

CHAPTER 16

Acts 16:1-5

Paul and Timothy

(1) And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek. (2) The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. (3) Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (4) And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. (5) So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

After traveling through Derbe, Paul and Silas arrived in Lystra. It is at this point that Luke introduces us to the young man, Timothy. When Timothy was converted is not recorded. He had been taught the scriptures from a very early age (2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:15), by his mother and grand-mother (2 Timothy 1:5), and probably was converted when he initially heard Paul preach the gospel on his first missionary journey.

In verse three it is stated that Paul would have Timothy go with him on his journey, and that Paul had him circum-cised. This may seem strange in view of the confrontation with the teachers from Judaea who taught that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1). Timothy’s mother was a Jewish Christian, while his father was a Greek. Being one half Jew, Timothy could not effectively work among the Jews. McGarvey states in his commentary:

The Jews who were in those parts, like all other Jews, could not look favorable on a man of Jewish blood who was uncircumcised. He would appear to be repudiating his nationality.

Timothy was circumcised as a matter of expedience to be able to work effectively with the Jews. When Timothy became a member of Paul’s teaching team, there began a long and close relationship between them (1 Timothy 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:2-6).

On another occasion Paul steadfastly refused to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised (Galatians 2:3). In Titus’ case it involved a matter of doctrine (Acts 15:5; Galatians 2:3-5). In view of the teaching of the Judaizing teachers (those who wished to bind Moses’ law upon the Gentiles), the Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. To do so would have been an admission that the gospel of Jesus Christ was not powerful enough to save the Gentile sinners. According to their doctrine it would take the gospel plus the law of Moses to save, which would render the gospel of Jesus Christ inef-fective.

Paul and his company went on their way through the cities, delivering the decree which had been ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.

Acts 16:6-10

Macedonian Call

(6) And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; (7) and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; (8) and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. (9) And avision appeared to Paul in the night: There was a man of Macedonia standing, beseeching him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. (10) And when he had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Being guided by the Holy Spirit, Paul by-passes the province of Asia and Bithynia and was directed to the city of Troas. Troas was the chief city in the N . W . part of Asia Minor in the Roman province of Asia. This city came under the possession of Rome in 133 BC. It was in Troas that Paul saw the vision of the man of Macedonia (Acts 16:9), and where he raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-10).

The obedience to the vision was characteristic of the apostle Paul. The Bible says, "Immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia." Would to God that men were as quick to obey God today as was Paul.

Acts 16:11-15

Lydia’s Household

(11) Setting sail therefore from Troas, we made a straight course to Samothrace, and the day following to Neapolis; (12) and from thence to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a [Roman] colony: and we were in this city tarrying certain days.

(13) And on the sabbath day we went forth without the gate by a river side, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women that were come together. (14) And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

Paul and his company sailed from Troas to Samo-thracia and the following day to Neapolis, which served as the seaport for Philippi. Philippi was the chief city of Macedonia and took its name from Philip II of Macedon who was the father of Alexander the Great. It is thought that the Jewish population in this city was very small. It took ten Jewish men to form a synagogue and nothing is said about Paul going into the synagogue to teach, instead he went to the riverside where prayer was being offered by a group of women.

One of the women was Lydia, who was from Thyatira and a seller of purple. Purple was a very costly dye which was used only on the costliest cloth. It was used in the furnishings of the tabernacle (Exodus 25:4), in Solomon’s temple (2 Chronicles 2:14; 2 Chronicles 3:14), and was put on Jesus by the Roman soldiers (Mark 15:17; Mark 15:20). Thyatira was a very wealthy city in the Northern part of the Roman province of Asia, near to the borders of Mysia. This city was known for its purple dye and trade guilds.

That Lydia was a religious person is indicated by the fact that she worshiped God. Luke states that she heard the preaching of Paul and his company (men and women are called by the gospel, 2 Thessalonians 2:14). The gospel Lydia heard opened her heart (what Paul preached fell on good soil, that is, good and honest hearts, Luke 8:15), and she attended (gave heed) to the gospel Paul preached (Hebrews 11:6).

Both Lydia and her household were baptized. Many who desire to justify infant baptism use this for their example and authority.

There are four cases of household baptisms in the New Testament:

1. Cornelius (Acts 10:47).

2. Philippian jailer (Acts 16:34).

3. Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16).

4. Lydia (Acts 16:15).

In three of these there is positive proof that no infants were included:

1. Cornelius - those who were baptized spoke in tongues and believed.

2. Jailer - they all believed.

3. Stephanas - they set themselves to minister to the saints.

An infant is not capable of engaging in the above men-tioned activities. This leaves the household of Lydia.

1. Question only for discussion: Could the household of Lydia have been all women (Acts 16:13)?

2. There is no indication that Lydia was married.

3. If she was married, not every household has children.

4. No children are mentioned, and if there were children they would have to have been old enough to give heed to the preaching of Paul.

Infants are not candidates for baptism because they are not able to have faith, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and they have no sins to repent of until they disobey the word of God (1 John 3:4).

Acts 16:16-18

Paul and the Slave Girl

(16) And it came to pass, as we were going to the place of prayer, that a certain maid having a spirit of divina-tion met us, who brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. (17) The same following after Paul and us cried out, saying, These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim unto you the way of salvation.

(18) And this she did for many days. But Paul, being sore troubled, turned and said to the spirit, I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out that very hour.

There was in Philippi a maid, possessed by a spirit or demon, who brought her masters much gain by sooth-saying (foretelling events). For several days she followed Paul and his fellow-workers crying out, "These men are servants of the most high God." Not desiring to have the endorsement of the spirit world, Paul rebuked the spirit and cast it out that very hour.

DEMON POSSESSION

There are about 80 references to demons (unclean spirits) in the New Testament. In eleven instances a distinction is made between demon possession and diseases ordinarily caused (Matthew 4:24; Matthew 8:16; Matthew 10:8; Mark 1:32-34; Mark 6:13; Mark 16:17-18; Luke 4:40-41; Luke 9:1; Luke 13:32; Acts 19:12).

The results of demon possession are not exclusively mental or nervous, that is, "appearing or acting unsteady, erratic, or irregular" (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary) (Matthew 9:32-33; Matthew 12:22). They are mental in two instances only (Matthew 8:28; Acts 19:13). Epilepsy is specified in only one case (Matthew 17:15-18). There is a distinction made between diseases caused by demons and the same disease not so caused (Matthew 12:22; Matthew 15:30).

From the New Testament it is evident that demons had complete possession of individuals. Those possessed are depicted throughout as unfortunate sufferers who, by no fault of their own, are dominated by demons and who, when the demons are cast out by Jesus, accept their deliverance with joy and gratitude (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8:2).

It is important to note that Jesus nowhere speaks of forgiveness of sins, purification or sacrifices (as he did in some cases of physical sickness) that had to be made after his curing of demon possession.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMONS

It is clear from a study of the New Testament that demons were personal beings. They:

1. Had understanding (Mark 1:34; Mark 5:8; Mark 9:25; Acts 19:13-16).

2. Knew Christ (Luke 4:34; Mark 1:24).

3. Possessed desires and passions (Mark 5:10; Mark 5:13 ; James 2:19).

4. Could speak (Mark 1:24; Mark 1:26; Mark 1:34; Luke 4:41).

Demon possession was a phenomenon which occurred almost exclusively during Jesus’ personal ministry on earth. Demons were a part of the kingdom of Satan, whose power Jesus came to destroy (1 John 3:8). After Jesus had successfully defeated Satan in the wilderness temptation (Matthew 4:1-11), He was confronted by the devil’s workers. In every case Jesus was victorious. The apostles were also victorious over the servants of the evil one. Demon possession existed that the power of God might be made manifest over the devil and his angels.

Demon possession does not exist in our world today and hasn’t since the time of the apostles. Men and women are beings of free will and they serve whomsoever they choose. No power (personage) can enter an individual’s body and direct it to do evil or control it (1 Corinthians 10:13). Men and women will give an account for the deeds done in the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:10), not for something another power caused. The great lesson for Christians today is that God is all powerful and has been victorious over the devil and his workers. Christians today can enjoy victory over Satan and his followers if they will follow God’s instructions (see Romans 12:9; James 4:7).

Acts 16:19-24

Paul and Silas in Prison

(19) But when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone, they laid hold on Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers,

(20) and when they had brought them unto the magis-trates, they said, These men, being Jews, do exceed-ingly trouble our city, (21) and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, or to observe, being Romans. (22) And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent their garments off them, and commanded to beat them with rods. (23) And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: (24) who, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

The masters of the maid, who was possessed of a spirit of divination, were very upset when they realized that their hope of gain was gone. They took vengeance upon Paul and Silas. Dragging them before the rulers, they charged them with troubling the city (v. 20) and setting forth customs which were not lawful for Romans to observe or receive (v. 21). These charges were false but when you touch the pocket book of individuals (getting involved with another’s finances) you get into trouble! Paul and Silas were stripped, beaten, and cast into prison. The jailer cast them into the inner prison and put their feet in stocks. No doubt the jailer thought that his actions would secure the prisoners.

Acts 16:25-34

Conversion of the Jailer

(25) But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the prisoners were listening to them; (26) and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison-house were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. (27) And the jailor, being roused out of sleep and seeing the prison doors open, drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

(28) But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. (29) And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, (30) and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. (32) And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. (33) And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. (34) And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.

Being imprisoned for the cause of Jesus Christ did not affect the faith of Paul and Silas. At midnight they were praying and singing hymns unto God as the prisoners listened. A great earthquake shook the prison house, all the doors were opened, and the prisoners’ bands were loosed.

The jailer (responsible with his own life for the prisoners, Acts 12:18-19), being awakened and seeing that the doors o f the prison were opened, was about to kill himself thinking that the prisoners had escaped. Paul called out with a loud voice that they were all still in the prison house. The jailer then asked the greatest question which can be asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" The answer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shall be saved, thou and thy house" (Acts 16:31). The explanation of what he was supposed to believe and do is shown below:

Notice the chain of events in the jailer’s conversion:

1. The jailer was told to believe on the Lord Jesus (Acts 16:31).

2. Paul then spake the word of the Lord unto him (told him what to believe (Acts 16:32).

3. The jailer responded by washing their stripes, which was a sign of his repentance (Acts 16:33).

4. Then the jailer and all his were baptized immediately (Acts 16:33).

5. After his baptism the jailer "rejoiced greatly having believed in God." (believed in God describes all that he did).

We have in these verses an example of one becoming a Christian. A serious student of the Bible w i l l notice that in the book of Acts different answers are given to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" (see chart below).

1. Jailer - Believe (Acts 16:31).

2. Those on Pentecost - Repent and be baptized, (Acts 2:38).

3. Ethiopian eunuch - Confess Jesus Christ (Acts 8:26-40).

4. Saul of Tarsus - Arise and be baptized (Acts 22:16).

In these conversions to Jesus we have four different answers to the same question. How can this be? Let’s suppose that we are traveling on Interstate 81 and 40 from Johnson City, TN , to Memphis, TN . Leaving Johnson City we ask:

"How far is it to Memphis?"

We receive the answer, "It is 510 miles to Memphis." (Only Believe)

We continue on our journey until we arrive in Knoxville where we ask, "How far to Memphis?"

The answer given, "It is 403 miles to Memphis." (Believe and Repent Only)

Our next stop is Nashville.

Our question is the same, "How far is it to Memphis?"

Someone tells us, "It is 220 miles to Memphis." (Believe, Repent and Confess Christ)

Arriving at Jackson we ask for a fourth time, "How far to Memphis?"

The response is, "It is 90 miles to Memphis." (See examples of Conversion Below...)

We have asked the same question each time but received four different answers — and they are all correct. The reason these are all correct is that each answer is given in reference to the location of the traveler. The same is true to those mentioned above as it relates to the sinner’s relationship to salvation (to the obtaining of remission of sins).

Examples of Conversion

Matthew 28:18-19 Mark 16:15-16

Luke 24:45-53 Acts 1:8

To be converted to someone or something basically means “to turn to, return to, turn back,” etc. Biblical conversion always involves a person turning to the Lord from the heart and is manifested through faith and obedience (Romans 6:17; Hebrews 5:9; cf. James 2:14-26). The book of Acts is rife with examples of those who were converted to Christ. While it is not possible to discuss all of them in this article, it is important to notice some facts about them.

What can we learn from those conversion examples? Well, for one thing, no one was ever converted to Christ without first hearing the gospel preached (Acts 2:14-41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35-39; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 16:30-34; etc.). Accordingly, no one was ever converted to Christ without believing the gospel (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:35-37; Acts 16:30-34; etc.). “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Furthermore, repentance was required if one was to be converted to Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; cf. Acts 17:30; Acts 26:20). Also, confessing Christ was openly involved in one’s conversion (Acts 8:37; cf. Romans 10:10; 1 John 4:15). And of course baptism into Christ (via water – Acts 8:36-39; Acts 10:47-48; cf. Acts 16:33), which was commanded (2:38; 10:48), was vital. In fact, one could not be converted without it (Acts 22:16; cf. Galatians 3:26-29).

Based on these examples, have you been converted Christ?

1. The jailer needed to believe on Jesus (Acts 16:31).

2. Those on Pentecost who believed (they would not have asked what to do unless they believed Peter’s preaching) were told to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:37-38).

3. The Ethiopian eunuch, who believed and was turning from Judaism to Christianity (a sign of his repentance), was told to confess Jesus Christ (Acts 8:36-39).

4. Saul, who believed, repented and confessed Jesus Christ was told to be baptized (Acts 9:1-19). All of these are Gospel commands. Have you obeyed?

Each of the converts met the qualifications set forth by Jesus (John 8:24; Luke 13:3; Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 16:16).

Acts 16:35-40

Story of Their Release

(35) But when it was day, the magistrates sent the sergeants, saying, Let those men go. (36) And the jailor reported the words to Paul, [saying], The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore come forth, and go in peace. (37) But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privily? Nay verily; but let them come themselves and bring us out. (38) And the sergeants reported these words unto the magistrates: and they feared when they heard that they were Romans; (39) and they came and besought them; and when they had brought them out, they asked them to go away from the city. (40) And they went out of the prison, and entered into [the house] of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.

The magistrates sent word that Paul and Silas were free to go. Paul refused to leave because:

1. They had beaten them openly without trial (uncondemned).

2. They had cast them into prison.

3. They had mistreated Roman citizens and Paul stated that he would not leave privily (secretly).

Later, Paul appeals to Caesar (Rome) when he was being tried before Festus (Acts 25:6-12; see also Acts 22:27-29).

The magistrates, fearful because they had beaten Roman citizens, came to Paul and Silas and besought them to leave the city.

Paul and Silas went into the house of Lydia and when they had seen and comforted the brethren, they departed.

CHAPTER ACTS 17

Acts 17:1-9

Paul at Thessalonica

(1) Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: (2) and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures, (3) opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, [said he,] I proclaim unto you, is the Christ. (4) And some of them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. (5) But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble, and gathering a crowd, set the city on an uproar; and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them forth to the people. (6) And when they found them not, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; (7) whom Jason hath received: and these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, [one] Jesus. (8) And they troubled the multitude and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. (9) And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

Traveling through Amphipolis and Apollonia, Paul and his companions arrived in Thessalonica, which was the chief city of Macedonia. Locating a synagogue of the Jews Paul went into it and reasoned with them out of the scriptures (Isaiah 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). The mes-sage Paul preached was simple: "the scriptures teach that Jesus is The Christ." The results of "reasoning from the scriptures" were very gratifying, some believed and con-sorted (united) with Paul and Silas. A great multitude of the devout Greeks and a large number of the chief women became followers of Jesus Christ. McGarvey makes this statement concerning verse four:

It seems from this statement that the largest class of the converts were "devout Greeks," that is, Gentiles who had learned to worship God according to the example of the Jews. Next to these were the chief women, also Gentile proselytes; and least of all, Jews. The great majority, then, were Gentiles; and Paul, on account of this preponderance could afterward write to them, "Ye turned unto God from idols to serve a living and true God" (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

The unbelieving Jews moved with envy and enlisted certain lewd (wick-ed) men to create an uproar in the city. Christians should remember that the devil will always fight against that which is right. The character of the evil one is set forth in John 8:44, and his followers are aptly described in John 3:19-20.

Not finding Paul and Silas, the angry mob assaulted the house of Jason. Jason and several of the brethren were taken before the rulers of the city and charged with "turning the world upside down." It is true that the preaching of the gospel will turn the world upside down.

The word of God will turn man from:

1. Idolatry (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

2. Fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18).

3. Sorcery (Acts 8:9; Acts 8:13).

4. Homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9).

5. Stealing (1 Corinthians 6:10; Ephesians 4:28).

6. Drunkenness (1 Corinthians 6:10).

7. Cursing (Ephesians 4:29), and many other acts of wickedness (Colossians 3:1-11).

The gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Romans 1:16), and will turn man from his evil ways. The Jews, who were persecuting Jason and the brethren, did not receive the word of God with "all readiness of mind" (Acts 17:11).

Jason was accused of receiving the missionaries and Paul and Silas were charged with teaching that there was another king besides Caesar. While Caesar was an earthly king, Jesus was king over His spiritual kingdom. While Jesus was on earth the Jews rejected His kingship (John 19:15). Jesus is surely king over His kingdom (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Being troubled over the events, the rulers of the city took security from Jason and released them. Paul and Silas were immediately sent away by night unto Berea.

Acts 17:10-15

Paul and Silas Go to Berea

(10) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. (12) Many of them therefore believed; also of the Greek women of honorable estate, and of men, not a few. (13) But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Beroea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitudes. (14) And then immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far to the sea: and Silas and Timothy abode there still. (15) But they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timothy that they should come to him with all speed, they departed.

Arriving in the city of Berea, Paul and Silas entered into the synagogue and taught the word of God. The Jews in Berea were more receptive to God’s word than the Jews in Thessalonica in that, "they received the word of God with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). There is no greater characteristic in man than the willingness to study God’s word, and no greater ignorance than a refusal to hear and search the scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15). The result of studying the word of God was that many believed.

When the Jews who had caused trouble in Thessa-lonica heard that the gospel was being preached in Berea, they came to Berea and stirred up the people. The brethren took Paul to Athens, while Silas and Timothy remained in Berea.

Acts 17:16-34

Paul at Athens

(16) Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he beheld the city full of idols. (17) So he reasoned in the synagogue with Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with them that met him. (18) And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encount-ered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.

(19) And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee? (20) For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (21) (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) (22) And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious. (23) For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOW N GOD . What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you. (24) The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined [their] appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; (27) that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: (28) for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (29) Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. (30) The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: (31) inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (32) Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. (33) Thus Paul went out from among them. (34) But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

In Athens, while Paul waited for Silas and Timothy to join him, he observed a city full of idols. The ancient writer, Petronius, satirically said that it was easier to find a god in Athens than to find a man. This city was referred to as, "one great altar to the gods." Luke tells us that Paul’s spirit was provoked when he observed the many gods erected by man. Paul who knew the one true God would be disturbed to observe men worshiping gods who could not speak, see, hear, move or in any way show intelligence (Ephesians 4:6). Paul, instead of being impressed with the magnificent temples, saw nothing but a pile of idols.

Paul was determined to preach the gospel in this great city, which was known for its literary genius, philoso-phical brilliance, and more architectural beauty than any other city of antiquity. He reasoned with the Jews in their synagogue and with those who met with him in the market place.

In Athens there were several schools of Philosophy, two of which were the Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicurean philosophers made pleasure the end of all human existence. The Stoics believed that the good life was obtained through glorifying human reason (separate from God’s revelation to man) and self-sufficiency. This pursuit was considered by them as seeking true virtue. The basic problem with these philosophies was that it made man, not God, the ruler of life.

The Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were not impressed with the message of Paul but with the "newness" of what Paul said (Acts 17:21). The message of Paul was the death and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:18). The philosophers took Paul unto the Areopagus (Mars Hill) to hear more from the babbler (Acts 17:18).

Paul, standing in the midst of Mars Hill, took advan-tage of the opportunity to speak on the behalf of Jehovah God. A close look at Paul’s sermon is important because of the insight it gives us on preaching. Paul begins his preaching where his audience was intellectually — idol worshipers, and declared unto them the one true God.

PAUL’S SERMON

1. He noted that the Athenians were very superstitious (religious).

2. Their devotion to man-made gods was so great that they raised up an altar to an unknown God in case they had overlooked one.

3. Paul told them that he was going to declare unto them the god that they worshiped in ignorance.

4. The true God made the world and all that is therein.

5. The true God does not dwell in man-made temples.

6. Unlike the gods created by man, the true God is not served with men’s hands because He needs nothing. (He gave life and breath to all things, therefore He needs nothing from man). He is God of the entire universe.

7. Man’s purpose on earth is to seek God. God can be found because He is not far from His creatures.

8. It is in this one true God that we live and move and have our being. We exist because of Him!

9. Man, being the offspring of God, should not think of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) like unto gold, silver or stone which has been crafted by man’s hands.

10. God commanded them to repent of their idolatry.

11. Repentance was enjoined to these idolaters because God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world.

12. Paul preached the one true God (in contrast to the idols of Athens), repentance, and the resurrection of Jesus.

The response of the philosophers to Paul’s preaching was that of derision. They made fun of the gospel Paul preached. Paul in his preaching career had been beaten, imprisoned and run out of town, but he had not met the indifference he encountered in Athens. Paul departed from them. Even though Paul’s efforts did not result with the success he had experienced in other cities, converts were made for the cause of Christ (Acts 17:34).

CHAPTER 18

Acts 18:1-4

Paul Arrives at Corinth

(1) After these things he departed from Athens, and came to Corinth. (2) And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them; (3) and because he was of the same trade, he abode with them, and they wrought, for by their trade they were tentmakers. (4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and per-suaded Jews and Greeks.

As Athens was noted for its literary genius, philo-sophical brilliance and architectural beauty, Corinth was a city of commerce. Because of its harbors it became a thriving commercial city. Corinth, a city of some two hundred thousand souls, was a very wicked city. The residents worshiped Aphrodite, who was the goddess of love. Near Corinth was the mountain, Acro-Corinthus. On a flat area at the top of the mountain there was a temple dedicated to the goddess. It is reported by historians that the temple housed one thousand prostitutes and under the guise of religion practiced unrestrained immorality. The Greek language made a verb out of the city’s name, Corinthianize, which meant to practice whoredom. Realizing the prevalence of the practice of immorality, Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians were certainly in order (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Entering Corinth Paul came in contact with Aquila and his wife, Priscilla. He lodged with them because they were tentmakers, the same trade as Paul. Each Jewish boy was taught a trade in order to provide for himself. It has been written that a Jewish father who did not teach his son a trade, taught him to be a thief.

Under the rule of Claudius all Jews were commanded to leave Rome. This happened during the ninth year of his reign, 49 or 50 A . D . (The Roman historian, Suetonius, in Claudius 25:4). An inscription found in Delphi, Greece (Orosius, Fl. 417 A . D . ), places Gallio’s proconsulship at 52 A . D . (Acts 18:12). From these dates it seems that Paul on his second missionary journey visited Corinth in 52 or 53 A.D.

Paul preached (reasoned) in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded Jews and Greeks. We are amazed and thankful to God for the power of the gospel. When it was preached in this corrupt city, it produced fruit.

Since Paul says nothing about the conversion of Aquila and Priscilla, it is thought that they were Christians before they left Rome.

Acts 18:5-11

Work at Corinth

(5) But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was constrained by the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. (6) And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood [be] upon your own heads; I am clean: from hence-forth I will go unto the Gentiles. (7) And he departed thence, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. (8) And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (9) And the Lord said unto Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace: (10) for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm thee: for I have much people in this city. (11) And he dwelt [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Silas and Timothy joined Paul in Corinth and Paul was constrained (compelled) to preach the gospel to the Jews. The message of Paul was: Jesus is the Christ.

In verse six there is a very important matter which needs our serious consideration. There is a false doctrine being circulated that those who are not Christians are not under (do not answer to) the authority (law) of God. In verse six Luke informs us that when the Jews heard Jesus preached as the Christ:

1. They opposed themselves (rejected the gospel to their own detriment, see Luke 7:30). Any time man rejects the word of God it is to his own harm.

2. Blasphemed (spoke against).

The important question is, did these Jews sin? The answer is, of course they did, because they rejected the counsel of God. They were not Christians and when they blasphemed, they sinned, therefore they were amenable (responsible to) the law of God. A l l men saints and sinners are amenable to God’s w i l l . Furthermore, i f a sinner is not answerable to God’s law, how can he become a Christian?

As was the case in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:46), Paul turned from the Jews unto the Gentiles. Paul declared that their blood was upon their heads because they had rejected Jesus (they were responsible, see also Matthew 27:25). Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, along with many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized.

Paul had a vision in which the Lord told him not to be afraid and to speak boldly because no one would harm him. Paul spent a year and six months in Corinth. It was while he was at Corinth that Paul wrote 1st and 2nd Thessalonians around 5 1 - 5 2 A . D . (see Acts 17:14-15; Acts 18:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:6).

Acts 18:12-17

Trial Before Gallio

(12) But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment-seat, (13) saying, This man persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

(14) But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villany, O ye Jews, reason wouldthat I should bear with you: (15) but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters. (16) And he drove them from the judgment-seat. (17) And they all laid hold on Sos-thenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things.

The Jews brought Paul before the judgment seat of Gallio and charged him with persuading men to worship God contrary to the law of Moses. Since it was not a transgression of Roman law and a matter "about words and names in the Jewish law," Gallio refused to hear the case.

The Jews, repulsed by Gallio, seemingly took their frustrations out on Sosthenes. Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, was seized and beaten before the judgment seat. Gallio showed no interest in this event.

Acts 18:18-21

Paul at Ephesus

(18) And Paul, having tarried after this yet many days, took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila: having shorn his head in Cenchreae; for he had a vow. (19) And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there: but he him-self entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. (20) And when they asked him to abide a longer time, he consented not; (21) but taking his leave of them, and saying, I will return again unto you if God will, he set sail from Ephesus.

Paul had taken a vow and when that vow was fulfilled he cut his hair. Some believe that the vow Paul took was the Nazarite vow, but Paul’s actions did not coincide with the requirements of that vow given in Numbers 6:13-18. In reality we do not know what the vow was, where he made it or why. It may be that Paul was engaging in a ceremonial aspect of Judaism. Of this we can be sure, Paul was not keeping the vow in view of salvation (that was through Christ), neither did he bind it on others; nor did he keep it as a part of the Jewish religion.

Arriving in Ephesus Paul entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Ephesus was the leading city of the Roman province of Asia. As a seaport city which was connected to highways leading to the most important cities of the province, Ephesus was the most easily accessible city in Asia by both land and sea. One of the outstanding features of Ephesus was its great temple of Artemis. (This goddess, her temple, and her followers will be considered in Acts 19:24-41).

Paul left Ephesus for Caesarea, promising to come to them again if it was God’s will .

Acts 18:22

End of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey

(22) And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and saluted the church, and went down to Antioch.

Paul landed at Caesarea, saluted (greeted) the church and went to Antioch of Syria.

SEGMENT XVI

Acts 18:23 to Acts 21:40

PAUL’S THIRD JOURNEY

Acts 18:23

Paul Goes Through Galatia and Phrygia

(23) And having spent some time [there], he departed, and went through the region of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing all the disciples.

This is the third time Paul had visited these congrega-tions and the fourth time he had visited the cities of this area. He:

1. Visited the cities and established the congregations on his first missionary journey.

2. Second visit was on his return from his first missionary journey (Acts 14:23).

3. Third visit was to the congregations he had established while on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:36).

4. 4. His fourth visit was on his third missionary journey (Acts 18:23).

Several times we have mentioned the necessity of strengthening, establishing, grounding in the faith, or helping Christians to grow spiritually. This is an absolute necessity if new congregations are to assume their respon-sibilities in the kingdom of God. (These responsibilities are: evangelism, benevolence and edification.)

Acts 18:24-28

Apollos at Ephesus

(24) Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexan-drian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures. (25) This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: (26) and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. (27) And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia, the brethren encou-raged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him: and when he was come, he helped them much that had believed through grace; (28) for he powerfully confut-ed the Jews, [and that] publicly, showing by the scrip-tures that Jesus was the Christ.

The writer introduces us to Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria, which was in the land of Egypt. Luke describes Apollos as an eloquent man who was mighty in the scriptures and fervent in the Spirit. He accurately taught things concerning Jesus but only knew the baptism of John. At the time of Apollos, John’s baptism was not valid.

Note the comparison between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus: John’s baptism was valid B E F O R E Christ came because it was for the purpose of preparing the Jews for Christ (Matthew 3:3; John 3:28). At the time that Apollos was preaching the baptism of John, Jesus had already come into the world, died, was buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9-11).

Priscilla and Aquila heard him boldly preaching Jesus in the synagogue and took him aside and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately. Apollos went into Achaia and helped the brethren there, powerfully confut-ing the Jews publicly. The preaching of Apollos was that of proving by scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. (See 1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 3:4; 1 Corinthians 16:12).

CHAPTER 19

Acts 19:1-7

Rebaptism of the Ephesian Disciples

(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coun-try came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: (2) and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they [said] unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was[given]. (3) And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism. (4) And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repen-tance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. (5) And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (7) And they were in all about twelve men.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul entered Ephesus. Meeting certain of the disciples, he questioned them about the Holy Spirit. When they informed Paul that they had not even heard whether the Holy Spirit had been given, Paul immediately asked them about their baptism. Learning that they had been baptized into John’s baptism, which was not valid at the time (see comments on Acts 18:24-28), Paul commanded them to be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, (see chart below).

If one has been improperly baptized (having water sprinkled or poured over his head), or baptized for the wrong reason (because one thought that he/she was already saved, or into a denominational church) he/she needs to be baptized by immersion in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins that one might be added to the saved (Acts 2:47).

Paul laid his hands on them, imparting unto them the Holy Spirit, which resulted in their speaking in tongues and prophesying.

John’s Baptism Contrasted with

the Baptism Jesus Commanded

JOHN’S BAPTISM

1. In water - John 1:26.

2. For remission of sins - Luke 3:3.

3. Believing on Him (Jesus) who was to come - Acts 19:4.

4.Into John’s baptism - Acts 19:3.

5. Did not receive the Holy Spirit -Acts 19:2.

6. Jesus had not died.

BAPTISM OF JESUS

1. In water-Acts 8:37.

2. For remission of sins - Acts 2:38 .

3. Believing on Jesus who had come -Acts 2.

4. In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit - Matthew 28:19.

5. Received the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:38.

6. Baptized into Christ - Galatians 3:27; baptized into the death of Jesus - Romans 6:3-4.

Acts 19:8-10

Paul Teaches

(8)    (8) And he entered into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and persuading [as to] the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) But when some were hardened and disobe-dient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. (10) And this continued for the space of two years; so that all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

Paul, as his custom was, went into the synagogue and reasoned with them concerning the kingdom of God. He did this for three months. However, when some were hardened, disobedient and spoke evil of the "way" (Christianity, Acts 9:2), he moved his teaching into the school of Tyrannus. There he taught for two years. While Paul was in Ephesus, Luke informs us that all of Asia heard the word of the Lord. The gospel was taught in Ephesus and went forth into all of the Roman province of Asia! It should be realized that the gospel is to go forth from each individual Christian, the congregation of which he/she is a member, each village, each district, and each nation, until the whole world has been given an opportun-ity to hear and obey it (Mark 16:16).

Acts 19:11-20

Paul’s Miracles and Results

(11) And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: (12) insomuch that unto the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, and the evil spirits went out. (13) But certain also of the strolling Jews, exorcists, took upon them to name over them that had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. (14) And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, who did this. (15) And the evil spirit answered and said unto them, Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye? (16) And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (17) And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. (18) Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. (19) And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (20) So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed.

Many use these passages of scripture as proof for what they call, "healing cloths." In America false teachers will offer bits of cloth which have been blessed by them and are supposed to relieve sickness. (They are usually about one or two inches square.) A plea is always made for a gift of money for their "ministry." Note carefully the facts of this case:

1. Paul was preaching the gospel.

2. He was confirming his preaching with signs and wonders.

3. He had the Holy Spirit.

4. Paul was an apostle.

5. Power came from Christ through Paul.

6. Result was diseases were healed and evil spirits departed.

7. No monetary contribution was asked.

The results of Paul’s miracles were that many believed. The very purpose of miracles was to confirm the word of God and to produce faith in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:3-4). When certain of the Jews attempted to do as Paul (cast out evil spirits), the evil spirits mastered them.

To those who claim the power of miracles today we say, "demonstrate the power." Heal the leper, the blind and other illnesses which are obvious to all who see, that faith may be produced in the heart of the unbeliever.

When these activities were known, fear fell upon them all and the name of Jesus Christ was magnified. Many who practiced magical arts brought their books and burned them. The value of the books has been variously estimated from 1,815 to 6,250 English pounds ($9,000.00 to $35,000.00 in U.S. dollars). Luke says that the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.

Acts 19:21-22

Paul Remains in Asia

(21)Now after these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. (22) And having sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.

Paul’s travel plans were to go into Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalem and Rome. We know that Paul did go to Rome, not as a freeman but as a ward of the Roman government.

Paul dispatched Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, while he himself remained in Asia. No doubt Timothy and Erastus were checking on the welfare of the congregations in Macedonia.

Acts 19:23-27

Plot of Demetrius

(23) And about that time there arose no small stir concerning the Way. (24) For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no little business unto the craftsmen; whom he gathered together, with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this business we have our wealth. (26) And ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they are no gods, that are made with hands: (27) and not only is there danger that this our trade come into disrepute; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana be made of no account, and that she should even be deposed from her magnificence whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

Paul’s preaching that, "they be no gods, which are made with hands," turned the people from the worship of Diana. This would concern Demetrius and the silver-smiths because it would reduce the demand for the shrines of Diana. From the text it is evident that Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen became upset because their business (Acts 19:24), wealth (Acts 19:25), and trade (Acts 19:27), was endan-gered by Paul’s preaching. The fact that the temple of the goddess Diana was made of no account was secondary. Their pocketbook was more important than their religion.

The temple of Diana, which was considered as one of the seven wonders of the world, had some 80,000 square feet of space and took some 120 years to build. This temple was not properly the home of the goddess; it was a shrine, the chief one devoted to her service. She was portrayed as a many-breasted female who lived in nature; she was everywhere there was life in that she was the mother of all living things. Tradition says that Diana’s image fell from Jupiter (the chief god, Acts 19:35) into the woods near Ephesus. As mother of all living things, all offerings of every possible thing of nature was therefore acceptable to her. Because of this, there was a vast amount of wealth poured into her temple. Not only was she worshiped in temples but also shrines were sold to increase the temple revenue. It is recorded that no one within a bow shot of the temple could be arrested. This brought many undesirables into the area.

Acts 19:28-41

Riot of the Silversmiths

(28) And when they heard this they were filled with wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesus. (29) And the city was filled with the confusion: and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel. (30) And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. (31) And certain also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent unto him and besought him not to adventure himself into the theatre.

(32) Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. (33) And they brought Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made a defense unto the people. (34) But when they perceived that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. (35) And when the townclerk had quieted the multitude, he saith, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there who knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter? (36) Seeing then that these things cannot be gainsaid, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rash. (37) For ye have brought [hither] these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess. (38) If therefore Demetrius, and the craftsmen that are with him, have a matter against any man, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls: let them accuse one another. (39) But if ye seek anything about other matters, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. (40) For indeed we are in danger to be accused concerning this day’s riot, there being no cause [for it]: and as touching it we shall not be able to give account of this concourse. (41) And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

When the multitude heard Demetrius, they were filled with anger and cried out, "Great is Diana of the Ephe-sians." There was much confusion in the city and the multitude seized Gaius and Aristarchus, who were Paul’s traveling companions. Paul would have entered into the theater but the disciples would not let him. The assembly was in confusion with some crying out one thing, and some another, while the majority did not know why they had come together.

When Alexander was set forth and would have made a defense, the mob perceived that he was a Jew and all with one voice cried out for the space of about two hours, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."

The town clerk quieted the multitude and reminded them that Ephesus was the temple-keeper of the great Diana. He further instructed them that if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen had aught against the men they had seized, they should take it into the courts. If there were other difficulties, these could be taken care of in the regular assembly. The clerk warned the people that they could be called to account for the riot, as there was no reason for it.

Some estimate that the theater where the mob gathered was capable of seating 25,000 to 50,000 people. If so, the confusion would have been tremendous.

CHAPTER 20

Acts 20:1-6

Journey through Macedonia

and Greece to Troas

(1) And after the uproar ceased, Paul having sent for the disciples and exhorted them, took leave of them, and departed to go into Macedonia. (2) And when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece. (3) And when he had spent three months [there,] and a plot was laid against him by Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. (4) And there accompanied him as far as Asia, Sopater of Beroea, [the son] of Pyrrhus; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. (5) But these had gone before, and were waiting for us at Troas. (6) And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we tarried seven days.

Paul left Ephesus, after exhorting the brethren, and entered into Macedonia. He did the same for the disciples there (exhorted) and went on to Greece. After three months, when he planned to sail for Syria, a plot was laid against him by the Jews. Changing his plans, he went back through Macedonia to Philippi and set sail for Troas where he remained for seven days. His traveling companions are listed in verse four.

Acts 20:7-12

Paul Preaches at Troas

(7) And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight. (8) And there were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered together. (9) And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus, borne down with deep sleep; and as Paul discoursed yet longer, being borne down by his sleep he fell down from the third story, and was taken up dead. (10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Make ye no ado; for his life is in him. (11) And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (12) And they brought the lad alive, and were not a little comforted.

While Paul was visiting the disciples at Troas, he worshiped with them. Upon the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread (eat the Lord’s Supper). The stated purpose of meeting was to observe the communion meal. Paul also preached after they had observed the supper.

Other passages concerning the Lord’s supper are:

1. Breaking of bread, Acts 2:42 (Pentecost was on the first day of the week).

2. 1 Corinthians 11:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.

3. 1 Corinthians 11:23-30.

Justin Martyr (103-165 A D ) describes the worship of the first century Christians, saying:

1. Believers partook of the supper.

2. They met on the day of the Sun (Sunday).

3. The Christians baptized for the remission of sins.

Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, when speaking of the second century church says, "In these times the sacra-ment (denominational term used to describe the Lord’s Supper) was celebrated for the most part on Sunday."

Albert Barnes in his commentary states, "It is prob-able that the apostles and early Christians celebrated the Lord’s supper on every Lord’s day." As we read Acts 20:7 we can see this is the case.

The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:26-29), on the night he was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23). The Lord’s Supper consists of unlea-vened bread and fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:26; Matthew 26:29). It is to be observed in His memory, proclaiming His death until He comes again (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). The Christian is to partake of the supper reverently (I Corin-thians 11:27), while proving himself and discerning the body (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

While Paul preached (until midnight), Eutychus was borne down with a heavy sleep, fell from a third story window and taken up dead. Paul restored life to him, ate a common meal and visited with them till the break of day.

Acts 20:13-16

Paul Journeys to Miletus

Meets the Elders from Ephesus

(13) But we going before to the ship set sail for Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, intending himself to go by land. (14) And when he met us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene. (15) And sailing from thence, we came the following day over against Chios; and the next day we touched at Samos; and the day after we came to Miletus. (16) For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.

Paul joined Luke ("we" - Acts 20:13) at Assos and sailed to Mitylene, Chios, Samos and then Miletus. Because Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, he sailed past Ephesus to Miletus.

Acts 20:17-35

Paul’s Conversation with the Elders

from Ephesus

(17) And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church. (18) And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, (19) serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews;

(20) how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, (21) testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (22) And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: (23) save that the Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (24) But I hold not my life of any account as dear unto myself, so that I may accomplish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. (25) And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, shall see my face no more. (26) Where-fore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. (27) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God. (28) Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (29) I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; (30) and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

(31) Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. (32) And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build [you] up, and to give [you] the inheritance among all them that are sanctified. (33) I coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. (34) Ye yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. (35) In all things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

When Paul arrived in Miletus, he sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. You w i l l notice that these same men are referred to as bishops (overseers) in Acts 20:28.

ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

1. The church is the spiritual body of Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:18; Acts 2:47).

2. Jesus built the church (Matthew 16:18).

3. Jesus is the only head of the church (Colossians 1:18).

4. Jesus bought the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

5. Jesus has promised to save the church (Ephesians 5:23).

6. Jesus governs His church through His word (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In the New Testament the church is spoken of in a universal sense (Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15) and is also designated as a congregation in a specific geographi-cal location (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1).

CHRISTIANS AS A GROUP ARE CALLED

1. Church of God (1 Corinthians 1:2).

2. Church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15).

3. Body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23).

4. Churches of Christ (Romans 16:16).

5. Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-23).

Each congregation of the church of Christ is overseen by a plurality of men (Acts 14:23) who meet the qualifica-tions set forth in the New Testament (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). These men are called:

1. Elders (Acts 20:17).

2. Bishops or overseers (Acts 20:28).

3. Pastors (Ephesians 4:11).

The elders, bishops, or pastors have a very important responsibility in relationship to the congregations over which they have the oversight. They are to:

1. Feed the flock (Acts 20:28).

2. Teach the Christians (I Timothy 5; 17; Titus 1:9).

3. Tend (shepherd, watch over) the flock (1 Peter 5:2).

4. Protect the church (Titus 2:10-11).

Congregations of the Lord’s church are served by deacons, whose qualifications are listed in 1 Timothy 3:8-10. Paul writes to the church at Philippi with the bishops (elders, pastors) and deacons. When one looks at the church in the New Testament he will find that she has Christ for her head, elders to oversee and deacons to serve. We note the definite absence of councils, popes, or any organization larger than the local congregation.

Sinners enter the church of Christ by simple obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ (see comments on Acts two).

Verses Twenty Through Twenty-Six. Paul had taught publicly and from house to house, declaring those things which were profitable (the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27). Paul had taught both Jews and Greeks about faith in God and repentance toward God. In doing this, Paul was "pure from the blood of all men." The responsibility for their eternal destiny rested upon their own decision. They were faced with the decision to either: accept the preaching of Paul and be saved, or reject it and be lost eternally.

Paul had been made aware by the Holy Spirit that bonds and afflictions awaited him. His willingness to die for his faith in Christ is seen in verse twenty-four. (See also Philippians 1:21).

Verse Twenty-Eight. Paul’s charge (instructions) to the elders was fivefold:

1. Take heed unto yourselves.

2. Take heed unto the flock (church).

3. Oversee the church.

4. Feed the church of the Lord.

5. Watch (Acts 20:31).

Verses Twenty-Nine through Thirty-One. Paul admon-ishes the elders and warns them of the coming apostasy. Paul pointed out that from among elders some would draw away disciples from the truth. As Paul had prophesied, the first departure (apostasy) came from within the eldership.

Concerning government within the local congregation the New Testament specifies that there be elders in each congregation with the authority in the eldership and not in a single individual. Each congregation operates under the oversight of its elders because each congregation is self governing.

As time passed, one elder became the dominant (ruling) elder. Later this dominant elder began to oversee addition-al congregations, which is a clear departure from God’s pattern. Eventually, a full grown hierarchy was established with the pope, cardinals, bishops (ruling bishops), and parish priests. By the time the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation (around 96 A . D . ), the church at Ephesus had left her first love (Revelation 2:4).

Verse Thirty-Two. If the elders in the Lord’s church had remained faithful to God, His word, and had grown spirit-ually, the apostasy would have never happened.

Verses Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five. Paul was not a covetous person, rather he had worked with his hands (as a tentmaker) to provide his necessities. He set an example for Christians to work and help the weak (see also Ephesians 4:28). Jesus taught that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

Acts 20:36-38

Paul’s Tearful Departure

(36) And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all. (37) And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, (38) sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him on his way unto the ship.

The session with the elders from Ephesus was con-cluded with a prayer. There was much sorrow in the hearts of the Christians because they did not expect to see Paul again.

ACTS CHAPTER 21

Acts 21:1-40

Paul’s Return to Jerusalem

and His Arrest

Government of The Church

Concerning government within the local congregation, the New Testament specifies that there be elders in each congregation with the authority in the eldership and not in a single individual.

However, as time passed one elder became the dominant (ruling) elder. This was a departure from God’s pattern. Later this dominant elder began to oversee additional congregations which is a clear departure from God’s pattern.

(1) And when it came to pass that we were parted from them and had set sail, we came with a straight course unto Cos, and the next day unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara: (2) and having found a ship crossing over unto Phoenicia, we went aboard, and set sail. (3) And when we had come in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left hand, we sailed unto Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unlade her burden. (4) And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem. (5) And when it came to pass that we had accomplished the days, we departed and went on our journey; and they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way till we were out of the city: and kneeling down on the beach, we prayed, and bade each other farewell; (6) and we went on board the ship, but they returned home again. (7) And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais; and we saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. (8) And on the morrow we departed, and came unto Caesarea: and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. (9) Now this man had four virgin daughters, who prophesied. (10) And as we tarried there some days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. (11) And coming to us, and taking Paul’s girdle, he bound his own feet and hands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) Then Paul answered, What do ye, weeping and breaking my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. (15) And after these days we took up our baggage and went up to Jerusalem. (16) And there went with us also [certain] of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing [with them] one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge.

(17) And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (19) And when he had saluted them, he rehearsed one by one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thou-sands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: (21) and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs. (22) What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come. (23) Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; (24) these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law. (25) But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them. (27) And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place. (29) For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. (30) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together; and they laid hold on Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and straightway the doors were shut. (31) And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in confusion. (32) And forthwith he took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them: and they, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, left off beating Paul. (33) Then the chief captain came near, and laid hold on him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and inquired who he was, and what he had done. (34) And some shouted one thing, some another, among the crowd: and when he could not know the certainty for the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the castle. (35) And when he came upon the stairs, so it was that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the crowd; (36) for the multitude of the people followed after, crying out, Away with him. (37) And as Paul was about to be brought into the castle, he saith unto the chief captain, May I say something unto thee? And he said, Dost thou know Greek? (38) Art thou not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins? (39) But Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and I beseech thee, give me leave to speak unto the people. (40) And when he had given him leave, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the people; and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, saying,

Verses One through Three. Paul sails to Syria by way of Cos, Rhodes, Patara, and Tyre of Syria where the ship was to unload her cargo.

Verses Four through Six. Locating the disciples, Paul and his company tarried with them seven days. The disciples warned Paul that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.

Verses Seven through Fourteen. Sailing from Tyre Paul and his fellow-workers landed at Ptolemais and after a day went to Caesarea where they stayed with Philip, the evangelist. Philip was one of the seven who was chosen to minister to the widows (Acts 6:5). Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied. This was a partial fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17. (See comments on that verse).

Agabus, a prophet from Judaea, prophesied that the Jews in Jerusalem would bind Paul and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. The disciples begged Paul not to go to Jerusalem.

Paul stated that he was not only willing to be bound, but was also willing to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord (See also Philippians 1:21).

Verses Fifteen and Sixteen. Paul returns to Jerusalem with several disciples from Caesarea.

Verses Seventeen through Twenty-Six. The Jewish Christians were zealous of the law of Moses. There seemed to be a grave misunderstanding among the Jewish Christians in that they evidently proposed one means of salvation for the Jews and another for the Gentiles. Note:

1. For the Jewish people - Christ plus the keeping of the law of Moses (v. 20).

2. For the Gentiles - Christ. They were not bound by Moses’ law (Acts 15:19-21; Acts 21:25).

The Jewish Christians had been informed that Paul had taught the Jewish Christians, who were among the Gen-tiles, to forsake Moses by:

1. Telling the Jews not to circumcise their children.

2. Instructing the Jews not to walk after Jewish customs.

Both of these charges were false. Paul had Timothy (a half Jew) circumcised in order that he might be an accept-able and effective worker among the Jews (Acts 16:1-3). Paul himself observed Jewish customs as he took a vow and shaved his head in keeping the vow (Acts 18:18). Paul, however, did not consider circumcision or the customs of Moses necessary to one’s salvation. The chief difference between Paul and the Jews who were "zealous to the law" was that the Jews held that the observance of circumcision and the customs of the Jews were matters of duty, while Paul held them to be matters of indifference.

To convince the Jews that Paul "walkest orderly, keeping the law" (v. 24), James suggested that Paul purify himself and be at charge for four men who had taken a vow. If the vow taken by the men was the Nazarite vow (it seems that it was from Numbers 6:1-12), it required a sacrifice and the shaving of their heads.

A difficulty arises. If Paul realized that the Law of Moses was not binding and was not the means of salvation (Galatians 4:21-31), but was a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ (Galatians 3:24) — how could he partici-pate in the Jewish sacrificial system? This question has been answered in a number of ways.

1. Paul was wrong, he sinned. The apostles were inspired when they revealed God’s w i l l to man-kind, not in everyday living. If Peter made a mis-take (Galatians 2:11-21) in his everyday life, it is quite possible that Paul erred in this action. (I do not accept this because if Paul sinned he was never corrected as was Peter, TE).

2. Paul considered what he was doing a part of a dead law and engaged in this activity as merely observ-ing a custom which had nothing to do with salva-tion (a custom which allowed Paul to become all things to all men that, "I might by all means save some" [1 Corinthians 9:22]).

3. Paul was like Peter who did not understand, until later, what he preached on Pentecost (Acts 2:39). Peter preached that salvation was for those who were afar off, that is, the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:13). This truth was later revealed to Peter in a vision (Acts 10:9-16) and when he came to the household of Cornelius he fully understood the message of God (Acts 10:28). Paul’s understand-ing could have been in stages until he came to a full knowledge of the truth.

It is difficult to think that Paul would participate in the Jewish sacrificial system after he had written Galatians 4:21-31, unless it was just a matter of custom and not associated with salvation. Paul was not seeking justifi-cation by the law (Galatians 5:4).

Verses Twenty-Seven through Thirty. James’ plan to satisfy the Jews (in relation to the teachings of Paul) failed and resulted in a riot by the Jews, which was instigated by the Jews from Asia. They accused Paul of:

1. Teaching all men against the people, and the law, and the temple.

2. Taking Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple.

These Jews had seen Paul with Trophimus, the Ephesian (a Gentile), and supposed (thought) that he had taken him into the temple. The people removed Paul from the temple and the doors were shut.

Verses Thirty-One through Forty. With all Jerusalem in an uproar the mob attempted to kill Paul. When word reached the chief captain what was happening, he took soldiers with centurions (each centurion commanded 100 men) and rescued Paul. Binding Paul with two chains the chief captain asked who he was. A tumult was created by the crowd when some cried out one thing and others something different. When the chief captain could not learn the truth, he commanded Paul to be taken into the castle. The castle was the fortress (tower) of Antonia which stood at the Northwest area of the temple. Built by Herod it was occupied by Roman soldiers. A tower at the southeast corner of the fortress was seventy cubits high from which the entire temple area could be viewed. The fortress was connected with the outer court of the temple by two flights of steps, which allowed the soldiers quick access to the temple area in the event of a riot.

Even with at least 200 soldiers (at least two centurions and their troops) the mob was still after Paul. The soldiers carried Paul to the entrance of the castle while the people followed crying out, "away with him . " As he was about to enter the castle he asked the chief captain for permission to speak to the mob. When he spoke Greek, the surprised Roman asked Paul if he wasn’t the Egyptian who led four thousand murderers out into the wilderness. Paul identifies himself as a Jew from the city of Tarsus of Cilicia. When the chief captain had given Paul permission to speak, he spake to the mob in the Hebrew language.

SEGMENT XVII

ACTS 22-28

ACTS CHAPTER 22

PAUL’S DEFENSE BEFORE THE MOB

(1) Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you. (2) And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith, (3) I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: (4) and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. (5) As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. (6) And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. (9) And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

(10) And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. (11) And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus. (12) And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there, (13) came unto me, and standing by me said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour I looked up on him. (14) And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. (15) For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. (16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. (17) And it came to pass, that, when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance, (18) and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning me. (19) And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: (20) and when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him. (21) And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. (22) And they gave him audience unto this word; and they lifted up their voice, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. (23) And as they cried out, and threw off their garments, and cast dust into the air, (24) the chief captain commanded him be brought into the castle, bidding that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so shouted against him. (25) And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) And when the centurion heard it, he went to the chief captain and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? for this man is a Roman. (27) And the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yea. (28) And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am [a Roman] born. (29) They then that were about to exa-mine him straightway departed from him: and the chief captain also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. (30) But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him, and com-manded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set him before them.

Verses One through Two - This chapter begins the first of several defenses made by the apostle Paul, which culminates with his appealing to Caesar’s judgment seat (Acts 25:10). When the crowd heard Paul speak in the Hebrew language, they allowed him to address them.

Verses Three through Sixteen - These events (the account of Saul’s conversion), have been discussed earlier in the comments on Acts chapter nine.

Gamaliel was a noted rabbi (teacher) who lived in Jerusalem. Paul had received the best education obtainable in his day.

Paul persecuted this "way" unto the death, this is, he persecuted the saints (Acts 9:13), those who believed on God (Acts 22:19), the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9), who were Christians; thus, those who were of the "Way," meaning the way of Christ.

Paul saw Jesus Christ, heard a voice from His mouth and received His will.

Verse 5 - See comments on Acts 9:1-2.

Verses 6 -11 - See comments on Acts 9:3-9.

Verses 12 - See comments on Acts 9:20-30.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Three - The crowd gave Paul audience until he mentioned the Gentiles. Their prejudice was so great that they cried out, "away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit for him to live." The gospel was to be preached to every man (Matthew 28:18; Mark 16:15) and Paul was a disciple unto the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). The conduct of the crowd showed their deep distress over Paul’s statement.

Verses Twenty-Four through Twenty-Nine - The chief captain commanded that Paul be examined by scourging, which was a common means of beating a confession out of a prisoner.

SCOURGE

A Roman implement for severe bodily punishment ... It consisted of a handle, to which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more painful and effective ...The victim was tied to a post and the blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body, the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it ...By its application secrets and confessions were wrung from the victim.

(The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

Volume IV, James Orr, General Editor, p. 2704)

Paul asked the centurion if it was lawful to scourge a Roman citizen who was uncondemned. The Roman citi-zen had certain rights which could not be violated.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP

The Roman citizen:

1. Had the right to vote.

2. Could not be bound or imprisoned without a trial.

3. Could not be scourged.

4. Could appeal to Rome for justice.

Paul’s claim to Roman citizenship could be confirmed by checking the census rolls. It is said that the Emperor Claudius executed men who falsely claimed Roman citi-zenship. Evidently, it was possible to buy Roman citizen-ship (Acts 22:28), but Paul was Roman born.

When the centurion (a soldier in charge of 100 men) and chief captain learned that Paul was a Roman citizen, they were afraid because they had bound him.

Verse Thirty - Desiring to know why the Jews had accused Paul, the chief captain brought him and set him before the chief priests and the Jewish council.

ACTS CHAPTER 23

PAUL’S DEFENSE BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

(1) And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good con-science until this day. (2) And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (3) Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? (5) And Paul said, I knew not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people. (6) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (7) And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. (8) For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. (9) And there arose a great clamor: and some of the scribes of the Pharisees part stood up, and strove, say-ing, We find no evil in this man: and what if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel? (10) And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the castle. (11) And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer: for as thou hast testified concerning me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

(12) And when it was day, the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

(13) And they were more than forty that made this conspiracy. (14) And they came to the chief priests and the elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, to taste nothing until we have killed Paul.

(15) Now therefore do ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you, as though ye would judge of his case more exactly: and we, before he comes near, are ready to slay him. (16) he came and entered into the castle and told Paul. (17) And Paul called unto him one of the centurions, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain; for he hath something to tell him. (18) So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and saith, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and asked me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say to thee. (19) And the chief captain took him by the hand, and going aside asked him privately, What is it that thou hast to tell me? (20) And he said, The Jews have agreed to ask thee to bring down Paul tomorrow unto the council, as though thou wouldest inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him. (21) Do not thou therefore yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, who have bound themselves under a curse, neither to eat nor to drink till they have slain him: and now are they ready, looking for the promise from thee. (22) So the chief captain let the young man go, charging him, Tell no man that thou hast signified these things to me. (23) And he called unto him two of the centurions, and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go as far as Cae-sarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night: (24) and [he bade them] provide beasts, that they might set Paul thereon, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.

(25) And he wrote a letter after this form: (26) Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. (27) This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. (28) And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: (29) whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. (30) And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accus-ers also to speak against him before thee. (31) So the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris. (32) But on the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: (33) and they, when they came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, presented Paul also before him. (34) And when he had read it, he asked of what province he was; and when he understood that he was of Cilicia, (35) I will hear thee fully, said he, when thine accusers also are come: and he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s palace.

Verses One and Two - Paul’s Trial before the Jewish religious leaders is herein seen. The council which Paul appeared before was the Jewish Sanhedrin. This court of justice consisted of seventy members and was headed by the Jewish high priest. While the Pharisees were most influential in the synagogue, the Sadducees were most influential in the Sanhedrin. During the time of Christ this council was very influential and its decisions were honored beyond the borders of Palestine. To impose the death penalty, however, required Roman confirmation.

Paul stated that he had lived in good conscience before God until the present time. Paul continually affirmed that he had always maintained a clear conscience before God (1 Corinthians 4:4). He stated to Timothy that from his forefathers he had served God with a clear conscience (2 Timothy 1:3). This is a devastating argument against those who would maintain the doctrine of, "let your conscience be your guide." It is possible to think you are right when in actuality you are wrong!

Verses Three through Five - The high priest commanded them that stood by Paul to strike him. The high priest was to judge Paul according to the law and commanded him to be smitten, which was contrary to the law. Such conduct was not befitting a high priest because it was illegal to smite a man who had not been tried and condemned.

Paul’s protest was immediate. He stated, "God will smite thee, thou whited wall." The ones that stood by Paul asked him why he had reviled the high priest. Paul immediately acknowledged his error in what he had said because the scriptures taught, "thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people (Exodus 22:28). Question: Why didn’t Paul recognize the high priest? It seems that the chief captain convened the Jewish council (Acts 22:30). It may have been an unofficial assembly and the council members were not dressed in their robes. It could also have been that Paul knew the high priest by name but not by face.

Verses Six through Ten - When Paul realized that the council was part Pharisees and part Sadducees, he set them against each other. The Sadducees did not believe in spirits, angels or the resurrection from the dead, while the Pharisees believed in the reality of each of these. Paul identified himself as a Pharisee and a son of a Pharisee, and indicated that he was being called in question because he proclaimed the resurrection of the dead. In his writings Paul placed great emphasis upon the resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:18; Acts 24:15; Acts 24:21; Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:42; Philippians 3:11). The Pharisees declared that they found no fault with Paul, saying, "What if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?" The Sadducees, who did not believe in spirits or angels, objected and a great dissension arose. The dissension was so great that the chief captain feared for the safety of Paul and commanded him to be brought into the temple.

Verse Eleven - The Lord stood by Paul and told him that as he had testified of him in Jerusalem, he would also give his testimony in Rome.

Verses Twelve through Thirty - The Jews’ hatred for Paul was so strong that they planned to kill him. More than forty individuals placed themselves under an oath that they would not eat or drink until they had taken Paul’s life. The plan was for the council to request that the chief captain bring Paul to a meeting where they might judge him more exactly. When this was done the Jews were going to kill Paul while he was on his way to meet with the council. Their plan was thwarted when Paul’s nephew learned of their plan and told Paul. Paul sent his sister’s son to the chief captain and the Jews’ plot against Paul was revealed to him. Paul’s nephew was instructed not to tell anyone of the plot against Paul. The chief captain made plans to send Paul with two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, two hundred spearmen to Caesarea where he would appear before Felix, the governor. The letter to Felix. We immediately recognize that the letter does not accurately represent the facts, but is written in such a way as to make the chief captain appear in a favorable light. The chief captain did not rescue Paul having learned that he was a Roman citizen, but rescued and bound him and was in the process of examining him by scourging when he learned of Paul’s Roman citizenship.

Verses Thirty-One through Thirty-Five - Paul was escorted by night (Acts 23:23) by four hundred and seventy soldiers to Caesarea. Felix, upon having received the letter from the chief captain, told Paul that he would hear his case when his accusers came.

ACTS CHAPTER 24

PAUL’S TRIAL BEFORE FELIX

(1) And after five days the high priest Ananias came down with certain elders, and [with] an orator, one Tertullus; and they informed the governor against Paul. (2) And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy much peace, and that by the providence evils are corrected for this nation, (3) we accept it in all ways and in all places, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. (4) But, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I entreat thee to hear us of thy clemency a few words. (5) For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

(6) who moreover assayed to profane the temple: on whom also we laid hold: [and we would have judged him according to our law. (7) But the chief captain Lysias came, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, (8) commanding his accusers to come before thee.] from whom thou wilt be able, by exam-ining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him. (9) And the Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that these things were so. (10) And when the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, Paul answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I cheerfully make my defense: (11) Seeing that thou canst take knowledge that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem: (12) and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city. (13) Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me. (14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets; (15) having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. (16) Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always. (17) Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings: (18) amidst which they found me purified in the temple, with no crowd, nor yet with tumult: but [there were] certain Jews from Asia (19) who ought to have been here before thee, and to make accusation, if they had aught against me. (20) Or else let these men themselves say what wrong-doing they found when I stood before the council, (21) except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question before you this day. (22) But Felix, having more exact know-ledge concerning the Way, deferred them, saying, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will determine your matter. (23) And he gave order to the centurion that he should be kept in charge, and should have indulgence; and not to forbid any of his friends to minister unto him. (24) But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. (25) And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me. (26) He hoped withal that money would be given him of Paul: wherefore also he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. (27) But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and desiring to gain favor with the Jews, Felix left Paul in bonds.

Verse One - Paul’s accusers were the high priest, certain elders, and an orator by the name of Tertullus.

Verses Two through Nine - Tertullus began his presen-tation by flattering Felix. He mentions the peace that they enjoyed and the worthy deeds the governor had done unto the nation Israel. No doubt this was an attempt to secure the favor of Felix and influence him to render a favorable verdict for the Jews.

Tertullus made four charges against Paul:

1. Paul was a pestilent fellow.

2. He was a mover of sedition (insurrection).

3. The ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

4. One who had gone about to profane the temple. (Notice the change in the charge of Acts 21:28).

Verses Ten through Twenty-One - When Paul is given the opportunity to make his defense, he begins by telling Felix that he is glad to make his defense before him because he had judged Israel for many years. There was no flattery in Paul’s introductory remarks, only the facts. Paul’s defense was concise and to the point. "Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem" (v. 12). Five of these days had been spent in Caesarea in custody of the Roman government. There had not been time for Paul to lead a rebellion (revolution) against the Roman government. Denying that he was a leader of seditions, Paul further defended himself by pointing out that the Jews had not found him disputing in the temple, nor had he disturbed the people in the synagogue or the city. Paul sums up his defense by simply stating that the Jews could not prove their case.

Paul was not ashamed of the gospel, Christ, or Christianity (Romans 1:16). He freely confessed that he worshiped God after the way the Jews called heresy. (In the book of Acts the term, "the way," is at times used to designate Christianity. See Acts 9:2; Acts 16:17; Acts 18:26; Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23; Acts 22:4; Acts 24:14; Acts 24:22). Paul indicated that he believed in the law and prophets and the resurrection of the dead. (Paul understood that Christianity was the fulfillment of Judaism. The law was given to bring the Jews unto Christ [Galatians 3:27], but the Jews were so blinded by prejudice they could not see the truth). In his statement Paul indicates that there would be a resurrection of both the just and unjust. Not only are all going to be resurrected, but all are going to appear before the judgment bar of God to give an account for the deeds done in their life on earth (Romans 14:10). Realizing that death does not end man’s existence (he will be resurrected), and that a day of accounting is coming (2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27), what manner of life ought we to live? The Bible teaches that only Christians who are faithful unto death will receive a crown of life (Revelation 2:10). As Christ died for us, we are to die to sin and give our lives completely to the service of God (Romans 12:1-2; Philippians 1:21; Galatians 2:20). Loving God we will walk according to His righteousness (John 14:15; 1 John 5:3). Eternal life in heaven with Jehovah God is the hope that Christians have.

In verse seventeen Paul gives the reason for his presence in Jerusalem (Romans 15:26-33). Certain Jews from Asia found Paul purified in the temple where he was not gathered with a multitude, neither was he causing a tumult (uproar). Paul indicates that these Asian Jews should have been at the hearing if they had aught against him. Furthermore, Paul asked the Jews from Jerusalem to testify of any evil he had done when he was examined before the Sanhedrin. Paul had appeared before the Sanhedrin and there had been no guilty verdict because on that occasion the meeting was broken up by the fighting between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul said that the only reason he was on trial was because he taught the resurrection.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Seven - Felix did not find Paul guilty, but did not set Paul free. He deferred a decision until Lysias, the chief captain, came to Cae-sarea. Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea for two years (v. 17) and it may be that Felix never summoned Lysias and kept Paul in custody in hopes he might obtain money to let Paul go (v. 27). Instead of doing what was honorable, just, and right, Felix sought a way to material gain. Paul’s chains were not removed but he was given liberty and was allowed to receive acquaintances. No doubt Christians ministered to Paul’s needs.

Paul was given the opportunity to preach the gospel when Felix with Drusilla sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

FELIX

Through influence at Rome Felix was named procurator of Judaea about 52 A.D . , an office he held till recalled by Nero in 59 A . D . Felix had the reputation of being an unscrupulous scoundrel. He is charged with murdering Jonathan, the high priest. The epitaph which history has written for him is:

’With savagery and lust, he exercised the power of a king with the disposition of a slave. "

DRUSILLA

Coffman gives the following description of Drusilla:

Drusilla was a sensuously beautiful person, one of the ten descendants of Herod the Great, whose name appears in the NT, and, like all the Herods, possessed of a character marked by selfishness and profligacy. She was the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I; and at this time (57 or 58 A.D.) she was not yet twenty years old. Her brother Agrippa II gave her in marriage to the king of Emesa when she was only fourteen or fifteen years of age. The young queen was only sixteen when Felix, with the help of Atomos, a Cypriot magician, persuaded her to leave her hus-band and marry him. She was Felix’s third wife, and they had a son named Agrippa. (Commentary on Acts, James Burton Coffman)

At the time Felix and Drusilla appeared before Paul, they were living in open adultery. One might wonder what Felix and his wife expected to hear from Paul, but when Felix heard the message he trembled. Paul reasoned of:

1. Righteousness.

2. Temperance (self control).

3. The judgment to come.

These three lines of reasoning to a wicked adulterer (who lived with an unbridled lust and was exiled to Gaul after barely escaping execution by the Roman government for his wickedness), caused him to be terrified. Felix knew he wasn’t living a righteous life but did nothing to change his life or his eternal destiny. Felix, like many today, wanted to wait for a convenient time. There is nothing recorded in God’s word that leads us to think that Felix or Drusilla ever had a "convenient day" on which to obey the commands of Christ. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that today is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). Felix sent for Paul often and communed with him, but as far as we know the gospel Paul preached to him fell on wayside soil (Luke 8:12).

Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus and desiring to please the Jews, he left Paul in bonds.

ACTS CHAPTER 25

PAUL’S TRIAL BEFORE FESTUS

(1) Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea.

(2) And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, (3) asking a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem; laying a plot to kill him on the way. (4) Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept in charge at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart [thither] shortly. (5) Let them therefore, saith he, that are of power among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him. (6) And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Cae-sarea; and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. (7) And when he was come, the Jews that had come down from Jeru-salem stood round about him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove; (8) while Paul said in his defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all. (9) 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? (10) But Paul said, I am standing before Caesar’s judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou also very well knowest. (11) If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is [true] whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. (12) Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go. (13) Now when certain days were passed, Agrippa the King and Bernice arrived at Caesarea, and saluted Festus. (14) And as they tarried there many days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the King, saying, There is a certain man left a prisoner by Felix;

(15) about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed [me], asking for sentence against him. (16) To whom I answered, that it is not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him. (17) When therefore they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought. (18) Concerning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed; (19) but had certain questions against him of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. (20) And I, being perplexed how to inquire concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these matters. (21) But when Paul had appealed to be kept for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be kept till I should send him to Caesar. (22) And Agrippa [said] unto Festus, I also could wish to hear the man myself. To-morrow, saith he, thou shalt hear him. (23) 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 principal men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought in. (24) 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. (25) But I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death: and as he himself appealed to the emperor I determined to send him. (26) Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto 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. (27) For it seemeth to me unreasonable, in sending a prisoner, not withal to signify the charges against him.

Verses One through Twelve - Porcius Festus replaced Felix as procurator of Judaea. The Jewish historian Jose-phus describes Festus as a man who was wise, just and agreeable. Upon what information Josephus based his statement is not known. Luke pictures him as a politician who was willing to sacrifice an innocent man to the Jews, and who also used him to entertain Agrippa and Bernice.

After three days in office Festus traveled to Jerusalem where the Jews informed him against Paul. It was their plan to have Paul brought to Jerusalem so they would have opportunity to kill him, even though he was innocent of any wrongdoing. This reminds us of their hatred for another innocent man (Matthew 27:18), whom they also put to death (Matthew 27). Festus announced that Paul would be judged in Caesarea before his judgment seat.

After a short stay in Jerusalem, Festus returned to Caesarea and commanded Paul to be brought before his seat of judgment. The Jews from Jerusalem charged Paul with many things which they could not prove. In his defense Paul stated that he had not offended against:

1. The law of the Jews.

2. The temple.

3. Caesar.

Festus asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem and be judged by him. Paul was in Caesarea, before the judgment seat of Festus — why not judge him under these circumstances? Festus was playing the part of a politician, wanting to please the Jews. The actions of Festus placed Paul in a position of having to appeal his case to Rome. This appeal to Rome was one of the rights granted to the Roman citizen. Paul’s appeal to Rome was a testimony to the cowardice of Festus. He knew that Paul was innocent and Paul stated this (v. 10), but his unwillingness to declare Paul innocent forced Paul to use his rights as a Roman citizen to obtain justice.

Verses Thirteen through Twenty-One - King Agrippa and Bernice came to Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. Agrippa (Agrippa II) was the son of Agrippa I, the son of Aristobulus, who was the son of Herod the Great. Agrippa II was the great grandson of Herod the Great, who had the babies of Bethlehem killed in his attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2). He assumed his kingship over the tetr-archy of Philip in A . D . 54. Bernice was the sister of king Agrippa II and was living with him as his wife. She is referred to by the Roman writer, Juvenal, as "Agrippa’s incestuous sister." Such was the royalty before whom Paul would later appear.

Festus discussed Paul’s case with king Agrippa (Acts 25:14-21) and we learn several important things from his discussion. Note the following:

1. The Jews asked for a judgment against Paul (Acts 25:15).

2. This judgment (guilty verdict) was asked for without a proper trial (Acts 25:16).

3. The Jews charged Paul with teaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

4. To escape the Jews’ plan to kill him (Acts 25:3), Paul appealed to Caesar.

Verses Twenty-Two through Twenty-Seven - Agrippa expressed a desire to hear Paul and on the morrow he was granted his request. Paul’s audience consisted of Festus, Agrippa and Bernice, the chief captains and the principal men of the city. Festus declares to this group that Paul had done nothing worthy of death (v. 25). This statement was a testimony of Paul’s innocence and places Festus in the position of not dispensing justice. Festus did not have any charges against Paul to send to the emperor, so he asked for Agrippa’s help in formulating a letter. Verses twenty-five and twenty-seven declare the innocence of Paul.

ACTS CHAPTER 26

PAUL BEFORE HEROD AGRIPPA II

(1) And Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth his hand, and made his defense: (2) I think myself happy, king Agrippa, that I am to make my defense before thee this day touching all the things whereof I am accused by the Jews: (3) especially because thou art expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. (4) My manner of life then from my youth up, which was from the beginning among mine own nation and at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; (5) having knowledge of me from the first, if they be willing to testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (6) And now I stand [here] to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; (7) unto which [promise] our twelve tribes, earnestly serving [God] night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king! (8) Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?

(9) I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. (10) And this I also did in Jerusalem: and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received author-ity from the chief priests, and when they were put to death I gave my vote against them. (11) And punishing them oftentimes in all the synagogues, I strove to make them blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto foreign cities. (12) Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, (13) at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. (14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad. (15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (16) But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; (17) delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me. (19) Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: (20) but declared both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. (21) For this cause the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. (22) Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come;

(23) how that the Christ must suffer, [and] how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles. (24) And as he thus made his defense, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad. (25) But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus; but speak forth words of truth and soberness. (26) For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner. (27) King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. (28) And Agrippa [said] unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. (29) And Paul [said], I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds.

(30) And the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: (31) and when they had withdrawn, they spake one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. (32) And Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Verses One through Three - Paul is given the opportunity to speak before king Agrippa.

Since the Roman authorities had already found Paul innocent of any violation of Roman law (Acts 25:25-27), he now indicates that he w i l l answer the charges which have been brought against him by the Jews. Paul is confident before Agrippa because he was an expert in all the customs and questions of the Jews.

Verses Four through Eight - Paul was no stranger to the Jews in Jerusalem since they had known him from his youth and knew that he had lived the life of a Pharisee. It may have been that Paul’s accusers had known him during the time he went to school under Gamaliel.

Paul points out that he was being judged for the promise of God unto the Jews. This promise was the com-ing of the Messiah. Since Jesus was the Messiah, he died for the sins of the world (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), was buried and resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). You cannot accept Jesus Christ as Messiah unless you accept the fact of his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13; 1 Corinthians 15:16-19). It was Paul’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus concerning which the Jews were accusing him. It is thought that the principal accusers of Paul were the Sadducees since they did not believe in the resurrection.

Paul’s testimony of the resurrection of Jesus pointed a finger of guilt toward the Jews who had crucified Him (Acts 2:36). The hatred of the Jews is evident from their attempt to kill him (Acts 21:31; Acts 23:12; Acts 25:3).

Verses Nine through Twelve - In persecuting the church Paul thought he was doing God’s w i l l . It is possible to think that something is right when it is contrary to God’s will. In discussing a Biblical subject with our families, friends, or neighbors, it is not uncommon for them to say, "I know what the Bible says, but I think that you can believe another teaching." Man should realize that:

1. He cannot direct his own steps (Jeremiah 10:23).

2. There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is the way of death (Proverbs 14:12).

3. The ways of God are not the ways of man (Isaiah 55:8-9).

4. He will not be judged by what he thinks but by the words of Christ (John 12:48).

Verses Thirteen through Twenty - In these verses we have the third account of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts (accounts of Paul’s conversion are recorded in Acts 9, 22, , 26). With regard to verse seventeen see Acts 9:15 and Acts 22:21. The purpose of going to the Gentiles is explained in verse eighteen.

Paul’s message was the same in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judaea, and to the Gentiles: repent and turn to God and do work meet for repentance. Repentance has been defined as a change of mind which leads to a change of life (Matthew 21:28-31). Repentance is more that Godly sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:9). Godly sorrow leads to repentance which includes a reformation of life. The Bible has much to say about repentance (Luke 3:8; Luke 13:3; Luke 13:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30). When one repents it w i l l be impossible for him/her to live the same life which they lived before obeying the gospel. The turning to God mentioned in verse twenty, along with Acts 3:19, is equal to Acts 2:38 where Peter told those who were guilty of crucifying God’s son, "Repent and be baptized." The turning to God must involve complete obedience to God’s word.

Verses Twenty-One through Twenty-Nine - The Jews wanted to kill Paul, but God delivered him that he might proclaim the truths spoken by Moses and the Prophets. Note:

1. Christ would come.

2. He was to suffer.

3. He would be first to rise from the dead.

4. Christ would show light to the Jews and Gentiles.

Some want to know how Christ was the first to rise from the dead when Jesus had already raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus died, was raised from the dead but he died again. Jesus Christ was victorious over the power of death in that he never died again. He was the first to accomplish this.

At this point in his defense Festus interrupted Paul stating that he was mad. Probably, unlike Agrippa, Festus did not understand the statements of Paul since he did not have the background in Jewish affairs that Agrippa possessed.

Paul informed Festus that he was not mad but spoke words of truth and soberness. He called on Agrippa to validate this fact. Paul asked Agrippa if he believed the prophets and without giving him an opportunity to answer Paul said, "I know that thou believest." Agrippa was convicted but would not repent and turn to the Lord. He then uttered eight of the saddest words (In the English language) "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christ-ian." Almost, but not quite. The first verse of the beautiful hymn, Almost Persuaded, reminds us of Felix (Acts 24:25) who waited for a convenient season.

Almost persuaded now to    believe,

Almost persuaded Christ to receive,

Seems now some soul to say,

Go spirit, go thy way,

Some more convenient day on thee I’ll call.

Verse three of the same hymn reminds us of Agrippa as he was almost persuaded:

Almost persuaded, harvest is past,

Almost persuaded, doom comes at last,

Almost cannot avail, almost is but to fail,

Sad, sad, that bitter wail,

Almost - but lost!

(Hymn written by P. P. Bliss)

We wonder what it would have taken to fully persuade Agrippa to become a Christian. Paul told his audience that he wished that everyone was in the same spiritual state as he (Paul).

Verses Thirty through Thirty-Two - Agrippa said that Paul might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar. Paul had made his defense five times (Acts chap-ters 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26), and none of the charges made against him were proven.

It is interesting to note what happened to those who persecuted Paul or denied him justice. Note:

1. Ananias ("the whited wall") was out of office in two years, and murdered by his own people within a decade.

2. Felix was recalled within two years, and he and his family perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D.

3. Drusilla perished with her husband, Felix, and her son in the same eruption.

4. Bernice fell into public disgrace in Rome.

5. Festus died within two years of denying Paul justice.

6. The Sanhedrin was destroyed forever by the Jewish War, ending with the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in A . D . 70; only about a decade after the events related in these chapters.

7. Nero (who later executed Paul), died wretchedly, and in disgrace. On and on the list might go, but Herod Agrippa II alone continued till the second century. He alone fearlessly gave an unequivocal verdict of Paul’s innocence. See any connection? This writer thinks that he does! (Commentary on Acts, James Burton Coffman)

Luke wrote in Luke 18:7, "And shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is long-suffering over them." The words of Jesus were fulfilled in the events which overcame the Jews and the heathen judges who refused to stand for right and free Paul from his bonds.

ACTS CHAPTERS 27-28

PAUL’S VOYAGE TO ROME

CHAPTER 27

(1) And when it was determined that we should sail for Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners to a centurion named Julius, of the Augustan band. (2) And embarking in a ship of Adramyttium, which was about to sail unto the places on the coast of Asia, we put to sea, Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us. (3) And the next day we touched at Sidon: and Julius treated Paul kindly, and gave him leave to go unto his friends and refresh himself. (4) And putting to sea from thence, we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were contrary. (5) And when we had sailed across the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, [a city] of Lycia. (6) And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy; and he put us therein. (7) And when we had sailed slowly many days, and were come with difficulty over against Cnidus, the wind not further suffering us, we sailed under the lee of Crete, over against Salmone; (8) and with difficulty coasting along it we came unto a certain place called Fair Havens; nigh whereunto was the city of Lasea. (9) And when much time was spent, and the voyage was now dangerous, because the Fast was now already gone by, Paul admonished them, (10) and said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the lading and the ship, but also of our lives. (11) But the centurion gave more heed to the master and to the owner of the ship, than to those things which were spoken by Paul. (12) And because the haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part advised to put to sea from thence, if by any means they could reach Phoenix, and winter [there; which is] a haven of Crete, looking north-east and south-east. (13) And when the south wind blew softly, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close in shore. (14) But after no long time there beat down from it a tempest-uous wind, which is called Euraquilo: (15) and when the ship was caught, and could not face the wind, we gave way [to it,] and were driven. (16) And running under the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were able, with difficulty, to secure the boat: (17) and when they had hoisted it up, they used helps, under-girding the ship; and, fearing lest they should be cast upon the Syrtis, they lowered the gear, and so were driven. (18) And as we labored exceedingly with the storm, the next day they began to throw the [the freight] overboard;

(19) and the third day they cast out with their own hands the tackling of the ship. (20) And when neither sun nor stars shone upon [us] for many days, and no small tempest lay on [us,] all hope that we should be saved was now taken away. (21) And when they had been long without food, then Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearken-ed unto me, and not have set sail from Crete, and have gotten this injury and loss. (22) And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be no loss of life among you, but [only] of the ship. (23) For there stood by me this night an angel of the God whose I am, whom also I serve, (24) saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must stand before Caesar: and lo, God hath granted thee all them that sail with thee. (25) Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even so as it hath been spoken unto me. (26) But we must be cast upon a certain island. (27) But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven to and fro in the [sea of] Adria, about midnight the sailors surmised that they were drawing near to some country: (28) and they sounded, and found twenty fathoms; and after a little space, they sounded again, and found fifteen fathoms. (29) And fearing lest haply we should be cast ashore on rocky ground, they let go four anchors from the stern, and wished for the day. (30) And as the sailors were seeking to flee out of the ship, and had lowered the boat into the sea, under color as though they would lay out anchors from the foreship, (31) Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved. (32) Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off. (33) And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take some food, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye wait and continue fasting, having taken nothing. (34) Wherefore I beseech you to take some food: for this is for your safety: for there shall not a hair perish from the head of any of you. (35) And when he had said this, and had taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of all; and he brake it, and began to eat. (36) Then were they all of good cheer, and themselves also took food. (37) And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls. (38) And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, throwing out the wheat into the sea.

(39) And when it was day, they knew not the land: but they perceived a certain bay with a beach, and they took counsel whether they could drive the ship upon it.

(40) And casting off the anchors, they left them in the sea, at the same time loosing the bands of the rudders; and hoisting up the foresail to the wind, they made for the beach. (41) But lighting upon a place where two seas met, they ran the vessel aground; and the foreship struck and remained unmoveable, but the stern began to break up by the violence [of the waves]. (42) And the soldiers’ counsel was to kill the prisoners, lest any [of them] should swim out, and escape. (43) But the centurion, desiring to save Paul, stayed them from their purpose; and commanded that they who could swim should cast themselves overboard, and get first to the land; (44) and the rest, some on planks, and some on [other] things from the ship. And so it came to pass, that they all escaped safe to the land.

Verses One through Five - When Paul sailed to Rome he was accompanied by several fellow travelers. He was in the custody of Julius, who was a centurion. There were other prisoners and Aristarchus as well. (Aristarchus is mentioned in Acts 19:29; Acts 20:4; Acts 27:2). Some believe that Aristarchus was also a prisoner (Colossians 4:10), while others maintain that he was a companion who ministered unto Paul. Paul entered a ship of Adramyttium with his traveling companions, intending to sail along the coast of Asia. When the ship arrived in Sidon, Julius, the centurion, allowed Paul to visit with his friends. No matter where one may be, if there are Christians there, he/she has family, the family of God.

Because of the contrary winds the ship could not sail Westward (toward Rome), so they sailed under the lee side of Cyprus (lee side would be the side of the island protected from the wind), Northward to the port of Myra which was a city of Lycia. Myra was one of the cities on the grain trade route between Egypt and Rome.

Verses Six through Twelve - At Myra the centurion found a ship of Alexandria which was sailing to Rome and he put his prisoners aboard. Changing ships did not change the difficulties of their trip. After sailing slowly many days, they came to Cnidus and then turned toward Crete. Once again the winds were contrary and instead of sailing North of Crete they were forced to sail along the Southern coast (the lee side) of the island. Passing Salmone they arrived in Fair Havens, which was a city of Lasea.

It was the time of the year when sailing the Mediterranean was very dangerous. The fast was past (Jewish Day of Atonement which was celebrated around October the first), and travel on the Mediterranean was unsafe for ancient ships from September 15 until March 15. Paul warned of the impending danger, but the centurion listened to the advice of the master and owner of the ship and continued their voyage. Since Fair Havens was not an ideal place to winter, the majority of the travelers wanted to go on to Phoenix and winter there.

Verses Thirteen through Twenty-Nine - When the south wind began to blow softly, they implemented their plans to sail for Phoenix and winter there. After their departure a tempestuous wind, which was called Euroclydon, came upon them and the ship was driven (being at the mercy of the wind). This suggests to us that they had very little control over the ship’s course.

Sailing under the lee of Cauda, they secured the boat. This has reference to a small boat which was pulled along behind the ship. It was with great difficulty that the dinghy was brought on board. When this task was completed they began to prepare the ship for the stormy weather. Luke states that they undergirded the ship. This involved pass-ing cables or chains around the exterior of the ship to give it greater strength and keep it from breaking apart in the rough weather.

In their attempt to survive they lightened the ship. No doubt part of the cargo was dumped into the sea and on the third day they cast out the tackling (furniture and supplies which were used to make repairs on the ship) into the sea.

For many days the sun and stars did not appear. Since the sun and stars were used for navigation, they had no idea where they were. Being driven by the tempest, they lost all hope of being saved.

After being without food for a long period of time, Paul stood in the midst of them and pointed out certain things to the ship’s company. He told them:

1. You should have hearkened unto me and not set sail from Crete.

2. Be of good cheer, even though the ship will be lost there will be no loss of life.

3. An angel of God appeared unto me and assured me that I would appear before Caesar and that God hath granted the safety of all who travel with me.

4. We will be shipwrecked.

On the fourteenth night the sailors determined that they were coming close to land. They sounded (measured) and found the depth of the water to be twenty fathoms deep. A short time later they measured fifteen fathoms, which indi-cated that they were nearing the shore. Fearing they would run aground they cast out four anchors and waited for day.

Verses Thirty through Forty-Four - The sailors were preparing to flee the ship when Paul told the centurion and the soldiers that they would be saved only if they remained aboard the ship. They evidently had more respect for Paul’s word at this time than they did when he admonish-ed them not to leave Fair Havens. After Paul told the centurion the conditions for the salvation of the 276 souls on board the ship, the soldiers cut the small boat lose.

Paul encouraged them all to eat some food since it had been fourteen days since they had eaten. Paul once again assures them that there would be no loss of life. He took bread and gave thanks for it and they all ate. After eating they further lightened the ship by casting overboard some of the cargo (wheat). Lightening the ship would allow them to sail closer to the land. They made plans to beach the ship and drove it upon land. The ship was broken up by the waves and fearing that the prisoners would escape the soldiers planned to kill the prisoners. The centurion wanted to save Paul and would not let them carry out their plan. Through the providence of God all of the passengers escaped to safety.

ACTS CHAPTER 28

(1) And when we were escaped, then we knew that the island was called Melita. (2) And the barbarians showed us no common kindness; for they kindled a fire, and received us all, because of the present rain, and because of the cold. (3) But when Paul had gather-ed a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out by reason of the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the [veno-mous] creature hanging from his hand, they said one to another, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped from the sea, yet Justice hath not suffered to live. (5) Howbeit he shook off the creature into the fire, and took no harm. (6) But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. (7) Now in the neighborhood of that place were lands belonging to the chief man of the island, named Publius, who received us, and entertained us three days courteously. (8) And it was so, that the father of Publius lay sick of fever and dysentery: unto whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laying his hands on him healed him. (9) And when this was done, the rest also that had diseases in the island came, and were cured: (10) who also honored us with many honors; and when we sailed, they put on board such things as we needed. (11) And after three months we set sail in a ship of Alexandria which had wintered in the island, whose sign was The Twin Brothers. (12) And touching at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. (13) And from thence we made a circuit, and arrived at Rhegium: and after one day a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli; (14) where we found brethren, and were entreated to tarry with them seven days: and so we came to Rome. (15) And from thence the brethren, when they heard of us, came to meet us as far as The Market of Appius and The Three Taverns; whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.

(16) And when we entered into Rome, Paul was suf-fered to abide by himself with the soldier that guarded him. (17) And it came to pass, that after three days he called together those that were the chief of the Jews: and when they were come together, he said unto them, I, brethren, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, yet was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans: (18) who, when they had examined me, desired to set me at liberty, because there was no cause of death in me. (19) But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had aught whereof to accuse my nation. (20) For this cause therefore did I entreat you to see and to speak with [me]: for because of the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. (21) And they said unto him, We neither received letters from Judaea concerning thee, nor did any of the brethren come hither and report or speak any harm of thee. (22) But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.

(23) And when they had appointed him a day, they came to him into his lodging in great number; to whom he expounded [the matter,] testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets, from morning till evening. (24) And some believed the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. (25) And when they agreed not among themselves, they depart-ed after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers, (26) saying, Go thou unto this people, and say, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise under-stand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive: (27) For this people’s heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest, haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them. (28) Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles: they will also hear. (29) [And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, having much disputing among them-selves.] (30) And he abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all bold-ness, none forbidding him.

Verses One through Six - Paul and his traveling compan-ions were shipwrecked on the island of Melita (modern day Malta). According to God’s word there was not a single casualty and all reached the shore safely.

The people of Malta are referred to as barbarians. The word barbarian as used in this text describes one who does not speak the Greek language. The people of Malta were Phoenicians and spoke some dialect of Punic or Phoenician. The inhabitants of the island showed great kindness toward those who had been shipwrecked. They built a fire for the comfort of their guests.

While Paul was putting sticks on the fire, a viper (snake) fastened on Paul’s hand. He promptly shook it off into the fire and felt no harm. The people immediately judged Paul to be an evildoer (murderer) who had escaped the peril of the sea and justice (probable reference to the goddess of justice who was called Justilia) was reaping vengeance upon him. The people watched Paul for a great while, expecting him to be swollen or drop dead. When neither happened they changed their minds and declared him to be a god. This is the second time (as recorded in Acts) that Paul was declared to be a god (Acts 14:11-12).

Verses Seven through Ten - While on Malta Paul enjoyed the hospitality of Publius, who was the chief man of the island. The father of Publius was sick with a fever and dysentery and Paul healed him. Other sick persons from all over the island came and Paul healed them as well. Paul and his companions were honored by the people and they were furnished with those things which were necessary for their travel.

We can only wonder what effect Paul’s actions had on his fellow travelers. The reader will note that:

1. He advised the master of the ship that they would be in great danger if they attempted to make Phoenix and winter there.

2. As they were about to be ship wrecked Paul told the Centurion that it was necessary for all to remain on the ship if they were to be saved. (All were saved),

3. He was bitten by a viper and showed no ill effects from it.

4. He healed Publius, the chief man of the island of Malta.

5. He healed other sick on the island of Malta.

Surely they were impressed by the teacher of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God.

Verses Eleven through Fourteen - These verses give us a record of Paul’s continued journey to Rome.

1. He stayed three months on Malta after being ship wrecked.

2. Departed to Rome on a ship of Alexander.

3. Landed at Syracuse (on the island of Cyprus) and visited there for three days.

4. Sailed to Rhegium, which was a very important sea port located on the Southern tip of Italy.

5. The next stop was at Puteoli, where Paul visited with the brethren for seven days. He would have had the opportunity to observe the Lord’s Supper with the saints.

6. After these events Paul began his overland trip to Rome.

Verse Fifteen - When the brethren were informed of Paul’s arrival to Italy, they came as far as The Market of Appius and The Three Taverns to visit with him.

Verses Sixteen through Thirty-One - Arriving in Rome Paul was delivered to the captain of the guard. Instead of being put in prison, Paul was allowed to dwell in his own hired dwelling (v. 30) with the soldier who kept him. After three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together and explained his situation. Paul made it clear that he had done nothing against the Jews or the customs of the Jewish fathers, neither had he transgressed Roman law. The Roman authorities declared that he had done nothing worthy of death and would have released him, but the Jews spoke against it. Paul was forced to appeal to Rome for justice. He indicated that it was for the hope of Israel that he was in chains. E . F . Harrison wrote, "By this Paul meant that the Christian faith was the true fulfillment of the hope of God’s people."

The Jews informed Paul that they had not received any letters concerning him; neither had the Jewish brethren brought any charges against him. This fact demonstrates again the innocence of Paul. The Jewish leaders desired to hear what Paul had to say about Christianity, the so-called sect (a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or a leader), which was every where spoken against. A day was appointed and when the Jews assembled with him, Paul taught them out of the law of Moses and the prophets about the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. The teaching session lasted from morning t i l l evening. As a result of Paul’s teaching some of the Jews believed and others did not. When the Jews did not agree among themselves, Paul pointed to a prophecy of Isaiah the prophet:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.(Isaiah 6:9-10)

When Paul spoke this message, the Jews departed from him. Once before, when Paul was making his defense before the mob in chapter twenty-two, Paul mentioned the word Gentiles (v. 21). When he did this, the Jews cried out that he was not fit to live.

Notice that Isaiah said the people would:

1. Hear, but not understand.

2. See, but not perceive.

3. Harden their hearts.

4. Have ears which were dull of hearing.

5. Have eyes which were closed.

These conditions were premeditated. They would not see nor hear and understand with their heart (mind) and be converted, that they might be healed by the great Physi-cian. (Jesus told the Jews the same thing in Matthew 13:14-15. It is a sad event in one’s life when he w i l l not accept the w i l l of God). Because of their hardened condi-tion, Paul told the Jews that the gospel would be sent to the Gentiles who would hear it. When the Jews heard this they left, but they had a great reasoning (discussion) among themselves.

For two years Paul stayed in his own hired house and preached the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. We must admire Paul for his great zeal for the gospel. Even though he was in prison, he still proclaimed Christ to all who would listen. It reminds us of the persecuted Christians who went everywhere preaching the gospel (Acts 8:1-4). Both of these examples should help us to realize that we too are debtors to all men (Romans 1:14), and that we should preach the gospel at every opportunity. We are to even create the opportunity when possible. Paul wrote Timothy to:

Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Timothy 4:2). We should go and do likewise.,

APPENDAGE

Paul’s Conjectural Travels According

to Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Philippians,

I Timothy, Titus and II Timothy

Many scholars believe that Paul was released from his first imprisonment and traveled extensively before he was imprisoned a second time and killed by Nero. I want to emphasize that the conclusions are merely conjectural.

Luke tells us that Paul was innocent of violating Roman law (Acts 26:32). He was also innocent of the charges which the Jews brought against him, for no charges were sent to Rome concerning his case (Acts 28:21). For two years Paul lived in his own hired dwelling, preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is the opinion of many that Paul was released from prison after the two years and continued his work.

From prison he wrote that he hoped to visit the Philip-pians (Philippians 1:23-26). Also, from prison Paul direct-ed Philemon to prepare lodging for him (Philemon v. 22). In these passages Paul expresses hope that he would be released from prison, travel and visit with his brethren once again.

There are certain passages recorded in Paul’s writings which do not fit the events recorded for us by Luke. Those who believe that Paul was released and traveled again suggest the following:

1. Paul traveled to Spain in keeping with his plans (Romans 15:28).

2. Stopped on his way back from Spain at Crete, where he left Titus to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). (This is the only reference to Paul being on the island of Crete.)

3. Traveled to Miletus, where he left Trophimus sick (2 Timothy 4:20).

4. Left Timothy in Ephesus and went on into Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3).

5. Stopped at Troas, where he left his cloak, books and parchments with Carpus (2 Timothy 4:13).

6. Traveled on to the city of Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Of this city Coffman writes:

Nine cities of this name are found in the Mediterranean area. However, the one to whom Paul here referred "is probably the city of that name situated on the southwest promontory of Epirus." This is only a few miles from the modern city of Prevesa, the city which the Greeks bombarded in 1912. It was founded by Augustus, whose camp happened to be pitched there the night before the famous fight with Antony (Battle of Actium, 31 B.C.) . . . The name "Nicopolis" means "Victory City," so-called from Augustus’ victory of Antony.

7. Paul was once again imprisoned and wrote II Timothy. In Philemon (written during Paul’s first imprisonment) Demas was listed as a fellow-worker of Paul (Philemon 1:24), but in II Timothy Demas had forsaken Paul for the world (2 Timothy 4:10).

8. When Paul wrote II Timothy he expressed no hope of being released from prison (2 Timothy 4:5-8).

9. Tradition says that Paul was beheaded by Nero in 67 or 68 A . D . We have no way of knowing what charges were brought against Paul which led to his second imprisonment and subsequent death.

Note: The above is in harmony with the tradition quoted by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History i i . 22), "that after defending himself, the apostle was sent again on his ministry of preaching, and coming a second time to the same city [Rome], suffered martyrdom under Nero."

The Coming Kingdom of God

Acts 1:1-11

Brent Kercheville

Introduction

(Acts 1:1-2)

The beginning of the book of Acts shows that this writing is a sequel to the first letter Luke wrote to Theophilus. The first letter described all that Jesus did and taught until the day He was taken up. Thus, the first narrative can be described as the Acts of Jesus while this narrative has been called the Acts of the Apostles.

It is also well said that this book is also the acts of the Holy Spirit. In John 14:25-26 Jesus said, “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” The book of Acts describes the work of the Holy Spirit and all that He taught.

40 Days With Jesus (Acts 1:3-5)

Many convincing proofs (Acts 1:3)

Luke begins his narrative in verse three of the first chapter. After Jesus’ suffering, He presented Himself alive to the apostles by many convincing proofs. The language here is interesting because literally this would read “by many proofs proofs.” The Greek word occurs in repetition. These were “proving proofs” or “convincing proofs.” Whatever Jesus did, His actions were good enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He had died and raised back to life. Some of these convincing proofs would be later recorded by John in his gospel.

But we must stop for a moment and consider that the apostles were fully convinced of the resurrection of Jesus. We noted when we study the gospel of Mark that the resurrection was not something they had expected. They believed that Jesus had died and that the women were crazy for saying that He had risen. The resurrection was another proof given to show that Jesus was the Son of God.

Speaking about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)

During these forty days, Jesus has spent His time teaching the apostles about the kingdom of God. It is interesting that while Jesus was on the earth, He seems to have spent most of His time preparing His disciples for His coming crucifixion. Now, Jesus is going to spend the few days He has left with His disciples preparing His disciples for the coming of the kingdom of God.

Let us stop here for a moment and consider how it is completely impossible to believe those who teach that the kingdom of God has not come yet, even to this day. Remember that premillennialism, the heart of most denominational doctrine, says that when Jesus saw He was going to be rejected, He no longer preached the kingdom but instead established the church. If this is true, then why is Jesus spending these forty days teaching the apostles about the kingdom of God? Since these are the last few days that Jesus would be with His apostles, why would Jesus speak about things that supposedly would not happen for 2000 years or more?

Further, if you recall, Jesus taught His disciples that would see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1). Jesus now tells His disciples that this was going to happen “not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Jesus had taught that He would leave His disciples but would send to them another Helper who would guide them into all truth (John 14:16; John 14:26; John 16:7). When the Holy Spirit came, it would be with power. The kingdom was going to come shortly, which explains Jesus command to the apostles.

Jesus’ command (Acts 1:4-5)

Jesus commanded the apostles to not leave Jerusalem. Luke records this command in His gospel, “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). In Acts 1:4-5 as well as Luke 24, we see that the coming of the Holy Spirit was tied to the coming of the kingdom.

Therefore, that which had been preached by John the Baptist and Jesus was about to take place “not many days from now.” Jesus’ words in verse 5 seem to come from the same message that John the Baptist preached in Mark 1:8, “I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” The coming of the Holy Spirit was to be the sign of the kingdom of God coming with power. Peter will explain this point in Acts 2, which we will leave until then.

Kingdom of God (Acts 1:6-8)

The disciples’ question (Acts 1:6)

Once Jesus and His apostles come together, we see that the apostles have a question for Jesus. They ask, “Lord, at this time are You restoring the kingdom to Israel?” For the longest time it has been taught and I have believed that the apostles are asking for the physical establishment of the kingdom. On the surface, it is simple for us to assume the apostles are asking for a political kingdom to be established. But I no longer think this is the case.

First, Jesus’ response suggests that the apostles’ question was not in error. If the apostles are asking for a physical, political kingdom, then Jesus simply perpetuated the error by telling them that they would receive power. If the apostles were asking the wrong question, Jesus surely would have corrected their misunderstanding, as He had done with their other false views. Jesus would have rebuked them as He had done with Peter or explored the request as He did with James and John who asked to sit at His right and left hands in the coming of the kingdom. Jesus validates the question by saying when the restoration would take place.

Second, we have just read that Jesus has been teaching the apostles about the kingdom for the last 40 days. I don’t know that the apostles are that thick-headed that they cannot understand what Jesus has been clearly teaching them for more than a month. Let us not neglect to consider that Jesus has been preaching about the kingdom of God throughout His ministry also. Jesus had previously taught, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:21).

Third, the disciples’ question is not from left field. Jesus and John the Baptist had been preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand (Matthew 3:2). The disciples had reason to earnestly expect the coming of the kingdom.

We get thrown off I believe because of the language of the question. The disciples ask if Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel. Because the disciples said “restore” and “Israel” leads us to think physically. But that is not necessarily so. Isaiah prophesied, “Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved one of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth’” (Isaiah 49:6). Here we see the prophecy of the Messiah bringing restoration to Israel. Jesus even used this language when teaching the disciples, “Elijah truly is coming first and will restore all things” (Matthew 17:11).

We also know that the prophets repeatedly declared that the Messiah would establish a kingdom. Isaiah said, “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, ever forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:7). Daniel also spoke of the kingdom being established, “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).

So instead of thinking that the apostles have in mind the wrong kind of kingdom, I would suggest that Jesus simply needs to correct them on when these things were going to happen. Let us notice Jesus response.

Jesus’ response (Acts 1:7-8)

Jesus begins by saying that it is not for them to know the times or periods that the Father has set. Basically, Jesus says that the day and hour is not for them to know at this point yet. It is very similar language used to when the disciples asked about the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus responded that the day and the hour no one knew, but only the Father. This seems to be the same answer here.

However, Jesus does tell the apostles what to look for to know that Israel has been restored. Here are the signs that they can know that the kingdom of God has been established. First, Jesus tells them that they would receive power. Something was going to happen that would be different from anything else they had ever had happen to them. They would have power when the Holy Spirit came upon them. Again, this is a very unique experience that Jesus is promising will happen to the apostles.

Once these things took place, the apostles would be witnesses of Jesus in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. This statement lays out the form of what we will see in the book of Acts. The apostles began their work teaching and preaching in Jerusalem. By chapter 8 we see the teaching of the disciples spreading through the regions of Judea and Samaria. Then, by chapter 12 we read that the apostles are going throughout all the world teaching and preaching.

These were the signs that the restoration to Israel had come. When the apostles received power from the Holy Spirit coming upon them and when they went through the world testifying about Jesus. This is important for us to see because the religious world teaches that the restoration of Israel has not taken place. When we understand that the apostles were not misguided in their question, we learn when the restoration of Israel would come: when the Holy Spirit would come, which was not many days from then (Acts 1:5).

Jesus’ Ascension (Acts 1:9-11)

Taken in a cloud

After teaching these words, Jesus is taken up from the apostles’ sight and a cloud received Him. I would imagine that we would have had the same reaction as the apostles if we had been there also. We would have been gazing up into heaven, likely with our mouths open, in awe of the sight that had just been witnessed.

The ascension of Jesus is very important and is the fulfillment of prophecy. Daniel prophesied, “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).

As Daniel prophesies, he shows what is happening on the other side of Jesus’ ascension. The apostles saw Jesus taken up into the clouds. Daniel fills in the rest of the story. Daniel sees the Son of Man coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days. At that time, the Son of Man was given rule and glory. He was also given a kingdom that all should serve Him which would never pass away or be destroyed.

This fits what Paul was trying to explain to us in Ephesians 1:20-21, “which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.” This glorification took place when Jesus ascended to the Father, who gave Him the kingdom, glory, and honor.

Return in the same fashion

In the meanwhile, the apostles are gazing up to heaven, when suddenly two men clothed in white stood beside them. We must assume that these are two angels who appear to the apostles. They ask a funny question: why do you stand looking up into heaven? I know what my answer would have been: we have just seen an amazing event. We just saw Jesus lift off the earth and ascend into the clouds. One does not see that kind of thing happen.

But the angels have more to say. Jesus, who had been taken up into heaven, will come in the same way that you have seen Him going. Jesus is going to return in the clouds just as He left in the clouds.

It is this same description that Paul gave in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

This is an amazing promise that we are left to consider. The Lord is going to return in the clouds in the same glory that He left. This is a blessed hope that every Christian has. As Paul continues, “Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18). Are you ready for the Lord’s return? The return of the Lord also is a signal for the day of judgment (2 Peter 3). With many convincing proofs we see that Jesus raised from the dead, ascended to the Father, and was given a kingdom that shall never be destroyed. Every knee will bow and every mouth will confess Jesus as Lord. Will you bow now before He returns? If we submit to the Lord now, we will be heirs in His kingdom. However, if we delay, we will suffer the consequences for being enemies of Him and His kingdom. Let us turn to the Lord today for He may return at any time. (HCSB)

Apostolic Applications

Acts 1:12-26

Brent Kercheville

At the beginning of Acts 1 we saw that Jesus has spent 40 days after His resurrection teaching about the kingdom of God to His disciples. After teaching the disciples about the kingdom, Jesus has ascended into heaven to sit on the throne, assuming all rule, authority, dominion, and power. Two angels appear to the disciples telling them that Jesus will return the same way in which He was taken up.

As we read this next section, we will see the apostles engage in three activities that are useful applications for us in our lives today. As we begin, imagine being one of these disciples after Jesus has ascended. What would you do next? What should be the next course of action? How strange it must have been to see Jesus leave, putting you as His disciple in charge of spreading the kingdom to the ends of the earth.

United in Continual Prayer (Acts 1:12-14)

Setting the scene

We begin the story by noticing the disciples are going to Jerusalem from the mount of Olives. The text tells us that this is about 3/4 of a mile journey. This was Jesus’ instruction is Luke 24:49, “I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power form on high.” Of course, the city Jesus was referring to was the city of Jerusalem. Therefore the disciples now go to the city of Jerusalem to await the promise of the Father.

When the disciples arrive in Jerusalem, they go to the upper room. It is interesting that the word “the” in “the upper room” is in the original text. It seems likely that this is referring to the same upper room where Jesus had instituted the Lord’s supper before He was betrayed. While we cannot be absolutely certain, it seems the most reasonable explanation as to what the upper room refers to.

Luke also tells us who has assembled in the upper room. Not only have the eleven apostles who saw Jesus ascend into heaven, but also many of the other believers have come to the upper room. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is in the upper room. Jesus’ brothers, who had rejected Jesus earlier, are now believers and also assemble in the upper room. Luke also points out that the women have come also, which seems to certainly include Mary, Martha, Salome, and Joanna who are disciples of Jesus.

Devotion to prayer

All of these have gathered together in the upper room. I believe it is important for us to consider what they are doing in the upper room. The scripture says, “all these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer.” The participants in the upper room made no assumptions with God. Though Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles, though Jesus said to remain in the city until they were clothed with power, and though Jesus promised to send the Advocate to help them, they were still praying for these things. Though God had promised this outpouring, the disciples still come together to pray concerning the kingdom of God and promised coming events.

We see that first century disciples lived on prayer. Prayer was what was used to get through temptations, overcome trials, get through the day, and look for the coming blessings of God. It was a natural part of their daily lives. We see this attitude presented throughout the New Testament.

“Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving” (Colossians 4:2). “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit…” (Ephesians 6:18). “…rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer” (Romans 12:12). “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

These commands have fallen upon our deaf ears. We show that we have not placed our full dependence upon God when we are not regularly and constantly devoting ourselves to prayer. This is something we must strive to attain, brethren. God did not tell us to pray to Him on occasion. The disciples of the Lord were constantly devoting themselves in prayer.

But let us also see that is not only an individual call to prayer. The whole group in Acts 1 was in one accord, completely united in prayer together in that upper room. Groups of Christians coming together to pray is a powerful tool that we can use against Satan and the evils of this world. Coming together to pray is also an effective tool for requesting God’s guidance and blessings.

United in Scripture Knowledge (Acts 1:15-20)

Setting the scene

While the disciples have been gathered together, devoting themselves to prayer each day, awaiting the Holy Spirit, Peter stands up among the 120 brethren to speak to them. Peter is going to talk about Judas. We may stop here for a moment and consider the effect of Judas and his actions upon the other disciples. We think of Judas as the outcast, the betrayer, and the outsider. But the scriptures tell us that Judas was numbered with the twelve. They had a relationship through Jesus Christ with this man. How traumatic it must have been to see Judas betray Jesus! How awful it would have been to find out that their close friend for more than three years had killed himself.

Peter recounts what happened to Judas to the 120 disciples. Verses 17-18 record different events concerning Judas death than what we read in Matthew 27:3-10. Matthew records that Judas hung himself. Peter says that Judas fell headfirst, burst open in the middle, and his intestines gushed out. Of course, this is a point of controversy to some scholars who suggest this is a contradiction and the Bible must be disregarded. However, the reconciliation of these two passages is not difficult to consider. The combining of the two passages suggests that Judas hung on that tree for quite a while. Finally, whatever instrument was holding him to the tree gave way and Judas fell headlong, bursting open on the ground below. This event became known to all the residents of the area, who called that field the “field of blood.”

Knowing the scriptures

I do not suppose that this event rang any prophetic bells in our minds as we consider the story of Judas. I wonder if the Jews picked up on the prophetic fulfillment that took place in Judas. But Peter is aware that this event is spoken of by God.

First, Peter points out in verse 16 that the scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouth of David. This is useful terminology for us to consider. Notice who was speaking through the mouth of David: the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through the word of God. This reminds us that this book is not merely words on a printed page. This book is not even the words of God in times past. The writer of Hebrews said, “For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the ideas and thoughts of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The reason the word of God is alive is because it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us. We do not need to wait for the Lord to whisper silently in our ear. We do not have to wonder if God is speaking in our minds or if the devil is tricking us. We know God’s word because it is loudly proclaimed in the book we hold in our hands: the Bible. This is God’s word and it is powerful and effective in changing us if we will open ourselves to the surgery the sword can accomplish.

Second, Peter also quotes two psalms to show that David was speaking of these things. The first quotation is from Psalms 69:25, “Let his dwelling become desolate; let no one live in it.” The second quotation is from Psalms 109:8, “Let someone else take his position.” In reading these psalms, it does not seem that David is necessarily prophesying of a betrayer to the Messiah. Instead, it simply seems that we are reading about the enemies of David. But Peter is able to see that David is indirectly referring to the events that would take place, as Judas would be come an enemy of Jesus.

What we learn is that the disciples were devoting themselves to knowing the scriptures. The disciples were not sitting around speaking about secular things of the Roman empire. Instead, the disciples were considering the scriptures and Peter points out that the words of David had been fulfilled in those last days. This knowledge of the scriptures becomes the basis for the disciples’ future action to appoint another to become an apostle. Without knowing the scriptures, particularly “let someone else take his position” the apostles may not have begun to appoint another.

We see that it was important to the disciples to know the scriptures. While awaiting the promise of the Father, the scriptures were being considered. The disciples were uniting themselves in the knowledge of the scriptures. Further, what Peter understood concerning the scriptures he shared with the other disciples in the other room.

We learn the same two applications concerning knowing the scriptures as we learned with prayer. First, we need to dedicate ourselves to know the scriptures. The Bible is the word of God, contains His commands, and has the power to change our lives. We need to come to a deep knowledge of the scriptures. We need to grow and mature in the scriptures so that we can piece the word of God together properly and make appropriate applications to our lives. This must also be our goal that we strive for greater knowledge. We must not give up our Bible reading and Bible study times. Let us see how important it is for us to give up on the other physical things that occupy our time before we give up on reading and studying the word of God.

Second, we also learn the need to share our knowledge with other disciples. What we learn from the scriptures we need to teach and share with others. Peter did not come to this great realization and keep it to himself. Peter stands up before the 120 and tells them what he knows concerning the scriptures. This is one reason that we assemble together. It is certainly our purpose for our Sunday morning Bible study and Wednesday night Bible study. We need to share with one another what we have found in the scriptures.

These are things that we must not take lightly nor neglect. We all need to be participating and attending these hours of study to learn God’s word and to share our knowledge with others. Our Bible study is not about sharing personal stories or riding our hobby horses, but is about examining the word of God and trying to understand what God wants us to know. As disciples, we need to dedicate ourselves to knowing and sharing the word of God.

United in Dependence on God (Acts 1:21-26)

Qualification of an apostle

Peter then continues to teach the 120 by describing the need to replace Judas’ position. In verse 21 Peter lays out the requirements needed to be placed into consideration for replacing Judas as an apostle. There are three qualifications that are listed here by Peter as necessary to be an apostle.

First, the man must have accompanied the apostles during the whole ministry of Jesus. Therefore, the man could not be a recent disciple. Second, the man was with Jesus from the beginning of John’s baptism to the moment that he was taken up from them just a few days earlier. This further emphasizes the duration of discipleship needed to be an apostle. Third, the man must have been a witness of the resurrected Jesus. This was critical because the apostles would go forth into all of the world proclaiming they had seen the risen Lord. This certainly shows us that no one can claim to be an apostle today. No one living today has seen the resurrected Lord nor was with Jesus from the time of His baptism to the time of His ascension.

With these qualifications, two men were selected as possible candidates to replace Judas’ position. These two men were Joseph, who was called Barsabbas and Justus, and a man called Matthias. What the apostles do next is the third application that we learn from these men.

Dependence on God

Consider that the people do not have a democracy and vote who should be the next apostle. Nor does Peter stand up and select which person should take over the position that Judas vacated. Instead, they all prayed to God. Notice the wisdom of this prayer. Only God knows the hearts of these men, they say. They ask God to show them which one is chosen by God to take Judas’ place. After their petition, lots are cast and the lot falls upon Matthias.

We are reading the disciples placing their complete dependency upon God in this matter. They did not rely upon their own knowledge. They did not have a popularity contest. They did not take matters into their own hands. Rather, they understood the scriptures and asked God to help them do what had been prophesied that must be done. The casting of lots was done throughout the Old Testament as a tool God used for the people to know His will. This is the last time we will see lots be cast. From now on, people were to know God’s will by what the Holy Spirit had spoken in the word.

Brethren, we also must have that same deep dependency upon God. The disciples were unwilling to make a decision before consulting God first on what must be done. The disciples wanted to know God’s will in this matter. We must have the same dependency on God. We make far too many, if not all, decisions not based upon the will of God. We make too many decisions without asking God for direction and help. We may wonder why we are straying away from God and one of the obvious reasons is that we are not asking for God’s direction. We must grow to fully depend upon God, so much that we would not consider acting before we pray and ask God for assistance.

I am impressed with the disciples in this section of text. They show us immediately how we ought to be united together continually in prayer, scripture knowledge, and dependence on God. These are areas we ought to set as goals to grow in as individuals. But we need to become more united as a congregation in these things as well. Let us take more opportunities to study together. Let us make more opportunities to pray together. Let us work together to become dependent upon God.

The Coming of the Holy Spirit

(Acts 2:1-40)

Brent Kercheville

In Acts 1 we left off noticing the apostles gathering with other disciples as they are united in prayer, scripture knowledge, and dependence on God as they awaiting the Holy Spirit. Through their prayer and studies, Peter realizes that Judas was prophesied as the one who leave his position and another was to replace it. The disciples then proposed two men who met the qualifications of apostleship and cast lots, upon which the Lord selected Matthias to be numbered with the apostles.

We are still part of this scene as daily the apostles and disciples are awaiting the coming o

The Coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13)

Describing the event (Acts 2:1-4)

The apostles are gathered together in one place (perhaps a room in the temple complex since the multitudes are witnesses of these things) awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. Suddenly the Holy Spirit comes upon the apostles. The coming of the Holy Spirit was a visible, identifiable event that others besides the apostles were able to see.

As we visualize this scene it is important that we pick upon the similes that are used by Luke to describe this occurrence. First, we are told that the sound of a violent rushing wind came from heaven. The text does not say that there was a violent rushing wind, but that a sound from heaven came that sounded like a blowing wind. The sound filled the whole house where the apostles were at during this time.

Second, tongues like flames of fire divided and rested on each of them. Again, the text does not say that these are fiery tongues, but that the appearance of the tongues was like fire. To try to properly visualize this, the Greek scholars tell us that since the word is in the present middle participle (Robertson) that the tongue like fire appeared as a single entity and then distributed itself among each of the apostles, thus creating multiple tongues. Therefore we have a visible sign following the audible sign which was heard in the room.

The outcome of this event is clearly defined in verse 4. Each apostle was filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages as the Holy Spirit gave them ability. Here is the great miracle of the coming of the Holy Spirit: not that the apostles spoke their own language and the audience heard their own language, for then the miracle would have been upon the hearers; but that the apostles were now able to speak different languages which they could not speak before.

Amazement of the multitude (Acts 2:5-13)

At this time, devout men from every nation under heaven were in Jerusalem. These people would have come for the Passover feast and remained in the city for the fifty days to keep the Pentecost feast. The crowds begin to come together because they hear the apostles speaking in their own languages, causing great confusion in the crowd. Verse 7 tells us that the people are astounded and amazed because those who were speaking are Galileans. How could Galileans be speaking in all of the languages of those from all over the world? It is clear to the multitudes that a miracle is taking place in their very hearing.

Also notice what the apostles were speaking: the magnificent acts of God (verse 11). These from all over the world are hearing in their own language the great deeds of the Lord. There is no need for translator or interpreters. The miracle was that these mere men were given the power through the Holy Spirit to speak such that all could understand their words.

Verse 12 again points out that the people were greatly perplexed and astounded when they saw these things and heard their language being spoken by Galileans. The Jewish people ask a very important question: what could this be? What do these things mean, as some translations say. The point is that the people want to know why these things are happening. They want to know what the meaning is of these events. Notice some others simply attributed this to the apostles being drunk. It seems there are always skeptics who will pawn off the obvious truth for a lie and irrational answer. Drinking wine has never caused a person to speak in multiple languages. Yet, rather than examining the scene with an honest heart, there are some who simply dismiss this miracle out of hand.

Apostolic Explanation of Event (Acts 2:14-36)

Fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:14-21)

The people want to know what is going on. They want an explanation for the things they are seeing and hearing. In verse 14 Peter stands up with the eleven apostles and prepares to give the people the answer to their question. Peter first tells the people that they are not drunk since it is only nine in the morning. Peter demands the people to consider a logical alternative.

Peter says that the events which have taken place were spoken of by God through the prophet Joel. Now before we look at the quotation of Joel 2, let us realize that no matter how we understand the images of Joel 2, Peter says these things were now being fulfilled. I believe there are three key points which Peter makes to the multitudes based upon Joel’s prophecy.

They were living in the last days. Peter begins the quotation “And it will be in the last days….” What is interesting is if you turn back to Joel 2:28, Joel does not say “the last days.” Instead, Joel says “afterward.” Peter is trying to impress upon his listeners that the “afterward” is right then. The last days have come upon them. Why is this significant? The phrase “last days” refers to the days when the events that would lead to the coming of the Messiah. Peter is telling the multitudes that those days of the Messiah were currently being lived in and was not something that would still happen “afterward.” Peter and those in the first century were living in the last days because the Messiah had come. Peter will elaborate more upon this idea later in this sermon.

A time of blessing and judgment upon all people. A careful reading of the prophecy shows that Joel was speaking that upon all humanity blessings and judgment were going to take place. The blessings are described as God declares He will pour out His Spirit on all flesh. Isaiah 44:3 shows that the pouring out the Spirit was understood as the coming of blessings. “For I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring.” Therefore, when Joel and Isaiah prophesied the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, they were speaking of God’s blessings being poured out on the people.

However, judgment was also promised in this outpouring. “The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and remarkable day of the Lord comes.” This imagery is used repeatedly by the prophets to describe a coming judgment upon a people and nation. The blessing is not only the benefits derived from the Holy Spirit coming upon all mankind, but also refers to the blessings that came because the Messiah had come and conquered death. Again, Peter will make this point more fully later, but alludes to the point here in the quotation of Joel’s prophecy. Now, since the Messiah had already come in the form of Jesus, it was time for judgment to come upon all humanity.

Call upon the name of the Lord to avoid judgment. Peter, by quoting Joel’s prophecy, also declares how a person will be able to avoid the impending judgment upon all humanity. Peter declares, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Salvation from this grand judgment of destruction was needed. The way to come about this salvation was to call on the name of the Lord, a phrase we will look at in more detail later. These three points set the tone for the rest of Peter’s sermon in which Jesus is tied to the blessings and judgments to come.

Jesus, risen from the dead

Peter now goes on to explain about Jesus. Peter declares that God pointed Jesus out as the Messiah with miracles, wonders, and signs that were done among them. Peter points out that these people are fully aware of the signs and wonders that were done by Jesus.

Furthermore, it was God’s determined plan and according to God’s foreknowledge that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified. The events that surrounded Jesus’ life were not an accident. Everything that took place was fully planned by God. But without any law or authority to do so, the people delivered Jesus to be nailed to a cross and crucified. God raised Jesus from the dead, conquering death because it was not possible for Him to be held by the power of death. Peter will now present three arguments to prove that Jesus has risen from the dead.

David prophesied the Messiah would rise from the dead. Peter first quotes Psalms 16 to prove that David was not speaking of himself but of his descendant to come. David is dead, buried, and his tomb was still with them in the first century. David was prophet who knew that one of his descendants would sit on the throne. Therefore, concerning the Messiah, His soul was not left in Hades and He did not experience any corruption or decay.

Apostles are witnesses of the resurrection. Peter’s second argument is that the apostles are witnesses of the resurrection. God raised Jesus from the dead. Peter and John ran to the tomb and found it empty. The women went to the tomb and were told by the angel that Jesus had risen from the dead. The apostles were present when Jesus showed Himself to them. In fact, the apostles have been with Jesus for 40 days after His resurrection, learning about the kingdom of God. The apostles were assured that Jesus died and rose from the dead. If they were not sure of these facts, they would not have died for their beliefs.

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit proves Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus taught that He must return to the Father. However, when He returned to the Father He would send another Helper, the Holy Spirit, who would guide the apostles into all truth (John 14:15-31; John 15:26-27; John 16:5-16). If Jesus had not risen from the dead, the things that happened there at Pentecost would not happen. The coming of the Holy Spirit was also sign to show that the Messiah had not only come, but was now ruling on the throne in heaven. To prove this point, Peter quotes David again, this time from Psalms 110, to show again that David was not speaking about himself ascending to the throne, but of the Messiah.

The conclusion of the sermon is that the people needed to know with all certainty that God had made Jesus both Lord and Messiah, the one whom they had crucified. This was a powerful lesson Peter presented, full of proofs and arguments to explain that what had taken place proved Jesus to be risen from the dead and that judgment was coming upon all people for killing Him. At this news, the people are pierced to the heart, understanding that they have killed their Messiah, the One who had come to deliver them. Judgment was now coming on the nation as described in verse 20 and they needed to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The people then ask what should they do. To call on the name of the Lord is too general of a statement to which the people needed further explanation. How do you call on the name of the Lord? Peter explains in verse 38 to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. This is how salvation would be offered and continues to be offered today. Judgment must come upon all flesh for their sins. To be saved everyone must call on the name of the Lord by repenting and being baptized. Without obeying these conditions, judgment comes. Let us also be saved from this corrupt generation by purposing to serve God and being baptized today.

Modeling The First Century Church

Acts 2:41-47

Brent Kercheville

Earlier in Acts 2 we saw the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. The multitudes have witnessed the apostles’ ability to speak in different languages and the multitudes want to know what this means. Peter, with the other eleven apostles, preach from Joel 2 explaining that these events were the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. Further, the apostles condemn the multitudes for killing the Messiah whom God had testified to be His Son.

The people are pierced to the heart concerning what they have heard from Peter and the apostles and ask what they should do to be saved from the judgment that is to come upon them for their actions. Peter responded, “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39). Peter further said, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). The responsibility has been placed upon the multitudes to make a decision whom they will follow and serve. Will they obey the words of the apostles so they can avoid the coming judgment which Peter preached, or will they reject the words of Peter?

This will be our opportunity to look at what characteristics made up those first century Christians. Whatever made these people disciples of Jesus in the first century continues to be the way we can be disciples today. Or, put another way, those who received the word of the Lord, what did they do? The answer is the pattern we were left to model in our own lives.

To Become A Disciple, the People Were Baptized

Gladly received the word

The first characteristic of this multitude is that they were joyful to hear the word of the Lord. Not only this, the text does not tell us that the people did not just hear or listen to the word of God. Rather, the people received the word to themselves. The word of the Lord sunk in and was allowed to affect their hearts. These people did not hear the words and afterward go up to Peter and tell him that was a nice sermon. They allowed the words to be life changing. They did not sit with wandering minds and closed hearts.

Let us not simply glance over these first important words concerning the hearts of the people. If we are going to be true disciples of Christ we must always have open hearts to hear the words of the Lord. We must keep our hearts hungry to hear the word of the Lord and keep our minds in tune to message of God.

Be Baptized

Not only did the words sink into their hearts, the words motivated the multitude to act upon what they heard. Again, they did not walk away feeling energized and uplifted. Rather, they put the words into deeds by becoming baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Peter preached that forgiveness of sins would only come through repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). There was no other way to find salvation from God’s judgment and receive God’s blessings than through the waters of baptism. We can see an easy equation that Luke draws as he pens this letter to Theophilus. Those who received the word were baptized. What did it mean if someone was not baptized? The answer is clear: the person rejected the message and rejected the word of God. For someone to think they are saved without being baptized is to reject the word of God. Those who accepted the word of God were baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

About 3000 souls were baptized and added to number of the saved. This is how we become joined to the rest of the saved in Christ. If we want to be added to the number of the apostles, then we must be baptized and the Lord will add us. If we want to be added to the rest of the saved, then we must be baptized. Let us see this morning quite plainly that if someone has not been baptized, the Lord has not added them to His group of saved people. This is all the scriptures mean when we speak of the Lord’s church: God’s group of saved people.

To Continue As Disciples,

the People Devoted Themselves

To the apostles’ doctrine

The disciples devoted themselves to the learning and keeping of the apostles’ doctrine. We quickly learn that the teaching of the apostles was authoritative and would not be in contradiction to what Jesus’ taught. Jesus promised His apostles would be guided into all truth. As God’s truths were being revealed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles, the apostles taught that message to other disciples.

Paul explained this process in Ephesians 3:3-5, “how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.” The disciples saw the importance in continuing in the teachings of the apostles to grow in their faith and keep from sins.

A true disciple is one who is devoted to studying the word of God. True disciples always want to learn more about God and are devoted to the teaching of the apostles found in the scriptures. This devotion is not only seen by listening to sermons, but is exhibited in joining with the saints in our Bible studies. This is devotion is seen at home when time is taken to spend time dwelling upon the word of God. True disciples do not want to miss any opportunity to study the word of God.

We also need to devote ourselves to the teaching of the apostles found in the scriptures. We need to have the same fervor and zeal for the word of God that others can know by the way we speak that we have been devoted steadfastly to the word of God. It is shame how often Christians allow themselves to remain ignorant concerning the word of God. True disciples want to be filled with the knowledge of God. First century Christians were devoted to this task and we must also model that zeal in our lives.

To fellowship

Unfortunately, fellowship in a religious sense has been merely defined as having a meal together. Too often fellowship is advertised as coming together to eat. But that is not the concept we see in the scriptures concerning the nature of fellowship. Notice in this section of text what these first century Christians were doing that Luke considered fellowship.

Acts 2:44 says, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common.” There is no exaggeration in this statement. First, the believers were joined and knit together. Fellowship is about joining together for a common goal and common purpose thus creating a common bond. These Christians did not simply declare themselves to be in fellowship. Acts 2:45 describes the extent of their fellowship, “So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need.” This tells us how joined together to the common goal of serving Christ these people really were. These disciples had all things in common and this is true Christianity. If all that we have is truly the Lord’s as we say it is, then I must be willing to give what God has given me to other brethren who may need it.

Now it is easy for us to dismiss these passages out of hand as not having bearing on our lives today and that God was not commanded for Christians to become a commune or some sort of socialistic community. While God has not telling us that we ought to sell everything so that everyone here will have an equal amount, we must realize that we cannot dismiss this passage out of hand. Luke is recording for us what Christians do for one another. If we truly saw others in our group have a need, we would have to be willing to sell whatever we had or do whatever it took to help.

I believe our fighting against this concept which is plainly taught in this passage shows how materialistic we have become. We quickly expose our love for this world and things in the world when we talk about selling houses and cars to help other Christians in need. But this is true fellowship, a true joint association together in the Lord. We can say we have fellowship together because we worship together or have people over to our homes. But true fellowship, as we see it in this passage, is to have all things in common with one another. We see this same love of the brethren found in 2 Corinthians 8-9 where poor brethren who had nothing to give were still giving what scraps they did have for other brethren who were in great need. How can we come to this type of fellowship?

To worship (breaking of bread and prayers)

It is clear that this kind of fellowship was developed from the amount of time that was spent together. Verse 46 tells us, “Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house.” We see that the disciples devoted themselves to meeting together. The first century Christians met together every day to worship God, whether in the temple courts or in various people’s homes. Wherever and whenever these Christians could meet together, they would.

Do we have the same desire to want to meet with other Christians wherever and whenever we can? What would we think about meeting every day with other Christians? Would we consider such an action too much for us? Would we declare our need for rest? We certainly seem to balk when gospel meetings come around. Instead of joy and anticipation, too often we exhibit disappointment or even anger for being expected to show up every night for a few days. Brethren, it seems that today many of us have lost the love that would draw Christians together on a daily basis. I know that we have jobs that are demanding, schools that push our children, and families that take much time to maintain. But when a congregation sees fit to come together for a common purpose, especially for worship, we should be overjoyed for the opportunity, not groaning about the sacrifice we must make.

To evangelism

There was something else that these disciples were devoted to that is not explicitly stated. But we know the disciples were devoted to evangelism by the end result. “Every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). Day by day and everyday people were turning their lives to Jesus and being baptized. It was not enough for these disciples to congregate together, study the word of God through the apostles, and giving to any who had need among them. These first century disciples had to share the good news to others, an action we will see these first century disciples make repeatedly through the book of Acts.

Can you imagine daily baptisms? This is the power of the gospel and here we read it was taking place. Some “wise” scholars have suggested the amount of baptisms could not have been handled at that time. Where could you baptize 3000 people in the city of Jerusalem? Where could they find water to baptize people daily? I was watching a recent show on the History Channel concerning Jerusalem that answers this supposed dilemma. Excavations have uncovered that there were thousands of pools throughout the city. It seems that the religious leaders had these pools of water created to be able to ceremonially purify the people for the feast days. Since these Jews would travel through Gentile lands, the religious Jewish leaders believed these traveling Jews would need to be fully cleansed from all they may have touched our encountered along the way. Therefore, the leaders in another way to make money, would charge for the people to be immersed in these pools of water to be made ceremonial clean. The apostles and disciples could use these common pools to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

How is our dedication to evangelism? We set out a goal this year to talk to one person a week on our impact list. Are we keeping to the goal? We need to remain self-motivated to obey the command of God to take the gospel to all the people we know and come into contact. While I am excited about the growth we have seen here and every Sunday morning has a “full” feeling in the pews, we are not done with the work. We must continue to teach and seek those who are looking for God. Let us continue to do the work of inviting and teaching. We have a great opportunity to invite your friends and neighbors with our upcoming lectureship in three weeks. You can do your part in trying to save souls by offering them the chance to hear the message of the cross.

To Christian character

The final aspect we see with these Christians is the joy they had in what they were doing. They ate their food with gladness and sincerity of heart. Further they were praising God in all that they did. Everything they did was for the cause of the Lord and in the name of Jesus Christ. There is great joy in Christianity and we must portray that to those who are lost.

We also see that these first century disciples had favor with all the people. We probably do not think about the significance of this statement because of all the other important statements found in this text. However, who were the people that these disciples had favor with? I submit to you that it was not Gentiles, but the other multitudes of Jews who were there for the Passover and subsequent Pentecost feasts. Therefore, this is a rather impressive statement that these Christians had favor with all the people in the city, even though they were of a different religion.

I think that says something to us today also. To teach people does not require us to be ugly to them, especially those who belong to other religious beliefs. We can maintain favor with people while teaching them the truth of the scriptures and their need for obedience to the word of God. We must always maintain our integrity and Christian character when we are preaching and teaching or else we become a stumbling block to the lost.

Conclusion:

These are the things necessary for discipleship. First, to become a disciple of Christ, one must be baptized just as all those who accepted the words of Peter did on the day of Pentecost. To not be baptized is to reject the words of the apostles. Second, we need to continue in the ways of Jesus by devoting ourselves to the word of God, devoting ourselves to one another having all in common, devoting ourselves to worshipping the Lord together, devoting ourselves to teaching the lost, and devoting ourselves to growing in the character of Christ. This is the model of the first century church and this is the pattern we must fashion ourselves after.

The Miracle of the Lame Man

(Acts 3:1-10)

Brent Kercheville

The background

In our study of Acts, we ended by reading about the expansion of the Lord’s body as everyday people were being saved. The apostles were preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and multitudes were believing and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

As we begin the third chapter, we read that Peter and John were going up to the temple courts at one of the hours of prayer. Three times a day the people would offer prayers in the temple complex and in Acts 3 we read about Peter and John going to the temple complex at one of those hours, the three o’clock hour.

On Peter and John’s way into the temple complex through the Beautiful Gate, they come across a beggar who was lame from birth and was placed at the gate daily. We must remove from our minds our prejudice toward begging as we read this text. This is not a person who is refusing to work. This is not a person that we typically find on our street corners today. Further, there was not the type of welfare system in place for those in such a condition in New Testament times as there is today. This person has a legitimate need, being lame from birth. The family or his friends are supporting him as best they can but they bring him to the temple gates to try to receive monetary help from the worshippers who were coming to pray.

The scriptures commanded the Israelites to help such people. In Deuteronomy 15:7-8 we read the command, “If there is a poor person among you, one of your brothers within any of your gates in the land the Lord your God is giving you, you must not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Instead, you are to open your hand to him and freely loan him enough for whatever need he has.” The people of Israel were to help a person in this condition by lending him whatever he needed to get by. Every seven years the debts that existed would then be cancelled (Deuteronomy 15:1-3). Every day this lame man is begging for help in the temple complex and no one is loaning him the money that he requires.

The interaction

The lame man sees Peter and John enter the temple complex through the gate and the lame man asks them for money. Peter and John looked at the man intently and said to him, “Look at us.” Now, this would have been a good sign for the lame man. What do we as humans do if we are not going to help out someone like this? We put our head and walk quickly on the other side of the path. To have someone stop and address this man would surely mean he thought he was going to receive some monetary support, as verse 5 says.

What must have gone through this lame man’s mind when Peter said, “I have neither silver or gold but what I have I give to you.” I would surely believe the lame man is what wondering what in the world these men are going to give him if it is not silver and gold. How the disappointment must have begun to set in as he was expecting to receive money and the first words from Peter’s mouth is that they do not have any money.

But Peter and John were not done. Peter says, “In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, get up and walk!” Now, please imagine this scene for a moment. Think about if you were unable to walk under your own power since birth. You are seated at the gate of the temple and these two men come up to you and say that they do not have any money but get up and walk. You know he had to be thinking that these guys were simply mocking him. He had to be thinking, “Rise up and walk? Yeah, right.” If you carefully read the text, it does not say that the lame man simply got up and was healed. Notice that Peter pulls him up to his feet.

The healing

Once Peter pulls the lame man to his feet, the scriptures tell us that the lame man’s feet and ankles became strong. The lame man jumps up, stood, and started to walk and enters the temple complex with Peter and John. Now the lame man is not just casually walking into the temple complex. He is “walking, leaping, and praising God.” The lame man is rightfully causing a commotion.

All the people in the temple complex see this man walking, jumping, and praising God. Then those people begin to realize who this person is who is making this commotion. It is the man who they pass by three times a day every day on their way into the temple complex to pray. It is the very same man who has been asking for monetary help because he has been lame from birth. This man is the one who is walking and leaping around the courtyard. Therefore, verse 10 says, “So they were filled with awe and astonishment at what had happened to him.” So all the people were greatly amazed and ran toward Peter, John, and lame man to see this amazing miracle more closely. This will provide Peter and John an audience and an opportunity to teach them about Jesus. As we look at Peter’s sermon, I want us to notice that Peter makes the same points here as he did in Acts 2 after the miracle of the Holy Spirit coming on the apostles.

Peter’s Sermon

The source of power is Jesus

The first point that Peter and John must make to the people is that these things did not happen according to their own abilities. The people are looking at Peter and John in astonishment wondering how they were able to perform such a miracle. Peter and John tell the people that this miracle did not happen by their own power or godliness.

Verse 13 says that God has glorified His servant Jesus. This miracle was to glorify Jesus and show His power. The rest of verse 13 through verse 15 is a parenthetical point that we will consider in a moment. Verse 16 picks up this point that the power is in Jesus: “By faith in His name, His name has made this man strong, whom you see and know. So the faith that come through Him has given him this perfect health in front of you all.” Peter wants the people to know that the power to do this has only come through the authority of Jesus. This miracle was not the work of man. Nor was the miracle the work of God glorifying this lame man. This miracle was the work of God glorifying His Son Jesus to show them the power that exists in the authority of Jesus.

The people crucified Jesus

Peter and John must show the power is in Jesus for them to be convicted of their sin of killing Jesus. By showing that Jesus is God, now Peter and John point the finger to the people for crucifying Jesus.

The people are the ones who handed Jesus over to Pilate. The people are the ones who denied Jesus in the presence of Pilate. Remember that Pilate announced, “Behold your king.” The people responded, “We have no king but Caesar.” Peter goes further by reminded the people that they denied the Holy and Righteous One by releasing a known murderer, Barabbas, instead of Jesus. The people made that choice when they could have freed Jesus. Again, Peter says that the people killed the Source of Life as we remember the people shouting so strongly “Crucify Him, crucify Him” that a riot was forming.

To show the greatness of God’s glory found in Jesus, Peter preaches that this Jesus God raised from the dead and the apostles are witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. Peter made this very argument to the multitudes in Acts 2, convicting them of crucifying the Messiah, but pointing out that God raised Him from the dead.

God prophesied these events would happen

In Acts 2 Peter quoted the prophecy of Joel and the statements of David to show that these events concerning Jesus had been foretold by God hundreds of years earlier. Peter does not make a direct quotation at this point, but does tell the multitudes in the temple complex that these things had been spoken by all of God’s prophets.

We will return to this point later as there are two other things that were to take place when the Messiah came that was predicted by God’s prophets. But Peter decides it is enough at this point to remind the people that God’s prophets spoke of the Messiah’s suffering.

Repent

Since they are the ones that crucified the Savior and Son of God, the people needed to do something based upon their actions. In verse 19 Peter says, “Therefore, repent….” Peter says it is time to turn back to God. I have always found it interesting that Peter says “Repent and turn back.” We often define repentance as turning back, and if that is case, then Peter is being redundant. Repentance has to do with the change of mind, will, focus, and purpose. It was time for the people to change their focus and purpose to live for God. The “turning back” is the action backing up the mental change. Another way to understand Peter’s language is to repent and flee to God. We are to move ourselves closer to God, as God has commanded “Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.“

This is a necessary step for salvation. Peter had already preached repentance in Acts 2 to another audience and now in Acts 3 he preaches its necessity again. This is how our sins will be wiped out: by changing our focus in life to serve and obey the Lord. The image that Peter uses here is a beautiful one where our sins are described as being wiped away. In Acts 2 Peter described God passing forgiveness upon our sins. In Acts 3 Peter describes God wiping our slate clean from sins. Our past is completely wiped clean when we come to God in repentance.

Restoration

If you recall in Acts 2 Peter said to the multitudes that there was more to be received than the forgiveness of sins. Peter also said, “and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In Acts 3 Peter does not simply tell the people they can have their sins wiped clean. Peter says, “that your sins may be wiped out so that season of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus, who has been appointed Messiah for you. Heaven must welcome Him until the times of the restoration of all things, which God spoke about by the mouth of the His holy prophets from the beginning” (Acts 3:19-21).

There is much said that is taking place in this section of scripture. But the scripture is the best commentary upon itself and we will consider the context of Peter’s words to get a handle on what Peter means here in Acts 3:19-21. The first key is in verse 21 where Peter says that these things have been spoken about by God’s holy prophets from the beginning. Peter proves this by quoting Moses in verses 22-23. Did Moses ever prophecy about the second coming of Christ? Did the Old Testament prophets predict the second coming of Christ? Many people understand Peter to be preaching that the people needed to repent because Jesus will not return a second time until the restoration of all things take place. Of course, they will argue the restoration of all things is the restoration of the nation of Israel and the establishment of God’s government in Jerusalem so the premillennial end times theory can begin. But the prophets never spoke of the second coming of Christ. Moses certainly did not and Peter does not use a quotation concerning Moses that has anything to do with the second coming.

Further, our second key is in verse 24 where Peter says that all the prophets have spoken about these things. Every single one of God’s prophets spoke of these days when the seasons of refreshing would come and the times of restoration would take place. We must ask ours elves a very important question: what common theme did all the prophets speak? Peter says all the prophets, even from the very beginning, spoke about these things. Whatever they were speaking about is the answer to what Peter means in verses 19-21 of Acts 3.

All of the prophets spoke about the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom He would set up. All of the prophets spoke of the blessings that would come to those in God’s kingdom when the Messiah came. All of the prophets spoke of the judgment that would come upon the disobedient when the Messiah came. That is what Peter is quoting in Acts 3:22-23. Moses said that God would raise up a prophet like Him from among the people. The One would be the Messiah. The people had to listen to what he said, and if they did not, those people would be completely cut off from the kingdom.

So what is Peter saying in Acts 3:19-21? The same thing he said in Acts 2. The Messiah has come and all the prophets said He would come. The prophets also told us that when He came there were going to be great blessings poured out on all the people who were His and there was going to be great destruction and judgment upon those who did not obey. It was time for the people to be restored to God. This would be the restoration or establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah. The people had previously violated the covenant with God and had been cut off. The Messiah had now come and these were the times for the people to be restored to God. This is also what the apostles were asking about in Acts 1:6, “Lord, at this time are You restoring the kingdom to Israel.” Now the restoration of Israel was taking place. This was the seasons of God’s blessings and it was time return and be restored to God or experience the judgments.

Key in on verse 23 again. “And it will be that everyone who will not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.” Peter is preaching the same judgment to this audience that he preached in Acts 2.

God’s blessings

Remember we also saw in Acts 2 that Peter spoke about the blessings that would come upon all flesh, as Joel prophesied. Peter ends with this promise of blessings upon all God’s people again.

Verse 25 says, “You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your forefathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed.’ God raised up His Servant and sent Him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your evil ways.“

This is the description of the great blessings that God was pouring out upon them. (1) They are children of the prophets. The prophets were chosen by God to deliver a message. The people who would obey are also chosen by God. (2) They were given a covenant that God fulfilled. God promised that in Abraham’s seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. When we read of God’s promises, this is the great one that the people of Israel were looking for. I believe this is the same promise described in Acts 2 where Peter told the people “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for the promise is to you, to your children, and to all those who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39). What promise was given that was to the people of Israel and to peoples far off that had not been fulfilled yet? I submit to you it is this promise in Acts 3:25 that all the nations of the earth would be blessed. That promised has now been fulfilled and the people of Israel were the first to experience this great blessing, as verse 26 points out.

This was the time the prophets were pointing to. Peter reminds them that the Messiah was going to bring two things: the blessings of the God to those who obeyed and the judgments of God to those who disobeyed, just as Moses said. Peter is telling the people that it is not only about having their sins wiped out because of what they have done. It is the fulfillment of God’s promise that the Messiah has come through their people and first to their people offering God’s hand of blessings, fellowship, restoration, and partakers in the kingdom of God. God had established His kingdom and those in this audience, as well as all who heard this message, can become sons of God, heirs of God, and fellow partakers in the blessings that God bestows on His children. After suffering the silence of God for over 400 years as God had cut His people off, the arm of the Lord had now been extended to all the world that whoever would obey Him can be a child in the house of God, with all the privileges of sonship. No wonder the people were so excited to hear this great news and we must also be excited to know all that we have in Christ when we obey Him.

Conclusion:

How would you like to have your sins wiped out? How would you like the barriers that keep you from being in fellowship with God removed so that you can talk to God and know He will answer? How would you like to call the Almighty One who created all things your Father? Would you like God to be with you as you live day to day, as He gives you hope, strength, and encouragement? God set up His kingdom and it is time for us to be citizens of our heavenly calling.

To have these things we must do as Moses said: listen to Jesus and do as He says. If we will not listen, then we will be cut off the people of God and destroyed. Come to God today and repent (change your focus and submit to the will of God) and be baptized. Only then will you called a child of God and have true life now and eternally in heaven.

Salvation Is In No Other Name

(Acts 4:1-22)

Brent Kercheville

Acts 4 continues with the story we considered in Acts 3. Recall that Peter and John have encountered a man who has been lame from birth on their way to the temple to pray. Peter and John heal the lame man who begins to walk, leap, and praise God all throughout the temple complex. This has brought a crowd around Peter, John, and the lame man.

Peter uses the opportunity to preach to the multitudes that this miracle was performed by the power of Jesus, whom they crucified, but God raised from the dead. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Moses that a prophet would rise up from among them like him (Acts 3:22-23) and fulfilled the promise to Abraham that in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (Acts 3:25). Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made by God through all the prophets. This leads us into chapter as we continue this scene.

Arrested In The Temple Complex

(Acts 4:1-4)

The arrest

Notice that what we read in Acts 4 takes place while Peter and John are teaching the people. We have the tendency to think that Peter and John have walked away and that the Jewish leaders make a quiet arrest. But that is certainly not the case. Peter and John are in the middle of preaching Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophets, when notice who comes in. Verse 1 says the priests, the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees confronted them. This would also have been very disruptive as the all of these men would have to move through the crowd to get to Peter and John.

Why did the priests and the Sadducees care about Peter and John? We see that they were provoked and greatly disturbed because they were proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Now we see why the Sadducees cared. It is interesting that there is no mention of the Pharisees at this point, but the Sadducees who denied the possibility of a resurrection. They are also the controlling power of the Sanhedrin council.

The Sanhedrin met on the grounds of the temple complex. This commotion that Peter and John are causing would have taken place only feet or yards away from where the Sanhedrin resided. Peter and John were teaching in front of the very authorities that had the power to arrest them.

Therefore, the priests and the Sadducees have the temple guards arrest Peter and John and throw them into prison until the next day. Notice the scriptures say that the reason they remained in prison till the next day was because it was already evening (verse 3). This is according to Jewish law that no trials be held at night, a law that was broken with the arrest and trial of Jesus.

This arrest was probably not surprising to Peter and John. Jesus had predicted that His apostles would endure such treatment. “But you, be on your guard! They will hand you over to sanhedrins, and you will be flogged in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of Me, as a witness to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all the nations. So when they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand what you will say. On the contrary, whatever is given to you in that hour—say it. For it isn’t you speaking, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:9-11). Very quickly after Jesus’ death, the apostles are experiencing that which Jesus prophesied.

The people’s response

Now, imagine if you had been there as one among the crowd hearing Peter preach. You have seen the lame man be healed, who has been walking, leaping, and praising God. However, you have also just witnessed Peter and John’s arrest and seen them be put in prison. What would you do?

Perhaps some of us would go home. Clearly, listening to these men was rather dangerous. Who would want to follow Peter and John who have just been thrown in prison for the night and would stand trial the next day? Instead, we see many believing the words Peter spoke that day.

But let us see that the faith of these people is greater than this for Peter and John were not the only ones arrested. While we do not know if arrested or if he simply went to be by their side, the lame man has gone with them also (verse 9, 14). Perhaps the temple guard also arrested the lame man so as to get the people to quit talking about this. If so, how brave of these people in the multitude to still believe in the name of Jesus and become Christians. And if the lame man was not arrested, what great faith the lame man exhibits that he is going with Peter and John wherever they go because of the great work that has been accomplished upon him. He is willing to go to the trial with Peter and John because of what has been done to Him by the power of Jesus Christ. It is a marvelous scene.

The Trial of Peter and John

(Acts 4:5-22)

The interrogation

The next day comes and it is time for the trial. The rulers, elders, scribes, and the whole high priest family assemble in Jerusalem for the trial. Just to keep the image in your mind, the Sanhedrin council numbered to about 70 people, so you can see how greatly outnumbered and how intimidating this situation is to Peter and John.

Peter and John must stand before the council and the council asks, “By what power or in what name have you done this?” They want to know where Peter and John received their authority for what they have done. This is a proper question. Who gave you this power to heal the lame man? Who gave you the authority for what you are doing because it certainly was not from the Sanhedrin?

The response

Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus in Mark 13:9-11, and begins his defense. But do you see that this is not so much a defense of themselves as it is another opportunity to preach Jesus? Peter and John do not appeal to the law about how they have a right to teach in the complex or some other legal argument to be freed. This is about having a chance to teach the Jewish leaders the truth about Jesus.

Peter begins by pointing out that if the only reason they are standing trial is because of the good deed done to the disabled man, then know the work was accomplished by the authority of Jesus the Messiah. But that is not quite how Peter says it. Peter says that they healed this lame man by the authority of Jesus the Messiah, “whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead.” Peter says that they killed Jesus, who is the Messiah, but God raised Him back to life.

Next, Peter quotes Psalms 118:22 and applies the message to Jesus. The Jewish leaders were to be the builders of God’s nation, but they rejected this stone whom God has made the cornerstone. Further, there is no other authority given to people by which we can be saved. Salvation is in no other person. Peter is saying that they crucified the one and only savior of Israel. There will not be deliverance found in any other person. There is no future Messiah and you killed the Holy One of God.

This statement made by Peter is just as true today. There is no other name by which we can be saved. When Peter said those words, he meant there is no other authority where salvation can come from. To do something in someone’s name is to perform that action by their authority. Jesus is the authority to salvation. There is no salvation to be found in Buddah, Muhommed, Islam, or any other person or religion that does not teach that Jesus is the Son of God raised from the dead. To claim salvation in any other name on the day of judgment will be fruitless and will not save our souls.

The verdict of the Sanhedrin

The response of the Sanhedrin is certainly interesting after this powerful speech made by Peter. The council observed the boldness of Peter and John and realized they were uneducated and untrained men in the law of Moses. But the council also realized that these men had been with Jesus. Perhaps verse 14 is my favorite part of this story, “And since they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in response.” What can be said! The lame man is healed and it cannot be denied because he is standing right there. Peter and John claim it is the power of Jesus that the council killed about a month and a half back who has made the lame man whole. What are you going to say to that?

So the council sends Peter and John out of the courtroom and begin to discuss the matter among themselves. Notice what they say to each other: “what should we do with these me? For an obvious sign, evident to all who live in Jerusalem, has been done through them, and we cannot deny it!” This should have been enough. If the evidence is undeniable then we ought to believe what was said. But the hardhearted priests, Sadducees, and elders would not change their hearts.

To prevent this from spreading among the people, they call Peter and John in, threatening them and ordering them to not preach or teach at all in the name of Jesus. We must realize that the threats of the Sanhedrin were not empty. It was this very council that handed Jesus over to Pilate for death. This council had the power of the Jewish nation behind it. When the text say that the council threatened Peter and John, we need to envision how real those threats were. They were threatening their lives if they kept preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus.

The response of Peter and John

Notice that Peter calls upon the Sanhedrin’s ability to judge matters. In essence Peter is saying, “You all are the judges, decide this matter: is it right in the sight of God to listen to you or to listen to God.” What a powerful argument! Peter has noticed that the council cannot refute that this miracle was done by the power of Jesus. It is undeniable. So Peter says to them, who should we listen to: you or God?

Peter continues by saying, “for we are unable to stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Basically, how can we stop teaching about this because a notable miracle has been performed. Not only the miracle of the lame man, but the miracle that God raised Jesus from the dead. How can they not speak about these things.

Verse 21 says that the council threatened Peter and John further. Again, we need to realize the severity of the threats these two men were receiving. These were not empty threats or vain commands. But, for the time, the council found no way to punish Peter and John, implying that they wanted to impose judgment upon them there. But what could they say that Peter and John had done against the law of Moses? Nothing could be said “because the people were all giving glory to God over what had been done.” They could not kill Peter and John for blasphemy or conjure up any other charge because the event caused the people to praise God. Finally we are told that the lame man was over 40 years old when he was healed. Thus, this truly was a notable miracle.

Applications

Should we listen to God or listen to men?

Friends, who should we listen to: God or men? The authority rests with God and not with people. Should we listen to men who claim the world was created by natural forces over long spans of time or to God who said He spoke the world into existence? Should we listen to men who claim that hell is only reserved for the really bad of this world or to God who says that all who do not obey Him will be punished? Should we listen to me who claim that salvation is by merely praying certain words or to God who said to repent and be baptized?

Peter and John did not cave into the pressure of these powerful men. The council said that Peter and John had their teaching all wrong. Peter and John said we need to listen to the word of God and not men. Those honest in heart will realize that we must listen to God and not what men say. If any man says anything that is contrary to what we read in the scriptures, then we cannot listen to that man but must obey God.

Salvation is found in the power of Jesus alone

We cannot find salvation in another other authority or in any other book. Salvation is not found in other religions. But let me bring this closer to home: salvation is not found in our name or authority.

Most of the religious world, while claiming to follow the scriptures, are actually following their own authority. When we ignore the clear teaching of the scriptures concerning salvation requiring confession, repentance, and baptism, we are claiming that salvation can be found in our own wisdom. When we justify our actions based not on the scriptures, but because we think God will not care, it is not a big deal, or some other reason, we are placing the power of salvation in our knowledge and not on Jesus.

Since Jesus is the authority, we must be saved by His conditions

Jesus has all power and authority in heaven and on earth. We cannot change or distort that Jesus has said we must do for salvation. Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Jesus’ conditions are very simple.

You may believe you are a follower of Jesus but have not been baptized. If you have not been baptized, you are not saved because baptism is one of the conditions of salvation. You may have be baptized, but have not fully repented from your sins and continue to remain in sin. You are not saved because repentance is one of Jesus’ conditions for salvation. Let us be sure we have obeyed all the conditions our Lord stated for salvation: believe, repent, confess, and be baptized.

Boldness To Serve

(Acts 4:23-37)

Brent Kercheville

Picking up in our study of Acts, previous in chapters 3 and 4 we saw Peter and John heal the lame man who was sitting at the beautiful gate of the temple complex. The Jewish leaders arrest Peter and John because they preached that this miracle was performed through the power of Jesus Christ, whom the Jewish leaders had killed. The Sanhedrin, the ruling power over the Jewish people, threatened Peter and John and commanded them to no longer preach in the name of Jesus. Peter and John respond that they must obey God rather than obey the words of men.

The Sanhedrin was unable to do anything at this time to the apostles besides threaten them because the people were glorifying God from the miracle that had been performed. There was no basis upon which the Sanhedrin could detain Peter and John. This is where we pick up in the scene as we now read Acts 4:23-37.

Boldness To Trust God

(Acts 4:23-31)

Reporting to their own

Once Peter and John were released, they went back to their own company and reported all that had happened to them and all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. As we saw last time, it is not unreasonable to think that when the scripture says the chief priests threatened Peter and John that they threatened the loss of their lives. Now Peter and John are recounting their arrest and the threats that were made against them. The Sanhedrin has repeatedly warned them to no longer preach and teach in the name of Jesus (vs. 18). How frightening it must have been for the rest to hear what had happened to Peter and John. This same Sanhedrin had arrested Jesus in the middle of the night, held a kangaroo court, turned Jesus over to the Romans and had Him killed. Now, the Sanhedrin has turned its attention on the disciples of Jesus.

It is evident that the company of believers were unnerved at the hearing of what had taken place to Peter and John. In verse 24 we read the response of the company when Peter and John complete their story. Carefully notice how these disciples respond to what the Sanhedrin has done, for their response is not the response I believe most of us would have expressed.

First, the whole company turns to God in prayer, noting the power and authority of God in this world. The company recognizes that this is the fulfillment of what David spoke in Psalms 2. Notice their great faith by quoting this psalm. They are saying that what leaders of the Jews and the Romans are doing is vain and worthless. They have gathered themselves against the plans of the Lord and will fail. In verse 27 we see that the disciples apply this psalm to Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel as the ones who have stood against God. The Anointed is the holy servant Jesus. Yet all of what has happened thus far has been according to God’s plan, determined from the beginning.

Second, in verse 29 the company of believers ask the Lord to look upon their threats and grant the disciple boldness to continue to speak the word of God and perform miracles, as was performed on the lame man. After praying this, the place was shaken, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they continue to speak the word of God boldly.

Trusting God

There is much to be impressed with from what has taken place in these verses. But I want us to see the boldness this company of believers had to trust God. Do not focus on the boldness that God offered them once they prayed. Rather, look at the boldness these Christians had to trust God to take care of this situation.

The disciples have their lives on the line if they are going to continue to serve God by speaking and teaching His name. The disciples do not pray that God remove these evil leaders so that they can safely continue teaching and preaching. The disciples do not give up and declare that they have done all they could but now it is against the law to preach Jesus. Instead, they prayed to God and left it in His hands.

Do you and I would have the boldness to trust in the Lord to the degree that in the fact of threats of death we would rely upon God to take care of us? Or would we be simply frantic? I am impressed that these disciples, while certainly shaken by the news Peter and John report, request boldness and ask God to look upon these who are foolish enough to stand against the plans of God.

There is at least one stated reason why the disciples were able to have the boldness to trust in God. They realized that God was in charge and realized that God would be victorious. Their prayer begins by stating that God has all rule and authority and is creator of all things. When we remember that God is in control, then I no longer have to trust in myself nor worry about what may or may not happen. I can know with confidence that everything is in the hands of the creator of this world. He has more power and more knowledge than I have to deal with any circumstance we may find ourselves.

We must also realize, as these disciples realized, that no one can stand against God and prevail. The disciples had no need to fear Herod, Pilate, the Sanhedrin, or any other persecutor because plotting against the will of God is vanity. There is nothing more futile in life than to plan against God or live without God. We can have boldness to face the trials and tribulations of life when we have the Lord on our side. We can have boldness to speak about God because in the end no one will stand against the Lord and His Anointed. I believe the question of the psalmist, as quoted in this text, is worthy of our consideration. Since God is all-powerful and almighty creator, why do we conspire and rage against God? Why do we plot futile and vain things? If we are not planning and working according to the purposes of God, we are wasting our time and our lives on this earth. Realization of this fact gives us boldness to stand against those who stand against God.

Boldness To Be United

The scene

In verses 32-35 we read more about the unity of the multitude of believers in the first century. The end of verse 32 sums up well the nature of the believers, "they had everything in common." The first century Christians shared all that they had with one another. Notice all that is described in this text that these believers had in common.

First, they were of one heart and soul. The believers were joined together relationally. Their hearts were joined together where there was a deep care and concern for each other. Their lives were joined together. They were not mere acquaintances who met together on Sundays. They had a joint participation in each others’ lives.

Second, "no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own." Not only were the believers joined together in heart and soul, but they were also joined together financially. They were willing to take care of another and help the believers who had need. Nothing was held back, but possessions were sold to help take care of these believers.

Third, they were joined in the grace of God. Through their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and their obedience to the will of God, these believers experienced the grace of God in their lives. We have a commonality in Christ that we can share with one another. There is no deeper connection than the spiritual bond and foundation we have with one another.

Boldness to unite together

It is not an easy step nor a simple step to become united together to the degree that we read about these first century Christians becoming unified. It is easy to simply give the friendly "hi" and "how are you" salutations to one another on a weekly basis. But we have a greater challenge to become united together in heart and in mind, such that we can say that we have all things in common with one another. What prevents us from being joined together like these Christians?

Lack of time together. One of the first problems we encounter is that we are not spending enough time together. We cannot get to know each other by talking to each other a couple minutes a week as we pass through the doors. We need to attend every service so that we can grow together and be joined together. I know I am more closely knit with those who I see on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night, and Friday night, than I am with those who I only see on Sunday morning. We not only need to meet together for our schedule worship hours, but we also need to make time together for time to socialize.

Lack of trust. We need more time to socialize together so we can begin to trust one another. We do not trust mere strangers. It takes time to build and cultivate friendships. Only time together and thoughtfulness while together can help bring down the walls and barriers so that we can begin to have all things in common.

Lack of desire. I think another we do not meet this New Testament example is because we do not want to be like them. We are perfectly happy doing our own thing, keeping our own schedules, and worrying about ourselves to have to deal with working out being with other people. We are too busy and too tired to want to be joined with other people. Sometimes we just want to be left alone instead of wanting to be joined together.

But we are reading about a group of Christians that became a family together, sharing in all things and having all things in common. It requires boldness on our part to open ourselves up so that others can get to know who we really are. It requires boldness for us to open up our schedules to spend time with other people when we would rather just stay at home and rest. It requires boldness to open our homes and have people into our lives where we show an acceptance and love for each other. God has not allowed us to become closed off from the world or from our brethren. Let us be sure to do more to facilitate our need for fellowship together so that we can become a model for Christianity as these Christians were in the first century.

Boldness To Encourage

A man named Joseph

As we draw to the close of chapter 4 we read about a man named Joseph. However, the apostles did not call him Joseph, but rather "encouragement." Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus who also sold a field and laid the money at the apostles’ feet. We are not told in this passage the reason why Joseph was called "encouragement." We do not get to hear any of his encouraging words.

But we must marvel at the fact that this man clearly made it his mission to be an encouragement to those around him. Encouraging was the model of his life, so much that no one called him by his given name anymore, but simply called him the son of encouragement.

Boldness to encourage

I would also like for us to consider the boldness that is required to be a man like Barnabas. It takes boldness to take it upon ourselves to be ones who will be an encourager of the saints. We take the low road when we become nags and knit-pick at each other. We are like the world when we question people’s motives, try to find faults, and look to tear others down.

It takes a true Christian to not give into the ease of murmuring and complaining and instead becoming an encourager. Instead of seeing faults and using the fault against, see the fault and help them overcome the fault. What a difference our relationships would experience if we used our weaknesses to help each other instead of hurt each other. Why do we think it is our duty to find out what other people’s problems are? Why do we think it has been given to us to find faults with others and begin to swirl problems and difficulties?

Why will we not be like Barnabas and try to help the person excel and become a better Christian? We show great boldness and true faith in God when we help people overcome obstacles rather than become their obstacles. We act cowardly when we would rather talk to others about the weaknesses of others rather than go to the person and help him or her do better where they are failing.

All of us need courage put into our lives. I do not think there is anyone here who would say they do not need encouragement. So let us be those kinds of people who will put courage into one another. Let us look to build each other up and not tear each other down. Let us look to help and find fault. Let us do good to others even when they have wronged us.

Conclusion:

There are three areas of boldness that we see in the closing section of Acts 4. We must first begin with having the boldness to trust in God. We cannot help others and be disciples of God when we have not put our full reliance upon God. Trust in God to carry you through your trials and difficult circumstances. Jesus told us that we have no reason for worry when we put our faith in Him.

Second, we need to have the boldness to have all things in common with each other. God did not leave us to be by ourselves and do God’s will. He has commanded us to meet together and be joined together so that we can grow as individuals and as a congregation. We must dedicate ourselves to lower our defense and not creating fences that keep each other at arm’s distance.

When we do that we can become the encouragers that God wants to be. We can be like Barnabas who saw the good in others and tried with all their might to help others reach the goal of spiritual maturity in the Lord. Let us not be cowards who find faults, but have the boldness to encourage each other to do better.

Struck Dead By God

(Acts 5:1-11)

Brent Kercheville

As we begin the fifth chapter of Acts, it is important that we recall what has taken place in the previous chapter. The information of chapter 4 is going to be contrasted with a story told in chapter 5. Remember in chapter 4 that Peter and John were arrested for preaching Jesus in the temple complex. However, the Sanhedrin could not hold Peter and John over because a notable, undeniable miracle had taken place and all the people were praising God.

After threatening Peter and John, the Sanhedrin let them go where they returned to their own company. The company prayed for boldness and continued to have all things in common, distributing their goods and possessions to any believer who had need. This fellowship and devotion to one another was exemplified in a man named Joseph, whom the apostles renamed “son of encouragement” or Barnabas. As chapter 4 closes, Barnabas sold a field that he owned, brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. Notice that chapter 5 begins with the word “but.” The group of believers had all things in common, are encouraging one another, and selling their goods to help with the needs of other believers. But now we come across a husband and wife named Ananias and Sapphira.

Acts Chapter 5

The story

Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and he decides to keep back part of the proceeds. Sapphira is fully aware that Ananias has chosen to do this. Ananias comes and lays the money at the disciples’ feet.

Peter keys on this and asks Ananias why Satan has filled his heart to life to the Holy and to keep back for himself part of the proceeds of the land. Let us deal with some of the statements that are made here by Peter. First, the text is not saying that Satan overtook Ananias so that he had no choice but to lie. We see that Ananias and Sapphira willfully began this conspiracy. Peter is asking why he would fall into Satan’s trap by lying.

Second, many people misunderstand the condemnation of Ananias. Some think that the sin was keeping some of the money back and that Ananias was required to give all the proceeds he had received from the property. But if we continue to read the story we will see that is clearly not the case.

Peter, in verse 4, argues that Ananias could have done with the money as he chose. The first sentence, “while it remained unsold, did it not remain your own” shows that Ananias did not have to sell the property in the first place. The property was theirs and did not have to be sold. Peter’s next sentence, “and after it was sold, was it not at your disposal” shows that even though they did sell the property, they could have done with the proceeds as they wished. The sin was not in holding some of the money back. Verse 4 clearly identifies the sin, “You have not lied to men but to God.“

What did they lie about? Though it is not explicitly stated, it is evident that Ananias lied that they gave all the proceeds from the selling of the property, when in fact, they had held some of the money back. Ananias was not condemned for keeping some of the money. However, he is condemned for lying about what was given. As soon as Ananias hears these words, he falls down and breathes his last. Immediately great fear came upon all who had heard what had happened.

Now about three hours goes by and Sapphira, the wife of Ananias, comes into the group, not knowing what has previously happened. Peter simply asks her if they sold the property for a certain amount. She says yes and is caught in her lie as well. Peter notes that Sapphira and Ananias had conspired together in this act of lying to God. Immediately she fell down and his feet and died. Therefore, great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. Have you asked yourself why Ananias and Sapphira lied about this? What is the benefit of lying about what they sold the property for? Before we answer this question, I would like us to consider a couple other instances where God struck people dead.

Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3)

The beginning of Leviticus is God’s commands about how the sacrifices were to be presented and offered. Nadab and Abihu come before the Lord and offer unauthorized fire before the Lord. Because they offered fire which was not commanded, fire came from the Lord and consumed.

Now, notice the reason why this happened, as Moses gives the explanation in Leviticus 10:3. “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.” What was the point Moses was making? When we try to do things our way, we are glorifying ourselves and not God. God must be glorified in all we do.

Korah and 250 Israelites leaders (Numbers 16:1-35)

In Numbers 16:1-35 we read about Korah and some of the Israelite leaders who are upset that Moses and Aaron are in charge. They rebuke Moses saying that he has gone too far by exalting himself above the whole assembly (16:3). We see the charge again in 16:13, “Do you also have to appoint yourself as ruler over us?” Now, who had appointed Moses as their leader? God had done so.

Korah and the leaders were complaining that they were not in charge. They wanted the glory that they felt Moses and Aaron were receiving as the leaders of the assembly. In verses 31-35 God validates that Moses and Aaron were His chosen people to lead them through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. The desire for the glory from men got in the way.

Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)

Even when we have good intentions, when we do not do as God has commanded, we are usurping the power and glory of God and attempting to place it upon ourselves. Uzzah had excellent intentions of preventing the ark of the covenant from falling of the cart. But God had commanded that no one was allowed to touch the ark and only the sons of Kohath could touch the poles the carry the ark.

God struck Uzzah dead for touching the ark of God against the command of God. God takes His commands seriously. God expects us to keep His commands and when we do not, we are claiming glory for ourselves.

Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5)

Now let us come back to our story in Acts 5 with Ananias and Sapphira. Let us ask the question that we posed a little while back: why did Ananias and Sapphira lie? They wanted the glory of giving the proceeds from the property they had sold. They wanted the believers to be impressed that they would give all of the proceeds from the land they sold. It causes me to think that Ananias and Sapphira may have sold a more expensive piece of property and what they were giving would have been impressive to these new Christians.

As we tie this event back to the ending of Acts 4, it may even be that Ananias and Sapphira were trying to trump what Barnabas had done. This may have become an effort to “one-up” Barnabas so that people would look at the great work that Ananias and Sapphira had done. The temptation had been placed for self-exaltation. This was something they could do so they could really impress the congregation in Jerusalem. They wanted the glory of the people.

We may not realize it but many times our rebellion and temptation comes from our desire to be glorified by others. We want other people to recognize us, know what we have done for others, so that people can be impressed with our Christianity. We see this within Saul who did not utterly destroy the Amalekites as God had commanded. According to 1 Samuel 15:30, Saul’s desire was that he receive honor from the elders and from the people. From this story of Ananias and Sapphira, along with the other people whom God struck dead, I would like to offer for ourselves three applications.

Applications

God punishes what we would call “trivial” offenses

Have you ever considered the sins that these people died for? Would you not expect that the sins committed where God struck that person dead were grievous, major sins? Yet that is not the case at all.

What did Nadab and Abihu do wrong? They used the wrong kind of fire. That does not seem like a big deal to us. In fact, we would surely call it a trivial offense. What did Korah do wrong? He wanted to be in charge and thought Moses should not rule over them. We have that all the time, do we not? What did Uzzah do wrong? He tried to prevent the ark of the covenant from falling. Uzzah even had good intentions and was struck dead. What did Ananias and Sapphira do wrong? They lied about the price which they sold their land.

Do any of these sins seem monumental in your mind? Did you notice that none of them were murderers or adulterers or thieves? These are sins that we could rationalize in our minds. In fact, some of these we may not have considered sins at all. What is the big deal to use a different fire? Shouldn’t Uzzah be allowed to touch the ark of God since it was falling? Korah was simply crying for balanced leadership and the power not reside in only one person. We can rationalize their actions easily and yet God killed all of them.

Take it a step further and consider that none of these people were “heathens” or “unbelievers.” All of these people were the people of God. Nadab and Abihu were priests of God. Korah was a leader in the Israelites community. Uzzah was an Israelite. Ananias and Sapphira were baptized Christians. God did not strike down the unbelieving murders and the heathen adulterers. It was the people of God who were punished.

There is nothing we can call “trivial” in the eyes of God. There is no command that we can come across in the scriptures and suggest that it is not a big deal to God. If things like where fire came from, lying, and touching something brought about the condemnation of death, then we would be foolish to trivialize any of God’s words. When God says something, He means it. We do not have the right to second guess how important it is to God. If He said it, then it must have been important. Are there any wasted pages in this book? Is there any place where God was wasting His breath or thought He needed to add some filler pages?

It seems clear in my mind that the reason God struck these people dead was to make a point to the community of believers. In fact, I believe the point God was making to those believers is the point we are making now. When God says something, He expects us to do it and to do it His way. It was the first act of worship for the priests when Nadab and Abihu altered the command of God. God wanted the people to know that this was not acceptable. God wanted the Israelites to know that they do not complain or go against God’s leaders, therefore God killed Korah and the 250 Israelite leaders. In the same way, God was making a point to the church with Ananias and Sapphira. God’s commands were to be taken seriously. It is easy for us today to want to discount these things because many of these events occur in the Old Testament. But notice that the severity of God was followed through here into the New Testament as well. God did not change His character toward us after the death of Jesus Christ. In fact, we have a greater responsibility to God because of the sacrifice that was made for us.

Let us not think that repentance from sins is not important to God. Let us not discount baptism as some sort of good idea. Let us never take any command that God has uttered and treat it with anything but great respect and awe. That is exactly what we read the church doing in Acts 5:11 as great fear comes upon them when they heard about these things. This is the attitude of holiness we must bring before God.

God must always be glorified

I believe there is an even greater principle working in these cases where God struck people dead. God was trying to teach us that He must always be glorified. Consider what Peter said, “ Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God; whoever serves must do so with the strength that God supplies, so that God may be glorified in all things through Jesus Christ. To him belong the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen ” (1 Peter 4:11).

Peter says when we speak, we need to be one speaking the very words of God. Peter says when we serve, we are serving with the strength that God supplies. Why do we need to speak as the very words of God and serve as God would serve? “So that God may be glorified in all things.” Everything that I do is to be for the glory of God. Everything I say and do ought to cause others to glorify God as well. Am I glorifying God when I disobey? Is God glorified when I discount His words?

We must see that this was one of the great problems with these people who were struck dead. Was Ananias and Sapphira glorifying God by lying to the apostles and the brethren about what they had sold their land for? Absolutely not. Was God glorified when Nadab and Abihu used a different fire than what God had authorized? Clearly not. Was God glorified when Uzzah with good intentions touched the ark even though Israel had been clearly commanded to never approach or touch the ark? By no means.

How serious God is about purity in our lives! God wants to see us rely on Him not rely on our own wisdom that we think we can loophole His commands! How often the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were binding their own laws and creating loopholes to God’s laws! The Mishnah and the Talmud are full of laws and regulations that God never authorized nor designed. Yet, the clear teaching of the word of God was being ignored. Which leads me to my final point:

Obedience, with the motive of personal glory, is disobedience

Ananias and Sapphira thought they were doing a great thing by selling their property and letting the proceeds go to needy Christians. This wonderful act of charity was condemned because their motive was personal glory.

Jesus said, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees will reward you” (Matthew 6:1-4).

The first verse gives the command of God that we do nothing in order to be seen by people. We must practice our righteousness but if our motive is to be glorified by others, then we have no reward from God. Verses 2-4 give us a practical example of this in the way they were giving in the first century. The Jews in the first century had created a way to let those on the temple grounds know they were giving much to the Lord. They made the treasury out of metal so that when the coins were dropped in, the noise would resonate through the complex so everyone would know they had given much. When we do anything that has the motive of personal glory, we are disobedient to God, even though our actions may be good. Our motives matter to the Lord.

Conclusion:

While God does not strike people down today for their error, we must learn the principles that God was trying to establish among His people. In our pursuit of holiness and godliness, let us not discount what God has told us we must do for Him.

Overall, let us strive to live in such a way that the glory of God can be seen in us such that others will look to God and glorify Him. In all things let us bring glory to our Father. (ESV)

Rejecting God

(Acts 5:12-42)

Brent Kercheville

In our study of Acts, we have seen the apostles strictly warned not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus. The Sanhedrin, which was the ruling power over the Jewish nation, had threatened Peter and John to stop what they were doing. The only reason the Sanhedrin did not hold Peter and John in prison was because the people were praising God because of the healing of the lame man.

We ended our study last time with the events surrounding Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit, and were struck dead by God. This event has brought great awe and fear on the whole church and all who heard of the matter.

The Story

Signs and wonders (Acts 5:12-16)

Luke records that many signs and wonders were being done among the people through the hands of the apostles. It is important that we see only the apostles are able to perform these works. We do not read about other Christians having these abilities up to this point. This ability to work miracles came upon the apostles in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the twelve.

We also notice that the apostles have ignored the threats of the Sanhedrin. The apostles are performing these signs in the temple complex. So powerful was the event that happened with Ananias and Sapphira that no one dared to join the apostles. It seems that the apostles would now be treated differently, perhaps no longer as common men, but with fear after what has happened. However, this is not to say that people were not becoming Christians, since verse 14 tells us multitudes of both men and women were being added to the Lord.

Verse 15 also shows us that the people were still coming to the apostles even though they feared what had taken place. In fact, the crowds would carry the sick out into the streets and hope that at least the shadow might fall on some of them. The people realized the power of God was present in these apostles, both positively and negatively. The positive is the healing power the apostles exercised on the sick and those tormented by unclean spirits. As verse 16 concludes, "all of them were healed." But the people also remembered the power of God as punishment upon evil, because they had seen Ananias and Sapphira struck dead by God. It seems that the people are believing and are carefully dealing with the apostles.

Back in prison (Acts 5:17-21)

The high priest is going to take action, as he and the Sadducees were filled with indignation. Remember, the high priest is Caiaphas, the one who saw to it that Jesus was condemned by Jewish trial and who handed Jesus over to Pilate. They are all filled with indignation because they have violated their command to no longer preach and teach. But word zelos also means jealousy. Why would the high priest and the Sanhedrin be jealous about what the apostles were doing? I think it is clear the Sanhedrin was upset that the people were listening and following the apostles and not them.

So they arrest the apostles and put them into the prison. But an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail during the night and brought them out. Notice what the angel tells the apostles: "Go and stand in the temple complex, and tell the people all about this Life." Do you think the apostles needed some encouragement after being arrested again? The angel gives it to them and tells them to go back into the temple complex and tell the people about Jesus. Therefore, the next morning the apostles go back into the temple complex and begin preaching to the people.

Apostles on trial (Acts 5:21-32)

Now the story becomes humorous to me. The high priest comes along with the whole Sanhedrin and they are ready to begin their trial of the apostles. They call for the officers to go to the prison and bring the apostles to them. So the officers go to the prison and did not find the apostles in the prison. So they return to the high priest and the Sanhedrin and tell them that they found the prison securely locked and the guards were standing by the doors, but when they went in to bring out the apostles, the apostles were not there.

So everyone is greatly perplexed. They are trying to figure out what happened and what this means. How is it possible that the apostles are not in the prison when the doors of the prison are still sealed and the guards are standing out front? Does this not sound like what Jesus was able to do, who raised from the dead and left the tomb, even though the tomb was sealed and there were guards in front of the tomb? One would imagine this parallel might be coming to the Sanhedrin’s mind.

While pondering this, someone comes running in and tells the Sanhedrin that the apostles are standing in the temple complex teaching the people. So the officers go and bring the apostles before the Sanhedrin, but not by force, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people. This statement again shows the favor the apostles had with the people. The people believed what the apostles were teaching and recognized their works as the power of God.

The apostles are brought in for trial and the high priest begins to question them. Notice the high priest says, "you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us." The high priest himself, along with other Jewish leaders and Jewish people, had said "His blood be on us and on our children." The blood of Jesus was on their heads. The apostles answer that they must obey God and not men. Further, God raised Jesus from the dead and the apostles and the Holy Spirit are witnesses of this resurrection.

Rejection in the face of truth

Before we go on in the story, I think it is important for us to stop and notice the key theme of this section of text. The high priest and the Sanhedrin refuse to see the truth. Consider all that the Sanhedrin has ignored up to this point.

First, the healing of the lame man was, in their own words, a notable miracle that no one could deny. The enemies of Jesus and His apostles had no alternative but to accept that the lame man had been healed. Peter and John declared that this miracle had been performed through the power of Jesus Christ, whom the Jewish leaders had crucified. However, they continued to reject God’s will.

Second, the apostles have been released by an angel of the Lord. The prison was secure and well guarded. When the officers go to bring the apostles to trial, they find the prison intact, but the apostles in the temple complex teaching. Instead of consider this notable miracle, the Jewish leaders continued to reject God’s will.

Third, the apostles are witnesses of the resurrection. Here we have twelve men who claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is nothing more powerful than eyewitness testimony. According to the law of Moses, upon the testimony of two or three men was something to be taken as fact. In this case, we have twelve men who claim to have seen the risen Lord. Yet the Jewish leaders continued to reject the will of God.

Fourth, the Holy Spirit is a witness of the resurrected Christ. The apostles are openly telling people that they are not able to perform these miracles by their own hands. These miracles are done through the power of the Holy Spirit, which was promised to be received by the apostles when Jesus resurrected and returned to the throne in heaven. Since the apostles are performing these miracles, the Holy Spirit has been sent by Christ who is ruling on the throne in heaven.

Fifth, Gamaliel gives some important advice to the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:34-42. The Sanhedrin is enraged and wants to kill these apostles. However, Gamaliel reminds the council that if something is of men, it will not last and will be overthrown. If the work is from God, then they may find themselves fighting against God. This is great council. The deeds of men will perish but the work of God will never be overthrown. So what does the council do? The council has the apostles flogged. The council does not care if they are fighting against God. They do not like these apostles because they are jealous of them, as noted earlier. Not only this, the council again charges the apostles to no longer speak in the name of the Jesus. However, the apostles go their way rejoicing and continuing to preach and teach Jesus as the Christ.

How We Reject God

Refusing to believe in the face of clear evidence

While we may read about these Jewish leaders and be appalled at how they were blind to the obvious facts, we must realize that we can do the same thing. We look at all of the evidence that made it clear the apostles were teaching the truth about the risen Christ and cannot understand why they would not become believers.

But we also can refuse to believe in the face of clear evidence. The same testimony rejected by the Sanhedrin is put before each of us to accept or reject. Jesus lived and died. This is a historical fact that is indisputable. There are hundreds of witnesses that saw the resurrected Jesus. If we had five people all give us the same eyewitness testimony about a crime a person committed, we would know beyond a shadow of a doubt the person was guilty. The scriptures tell us that there were over 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ. Yet many refuse to believe the clear evidence.

Do you believe that we can go down to the junk yard, pour gasoline on it, and light a match and expect to start producing automobiles? I am sure you would think I was crazy to make such a suggestion! Then why would you ever believe that the complexities of this world, with planets and solar systems, and with complexities of our own human body were created by explosion? It is the exact same principle. Show me an explosion and I will show you death and destruction, not life and organization!

Do you believe that things are evolving from a state of disorder to order, as theorized by evolution? Do you see anything today that goes from a state of disorder to order all by itself, without applied energy? If you do, then do not wash your car and do not clean your house, because over time it will clean itself! No, time causes things to go from a state of order to state of disorder. Our bodies are falling apart as we get older, which simply proves it. In fact, this is so proven, science has called it a universal law: the second law of thermodynamics. Yet we are supposed to believe that we evolved from monkeys who evolved from fish, who evolved from some sort of primordial ooze? The theory violates the law of universe. You must have greater faith to believe in scientific explanations for the origin of the universe than you must have believe in God.

Why refuse to believe in the face of clear evidence? The answer is easy to come by. Why did the Sanhedrin council refuse to believe? They did not want to accept Jesus as their Messiah. They did not care what the evidence was, that was something they would not believe. The only reason to not believe in God and that Jesus lived, died, and rose from dead is because you do not want to. You do not want to be subject to God. I submit to you there is no other answer. We are being stubborn and rebellious to God our creator, just as this Sanhedrin council was. We are just as condemned as they were if we maintain our rebellion.

Refusing to obey though we believe in God

The second way we can reject God is by not obeying His words and not submitting to His will. This is a state that, quite frankly, I do not understand. Once we accept the clear evidence that there is a God who created us and loves us, why would we refuse to obey Him? How can we say that we believe in God yet not do what He has told us to do? James addressed those in this state when he said, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe – and tremble! But do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? You see a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:19-20; James 2:24).

It is not acceptable for us to think that since we accept that there is a God and live a generally moral life that this is considered obedience. Jesus made this point clear, "No everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Hear Jesus’ words again, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). The story of the scriptures is not about convincing people there is a God. Most people already knew and believed that. The story of the scriptures is convincing people to obey God because He sent His Son to die so that we can be forgiven. Belief is not enough to God. Obedience is what God calls us to so that we can be in a relationship with Him. Baptism is the act where God says that He removes our sins and places us in a covenant relationship with Him (Colossians 2:11-14). Baptism is when God says He performs His work of grace upon us. There is no other point in time when someone can claim salvation. There is no other act that can be done to be right with God. Baptism is how we unite with Christ (Romans 6:1-4). To believe in God, but not obey, is again to be like the Sanhedrin in Acts 5. They believed in God, but refused to do what God asked. They were condemned and so are we for disobedience.

Refusing to accept the clear teaching of God’s word

The scriptures were clear that Jesus is the Christ. Jesus fulfilled every prophecy to show Himself for who He is. The Sanhedrin wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. They did not care that the apostles quoted Old Testament scriptures. They did not care that notable miracles were being performed. They did not care what the apostles said or did to try to prove their case, the Sanhedrin was going to believe what they wanted. They had their traditions and laws and they were going to keep them, even though God condemned them.

This is also a way that we reject God today. We refuse to accept the clear teaching of the scriptures. We want to believe in our own knowledge. Perhaps you have grown up with a particular teaching. Perhaps your family always believed a certain way about God or were part of a particular denomination or religion. Perhaps you have listened to the religious noise that the world generates, supposedly teaching what is in the Bible. We cannot hold on to any of those beliefs when it is contrary to the word of God. We cannot fight for our beliefs when our beliefs contradict the clear teaching of God’s word.

We can argue that God is love and will never punish people. But that is not what the scriptures teach. Jesus said in Matthew 25 that those who do not obey will be cast into eternal punishment and eternal fire. What good will it do to stand before God on the day of judgment holding on to false beliefs? What defense will we give before God? Will we say that we just did what our family taught us? Will we say that we liked another denomination or religion better? Will God accept our excuses? You and I have a responsibility to do what we know is right and be obedient to God.

What is keeping you from obeying God? Why would you continue to reject God through disobedience in the face of the clear evidence of His existence? Become a child of God by being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins today. Let me leave you with the words of Gamaliel. "For if this plan or this work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even be found fighting against God." Let us not fight against God.

Handling Congregational Problems

(Acts 6:1-7)

Brent Kercheville

As the apostles are continuing to teach and preach Jesus as the Christ daily in the temple and from house to house, the number of believers is growing in Jerusalem. The church has been multiplying as the people hear the gospel message that Jesus was sent by God, whom they crucified.

But, as with any group of people that adds more people to the mix, problems begin to arise. We sometimes call these problems “growing pains.” In Acts 6 we are introduced to the first conflict in a local congregation. The scriptures do not hide the problems that existed in those days, but lays bare the details of human failure. The widows of the congregation that had a Greek background and spoke the Greek language were being neglected in the distribution. So the charge was laid by the Hellenists against the Christians that spoke Hebrew and had a Hebrew background that they had neglected their widows, while apparently taking care of their own widows.

I think it is important for us to realize that even with the apostles around, there were bound to be congregational problems and conflicts. Even with inspired men through whom God spoke, we see that human nature takes charge and problems ensue. So, as much as in theory we all ought to act like Christians which would promote harmony, we must also realize we are human and strife will come. What we will consider in this lesson is how congregational problems were handled. What did the apostles do and what did they not do to resolve this serious problem in the Jerusalem church.

What Was Not Done

The apostles did not take over the work

An easy temptation for the apostles would have simply been to do the work themselves. Since the work was not being done properly and a certain group of people was being left out, the apostles could have went with the philosophy “if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.”

But the apostles realized something. It was not desirable for them to leaving the preaching and teaching of the word of God to make sure that the widows received their daily distribution. While it was important for the widows to receive their distribution, it is important that the apostles not forsake the talents they had to do something that others had the ability to accomplish. The apostles declared that they would continue to give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.

This teaches us an important principle. We as a congregation do not want our leaders doing tasks that other people can perform. We want them to spend their time using the abilities that others among us do not have. Too many times we complain that we want to see elders, deacons, preachers, or leaders to do something about a particular situation that ought to be taken care of by the one complaining or can be taken care of by another member in the congregation. We cannot afford to have talents wasted in areas that can be taken care of by others.

They did not throw out the ones who brought up the issue

It is interesting to see that the church in Jerusalem did not just say to the complainers that it is “our way or the highway.” There was not a “if you do not like it, go somewhere else.” The reason why was that this was an important fundamental matter. This was not a complaint about an expedience. This was a complaint that certain widows were being wronged on the basis of the scriptures.

We see that the use of wisdom and discernment is very important in these matters. Determining what issues must be addressed and what issues must be ignored is a great challenge as we see in the book of Nehemiah. But when charged with wrongdoing, instead of throwing out those who say such, we must examine if there truly is a problem and try to make a correction.

They did not shun or ignore the ones who brought up the issue

Another choice a church can make is simply ignore or shun those who bring up such controversy. We may not throw them out of the church, but we make their lives so miserable that they will want to leave. I have seen this happen on countless occasions, even among churches in the south Florida area. There is a group of people who want to make some scriptural changes in the work of the church. The majority of the group does not want to make the changes. So the group who wants to be active and make changes become the outcasts to the rest of the church. They are not invited to things and not longer have a fellowship with the whole body. It gets to be so bad that sometimes they are sitting in their own section in the building.

We do not see this as proper treatment of those with whom we have disagreement or dissension. We will have different views, beliefs, and ideas when we have a number of different people. We must understand that will happen and not try to make life miserable for others to the point they will leave because of our bad behavior. Are we really acting like Christians when we would consider using such a technique?

They did not take a vote

This is a common way to take care of things in churches today. We see some places call a meeting, have some people speak, and then let the majority rule. So we try to line up people to vote with us so that we can have a majority and get our way with the things that we want.

If we have the proper organization in a local church, there should not be an instance where voting would be considered. Elders are to make decisions for a local church. Voting can quickly lead to parties and schisms as we attempt to make our point of view pass.

They did not form a committee

Along the same lines, we do not see the apostles authorizing a committee or a commission to study to the problem and come up with solutions. This is the way our federal government tries to handle problems and we realize how ineffective the government is in solving any problems because of this technique.

What point is there to having a smaller group of people hashing out all the problems yet not have the authority to come to a solution? The elders of a local congregation have the authority to make decisions and without elders, we see here the whole congregation deciding. There is no other authority for making decisions than these two avenues: eldership and, when an eldership is lacking, congregational decisions.

The ones who brought up the issue did not start a new church

In the midst of this problem, we do not see the Hellenists go start a new church across the street or on the other side of Jerusalem. We do not see them forming the Hellenistic church and the Hebrew church. Doing such never seems to have come to the minds of the first century Christians.

Why are we so fast to want join other churches or start new churches when problems arise? Why do we think that this is a scriptural answer to handling congregational problems? I simply fail to see that answer given to us. I believe we need to work hard to find resolutions to any conflicts rather than simply pick up are marbles and leave. Worse yet, how often the threat of leaving is used as blackmail against a church. These are not Christian attitudes and ought never come out of a true disciples’ mouth.

I think it is important for us to consider the ways the apostles did not act in handling the congregational problem, because these seem to be the ways we want to handle any difficulty. We need to work out solutions, not create problems and tension.

What To Do

Determine a solution

This is a very profound thing that the apostles did. The apostles suggested a solution that pleased the whole multitude. Since this distribution was not receiving these widows, the apostles tell the congregation to appoint men who will make sure that the widows do receive the distribution. Do you think it is possible to come to a solution? Perhaps I am too idealistic and too young to know any better but I believe that we can find resolutions and come to the answers we need in the midst of problems. I believe we are supposed to be idealistic because we are to be acting like Christ!

Did you notice the names of the people that were chosen to serve in the distribution? Do they look like Hebrew names or Greek names? It appears that most, if not all, of these names are Greek. You see that the Hebrew Christians did not say that since we have a majority that there should be 4 Hebrew deacons and 3 Greek deacons! Neither side appears to have a chip on its shoulder nor did either side desire to have a fight. It was not about defending our rights but solving an important problem. This is the ideal that we are supposed to have: looking our for others’ interests ahead of our own (Philippians 2:4).

Again, I may be idealistic, but I believe every major controversy and division that has taken place could have been avoided if everyone involved had acted in the image of and followed the example of Christ. It is only when we demand that we do things our way that these divisions come up. How could the division over instrumental music been resolved? People had to realize that by forcing the use of the instrument would cause people to feel they were violating the scriptures and therefore not press the issue. There are things that I would like for us to do here that I do not suggest, knowing that some will find it a stumbling block. It is not worth pressing such things.

Let us get to a very real example. In California, in the church I grew up in, there was a great disagreement on divorce and remarriage. This is a very important doctrinal matter because of 1 Corinthians 5 that teaches we cannot allow open sexual sin to be practiced and remain part of the local church. Some believed that the only reason for divorce is sexual immorality and all other divorces and remarriages are condemned by God. Others believed that it is okay to divorce and remarry while not a Christian, but once becoming a Christian, one would have to keep their current spouse and not divorce again. The difference in view was a near 50/50 split. What should be done?

Should those with a more conservative viewpoint have thrown out those with a more liberal viewpoint? Some teach so today. Some brethren teach that if the other 50% did not change their mind, they would have to be withdrawn from. Should the conservative group shun or ignore the liberal group because of this difference? Should the liberal group go start a new church because they wanted to allow these people into the local church who had such marriages? Should a committee have been formed to discuss all the details concerning God’s law on divorce and remarriage?

You see that both sides would have to make a compromise while not compromising the scriptures. The people on the liberal side of the issue would have to not press their point of view, knowing that if they did, it would drive the conservative group away because they would feel they are practicing in sin. The people on the conservative side of the issue would have to not ostracize or try to throw out those who held a more liberal view. With this solution, neither side felt they were participating in sin. While both sides continued to discuss their differences and come to a common ground, both sides knew that they could not rock the boat or have an explosion of the congregation. It is only when someone forgets to look out for the best interests of the others that harmony is lost.

What good are the other options? Why would we want to throw out people who do not believe the way we do? If we were consistent, we would keep throwing people out until we were left with ourselves. My wife and I do not agree on every issue. Why do we think we have to cast off people who do not think the way we do? We are called to work together, to find solutions, and maintain the harmony and unity of the church while remaining sound in the word of God. It is possible if we want to work for such solutions.

Let the leaders keep working

Too many times when problems arise, leaders are forced to drop the important work they are doing to deal with other issues. The work of teaching lost souls, snatching weak brethren out of the fire, and edifying the saints are very important works. The shepherding and feeding of the flock is of great importance. The last thing we want to do is have our leaders become psychologists and therapists. The last thing we want is the elder spending time pulling weeds or evangelists sitting in hospitals.

The works that can be done by others must be done by others. The works that only evangelists, elders, deacons, and teachers can do must be done by them. A good eldership will delegate work to the congregation and not attempt to perform every task themselves. While this is not a call to arrogance, it is a call for us to recognize that we want our talents to be used efficiently. We do not practice walking on our hands because our feet can do the work. Our hands are left free for other important tasks. The same is true in the local church.

How we handle problems will determine our impact in the community

It does not take long for unbelievers and visitors to know that there is a problem within in local church. Strife and conflict can be seen and tension can be cut with a knife in congregations where there is no harmony or unity. We think that we can keep the problem to ourselves, but strife causes a drain of our resources. People who could be doing other important works are forced to deal with other things, which slows down the growth of the work.

Acts 6:7 says, “And the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” I do not think it takes much for us to realize that if a resolution had not be forthcoming, the word of God would not have spread and the number of disciples would not have multiplied because of the inner turmoil that would have continued to brew.

Too often problems cause us to become internally sighted instead of continuing to look out to the community to save souls. Again, we start thinking about ourselves in this local church and not about the people in the world who need our help and need to hear the message of the gospel and see that Christianity can be practiced the way God wants. We become more concerned about being right and winning arguments.

We are to be a light in the world. If we act like the world when problems come up, then what impact can we have? We need to be aware that problems will come along because of our human nature. We must be mindful as to how we act toward one another in such cases.

Conclusion:

Be like Christ at all times. It is amazing how often being Christ-like is thrown out the window when controversy arises. We bully, threaten, make a scene, and carry on in such a way that we completely damage the name of the Lord by calling ourselves disciples. There is no time when we can stop living like Jesus.

Always look for solutions. I believe solutions are available if we are willing to look for them and we are willing to surrender our rights for harmony. We can remain sound to the doctrine of Christ while realizing that we do not need to push our liberties on others.

The Murder of Stephen

(Acts 6:8 to Acts 7:60)

Brent Kercheville

The Arrest of Stephen

The conflict

In Acts 6:8 through the end of chapter seven we are going to find out some information about a man named Stephen. In Acts 6:5 we see that Stephen was a man selected by the church in Jerusalem to help with five other men to oversee the daily distribution to the Christian widows.

But Stephen’s job was not limited to the distribution to the widows. Stephen is evangelizing by performing great wonders and signs among the people. But some from the synagogue of the Freedmen began to dispute with Stephen. Scholars indicate that the Freedmen consisted of a class of Jews who previously worked as Roman slaves but had been set free.

However, these Jews were unable to stand up against the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. So what do people do when you cannot defeat the validity of another’s argument? In typical human nature, people attack the person. This is what these Jews, inducing men to say that Stephen had spoken blasphemous words against Moses and God. These Jews then stir up the people to cause a riot, such that the elders and scribes had Stephen arrested and taken before the Sanhedrin.

The false witnesses

In Stephen’s trial, false witnesses are presented, saying that he preached that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the temple complex and change the customs that Moses handed down to them. I think it is important to stop here and realize that the text tells us these were false witnesses. These words were not what Stephen was saying. The Jews misunderstood Stephen just like they misunderstood Jesus by thinking Jesus was saying the temple complex would be torn down and rebuilt in three days, but he was actually talking about His own body. Stephen was likely teaching something similar to what these false witnesses were saying. Stephen was likely teaching about the ending of the old covenant that was established by Jesus’ death and the warning of the destruction of Jerusalem.

At the end of chapter 6 we are told something rather unusual. When those in the Sanhedrin looked at Stephen, they “saw that his face was like the face of an angel.” What that means, we do not know. Did his face have some sort of glow like that of a spiritual being or as Moses’ face shone brightly after being on the mountain in the presence of the Lord? Did his face simply show confidence since he knew the truth and was preaching the word of God? Many suggestions have been given trying to explain this phrase. What we do know is there was some sort of visible change in his face that could be notice when looking intently at Stephen.

The Sermon of Stephen

History of Israel

As we begin chapter 7, the high priest (Caiaphas) asks Stephen if these charges are true. This is the central question posed to Stephen that he is asked to answer. I believe Stephen does answer these charges in a roundabout way as he retells the history of the people of Israel. Of course, these Jewish leaders were fully aware of their own history. Stephen is not speaking about their history as if these Jewish leaders are not aware of this information. Stephen tells these things as his defense of the charges laid against him by these false witnesses.

Stephen begins with the call of Abraham to leave his land and go to the promised land. However, Abraham did not receive the inheritance, but his descendants did which the Jews at that time were enjoying. The first key of this story is that God appeared to Abraham and fulfilled His promise.

Stephen then turns to the captivity of Israel in Egypt. Verse 9 is the key thesis to this next paragraph. “The patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt, but God was with him….” I find it interesting that Stephen does not say that it was Joseph’s brothers who sold Joseph. Stephen calls the brothers “the patriarchs.” The patriarchs were jealous and mistreat Joseph, but God was with him.

Next, Stephen transitions to the story of Moses. There are a couple of key points concerning Moses that Stephen brings to light. First, God appeared to Moses and therefore God was with Moses. But, the people would reject Moses. Read verse 25, “He assumed his brothers would understand that God would give them deliverance through him, but they did not understand.” Then, see Stephen’s emphasis on verse 27, “Who appointed you a ruler and judge over us?” Now move to verse 35-36 where Stephen makes the key point: Moses, whom the people rejected, was sent by God as a ruler and redeemer of the people. This same Moses said another would be raised up by God. Stephen goes further to show that even after the exodus, the people still rejected Moses and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. Because of the people’s disobedience, the people were deported to Babylon.

Finally, Stephen turns to the temple that was built by Solomon and points out the God does not dwell in sanctuaries made with hands, just as Isaiah prophesied. But there is another key to this statement. The temple was constructed because David found favor with the Lord and asked to build a permanent dwelling place.

Answering the charges

Now, how did this run through Israel’s history answer the high priest if the charges made by the false witnesses were true? Remember, the charges were that Stephen had blasphemous words against the holy place and the law.

Let us start with the charge of blaspheming against the holy place. What was the argument that Stephen presents to vindicate himself of this charge? I believe Stephen answered this charge in Acts 7:44-50. God does not dwell in sanctuaries made with hands. It is not possible to blaspheme the temple because God does not dwell there. Stephen cannot be speaking against God if he speaks about the destruction of the temple because God does not dwell in the temple. Heaven is God’s throne and the earth is God’s footstool.

Now, let us look at the charge of blaspheming against the law of Moses. What argument did Stephen present to vindicate himself of this charge? I believe Stephen’s argument is this: who are you to condemn me of blasphemy against the law when you do not keep the law yourselves! Your forefathers have not kept the law, but repeated rejected Moses. You have not kept the law and cannot condemn me of such a charge! This is clearly stated in verse 53, “You received the law under the direction of angels and yet have not kept it.“

Stephen’s three accusations

They were resisting the Holy Spirit, as they had always done. The first accusation Stephen presents to the Sanhedrin is that they had resisted the Holy Spirit (7:51). What did Stephen mean by this? I believe the answer is evident from the sermon. The Jewish leaders continually have disobeyed God. When God sent deliverers, they rejected God’s chosen deliverers. When God commanded what was to be done by the people, the leaders and people rejected that command. They were continually acting stubborn against God’s law and against God’s plans. In this way the leaders were rejecting the Holy Spirit.

They were persecuting and killing the prophets, as they always had done. The second accusation Stephen presents to the Sanhedrin is that they had been persecuting and killing the prophets of God. Stephen is certainly including himself in this accusation. Stephen is saying to the Sanhedrin that they had arrested him without cause and were going against him who had been ordained to do God’s work. Even more importantly, Jesus was implied in this accusation. Joseph, who delivered Israel through the famine, was rejected and mistreat by the patriarchs. Moses, who had been sent by God to deliver the people from slavery, was repeatedly rejected by the people. Jesus was sent by God to be their Savior and Deliverer and the leaders had rejected Him and killed Him. They killed the ones who announced the coming of the Messiah and they themselves have killed the Messiah Himself.

They are breaking the law of Moses, as they had always done. The third accusation Stephen presents to the Sanhedrin is that they were breaking the law of Moses, just as the people had always done. For all of their zeal to persecute violators of the law of Moses, Stephen points the finger at them and warns them that they are the ones violating and blaspheming the law. Moses predicted a prophet would rise up like Him and the leaders killed Him.

Reaction of the Sanhedrin

After saying these words, those who heard these words were enraged and gnashed their teeth at him. As this is happening, Stephen gazes into heaven and sees the glory of God with Jesus standing at His right hand. Stephen exclaims, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!“ What did Stephen just say? Stephen just exclaimed to the Jewish leaders that Jesus is alive, in heaven, and in favor with God at His right hand. The one whom these very people had killed was alive, was in heaven with the Father, and was honored by the Father being placed at His right hand.

When the Sanhedrin heard this, they started screaming at the top of their voices and stopped up their ears. Then they rush against Stephen, seized him, took him out of the city, and began to stone him. As the leaders were stoning Stephen, Stephen cried out “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” This is similar to the words of Jesus, “Lord, into Your hand I commit My spirit.” Then Stephen knelt down and cried out, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin!” This is also similar to Jesus’ words, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do.” After saying these things, Stephen died.

Applications

Preserve our traditions

Will we act the like the Sanhedrin that would stop at nothing to keep their own traditions and creeds? How easy it is for us to refuse to accept the written word so that we can maintain a belief that makes us feel comfortable or a doctrine that we have always believed.

How often we truly shut our ears to listening to new possibilities and concepts because we think that everything has already been decided for us and that New Testament Christianity has been restored! But the work of restoration never stops. If we believe that we are doing everything right and have no need to examine ourselves, then we will fall into error, if we have not already. This was the very problem with the synagogue of the Freedmen. They could not deal with the arguments that Stephen presented, but still refused to change their minds. How true today in religion also!

Preserve our lives

Would we have the desire to sacrifice our lives for the cause of Christ like Stephen did? Would we stand and fight for our beliefs in the face of such strong opposition? How impressive it is to see Stephen ready to go to the death for Christ!

We must become so dedicated to the Lord and love Him to the point that we would sacrifice everything, even life, because of our faith. The first century Christians had that passion. Serving God was not simply a matter of pew sitting and listening to entertaining sermons. Serving God meant sacrifice and zeal for God, not just the filling of their minds with knowledge.

Preserve godliness

Finally, how far will we go to preserve godliness? Will we fight against error? Will we be upset at sin? Will we demand righteousness? We must desire godliness at all costs.

This is the passionate plea of David in many of the psalms. He called for godliness and righteousness on this earth. Our lives should mirror that desire. So great was Stephen’s godliness that he had the ability to call out to God to not charge this sin against those who killed him. What love Stephen had for the people! Do we love people as much as that? Or are we more like Jonah who would rather watch the wicked perish? Stephen shows the way we ought to love those who are lost in this world, doing all we can to give people a chance to be saved.

Saul, The Samaritans

and Simon The Sorcerer

(Acts 8:1-25)

Saul

(Acts 8:1-3)

The death of Stephen

In chapter 7 we read about the boldness of Stephen, preaching to the Sanhedrin concerning their rebellion against God. Because of his boldness, Stephen is stoned for the preaching the name of Jesus Christ to these Jewish leaders. The last we read about this event is found in Acts 8:2, “But devout men buried Stephen and mourned deeply over him. “

What a horrifying scene for the Christians in Jerusalem as one of the men selected to be a servant of the Jerusalem church is dragged out of the city and stoned by the Jewish leaders. One can only imagine the terror that would have struck the Christians as the Jewish leaders have not only managed to put to death Jesus, which He predicted, but also killed one of their evangelists and servants.

Saul

But there is more for us to know. We are introduced to a man named Saul. The first verse of chapter 8 tells us that Saul approved of Stephen ‘s execution. We become quickly aware about the motives of Saul. On the same day of Stephen ‘s, a severe persecution against all the Christians in Jerusalem breaks out. So severe is the persecution that the Christians are fleeing for their lives to other areas in Judea and Samaria.

Saul, the one who approved of Stephen ‘s death and held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen, ravages the church. Saul begins to devastate the Christians by entering into their homes, dragging off men and women, and putting them in prison. Saul ‘s work would have been easy because these Christians did not gather for only an hour on Sunday. These Christians were zealous and passionate, meeting daily in the temple courts preaching the risen Jesus. These Christians were teaching and preaching in each other ‘s home, eating meals together, and spending time doing the will of God. Saul is wrecking havoc on the church in Jerusalem.

The Samaritans

(Acts 8:4-17)

Philip

The Christians fleeing Jerusalem went on preaching the good news of Jesus Christ as they went. Philip is one of the men fleeing from the persecution. He also is one of the men selected in Acts 6 to serve the Jerusalem church by overseeing the daily distribution to the widows. Philip goes to Samaria and preaches the Messiah to them.

In Samaria, Philip is performing signs and the people are paying attention to what Philip is speaking and working. Unclean spirits are being cast out and many paralyzed and lame men were being healed. This is the same that we saw with Stephen in Acts 6:8 who was also performing great signs and wonders while preaching the message of Christ.

Conversion of the Samaritans

But there was a man named Simon who had been practicing sorcery in the same city where Philip is preaching. Simon had come in and astounded people with his sorceries. Simon claimed to be someone great and the people declared Simon to have the great power of God.

But this is a contrast between the sorceries of Simon and the miracles of God through Philip. The people had been astounded by the sorceries of Simon, but those tricks were nothing to the power that Philip shows to the people of the city. The people believed the words and works of Philip concerning the kingdom of God and the authority of Jesus Christ.

What we read about the salvation of the Samaritans is very important. If we can determine how people in the first century received the forgiveness of sins, then we know what we need to do today to receive the forgiveness of sins. So let us carefully read this section of scripture so we can know what we must do.

The men and women in Samaria believed the good news concerning the kingdom of god and the authority of Jesus Christ and were baptized. This matches what we read in Acts 2 when Peter clearly declared that forgiveness of sins comes from God through baptism. In verse 13 we read that even Simon himself, a person able to perform sorceries, was amazed at what Philip was able to do such that he also believed what Philip taught and also was baptized. This is how one became a disciple of Jesus in the first century. This is how one received the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins. We are not going to read any other way to receive God ‘s grace as we continue our study in the book of Acts.

It is also important for us to see here that Luke records that men and women were baptized. Children were not being baptized in Samaria. Why not? Children were not baptized because they could not believe in the kingdom of God and the power of Jesus Christ. Little children do not understand these concepts. It is not possible for them to believe. Infant baptism was added hundreds of years later and is not found in the scriptures. If you were baptized as an infant, you were not able to believe in what you were doing and you were simply given a bath. If you were baptized as an infant, you did not receive the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins because infants were not part of this process as we read in the scriptures. According to Ezekiel 18:20, children do not bear the sins of their parents. By definition, sin is a violation of God ‘s law. But children have not violated God ‘s law and therefore have no sin. This is the simplest explanation as to why we do not read about infant baptism. Infant baptism is unnecessary. Adults need to be baptized because they are under God ‘s law, have violated God ‘s law, and require forgiveness of sins.

Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit

Before we leave the Samaritans, there is another important piece of first century example that we need to grasp. Philip is preaching and baptizing the Samaritans. But we are told that the Samaritans had not received the power of the Holy Spirit. According to Acts 8:2 the apostles are in Jerusalem. When the apostles heard that the Samaritans had obeyed the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. Why did Peter and John come? Verses 14-15 declare that the reason was to pray for the Holy Spirit to come upon these Samaritan believers. After praying, Peter and John lay their hands on the Samaritans and they received the Holy Spirit.

Now we need to ask an important question: why did Peter and John have to go all the way to Samaria to impart the power of the Holy Spirit? Philip was already in Samaria and had baptized the people there. Philip had the power of the Holy Spirit as seen by the signs, miracles, and wonders he was performing. Why did not Philip simply give the Samaritans the power of the Holy Spirit?

The answer should be logically obvious to us: Philip could not impart the power of the Holy Spirit to others. Only the apostles had the ability to impart the power of the Holy Spirit. No one else was able to give that power to another. Verse 18 proves our conclusion, “When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles ‘ hands …. ” Look at this verse carefully. How was the power of the Holy Spirit given? Only by the laying on of the apostles ‘ hands was the Holy Spirit given.

Friends, this is why we do not see miraculous powers at work today. This is why we do not see people being healed from paralysis. This is why lame men are not being healed today. The miraculous powers ceased to continue once those who had been given this power died. Those given the power of the Holy Spirit could not lay hands on another pass the power on. Only the apostles had this ability and it is an ability that Simon wants to have.

Simon the Sorcerer

Simon ‘s sin

When Simon sees that the power of the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of hands by the apostles, Simon offers the apostles money, desiring to be given the ability to give the power of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands.

Peter immediately rebukes Simon for believing that he could purchase the gift of God with money. Peter makes the critical point: Simon ‘s heart is not right with God (vs 21). Peter further says that Simon is poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.

Peter tells Simon to repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord for forgiveness of this sin. Simon asks Peter to pray to the Lord on his behalf so that nothing Peter said would come upon him. This section of text also has some key points that we must notice as we try to pattern our lives to what we see in the first century.

Key applications

Salvation can be lost. Simon had believed and had become baptized for the forgiveness of his sins. Simon was following after Philip constantly and observing all that Philip was doing. But Simon fell back into sin. Now there are two ways that most of the denominations try to deal with this passage, because they teach salvation is never lost.

Some teach that Simon was never saved in the first place and that he was never a true believer. There is nothing in this text that suggests such. To assert this point is only as a matter of convenience to hold their doctrine. No one suggests that Peter was not a true believer of Jesus when he denied the Lord three times. Sins are committed after we become disciples of Christ and those sins severe us from God.

Others say that Simon did not really sin. But it is clearly stated that Simon did sin because Simon is called to repent to be forgiven of what he has done. Further, Peter said that Simon ‘s heart was full of bitterness and bound by sin (iniquity). Peter bluntly tells Simon that he has sinned.

This is a great reminder to us. Our salvation can be forfeited by our own actions. If we choose to be disobedient after coming to the Lord, then we have severed ourselves from God.

After baptism, only repentance is necessary for forgiveness. Peter does not tell Simon that he must be baptized again to receive the forgiveness he needs. Peter tells Simon that he needs to change his heart before God. Simon was responsible to change himself so that he became more aware of God ‘s will and would obey what God required. Further, Simon is told to pray to God for forgiveness. Simon is not told to pray to Peter, pray to Mary, or pray to any other person to receive forgiveness. God is the one who forgives sins. No man can forgive sins. Therefore we must pray to God and ask God to forgive us. This is exactly what 1 John 1:9 teaches us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ” The context of 1 John is clearly talking about confessing our sins to God and the restoring the relationship we need to have with God. Baptism symbolizes our covenant with God and repentance is how we renew ourselves to that covenant when we have transgressed God ‘s law.

Others can pray for our spiritual condition. I find Simon ‘s word interesting. Nearly every book I have read says that verse 24 is Simon copping out from what he was supposed to do. If this were the case, I would expect Peter to rebuke Simon again. Further, does not Simon sound truly upset and desirous of forgiveness at this point? I do not think it is a fair assessment to assume this was a cop out. Simon desires Peter to also pray for him. Simon had committed a sin and he wanted others to call upon God to extend him forgiveness.

This is not foreign to the scriptures either. James 5:16 says, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. ” We can ask others to pray for us so that we can conquer the sin that has ensnared us. God listens to the prayers of the righteous and can ask other Christians to pray on our behalf so that we can become what God wants us to be. Peter could not forgive Simon ‘s sin. But Peter could pray to God that God hear Simon ‘s plea for forgiveness. The same is true today. We do not confess our sins to each other believing that a person will forgive us. Only God can forgive sins. But we can confess our sins to each other so that we will be in each other ‘s prayers and we can go to God on behalf of another and ask God to extend mercy to them.

Conclusion:

People became disciples of Christ and were forgiven from sins by believing in Jesus Christ and becoming baptized. We will see more details about this in the rest of Acts 8. Children were not baptized, only men and women. Once a person became a disciple, when the person sinned they needed to ask God for forgiveness and repent of the sin.

We cannot become a Christian and then turn our back on God ‘s commands. If we do, we have return to being lost in our sins. Salvation could be lost, as seen with Simon ‘s actions. We can pray to God for one another as help to overcome our sins and to ask God to be merciful to one another.

When Am I Saved?

(Acts 9:1-19)

Brent Kercheville

We have been witnessing the conversions of various individuals to the Lord in the first century. The conversion of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch showed us the necessity of baptism. Baptism was not optional to any person but was necessary for salvation. The conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch also showed us the form of baptism, as both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. Philip immersed the eunuch and they both came up out of the water.

As we have mentioned a few times in this study, if we can determine how people were saved and received the grace of God in the first century, then we have a pattern set for us so that we also can know what to do to be saved. This morning we will look for the pattern that answers the question, "when am I saved?" If we can see when people in the first century were saved from their sins, then we also can know at what point our sins are removed and we are saved. While we are in Acts 9 in our study, Paul recounts his conversion process in two other places in this book, Acts 22 and Acts 26. We will refer to the Acts 22 account repeatedly, so have that place ready in our Bibles so that you can look at Paul’s words there also.

Saul the Destroyer

The background

In Acts 9:1 we read that Saul was breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. Saul admits this to be true in Acts 22:4, "I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison." Saul did not accept Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and worked to overthrow any teaching that claimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Listen to Saul’s words again, "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them" (Acts 26:9-11). Saul was as much of an unbeliever, skeptic, and fighter against Jesus than any person you can imagine.

Saul is on his way to Damascus to find men and women who belonged to the Way and take them as prisoners to Jerusalem to stand trial. Along the way to Damascus something amazing happens. A bright light from heaven flashed around Saul and he falls to the ground. A voice said, "Saul, Saul, why do your persecute me?" Saul asks who it is and the response is that it is Jesus, whom Saul is persecuting. Saul’s companions saw the light and heard the voice, but they did not understand what the voice was saying. His companions take him to Damascus, being led by the hand because the light had blinded Saul. While in this condition, Saul is fasting and praying for three days.

God calls Ananias

The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas on the street called Straight and ask for Saul of Tarsus. Saul has had a vision that a man named Ananias would come to him and restore his sight. We are told in this passage what Ananias’ purpose was: to restore the sight of Saul.

Ananias is rightly fearful to go to Saul because he is well known throughout the area as a persecutor of the saints in Jerusalem. Further, Ananias is aware that Saul has come with the authority to arrest all of those who follow Jesus. But the Lord explains that God has chosen Saul to be his instrument to take the name of the Lord to the Gentiles and to the people of Israel.

Saul and Ananias

Ananias goes to where Saul is staying. Placing his hands on Saul, Ananias said to him, "Brother Saul, receive your sight" (Acts 22:13). Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes and he could see again.

Ananias then preaches to Saul about what has taken place, the account of which we read in Acts 22:14-16. Ananias explains to Saul that God has chosen Saul to know God’s will, to see the Righteous One and to hear the words from his mouth. Saul is told he will be God’s witness to all men concerning what had happened to him.

Ananias concluded his lesson, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord." Saul needed to be baptized. Now let us examine some important things that happen in Saul’s conversion and see what the pattern is that we learn for ourselves today.

When Am I Saved?

When was Saul saved?

As you read this story, ask yourself the question: when was Saul saved? I would like for you to consider all that happened to Saul. If you saw a bright light shine down from heaven and Jesus spoke to you, would you think you were saved? If you were told by Jesus to go to a city and wait for instructions, would you think you were saved? If this message from Jesus was only directed to you and no one else could understand the words of Jesus, would you think you were saved? If during the time of your blindness you fasted and prayed to God without ceasing for three days, would you think you were saved? If someone came to you, laid hands on you, and healed you of your blindness, would you think you were saved? What if all of these happened to you like these things happened to Saul, would you think you were saved?

I will offer a challenge to you: go to any denominational church and tell them that you were had been blinded by the Lord, heard the voice of the Lord, fasted and prayed to the Lord and then were healed of the blindness. See if they think you had been saved during any of those events. I am sure they would and in fact they teach that Saul was already saved once Ananias lays his hands on Saul. I have the books to prove this is their belief system.

If all we need to do for salvation is put our trust in God, Saul certainly did that when he obeyed the Lord’s command to go to Damascus and wait for Ananias. If all we must do for the forgiveness of sins is pray a prayer to the Lord, we see Saul had been doing such for three days. Further, Saul had been fasting with his prayers, showing the earnestness of his petitions to God. If all I must do to be saved is believe in Jesus, we know that Saul believed in Jesus because he spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus.

So was not Saul saved already? Carefully read Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord." Ananias tells Saul that he must still wash away his sins. If Saul was already saved, why would Ananias tell Saul that he needed to have his sins washed away? If Saul was already a disciple when he was healed, why is Ananias telling Saul to get up and wash away his sins? There was more that needed to be done.

Even though Saul had been healed of blindness, Saul still needed to wash away his sins. Even though Saul had spoken with Jesus, he still needed to wash away his sins. Even though Saul had been fasting and praying earnestly for three days, he still needed to wash his sins away. Saul was still not saved even though his heart was obedient to the words of the Lord.

Baptism washes away sins

What was Saul told to do to wash away his sins? Was Saul told to pray? Was Saul told to recite the sinner’s prayer, as many denominations teach today? Was Saul told to only confess Jesus as Lord to wash away his sins? What was Saul lacking? Saul was lacking baptism. Ananias tells Saul that baptism will wash away his sins and will call on the name of the Lord.

We mentioned last time that many people think they have been baptized because water has been sprinkled or poured upon them. But we noticed that baptism is immersion in water while believing that sins are being taken away. Any other action besides immersion in water is not baptism according to the scriptural pattern. In the same vain, there are many who have been baptized but they thought they were already saved when baptized. This is not according to the scriptural pattern either. We need to believe that baptism is washing our sins away, just as Ananias described, otherwise we did not understand what we were doing and did not properly believe in what was taking place. We may have been immersed in water, but we must know what we are doing it for. Otherwise, we have done nothing more than taken a bath. Faith with baptism is the key for our sins to be washed away. We must believe that we are being united in the death of Christ when we are baptized. We must believe that our sins are being removed from us as we rise up from the water to live a life as new people.

"Did you forget that all of us became part of Christ when we were baptized?" (Romans 6:3). We are not joined to Christ and are not disciples of Christ with forgiven sins until we have become baptized! This is exactly what Peter and the apostles were preaching for the forgiveness of sins. "Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ of the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). This is why everyone is getting baptized in the book of Acts: they want their sins washed away.

Everyone teaches that all that a person needs to do to be saved is call on the name of the Lord. This is their teaching and we agree with this. Everyone must call on the name of the Lord to be saved (Acts 2:21). But no one is asking how the scriptures tell us we call on the name of the Lord to be saved! The answer is in Acts 22:16 : we call on the name of the Lord by getting up and being baptized to wash away our sins.

This is all one must do to be saved. This is all that God asks of us to have our sins taken away, to have His grace applied to our lives. We do not have to know more about the Bible before we are baptized. We do not have to take any tests before we are baptized? We do not have to talk to a preacher, priest, or ask permission of anyone else. Are you wanting to serve the Lord? Do you love God? Do you want to be in eternal paradise with the Lord and not eternal suffering? Do you want to be forgiven for all you have done in your past? Then get up, be baptized and wash away your sins today!

Opposition To Saul

(Acts 9:20-31)

Brent Kercheville

In our last lesson from Acts 9 we saw Saul was on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians in that city. Along the way, a light shines around Saul. Saul is blinded by the light and is told to go to Damascus where he will be told what to do. Ananias comes to Saul and heals him of his blindness. Ananias tells Saul that he has been chosen by God to go to the nations to preach about Jesus. Ananias concludes by telling Saul to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins and call on the name of the Lord.

The Movements of Saul

Saul in Damascus

After his baptism, Saul remained with the disciples in Damascus for several days. Immediately, Saul was preaching Jesus in the synagogues, declaring, "He is the Son of God." We notice that Saul did not have to be given a myriad of Bible studies about Jesus Christ before he wanted to proclaim what had happened to him to everyone he could talk to.

Remember that Saul had been given authority to go into the synagogues and find anyone who was follower of Jesus, arrest the person, and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial. Saul goes to the synagogue and instead of seeking out Christians to arrest, begins to preach that Jesus is the Son of God. Verse 21 says that all who heard Saul speak were amazed and knew that he had come from Jerusalem to make havoc with anyone who proclaimed the name of Christ.

Saul became more powerful in his arguments, confounding the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving Jesus is the Messiah. This did not go over well in the Jewish community. Verse 23 tells us that after some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him. Saul, the champion destroyer of Christianity and powerful man among the Jews, was now having his life plotted against by his own people. The plot became known to Saul. But Saul was unable to leave the city of Damascus because the Jews were standing guard at the city gates watching for Saul so they could kill him. We see how desperate the Jews in Damascus were to kill Saul. Saul was not going to leave the city alive. Therefore, the disciples took Saul and in the night let him down in a basket through an opening in the city wall. Saul already must escape for his life. Remember, the Lord told Ananias that He would show Saul the things that he must suffer for the cause of Christ. Already, Saul must endure life-threatening circumstances for the name of Christ. Saul came into Damascus as a led by the hand because of blindness and left the city like a criminal being snuck through a hole in the wall.

Before we move on in the story, Galatians 1:18 tells us that Saul did not go to Jerusalem for three years. So when we read about this scene, at least three years has passed by before Saul decides to come to Jerusalem. In doing so, the opposition will begin again for Saul, but from an unexpected place.

Saul in Jerusalem

When Saul came to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples there. But the disciples were afraid of Saul and did not believe that Saul was a disciple. Saul has not been in Jerusalem for years. This was likely a great relief to the Christians to not see Saul wandering the streets of the city looking for Christians to imprison. Suddenly, Saul returns to Jerusalem. How dismayed the Christians must have been to see Saul coming back through the city streets.

Even more shocking would have been the conversation Saul had with the disciples in Jerusalem. Saul comes to the disciples and tells them he is now a Christian and wants to join with them in the work at Jerusalem. Last time Saul was around Christians, he was arresting them and voting they be stoned to death. Now Saul says he is also a believer in Jesus and he wants to work with the disciples to preach the good news of Jesus. Would anyone believe Saul’s words?

The disciples were afraid of Saul and would not let him join with them. They were not going to be foolish and bring Saul in just so he could turn on them and arrest them all! The Greek word that is used when we read that Saul "attempted to join the disciples" does not reflect a one-time act. Saul was repeatedly trying to join with the disciples there in Jerusalem. But the disciples were afraid, and none of us would have been any different.

I can only imagine how dejected Saul would have been with his repeated failures to join the disciples. What could he do to convince the disciples he was truly one of them and now believed Jesus to be the Son of God? It seemed that Saul would not be able to work with these Christians until Barnabas comes to Saul’s side. The last time we saw Barnabas was at the end of Acts 4 when he sold his possessions and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles. His given name was actually Joseph, but the disciples had changed his name to "son of encouragement" because of his character.

Barnabas took Saul, brought him before the apostles, and explained to the apostles how Saul had seen the Lord on the road to Damascus. Barnabas also explained how Saul had been proclaiming boldly in the name of the Lord. With the help of Barnabas, Saul is accepted into the circle of disciples in Jerusalem. Saul continued to argue powerfully against the Jews, so well that they attempted to kill him in Jerusalem. After only fifteen days, according to Galatians 1, the believers had to send Saul to Tarsus to protect his life from the Jews in Jerusalem. During this time, the church throughout the regions of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up.

Applications

Standing for a murderer

Who would have done what Barnabas did? Who would have wanted to stand next to this persecutor and murderer of Christians and try to help him join the other disciples? Would we have cared what happened to Saul for all the evil he had done in his life? I do not think that any of us would have taken a stand to defend Saul. Further, I do not think any of us would have wanted a person like Saul joined to our church.

"Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). We all have shields and defenses that keep us from bearing with one another and helping one another the way we ought. We have a great tendency to assume the worst in people, to paint others with malicious motives, and refuse to give people the benefit of the doubt. What would have happened in this story if Barnabas would have shown Saul the attitude that we typically show to each other? We criticize and we hurt others and we are not thinking about trusting the other person and assuming good in others. Barnabas took Saul at his word, trusted what Saul was saying, and made a convincing argument to join Saul to the disciples.

The next time an opportunity comes, let us think to be trusting. Let us choose to bear the burdens of another and understand where they are coming. Let us believe in each other so that we can develop the close knit family that God wants us to be.

Not giving up

Place yourself in the mind of Saul at this time. How easy would it have been to give up when the disciples in Jerusalem rejected him! How easy would it have been for Saul to go on his way and slander the Christians who were in Jerusalem! Saul could have decided to go back to Judaism with a response like this. Saul could have decided to start a new church in Jerusalem to show those others who rejected him. Saul could have given up on God, become jaded toward religion, and decided to live his own life with caring about the will of God. But he did not do any of these things.

We have to remember that people make mistakes and failures do take place. As much as we are trying to be just like Christ in every action we take, we simply are not going to live up to that goal every time. Hypocrisy will be found given enough time and when we look hard enough. But we want to join with people who are trying to serve the Lord, even though they may make poor decisions and bad judgments. Saul was not looking for an excuse to stop serving God. He was looking for a way to serve God with others.

Understanding the church

There can be a lot of confusion concerning the nature and function of the church. Some of that confusion can be cleared up with what we read in this passage. We know that Saul was saved. Acts 22:16 tells us that Saul needed to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins. Acts 2:47 tells us that the Lord adds to the church daily those who were being saved. When we are baptized for the forgiveness of our sins, the Lord adds us to the group or body of saved people. This group of saved people includes all people who have ever been obedient to God’s conditions for salvation. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 we read about the dead in Christ. The body of Christ or the church is simply all people dead or alive who have ever been saved through the blood of Jesus.

In our studies this morning we have seen smaller groups of Christians in various localities. We read about the disciples in Damascus that Saul joined himself to and was with them as he preached Jesus in the synagogues. Disciples were gathering together because they lived in a particular city to do the works that God has commanded. When Saul came to Jerusalem, Saul immediately tried to join himself to the disciples who met in Jerusalem. The disciples rejected Saul until Barnabas explained how Saul was a true believer and proclaimer of the name of Jesus.

We learn that after we are saved through faith in Christ by being baptized, we are to join ourselves to a local group of Christians. There are many commands which cannot be performed individually but require a group of Christians to accomplish. For example, we do not see Christians taking the Lord’s supper alone, but coming together with other Christians to remember the Lord’s death. We see the commands for elders and deacons which means we must have a local assembly of Christians to have such people. We are commanded to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, which implies that Christians were to meet regularly with other Christians. Saul was trying to identify himself with the Christians in Jerusalem so he could be part of the working together in the kingdom of God.

Furthermore, Saul was rejected by the Christians in Jerusalem, but that did not change his salvation. Being part of a local church or not being part of a local church is not a statement of salvation. While we see we are to be joined with other Christians, the joining itself does not make one saved or lost. To put it another way, you do not join the Haverhill Road church of Christ to be saved. What have we repeatedly taught one must do to be saved? Believe, repent, confess, and be baptized is what God has commanded to receive his gift of salvation. Joining this local church will not save you. Uniting with Christ in baptism is what will save you. Once you have obeyed the Lord, then we are to assemble ourselves with others who are obeying the Lord. This is what we see Saul doing as he joined himself to the disciples in Jerusalem.

What did Saul have to do to join the church in Jerusalem? Did Saul have to pay some fees? Did Saul need some letters or a recommendation? Saul simply wanted to join the disciples in Jerusalem and there was nothing more than simply making it known that such was his desire. We join the body of the saved in Christ through baptism. This is the most important thing to do. If such has not been done, then nothing else matters. Once we have been baptized for the forgiveness of our sins, then we are seek out a group of disciples who are serving God and join ourselves to them so we can obey the commands of the Lord. (NRSV)

The Greatest Miracle

(Acts 9:32 to Acts 10:48)

Brent Kercheville

First Two Miracles

Healing Aeneas (Acts 9:32-35)

Throughout the ninth chapter of Acts we have been watching the movements of Saul. He has become a disciple of Jesus by being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. He was run out of Damascus and Jerusalem as the Jews tried to kill him for preaching Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. The focus will now shift back to the apostle Peter as we read the next couple chapters.

Peter is traveling about the region and comes to the saints who lived in the city of Lydda. In Lydda there was a man named Aeneas who had been paralyzed and bedridden for eight years. Peter arrives and simply says, "Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Get up and make your own bed." Immediately Aeneas got up. The effect of the miracle was powerful because all the people in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord based on what they saw.

Raising Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43)

While Peter is in Lydda, there is a disciple named Tabitha in Joppa who was always doing good works and acts of charity. But Tabitha became sick and died. Since the city of Lydda is near Joppa, the disciples in Joppa sent two men begging Peter to come to Joppa.

Peter arrives in Joppa and the widows show Peter all the good works Tabitha had done for the people while she lived. Peter sends them all out of the room, knelt down, prayed, and then said, "Tabitha, get up!" Tabitha opened her eyes, saw Peter, sat up, and then stood up. Everyone in Joppa heard about what had happened and many believed in the Lord based on this miracle.

The Salvation of Cornelius

The preparation of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-8)

In Acts 10 we are introduced to a man in Caesarea named Cornelius. He is a centurion in the Italian Regiment, meaning that he was in charge of 300-600 soldiers. This is a powerful and influential person.

But more than his military power, we learn about the character of Cornelius. He is not the hard man we would imagine being in charge of so many Roman soldiers. Cornelius is a believer in God. Verse 2 tells us that Cornelius "was a devout man and fear God along with his whole household. He did many charitable deeds for the people and always prayed to God." This description concerning Cornelius’ spiritual life is important for us to observe. He is devout toward God. He fears God and his whole household also fears God. He prays to God and performs many charitable deeds. We must be impressed with this Roman captain who has this kind of zeal for the Lord.

But let us ask an important question at this point: was Cornelius saved at this point? Again, I want to emphasize today that most of the religious world teaches that one is saved by fearing the Lord and offering prayers to God. But we will see that Cornelius was not saved and required something more to receive the grace of God.

An angel of the Lord speaks to Cornelius in a vision, telling him that his prayers and acts of charity have come up before God as a memorial offering. Therefore, Cornelius was to send men to Joppa call for Peter who would explain what to do.

The preparation of Peter (Acts 10:9-20)

While the men have been sent by Cornelius from Caesarea, Peter is in Joppa staying with Simon. At about noon Peter goes on to the housetop to pray. While on the housetop Peter sees a vision of an object like a large sheet being lowered to the earth by the four corners. In the object were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of the sky. A voice says to Peter, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat!"

Peter responds "No, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common and unclean!" The voice says to Peter, "What God has made clean, you must not call common." This happens three times and then the object was taken up into heaven. Now Peter is wondering what this vision met.

While Peter is thinking about this vision, the men who had been sent by Cornelius arrived at the door, asking if Peter was staying there. The Spirit tells Peter to go downstairs and accompany the men without doubting because God had sent them. So Peter goes downstairs to the men who are at the door.

The explanation to Peter (Acts 10:21-33)

The men tell Peter about Cornelius who is a God-fearing, upright, and has a good reputation with the whole Jewish nation. The angel directed the men to bring Peter back to Cornelius to hear Peter’s message. While Peter and the men are traveling to Caesarea, Cornelius has gathered all his relatives and close friends together to hear the message Peter was going to bring.

When Peter enters the house, Cornelius meets him, falls at Peter’s feet and worships him. But Peter picks Cornelius up, saying, "Stand up! I myself am also a man." Peter declares that he is simply a man and not to be revered or worshipped. Just as an aside, if Peter did not demand or deserve any worship or titles, we ought to be skeptical of any person who looks to be worshipped by falling at their feet, kissing their hand or ring, giving them a special title, or elevating the person in any manner. If the apostles refused such treatment, no person should receive such treatment except God Himself.

Peter explains that he is aware that it is forbidden for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit a foreigner. However, Peter has seen a vision in which God has shown him that he must not call any person common or unclean any longer. This is the reason Peter has come without objection. It is important for us to realize how no Jew would have ever done this. A miracle was required for both Peter and Cornelius in the form of visions to make this arrangement happen.

Cornelius then go about explaining the reason why they called for Peter. The angel told Cornelius that his prayer had been heard and his acts of charity had been remembered by God. The angel further told Cornelius to summon for Peter and have him come to Caesarea. So Cornelius and his whole family are all present before the Lord to hear everything Peter had been commanded by God.

The proclamation of Peter (Acts 10:34-43)

Peter begins his message by relating to the household that God truly shows no partiality or favoritism. In every nation the person who fears God and does righteousness is accepted by God. The good news of peace began to be proclaimed to the sons of Israel available through Jesus Christ. Peter continues that Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power going about doing good because God was with him. The apostles are witnesses to everything Jesus did in Judea and Jerusalem. The Jews killed Jesus by hanging him on a tree but God raised him up on the third day and permitted him to be seen, not by all people, but by the apostles and other witnesses appointed beforehand by God.

Jesus commanded the apostles to preach to the people and testify that Jesus is the one appointed by God to the judge of the living and the dead. All of the prophets testify about Jesus that through his name, everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins.

The validation of the Holy Spirit and

salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48)

While Peter is still speaking, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message. The believers who accompanied Peter were astounded at the Holy Spirit coming down on Cornelius and his household. Cornelius and his household began to speak in other languages, just as we saw the apostles able to perform in Acts 2.

Peter tells his companions, "Can anyone withhold water and prevent these from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" The falling of the Holy Spirit was a sign to Peter and his companions that the Gentiles had the right to respond to the good news of Jesus and receiving the forgiveness of sins through baptism. Peter then commands Cornelius and his household to be baptized so they can receive the grace of God.

Notice that Peter does not suggest they get baptized. Peter does not tell Cornelius it would be a good idea, but that baptism was not necessary. Peter commanded baptism. If these people wanted the forgiveness of sins as they had been praying about, then they need to be baptized to receive forgiveness. Therefore, Cornelius and his household respond to Peter’s message and are baptized.

The Miracle of Salvation

The power of God’s grace

I told you in the beginning there are three miracles we are reading about. The third miracle is not the visions to Cornelius and Peter, though these are miraculous events. The miracle, which is the greatest miracle of all, is our salvation. The forgiveness of sins and salvation from the chains of hell is the greatest miracle of the three miracles we have looked at this morning. Yet you may say that forgiveness of sins and salvation is not a miracle. But the scriptures beg to differ.

Paul called salvation a miracle in Romans 1:16. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." The word translated "power" in Romans 1 is the Greek word dunamis. This word is consistently used in reference to the direct power of God and is even translated "miracle" or "miraculous" 22 times. The Greek scholars say this word refers to, "(miraculous) power, might, strength" (NAS Greek) and "specially, miraculous power" (Strongs). Dunamis is not a generic word for power and authority. The Greek word exousia seen many times in Revelation regarding the power of the locusts and armies is the more common word for power and authority. When we read dunamis, we are to think of tremendous might and power.

Our resurrection

I believe we read Paul’s words that the gospel is the power of God for salvation and do not see the power of these words. In Ephesians 2, Paul told us that we were dead in our sins and trespasses and were by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). But look what Paul says, " 4But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, 5 made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! 6 He also raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:4-6).

Paul is describing a miracle taking place in our lives. We are dead and God is raising us from the dead, making us alive with Christ. Paul is emphasizing what amazing power and abundant love was shown to raise us from our spiritual death. Verse 5 reminds us of our status: we were dead in trespasses. But God has authored a resurrection in our lives, taking us from being dead and making us alive.

The raising of people from the dead was to show us that God has the power to raise our spiritual bodies from sin and death and make us alive. Specifically, we are to witness this power in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. Closely look at verses 14-18: " 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost."

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then we are not raised from the dead. We are still in our sins and lost without the power of God raising Christ from the dead. Our miracle of resurrection from sins is tied to the miracle of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. If one happened, the other has also happened.

Baptism is the way we show our faith in the power of God and are raised from our spiritual death. " 12 Having been buried with Him in baptism, you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive with Him and forgave us all our trespasses" (Colossians 2:12-13). Submit to God’s will and God’s power by being immersed in water and be raised from your sins to be alive to God. God raised Christ from the dead. By the power of God Aeneas was healed and Tabitha was raised from the dead. Let God heal you from your sins and raise you from spiritual death. Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins to have God work His miracle on you.

Gentiles and the Kingdom of God

(Acts 11:1-30)

Brent Kercheville

In Acts 10 we saw the great working of God as salvation is offered to the Gentiles. Peter receives a vision in which he is told to no longer call unclean what God has cleansed. Peter correctly understood this to mean he could go into Cornelius’ house (a Gentile) and preach the gospel to the household. While Peter is preaching, the Holy Spirit falls on the whole household signifying that they were to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins just like the Jews. The Jews tried to keep their dealings with the Gentiles to a minimum, and certainly did not enter into Gentile homes nor ate with Gentiles for fear of defilement. The Jews had many traditions and human laws that condemned them from having fellowship with the Gentiles. But through the Holy Spirit, the Jewish Christians were to understand that Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean.

In Acts 11 we learn of the relationship between believers in Jerusalem consisting of Jews and the new Gentile disciples. The Jews are learning about God’s purpose. Under the old covenant, the Jews were God’s chosen people and the major focus of God’s dealings. Now, the Jews are coming to realize God’s purposes to be broader than the salvation and deliverance of the Jewish people. The Messiah came and has brought salvation to all people and nations.

Accepting the Gentiles

(Acts 11:1-18)

The conflict

The rest of the apostles and brethren in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. When Peter returned to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with Peter saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" We know nothing about this group of people who are called "of the circumcision" except from their charges against Peter.

It appears the problem was Peter did not have Cornelius and his household fully convert to Judaism through circumcision. The problem does not seem to be that Peter preached Christ to the Gentiles, but that he ate with Gentiles making Peter ritually unclean. It is evident from these charges that Peter was no pope or giver of executive orders from God Himself. These Jewish Christians charge Peter with error. Peter must defend his actions to those in Jerusalem.

The explanation

Peter recounts from the beginning everything that happened to him, relating particularly the vision he saw. Further, Peter also explains that the Holy Spirit directing him to go to Cornelius’ house, doubting nothing. When in Cornelius’ house, Cornelius explained how he had seen an angel who instructed him to call for Peter to come to his house. Peter would come and tell Cornelius the words by which him and his household would be saved.

Once Peter began preaching Jesus, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as it had upon the apostles at the beginning. This was a very special event that had not happened for ten years. Notice that Peter does not remember how this had happened to the Samaritans or to his recent converts in the cities of Joppa, Lydda, and Sharon. Peter recalls the words of Jesus that were directed specifically to the apostles, how they alone would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Now, suddenly while Peter was preaching, the same baptism of the Holy Spirit took place on Cornelius and his household.

Peter emphasizes what was received by Cornelius and his household by calling what took place the "same gift." This likely describes not only the way the Holy Spirit came upon them but also the effect, which was the ability to speak in different languages. Acts 2 describes the baptism of the Holy Spirit the apostles received, if you desire to remind yourself of those events. With all of these taking place, Peter says to his opponents, "who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

With this explanation, they had no further objections and praised God for granting repentance to life even to the Gentiles. We cannot escape noticing the importance of this event because Luke recounts the vision and angel to Cornelius three times. This was the proof for everyone to know that God’s purpose was for all people to be saved from their sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We clearly see from this chapter that this understanding was the point of the miracle. After hearing Peter’s words, the other believers also understand that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a sign for Gentiles to be saved without circumcision. Just as the promises to Abraham were given before the covenant of circumcision, so also the falling of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household took place while they uncircumcised. Circumcision was not necessary for salvation.

Encouraging the Gentiles

(Acts 11:19-26)

Barnabas, the encourager

Some were still preaching to the Jews to accept that Jesus is their Messiah and they are to obey Him. Others begin preaching to the Gentiles, telling them the good news about Jesus. Many people believed and obeyed the words of the Lord. News of the salvation of the Gentiles in Antioch reaches the ears of the disciples in Jerusalem. Who would you send to these new Christians to encourage them? Would you have sent Peter to encourage them? Would you have sent Philip? The church in Jerusalem decides to send Barnabas.

Remember we read about Barnabas in Acts 4 as the one who sold his possessions and laid them at the apostles’ feet. We also read about him in Acts 9 arguing on Saul’s behalf before the apostles in Jerusalem that Saul truly had changed his life and was a follower of Jesus. When there was a need for encouraging, Barnabas was the one sent to do the work. Verse 23 tells us that Barnabas encouraged these new Christians to continue with and remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.

Disciples first called Christians

After encouraging the new Christians in Antioch, Barnabas is not done encouraging. He goes to Tarsus, looks for Saul, finds him, and brings him to Antioch. For a year Barnabas and Saul met with the church in Antioch and taught great numbers of people. Barnabas is not interesting in making a name for himself or to be the Antioch preacher. He goes and brings in Saul to do the work. This is the character of Barnabas, to bring in the rejected and work with them and strengthen them.

This is also the first time the disciples in the first century were called Christians. Ten years have gone by and now a name that has stuck for thousands of years is attached to the first century disciples: Christian. Previously, we have seen in the book of Acts that the disciples were called the Way, of course referring to following the way of Christ.

Receiving Aid From the Gentiles

(Acts 11:27-30)

Prediction of famine

At this time some of the prophets in Jerusalem came to Antioch. One of the prophets named Agabus stood up and through the Holy Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. The scriptures give us a historical marker telling us this famine took place during the reign of Claudius Caesar. Claudius was emperor of Rome from 41-54 A.D. It is this marker that helps us know that we are about ten years removed from the events of Acts 2.

We have external historical evidence to support that a severe famine did take place in the reign of Claudius Caesar. Eusebius, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius attest to the occurrence of the famine.

Relief sent to the brethren through the elders

When the disciples in Antioch heard this news, they provided help to the brethren according to their own ability. Judea was affected worse than another other part of the Roman empire and so the disciples in Antioch decide they want to help other disciples.

This is our first example of one group of Christians in one location helping another group of Christians in another location. We simply want to note what they did and did not do. The primary concern was to help other disciples. We also see that there was no compulsion in this matter. Each person gave what they could, according to his or her own ability, to help others in need. We must also recognize that their need was not that they could not pay the car bill or the electric bill. This was a matter of food. The disciples in Judea did not have food in a famine and other disciples decided to offer assistance to such a need.

Thoughts To Go Home

Disciples helping others. This is one aspect of true discipleship. We cannot miss that we have repeated seen the disciples of the first century continually help one another in whatever way they possibly can. The disciples have given according to their ability to help others. They have even sold their possessions and property to help other disciples who had needs. It would have been easy for the Christians in Antioch to say "too bad for them" and "they ought to live up here where we are" instead of help the needs of others. We have the same tendency to ignore other Christians because they are on another side of the state or on the other side of the country. We should never fall prey to saying "that is what you get for living there." I am thankful to see the help of Christians across this country being offered to this church and to the Fort Pierce church after the hurricanes. People in other states could tell us we should not live in a place where there are annual hurricanes. That is not the point. Addressing Christian needs is the point.

True Christians. Unfortunately, the name "Christian" has been applied to nearly everything that has a drops worth of religion or God in it. We see today there are Christian coalitions. Our society declares that if you think there is a God, then you are a Christian. But the scriptures show us who are truly Christians: those who are disciples of Jesus. A Christian is someone who obeys the words of God, not someone who claims there is a God. A Christian is someone who follows God’s laws regardless of their difficulty, not someone who does what they think God wants. A Christian is someone who is molding his personality and character to the life of Jesus, not someone who wears the name but brings shame to the name. A disciple is someone who does not need to call himself a Christian, but everyone around knows he or she is a Christian. Are we true Christians following Jesus where he leads or are we worldly "Christians," claiming a title but not following through? (NIV)

Glory To God In The Highest

(Acts 12:1-25)

Brent Kercheville

In Acts 11 we read about Peter explaining to those of the circumcision about baptizing Gentiles for the forgiveness of sins without them keeping the old covenant law of circumcision prior to baptism. Recall that Peter had a vision of four-footed animals of the earth and birds of the sky. Peter was instructed to get up, kill, and eat these animals. This happened three times, teaching Peter to not call common what God had made clean. Also, the Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius and his household, signifying that Gentiles could also be baptized to receive the forgiveness of sins.

After those things we saw the generosity of the Gentile Christians in Antioch. Upon hearing the news of an upcoming famine in the region of Judea, the Christians sent relief to the Christians living in Judea. In chapter 12, our attention turns back to events in Jerusalem.

The Death of James

(Acts 12:1-3)

The crisis

Chapter 12 begins recording the violent deeds of Herod Agrippa. A little history concerning Herod Agrippa will help our understanding the scene recorded by Luke. Herod was sent by his mother to Rome for education. While in Rome, Herod became friends with a man named Gaius, who we know more appropriately as Caligula, who eventually became emperor of the Roman Empire. When Caligula became emperor, he appointed Herod as king over much of the lands east of the Jordan River.

Herod Agrippa’s uncle Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea. Antipas petitioned Caligula for a similar title which Agrippa had received. Obviously influenced by Agrippa, Antipas was deposed and exiled and the land was given to Agrippa. After Caligula’s death in 41 A.D., Agrippa appealed to Claudius and received from him Judea and Samaria. Therefore, Herod Agrippa became king over all the areas of Israel.

Through his grandmother, Herod Agrippa was able to claim Jewish ancestry. Agrippa used this to become popular among the Jewish people. He made it known that he enjoyed living in Jerusalem. Herod observed the Jewish laws and traditions. He offered sacrifices the temple and was given the honor by the Jewish leaders of reading publicly a passage from the law during the Feast of Tabernacles. The Jews accepted Herod as one of their number (information taken from Kistemaker’s New Testament Commentary on Acts).

In verse 1 we read that Herod begins attacking the church. We read in verse 2 some devastating information that Herod had the apostle James arrested and killed with the sword. Since history tells us that Herod attempted to follow the Jewish laws to maintain favor with the people, it is surmised that the charge against James was that he persuaded the whole city to serve other gods. Deuteronomy 13:6-18 says is someone was engaged in idolatry they were to be stoned, but if they caused the whole city to serve other gods, they were to be killed by the sword. It would be no surprise that the Jewish authorities would lay the charge that James was leading the city astray by preaching Jesus as the Son of God.

It truly is amazing how concise the information is concerning the death of James. Any human writer would certain record the reason for the arrest and the circumstances that led up to the death of the first apostle. This is just one more among many proofs we have for the inspiration of the scriptures. None of us could have left the information at the mere sentence: he killed James with the sword.

James’ death was the fulfillment of the words Jesus had spoken to James and his brother John. Matthew 20:20-28 records for us James and John’s mother coming to Jesus with her sons, requesting that they sit at Jesus’ right and left hand in the kingdom. Jesus’ response to the request was: "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" James and John answered that they could. Jesus replied, "You will indeed drink from my cup." Jesus is clearly referring to mistreat, persecution, and death. James experienced these things first, being the first apostle recorded to have been killed for the Lord.

The effect

One can only imagine the trauma the death of the apostle James caused upon the minds of the first century Christians. One can only imagine the tone as Christians gathered to hear the news of the death of James. One can only envision what worship on the next Lord’s day was like in Jerusalem for those Christians. We have a very hard time when we lose someone close to us among our assembly.

Should we not multiply that feeling when we would find out the one of Jesus’ chosen men, an apostle of the Lord who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry and witnessed the resurrection, had been killed by a brutal tyrant? Horror must have swept through those Christians.

Now read verse 3 and see how things went from bad to worse. After Herod saw that the death of James pleased the Jews, Herod proceeds to arrest Peter. The clear implication is that Peter is about to suffer the same fate. If the death of James made Herod popular, how much more would the striking down of Peter cause the popularity of Herod to skyrocket! Peter had been one of the most vocal apostles we read of in the book of Acts. Peter is the one who gave the speech in Acts 2, an event that happened some 10 years previous to what we are reading now. Peter had been preaching and teaching the risen Jesus all over the region of Judea.

The Release of Peter

(Acts 12:4-19)

The circumstances

Peter is in prison and is being guarded by four squads of soldiers. A squad consisted of four soldiers, so there are sixteen soldiers watching over Peter. This is heavy security. Perhaps the Jews recall the situation we read about in Acts 5 when the apostles were arrested but an angel let them out in the night. Not only are there 16 soldiers on watch, but two soldiers are chained to Peter, one to his right hand and one to his left hand (Acts 12:6). After the Passover was completed, Herod intended to bring Peter out and have him killed, to the delight of the Jews.

While Peter is in prison, verse 5 tells us that the church prayed fervently to God for him. The first century Christians had put their faith in God that maybe something can be done for Peter to spare him from Herod’s evil. The night before Peter was to be brought out, Peter is sleeping while chained between the soldiers.

Peter’s release

Suddenly, an angel appears in the prison. The angel taps Peter on his side to wake him and instructs him to get up quickly. The chains fall off of Peter’s hands. Peter is told to fasten his belt and put on his sandals as he is about to leave the prison. Peter wraps his cloak around him and follows the angel.

What is interesting is that Peter nearly thinks he is dreaming as all of this is going on. He thinks he is simply seeing another vision and at the time does not realize that he truly is escaping from the clutches of Herod. Peter and the angel pass the first and second guard posts. They come to an iron gate that leads into the city of Jerusalem and the gates opens itself. Once outside and past a street, the angel disappears. What a tremendous miracle that took place!

Peter now realizes that this is truly happening and says, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel and rescued me from Herod’s grasp and from all that the Jewish people expected." So Peter goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many Christians had assembled praying for Peter.

Peter knocks at the door and a servant named Rhoda came to answer. She immediately recognizes Peter’s voice. Rather than opening the door, she runs back into the house and announces to the Christians praying that Peter is standing at the door. They respond that she is out of her mind, but she continues to insist that it was so. Some of them say that it is Peter’s angel. The Jewish Talmud helps us understand what the people were saying. The Jews taught that guardian angels assumed the appearance of the persons they protected and thus served as their doubles. I do not know of any place in the law itself that taught such a concept. However, it seems this concept was a Jewish tradition. So they opened the door and were astounded to see Peter standing there. Peter explained to them all that had just happened to him. Peter tells the Christians to report these things to James, the brother of Jesus and the rest of Jesus’ brothers. Then Peter leaves and goes to another place.

The next morning there is a great commotion among the soldiers as to what could have become of Peter. One can only imagine the soldiers with their chains still attached to their arms but no longer attached to Peter. Herod searched and did not find Peter and also interrogates the soldiers. Afterward, Herod orders the execution of the soldiers, a common practice in those days for soldiers who failed at their duties.

The Death of Herod

(Acts 12:20-25)

The event

Our story concludes with a look at the end of Herod Agrippa’s life. On an appointed day, Herod put on his royal robes and made a public address. Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, records that Herod had come to Caesarea to celebrate a festival held in honor of Emperor Claudius.

After the address, the people kept shouting, "the voice of a god, and not of a man!" Immediately, Herod was struck by an angel of the Lord. Herod was eaten by worms and died. He suffered an extremely painful death. The reason the Lord afflicted him was "because he did not give the glory to God."

Glorify the Lord

How many times we have seen in the scriptures death inflicted upon people who would not give glory to God. We noted this to be the problem in Acts 5 concerning Ananias and Sapphira. They lied about how much their property sold for in an effort to bring glory to themselves concerning how much they had given to the Lord. Because they did not give glory to God, they were struck dead.

Similarly, in Leviticus 10 we read about Nadab and Abihu who offered a fire that was not authorized by God for sacrifice. They also were immediately consumed by God because they did not treat God as holy and did not give him the glory. We can also remember the lesson from the life of Moses who struck the rock to bring water rather than speaking to rock as the Lord had commanded. Because Moses did not give the glory to the Lord, he was not allowed to enter into the rest of the promised land, but died on the other side of the Jordan River.

Ways we do not glorify God

There are many ways that we do not glorify God. I would like to take a moment to mention a few before we close. We do not glorify God when we look for our own exaltation. Too often we want to receive glory for our actions. All of us have a desire to be recognized for our actions. Remember that this was the sin of king Saul who requested that Samuel honor him before the people. Have you ever had a complex about what other people think? The younger we are, the more this is a problem. It seems as we get older, we are able to not care so much about what people think about us. But what will people think about our house, our car, or ourselves? All of these things are futile because we are spending our efforts trying to bring glory to ourselves and not too God.

Not deflecting praise from ourselves toward God. The problem we see with Herod is that he did not deflect the praise he was getting. He readily accepted the praise the people offered. Recall that any time the apostles were elevated by people, they would tear their clothes and demand that all glory be given to God. Peter, as he entered Cornelius’ house, found the household bowing to him. He immediately instructed them to stand up for Peter was also just a man. God demands we deflect praise from ourselves. It is curious that religion has the greatest problem with this. We see in the religious world titles given to bring praise to man. We have titles for popes, pastors, bishops, reverends, and so forth. We are not glorify man and to accept such a title is error as Herod did.

Disobedience is to not glorify God. When we choose to do what we want to do and not want to live our lives to God’s law, then we are openly stating that we will not glorify God. We are glorify our knowledge and capabilities when we choose to our lifestyle over serving God.

Worthy of Eternal Life

(Acts 13:1-49)

Brent Kercheville

The Story

Saul and Barnabas called (Acts 13:1-3)

In our last study of Acts we saw the death of Herod because he did not stop the people chanting "the voice of a god and not of a man." Peter also escaped from prison by the miraculous work of an angel of the Lord.

Chapter 13 begins by telling us there were five prophets and teachers in the church in Antioch. Unfortunately, we know nothing about these men except for Barnabas and Saul. While worshipping and fasting, the Holy Spirit said to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work which the Holy Spirit had called them. Therefore, after prayer and fasting, Barnabas and Saul are sent off to preach the gospel.

Confrontation at Paphos (Acts 13:4-12)

Saul and Barnabas, along with John Mark, arrive at Cyprus and preached the word of the Lord in the Jewish synagogues. They traveled through the whole island and came to a town on the other side of the island called Paphos. Once in Paphos, they found a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus. Paphos was the capital of this Roman province. Bar-Jesus was with the man in charge of the province, the proconsul Sergius Paulus. Archaeology has found two inscriptions that has a listing of the proconsuls on Cypress, and Paulus name is on that list. This is only further evidence that the Bible is a reliable historical document.

Paulus sends for Barnabas and Saul because he wants to hear their message about God. However, Bar-Jesus opposed Barnabas and Saul and attempted to turn Paulus from the faith. What we have is a showdown between God and the sorcerer. Then Saul, whose Roman name is Paul, looked at Bar-Jesus and said, "You son of the Devil, full of all deceit and all fraud, enemy of all righteousness! Won’t you ever stop perverting the straight paths of the Lord? Now, look! The Lord’s hand is against you: you are going to be blind, and will not see the fun for a time." Immediately a mist fell around Bar-Jesus and went around seeking for someone to lead him by the hand. Clearly God is the true and all-powerful God. Seeing this, the proconsul believed and was astonished at the teaching about the Lord.

Teaching in Antioch of Pisidia

Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga. But John Mark, for reasons not revealed to us, left them and went back to Jerusalem. From Perga, Paul and his companions continue on to Antioch in the region of Pisidia and on the Sabbath went into the synagogue and sat down.

After the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue asked them if they had a message of encouragement for the people to hear. Such a request was customary in the synagogues. Paul will take advantage of the opportunity. Paul preaches a sermon on the history of Israel. If you remember, Stephen also preached on the history of Israel in Acts 7 before the Sanhedin. In both cases, the audience is very aware of the history of Israel. There is no doubt that everyone in the synagogue could recite the history of the mighty works of God toward Israel. Understanding this means that we need to look for a greater reason as to why Paul is preaching such a sermon. Paul is not simply rehearsing something everyone knows. If you recall, though giving a history of Israel, Stephen emphasized the repeated rebellion and rejection of God’s servants found in Israel’s history. Let us read Paul’s sermon and see what he emphasizes about Israel’s history.

Lesson on fulfilled prophecy

God fulfilled prophecy (Acts 13:17-25). I believe as you read this sermon you will find the key point to be concerning the fulfillment of prophecy. First, Paul points out that God has fulfilled his word. God led the people of Israel out of Egypt and conquered the land of Canaan. God gave the people kings, as they requested, and through king David the promise of the Messiah would be fulfilled. John the Baptist declared that One was coming after him would is the prophesied Messiah.

The Jews fulfilled prophecy (Acts 13:26-29). The message of salvation has been sent. However, the residents of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him as the Messiah, nor applied to him the words that are read every Sabbath. By condemning Jesus and having him killed, the Jews fulfilled the prophecy of the scriptures concerning the suffering of the Messiah.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy (Acts 13:30-39). But God raised Jesus from the dead who appeared alive to many witnesses. By Jesus raising from the dead, this was the fulfillment of the prophecy found in Psalms 2:7, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Jesus was also the fulfillment of the prophecy made by Isaiah, "I will grant you the faithful covenant blessings made to David" (Isaiah 55:3). Jesus also fulfilled the prophecy, "You will not allow Your Holy One to see decay" which could not have been fulfilled by David since he died and was buried. It is through Jesus that forgiveness of sins is proclaimed and everyone who believes in him is justified.

You, do not fulfill prophecy (Acts 13:40-41). Now Paul gives the listeners in the synagogue of Antioch a warning that they do not fulfill the prophecy of Habakkuk, "Look, you scoffers, marvel and vanish away, because I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will never believe, even if someone were to explain it to you" (Habakkuk 1:5). Paul calls upon them not be scoffers concerning the great work of God revealed in Christ.

After a lesson, the synagogue service would end in a blessing or prayer. As Paul and the companions were leaving, begged them to speak again on these things the next Sabbath. The following Sabbath almost the whole town assembled to hear the message. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began opposing Paul through insults.

We have fulfilled prophecy (Acts 13:46-49). Paul and Barnabas responded to these Jews by declaring that God’s message had been spoken to them first. But since they rejected it and considered themselves unworthy of eternal life, the message is being spoken to the Gentiles. This also fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 49:6, "I have appointed you as a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth."

When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord. So the message of the Lord spread through the whole region. But the Jews stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and had them thrown out of their district. So Paul and Barnabas shook the dust off their feet and went on the city of Iconium.

Application

Worthy of eternal life?

Of this whole story, I was fascinated by one sentence made by Paul and Barnabas: "But since you reject it, and consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles!" To reject the gospel is to consider oneself unworthy of eternal life.

After hearing this sermon of Paul’s the point becomes very simple and clear: God has done his part by keeping his promises of sending a Messiah to take away our sins. We now can be justified from the law of sin and death. The Jews fulfilled their part, fulfilling the prophecy of the suffering Savior. They rejected Jesus as their Messiah, handed him over to Pilate who crucified him. God raised Jesus up from the dead, proving that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus did his part by allowing all these things to take place and allow the scripture to be fulfilled concerning him.

Will we also fulfill the prophecy made about the scoffers who will not believe in the mighty and great works of God? Will we obey the Lord and receive salvation or continue to question and perish? How little or how much do we think of ourselves? We ought to think enough of ourselves to plan for our eternal destination. We make many plans in life. We plan retirements, living situations, and other such goals for the end of life. But then what will happen to us? What will become of us after these things? What will happen to you after you die? Have you made plans for eternity or have your considered yourself unworthy of eternal life?

Instead of wondering and allowing ourselves to perish, let us use the time right now to receive justification through Jesus Christ. You may not know all the doctrine found in the scriptures. You may have doubts about what God wants you to do. You have fears that you cannot live up to the standards of the Lord. You may be unsure about God and the Bible. But these are not things to prevent us from taking care of our eternal destination. You can take care of your uncertainty regarding what will happen to you after you die: receive the grace of God by trusting your life to God and be immersed in water for the forgiveness of your sins. The message is simple, so simple it causes others to scoff. Do not be like those who scoffed and perished. Obey today.

Leave Worthless Things

(Acts 14:1-28)

Brent Kercheville

Trouble is beginning to follow Paul and Barnabas as they go throughout the Roman Empire preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul and Barnabas had been preaching in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13). There they received a favorable response and were asked to stay another Sabbath to speak more about these things. However, the Jews incited the leaders of the city, stirred up a persecution, and expelled Paul and Barnabas from Antioch.

The Work of Paul and Barnabas

Reaction at Iconium (Acts 14:1-7)

Unfortunately, the same thing happens in Iconium. Paul and Barnabas enter the synagogue and a great number of Jews and Greeks believe. But the Jews refuse to believe the teachings of Paul and Barnabas and stir up the Gentiles against them. But rather than leave because of the turning of the hearts, Paul and Barnabas become more determined and stay there for some time. The Lord enables Paul and Barnabas to perform signs and wonders.

The people in the city of Iconium are divided, some of them siding with the unbelieving Jews and some siding with the apostles. But then an attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, along with the rulers, to assault and stone Paul and Barnabas, they flee to towns of Lystra and Derbe and to the surrounding countryside.

Reaction at Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:8-21)

As Paul and Barnabas come into Lystra, they encounter a man crippled in his feet, lame from birth, who had never walked. Since Paul would usually go into the synagogues and teach, as he did in Antioch and Iconium, we have the reason to think there was not a synagogue there because there were not many Jews who lived in the city.

The lame man from birth hears Paul speaking. Paul looks intently at the lame man and says in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." The man sprang up and began to walk. Once the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted "The gods have come down to us in human form!" The people called Barnabas, Zeus, and they called Paul, Hermes. Zeus was chief of the gods and Hermes was the son of Zeus who was the spokesperson for the gods. Apparently there was a myth in that region that Zeus and Hermes had previously visited the region in human form. However, only an old couple offered them hospitality. The people’s reaction to Paul and Barnabas may possibly somewhat explained by this legend.

Since the crowds are speaking these words in the Lycaonian language, it seems that Paul and Barnabas do not immediately recognize what the people are saying. But when the priest from the temple to Zeus comes and he and crowd want to offer sacrifices to them, Paul and Barnabas understand what is going on and tear their clothes. The tearing of clothes was a Jewish way of expressing deep emotional turmoil but this practice was not unknown in the Greco-Roman world.

Barnabas and Paul rush out into the crowd and begin shouting to them an important lesson. Paul emphasizes that they have come to bring the gospel about God and for them to turn away from these worthless things. Paul, in an effort to prove a living God, makes an argument from nature. The Romans and Greeks worshipped a myriad of gods. Paul declares that they need to turn to the living God, the Creator of all things. This brings about a subtle implication that the gods they are worshipping and maintain a temple for are really dead. They are the imaginations of man.

But even with these words, the crowd can hardly be kept from offering sacrifices to them. Unfortunately, the Jews from Antioch and Iconium come to Lystra and win the hearts of the people. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, believing he was dead. This is a terrible scene as Paul is assumed to be dead. We know they knew how to take a pulse. We have every reason to believe Paul was dead when he was dragged out of the city or, at best, was going to die due to his injuries.

Stoning is no small thing. We must see God’s intervention for Paul to be able to get up from a stoning and go back into the city. I don’t know that I would have gone back into the city that had just rejected me. But the disciples encircle him and they go back into Lystra for the night. We need to see Paul bloody and injured from the stoning and dirty from being dragged out of the city. Left for dead, the disciples of the city whom Paul and Barnabas have converted come to see if Paul is alive.

The next day Paul and Barnabas go on to Derbe. They proclaim the good news to the city and make many disciples of Jesus. Since we are not given much information, we must assume that the Jews did not follow the apostles the approximate 40 miles to Derbe.

Return trip (Acts 14:22-28)

After success in Derbe, they return through the cities where they had been to strengthen the new disciples. If I were Paul, I think I would have suggested we skip Lystra. Still feeling the soreness and pain of the stoning, I would not want to come through there again. But the welfare of the disciples in the city was more important than his own physical welfare.

As they went through the cities, they encouraged the disciples to continue in the faith, saying, "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." Paul would have a very recent story to relate the disciples about all he had been enduring from the Jews. To see the faith of Paul and Barnabas in the midst of these persecutions would have been encouraging to the disciples. "If Paul can enduring being stoned to death, I can endure the hardships I must face for the cause of Christ."

We also learn that the apostles appointed elders in each church as they went back through encouraging the saints. This is an important sentence in which we see that more than one person was appointed as an elder over a congregation. One person is not in charge of a whole church. We also see that the elders were over each church and were not over other churches. We do not see archbishops or cardinals in charge over many churches. Each church had its own leadership of at least two qualified men. Paul and Barnabas, after visiting these churches, return to Antioch and relay to the disciples all that had happened and how the Gentiles were receiving the good news of Jesus Christ.

Applications For Today

Swayed by the majority?

We see a common problem as Paul and Barnabas were going through the regions preaching. The people would initially respond favorably to the gospel that Paul and Barnabas preached. But then the Jews would come in, sway the hearts of the people, against the apostles, and drive them out of the city.

Human nature has something built within it that wants to be part of the majority. We have a "herd mentality" in which we want to go along with others. If the majority is against us, then this is usually enough for us to change our minds. The question often is: what does everyone else think? This is a frustrating problem in our government today. Our representatives do not do what is right or what is best. Rather, they take a poll to see what is favorable with the people.

God can certainly fall into the same problem. We can choose to reject God because all of our family and all of our friends reject God. We can choose to follow God because all of our family and all of friends accept God. But we are not to be mindless followers. In fact, we see Paul reasoning with arguments as to why they ought to obey the gospel. No appeal is ever made to do because everyone else is doing it.

It is disappointing to see how many people are influenced by others to such a degree in their lives that they will ignore logic and reason simply to be in the majority. I have a great appreciation for Christians who have had to stand in the minority with their families and their friends. They are not willing to cave in to the pressure of following the crowd.

Illustration: shopping lines; illustration: the pope ceremonies.

We must go through troubles to serve God

Paul does not go to the new Christians in these cities and tell them that serving God will be easy. He could not, since he had been stoned and left for dead in an effort to teach the message of God.

We must go through troubles in life. Satan is going to fight against us when we decide to serve the Lord. It happens nearly every time that I can think when someone because a follower of Jesus. Immediately, a tough decision is placed in front of them regarding their work, their family, or some other choice to fall back into the lifestyle of sin. To think that Christianity is easy is to not recognize that we are accepting a spiritual struggle against sin and Satan. The changing and reforming of our character to become like the character of God is not easy. We have challenges to face simply becoming what God wants us to be.

But we must also prepare ourselves that we will experience hardships that will test our faith. All people experience hardships in life. These hardships are tools of Satan to drive us away from God. But we are to use the trials to become better people for the service of God.

Leave worthless things

While in Lystra, Paul and Barnabas preached to the people to turn from worthless things. These worthless things were the idols they were following. They worshipped the Roman and Greek gods as if they were real factors that altered their lives. We all have our gods that we must break down and eliminate. These are things we place a value on that we will sacrifice other things to maintain it. I believe we can boil down our idols into three consuming gods.

The god of sufficiency (Work). It is amazing to me how work has become such an important aspect in people’s lives. Work is no longer about making some money to pay the bills. Work defines our character. Work is the amazing hall pass of elementary school. If we "have" to work, then no one questions it. It supposedly is the excuse of all excuses.

Obviously work is necessary for our survival. But what I am questioning is our "have to" mentality toward work. I think many times we are lying to ourselves. It is not that we have to work and make various sacrifices, but that we want to work. We say we are making sacrifices, but we really are not because the other things in life God and family are not as important to us as our work.

Without fail, people ask me if they are sinning by working rather than coming to worship on Sunday. The question is not one that I can answer with an obvious passage. But in many ways I think we are not asking the right questions and I would like to suggest two different questions to ask for us to determine if work is our god. First, what else is being sacrificed by work? Sometimes when we are sacrificing our Sundays we are also sacrificing the rest of our service to God. We are not praying, reading, studying, meditating, serving others, or teaching the lost because of our work. Many times work is our excuse because we do not want to do something else.

The other question to ask is if you will be comfortable on the day of judgment telling God that work prevented us from doing what he commanded. Luke 14 tells the parable of the great banquet where those invited made excuses as to why they could not come. The master’s reaction was of anger. I know for myself that I would not feel good with any excuse as to why I did not live up to my duties and responsibilities as a servant of God. Physical work certainly would not give me confidence when the final accounting before God is done. Preachers have to be very cautious with this problem. Since the work is serving God, many have made undue sacrifices which have cost family life. Too often congregations expect preachers to disregard the family to serve them. All of us must make sure we are not sacrificing our spouses and children because we find our lives in work.

The god of more (Wealth). Following closely with work is wealth. The other reason people plunge themselves into work is because wealth is what is important. Always wanting more and content only for a moment with what one has is a common problem. We work more because we want more. We are unwilling to scale back our standard of living. We are unwilling to make financial sacrifices so we sacrifice God and family.

The god of self (Comfort). I suppose it was a little uncomfortable for Paul to be stoned. I supposed he was uncomfortable go among complete strangers and teaching the gospel in the face of persecution. Yet, one of the biggest reasons people to not obey the Lord is because it is not convenient. Churches are attempting to package God in a way that he can be convenient for you. If you like camping, he is the god of camping. If you like sports, he is the god of sports. Whatever you like, churches will market God for that need. We think we can change God to fit our need. We are encouraged to worship at the church of your choice. We think God is like an ice cream parlor, supposedly offering 31 flavors so we can pick what we like. We are exchanging the true and living God for a personal god we can put in our back pocket to make us feel better. Any attempt to make God what we want is to develop a worthless idol.

As we conclude, I would like for us to take a moment to identify the important things in your life. Write down the things you enjoy, things that give you happiness, things that mean a lot to you, and so on. Then write down the amount of time spent in each pursuit on average per week. Add up the hours with God and hours with the family. Consider if we are placing a greater emphasis on the worthless things of life and not giving time to the things that truly matter.

Conclusion:

According to Ecclesiastes, most of the things in this world are worthless things. Much of what we do is worthless. While we may receive temporary enjoyment, there is not lasting pleasure.

How To Find God’s Will

(Acts 15:1-35)

Brent Kercheville

Problems With Judaizers

The teaching

Some men came from Judea teaching the Christians that unless they were circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved. This appears to be a growing problem among the disciples. Some are teaching the need for circumcision. Paul and Barnabas have engaged these teachers and have had serious arguments and debates with them.

Now all of this could have been solved if the Christians wanted to appease those teaching the need for circumcision. The problems would end and everything would be okay. But there is a greater point involved. Will we do something to appease other teachers? More importantly, will we add a requirement to the gospel message? Can we tell other people they are not saved because there is something that is missing? This is a critical issue that faces the first century Christians.

The apostles and elders of Jerusalem decide to get together to discuss this problem. When they gather together, the apostles report all that God had done with them. But the Jewish Christians stand up and declare that it is necessary to circumcise them and command them to obey the law of Moses.

The discussion

The apostles and elders need to determine what is God’s will. How they go about determining God’s will is important for us as we strive to follow the pattern of the New Testament church.

In verse 7, Peter declares that God chose him by a vision to be the first one to go to the Gentiles. God testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as God had given the apostles at the very beginning in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 2. God made no distinction between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians for their hearts were also cleansed by faith.

But Peter does not leave the dispute by simply describing his experience with Cornelius and his household. Peter makes a strong argument: why are you testing God by putting on the disciples’ necks a yoke that no one could bear? Why would we command the keeping the law of Moses for salvation when keeping the law for salvation is not possible? No one is able to be justified by the law. Thus Peter concludes, "On the contrary, we believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they are." Peter says that we (Jewish Christians) are not saved through the keeping of the law of Moses and neither are Gentiles.

Paul and Barnabas then describe all the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After Paul and Barnabas finished, James the brother of Jesus reports that these events are in keeping with the words of the prophet Amos. Based upon these things, James declares that they should not cause difficulties for those who turn to God.

Thus, they decide to write a letter to those who were teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised in which they explained what God had commanded them to do through the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Gentiles should not be burdened with anything else but the challenges they already face trying to be Christians in the Greco-Roman world. They were to abstain from food offered to idols, eating things strangled or drinking blood (common in pagan worship), and to keep from sexual immorality. They encourage the Christians to avoid paganism within the empire and follow the living God.

How To Find God

Not through direct intervention

This issue of whether circumcision was necessary for salvation was critical in the first century. If the apostles, elders, and other disciples misunderstood God’s will, thousands upon millions of people would be compelled to be circumcised even though it was not God’s will. Further, many would reject the gospel if it included circumcision unnecessarily.

How the apostles, elders, and disciples go about finding out God’s will is important for us to learn and follow today. Verse 28 tells us that they were guided by the Holy Spirit in the arrival of their decision. Now when we say the Holy Spirit guided the decision, we often immediately think that the Holy Spirit did something miraculous.

This is the way many people think they are to find out God’s will. On television we see people declaring that God spoke directly to them and told them what they ought to do. We have seen others claim that God would kill them if a certain amount of money was not received. Some people teach that you will hear something in your ear or in your head, which is the Holy Spirit talking to you. Others teach that the Holy Spirit moves your heart and whatever you feel is the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Other denominations teach that we are to wait for God’s prompting to know what we are to do.

The Holy Spirit guided this decision, yet there is no record of the Holy Spirit intervening in the debate over this issue. In fact, I would have expected this to be an instance where we would see the direct intervention of God because of the gravity of the issue. This decision was too important to botch. But God had revealed his will on this matter already and it was up to everyone to determine God’s will. Let us look how the first century Christians determined God’s will and then we will know how we are to know God’s will today. Let us take the three ways they determined God’s will in reverse order.

Direct command (Acts 15:15-21)

The easiest way to determine God’s will is by finding God’s commands in the scriptures. This is the way James, the brother of Jesus, comes to the conclusion that it is God’s will that Gentiles need not be circumcised for salvation.

James reads from Amos 9:11-12 where the prophet declared that all Gentiles may seek the Lord. The prophecy did not declare that the rest of mankind would have to become Jews or keep the law of Moses to seek the Lord. Salvation was intended by God to be offered to the Gentiles at the coming of the Messiah.

This is the most straightforward and simplest way to determine God’s will for us. Direct commands which call for us to "love our neighbor as ourselves" and to "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" cannot be ignored. No amount of human logic or rationalizing can deny the clear commands of God.

If I can have make an aside at this moment, I would like for us to consider something else about the words of Amos. The religious world teaches that the temple in Jerusalem is going to be rebuilt so that Christ can return at the end of time. This teaching is called premillennialism and is promoted by Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye. But I want us to read something carefully in this prophecy: God says he will return and rebuild David’s tabernacle (the temple, as understood by premillennialists). But if Acts 15:16 of Amos’ prophecy has not been fulfilled yet, then neither has Acts 15:17 of Amos’ prophecy which states that Gentiles can seek the Lord. The point is this: if God has not rebuilt the temple and must still do so in the future, then no Gentiles have salvation yet. Only when the temple is built can the Gentiles be offered salvation. It is important to see that Amos was not prophesying of a literal temple in Jerusalem, but of God’s kingdom which would be restored on the day of Pentecost. On that day, Jews and Gentiles would be able to seek the Lord and find salvation. God’s kingdom has been restored and is not something to look toward in the future.

Approved Examples (Acts 15:12)

But the words of James were not the only way that the first century Christians determined it was God’s will that Gentiles not be circumcised for salvation. Paul and Barnabas spoke and declared the signs and wonders that God had done through them. This is a case of following an example, sometimes called approved example.

Paul’s point was that God would not allow his miracles and wonders to be used for the salvation of the Gentiles if what they were doing was wrong. God would not allow these mighty works to do something false. Paul and Barnabas are using themselves as an example to the first century Christians to show that salvation could come to the Gentiles without circumcision. If circumcision was necessary, why could Paul and Barnabas continue performing miracles to the Gentiles?

Therefore, the examples of the apostles also become a pattern for our lives. This fits with the teaching of the New Testament as Paul declared, "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1). This is certainly right for us. Since we see the apostles and the first century Christians meeting on the first day of every week to partake of the Lord’s Supper, so also must follow the pattern. Their examples help us become the people that Jesus wants us to be.

Necessary inference (Acts 15:7-11)

But examples and direct commands are not the only ways we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Peter uses necessary inference to determine the will of God. Peter was never directly told to baptize Cornelius and his household, who were all Gentiles. Peter had no example to follow of others baptizing Gentiles. But when God gave the Gentiles the Holy Spirit just as God had given the apostles, the logical inference is that Gentiles were to receive salvation just as they had. In fact, this is the very argument Peter makes in verse 11.

God expects a certain amount of ability to reason the scriptures so that God’s word can be applied to many circumstances properly. God did not specifically address every issue of life. But he left us the scriptures so that we could apply its principles properly to our circumstances.

It ought to weigh heavily in our minds that God did not speak directly to Paul, Peter, or James and tell him what to do in regards to this issue. This is not the way to determine God’s will. Hebrews 1:1-2 says that in times past God spoke to the prophets but now has spoken through His Son. Jesus told the apostles that they would be guided into all truth (John 14-17). The Holy Spirit revealed the rest of God’s will to the apostles. Once God’s will was revealed, God did not continue to speak to the apostles. They were left to find God’s will in the same way we are today.

This is how the Holy Spirit guides us to know God’s will. It is not by directly speaking to our minds God’s will. If that was the case, then why do so many people disagree on what God’s will is? We should all come to the same conclusion if God were speaking directly to us. Rather, by reading the word of God we can know God’s will. Why do so many people disagree on what God’s will is? The reason is that not everyone is reading the word of God. Many make decisions on what they think is right or what other people say. God’s word is the standard to follow and when we read, we can understand His will for our lives (Ephesians 3:3-5).

Resolving Conflicts In Christ

(Acts 15:36-41)

Brent Kercheville

Conflicts between us happen. Sometimes we are unable to see eye to eye with another person on a particular issue, sometimes our conflicts simply come from misunderstanding and poor communication. Whatever the case may be, from time to time we will run into problems with other people. We must expect to encounter conflicts. But how to we handle the conflict? The New Testament helps us to see what we must do in these circumstances.

Examples of Conflict

Simon the Zealot & Levi the Tax Collector

As we have studied the people that Jesus befriends, we noted that one of the men Jesus chose was a tax collector named Levi, who is more commonly known as the apostle Matthew. Remember that tax collectors were considered traitors to the Jewish cause. Further, tax collectors were known to be thieves and extortioners, giving reason why tax collectors were classified as prostitutes in society. Tax collectors were a hated group of people by the Jews.

By contrast, Jesus also chose as one of this apostles Simon the zealot. We fail to recognize the gravity of the zealot’s background until we consult history. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary states that a zealot was "one who had advocated revolutionary opposition to Rome." Ryrie agrees, stating that zealots "advocated the overthrow of Rome by force." Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, says that zealots "resorted to violence and assassination in their hatred of the foreigner." Vincent in his book Word Studies says that zealots were "a sect which stood for the recovery of Jewish freedom and the maintenance of distinctive Jewish institutions."

Therefore, we must consider the political spectrum involved in Jesus’ selection of apostles. One of the apostles worked for the Roman Empire, taxing the Jews unfairly to line his own pockets. Another apostle hated all that the Roman Empire stood for, believed in the overthrow of Rome, and perhaps would have worked to revolt against Roman power. One apostle agrees with the Romans and another apostle hates the Romans. One apostle accepted the presence of Roman power in Judea and profited from it and another apostle would be willing to die to rid Judea of Roman authority. It is not hard to imagine the conflict that would have existed on the first day as Matthew was introduced to Simon. It is not hard to envision the first thoughts that came through Matthew and Simon’s minds when they learned they both had been called to follow Jesus.

Paul & Barnabas

But we do not have to wonder if there were conflicts that arose between Christians. The New Testament records such a conflict between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41. Paul desires to go back to the cities he and Barnabas have preached in to see how the disciples in those cities are doing. Barnabas is determined to take Mark with them on this journey. Mark had gone with Paul and Barnabas on the first journey, but returned to Jerusalem early in the trip (Acts 13:13). It is Barnabas’ expectation to take Mark on the journey with them again.

But Paul insisted that they should not take Mark with them because he had left them before. Verse 39 tells us that the dispute became a sharp disagreement. One does not have to think too hard to understand that the disagreement was about. Barnabas says that Mark went with them last time on the journey, and Mark is ready to go again. Barnabas is not bothered by the fact that Mark had returned to Jerusalem on the first journey. Paul, however, does not want Mark to come. Mark left before any of the cities had persecuted them. Mark had not seen the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia chase them through the cities of Asia Minor persecuting them. Mark had not seen what happened in Lystra where Paul was stoned, dragged out of the city, and left for dead. If Mark bailed out on the first journey before the going got hard, what will happen this time when Mark experiences the persecutions of the Jews!

So who is right? They both are right. Both of the opinions of Paul and Barnabas are valid and truthful. No one is making up a story nor has an ax to grind. These are the facts. In verses 39-41 we read about the solution Paul and Barnabas came up with for the problem. Paul and Barnabas divide up the territories they had visited. Barnabas takes Mark and they go to Cyprus to see how the disciples are doing there. Paul takes Silas and they go through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches.

We see the reason for the disputes we have looked at in this lesson. People have different backgrounds, different values, and different perceptions. From time to time we will have these conflicts because we will not see things that same way as other people. We are not robots who do all things the same way. I would not make the decisions that I see other people make and many people would not make the decisions I have made. Much of that has to do with our backgrounds, values, and perceptions. But what are we to do about this? How can we deal with these conflicts so that there is resolution and so that we are remain pleasing and obedient to God.

Dealing With Conflicts

What Not To Do

Tell others. I find it interesting that Paul and Barnabas do not drag the Antioch church into the dispute they are having with each other. Paul and Barnabas do not turn this sharp disagreement into a drama for the Antioch church to sort out. The problem remained with the people with whom the dispute was about. How often we pull people into problems that it is not their business to know about. If we have marriage conflicts, we tell others about it, rather than deal with the problem quietly. If we have friendship conflicts, rather than try to come to an understanding, we like to pull in our other friends to have them weigh in on the matter. Let us realize what we have done: we have broken trust. In a friendship, we have broken the trust of the relationship by telling others about the problem. The same is true in a marriage. We break the trust of the marriage when we tell others about our problems. Do not tell others.

Cold shoulder/lash out. Depending upon our personality, we often act like children when a conflict arises by either lashing out or giving the cold shoulder. Some people think they are acting appropriately by just not talking to the person or speaking in short sentence bursts. Do we really think that this is acting like Christ? Do we really think that intentionally ignoring someone in an attempt to either hurt another’s feelings or to "make a point" is acceptable? Neither is lashing out at someone. The other reaction, which is just as wrong, is venting. We have had it so we just unload on someone. These reactions are not acceptable and are not found in the scriptures as righteous.

Complain. Many times we just complain about the situation. If we cannot have things our way, we are going to complain as much as possible about what happened. I am sure that Paul went through to the cities in Asia Minor, telling the disciples about how Barnabas wanted to take that deserter, Mark. I am sure that Barnabas went through Cyprus telling the disciples how awful Paul was for not wanting to take Mark with them. While we are convinced the apostles did not act this way, we sure act that way. We make sure that everyone knows what the other person did to us and paint them person into something terrible. Again, we are not acting like Christians.

What We Are To Do

Try to work it out. We have to realize that we may be wrong. We like to think that our opinion is always right and knowledge about someone or some situation is always correct. But such an egotistical attitude prevents us from trying to find common ground and resolution. Too often we just want to be right and we will misuse scripture or misrepresent other people just to justify ourselves. We must sincere try to work out our conflicts. The language of the Greek in Acts 15:36-41 indicates that this was an ongoing discussion. Barnabas did not simply say he wanted to bring Mark and Paul said no and so they split. This was a long discussion that finally turned into a sharp dispute. We must attempt to work out solutions.

Overlook it. We must realize that we will not see eye to eye on everything. Too often we think that everyone is coming from our point of view, and it is not true. Too often we think that the answer is clear from our vantage point, but we are not thinking about the other person’s vantage point. When Paul said to look out for the best interests of others in Philippians 2, he was certainly including the need for us to put ourselves in another’s shoes as best we can. Many times the reason for the conflict is that we are not considering where the other person is coming from.

Move forward. We must realize that I will not always be able to change people’s minds. Are we arrogant enough to think that everyone should think the way we think? Are we so egotistical that we think our wisdom will change every person’s mind to our side? We have to have the ability to let some things go. I personally would love for everyone to see eye to eye with me on the interpretation of Revelation, but I cannot hijack a relationship because someone does not. I cannot treat another badly because they do not think as I think. We have to move forward and let those things go.

Unite under a common cause. We have to realize that we will not believe all things alike. There are many issues that we will disagree upon. Paul and Barnabas disagreed about what to do with Mark. But they united under the common cause of Christ and their desire to help the new disciples in the cities. Paul and Barnabas had work to do for the Lord and their disagreement would not stop them from that work. In the same way, Simon the zealot and Levi the tax collector had many issues they would have disagreed upon concerning the involvement of the Roman Empire in Judaism and Christianity. But they had to unite under the common cause of following Jesus.

In Arkansas, a church in another city disagreed with how we advertised ourselves to visitors and what we did with our Wednesday evening Bible studies. So vehement was their belief that we were wrong, that they dissuaded people from going to our church. So many, rather than go to our church in Fayetteville, went to very liberal churches that were in clear error of the scriptures. Some brethren think they are justified in such actions. But we need to rethink what we are doing if we think that is a good thing. I may disagree with the church in Boca, Hollywood, or Fort Pierce, but better that someone go there than go to a place where clear error is taught. We have to unite some of our differences under the common cause of Christ, realizing that we will not believe all things alike. If we think we must believe all things the same to be in fellowship, then we will end up in a church of one.

Be defrauded. We must always remember Paul’s words that it is better to be defrauded than to make a point. In 1 Corinthians 6:7 Paul said, "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?" Instead of always trying to be right, we need to simply close our mouths and let many things go. We may be right, but Paul says we ought to be wronged instead. We may be right in dealing with the conflict in our marriage. But we need to be willing to be wronged. Rather than demand that we are right in our relationships, we can be defrauded. What does it really hurt? It does not hurt anything more than our own pride.

Conclusion:

We know how to resolve our conflicts. The problem is that we usually are more interested in showing ourselves to be right rather than fixing the conflict. We just want to justify our thoughts too much. Rather than making a show, causing a stir, lashing out, or complaining about what has happened to us, let us simply and quietly try to act properly and resolve our conflicts, even if it means we may be treated unfairly. God will bring his justice later and knows of our righteous actions.

The Gospel’s Power

(Acts 16:1-40)

Brent Kercheville

Last time we saw in Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas dealing with a conflict they had concerning Mark. Barnabas takes Mark and goes to Cypress, strengthening the disciples on that island. Paul takes Silas with him and goes back to Asia Minor, strengthening the disciples in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. In Acts 16 we will follow the journey of Paul and Silas as they preach in Asia Minor.

The Story

Timothy (Acts 16:1-10)

As Paul and Silas go through Derbe and Lystra, they come across a disciple named Timothy who was spoken highly of by the brethren. Paul asks Timothy to come with him on their journey, preaching the gospel in Asia Minor. Timothy agrees and Paul has Timothy circumcised.

The reason Timothy needed to be circumcised (even though they had just determined in Acts 15 that circumcision was not necessary) was because Timothy was considered a Jew because his mother and grandmother were Jews, though his father was a Greek. The Jews would have looked upon Timothy as a violator of the Law of Moses and they never would have been able to teach them the good news of Jesus Christ. A Jew needed to be obedient to the Law of Moses if he were going to be able to teach the Jewish people.

Paul, Silas, and Timothy traveled through the towns teaching the gospel and telling them about the decision in Jerusalem that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Verse 5 tells us that the churches were strengthened in the faith and were increased in number daily. These are two important goals for any local church.

First, we want those who are part of the saved group here to be built up. The strengthening of the disciples is no small goal that we must desire to reach. It is one of my desires that every time you come to a Bible class or worship hour that you are learning more about God’s word which will strengthen your faith and your resolve to obey God.

Second, we want to be increasing numerically. Each person here has the responsibility to taking the gospel to the lost of the world. It is our job to share the good news with our neighbors, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances. We cannot be overly concerned if people accept or reject the gospel. Our goal is to be sure to give every opportunity to every person to know God’s will and give them the ability to choose to serve God.

As they continue preaching the gospel, the Holy Spirit directs them to cross the sea and go to the region of Macedonia. In Macedonia there would be many people receptive to the good news of Jesus.

Lydia (Acts 16:11-15)

Notice at verse 10 we have a change in the subject. Before, we were reading about Paul, Silas, and Timothy. But now the scripture says "we" went to Macedonia. Luke is now accompanying them on the journey. So as we read these passages, we need to think of Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke traveling together to Macedonia.

They come to the city of Philippi. This city was a Roman outpost. There was not a synagogue to enter, signifying that there were very few Jews living in this city. Philippi was a military city, not a commercial city. They stay in Philippi a number of days. On the Sabbath they go down to the river just outside the city where women gathered to pray. In the preaching of the gospel to the women, Lydia’s heart was open to the message and she was baptized to have her sins forgiven.

Slave girl (Acts 16:16-18)

As Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke continue on their way, a slave girl meets them who has the spirit of divination. Because of this spirit, she was able to make a large profit for her owners through fortune-telling. The slave girl begins following Paul and Silas around Philippi.

While the slave girl was following Paul and Silas around, she was proclaiming loudly, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." This kept going on for many days. Paul becomes annoyed by this after many days and commands the spirit to come out of her.

I remember growing up wondering why Paul would become aggravated by the slave girl declaring the truth of what they are doing: proclaiming the way of salvation. But imagine trying to teach a Bible class with an unbeliever and while you are teaching a woman continues shouting, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." While she is proclaiming the truth, she is interfering with the work you are trying to accomplish. Who can listen to what you have to say when she continues shouting these words? Finally, Paul casts the spirit out.

Arrested (Acts 16:19-24)

Unfortunately, casting out this spirit causes a great problem for Paul and Silas. The owners of the slave girl see that they have lost their way of making large sums of money and therefore seize Paul and Silas and drag them to the authorities. Isn’t it interesting that these owners are not impressed by the miracle that has just happened by casting the spirit out? They are more interested in the money they have just lost. This is still true today as people care more about money than their own eternal destination of their souls.

The owners bring Paul and Silas to the Roman authorities in the city. They charge Paul and Silas with disturbing the city with their teachings that were not lawful for Romans to adopt or practice. Remember the messages we did a few weeks back about the gospel message in the Roman context. To declare someone as the Son of God and Savior of the world was to declare that the person was the emperor. Those titles were imperial titles reserved for the emperor alone. To say that Jesus is the true king and emperor of the world was unlawful for the Romans to hear.

Based upon these charges, the crowds joined into the attack. The authorities order that they be stripped and beaten with rods. After they had received a severe flogging, they were arrested and thrown into prison.

Deliverance (Acts 16:25-40)

But there are some strange things that are about to happen. First, at about midnight Paul and Silas are praying and singing hymns to God. Paul and Silas are not alone in this prison. We are told that the prisoners were listening to their prayers and their songs.

Second, a violent earthquake takes places so that the foundations of the jail were shaken. All the doors were opened and the chains were loosed. The jailor wakes up and sees that the prison doors were open. He begins to draw his sword to take his own life due to this event. The Roman authorities would have killed him for failing in keeping the prisoners secure in the jail. But Paul shouts to the jailor not to harm himself because they are all there. This is the third strange event in the story. There is no jailbreak here. Even though the doors are opened and the chains were loosed, all the prisoners remain inside. The jailor calls for lights and fell down trembling because of these amazing acts.

The jailor asks what he needs to do to be saved. Paul responds that he and his household can be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus. Paul and Silas begin to speak the words of the Lord to the jailor and his household. Immediately he and his household were baptized. The jailor takes Paul and Silas into his house and feeds them. But they are still prisoners, for the next day the authorities proclaim that they can go free. But Paul says that they will not leave quietly because the authorities have broken Roman law by beating these men and throwing them in prison without cause. The authorities come and apology to Paul and Silas and then took them out of the city.

Applications

The gospel’s power in trials

One lesson that becomes evident from reading the story of salvation concerning the Philippian jailor is that unbelievers watch how we deal with trials. Perhaps the most impressive part of what we read in Acts 16 is how Paul and Silas deal with the mistreatment against them. Verse 22 tells us that they were attacked by the crowds. Their clothes are torn off of them and they are beaten with many blows. Then they are thrown into prison.

But verse 25 is one of the most astounding responses from these disciples of Jesus. While Paul and Silas are in prison, chained in this dungeon, they are singing and praying. Verse 25 also tells us that the prisoners were listening to them. The prisoners are watching what Paul and Silas are doing. How impressive would it have been to see these two men joyfully spending their time in prison by singing songs and praying! These prisoners would certainly want to know why these men were acting this way! They would want to know how these men could be handling these terrible circumstances this way.

We see this point again with the Philippian jailor. After the earthquake takes place, the chains are loosed. The jailor is about to kill himself because it was certain death to fail in keeping the prisoners secure. But all the prisoners have not escaped. The jailor’s first question must have been: "why didn’t you all escape?" "Why not take advantage of the opportunity in the middle of the chaos to leave?" Paul and Silas had made an impression on the jailor by how they dealt with their trial.

We also make a similar impact on those around us at work, at school, and in our neighborhoods. If we act just like those without God in the middle of trials, then what advantage are we showing those who have not decided to follow Jesus? We are declaring to them that there is no advantage in following Jesus. They will not see the calm, the joy, or the peace that one ought to have in Christ. Rather, they will see us acting the same way they act: losing our minds, stressing out, giving up and collapsing. That will not change their minds to follow God. Such a response will only confirm in their minds that there is no need to trust in God because those who claim to trust in God seem to have no advantage.

Dealing with life’s circumstances by keeping calm and trusting God is not an easy thing to do. But God looks for us to show that trust in God, not only for our own faith, but also as an example to unbelievers. Our strength is a teaching tool to those who know us.

The gospel’s power in salvation

After these events, the Philippian jailor asks Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" They answered him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." In Acts 2, the people on the day of Pentecost asked the very same question to Peter in verse 37 what they should do to be saved. Peter told those people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Did Peter give a different answer than what Paul and Silas gave here in Philippi?

At first pass, it seems as if Paul and Silas are teaching a different means to salvation. Many simply assume that to "believe in the Lord Jesus" is to merely acknowledge that there is a God. But in this text we see that when the apostles spoke about the need to believe in God, they were not describing just a mental assent to want to follow Jesus.

In verse 34 we read that he and his entire household had believed in God. How did he and his entire household believe in God? First, we see that the jailor and his household listened to the word of the Lord being spoken to them (vs. 32). Belief comes not only through the knowledge of God, but also through the knowledge of God’s will for our lives. We must desire to do what God wants us to do to become believers.

Second, the jailor washes the wounds of Paul and Silas. Why was this done in respect to salvation? What does washing the wounds of these disciples have to do with the urgency of receiving forgiveness of sins and salvation? What we read the jailor doing is called repentance. Peter had preached repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Paul also taught repentance and the jailor sought the way to be repentant before God. We can see from reading this text that repentance is not sorrow, but is about righting any wrongs we have committed. If I steal, returning the stolen property is repentance. If I lie, telling the truth is repentance. Repentance is about changing our lives which motivates to do right, especially toward those we have sinned against. The jailor is attempting to right the wrongs committed against Paul and Silas. He is repentant about what has happened against them.

Finally, after being taught God’s will and bearing fruits of repentance, the jailor and his household are immersed in water. Once again, these are the same steps that Peter preached were necessary to receive the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God. Only after repentance and baptism were accomplished did the jailor and his household rejoice. Only after repentance and baptism do the scriptures say that the jailor and his household "believed in God."

The gospel’s power in your life can only begin when you accept the conditions of God’s gift of grace to you. We cannot think that we have begun our walk with God simply because we acknowledge there to be a God. We cannot think that we have our sins forgiven just because we have let Jesus into our hearts. These are only the first steps, but there are more conditions that must be met to receive God’s gift. God is asking for changed lives. God is looking for submissive lives that will obey God’s commands. The gospel has the power to change your life. The gospel is the power of salvation that can take your sins away. Obedience to the gospel brings confidence of an eternal home with God. The gospel has the power to bring peace when life is falling apart. Come to Jesus today. (ESV)

Three Responses To God’s Word

(Acts 17:1-34)

Brent Kercheville

Acts 16 concluded with Paul and Silas leaving the city of Philippi after being beaten and imprisoned by Roman authorities. As we begin our study of chapter 17, we will read of Paul preaching in three different cities and receiving three different responses from the people after preaching about the resurrected Jesus. What has been your response toward Jesus? You fit in one of these three categories and must be ready to stand before God to explain your response.

Thessalonica-Resisting The Word

(Acts 17:1-9)

The Story

When Paul and Silas arrive in Thessalonica, they find a synagogue and begin preach to the people each Sabbath, as was their custom in every city they entered. We notice how Paul and Silas preached in the city. Verses 2-3 tell us that they "reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" (ESV). There are three things they did in their preaching: reasoning, explaining, and proving.

This is an important lesson that all Christians must see. All of us need to be able to reason from the scriptures, explaining and proving the things in which we believe. We must develop the personal tools to be able to reason, explain, and prove the scriptures. We have to put forth some effort and time in study to be able to do this. Consider that Paul and Silas did not ask the people of Thessalonica to have "blind faith" in Jesus. Paul and Silas used logic and reason to teach the people that what happened to Jesus was necessary and that Jesus is the Christ. We must be able to defend our faith.

Through the preaching of the message, some of them (which I think is referring to the Jews) were persuaded, along with a great number of Greeks and leading women. One would think that all is well and that we would be able to classify Thessalonica as a place where the people received the word with gladness.

But in verse 5 we read that the Jews became jealous at the success that Paul and Silas had among the Greek people. Therefore, the Jews took some wicked men from the marketplace and formed a mob. They set the city into an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring Paul and Silas out to the crowd. The mob was looking to kill Paul and Silas. When they could not find Paul and Silas, the mob took the next best thing: Jason and some other Christians. The mob drags Jason and the other Christians to the Roman authorities of the city.

Before the Roman authorities, the mob shouts out the charge: the men who have turned the world upside have come to Thessalonica, acting against the decrees of Caesar teaching that there is another king, Jesus. Again, we need to remember how the preaching of Jesus sounded to Roman ears. To speak of someone as a Savior of the world and the king was to refer to emperor Caesar. This is why the mob in Thessalonica declares that these men are acting against the decrees of Caesar. The message of Jesus as the king was counter-imperial. After posting bail, Jason and the rest are released. They immediately go to Paul and Silas and send them to Berea.

Resisting the Word

The response of the majority of the people in Thessalonica is total resistance and fury against the message of the word of God. Even though Paul and Silas would defend the scriptures through reasoning, explanations, and proofs, the people of Thessalonica would not listen. The people violently opposed the teachings so fiercely that a mob formed.

This can be the response of people today. Some people weigh the evidence and think that it is not for them. I can appreciate that as long as an honest study of the scriptures has been made. But many times, as it was in Thessalonica, people simply choose to be mentally shut off to the possibility that there is a God who requires something from them. There are even those today who go to great lengths to attack those who believe in God.

I do not suppose that there are many readers of this material who are aggressively fighting against God in such a way that we see in Thessalonica. But there may be some who do not want to listen to any discussion about God. There may be some who do not want to hear the explanation and proofs for the scriptures, for Jesus, and for God. Why have such a mentality? What does truth have to fear? Should we all not want to engage in honest, open, and friendly discussion about the existence of God and Jesus and the trustworthiness of the scriptures? We should want to know the truth, even if it does not mesh with what we believe because it is the truth.

Ignoring the truth does not change the outcome. Ignoring the speed limit does not mean that I will not get a ticket because the truth is that there is a law against speeding. In the same way, ignoring God does not change the fact that if He exists, then we are violators and will receive punishment. We should want to find the truth. Our lives depend upon the knowledge of truth and ignorance cannot help us.

Berea-Receiving the Word

(Acts 17:10-15)

The story

When Paul and Silas arrived in Berea, they went into the synagogue, as had been their custom in every city they entered. However, the character of the Bereans was far different than the character of the people in Thessalonica. The Bereans received the word with all eagerness and were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica.

Now, you may be thinking that these were mindless drones who just believed anything and everything that was taught to them. You may think that the Bereans were not logical, educated people like we are. But notice that the scriptures do not paint these Bereans as mindless, gullible peons. The scriptures tell us that the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if the things Paul and Silas reasoned were true.

Receiving the Word

Friends, this is all that we ask of you. We are not asking you buy everything we say or to take it as truth simply because we say something it so. We encourage an investigation of the scriptures and a questioning of our actions to see if they conform to the teachings of the Bible. We want you to be open-minded to the teachings and then examine the things taught to see if they are so.

We need to encourage this concerning all issues surrounding the word of God. We may hold on to teachings that have been taught for years and years and find out that they may be wrong. A teaching being in existence for hundreds of years does not make it the correct teaching. Yet, we often go along with the "received" teaching on a particular passage just because "that is the way it has always been taught." We need to think for ourselves and examine the scriptures for ourselves.

Do not think that it is a matter of simplicity to be open-minded when it comes to teachings. The Greeks had believed in a myriad of gods. It would have been difficult for them to believe that there is only one true God. The Jews had believed that Jesus was not their Messiah. It would be difficult for them to accept that their brethren had killed Jesus who was sent from God to be their Messiah. We must be willing to make changes in the face of truth, regardless of how hard it may seem to accept.

Athens- Ridiculing the Word

(Acts 17:16-34)

The story

Because the Jews from Thessalonica began to stir up problems in Berea, Paul went on to preach in the city of Athens. While Paul is waiting for Silas and Timothy to come to Athens, Paul’s spirit was moved to preach because he saw that the city was full of idols. So he continued to do as we have seen him do throughout this book: reason the scriptures in the synagogue and in the marketplace. Some of the city’s philosophers also argued with Paul, hearing that Paul was preaching about some foreign divinity. Thus the philosophers invited Paul to speak before the Council of the Areopagus.

One of the functions of this council "was that of supervising education, particularly of controlling the many visiting lecturers" (New Testament Commentary; Kistemaker). These philosophers and intellectuals want to know more about what Paul is teaching. Paul was not on trial. The council members of the Areopagus only wanted Paul to explain what he had been teaching the people in the marketplace. Of course, Paul takes this moment as an opportunity to teach. Paul’s sermon has four key points, as far as I can tell.

God is Creator (Acts 17:24). Paul declares that one God made it all. Paul begins by pointing out that the Athenians worship the gods as if they were distant and cannot be known. In fact, one altar was erected to the "unknown god." Paul wants to teach them that God is known and He is the creator of all things. God does not live in temples made with hands, but is Lord of heaven and earth.

God is Provider (Acts 17:25). Paul also declares that there is one God who gives all things. We do not give to God; God gives to us. God gives to mankind life, breath, and everything. There is nothing that mankind can serve God.

God is Ruler (Acts 17:26-28). Paul further declares that God is the supreme ruler. God made all mankind that lives on the face of the earth from one man. God has determined the boundaries of man’s dwelling places. God’s purpose in creating all these things is that man would seek God. God is near and can be found. Paul then uses the poets of the Greeks to prove that God gives us our existence and we are his children.

God sent a Personal Savior (Acts 17:29-34). The Greeks were not to think of God is like gold, sliver, or stone that an image can be formed from. God overlooked this foolishness but now commands all people everywhere to repent. God has fixed a day upon which he will judge the world. Proof of the judgment is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Ridiculing the Word

The Greeks of Athens show another response that can be given to God concerning the revelation of what will happen. There are two separate reactions from the Athenians toward Paul’s message, but both reactions can be seen as ridiculing the message.

Ignore the evidence. Some of the Athenians simply mocked what Paul said. They do not engage Paul in a debate about the proofs of a resurrection. They do not consider the empty tomb. They do not consider the hundreds of witnesses who saw Jesus alive. They do not consider the testimony of the Jewish leaders who realized Jesus was not in the tomb.

Demand more evidence. Other Athenians said that they would want to hear Paul again on this matter. Some people cannot ever have enough proof. Even with a mountain of overwhelming evidence, these things are still not enough to convince. They always want to hear more, see more, and think more about the idea. I hope such people are never called to be on a jury. As a juror, you are not an eyewitness but have to make a determination based upon the evidence. If there are eyewitnesses, they will be presented. All the evidence for and against will be presented. A juror must make a determination based upon this evidence. Demanding more evidence is not an answer and is a poor excuse. The evidence has been given. You cannot ask the prosecution for more. You cannot ask the defense for more. You have it and you must decide.

It is the same with God. You are a juror. God has presented the evidence in this world so that mankind would seek to find Him. Atheists and evolutionists have presented their evidence. It is time for you to decide. But God is not on trial. Your soul is on trial. Your eternal existence is at stake. If you reject the evidence, then you are declaring that you are willing to take the chance that when you die there is nothing. There is no accountability, there is no final reward, there is not final judgment, that there is absolutely nothing. You are saying that this life and this moment that we have right now is all that there is. If you believe this, then at best you have a few decades of life left and at worse, you will lose your life by some accident today. You better try to find all there is right now.

If you accept the evidence for God, then you are declaring that you realize the evidence is there. You may still have some doubts, but you realize that there must be something to life more than this. You realize that our moral consciences must come from something. You realize that life and this world must have been created for no explosion creates life and order, but bring death and destruction. Your soul hangs in the balance. If there is anything after death, if there is any light at the end of the tunnel, if loved ones are waiting for us, and if we are more than just matter that goes to the dirt, then we must get ready because God says that there is a fixed day for judgment. What will you do if you are not ready?

God has commanded all people to repent. We must seek the Lord and do as he commands. His commands are not burdensome. In fact, following God will bring you peace and true joy that nothing else in this world brings. You will be ready to stand on the day of judgment and know that your soul is spared. Why take the risk? What profit is there to ignore even the possibility that there is a God? Obey before the day comes.

When Rebaptism Is Necessary

(Acts 18:1 to Acts 19:7)

Brent Kercheville

Telling the Story

Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17)

After preaching in Athens, Paul went on to Corinth. In Corinth, Paul finds a Jewish man named Aquila and his wife Priscilla. They had recently left Rome because emperor Claudius had expelled all the Jews from the city. This gives us a dating of these events at approximately 49 A.D. Paul stays with Aquila and Priscilla and works with them because they all have the same occupation: tentmaking. Every Sabbath Paul went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews and Greek, trying to persuade them concerning Jesus.

But as has been common in the cities where Paul has preached, the Jews begin to be violently upset with Paul’s teaching. In verse 6 we read that the Jews resisted Paul’s preaching and began to be abusive against him. It becomes evident that Paul is tired of having this reception of the gospel from the Jews. The Jews were to be the people of God who were looking for the Messiah. When Paul preaches the good news that the Messiah had come, they repeatedly abused and tried to kill him. In verse 6, Paul shakes off his clothes in protest to the Jews and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads. I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

We are told the good news that many Corinthians believed in the Lord and were baptized, including the leader of the synagogue, Crispus. To encourage Paul, the Lord comes to him in a vision telling him not to be afraid but to keep speaking to the inhabitants of the city. Paul, therefore, stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching the word of God among them. We see from this that all of us can be worn down from rejection. Even Paul needed encouraging words from God to stay in Corinth and the knowledge that no one would lay a hand on him. Let us be thoughtful to give encouraging words to each other to keep serving, to keep aiding others, and to keep trying to teach others.

Though Paul was told that no one would lay a hand on him, Paul’s faith in those words were put to the test. The Jews made a united attack against Paul and brought him before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia. The Jews make the charge, "This man is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law." But before Paul can make a defense, Gallio immediately dismisses the charges as a waste of time. Gallio points out that the dispute is about words and names. I believe this means that Gallio realizes that the dispute is simply about if Jesus is the Messiah or not. Gallio does not care if Jesus is or is not and immediately releases Paul. The Greeks who watched this event become a mob and beat the ruler of the synagogue, but Gallio did not take notice.

Our faith in God’s words will be put to the test. God told Paul "no one is going to attack and harm you" (NIV). Two verses later we read "the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court" (NIV). I know I would have been thinking in my mind, "I thought you said I would not be attacked and harmed." It seemed that Paul’s end result was going to be the same in the other cities, where Paul would be tried, beaten, and imprisoned. But Paul maintained his faith in God’s words. We also have a very difficult challenge when we read the words that "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength" (1 Corinthians 10:13; NRSV). Our faith in those words will be put to the test. When God says that he will never abandon us nor forsake us, our faith in those words will be put to the test. We must always remember that God is faithful and his words are true. We can have confidence in God’s promises.

Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:18-28)

Paul returns to Antioch after a couple more stops along the way. Paul then went through the regions of Galatia and Phrygia strengthening the disciples along the way. At this moment, the scene changes and we begin to follow the activities of a Jew named Apollos. Apollos was from Alexandria and came to Ephesus. He was a learned man with a very thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. Apollos had been instructed in the way of the Lord, spoke with great fervor, and taught about Jesus accurately. However, there is one problem: he only knew about the baptism of John.

Apollos began to speak boldly in the synagogue and Aquila and Priscilla heard him speak. They invited Apollos into their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. I find it interesting that Aquila and Priscilla did not cause a ruckus in the synagogue about his teaching. Aquila and Priscilla did not label Apollos a false teacher and call for Paul to label him as a trend leading toward apostasy among the first century churches. They did not even set up a debate. Aquila and Priscilla have Apollos into their home and explained God’s way to him. Surely we can see that this is an example for us on how to deal with those that we disagree with in regards to the scriptures. Rather than shoot first and ask questions later, how about we invite the person into our home and simply discuss the matter of doctrine in question? While Apollos was teaching Jesus correctly, he was not teaching the method of salvation correctly. So this is a serious problem and no small issue. Yet, the proper way to engage the problem was to have the person over and talk about it calmly and rationally.

Paul in Ephesus

While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went to Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They respond that they had not heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then asks what baptism they received and the disciples respond that they were baptized with John’s baptism. Paul explains that John’s baptism was for repentance, looking toward the one coming after him, Jesus.

Upon hearing these words, the disciples are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. After their baptism, Paul lays hands on the disciples and the Holy Spirit came upon them, giving them the gifts of speaking in other languages and prophecy.

The Need For Rebaptism

False reasons for rebaptism

This is the only example we know of in the scriptures where we see people being baptized again. Let us discuss the similarities between John’s baptism and baptism in the name of Jesus so we can fully understand why rebaptism of these disciples was necessary.

Same Form. We know that the form of baptism was the same. It is not that the disciples in Ephesus had been sprinkled with water, which is not the baptism of the New Testament. John’s baptism was immersion in water, just like the baptism in the name of Jesus is immersion in water. There is not a difference in form that would bring the necessity for rebaptism.

Not a location problem. The reason these disciples had to be rebaptized was not because of the location of John’s baptism. It did not matter that these people had been baptized in the wilderness where John was preaching. It was not necessary to be baptized in the pools of Jerusalem or in the Jordan River. Where a person is immersed in water does not matter. It does not matter if the waters used are a public swimming pool, a private spa, or a canal. It does not matter if the waters of a denomination’s church building are used or if the building used by a sound church is used. How will we know who is sound and who is not sound? By a church directory? By asking a series of questions? Notice that Paul does not ask the disciples where they were baptized! These were not the issues surrounding these disciples’ rebaptism.

Not an issue about the baptizer . Also consider that Paul does not ask "who baptized you." This may have been our assumption when the problem is presented to Paul. We may have expected Paul to say, "You have not heard of the Holy Spirit. Who baptized you?" But the person doing the baptism is not at issue either. It cannot matter who is the one doing the baptism, otherwise we would must trace the baptizers all the way back to the apostles. We would need to have a family tree showing how the person who baptized the baptizer was a true Christian, and how the person who baptized the baptizer who baptized the baptizer was a true Christian, and so on. The religious and spiritual beliefs of the baptizer are not important.

Not the words said at baptism . Paul does not ask what was said during the baptism. There are some today trying to make a distinction between being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. There is not a set formula of words to be said at baptism, else such a formula would have been commanded by our Lord and his apostles.

Reason for rebaptism

So what then is the real reason as to why these twelve disciples had to be rebaptized? We must carefully read Acts 19:4 to know the answer. "Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’"

While correct at the time of John’s preaching, these disciples were baptized with the faith that there was going to be one to come who would take away their sins. Since Jesus had come in the flesh, died and resurrected, their baptism was now based upon an improper faith. They were baptized looking forward to the day when the Savior would come and make a sacrifice to take away their sins. They did not believe this had happened yet when they were baptized. They need to believe that Jesus is the Christ and he is the one taking sins away.

To put this into our 21 st century world, I believe its application is to be used with those people who have been baptized, but were not baptized with the proper faith that their sins were being washed away. Just as these disciples in Acts 19 believed that forgiveness would come later with the Messiah, we have many today who believe they have been forgiven prior to baptism. If we do not know what is taking place when we are baptized, the scriptures point to this as a very serious thing.

You may have been baptized by your parents as an infant. But as an infant you were unable to believe in Jesus Christ and believe your sins were being forgiven. According to the example of Acts 19, it is necessary for you to be baptized with the proper faith. Perhaps you were baptized out of peer pressure. Maybe your friends were all being baptized at a camp or your parents were pushing you to be baptized. If you did not have the proper heart and faith that you were submitting your life to Jesus and asking him to forgive you, then you need to be baptized with the proper faith.

Baptism is not about the water, which is Peter’s point in 1 Peter 3:21. It is not about being sure you got wet. The baptism is simply an external act, just as much as singing or partaking of the Lord’s Supper. What is important is not only the act, but our hearts during the act. What we believe during the act is very important. What our hearts are doing while we sing is crucial to acceptable worship. We are told to sing, making melody in our hearts to the Lord. What we are thinking in our hearts while we partake of the Lord’s Supper is very important. This is why Paul commanded that we examine ourselves to ensure we partake in a worthy manner.

In the same way, it is what we believe in our hearts when we are baptized that is important. It is not the act itself. Without the heart and proper faith, baptism is just an external act that is meaningless. We must believe that we are asking God to take away our sins and that they are being removed in baptism. We have to have a repentant, submissive heart when we are baptized. The other things we discussed do not matter, but our faith and our belief concerning our baptism absolutely matters. I believe this is the problem with the disciples in Acts 19. They did not believe their sins were being removed by the blood of Jesus. They believed their sins would be removed in the future when the Messiah came.

Finally, we must accept the importance of baptism. If baptism is optional, then it does not make any sense for these disciples to be baptized again. If faith alone is sufficient, then baptism should not have been performed. We see again in the book of Acts that baptism is the method God uses to unite us in the death and resurrection of Jesus to wash our sins away.

The Power of God In Ephesus

(Acts 19:8-41)

Brent Kercheville

Ephesus was the capital city in Asia Minor under the Roman Empire. The city of Ephesus bore the title "the first and greatest metropolis of Asia" during the days of the Romans. Ephesus was the most populous city of the most prosperous and populated province in the empire. As we continue the story in Acts 19, we will see that the writer records for us the conflict between the power of God and the supposed power of false gods and sorceries.

The Power of God in Ephesus:

Magic Versus Miracle

(Acts 19:8-22)

True power of God

Paul enters the synagogue in Ephesus and begins speaking boldly for three months, trying to persuade the listeners about things related to the kingdom of God. We see a natural reaction to the preaching of the gospel: some continued to listen but others hardened their hearts and would not believe. These who hardened their hearts began to slander the Way in front of the crowds. This caused Paul to stop preaching in the synagogue and start preaching in a lecture hall. According to the Bible Background Commentary, it was common for philosophers to lecture in rented halls. Since the people of Ephesus were used to this, Paul uses this method as a way to teach the people in the city. Paul continued to preach here daily for two years. Clearly, Paul had a located work in Ephesus.

In this chapter we also see the mighty power of God that was being worked through the hands of Paul. Even the rags that were used on Paul’s forehead to catch sweat and aprons tied around his waist while working were able to heal the sick, cure diseases, and cast out unclean spirits. I think the reason why this was happening was because it was common for magicians in those days to attempt to heal people in this manner. Thus, Paul is being shown to be a true worker of God and revealing God’s true power.

True power of God cannot be toyed with

We are now introduced to a scene that we could simply call "monkey see, monkey do." We are told there are some Jewish exorcists that have seen what Paul and perhaps other Christian miracle workers have been able to do in casting out demons. They have seen Paul cast these unclean spirits out by the power and name of Jesus Christ. This was not uncommon among the magicians and charlatans of the day. The Bible Background Commentary notes, "According to magical theory, exorcists could coerce a deity or spirit to do their will by invoking its name."

Therefore, what we see in Acts 19:13 is not the honest attempt of true followers of God trying to cast out unclean spirits. Rather, we are reading about the seven sons of Sceva who believed they could coerce the god that Paul called upon to do their bidding.

So the seven sons of Sceva attempt to cast out an unclean spirit through this coercion. The response of the unclean spirit is amazing. "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize-but who are you?" There are two different Greek words used by the unclean spirit, though most translations use the same word "know." But the unclean spirit is saying that he knows Jesus and he is acquainted with Paul, but who do you think you are?

Then, the man that had the evil spirit leaped on to the seven men, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they ran out the house wounded and naked. Verse 17 is important: this event became known to all the people who lived in Ephesus. This event caused many people to confess their evil deeds. Further, many brought their books and burned them in front of everyone. After seeing the true power of God, these people were wise to turn from their false ways. This section of the story concludes by telling us that the value calculated from the books that were burned totaled 50,000 pieces of silver. Each piece of silver was probably worth one day’s wages. Therefore, if we calculate in our day and time one day’s wage multiplied by 50,000, we see that the cost of these books was at least 4 million dollars. This helps us see that the city was sacrificing quite a fortune by rejecting the ways of sorcery and magic. Thus, the Lord’s message prevailed and flourished in Ephesus.

The Power of God In Ephesus:

Artemis Versus God

(Acts 19:21-41)

Problems in Ephesus

It seems that a little time passes by and another problem arises for Paul. To understand this problem, we need to understand the culture in the city of Ephesus. Ephesus had one of the seven wonders of the ancient world in its city: the temple of Artemis. Artemis was worshipped as the fertility goddess among the Greeks and Romans and was the principle deity in Asia Minor. The temple of Artemis was the tallest building of its time. The Temple of Artemis was also a major treasury and bank of the ancient world, where merchants, kings, and even cities made deposits, and where their money could be kept safe under the protection of deity, according to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

People from around the world came to worship the goddess Artemis. The temple of Artemis attracted worshippers who, before returning to their homes, bought small shrines and images depicting Artemis. These artifacts, which were used as objects of worship in people’s homes, were made and sold by silversmiths in Ephesus.

There are three problems that are point out by Demetrius concerning the preaching of Paul. Verse 26 tells us that Paul had persuaded a considerable number of people that the gods made by hand are not gods. Demetrius states his three complaints:

Loss of money (Acts 19:25). Demetrius states that their prosperity is derived from the business of selling these silver trinkets for people to go home and worship Artemis. Loss of reputation (Acts 19:27). Their business would fall into disrepute and be discredited if Paul was allowed to continue preaching to the crowds that these silver artifacts are not gods. Loss of their god (Acts 19:27). Demetrius realizes that if this teaching were to continue, Artemis may be despised and considered worthless by the people and her glory come to ruin.

Riot

Once Demetrius is finished, the people were filled with rage and cried out, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" The people rushed into the amphitheater and dragged out Paul’s traveling companions. The assembly was in confusion and did not give Alexander a chance to make a defense. For two hours the people of the city continued shouting, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"

Finally, a city clerk was able to calm the crowd down. Since Paul’s companions had not done anything specifically against Artemis, like steal from the temple or blaspheme her name, they were in an unlawful assembly. If there was a true charge, Paul’s companions needed to be taken to the courts and have them tried there. The assembly themselves ran the risk of being charged with rioting. This kind of riot could lead to disciplinary measures against the city. Therefore, the crowd disbursed and went home after hearing these words.

Applications

The gospel impact

How many of us, knowing the cultural background of the city of Ephesus, would have even tried to evangelize the people? They are all worshippers of pagan gods. In fact, the temple to this pagan god Artemis was in the very city. The temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The people made their money by selling silver idols and artifacts to the people in the city and around the world. But rather than simply pass by this city calling it hopeless, Paul remained in the city of Ephesus and in the region for more than 2 years. We know that the apostle John spend most of his time preaching and teaching in Ephesus also. What ought to be interesting to us is that Paul encountered the same results in Ephesus as he did in all the cities he preached in.

The power of the gospel is consistent. Many will hear the words spoken and obey. But there will also be many who will harden their hearts to the message. We cannot assume that we are in a city devoid of God and that we are just all there are of people who care about God. The fact that we have visitors every week shows otherwise. A report came out this month that monitors the fastest growing churches in America. The 26 th, 39 th, and 91 st fastest growing churches are right here in West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Pompano Beach. Now I realize that these churches use techniques that are contrary to the scriptures and do not do things according to God’s word. But this should tell us that people are looking in this area for God. Some are looking for the wrong things, just as we see Paul encountering in Ephesus. But there are many people who are looking for something and are willing to give God a try. We need to see the power of gospel to change lives. It could change the lives of the people in the city who were steeped in sorcery and magical arts. It has the power to change the lives of the people we meet in this city. We must do a better job in taking our opportunities and creating opportunities to reach people with the gospel. In the face of a riot, the disciples of Jesus preached the word. We have no excuse for not sharing the gospel message.

Sacrifices to be a disciple

Demetrius’ words concerning the problem he and the silversmiths had with Paul is interesting. Demetrius points out that if Paul continues preaching about the living God that they were going to suffer some consequences. Demetrius points out that they would lose money, lose their reputation, and lose their god that they loved to worship and believed would protect them.

These are the same sacrifices that must be made today to be a true disciple of Jesus. It is these sacrifices that will turn some people away. But others will be ready to make the commitment to the Lord.

We may have to sacrifice money. We may not be able to work in a particular job and make the kinds of money we would like to have because of the cause of Jesus. There are some activities of work that Christians cannot be a part of. There are jobs that will force Christians not to be able to serve the Lord as they ought and will have to be avoided. What money we do have we will put to use in the kingdom of God rather than being wasted away on useless things. To be a disciple means such a sacrifice will eventually need to be made.

We may lose respect. Sometimes our reputation will be called into question because we believe and serve Jesus. This is perhaps an even greater sacrifice that we confront today. We want to be liked by people. Many of us find it difficult to talk about God to other people because we are afraid of what people will think about us. People may think of us badly. But what does God think when we choose the praise of people over the praise of God? As Jesus said, we cannot be afraid of those who can kill the body, but be afraid of the one who can kill the body and cast us into eternal punishment (Luke 12:4-5).

We may lose our god. But the greatest sacrifice we are called to make as disciples is to sacrifice our personal gods. We may deny their existence, yet each of us has personal gods that must be rejected. Some have a personal god of affluence where the pursuit of more is the most important. Others have a personal god of comfort where doing what feels right and seems best reigns supreme. Still others have a personal god of recognition, always needing others to give credit for their works. Most of us worship the personal god of selfishness where we concentrate on ourselves above anyone else. Others have the personal god of acceptance and will do anything to have the approval of other people.

It is time for us to burn the books to these gods. It is time for us to give up our hidden closet gods that we obey in secret. These gods interfere with our personal evangelism. These gods prohibit us from becoming servants God called us to be. These gods prevent us from growing deeper in Christ and growing closer to God. If you have had difficulties drawing near to God, may I suggest you look at see what god is in the way! If you find it hard to serve God and find it a drudgery to serve God, then look and see what is getting in the way and cast it out. If we do not want to serve others, something is in the way. If we do not want to evangelize, something is interfering. If we do not want to study and read, there is something that is causing a roadblock to God. If we do not want to worship and gather together, there is something that stands between us and the true God and we must throw it out.

Worship In The First Century Churches

(Acts 20:7-38)

Brent Kercheville

In the last chapter we read about a riot and uproar that took place in Ephesus over the preaching that gods made with hands are not true gods. Paul and his traveling companions encounter some resistance in teaching and showing the true power of God versus the magic and sorcery of those who lived in the city. Many of the people believed in God through the miracles Paul performed. Acts 20 continues this story in Ephesus after the riot has ended.

In the first six verses we are told about the travels of Paul. In verse 3 we are told that Paul was going to go back to Syria but a plot by the Jews was devised against him. Therefore Paul decided to go back through the region of Macedonia, stopping in the city of Troas.

The Worship of the First Century Local Churches

(Acts 20:7-16)

The Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7)

The first thing we must notice is that the first day of the week was the time when the disciples came together to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Notice in verse 6 that Paul and his companions had arrived in Troas and stayed there seven days. But, while being with the disciples those seven days, we do not read about Paul, his companions, nor the disciples at Troas partaking of the Lord’s Supper until the first day of the week. They did not wait to eat a common meal together for these days. The breaking of bread was a common phrase used to describing the act of the remembering the Lord’s death through the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; Acts 2:42).

This passage also teaches that the first century Christians were not partaking of the Lord’s Supper every day. Though we read about the first century disciples gathering together daily even from the start of Acts 2, we only read about the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. The first day of the week came to also be called the Lord’s Day since that was the day that Christ rose from the dead (Revelation 1:10). It should not be ignored that Pentecost was consider to have fallen on the first day of the week, since it was to be counted 50 days from the Passover Sabbath. Thus, the kingdom of God was restored and the church began on the first day of the week.

Friends, it is important for us to realize that the first day of the week is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day of rest given by God to remind the Jewish people of how they had been slaves in Egypt and how God had brought them out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15). The keeping of the Sabbath passed away when the old covenant was abolished through the death of Christ (Colossians 2:13-17). While churches may have other days that the disciples come together, it is important that we see the first century example is that the Lord’s Supper was kept on the first day of the week and this is the reason why we participate in the Lord’s Supper memorial the first day of every week.

The Lord’s People (Acts 20:7)

Another important consideration from this text is that the first day of the week was also the expected time for the disciples to gather together. We see this truth immediately after the death of Christ, when the disciples began meeting together on the first day of the week (John 20:19; John 20:26). This implication is also given in 1 Corinthians 16:2 where the church in Corinth was commanded on the first day of the week to set something aside for the Lord monetarily. The assumption, of course, is the first day of the week was when the disciples were gathering together.

While we are speaking about this, it is important to emphasize that God has given us the whole day to come together, and that the hours between 10-12 in the morning were not given by God, but are simply traditions for churches. Warren Wiersbe makes this point, “The church met in the evening because Sunday was not a holiday during which people were free from daily employment. Some of the believers would no doubt be slaves, unable to come to the assembly until their work was done” ( The Bible Exposition Commentary; Acts). I would go further to point out that many scholars have pointed out that most people who lived in the empire were slaves. To the Romans, slaves were the people who did the work.

William Barclay tells us that during this time there were as many as 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire. By no means did these “slaves” perform menial tasks. Doctors, teachers, musicians, actors, secretaries, and stewards were just some of the professions of slaves. In fact, all the work of Rome was done by slaves. Roman attitude was that there was no point in being master of the world and doing one’s own work. Outside of the fact that slaves did not have legal rights, the slave/master situation in Rome is the same as our professional workforce today. Craig S. Keener states, “Christians may have met early, before sunrise, but would have to work Sunday mornings like everyone else in the empire” ( The Bible Background Commentary, 382).

We need to realize that our country is going in a similar direction. The days are fast dwindling when the first day of the week was given off to people so they could go to worship or spend time with family. Most Christians have to fight to have the first day of the week off. We may see a time in the future where our gathering will also need to be in the evening. We cannot think that such an idea is sinful, since we are only instructed to gather and partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. We have the latitude to choose a time that is best for the disciples in this community.

Finally, we also see that Lord’s message was also declared. Paul, being ready to depart the next day, continued to preach God’s message until midnight. Our gather together is not about having a good time, but is about centering our minds and our hearts on God as we worship him by partaking of the Lord’s Supper and studying from the word of God. Unfortunately, we are not told the contents of the sermon Paul spoke in Troas. But the rest of Acts 20 tells us about the message Paul spoke to the elders of Ephesus.

The Farewell Message

Reflections on the past (Acts 20:18-21)

Before Paul heads to Jerusalem, he wants to give a farewell message to the elders in Ephesus. It ought to be striking to us that the church in Ephesus had elders. According to narrative of Acts, only three months have passed by since Paul had been working at Ephesus. We also know that Paul worked in Ephesus for more than two years. But the church had an eldership. The men did not have to be Christians for 20 years or 10 years. This was a city steeped in paganism, yet a church was formed and it has elders. This should cause to at least reflect upon the possibility that we made the standards higher to become an elder than what God had planned through His revelation in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

In verses 18-21 Paul begins his message to the Ephesian elders by reflecting on the past. Paul declares that his complete motive for coming to Ephesus and working with them was to serve the Lord. He did not come to make money or enjoy and easy life. He wanted to serve the Lord through preaching the gospel to the city of Ephesus. The manner that Paul lived his life was upstanding as well. This is important as a minister of the gospel, as it is for all Christians. Our lifestyle should match our message. Paul says he served the Lord in all humility.

Further, Paul used every opportunity to preach the gospel, teaching not only publicly in the synagogue and the lecture hall of Tyrannus, but also from house to house. The preaching of the gospel is not limited to the confines of this church building, but is to be taught in all places at all times. Paul reminds the elders of Ephesus about his motives and his lifestyle while he was among them.

Current state (Acts 20:22-27)

Paul goes on in his message to describe where he states at that moment in time. Paul says that he did not know what was going to happen to him when he goes to Jerusalem except that the Holy Spirit has testified that chains and tribulations await him. But Paul’s words are very encouraging in verse 24, “But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself” (NKJV).

Paul openly declares that he is ready to suffer and he is ready to die. He did not know what the outcome would be in Jerusalem. He did know that suffering was going to come, but he did not know the end result of that suffering. By Paul telling the Ephesian elders that he would not see them again, it seems clear that Paul knew Jerusalem was going to be a great problem for him. Yet Paul was determined to go to Jerusalem for the sake of Jesus Christ.

Paul would not back down but would continue to be ready to testify to the gospel of the grace of God and continue preaching the kingdom of God. Notice verse 27, “For I have not avoided to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” Paul once again exemplified the Christian life with his readiness to accept anything that came to him as a servant of Jesus Christ. If he must suffer, then he is ready to suffer. If he must die, then he is ready to die. But no matter what was going to happen to him, he was going to continue to preach the whole counsel of God.

Warning of the future (Acts 20:28-38)

The final section of Paul’s message is a warning to the elders concerning what may arise against the church in Ephesus. Paul exhorts the elders to be watchful and be on guard for themselves and for the flock which they oversee and shepherd. Paul describes the dual responsibility elders have in not only watching out for their own souls but also for the souls of those they oversee.

The reason why is described by Paul in verse 29: savage wolves will come in. The elders were warned to be on their guard because people will come in from the outside trying to destroy the Christians in that area. A time was coming when those on the outside would cause great suffering against the Christians.

But this is not the only warning. In verse 30 Paul also wants the elders to be watchful of those that are among them. Some would rise up among them speaking perverse things and drawing people away. It is a sad commentary when Paul points out that Christians would need protection from each other because some will be more interested in serving self than serving God. People like Diotrephes would arise in local churches who are self-seeking (3 John 1:9-11). Paul charged the eldership to be on the defensive, looking for wolves and those that would cause problems from within. But while this warning is specific to the eldership, there are also warnings that Paul gives the eldership that also can be applied to all Christians.

Watch (Acts 20:31). Paul again makes the very important admonition to watch and be on guard. We must always take our spiritual responsibilities seriously. We cannot be lazy about our own souls and the salvation of our souls. We certainly cannot be lazy about the souls of others, both of those among us who are slipping and those outside of Christ who need to know the truth. We must be watchful for any problems that may arise. We must be aware to teachings that could potentially bring problems to the flock. The elders carry a great responsibility. But we also have the same responsibility as individual Christians toward our collective work. We cannot be those that Paul speaks of to Timothy who have “a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Timothy 6:4-5). We do not want to be one’s who cause or stir up strife. Therefore we must aware of our words and our actions.

Commend ourselves to God and the word of His grace (Acts 20:32). We need to commit ourselves to the word of God. We are not allowed to maintain a shallow knowledge of the scriptures and nor a shallow relationship with God. A commitment to God and his word will build us up and eventually yield a great inheritance.

Be selfless (Acts 20:33-35). Paul concludes by reminded them how he was able to provide for himself while he was with them. He leaves them with the words of Jesus that must always be remembered: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is a great reminder that an eldership should be built upon. Our elders want to give themselves to the service of this congregation. What a great offering it is! Second, this should be the motto that rules our lives. Our elders should be the models of this principle that encourages the flock to live in the same way.

Ready To Give A Defense – Part One

Acts 21-22

Brent Kercheville

The book of Acts is telling us about Paul’s movements to Jerusalem. However, Paul knows that he will endure suffering by going to Jerusalem. But Paul is ready to go and suffer, all in an effort to preach the whole counsel of God.

The Story

Journey to Jerusalem

After speaking with the elders at Ephesus, Paul continues his journey to Jerusalem. In Caesarea, a prophet named Agabus came from Judea and tells Paul through prophecy what will happen. “He came to us, took Paul’s belt, tied his own feet and hands, and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says: In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into Gentile hands’” (Acts 21:11).

Upon hearing these words, the people in Caesarea along with Paul’s traveling companions beg Paul not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul responds that he is ready to not only be bound, but to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord.

In Jerusalem

When Paul reached Jerusalem, he was greeted by the disciples there. Paul shares stories of the great works of God among the Gentiles. When the disciples heard this news, they glorified God. But there was a problem. News around Jerusalem is that Paul is teaching all the Jews to abandon the laws of Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow its customs. In an effort to show these not to be true, the disciples encourage Paul to purify himself and four other men according to the law.

But this did not help. The Jews see an opportunity to kill Paul and begin to create a mob scene. They stir up the crowd by shouting that Paul had been teaching people everywhere to be against the Jewish people, the Mosaic law, and the temple of God. They further charge that Paul took an uncircumcised person into the temple and defiled it. Thus the whole city rushed against Paul and seized him. Verse 31 is very important. The people were not going to try him for violating Jewish laws. Rather, they wanted to kill Paul. As they were trying to kill Paul, news of this went to the Roman commander that all Jerusalem was in chaos. This is why the Roman Fortress of Antonia was stationed against the temple: to keep peace in the city. The commander along with Roman soldiers immediately intervene and stop the beating.

The Roman commander took Paul into custody and ordered him to be bound in chains. The commander then wants to know who Paul is and what he had done to deserve this kind of treatment. But due to the uproar, the commander was unable to obtain reliable information. When Paul got to the steps, the soldiers had to carry Paul because the mob of people were following and yelling to kill him.

As Paul was being brought into the barracks, Paul begins to talk to the Roman commander. Paul explains first to the Roman commander that he is not the Egyptian who had led a rebellion against Rome. He is a Jew from Tarsus and he desired to speak to the people. The Roman commander granted Paul’s request and Paul, in chapter 22, addresses the city making a defense of himself.

Paul’s defense

In the first five verses, Paul explains his personal background. He tells the people of Jerusalem that he is a Jewish man, born in Tarsus, taught by Gamaliel, educated according to the law of Moses. He also was zealous for God, so much so that he persecuted the people who followed the Way to their death. He was on the mission to persecute the followers of the Way when he went to Damascus.

Along the way, an intense light from heaven flashed around him and he fell to the ground. Paul heard a voice saying, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Paul responded by wanting to know who was speaking. The voice said, “I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting!” Further, Paul was told to get up and go to Damascus and there he would be told everything he was assigned to do.

Being blinded by the light, Paul had to be led by the hand to Damascus. In Damascus, a man named Ananias who was a devout man according to the law and had a good reputation with all the Jews came to Paul and said, “Brother Saul, regain your sight.” At that moment Paul was able to see again. Ananias further told Paul that he needed to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins. Paul went on to tell the people that God told him to go and preach to the Gentiles.

However, at the part of going to the Gentiles to preach, the people of Jerusalem began shouting to wipe him from the face of the earth and were throwing dust into the air. All of this was to show the great outrage of the people. The Roman commander was about to give him lashes when Paul asked if it was lawful for an uncondemned Roman citizen to be scourged. Therefore the Roman commander and those who were going to examine him stopped once they knew Paul was a Roman. We will stop here in the story of Paul’s defense and notice a couple important points from the story.

Applications

The plain gospel message

Paul recounts his conversion process and explains to the Jewish people why he is doing what he has been doing. The gospel message is not difficult to understand nor is it difficult to obey. Romans 10:13 says, “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Acts 2:21 states similarly, “Then whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But Ananias explains to Paul how one is to call on the name of the Lord to be saved.

This would be important information especially to the Jewish audience that Paul is defending himself. Joel had given a very dire prophecy about what would take place in the days of the Messiah. “I will display wonders in the heavens and on the earth: blood, fire, and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the great and awe-inspiring Day of the Lord comes. Then everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved, for there will be an escape for those on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, as the Lord promised, among the survivors the Lord calls” (Joel 2:30-32). Joel said that the destruction of the nation was coming but that every person who called upon the name of the Lord would be saved.

These are the key words that Ananias tells Paul. Ananias tells Paul that God has appointed him to be a witness for Christ to all the people of what he had seen and heard. Further, Ananias asks Paul what he is waiting for. It was time to call upon the name of the Lord. Ananias reveals how to call on the name of the Lord: “arise and be baptized. Paul’s grievous sins, including the bloodshed of Stephen, would be washed away by calling on God’s name. The people were waiting to hear how to call on God’s name. Baptism was the answer. “Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life” (1 Peter 3:21).

The second part of the gospel message is also very plain. Those who call on the name of the Lord are also given the charge to go into the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Paul declares that he was also given this commission by God to go and preach to the Gentiles.

The gospel as a stumbling block

Unfortunately, the people of Jerusalem did not like what they heard from Paul’s mouth. The people did not want to hear any more about the message. Even though Paul was living proof of the truth of this message. He had been blinded by the light, as witnessed by his companions. He had a conversion with the risen Lord. He had been healed of his blindness and was instructed to be baptized in order to call on the name of the Lord and have his sins washed away.

Paul said that not only the Jews, but also all people would find the simplicity of the message a stumbling block. “For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:18-23).

The same is still true today. Does the concept of immersion pose a problem in your mind? Does it seem ridiculous that we should be immersed in water? Paul said that God used foolish things so that we would put our total dependence on God. God did not choose something that would satisfy us for its academic excellence. Nor did God choose something that the world would value and appreciate. God made it easy to call out to him.

I am mindful of this passage when I come across writings and people who say that baptism simply cannot be necessary. They declare that baptism does not make any sense and cannot be part of God’s plan of salvation. I think too many have over thought the process. Judgment is coming against all people. Since we have not lived up to the character of the glory of God, we are condemned and deserving of punishment for our actions. But God has shown mercy by sacrificing Jesus as a payment for our sins. Now we simply need to call on the name of the Lord to have that mercy applied to our account. God said that baptism is the way to come in contact with the blood of Jesus, uniting us into his death and resurrection (Romans 6:4-8). So what are you waiting for? Do not let the “wisdom” of the world turn you away from the obvious call of God. Arise and be baptized, washing away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord.

Ready To Give A Defense Part Two

(Acts 23-26)

Brent Kercheville

The Story

Before the Sanhedrin ( Acts 22:30 to Acts 23:10)

As Paul begins his defense, the high priest orders those standing next to Paul to strike him in the mouth because of what he said. At the command, Paul calls the high priest a “whitewashed wall.” This was just another way of calling the high priest a hypocrite because the outside of his life looked white and pure, but it was simply a façade covering up the evil inside. What Paul said was true for Ananias was a Roman vassal who was known for his greed and stealing the tithe from the poorest priests. However, upon learning that Ananias was the high priest, Paul essentially apologizes, not knowing that he was a ruler.

When Paul realized that one part of the assembly were Pharisees and the other Sadducees, Paul takes the opportunity to cause confusion. Paul declares that he is a Pharisee who was on trial for believing in the hope of the resurrection of the dead. This causes a violent dispute to break out (since the Pharisees and Sadducees were notorious for their disagreements over the resurrection). When the dispute became too violent, the Roman commander again must intervene and orders Paul to be taken to the barracks.

Death plot (Acts 23:11-35)The following night the Lord came to Paul and told him to have courage for he will give his testimony of the Lord in Rome. The next day a conspiracy was formed that the Jews would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. The plot was to bring Paul back before the Sanhedrin. On the way to the trial, the Jews would have him killed. But Paul’s nephew finds out about the conspiracy and reports this information to a Roman centurion, who reports this to the commander.

Because of this death plot, the commander orders two centurions to get 200 soldiers, 70 cavalry, and 200 spearmen ready to go to Caesarea. In Caesarea is Felix, the governor of the region. Historians Tacitus and Josephus declare that Felix was totally corrupt and accuse him of bloody massacres and repression. The commander, whose name is now revealed as Claudius Lysias, sends a letter with Paul and the Roman escorts. In the middle of the night Paul is brought to Caesarea.

Before Felix (Acts 24:1-27)

Five days pass and Ananias the high priest come to Caesarea along with other Jewish elders and the lawyer named Tertullus, who will try the case against Paul. In the first nine verses of chapter 24 we read Tertullus’ prosecution of Paul. Here are the charges laid against Paul: (1) an agitator among the Jews throughout the Roman world, (2) a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, and (3) tried to desecrate the temple.

Paul’s defense of these charges is rather simple: (1) I have not caused any disturbances, (2) the Jews can proved no evidence to support their charges, and (3) I believe all things written in the Law and the Prophets. Overall, Paul says that the only reason he is in Caesarea is that he is being judged concerning the resurrection of the dead.

After hearing the case, Felix takes time in making a decision. In fact, Felix sees an opportunity to make money. Verse 26 tells us that Felix was hoping that Paul would give him money for his release. But the previous verse also tells us that Felix was frightened by Paul’s words about righteousness and self-control since he was deserving of judgment concerning these areas. Two years pass as Paul remains in Caesarea until Festus is appointed as Felix’ successor.

Before Festus (Acts 25:1-12)

According to Josephus, Festus was a much more favorable ruler and did not suffer from the corruption that Felix did. Festus makes a journey to Jerusalem where the chief priests and Jewish leaders present their case against Paul. They asked Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem, since they were still preparing an ambush to kill him as he would travel to the city. Festus declares that the trial will be held in Caesarea and that the Jewish leaders should come there and present their charges.

About a week and a half later another trial is given to Paul. The Jewish leaders again brought many serious charges against Paul but none of these charges could be proven. Paul continued to make his defense that he had done nothing against Jewish law, against the temple, nor against Caesar. Festus, in a desire to do the Jews a favor and unaware of the conspiracy to kill him (as far as we know), asked Paul if he would go to Jerusalem and stand trial for the charges against him. Seeing that his death would certainly come if he went back to Jerusalem and receiving God’s message that he must go to Rome, Paul appeals to Caesar. Only Roman citizens had this right and Paul exercises his right to go to Rome.

Before Agrippa (Acts 25:13 to Acts 26:32)

It just so happens that a few days later that King Agrippa arrived in Caesarea. Agrippa ruled a small part of Palestine and worked with the Roman administration. He is historical recorded as being an advocate for his people but also loyal to Rome. Festus speaks to Agrippa about Paul’s case because he really does not know what to do with him. The problem for Festus is that Paul has been imprisoned for two years and now Paul has appealed to be heard by Caesar. However, Festus does not have any charges to write against Paul. It is in this area that Festus asks Agrippa for help. What charges should we write against Paul to present before Caesar?

Therefore, Paul is brought before Festus and Agrippa. Paul begins his defense in chapter 26. During Paul’s explanation, Festus cried out, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much study is driving you mad!” (vs. 24). To the Roman mind, all that Paul was speaking about sounded ludicrous. Paul even calls upon Agrippa who seems to be convinced of the story Paul is proclaiming. However, Agrippa bristles at Paul’s implications saying, “Are you going to persuade me to become a Christian so easily?” (vs. 28).

After Paul concludes his defense, Agrippa and Festus confer and conclude that Paul has not done anything deserving of death. However, in verse 32 Agrippa states, “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.” This phrase has been often misunderstood. Agrippa is not saying that Paul could not be released because he had made this appeal. Many prisoners were released after making a similar appeal. This was not the issue at all. They are declaring what they are going to tell the emperor as to why he is coming to Rome. There are no charges to present. Festus and Agrippa are saying that they would have let him go, but he wanted to stand before you, O Emperor.

Lessons

God works through the small things and small circumstances.

In this story of Paul’s life we given another instance where God uses small things to accomplish his purposes. There are times where we see God using great things to accomplish his will. But too often we overlook the way God works through the smaller things of life to bring about his plan.

We should be aware of this truth because it is how the story of the scriptures. Man was created out of dust, showing that God has the power to use the small things, even the seemingly worthless things, to accomplish his purpose. God could have used a much grander substance, since all of the creation had been completed up to that point except the creation of animals and humans. But God chose dust, stating later: “Dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19).

How many times God has accomplished great things out of small circumstances!!! David was a nobody whose father even overlooked when it was time to anoint a new king. But God would use David to become the greatest king of Israel ever. Moses was a certain nobody. Fleeing the status of Egypt, Moses is a shepherd for 40 years until God calls him to lead his people through the great exodus. The virgin birth of Jesus took place with a woman named Mary, an unknown, in a nowhere city of Bethlehem, and grew up in a ridiculed place of Nazareth. God delights in using the little things.

This is especially true when it comes to the trials of life. God uses us during our darkest hours and difficult times to accomplish his purposes. Do not believe it? Joseph’s seemingly insignificant circumstances and painful ordeals would bring about God’s purpose of deliverance. Who would know at the time? Joseph had to continue to have faith in God. In our dark times, we do not know what God’s purpose is for us. Perhaps the purpose is nothing more than growing and testing our faith, which is very important. But perhaps God is working something greater. We cannot ignore the repeated history of how God works through the small things.

What will you do with Jesus?

The responses of these important rulers are fascinating to consider. Festus simply dismisses Paul’s explanation outright. He does not want to listen and does not really care. We have dealt with this attitude in previous lessons. But what about Agrippa’s response?

Paul seems to gather intuitively that Agrippa is believing what Paul is saying. But Agrippa dodges the possibility by stating, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” Agrippa’s response is the same response men and women have been given for a couple thousand years and still give today. The Savior is proclaimed and the call to turn from sins is declared. While believing the message proclaimed, they allow something within themselves to ignore the conviction they have. They begin to talk themselves out of what they need to do. Or they allow doubt to swirl in their minds until they discount that they had any belief at all.

Did you see Paul’s response to Agrippa? Whether it is easy or whether it is difficult for you to make this decision, you need to make this decision. This choice to submit to God is too important. Why continue to ignore God when the evidence is all around us? The universe declares there is a God. The scriptures declare there is a God. History declares there is a God. The empty tomb of Jesus declares there is a God. Our consciences declare there is a God. But we suppress the things that we know and continue to believe a lie. “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:26). What is the point to living the way you are for these few years only to serve eternity in torment? Save your soul today through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Ready In All Circumstances

(Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:31)

Brent Kercheville

The Story

Sailing to Rome (Acts 27:1-38)

As we open the story in Acts 27 we are confronted with the statement, “we were to sail to Italy.” This suggests that Paul did not travel alone to Rome, but that Luke and perhaps other disciples accompanied Paul on his journey. We know of one more disciple who traveled with Paul was Aristarchus, who was later mentioned by Paul in Colossians 4:10 as “a fellow prisoner.” From the record it seems that Festus placed Paul and the Roman escorts on a freighter ship that would make many stops along the way to Italy, dropping off and picking up goods. While unloading cargo at Sidon, Paul was allowed to go see his friends in that city.

The story continues as Luke recounts for us the difficulty of their travel. It was the time of year when the winds had shifted and made sailing a long and dangerous task. Verse 9 indicates while they were traveling at a dangerous time, things were about to get worse. In ancient times, sailing the high seas after September 15 was not advisable. Cloudy weather set in making navigation difficult since sailor were able to navigate by using the position of the stars. In fact, from November 11 to March 10 all seafaring ships stayed in port (New Testament Commentary, pg. 921).

Based on this information, Paul addresses the crew stating that it seems clear that their voyage is headed for disaster. However, it seems the captain believed he could get them to Italy without harm. Therefore, the centurion listened to the advice of the captain rather than to the words of Paul. Since they could not stay at Fair Havens, they set sail for Phoenix on Crete to winter there.

In verse 13 a favorable wind helped them on their way to Phoenix. However, the weather quickly changed as a violent northeast wind rushed upon them. In fact, commentators agree that this storm is a typhoon, or what we understand, a hurricane. Luke even used such language as he literally writes that the ship was, “unable to face the eye of the wind.” The ship became unmanageable and they had to ride it out as the wind took the boat wherever it pleased. As the wind drove the ship out to see they were able to get some shelter, providing the crew enough time to bring the lifeboat aboard the ship, which usually drifted behind. Next, the crew used tied ropes to the ship to help keep it from breaking apart in the violent storm. The crew then lets down the anchor to help keep the ship from drifting to far out to sea. The storm is so bad that the crew must jettison any extra cargo from the ship. Things are so bad that the crew must throw overboard the ship’s gear which would have included the main mast and its rigging. By verse 20 we see that hope becomes lost upon the crew. They do not believe they are going to make it through this storm.

It is in the midst of this despair that Paul reminds the crew that they should have heeded his words. However, Paul is able to offer encouragement because an angel of God told Paul that he must stand before Caesar and all people on the ship will not lose their lives. But they are not going to immediately get to their destination for they will run aground on some island. We do not read that the crew believed the words of Paul. Fearing that they would run aground in a rocky place, some of the sailors tried to escape the ship by getting on the lifeboat. Paul warns the centurion that unless these men stay on the ship, he would not have his life spared. The centurion wisely listens to Paul this time and cuts the ropes holding the lifeboat to prevent anyone from escaping. At this time we learn that there are 276 people on the ship. Knowing shipwreck is imminent, the crew throws the grain overboard to lighten the ship.

Shipwreck (Acts 27:39 to Acts 28:10)

Not knowing where they are, the crew sees a bay with a beach and attempts to run the boat ashore there. Running into a reef, the ship becomes jammed and the waves begin to break up the stern. The soldiers planned to kill all the prisoners so that no one would escape. However, the centurion wants to save Paul, and he keeps the soldiers from carrying out their plan. Those who could swim were ordered to swim to shore while the rest would float on the planks and debris from the shipwreck to shore.

Once ashore, the crew finds out that they are on the island of Malta. The local people show kindness to the shipwrecked crew, providing them with a fire and hospitality. While Paul was gathering wood, a viper came out and fastened on to his hand. The immediate reaction of the local people was that Paul was a murderer and justice is coming to find him. However, Paul shook the viper off of his hand into the fire and suffered no harm. The locals expected Paul to have his hand swell up or to be killed by the snake bit, obviously showing that this viper was poisonous. Seeing that nothing happened to Paul, the local people changed their minds and believed that Paul was a god. While on the island, the father of one of the leading men on the island suffered from fever and dysentery. After praying and laying his hands upon him, the man was healed and many others on the island with illnesses came to Paul and were healed.

On to Rome (Acts 28:11-31)

After waiting out the winter months, they set sail in another Alexandrian ship which had wintered there. Finally, after much turmoil, Paul reaches Rome. Once in Rome, Paul was permitted to stay by himself with the Roman soldier who guarded him. After three days, Paul summoned the Jewish leaders and gives an explanation as to why he has come to Rome and why he is in chains. This gave an opportunity for Paul to preach all day long concerning the kingdom of God and to persuade them concerning Jesus. Some were persuaded but others did not believe. Paul concluded his teaching to those who were leaving by saying that they were fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, being unwilling to see and hear about the great work God had done through Christ. Therefore Paul would preach this message to the Gentiles.

For two more years Paul welcomed all who visited him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without any hindrance.

Applications

Trusting God in all circumstances

One of the first lessons we clearly see in this story is the disciples’ ability to trust God at all times. Paul went from the Jews plotting his death in Jerusalem to the foolishness of the captain sailing in bad weather. All that Paul had to hold on to was God’s promise that he would testify about the Lord in Rome. But those would have been difficult words to believe when one is on a ship in the midst of a typhoon! In Acts 27:20 we see the hopelessness of the situation. We are told, “finally all hope that we would be saved was disappearing.” The hopes that they would get out of that mess were lost. They believed there were going to die. Paul stands up and declares that there will be no loss of life because God said so. As we noted in the story, we are told that the crew believed Paul’s words, took courage, or brushed him off. But we see the confidence of Paul that God was going to bring him through.

We cannot overemphasize the confidence that we must develop in our faith in God that no matter how difficult things get, God will remain with us. We cannot forget and must always believe that there is nothing that we are experiencing that is not common to others as well. “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13; NRSV). We have many people at this very church who have shown great strength. If God will not allow us to go through more than what we can handle, then brethren, we have some very strong Christians in our midst. If we are not that strong yet, we can become that strong in the faith. We can take strength from the faith of those who are here. We are an encouragement to each other as we go through our difficulties. We feel the pain together but we share in the strength of each other’s faith.

Preaching in all circumstances

How about Paul preaching in every circumstance he found himself in? What an amazing man that it did not matter what was going on his life, his first thoughts were to be evangelistic. Just days after arriving in Rome, Paul calls for the Jewish leaders of the city to begin to teach them. While under house arrest, he proclaimed the kingdom of God and teachings of Jesus to all who would visit him while he was under guard.

“Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me actually resulted in the advancement of the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard, and to everyone else, that my imprisonment is for Christ. Most of the brothers have gained confidence from my imprisonment and dare even more to speak the message fearlessly” (Philippians 1:12-14). While Paul was under house arrest, he preached not only to the people who would come visit him, but even to the Roman guards to whom he was chained. Every soldier that was chained to him would hear about the kingdom of God and the message of Jesus Christ. Finally, Paul had run through every guard so that he could say that his imprisonment had actually furthered the cause of the gospel and that the gospel had been spread through the whole imperial guard.

His preaching in these conditions had gone so far that he could end the letter to the Philippians with these words: “All the saints greet you, but especially those from Caesar’s household.” How did Caesar’s household know about those great Christians in Philippi? Paul told that household all about those Christians and the great works that God had done for those people. Thus, Paul told Timothy in his final letter: “Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not” (2 Timothy 4:2; HCSB).

We must preach the word of God in all circumstances. We must persist in proclaiming the gospel message. Can you imagine teaching the Caesar’s household? Can you imagine preaching to the imperial guard of Rome? Unfortunately, our motto has become “preach the gospel under no circumstances.” We come up with excuses not to speak about the word of God in nearly every instance that arises. We assume someone does not want to hear. We think that it is not a good time. Is it ever a good time or are we just soothing our consciences because we know we need to be workers in God’s kingdom? Preach and teach in all circumstances. Let nothing hinder us from the work of the Lord.

Encouraging others in all circumstances

What an encourager Paul had become! Barnabas was known as the son of encouragement, but Paul did a great work of encouraging the saints and the unbelievers. It is from this house arrest that we believe Paul wrote many letters, including Colossians, Philippians, and Ephesians. Listen to some of Paul’s words that Paul gives while under arrest.

Paul does not complain about his circumstances nor suggest that people should be upset. Rather, he wanted the saints to take courage and only gives a small reminder of where he is at the time of the writing. “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received” (Ephesians 4:1). “For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-” (Ephesians 3:1). “…giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:20).

“It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because I have you in my heart, and you are all partners with me in grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and establishment of the gospel. For God is my witness, how I deeply miss all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment” (Philippians 1:7-9).

“I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last you have renewed your care for me. You were, in fact, concerned about me, but lacked the opportunity to show it. I don’t say this out of need, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know both how to have a little, and I know how to have a lot. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being content—whether well-fed or hungry, whether in abundance or in need. I am able to do all things through Him who strengthens me. Still, you did well by sharing with me in my hardship”(Philippians 4:10-14, HCSB).

Do tough times stop us from being the encouragers of others that we ought to be? Paul would acknowledge his condition but turn his attention to the needs of others, encouraging them to be strong in the Lord and never turn away from the truth. We, too, can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. In all circumstances, let us always trust God, preach God, and encourage others in the faith. As Paul said, “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

True/False Review

NOTE-Be careful not to be confused by negative form of some of the tests.

1. The author had written a book previously.

2. John baptized wtih the Holy Ghost.

3. The appointment of Matthias was unlawful.

4. The H.S. fen on the apostles only on Pentecost.

5. The H.S. filled all the house.

6. Peter was spokesman for the other apostles.

7. The unsaved were not added to the church.

8. The lame man had been recently crippled.

9. His recovery was gradual.

10. Peter and John were offered credit for it.

11. There is no salvation except in name of Christ.

12. James and John were timid in their preaching.

13. Persecution caused the disciples to rejoice.

14. Ananias and wife kept back part of the land.

15. The community of goods was commanded by the Lord.

16. It was discontinued after the affair of Ananias.

17. Gamaliel showed friendliness toward the apostles.

18. The Grecians complained of being overworked.

19. The seven appointed were to act as deacons.

20. This prevented them from doing any teaching.

21. Stephen rehearsed the history of the Jews.

22. His application of it was agreeable to his hearers.

23. His dying prayer was on behalf of his murderers.

24. Saul was a friend to Stephen.

25. His journey to Damascus was against the church.

26. He was made a Christian near the city.

27. He was told to arise since his sins were forgiven.

28. The disciples at Jerusalem were afraid of him.

29. Cornelius was a good man.

30. He was not a saved man when the angel appeared.

31. He was converted same way as Saul of Tarsus.

32. The Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles.

33. Herod was destroyed account of vain glory.

34. Jews were the first to be offered the Gospel.

35. Paul and Barnabas were offered sacrifices.

36. Elders were ordained in every church.

37. There was a Church Council at Jerusalem.

38. Christians are commanded to abstain from blood.

39. Paul started the church at Philippi.

40. There is no evidence that Lydia had infants now.

41. The jailer was taken out to be baptized.

42. Citizens of Athens were religious.

43. They worshiped the God of Paul.

44. Paul observed some feasts of the Jewish law.

45. The Elders of Ephesus called Paul unto them.

46. He warned them against themselves.

47. The nativity and training of Paul were honorable.

48. He became a Christian through hatred of the Jews.

49. His persecution of Christians was malicious.

50. He appealed to Caesar for a new trial.

51. Paul was a Jew, Roman and Christian all at same time.

52. His preaching caused Felix to weep like a child.

53. He persuaded Agrippa to become a Christian.

54. Paul’s three accounts of his conversion agree.

55. His hope was according to the prophet.

56. The voyage to Rome was pleasant to all.

57. Paul received support from worldlings.

58. He was placed in solitary confinement.

59. Hearers came to him.

60. He preached the Gospel and was not hindered.