TRACINGS FROM THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES
X. ST. PAUL'S FIRST MISSIONARY
JOURNEY. DIVINE COMMAND.
ACTS XIII. 1-43.
"YE shall be My witnesses . . . unto the uttermost part of
the earth" (Acts i. 8). These were the last recorded words of the Lord 'ere He
commenced His ascent to heaven. Of the commencement of their fulfilment the
historian will now treat. Barnabas and Saul had returned to Antioch. The Church
in that city flourished. Ministers were not lacking, nor are their names
withheld. Saul, last named in the list, will however now soon come to the
front.
Prophets. Of different gifts we have already spoken. Here
the historian draws a distinction, we presume, between a prophet and a teacher,
as he mentions both, perhaps regarding Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius more in the
light of prophets, and Manaen and Saul more as teachers. Both gifts are greatly
to be valued. A prophet of course is one who has the mind of God, and can
communicate it, whether foretelling the future or not. So Abraham is the first
person called in the Old Testament a prophet, though he never, that we read of,
predicted any event (Gen. xx. 7). In the New Testament two prophetic ministries
are mentioned and distinguished (1 Cor. xiv.). In the one we have a vessel of
revelation, of which Agabus is an illustration. In the other we have a
minister, who brings to bear on the heart and conscience of the hearer the mind
of God. Such an one ministers the truth of God, but without revealing anything
new. The effect of this latter kind of ministry 1 Corinthians teaches us. As
regards unbelievers, or unlearned people, strangers to the assembly, "If all
prophesy," one such coming in "is convinced of all, he is judged of all; the
secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling down on his face, he
will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." (1 Cor, xiv. 24,
25). The result of such a prophetic ministry in saints is to be, "that all may
learn, and all may be comforted [or, encouraged]" (31). But should there be a
prophet present, to whom some fresh revelation was communicated, if another was
ministering he was to be at once silent, that the vessel of revelation might
give forth that which lie had received (30); for God the Holy Ghost never
reveals anything out of season.
Now both these kinds of prophesying were
displayed at Antioch, besides the exercise in ministry of teaching, which is
not necessarily prophesying. For instance, opening out Church truth, or setting
forth dispensational instruction, would be teaching, yet not that character of
service defined in 1 Cor. xiv. 3 as prophesying. We have said both these kinds
of prophesying were displayed, for we learn there was a revelation vouchsafed,
when the disciples were gathered together, concerning Barnabas and
Saul.
Antioch was then rich in ministerial gifts: Of the five mentioned
by name, two of them, if not three, are not noticed elsewhere. Barnabas heads
the list, followed by Simeon called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene. Of Simeon we
know nothing more, nor of Lucius of Cyrene, unless he be the same as Paul's
kinsman mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21, which is not very probable. Some have
identified him with Luke, which seems clearly to be a mistake. Manaen too is
introduced in no other place in the New Testament. Here we learn that he was
foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and son, or perhaps grandson, of a
certain Manaen, an Essene, who was highly respected by Herod the Great. How
different the path of the brothers! Herod had been ruling for years in his
Tetrarchy, but had recently been banished to Lugdunum, the modern Lyons,* in
Gaul. The other through grace became an heir of God, and a joint-heir with
Christ, called to reign with Him before whose judgment-seat Herod Antipas must
one day stand to receive his doom as the murderer of John the Baptist. To turn
to the revelation now vouchsafed.
The Revelation. Often have we
met in the Old Testament with fresh revelations introduced by "Thus saith the
Lord." Now it was very different. The same Divine Person was speaking - the
Spirit of God - but He spoke from Himself. "Separate Me **Barnabas and Saul for
the work whereunto I have called them." "Separate Me," "I have called them."
Sovereign action these words attest. Already have we been made acquainted in
this book with the personal presence and action of the Spirit (v. 3, 9, 32;
viii. 29; x. 19; xi. 12); but no more marked announcement of His sovereign
guidance could there be, than this revelation vouchsafed when they were
ministering to the Lord and fasting. Obedient to the Divine communication, they
prepared to carry it out. For when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their
hands on them, they sent them away (or perhaps better, comp. iv. 21, v. 40,
xvii. 9, they let them go). But they went on their mission, Luke adds, "sent
forth by the Holy Ghost." Their call to this new work and their apostolic
mission they derived from the Holy Ghost. Let go to their work by the
disciples, they were sent forth by the Holy Ghost. The terms used here in the
inspired record are worthy of notice, and would confirm the translation "let
go" rather than "sent away" in ver. 3.
* It is questioned whether it was
Lyons, or another town, Lugdunum Convenarium, now called St. Bertrand de
Comminges, situated at the foot of the Pyrenees (Smith's Dictionary of the
Bible, vol. i., 2nd ed., p. 1347).
** Some would translate "Separate Me
now," which gives precision and force to the command, implying that it was for
a special purpose and to be obeyed at the time (Alford).
Laying on
of Hands. A very solemn occasion all acknowledged it to be. Prayer,
fasting, and the laying on of hands marked it. "They laid their hands on them,"
we read. Was that ordination, as has often been assumed? To what did they
ordain them? Not to minister in the Word. Both had for years been doing that
with much profit to their hearers, and with marked approval on the part of God.
Was it ordination to Apostleship? How could these, not themselves of apostolic
rank, ordain any for the Apostolate? Besides, Saul received his call for that
office directly from the Lord, and on the day of his conversion. See the words
of the Lord to him, quoted in Acts xxvi. 17, "To whom I send thee," confirmed
by the Divine communication to him in the Temple at Jerusalem (xxii. 21). Did
the Apostle Paul consider the laying on of the hands of others ordination to
his special office? Surely we may believe he did not. Else why, when
vindicating his claim to be an Apostle, did he not refer to this time and this
act (1 Cor. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 12)? What then are we to understand by
the laying on of hands on this occasion?
In Old Testament times we meet
with this act (Heb. vi. 2), both in connection with sacrificial victims and
with people. On animals brought to the altar the offerer laid his hand: in the
case of the burnt offering or peace-offering, in token of being identified with
the value of the sacrifice; in the case of the sin-offering, as an
acknowledgment that it stood in his place, his guilt being transferred to it.
Then on persons hands were laid in recognition of the part or lot appointed
them. We see that on the occasion of the setting apart of the Levites for their
service. The elders, by God's appointment, laid their hands on them, the
acknowledgment that they were selected to serve Him instead of the first-born
of the twelve tribes, on whom He had a claim (Numb. viii. 10). Again, when the
blasphemer (Lev. xxiv. 14) was to be put to death, the witnesses laid their
hands on his head. They had fellowship in the execution of the sentence.
Further, when Joshua was to be recognised as the leader of the people,
subsequent to the death of Moses, the latter laid his hands on him (Numb,
xxvii. 18); and on that occasion a gift was thereby conferred (Deut. xxxiv. 9),
for it was a superior laying his hands on one not equal to him in spiritual
rank.
Coming to the New Testament, we meet with the same practice, but
confined to persons; for the one perfect Sacrifice had been already offered up,
and accepted. On persons hands were laid by Apostles, as by Peter and John in
Samaria (Acts viii.), and by Paul when at Ephesus (xix.). On these occasions a
gift was bestowed, that of the Holy Ghost. Such was the power delegated to
Apostles, but to them only, as Simon Magus understood. Philip could preach with
power, and work miracles that astonished the sorcerer. But the Apostles were
evidently superior to the evangelist, since by the imposition of their hands
the gift of the Spirit was conferred. So in the case of Timothy, he received a
gift for his special service of apostolic delegate by the laying on of Paul's
hands (2 Tim. i. 6). Now in his case we see illustrated the difference between
imposition of hands by an Apostle and that same act on the part of elders. For
on the occasion just referred to, the elders laid their hands on Timothy (1
Tim. iv. 14), marked out by prophecy for his work, just as Barnabas and Saul
were for theirs, but no gift was communicated to Timothy through them, nor any
office thereby conferred. Through the Apostle he received a gift, whilst the
elders in laying on their hands recognised his call to the work. The language
of the Apostle is clear. We quote the passages: "Neglect not the gift that is
in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery" (1 Tim. iv. 14); "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by
[or, through] the putting on of my hands" (2 Tim. i. 6). The with and the
through mark the distinction most clearly. So in Acts xiii. 3 the laying on of
hands by the others there mentioned imparted no gift, nor clothed Barnabas and
Saul with any authority. It merely expressed the recognition by the rest of the
service to which these two were called, and full fellowship with them in their
mission. And this Acts xiv. 26, compared with xiii. 4, will confirm. They were
sent forth by the Holy Ghost, but they were recommended to the grace of God for
the work by their brethren at Antioch.
An Attendant. Small was
the band, just three that we read of - Barnabas, Saul, and John Mark, who had
gone with them from Jerusalem to Antioch. Barnabas and Saul were sent by the
Holy Ghost; John was their attendant, and a relation of Barnabas. What special
duties devolved on him we know not. He soon, however, left them. Had Cyprus any
attraction for him at the time as the cousin of Barnabas? We cannot say. All we
know is that, shortly after they left Cyprus, Mark left them, and returned to
Jerusalem, which was his own home, manifesting, as Paul truly felt, a
disqualification for missionary work (xv. 38).
Seleucia. Without
delay they went forth, embarking at Seleucia, the port of Antioch, then a
flourishing place with good harbour accommodation, now a ruin and its two
basins choked with sand. Of the importance and accommodation of the harbour an
idea may be gained, as we learn that the inner basin "covered an area of about
forty-seven acres, as large as the export and import basins of our East and
West India docks put together." * Cyprus. - To Cyprus they first went, the
native country of Barnabas, and an island much inhabited by Jews; for at
Salamis, the city at which they landed, there were several synagogues, Luke
informing us that "they preached in the synagogues of the Jews" (xiii. 5). What
results there were of their labours, or the length of time that they devoted to
that city and neighbourhood, we have no means of correctly ascertaining. Their
mission was chiefly to the heathen, though "to the Jew first" was their
practice when presenting the Gospel in a new town or district. Through the
whole island, as we should rend, they went from east to west, a journey by
land, between Salamis and Paphos, of about the same distance that they had
traversed by sea from Seleucia to Salamis - one hundred miles. Doubtless they
visited towns and places on the route, and evangelised as they went.
* See
Lewin's Life of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 118, who gives a plan of the port.
Paphos. But the historian hastens on to tell us of their visit
to Paphos, now Bajfa, and of the encounter there between an apostate Jew, a
sorcerer, and a false prophet, whose name was Bar-Jesus, and the Apostle of the
Gentiles. Like Simon Magus at Samaria, Bar-Jesus had got a footing in Paphos
before the visit, of Barnabas and Saul. And no less a person than the Roman
proconsul,* whose name was Sergius Paulus, had given ear to him. The proconsul
was a man of understanding, and Paphos was the capital of the island. So there
he resided, and Bar-Jesus was with him. The governor now desired to hear from
the two missionaries the Word of God. Hence began the conflict. Elymas,* the
sorcerer, for so is his name by interpretation, well knew that his influence
would be on the wane, if the proconsul listened to the new-comers. So he
withstood them, seeking to turn aside Sergius Paulus from the faith.
* The
governor of the island was at this time a, proconsul, not a proprietor, being
appointed to his office by the Senate, and not by the Emperor. Luke's
designation of him marks, as has been pointed out, his correctness as an
historian. "In the time of Augustus ( B.C. 27) the various provinces of the
Empire were by arrangement divided between the Emperor and the Senate. Those in
need of military force were from policy retained by the Emperor for himself,
and were under the rule of Prefects appointed by him, called Proprietors. The
countries of a more peaceful character were assigned to the Senate, and the
governors from time to time nominated by them were called Proconsuls. Cyprus
had at first been allotted to the Emperor, and was an Imperial province: but,
before Luke wrote, the Emperor and Senate had made an exchange. (Lewin's Life,
of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 125).
The exchange took place B.C. 22. See
Lewin's Fasti, Sacri. Other proconsular provinces mentioned in the Acts are
Achaia (xviii. 12) and that of Asia (xix. 38). Syria, to which Palestine was
subordinate, was under a Prefect.Which would come off victorious - the
sorcerer, that apostate Jew, or the propagators of the new faith, the servants
of the Lord Jesus? Prestige of course was with the former. Was he, however, so
sure of his ground? Was he really convinced that he could hold his own against
Barnabas and Saul? All his efforts were doubtless put forth to deter the
governor from giving heed to the truth by them proclaimed. But in vain. For
Saul, now coming to the front, in the power of the Spirit dealt with him.
Fixing his eyes on him, and filled with the Holy Ghost, Paul, as he is
hereafter to be called, addressed him in most solemn language. "O full of all
subtilty and all mischief [or, villainy], thou son [not, child] of the devil,
thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways
of the Lord?" (9, 10). Never before, we can well believe, had Bar-Jesus been so
addressed. Many perhaps stood in awe of him, afraid of the power which he
wielded. Now he met one who was not afraid to encounter him, and to unmask him
before all. "Thou son of the devil!" No one in Scripture is designated a child
or a son of the devil till he has shown determined and persistent opposition
* Elymas may probably be a title which he arrogated to himself, an Oriental
term, to which the Greek Magog, a Magian (originally used of the wise men of
Persia), came to be applied to designate a wizard, or sorcerer. See Matt. ii. 1
for its use in a good sense to the truth. The Jews, after they had wilfully
refused the light, were told by the Lord that they were of their father the
devil (John viii. 44). And the same writer who has recorded that tells us, that
by their ways the children of the devil are manifested (1 John iii. 10). So
Bar-Jesus, in resisting the truth, and seeking to hinder the proconsul from
receiving it, showed himself to be a son of the devil. One of God's ancient
people, a Jew, into what depths of evil had he sunk !
But now it should
be seen with whom was the power of God, and who were His true servants. The
sentence was passed, and in the presence of the assembled company it took
immediate effect. "And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou
shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season" (Acts xiii. 11). A mist and a
darkness at once fell on him, and he went about seeking someone to lead him by
the hand. There was no doubt, there could be none, as to what had taken place.
The man who sought to keep the proconsul from the light was now himself
enshrouded in darkness. He who would have led, if he could, the governor to
resist the truth, was in the presence of all a suppliant for some one who would
lead him by the hand! The victory was complete. And the proconsul, "when he saw
what was done, believed being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord." The Word
had in this most solemn way been confirmed by the sign following (Mark xvi.
20).
Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding, as he is described, had
really desired to know the truth. He received it. The sorcerer was discomfited.
He became a blind man. What would the Apostles now do? Surely, had temporal
gain been their object, they might have remained at Paphos, and have received
homage from all. They prepared, however, to leave the island, to which, as far
as we know, Paul never returned, though twice subsequently he must have sighted
it (Acts xxi. 3, xxvii. 4). One convert they left behind. But how many more
there were as the fruit of that mission we cannot say. That there were more we
may be pretty sure, and perhaps Luke's remark, in ver. 13, " Paul and his
company," intends us to understand that more passed over to the continent of
Asia with him than only Barnabas and Mark.
But two left behind were
illustrations, the one of Divine grace, the other of Divine governmental
dealing. Sergius Paulus received blessing for eternity. Elymas was to be blind
for a season. Judgment was tempered with mercy. Whether spiritual light ever
illuminated that man's soul, neither Luke nor any one else of a later date has
recorded. Certainly there was no expression from him even approaching what
there was from Simon Magus, when deprecating Peter's stern and withering
rebuke. Simon asked for the Apostles' prayers. Bar-Jesus appears to have asked
for nothing. The first recorded miracle by the Apostle Paul was then judicial
in character. Doubtless, like the death of Ananias and Sapphira, it made a deep
impression. The former lied to the Holy Ghost. Bar-Jesus perverted the right
ways of the Lord.
Paul. For Barnabas and Saul the proconsul had
called. Till this time they have always been mentioned in this order.
Henceforth a change is noticeable. The latter will often, though not always, be
named first (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2, 22, 35), the exceptions to this order
being xiv. 14, xv. 12, 25. And now as Paul, and no longer as Saul, is the
citizen of Tarsus to be designated. Why this change of name is a matter of
conjecture. Some have thought that he took it out of compliment to the
distinguished convert Sergius Paulus, a very unlikely supposition. Against this
it has been urged, and it has weight, that Luke calls him Paul before the
proconsul was convinced of the truth of Christianity. And to this one would
add, that the historian in no way intimates that the appellation Paul was now
for the first time bestowed. His manner of introducing it would confirm such an
impression. "Saul, who is also Paul," are his words. The ordinary reader would
conclude that Saul already bore the name of Paul. We believe this was the case
; and since it was nothing strange for one, a Jew, to bear also a Roman name,
the citizen of Tarsus may quite well have been called Paul 'ere he set foot in
Cyprus. So now working among Greeks and Gentiles, since his Hebrew name might
to Greek ears convey anything but an honourable title, Saul meaning in Greek
conceited or affected, he was quite satisfied to bear his Roman name, which, if
it suggested that he was little of stature, yet spoke to Gentiles of nothing
that could excite a prejudice against him. Henceforth then he is called, and he
adopted as his name, Paul, not Saul.
Recrossing to the continent, he
never again laboured in an island till after his first imprisonment in Rome.
Then he visited Crete with Titus (Titus i. 5). In the provinces of Asia Minor,
and in those of Macedonia and Achaia and Illyria, he found his sphere of work.
So from Paphos they sailed to Perga, the metropolis of Pamphylia, situated on
the river Cestus, and about seven miles from the sea. Nothing noteworthy in
connection with Perga is mentioned, save that Mark there left them, and
returned to Jerusalem. "He went not," said Luke some time after, "with them to
the work" (Acts xv. 38). Pushing on north to Antioch in Pisidia, the time to
evangelise Perga having evidently not yet come (xiv. 25), they reached the
latter city, the capital of the province, and where was a synagogue of the
Jews.
Antioch. Founded, we learn, by the Magnetians, but
resettled by Seleucus Nicator, it was called by him Antioch after his father
Antiochus, a name which it never last, though the Romans subsequently planted a
colony there and called it Caesarea. It lay on the road between Ephesus and the
Euphrates. In the time of which we are reading it was a flourishing city with a
mixed population." The Roman colonists spoke Latin, and accordingly many of the
inscriptions and coins of the place are in that language; but the Greek
settlers ever retained their own tongue, which was intelligible to all; and the
lower classes (the native population) still expressed themselves in Pisidian.
But besides these nationalities, there was here, as elsewhere, a large
admixture of Jews, who were numerous enough to maintain a synagogue." * This
extract will give the reader some idea of the nature of the audience which
assembled in the synagogue on the second Sabbath of the Apostles' stay in the
place - Romans, Greeks, Pisidians, and Jews all gathered together to hear the
address from Paul, which the congregation on the previous Sabbath had asked to
have repeated (xiii. 42, 44).
* Lewin's Life of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 138.
A Gospel Address. What was it which had so interested the
congregation? Luke will tell us. Invited by the rulers of the synagogue to
address the assembled company, the appointed portions having been already read
from the law and from the prophets, Paul rose up and began (xiii. 17-41),
addressing both Jews and proselytes, the latter described as "ye that fear God"
(16). All doubtless were attentive, and must have listened most earnestly as
the stranger proceeded in his discourse, which was, we know, so different from
any hitherto heard within the walls of that synagogue. What the portions were
which had been read from the Old Testament, we have no means of definitely
fixing; for the Apostle made no distinct reference to them. It has been
suggested, and we give it for what it is worth, that the portion from the law
called in the Jewish lectionary parashah was Deut. i. - iii. 22, whilst that
from the prophets called haphtarah was Isa. i.**We will not, however, linger in
the region of uncertainty, but pass on to that which we know, the address which
flowed forth on that occasion from the Apostle of the Gentiles.
** Could
this suggestion be relied on, it would help to the fixing of the time of year
in which they began the work at Antioch. For the Parashah of Deut. i. is the
forty-fourth section of the law, which, if it is read in order from the Jewish
New Year in the autumn, would bring it to just ten weeks before another New
Year when Paul stood up and preached.
He spoke of God, the God of their
fathers, of His interposition on the nation's behalf when in Egypt, of His
caring for them all through the wilderness wanderings, and of His bringing them
into the land of Canaan for an inheritance. Further, he reminded them of the
care and thoughtfulness of their God after they were settled in that land, in
raising up deliverers, rulers, and prophets, till he came down in his recital
in the stream of time to David their king. Then, leaping over the intervening
centuries, he announced the fulfilment of the promise to David, in that of his
seed God had raised up to Israel a Saviour, Jesus. And he fixed the time of
this act on the part of God by stating how John had first preached, before the
Saviour's coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. God
had been faithful then to His word in the past. His promise to Abraham had been
fulfilled in bringing Israel out of Egypt, and into the land of Canaan (Gen.
xv. 13-16). And God had been faithful to His promise to David in raising up of
his seed (2 Sam. vii. 12) in the person of Jesus. Of John the Baptist Paul had
spoken. Evidently his audience were acquainted with his history and ministry in
the land. Now of Jesus John had spoken as the one of whom he was the immediate
forerunner. So turning pointedly to his audience, the Apostle assured them that
the tidings he had to communicate were not mere facts of history, but those
which concerned all before him most closely. "Brethren, children [or rather,
sons] of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to us
[rather than, to you] is the word of this salvation sent forth " (Acts xiii.
26). The rulers of the synagogue had looked for a word of exhortation. All
heard a word of salvation. Present salvation it was, full and free, for all who
would receive it. Now salvation in the future Israel expected, and that
rightly, but only when their Messiah should appear in person and in power. All
knew that event, the theme of prophecy, awaited its fulfilment. Was salvation,
however, wholly future? Paul would tell them it was not. There was then, and
there is now, a present salvation, even that of the soul. This is true and
distinctive Christian teaching. Of this Peter assures converts that it was
theirs already (1 Peter i. 9).
But salvation, whether of the soul, or of
the whole person, or of the nation of Israel, is connected with the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the receiving Him: In none other is there salvation; "for there is
none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts
iv. 12). Yet the Lord Jesus had been crucified. So of the treatment of Him, and
of His rejection by the Jews at Jerusalem, the Apostle proceeds to tell them
(xiii. 27-29). In ignorance about Him, and also of their own Scriptures, though
the latter were read in their ears every Sabbath day, they had fulfilled them
in condemning Him. Then, innocent though He was, they had successfully urged
Pilate to crucify Him. He died, therefore, and was buried. The hope of Israel
entered into death. Was all lost by His death? God raised Him from the dead,
and many witnesses there were still living, who had for many days after His
resurrection both seen Him and talked with Him. His resurrection was therefore
an undoubted fact, and vouched for by witnesses of unimpeachable character, so
that none should discredit it.
Moreover, by His resurrection Scripture
would be fulfilled. So now standing forth as an evangelist, the like of which
those people had never heard, Paul proceeded: "We declare unto you glad
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath
fulfilled the same unto our [rather than, us their] children, in that He has
raised up [not, again] Jesus." Of the Lord's incarnation he here speaks, not of
His resurrection. This the Scripture quoted - the second Psalm - makes plain :
"Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." Now all had an interest, if
they only knew it, in the incarnation. But more, the Lord was risen, as Paul
had already declared. Could Scripture also be quoted bearing on that? It could.
And the resurrection shed light on a word in Isa. Iv. 3, and showed how the
mercies of David, promised long ago, could be made sure. In David's seed as
risen from the dead, to return no more to corruption, they could be made good.
Was resurrection from the dead a new thought to any there. Had not David
written of one - God's Holy One - who should not see corruption? How was that
to be fulfilled? Not by preservation from death, but by the resurrection on the
third day of the Lord Jesus Christ. Clear was it that David in that sixteenth
Psalm, from which the Apostle had just quoted, did not refer to himself, for he
died, was buried, and saw corruption. Of another then he wrote, even of Him
whom God raised from the dead, the Lord Jesus Christ.
A
Proclamation. The mercies of David made sure, pardon of sins, which Israel
will enjoy in the future, can be known (Isa. Iv. 7). And this as a present
blessing the Apostle now proceeds to announce. "Be it known unto you therefore,
brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins;
and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could
not be justified * by the law of Moses " (Acts xiii. 38, 39). We get here
Paul's Gospel, though not all the Gospel that he could set forth, but a fuller
Gospel than any hitherto proclaimed in the Acts. For he not only preached
forgiveness of sins, but announced justification likewise. This last is
peculiar to him. What a proclamation it was which he here made known !
Forgiveness of sins, and justification from all things, from which by the law
they could not be justified. Forgiveness of sins ! That could be enjoyed then
and there, apart from the presentation of any sin-ofFering on the altar at
Jerusalem, the only altar on which a Jew could lawfully offer a sacrifice for a
sin. We say for a sin, for that was all that the law afforded, yet not for
every sin. Many indeed were the sins - all presumptuous sins - for which the
law could make no pro%'ision (Numb. xv. 30); but in this proclamation of
forgiveness, all sins, however heinous, were included. No need to visit the
brazen altar - far off as it was, being at Jerusalem - to get forgiveness such
as the law could offer. At Antioch in Pisidia, as they sat on their seats, more
than the law could provide for they could have. Forgiveness of sins could be
enjoyed, and justification from all things of which there might be need as
well. By virtue of the perfect sacrifice of Christ these blessings could be
personally and immediately entered into.
* There are three prepositions in
the Greek New Testament used in connection with the verb to justify, and all
three occur in two verses in Galatiaus (ii. 16, 17). We are said to be
justified by, or on the principle of (eK), faith, in contrast to works.
Justification flows from faith, not from works. Then are we said to be
justified instrumentally by, or through (dia), faith. We are said also to be
justified. "by, or in. (en), Christ, in contrast to the being justified by, or
in (en), the law. That is to say, we are justified in virtue of, or by, Christ
; not in virtue of, or by, law. This last is the phrase met with in our
passage, and the mention of "in the law" here in contrast to " in Christ" shows
that justification is not taught as flowing from our being in Christ, as some
have mistakenly sought to uphold.
A Warning. Who would not
gladly accept such a Gospel? Who would defer closing with such an offer? These
questions we might have asked, did we not know something of our own heart. And
Paul, who had resisted the truth himself, till he was arrested by the Lord and
converted, knew well the feelings and the prejudices of a Jew. So he wound up
his address with an appeal. "Beware," he said, "therefore, lest that come upon
you which is spoken in the prophets." And then he reminded them of the words of
Habakkuk (i. 5), quoting the Greek Version : * " Behold, ye despisers, and
wonder, and perish : for I work a work in your day, a work which ye shall in no
wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." The prophet who furnished him,
when writing to the Romans, with the quotation illustrative of the Gospel
doctrine of justification by faith (Hab. ii. 4; Rom. i. 17), is the same who
provided him with the arrow to drive home to hearts the word of warning, for
any who might be inclined to reject or trifle with that Gospel.
* We have
said quoting the Greek Version, for though not altogether verbally the same, it
agrees with it in sense, and as having what is not in the Hebrew, "ye
despisers," also "and perish."
The address was ended. The Gospel had
been preached. The appeal not to reject it had been made. We have seen how
Peter could preach the Gospel (ii., x.). We learn here how Paul could preach
it. It was objective, not subjective, truth on which he chiefly dwelt. He spoke
of God, and of His ways, full and varied as they were. God had chosen their
fathers. God had exalted them in Egypt, and had brought them out with a high
arm. God too had suffered their manners in the wilderness, and, destroying
seven nations in the land of Canaan, had divided it among the tribes by lot.
Then He appeared as a Giver. He gave them judges and prophets. He gave them too
Saul as king. . After that He was known as a Raiser-up, first of David, then of
his seed - Jesus in the incarnation, and last in raising Him up in
resurrection. A Fulfiller also of promises had He proved Himself to be. A
Giver, a Raiser up, a Fulfiller of His promises - what an announcement was
heard that day ! If such God is, on His word all can and should rest. Who can
wonder that such an address deeply touched, and interested too, the audience,
both Jews and proselytes, or that they desired to hear such words again? For we
should read verse 42, "As they went out, they besought that these words might
be spoken to them the next Sabbath," and not as in the A.V., that "when the
Jews were gone out, the Gentiles besought," etc. As yet Luke has not noticed
the presence of Gentiles in the synagogue. (It doesn't say that the Gentiles
were IN the synagogue! ED.)
Another thing may be observed
instructive to all preachers of the Gospel - viz., the pains the Apostle took
to ground the faith of converts on the written Word. Speaking of God, as we
have seen, he refers to facts in history well known to the bulk of his
audience. Telling them of the incarnation and resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ, news the latter was doubtless to many, he turns them to the Old
Testament, which they owned was the inspired Word of God, and points out how in
the history of the Lord it is fulfilled. Speaking of the incarnation, he quoted
the second Psalm, as we have noticed above. There was one to be born in due
time, who would by birth into this world be, and be owned by God as, His Son.
Of no mere man could that be true. None of us are God's children by natural
birth. But the Virgin's Son was, being conceived of the Holy Ghost. To Him then
the Psalm pointed, and in His birth at Bethlehem that verse of it quoted by the
speaker was fulfilled. Then as to His resurrection and consequences of it, the
Apostle would ground their faith on the Scriptures of truth. And whilst the
converts might afterwards say, Paul spoke in such an earnest persuasive manner
as to carry the hearts of so many with him, they could also say, "But we
believe, not because he said it, but because he brought out to us prophetic
Scriptures, which treated of these truths."
To sum up the principles in
preaching which this Gospel sermon brings out. Objective truth was pressed, and
that has power, and attraction for souls. Then the faith of the hearers was
sought to be established on the written Word. Would that evangelists more
followed the great Apostle of the Gentiles, that master in the art of
preaching.
A Chronological Difficulty. And now a word on a
chronological question. According to the common text of xiii. 20. Paul is made
to mark the period of the Judges as one of about four hundred and fifty years.
This agrees with Josephus (Ant., VIII. iii. 1),* but cannot harmonise with 1
Kings vi. 1, which fixes the commencement of the building of the Temple - which
was in the fourth year of Solomon - as having taken place four hundred and
eighty years after the Exodus. Now deducting from this the period of the
wilderness wanderings, the reigns of Saul and of David, it leaves for the
settlement in the land and the time of the Judges combined about three hundred
and sixty years before the setting up of a monarchy. Which, then, is right? The
statement in Kings is so definite, and was written much nearer the days of
Solomon than those of Paul or Josephus, that it naturally claims acceptance on
the part of the reader, till distinctly proved to be wrong. How, then, can we
get over the difficulty raised by the common text of the Acts? Now the earliest
Uncials, with the Vulgate and Memphitic versions, read the passage differently.
"He divided unto them the land by lot about the space of four hundred and fifty
years. And after that He gave them judges," etc. The years mentioned,
therefore, would precede the era of the J udges, and refer to all that had been
mentioned as going on before. The acts and dealings of God related up to the
settlement in the land went on, we should then understand, during four hundred
and fifty years, dating from the birth of Isaac, when Abraham's seed first
became sojourners in a land that was not theirs. Textual critics, as Lachmann,
.Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, adopt this reading. And it may *
well be the solution of the difficulty.
* Josephus dates the commencement of
the Temple in the live hundred and ninety-second year after the Exodus.
Deducting the wilderness period and the reigns of Saul and David, with the
period between the entrance into the land by Joshua and his death a.nrl that of
the Elders who outlived him, amounting in all to about one hundred and forty
years, the residue fur the Judges will be about four hundred and fifty. But how
would that agree with Jephthah's statement (Judg. xi. 2G), which goes far to
support the chronology of 1 Kings?
The congregation broke up, and on
dispersing requested, as we have already stated, a repetition on the next
Sabbath of that to which they had listened. Many, however, of the Jews and
proselytes, not content with having heard such an address, felt compelled to
follow Paul and Barnabas. Their company they sought. They were to them
preachers of good tidings. To these the Apostles further spoke, and persuaded
them to continue in the grace of God. Souls had been won for Christ that day.
The company of believers on earth had been augmented, and now continuance in
the grace of which they had heard became them. What the law could not do for
them, that grace had provided, and peace with God - an effect of justification
- could be enjoyed; for to continue in the grace made known was the way to have
settled peace of conscience. The effect of the one address on the congregation
was marked. The results of it to many were blessed indeed.
* We say may
because others contend, first, that this solution is untenable, and second,
that the Apostle by no means intended that the period of the Judges lasted for
four hundred and fifty years, but that in such a period, the commencement of
which is not stated, there were in some portions of it judges in the land. Of
course ere solving the difficulty we have first to settle the text of the
Apostle's speech, and thus to learn what has to be explained. And it has to be
decided that the reading of the oldest Uncials is here mistaken, ere the attack
on the veracity of the Divine record can hope to succeed.
Go To Chapter Eleven