Bible Commentaries
Acts 15

Verses 1-35

XXI

THE GREAT CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM CONCERNING A VITAL QUESTION OF SALVATION AND THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM ON PAUL’S INDEPENDENT APOSTLESHIP AND GOSPEL

Acts 15:1-35 with Galatians 2:1-10.

In order to understand thoroughly Acts 15 we must consider the scriptures cited at the head of this chapter, and their several themes, in addition to the scriptures and themes in the succeeding chapters. On these great events we have the richest, the ablest, and the soundest literature in Christian history. That part of Conybeare and Howson that touches Acts 15; Dr. Lightfoot’s great discussion on the same subject in his Commentary on Galatians, that part of Farrar’s Life of Paul that touches on Acts 15, and Philip Schaff’s great discussion on the subject in his History of the Christian Church, are very fine. I could cite many others, but these are all great books, and their discussion of Acts 15 is the most important and far-reaching in the history of Christianity.

The history of the question raised at Antioch, is as follows: A number of Pharisees, nominal converts to Christianity, who held membership in the church at Jerusalem, and who opposed the reception of Gentiles into the church, left Jerusalem and went to Antioch, and side-stepped into the church, i.e., stepped sideways into the church. That is what the Greek says. It means surreptitiously, privily. Their purpose was to spy out what was done at Antioch in the matter of Gentiles, and then to bring them into bondage to the Jewish customs. It was a villainous thing; it didn’t come up naturally. When they got up there, they privately agitated this question: "Except a man be circumcised after the manner of Moses, he can not be saved!" That made it intensely important – a question of salvation: "Except one submit to this external rite (that God never intended for anybody but Jews), he could not be saved." It stirs me every time a question of that kind comes up, e. g., when a man says, "Except you be baptized, you can’t be saved."

Whoever and whenever anyone makes salvation depend upon an external rite, that one is an enemy to the gospel of grace.

They commenced the agitation that way, and finally what is discussed so much privately comes out publicly, somebody says something about it. Paul and Barnabas soon learned that there were a lot of "sneaks" that had slipped into the church, and were undermining the most fundamental things that they preached, and, of course, as says our history, there was no small discussion about the matter.

But why didn’t Antioch, being an independent church, settle that question itself? The answer is that the men who were making this issue came from a similar church at Jerusalem, and claimed to have the backing of the authorities at Jerusalem. Hence, there was a propriety that could not be disregarded, viz.: that this matter should be referred to that Jerusalem church and to the apostles. Their questions were, "Did you give these men any such permission to come to us? Are they representatives of you, or are they just representing their own deviltry?" We do that now in our churches. If a man, or a set of men, goes from one church to another church, and stirs up a row there on a question of intense doctrinal importance, before voting on it the latter church must decide whether these people represent the former church. That is why the matter was referred to the church at Jerusalem by the church at Antioch.

Two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle and himself competent to decide it authoritatively. They were these: The church at Antioch elected him as a messenger, to take this matter up at Jerusalem. Paul was accustomed to yield to a church. An apostle is set in the church, and not over it. But he took precaution to carry the matter to the Lord, and so the second motive was, that the Lord, by revelation, told him to go up – that these things needed settlement at Jerusalem. It was an intensely important thing that the apostle should not even seem to be preaching contrary doctrines, and if the apostles and the authorities in the Jerusalem church were teaching that men could not be saved except they become Jews, then it was quite important for that matter to be known. If they were not teaching that, it was equally as important that these men who came to represent them, should be publicly exposed. As a test case Paul took Titus along. Here is" a full blood Gentile – Titus – who on that first missionary tour, while the record nowhere says it in so many words, it is quite probable was converted. He was a Paul man and a life-long companion of Paul. Is suppose he was converted in the island of Cyprus, the first place they touched and labored.

Paul took this case along. These men said, "Except a man be circumcised, he cannot be saved." Paul answers, "Here is a man, not a lineal descendant in any way from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and do you mean to say that this intelligent man, who has the evidence of his conversion and the attestation of the Spirit of God, who is evidently already saved, can’t be saved until he is circumcised? He is not a Jew; he doesn’t want to become a Jew. He is not even a proselyte of the gate." It was important to take along a case on the great question. The history of the journey to Jerusalem is found in Acts 15:3: "They, therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." You will note that the church having sent these messengers out, accompanied them part of the way. They didn’t let them slip off. They were going on a very important mission – a mission for this church – and were to represent the church in this matter, and so this church brought them on the way, and I suppose paid all their expenses. A church ought to pay the expenses of any messengers that they send to represent them in an association or convention. I don’t know whether it was at this time, or during the five years that he was in Cilicia (Tarsus) that he did that preaching on the coast of Judea, but certainly he had a chance to do some of it on this trip. He went right through the country, and through the coast country. And the record says that they went talking about this question that was going to come up, and talked about the salvation of the Gentiles, and there is no other statement in the New Testament or anywhere about Paul’s having preached in the coast of Judea.

After the arrival at Jerusalem there were several public and private conferences, but it is somewhat hard to tell just how many. We know that there were very important private conferences. We will notice one of them presently, but we know that there must have been at least three public conferences.

The first was when the delegation got there. The record says that they were received by the apostles and the elders and the church. It was a grave matter. These representatives came with high credentials. The matter touched both churches, and the Jerusalem church, in a very dignified way, turned out to hear what they had to say. Then the record says that there was much discussion, and some of the sect of the Pharisees boldly took the position that those men that went to Antioch were right – that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. That may have been the second assembly – the reception assembly first and then the discussion, as to the object of their coming, in a second assembly. Anyhow, there is one assembly, and no conclusion reached. The matter is discussed. There were men right in Jerusalem avowing precisely what those fellows that slipped in up at Antioch had said. The record then says, "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter." The apostles and the preachers – all the preachers in the church at Jerusalem – held a meeting for them, but the main body of the church was not there. Just as one would gather together all the officials of a church to consider a grave matter, and then when they had considered, one goes before a church meeting and presents his recommendations. The record then says that they called the whole church together, and the letter says that the church participated in the decision that had been reached in that meeting of the apostles and elders. So there were certainly three public meetings and one private meeting. Paul affirms that one of the meetings was held in private, and it was with the apostles only, and the pastor of the church, James.

This was not a council in the ordinary sense of the word. A deliberation of one church is not a council – it is a conference. The Antioch church sent some questions there, and the Jerusalem church conferred upon these questions. A council is where a number of churches, through messengers, regularly accredited, meet and consider a matter. So when we get into ecclesiastical history, and they tell us about this being the first great synod, and the first great council, we need not believe it. This was just a church conference. Paul didn’t vote in it. They deliberated, and rendered a decision. The Antioch church referred the question to the Jerusalem church for final decision.

The record says that they sent these men to the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem, but they were received by the whole church, and when the apostles and elders had considered it, then the whole church came together and considered it, and joined in the answer, or final decision.

We will now hear the decision of the question submitted to them: "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, . . ." and then it goes onto finish the decision. They not only decided against the statement that those men made in Antioch, but they utterly disavowed those men, and I think they ought to have had a little church trial after that crowd got away, and called these men up for lying and spying. They may have done so. But, anyhow, they decided the question in favor of Paul.

This decision was communicated in a formal letter, and then two great representatives of the church were sent along to confirm it by word of mouth. It was a very important proceeding. To whom was it communicated? "And they wrote thus by them: The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting." They sent it to a whole section of the country. By whom was it received? The record says, "So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together [the whole church], they delivered the epistle [to the whole church]," and then Judas and Silas got up and spoke by word of mouth to the whole church. What was its effect? It gave very great joy at Antioch. That is a fine suggestion to young preachers about how to do things. There wasn’t a misstep made anywhere. The church at Antioch didn’t get mad and kick and say the Jerusalem church had gone into heresy. They didn’t fuss about IT. They said, “Let us find out if this is so.” They did it in a dignified, honorable manner. Every time I read it over, I am charmed with the method with which they went at the thing, and how the response was made.

The order of all the proceedings, private and public, was as follows:

1. They were received by the whole church at Jerusalem, and then the question stated) whereupon certain members of the church took the position that they ought to be circumcised. The case of Titus was presented: "What are you going to do about this man?" That meeting reached no decision; that was for discussion.

2. When they adjourned, Paul met the apostles and the elders and privately laid before them a question, somewhat involved in this matter, as to his independent apostleship and his gospel. That matter had to be settled separately. There were Jewish members of the church that denied that Paul had an independent apostleship. They thought he must be subordinate to the others. So he wanted that question settled. There were some among them that questioned whether he had the full gospel. He wanted that settled. Then there were others that questioned whether it was his particular mission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. He wanted that settled, and that was not to be settled by the church at Jerusalem, but by these apostles. The apostles were Peter and John – and James, the half brother of our Lord and not an apostle, but the pastor of that church, and one of the most influential men among the Hebrew Christians in all the world – certainly on outside Jews more influential than all the rest of them put together. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that it became evident in this private conference that nobody gave him anything or added anything to his gospel. He didn’t get it from any of them. He didn’t get his authority from them. He was called to be an apostle independently by the Lord Jesus Christ, and they recognized the divine call of Jesus Christ; that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and that Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, and got up and gave each other the right hand of fellowship on it. That was a tremendous gain. That was in the private conference.

3. So when the public meeting came, in which the apostles and elders were to consider this question, we want to know what the proceedings were. James presided, because he was pastor of the church, and all the apostles were there, and so when the case was ready for consideration, the first thing was for Paul and Barnabas to state the case of their work among the Gentiles, and they got up and recited that missionary journey we have just discussed, how they went to Cyprus and what followed there; how they went to Phrygia, and Mysia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; what were the tremendous effects of that tour; what mighty signs and displays of divine power attended that work; they recited it all. "Now you are to consider whether we dare go back over that journey, and tell those people they are not saved. They repented they believed, they were baptized, the Spirit attested the work." Paul testified that Jesus sent him to do the work; the Holy Spirit testified that he had Paul and Barnabas set apart to do that work. Now that is the case.

As soon as that was over, only two men spoke. Peter got up and said, "Brethren, this case has already been settled. You have already passed on it; you know how that in the beginning I led, under the divine guidance, the Gentile Cornelius into the kingdom of heaven. You have already investigated that fact, and passed on it. Are you going to repeal your decision in these other cases?"

Then James got up and said that what Simeon said (he calls him Simeon, which is the Aramaic name for Simon) was confirmed by prophecy; that prophecy said that it should be just that way and he quoted the prophecy. He says, "Brethren my view of the matter is that we should not attempt to put on these Gentiles a burden that neither we nor our fathers were ever able to bear. You can’t impose the whole Mosaic ritual on the Gentile world." When those two men got through speaking, the case was settled unanimously, so far as the apostles and the preachers were concerned.

4. Then came the whole church conference. They were called together, and the recommendations made by the apostles and preachers were presented, and to the surprise of everybody that leaned to the Mosaic side of the question, the decision was unanimous. Whereupon they wrote this letter and sent these men. I don’t know when there ever was such a meeting of the church except the meeting on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was received.

The test case brought by Paul had to be discussed and disposed of publicly, because it represented the marrow of the question that was sent down to them, viz.: "Shall Titus be circumcised?" Paul says, "He certainly was not," and it was decided that Titus did not have to be circumcised.

The infidel Renan says that Paul yielded, and that Titus was circumcised. The semi-infidel Farrar takes the same position. He devotes about four pages most elaborately arguing to show that Paul, in order to gain the main question, would make concession in the case of an individual. Paul was never known to concede a principle. I have warned you more than" once concerning Farrar. He was a very great man, had a very bright mind, and was a great scholar. His Life of Christ is really masterful, and so is his Life of Paul, but you can’t trust him. You have to watch him with both eyes all the time. The first tiling you know, he will go off at a tangent on some freak. His head wasn’t level. As old Governor Brown, of Georgia, used to say, "He was a very brilliant man, but he lacked judgment."

Let us analyze the letter sent: (1) A most respectful greeting; (2) disavowal of the men who came to represent them at Antioch; (3) the decision itself; (4) a restriction on the Gentiles of certain necessary things which we will consider later.

James, in his speech, uses this language: "Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood," or, as it is expressed in the letter, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you." Could you do any one of those things without committing a wrong. In other words, would it be wrong for you to eat an animal that had been killed by being choked to death? Or would it be wrong for you to eat blood pudding? My answer to the question is this: That the most of these things are a part of the covenant with Noah before there were any Jews – a covenant that touched the whole human race. There is where we find it, and therefore in imposing that upon Gentiles, they did impose no more than God imposed in the Noah-covenant for the whole race. The reason that they assigned for not : eating things strangled or for not eating the blood after it was taken out in an any way, is that the life is in the blood. It is all right to eat a beef, but not the blood. [Opinions differ here.] To my mind none of us are justified in taking life in order to live, nor are we called upon to make cemeteries of our digestive organs in which to inter dead hogs and cattle.--Editor. , When you put the knife in the throat to let the blood out, don’t catch that blood and make a blood pudding out of it. Old Mr. John McKnight, at Independence, said that he liked blood puddings better than any other food that he had. In the first place, it is an animal way of eating. Tigers and lions catch a deer by the throat and drink its blood. Minks and polecats do that when they get into the chicken house. One of them will kill a dozen chickens and just drink the blood. A sheep-killing dog will do that, or a wolf. One hungry wolf in one night may kill dozens of sheep – never bothering them except just to cut the jugular vein with his tusks and drink the blood. It is a beastly thin, and I say it is wrong now.

In the very next chapter, Paul and Silas carried this very decree, or decision, and gave it to the churches in Antioch, Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe, to be kept by the churches. Dr. Farrar tries to make it appear that a good many of those things were just local, and soon passed away. The decree of the conference at Jerusalem was delivered to all the churches. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, very many years after this, in making his revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos, brings up this charge against two of those churches. "You eat things sacrificed to idols. . . ." Repent, therefore; or else I come, . . ." So that what they imposed at the end of that letter (and this is about what James meant: "We don’t propose to make Jews out of you, but we do insist on your being decent men") was that these Christians were to observe things that touch all mankind.

Here we need to harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Galatians 2:3-5). There stood Paul at Jerusalem and said, "Ye can’t circumcise Titus," and a few days after, at Lystra, he takes Timothy and circumcises him. Timothy was a Jew, and as a matter of expedience, in order to give him a greater entrance in preaching to Jews, Paul circumcised him. Titus was not a Jew. Paul says in the matter of expediency: "I will be all things to all men to enable me to save them. I will become a Jew to those that are Jews; to those that are weak I will be weak. I will put myself on their basis, if there isn’t a great principle involved." He saw no use in circumcision at all. He says, "Circumcision availeth nothing, and uncircumcision availeth nothing," but in the minds of Jews, and particularly at that day, a Jew that wouldn’t be circumcised couldn’t get a hearing.

A certain premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, in which he said, "Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." They say that the object of preaching is to take the elect out of the crowd – not to preach to save everybody, but to go to pick out the elect. That is the first step. "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will again build the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up."

They say that the next stop is the restoration of the Jews and the Jewish polity, the Temple, and all its services, etc., that having now taken the elect out of the heathen nations, and having brought the Jews back, the other elect, then "the residue of men may seek after the Lord." They say that that is the order.

A Campbellite man was the first I ever knew to present that thought. In a great debate between Thompson, a Baptist preacher, and Burgess, a Campbellite preacher, when they were discussing election, the Campbellite preacher took the position that the elect were the picked crowd, and that they were elect in every sense of the word, but that the bulk of the saved would consist not of the elect, but of those that would come in afterward. But, here will never be such an anticlimax as Christ coming back to the earth, and then setting up the old Jewish polity, and becoming the king of the Jews literally, and through the kingdom of the Jews, ruling the World.

That is the very interpretation that Paul fought all his life, and that James fought. That is premillennialism. That when they say, "Thy kingdom come on earth," they mean to say, "at Jerusalem with Christ as earthly king, and ruling all the rest of the world through the Jews, with the old polity set up." They misinterpret the words of Christ. The New Testament shows that the restoration of the Jews is the conversion of the Jews; that it is a spiritual restoration, and that the Jerusalem they come into is the heavenly Jerusalem, and not the earthly Jerusalem, and that the old Jewish polity will never be set up.

I doubt, not that the Jews will one day settle again in the Holy Land. I think that is very probable. Personally I would like to see them do it, but if you mean by it that when they get there that Jesus will come to them – come before the millennium – and that their old polity of sacrifices will be established, and that he, as king at Jerusalem, will rule all kings of this world through the Jews, I don’t believe a word of it.

1 Corinthians 8:8 teaches that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble. It takes the position that there is no sin in eating a piece of meat offered to an idol; that every creature of God is good; that is all right, but you must not consider the abstract right of a thing. You must consider it in its relation. There isn’t a particle of harm in my pressing my finger on a piece of crooked steel, but if that crooked steel is the trigger of a pistol, and the pistol is pointing at another, then there is a great deal of harm in pressing a crooked piece of steel. Paul says, "If my eating meat causes a weak brother to stumble, I will never eat it while the world stands." As a proof that it is wrong, Jesus Christ himself speaks against it in Revelation in regard to the churches, holding them responsible for violating that law. Then Paul himself says in that same letter to the Corinthians, and in a different connection, "You cannot take the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons."

It is of immense signification that the decision was here made that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others. The first part of the immense signification is that it wipes off the face of the earth the foundation stone of Romanism – that the pope of Rome is the head of the Christian world. Here was a man (they say Peter was the first pope) who gave no authority to Paul. Here is a man that is welcomed by Paul. Here is a man that goes up and gives the right hand of fellowship upon this fact – that Paul was independent of him, got nothing from him, and was not responsible to him. But the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, did not forever settle the questions decided. They did settle them authoritatively, but not practically.

There were some important matters also not decided by this conference which occasioned much trouble later. One of them was, Shall Jewish Christians socially eat and drink with Gentile Christians? Another was, Is it essential for a Jew, not a Gentile, to be circumcised in order to be saved? But Peter greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision. He followed right on after, and he got up there and confirmed what Silas and Judas had just said.

QUESTIONS

1.What must we consider in order to understand thoroughly Acts 15?

2. On these great events what valuable helps have we?

3. Give the history of the question raised at Antioch, showing its origin, its importance, its discussion, and particularly why it should be referred to Jerusalem, since Antioch was an independent church having competent jurisdiction over its own affairs.

4. What are two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle, and himself competent to decide it authoritatively?

5. What is test case did Paul take with him, and why?

6. What is the history of the journey to Jerusalem, and was this the time when he preached throughout all the coasts of Judea, as is affirmed in Acts 26:20?

7. After the arrival at Jerusalem, how many public and private conferences were held? Explain fully.

8. Was this a council in the ordinary sense of the word? If not, what was it?

9. To whom did the Antioch church refer the question, and by whom was the matter finally decided?

10. What was that decision, how was it communicated, to whom communicated, by whom received, and the effect of its reception?

11. Recite the order of all the proceedings, private and public.

12. Was the test case brought by Paul considered and disposed of publicly or privately?

13. How was it decided?

14. Who of prominence in modern times contend for a different result in this particular matter? What is their contention?

15. Give in order the incidents of the discussion, and the decision of the main question, the speakers, and their speeches. (See the record.)

16. Analyze the letter sent.

17. What have you to say of the necessary things imposed on the Gentiles by this letter? Would you now consider it wrong to do any of those things, and why?

18. What subsequent proofs that this decision was not local, not to be limited in time, not to be limited to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia?

19. Harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Galatians 2:3-5).

20. What premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, and what the reply to it?

21. Does not 1 Corinthians 8:8 teach that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble, and what the application in this case? What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say about meat eating?

22. Before whom were the questions of Paul’s independent apostleship, gospel and the subdivision of labor brought, how decided, and why was this particular matter not referred to the Jerusalem church at large?

23. What is the immense signification of the decision that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others?

24. Did the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, forever settle the questions decided?

25. What important matters were not decided by this conference, which occasioned much trouble later?

26. Who, coming to Antioch, greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision?

Verses 23-41

XVIII

SAUL – FROM HIS CONVERSION TO HIS ORDINATION

See list of references below.

The theme of this section is the history of Saul from his conversion and call to the apostleship, up to his ordination as an apostle to the Gentiles; that is, it extends from Acts 9 over certain parts of Acts up to chapter 13, but not all of the intervening chapters of Acts. The scriptures are Acts 9:17-30; Acts 11:25-30; Acts 22:17-21; Galatians 1:5-24; Acts 15:23-41; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; 2 Corinthians 12:1-4; Acts 26:20, which you have to study very carefully in order to understand this section. The time covered by this period is at least nine years, probably ten years, of which we have very scanty history. We have to get a great part of our history from indirect references, and therefore it takes a vast deal of study to make a connected history of this period.

Two scriptures must here be reconciled, Acts 9:19-26 and Galatians 1:15-18. The particular points conflicting are that Luke in Acts 9 seems to say that immediately, or straightway, after his conversion Saul commenced to preach at Damascus, and the Galatian passage says that straightway after his conversion he went into Arabia and remained there a long time before he returned to Damascus. The precise question involved in the account is, Did Paul commence to preach "straightway" after his conversion, as Luke seems to represent it, or did he wait nearly three years after his conversion before he began to preach? Luke’s account in Acts 9 seems on its face to be a continuous story from Damascus back to Jerusalem, without a note of time, except two expressions: "And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus," and then a little lower down he uses the expression, "when many days were fulfilled." Luke’s account says nothing about Saul’s leaving Damascus, his long absence and return there. In a very few words only he tells the story of three years. With his account only before us, we would naturally infer that Saul began to preach in Damascus "straightway" after his conversion, but we would also infer that this preaching was continuous there after he commenced, until he escaped for his life to go to Jerusalem. But the Galatian account shows that he left Damascus straightway after his conversion, went into Arabia, returned to Damascus, and then took up his ministry there, and, after three years, went to Jerusalem. This account places the whole of his Damascus ministry after his return there.

The issue, however, is not merely between Luke’s "straightway" and the Galatian "straightway," though this is sharp, but so to insert the Galatian account in the Acts account as not to mar either one of the accounts, and yet to intelligently combine the two into one harmonious story. In Hackett on Acts, "American Commentary," we find the argument and the arrangement supporting the view that Paul commenced to preach in Damascus before he went into Arabia, and in chapter II of Farrar’s Life of Paul we find the unanswerable argument showing that Paul did not commence to preach until after his return from Arabia, and that his whole ministry at Damascus was after that time, and then was continued until he escaped and went to Jerusalem.

The Hackett view, though the argument is strong and plausible in some directions, breaks down in adjustment of the accounts, marring both of them, and failing utterly in the combination to make one intelligent, harmonious story. The author, therefore, dissents strongly from the Hackett view and supports strongly that of Farrar. In other words, we put in several verses of the letter to the Galatians right after Acts 9:19.

Let us take Acts 9, commencing with Acts 9:17: "And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus." And Galatians 1:15 reading right along: "But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." All of that must follow Acts 9:19. Then we go back and read, beginning at Acts 9:20: "And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God," that is, straightway after he returned from Arabia. Then read to Acts 9:25, and turn back to Galatians 1:18: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." Then go with Acts 9:26: "And when he was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples." The following is a harmony of these scriptures:

It is intensely important that you have this harmony of all these scriptures. You divide all of this into four parts just like the Broadus method in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have in four parallel columns made the harmony complete in the passages mentioned, showing how far to read, and then taking up the one that supplies, so that one can read the entire story without a break. In column 1 of this harmony read Acts 9:17-19; in column 2, Galatians 1:15-17; returning to column 1 read Acts 9:20-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33; then in column 2, Galatians 1:18 (except the last clause); then back to column I and read Acts 9:26-27; in column 2, Galatians 1:18 (last clause) and Galatians 1:19-20; then back to column I, read Acts 9:28-29 (except last clause); then in column 3 read Acts 22:17-21; in column 1, Acts 9:29 (last clause) to Acts 9:31; in column 2, Galatians 1:21-24; in column 4, Acts 11:25-30; Acts 12:25. This is the harmonious story of Paul. Then read for purposes of investigation, Acts 15:23-41 in order to get the information about his Cilician work, also read 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 to find out what part of the sufferings there enumerated took place in Cicilia. Then read 2 Corinthians 12:1-4, as this pertains to Cilicia. Then read Acts 26:20 and ask the question, When did he do this preaching in Judea, and was it during his Cilician tour? This gives all the scriptures. Carefully read it over in the order in which the scriptures are given. It makes the most perfect story that I have ever read. It does not mar any one of the four separate cases. It does combine into one harmonious story and gives us an excellent harmony of these scriptures.

The value of this harmony is very evident. This arrangement mars no one of the several accounts of the story, but does combine them into one harmonious story, and provides an explanation for Luke’s "certain days," "many days," the Galatian "three years," Luke’s "straightway," and the Galatian "straightway."

With this harmony before us, we can see why Luke is so very brief on the account of Paul in Acts 9. His plan is to tell the story of the Jerusalem church up to the end of Acts 12. All matters apart from that are briefly noted, and only as they connect with Jerusalem, the center. But from Acts 13 he makes Antioch the center, and we are told of his arrest, and later on he shifts back to Jerusalem, and then back to Rome, and thus winds up the history. Remember the centers: First center, Jerusalem; second center, Antioch; third center, Jerusalem, and fourth center, Rome.

Saul did not commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion because he had nothing to preach. He had not yet received the gospel. A man cannot by sudden wrench turn from propagating the Pharisee persecution to propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ. He must have the gospel first, and must receive it direct from the Lord. After you take up the New Testament passages showing how he received the gospel, you will see that he did not receive it while at Damascus. Indeed, we have the most positive proof that he did not receive it there.

But why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, and how long there? Being willing to accept Christ as his Saviour, he needs time for adjustment. He needs retirement. He needs, like every preacher needs after conversion, his preparation to preach and to know what to preach. He went into Arabia for this purpose, and, of course, Arabia here means the Sinaitic Peninsula, or Mount Sinai. Up to his conversion he had been preaching Moses and the law given on Mount Sinai. Now he goes into Arabia to Mount Sinai, the very place where God gave the law to Moses, to study the law and the gospel, and comes back to us, having received of the Lord the gospel as explained in Galatians.

There are some analogous cases. The other apostles had to have three years of preparation, and under the same teacher, Jesus. They would have done very poor preaching if they had started immediately after their conversion. Jesus kept them right there, and trained them for three years. Now Paul commences with the three years’ training, and he goes to Arabia and receives the three years’ preparation under the same teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. He not only knows the facts of the gospel as we know them from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as one that was there right at the time, and he gets it firsthand from the Lord Jesus Christ himself telling him all the important facts bearing upon the remaining of the incarnation of Jesus, where he came from in coming to the earth, how much he stooped, what the coming signified, of his death, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension. We get the harmony of the gospel by studying the books, but he did not get it as we do, but by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ. He introduces a statement concerning the revelation that he received, and he is careful to tell the Corinthian church how that Christ died, was buried, and rose again in three days. It took three years and a half in the analogous cases of other apostles.

Elijah went into Arabia and into this very mountain when he was perplexed; and there came an earthquake, and God was not in the earthquake; and there came a fire, and God was not in the fire, but there came a still, small voice showing Elijah what he must do. Take the case of Moses when the revelation was made to him that he was to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Egyptians. God told him the methods and the means and sent him into the same Sinaitic Peninsula. He stayed there forty years in study and preparation, and then delivered Israel.

John the Baptist remained in the wilderness thirty years in order to preach six months. Neither did Jesus open his mouth to preach a sermon until after his baptism, and was led into the wilderness and tempted of the devil, and then came back and immediately commenced to preach. More hurtful mistakes are made by unprepared people taking hold of the Scriptures than in any other way. A certain colonel, when asked by a zealous young preacher, "Well, colonel, what do you think of my sermon," answered, "Zealous, but weak."

We have only to read Galatians 4 to see the significance of Sinai and Jerusalem, which shows the revolutions which took place in his mind while he was in Arabia. If the apostle Paul had not gone into Arabia, but had been sent to Judea under the old covenant, which is Jerusalem, as Jerusalem now is, the Christian world would have been a Jewish sect. You have only to read to see how certain of the apostles clung to the forms and customs of the Jewish law and claimed that one could not be a Christian without becoming a Jew and being circumcised. What would have been the effect if God had not selected this great life and revealed to him the ministry of the gospel that had been rejected by the Jews and given to the Gentiles, so that foreigners and aliens might become citizens and saints? For a more elaborate discussion of this subject see the author’s sermon on the Arabian visit.

Just before the ministry at Damascus he went into Arabia and returned. He was in Arabia over two, perhaps three years. As he stayed about three years before he went back to Jerusalem, his ministry was not very long in Damascus. The record says, "straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus," etc. What kind of sermons did they have? The Jews over at Damascus that were still holding to the Mosaic law could not yet understand this revolutionary preaching, and right there at Damascus, he received one of the five Jewish scourgings that are mentioned in 2 Corinthians, which gives a list of the number of times he received the forty stripes save one, and the number of times beaten with the Roman rods, and the number of times scourged with the Jewish scourge. Finding the scourging was not sufficient, they laid a plot against him. They conspired and set a watch at every gate all around the city to kill him. The walls at Damascus have houses built on them, as you can see to this day. They put him in a basket and from a window in the upper story they letrbim down by the wall. Aretas was king of Damascus at this time) and he stationed soldiers at every gate to keep watch, and while they were watching the gates, Paul escaped from the window in an upper story, as given in the thrilling account of 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. Also Luke gives the account, saying that the brethren let him down in a basket by the wall. Now he being let down, started to Jerusalem. Three years have elapsed since he left there, a persecutor, and he returns now a preacher of the Lord Jesus Christ. That presents this connected account.

But why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter? Commentaries say he wanted to get information from Peter; Catholics say that Peter was Pope. Whatever he wanted to get, I think he derived nothing from Peter. When he came there they expressed distrust of him. If he had commenced to preach at Damascus "straightway" after his conversion, in three years’ time some notice would have gotten to Jerusalem, and there would not have been this distrust when he got there. Only one had heard of this change and his beginning to preach, and that was Barnabas, of the Jewish church. When Barnabas related Paul’s experience, they received him and he went in and out among them. But he was there only two weeks.

He commenced immediately to preach to the Grecians, and it stirred up the people as it did at Damascus, and they were so intensely stirred that they laid a plan to kill him. So he left, and there are two reasons for his leaving. When the brethren saw the Jews were about to kill him, they sent him to Caesarea and over to Tarsus. That is one of the reasons for his leaving. Paul gives an entirely different reason. He says, "And it came to pass when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance, and Jesus came unto me saying, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. Get thee far hence and preach to the Gentiles," and he, therefore, went.

Here was the Cilician ministry, its sufferings and its revelations. He was over there five years, and some of the sufferings enumerated in 1 Corinthians II are bound to have occurred in that period; some of the shipwrecks, some of the scourges, some of these stonings. In 2 Corinthians 12 he says, "I knew a man in Christ, fourteen years ago," so if you drop back fourteen years you find yourself there with Paul in Cilicia. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 we find the revelations that occurred there. One of the revelations there was that marvelous revelation that he received (2 Corinthians 12:4): "How that he was caught up into Paradise." Here the question arises, Was it in this tour that he preached on the coasts of Judea? In Acts he seems to say that he preached at Damascus first and then at Jerusalem, and in Cilicia, and on the coasts of Judea. We have no history of his preaching on the Judean coasts beyond his statement, and if he did not preach on the coasts of Judea at that time, when do we find a period in his life before that where he could have preached on the Judean coasts? On his way to the Jerusalem conference. Therefore, he says, "While I was in Cilicia, and the five years I was at Tarsus, and just a little way from Tarsus on the Judean coasts."

Let us consider the Antioch ministry. The record says Barnabas had gone to Tarsus in order to find Saul and bring him back with him, and that Barnabas and Saul preached a year at Antioch. A great many were brought into the church. It was the first time in the world where Jew and Gentile were in the same church together, socially, eating and drinking with each other. But Paul now makes his second visit to Jerusalem. The last of chapter II tells us that Agabus, one of the prophets, foretold a drought in Judea, and Paul and Barnabas took a collection over to them. Later, when Paul is making his last visit to Jerusalem, Agabus meets him and gives that remarkable prophecy which we find in Acts 21, about what would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem, he having received the revelation from the Holy Spirit. But the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived was awful. Herod, as we find in Acts 12, was persecuting the church, and had killed James and imprisoned Peter. Paul comes just at that time. On his return to Antioch he finds a new companion, Mark.

The Romanists place here Peter’s first visit to Rome. They take two passages of scripture, one Acts 2, where Peter visits all parts, and they say when he left Jerusalem this time he went to Rome, and got back to Jerusalem in time for that big council in Acts 15. So far as Bible history goes, there is not a bit of testimony that Peter ever saw Rome. I think he did, but we do not get it from the Bible.

Here arises another question, Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance to Saul on the way to Damascus, likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities? My opinion is that it did. He was never a strong man after that. His eyes always gave him trouble. Though the scales fell from his eyes, and he was not entirely blind, his eyes were weak, and he had to grope his way in walking. There are two pictures of Paul which greatly contrast his physical appearance. Raphael gives us a famous cartoon of Paul at Athens, and one of the most famous pictures of the great apostle. We find a copy of it in most Bible illustrations, certainly in any Roman Catholic Bible. Another picture is by the artist, Albrecht Durer. It is called a medallion, a carved picture, and it presents a little, ugly, weak, bald-headed, blear-eyed Jew. Durer’s picture is the one that fits Paul’s account of himself, and not Raphael’s.

I here commend, in addition to Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul and Farrar’s History, Lightfoot on Galatians.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the theme of this section?

2. What is the scriptures?

3. What is the time covered by this period?

4. What two scriptures must here be reconciled?

5. What is the problem here?

6. What is the Hackett view of it?

7. What is the real solution of it?

8. Show how the scriptures are made to fit this scheme.

9. How may we show the harmony of these scriptures?

10. What is the value of this harmony?

11. Why did not Saul commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion?

12.Why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, & how long there?

13. What are the analogous cases cited?

14.What was the added value of this preparation to Saul?

15.What sermon commended in this connection & have you read it?

16. Describe the ministry at Damascus.

17. Why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter?

18. Explain the distrust there & its bearing on preceding question.

19. How long was he there?

20. What of his ministry while there?

21. What two reasons for his leaving?

22. How long was the Cilician ministry, and what its sufferings and its revelations?

23. Was it in this tour that be preached on the coasts of Judea?

24. Describe the Antioch ministry, and how long was it?

25. What carried Paul on his second visit to Jerusalem, and when does Agabus again appear in this history?

26. What was the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived?

27. Where do the Romanists place Peter’s first visit to Rome?

28. On Paul’s return to Antioch, what new companion had he?

29. Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance, to Saul on the way to Damascus likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities?

30. What two pictures of Paul greatly contrast his physical appearance, and which is most likely true to nature?

31. What special authority on this period, in addition to Conybeare and Howson, and Farrar’s History, commended?

Verses 36-39

XXII

THE GREAT SOCIAL QUESTION AT ANTIOCH, AND THE SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS IN MISSIONARY WORK

Acts 15:36-39; Galatians 2:11-21.

We have two distinct scriptures and two special themes in the scope of this chapter. The first scripture is Galatians 2:11-21, and the theme of that scripture is "The Great Social Questions at Antioch." The second scripture is Acts 15:36-39, and the theme is, "The Separation of Paul and Barnabas in Missionary Work."

We showed in the last chapter that, while it was definitely settled in the Jerusalem conference that a Gentile did not have to be circumcised and become a Jew in order to be saved, there were other important questions that the Jerusalem conference did not settle. While it decided the Gentile’s relation to the Jewish law, it did not decide fully the Jew’s relation to the law, and this social question comes up on the Jew’s relation to the law, viz.: Were the Jews under the Mosaic covenant, as they understood themselves to be, or could they mix freely with the Gentiles and eat with them! It was purely a social question. Admitting that the Gentile can be a Christian and be saved without any respect to the Mosaic law, what about the Jew and his relation to that law? Ought they allow the Jew to mingle freely with the Gentile? How could he go on keeping the Mosaic covenant if he did? That was the question. And why had this question come up? Paul had his way in that Jerusalem conference; he won out on all his points. Evidently there was an impression left on the minds of the strict Jews at Jerusalem after that circumcision question for the Gentiles had been settled, lest there should be a misunderstanding as to what a Jew should do. And so a party of Jews left Jerusalem and came to Antioch, and Paul says that they came from James. And that is nowhere denied in the history. They do not come in surreptitiously, as did that first party, but they came on account of the apprehension in the mind of James that the Jews were straying away too far. "Certain from James," and Paul states that on his own knowledge. In case of those other men, James disavowed sending them, but no one disavows that this party that now came to Antioch did come from James. They were afraid that some work was going on there in that free and easy way at Antioch. That distinct question with them was a matter of conscience to the Jews. That is why, by whom, and how that question was raised.

The names of the parties who came are not given. Paul just says, "Certain from James." You understand that now at Antioch are Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, and Peter. They are there when these men come from James. Before these men got there, Peter and Barnabas were mingling freely with the Gentiles, and all of them eating with them. James may have heard of that, but anyhow, when these men came from James, that shocked Peter. You cannot account for the effect on Peter unless you realize that these men came from James, pastor of the church at Jerusalem, the most widely known, the most influential Jew with the Jews, in the known world.

We get the estimate with which James was held by everyone, especially his own church at Jerusalem, by reading Josephus. He attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to the fact that the Jews stoned this James. Everybody knew him. He was an ascetic. He did not eat enough to keep a chicken alive, and had large callosities formed on his knees by his being continually in prayer. John the Baptist, Elijah, the Rechabites, or the Essenes, were never more ascetic than James was.

Before we leave this question we note what Paul says – that not only Peter was led away by representatives of this man, but that Barnabas, his old comrade, was overcome. He had been with him on the first tour, and they had mingled I freely with the Gentiles. It looked like this social question was going to practically neutralize all the advantages of the conference. So we see that in a church like Antioch half of the members would be counted as outcasts from the other half. They would let them stay in the same place with them when they went to preaching, but they must not go into each other’s houses – must not take a meal together. Very soon, unless human nature was very different then from what it is now, it would have made the biggest kind of a row. Those Gentiles would have said that God is no respecter of persons; that what God had cleansed was not common or unclean, but that the Jews refused to come to their houses; that they could not see how they could have fellowship with them in church relations. So it brought on an extremely acute crisis that lasted for a long time. Certainly, it lasted through Paul’s lifetime.

As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-11), why, under the prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch? You know that when Peter, under a vision of the Lord, went to the house of Cornelius, he entered into that house, he took his meals with Cornelius, and Acts II tells us that when he got back to Jerusalem they raised a question with him, saying, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." That is the very question we have here. Peter had a hard time saving himself, but we find his exposition in Acts 11, and very nobly does he appear there. He said, "God has showed me that I must not so construe that old Mosaic law. He showed me that what he had cleansed I must not count unclean, and he sent the baptism of the Spirit on Cornelius," and when he got through with his speech they agreed with him. As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18), why under the promptings of James, should it be raised again at Antioch?

I will give my opinion as the answer to that question. I take it for granted that James saw the difference between a preacher alone – just the preacher – going in unto Gentiles when he was preaching to Gentiles, and the establishment of a common precedent that would affect all the members of the church. We understand, as Peter was under divine guidance, and being a preacher, like any preacher in China, who is bound to go into that Chinese’s house and eat with him if he ever does him any good. My opinion is that James made a distinction between the preacher’s doing this and the whole church doing this. He was afraid that the distinction between the Jews and the rest of the world would be obliterated if this custom prevailed with the people. That’s my answer to that question.

Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from Jerusalem? Paul answers it very clearly. He very plainly says that Peter’s convictions on the subject were not changed, and Barnabas was not changed, and that because certain ones came from James, they were led to dissimulate. That is his word, "dissimulate." Peter held James in great reverence. He was the half-brother of our Lord, and that fleshly relation gave him an undue prominence. It was not a case where Peter would agree with James, for he did not after he got to Antioch this time. He mingled freely with the Gentiles, eating with them so there was no change of conviction, but he did not want to pull loose from James.

Let us see what Paul says about that. I will give the language in order to get its full import. It commences at Galatians 2:11: "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." That is pretty plain talk. He was the only man in the crowd that recognized how big that question was.

Paul was the man that saved the situation, and here is his argument. Here is what he says to Peter (Galatians 2:14-21) : "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all [he did not take him off privately; just got him in the meeting], If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [That is the way you have been doing the Jews.] We, being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ – even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid, for if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. For I, through the law, died unto the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith – the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought."

In other words Paul says, "If your position is correct – that you can take the Gentiles in without circumcision and they can be saved in Jesus Christ – and if the preacher can go and mix with these people, is Christ a minister of sin? You found sin in something that is not sin." Then he says, "God forbid, for if I build up again those things which I have destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." That is exactly what Peter did. He built up the right thing, as he did in the case of Cornelius, but here in Antioch he is pulling that down. "I through the law died unto the law that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live) but Christ liveth in me; and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." In other words, "This Christian life that I am living I do not live by the Mosaic law. I do not make void the grace of God; for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought." He counted it a repudiation of the gospel. That’s who saved the situation and how he saved it.

Let us take James as he is presented to us in Acts 21. When Paul goes to Jerusalem the last time, and goes there loaded down with money that he has raised for those people – the poor – James comes to him and says not a word of thanks for the money or presents. But, "Brother, you see how many thousands [or, rather, according to the Greek word here meaning myriads, how many ten thousands] there are of the Jews who believe, and they are all zealous for the customs of Moses, and they are under the impression that you are preaching and doing away with the customs of Moses: I suggest that you conform to a certain custom of Moses: Take a vow on yourself and go into the Temple and let all the people see that you are keeping a vow according to the Mosaic customs." I can conceive of what must have been the feeling of Paul that day, but how as a matter of expediency, where no principle was involved, he said, "While I do not consider this custom binding on me, I am willing to be Jew in observing this law if you do not make the custom a law of salvation in the gospel."

Look at James as he appears the last time in the Acts, then take his letter and read it through. It is written to the dispersion in this very territory where Paul’s missionary tour is. While in that letter of James there is the clearest evidence that he is a Christian that he does accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and while there are many good things and no evil things, there is an absence of some good things that would have come in mighty well if he had said them.

So far, then, as we have light on the history of James, he would have been satisfied for Christianity to have been a sect of the Jews, believing in the Messiah, but holding on to the Temple and all of its rites. That is my impression. That is the reason that in that sermon of mine, "But I Went into Arabia," I take the position that if it had not been for Paul; if God’s providence had not raised him up to stand by the right view of that question, Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect. You see that Peter was afraid of James; and Barnabas, as great as he was, was also afraid of James, and I suspect that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul’s rebuke, had somewhat to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas in future work. There was another matter which was the cause of that separation, but we must remember that here were two men out on that first tour, and an issue had come up in the church where they had left, and Paul takes a position that convicts Barnabas of dissimulation. There might have been – do not affirm it – suggest that there might have been a residuum of feeling in the heart of Barnabas that would have made him willing enough, the next time they go out, not to go together. That would be the way of two of us. If we had had a sharp debate, it would have had that effect on us. Barnabas had as much human nature as we have.

The immediate occasion of that separation was this: Paul had proposed to Barnabas that they go back and revisit all the churches that they had preached to in that first missionary tour, and see how they were getting along. Barabbas gays, "Yes, and I will take Mark along." Paul says, "No, not Mark; we tried him once and he backed out right at the critical point." Barnabas says, "He is my cousin; he is all right. If I go, Mark must go." Paul said, "He cannot go with me," and so the contention became sharp, and they separated. Barnabas takes Mark and goes back to Cyprus, his old home, the place that Paul and Barnabas evangelized, and in that part of the territory Mark had been faithful. Paul goes to the part of the country that Mark did not visit with them. And this man Silas, one of the deputies sent up by the Jerusalem church, continued to remain at Antioch, and he was very much taken with Paul, and he says, "I will go with you."

It is hard to say about the merits of the quarrel. I can see how Barnabas was going to hang onto his kinsman, and give him another trial, and, as a matter of fact, giving him that other trial pulled him out all right. Even Paul was satisfied. Later on in his life he has Mark back with him, and was very much pleased with him, and in his letter, he says, "Bring Mark with you. I need him." So you must judge Barnabas was right, by proving that Mark ought to have another chance.

Brethren, what would become of us, if, when we made a blunder, we did not have another chance? Some of the bitterest things in our memory are when we recall the great mistakes that we have made, and if there is one thing that a good man desires, it is an opportunity to show that he does not want to perpetuate his mistakes, and so with Barnabas. [Perhaps the greatest weakness in many otherwise good men is their unwillingness to forgive and restore an erring brother. Not so with Jesus. The same Peter who, with bitter oaths denied the Master on the night of the betrayal, was upon repentance, at once taken to the Saviour’s heart, and on the day of Pentecost strode like a giant. – Editor.] But we must understand Paul. Life to him was a very serious thing, and these missionary enterprises were full of labor and suffering, and very great danger. He wanted to know the people that went with him. He himself was very feeble, never well, continually needing some young man to help him. Now, is it wisdom to start out after a thing, a desperate undertaking, and take a man along that failed the other time? So my view of the merits of the quarrel is that both of these men had enough to justify their views in the case. The fact that one or the other did not yield proves that both of them were still in the flesh. The best man in the world is in the flesh. Well does Paul say later, "I do not count myself perfect, I do not consider that I have laid hold of everything for which Christ laid hold of me; I am trying to forget the things that are behind, and press forward to the things that are before; keeping my eyes on the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." In other words, he says, "I have the standard all right. I won’t lower it, but I do not come up to it."

The New Testament has not another word to say about Barabbas. His name drops out of the history. What he did when he went to Cyprus with Mark, we do not know. I take it for granted that they did well, but the New Testament does not have another word to say about him. It would have had a great deal to say if he had gone on with Paul. He lost the association with the man that was to shake the world, and fill all future ages. That was a very great loss.

It is as if a man had started out with Sam Houston in the war of Texas Independence, and they had been together up to the time of the fall of the Alamo, of Goliad and Refugio, and there some question had come up and he had separated from Houston. He would have missed by that separation the glory of San Jacinto. I think he would have thought of it on every San Jacinto Day as long as he lived. He may have had the highest and best motives for pulling away, but the children would always say when April 21 came, "Papa, I wish you had kept on with Houston until after that battle."

The great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these events at Jerusalem and Antioch are:

1. Present-day churches have the same things to confront them as did the Antioch church.

2. Do not multiply the things you say are essential to salvation. Just leave them where God left them. Do not say with the Campbellites that one cannot be saved unless he is baptized, and do not say with the Romanists that he cannot be saved unless he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. Leave things that are essential to salvation Just as you find them, all spiritual – regeneration, repentance, and faith, and stop there.

3. Don’t be a stickler for things that, carried out to their legitimate analysis, will nullify a question of salvation. Do not stand for any position that, if it is fully carried out, will block the gospel and divide churches.

4. Whether you think about Paul, Barnabas, Peter, Mark, or James, we have this treasure in earthen vessels. Just think of all the good men that you know and you will be bound to quote Paul.

5. God himself shows that there is a propriety in dividing the work into home missions and foreign missions. When Peter and Paul gave each other the hand of fellowship, Peter went to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles – one to be a home mission man and the other a great foreign mission leader, and God was in that.

6. Division, even when it springs from quarrels, God can overrule to a greater furtherance of the gospel. Associations have been formed sometimes because two brother Baptists could not both be leaders. Look at what great result followed the separation of the Southern Baptists from the Northern Baptists. We never amounted to anything here in the South until the Southern Baptists were organized. The old National Convention never met in the South. We had no personal acquaintance with the secretaries; only a few people in the great states sent contributions, and they were little, piddling contributions. When the Southern Baptist Convention was organized, we had our own assemblies and all the meetings were held in the South from Texas to the Atlantic Coast, and the result was that we multiplied the points of contact between the people, and that division resulted in great good.

If there never had been any split in the school at Old Independence, we would not have Baylor University. This university resulted from the split at Old Independence. A quarrel occurred between the trustees and Dr. Burleson. It is hard to say which was more to blame, but in the great vital points, Dr. Burleson was right, but he ought not to have been crowded like they crowded him on those great questions. He took his entire faculty and moved up to Waco and started Waco University, and the old school began to decline when he left.

I have not mentioned a hundredth part of the practical lessons that can be discovered from these great events, but I will pass on, commencing at Paul’s second missionary tour in the next chapter.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the scriptures and themes of this chapter?

2. What was the great social question raised at Antioch soon after the Jerusalem conference which tended to nullify its decisions?

3. What is the full history of it?

4. Why, by whom and how was it raised?

5. Why had it stronger support at Jerusalem than the question about circumcision, and how account for its effect on Peter and Barnabas?

6. As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-11), why under the prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch?

7. Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from Jerusalem? Explain fully.

8. Who saved the situation, and what his argument?

9. Does the subsequent history of James in Acts 21:17-25, or in his letter to the dispersion, or in Josephus, indicate that he ever reached a clear understanding of the distinction between the old covenant and the new? Discuss.

10. Is it possible that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul’s rebuke, had somewhat to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas for the future work? Explain.

11. What was the immediate occasion of that separation, and what the merits of the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas?

12. What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say of a great common weakness and the importance of forgiveness and brotherly love? What illustration cited?

13. What further has the New Testament to say of Barnabas, and what possible loss to him in the separation?

14. What great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these events at: Jerusalem and Antioch?

Verse 40

XXIII

PAUL’S SECOND MISSIONARY TOUR,

OR THE GOSPEL CARRIED INTO EUROPE

Acts 15:40-16:40.

The second missionary tour of Paul includes all of that part of Acts 15:40-18:22. Let us trace on the map this entire tour. Starting at Antioch they passed through a part of Syria, Cilicia (following the line on the map), then to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Pisidia, and then to the Galatian churches proper, Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium, then over against Mysia, where an attempt was made to go into Bithynia and into Mysia, but the Spirit forbade, and they came on down to Troas, across from Troas, having passed Mysia to the seaport to Philippi, then from Philippi they went to Thessalonica and to Berea. There Paul leaves his company, part of which comes to Athens by sea; from Athens he goes to Corinth, and from Corinth he sails to Ephesus, from Ephesus he returns to Caesarea, to Jerusalem, and then to Antioch again. That outlines the tour.

Luke’s account of this tour is found in Acts 15:40-18:22. There are many parallel accounts in Paul’s letters, which will by the tour was about three and a half years, about A.D. 51-54. The great general event of the tour is the carrying of the gospel into Europe. The preceding events, though of great moment and covering much time, are briefly sketched that the author may hasten to his chief theme. We are dependent on Paul’s letters for a knowledge of those details, otherwise we could not construct a connected narrative, and even these do not supply details for much of the tour.

A striking characteristic of this tour is the addition to Paul’s party from time to time of famous fellow workers, each of whom will be noticed in proper connection. Equally striking is the fact, developed in this tour, and everywhere manifest in the next tour, that the questions decided at Jerusalem and Antioch, while authoritatively settled, were not practically settled. It was a bitter and desperate fight throughout Paul’s life, and in some form had persisted through all Christian history, and is a living issue today of very great magnitude.

In the study of this tour, we must also decide in some way or other, and as well as may be, certain historical questions involving no little textual critics, relative to the work in Galatia. The decision depends upon the weight of probabilities, and leaves room for honest differences of judgment. We cannot hope to consider all the matters of this tour in one chapter. This would be to leave the reader without a clear understanding of some of the most important matters in the Bible. We must take time for study sufficiently thorough to enable one to teach a Sunday school class at least in this part of the New Testament.

This tour originated in a suggestion of Paul to revisit the brethren in all the cities evangelized on the first tour to see how they fared (Acts 15:36). We have already noted (Acts 14:21-23) a return visit to all the churches established then, to confirm them; to exhort them to continue in the faith, to warn them to expect tribulation, and to provide them with a local ministry. This he did not consider sufficient. They were babes in Christ, without experience or training enough to safely care for themselves. And the lesson has already been emphasized that convert culture was stressed by Paul as an essential and important part of missionary work. He did not consider missions to be like marking and branding cattle, and then turning them out to scatter over a fenceless range. They needed to be horded, fed, and rounded up enough to know where home was. It was economy to strengthen weak churches.

All mission work, in order to become permanent and self-sustaining, calls for general evangelists, not free lances given to sentimental slush, but men of character, mighty in doctrine, and sound in church polity.

Moreover, Paul was eager to carry to these churches the decision of the Jerusalem conference; to hedge against similar trouble on his beloved mission field. It was this care for all the new churches established that constituted the bulk and weight of Paul’s crushing burden. Two fires burned unquenchable in his soul: "I must go forward to the regions beyond; I must go back and see how they fare behind me."

The reader will observe that Paul, when he started on this tour, had no thought of Europe. But Luke, writing afterward, barely glances at this confirming work, and rushes the narrative into Europe. How little do any of us know when we start out where we will land! Be like Paul; let the Spirit guide. Hold your life loosely in his hands.

What was accomplished in Syria and Cilicia is given in Acts 15:40-41. In two verses Luke disposes of the work in Syria and Cilicia, “confirming the churches." These churches were probably planted by Paul in his early ministry (Acts 9:30; Acts 26:20; Acts 11:26). What was accomplished in the churches of Lycaonia and Phrygia, viz.: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, is given in Acts 16:1-5. In two verses (Acts 16:4-5) Luke tells us that as they went through these cities, they delivered to them, to be observed by them, the decision of the Jerusalem Conference, and so the churches were established in the faith, and increased daily. But one far-reaching event at Lystra he notes more particularly – Paul’s finding of Timothy, the good report of him by two churches, his circumcision by Paul, and his accession to the mission band. Both Titus and Timothy were fruits of the first missionary tour. From Paul’s letters we gather very important additional matter about this great evangelist, who was nearer to Paul’s heart than any other co-laborer of his life. Let us sum up the general facts about him: His father was a Greek; his mother was a Jewess (Acts 16:1). His mother’s name was Eunice and his grandmother’s name was Lois. They were devout people, and had carefully instructed the child in the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15). When Paul preached at Lystra, on the first tour, the grandmother was first converted, then the mother, then the boy (2 Timothy 1:5). Paul calls Timothy "my beloved child," "my true child in faith" (2 Timothy 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2). "My beloved and faithful child" (1 Corinthians 4:17).

On his return to Lystra, Paul finds Timothy very active in Christian service in his own home church (Acts 16:1-2). Certain prophets in the church had foretold by inspiration that he would be a great preacher (1 Timothy 1:18). The churches at Lystra and Iconium, where he had labored, united in his commendation (Acts 16:2). As Paul had long desired a companion to take the place vacated by Mark, he selected Timothy for this place, and that his ministry might not be handicapped among the Jews, he circumcised him (Acts 16:3). And on the approval of the churches, he was ordained by a regular presbytery, Paul participating, to the office of an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5). As the hands of the presbytery were laid upon him, the gift of the Holy Spirit came upon him. There is no New Testament evidence that he ever became a pastor, notwithstanding the postscript to 2 Timothy in the common version, or did other work than that of an evangelist, often, however, acting in this capacity as the apostolic delegate, with all the authority of such delegation, as at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). He was a kingdom preacher rather than pastor of a particular church. From this ordination till Paul’s death, he was the most beloved, the most faithful, and the most efficient of all, Paul’s co-laborers. Paul’s love toward him, care for him, and appreciation of him were unbounded, and bear this testimony: "As a child serveth a father, so he served with me in the gospel" (Philippians 2:22).

The modern young preacher cannot do better than to study Timothy, and Paul’s exhortations to him, to find a model of ministerial character and fidelity. An orderly summary of his further connection with Paul is as follows:

1. Becoming Paul’s inseparable companion, except as directed elsewhere by Paul, he labored with his great leader in that trying period of sickness and success among the Galatians, described in Galatians 4:15-20.

2. At Philippi (Philippians 2:22; Acts 16:12-40).

3. At Thessalonica and Berea and was left at Berea (Acts 17:14).

4. Rejoins Paul at Athens, and was sent back to Thessalonica (Acts 17:15 and 1 Thessalonians 3:2).

5. Rejoins Paul at Corinth (Acts 17:15; Acts 18:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:2), and brings the news from Thessalonica that occasions the first letter to that church, Timothy being associated with him in sending the letter. The second letter follows.

6. Timothy remains with Paul throughout the rest of this tour, and on the third tour till he was sent to Corinth during the great meeting at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 16:10).

7. From Corinth he returned to Ephesus with the news that led to the second letter to the Corinthians.

8. Near the close of the Ephesian meeting, Paul sends Timothy to Macedonia (Acts 19:20), where Paul joined him.

9. At Corinth he sends salutations in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 16:21).

10. With Paul, Timothy returns from this third tour (Acts 20:4), yet Timothy went ahead as far as Troas, and they were there together.

11. From Troas, Timothy and the rest of Paul’s company go by sea to Assos (Acts 20:13-14), and take up Paul, who had traveled thither by land from Troas.

12. It is probable that Timothy did not go with Paul beyond Miletus on this return trip, as intimated in Acts 20:4, but he was with Paul in his first Roman imprisonment and joined in the letters to the Philippians, Philemon, and Colossians (Philippians 1:1; Philippians 2:10, Philemon 1:1; Colossians 1:1). But was arrested there, and so not associated with the letter to the Ephesians. Shortly, however, he was liberated, as mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:23).

13. In the last tour of Paul (not mentioned in Acts) Timothy was left at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), while Paul went the last time into Macedonia.

14. Paul was again arrested, taken to Rome and there, just before his martyrdom, wrote the second letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:2).

In considering the work in Galatia, we are bound to take up that historical question that involves some textual criticism, viz.: Where were the churches of Galatia to which Paul wrote his letters, and when did he establish those churches? Dr. Ramsay’s contention is that Paul in speaking of Galatia, simply means a Roman province, not confining it to the ethnological founders; that it covered Galatia proper, part of Pisidia, and a part of Lycaonia, and, therefore that the churches of Galatia to which he wrote the letters were the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia, and hence the work done there, if that contention be correct, is the work that we have already discussed in the first tour.

That is a new contention, and a whole book of great research is devoted to sustaining that proposition, and one of the texts cited to support it is this passage in Acts 16:6. We do not get the thought from the King James Version. The Greek of that is this: "When they had gone through the Phrygian [an adjective] and Galatian country." Dr. Ramsay says that that text proves his contention; that to call it the Galatian country some people might think it meant ethnological Galatia, that is, Galatia, according to the population; but to call it the Phrygian and Galatian country, it would mean that part of Phrygia which Galatia was made to include under the Roman Empire, and would prove that the churches of Phrygia and Galatia were the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.

That is a strong point, but my objection to it is that Luke does not follow, even half the time, the names according to a map of the Roman Empire. He follows one according to peoples. His Galatia is Galatia proper; hence he has his Lycaonia, and he has his Mysia, following the ethnological peoples of the places. Nearly all commentators contend that the churches of Galatia were churches in Galatia proper. Here are the three great towns: Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium; they belonged to Galatia proper. If those commentators were right, and I think they were, then Paul’s whole work in Galatia is summed up here by Luke in half a verse: "When they had gone throughout Phrygia and Galatia." That is all he says about it. He doesn’t tell what is done. He doesn’t belong to the party then, but he joins the party a little later, just before they go over to Philippi. He just touched the most important points until they got to this place, where Luke joined the party. From that time on he puts the bulk of the work in Europe.

Galatia is the same as Gallia. When Caesar says, "Gaul is divided into three parts," that is the same as if he had said, "All Galatia is divided into three parts." The inhabitants of this body of country were genuine Gauls. In modern times we would call them French. They were Celts, a very different class of people from the Germans. They are a lively, cheerful, dancing, singing, mercurial people. They are the people that settled Wales, and they have these characteristics there today. They also settled Ireland, and that’s the Irishman of today – lively in imagination, but not stable. They are quick to take up a thing, and just as quick to turn it loose.

What led Paul to preach to those people? An overwhelming sickness took possession of him, probably that acute disease of the eyes. His suffering was very great. He tells about it in his letter to these churches, and he says that they were very good to him. They received him as though he was an angel from heaven he says, "You were so compassionate with me that you would have taken out your own eyes and given them to me, so that I could have seen better." The meeting there was attended with all those demonstrations that signified the recent meetings in Wales – great enthusiasm. People came up shouting; they may have had some shakes, as in the early Methodist meetings; surely it was a regular storm meeting over there. That is the way they received him. Another fact is that some Judean people – teachers – came over and told these people that Paul was not an ordained apostle; that he never saw Jesus Christ in the flesh; that he was subordinate to others, and to the Jews, and there were a great many who said, "His gospel is not first-class. If you want to get the right thing, you hear James, or Peter." And those Galatians – mercurial fellows that they were – went over to that other crowd. Paul hears about it, and he writes his letter, saying:

"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, that you should turn away from that which I have preached unto you, and turn to the weak and beggarly elements of the world? I would like to ask you a question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by works of the law, when I was among you, or did you receive it by faith, and having commenced in the Spirit, is it right now to try to consummate it in works according to the old ceremonial Mosaic law? That is incongruous. If you commence in the Spirit, you must go on in the Spirit!" He says, "These people have made merchandise of you. When I was among you, I set Christ before you, as evidently crucified, and you accepted it as if an angel from heaven had preached it. Now I stand in doubt; it looked as though you were converted people, but I am not sure of it now. If you were converted people, how could you turn back so quickly?" Galatians 4 shows us what his work up there was, which Acts doesn’t mention at all. Luke just puts it in half of a verse.

Timothy was with him there. The letter to the Galatians is a flashlight from heaven. It contains more parts of the history of the New Testament than any other equal amount of the Word of God. That is the reason Luther hugged that book to his heart. He based his reform on the letter to the Galatians. So Paul had great success in Galatia.

There is a strange guidance of the Holy Spirit on this tour. The record of it is set forth in Acts 16:6-8. Physically, Paul was nearly dead. He had been very sick, almost unto death, in that Galatian meeting. Now he starts from it to come down to Proconsular Asia. The Spirit says, "No, you can’t go there this time." He will go there next time, but he does not let him go there this time. Then when he gets up to the province of Mysia, he says that his mind inclined him to go into Bithynia. The Spirit barred the way, saying, "Not now." And so passing from Mysia without stopping, not knowing where he will go, they come down to Troy.

There was a time when Greece invaded Troy and wiped it off the face of the map. See Homer and Vergil. Now Paul goes to Troy, very sick, and he sees in a dream-vision away across the Aegean Sea a colossal, gigantic figure Macedonia. It is Greece appealing to Troy; it is Europe calling to Asia for the gospel; and he sees that figure with outstretched hands and hears him say: "Come over into Macedonia and help us. We belong to the human race; we have had no gospel." Maybe that is why the Spirit would not let him go into Bithynia and would not let him go into Asia, but brought him to the edge of the sea, across which is Macedonia.

It was the most stupendous event in history, apart from the crucifixion of Christ – the carrying of the gospel into Europe. After the work in Asia and Africa had surely passed away, Europe took up the work until "the course of empire took its way" across the ocean and brought the gospel to America, and now America is taking it up and is carrying it into all parts of the world. This event revolutionized history.

There was a remarkable accession to the party at Troas. It was Luke, who was a physician. Paul calls him "the beloved physician." Unquestionably he also was an evangelist. Paul wants him to join the party to take care of his broken down body. Luke becomes a traveling surgeon with Paul, and we know that he went with Paul over to Philippi; that he remained there till Paul comes back there to return to Asia, and that Luke went with him all the way to Rome, the physician still with him – with him when arrested in Jerusalem, with him in Caesarea, and probably at Caesarea Luke wrote his Gospel. Paul was there two years with him. Luke was with him on that voyage to Rome.

Take your Bible and look up the word "Luke" and, gathering all together, sum it up. But the books do not follow in order of time. For instance, Romans, then 1 and 2 Corinthians; they come first in the Bible, but 1 and 2 Thessalonians come first in time, then 1 and 2 Corinthians, then Galatians, and next Romans. If you can get your books arranged right, and connect them on that plan, you will get the order. There is no difficulty in that question, except the order. Now you see from that a very important accession to the party is Luke. They cross the sea and come to Neapolis, the seaport, and then come on to Philippi.

The Romans, having conquered the Greek Empire, divided this country into provinces, making Philippi one of the chief cities. Achaia represented that part of Greece that is the Peloponnesus, almost an island, where Athens and Corinth are. Philippi was a city of some importance before the Romans got possession of the country, but after they had conquered it, the Romans themselves had a big fight with each other after Julius Caesar was assassinated. Augustus Caesar became emperor, but not until the downfall of the other triumvirate. Augustus Caesar associated himself with men to help him gain the empire. When Julius Caesar was assassinated, Brutus and Cassius (who were among the conspirators) raised a war in order to make Rome a republic, as it used to be, and the last fight for the republic was at this town called Philippi. After the battle was lost, Brutus and Cassius committed suicide on the field of battle, and on account of the great triumph, the Romans made that city a colony.

I have already described a Roman colony thus: It consists of a body of citizens of the people of Rome, who, in a body, retain their names on the muster rolls of Rome, and the city is governed just exactly like the city of Rome. That accounts for the fact here that magistrates governed the city, and they were followed by lictors, who executed the will of the magistrates, and each lictor carried a bundle of rods. When they punished, they did not bother with scourging. When you see the account of being punished with rods, that is Roman; when forty stripes save one are given, that is Jewish. Philippi was a Roman city, then, and very few Jews were there. How do we know? Because no synagogue was there. All that they had was a little prayer chapel, just outside of the city on the river bank. The King James version says, "Where prayer was wont to be made." The Greek says, "Where was a prayer-chapel." There were not enough people to have a synagogue, and they had to content themselves with a little prayer-chapel outside the city. This shows that very few Jews were there. It was like a little mission station, away out of the city, with about one and a half men in it, and twelve women. That explains how that, when they went to the first meeting, they found women there.

There were some marvelous events in connection with the work in Philippi. The first event is the first conversion in Europe. Paul went to that prayer meeting and found some women there, and commenced talking to them, and the record says that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia so that she attended to the things spoken by Paul. Lydia was a visitor from Thyatira, over in Asia. She was a fine business woman, and her business took her there. She was a Jewish proselyte. Let the preachers please notice:

"Whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul."

That shows that our greatest need in preaching is to get attention. When a colonel gives out his first word in drilling a battalion, it is, "Attention, battalion!" We have to get good attention before we can get them to do anything. A preacher goes into a city immersed in politics, or business, or pleasure; they do not know anything about him; he gets no attention. Here comes the antecedent work of the Holy Spirit. Where does Lydia’s attention come from? The Lord opened her heart. Here we see just how it was done. Do not say that because Lydia attended to Paul that the Lord opened her heart, as so many want to construe that other scripture, saying, "All that believe are ordained to eternal life," which reads: "And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed" (Acts 13:48). Take notice that God hits first every time – that grace, from its incipiency to its consummation in glory, carries out the work of salvation. It does not start with us.

If salvation had waited for us to start it, it never would have been started. It always starts with God.

And Lydia was baptized. The work looked like it would stop just on the fringe of the town, in a little Jewish prayer meeting. If the devil had not been so big a fool, it would have stopped right there. But the devil had possession of a maiden who was demon-possessed, and this maiden was a fortuneteller, a sorceress, a diviner, and seeing the value of her power, no matter who did the work, they did not care about that – whether God or the devil – they saw that money could be made out of that maiden. They formed a syndicate and bought her, and her value to them was that the demon possessed her mind. Oh, the greed of money! That men would form a company, patronizing the work of the devil to rake in a big pile of shekels! For under the devil’s influence this maiden wanted to be associated with such men as Paul, Luke, Silas, and Timothy, and as they would go to prayer meeting, she would follow along after them. The people would see them, and she would turn to the people and say, "These men just ahead are the great power of God." She wanted to be associated in mind with these workers. And there is not a business on the earth that will not call you a good fellow if you just stand before the people as if you were a "hail, fellow, well met." If you wink at whiskey-selling, at gambling, at the vices, at the sabbath-breaking, they will cover you with flowers, and the newspapers will notice you, saying, "There is a broad preacher."

But Paul was not willing to be associated in the public mind with the devil, and he commanded the devil to come out, and when the demon came out she was not worth a cent to them. Their capital that they had invested was all gone. When men see their capital going, no matter what kind of evil business it is invested in – whenever they see that business knocked in the head by the gospel – they are going to fight and not be very scrupulous. So they grabbed these preachers and took them before the magistrates. They did not say a word about casting that demon out of the maiden, but they came and made this accusation: "These men, being Jews, have greatly disturbed this Roman city, and teach customs not lawful for us to observe, being Romans. The grass will grow in Philippi if you let these men go on; the whole business of the town will be killed." You get a city stirred up on that, and it will howl. And the magistrates had the lictors to take Paul and Silas and beat them – whip them like slaves. They then put them in jail, charging the jailer to keep them safely. That night, at midnight, with no light, their feet in the stocks, their backs bruised, death coming tomorrow, they prayed. That is a time for men to pray. They can do nothing. God can do anything. They pray, and right in close connection with that prayer comes an earthquake. The infidel will tell you that it was a coincidence; faith will tell you that the earthquake was God’s answer to the prayer. That is the way he had of answering it. The prison doors were all thrown open, and that jailer, supposing all the prisoners were gone, put his sword toward his heart. He was a Roman, and had received a charge; his prisoners were gone; he would kill himself when all hope was lost: "Brutus and Cassius committed suicide right out there on the battlefield and why may not I?" – and with the point of the sword on his heart comes the word of the gospel – "Do thyself no harm." Man has no right to harm himself. Other people may harm you, then you cannot help it. A man may set fire to your house while you are away, but don’t you go home and set fire to it. Some vile whisperer may put shame on the honor of your wife or sister, but don’t you do it. Never put your signature to your own dishonor. Let the world do what it will, but don’t you be the author of your own shame.

I took that as a text in the prohibition campaign of 1887, and preached all over Texas on it: That a man had no right to harm himself, because of his relations to other people; because he could not make it stop in himself. That jailer had a family, and if he had killed himself, that family would have waked up that night and stood barefooted in his blood. The jailer, trembling and astonished, came in and fell down before Paul and Silas. "Since I may not harm myself . . . what must I do to be saved?" And as quick as lightning comes the answer to the question, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and your family can come in at the same door, if only they believe." "Come in and all thy house, into the ark," said God to Noah.

I have thought a thousand times of that scene. At midnight, that man was lost. At midnight, he was saved. At midnight, salvation came to him, and to every member of his family. They all believed; they all rejoiced; they were all baptized. What a mighty change since they went to bed that night. Went to bed lost – woke up next morning – everyone – in the kingdom of God. I suppose that if the devil had known what was going to happen, he never would have pestered those people, but would have let the meeting fringe just outside the city with a few Jewish women.

This is the only place in the Bible where the question is plainly asked: "What must I do to be saved?" And there is the answer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Be saved, right there and then, and forever. I note also that this was not a Jewish persecution. There were very few Jews there, and they had no influence. It was a Roman persecution.

The church established here was the dearest to Paul of all the churches he established. It sent contributions to him more than once. So I say that it was really a missionary church.

Just here the question arises, how do you account for Paul being beaten with rods? His Roman citizenship would have saved him if he had claimed it. Sometimes he claimed it, and sometimes he did not. If he had just said, "I am a Roman citizen," they would not have dared to beat him with those rods; but he did not claim half of his rights, and it was best for the gospel that he did not. That finishes chapter 16. From there they went to Thessalonica.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the scriptures for Paul’s second missionary tour?

2. Trace on the map this entire tour.

3. What the time covered by this tour, what the great event of this tour, and from what source do we get the details of this tour?

4. What striking characteristic of this tour?

5. What equally striking fact developed in this tour and everywhere manifest in the next tour?

6. In the study of this tour what historical question must we decide, and upon what does the decision depend?

7. What was the object at the outset, and what real distinction between this and his former missionary tour?

8. What was accomplished in Syria and Cilicia?

9. What was accomplished in the churches of Lycaonia and Phrygia, viz.: Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch?

10. What great accession to this party at Lystra, and what the history of this great evangelist?

11. Give an orderly summary of his further connection with Paul.

12. What was the work in. Galatia, what Dr. Ramsay’s contention, and what the author’s objection to it?

13. Who were the Gauls, the inhabitants of Galatia; what their traits?

14. What Paul’s rebuke to this people found in his letter to them?

15. What can you say of this letter, and what use made of it by Martin Luther?

16. Give an account of the strange guidance of the Holy Spirit on this tour.

17. What is the real meaning of Paul’s "Man of Macedonia?"

18. What remarkable accession to the party at Troas, and what the New Testament account of this man?

19. Give a history of Philippi.

20. What can you say of its government?

21. How may we know that there were few Jews there?

22. What are the marvelous events in connection with the work in Philippi?

23. What is the infidel’s explanation of the earthquake at Philippi, and what the Christian’s explanation?

24. Is a man ever justifiable in committing suicide, and why?

25 What pointed question here as to the plan of salvation, and how did Paul answer it?

26. Was this a Jewish persecution, and what the proof?

27. What was the character of the church established here, and how was it regarded by Paul?

28. How may we account for Paul being beaten with rods, since he was a Roman citizen?